Discussion and meta-discussion

[_KimberlyAnn]

Wow. Thanks for the load of insight, Trevor. Your post gave me a lot to think about said with a graciousness and tact I often find lacking in myself.

I plan to email Don when I get to SLC (and have regular internet access--probably within the week). I'd like to hear more about the work you are collaborating on.

What happened to Don, anyway? I thought he'd be posting periodically in the Celestial Forum, but he's disappeared entirely. Too bad. He was a real asset to this board. Plus, I miss the worship. ;)

Don is supposed to tell me more about his project while I'm in Utah. Hopefully, several of us from this board will be able to meet up for a while around conference time.

KA

PS - ACK! I'm doing it again! Derailing a thread. But at least I caught myself, lol! To bring it back around, I agree with Schmo that some of what makes this board entertaining is the freedom we have to argue a bit, but when mud slinging and dredging up ancient, unresolved conflicts completely take over a thread, it's irritating and makes me lose interest.

[_Some Schmo]

And it is true that I am not the only person here. My take on everything isn't authoritative. You may find the 'controversy' entertaining. I am not sure there is much controversy where there is so little evidence (like: did they close the thread at MA&D for this reason or that? Is Dan really behind it? Is it a mod shielding Dan without his knowledge?).

Oh, don't get me wrong. I totally understand your point of view, and can sympathize with those who would like to see a more substantive discussion.

I just don't think this medium is really conducive to what you may be looking for. Serious discussion is the exception rather than the rule.

My best discussions with people are always going to be face to face. It's just the way I'm personally built. So I come to the boards looking for something totally apart from that: entertainment. And part of what's so entertaining for me is giving people a hard time who take what they say and who they are way too seriously. It's entertaining to me in the same sort of way as it's entertaining to watch a cat try to catch a beam of light.

Some people just need to chill out, but until they do, I'll be watching and smiling.

[_Trevor]

First, in response to Some Schmo, I think you are correct to an extent, but I don't want to push it too far. I have seen very productive exchanges on these boards, and I have learned some cool stuff by reading these. It is interesting to see how people respond to different ideas, rather than just take what they say as evidence of their maliciousness or stupidity. I am not pointing my finger at you as I say this, please understand. Indeed, the 'angry apologist' is one who is equally guilty of this kind of approach.

Concerning Don--he is very busy with his own research right now. He tries to stay away from these boards in order to get his writing for publications done. Something I need to keep in mind for myself. He has a major Book of Mormon project, which is his main focus. The two of us have been tossing around ideas about the Book of Abraham for some time. I have always been fascinated by the thing. I remember reading Nibley's 'Abraham in Egypt' on my mission, and before my education, and not understanding a whole lot about it. We have long been interested in Joseph's mythemes, the little bits of myth that were never canonized as scripture, in which we include the EA&G, and other materials. If it is all coming from the mind of the same mythmaker, I think it will all bear evidence of his stamp. The canonized pieces should be read alongside those that were not.