Am I responsible for the "culture" of MormonDiscussions.com?

[_jskains]

No, no. You are the attention whore. Juliann is the Queen of Hearts...

Wait, here is the latest news bulletin: Juliann has just announced that you are to have your head taken off. Well that is a true story twist.

Must have sounded cooler in your head than it does in post cause frankly that post was odd.

Jms

[_Kishkumen]

That's not true at all, why me. You're ignoring the fact that the apologists have been engaged in vicious, quite personal smear tactics for close to three decades. If you want to locate an "origin" for the hostilities, you'll have to go looking for it in the pages of the FARMS Review, on SHIELDS, and in the various antics of people like Midgley, Peterson, and Hamblin.

Whatever is happening at FARMS in the present or in the past is not my concern.

So, Doctor Scratch explains to you why he lays into Mopologists, and you wave it off because his reasons are not your concern. Please don't comment on the cause of the conflict if it is "not your concern."

[_Yoda]

If all you had said to me was that my posts were absurd, I would not have been offended. You stated that I didn't deserve to have a temple recommend, and also said something similar to Harmony. That is what I took offense to. You don't know me. I am anonymous to you.

But of course this is a matter of opinion. And not a personal attack against your person. One can have an opinion about whether you derserve a temple recommend and still be respectful of your person. And this goes for harmony too. I don't think that harmony deserves a temple recommend but if she manages to get one that is her business. However, when one attacks your person or harmony's person, then it is going too far.

You really have been away from Church too long if you don't recognize that being told you are not deserving of a temple recommend is a personal offense.

If you don't see that, then we don't have anything to discuss.

[_Buffalo]

According to why me, there would be no perversion involved if you use at least light cotton.

Are you still jealous of my past experiences? I am not alone on this board who had similiar experiences with no guilt. Of course, one poster had a point. Light cotton does work in the summer but not really in the winter. But there is a way around that problem. But I will leave it up to your imagination.

You were never a Mormon. That's why you had no guilt.

[_Yahoo Bot]

You stated that I didn't deserve to have a temple recommend, and also said something similar to Harmony.

No I did not. That was not in my repertoire of arguments against anti-Mormons. I understand that is a common argument used against Harmony but that isn't mine. Rather, my argument three years ago was that it is hypocritical to be answering questions as required in a TR interview and then coming here and anonymously attacking the Church and the Brethren. I've never argued that you or somebody else should not hold a recommend. I didn't care one way or the other. My argument three years ago was that Harmony should act consistently with her beliefs, whatever they might be. (This is where Jason Bourne takes offense; I further argue: What's the big deal? Just resign and be consistent with yourself and your beliefs. Quit being one thing on the board and another to your church friends. Or, conversely, repent and avoid the fires of hell.)

I think you're confused, but I confess I can't remember everything I've ever said.

Now, my position today is I don't care a fig whether one lies or does not lie, or has or does not have, a TR. But, anonymity and hypocrisy continues to be a big deal to me -- Joseph, still very active in the Church and who posts the most inane diatribes against the Church; Porter, who still admits home teachers to his home. Cowardly hypocrites all.

[_harmony]

Rather, my argument three years ago was that it is hypocritical to be answering questions as required in a TR interview and then coming here and anonymously attacking the Church and the Brethren.

This is catagorically untrue. I never attack the church or the Brethren. I simply point out their stupidity, their lies, and their inability to keep their fingers out of the tithing trough for their own gain. One should not retreat from the truth.

[_Doctor Scratch]

That's not true at all, why me. You're ignoring the fact that the apologists have been engaged in vicious, quite personal smear tactics for close to three decades. If you want to locate an "origin" for the hostilities, you'll have to go looking for it in the pages of the FARMS Review, on SHIELDS, and in the various antics of people like Midgley, Peterson, and Hamblin.

Whatever is happening at FARMS in the present or in the past is not my concern. I know that things have been said in defending the LDS church. But I am referring to this board.

Well, why me, this board doesn't exist in a vacuum. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

When I came on this board, Dan was a favorite target.

And that's less the case today, isn't it? The reason is that DCP has significantly lowered his participation on the boards, and he's tried very hard to channel his energies into things like "Mormon Scholars Testify," and his watered-down, Chapel-Mormony "Mormon Times" articles. He has effectively thrown in the towel in terms of polemical apologetics, which I take as a good sign and as legitimate progress on his part.

I know this bothers a lot of the lower-tier apologists. Many of them appreciate/want/need what LifeOnaPlate has called "snark." So many Mopologetic issues cannot be handled via straightforward debate, and so the last resort is to descend into this kind of condescending, polemical nastiness. I believe it was xolotl on the "Former Apologists" thread who said that one of the main reasons he used to visit FAIR/MAD was because he got a thrill out of watching Hamblin and DCP act like jerks to Church critics.

And you didn't help matters much.

I disagree. I think that my criticism has really helped to tone down the viciousness of people like Dr. Peterson, and I'd like to believe that I've helped--in however small a way--to expedite the rise of the new apologetic "vanguard" headed up by people like David Bokovoy. If Bokovoy ascends to a position of power withing Mopologetics, it will represent a total overhaul of LDS apologetics.

From those roots, we got more bashing of personalites.

What roots? I already pointed out to you that the roots lie in the history of Mopologetics---specifically with FARMS, and then later with SHIELDS and FAIR.

I remember that I sounded the trumpet long ago about it. Now it has only gotten worse.

I disagree. As I indicated above, I think that things are improving, esp. w/r/t the rise of Bokovoy, the recent dismissal of Will Schryver, the de-fanging of DCP, etc. In fact, the more I think about the recent events, the more I'm beginning to think that what we are seeing here is a kind of violent retaliation to the "death throes" of old school, polemical Mopologetics. Like I said: a good percentage of the lower-tier apologists have tended to thrive on the viciousness and cruelty that you routinely found from posters like Pahoran, Hamblin, Midgley, DCP, Gee, and Tvedtnes. This is what these amateur apologists loved; they felt on some level that this represented the best sort of response to critics.

But the key players have come to realize--for a variety of reasons--that doing this is a dead-end. For one thing, so many of the "top dogs" are getting old. For another, the rising generation of apologists seems less interested in scoring points just for the sake of the "war." For yet another, nasty apologetics makes for bad PR, and the Church is risk-averse. For yet another, some of the apologists have come to realize that their own tactics can be used against them, and they're not prepared to endure a long battle that's fought on those terms.

Shades should have stepped in and controled the situation when it began to happen but he had a vision of a place of free speech, something unique on the Internet. And that could have happened if people would have left the personal out of the board.

This is really quite a myopic and ignorant observation, why me. As I (and now, Kishkumen) have labored to point out to you, "the personal" in conversations pertaining to Mormonism was a crucial feature of Mopologetics going back two or three decades.

[_wenglund]

May I just repeat yet again that Shades is no more responsible for the content of this board than Pot-a-Potty companies are responsible for the content of their outdoor toilets.

The potty companies may not put the sewage in themselves, but their product is designed in such a way as to encourage the deposit and collection of sewage. In that sense, the potty companies are responsible for the content of their toilets.

The same is true for most any venue. The content that emerges within the venues is a function of how the venues are structured and managed, be it a technology convention or white supremacist rally, be it a professional football game or a dog fight, be it graduation exercises or a drunken orgy, be it a scholarly and peer-reviewed journal or porn magazine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kishkumen]

May I just repeat yet again that Shades is no more responsible for the content of this board than Pot-a-Potty companies are responsible for the content of their outdoor toilets.

You must really think that is clever. You ought to have a calligrapher write it up and then frame it.

[_Buffalo]

May I just repeat yet again that Shades is no more responsible for the content of this board than Pot-a-Potty companies are responsible for the content of their outdoor toilets.

The potty companies may not put the sewage in themselves, but their product is designed in such a way as to encourage the deposit and collection of sewage. In that sense, the potty companies are responsible for the content of their toilets.

The same is true for most any venue. The content that emerges within the venues is a function of how the venues are structured and managed, be it a technology convention or white supremacist rally, be it a professional football game or a dog fight, be it graduation exercises or a drunken orgy, be it a scholarly and peer-reviewed journal or porn magazine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Another hearty plop from Wade. I see you've been getting plenty of fiber. :D