The Calculated Suppression Of Mormon Apologetics: The Case Of William Schryver

[mercyngrace]

As I said, I didn't think I was excoriating you. I thought we had a rather good exchange of views and that the conversation ended with better understanding on both sides. That's why I was both surprised and disappointed to see how you chose to hold that conversation up for ridicule.

That said, I'm happy to rule a line under that incident and let bygones be bygones.

Regards,

Pahoran

Then we'll put this particular behind us.

Because I have exchanged many PMs however, with a wide variety of individuals, who deserve to feel at peace over any confidences shared, I want to be absolutely clear that in the public conversation you refer to, I neither identified you nor quoted you. I only referred to receiving PMs from someone and their nature, in general terms, as they were, (and you can attest) a continuation of a public discussion we were having on a thread that had been closed and all thoughts expressed in the PMs were in the same vein.

And though I expressed my absolute frustration at the position you took that also was nothing I hadn't done publicly on the thread which had been closed.

[jwhitlock]

Bingo!

You win the prize for most perceptive post of the year.

I've learned something during this exchange; the gift of being perceptive isn't valued nearly as much as the demand to roundly condemn things that society doesn't find politically correct.

My problem is that I think about things. I ask "why". I try to understand the motivations of where a person is coming from. Such things appear to be very unpopular. Not once, as far as I can tell, did anyone address directly my point of trying to understand your remarks in the context you were giving them. It was a virtually universal attitude of "he's crossed a line; there is no need to try to understand, he just needs to be condemned".

I find that disturbing.

I took my stand on this thread knowing that it would be unpopular. The lack of rep points for my posts during that time, as contrasted with the gleeful assignment of points to posters who falsely accused me of condoning sexist statements (in order to pander to their lynch mob) bore that out. I don't regret taking my stand. It has been instructional for me.

I may be coming from a somewhat unique position in all of this. There seems to be some kind of general attitude that perceived coarseness always needs to be judged and condemned. Context and background and intent don't matter. Indeed, I was ridiculed in this thread for even thinking that context mattered. The discarding of any intelligent thought in the mindless rush to judgment in this situation was breathtaking.

I work in an agricultural / manufacturing environment. It is a cornucopia of conflicting cultural paradoxes, where people get drunk on Saturday night, and go to church Sunday, where coarseness and bawdy jokes are daily fare, and where they all pitch in to help someone in need. It's unflinchingly conservative and contains of all of the hick stereotypes that the elites in our country smugly condemn in flyover country, yet for all of the country music cheating / drinking / swearing / smoking behavior that I see, many of them are people who can be counted on to help you out. And while they're helping you out, they're cracking jokes that make anything Will has been accused of look tame by comparison.

I count myself privileged to be exposed to all of this. Rushing to judgment to condemn the coarseness around me would be precisely the wrong thing to do, so it is obvious to me that at least in some situations, coarseness does NOT cross a line that we are "required" to be judgmental about. Instead, I do not participate in the coarseness, but I love them and occasionally I get to talk about the restored gospel with them, and find that it strikes a chord in some. And then, on some rare occasions, a beautiful thing happens. They see what the Church is all about, and they come in. And some of them, like J. Golden Kimball, never quite lose all of their rough edges during this life. They receive the priesthood, they humbly try to do their best, but occasionally the coarseness of their background comes through, and we tolerate it and love them BECAUSE we understand things like context and background.

So I do find it disturbing that people are so eager to rush to judgment because of perceived coarseness without trying to understand. The irony of demanding that we narrowly and literally in all cases follow the "love your enemy" admonition, without consideration of anything else in the scriptures, while roundly condemning Will because of what he said evidently went over a number of people's heads here.

To be clear, what I've related above is WHY I look for understanding when I see coarseness. It's where my perspective is coming from. It's why I was uncomfortable joining an electronic lynch mob that formed here. It's why I posted what I did, something that was done because of my best attempt to be honest and principled about all of this. It's why I've found that rough and tumble and even coarseness are going to come up at times in apologetics, and the fact that it's there doesn't necessarily violate some moral, self-righteous standard that we all are required to adhere to in politically correct society.

To also be very clear, since I know some here are more than willing to misrepresent what I say, I do not condone coarseness for its own sake or as valid in all situations. By the same token, I do not condemn it unthinkingly without understanding where it's coming from. I hope that's clear.

I can respect some who just agreed to disagree about this, though I was disappointed that even they did not seem interested in addressing background and intent and context with what Will said. On the other hand, I do not respect the frothing, self-righteous lynch mob that gleefully and unthinkingly piled on Will, with the attitude of "we've got you now, you (fill in your own coarse word here)".

So there's where I stand. I doubt that it will be particularly popular with most, but that's the way it is. I respect the courage of those who engage in the sometimes down-and-dirty defense of the restored gospel through apologetics, and that respect has only been strengthened through what I have experienced in this thread.

[Calm]

Instead, I do not participate in the coarseness, but I love them and occasionally I get to talk about the restored gospel with them, and find that it strikes a chord in some.

This to me is what is most interesting about your comments.

The opportunity to love others does not require coarseness as demonstrated by your own example, even when in service to those who feel comfortable using it. I have been involved in and have heard from others that it is the very lack of coarseness in a Mormon's behaviour when those around them are coarse that has impressed them because they see it as LDS standing out from the crowd and wanting to know why, much like when a LDS asks for a lemonade when all around them are getting beers kind of thing.

I believe there are articles on lds.org praising this type of behaviour...resisting the temptation for whatever reason to get 'down and dirty' even when it seems appropriate, to avoid "coarseness". I will look for some.

Since this is off topic I will merely link:

http://www.lds.org/e...leship?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/g...l-life?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/g...ophets?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/...g=eng&clang=eng

http://institute.lds...gp-4-jsm-01.asp

http://www.lds.org/e...spirit?lang=eng

For me not participating in coarseness even in arenas where it is found and approved and seen as appropriate is not the least about being politically correct, it is about consistently living by a standard I've been taught by parents and leaders from as along as I can remember so it is a part of my nature. add-on: I do admit to being surprised when I see fellow LDS being okay with coarseness in their own behaviour (I am not talking about those who have not been taught it is inappropriate) because these teachings seem very clear to me. I generally assume that these are habits that have been picked up prior to converting or just out of long term exposure and don't condemn people for using them; however, it does concern me when LDS attempt to justify such usage as appropriate as I do not get the reasoning (not because of political correctness but because of what has been taught) and that is what my issue is here. This gets very close I understand to the issue of expecting LDS to be polite all the time in the face of attacks, but I see harshness in response as significantly different to coarseness and am only questioning and condemning coarseness as in crudeness and language I see as vulgar. I suppose it would is somewhat absurd, but I would feel better about it if Will used such language here on this board as well because then I would just assume it was an unintentional habit or just that he never saw such as inappropriate in any setting instead of intentional, deliberate, 'thoughtful' use tailormade for that audience/setting.

If anyone wants to use coarseness than that is their choice and I am not attempting to infringe upon that choice, but if they make that choice then they need to accept the consequences of that choice in my opinion.

[ERayR]

I have been guilty in my past of being course at times but as I have grown older I have come to realize that coarseness is not acceptable in our interactions with others in any circumstance. There are a lot of good people who interact with coarseness but that in no way excuses it. I can certainly understand the lure of interacting that way with some people in some circumstances but that doesn't excuse such.

That said I really do enjoy reading your posts and find much to consider in your writing.

[jwhitlock]

This to me is what is most interesting about your comments.

The opportunity to love others does not require coarseness as demonstrated by your own example, even when in service to those who feel comfortable using it. I have been involved in and have heard from others that it is the very lack of coarseness in a Mormon's behaviour when those around them are coarse that has impressed them because they see it as LDS standing out from the crowd and wanting to know why, much like when a LDS asks for a lemonade when all around them are getting beers kind of thing.

I believe there are articles on lds.org praising this type of behaviour...resisting the temptation for whatever reason to get 'down and dirty' even when it seems appropriate, to avoid "coarseness". I will look for some.

Since this is off topic I will merely link:

http://www.lds.org/e...leship?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/g...l-life?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/g...ophets?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/...g=eng&clang=eng

http://institute.lds...gp-4-jsm-01.asp

http://www.lds.org/e...spirit?lang=eng

For me not participating in coarseness even in arenas where it is found and approved and seen as appropriate is not the least about being politically correct, it is about consistently living by a standard I've been taught by parents and leaders from as along as I can remember so it is a part of my nature.

I appreciate the response, Cal, and the spirit with which it's given. I agree that coarseness should be avoided where possible. The counsel to do so is sound (just like many other commandments), though individuals both in and out of the Church have mixed views as to how much they accept or participate in.

The flip side of the coin, of course, is how we respond to coarseness. That flip side was where my emphasis was, and as I explained in my last post, I was rather disturbed with the judgmental responses. There are also many articles at lds.org that talk about that side of the coin, which I'm sure you're well aware of. How I respond to coarseness when I encounter it depends greatly on the individual involved. My response to one of my children is going to be very different than how I interact with the rough-around-the-edges truck driver who has just been baptized. In the case of Will (who I do respect for what he says, though I've only met him once in person), I figured out rather quickly that much more was to be gained by trying to understand what he was really saying, rather than getting hung up on the surface content.

But I've been over that, already.

This is all muddied a bit by the audience that Will was speaking to, which differed somewhat from most of the people who I was describing. The other side of the story is that the area I also live in has its share of anti-Mormons, and those are people who I do not hold in very high regard because of my experiences with them. Matt 23:15 seems most descriptive (and very blunt) of how God views their efforts to destroy the faith of members of the Church. While I can appreciate the fact that some might say that there's no real difference between how we should treat non-members and anti-Mormons, I see a great deal of grey area in how we phrase our responses to them, both in the scriptures and from Church leaders. Because of that grey area, and because of the very evil damage that anti-Mormons perpetrate, I tend to cut those in apologetics a great deal of slack in their interactions with them.

That's just me. Others have a different viewpoints on this, which I can respect as long as they don't get into a lynch mob mentality.

After all is said and done, I would much rather have Will on my side than make an issue about his presentation format. If that's what he feels he has to do in dealing with enemies who are out to destroy us, then I don't think that necessarily invalidates apologetics or does harm to us. Indeed, while the type of response that Will and others make to our attackers may turn some people off, there may be others who can benefit positively from such exchanges. I know that many will also disagree with that premise, but since none of us are truly privy to all the fallout of our actions, and since we must act, the only real thing we can do is to do what we think is right.

And I believe Will does try to do that which is right, and I respect him for it, even though others claim to find it dishonest and unprincipled.

[Calm]

I don't doubt that Will thinks he is doing right in his actions. I also think that if the choice is between having Will on our side and making an issue about his presentation format, that we are being given the wrong choice. Why can't we want Will on our side but still desire him to change aspects of his presentation?

The flip side of the coin, of course, is how we respond to coarseness. That flip side was where my emphasis was, and as I explained in my last post, I was rather disturbed with the judgmental responses. There are also many articles at lds.org that talk about that side of the coin, which I'm sure you're well aware of.

If you can show me any case on lds.org where it is even implied that it is okay to use coarseness in response to coarseness, I will be shocked. Everything I've been taught and read over the years promotes resisting the temptation to respond in kind, IIRC.

[jwhitlock]

I don't doubt that Will thinks he is doing right in his actions. I also think that if the choice is between having Will on our side and making an issue about his presentation format, that we are being given the wrong choice. Why can't we want Will on our side but still desire him to change aspects of his presentation?

If you can show me any case on lds.org where it is even implied that it is okay to use coarseness in response to coarseness, I will be shocked. Everything I've been taught and read over the years promotes resisting the temptation to respond in kind, IIRC.

You misunderstand. I'm talking about being judgmental in response to coarseness. There's quite a bit on lds.org that talks about being judgmental.

If you think Will should change how he approaches things, then what's the counseled way to go about it? Kindness and gentle persuasion, or by lynch mobbing? Which way was demonstrated here?

[jwhitlock]

I have been guilty in my past of being course at times but as I have grown older I have come to realize that coarseness is not acceptable in our interactions with others in any circumstance. There are a lot of good people who interact with coarseness but that in no way excuses it. I can certainly understand the lure of interacting that way with some people in some circumstances but that doesn't excuse such.

That said I really do enjoy reading your posts and find much to consider in your writing.

I appreciate the comment.

Coarseness is one of those paradoxes where the standard set by the commandment is sometimes difficult to implement due to situations one may encounter in the real world. That's not to say we shouldn't try, but since this temporal existence is as much a testing ground for as as anything else, there's a lot of experimenting that goes on. Fortunately, as you mentioned, we can repent, though I don't think nearly enough people take advantage of that.

As an aside on this, while the discussion of coarseness may be a bit of a tangent, I think it has relationship to the OP which had to do with suppression. Though I may be wrong, I suspect that may have been one reason Will was so open about what he posted. The ulterior question may have been whether such interactions should be grounds for abandoning apologetics as a whole, and discrediting (or suppressing) the contributions of any particular apologist. If Will sees fit to do so, he can certainly confirm or correct that if he desires.

[Calm]

I am sorry, I think I need to stop this conversation. I feel like I am spinning my wheels and not being understood, especially since you seem to be including me in a version of "lynch mobbing". So how about we call it a day and each find other useful things to do.

[jwhitlock]

I am sorry, I think I need to stop this conversation. I feel like I am spinning my wheels and not being understood, especially since you seem to be including me in a version of "lynch mobbing". So how about we call it a day and each find other useful things to do.

Sorry you took it as you personally being part of a lynch mob; my use of that phrase was in reference to what happened on this thread, not to your personal involvement. My question was honest; if you want Will to change, how should it be approached from a scriptural / counseled perspective?

[ERayR]

I appreciate the comment.

Coarseness is one of those paradoxes where the standard set by the commandment is sometimes difficult to implement due to situations one may encounter in the real world. That's not to say we shouldn't try, but since this temporal existence is as much a testing ground for as as anything else, there's a lot of experimenting that goes on. Fortunately, as you mentioned, we can repent, though I don't think nearly enough people take advantage of that.

As an aside on this, while the discussion of coarseness may be a bit of a tangent, I think it has relationship to the OP which had to do with suppression. Though I may be wrong, I suspect that may have been one reason Will was so open about what he posted. The ulterior question may have been whether such interactions should be grounds for abandoning apologetics as a whole, and discrediting (or suppressing) the contributions of any particular apologist. If Will sees fit to do so, he can certainly confirm or correct that if he desires.

By all means I think that to abandon apologetics would be a mistake. However, we must always be refining our material and our presentation. As my grandmother used to say, there is no sense wrestling with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it. I think that to answer coarseness with refinement leaves a much better public impression. I say this while enmeshed on another thread that leaves me pulling my hair and I haven't much left to pull. I sometimes find myself slipping into the mire.

[ttribe]

Is there any chance of tempering the hyperbole? There was no "lynch mob" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching). There was a debate over the tone of LDS apologetics centered on Will simply because he invited such analysis through his self-focused thread.

[ERayR]

Is there any chance of tempering the hyperbole? There was no "lynch mob" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching). There was a debate over the tone of LDS apologetics centered on Will simply because he invited such analysis through his self-focused thread.

Where did that come from? Did I skim too fast?

[ttribe]

Where did that come from? Did I skim too fast?

Post #227, #230, #232.

[William Schryver]

I appreciate the response, Cal, and the spirit with which it's given. I agree that coarseness should be avoided where possible. The counsel to do so is sound (just like many other commandments), though individuals both in and out of the Church have mixed views as to how much they accept or participate in.

The flip side of the coin, of course, is how we respond to coarseness. That flip side was where my emphasis was, and as I explained in my last post, I was rather disturbed with the judgmental responses. There are also many articles at lds.org that talk about that side of the coin, which I'm sure you're well aware of. How I respond to coarseness when I encounter it depends greatly on the individual involved. My response to one of my children is going to be very different than how I interact with the rough-around-the-edges truck driver who has just been baptized. In the case of Will (who I do respect for what he says, though I've only met him once in person), I figured out rather quickly that much more was to be gained by trying to understand what he was really saying, rather than getting hung up on the surface content.

But I've been over that, already.

This is all muddied a bit by the audience that Will was speaking to, which differed somewhat from most of the people who I was describing. The other side of the story is that the area I also live in has its share of anti-Mormons, and those are people who I do not hold in very high regard because of my experiences with them. Matt 23:15 seems most descriptive (and very blunt) of how God views their efforts to destroy the faith of members of the Church. While I can appreciate the fact that some might say that there's no real difference between how we should treat non-members and anti-Mormons, I see a great deal of grey area in how we phrase our responses to them, both in the scriptures and from Church leaders. Because of that grey area, and because of the very evil damage that anti-Mormons perpetrate, I tend to cut those in apologetics a great deal of slack in their interactions with them.

That's just me. Others have a different viewpoints on this, which I can respect as long as they don't get into a lynch mob mentality.

After all is said and done, I would much rather have Will on my side than make an issue about his presentation format. If that's what he feels he has to do in dealing with enemies who are out to destroy us, then I don't think that necessarily invalidates apologetics or does harm to us. Indeed, while the type of response that Will and others make to our attackers may turn some people off, there may be others who can benefit positively from such exchanges. I know that many will also disagree with that premise, but since none of us are truly privy to all the fallout of our actions, and since we must act, the only real thing we can do is to do what we think is right.

And I believe Will does try to do that which is right, and I respect him for it, even though others claim to find it dishonest and unprincipled.

Something to consider for both those who are coming to my defense and those who are inclined to condemn me: my enemies at MDB literally SCOURED their message board for things to use against me. As a result of their "no stones left unturned" search, they managed to find about a dozen or so posts that contained what they and many others consider "offensive material".

One dozen out of well over 10,000 posts in my message board career!

Do the math. That's .0012% of my total post production over the course of over six years! .0012%!

I am to be made an offender for a word on the basis of .0012% of what I have written since I commenced my involvement with these message boards in April 2006!?

Does not ANYONE see something wrong with this? Can those who are condemning me truly claim, with justification, that my posting history has been TYPIFIED by such things? Really?

Well, I deny it. I utterly repudiate and reject that judgment against me--BECAUSE IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE! Over 99.9% of my posts have contained NOTHING in the way of "coarseness," and yet people like MnG, Calmoriah, and many, many others will stand to make me an offender for a word.

To me, it is a stunning display of Phariseeism.

[Calm]

It's not the "word" itself that bothers me, Will. And I have never claimed that it was typical of your posting. I have not read the compiled thread, not read the accusations over there and am responding solely to your own comments about your other comments on this thread where you stated you called two women a word that was censored (by you? by the board?) on this board as well as the quote you posted saying "get your fat.....etc". And here what bothers me is your justification for such. If you had said them and then apologized for saying them with a "I went too far that time", you wouldn't have heard a word out of me.

If over 99.9% of the time you choose not to use such comments, then why is it necessary to resort to such for the .1%? Why not just avoid them altogether and find another way to get your point across.

And I am not extrapolating from these comments to anything else, just dealing solely with these comments so I may be making you an "offender for a word" well more like a dozen words or so but since the offense is only about the words and I am not tacking it on to anything else, I am not sure complaining this is what I am doing helps your case...at least as far as I am concerned.

The only things I am commenting on quoted from your own posts:

Did I call harmony and beastie "deceitful **** of a woman"? I did. I don't regret it.

Oh, and by the way, my "sexist attributes" are not the exclusive province of the "Mormon Priesthood holder." I'm just a normal man. Well, probably a whole lot more manly than many of the "men" I see posting on this board. Most of them have been so utterly emasculated by our oppressive modern feminazi culture that they are only a couple of testosterone molecules shy of being eunuchs.

Now get your fat *** back in the kitchen and whip up a batch of cookies before I slap you silly....

And I confess I was much more "coarse" there than I have ever been here. But again, it's quite obvious that I was making a "tongue-in-cheek" parody-style statement. I include the qualifying "<grin>" afterwards to make it perfectly understood.

[William Schryver]

It's not the "word" itself that bothers me, Will. And I have never claimed that it was typical of your posting. I have not read the compiled thread, not read the accusations over there and am responding solely to your own comments about your other comments on this thread where you stated you called two women a word that was censored (by you? by the board?) on this board as well as the quote you posted saying "get your fat.....etc". And here what bothers me is your justification for such. If you had said them and then apologized for saying them with a "I went too far that time", you wouldn't have heard a word out of me.

If over 99.9% of the time you choose not to use such comments, then why is it necessary to resort to such for the .1%? Why not just avoid them altogether and find another way to get your point across.

And I am not extrapolating from these comments to anything else, just dealing solely with these comments so I may be making you an "offender for a word" well more like a dozen words or so but since the offense is only about the words and I am not tacking it on to anything else, I am not sure complaining this is what I am doing helps your case...at least as far as I am concerned.

The only things I am commenting on quoted from your own posts:

So, by your own admission then, you ARE willing to make me an offender for a word on the basis of .001% percent of my words.

I find that simply shocking; beyond comprehension. You see, at least the folks at MDB lie to themselves and claim the .001% is typical of the 99.9%. But you and those who agree with you aren't so demanding in your requirements for condemning one for something s/he has said: you only require trace elements of offensiveness--in this case .001%.

Phariseeism to the nth degree.

[Calm]

All I mean by "offender for a word" that I am saying your language (your words) is inappropriate when you are coarse in the manner that you stated yourself you were. If those are only the two times in your life that you used such language, that would be great but those two times would still be wrong just as if you only stole two times in your life for reasons of convenience and not out of extreme need and was a honest person the rest of it would be wrong. Doing something wrong is doing something wrong whether it is done once or a hundred times, is it not? And if someone attempts to justify doing something wrong by the excuse that they hardly ever do it, I believe that inconsistency should be pointed out as inappropriate.

That you only use it .1% of the time would seem to indicate that you think it is inappropriate the vast majority of the time as well and it is only in the .1% that we differ and even if you don't think it is inappropriate the vast majority of time, you can still manage to get your points across without its use well enough then, I highly doubt that refraining from using it .1% of the time is going to impede your ability to communicate in any form.....and considering how so much time is wasted on commenting of your usage of the .1% rather than on any point you were trying to make, it seems to me your usage of such is a hinderance to your efforts to communicate any worthwhile message, not a help.

If you think I am condemning you to hell or refusing to identify you as LDS or something along those lines simply for the use of coarse language or doing anything else besides saying you used inappropriate language in the two cases you yourself posted in this thread, you are wrong. I am only condemning your use of coarse language and your attempted justification of that use....and if you hadn't attempted to justify that usage, but felt it was a time when you went too far and made a mistake in using it, I would not be saying anything at all.

I think I have stated my position well enough, there have been a number of others (not just mng or ttribe) who have said the same thing in fewer words so I know I am not 'out there' in my observations. I am not going to respond to any further posts if they are inflated claims of what I've said.

[ERayR]

So, by your own admission then, you ARE willing to make me an offender for a word on the basis of .001% percent of my words.

I find that simply shocking; beyond comprehension. You see, at least the folks at MDB lie to themselves and claim the .001% is typical of the 99.9%. But you and those who agree with you aren't so demanding in your requirements for condemning one for something s/he has said: you only require trace elements of offensiveness--in this case .001%.

Phariseeism to the nth degree.

As for me I think that is a remarkable record. The fact is none is perfect. Why I even had to apologize twice in one day. No body is trying to make you an offender for a word. Likewise as much as we respect you nobody thinks you are perfect. One of the hallmarks of the truly great is to be able to recognize an error, learn from it and move on. Please.

[Calm]

No body is trying to make you an offender for a word. Likewise as much as we respect you nobody thinks you are perfect. One of the hallmarks of the truly great is to be able to recognize an error, learn from it and move on. Please.

See what I mean by being able to say it in fewer words....

[Calm]

One more comment....

Will, if you had restrained yourself from attempting to justify the two comments by posting them on this very thread, this conversation wouldn't have happened and if you weren't continuing to try to justify them, it would have ended long ago.

Perhaps you should consider that for awhile before jumping to conclusions about others' behaviours.

[jwhitlock]

One wonders that with the condemnation of the use of coarse language, what we should think of the following passages from the scriptures:

Revelation 19:2

2 Nephi 10:6

Isaiah 57:3

Ezekial 16:15,26,28,33

Ezekial 23:2-8 (or the whole chapter)

Hosea 2:2-5

Jeremiah 13:27

Hebrews 12:8

Very descriptive and very coarse language, and yet we are commanded to read and to understand the meaning, context, background, and the motivation for such language.

No one who has been vocal on this thread in condemning Will for his limited use of such language has been willing to address my repeated point of looking for understanding, rather than getting hung up on the format. It has been and continues to be a knee-jerk, emotional response that such language cannot be condoned in any situation. But the scriptures themselves contradict that notion.

[Calm]

Please show me where in any modern day prophets the term "b****" is stated as an acceptable use or that it is appropriate to even joke about physical abuse.

If Will can demonstrate how he could only make worthwhile points by using such terms, I will be happy to reconsider it.

In the first case, instead of using such a label, why didn't he just condemn the behaviour? What argumentative point did he prove by using it?

He stated in the second case his comment was a "tongue in cheek" parody. Humour has a wide range of options, coarseness never has to be one of them, imo. Doing it to shock someone or to show the extreme of a position is only effective if it actually shocks, which in an environment of coarseness is unlikely to do. Instead it merely makes it appear the user is willing to lower his own personal standards for some sort of rhetorical points. Will claiming he only used it .1% of the time over there and never over here would seem to indicate coarseness is not an acceptable standard in almost any other situation. It would seem to me rather then requiring us to simply assume that it was appropriate in these situations, that Will should demonstrate why these should be exceptions to the rule....in other words, what good was accomplished by his use?

Did anyone but him find the second usage funny? Did anyone but him find the second usage a demonstration that the other's remark about sexists priesthood holders or whatever she said was absurd? Did anyone but him find the first usage labelling the women as ***** some sort of indictment of the women that was necessary?

What did Will accomplish by such usage? With extreme behaviour, I don't think it is fair to ask people to simply trust the person using it had good reason unless that person has somehow demonstrated in past conversations impeccable judgment AND authority to do so. And I have seen errors of judgment/understanding towards others' comments made by Will in this thread itself so that I do not think he falls into the category of having impeccable judgment of the appropriateness of using extreme behaviour.

I think you have missed the point made that even if we understand the reason for the use of the phrases, that we still disapprove based on a solid foundation....the teachings of the Church for one. For another, the effectiveness of communication...one can look at the result of his use to see if it was effective in getting his point across. Since what it apparently accomplished is a derail into an appraisal of the coarseness itself rather than the point he was claiming to be making, I would say it has been demonstrated that the use was most definitely not effective and therefore not justified.

Considering the condemnation of coarseness of language and behaviour by those seeking to live a faithful life by church leaders, I would assume that you agree that in looking at justifiable usage one should be very, very careful in choosing when to use it...and if it is demonstrated that that such usage did not work after all and in fact most likely caused more issues, then one should thoughtfully reconsider the appropriateness of the use of coarseness at least in that particular case rather than attempting to justify its use.

It is not a knee jerk emotional response if it is based on studying the words of our church leaders, quite a number of which I linked to in a post above. It is not a knee jerk response if one has considered what other options could have been taken and be just as effective....which I have and considering the number of thoughtful posters who have supported the same position, to call it "knee jerk" isn't, imo, approaching the criticism in a thoughtful way.

[Calm]

Very descriptive and very coarse language, and yet we are commanded to read and to understand the meaning, context, background, and the motivation for such language.

And part of that understanding and context would be the authorization of those who used such language to condemn those who God judged as sinful.

I would consider the prophets of the current Church those authorized to do so at this time. I don't believe that someone should take on the role of that level of condemnation with such language applied to specific individuals just because he feels like it or even because he feels called to it. I don't trust people's ability to self analyze their own motivations to condemn others sufficiently enough to accept such a "calling" on trust alone. Nor do I think simply having the priesthood gives one enough discernment to engage in such behaviour attacking specific people in such a way. Nowhere in the scriptures or the teachings of the modern prophets can one find such justification of selfappointed missions, in my opinion. Feel free to point out anything does.

[jwhitlock]

Cal, it is evident at this point that you have firmly cemented yourself in your viewpoint, and have no desire to understand or address the real point that I am trying to make about all this. The flaw in your continued demands that I find some rationalization for coarseness is that Church leaders are never going to come out and give a laundry list of circumstances and words and rules by which they can or cannot be used. They can only give general counsel and ask us to use the guidance of the Spirit in following it.

Your condemnation presupposes that it is impossible that Will could have had any justification for using such language. You are unwilling to look beyond that supposition, and hence you are unwilling to understand the point I have been trying to make in all this. You misrepresented my own comments not too long ago, and then when I corrected it, you didn't even respond to that, but instead complained that I was making no effort to understand you. Understanding appears to go only one direction, from your viewpoint.

The fact is, no one on this thread on your side of the debate has made any particular effort to consider why understanding of context, background, and intent are necessary in all cases - even in the case of coarse language - before rushing to judgment. It is irrelevant that you think you have been taught that this must always be the case; I have supplied quite a number of examples from the scriptures and from real life why this rush to judgment and this unflinching rejection and condemnation of coarse language is NOT the right thing to do in all cases.

And yet no one has yet directly addressed that point in any kind of cogent fashion.

The only thing I need to point out about such a rigid standard of coarseness is that there are exceptions. You have ignored that, too. I have pointed out that I understand that coarseness is typically not appropriate, but I have also pointed out that understanding needs to come before judgment in such cases. You evidently disagree because you are unwilling to step even one inch outside of the box you have built for yourself on this subject. That's really too bad.

There are some, such as ERayR on this thread, that I think have made a good effort to present a viewpoint of concern that is more thoughtful. I respect that and commend that.

On the other hand, I thoroughly resent the insinuations of how you use the "thoughtful posters" phrase above. Quite a number of posters supporting your position have been clearly unwilling to think outside of their own narrow judgmentalism in this case, which is hardly thoughtful. In addition, to infer that only your position involves "thoughtfulness" seems to indicate that my posts - which again, you haven't really tried to understand, based on your comments - are not thoughtful.

In fact, it was the clear evidence of lack of thought and of the knee-jerk reactions by a number of posters holding your viewpoint that reminded me of an electronic lynch mob. When Will is accused of being dishonest and unprincipled, when he is told that if he (Will) worked in the poster's company, he would have fired him, lynch mob is indeed an apt description.

I think this quote from you epitomizes exactly how you've missed my point: "It would seem to me rather then requiring us to simply assume that it was appropriate in these situations, that Will should demonstrate why these should be exceptions to the rule." I never said that we should just assume that it was appropriate. I said that we should try to understand before passing judgment. There's a huge difference between the two. What happened here was, in fact, an assumption by you and others from the start that it was inappropriate. Your demand that Will justify himself, and that until he does, you'll go ahead and judge his actions negatively makes, to me, the statement that you don't have any responsibility to try to understand.

And that, to me, is what is disturbing about this whole thing.