Introducing myself

[Kenngo1969]

Oh, yeah.  Mr. Street-car is the dude who "broke" the "news" that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had issued an official apology for the ban on members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of African descent attending the temple or receiving the priesthood.

Oh.

Okay.

Never ceases to amaze me how some people get their jollies ...

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

There's almost no way to verify that this is really him, though.  Could be ME, with a newly created sock puppet! 😄  It isn't, but it could be!!

Incidentally, there's actually two people on the forum who've met me in real life, so I, at least, could get a confirmation about my identity as a real person, if it came to it.

There probably is a simple way to do so. 

I'm not sure what is appropriate, to assume it is him or insist that it might not be? I suppose the mods could confirm identity, if it is him, or Streeter himself could make a note on his personal blog if he wants.

Btw I did just go look and it appears that Streeter published a fuller apology a year after the hoax (which he prefers to call satire,) more extensive than the initial (imo inadequate) one. I appreciate this one much more, and I'm glad the OP posted here or I might not have gone looking for it: https://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/the-non-apology-that-wasnt-and-still-is/

Anyways, if the OP isn't using his actual name, imo it would be appropriate for him to disclose that, maybe on his profile or a sigline, so as to not misrepresent another person.

 

 

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There probably is a simple way to do so. 

I'm not sure what is appropriate, to assume it is him or insist that it might not be? I suppose the mods could confirm identity, if it is him, or Streeter himself could make a note on his personal blog if he wants.

I'll just assume it's really him until it is shown that it is not him.

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Btw I did just go look and it appears that Streeter published a fuller apology a year after the hoax (which he prefers to call satire,) more extensive than the initial (imo inadequate) one. I appreciate this one much more, and I'm glad the OP posted here or I might not have gone looking for it: https://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/the-non-apology-that-wasnt-and-still-is/

I'm glad he published the more sincere apology, too.

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Anyways, if the OP isn't using his actual name, imo it would be appropriate for him to disclose that, maybe on his profile or a sigline, so as to not misrepresent another person.

And if it isn't really him, I think the mods should make him change his screen name.  Just like if someone came here using say, Billy Graham, George W. Bush, or some other historical or well-known figure's name as his screen name.  Unless it was a dead historical or well-known figure's name.  For instance, "Genghis Khan" as a screen name.  

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Anyways, if the OP isn't using his actual name, imo it would be appropriate for him to disclose that, maybe on his profile or a sigline, so as to not misrepresent another person.

 

I think it is against board rules to use someone else's name or an obvious variation, though usually it has been done to mock someone.

Can't remember if it is official, but a few people got banned eons ago for it.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think it is against board rules to use someone else's name or an obvious variation, though usually it has been done to mock someone.

Can't remember if it is official, but a few people got banned eons ago for it.

Some people pick very odd historical persons names / images for their avatar / screen name.  I'm thinking @Burnside, who uses Union General Ambrose Burnside's image for his avatar. Why anyone would want to use General Burnside as an identity escapes me. General Burnside was an incompetent strategic commander.  That horrifying mess of the Battle of Fredericksburg was his work.  Ugh.  If you've ever seen the movie "Gods and Generals" you've seen Burnside in action.  

[Kenngo1969]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

... I'm glad he published the more sincere apology, too. ...

Was it really more sincere?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Was it really more sincere?

Are you asking us to do a bit of mindreading or armchair psychoanalysis?

[Jonathan Streeter]

Sorry - i didn't see the later responses in this thread till tonight.

Yes, I was the individual behind the satire apology. 

I do prefer to describe it as satire. The distinction, for me, is that I see a hoax as something that is done purely for the schadenfreude of fooling people. I believe there was an underlying moral point to the apology piece and it's value was in seeing the disparity between what is and what should be, in regards to reconciliation on the issue of race in the LDS Church. That moral dimension is what, to me, characterizes it as satire. I understand other people won't agree with that distinction, and I'm okay with that.

Of course, I wish that I had made it more clear that it was a satire piece so that the pain people felt was mitigated. If I had it to do over again, I would have done that. 

I still feel that the sentiments expressed in the satire apology are something that the church needs to articulate (and more) if it is to find real progress on this issue. 

The piece that I released a year later on the anniversary is not a more sincere apology - it was my first draft response and it was expressly a Non-Apology (mirroring the church's own non-apology) that was meant to keep the issue at the forefront of people's minds. I ultimately decided that it was not the correct response, although there were points made in it that I felt were worthwhile and so it was worth releasing as an item of interest for those that were interested.

I don't have any delusions that everyone here would care for me or the various things that I have created in response to the church. That's okay. I get negative feedback daily on YouTube.

The most recent piece I have produced is a thorough exploration of the circumstances behind the creation of the Happiness Letter in the wake of Joseph's proposal to Nancy Rigdon. You can find this on my You Tube channel. I believe that presentation is the most exhaustive treatment of that episode of church history to date and when you examine the content of the Happiness Letter in comparison with religious sexual predators that we see in the modern day - it is unavoidable to raise concern that Joseph Smith was a religious sexual predator. I am still waiting for someone to create a response to the points raised in that presentation which exonerates Joseph. (if you think you have the chops - please do so)

Anyway. I'm happy to hear any criticism or questions yall have and will respond as I am able. 

Thanks!

Jon

[Calm]

So you are here to advertise your videos essentially.