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

[_asbestosman]

By contrast, your anti-Mormon allies at the Provo parade targeted my wife, who brought two specimens of their work home with her.

Yikes, what happened? Were powdered donuts thrown?

Let's get this right:

LDS apologist does bad stuff on this board -> Other LDS apologists active on this board are in no way implicated.

non-LDS do bad stuff in Provo -> critics of CoJCoLDS on this board are "allies" of the said non-LDS

Somehow I thnk Dr. Peterson was trying to make the opposite point to cksalmon. In other words, since cksalmon likely wouldn't want Daniel Peterson to blame him for the bad behavior of other protestants nor to hold him (cksalmon) responsible for reprimanding said protestants--likewise Daniel Peterson likely thinks that cksalmon should not hold him (Daniel Peterson) responsible for reprimanding the poor behavior of other LDS posters.

[_Chap]

By contrast, your anti-Mormon allies at the Provo parade targeted my wife, who brought two specimens of their work home with her.

Yikes, what happened? Were powdered donuts thrown?

Let's get this right:

LDS apologist does bad stuff on this board -> Other LDS apologists active on this board are in no way implicated.

non-LDS do bad stuff in Provo -> critics of CoJCoLDS on this board are "allies" of the said non-LDS

Somehow I thnk Dr. Peterson was trying to make the opposite point to cksalmon. In other words, since cksalmon likely wouldn't want Daniel Peterson to blame him for the bad behavior of other protestants nor to hold him (cksalmon) responsible for reprimanding said protestants--likewise Daniel Peterson likely thinks that cksalmon should not hold him (Daniel Peterson) responsible for reprimanding the poor behavior of other LDS posters.

It is not entirely outwith the bounds of possibility that your speculation will soon be rendered superfluous. But it's kind of you to help us out.

(That's "protestors", no? Sudden O/T thought: are LDS properly to be described as "protestants" in the normal sense of the term?)

[_cksalmon]

By contrast, your anti-Mormon allies at the Provo parade targeted my wife, who brought two specimens of their work home with her.

Yikes, what happened? Were powdered donuts thrown?

Let's get this right:

LDS apologist does bad stuff on this board -> Other LDS apologists active on this board are in no way implicated.

non-LDS do bad stuff in Provo -> critics of CoJCoLDS on this board are "allies" of the said non-LDS

Somehow I thnk Dr. Peterson was trying to make the opposite point to cksalmon. In other words, since cksalmon likely wouldn't want Daniel Peterson to blame him for the bad behavior of other protestants nor to hold him (cksalmon) responsible for reprimanding said protestants--likewise Daniel Peterson likely thinks that cksalmon should not hold him (Daniel Peterson) responsible for reprimanding the poor behavior of other LDS posters.

I've said my piece to Dr. Peterson.

A few things, though, Ab:

(1) My initial disdain for Schryver's recent posts was exacerbated by the mere existence of SHIELDS--where "the best of the anti-Mormon web" is hosted. I find it rankly hypocritical to be involved with a website devoted to archiving and ridiculing bad/silly/inappropriate behavior (some of which, to my mind, fits into none of those categories) on the part of a very tiny number of LDS critics and yet maintain that Schryver's posts should be seen as completely independent--or, more specifically, that they should not reflect in any way whatsoever upon LDS defenders in general. For me, at least, they certainly do.

(2) Moreover, my already-exacerbated disdain was again heightened by Schryver's unexplained, unspecified implication of the unnamed FARMS associates.

Schryver's response to being called on the carpet was to try to spread the muck around a bit, make it blend in.

(3) I was a bit nonplussed by Dr. Peterson's ready moral pronouncement about the actions of evangelical Christian tracters at a Provo parade when, in the face of Schryver's shenanigans, he would only reiterate here that he does not personally indulge in or approve of crude sexual metaphors.

I believe Dr. Peterson was very much implicating me with regard to my "anti-Mormon allies." I'm okay with that, frankly. While I disdain anti-Mormon protests that take the form of bullhorning, sign waving, shouting, dressing up as the devil and wearing a name tag reading "Moroni," or other general nincompoopery at religious events, I don't at all think that polite tracting falls into the same category.

I doubt I would have participated, even given the opportunity. Certainly, I think, not with the particular tract in question, or any tract, frankly. But, as far as I can tell, the group in question does not resort to such overblown tactics as I've mentioned above. If they do, or have done in the past, I have no problem unambiguously stating and defending my disdain for such actions.

(4) Dr. Peterson has already made a general moral pronouncement about the behavior of the "anti-Mormon" offenders at the Provo parade.

With regard to Schryver, he has stated something to the effect: No one likes to be called a snot-nosed shabby bastard to his face (re: Scratch); that's why I use this message board.

I can't help but be reminded of the countless times I have had to watch the "cyber-bullying" commercials on hulu.com: "If you wouldn't say it in person, why say it on the Internet?"

Anyway, just a few disjointed thoughts.

Chris

[_Daniel Peterson]

I was a bit nonplussed by Dr. Peterson's ready moral pronouncement about the actions of evangelical Christian tracters at a Provo parade when, in the face of Schryver's shenanigans, he would only reiterate here that he does not personally indulge in or approve of crude sexual metaphors.

As a free person, I post on what I want, and don't post when I don't want to post. I fail to comment on at least 99.9% of what is said on this message board and on the message board formerly known as FAIR. I don't condemn or even comment on demand.

I believe Dr. Peterson was very much implicating me with regard to my "anti-Mormon allies."

I never linked you with them until, after you had persisted and persisted and persisted and persisted and persisted in trying to drag me into your crusade against Will Schryver, you tried to oblige me to comment further on Schryver simply because I'd posted something on them. I couldn't figure out what your agenda was, and I wanted you to cease and desist.

Dr. Peterson has already made a general moral pronouncement about the behavior of the "anti-Mormon" offenders at the Provo parade.

Just as Dr. Peterson has made a general moral pronouncement about the kind of behavior attributed to Will Schryver.

[_cksalmon]

I never linked you with them until, after you had persisted and persisted and persisted and persisted and persisted in trying to drag me into your crusade against Will Schryver, you tried to oblige me to comment further on Schryver simply because I'd posted something on them. I couldn't figure out what your agenda was, and I wanted you to cease and desist.

Again, I'm okay with your linkage. I'll own what is appropriate and decry that which is not. And, once again, "the crusade," if it can be called one, is against Schryver's comments. I don't know why you yet continue to phrase things in such personal terms. There is no crusade against Schryver.

Dr. Peterson has already made a general moral pronouncement about the behavior of the "anti-Mormon" offenders at the Provo parade.

Just as Dr. Peterson has made a general moral pronouncement about the kind of behavior attributed to Will Schryver.

Link? Containing your general moral pronouncement against the behavior "attributed" to Schryver--which is also the documented behavior of Schryver?

Something like: "Will: Sincerity is no excuse when actions are tacky, inappropriate, offensive, etc."

Rather than: "I don't approve of sexually crude metaphors."

At this point, I'm beyond caring about what you approve of or disapprove of in this particular regard. It's gone on too long for my taste.

If you're quite comfortable with viewing the issue as a series of anomalous renegade activities that doesn't reflect upon LDS apologetics, broadly conceived, I'm perfectly comfortable with your so believing.

Meh.

I think everyone's cards are now on the table.

And, to quote more than one FARMS contributor: "This bores me."

[_Daniel Peterson]

Link? Containing your general moral pronouncement against the behavior "attributed" to Schryver--which is also the documented behavior of Schryver?

Perhaps, although nobody else has, you've missed my repeated statement that I don't engage in crude sexual humor or metaphors and that I don't approve of crude sexual humor or metaphors.

If you're quite comfortable with viewing the issue as a series of anomalous renegade activities that doesn't reflect upon LDS apologetics, broadly conceived, I'm perfectly comfortable with your so believing.

I'm absolutely comfortable with that.

Will Schryver isn't an officer of the Maxwell Institute, hasn't written for the Maxwell Institute, hasn't been endorsed or subsidized by the Maxwell Institute, does't speak for or represent the Maxwell Institute, and his actions, good or bad, reflect neither blame nor credit upon the Maxwell Institute.

LDS apologetics is neither an organization nor a single family nor a unified community nor a corporation nor a unanimous movement. Accordingly, Will Schryver isn't an officer of LDS apologetics, hasn't written for LDS apologetics, hasn't been endorsed or subsidized by LDS apologetics, does't speak for or represent LDS apologetics, and his actions, good or bad, reflect neither blame nor credit upon LDS apologetics as such.

Will Schryver isn't my business partner, my father, my mother, my brother, my sister, my son, my daughter, my long-lost soulmate, my alter ego, or my pseudonym, my authorized agent. Accordingly, Will Shryver doesn't speak for me or represent me, and his actions, good or bad, don't reflect upon me in any way.

[_cksalmon]

Link? Containing your general moral pronouncement against the behavior "attributed" to Schryver--which is also the documented behavior of Schryver?

Perhaps, although nobody else has, you've missed my repeated statement that I don't engage in crude sexual humor or metaphors and that I don't approve of crude sexual humor or metaphors.

If you're quite comfortable with viewing the issue as a series of anomalous renegade activities that doesn't reflect upon LDS apologetics, broadly conceived, I'm perfectly comfortable with your so believing.

I'm absolutely comfortable with that.

Great. As I stated, I think everyone's cards are on the table by now.

Readers can make of this what they will.