Settle down, dissonance. You'll give yourself a stroke.

!

Who knew that sycophancy was capable of achieving orgasm?
.
.
.
======================>

Personally, I hate research that take more than 10 minutes of Googling. It is non-recreational. What we need is for Scratch to extend his powers beyond the scope of Dr. Peterson for this one. Perhaps he could make a compendium to help jog our memory.




Let's just say that I think provocative in this case, means something you have written that draws strong responses. The terms vugar and scatological seem pejorative. I think of provocative as a more kinder and gentler description. Hope that makes sense. Have you ever noticed when any of those cretinous morons who make anti-mormon rants, take offense when described in this manner? Not that you personally would ever say anything remotely similar to this provocative description.

Your jealousy is showing, William.

I suspect his reasons for existence include more than just that. Family... friends... spouse... lover... career... neighborhood... hobbies...

Just because they are unknown to you doesn't mean they don't exist (we've had this discussion before, William. Your egocentric worldview notwithstanding, you are not the center of everyone's universe, no matter what those who love you say.

moksha:

So, so true. I'm much more eloquent when describing the "cretinous morons who make anti-mormon rants."

Oh William, you're such a bad boy. Clean up your mess.



Paul O

I've decided that I will take the time to point out those lines of dialogue that I think are funny and render honor to those who meet my ever-changing and undefined criteria of amusing and/or of interest.

This line met that criteria. Congrats, little penguin. May they someday write songs about you.

I've never been jealous of sycophants.

Especially those who are so desperate to associate with "celebrity" that they believe people like Dan Vogel and Will Bagley constitute such.

All celebrity is relative, of course, but when you consider the fact that Vogel and Bagley are only known for writing bad Mormon history, and that the market for bad Mormon history represents a mere fraction of the already small market for Mormon history in general, then I think you get closer to appreciating how "celebrated" these two would-be "historians" really are.

What do you know, two in a row.

It is hard for a gentile such as myself to distinguish between them.

Well said, good sir.

Oh, try again, William. You are jealous of anyone who draws the spotlight off yourself.



They are published; you aren't. People buy their books; no one buys anything of yours, especially your lame arguments. They are strangers here; you aren't. I welcome most people when they first land on our corner of the 'net. You, alas, don't.



I'm an equal opportunity welcomer, William. Heaven knows, every time Daniel returns, I welcome him too. You, I ignore, but that's only to be expected.

I don’t know what the truth is, but I have a pretty good idea what it isn’t. It’s not difficult to recognize an unrealistic caricature when I see one.

I suspect the truth is that you’re a frightened, insecure little boy hiding in a misogynistic, deluded adult’s body, but I’ll resist declaring that as fact, despite the abundance of evidence favoring that conclusion. Benefit of the doubt, and all that.

Will apparently knows that my first name is "Chris[topher]" (Gr. "bearer of Christ") and that my middle name is "Kelly" (a masculine spelling derived from the name of an Irish friend of my parents).

What I find interesting here is that William Schryver has apparently attempted to insult me via the feminization of the spellings of my first and middle names. Rather than "Chris" or "Christopher," William Schryver here inserts a feminine form, derivative of my first name: "Chrissie." And, for my middle name, he inserts, again, a typically feminine spelling, "Kellie," rather than, in deference to the heritage of my Irish middle name, the masculine "Kelly."

Oh my, it must just strike William Schryver as oh-so-clever to refer to me in an artificially feminized manner.

To be sure, I don't care one way or the other, in this instance. I just find it quite telling that Schryver finds, and must find, if his intended insult is to carry any weight at all, his intentional feminization of my first and middle names to be derogatorily humorous.

This is, to be sure, a glowing example of a quite contrived, and amateur, lay LDS apologetic. But, there it is: Plain Stupid.

cks

My sincerest apologies!

All along, I thought you were a girl.

Thanks for setting the record straight.

This is the third time a defender of the faith has engaged in this behavior within recent history on this board. It's beginning to look like a pattern.

Absolutely Priceless. William Schryver here attempts to excuse his manifest sexism by feigning ignorance of my gender: "All along, I thought you were a girl." Which, would make his obvious feminization tactics a moot point, as he apparently thinks.

And this is the "rising" star to whose posts DCP has affixed his manifest approval, on more than one occasion.

Folks, this just is LDS apologetics in its very most amateurish, lay-level, instantiation.

Behold, I give you: William Schryver.

I would venture a guess that William Schryver's mind has not entertained a genuinely, sincere, thought for, lo, these many years.

Behold the fruit of your apologetic loins, DCP.

cks

There is reason to believe that our resident Vulgar Scatologist has been defacing ladies' rooms across the country. I offer as evidence this restroom door I encountered at a historical monument in Santa Fe, New Mexico:



KA

Hmmm....it must be the orgasm you're jealous of, then.

It's OK, Will.....In this life, women can easily experience multiple orgasms.

Maybe if you become a God in the next life, you can improve men's chances of the same.

I figured this was said with the greatest possible sarcasm and as a further insult.

But then again, with such a duality/integrity problem how could one make the call?

Yes, in that thread it was apparent that I can gracefully handle my mistakes being discussed. It was equally apparent that you couldn’t.



Well, if you knew me as well as your statement above implies, you would know that I have consistently stated, both on the MAD board and in print, that scholarship cannot “discredit the legitimacy of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.” That is a matter of faith. What my work might do is bring the definition of “prophet” more in line with historical data. Ironically, some true believers regard the efforts of FARMS and other apologists who try to bring Book of Mormon historicity in line with archaeological data by suggesting limited geography , etc. as an attempt to “to erode the foundations of the church.” Challenging traditional views is what scholars do. Whether this leads to a crisis of faith, a modification, or a complete denial is not a concern for scholars.

True, a lot of what I do pertains to controversial subjects, but not everything. I’m no different than some of the leading apologists (such as Dan Peterson, Jack Welch, Bill Hamblin, etc.) who also write on less controversial topics, such as glossolalia (or in tongues tongues) in the early LDS Church or James Colin Brewster. Indeed, I have spent the last decade working on a critical edition of the History of the Church, which I assure you will benefit all scholars working on Mormon studies regardless of personal conclusions. Anyone familiar with my five-volume Early Mormon Documents knows that I debunk many favorite anti-Mormon claims. I can’t stop you from defining me through your narrow apologetic prism, but I remain confident that those who do not choose me as their enemy will have a more balanced view.

Will, I have not chosen you as an enemy—that is not my intention. I do not seek the demise of the LDS Church. I only seek to impart information and to raise the level of discussion. Why in your world view are those who have a different interpretation of Mormon origins automatically enemies? Is it wise or healthy to make enemies of everyone who questions Book of Mormon historicity or some of Joseph Smith’s historical claims?

Will's a lightweight, an apologist wannabe with a vulgar vocabulary who craves attention. Why do you care what he thinks?