Not very close at all. Love can be expressed even if you disagree with someone.



When I first arrived, people were pretty hostile to me, some of those same people have simmered down quite a bit. The hostile atmosphere in itself is still here, but many attitudes seem to have made some shifts, at least somewhat.



I don't know what you're talking about. I never said I am batting 100 or even close to it. I"m trying.



People will be annoyed no matter what happens...the history of the world seems to indicate as much.



I think you've painted a pretty unfair caricature of my participation overall. That's all right though. I welcome your opinion.



Indeed, it is much better to refer to others as fools then to attempt to listen and respond to their words and thoughts. Whatever. Peace out ,my good man.

Will still reigns as #1 Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics.

#2 are all those who condone and remain silent about his behavior.


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9005

I will certainly be disappointed if none of his defenders comment on this.

If his defenders were unaware of his bad behavior, perhaps they should have taken some time to educate themselves before speaking out. Instead, they seem to have just assumed that the disdain shown here towards Will is symptomatic of "apostate issues" rather than a justified reaction to Will's posting patterns.

And let's not forget Will's special venom for Runtu. Even the MAD moderators stepped in on that one:

runtu related a conversation he had with his daughter:


And Will replied:


Of course, the mods were kind of pushed into making a strong comment by Chris:





as quoted here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4597&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

There is one difference I notice between the content of Will's posts and the content of the large majority of the content on this board, and other (ex)LDS themed boards.

Will speaks badly to the people he is engaging while most of the 'acts' on here speak badly about people from whom they are far removed. Another issue is that Will lacks anonymity while the majority of the other liars, deceivers, offenders and bad-mouthed characters are mere sock puppets. No one beats them up because they know they can't be hurt.

Oh, I see. So, instead of simply acknowledging that his behavior is bad, you feel compelled to come up with some way others are actually worse. I am not sure what that accomplishes. So, Will may say some atrocious things that directly and negatively impact people's feelings, as well as represent his faith poorly, but Joey is a right bastard for saying something objectionable about President Monson. Ergo, Will is better than Joey. Interesting. I guess Will is a real hero in your estimation.

Beastie,



I cannot. I was not aware of these comments. I had seen others, but these make me all the more angry and I've been trying to get over my anger. I hate feeling this way. That anyone would post these comments to women is unacceptable, to say the least. That he would do so in the context of defending Mormonism sickens me.

As an active member of the Church, I offer my sincere apology for this behavior.

David,

You cannot and should not apologize for Will's behavior. That is not your right. Besides, I do not believe his bad behavior has anything to do with Mormonism. Some of the men I love and admire the most in my life are LDS, and would never behave in such a manner, and would be disgusted by it as well.

What you can apologize for, if it is the case, is jumping to unwarranted conclusions about why Will is treated so poorly on this board. I know that believers face a rough road on this board, and many are treated unfairly. Will, however, has earned every ounce of disdain he suffers on this board.

My impression of the interaction of believers and non-believers on this board is that while rough things are often said, they obscure an underlying and perduring humanity that is really quite touching. Just today I received a kind note from a critic who was speaking well of an apologist he genuinely misses, in spite of the fact that the two had very harsh words for each other on the board. The two remain in contact, and seem to have a kind of rapport that I would not have ever guessed existed.

Unfortunately, Will has done little positive to repay the kindnesses he has received from others here. He seems to focus only on the negative, and to dish out bile quite liberally.

Well said. Anyone who would use cleavage as ammo is a real boob!

And with that, I'll take my leave. I love ya, Moksha. I've got a lot going on. I hope you'll keep in touch.

Same goes for Trevor, etc. A lot of good friends on this board, but I've been wayyy to distracted with all this nonsense as of late and really need to get back to academics.

Peace and joy to all.

How noble of you.

Please, however, I beg of you, don't bother with your apologies. I am fully able to apologize to whatever extent it is warranted.

And remember this one thing that I tell you now: if you continue to join with these people in their cunning and concerted propaganda attacks, you will only be harming your own interests. By exposing your allegiances and ideological inclinations, you already have harmed them to some degree. You would be wise to not compound your error any further by continuing to make common cause with these people.

Who else feels the love of this latter day saint? Sooo Christ like of him.

These people, as you refer to them, are still God's children, Will, every single one of them. No matter what criticisms they raise, these people deserve to be treated with kindness by one attempting to defend the Gospel of Christ. If you cannot do this, I would beg you, to simply disengage.

[quote="Gadianton"]

Zee (and others), I wouldn't be too worried if DB can't be openly persuaded to consider Mopologetics for what it is. I think he's revealed enough to show that he clearly understands the problems. The foundation of Mopologetics is a kind of bullying. Bullies, of course, are what they are due to problems that they have that aren't always necessarily their fault.

Why me responds:

My gosh, I can't believe my eyes...is this for real? Let me rub my eyes and read this again...yep, it is for real!

You do realize that most of the bullying comes from boads like this. My gosh, Dr. Scratch has been bullying DCP for years with posts about him. And the inherent aggressions in many of the critics posts belie a kind of bullying of the apologist. You need to use a sociological imagination and take a step outside your critic shoes and see the world anew.

You make me want to become a critic, where I can be very aggressive and bully the apologist, and get a wonderful kind response from you. And then, go to another apologist, say very unkind things about him or her personally, and receive nothing but kindness in return. And if I do happen to get abused in turn by the apologist, have you scold the apologist for being unkind to me. It is a win win for me.

Most of the time, the critic is not responding from a position of pain but from a position of aggression. No one and I mean no one has the right to abuse another regardless of the pain they are in or the misery of their lives. We all experience unfairness, pain and misery because we are human beings. But really david, you seem to give the critic a clean run for being abusive.

Will does have a point. I have seen critics here be very unkind to the apologists. Should the critic get a free ride for releasing their aggressions steming from their own life circumstances? And the apologist or believer must always respond in kindness and rise above the abuse? Maybe you also need to hold the critics to standards that David attempts to hold for apologists. And likewise, David also needs to recognize the abuse that some critics use against the apologists.

If there was ever an encapsulated microcosm of issues facing the Church this is it. It's like Bruce McConkie and St. Francis of Assisi squaring off in the ring. Bruce pulls a Browning .45 and St. Francis releases a bevy of doves. You are asked, at that frozen moment in time, to choose which one you want to win. Sure, it may be your own sense of right and wrong versus the boys back at the OK Corral rooting for the .45, but it makes sense to choose sides.

Choose wisely.

All Liz did was challenge Will's definition of "Lamanite", and in return he told her she was old, with varicose veins, and likely unattractive.

Will implied that Brent was complicit with a killer and when I compared that statement to the foulness of a fart, Will told me I was 65 and he had no desire to watch my bathe.

Will called Kim a whore because of a dress she wore - a dress, by the way, she posted a picture of which wasn't that big of a deal.

Runtu was sharing a story about an exchange with his daughter, and in return Will told him he'd be getting divorced.

NONE of us were being abusive.

You are justifying Will's behavior with your comment above. You should be ashamed, but I'm sure you're not.

to assume that Saint Francis never got angry or showed aggressive emotion would be false. He was very much a human being and if he did need to always suppress such human emotions which are inherently apart of our human nature I feel sorry for him.

My point: David also needs to chastize fairly. The critics can be just as abusive and yet, get a free pass from other critics or get a David: now apologists we need to understand their pain and sorrow. David's notion that apologists need to rise above the fray is idealistic and requires apologists who are human beings, to suppress a human emotion that at times should not be suppressed.

Second point: Critics also need to take personal responsibility for their own posting style and post with the understanding that a human being is at the other end of the line.

Why me you should be ashamed of yourself. Have you not read a DAMN WORD on this thread? There is no way in Hell you can make Will out to be a victim. He never once claimed to be a victim, nor did he claim his disgusting comments were ever in response to attacks on him. He attacks because quite simply, we are different. We are just "these people" and according to his William Law approach, we can only be on one side. God's side, or the Devil's. And of course, by God's side, he means his side.

For you to come here and pretend Will is just a great guy who sometimes gets carried away in the moment after being unfairly attacked, you're an absolute fool who cares nothing about truth. You only care about allegiances, which is what Will is most concerned with too. Again, for him this is a war. You have to pick a side. Those with integrity will distance themselves from this disgusting character named William Schryver. Unfortunately you're not among that group of people, but this is hardly surprising for those using pseudonyms.