From My Informant: Did Brian Hauglid Betray Schryver?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Of course my informants are real, Wade.

CFR

Some of my "informants" have come forward in the past, Simon. But I'm not going to "out" them just because you issue a "CFR." Part of the reason these people come to me is because they know I'll protect them.

[Gadianton]

This is how you treat your friends, Wade?

You should know by now that I tend to treat others, including friends, in like manner to how they treat me and mine. So, yes, that is how I understandably treat some of my friends making their deposits in the cesspool here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I can only dream ...

My point exactly. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I just read through the posts, and while Scratch's evidence could be less than fact, as he stated, my question to you is... is Will's paper actually going to be endorsed by MI?...

It would be better for you to direct your question to those whose business it actually is to know and decide who the MI will endorse or not (not to be confused with the proliferating anonymous busy-bodies and no-name wannabes here at the cesspool). That wouldn't be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_the narrator]

snip

Hey Nomad, I took the time to respond to your silly allegations and questions on that other thread. When are you going to get back to me?

I couldn't help but notice that you more or less ran away from the ressponses that I posed to you.

I wonder why that is?

Did you sense danger down that road?

[_truth dancer]

I'm left wondering why those who want the LDS church to have a good reputation, who are concerned that publishing an article from a man who clearly does not uphold the standards set by the LDS church, and who take their faith and religion seriously, do not want to be known.

I'm curious about this.

As a believing LDS member, I was always taught that it takes courage to stand for your beliefs, that even when it is difficult or unpopular you should stand up and be counted.

I believed that Christ and angels are taking note of those times when I stood for truth and righteousness.

Where are all the believers that hold to their values?

Why aren't all the apologists coming forth and taking a stand for decency?

I would think LDS apologists and believers would be very thankful to Jack for providing information that could jeopardize their publication, harm their reputation, and thwart their mission.

So, why are so many quiet?

I can't believe David, Abman, LoaP, (am I missing anyone), are the only ones who hold to their values and beliefs, or the only ones who are willing to take a stand for righteousness.

Just wondering...

~td~

[_Markk]

I just read through the posts, and while Scratch's evidence could be less than fact, as he stated, my question to you is... is Will's paper actually going to be endorsed by MI?...

It would be better for you to direct your question to those whose business it actually is to know and decide who the MI will endorse or not (not to be confused with the proliferating anonymous busy-bodies and no-name wannabes here at the cesspool). That wouldn't be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Then you don't know? I suppose the problem is that "those" are always secretive...why? If Will's theory is correct it is a big deal and worth mention, if not....then it is a blackmark on LDS apologentics, and you for your quick defense without much thought. I quess we will have to wait and see.

When it comes down to name calling as the defense, that generally means one has been defeated, if only in their heart.

Take care

Mark

[_harmony]

I quess we will have to wait and see.

Actually, it appears we're not going to "see", no matter how long we wait. How convenient for Will.

[_wenglund]

I'm left wondering why those who want the LDS church to have a good reputation, who are concerned that publishing an article from a man who clearly does not uphold the standards set by the LDS church, and who take their faith and religion seriously, do not want to be known.

I'm curious about this....

Your curiosity seems to me to derive from a number of false presuppositions. Let me list a few:

1) The reputation of the LDS Church aught to be the concern and the business of former members. It aught not be. Rather, their concern aught to be with their own--i.e. the reputation of their fellow former members and the online boards they frequent.

2) The reputation of the LDS Church aught to be affected by the relatively few internet actions of a single LDS member. It ought not be.

3) The reputation of a single member aught to be based on a relatively few internet posts. It aught not be. Rather, it aught to be a function of that members actions as a whole, and on balance.

4) The relatively few internet post in question aught to be judged by people who have demonstrated a remarkable lack of ability to recognize the intended figurative nature of those posts and who failed miserably to grasp the intended object lesson in those posts. It aught not be--or at least the judgements by these clueless people aught to be seen for what they are, and not given undue consideration.

5) The relatively few internet posts in question aught to be judged by people who have not only demonstrated a remarkable lack of fairness and even-handedness in their judgements, but who selectively look past the context of the near decade-long, socially repelling smear-fest that they have, themselves, wallowed and/or contributed therein, and only target for judgement the few actions of certain opponents. They aught not be--or at least the judgements by these biased and agenda-driven people aught to be seen for what they are, and not given undue consideration.

In short, your curiosity really aught not be with the alleged mote in Schryver's eye, but with the beam in your own or fellow former members eye, and it aught to be to judge righteously and mercifully, rather than as an illegitimate attempt to silence opposing views (which is what this is really all about).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Then you don't know? I suppose the problem is that "those" are always secretive...why?

I don't know if the decisions by the Maxwell Institute are secret or not. All I know is that their decisions are none of my business, and since it isn't my business I haven't made it my business to learn what their decision was or will be, nor do I presume to weigh in on their conjectured decision. I will leave this kind of in-effectual and presumptuous nosiness to the proverbial busy-bodies here.

If Will's theory is correct it is a big deal and worth mention, if not....then it is a blackmark on LDS apologetic, and you for your quick defense without much thought.

I appreciate you sticking your former-member nose into LDS apologetic business and expressing your concerns. However, as indicated before, I am not involved in MI decisions, and am not in a position to weigh the potential risks and benefits of MI publishing Schryver's article. In fact, I am not any more privy than anyone else here to the content of Schryver's article, and thus I have no basis or no business speculating one way or the other. Again, I will leave this kind of in-effectual and presumptuous nosiness to the proverbial busy-bodies here.

I quess we will have to wait and see.

That is what I plan to do since at least I recognize that I am out of the decision-making loop and thus rightly recognize that it matters little whether I speculatively weigh in on this business that isn't mine, and voice my irrelevant and meaningless opinion on the matter.

When it comes down to name calling as the defense, that generally means one has been defeated, if only in their heart.

The name-calling wasn't in defense. It was, I believe, an apt description of what is--i.e. my way of putting things into perspective.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-