Boylan's "sexual sin" hypocrisy?

[Tapir Rodeo]

Well yes, to call him a hypocrite you'd have to judge his actions by the same standards he expects of everyone else.

I agree, that is why I thought the blog post had enough merit to warrant posting it here.

[huckelberry]

Well yes, to call him a hypocrite you'd have to judge his actions by the same standards he expects of everyone else.

I agree, that is why I thought the blog post had enough merit to warrant posting it here.

all I saw was clumsy longing for romantic connection. No sin. And the blogger spoke with his church leaders about this blog and thought it was ok? Same level of taste and discretion as Boylan employs, gaggle of narrow minded folks.

[IWMP]

I agree, that is why I thought the blog post had enough merit to warrant posting it here.

all I saw was clumsy longing for romantic connection. No sin. And the blogger spoke with his church leaders about this blog and thought it was ok? Same level of taste and discretion as Boylan employs, gaggle of narrow minded folks.

I wouldn't call it sin either. I think perhaps the issue is whether boylan calls it sin or not. If he calls other people out for the same level of intimate conversation then he would be a hypocrite if he is telling other people off for doing the very same thing he did. But, I don't think the texts contained anything sinworthy.

[Tapir Rodeo]

I agree, that is why I thought the blog post had enough merit to warrant posting it here.

all I saw was clumsy longing for romantic connection. No sin. And the blogger spoke with his church leaders about this blog and thought it was ok? Same level of taste and discretion as Boylan employs, gaggle of narrow minded folks.

Why do you think it is narrow minded to point out hypocrisy?

[Tapir Rodeo]

all I saw was clumsy longing for romantic connection. No sin. And the blogger spoke with his church leaders about this blog and thought it was ok? Same level of taste and discretion as Boylan employs, gaggle of narrow minded folks.

I wouldn't call it sin either. I think perhaps the issue is whether boylan calls it sin or not. If he calls other people out for the same level of intimate conversation then he would be a hypocrite if he is telling other people off for doing the very same thing he did. But, I don't think the texts contained anything sinworthy.

Yes, the issue is the hypocrisy of Boylan reveling in his "enemies" sin while he does things his own church would consider sinful.

[huckelberry]

I wouldn't call it sin either. I think perhaps the issue is whether boylan calls it sin or not. If he calls other people out for the same level of intimate conversation then he would be a hypocrite if he is telling other people off for doing the very same thing he did. But, I don't think the texts contained anything sinworthy.

Yes, the issue is the hypocrisy of Boylan reveling in his "enemies" sin while he does things his own church would consider sinful.

What are you seeing that he did which his church would call sinful?

[Tapir Rodeo]

Yes, the issue is the hypocrisy of Boylan reveling in his "enemies" sin while he does things his own church would consider sinful.

What are you seeing that he did which his church would call sinful?

The Mormon definition of lust is essentially an inappropriate physical attraction to someone to whom you aren't married. This includes impure thoughts. He was not married to the woman he messaged and the sexual themes of the messages denote thoughts that would be "impure."

For people who aren't religious this probably seems odd or even stupid. But Boylan subscribes to these beliefs as made clear by his membership in the LDS church and, more importantly, his untiring attempts to defend a very conservative brand of Mormonism. Yet, he appears to be guilty of lust, at the very least, which is a sexual sin in Mormonism.

If you can put aside the overt religious aspects of the blog I linked, I think the central theme is this:

Boylan is a member of a church that says X is sin.

Boylan celebrates when his "enemies" fall into X sin because it discredits them.

Boylan is also guilty of X sin.

[huckelberry]

I think Boylan's interactions with other people and the subject of faith are awful, to be treated with avoidance. I do not think it is a good idea to try and match or parry his tactics.

I also think a longing and urge for romantic connection with the implied sexuality is something every last human being born experiences so calling it sinful is malignant and phony.

[Tapir Rodeo]

I think Boylan's interactions with other people and the subject of faith are awful, to be treated with avoidance. I do not think it is a good idea to try and match or parry his tactics.

I also think a longing and urge for romantic connection with the implied sexuality is something every last human being born experiences so calling it sinful is malignant and phony.

Why do you think this is an attempt to parry or match his tactics? The blog post lacks the vitriol common to Boylan's posts.

As malignant and phony as you think it is, the issue is what Boylan believes and what he attacks others for vs. what he does.

[drumdude]

If Boylan were a 16 year old boy, he would have to repent to his bishop.

But since he’s a 37 year old grown-ass man, I think his bishop would just feel sorry for him. Yes Boylan is a hypocrite and yes the church technically teaches that lusting is sinful… but what Boylan wrote is just sad. I wouldn’t be surprised if the poor guy has never even had a relationship.

Mopologists should really step up and be a father figure to this man child. He needs some serious help.