I get frustrated here because...

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's stunning, in its own minor league sort of way, that -- even on this indisputably clear and rather trivial matter of what I posted on the thread about Mercury's family troubles -- Scratch simply can't tell the truth, can't fight his need to distort what I said, can't resist his primal urge to malign me, can't acknowledge an error, can't back away.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Let me ask you this: What would do more to help your Internet reputation--pounding out yet another insult-laden post to me, or working to get your malignant correspondence removed from SHIELDS?

Is that what you want, Scratch?

Either way, Ray. If he leaves it up it will continue to be a testament to the fundamental viciousness and vindictiveness of the Mopologetics of his generation. So, in that respect, I'm in favor of keeping it up. It's like a signpost or a lighthouse that let's people know what the whole thing is all about.

On the other hand, taking it down would be a kind of "bridge-building" gesture. I'm in favor of the "kinder, gentler" approach to apologetics that appears to be spearheaded by David Bokovoy. So this would be a positive, too.

It makes no difference to me either way. I'm just pointing out that a certain message is being communicated by leaving it up.

Are you an advocate of free speech?

Yes.

And you've been criticising Simon, and Nemesis? Lots of "malignant" things have been said by both critics and defenders. So what if defenders went around the Net demanding that all "malignant" correspondence, essays, articles by critics be removed?

They do go around doing that. Check out Simon's thread on Rich Kelsey if you want an example.

Would that be a fair deal?

Hey, Ray: Why don't we talk about UFOs?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Carry on, Dr. Peterson. I'm glad that your morning's worth of posting has left you feeling "satisfied."

[_RayAgostini]

On the other hand, taking it down would be a kind of "bridge-building" gesture. I'm in favor of the "kinder, gentler" approach to apologetics that appears to be spearheaded by David Bokovoy. So this would be a positive, too.

Then maybe you should ask David for his opinion on all this? Were you invited to his recent BBQ? lol.

[_why me]

Why Me forgot to mention that you should avoid responding on questions to which you have no answers...

why me wrote:
Women have power in the church.



jon wrote:
CFR

What 'power' do Women have in the Church in relation to the males of the Church?
Some women have 'power' within the female only parts of the Church organisation - but I can't think of a single example of where any women have 'power' in relation to males?

Women final speakers at Sacrament?
Women presiding at mixed sex meetings?
Women being able to offer prayers at Conference?
Women being able to show their faces during the proper way to pray?

Still waiting Why Me, still waiting...

I answered that question already. But I am not sure on which thread. Women have power in the home and with the kids. She is the moral gatekeeper of the home. And that takes a lot of power. Also, without the Relief Society the church would be weak and rudderless. Also women can receive their own personal revelation in regards to home.

I have this feeling that the exmos actually believe that Mormon women are kissing their husbands' feet. Not true. If a Mormon mnarriage is following what the LDS teaches, the women in the LDS church are vast amounts of equality if not more power.

[_why me]

Carry on, Dr. Peterson. I'm glad that your morning's worth of posting has left you feeling "satisfied."

Maybe you should stop trying to taking the piss out of him. Just leave the guy alone and all will be fine. Sign a truce agreement with him and go relax.

[_Doctor Scratch]

On the other hand, taking it down would be a kind of "bridge-building" gesture. I'm in favor of the "kinder, gentler" approach to apologetics that appears to be spearheaded by David Bokovoy. So this would be a positive, too.

Then maybe you should ask David for his opinion on all this?

As I recall, he agreed that apologists need to clean up their act. I think he was talking specifically about Will Schryver, though I think his comments are more widely applicable to Mopologetics in general.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Carry on, Dr. Peterson. I'm glad that your morning's worth of posting has left you feeling "satisfied."

Maybe you should stop trying to taking the piss out of him. Just leave the guy alone and all will be fine. Sign a truce agreement with him and go relax.

Sorry, why me, but the fact is that Dr. Peterson has just done too many really cruel things during his 25+ year Mopologetic career. He'll either atone for this in some way, or it will be his legacy. Frankly, I think I've been doing him a favor.

[_stemelbow]

Sorry, why me, but the fact is that Dr. Peterson has just done too many really cruel things during his 25+ year Mopologetic career.

Oh boy...I am rolling my eyes here. He's done cruel things, in yoru view which haven't been established, so you do cruel things to him, which has been established. Something tells me you've emersed yourself too deeply in this cyber world. You're actually trying to justify your actions, deeming them good, when your justification come off as childish and that which you call good is anything but. On top of that, in this very thread, your accusations of him have been unsupported. They're just aspersions with no reasoning.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I expect that my friend David Bokovoy would find it amusing to discover that he's "spearheading" a movement designed to compete with my own -- as Scratch puts it, claiming to represent David's viewpoint -- "counterproductive, un-Christian, and, at base, deeply immoral and sadistic" actions.

Oddly, when David and Bill Hamblin and Dave Seely and I were relaxing around the table in his backyard after enjoying his excellent barbecue cookery a couple of weeks ago, David never so much as mentioned his righteous indignation at my "counterproductive, un-Christian, and, at base, deeply immoral and sadistic" career.

Methinks that The Bokovoy Faction and The Peterson Faction are no more real than are The Packer Faction and The Oaks Faction.

Carry on, Dr. Peterson. I'm glad that your morning's worth of posting has left you feeling "satisfied."

Thank you.

It has.

I think that any reasonable, fair-minded person looking in here at the brazen way you attempted to misrepresent my comment from the Mercury "family matters" thread in order to suit your malicious agenda -- "reasonable, fair-minded person" plainly excludes some here on this board, but by no means all -- can see it for what it is, and will draw the obvious, appropriate conclusion from it.

I appreciate your help.