It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:05 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 251 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:34 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:59 am
Posts: 7894
Kishkumen wrote:
Since Will's repeated critical remarks about David have been made publicly in these fora, I think it entirely appropriate for him to reply in the same fora and I believe that he has generally acted with a great deal more class than Will in the way he has gone about it.

David would only have to display a tiny bit of class in order to act with a great deal more than Will. Any class is better than none.

_________________
"You get to have your own beliefs, and your own wishes, and dreams, and imaginations. What you don't get to have is your own reality." - Sethbag

"Salt Lake, we have a problem." - Fence Sitter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:06 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:58 pm
Posts: 4154
Although I wasn't going to post my personal thoughts about all this drama, I have decided to offer a few thoughts (chosen by design) to bounce around the other minds in these parts.

First, I wanted to state that I believe David is clearly a MAN with strong character, warmth for his fellow man, courage, and perhaps most of all, a willingness to extend human compassion to all in his path. (Very admirable and relatively rare, IMO)

Of my many thoughts that sorround the recent soap opera developments (Very sad IMO), the one I wanted to share is that I am starting to believe that certain tactics and methods that are deployed by some posters are done with intent and very possibly by design. In many cases they seem to be most successful and do exactly what they are meant to do (That is to divert, change, alter, and in many cases completely stop the discussion that was taking place).

What say you?
Is it possible that this is a form of art or a technique used to accomplish certain goals?


Or, has Ceeboo been posting in Mormon-land to long and has gone off the deep end?

Peace,
Ceeboo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:31 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:49 am
Posts: 5436
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
Ceeboo wrote:
I am starting to believe that certain tactics and methods that are deployed by some posters are done with intent and very possibly by design. In many cases they seem to be most successful and do exactly what they are meant to do (That is to divert, change, alter, and in many cases completely stop the discussion that was taking place).

What say you?


One of the drawbacks to the moderation here Ceeboo is that is exactly what is happening. I find the ignore function somewhat helpful in those cases. I think dealing with the derailers here is preferable to the moderation at MDDB, but not always. Both boards have their strengths.

_________________
The Law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once.
John Taylor, husband of 3 wives, 15 Nov 1844

"I consider them Christian not because of the church they go to on Sunday, but because of how they treat their fellow human beings." Ceeboo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:55 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13795
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Ceeboo wrote:
Of my many thoughts that sorround the recent soap opera developments (Very sad IMO), the one I wanted to share is that I am starting to believe that certain tactics and methods that are deployed by some posters are done with intent and very possibly by design. In many cases they seem to be most successful and do exactly what they are meant to do (That is to divert, change, alter, and in many cases completely stop the discussion that was taking place).


Indubitably.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:54 am 
I posted this on Will's thread, but I think that it needs to be posted here as well, since the nature of my post probably segments better in this topic than the other one.

I hope that Will will choose to answer my question:

liz3564 wrote:
Will wrote:
No, not at all. I'm not a biblical scholar, and I've never felt motivated to expel sinners from the church, seeing as how my self-reflection would compel me to lead virtually the entire congregation out the door (leaving only my wife and two or three other women to turn out the lights).


I accept the fact that you act this way in your home ward, out in the real world, at face value. However, this is not the way you have chosen to treat people on the Internet.

I am not saying that you do not have a right to defend yourself, or defend the Church, but how can you deny that you have not been outright spiteful toward others? How can you deny your disrespectful treatment of women on this board?

And, what is your excuse for your misuse of trust and authority given to you when you divulged Trevor's IRL information in conjunction with the article he presented to FAIR in confidence?

These are the types of actions that David is referring to.

Will, I have no doubt that you are a good person and a devoted father. In spite of some of the awful things you have said to me, I have defended you when posters here have attacked your character in those areas, and, in my opinion, crossed the line of decency. But you do have a definite blind spot in how you come across.

Let me ask you this. This is in reference to your conversation with David:

Quote:
Personal attacks?!! Will has on several occasions made public accusations against me of apostasy. The comment you posted was my response to the following assertion:

"Sadly, I fear this may be true. What you fail to understand is that I am not the only one who is watching. How tragic when aspirations and possibilities draw further and further apart, without us even being aware ... "

When Will suggests that he has personal connections with unnamed others who will destroy my personal aspirations, do I not have the right and responsibility to respond?


You claim that David misunderstood your comment. If it did not mean that you have personal connections with unnamed others who could destroy his aspirations, as he suggested, and you did not mean that you were tacitly referring to his possible apostasy, then what DID you mean?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:11 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Ceeboo wrote:
Is it possible that this is a form of art or a technique used to accomplish certain goals?


I can only speak for myself, but I do have a goal. It is to reflect back the behavior of some of the people here since they seem significantly challenged in self-reflection, and this so that they may have some sense for the dysfunctional and anti-socail way they come across to others.

Unfortunately, this objective is seldom realized, in large part because they are so challenged in self-reflection. What they so easily see in others, they are blind to in themselves, even when reflected back to them.

However, even given the lack of success, I view these people as worth the attempt to affect change for the better since everyone, and them in particular, would benefit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:39 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 9121
David wrote:

Given the fact that I believe Joseph produced one of the most inspired books ever written by pondering over Egyptian funerary texts, you're talking with a person who would have accepted as scripture Joseph's translation of the Kinderhook plates and who wishes that the Prophet would have had a chance to complete what he started.

Thews wrote:
Here's the problem Enuma... what you try so hard to defend (Mormonism truth claims) is rooted on the foundation that it came from God/Jesus Christ. If God/Jesus Christ wanted Joseph Smith to finish the "translation" of the Book of Joseph and the JST version of the bible, then God would have protected Joseph Smith allowing him to finish them. That isn't what happened, and it didn't happen for a reason, and that reason is Joseph Smith was not of God/Jesus Christ. This cause you champion is based on a false prophet of God (as dictated by the bible) under the pretense that it is "Christian" in some way. The fact that you would believe that translation of a known hoax (Kinderhook plates) shows your ignorance to intellectual honesty. The fact that you just can't admit it was Joseph Smith who made the translation of the Kinderhook plates shows your agenda to mask the truth in order to further your agenda, which would be rooted in deception of the truth. I have no problem with people placing belief in whatever they choose to believe in, but I do take issue with intentional deception. The way you pick and choose your words to defend the truth claims in Mormonism by using deception is your choice, but understand it's a conscious choice. For every member you convert, or every member you convince to believe the truth claims of Joseph Smith using deception is a testament to your soul... who you are. The bible warns of the wolf in sheep's clothing, and I contend you are one of the wolves. You can choose to be honest, or you can choose to deceive. As noted above, you chose to fail to answer the question... there's a reason.



I understand your point. But let me ask, is the fact the Paul met an untimely death indicative that he was a false apostle? How about Peter? James? It seems clear from the Bible that Paul and other Christians fully expected the end times and the return of Jesus to be in their lives. It seems Jesus may have as well. Does this make Christianity false in your mind?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:52 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:51 pm
Posts: 4175
Location: Provo, UT
Jason Bourne wrote:
I understand your point. But let me ask, is the fact the Paul met an untimely death indicative that he was a false apostle? How about Peter? James? It seems clear from the Bible that Paul and other Christians fully expected the end times and the return of Jesus to be in their lives. It seems Jesus may have as well. Does this make Christianity false in your mind?


This book has quite a lengthy and interesting discussion on just that question.

_________________
I like you Betty...

My blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:10 pm 
CTR A
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:41 pm
Posts: 138
stemelbow wrote:
I've come here preaching, for whatever reason, love and compassion on this board and have met some very stiff resistence, but I also feel I've made some significant headway (not meaning to boast). This thread and its sentiments, afterall, align perfectly with my agenda. I too hold as priority love and compassion in spite of my many faults.





You are joking, right? You're preaching love and compassion? Do you mean love and compassion towards apologists? If you sincerely believe that your motive in coming here is to promote a unity of love and compassion toward understanding critics then you may want to take another poll to find out how others view your words.

Like a few other apologists on this board, your apologetic posts represent a knee-jerk defense response in a way that is nonsensical to the point that it usually becomes incoherent, even at times contradicting your own previous remarks, making your words difficult or impossible to follow.

But if that's what passes for love and compassion in your books then it would appear to be defensively and agressively presented in order to offer love and compassion toward apologists and not critics. Love usually forms a bridge toward understanding. Your version technique usually forms a bridge toward annoyance and frustration. But hey, love definitions vary apparently.

_________________
http://www.exmormonscholarstestify.org/index.html
http://www.iamanexmormon.com/
.......
http://www.mormonthink.com/lying.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:17 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:40 pm
Posts: 5872
ShadowFax wrote:
You are joking, right? You're preaching love and compassion? Do you mean love and compassion towards apologists? If you sincerely believe that your motive in coming here is to promote a unity of love and compassion toward understanding critics then you may want to take another poll to find out how others view your words.

Like a few other apologists on this board, your apologetic posts represent a knee-jerk defense response in a way that is nonsensical to the point that it usually becomes incoherent, even at times contradicting your own previous remarks, making your words difficult or impossible to follow.

But if that's what passes for love and compassion in your books then it would appear to be defensively and agressively presented in order to offer love and compassion toward apologists and not critics. Love usually forms a bridge toward understanding. Your version technique usually forms a bridge toward annoyance and frustration. But hey, love definitions vary apparently.


Of course I'm not joking. Whether my defenses are coherent, cogent, credible, or not in your view has nothing to do with my efforts to replace the hostility here with love.

_________________
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
Will Schryver wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
As admirably as the approach of the thread starter is, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that Will is a good person. He might be in person, but he does his best to hide it online.

I assure you I am essentially the same in person as I am online, for whatever it's worth.

BTW, I've always wondered why the quote of mine used in your signature is always left incomplete. Could it be that Kevin Graham doesn't want anyone to know what I said, in full? Because, if my statement (made to him in a private e-mail) were viewed in full, then it would be quite obvious how much out of context the partial quote is.

Could it be that he is intentionally and dishonestly attempting to misrepresent me?

Could it be that this practice is consistent with other propagandizing efforts employed in the GSTP against me?

Gee, I wonder ...


If you've ever tried to add a sig here, the word count limit is pretty short.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:27 pm 
CTR A
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:41 pm
Posts: 138
wenglund wrote:
Ceeboo wrote:
Is it possible that this is a form of art or a technique used to accomplish certain goals?

I can only speak for myself, but I do have a goal.





You have written that your goal and purpose is to come here and have fun, giggles and entertainment. (which is strange as much as you say that you don't like drama).



wenglund wrote:
It is to reflect back the behavior of some of the people here since they seem significantly challenged in self-reflection, and this so that they may have some sense for the dysfunctional and anti-socail way they come across to others.




You want to act badly to show other people that they are acting badly?

That's so completely childishly immateur that it's beyond words. You claim that the "gospel" (tm) is meant to bring a person closer to Christ-like behavior. Do you genuinely think your goal(s) are Christ-like in any way?

How's that workin' for ya?

You've been on the board for years and all you've managed to do is further annoy and frustrate people. By all rights it would appear that your goal is to annoy, frustrate, write in incoherent styles, and push people farther away. You, like other mopologists on this board, are a very bad example of mormonism and/or an example of moving toward Christ-like behavior. When a person whips you in a debate and reveals your nonsense you throw insults. Now you're saying that's to mirror and teach people?
bleh!

As the famous saying goes, "the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results."
You may want to re-think your various goals based on that phrase. But then again, it seems to be an emotional habit for you, so thinking isn't one of your strong suits in this regard.



I applaud Enuma Elish for having some courage in initially trying to point these things out. (even though his statements seem to be somewhat retracted or at least softened in this thread.)

cheers.

_________________
http://www.exmormonscholarstestify.org/index.html
http://www.iamanexmormon.com/
.......
http://www.mormonthink.com/lying.htm


Last edited by ShadowFax on Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:49 pm 
CTR A
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:41 pm
Posts: 138
stemelbow wrote:
ShadowFax wrote:
You are joking, right? You're preaching love and compassion? Do you mean love and compassion towards apologists? If you sincerely believe that your motive in coming here is to promote a unity of love and compassion toward understanding critics then you may want to take another poll to find out how others view your words.

Like a few other apologists on this board, your apologetic posts represent a knee-jerk defense response in a way that is nonsensical to the point that it usually becomes incoherent, even at times contradicting your own previous remarks, making your words difficult or impossible to follow.

But if that's what passes for love and compassion in your books then it would appear to be defensively and agressively presented in order to offer love and compassion toward apologists and not critics. Love usually forms a bridge toward understanding. Your version technique usually forms a bridge toward annoyance and frustration. But hey, love definitions vary apparently.





Of course I'm not joking. Whether my defenses are coherent, cogent, credible, or not in your view has nothing to do with my efforts to replace the hostility here with love.




So, let me see if I have your definition and action translated correctly.
(I have no urrim and thummim at hand, I have to rely on intuitive psychic powers.)


You go about "replacing hostility with love" by defending any critical comment toward an apologetic person or stance.

How's that workin' for ya? You think it's really making some kind of positive effect!
That is the strategy you've adopted toward "replacing with love". You don't factor in the critics view pertaining your goal. (see underlined quote.) If you did factor in the critics view of your "loving" strategy you would see that according to many posters comments you aren't batting a hundred - nowhere even close to batting a 10 or even a 1.

Your strategy and technique leaves many people annoyed, which does little to induce and promote a compassionate love. Logical people would think that your technique defeats your alleged purpose.
The kind of compassion you induce in me is toward pity - making me feel sorry and uncomfortable for you - and I want to pray for you. I guess your goal then is met, albeit it in a back-handed sort of way. Likely not the actual type of goal your strategy was intended for, but based on your inability to express yourself coherently (most of the time) it's usually a guessing game, wherein you come back to tell the critic they're wrong, for various reasons, usually that you couldn't be bothered to explain yourself, hence the apparently perceived contradictions on the part of the critics toward yourself is the responsibility of the critic.
That doesn't induce much love, if spreading love truly is your motive.

Really, Enuma Elish might want to start up an apologetic school, where apologists are at least trained in the art of defending mormonism, otherwise they come off as fools. I don't suffer fools gladly... a fool who has no concept as to how to motivate love or compassion as an intended goal by not factoring in the group she/he is engaging with.

Stem, there are many good analogies in the world that could be drawn upon to compare your strategy with other peoples/groups very poor strategy displays of so-called love or compassion toward a specific target group, but I'll leave that one for another thread.
;)

cheers.

_________________
http://www.exmormonscholarstestify.org/index.html
http://www.iamanexmormon.com/
.......
http://www.mormonthink.com/lying.htm


Last edited by ShadowFax on Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:14 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13428
I would like to know how people who are bending over backwards to defend Will or allow that his online behavior does not reflect on his character in some way justify exchanges such as this one:

Will's statement towards Brent:
Quote:
Libel?

It’s hardly libel to suggest that you shared in Hofmann’s ideological agenda, especially when you have continued to pursue it to the present day.

Even so, I think it might be best for you to continue hoping I keep confidences. Just remember that there are still people around who know your role in Hofmann’s pre-murderous shenanigans.

I do have to admit that the most hilarious aspect of the entire affair is the thought of you hiding in a darkened basement consumed with the terror that you were the next target. Talk about self-delusion run amok ...


Take a moment to consider what Will is suggesting here. He is making horrific charges against Brent: asserting his shares a killer's "ideological agenda" and that he"hid in a dark basement consumed with terror".

Oh, yeah, Will's a great guy. He's just a passionate defender of the faith.

I found his statement unbelievably offensive, and responded tauntingly:

beastie
Quote:
Aw, ain't it cute. Little Wee Willie imagines he's David, but instead of a well-placed rock shooting forth from his sling, all he can manage is some hot air so rancid one wonders from which end it originated.


Yes, I was saying that Will was full of hot air that smelled like a fart.

In response, Will's response, which is typical of how he treats female posters (sexually suggestive statements, either approving of their physical endowments or expressing disgust over their physical endowments):

Quote:
Settle down, beastsheba. I assure you I have no desire whatsoever to watch you bathe.

In the immortal words of Dodge Connelly:

”You’re only as young as the women you feel.”

And I have no desire to feel sixty-five.


viewtopic.php?p=356746#p356746

I later commented that I pitied Will's wife, since she and I (and Will) are apparently the same age.

This is just one example of Will's repellent behavior. I remember it clearly, of course, because I was the target this time. But he's targeted other women. When female posters stand up to him, he seems to revert to sexist, sexually vulgar comments. I also remember his spectacularly bad behavior towards liz, who challenged him on the term "Lamanite":

First, he responded:
Quote:
Go away, Lizzie. This conversation is over your pretty little head. You want to moderate my comments, go right ahead. Put some bite in your bitchiness.


and then later added:
Quote:
By the way, I know you’re sticking around simply because I told you the conversation was over “your pretty little head.”

In retrospect, I have no idea if you even have a “pretty little head.” You see, I am as handsome as my avatar suggests, but I have serious doubts that you are as good looking as your avatar would lead us believe. I’ll bet you’re a wrinkled middle-aged woman with varicose veins and more good years behind you than ahead of you. Right? ;-)


http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... a&start=84

David and other Will defenders: I want you to explain just how such behavior can be justified by a wave of the hand and the phrase "passionate about his belief." If you are willing to turn a blind eye to his truly bad behavior (and there is much more, of course), then I wonder about your judgment.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:41 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6206
Great point beastie, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the Schryver defenders were completely unaware of these instances. Didn't he also make inappropriate comments about Kim's breasts?

Dan Peterson, if you're reading this, you can count on Will's history of disgusting behavior coming forth to a much broader audience, in the event that the NAMI chooses to publish his Book of Abraham nonsense. If you guys want to put this nimrod on a pedestal and sign off on his pseudo-scholarship, then you're going to have to swallow all the baggage that comes with it.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:55 pm 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3457
Location: Palatine, IL
beastie wrote:
Good grief. Schryver is a jerk who deliberately provokes and insults. He's particularly piggish when it comes to women, whom he treats either by drooling over their sexual appeal, or insulting them by telling them they're old, ugly, and sexually unappealing. These sort of comments by him can be easily found.

I'd be embarrassed to defend him.

QFT.

I've never personally been a victim of William's ghastly behavior towards female posters, but I've watched in disgust for some time. I would be appalled if a published evangelical Christian "scholar" who had been invited to speak at respectable evangelical apologetics conferences behaved this way towards women in his spare time.

I'm genuinely interested in having those who are speaking on William's behalf explain what they think of this aspect of his personality. It has been well-documented on this thread and elsewhere.

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:02 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7914
ShadowFax wrote:
wenglund wrote:

I can only speak for myself, but I do have a goal.





You have written that your goal and purpose is to come here and have fun, giggles and entertainment. (which is strange as much as you say that you don't like drama).



wenglund wrote:
It is to reflect back the behavior of some of the people here since they seem significantly challenged in self-reflection, and this so that they may have some sense for the dysfunctional and anti-socail way they come across to others.




You want to act badly to show other people that they are acting badly?

That's so completely childishly immateur that it's beyond words.


It not just childish, but I think dishonest as well. I think he may recognize that he has behaved fairly bad at times and instead of owning up to it, uses this excuse to justify his bad behavior. I also have yet to see him call Will on his bad behavior as DB has done on more the one occasion. This is why people like DB have a lot of credibility from most people here and at the other board.

BTW I have behaved poorly at times as well, but I have only myself to blame.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:04 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13428
Kevin Graham wrote:
Great point beastie, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the Schryver defenders were completely unaware of these instances. Didn't he also make inappropriate comments about Kim's breasts?

Dan Peterson, if you're reading this, you can count on Will's history of disgusting behavior coming forth to a much broader audience, in the event that the NAMI chooses to publish his Book of Abraham nonsense. If you guys want to put this nimrod on a pedestal and sign off on his pseudo-scholarship, then you're going to have to swallow all the baggage that comes with it.


You are correct. Will made such a big deal of KA's black dress - insinuating it was like a porn-star dress - that she finally posted a picture of herself to put the brouhaha to rest.

Will, referring back to his own posts about KA's dress:
Quote:
Here is the documentary history, sparse as it is, of my references to Kimberly Ann and the black dress she wore to the 2006 Exmormon Foundation conference in Salt Lake City:

KA made the first reference:
"I was there, also. In a rather infamous black dress..."

Some days later I made an oblique reference to the same black dress:
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 540#p68540

"Per Kimberly Ann’s request, and because my heart is still twitterpated at the recollection of her in [a] slinky black dress, I am posting my reply from the other thread …"

Followed a few days later by the last reference I could find in the archives:

"I’m perfect in my imperfection. You’re perfect in your black dress."


There you have it folks. The history of my fixation with Kimberly Ann, her “infamous” black dress, and presumably her formerly “Dear Daughter” breasts.

Incidentally, the female breast is, in my estimation, one of the artistic masterpieces of God’s creation. I find it distressing that so many people are inclined to shame, angst, and horror at the thought of it.

Unlike so many sexually-liberated “moderns,” the ancients were not nearly as troubled by such things, as my current avatar attests.

Farewell …
.
.
.
Edit: I might note that, if KA did not desire her breasts to be "ogled" on the evening in question, she might have selected from her wardrobe an item of clothing that more effectively covered the body parts in question. The black dress she chose could not have covered more than 40% of the breastage she brought to the occasion. Her attire would have been more appropriate for an AVN expo in Las Vegas.


http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... &start=168

KA, putting the controversy to rest, posted a picture of herself in the dress:

Quote:
So, I just now--and I do mean just now--put on the dress and snapped some pics of myself so that everyone can see for themselves just how not-a-big-deal the dress was and is. My daughter's camera is crappy. I'm literally wearing the dress over my exercise pants. My white socks and tennis shoes are still on, and they look very silly with a black dress, so there are no full-length shots. The mirror is dirty in my daughter's room. (I must remember to make her clean it soon!)

So, without further ado, the black dress that is supposedly fit for a porn conference:

*images snipped*

There. I'm not embarrassed of it. I don't think it's immodest. If someone has a problem with my dress, I'd say that someone is big-time repressed! Seriously, it's nothing one wouldn't see at any given restaurant on any given Friday night. Good grief!

These pics won't stay up long.

The end.


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11836

Will's response:
Quote:
The breast reduction surgery appears to have been successful.

lol

1 Nephi 14:11


For those who don't want to look it up, here's his scripture reference:

11And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over ball the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.

Will is a jerk. I don't see how that can even be debated.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:06 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13428
Themis wrote:

It not just childish, but I think dishonest as well. I think he may recognize that he has behaved fairly bad at times and instead of owning up to it, uses this excuse to justify his bad behavior. I also have yet to see him call Will on his bad behavior as DB has done on more the one occasion. This is why people like DB have a lot of credibility from most people here and at the other board.

BTW I have behaved poorly at times as well, but I have only myself to blame.


Wade's been using this lame "I'm only mirroring bad behavior" for well over a decade, reaching back to when I was a moderator on ZLMB. He repeatedly got in trouble with the mods, and this was almost inevitably his excuse. It didn't work, even with the LDS mods.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:29 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6206
Oh, so he called Kim a whore.

How lovely.

What say ye, defenders of Schryver?

Stem, Dan, Wade, Nomad..?

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My Defense of Will Schryver
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:30 pm 
abstract
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:26 am
Posts: 3041
David wrote:
Given the fact that I believe Joseph produced one of the most inspired books ever written by pondering over Egyptian funerary texts, you're talking with a person who would have accepted as scripture Joseph's translation of the Kinderhook plates and who wishes that the Prophet would have had a chance to complete what he started.



Jason Bourne wrote:
Thews wrote:
Here's the problem Enuma... what you try so hard to defend (Mormonism truth claims) is rooted on the foundation that it came from God/Jesus Christ. If God/Jesus Christ wanted Joseph Smith to finish the "translation" of the Book of Joseph and the JST version of the bible, then God would have protected Joseph Smith allowing him to finish them. That isn't what happened, and it didn't happen for a reason, and that reason is Joseph Smith was not of God/Jesus Christ. This cause you champion is based on a false prophet of God (as dictated by the bible) under the pretense that it is "Christian" in some way. The fact that you would believe that translation of a known hoax (Kinderhook plates) shows your ignorance to intellectual honesty. The fact that you just can't admit it was Joseph Smith who made the translation of the Kinderhook plates shows your agenda to mask the truth in order to further your agenda, which would be rooted in deception of the truth. I have no problem with people placing belief in whatever they choose to believe in, but I do take issue with intentional deception. The way you pick and choose your words to defend the truth claims in Mormonism by using deception is your choice, but understand it's a conscious choice. For every member you convert, or every member you convince to believe the truth claims of Joseph Smith using deception is a testament to your soul... who you are. The bible warns of the wolf in sheep's clothing, and I contend you are one of the wolves. You can choose to be honest, or you can choose to deceive. As noted above, you chose to fail to answer the question... there's a reason.



I understand your point. But let me ask, is the fact the Paul met an untimely death indicative that he was a false apostle? How about Peter? James? It seems clear from the Bible that Paul and other Christians fully expected the end times and the return of Jesus to be in their lives. It seems Jesus may have as well. Does this make Christianity false in your mind?

No.

http://biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm
Quote:
Deu 13:1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder,
Deu 13:2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them,"
Deu 13:3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deu 13:4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
Deu 13:5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.


The Mormon doctrine of Joseph Smith has nothing to do with Christian doctrine. As Enuma has admitted that he would believe Mormon scripture based on a known hoax, his agenda is very clear... the truth means nothing, and furthering the doctrine of a man named Joseph Smith means everything. Attempting to draw parallel analogies that supposedly negate each other is an exercise in futility. If one believes Christianity is false, that's a choice, but to "believe" something takes more than a willingness to believe it without critical thought. I don't believe in hell, but I do believe that Jesus Christ was God. I don't believe that because it's what I'm supposed to believe nor the consequence of not believing it, because I don't believe in the consequence. Does this make as much sense as Enuma pledging an unwavering allegiance to Mormonism? ...you could make that argument. In the end, the truth is what seek. Lacking the intestinal fortitude to just acknowledge the truth about the Kinderhook plates history and Joseph Smith's translation of them, what Enuma did was replace the answer with an unwavering allegiance. There is no "right" answer regarding what one chooses to believe, but there is only one truth. When truth is compromised for agenda it defines deception, which was my point. There are questions, and there are answers to those questions. If one feels the truthful answer hurts his/her agenda, then an alternate "answer" which evades the question asked defines motive. To your point:

Quote:
2 Tim 4:2 [NIV] Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

_________________
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 251 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bazooka, Bing [Bot], Craig Paxton, DrW, Equality, Fence Sitter, fetchface, Google [Bot], No_Hidden_Agenda, son of Ishmael, SteelHead and 36 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