For Selek--Welcome, want to apologize now?

[_Daniel Peterson]

First off, my thanks to Tarski and Moniker for their very kind words.

There is no good fruit in trading barbs. Why not just say that there was a past disagreement and from this point on, work on treating each other with dignity and respect?

I'm entirely happy to treat harmony with dignity and respect.

And I promise never, ever, to pronounce judgment on the question of whether or not her life reflects Christian principles of behavior. I'm simply in no position to know, it's none of my business, and I take the Savior's admonition very seriously:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

[_Nightingale]

I've been trying to get Daniel to live up to his beliefs too, and we see how far that's gone....

Harmony quoting Nightingale's response: "Seems like you're spitting into the wind with this kind of endeavour - "

Oh, I agree. It just amuses me to point out to one of our prominent apologist that he doesn't appear to even pay lip servie to following the dictates of his own religion.

Hypocrites and all that.

But hey! It makes for amusing conversations.

I'd like to make clear that I did not aim my comment, quoted above, directly at DCP. In fact, I said the opposite. My foreshortened quote above could give the wrong impression out of context as it is. What I actually said was:

"Seems like you're spitting into the wind with this kind of endeavour - not because it's DCP but I'd say the same for attempts to "get" someone else to do anything the way we think things should be done."

As for wondering why posters don't speak out for both sides when something unjust is said or done, I agree with DCP's conclusion that it is a group behaviour kind of thing. I try to be impartial, for those issues that do not directly affect me or fire me up, but even so, I have stifled comment when I don't want to criticize a fellow Christian in front of an atheist, for example. I know that is biased and perhaps unfair or short-sighted of me but yeah, there's a "party line" kind of pull there. If I think someone is dead wrong or they are being particularly egregious, in my view, then I may speak up. For me it isn't so much about group-think as about not enjoying vicious sparring or outright bloodbaths so I just decline to participate. I must say that if you don't exclusively identify with one particular group it is much easier to see pros and cons on both sides. That seems to go without saying, yet for some of us it takes time to learn to disengage to that degree.

However, I won't shy away in the face of outright corruption. I just try not to get too incensed about peripheral issues. The trick is to figure out the difference, of course. I also try to be fair and ethical whether posting about something or not. It is largely an invisible struggle but, for instance, I won't support someone's view only because they are Christian. In fact, atheists have a lot of interesting, thought-provoking input on the boards. You can't say they don't ask pertinent questions. I respect that.

Sorry for the detour.

[_cksalmon]

I tried to PM him on MAD to verify and his inbox is full.

MADB selek responded to my PM with:

Thanks for the heads-up. Please pass the word that whomever that is, it ain't the genuine article.

[_harmony]

And I promise never, ever, to pronounce judgment on the question of whether or not her {harmony's} life reflects Christian principles of behavior.

When much is given, much is expected. You are the voice of LDS apologetics in print and in public presentations world-wide and also in the virtual world. False modesty will not allow you to escape this.

I have no doubt you live an exemplary life most of the time in the real world. You wouldn't work where you work, nor would you be a bishop if that were not so. Unfortunately, the voice you put to LDS apologetics, on the internet and sometimes in your book review editorials, doesn't follow even the basics of the gospel: kindness, love for one's perceived enemies, humility, etc. Which is disappointing. I'm not the only one to comment on these slips. I'm just one of the many that you can ignore.

When I become an internationally famous LDS apologist, you can comment on my every word and deed, many of which are unkind, ornery, and less than loving. Until then, more is expected of you, because of your leadership in both the real world and the LDS apologetic world, than will ever be of me.

[_harmony]

I tried to PM him on MAD to verify and his inbox is full.

MADB selek responded to my PM with:

Thanks for the heads-up. Please pass the word that whomever that is, it ain't the genuine article.

Our Selek is not the MAD Selek?

[_cksalmon]

Our Selek is not the MAD Selek?

I don't think we have an "our Selek." It stopped posting when its identity was questioned. But, no, MAD's selek has not posted here--at the very least, not with the moniker "selek." That was a sock puppet or troll. I would assume that MAD selek hasn't posted here at all.