The Wisdom & Faith of Lehi Cranston

[_Droopy]

I've been sparring with Daniel for 10 years or so. Yes, he's changed. He's much more mellow than when he was when I first called him to repentence for his arrogance and pride, years ago on Z. Much. And I think that mellowing is manifested in his editorials in FROB.

Can you believe this material?? An thoroughgoing apostate, in every sense of the term, from the self righteous moral posturing to alligience to trendy liberal political and social nostrums, calling a faithful Latter Day Saint to repentance for defending the Church.

Fascinating Captain...

[_Droopy]

To be honest, simply based on the participation here, I would say that both BC and Bob are a lot more callous and argumentative than Daniel, when it comes to dealing with critics.

Hey! what about me? I'm saddened and dejected by this snub...

What am I, chopped liver?

[_Droopy]

ROFLOL!!!! Wow, this is just about as funny as your claims that my "paranoia" is just a ruse. "A pleasant person who values kindness"??? LOL!! Whew! Thanks for the laugh, Professor P.

I can't speak for Dr. Peterson, but my view is that your paranoia is a constituent aspect of your personality and character.

I've followed Daniel's posts for a number of years now, in various venues, and would have to agree with his own characterization of his personality, having never met him in person.

The level and quantity of projection available on this board is absolutely a-mazing.

Okay.... <ahem> More seriously, why do you think Cranston's remarks are "misconceived", and why do you put his name is "scare quotes"? Do you assume that he is lying about his name? (I would think that you wouldn't do that, given your purported valuation of kindness.)

Speaking for myself, I think Cranston is the online guestbook board equivalent of a Troll.

[_Yoda]

To be honest, simply based on the participation here, I would say that both BC and Bob are a lot more callous and argumentative than Daniel, when it comes to dealing with critics.

Hey! what about me? I'm saddened and dejected by this snub...

What am I, chopped liver?

Please accept my apology for the snub, Loran. You should definitely be included on the list.

by the way, you have yet to respond to my comment on this thread here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8389&p=219012#p219012

Or, did this "apostasy enabler" best you?

Edited to add---I have repeatedly stated, for the record, that I like Dr. Peterson. Daniel and I have exchanged private emails as well as engaged in discussions here. Although we have disagreed on things, at times, he has always been very civil toward me, and I consider him an "Internet friend" of sorts. If you could follow DCP's example of civility more often, I think that you would have more success at furthering your points, and being taken seriously.

[_Droopy]

I'm not sure which "personal attacks" you are referring to in a board that is composed of almost nothing but, but sometimes its just difficult to restrain.

I've tried so many times in the past two years at serious, idea based discussion here, but if was, for the most part, fruitless. So I just come here once or twice a month or so, just to stir the pot. MAD is much more satisfying intellectually and comes without the bad aftertaste.

Now, do you understand what I mean by "enabler" Liz?

I think your fundamental values and beliefs are quite different from those of bc, Ray, and myself.

We'll just have to accept that as the basis for discussion, I suppose.

[_Droopy]

You know, one really has to appreciate the double standard here. Anti-Mormons, exmos, and liberals can say, claim, and attack in any manner they so choose, and TBM's are supposed to reply in soft, dulcet tones with no hint of irritation, disgust, or open disdain of clear lapses of credibility or ingenuousness when lies are told, slanders are hurled, and sacred things are trampled, spat upon, and mocked.

I know this tactic well, Liz. The only recourse it leaves apologists is to leave the arena altogether unless then wish to keep turning their cheeks over and over and over and over again while critics run roughshod over the Church and the apologists themselves in the expectation that the apologists will have to fight with both hands tied behind their backs. When that doesn't happen, apostates, critics, and apostasy enablers feign shock and outrage that a faithful LDS actually shot back across the bow.

You've never really been here to defend the Church Liz, so it doesn't surprise me you would think of bc and Ray in this way.

You're perceptions are, I think, substantially weighted by your other biases, whatever they may be

[_Yoda]

MAD is much more satisfying intellectually and comes without the bad aftertaste.

I'm glad that you found a board where you feel comfortable. In my experience on MAD, I found that believers' treatment of critics could also be cruel, and leave an extremely bad "aftertaste".

I think your fundamental values and beliefs are quite different from those of bc, Ray, and myself.

We'll just have to accept that as the basis for discussion, I suppose.

My fundamental beliefs and values involve being kind and respectful to one another. I am the first to admit that as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, I hold other members to a higher standard than those who are not members. I expect you, as a proclaimed member, to act even MORE KIND and be MORE UNDERSTANDING than the average poster who is not a member. That is why I get more upset with you and BC, in particular.

But I do appreciate the fact that you seem to be implying that at least in a discussion between the two of us we can "agree to disagree" in a civil manner.

[_Droopy]

But I do appreciate the fact that you seem to be implying that at least in a discussion between the two of us we can "agree to disagree" in a civil manner.

All well and good Liz, but is some cases, people must be confronted, sometimes civilly and diplomatically, and sometimes in a more stern and uncompromising manner, when they are wrong, intellectually sloppy, disingenuous, tendentious, dishonest, immoral, or obnoxious.

Since, in my rather long experience with criticism of the Church, especially from the EV and secular exmo worlds, this kind of thing is rife, apologists are always confronted with the choice of calm civility and speaking "betimes with sharpness".

I think a proper expression of disapproval, anger, and, as many times seem appropriate here, satirical dismissal of stuff that just cannot be taken seriously at all, but that some do, indeed, take seriously (at the Church's expense) can be healthy and bracing, and, make no mistake, a number of people here and in forums similar to it need a grabbed and shaken violently now and then.

Like everything else in life, kindness and softness must be in balance. That is the fundamental idea behind the concept of Yin and Yang; dynamic complimentarities.

There is a time to gather stones, and a time to cast them away.

I don't always do it properly, but I'm a human being, after all.

[_Gadianton]

"personal attacks"....sometimes its just difficult to restrain.

...So I just come here once or twice a month or so, just to stir the pot.

Which of course is why Droopy considers the antics over at Shields to be normal, and anyone who disputes this to either be a critic or a troll.

[_Droopy]

Coming from one of those who simply cannot and should not be taken seriously on any subject theological or philosophical, and who has contributed substantially to this board's general demeanor (and who was equally as instrumental in the deterioration of ZLMB as a balanced and civil forum of discussion), it is to laugh.