User talk:Matthewfaulconer

Leave comments for Matthew Faulconer here.

For the archived version of this page prior to May 6, 2006 click here.

on agency and the Lord's hand in all things

I think this is a great issue to explore and look forward to seeing you work this out. I believe Rom 8:28 might be related also. I like to think of this verse implying that God takes our sins and turns them for our good in the sense of helping us learn from our mistakes (and possibly even having more compassion for others). I think this view can also be supported by Ether 12:27 where God uses our weakness for our own good. (This also relates to the problem of evil: perhaps God allows evil b/c the existence of evil actually increases/strengthens the good in the world.) --RobertC 11:56, 17 Jun 2006 (UTC)

Vacation

Just wanted to let people know I've been on vacation this week and will be on vacation through the beginning of August. I have little access to the internet through the end of the month. I'm looking forward to catching up on everything when I get back. --Matthew Faulconer 12:54, 21 Jul 2006 (UTC)

projects only half complete

There are so many projects lately that I have started but not finished. If anyone is looking for anything in particular please let me know. I'm not sure how much time I'm going to have right away to work on stuff through the rest of my vacation this week. Still I would love suggestions. --Matthew Faulconer 04:57, 2 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm happy to follow other projects, I'm probably going to be picking Joe's brain on Isaiah. I think he has a lot to offer on the subject and that's a book I feel I really need help with.... --RobertC 15:28, 2 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Isaiah has a lot to offer. I don't know how much I can say for Joe. But I might also call your attention to Isaiah, Matthew. I actually began the work on the commentary there in response (even if indirectly) to your question on the tongue of angels. At a few points in what I've posted on Isaiah 6, I've made links back to 2 Nephi 31-32, and once I'm finished working through that chapter, I'd like to move on to those two chapters to redirect them to Isaiah 6. I'd be interested in some community work on the latter portions of 1 Corinthians 15, but that may be too much to do on the side of Isaiah.

You'll notice I'm doing some work on D&C 84 and 107 as well. I'm actually finding (I had supposed it would be the case, but for sheer traditional conservatism had not yet approached doing it) that doing my own scripture study right on the site is a helpful project. I had, until this week, kept my work on the site separate from my personal study, making it a research project rather than my study itself. I've decided to keep up my research projects separate from my studies, but to work out my own daily studies right on the site as well. I find that I do much better work in my study when I do it on the site. So, while I would appreciate responses to my work in the D&C, I'm not begging for it. --Joe Spencer 18:37, 2 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I'm also using the fact that the Sunday School schedule will be getting to Isaiah in the near future (6 weeks, mid-September sometime, I think) as an extra incentive. If we get some good work done on Isaiah before then, it'd be a nice time to make another little advertising push for the site (if nothing else, I'll post links from Jim's T&S SS Lesson pages...).

After that, I may be interested in starting to work somewhere in the New Testament, 1 Cor 15 sounds interesting, or continuing the work we started in Hebrews with Nate, or I think Romans would be very interesting (esp. if Jim gets his next installment done by then, any word? also, what's the status of the linguistic notes from Kevin Barney et al?). --RobertC 19:28, 2 Aug 2006 (UTC)

One reason I have been a bit more interested in writing on the Book of Mormon than the Bible is just that it seems like there is so much already out there about the Bible (both offline and online); the Book of Mormon is a comparatively unexplored landscape. In terms of Isaiah...it is so hard! And, 2 Ne 25:4 is a bit humbling: "[the words of Isaiah] are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy." Also, more than most scriptures, Isaiah seems to require a good understanding of the historical context. But anyway, because I find Isaiah so intimidating it probably would be good for me to make an effort and dive in--especially since if I do it now I get the advantage of being able to ask questions to both of you who are working on it. I'll think about it.

On Kevin Barney's piece, I was just writing him an e-mail now. He wrote me while I was on vacation. We have had a terrible time trying to get the files pdf'ed because they use some legacy Greek fonts. I'm still working on that. He suggested maybe printing and then scanning. I assumed that if that happened the pdf's would be huge graphic files. Do you (or anyone?) know anything about this?

--Matthew Faulconer 04:32, 3 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I was able to successfully use Adobe Acrobat's printer driver to convert to pdf the Romans Word document located here. Is this helpful or is the problem deeper (after all, there's already a Romans pdf available there; my converted file, however, was much smaller for some reason and seemed to retain the same quality— 276 KB vs. 664 KB). Feel free to email me a file to try converting (or this is a site I've used successfully for sending large files as a zipped folder, just right click in Windows XP to create a zipped folder...). --RobertC 09:17, 3 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I'm going to e-mail you on this one. --Matthew Faulconer 05:03, 4 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Too much technicality! Isaiah, and now this! Matthew, let us work on the Book of Mormon as well! I agree that the Book of Mormon is a world of unaccomplished study (I believe the same is true of all uniquely LDS scripture). Where would you like to go? (Of course I'll continue my work on Isaiah 6, since I'm doing it in the name of questions concerning 2 Nephi.) --Joe Spencer 19:20, 3 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I'd really like to work through an entire Book of Mormon book. I was thinking of Moroni as a good place to start. But I had already suggested at one point we work on Abraham. Maybe we should go back there. It isn't the Book of Mormon but, as you point out, all uniquely LDS scripture is similarly a world of unaccomplished study. I am also open to going wherever--including the D&C. I'd be happy to concentrate on D&C 84 if you are interested in spending more time there. Finally, Isaiah really would probably be good for me despite my concerns. You choose. Of course when we do work on something together I end up contributing a lot less. My appologies in advance. I think I am 1) spending less time then you are and 2) am also just slower at the process of reading/writer. --Matthew Faulconer 05:03, 4 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I'm easy. I've been away from Abraham long enough that it would be interesting to get back into that discussion. Robert is suggesting D&C 93. Moroni would be wonderful. Isaiah is underway. If I had to choose, I think I would say D&C 93, second choice Abraham. --Joe Spencer 15:38, 4 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought. Let's do Abraham--perhaps especially the facsimiles now that they are available. D&C 93 second choice. --Joe Spencer 16:59, 4 Aug 2006 (UTC)

OK. sounds great. --Matthew Faulconer 23:27, 5 Aug 2006 (UTC)

help test pdf

Please take a look at the following pdf file and see if it works okay on your computer? I realize there is a "unregistered copy" mark on it. If it works okay for everyone I will purchase the program and then I can convert the word docs to pdf without the mark. Please especially take a look at the charachters in other languages. I think in this doc that may only be Greek. Look for example in the footnotes on page 4. link

--Matthew Faulconer 14:21, 22 Aug 2006 (UTC) PS I wonder if there is a better way to link to an uploaded pdf file?

It looks great here (with the water mark, as you mention, but the Greek shows up fantastically). --Joe Spencer 14:51, 22 Aug 2006 (UTC)

It works for me too, although: (1) I get a "blocked pop-up" mark on the image link on this page (something from Internet Explorer or my Google toolbar I think), (2) the pdf file is an image as opposed to readable text (so I can't highlight sentences and add annotations with Adobe Acrobat). I'm guessing you're having Kevin or someone with a mac use the print-driver. If you have some other way to get the files to open in Word on in Windows XP, let me know and I'm happy to use my Adobe Acrobat print driver to convert the Word files to pdf (it'd be worth the effort to me so the files would be rendered as text instead of an image, though I'm guessing this isn't an option). --RobertC 00:36, 23 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Joe and Robert for taking a look. Robert 1) I think the pop-up thing will go away if I purchase the program. 2) I haven't had success though I have tried multiple approaches on different PCs to pdf as text. Every time the Greek and Hebrew fonts come through as "CCCCC" It has to do with a setting on the font file. If you think you can get it to work, that would be great. I hold off purchasing the program that did this for a couple of days. The reason that this program works where other pdf programs don't is because it uses an image rather than fonts and letters. Finally, I'm not sure about the mac thing. It may work on a mac but I haven't heard back. --Matthew Faulconer 04:41, 24 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I can't even replicate what you did—even using the printer-driver program you did, I get garbage from the 2 Peter Word document.... --RobertC 14:29, 24 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Other stuff

Jim's scripture study book

Matthew, I wanted to read the article by your dad "Tools for Scripture Study. Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1999. 156 pages." I thought I saw a link on it somewhere here but now I can't find it. Can you point me to it? Thanks!--Nanette 19:11, 29 Jan 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware that this is online anywhere. I sent him an e-mail to ask though. --Matthew Faulconer 09:38, 30 January 2007 (CET)

Here is a link to BYU Bookstore where you can order it. Also, I noticed it's cited in this interesting article of Jim's called "Real Intent" available at the FARMS website (if you browse around there you'll find many other very interesting articles and useful info for LDS scripture study by the Maxwell Institute which is the new umbrella organization for FARMS). --RobertC 19:48, 30 January 2007 (CET)

I went to FARMS yesterday to find Jim's book but couldn't. Found other works by Jim, but not the one I was looking for. I'll try the bookstore. Thanks. --Nanette 06:31, 31 January 2007 (CET)

O.k. You're gonna laugh...I followed the link Robert set up for me & saw the photo of the book cover, then walked over to my studio bookshelf & pulled down the book.  : ) A dear friend had loaned it to me...embarrassed to say...about 2 years ago. Looking at my page fold-down, I've read to page 53. This is what happens when you read more than one book at a time...like me, who reads about 20 at a time...and have 5 kids. Thanks, my day needed some humor at the end. --Nanette 06:36, 31 January 2007 (CET)

Who can post?

Are the posts on this blog, the ones like your dad's lesson questions, The State of the Blog, etc. only to be done by select individuals or are posts like this available for anyone to create? It appears to me that most commentary goes to these sites vs. the individual user discussion pages. I'm wondering who is "qualified" to make these posts.--Nanette 18:29, 30 January 2007 (CET)

I'll let Matthew speak more definitively on this when/if he gets a chance, but here's my take: One nice feature of a wiki over a blog is that anyone can contribute, and yet it's more public and more organized than a listserv or discussion board. Ideally, I think we'd like to see more discussion on the wiki b/c it's that much closer to the scriptures and it's easier to edit the discussions in a way that improves the content of what subsequent readers see. However, blogs are more popular and easier to use, so we decided to start the blog with this bit of ambivalence.

Most of the "permabloggers" (those who have permission to write a new blog post) were simply chosen by extending an invitation to anyone on the wiki who was interested to let us know, and I also posted an open invitation on one of Jim F.'s SS lessons. On the one hand, we're happy to bring on more permabloggers to generate more discussion and interest at the blog. On the other hand, most of us still feel the wiki is a better forum than the blog in the long run, and we'd like to push more discussion (esp. the scripture-focused discussion) to the wiki rather than the blog (although I think we're quite happy to leave meta-discussion, such as how to teach better, how to study better, etc., at the blog).

That said, you've more than proven yourself as a very capable and interesting contributor. If there's ever a post you would like to make at the blog, just let me or Matthew know (you should have my email). You're welcome to either just send a post as, say, a Word document, or we can get you an account on the blog so you can post directly whenever you'd like. (I'm planning to improve the "about" page at the blog soliciting guest posts and explaining a bit more about the blog vs. the wiki). --RobertC 20:01, 30 January 2007 (CET)

I'm not really sure where to write this...here, my discussion page, Robert's? I appreciate you entertaining my question; you answered it completely. So, there are "permabloggers" who shoulder the bulk of the "moderating" on the blog. Understood. But you'd like "us" to go to the wiki, specific to the scriptures we're addressing, and post our commentary there? Did I understand you correctly on MY discussion page that you'd like the "beatitudes graphic" I posted on my user page to be in the wiki...I'm still trying to separate the blog from the wiki in my mind. What is this I'm writing on...the wiki? As I mentioned somewhere in the blog, I feel uncomfortable altering the wiki scripture exegesis because it takes on an inappropriate air of authority, in my opinion. Maybe if someone tests the water with some hairbrained contribution & isn't struck by lightening or ex-communicated I'd be more apt to venture in...but it's not something everyone watches & then expells the anxious breath they've been holding. Plus, if I were to see some other sucker post something dumb, I'd be all that more cautious not to make the same mistake. I don't really know how to overcome this hurdle but I understand your goal with the wiki.

I'll take you up on your offer to allow me to post via an account on the blog. I'd like to post something soon since I must teach Matt.5 in a week and I could use the input--for years I've been considering that stuff represented in the beatitudes graphic & crave some fresh thoughts on it, especially before I present it to the class (if I choose to do that). You have my e-mail.--Nanette 06:29, 31 January 2007 (CET)

Hi Nanette, sorry I haven't responded sooner. Things are sort of busy at work. I don't have tiem to respond to everything but, yes, it would be great if you could post something on the blog. I'll send instructions to your e-mail. --Matthew Faulconer 08:34, 31 January 2007 (CET)

Nanette, thanks for summarizing what I said about the blog and wiki in a way that makes explicit the us vs. them encounter. Not sure what to do about it, but something for us to think about more. In the blogosphere I think this is less of an issue simply b/c it is this way for everyone--that is, every blog is exclusionary, so it's an egalitarian type of exclusion. When we try to integrate with the wiki it's like we're disrupting this equilibrium of egalitarianism, even though a primary motivation is to establish more egalitarianism in the sense that anyone can contribute (unlike a blog). Sorry to get so wordy here, my wordiness should be taken as a confirmation of my sincere thanks.... --RobertC 16:38, 31 January 2007 (CET)

Matthew, I hope my post is acceptable. I seem to have made the type font too small by copying it from Word. I guess this is the reason. Feel free to adjust it for better reading, if you know how & so desire.--[User:NanetteUser] 01:43, 6 February 2007 (CET)