Due to a scheduling conflict, Sunstone was forced to find a new venue for this year’s conference. Rather than stay at the Sheraton in Salt Lake City as they have for the past few years, the conference moved to Weber State University in Ogden. I was only able to attend the Saturday conference, but wanted to give a recap of some of the presentations I attended.
Brian Hales gave a very interesting presentation on Joseph Smith’s polygamy. I was late and didn’t hear the beginning of the presentation, but he discussed the issue of Joseph being sealed to other men’s wives. Most refer to this as polyandry, though Larry Foster has disputed that terminology in the past, preferring the term “proxy husband” or something similar. At any rate, Hales contends that there is no evidence that Joseph had sexual relations with any of these women. He notes that many other experts disagree with this position, and wasn’t surprised that many in the audience disagreed with that position. He also discussed the reliability of John C. Bennett’s words about polygamy. Bennett was Nauvoo Mayor, and Assistant President of the Church before he was excommunicated for unauthorized polygamy. Bennett later wrote an expose of Mormonism and some believe he was one of the instigators of the mob that killed Joseph.
Hales did a great job presenting his information. He stated that Bennett was very unreliable (as most experts agree.) He also noted that many of the allegations that Joseph had sexual relations with these “polyandrous” wives occurred at least a decade after the marriages, so there is nothing contemporary from Joseph’s lifetime. While Hales makes a good point, on this second issue I am not persuaded. I asked him 2 questions. First, I asked him about a really odd story about surrogate parenthood in the days of Brigham Young. Click here for full details. In brief, a convert couple could not conceive children due to a medical condition of the husband. Brigham Young proposed a temporary civil divorce. The wife (Mary Richardson) was civilly married to a man by the name of Frederick Cox. He fathered two children in a sort of levirate marriage (mentioned in the New Testament). Then they divorced, Mary re-married (and was sealed) to her original husband. It’s definitely an odd story.
My point is that this seems to be a sort of polyandry. Kathryn Daines mentions that it was “family legend” that the Richardsons obtained a divorce. Brian Hales indicated he felt it was solid evidence and not adultery. It sure seems like if the Richardson divorce was arranged with an understanding of re-marriage, that it was a form of sexual polyandry, with a wink and a nod to civil law. If Brigham Young sanctioned it, it seems to me that Brigham must have felt that such an unusual arrangement must have been in line with Joseph Smith’s beliefs on the subject.
Secondly, I asked about an unusual issue with Emma Smith. Quoting from my previous post,
Some of the footnotes are very interesting on this subject. Footnote 26 on page 305 quotes an 1844 expose of Mormonism. I don’t know if this can be corroborated, but I found it interesting.
“Emma’s threat to “be revenged and indulge herself” may have been merely a warning to the prophet to give up his spiritual wives. But Joseph H. Jackson, a non-Mormon opportunist who gained the confidence of the prophet in Nauvoo, recorded in an 1844 expose of Mormonism: “Emma wanted [William] Law for a spiritual husband,” and because Joseph “had so many spiritual wives, she thought it but fair that she would at least have one man spiritually sealed up to her and that she wanted Law, because he was such a ‘sweet little man.’”
Although there is nothing to suggest that Law and Emma were more to each other than friends, Law later confirmed that Joseph “offered to furnish his wife Emma with a substitute for him, by way of compensation for his neglect of her, on condition that she would forever stop her opposition to polygamy and permit him to enjoy his young wives in peace and keep some of them in his house and to be well treated, etc.” (Salt Lake Tribune, 3 July 1887.)
D&C 132:51 seems to refer to this incident. It says,
Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her;
If Emma had accepted in time, perhaps she would have been a polyandrous wife. Of course that is just speculation, and the rest of verse 51 says it is an Abrahamic test. But it still seems like another odd incident. Though I don’t agree with all of Hales’ conclusions, he was well prepared, and I was impressed with his presentation.
LDS members Newell Bringhurst and Craig Foster, along with RLDS members Bill Russell and Mark Sherer held a panel discussion on the Presidential candidacies of Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney. (Mark was the moderator and did not present.) Russell had high praise for Huntsman, saying the he was the best republican field. Russell noted that Huntsman seems well-versed in other cultures and religions, and said that Huntsman would be able to describe other religions “in laymans, as well as Lemuel’s terms.” Russell also indicated that if a Mormon wants to run for office and have religion be a non-issue, then they should be a democrat. He noted that Morris Udall lost narrowly to Jimmy Carter for the democratic nominee in 1976, and noted that Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader does not have questions about his religion. It was a great discussion.
Following lunch, I attended two controversial sessions. Fred Collier gave a very academic presentation on the relationship between Yahweh and Satan. He showed that Dead Sea Scroll discoveries seemed to corroborate the JST translation. He specifically seemed to reference Deuteronomy quite a bit, with a bit of Genesis and ancient Jewish writings. In LDS theology, Yahweh is considered the son of Elohim.
While Collier’s presentation was interesting, he fell apart during the Q&A session. I asked him about the Documentary Hypothesis. In brief, the hypothesis states that Elohim and Yahweh are interchangeable terms for God. Collier hand-waved the question away, saying the hypothesis was completely debunked as far as he was concerned. I was a bit flabbergasted with his response, as I completely disagree with this characterization. Collier seemed completely unprepared to answer the question.
The next question was ever worse for Collier. During the presentation, Collier said that ancient Hebrew scriptures said that Abel was the first born of Adam and Eve, and Cain was not his brother. Rather Cain was the son of Lilith and the Serpent. It was an interesting position–I’ve heard that Lilith was Adam’s first wife, but cast out when she refused to submit to Adam and was cast out of the Garden for saying the name of God. Apparently she hooked up with the serpent after the expulsion and conceived Cain–that part was new to me.
At any rate, an audience member asked who the offspring of Cain were. At first, Collier seemed to give a humorous response by saying “international bankers.” When pressed to clarify, Collier shocked the audience by saying that “international bankers are Jews.” The questioner was appalled, called Collier an expletive, and a few audience members stormed out of the room. I was appalled at the anti-Semitic remarks, and was saddened that Collier holds such views. The views overshadowed what was an otherwise interesting presentation. It saddens me that anyone would hold such views, and I call on Fred Collier to apologize for the offensive remarks. A few other people asked more about the curse of Cain doctrine. Thankfully, we were out of time; I’m afraid of what other racist remarks may have come out of his mouth.
The last presentation was controversial as well. Janice Allred, Joanna Brooks, and Margaret Toscano gave excellent presentations discussing the recent BYU Studies article titled, A Mother There: A Survey of Historical Teachings About Mother in Heaven. Allred and Toscano were both excommunicated in the 1990s for discussing Mother in Heaven in Sunstone. Both had praise for the BYU Studies article, though they had some criticisms as well. Toscano noted that the article referenced over 600 references in the past 167 years in General Conference or official church publications. The BYU authors seemed to indicate that it is acceptable to discuss Mother in Heaven, and indicated an “abundance” of information on the subject.
However, Toscano noted that in the most recent 2 day General conference, there were 900 references to Father in Heaven. She said that the BYU authors should be discussing the dearth of information on Mother in Heaven, rather than framing it as “abundant” information. She also noted that official church pronouncements refer to the equality of husband and wife, but do not refer to “God the Mother” and “God the Father.” I thought these were a valid points.
Joanna Brooks gave a very interesting presentation discussing some anecdotal references in her ward. For example, on Mothers Day, the primary chorister in San Diego ward she attends non-chalantly showed a painting of a Mother in Heaven in the clouds teaching children. During Sacrament meeting talks, there were surprising references to Mother in Heaven as well. She tweeted about these incidents and received a variety of responses, indicating that some other wards seemed to reference Mother in Heaven as well.
The session was marred by Holly Welker, the moderator. Welker has no manners, and seems to enjoy mocking religion. She gave some thoughts that indicated that she does not believe in God, yet announced at the beginning of the session that they would hold a prayer circle to pray to Mother in Heaven at the end of the session. She allowed people to leave if they were uncomfortable with the process. Many people left because they were uncomfortable.
It seems to me that Welker enjoys shocking people, and she has poor manners even with other panelists. For example, an audience member asked why Mother in Heaven was not present in the First Vision. Janice Allred started to explain her beliefs, but Welker cut her off, saying that Welker didn’t believe in the First Vision (ignoring that Allred did), and cut off Allred’s answer because Welker was “uncomfortable.” Yet Welker didn’t mind mocking believers with her prayer circle. She marred an otherwise great session, and I have no respect for her.
Due to some controversial presentations in the 1990s, Sunstone has a cold relationship with the church, and the church still refuses to allow some employees to participate. There has been a thaw in relations, though it’s still cold. I would really like Sunstone to gain favor in the church. However, with people like Holly Welker and Fred Collier, I can understand why the church has a cold war with Sunstone. It makes me sad that these people can spoil such a wonderful opportunity to discuss theology and Mormonism. Comments?
Wheat & Tares 
Very good report. I wish I was around the area and could attend these conferences. Maybe someday.
I have a question about the polygamy issues your raised. Not too long ago in the b’nacle a bit of hullabaloo was raised over a book by the Price’s (I think) who do not believe Joseph even practiced polygamy. The big issue seems to be that the testimonies, statements, and affidavits alleging the relationships and/or the sexual relations were composed long after said events. In other words there seems to really be a dearth of information confirming Joseph’s actions at the time. Admittedly Joseph was acting in secret so some of that is to be expected.
I’m wondering how Hales’ talk plays into that dynamic that the Price’s are trying to present. What’s your take on the lack of evidence?
Sorry, to hear about Fred. The Lilith Story is part of Kabbalah and not at all mainstream Judaism, even the most extreme sects. So, he’s out of the mainstream right there with that thinking. I have enjoyed his BY books. maybe he’s past his prime?
Never like Holly’s stuff. she come off exactly as you describe. So, she’s a no-op for me.
It is a shame about Sunstone, Really. but since it has, in some elements become a complaining forum, you’ll never get the Church even tacitly behind it. Jon and Dan did a lot to get it re-focused, but it still appears that some are there for that purpose.
It’s my understanding that Lilith comes from the Book of Jubilees, and has little other foundation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilees
When you say the church does not allow some members to participate, who are the some, by participate do you mean as presenters, and what are the repercussions of participating, if you know? Enjoyed the information.
Interesting report, MH. Thanks for taking time to do that for those of us who are not in the area to be there.
I would have left for a prayer circle, and not sure what that was about. How many people did participate in that?
I think a good moderator should facilitate questions from the audience, keep time and keep things on track, and try to spread the discussion across all panelists to avoid panel hogs…not dictate their interests or cut-off panelists with their own views.
I know I keep bringing this up, but how is a death-bed confession from Sylvia Sessions Lyon “No Evidence”. Wishful thinking, is more likely.
(Yes, and thank you for the report)
I attended Shenpa Warrior’s workshop on Attachment injuries when one spouse has a crisis of faith. It was great, and I think it’s a very needed topic these days.
I went to part of the Maternal Culture panel on thursday evening, and especially enjoyed the discussion on women’s crafts and work-at-home type jobs and their value in todays society.
The last thing I went to was the Friday presentation on the Mormon Sex-Ed Project. I was thinking it would be more of a presentation on how we can do better, but it was more of a “we’re just starting this and are looking for people to help”. (If anyone wants to help, their email address is mormonsexedproject@gmail.com)
I’m okay with people holding eccentric religious views, even unorthodox. Still given that Welker seems to come across as an Atheis, why would she be tolerated to simply mock religious ceremony at sunstone. If she was actually trying to advance a concept perhaps, but it sounds like pointless satire that has no demeans the Sunstone gatherings. She should be excluded from participating as either a presenter or panel judge, etc.
My biggest problem with Holly was her lack of selectiveness in choosing LOLcats. Really, that presentation went on far too long, and there must have been at least three slides that were just variations on “Satan kitteh is on teh waters, ridin in powr.” Unacceptable.
Holly needs to step aside and allow men to act in the capacity of brutish, ruthless bully.
JMB,
I think Hales did a great job of presenting his case. Certainly the lack of contemporary evidence is an issue to be explored, as well as the issue about whether such relations should be considered adultery under the definition of D&C 132. While I tend to disagree with Hales position at this time (after all the Book of Mormon says a righteous purpose of polygamy is to raise seed unto the Lord, and Joseph had relations with other women), it gives me food for thought to consider Hales position.
Brian, I talked to several people during lunch and at a town hall meeting, and asked specifically if it was ok for church employees to attend. I talked to one church employee that did attend but did not present, and I talked to another church employee that presented. At the town hall meeting, I was told that some BYU departments are ok with employees attending, while other BYU departments state that your job will be in jeopardy for participating in Sunstone. It is my opinion that the church has softened on employees attending, but it is still a bit of a cold war, and it depends who you work for as to whether it is ok to attend and/or present.
Heber,
A few people left immediately, and a large exodus occurred shortly after when Holly said that everyone was supposed to speak during the prayer. I didn’t stick around to see how many actually participated. I was rather disgusted with Welker from the moment she opened her mouth to start the discussion. (She was actually better behaved than last year, but I am starting to wonder if she has a personality disorder. Her lack of manners to panelists in the past 2 years is unbelievable to me.)
Alice, I’m not familiar with Lyons. Can you explain a bit more? If you are saying she is a polyandrous wife of Joseph and she gave a death-bed confession of relations, then I assume this was at least 10 or more years after the supposed relations. Memories are known to be faulty. For example, Zebedee Coltrin claims that Elijah Abel was banned from the priesthood in the 1830’s, but his statement was in the 1870’s. After Abel’s priesthood ordination was produced, it was obvious that Coltrin’s memory was faulty. That’s the problem with memories long after the fact–they’re not always reliable.
Cowboy, I agree completely. Allred and Toscano were very respectful in what they said, and I am fine with their disagreements with the church. Welker, on the other hand, should be banned from Sunstone. I noticed Welker’s profile on LinkedIn. Apparently she has been quite involved in Sunstone in past years, so that’s probably why they allow her to continue to participate. But I think her participation muddies the name of Sunstone.
Holly Welker is Lilith.
MH, I wish you had stayed. Not everyone was expected to speak during the prayer, but all were welcome. Of the many men present, only one participated vocally. Many women also spoke. There was praying to both God the Mother and God the Father, the making of observations, and worship through song. It was quite moving.
As for Holly, for the past few years she has been very involved in the difficult work of organizing the symposium. This year she put a ton of work into it, as well as participating in many of the panel presentations. If you were aware of what she has done behind the scenes, and the willingness she has shown to support Sunstone under her real name and reputation, I doubt you would condemn her quite so harshly.
biv, thanks for the update. I don’t want this to turn into a bash holly session. I think fred collier was equally, if not more offensive. plus, I would like to hear about other sessions I was unable to attend.
My opinion on the usefulness, value, and “fruits” of Sunstone (of which I have been in the past a real supporter) is further reinforced by this post and the comments herein.
I truly grieve for the ideal Sunstone of “questing Mormonism”; it has been supplanted by the Sunstone of barbs, snark, and soul erosion.
Actually this condemns Sunstone more than her. The fact that they’d hand the “keys to the store” over to an atheist, former-mormon-as-of-20-years-ago who’s trading on her previous affiliation as her differentiator in a world of other cookie-cutter writers shows either desperation, folly, or the Sunstone’s board’s true intentions. Only they know.
MH:
“(after all the Book of Mormon says a righteous purpose of polygamy is to raise seed unto the Lord…”
Ummm, not the way the RLDS version PUNCTUATED the relevant verse. Which is one of the points the Prices’ were emphasizing. The manuscript was written without punctuation, and Hales might have pointed that out as well.
I was one of those that didn’t leave right away, but when it was insinuated that all in the prayer circle should participate, that is when I left.
I would have left at that point no matter who the prayer was addressed to though…out of my comfort zone.
If it had simply been a closing prayer to Mother in Heaven, I would have stayed.
BIV, I have to admit, that Holly made me feel unwelcome in that session simply because I was male. Intended or not, she seemed to have more of a pure feminist agenda as opposed to an LDS reform agenda. I have no prior history with her so this was just my observation of that session.
I was a little put off when she interrupted Janice during her attempted explanation of why Mother in Heaven was not at the first vision. I thought her job was to moderate the discussion, not sensor it.
#16–re: other sessions. I participated in a poetry reading of Ronald Wilcox’s “Mormon Epic.” I know–poetry, epic–sounds like a real doozy! (or snoozy?) But when Clifton Jolley and Bob Rees (the session’s coordinators) advance a work of Mormon lit., I sit up and take notice. In one short hour my understanding and appreciation for Joseph’s prophetic calling took a quantum leap forward. I felt privileged to be included. Wilcox’s work is available at mormonepic.com.
Thanks for the comments. I realize that there is a strong tradition that Joseph Smith practiced sexual polyandry. I’m just hopeful that we can take a closer look at the actual evidence.
Joseph Smith gave three reasons for the establishment of the practice of plural marriage (1) As part of the “restitution of all thing” (Act 3:21), (2) to “multiply and replenish the earth” (D&C 132:63), to provide bodies for noble premortal spirits,and (3) to provide husband for the apparent excess number of worthy women that will exist at the judgement (D&C 132:16-17).
I appreciated the question regarding Mary Richardson, but would suggest that while it was polyandrt, it wasn’t sexual polyandry. Her sealed husband left town when she married Cox and didn’t return until the remarriage. I can’t find any evidence both men were sleeping with her.
Thanks,
Brian Hales
MH, Sorry to hear you had such bad experiences. I attended sessions on Thursday, Friday and Saturday and felt that they were all well done and that the information was presented with respect for the church. I didn’t experience the negative that you did (although I caught just the last 15 minutes of the Mother in Heaven panel, but I have a “Holly filter” and run everything she says and does through that filter. Not that I ignore her, I just have empathy for her feelings and so I take everything she says and tone it down a bit.)
This was my first Sunstone symposium and I really enjoyed it. I’ve also had to explain what “Sunstone Symposium” means to almost every active, believing member of the church that I’ve talked to about it. 😦 It kind of bugs me that life-long members of the church in their 40’s and 50’s have not ever heard of Sunstone magazine or symposium. (I guess the church did such a good job of vilifying symposia in the 1980s that we haven’t recovered.)
Brian,
Thanks for your post and the very interesting website you have.
“I realize that there is a strong tradition that Joseph Smith practiced sexual polyandry.”
I think there are two camps. One group wants to know everything about the history of Polygamy including Joseph’s early, secret practices. The motive is genuine love of history and, perhaps of the Church has well.
Then there are those who wish to tear the Church down by any means possible including a sordid tale of adultery, secret sexual encounters and the practice of polygamy to feed an insatiable lust for sex and power on the part of Joseph Smith.
It is the latter where this “tradition” has taken shape. They fail to take into account the times, the Victorian-type attitudes, the logistics and other factors. They assume because the term “wife” is used, it automatically means sexual activity.
Having said that, at this point, to me it is inconclusive to assume that “just because” there had to be sex involved. Not saying there wasn’t, but not much direct proof.
The Heavenly Mother panel was one of my favorite sessions during the entire symposium, and was for many people. I do not believe in god or the concept of HM, but praying to HM was one of the most fulfilling events of my life. Plenty of people stuck around for what turned into a shared, beautiful, honest and touching experience (since it was the last session of the symposium, people may also have left because they had to get home). Holly’s brave proposal to pray to HM was perfect and healing for many people who have been hurt and silenced by the mainstream Mormon culture. Experiencing like this are what keep me going to Sunstone and leave me with a greater desire to be a better person.
Thanks, MH!
Larry Foster has disputed that terminology [polyandry] in the past, preferring the term “proxy husband”
Is this related to the issue of sexual activity (i.e., Foster thinks polyandry implies sexual relations) or is there another reason for introducing a new term? (assuming “proxy husband” is actually new; it’s new to me).
Russell also indicated that if a Mormon wants to run for office and have religion be a non-issue, then they should be a democrat.
This, combined with the examples he gave, is an interesting point. The whole “Mormon issue” with Romney and Huntsman seems very murky to me. It’s hard to get hold of, and discussion of it seems to be dominated by subjective opinions about what other people are thinking. But I’ve heard two main theories, not mutually exclusive: (a) Some voters, especially including evangelical Christians, make electoral decisions based on candidates’ religion, and they don’t like Mormonism; (b) Some voters believe that a Mormon President would do the bidding of LDS leaders to the detriment of the nation. I’ve tended to discount (b) in my own thinking because I’ve heard it mostly from two sources: group (a) voters, who don’t appear to need a second reason, and ex-Mormons or other secularly motivated critics of Mormonism, who just are not very numerous. But one possible explanation for Russell’s observation would be that by running as a Democrat, a candidate already displays political independence from the Church in a way that reassures some voters. I can think of other explanations, too, of course. Did Russell offer any explanations?
FireTag,
From the parts I listened to from Hales, he emphasized D&C 132, and did not reference the Book of Mormon. Brent, thanks for the info. I’m not really into poetry either, but I’ll have to check it out.
Brian Hales–welcome!!! Thanks for the comments. I was impressed with how well prepared you were. I’d be interested to know more about the Richardson-Cox situation. If you have any details about the divorce and Brother Richardson moving away for 3 years, I’d be very interested to see more detail. You can email me at mormon heretic at gmail dot com.
mcarp, I wouldn’t say I had a bad experience. I enjoyed all the sessions, but there were moments that were disappointing. Certainly it was more lively than church! I wish we’d have been able to run into each other. As for Sunstone, my next door neighbor (and former bishop) has made some negative comments about Sunstone, so I didn’t tell him I went. I think people in Utah are more familiar with it, though my wife doesn’t really know the controversial history (and I didn’t really tell her about any of the sessions, cause she’s not really interested.)
Badger, yes you are right about that. I really need to transcribe the Q&A from the MHA meetings earlier this year. Larry said something to the effect of “if we always referred to “polygamy” as “adultery”, Mormons would find that characterization offensive. The same concept applies with polyandry–it’s not an appropriate term.” If Brian is right that these sealings were not sexual and were merely sealings, then another term would be better. As I recall, Larry didn’t have a specific term he would rather use, but said we need to find a new term to describe these relationships.
As for your question about Mormons running as democrats, yes you’re right on the money. If a Mormon runs as a democrat, he has already distanced himself from the church. Russell said that when Morris Udall ran for president in 1976 against Jimmy Carter, religion was a non-issue. It also seems to be a non-issue for Harry Reid.
He said that if a Mormon runs as a republican, he must distance himself from the church as Huntsman has tried to do, and as former Michigan governor George Romney did when Romney supported Civil Rights. Otherwise, evangelical republicans are going to complain. However, Bill said that he thinks Americans can overcome the anti-Mormon bias, just as they overcame the anti-Catholic bias with President Kennedy.
the Hermit,
“I do not believe in god or the concept of HM, but praying to HM was one of the most fulfilling events of my life.”
It does not seem to make a lot of sense that praying to someone you don’t believe would have any effect…. Trolling, perhaps?
MH,
Did the symposium seem “edgy” or trying to be irreverent to make things interesting?
How would you compare content presented in sessions with what is presented on the bloggernacle regularly? Just curious.
There’s a pretty significant difference between Sunstone and Mormon History Association. MHA is generally much better researched, and has more scholars. Now some people like Newell Bringhurst attend both, so those presentations are quite similar.
I’ve heard that it’s easier to present at Sunstone, and you’re more likely to hear someone rant about the church. The first year I went to Sunstone, it was awesome. I think I was lucky to pick all good sessions. The last 2 years I’ve attended sessions where the people were more openly antagonistic toward the church, and that bothers me. I really debated about attending the last session. Joanna Brooks is always interesting, and I was really curious about Margaret Toscano and Janice Allred. I also knew what to expect with Holly Welker, and almost didn’t attend specifically because I was so turned off by Holly last year.
That’s not to say that MHA can’t be vigorously debated. I attended a session talking about the “myth” of the seagulls and crickets. One woman was very upset by the term “myth” because she thought the presenters meant “made up”. (That wasn’t their meaning.) The Larry Foster rant in May about polyandry/proxy husband was also quite heated, though entertaining and under control.
I kind of like the controversy, but I have a real problem with open antagonism toward the church or anti-semetic comments. You’ll see that at Sunstone, but you won’t see it at MHA.
Sunstone is a real mixed bag. Scholars like Newell Bringhurst and Brian Hales are always excellent. But some people are there to vent and rant. Those presentations are similar to the bloggernacle. The bloggernacle is quite varied, having scholarly as well as not so scholarly blogs. But for the most part I would say Sunstone is better researched that the bloggernacle as a whole.
Thank you for sharing this.
Jeff,
My definition of prayer is not narrow. It does not mean reciting certain phrases to a specific deity in a rigid form. While many people did pray directly to Heavenly Mother, there were others, including me, who did not. What was significant was the feeling of friendship among everyone in the room and the shared desire to seek goodness done through both appealing to concept of HM, each other, and ourselves. Which is enough to count as a prayer for me.
“Which is enough to count as a prayer for me.’
OK, I get it. thought I am still confused about what or who an Atheist would pray to or for?
The best part about Holly taking an active part in the Utah Symposium…is that it saves me the expense of attending. I had many friends that did attend. I missed them very much, but I will likely try to meet up with them elsewhere.
Jeff
“What was significant was the feeling of friendship among everyone in the room and the shared desire to seek goodness done through both appealing to concept of HM, each other, and ourselves.” Prayer is not an exclusive activity reserved only for members of a certain religion.
Ohh — I haven’t been following this thread and I just read Brian’s comment [22] about a:
Of coarse he did. I think it leaves many aghast trying to figure out why or what that would mean.
They think polygyny is often thought to be a method of excusing rampant sexual desire — but polyandry doesn’t fit that hypothesis.
If Joseph was trying to create a bona-fide tribe — then I think his polyandry and the polyandry allowed in D&C 132 makes more sense.
It would look something like:
this.
Brian, I’ve never understood the “multiply and replenish the earth” concept.
If there were a glut of women and a dearth of men, that might make sense, but that was not the case at all.
Rick:
In animal models, it’s been found that:
So it would perhaps be beneficial if there were a glut of men and a dearth of women.
during the presentation, brian hales went into great detail to emphasize that sex with multiple men does not increase the odds of a woman getting pregnant. it depends solely on timing of ovulation.
MH:
I’m sure he did — however, in the literature, that claim doesn’t hold out.
Did he provide any sources for his claim — and if so, do you recall them?
…Or if he’s still reading this post — maybe he can provide them himself.
If a woman is having sex once a day, with one husband and then adds a second husband, but rotates the husbands so that she has sex with one husband one day and the other husband the next day, she still is only having sex once a day. In that scenario, sure, having “sex with multiple men does not increase the odds of a woman getting pregnant.”
But if you add a second husband and each husband is now having sex with her daily, so that she is now having sex twice a day, surely her odds of getting pregnant have gone up, have they not?
On the other hand, if a man has one wife and sleeps with her daily, but then takes a second wife and does a rotation, so that now each wife has sex every other day, surely the odds of each wife getting pregnant have gone down, have they not?
So, it doesn’t seem to me to be the number of spouses that indicate the odds of impregnation, but the frequency of sex. The greater the frequency, the better the chance of pregnancy.
If that is a true statement, then surely polyandry would have greater reproductive success than polygyny. It’s harder for one man to have sex ten times a day (for ten different wives) than it is for a woman to have sex ten times a day (for ten different husbands.)
Put another way, take Kody Brown and his four wives and look at the number of children they were able to produce as a result of that polygynist union. Each wife is rotated, meaning that every fourth day they get to have sex. Now, put each of those women in a polyandrous situation exactly the opposite to their polygynist situation, in other words, give them each four husbands and rotate the husbands, one per day gets to sleep with his wife. They would end up having more children because the frequency of sex just shot up from once every four days to daily.
But the nature of man is such that a man typically won’t wait every four days to have sex. So, in polyandry, the woman will end up having multiple sexual experiences each and every day. This increases her chance of pregnancy even more.
Now, granted, I haven’t looked at the literature or studies, I’m just using my brain to examine this logically. Everything, to me, points to polyandry being more successful, reproductively speaking.
Also, LDSA — in addition to the dynamic you described [that of the frequency of sexual encounters], the literature I’ve read [as well as the Sex at Dawn book] describe a role of sperm competition in increasing the reproductive success of women in polyandry.
Meaning, given the same number of sexual encounters, a man’s sexual response (as well as that of the woman’s) change in favor of impregnation when there’s an element of “competition” present.
Brian Hales is a physician (anesthesiologist I believe). He said he talked to several physicians specializing in fertility, and was quite confident in his information.
LDSA, I think the first option you described is probably the most common for 1840. I doubt Joseph’s polyandrous wives were having sex multiple times per day with multiple partners, and that’s precisely Hales’ point. If they were doing this (which Hales disputes), certainly it was quite secretive and I don’t think multiple times per day would be very easy to hide. I also don’t think it fits with 19th century attitudes towards sex. Your 2nd scenario sounds more like “free love 1960’s” attitudes, and I just don’t see that happening in 1840. Do you?
Is there some reason these guys always have to get weird?
Last time I checked, a woman could only get pregnant once every 9-10 months, regardless of how many times or how many partners she has sex with.
In addition, there is a fertile window each month when a woman can conceive. If pregnancy is the goal, having sex outside this window is a waste of time…so to speak.
Sorry, but I’m just not seeing it.
Rick — last time I checked, the literature on the subject concludes that polyandry provides genetic benefits that significantly enhance female lifetime reproductive success. Maybe you haven’t seen that?
Also, Rick — what you described is a reason why I’d support simultaneous polygyny and polyandry, rather than exclusively one or the other.
Jeff — besides the debate about what constitutes being “weird” — it’s because you’d be too normal without it.
justin, I must agree with jeff here. while we are talking about joseph smith’s possible polyandry, you seem to have morphed into the benefits of polyandry and have drifted off topic of joseph smith. I think I speak for the majority of readers here that think that polyandry is a culturally weird practice.
So, MH — your comment got me reading back through, and I came up with this:
#37 was my response to the general topic in the thread (Joseph’s possible polyandry) — giving my explanation as to what Joseph’s polyandry and that which is allowed by D&C 132 could mean.
#39 was my response to Rick’s challenge to Brian’s “multiply” hypothesis for explaining polygamy. Polygynists have a hard time trying to get around the census data showing a greater number of men than women [rather than the presumed opposite that might justify plural wives for some people]. Polyandry would have made sense in that situation, but the Utahans couldn’t really get to it — probably because the majority of the saints that it was a culturally weird practice.
As far as “drifting into the benefits of polyandry“, that seems to have arose from you in #40 saying that Brian’s anecdotal data as an anesthesiologist went into great detail emphasizing that polyandry does not increase the odds of a woman getting pregnant. (Which the literature on the subject doesn’t support).
LDSA seems to have jumped in at that point — which may explain the nature of his comments.
In response to:
Ditto what I wrote to Jeff.
^^Correction:
should read:
…probably because the majority of the saints thought it was a culturally weird practice.
Nice write-up, MH. I really liked Sunstone this year. I wasn’t able to make it to all of the panels, and it’s great to read about some of the panels that I missed.
I do have to differ about Holly, though. I understand that her tone can be off-putting. I’ve disagreed with her before on various topics, and I’ll say that disagreeing with Holly can be a jarring experience.
But I thought that the HM panel was nicely done. Holly participated actively in the discussion herself, as a sort of moderator-panelist. This isn’t unusual. I was moderator-panelist for a session myself.
As for directing discussion away from First Vision specifics — that’s well within the purview of the moderator. If I’m moderating a panel and a speaker in Q&A starts into an area that moves away from the main panel theme, it’s perfectly fine to nudge them back towards the theme. The HM panel’s theme was about talking to and about HM (based on the BYU Studies article), and not about the details of theology about HM. Janice has literally written a book about the theology of HM, and could have spent the entire Q&A period on details. Holly nudged her back, which was in line with the panel theme — panelists weren’t talking about HM in the First Vision, but about Mormon discursive norms. I’ve personally nudged panelists while acting as moderator. I might have done so in a different way here, but I didn’t think Holly’s comment was out of line — she had her moderator hat on and was actively directing Q&A.
Finally, I would take exception to your comment that “Welker didn’t mind mocking believers with her prayer circle.”
I participated in the prayer circle (along with many others — a majority of them women, but including many men). While I’m no longer a particularly orthodox believer, I thought that the prayer circle was very open, welcoming, and respectful. A variety of different people participated — I had an active LDS SAHM to one side of me in the prayer circle, and a member of the September Six to the other side. And the prayer itself was a spiritual highlight of the conference.
Maybe Holly was just showing us what the true order of prayer will look like in the Dehlinite church.
Kaimi, with all due respect, what Holly did was hardly a nudge. She vehemently cut Janice off, all but shouting HER opinion that the incident (first vision) never happened. She was also animated to the extreme during that episode.
Also, I think you have missed MH’s point about Holly’s mocking the believers. Holly appears to not believe in a God or Heavenly Mother, yet she saw fit to hold a prayer circle praying to God the Mother. If she is an unbeliever, why did she do it if not to invoke shock to the believers.
It also shows a bit of hypocrisy when she supports this act (which she appears not to believe in) yet vehemently cut off the other act that she also didn’t believe in (first vision).
It would seem that going against the first vision supports her agenda and praying to God the Mother also supports her agenda, hypocritical or not.
Justin, you always bring up supporting literature to back up your support of Polyandry, but never link to these sources. I have found nothing credible to back up your claims.
Also, you seem to treat women as child bearing machines whose soul purpose is your (and men like you) pleasure.
Is it any wonder, that support for your lifestyle has few supporters?
Rick — scholar.google.com is an easy search tool for people who cannot access the literature through a university’s library system. If you care, then give it a shot.
I asked for specific sources [41] not b/c I’m too lazy to look for myself — but b/c when I did look, I didn’t find anything that supported his claim [which made sense b/c it was anecdotal].
Funny — before, your claim was that I only cared about women as ways to get “secret-sex at night“…
…but now I only care about women as ways to get children. Lol — isn’t that at least a step in the right direction?
And there are enough supporters for me to be happy with how others would receive such a lifestyle.
I will use scholar.google.com, are you saying there is information available thru this search engine that is not available thru google.com?
I’m not changing my tune at all. You assume I’m replacing one accusation with another. Actually, I’m adding to it.
Even so, how is objectifying women a step in the right direction?
The latter will get you to websites [potentially written by wierd guys like LDS Anarchist or myself] — while the former brings up published literature.
Scholar.google still wouldn’t be a sure bet [not all publications within an academic field are on the same level] — but it’s a better place for looking up research than just plain-old google.
I have not disregarded women to the status of objects. What about a gospel-based egalitarian multihusband-multiwife tribal anarchy model of marriage families objectifies women?
Or — don’t answer that — it might drift us back into the weird again, and I was trying to get us back out. I’ll just stick by #37 answering the Joseph and polyandry issue raised in the OP.
I know — maybe I should change the name of the FastPencil book project we’re working on to:
What do ya’ say Rick? Do you like the sound of JMFHSSANIOTGWP better than GEMTAM?
The acronym is arduous, but it does paint a more accurate picture. I say go with it.
MH, I apologize for extending this conversation on the genetic benefits of polyandry, but Justin challenged me to do some research, so of course I did. Here are my findings:
First let’s describe the difference between scholar.google.com (SGC) and google.com (GC). I did side-by-side searches using both engines. Every article found using SGC was found using GC. The difference is SGC filters out a lot of extraneous info, making it easier to narrow down your search. Using SGC was a good tip.
I read every abstract and/or article produced on the first page of my SGC search. In each article the findings were similar:
1. Polyandrous Females had enhanced reproductive capabilities
2. The offspring of Polyandrous Females had both a higher success rate (numbers) and were healthier (lived to adulthood)
3. Polyandrous Females were themselves healthier
If I stopped my research there, I would have to give Justin the nod on this one as well…but of course I dug deeper.
Problems:
99% of the studies were done on insects. Why does this matter? Because insects have multiple offspring during each reproductive cycle, their eggs can be fertilized by multiple donors in a single reproductive cycle, the females store donations (which only fill the stores with multiple donors), and female insects eat part of the delivery system.
These things are all necessary in order for the females to benefit from the items listed above in 1-3.
None of these things are present in the human reproductive system.
So unless Justin is extending his tribal invitation to crickets and beetles, the success rates he is boasting are not going to happen…and are still unlikely.
Oh, and the 1% of studies not done on insects, were done on small mammals with similar reproductive characteristics to the insects…again, not present in humans.
What did I get from all this research?
Crickets are not human.
I wonder how easy it is to get funding for human trials on fertility rates with and without multiple husbands? Good luck writing that grant proposal.
Most of what we learned about nutrition (vitamins, etc.) came by way of research with chickens. You’re not a chicken are you? You know why they were done with chickens — smaller size and shorter lifespan than humans. Studies could be replicated and could be done faster and cheaper than if done with humans (also doing deficiency studies in humans is considered unethical).
This Sunstone was my first exposure to Holly. It’s clear that she has strong passions and arouses them in others.
It’s also clear, Mormon Heretic, that despite your name, you’re a very safe, conventional thinker. It’s not surprising that you should resent someone who truly deserves the name Mormon Heretic.
Normally I wouldn’t bother to get involved in what is clearly a clash of personalities, but you say several things that are plain old wrong and I want to correct them.
First, Holly didn’t announce at the beginning of the session that there would be a prayer at the end. She didn’t announce it until after all the panelists had made their remarks. I remember because the guy in front of us leaned over and said to a friend loud enough that we could hear, “Well, I guess we’ll be leaving five minutes early.” My wife turned to me and said, “I guess we WON’T be leaving early.”
No one ever said everyone had to participate if they stayed for the prayer. Both Holly and Janice said it would be like a quaker prayer meeting, which meant that there would be silence unless someone felt like talking. If you knew anything about other religions, you would have understood that.
Re: cutting Janice off–I agree with Kaimi that it was an appropriate thing to do. Some of us were really grateful that we didn’t have to listen to a long speech about Heavenly MOther being part of the first vision, which seems pretty improbable based on everything that is discussed about it now. If she really was there, then there needs to be an article or a book on that, not one comment at the end of a panel. And Janice wasn’t responding to something someone in the audience said–she was responding to Holly saying that it was weird that Heavenly Father brought his son but not his wife to talk to his children. I remember because she said something very similar in her panel on the Book of Mormon.
It’s dumb to say that asking people to pray if you don’t believe in a particular god is mocking religion. Just because you don’t see the point in praying to one god doesn’t mean you can’t pray to another. I don’t think you people here understand much about what it means to be a seeker.
Plus you can also value prayer just as a ritual. I’ve spent time with a family friend who is Jewish. His dad is an atheist who holds regular family prayer, because it brings the family together and because the family likes the ritual.
But most of all I felt like Holly suggested the prayer not because she wanted to do it herself but because she thought it would be important and welcome to many people in the audience. I can say that for me and my wife and everyone else we talked to who stayed, it absolutely was. It just
I have not been surprised to find out that Holly has a huge fan base at Sunstone and lots of people attend every session she does. I’m a fan now myself. It doesn’t surprise me that orthodox true believers like you don’t like her stuff, though it does surprise me that you go to something so uncorrelated, unless you’re just there to spy and tattle.
Chris H says The best part about Holly taking an active part in the Utah Symposium…is that it saves me the expense of attending. I had many friends that did attend. I missed them very much, but I will likely try to meet up with them elsewhere.”
This is pathetic. I had a hard time meeting up with friends I knew were going to be there because it’s so big, and you stay away from a gathering with your friends just because a woman you don’t like is going to be in the building and on the program?
Way to hand over all your power to someone else, bro.
Anyway I’m pretty sure no one missed you. No one ever misses the angry bossy bully who stays home and throws a temper tantrum because someone else’s party isn’t going to be exactly like he likes.
Another set of comments that demonstrates why Sunstone is out of the mainstream and of even considered by most members worthy of any particular attention.
Any criticism of it is always considered unfounded and grossly unfair.
They can dish it out, but cannot take it.
Oh good grief. Of course Sunstone is out of the mainstream. Duh. That’s the point of it. And this site is very mainstream. That’s also the point.
Another point is, somebody who really understood what a heretic is wouldn’t call himself one and them try to be orthodox mainstream guy.
You guys want to be edgy, but you’re not. You complain that Sunstone isn’t comfortable for all you mainstream guys b/c it’s not mainstream and doesn’t try to be. Then you use the fact that it’s not mainstream or comfortable for true believers as some sort of evidence that no one likes it. When for plenty of people, that’s exactly why they do like it.
“Any criticism of it is always considered unfounded and grossly unfair.”
that MIGHT be relevant if I’d been talking about Sunstone overall. But I wasn’t. I was talking about one person. Because unlike you and a bunch of other people here, I can tell the difference between one person and a whole organization and a symposium.
Dish out more, Jeff, and be willing to take some criticism yourself.
I will hope Galileo got my response via email. 🙂
ICK. That’s a good way to control comments here: if people know that commenting means they’ll get a personal message from Chris H., they’re sure to keep silent and stay away.
No worrrties. Jeff deleted my comment. I was just hoping you got follow up comments via email.
Chris H.
Agent of Correlation
Justin, you obviously didn’t read my entire comment. The study on insects isn’t valid when applying to humans because the findings would not be the same in a human trial.
Humans don’t have multiple offspring unless something unusual and extremely rare happens.
This eliminates the benefit of multiple donors fertilizing separate eggs increasing the chances of higher birth rates and better health.
Humans don’t have a delivery system that includes a nutritional offering, so there are no health benefits for the female.
Humans don’t fill up the store with multiple donations assuring that all possible eggs are fertilized…one donation is all that it takes.
If you can’t see why those studies were never intended to be applied to humans, then that explains a lot.
Galileo,
MH and I had similar observations of that session, so this is not isolated, and judging from the 1/3 of the people that left early, we were not alone.
You obviously took away an entirely different experience. That’s great. That doesn’t mean that your experience is any more valid than mine or MH’s.
No need to insult MH over his handle either. A Heretic is not someone that disbelieves, its someone that goes against mainstream thought. Someone that is not afraid to step outside the circle to research and study things considered out of bounds. MH certainly falls into that category.
I also heard Holly mention at the beginning that she planned on having a prayer to God the Mother. Maybe you weren’t paying attention. No problem, happens to all of us.
FYI – Both MH and I loved the Sunstone sessions, including that one. We both just didn’t agree with Holly’s tactics. I can’t see why that is an issue with you. Why do you even care? You were fine with her behavior. That’s all you should be concerned with.
I’m not actually going to contribute to this thread, but I will say two things.
1) I have no idea what’s going on between Chris H and Galileo.
2) I find Bishop Rick’s dismantling of Justin’s polyandry science to be one of the most hilariously unexpected things. Like, that’s an M. Night Shyamalan-style plot twist there.
“I have no idea what’s going on between Chris H and Galileo.”
Me neither.
Galileo: Definition of heretic “1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church. 2. Roman Catholic Church . a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith. 3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.” Perhaps MH is just less badass than you. So what? That doesn’t mean he’s mainstream either. I suspect he’s just a decade or so older. People mellow.
I don’t think W&T is trying to be edgy. The one thing we all seem to have in common, though (and maybe not a lot else) is that we like courtesy. Someone like Holly is bound to rub this gang the wrong way. I do agree with many of Holly’s statements, certainly the gist of them (although she is prone to hyperbole), but I find her discourteous and needlessly provocative. She provokes because she is an activist. I’m not an activist, nor are most at this site.
Edginess probably requires both activism and discourtesy. I’m not sure why you thought we were trying to be edgy. I don’t think we’ve ever claimed we were.
Sunstone, BTW, has a multi-decade tradition that was historically more balanced. Although it became edgier after Oaks censured it and after the September Six, it has since striven to regain its balance. Part of managing diversity of thought is courtesy toward a variety of viewpoints. If a third of the room felt Holly went too far, that’s probably a good indication that she did. I’m sure Holly felt she was exhibiting enormous restraint. Because the symposium has one foot on land and one on sea, incidents like this are going to happen.
“Jeff deleted my comment.”
Jeff doesn’t delete comments.
“Dish out more, Jeff, and be willing to take some criticism yourself.”
Bring it on, Pal. Just make sense.
Galileo, Hawkgrrl took the words out of my mouth on definition of a heretic. I think Holly fits the definition of apostate better than a heretic, as I don’t think she claims to be any sort of believer any more. I am still a believer, but I do hold unorthodox views on many topics. Jesus was a heretic, as was Joseph Smith, and Martin Luther. Even Abraham was a heretic for espousing the belief that there is only 1 god, not many.
First, Holly didn’t announce at the beginning of the session that there would be a prayer at the end.
You must have come late. Check the recording of the session. She absolutely said this as one of her first comments to start the session. She also announced it at the end, just as you said.
I didn’t include all of Holly comments, but she started her remarks with something to the effect of “I would like to shoot the current concept of Mother in Heaven and have her rise again like a phoenix.” (I’ll transcribe it if you want an exact quote.) Then she proceeded to state that there would be a prayer to this concept that she wants shot? Seems quite odd to me.
You and Kaimi are welcome to disagree with me. I thought there was nothing wrong with the question about the First Vision. If the question was really off topic like “what do you think of the Tea Party?”, then I could understand any moderator stepping in. The question seemed quite relevant to the conversation, and giving Janice 60 seconds to answer wouldn’t have taken us off course. Margaret was talking about Mother and Father in Heaven, and how Mother is always ignored. What I heard from Janice sounded like she probably had a good explanation for why Mother in Heaven was ignored in the First Vision–it seemed quite relevant to me, not a theological tangent.
Hmm. I thought she announced it in sort of the middle-ish. But either way, as I recall, it wasn’t announced just at the end. She announced it at some point during the panel talks; then again at the start of Q&A; and then again at the end of the session.
Also, I’m pretty sure that Holly’s quote was “I want to kill Heavenly Mother.” At least, that’s how I remember it. 🙂
And on the First Vision question — I think there is a connection, and I personally probably wouldn’t have jumped in if I were moderator. (I’m a major fanboy of Janice’s work, and would probably just sit there in awestruck contemplation.) But I did think that Holly’s move was within the range of reasonable moderator acts, and was helpful in directing the discussion.
Also, I think Hawkgrrl’s comment is on point — there are various ways to approach the issues. W&T isn’t a correlated forum (except for Chris H.), but also isn’t particularly edgy. That’s a reasonable choice for the W&T community (and each community sets its own norms).
I’ll turn one characterization back on its head, though. Bishop Rick notes that about a third of the room left (and that seems like an accurate characterization to me).
But that also means that two thirds — more than a majority — chose to stay, and to participate in the prayer circle. This was a significant fact, I thought. And it would seem to suggest that the prayer was, in fact, a welcome development for many of the folks at Sunstone.
Kaimi,
If I had known for sure what was going to happen in the prayer circle, I would have stayed. I wasn’t willing to take the chance of being put on the spot. I wish that part had been made clearer. The whole prayer thing was kinda on-again, off-again, on-again.
And you are right about Holly stating she wanted to kill heavenly mother. When I heard her say that, I wasn’t sure how to take it…still not.
My favorite M. Night Shyamalan film is The Village.
Details can matter in how one pushes boundaries in a way that teaches versus a way that antagonizes. I once participated in a Stake sacrament service that dramatized the Last Supper. Although the twelve of us who served the congregation were each playing one of the apostles that night, and accordingly were wearing robes and beards and reading parts of the scriptures in character, everyone was very careful to follow the prayers, the order of service, uncovering of emblems, etc. to the letter of the then-current CofChrist rite. To the best of my knowledge, there were no complaints.
I also attended a dramatization in one of our congregations in which that care was not taken. Without warning, communion was served, but it was not done by solely ordained priesthood, or limited to those over the age of accountability. When my young daughter looked to me for guidance, I had to explain to her that this was NOT the sacrament ON THE SPOT and that she could drink. I did NOT appreciate that, and I’m sure the pastor of the congregation that had invited our congregation (under the same rite as mine) felt snubbed.
What do we have to do to become Edgy? more Anti-Mormon material, complain more about the Chruch. What would make us edgy?
Edgy is defined as anything that this guy does: http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/author/edje/
Edgy in the dictionary is defined as nervous and defensive, irritable; also cutting-edge, innovative, intense and exciting. That latter half sounds like “provocative.” But I think we run into issues if we become discourteous or activist (which also go with being provocative). Those two things go against what we’ve always said our core values are here.
I think we’d all like to be thought and discussion provoking, but not necessarily provocative in every sense of the word.
Provocative comment there, Hawkgrrl. 🙂
Yea, but does that have to do with crickets?
I wrote to Holly via pm and asked her about how the prayer to HM thing came about. She said that she thought of it during Janice’s comments when Janice stressed how we still weren’t supposed to do it, leaned over and asked Joanna B if it was OK with her, and then announced it when she got up again after both Joanna and Margaret had talked. She didn’t even think of it until well into the session. So anyone who thinks they heard her mention it at the beginning of the session is misremembering or self-deceived.
So YOU go check the recording of the session, and then admit you are wrong.
Kaimi is right: if two-thirds of the audience stayed, that’s a strong indication of approval. And everyone I talked to about it said they wished they’d gone. Plus a few of my friends had to leave right when the session ended because they’d made dinner plans. Leaving didn’t mean they disapproved at all of anything that happened.
Bishop Rick: “If I had known for sure what was going to happen in the prayer circle, I would have stayed. I wasn’t willing to take the chance of being put on the spot. I wish that part had been made clearer.”
Like I said, they announced that it would be like a quaker prayer meeting. You could have asked someone what that was, if you didn’t know.
You might not like her tactics, but the thing is, she’s the one who came up with the idea for the panel and the one who thought of the prayer. Lots of people are happy with her results and don’t mind the tactics or even admire them. So if you know you hate her stuff so much, you can always do that thing people recommend non-believers do with Mormonism and just ignore it or stay away.
My deleted comment applies here. Sorry, Jeff for blaming you for that.
I do agree, if you do not like Holly, do not go to Sunstone. She is heavily involved in making it the cesspool it has become. What a great way to ignore her.
Bring it on, Pal. Just make sense.”
Sure, because agreeing with you that Sunstone isn’t mainstream stretches logic to its breaking point.
“I do agree, if you do not like Holly, do not go to Sunstone. She is heavily involved in making it the cesspool it has become. What a great way to ignore her.”
That explains why Chris can’t leave Sunstone’s facebook page alone: too busy ignoring the cesspool
Yes, we know who I really am. Who the hell are you?
I am a friend and subscriber of Sunstone…the magazine. I should have made that distinction. Stephen Carter is the man.
Chris H. writes:
“if you do not like Holly, do not go to Sunstone. She is heavily involved in making it the cesspool it has become. What a great way to ignore her.”
This is a bizarre comment, even by Chris H. standards.
It’s true that Holly is quite involved in the conference. This year especially, with the conference in Ogden, it was a scramble. Holly ended up participating in 8 panels, most of them as a moderator.
There were 80 sessions at Sunstone. Even if you hate Holly Welker, and can’t stand to be in the same room with her, there were still over 70 panels with no Holly involvement whatsoever. You can attend an array of talks by Jared Anderson, John Hamer, Lisa Butterworth, Mike Quinn, Todd Compton, and Kris Haglund, and never once so much as end up in the same room as Holly.
In fact, let me go further. If you really strongly dislike Holly and want to combat her insidious influence in the area of Mormon studies, then you should absolutely, absolutely register for Sunstone — and then you should VOLUNTEER TO CHAIR A PANEL. Or three. Or five.
Remember, every panel that YOU chair is a panel that can’t be chaired by (boo! hiss! throw popcorn!) Holly.
Mary Ellen is always beating the bushes to find panel moderators. The only way to end Holly Welker’s reign of terror is for YOU to step up.
Put up or shut up.
I’ll look for you all, next Sunstone.
(Note: This comment is made in my individual capacity, and is not an official statement from Sunstone.)
Kaimi, you being there is not encouraging for me either.
Are we getting edgy now? Now that it has become a war of guests?
“Sure, because agreeing with you that Sunstone isn’t mainstream stretches logic to its breaking point.”
How so? How many people attended Sunstone? A 100? a few hundred?
Versus 20,000 at Education week? Now, that’s mainstream, baby.
Nope, are still apologist Boyd K Packer lovers.
fwiw, you can take my name off the list, Kaimi. Count me as one of those who thinks the Sunstone symposium has jumped the shark.
Now that’s an interesting comment!
*grabs popcorn*
This was my first Sunstone.
It was also my first Holly experience.
I was not impressed with Holly in that one session.
Apparently this means:
I didn’t pay attention.
I can’t leave Sunstone alone.
I’m a mainstream Mormon, edgy wannabe.
I have to moderate a panal or shut up.
I should ignore all things Holly and/or Sunstone.
I have a better idea. Why don’t YOU ignore my comments since they anger you so much.
I enjoyed Sunstone and plan on attending next year if possible.
Not that my opinion matters all that much, but I continue to think it is a shame that Holly is still associated with Sunstone. I like the idea of it and I don’t like the behavior of her. But we can’t have everything, can we?
Bishop Rick,
I’m glad that you enjoyed it. I don’t see any reason to believe that you didn’t pay attention, or that you can’t leave Sunstone alone. I’m glad that you’re planning on attending next year, and I do hope that, if it’s something that interests you, you’ll volunteer to moderate a panel.
And it’s okay to be an Edje wannabe. We all are.
I’m looking forward to the Outer Blogness panel and crew to restore some much-needed balance to the Sunstone universe in 2012. Apparently, that process is already under way as fringier elements, like the Dialogue crowd, decide to stay home.
Chino: it is all yours. Though…I may go to punch Kaimi in the face. After all, the integrity of the U of U must be protected.
(Hey, Chino, I have been missing you)
Hey Chris,
You know, your little quirks aside, you’re still always welcome to guest blog at MSP. I was glad to see you recently defending your lone post there against our latest drive-by loony.
Seriously, though, I was chatting with Chanson yesterday, and we’re both gonna be in the area around the Sunstone timeframe, so why not bring our exmo spectacular to the people?
Kaimi: Holly’s actions color all the panels — they’re beyond the pale. And by extension, they color all the people who presented. I’ve worked hard on my reputation and don’t appreciate that my panel is being colored (in the eyes of people I love and admire) by her outrageous behavior. Sunstone may not be mainstream, but people like me — believing latter-day saints who color outside the box — used to be the audience. Now, well, it’s a “safe” place for outrageous, patently offensive behavior.
I’m just surprised by the reaction, as if Holly personally sat on each panel and threw crayons at each presenter. It seems to be taking on a life of its own, and overshadowing the fact that this year’s Sunstone was incredibly tame.
Take a look at the plenary speakers: Ardis Parshall. Colleen McDannell. Apostle Luffman from the CoC. That kid from Claremont who talks about Mormonism and the cross. Mike Quinn (okay, a little edgy there, but he’s been at every Sunstone since the dawn of time). Seriously, who’s not to like?
I missed the humor panel because I was (cough) writing my talks for the next day, but it had rabble-rousers like Jana Reiss. Oh noes! And yes, it also had Holly — and she was showing goofy slides of lolcats.
And as for the break-out sessions — well, I sat in a (very good) break-out session where Emily Clyde Curtis and Elizabeth Pinborough talked about the cross-stitches that their grandmothers made. It doesn’t get much more safe and Mormon than that, does it?
Yes, Kaimi, you have no idea where we are coming from. That may be because you do not remember what it is like to be a believing Mormon who colors outside the box.
I’ve chewed this post over for days now and the best response I’ve got is this: If you weren’t there to witness the prayers and sharing that happened in an empty room AFTER the panel session.
If the panel was over and Sunstone was over, why is this a problem? Why are so many of you offended? Ms. Welker gave everyone an opportunity to participate-or not.
Is it blasphemous to say a prayer to heavenly father and mother? To Heavenly Parents? I’m a convert so I don’t know all of the rules, but that’s what I heard and I wasn’t offended or uncomfortable with anything anyone said.
Also,
IIRC, Holly didn’t announce the prayer at the beginning of the session. It was more in the middle/end. But my memories often fail me and it’s possible I’m wrong. That’s why I’m anxiously awaiting Mary Ellen’s call for the actual time.
I wish some on this thread could remember that Holly Welker is a human with real feelings and it’s unkind to have public discussions and make unkind observations about her (someone that many of us know personally. She might even be your neighbor if you live in the SLC metro area) without her being around to defend herself.
Holly’s caring for her aging father in another state right now, and I’m sure this “let’s bash Holly” thread isn’t doing a whole lot to lessen her burdens.
dangabit! I deleted the last part of my sentence.
If you weren’t there to witness the prayers and sharing that happened in an empty room AFTER the panel session, you can’t speak to it.
“That may be because you do not remember what it is like to be a believing Mormon who colors outside the box.”
Chris, Would you say that to me when I’m experiencing a period of doubt?
Probably.
Chris,
As I wrote on your FB thread before it was deleted, I think that you’re an intelligent person who often has interesting things to say. I also think that you have an unfortunate tendency to personalize the discussion and make rude and dismissive comments towards those with whom you disagree. And it’s particularly ironic that in this case, you’re making these comments in a thread discussion about whether Holly Welker is too rude and dismissive.
The record of my comments and yours on this thread is very clear. Let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds.
Wait….you believe in God now?
I do not mind Holly being rude or her use of the f-bomb. I proudly do both. Again, you wouldn’t understand.
I have been a meany enough on this thread. After, Holly is a human being. If only I had known that before!
Uh, I guess I’m a little late to this conversation between Justin and Bishop Rick about polyandry and reproductive success, but when I looked at scholar.google.com (which I did not know about, thanks Justin for bringing that to my attention), I saw the insect study that Rick mentioned, but I also saw other scientific abstracts not for insects, such as this one:
This abstract applies to viviparous females, which I assume would also include female humans. It also seems to confirm what Justin has been saying about reproductive success being linked to polyandry.
Btw, I used as my search term: “polyandry reproductive success women”
Here is another abstract from the same scientists. This is the first abstract and the one I wrote above is the second. The above abstract is titled, “The evolution of polyandry II: post-copulatory defenses against genetic incompatibility.” The following abstract is titled, “The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility.” I got it from this page.
You can also read the introduction to their paper on that page. What I found particularly interesting in that introduction, was the mention of “the growing molecular evidence that multiple paternity, and hence polyandry, is widespread in nature.” They mention cases in which “females appear to mate multiply as a deliberate strategy for acquiring sperm from several males.” Much of the research cited is from the 1990’s onward.
Here is yet another abstract, entitled, “Toward a New Sexual Selection Paradigm: Polyandry, Conflict and Incompatibility.”
Based upon the various abstracts that I’m coming across, I am now of the opinion that Bishop Rick got it wrong. Abstracts on insects is not all the evidence there is.
WHAT
A
TWIST!
LDSA — you’re a good man with more patience than me. I gave up on Mr. Secret Sex at Night and his cricket demolishment theory three days ago.
Because he found cricket research doesn’t mean researchers have only looked into crickets. Lol.
But what did I expect from someone who thought a good google.com search would yield the same results as a scholar.google.com search.
Andrew:
Like any good M. Night Shyamalan movie — you thought the village was full of crickets…
…only to find out that it is actually a multihusband-multiwife tribal anarchy.
And Bruce Willis is actually dead!!
Coming back to this thread I was wondering if we had finally descended into sock puppets, but I realize it is now just all crickets.
Edgy or noodgy, Who’s to say.
I’m sure this thread is dead by now, but I came across a particularly interesting paper, part of which was titled, “Empathy, Polyandry, and the Myth of the Coy Female” and I thought I’d share. Here it is as a PDF.
I am really dissappointed that I did not get more “thumbs-down” on this thread. I will try harder next time.
I didn’t type that without vowels. Very funny.
I tried to contact Mormon Heretic, but I have not success. Would W&T please erase my comments on this thread? Please.
I don’t know who disemvoweled you there, and I am disappointed in whoever did that.
We have decided not to erase your comments in this thread. If you come to regret making certain comments, then our advice is to think more carefully *before* commenting.
Andrew,
My job is being threatened on a certain other blog because I have challenged Holly and Kaimi. Maybe I deserve it. I am asking for the opportunity to repent. I realize that I have plenty of enemies on this blog, but I am begging. Please.
So, because you have a problem on *another* blog, you want W&T to resolve it here? I don’t think we have the power to placate your enemies elsewhere. And for whatever you say — that you “plenty of enemies on this blog” — NONE of our team is making personal threats as far as I know.
…But the permas will certainly reconsider.
Chris — people are threatening your job? What blog? Where, how?
That is significant.
stephen, check your email.
Thanks, I found http://latterdaymainstreet.com/2011/08/21/sunstone-2012-preview/#comments fascinating. Potential stalking, extortion, slander and all the rest wrapped up in a perfect demonstration.
Ouch is all I can say. Wish I’d seen the redacted posts.
I think most of the comments in question were on this post. I am trying to let this go.