DiscussMormonism.com

stemelbow wrote:Thank you Setbag.

That's too bad that some posters here send some LDS packing not long after they come to contribute. Mak had some very good things to add to this topic, one which is very near to my heart in fact. How pathetic to take things in that direction.

People get called bigots in every online debate board. If that sort of thing sends you packing, eventually you'll just stop posting online.

I sort of agree with you, though stem. I'd be nice if we could all dial it back a notch. I freely admit to being an asshole. It's difficult for me not to be one - at least online.

TrashcanMan79 wrote:Quit being a little titty-baby. Engage the posters you want. Ignore the ones you don't. It's freakin simple.

Also, I hereby condemn Sethbag's condemnation of Scratch's post. (Hope that doesn't hurt your pwecious wittle feewings, titty-baby.)

Why aren't you playing this same game with those who whine incessantly about Will Schryver or any others? Oh never mind. I don't expect a serious answer anyway.

maklelan wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote:Wow, Maklelan. It seems you poured in an astonishing amount of time for the sole purpose of smearing and/or discrediting these mostly African-American young men.

I don't appreciate the implication that I'm being racist, Scratch, and I won't be sticking around to hear whatever asinine rationalization you come up with to explain yourself. I'm sick and tired of having to defend myself from your idiocy while everyone else just sits around and watches in silence. This board isn't worth that.

Why do do this? You come over to this board, make a few posts (some are very good including your opening one in this thread), then run off as soon as anything happens that offends your delicate sensibilities, usually only after you throw a nice little tantrum so we all know how bad we are. You need to realize that you won't get treated with kid gloves here and you may be subject to some abuse. If you can't handle it, then just stay away and save us from your recurring prima donna act. It's getting really old.

Sethbag wrote:So why won't BYU accept the promise of a sexually active or boozing LDS student that they will stop having sex and drinking as soon as they get to BYU?

The only thing that I can imagine is any non-LDS should be treated as innocent until the law is in effect. The LDS, on the other hand, are under law and therefore their sins take more remorse and restitution.

I don't know if I"m anywhere near BYU's reasoning here, but its about all I can think of.

Buffalo wrote:People get called bigots in every online debate board. If that sort of thing sends you packing, eventually you'll just stop posting online.

I know. But that's why some people won't participate or try to and then leave. then later come back and try again with some semblence of hope that things will be different only to leave again. Its too bad.

I sort of agree with you, though stem. I'd be nice if we could all dial it back a notch. I freely admit to being an asshole. It's difficult for me not to be one - at least online.

I agree its easy to get caught up in it, be short with people, and leave it at that. Its hard to take care to be sensitive to all the other personalities. The smart one's like Mak seem the easiest to send packing. They have better things to do. Too bad.

stemelbow wrote:

TrashcanMan79 wrote:Quit being a little titty-baby. Engage the posters you want. Ignore the ones you don't. It's freakin simple.

Also, I hereby condemn Sethbag's condemnation of Scratch's post. (Hope that doesn't hurt your pwecious wittle feewings, titty-baby.)

Why aren't you playing this same game with those who whine incessantly about Will Schryver or any others? Oh never mind. I don't expect a serious answer anyway.

Oh please. Trashcan is right. If we had a nickel for every time mak whined about a poster here and threatened to leave, we could do away with the stupid ads permanently.

I wish the damn Mormons would make good on their word to leave for good, just once. Now wouldn't that be something? Seriously, who cares if they stay or don't stay? We all know they can leave, but can't leave us alone.

They are or so persecuted here... so much so that they just can't get enough.

Sethbag wrote:What is some non-LDS black kid who doesn't think premarital sex and drinking coffee or alcohol are sinful going to "repent" of? If the only reason a kid thinks he can't do something is that BYU says so, how's he going to work the "repentance" system as you suggest?

I'm not referring to the repentance system (as a former LDS and current Christian the whole idea that repentance is a system is utterly stupid to me). I'm referring to the system that constitutes the politics of Honor Code violations, judgments, and decisions; basically the politics of behavior policing that is done at BYU.

Sethbag wrote:If indeed BYU bishops are handling these cases of "repent and I won't sick the Honor Code office on you", perhaps these kids are benefitting from a conflating of the concepts of sin in the LDS church and the proscribed behaviors in the Honor Code, in a way that an irreligious, or mildly religious, non-LDS simply can't.

This is what I think is happening. Since the non-LDS kids don't have this benefit, they are left to fend for themselves. In fact, since I do think there is a conflation of LDS proscribed repentance rituals and Honor Code politics, it would seem that in some sense non-LDS students have less of a chance to "repent" than the LDS kids do, at least in the eyes of the Honor Code enforcers. What was that scripture about those who receive less light and knowledge having less responsibility?

stemelbow wrote:

Sethbag wrote:So why won't BYU accept the promise of a sexually active or boozing LDS student that they will stop having sex and drinking as soon as they get to BYU?

The only thing that I can imagine is any non-LDS should be treated as innocent until the law is in effect. The LDS, on the other hand, are under law and therefore their sins take more remorse and restitution.

I don't know if I"m anywhere near BYU's reasoning here, but its about all I can think of.

So, you think this is just about whether a person is "worthy" to attend BYU, and not a determination that such a person is probably just not a very good fit for the type of atmosphere BYU wants to promote?

The point remains, Mak is arguing that I would apply a harsher standard on non-LDS to attend BYU than I would apply to LDS kids, when in fact the opposite is true: non-LDS can get in to BYU despite past or even current behavior patterns that would get LDS kids disqualified instantly.

I think I've said everything I could say in this thread. I'm going to bow out. My arguments have been made, and then remade, and then remade again.

maklelan wrote:I don't appreciate the implication that I'm being racist, Scratch, and I won't be sticking around to hear whatever asinine rationalization you come up with to explain yourself. I'm sick and tired of having to defend myself from your idiocy while everyone else just sits around and watches in silence. This board isn't worth that.

maklelan ~ I did not think your remarks were racist, and I thought you made good points about the bias in Smith's article and the problematic nature of some of the testimonies, particularly Kessman's.

I'm not quite certain why you think that anyone here should speak out against Scratch. If I spoke out against every person on this forum whose behavior I disagreed with, I don't think I'd have time to post about much of anything else. I generally limit my protests to (a) fellow evangelicals whose behavior I disagree with (because I don't want them to make evangelicals look bad), and/or (b) people whom I believe are likely to change their behavior if I protest it, and/or (c) people who denigrate women---even when I think they won't change, this is a pet peeve of mine. I generally reserve the right to address someone in private because I believe a person is more likely to change his or her behavior if its handled out of the public eye without embarrassing them, but if that doesn't help, sometimes it has to be public.

Speaking of which, have you examined the behavior of a certain apologist colleague of yours, particularly his treatment of women? Have you attempted to address this either in public or in private?

If you haven't, then I'm not sure why you expect people to do something that you yourself refuse to do. At least Scratch isn't speaking at conferences or preparing for scholarly publication (that we know of).

stemelbow wrote:

TrashcanMan79 wrote:Quit being a little titty-baby. Engage the posters you want. Ignore the ones you don't. It's freakin simple.

Also, I hereby condemn Sethbag's condemnation of Scratch's post. (Hope that doesn't hurt your pwecious wittle feewings, titty-baby.)

Why aren't you playing this same game with those who whine incessantly about Will Schryver or any others? Oh never mind. I don't expect a serious answer anyway.

Who here has threatened to withdraw from participating on the board because of Schryver? Give me names, and I'll tell them exactly what I told Mak.