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.
I agree Boylan is a hypocrite. If the church was consistent with their discipline he would have to repent of a lot of things. But they don't seem to care about their own doctrine.
If Boylan does have all the mental illnesses he has claimed to have (or we speculate that he may have) I think a case could be made that it is exploitative for other Mopologists to encourage him to continue to behave in ways that make his life worse. That doesn't excuse his rancid attitude and behavior, but I do wonder...
A former Mormon apologist I am casually acquainted with told me that Boylan, "has had one relationship and it didn't last long."
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.
Yes, he could use some help and direction.
Lusting??? What the hell is being talked about here? Has the church actually succeeded in making all the guys pretend they are ballless? liars lying to liars yes sirs yes sirs. I do not believe it. This whole thread is phony pretense.
Talk to the bishop about what? I was attracted by this girl? So what?
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.
Yes he could use some help and direction.
Lusting???? What the hell is being talked about here? Has the church actually succeeded in making all the guys pretend they are ballless? liars lying to liars yes sirs yes sirs. I do not believe it. This whole thread is phony pretense.
Talk to the bishop about what? I was attracted by this girl? So what?
I think you've missed the forest for the trees.
You think the concept of lust or sexual sin is nonsense. We understand that. But Boylan clearly doesn't. And so when he attacks people for doing something he is guilty of, that is hypocrisy. Which is really what I am taking away from that blog post.
I want to laugh at this but it’s just sad. Boylan is clearly neurodivergent. It feels way below the belt to expose how his disability has affected his relationship (or lack thereof) with women.
That boylan can't talk. (He's a hypocrite because he talks about others sinning when he appears to also be a sinner as per their definition of sexual sin).
I think that was just a cover to embarrass Boylan. The hypocrisy is a side issue, this was about payback for Boylan’s years of smearing Christians online.
I agree with drumdude's comments here. I most certainly believe there is sexual sin I just do not see any evidence of it in those Boylan comments. I think this effort to discredit the man is pathetic. He is enough of his own problem.
I would assume that the key piece from the Boylan texts is the bit where he says "I want your mouth xxx." I guess that this could be interpreted in a variety of ways, but I also think the likelihood is that this isn't going to fly in terms of typical LDS attitudes towards sexually chaste behavior.
But Boylan is human and pretty clearly could stand to mature a bit more. I think someone else already touched on the key problem, which is a more general problem with the culture of Mopologetics--namely, they just don't have any empathy or compassion for others--especially Church critics. This sort of thing has been going on for decades and it's a behavior that has been modeled repeatedly by Daniel C. Peterson as the sort of thing that's "expected" for serious Mopologists. The younger apologists look up to him (I can recall a young(er) Stephen Smoot waxing exultant about DCP "smacking down" some critic: it's as if fireworks of excitement were going off in Smoot's head), and Peterson eggs on this behavior. A key recent example was the way that he continuously tossed compliments at Mike Parker's "Neville-Neville Land Blog." You can also see evidence for this in the "Comments" section at SeN; there is a reason why the blog has attracted rabid fans like The Last Danite and Hoosier--people with obvious sociopathic tendencies.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
I would assume that the key piece from the Boylan texts is the bit where he says "I want your mouth xxx." I guess that this could be interpreted in a variety of ways, but I also think the likelihood is that this isn't going to fly in terms of typical LDS attitudes towards sexually chaste behavior.
But Boylan is human and pretty clearly could stand to mature a bit more. I think someone else already touched on the key problem, which is a more general problem with the culture of Mopologetics--namely, they just don't have any empathy or compassion for others--especially Church critics. This sort of thing has been going on for decades and it's a behavior that has been modeled repeatedly by Daniel C. Peterson as the sort of thing that's "expected" for serious Mopologists. The younger apologists look up to him (I can recall a young(er) Stephen Smoot waxing exultant about DCP "smacking down" some critic: it's as if fireworks of excitement were going off in Smoot's head), and Peterson eggs on this behavior. A key recent example was the way that he continuously tossed compliments at Mike Parker's "Neville-Neville Land Blog." You can also see evidence for this in the "Comments" section at SeN; there is a reason why the blog has attracted rabid fans like The Last Danite and Hoosier--people with obvious sociopathic tendencies.
I took I want your mouth to mean he wanted to kiss her.
I would assume that the key piece from the Boylan texts is the bit where he says "I want your mouth xxx." I guess that this could be interpreted in a variety of ways, but I also think the likelihood is that this isn't going to fly in terms of typical LDS attitudes towards sexually chaste behavior.
But Boylan is human and pretty clearly could stand to mature a bit more. I think someone else already touched on the key problem, which is a more general problem with the culture of Mopologetics--namely, they just don't have any empathy or compassion for others--especially Church critics. This sort of thing has been going on for decades and it's a behavior that has been modeled repeatedly by Daniel C. Peterson as the sort of thing that's "expected" for serious Mopologists. The younger apologists look up to him (I can recall a young(er) Stephen Smoot waxing exultant about DCP "smacking down" some critic: it's as if fireworks of excitement were going off in Smoot's head), and Peterson eggs on this behavior. A key recent example was the way that he continuously tossed compliments at Mike Parker's "Neville-Neville Land Blog." You can also see evidence for this in the "Comments" section at SeN; there is a reason why the blog has attracted rabid fans like The Last Danite and Hoosier--people with obvious sociopathic tendencies.
I agree with your assessment but I think I've argued my view to the point of becoming annoying so I'll say no more about it.
The lack of charity and overall tone of Mopologetics leads me to believe that the church doesn't much care about its own doctrines. They care about retaining members to keep money coming in, by any means necessary.
I would assume that the key piece from the Boylan texts is the bit where he says "I want your mouth xxx." I guess that this could be interpreted in a variety of ways, but I also think the likelihood is that this isn't going to fly in terms of typical LDS attitudes towards sexually chaste behavior.
But Boylan is human and pretty clearly could stand to mature a bit more. I think someone else already touched on the key problem, which is a more general problem with the culture of Mopologetics--namely, they just don't have any empathy or compassion for others--especially Church critics. This sort of thing has been going on for decades and it's a behavior that has been modeled repeatedly by Daniel C. Peterson as the sort of thing that's "expected" for serious Mopologists. The younger apologists look up to him (I can recall a young(er) Stephen Smoot waxing exultant about DCP "smacking down" some critic: it's as if fireworks of excitement were going off in Smoot's head), and Peterson eggs on this behavior. A key recent example was the way that he continuously tossed compliments at Mike Parker's "Neville-Neville Land Blog." You can also see evidence for this in the "Comments" section at SeN; there is a reason why the blog has attracted rabid fans like The Last Danite and Hoosier--people with obvious sociopathic tendencies.
I took I want your mouth to mean he wanted to kiss her.
I would assume that the key piece from the Boylan texts is the bit where he says "I want your mouth xxx." I guess that this could be interpreted in a variety of ways, but I also think the likelihood is that this isn't going to fly in terms of typical LDS attitudes towards sexually chaste behavior.
But Boylan is human and pretty clearly could stand to mature a bit more. I think someone else already touched on the key problem, which is a more general problem with the culture of Mopologetics--namely, they just don't have any empathy or compassion for others--especially Church critics. This sort of thing has been going on for decades and it's a behavior that has been modeled repeatedly by Daniel C. Peterson as the sort of thing that's "expected" for serious Mopologists. The younger apologists look up to him (I can recall a young(er) Stephen Smoot waxing exultant about DCP "smacking down" some critic: it's as if fireworks of excitement were going off in Smoot's head), and Peterson eggs on this behavior. A key recent example was the way that he continuously tossed compliments at Mike Parker's "Neville-Neville Land Blog." You can also see evidence for this in the "Comments" section at SeN; there is a reason why the blog has attracted rabid fans like The Last Danite and Hoosier--people with obvious sociopathic tendencies.
I took I want your mouth to mean he wanted to kiss her.
IWMP, I agree that a hope for kissing is all that is expressed and that hardly falls into my understanding of sexual sin (I believe there are a variety of harmful versions of that). I checked BYU instructions which are more cautious than I was taught growing up. It did not forbid kissing but said limit the amount of kissing (I was taught to avoid direct sexual expression, respect who you are with, be honest in relationships, and exercise self-control.) I remember nobody thinking that kissing was a sin or hoping to kiss was a sin.
I think Scratch is right about the problem, good comments. Mopologists, church leader, or perhaps best a friend should provide him with guidance.
