Fiona givens leaves maxwell institute

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You didn't. Since you're skeptical that Ms. Givens is telling the truth about leaving the Maxwell Institute, I'm just reminding you of the feminist slogan exemplified by the hashtag #BelieveWomen.

I think it is particularly telling that you're skeptical. It doesn't suit your narrative about the Church, so of course you cannot believe that's what actually happened.

 

Here is the deal. People who are employed and possibly let go under a separation agreement have all sorts of requirements.  Among them are, if I, as your employer, give you a severance package and other benefits, you agree not to sue me and say bad things about me in public.  My firm does this all the time under advice from our labor attorney.  This certainly can be the case for Fiona. You don't know. I don't either. But can I be skeptical because I know how these things work and I know how the Church works on such things. It is odd that she suddenly stepped away and is also not taking speaking engagements. L  But I know you and other true believer's have to spin my comments that I need to criticize the church. It keeps you sage in our bubbles.  And the fact that you had to toss out the believe all women snarky comment reflect poorly on you.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Chum said:

This is true.

Regarding the assertion that the military invented the internet, I evidenced that isn't correct.

You are pushing back against that. That implies your position is that the military invented the internet. Is that true?

What complicates this is DARPA is credited for "initiating the pioneering ARPANET in 1969".  However what DARPA did in 1969 was award contracts for the development of a packet switched network (invented in UK, 1965).  It was not DoD employees who created the core tech but men employed by Xerox and universities.

I'd counter your trailing comparison with this. Saying the DoD invented the internet is like saying the DoD invented the F35.

Fair enough. I still think Al needs to be properly credited with having done something to kick things into the future.jj

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Among them are, if I, as your employer, give you a severance package and other benefits, you agree not to sue me and say bad things about me in public. 

From someone who was in the position to know in the past, Fiona Givens used to be on a short term contract at the end of which she either moves on or gets hired full time. This is typical for MI.  It is possible that it was close to or even past time for that contract to end. 
 

Quote

It is odd that she suddenly stepped away and is also not taking speaking engagements.

Unless she says she is not taking more or there is documentation, I am hesitant in accepting this statement in the article as accurate given the other erroneous assumption by the reporter. It is possible it was told to the reporter she had turned down a speaking engagement or two and the reporter made the same kind of jump.
 

Unfortunately her website hasn’t been updated since 2018, prior to her hiring by MI, with any  info, so not sure how to check. 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Calm

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Here is the deal. People who are employed and possibly let go under a separation agreement have all sorts of requirements.  Among them are, if I, as your employer, give you a severance package and other benefits, you agree not to sue me and say bad things about me in public.  My firm does this all the time under advice from our labor attorney. 

I'm well aware of this. I'm not ignorant.

Quote

This certainly can be the case for Fiona. You don't know. I don't either.

And yet you insist upon it. 

Quote

But can I be skeptical because I know how these things work and I know how the Church works on such things. It is odd that she suddenly stepped away and is also not taking speaking engagements. L  But I know you and other true believer's have to spin my comments that I need to criticize the church. It keeps you sage in our bubbles.  And the fact that you had to toss out the believe all women snarky comment reflect poorly on you.

Given that practically everything you post here is a criticism of the church, no spin is necessary. You spin it yourself! It's an autospin! 🙂 

As for not taking speaking engagements, the ostensible reason for taking a break from the MI is to have more time for other intellectual things, and would that not also apply for speaking engagements, all of which require travel, time, and effort? And as @Calm pointed out, all we have for evidence that she is not taking speaking engagements is the word of a reporter who may or may not have made an accurate report.

As for snark, why don't you believe Fiona? Do you really think she's lying through her teeth? Or is this just your preferred slant on the lack of information to the contrary? I bet the latter.

Here's the deal. While I can be just as skeptical as you about a given thing, I prefer to take people's words at face value unless there's good reason not to. Whether it is related to church or not. We both know that I don't come from the "the LDS church is a complete crock" camp, and as a believer I tend to give the church the benefit of the doubt. You don't. I have no good reason to doubt Fiona Givens' honesty on the subject of MI.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Stargazer

[Calm]

If we were talking about the Religion Dept at BYU, Givens getting pressured to resign for being controversial would make more sense to me. But there are a number of factors that make it seem unlikely this was much more than a personal decision on Givens’ part.

1) She isn’t teaching anything dramatically new as far as I am aware. She was hired in January of 2019 (announcement in Dec 2028, I can link if someone wants it) and she has been speaking on the subject of Heavenly Mother and getting complaints about it long before she went to work for MI.  Why would MI hire her knowing this and then pressure her later on?

2). Her husband works for MI.  They are really going to threaten a spouse of a full time employee?

3) She was likely on a short term contract (sorry, can’t document, but one could dig out the history of work by others hired under the same title as hers). Even if assuming it is early (she has been working for MI for 2 years and 4 months), they could have waited a few more months and just quietly not rehired her full time without the risk of adverse publicity for early termination. 
 

4) We are talking about the institution that has twice hired and currently employs “Calvin Burke”, a very public activist that is constantly pushing the idea that same sex relationships will be approved of by church leadership, including temple marriage, pushing the idea same sex relationships are doctrinally on par with opposite relationships iirc.  Iirc, his timeline is in 5 years though I am not sure when he stated that so it is less than that at this point.  He does post under an alias, thus the quotes, but it is openly known he works for MI and his real name is pretty easy to find out given his sister has tweeted about it at least once plus lots know him or of him offline.  And there have been complaints about him working for MI and yet he still works for them and was even rehired. 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Calm

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I'm well aware of this. I'm not ignorant.

And yet you insist upon it. 

Given that practically everything you post here is a criticism of the church, no spin is necessary. You spin it yourself! It's an autospin! 🙂 

As for not taking speaking engagements, the ostensible reason for taking a break from the MI is to have more time for other intellectual things, and would that not also apply for speaking engagements, all of which require travel, time, and effort? And as @Calm pointed out, all we have for evidence that she is not taking speaking engagements is the word of a reporter who may or may not have made an accurate report.

As for snark, why don't you believe Fiona? Do you really think she's lying through her teeth? Or is this just your preferred slant on the lack of information to the contrary? I bet the latter.

Here's the deal. While I can be just as skeptical as you about a given thing, I prefer to take people's words at face value unless there's good reason not to. Whether it is related to church or not. We both know that I don't come from the "the LDS church is a complete crock" camp, and as a believer I tend to give the church the benefit of the doubt. You don't. I have no good reason to doubt Fiona Givens' honesty on the subject of MI.

 

 

Ok.  I believe her.😀

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Given that practically everything you post here is a criticism of the church, no spin is necessary. You spin it yourself! It's an autospin!

I was a defender of the faith on this board for many many years. Likely before you arrived. So I am making up for lost time.  And hey, someone here has to keep things interesting.... 🙃

[Stargazer]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I was a defender of the faith on this board for many many years. Likely before you arrived. So I am making up for lost time.  And hey, someone here has to keep things interesting.... 🙃

No, no. I've been here 14 years now. I remember Old Teancum. With some wistful regret.

You can call it interesting if you want.

Edited May 11, 2021 by Stargazer

[Chum]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Fair enough. I still think Al needs to be properly credited with having done something to kick things into the future.jj

We're probably going to find we shifted universes and in this one, AI has been running things since it was steam powered.

It'll be like that moment when I learned that in this universe, Skynet turned out to be a real thing , launched from the UK in 1969.

[Teancum]

47 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

No, no. I've been here 14 years now. I remember Old Teancum. With some wistful regret.

You can call it interesting if you want.

I was trying to add some humor.  I wistfully wish some others here would join me.....I wonder how some of you don't follow the path I ended up on. Maybe I am just a bad example. You know like "oooo, icky!  Don't want to be like that angry Teancum fellow" 😉

[Teancum]

50 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

No, no. I've been here 14 years now. I remember Old Teancum. With some wistful regret.

I guess with over 9800 posts you have been here for a while.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/10/2021 at 7:07 AM, Teancum said:

I have no doubt is she continues to talk about this topic is such a way she will be given the boot. The church seems to be reverting back the the 19990s and wants to purge out anything that does not seem orthodox enough if spoken about in public.  You seem to promote the tone that one needs to toe the "party" line.  I mean my goodness. She spoke at a fireside and shared her speculative musings and has even labeled them as such.  And some poor little souls were so hurt by this they had to complain.  I guess they feel more comfortable with their correlated pablum mind numbingly boring correlated Sunday school milk toast.

I know it’s bound to trigger those with your mindset when I say so, but there is great wisdom in the Church maintaining a clear demarcation between speculative theory and authoritative teaching. We see this starkly illustrated in the fact that the Church has had to disavow some of the ill-informed musings that were propounded as “explanations” for the priesthood ban prior to the 1978 revelation. We should all take a lesson from that. 
 

The lesson is not lost on me, for one. I will not entertain without scrutiny the notions that people put out there that have little-to-no support in scripture or conformity to the vetted teachings of the Church. My standards for quality are higher than that. 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Fair enough. I still think Al needs to be properly credited with having done something to kick things into the future.jj

If that’s what he did, then by all means let him have the credit for it. But there’s a lot of territory between doing that and “creating the Internet.”

Edited May 12, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know it’s bound to trigger those with your mindset when i say so, but there is great wisdom in the Church maintaining a clear demarcation between speculative theory and authoritative teaching. We see this starkly illustrated in the fact that the Church has had to disavow some of the ill-informed musings that were propounded as “explanations” for the priesthood ban prior to the 1978 revelation. We should all take a lesson from that. 
 

The lesson is not lost on me, for one. I will not entertain without scrutiny the notions that people put out there that have little-to-no support in scripture or conformity to the vetted teachings of the Church. My standards for quality are higher than that. 

It does not trigger me at all. The Church can do what is pleases.  As for the priesthood ban it is simply utter nonsense to call them ill informed musings. To do so it simply gas lighting at its best.  But I understand we sticking to the correlated basics the the game plan now. Less risky and you don't have to back stroke against the raging river current like the church and its apologists do these days.  

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

One of Al Gore's houses uses 19,200 (kwh) every month, compared to the average U.S. household that uses around 950 (kwh).

  In September of 2016, his house used 30,000 (kwh), as much energy as a typical American family burns in 34 months.

  During a 12 month period in 2016/2017 his heated pool devoured 66,100 (kwh), enough energy to power 6 households for a year.

The day I start taking advice from Al Gore about environmental issues, is the same day I'll start taking advice from Oprah Winfrey about dieting and healthy food consumption. Hopefully that day won't come.

Hate and vilification is a poor substitute for an actual critique of the problems faced by the world.  The same could be said of California trading carbon credits to no substantive effect.  I once sat on an environmental action committee for a city in southern California (we reported to the city council).  One of those on our committee loved to brag about riding his bicycle and claimed that it made an environmental difference.  His riding that bicycle had no effect on our overall problem, just as your offhand comments on Gore have nothing to do with solving the global warming threat.  If, instead of carping at one another, we had started 30-40 years ago taking the problem seriously, we would not be in the pickle we now find ourselves in.  The younger generation will reap a bitter harvest from their elders.

[Calm]

Gore stuff is way off topic and may get the thread shut down...which may not be a bad thing because I don’t see additional info coming out at this point.

[AtlanticMike]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hate and vilification is a poor substitute for an actual critique of the problems faced by the world.

Pointing out that the prophet of climate change uses 20x the amount of electricity as an average american at just one of his houses isn't hate or vilification. The man has a heated pool, he shouldn't be on a stage lecturing others on how to reduce a carbon footprint.

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

His riding that bicycle had no effect on our overall problem

Actually it did if you believe that CO2 is a major problem. Do my solar panels help the environment? How bout the Prius you personslly drive? Does that make a difference? If not why did you buy it?

 

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

just as your offhand comments on Gore have nothing to do with solving the global warming threat.

No matter what comes out of Gore's mouth when he's talking, no matter how he explains global warming and what we need to do to fix it, ultimately his lifestyle is the actual problem. He consumes more energy than 20 regular households in just one of his houses. He is the problem, not the solution. 

   I've collected crappy solar panels from various roofing jobs over the years and have a system that allows me to only use about 2 to 300 (kwh). But for some reason I should possibly consider what Al Gore says? Nope! 

35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

I don't dislike Al Gore's views because we differ politically, I can't stand a hypocrite! If he's going to preach about carbon footprints and the environment, at least cut back to one house, maybe 2 cars, fly commercial, raise his own meat, let the weeds grow in his lawn instead of paying someone to spray pesticides on it. Do you actually think he's an environmentalist?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

It does not trigger me at all. The Church can do what is pleases.  As for the priesthood ban it is simply utter nonsense to call them ill informed musings. To do so it simply gas lighting at its best.  But I understand we sticking to the correlated basics the the game plan now. Less risky and you don't have to back stroke against the raging river current like the church and its apologists do these days.  

Well then, since there seems to be no residual affection from you for the faith you abandoned, perhaps you’ll understand why I take with a grain of salt your ranting about “correlated pablum.” 

Edited May 12, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Chum]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Gore stuff is way off topic and may get the thread shut down...which may not be a bad thing because I don’t see additional info coming out at this point.

God: [pops in, sees every dystopic 1980s movie being manifested somewhere] "I CAN'T LEAVE YOU ALONE FOR ONE MILLENNIUM!!"

Edited May 12, 2021 by Chum

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Pointing out that the prophet of climate change uses 20x the amount of electricity as an average american at just one of his houses isn't hate or vilification. The man has a heated pool, he shouldn't be on a stage lecturing others on how to reduce a carbon footprint.

Actually it did if you believe that CO2 is a major problem. Do my solar panels help the environment? How bout the Prius you personslly drive? Does that make a difference? If not why did you buy it?

No matter what comes out of Gore's mouth when he's talking, no matter how he explains global warming and what we need to do to fix it, ultimately his lifestyle is the actual problem. He consumes more energy than 20 regular households in just one of his houses. He is the problem, not the solution. 

   I've collected crappy solar panels from various roofing jobs over the years and have a system that allows me to only use about 2 to 300 (kwh). But for some reason I should possibly consider what Al Gore says? Nope! 

I don't dislike Al Gore's views because we differ politically, I can't stand a hypocrite! If he's going to preach about carbon footprints and the environment, at least cut back to one house, maybe 2 cars, fly commercial, raise his own meat, let the weeds grow in his lawn instead of paying someone to spray pesticides on it. Do you actually think he's an environmentalist?

Again, more hate and vilification instead of sincere science talk.  I am well aware that Gore is unpopular in some circles, which has nothing to do with science.  Your focus on irrelevant issues is just lame, and cannot help our already fraught and catastrophic failure to head off the coming debacle.  It is now too late to do anything about it.  That you and I may have taken the categorical imperative seriously in the past (solar panels, Prius, etc.) is nice and tells something about us, but is just valueless for the rest of the century.  Efforts to reduce greenhouse gases now will have an effect in coming centuries, but will have no effect on this century.  Millions will die.

[rodheadlee]

Millions are going to die but it won't be from global warming. Civil war, WW3, starvation and disease are right around the corner. 

[teddyaware]

9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Millions are going to die but it won't be from global warming. Civil war, WW3, starvation and disease are right around the corner. 

“All we have yet heard and we have experienced is scarcely a preface to the sermon that is going to be preached. When the testimony of the Elders ceases to be given, and the Lord says to them, “Come home; I will now preach my own sermons to the nations of the earth,” all you now know can scarcely be called a preface to the sermon that will be preached with fire and sword, tempests, earthquakes, hail, rain, thunders and lightnings, and fearful destruction. What matters the destruction of a few railway cars? You will hear of magnificent cities, now idolized by the people, sinking in the earth, entombing the inhabitants. The sea will heave itself beyond its bounds, engulfing mighty cities. Famine will spread over the nations and nation will rise up against nation, kingdom against kingdom and states against states, in our own country and in foreign lands; and they will destroy each other, caring not for the blood and lives of their neighbors, of their families, or for their own lives.” Discourses of Brigham Young”, 111–12).

While much of the human race continues to live in abject terror of “climate change,” they will steadfastly remain oblivious to the fact that it’s their own wickedness and rebellion against God that is ushering in the nightmarish days of fiery destruction, even that foretold long day when the Gentiles will utterly reject the restored gospel of Christ, and the incensed God of heaven preaches his own ‘sermon’ of famine, drought, plague, pestilence, unprecedented natural calamities and all-engulfing constant warfare. It’s obvious to any who possess even the slightest degree of spiritual discernment that we are now fully entering the prophesied last days tribulation, trouble  and gloom, and I have no doubt but that the wicked will continue to blame “climate change” for all these catastrophes instead of looking into their own evil, unrepentant, prideful hearts for the correct answer as to why such a terrible fate has befallen them. “Climate change” will become the catch-all rationale that will keep men from realizing it’s their own moral depravity that has plunged the earth into violence and chaos, sealing their doom.

Edited May 12, 2021 by teddyaware

[AtlanticMike]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, more hate and vilification instead of sincere science talk.  I am well aware that Gore is unpopular in some circles, which has nothing to do with science.  Your focus on irrelevant issues is just lame, and cannot help our already fraught and catastrophic failure to head off the coming debacle.  It is now too late to do anything about it.  That you and I may have taken the categorical imperative seriously in the past (solar panels, Prius, etc.) is nice and tells something about us, but is just valueless for the rest of the century.  Efforts to reduce greenhouse gases now will have an effect in coming centuries, but will have no effect on this century.  Millions will die.

You win Robert, I am bowing out of this one. I feel Nemisis peeking over my shoulder 😁. I still love you Nemisis.

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well then, since there seems to be no residual affection from you for the faith you abandoned, perhaps you’ll understand why I take with a grain of salt your ranting about “correlated pablum.” 

You have no idea what affection I have for the church.  Carry on with your typical over the top piety, hubris and arrogance.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, more hate and vilification instead of sincere science talk.  I am well aware that Gore is unpopular in some circles, which has nothing to do with science.  Your focus on irrelevant issues is just lame, and cannot help our already fraught and catastrophic failure to head off the coming debacle.  It is now too late to do anything about it.  That you and I may have taken the categorical imperative seriously in the past (solar panels, Prius, etc.) is nice and tells something about us, but is just valueless for the rest of the century.  Efforts to reduce greenhouse gases now will have an effect in coming centuries, but will have no effect on this century.  Millions will die.

“The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

“If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions – remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions – it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.” John Kerry, COP21, Dec. 2019, Paris.
As far as I can determine, this speech has been scrubbed from the Internet.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Bernard Gui