View Full Version : BYU delying final call on Jones until after sunday?
Sword_Of_Truth
28th September 2006, 02:17 AM
This weekend marks the semi-annual Latter-Day Saint General Conference. Twice yearly, church leaders conduct a series of global satellite broadcasts wich are carried to every LDS meeting house in the world. Five two hour broadcasts over two days are conducted ending early sunday evenings (in this hemisphere).
With BYU being relatively silent on the Jones situation since his suspension 3 weeks ago, one must wonder if they've been delaying final judgement on Jones so as to spare the church the hassle of having the Jones controversy overshadow the regularly scheduled conference?
This is all speculation of course, but my gut says we'll hear final word on Jones soon.
Brainache
28th September 2006, 06:29 AM
Is it really such a big deal that it would make the Mormon news? I mean it's just one crackpot at one university isn't it? Or is he a big name in Mormon circles?
Sword_Of_Truth
28th September 2006, 11:58 AM
Every 6 months at conference time, these (http://www.fairlds.org/graphics/alw38.jpg) idiots (http://www.fairlds.org/graphics/alw31.jpg) always show up to raise hell on the sidewalk outside Temple Square or the conference center.
My guess is, if there's some way the church can avoid having them joined by these idiots (http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesofperfection/241080027/in/set-72157594280280187/), and all it takes is to have BYU delay a decision for a couple weeks, they'll do it.
If you get two loud and obnoxious protest groups in the same place at the same time, that's asking for trouble. Even if thier agendas are not opposite of each other.
Josh Redstone
28th September 2006, 12:10 PM
I'm afraid I don't follow, is professor Jones a member of the Mormon church?
Sword_Of_Truth
28th September 2006, 12:22 PM
Yes he is. BYU is also owned by the church. Three days before Jones was suspended, President Bush met with the leaders of the church during a swing through Salt Lake City. This of course set the CT tounges a waggin effectively accusing the leaders of the mormon church of aiding the Bush administration in its cover up.
greyleonard
28th September 2006, 12:30 PM
The Bloggernacle Times (http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=409) is a good place to check on commentary from just outside of the inside of BYU.
DavidJames
28th September 2006, 12:30 PM
This of course set the CT tounges a waggin effectively accusing the leaders of the mormon church of aiding the Bush administration in its cover up.Anyone else think it's a mere coincidence that NWO* is one letter away from MWO**, I report, you decide.
*New World Order
**Mormon World Order.
Josh Redstone
28th September 2006, 12:33 PM
Ah, I see.
So, just so I'm absolutely clear, his suspension is due to his paper about thermite being used to demolish the towers and his other conspiracy stuff, right?
Donal
28th September 2006, 12:42 PM
Jones seems to have had a history of being on the edge of what is acceptable for his position. He was also loosely associated with that cold fusion fiasco a while back, but ducked any real punishment.
His latest actions maybe be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Sword_Of_Truth
28th September 2006, 12:44 PM
Ah, I see.
So, just so I'm absolutely clear, his suspension is due to his paper about thermite being used to demolish the towers and his other conspiracy stuff, right?
I think it had more to do with Jones going on the radio and directly accusing Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle of planning and orchestrating 9-11.
And no professor at any school does that with the complete and utter lack of evidence that Jones has.
If he had just stuck to the discussing his theory and avoided the politics, he might be in the classroom right now instead of sitting at home watching "The View".
Sword_Of_Truth
28th September 2006, 01:01 PM
Jones seems to have had a history of being on the edge of what is acceptable for his position. He was also loosely associated with that cold fusion fiasco a while back, but ducked any real punishment.
His latest actions maybe be the straw that broke the camel's back.
No, scientists need to have the freedom to come up with hypothesies that are wrong. Coming up with new ideas and testing them till they break is how science is done.
Accusing people without evidence of committing capital crimes is a no-no.
Christophera
28th September 2006, 01:12 PM
No, scientists need to have the freedom to come up with hypothesies that are wrong. Coming up with new ideas and testing them till they break is how science is done.
Accusing people without evidence of committing capital crimes is a no-no.
Is supporting lies that conceal capitol crimes a no-no?
greyleonard
28th September 2006, 01:21 PM
Is supporting lies that conceal capitol crimes a no-no?
Yes, so stop doing it.
T.A.M.
28th September 2006, 01:43 PM
Is supporting lies that conceal capitol crimes a no-no?
If you know they are lies and you support them, yes.
TK0001
28th September 2006, 01:53 PM
Is supporting lies that conceal capitol crimes a no-no?
My prediction for this thread:
87 pages, minimum.
Sword_Of_Truth
28th September 2006, 02:06 PM
My prediction for this thread:
87 pages, minimum.
That will have absolutely nothing to do with the original topic. :p
Donal
28th September 2006, 02:17 PM
No, scientists need to have the freedom to come up with hypothesies that are wrong. Coming up with new ideas and testing them till they break is how science is done.
The way I understand it, they didn't just have a hypothosis that was wrong, they tried to push it as right with fake results.
Accusing people without evidence of committing capital crimes is a no-no.
Ya, libel and slander can get one into trouble.
Bell
28th September 2006, 04:45 PM
That will have absolutely nothing to do with the original topic. :p
If not, then please explaine this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) ?
Crazy Chainsaw
28th September 2006, 07:15 PM
The way I understand it, they didn't just have a hypothosis that was wrong, they tried to push it as right with fake results.
Ya, libel and slander can get one into trouble.
Especially when you are a Mormon, libeling another Mormon.
Sword_Of_Truth
28th September 2006, 07:46 PM
Especially when you are a Mormon, libeling another Mormon.
You mean the way that Jones refused to say anything in defense of Dr. A. Woodruff Miller and Dr. Allan Firmage of the BYU faculty of engineering when his buddy James Fetzer said that "all engineers are going to hell"?
Or is there something else you are referring to?
Crazy Chainsaw
29th September 2006, 08:26 AM
You mean the way that Jones refused to say anything in defense of Dr. A. Woodruff Miller and Dr. Allan Firmage of the BYU faculty of engineering when his buddy James Fetzer said that "all engineers are going to hell"?
Or is there something else you are referring to?
No I mean the way he criticize another predominate Mormon, one of the first to work on the World Trade Center engineering problems.
I promised not to tell who it is, but lets just say everyone here has heard of him.
Zygar
5th October 2006, 01:43 PM
Not to break up your conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theorist, but I am pretty sure the reason has little or nothing to do with publicity.
The LDS General Conference features leaders of the LDS church giving rather long speeches. Because BYU is owned by the church, they are also the people who will be making decisions regarding Jones. So in my opinion, it is simply that they want to review the situation thoroughly and didn't really have time to do so prior to General Conference due to the preparation time they need.
Not to mention the fact that the leader of the church is 96-years-old, so probably isn't in the health/mental state necessary to make too many decisions at once.
© 2001-2009, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
vBulletin® v3.7.5, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.