Double Standard--Question for Will, et. al. from MAD

[_Daniel Peterson]

Have you been paying attention?

Yes. Have you?

Are you here to defend Will's lavish use of reproductive bodily fluid drenched imagery and misogynistic personal attacks?

If I were, I would have done so.

Have you been cheering silently in the background or not? Enemy of my enemy and all that?

No. As I've said.

[_Tarski]

Have you been paying attention?

Yes. Have you?

Are you here to defend Will's lavish use of reproductive bodily fluid drenched imagery and misogynistic personal attacks?

If I were, I would have done so.

Have you been cheering silently in the background or not? Enemy of my enemy and all that?

No. As I've said.

I didn't really think you were but I figured it would be nice for you to make that clear (to Will at least).
Thanks

[_silentkid]

Have you been cheering silently in the background or not?

I've been cheering him on. What a train wreck...through a nuclear power plant...with an atomic bomb dropped on it.

[_Joey]

I don't know anybody else associated with FARMS who pays any attention to this board.

Now there's a statement made for the wishfull thinking of the bretheren. Couldn't be more untrue!

Very few even know it exists.

And by your own admission, the very way one would describe FARMS itself!!!!

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't know anybody else associated with FARMS who pays any attention to this board.

Now there's a statement made for the wishfull thinking of the bretheren. Couldn't be more untrue!

If you have any evidence to demonstrate that you're right and I'm wrong, feel free to produce it.

Very few even know it exists.

And by your own admission, the very way one would describe FARMS itself!!!!

Which, even if true, is relevant . . . how, exactly?

A survey of any thousand randomly-selected people would turn up few if any who had ever read Katunob or the Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft or the Physical Review or Vigiliae Christianae or who had heard of the Society for Egyptian Antiquities or the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

So what?

[_Joey]

If you have any evidence to demonstrate that you're right and I'm wrong, feel free to produce it.

What? There's a whole thread on your arrogant behavior of personally informing GoodK's father of his/her comments and linking this board directly!!!

Then there have been numerous posts of Hamblin at the other board clearly demonstrating his viewing of this board.

While I have no doubt that the list goes much deeper, these two above, are enough I believe, to quite plainly demonstrate either your dishonesty, or your "wishfull thinking"!!

And by your own admission, the very way one would describe FARMS itself!!!!

Which, even if true, is relevant . . . how, exactly?

I have never been one advocating that FARMS is relevant!!

[_Yong Xi]

This is the kind of tawdry, base ridiculousness that makes defenders of the purported "Restored Gospel" of Jesus Christ look utterly and profanely ridiculous, given that (per LDS Will), his LDS wife, his LDS stake president, and certain LDS associates of, yes, FARMS love this stuff.

If, having surveyed the writings and speeches of a representative sample of defenders of the faith (e.g., Louis Midgley, Brant Gardner, yours truly, William Hamblin, David Paulsen, Davis Bitton, Matthew Roper, John Welch, Blake Ostler, etc.), you find that tawdry, base ridiculousness and crude sexual metaphors are typical of them, or even publicly approved by them -- if, say, FARMS and FAIR provide a receptive venue for such discourse in the manner in which this board is receptive to the discourse of boaz & lidia, infymus, TAK, Mercury, Chap, poor antishock8, Some Schmo, Polygamy Porter, and the like -- you'll have a secure basis for your generalization.

Certainly Will is not representative of most apologists I have run into. But he is as extreme as some you mention above. Right or wrong those who claim to be devoted LDS like Will does will look really bad and give others a bad name when they act like he is acting here. You should call him on it.

Why should Daniel call him on it? He has no more responsibility for that than any other practicing LDS who participates or lurks here.

[_cksalmon]

Why should Daniel call him on it? He has no more responsibility for that than any other practicing LDS who participates or lurks here.

Dr. Peterson is, arguably, the most prominent Latter-day Saint who monitors this board and posts here. He is a BYU professor, editor of the FARMS review, etc.

If he feels no compunction to call Schryver out for his shenanigans, then one might well posit some sort of institutional approbation of them. Perhaps that's not entirely fair, but, as I opined to Dr. Peterson, he's downwind of Will's stink.

I'm not sure that I consider Dr. Peterson's opinion any more or less important than that of any other Latter-day Saint who posts here, but it is certainly of a "higher" degree. Thus, I find it gratifying that, among those LDS here who have chosen to weigh in on this matter, the majority have been critical of Schryver's baseness.

..............................

Yet, I'm left wondering who on earth Will intends to implicate in his claim that "certain FARMS friends" and/or "a couple people associated with FARMS" dig his diatribes.

Will's response to that inquiry has been to boldly state that I'm a "cowardly liar." Okay. Mopologetics is what mopologetics does, I suppose.

But, still. To whom is he referring?

[_Yoda]

Dr. Peterson is, arguably, the most prominent Latter-day Saint who monitors this board and posts here. He is a BYU professor, editor of the FARMS review, etc.

Actually, Dr. Peterson HAS called Will on it in two ways:

He has publicly stated MULTIPLE times now, on both this thread, and the other one I started, that he does NOT approve of the crude types of posts that Will has delivered here.

He also serves as an example of an LDS apologist who can argue positions, and post his opinions without being crude and ugly to others.

Frankly, if Will chooses to ignore both Dr. Peterson's opinion regarding his posts, and his example of posting, then I question Will's respect for Dr. Peterson.

[_cksalmon]

Dr. Peterson is, arguably, the most prominent Latter-day Saint who monitors this board and posts here. He is a BYU professor, editor of the FARMS review, etc.

Actually, Dr. Peterson HAS called Will on it in two ways:

He has publicly stated MULTIPLE times now, on both this thread, and the other one I started, that he does NOT approve of the crude types of posts that Will has delivered here.

He also serves as an example of an LDS apologist who can argue positions, and post his opinions without being crude and ugly to others.

Frankly, if Will chooses to ignore both Dr. Peterson's opinion regarding his posts, and his example of posting, then I question Will's respect for Dr. Peterson.

All due respect, Liz, but Dr. Peterson hasn't issued any unequivocal, specific denouncement of Will's behavior on MDB (which, to show my cards, is what I'm after). He has stated that he doesn't like potty humor, that he misses more posts than I'd think, and that I shouldn't judge his religion based on its most extreme adherents. What he hasn't said is, "I disdain Will's disgusting comments." Or, something to that effect.

I'm hoping that Dr. Peterson, as a thoughtful representative of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, will forthrightly condemn LDS Will's antics here--because it is the right thing to do for someone who professes to represent Jesus Christ. Will feels no shame whatsoever for his antics and would repeat them again tomorrow, per his own claims. (And, perhaps he can call me a "cowardly liar" again for feeling repulsed by him.)

This is a win-(sorta-)win challenge on my part.

I'd be pleased as punch for Dr. Peterson to do so; yet, at this point, frankly, I think I'd be unsurprised if he doesn't.

At this point, it boils down to the question, "What does it mean to be a defender of the LDS Gospel?"

As Will assures us that he, his wife, his stake president, and certain FARMS associates enjoy his masturbatory comments, I would think the onus would be on less-gutter-minded LDS defenders to distance themselves explicitly from his shamelessly-worldly riffs on homosexual masturbation and lice-infested prostitution.

And, yet again, other than calling me a "cowardly liar, sir," Will has yet to divulge who on earth he intends to implicate in his claim that "certain FARMS friends" and/or "a couple people associated with FARMS" dig his diatribes.

I envision two possible scenarios. He won't reveal their names because his claim was simply false; or, he won't reveal their names because they wouldn't want to be publicly associated with his gutterisms.