It is currently Mon Feb 24, 2020 5:48 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 9:32 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm
Posts: 13030
Dan, you obviously hold the behavior of your fellow loyalists to a much lower standard and you should know this. I wonder what Hoskisson and Hauglid think about your defense of Schryver. Have you tried to throw your weight around to change their minds? It isn't us you need to convince.

Everything MsJack has presented in in fact "evidence" by every definition of the term, and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge it does violence to your credibility. Especially in light of your past silliness, insisting that any "parallel" imagined by an apologist counts as valid "evidence" for the Books of Abraham/Mormon.

So Schryver doesn't abuse his wife and kids. Who the hell ever said he did? You're ignoring what he has said and done and focusing on what he hasn't said or done. Your apologetics for fellow loyalists is not much different from your apologetics of Mormon related issues.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:38 am 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 pm
Posts: 7173
MsJack wrote:
That's all that I needed to hear.

Actually, to really understand my point of view you would need to have heard somewhat more.

But that's fine.

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: More derail: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:37 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:20 pm
Posts: 1605
Location: Colorado
Kevin,

Quote:
Everything MsJack has presented in in fact "evidence" by every definition of the term, and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge it does violence to your credibility. Especially in light of your past silliness, insisting that any "parallel" imagined by an apologist counts as valid "evidence" for the Books of Abraham/Mormon.

So Schryver doesn't abuse his wife and kids. Who the hell ever said he did? You're ignoring what he has said and done and focusing on what he hasn't said or done. Your apologetics for fellow loyalists is not much different from your apologetics of Mormon related issues.


Why does this matter so much?

mikwut

_________________
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell.
-Michael Polanyi

"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:39 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7610
Location: Cassius University
I have to say that, while I'm not really all that surprised, I find Dr. Peterson's comments on this thread quite disappointing. IIRC, I said during the initial posting of MsJack's assessment of Schryver's posting career that Dr. Peterson actually seemed/seems to enjoy and like Schryver's "locker room" antics. I'm sure there is a part of DCP that really relishes the vicious and misogynist slamming of female critics of the Church. There is a part of him that is genuinely sadistic, and that enjoys trying to humiliate and emotionally wound critics, including female critics, and I think that his affection for Will is just another part of this.

All that said, I found it remarkable and telling that he decided to have a "lunch date" with Will. It seemed clear at one point that Will's prospects of publishing with the Maxwell Institute were nil, on account of his unsavory behavior, though now it appears that DCP is going to bat for him. I was told at one point that the folks at the M.I. were divided in their assessment of MsJack's posting--with some of them thinking that association w/ Will was too dangerous and others (including, as I recall, Dr. Midgley) thinking that there should be zero capitulation whatsoever to the "antis." In other words, they would rather tank the entire reputation of FARMS rather than show weakness in the face of criticism.

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:08 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7610
Location: Cassius University
wenglund wrote:

Perhaps the two cents could have been better spent buying a sense of humor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Actually, Bobby Peru, I'm laughing right now. Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha.

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Doctor Scratch wrote:
wenglund wrote:

Perhaps the two cents could have been better spent buying a sense of humor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Actually, Bobby Peru, I'm laughing right now. Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha.


Good for you. It was money well spent. If you have any change left over, perhaps you can also buy a clue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:14 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 13135
wenglund wrote:

That is one perspective. Others of us have a different perspective, and don't believe Joseph got the Book of Abraham "translation" wrong.


Sorry but the evidence is just to much on this issue. The apologetics are the weakest I have seen on any LDS issue.

Quote:
At the very least, though, I hope people now realize that there is evidence that Joseph, as well as the Church, believed the Book of Abraham translation was revelatory, while the same may not be said of the KP "translation."


We also know that Joseph's use of the Gael at a minimum was meant for translating, not that it could actually translate anything accurately. Will be interesting to see where this new information leads.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:49 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Themis wrote:
[quote="wenglund"[Sorry but the evidence is just to much on this issue. The apologetics are the weakest I have seen on any LDS issue.


That is one opinion. Again, others of us reasonably disagree.

Quote:
We also know that Joseph's use of the Gael at a minimum was meant for translating, not that it could actually translate anything accurately.


I am not sure how much can reasonably be extrapolated regarding the meaning of the KEP from at best as single instance of a comparison of a single character.

Quote:
Will be interesting to see where this new information leads.


Me, too.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 8:12 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 13135
wenglund wrote:
That is one opinion. Again, others of us reasonably disagree.


Others disagree yes, but reasonable, not at all. I understand that the spiritual/emotional experience and their interpretations each person attaches to them can create such bias that no amount of evidence will change their minds. This is why the apologists goes to such lengths and mental gymnastics to come up with some of the BS that they do.

Quote:
I am not sure how much can reasonably be extrapolated regarding the meaning of the KEP from at best as single instance of a comparison of a single character.


Problem is that his comparing is a decent match for the Gael translation and what Clayton said, so yes the evidence certainly supports it.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:59 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Themis wrote:
wenglund wrote:
That is one opinion. Again, others of us reasonably disagree.


Others disagree yes, but reasonable, not at all.


Again, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Other people reasonably disagree.

Quote:
I understand that the spiritual/emotional experience and their interpretations each person attaches to them can create such bias that no amount of evidence will change their minds. This is why the apologists goes to such lengths and mental gymnastics to come up with some of the BS that they do.


Your own personal prejudices are duly noted.

Quote:
Problem is that his comparing is a decent match for the Gael translation and what Clayton said, so yes the evidence certainly supports it.


As always, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Hopefully, you can handle differing points of view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:36 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 13135
wenglund wrote:
Again, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Other people reasonably disagree.



Not reasonably, but I can understand why you think that.

Quote:
Your own personal prejudices are duly noted.


No prejudice at all, only realization. I took quite a while to recognize my bias and to control for it.

Quote:
As always, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Hopefully, you can handle differing points of view.


Sure, that does not mean all opinions have the same wight of evidence to back them up. This became obvious upon studying the facts, which eventually resulted in changing belief to fit the facts. I know some like yourself may be to biased to make this change, and that's ok.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 10:18 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:34 am
Posts: 1387
[There were about 5 different threads off-shooting from the 'Kinderhook Bomb' thread that seemed to be pretty similar in nature. So I've merged them all into one thread.]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 10:25 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:34 am
Posts: 1387
[I've also moved the whole thread out of Celestial - seems more Terrestrial in nature]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver, burkas re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 10:57 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
Daniel Peterson wrote:
Life is good, very good, away from this place.


You can't be speaking from experience.

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:07 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
Dad of a Mormon wrote:
I'm not sure how you could have missed it, because I emphasized it twice. I'm not saying anything negative at all about Will and his relationship with his wife or daughter. I stated that twice in my original post and yet you, oblivious to the point I was making, choose to make a defense of Will as though the accusation of misconduct toward his family was an issue on the table. It isn't. Again, because you apparently didn't comprehend my point the first time, my only issue is that you seem to think that if you have had friendly interactions with someone's wife or family that this means there is no possibility of them having problems at home. That was my point, and I think I went to great lengths to make sure that my comments weren't misunderstood.

I will state it once again so that hopefully you will not make the same mistake you made the last time: I am not making any comment whatsoever about Will's relationships with his family. None. Please do not make the same mistake again.


Misdirection Man strikes again!

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:37 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Kevin Graham wrote:
Not to mention the fact that Schryver has a documented history of lying about who he is. Remember the "Provis" days? He lied about being himself then to Dan Vogel, and I suspect he was even posting as his wife a few months ago.


But then, you have a documented history of gross tendentiousness, guile, and bad faith regarding just about every piece of evidence, documentation, and the arguments of others that have ever come your way, so please excuse me while I barf.

Quote:
Seriously, it is one thing to praise someone, but it is another to have a total man-crush on someone. So far I've seen no evidence that anyone could possibly be so in love with Will in this way, except Will. Wade comes close, but wade is clearly engaged and has been engaged with various apologetics for many, many years. We all know who wade is.


And we all know who - and what - you are.

Quote:
Let's see. Nomad signs up and makes one post in Fe of 2009. He says nothing else until three months later when a Schryver debate is started. Virtually everything he has posted since that time has been related to a Schryverism of some sort. Though not an expert on any of the relaated Book of Abraham subjects, he pops in just to throw in a plug for the amazing Will Schryver. He then goes to the other forum and lies, by saying he's never seen anyone respond to Schryver's arguments. This is precisely the same tactic used by Schryver. And however he tries to mask his posting style, much of the usual Schryverisms seep through. I searched through all of Nomad's posts and even in threads that have no apparent connection to Schryver, he ends up talking about Schryver this and Schryver that. Really pathetic.


Yes Ronald McGraham, your empty, self absorbed life is rather pathetic, and I'm sure the fantasies your immersion in anti-apologetics allows you, at least here, where your intemperate, narcissistic chest thumping is taken seriously, such that you can posture and strut as being smart, is, at least for now, adequate anesthetic for the deeper issues that drive your ongoing witch hunt against the Church and anyone who dares speak in its behalf.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:46 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
There, I feel better now.

Much better...

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:54 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 14216
Droopy wrote:
There, I feel better now.

Much better...


It won't last long.

You'll need to binge and purge soon again.

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:01 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 14216
It's clear to me that DCP is quibbling over the word "misogynist". I guess one could make the argument that calling women whore and choosing to insult them by referencing their sexual appeal in conversations that had nothing to do with sexual appeal does not necessarily denote hatred of women. Maybe it just shows lack of respect for women.

Mormon apologetics is largely built on quibbling over specific words, kind of like Clinton did with "is" and "sex." Whether or not Schryver actually hates women or just has no respect for them and evaluates their worth on the basis of sexual appeal, the larger meaning of the accusation is clear. But why would DCP not avail himself of the opportunity to wiggle out on the basis of narrowly defining a word?

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:30 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 13812
Location: On the imaginary axis
beastie wrote:
It's clear to me that DCP is quibbling over the word "misogynist". I guess one could make the argument that calling women whore and choosing to insult them by referencing their sexual appeal in conversations that had nothing to do with sexual appeal does not necessarily denote hatred of women. Maybe it just shows lack of respect for women.

Mormon apologetics is largely built on quibbling over specific words, kind of like Clinton did with "is" and "sex." Whether or not Schryver actually hates women or just has no respect for them and evaluates their worth on the basis of sexual appeal, the larger meaning of the accusation is clear. But why would DCP not avail himself of the opportunity to wiggle out on the basis of narrowly defining a word?


Yup, both as to the specific point on quibbling about the application of the term 'misogyny', and the general point about LDS apologetics (and in my view a lot of other religious apologetics besides) as the acme of the art of quibble.

Basically, I don't care what kind of label is hung on Schryver's posting behavior, which did indeed include "choosing to insult [women] by referencing their sexual appeal in conversations that had nothing to do with sexual appeal ", as well as other gender-specific unpleasantness.

Whatever descriptor you use, it was not behavior that anybody I know would consider permissible for a decent adult man. Maybe DCP's acquaintances are a little more rough-hewn?

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:54 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
beastie wrote:
It's clear to me that DCP is quibbling over the word "misogynist". I guess one could make the argument that calling women whore and choosing to insult them by referencing their sexual appeal in conversations that had nothing to do with sexual appeal does not necessarily denote hatred of women. Maybe it just shows lack of respect for women.

Mormon apologetics is largely built on quibbling over specific words, kind of like Clinton did with "is" and "sex." Whether or not Schryver actually hates women or just has no respect for them and evaluates their worth on the basis of sexual appeal, the larger meaning of the accusation is clear. But why would DCP not avail himself of the opportunity to wiggle out on the basis of narrowly defining a word?


I suspect DCP shares Schryver's misogyny, but has the common sense to keep it to himself.

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Grudunza, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group