Trevor wrote:Amen, consiglieri. And now that you bring it up, let me say that I am weary of all of this scrutinizing of each other's character. It is an endless loop on these Mormon boards. All of them. Everyone is looking at everyone else, standing in judgment, pointing fingers. Hey, don't get me wrong, I have done my fair share, to be sure, but isn't it getting damned boring as hell?
I could agree to this in, however, persons like WS and others put on the aires that they are Gods gift to humanity and are "professionals" at defending the LDS Church. I say anyone who puts himself in the public arena as a professional defender of the Church gets to be scrutinized on everything in their life.
A professional defender or even amateur who gives presentations at "Hazza for the LDS Church" Conference gets to scrutinized on their activities especially those activities which the actor in this case WS has admitted to being a con-artist or rather "just playing a part".
So lets take WS at his word that he is "just playing a part", if his actions are "just playing a part" then I say he is worse than the most rabid anti-mormon; he plays the part quite well, and I dare say he does not where he ends and the part begins. Such actions do more damage to the Church than any anti-mormon. A anti-mormon at least can be dismissed as someone disaffected, but in WS case he claims to be a defender and puts on that he is an upstanding member of the Church; yet his actions show otherwise.
-----------------------------------
Simon Belmont as for in real life information, as I understand the rule I can not post actually in real life information such as his employer, or home address, what I posted about the Stake Offices I stipulate may or may not be correct. It is a fine line I know, but one which I am willing to walk.
And I would think that those who truly wish to defend the Church would speak out against WS actions OR completely disavow him due to the poor example he sets.