The fallout of Will and David

[_lostindc]

This comes off as plain silly seeing as how much Will is condemned here. I would be interested in what is the reasoning behind what appeared that way to you? Out of sick curiousity if nothing else.

I will let Will answer the questions and this should clarify. I actually think Will is not afraid to tell his side of the story and moreover I believe he has responsibility to tell the story.

[_stemelbow]

For the record I don't think either actually threatened to discredit the other as apologists or scholars at all. they each seemed to think the other did. And after reading the words they each used to support their concern I felt Will's case came off a bit stronger, but again, even his case had to employ some amount of creativity to draw the conclusion. This is all just from Stem's memory, so I could be wrong.

And no, I'm not going to go digging for the quotes. They were all from MD&D though, as I recall. Can't remember the threads or the time frame.

[_RockSlider]

Also realize that David B. and William have had a fairly long running and involved series of discussions about the United Order, which has evoked the wrath of William on multiple occassions. I assume David B. originally earned his place on the Fifth Columnist list based on his UO stance/arguments with William.

I can see David B.’s scholarly background and method, when dealing with even this UO issue, spanking William’s arguments in the eyes of other scholars and MI. Maybe this was a threat to William which started that whole ugly snowball rolling?

Poor David, if only he could learn William’s three pillars of ugliness and inflict them here with equal wrath, he might actually have a future at MI. Kind of sad actually. But law of the jungle and all, Tarzan is obviously the man for the job.

[_stemelbow]

Also realize that David B. and William have had a fairly long running and involved series of discussions about the United Order, which has evoked the wrath of William on multiple occassions. I assume David B. originally earned his place on the Fifth Columnist list based on his UO stance/arguments with William.

I would sya you are, at least, partly right on that. Two things hard to discuss and not get your ego going--Religion and politics.

As side note, I'm very much appreciative of David's ideas on this topic. Man oh man that stuff gets me excited to think about.

[_RockSlider]

For the record I don't think either actually threatened to discredit the other as apologists or scholars at all. they each seemed to think the other did.

Not so, David was very clear that William had made private contact with an individual that was in a position to hurt his career and that individual told David about it. This above and beyond the public threat William made on the MAD thread.

[_stemelbow]

Not so, David was very clear that William had made private contact with an individual that was in a position to hurt his career and that individual told David about it. This above and beyond the public threat William made on the MAD thread.

Of course I"m just some dude who is not really involved. So I could have missed something along these lines, but it seems when the cases were presented there was nothing along these lines mentioned. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[_Will Schryver]

... Will is abjectly terrified of getting this lone chance to shine yanked away from him.

First of all ... LOL!

OK, with that out of the way, I wish to make the following things perfectly clear:

• I don't consider publishing LDS apologetic articles a particularly hard or impressive thing to do. Not that there are not some very impressive LDS apologetic articles--there most certainly are. I guess I just don't consider it a very important field of endeavor, all things considered. I've come to the conclusion that apologetics is overrated when it comes to the question of fostering faith in God, the restoration, etc. In my opinion, that can only come from personal revelation.
  `
• I honestly could not care less if I never publish a scholarly and/or apologetic article. I am not and have never pretended to be a "scholar." If I could do it all over again, knowing what I now know, I would still not choose to become a scholar. My interests and aspirations lie elsewhere.
  `
• The only reason I have written or am currently writing articles slated for publication is that I have been repeatedly beseeched, importuned, and otherwise strongly entreated to do so. Therefore, in order to fulfill my prior commitments, in consequence of the petitions made to me, I will follow through to the extent I have promised.

[_Runtu]

For me, there's been no fallout whatsoever. I had the highest respect for David before, and I still do. He's one of the finer people I know.

I will never understand people who enjoy hurting others, but at least I've stopped letting it get to me.

[_Kishkumen]

stem,

I have to say I am a little surprised by your tack here. It does not seem to represent well David Bokovoy's point of view at all. "Respect" really isn't the right word. I doubt that David "respects" much of what goes on on this board anymore than Will does. What seems to concern David, in my view at least, is that apologists treat others respectfully. There is an important distinction to be made there.

Furthermore, I would be very surprised if David were to hold something akin to a grudge against Will. I would bet that he continues to treat Will like a brother in Christ, as it were. It is strange to me that you would assign more significance to their small differences than either one of them probably would.

It seems to me that David took issue with what he perceived to be Will's general lack of respect for "critics". It got worse and worse as each said some things about the other that didn't do anything but drive a wedge between the two. I'm of course going off limited reading of postings between here and MD&D. So take that for whatever its worth.

[_Kishkumen]

I think there is likely very little chance that Bill will be published due to the weakness of his argument.

Oh, I think you would be surprised. Lots of crappy arguments have been published under the FARMS moniker. Will's would hardly be the worst. In fact, I would say he has made some real contributions by comparison. I would bet that there are entire issues of the FARMS Review, for example, that are largely without merit, except perhaps for the eloquence of their vicious rhetoric, and to be used to start a fire in a pinch.