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.

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

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.

Indubitably.

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:

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-

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.

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.

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

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).







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.

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.

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:


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


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):



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:


and then later added:


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.

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.

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.

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.

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:


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

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



viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11836

Will's response:


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.

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.

Oh, so he called Kim a whore.

How lovely.

What say ye, defenders of Schryver?

Stem, Dan, Wade, Nomad..?

No.

http://biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm


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: