themessenger wrote:Tao, I sent you a pm on MDDB warning you that public criticism of William Schryver would lead to you being labeled an ant-mormon or a cohort to anti-mormons, you responded that you did not think that was likely.
I still hold by that.
Did you see what William labeled Calmoriah for her criticism of his behaviour? Yes, he in essence labeled her a confederate to anti-mormons.
William isn't the mods though.
I was banned from the board this morning because I too, dared post criticism of Williams behaviour.
I didn't see your posts, so I can't tell why they banned you. But you might try emailing them.
And here is the lesson you need to learn TAO, Juliann Reynold who posts a Juliann on MDDB owns or is directly involved in the administration of MDDB.
She posts rather rarely. I have no idea how she is involved in administration.
You need to know that she will what amounts to totalitarianism to silence anyone who dares to question so called "Apologist". This totalitarianism as serves as a "chilling effect" to send a message to others that they better not dare speak out against any so called Apologist.
You can find in closed threads that Nemsis (Juliann or DanG) do not believe in living a higher standard. Nemisis exact words are "this is not Relief Society or Elders Quorum" and thus she and he expose their Weekend Warrior mentality.
Where did Nemesis say this, and why do you draw that conclusion?
Rather than hold everyone accountable to a higher standard, they lower everyone to the most base standard.
I don't really see them doing this. While I haven't liked all of the decisions of the mods, I don't see them doing this.
A warning about FAIR, while FAIR can provide some information, FAIR relyies on upon its own members interpretations, thus FAIR relies on the philosophy of men mingled with scripture.
Of course. Both sides mingle the philosophy of men with scripture and logic. But you should know, there is no such thing as thought without interpretation. There is no such thing as an 'uninterpreted' scriptural verse. There is some that are bent more than others... but all of them have interpretation.
Take a look at Daniel Peterson's own word:
He was right. That's what apologetics is. That's what all persuasive debate is.
Selek1, jwhitlock, Wade Englund a.k.a. wenglund, will be the first and loudest to label anyone an anti-mormon if that person dares to question anything a so called apologist types/speaks/prints.
Selek, is a bit like that, yes. But, selek is also willing to admit his mistakes, and back down from claims if honestly shown he is wrong, or if shown that perhaps this could be said a bit ligher. He's fine.
jwhitlock I don't know enough about.
Wade I don't know much about either, but he seems to be decently respectful in his reponses, and I don't recall him using 'anti-mormon' much.
It is standard procedure over there, disagree with the party line = anti-mormonism. Good luck to you.
I'll respectfully disagree, but thanks.
Best of Wishes,
-TAO
