There is no one better than you to mind the busness between Will and God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

We're offering Will the opportunity to utilize the repentence process of the Atonement, Wade. This is his opportunity to acknowledge that he sinned, that he offended, beg forgiveness, make restitution, and promise to not do it again.

If he does not repent, his eternal soul is in jeopardy; God will not be mocked. We hope, for his sake, that he takes this opportunity and avails himself of the forgiveness of those he has offended.

Who to believe, Will or Harmony.

She who believes virtually nothing regarding the core truth claims of the Church, and pooh poohs the authority and veracity of its leaders, but manages to receive and hold Temple recommends on a continual basis, has moral or intellectual credibility?

Methinks nay.

Yes, Jersey.

I am sure God appreciate you making this your business and for being so even-handed in your demands for repentence around here. After all, you have set the foremost example of repentence and seeking forgiveness as well as posting in a way that doesn't engender the least offence.. So, who better?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, Droopy, it really doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what God knows.

No, however, moral or intellectual credibility. We will never know the answer to this because the evidence, such as it was, apparently does not now exist, and because the source of the claim cannot possibly be trusted as a credible source of such a claim about another individual.

Move along...

The problem is your utter lack of moral credibility based upon self admitted aspects of your own relationship to the Church and your longstanding stated beliefs and sentiments about it here.

The last thing you can be taken seriously on are claims of this kind about someone else for which no documentary evidence exists.

Let me here level a shameless attack on the baseless attacks of MsJack and the shameless Red Kevin Graham on Will, who's scholarly contributions to BofA apologetics, up to this point, have led to baseless attacks by shameless people (some doubtless wearing little black dresses, while others here would no doubt opt for the classic Che Guavera T-shirt or "Free Mumia" baseball cap) on his character in shameless and baseless ways that would shame anyone who wasn't shameless and equally shame anyone who wasn't baseless.

These baseless attacks are all, of course, a great diversionary exercise in both character assassination (the forte of the Trailerpark) and - what is the primary shameless point of such baseless attacks - the shameless and baseless attempt to shamelessly divert attention from the baseless attempts by the shameless long haired dope smoking, maggot infested, commie-pinko, FM type, NPR voiced, Birkenstock wearing, roach clip kissing, little black dress wearing intellectual hacks, poseurs, and shameless anti-Mormon bigots that inhabit this board and who have been so flummoxed, folded, spindled, and mutilated by Will's efforts in defending and testifying (the real bothersome aspect, I have little doubt) of the authenticity of the BofA, that the absence of intellectual substance left to them by their own shameless lack of knowledge and serious, intellectually honest study of the BofA and the questions surrounding it, have left them no recourse but baseless ad hominem slander, to blacken Will's character and baselessly impugn him as a person in public.

As I told her in that PM, if indeed the photo she posted of herself in a black dress was the same black dress she wore to the Exmormon Foundation 2006 Conference, then I have, all along, been mistaking her for someone else. The exceedingly inebriated woman I observed at the Exmo conference was most definitely not attired in the rather modest dress that KA modeled in the photo she posted.

The problem is your utter lack of moral credibility based upon self admitted aspects of your own relationship to the Church and your longstanding stated beliefs and sentiments about it here.

Loran, Wade and Belmont,

With regards to the OP, I have this to say to all three of you.

Stand for something... besides your "side".

JG

I stand for the provision of some degree of evidence of Will's alleged misogyny beyond what Will has described adequately as PG rated digs at various woman now and then over time, and that the c^%t term was ever actually used (Will has flatly denied it).

I'm not saying that some of what Will has said here is not inappropriate. However, the great, swelling tsunamis of righteous feminist indignation at sundry lapses of propriety when dealing with certain woman he does not like (and there are some woman here, as men, that make it very, very easy not to like them) are, given the evidence provided, way overwrought and clearly strained as to their depth and overall importance as aspects of Will's character, and all of this is done, without any doubt, to cast doubt on Will's character with the ultimate objective of avoiding engagement with his apologetic work and winning an overall argument, or set of arguments with him, by default.

Let's just be up front with that, shall we?

I stand for the provision of some degree of evidence of Will's alleged misogyny beyond what Will has described adequately as PG rated digs at various woman now and then over time, and that the c^%t term was ever actually used (Will has flatly denied it).

Please... one more time: continue to procrastinate your repentence, Will. The Atonement doesn't work, if you don't follow the entire process. . . If he does not repent, his eternal soul is in jeopardy; God will not be mocked.

Nothing encourages respectful treatment of others like a lynch mob full of hypocrits.

No matter how he riles anyone, he is still our brother.

So, who is going to make a list of the good things Schryver has said?

Who to believe, Will or Harmony[?]

Let's go back, what, 5, 8, 10 years. All the way back to ZLMB. You've been quite clear about at least two things that long ago caught my attention and the attention of others.

The first is that you continue to hold and renew Temple recommends, and apparently attend the Temple at least now and then.

The second is that you do not accept or support, and have long been highly critical of, virtually every core doctrine, truth claim, program/policy of the LDS Church.

You have been bitterly critical and fierce in your berating of virtually all general authorities of the Church, on intellectual, psychological, and ethical grounds, but with particular venom aimed at specific individuals.

Third, the above two states of affairs do not harmonize well with each other, and indeed, would seem to be utterly incongruous unless a hypothesis is considered, which hypothesis is that the answers you give to the questions asked of you during the Temple recommend interviews are not the same answers you would give if you were to answer them here, or answer them to others without authority to withhold the recommend and who you could reasonably be certain would not pass those answers along to those who may transfer those sentiments to your ecclesiastical authorities.

I stand for the provision of some degree of evidence of Will's alleged misogyny beyond what Will has described adequately as PG rated digs at various woman now and then over time, and that the c^%t term was ever actually used (Will has flatly denied it).

The point is, you have no ethical credibility. See above.

The point is, you have no ethical credibility. See above.

With all due respect, I think you're missing a key piece of the puzzle, harmony: Will believes that his calling and election have been made sure (apparently he doesn't realize that this requires a special ritual in the upper-room of the temple and a special invitation to participate therein), so he simultaneously believes himself to be exempt from the normal rules of repentance that the rest of us have to follow. In other words, he believes that he has a golden ticket from God to do and say whatever he wants.

Yes, Jersey.