Can LDS Apologists Be Kind?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

What in the world is going on in this topic???? I tried to backtrack to understand and to catch up- but to no avail.

[Pahoran]

What in the world is going on in this topic???? I tried to backtrack to understand and to catch up- but to no avail.

Then permit me to sum it up.

LDS apologists seem to have permission to defend the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ and the integrity of its leaders, just as long as we don't imagine that such things are more important than the tender feelings of critics.

And unfortunately, some of us do.

Bad! Bad!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

You seem to have drawn a faulty conclusion.

BOMT referred to Will's GC post and I went back to the thread to remind myself of what happened there.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I lurked here for quite a while before I began posting. Is it wrong to presume that others lurk before joining in the conversation?

That's fine; I accept that.

But do you think any of Will's critics would accept a similar explanation from him?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mercyngrace]

No, I don't know Krose at all.

See my post to Pahoran, BOMT, many people join the forum by announcing that they are long time lurkers, first time posters. I "knew" many posters on the board before I actually spoke up. Many of them were the reason I joined the conversation. A lot of knowledgeable people around these parts!

[mercyngrace]

That's fine; I accept that.

But do you think any of Will's critics would accept a similar explanation from him?

Regards,

Pahoran

Probably not. But if I had Will's posting history, would you accept the explanation from me?

edit: Nevermind. I think your comments on loyalty speak for themselves. And I respect that.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Then permit me to sum it up.

LDS apologists seem to have permission to defend the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ and the integrity of its leaders, just as long as we don't imagine that such things are more important than the tender feelings of critics.

And unfortunately, some of us do.

Bad! Bad!

Regards,

Pahoran

I believe it is important to know whether a person is a critic for critics sake, or if a person has honest question/concerns/disagreements with certain teachings. Treating all people with with questions or concerns as if they are in league with the anti-Mormons, as some folks here do, is counterproductive.

[David Bokovoy]

Then permit me to sum it up.

LDS apologists seem to have permission to defend the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ and the integrity of its leaders, just as long as we don't imagine that such things are more important than the tender feelings of critics.

And unfortunately, some of us do.

Bad! Bad!

Regards,

Pahoran

A defense can be done in the manner Daniel Peterson advocated for in his FAIR presentation and according to the pattern provided by the Lord in D&C 121. If it is done in any other way, it not only drives people away from the Gospel, but reflects poorly upon the Church. There is no way that calling Emma a b*$ch, and sexually harassing female posters simply because they're critics reflects the way the Brethren have advocated members to behave online. This type of behavior can be documented by some well-known apologists attempting to defend the faith.

It needs to stop.

[bookofmormontruth]

See my post to Pahoran, BOMT, many people join the forum by announcing that they are long time lurkers, first time posters. I "knew" many posters on the board before I actually spoke up. Many of them were the reason I joined the conversation. A lot of knowledgeable people around these parts!

I understand.

Never was a "lurker".

I also know when so called "concerns" and "questions" are sincere or not. Honest truth seekers are also easily distinguished.

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind.

I'm about done myself to be honest.

[mercyngrace]

I also know when so called "concerns" and "questions" are sincere or not. Honest truth seekers are also easily distinguished.

The truth usually becomes plain in short order.

But it often isn't as black and white as we think.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Perhaps I should start a thread on whether or not Emma Smith is a [expletive deleted] since one of the apologists here posted that elsewhere which was the lead up to my saying researching his words further would not be in keeping with the 13th AoF.

Whoa, what?!? I hate to be the man who speaks such words against the elect lady.

[bookofmormontruth]

This has a long, long and complex history and all that happens here, for certain individuals, can be politically important for career moves etc.

If you don't understand that, fine, but understand that is what is happening here, and you have blundered into a highly nuanced situation you do not understand.

Fair enough, I don't understand.

It is interesting though that a "Mormon discussion board" is political and is motived for career moves. Didn't see that in the board guidelines I guess.

Wondering if the same motivations exist for any evidence for the Book of Mormon outside of Meso-America to be discounted? I am guessing careers are based on certain models also - like the heartland and etc, but I will digress.

[Nemesis]

A defense can be done in the manner Daniel Peterson advocated for in his FAIR presentation and according to the pattern provided by the Lord in D&C 121. If it is done in any other way, it not only drives people away from the Gospel, but reflects poorly upon the Church. There is no way that calling Emma a b*$ch, and sexually harassing female posters simply because they're critics reflects the way the Brethren have advocated members to behave online. This type of behavior can be documented by some well-known apologists attempting to defend the faith.

It needs to stop.

On this board?

Nemesis

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The truth usually becomes plain in short order.

But it often isn't as black and white as we think.

Let me put this in perspective...

Quite a few here see me as an apostate anti-mormon because of my posts and current disagreement with certain LDS teachings and feel the only thing to do is to argue with me. At home, my wife (STAUNCH RLDS) is dismayed because I tell her I am open to being wrong and if the LORD directs I would return to the LDS Church. Seems I can't win.

[bookofmormontruth]

Let me put this in perspective...

Quite a few here see me as an apostate anti-mormon because of my posts and current disagreement with certain LDS teachings and feel the only thing to do is to argue with me. At home, my wife (STAUNCH RLDS) is dismayed because I tell her I am open to being wrong and if the LORD directs I would return to the LDS Church. Seems I can't win.

That was a good laugh thanks!

Wholeheartedly disagreeing with you on certain subjects isn't necessarily "arguing" with you right?

And just so you know, you are completely wrong and should come back asap and bring your wife with you!

[Jeff K.]

Let me put this in perspective...

Quite a few here see me as an apostate anti-mormon because of my posts and current disagreement with certain LDS teachings and feel the only thing to do is to argue with me. At home, my wife (STAUNCH RLDS) is dismayed because I tell her I am open to being wrong and if the LORD directs I would return to the LDS Church. Seems I can't win.

I will only argue if I think you are wrong, but I won't hesitate to do so, again, if I think you are wrong. Otherwise why argue?

[William Schryver]

Perhaps I should start a thread on whether or not Emma Smith is a [expletive deleted] since one of the apologists here posted that elsewhere which was the lead up to my saying researching his words further would not be in keeping with the 13th AoF.

Although I certainly understand that the demonization of yours truly has now become the Prime Directive on the part of many, you might have at least tempered your condemnation by also citing my contrite apology for what is, without question, my worst message board offense, and one which I quite sincerely regret. I actually did not recollect having wrote what I did, until it was just recently brought to my attention. It was an inexcusable case of rhetorical excess on my part. Consequently, I made the following post:

Blixa wrote:

That BS was started by Brigham Young. Even Joseph's former polygamous wives who had run-ins with Emma in Nauvoo always spoke of her highly. And no "high-maintenance" woman would have been able to handle the number of sick people and children Emma nursed at home, especially at Nauvoo (nor run an establishment the size of the Mansion House which usually sheltered numbers of newly arrived or destitute members, well before its incarnation as a semi-hotel). After suffering the assassination of her beloved husband, having many of her assets stolen out from under her by BY (including some of Joseph Smith's personal papers), to finally have to endure the heartbreak of David's mental illness---anyone with a shred of human decency would have empathy for her trials.

Blixa,

Your posts have induced reflection on my part, and I have concluded that you make some very valid points, and that I need to seriously back off from my harsh criticism of Emma Smith.

In fact, I am going to prepare a formal apology for my unwarranted invective directed towards her. But first I am going to re-read Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, a book which I have already read three times, and have thoroughly enjoyed (despite some criticisms I could level against it). After I have immersed myself again in her story, I will speak to this topic again, here, on this message board.

-WS

Link here.

The bottom line is this: I have composed many a post of sharp, cutting prose over the years. I regret very, very few of them, and would not take them back. But the one where I unjustifiably characterized Emma Hale Smith using a vulgar term is one I do regret, and I both acknowledge my fault in the matter and publicly apologize for it.

[David Bokovoy]

On this board?

Nemesis

Not as much on this board, but we have in my opinion been too unkind to critics and non-believers. I think all of us, myself included, can "try a little harder to be a little better." I apologize for being too emotional over these matters. My frustration has been building up for quite sometime and I should have simply disengaged. I've said my peace on this topic. I sincerely apologize to those I've offended and for wrongly taking out my frustrations on the innocent, including FAIR and the moderating team here at MD&D.

I'm very grateful for the efforts of the moderators to create a positive posting environment and would encourage people to continue participating in this forum.

As I expressed on the other board, I continue to feel grateful for the major contributions that FAIR makes to answering difficult gospel questions and believe that the members of that board are doing an outstanding job. I look forward to seeing many of the posters here at the next FAIR Conference and hope that any who happen to attend Education Week this summer will stop by to say hello.

I'm happy to retain friendships via Facebook and/or email exchanges.

Sincerely,

--David Bokovoy

[David Bokovoy]

Although I certainly understand that the demonization of yours truly has now become the Prime Directive on the part of many, you might have at least tempered your condemnation by also citing my contrite apology for what is, without question, my worst message board offense, and one which I quite sincerely regret. I actually did not recollect having wrote what I did, until it was just recently brought to my attention. It was an inexcusable case of rhetorical excess on my part. Consequently, I made the following post:

The bottom line is this: I have composed many a post of sharp, cutting prose over the years. I regret very, very few of them, and would not take them back. But the one where I unjustifiably characterized Emma Hale Smith using a vulgar term is one I do regret, and I both acknowledge my fault in the matter and publicly apologize for it.

Thank you Will. That was good of you to do. Again I apologize for my role in our conflict and stand by the comments I posted in your defense in the other forum. I do believe that you are a good person and hope you have a happy life.

Sincerely,

--David Bokovoy

[mercyngrace]

Although I certainly understand that the demonization of yours truly has now become the Prime Directive on the part of many, you might have at least tempered your condemnation by also citing my contrite apology for what is, without question, my worst message board offense, and one which I quite sincerely regret. I actually did not recollect having wrote what I did, until it was just recently brought to my attention. It was an inexcusable case of rhetorical excess on my part. Consequently, I made the following post:

Demonizing you isn't even on my list of directives, Will. And saying further searching wasn't worthy of my time is hardly condemnation that needs tempering. LOL! Would that others were so gentle in their dimissals. I am glad you apologized though. That is to your credit.

The bottom line is this: I have composed many a post of sharp, cutting prose over the years. I regret very, very few of them, and would not take them back. But the one where I unjustifiably characterized Emma Hale Smith using a vulgar term is one I do regret, and I both acknowledge my fault in the matter and publicly apologize for it.

[William Schryver]

Cool, but I've never seen David imply that he was watching anyone or that there was some secret surveillance group that would impede Will's professional aspirations Panopticon-style.

Oh, Blair, are you still upset with me? How long will you cling to this vendetta? You're starting to remind me of Trevor Luke.

The most hilarious part of this whole fabricated story is that, apparently, you and David and all your buddies really believe that I wield the power with BYU or Maxwell Institute people such that I could actually affect David's professional aspirations.

It's all a preposterous (and, I believe, deliberate) misrepresentation of my rather innocuous statement.

[William Schryver]

Demonizing you isn't even on my list of directives, Will.

Your actions speak much louder than your words.

But don't worry about it. Believe me, I'm accustomed to incessant demonization. Many of the people in your circle of friends have been doing it for years.

[Calm]

Hypocrisy occurs on both sides of the issue. I find it disturbing, and telling, that "apologists" seem to have never ending level of acceptance for other "apologists" or defenders of the Church who give off a bad image of the Church.

Making assumptions based on a limited public image can lead to misjudgment.

[USU78]

So . . . Will . . . you malefacting miscreant! Any new news on your expansions on your last Summer's stuff on the KEP, etc., and a possible/probable publication date?

USU "My soul panteth, yea yearneth" 78

[Calm]

those within Mormondom who call a caffiene soda drinker unfaithful whilst scraffing down chocolate

FWIW, Chocolate does not contain caffeine, it contains a caffeine like substance, theobromine: http://www.xocoatl.org/caffeine.htm