Why Does Bill Hamblin Hate Sunstone?

[_CaliforniaKid]

I rather think you do. In fact, I suspect you're quite happy to do your part. :)

Maybe Will is a closet unbeliever who doesn't want to alienate his family by openly opposing the church, and so does his damage in other, more subtle ways.

[_Runtu]

Maybe Will is a closet unbeliever who doesn't want to alienate his family by openly opposing the church, and so does his damage in other, more subtle ways.

That's a charitable way of looking at it, CK. It's really odd, isn't it, that people like you and me, who really don't mean to do damage to the church, are taken to task by people whose words and actions really bring damage to the church and its reputation.

[_why me]

I think that this closes the case against Bíll. He said on the MAD board.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If anything, I feel vindicated for thinking the man stepped out of bounds.

He attempted to explain his comparison. I think that we need to give people some slack these days. Too much pressure in the outside world. When a person shows some uncharacteristic traits, it might mean something is going on in the outside world that is causing problems.

However, if a person is constantly aggressive and abusive, I find it less to understand. And to my memory it is usually the critics who bring up nazi comparisons or cult comparisons when dealing with the LDS church. As I said, Bill just may be suffering from criticitis. Maybe the other Bill too.

[_William Schryver]

I rather think you do. In fact, I suspect you're quite happy to do your part. :)

Maybe Will is a closet unbeliever who doesn't want to alienate his family by openly opposing the church, and so does his damage in other, more subtle ways.

Yeah, that sounds like a plausible theory. Kind of like simultaneous dictation.

Or ... maybe it just could be that I understand things about believing Mormons that no one here ever grasped, either before or since they became disbelievers.

And since you, Chris, have adopted the world view of the exmormon when approaching these questions, you've become indistinguishable from them. You may as well have become a Mormon way back when. Who knows, you might even have been able to get that girl you wanted so badly.

At least for a while.

Until you quit in order to feel better about all those heinous sins you love to commit under cover of the night.

[_why me]

I think that this closes the case against Bíll. He said on the MAD board.

You can no more expect a Mormon to enjoy going to a conference with widespread anti-Mormonism than you can expect a Jew to enjoy going to a conference with widespread anti-Semitism.

I think now we can see the reasons for his comparison. In this light it isn't so bad.

But the comparison still stinks. The world is full of non-practicing Jews, Jewish atheists, and reformed Jews. The Jewish community, except for a few Hasidic crazies, does not consider these people anti-Semitic. Even the Hasids probably still wouldn't label them as anti-Semitic. The problem is that Mormons such as Bill, would label the Mormon equivalent of of these types as anti-Mormon. Sunstone is full of people who attend Church and just have creative takes on certain aspects. The bizarreness of this who story is the paranoia that seeks to marginalize even moderately liberal wings of Mormonism and group them in as racists.

He did go overboard. But something triggered his outburst. I tend to attempt to understand uncharacteristic behavior. I am sure that he has now settled down. However, critics on this board and on other boards such as RFM and Postmo use extreme comparisons to equate with the LDS church and these comparisons are not to be challenged. Thus, Bill had criticitis for a moment.

[_Runtu]

Yeah, that sounds like a plausible theory. Kind of like simultaneous dictation.

Or ... maybe it just could be that I understand things about believing Mormons that no one here ever grasped, either before or since they became disbelievers.

That would require to show some insight into human nature. I think you're on safer ground talking about mutual masturbation, as that's about as deep an insight as you're capable of.

ce you, Chris, have adopted the world view of the exmormon when approaching these questions, you've become indistinguishable from them. You may as well have become a Mormon way back when. Who knows, you might even have been able to get that girl you wanted so badly.

Is that why you came back to the church? To get the girl? Or maybe just a seat in the circle?

t for a while.

Until you quit in order to feel better about all those heinous sins you love to commit under cover of the night.

That explains a lot, William. Are you one of those members who vicariously gets a thrill by imagining the dark acts of others? Does it qualify as a circle when it's just you?

[_William Schryver]

Maybe Will is a closet unbeliever who doesn't want to alienate his family by openly opposing the church, and so does his damage in other, more subtle ways.

That's a charitable way of looking at it, CK. It's really odd, isn't it, that people like you and me, who really don't mean to do damage to the church, are taken to task by people whose words and actions really bring damage to the church and its reputation.

Thus saith thou.

What I find really odd is that the only people who wring their hands and charge me (and others, like Bill Hamblin, for example) with damaging the church and/or its reputation are ... disbelievers. Whereas the overwhelming majority of the faithful who are aware of what I do and how I do it don't seem to be burdened by any such compunction.

Why do you suppose that is?

[_Runtu]

Thus saith thou.

What I find really odd is that the only people who wring their hands and charge me (and others, like Bill Hamblin, for example) with damaging the church and/or its reputation are ... disbelievers. Whereas the overwhelming majority of the faithful who are aware of what I do and how I do it don't seem to be burdened by any such compunction.

Why do you suppose that is?

I think it's because we secretly admire you and your fine apologetics work.

[_Doctor Scratch]

He did go overboard. But something triggered his outburst.

Well, why me, as I posted earlier, this is not the first time that Prof. Hamblin has shown his true colors in this fashion. He posted an extraordinarily disgusting rant on RfM some years ago, rather similarly to this new round of anti-semitism on the aptly named MADboard. So, I'm wondering: what do you think "triggered" the "outburst"? Do you think it was because posters had accurately and correctly identified the "Butthead" incident as the thing that led to Hamblin's hatred for Sunstone?

[_William Schryver]

JW:

That would require to show some insight into human nature.

Well, that’s probably something that lies far beyond my modest capacities.

I think you're on safer ground talking about mutual masturbation, as that's about as deep an insight as you're capable of.

I never talk about such things. Do you? Is that one of your secret sins? If so, I have to admit that it would never hold much appeal for me. But, hey … to each his own.

Is that why you came back to the church?

???

I’ve never left. You know, all that “mind-control” and what not …

That explains a lot, William.

What does it explain, John? Please deign to hold forth.

Are you one of those members who vicariously gets a thrill by imagining the dark acts of others?

I’ve adhered to a strict policy throughout my life of never getting thrills vicariously. It’s either first-person or not at all. How about you?

Does it qualify as a circle when it's just you?

Does what qualify as a circle? I’m afraid your coherence is lacking. Would you like to try again?

You know, John, let me give you a little hint here. If you want to play in the polemical big leagues, you’ve simply got to 1) become a more astute observer of human nature; 2) sense and be ready to spring upon every irony that presents itself without hesitation and without fear; and 3) you’ve got to have a talent for it.

From what I can tell, you’re better suited to technical writing.