Kishkumen wrote:So, in order for a person to bring forth evidence of the nasty behavior of the person under scrutiny in the OP, that person must be spotless from similar behavior?
And, surely anyone on his high horse about this kind of "hypocrisy" must also be free of taint, right Simon?
That isn't my position at all. Cam is free to bring it up. His continual hounding is the problem. Say your peace, leave it alone, unless you are the paragon of politeness.
Simon Belmont wrote:That isn't my position at all. Cam is free to bring it up. His continual hounding is the problem. Say your peace, leave it alone, unless you are the paragon of politeness.
So, basically you are the self-appointed arbiter of how much someone gets to participate in this thread.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:So, basically you are the self-appointed arbiter of how much someone gets to participate in this thread.
No, I am the one who calls out hypocrisy when I see it. Cam can participate as much as he wants, but repeatedly asking someone to address a behavior of which you yourself regularly engage in is ludicrous.
Simon Belmont wrote:No, I am the one who calls out hypocrisy when I see it. Cam can participate as much as he wants, but repeatedly asking someone to address a behavior of which you yourself regularly engage in is ludicrous.
Simon, I think that most normal people understand that some aspirations bear with them a requirement for greater circumspection.
You may not like that, but those are just the facts.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
malaise wrote:Of course it is. If it is the case that you need to avoid making sexual comments in your private life to publish a serious book then PC has run amok insofar as public debate is closed to people who are "offensive".
This is a public forum and a number of posters appreciate not having to read offensive language and personal insults when people are jousting with one another. If such language would draw a strong censure at Church, then it probably is not suitable for a public forum, even thought this place does not hold to such a rigorous standard that demands censure.
Do representatives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have to play nice? Not here or on the MAD board, but I submit that they should not try to act in so vulgar of manner as to prompt this thread.
In fairness, I am sure that the MI will not be publishing anything they write either.
I should hope not. The hypocrisy coming from CamNC4Me is astounding.
The difference, Simon, is quite clear to me: Cam acknowledged his mistake and apologized publically. Will does neither.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
malaise wrote:What does misogyny have to do with whether or not Mormon teachings are true or false? Answer: Nothing
This thread is just another example of how political correctness destroys the ability of people to engage in debate or express themselves in a public forum without sticking to the standard PC way of looking at things. As a female, I don't agree with misogyny , and I despise the sexism inherent in Mormonism.....I still think that this man should have been able to present the best arguments he could come up with in a public forum and have his ideas considered. Starting a thread because you think he is "offensive" offends me. You know something? Political correctness reminds me of Mormonism in a weird way. you are just not supposed to say or do certain things, even in jest. When you do say those things....... people get to go on a moral crusade and ignore your opinion because you have violated one of their stupid rules.
I continue to be amazed at the number of people barging into this thread asking questions and making comments, apparently without ever having read my OP.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13
Also, this is the last time that I'm going to say it:
The primary purpose of this thread was never to get William's work canceled. I've never engaged William in a debate on the Book of Abraham or the KEP, nor do I have much interest in the topic, therefore what's getting published in that field is of little concern to me and cannot possibly pose a threat to me. Furthermore, I've always maintained that apologetics is a useful branch of theology, and I approve of and encourage my LDS friends to develop this branch for themselves.
The purpose of this thread was to raise awareness of William's behavior via careful documentation and persuade him to stop treating women in this manner, because of the negative impact that such behavior would have on the scholarly process in regards to his work.
If William were to acknowledge that treating women in the manner documented here is inappropriate and uncalled for, apologize for it, and cease the offending behavior, I would have no problems with his work appearing in any scholarly forum.
An outcome where William is barred from publishing because he refuses to abandon his offending behavior is not what I would have wanted, but in 47+ pages of this issue being discussed, William showed not the slightest sign of changing his ways.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13