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

[ttribe]

Reread your posts 73 and 83 and think about how they might have come across in just the way I described.

The context (since you've been very concerned about context in Will's case) is that I'd already been accused of being in the "critic" camp (universally) by another poster. I've been gone a while and chose to assert the fact that I've been in this "war" and taken some bullets in the defense of the Church; that I wasn't speaking from a position of inexperience. It seems you read into that an implication of superiority in much the same way you've accused me of reading in an implication of "ends justifying the means" into one of your previous comments.

[jwhitlock]

Despite all that, let's just take a step back and let me ask you a question - Under what set of circumstances do you believe Will's comments are appropriate for a defender of this faith? Honestly, I see you defending the indefensible here and I don't understand it. So, instead of going after my character, why don't you help me understand the context that would make any of what Will has said acceptable? I happen to believe there are lines which should not be crossed. I believe I've articulated what those lines are over the years. I believe Will's behavior crosses those lines by a wide margin. Do you feel there are no lines? Help me understand your position.

I draw the lines very differently than you do. Those lines vary depending on the individual; I'm leery of one-size-fits-all standards in many cases. As I have posted elsewhere on this thread, when Will takes a particular approach to something I ask why, rather than making a face value judgment call right off the bat. That's because I have a reasonable idea of his real character, and so I try to look for the message, rather than get hung up on the format.

Do you feel that God's characterization of Israel as a prostitute was inappropriate? If not, then you might want to rethink the concept of certain formats never being appropriate. There may be more principle and honesty to Will's statements - and LDS Apologetics - than you think.

[jwhitlock]

The context (since you've been very concerned about context in Will's case) is that I'd already been accused of being in the "critic" camp (universally) by another poster. I've been gone a while and chose to assert the fact that I've been in this "war" and taken some bullets in the defense of the Church; that I wasn't speaking from a position of inexperience. It seems you read into that an implication of superiority in much the same way you've accused me of reading in an implication of "ends justifying the means" into one of your previous comments.

Whether you chose to come across that way or not, your us of phrases such as "earned the right" and your very offended response to Pahoran that he would dare compare your situation to that of a hobbyist came across as very superior - especially in the context of you condemning Will's actions. Nevertheless, since you're clarifying that you didn't intend that, we can move on to other things.

[ttribe]

I draw the lines very differently than you do. Those lines vary depending on the individual; I'm leery of one-size-fits-all standards in many cases. As I have posted elsewhere on this thread, when Will takes a particular approach to something I ask why, rather than making a face value judgment call right off the bat. That's because I have a reasonable idea of his real character, and so I try to look for the message, rather than get hung up on the format.

Do you feel that God's characterization of Israel as a prostitute was inappropriate? If not, then you might want to rethink the concept of certain formats never being appropriate. There may be more principle and honesty to Will's statements - and LDS Apologetics - than you think.

I think it unwise to think that I am worthy to engage in the same rhetoric as God given my imperfect state. I also think it a different matter to make such a statement about a political/national body than to attack an individual the way Will does.

Last time I checked, the Sermon on the Mount mentioned that the meek were blessed. I can't find the part that mentions the zealous soldier.

Sorry, but I believe Kimberly Ann, beastie, liz, Jack, et al, to be my "neighbor" in the sense mentioned in the New Testament. I seem to remember being told to love them; not beat them over the head with a hammer. Apparently, you approve of Will's methods. I don't. Shall we simply say that reasonable minds can disagree, or are you going to keep trying to characterize me as having lost my ability to properly discern and continue this silly derail?

BTW, can you please clarify what lines you DO draw?

[ttribe]

Whether you chose to come across that way or not, your us of phrases such as "earned the right" and your very offended response to Pahoran that he would dare compare your situation to that of a hobbyist came across as very superior - especially in the context of you condemning Will's actions. Nevertheless, since you're clarifying that you didn't intend that, we can move on to other things.

Let me get this straight - you're bothered about the implication that I might claim a "special status" but not Will's telling a woman to get her fat a** into the kitchen? Do I have that straight?

[jwhitlock]

I think it unwise to think that I am worthy to engage in the same rhetoric as God given my imperfect state. I also think it a different matter to make such a statement about a political/national body than to attack an individual the way Will does.

Last time I checked, the Sermon on the Mount mentioned that the meek were blessed. I can't find the part that mentions the zealous soldier.

Sorry, but I believe Kimberly Ann, beastie, liz, Jack, et al, to be my "neighbor" in the sense mentioned in the New Testament. I seem to remember being told to love them; not beat them over the head with a hammer. Apparently, you approve of Will's methods. I don't. Shall we simply say that reasonable minds can disagree, or are you going to keep trying to characterize me as having lost my ability to properly discern and continue this silly derail?

I don't see it as a derail, since it's germane to the topic of suppression at hand. And, IIRC, It was not I who commented on your ability to discern, so that's not particularly applicable.

Last time I checked, there are widely differing approaches in the scriptures to our enemies. You can't just pick one perspective and claim that applies to every situation.

Just to clarify one addition thing you're misunderstanding; I neither approve nor dispprove of Will's methods. I simply seek to understand why, and I don't buy into the knee-jerk reaction that his delivery format is reprehensible.

[jwhitlock]

Let me get this straight - you're bothered about the implication that I might claim a "special status" but not Will's telling a woman to get her fat a** into the kitchen? Do I have that straight?

You were serious. Will wasn't.

But I'm sure that you knew that already, which ranks as the kind of contextual faux pas that Will was talking about.

[TAO]

Edit... thought better of it... was gonna say something like 'let the thread rest for a bit', but probably shouldn't.

[Damien the Leper]

You were serious. Will wasn't.

But I'm sure that you knew that already, which ranks as the kind of contextual faux pas that Will was talking about.

I'm curious as to what qualifies you to discern who was serious and who was not. The mere fact that such comment about a sizely woman getting back into a kitchen was made is reprehensible.

It's wonderfully refreshing and comforting to know that such behavior is being rationalized.

[jwhitlock]

I'm curious as to what qualifies you to discern who was serious and who was not. The mere fact that such comment about a sizely woman getting back into a kitchen was made is reprehensible.

It's wonderfully refreshing and comforting to know that such behavior is being rationalized.

Have you happened to read the rest of my posts in this thread? If so, and you were reading for understanding, you wouldn't make this kind of absurd statement.

[TAO]

I'm curious as to what qualifies you to discern who was serious and who was not. The mere fact that such comment about a sizely woman getting back into a kitchen was made is reprehensible.

It's wonderfully refreshing and comforting to know that such behavior is being rationalized.

The seriousness doesn't really matter.

[ttribe]

I don't see it as a derail, since it's germane to the topic of suppression at hand. And, IIRC, It was not I who commented on your ability to discern, so that's not particularly applicable.

No, you just gave it your stamp of approval with the "rep points".

Last time I checked, there are widely differing approaches in the scriptures to our enemies. You can't just pick one perspective and claim that applies to every situation.

Sure I can. Last time I checked, there are some things God reserves for himself (e.g. "Vengence is mine"), and commands us to do something different (e.g. "love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek", "seven times seventy", "pray for them who despitefully use you", etc.). That's one of God's perks of being omniscient. Unless you and Will are claiming omniscience, I think you're out of line to label people "enemies" without a lot better evidence than I've seen in the last four years.

Just to clarify one addition thing you're misunderstanding; I neither approve nor dispprove of Will's methods. I simply seek to understand why, and I don't buy into the knee-jerk reaction that his delivery format is reprehensible.

Really? That's why you're spending all this time defending his behavior and running interferance by turning the focus on me?

You were serious. Will wasn't.

You sure Will wasn't serious? Even if true, inappropriate and cruel humor, is still inappropriate and cruel.

But I'm sure that you knew that already, which ranks as the kind of contextual faux pas that Will was talking about.

Give the snark a rest, would you?

You want to know what I think? I think your defense of Will indicates you've decided that it's more important to support a team member than it is to show civility and compassion to a perceived "enemy." That even when you might know that your fellow team member is in the wrong, it's more important to show loyalty and unity than it is to take a stand for principle and put an end to abusive and harmful behavior.

ETA: Again I have to ask (since you ignored it before) - what lines DO you draw?

[Calm]

No, you just gave it your stamp of approval with the "rep points".

I don't know about jwhitlock, but I don't always approve of everything said in someone's post that I give a rep too. On rare occasions, I don't approve of the content at all, but I respect someone who is willing to put effort into clearly articulating their position for the purpose of helping others understand it.

I don't think people should make assumptions of an individual's POV based on rep points because of this.

[ttribe]

I don't know about jwhitlock, but I don't always approve of everything said in someone's post that I give a rep too. On rare occasions, I don't approve of the content at all, but I respect someone who is willing to put effort into clearly articulating their position for the purpose of helping others understand it.

I don't think people should make assumptions of an individual's POV based on rep points because of this.

If you check, Will's comment about my lack of discernment comprised the entirety of said post.

[Calm]

If you check, Will's comment about my lack of discernment comprised the entirety of said post.

I know, but like I said sometimes I don't agree with any of a message, but still appreciate why someone might be saying it.

I am simply saying that making assumptions based on rep point is probably making assumptions based on not enough information as a reason why someone is giving a rep point doesn't come along with the rep point itself. In a topic that is seen as inflammatory as this one appears to be, I think it wise to be cautious in attributing motives to people's comments and rather it's better to ask for clarification first.

I've seem to be handing out advice a lot today, sorry to anyone it is getting old for.

[ttribe]

I know, but like I said sometimes I don't agree with any of a message, but still appreciate why someone might be saying it.

I am simply saying that making assumptions based on rep point is probably making assumptions based on not enough information as a reason why someone is giving a rep point doesn't come along with the rep point itself. In a topic that is seen as inflammatory as this one appears to be, I think it wise to be cautious in attributing motives to people's comments and rather it's better to ask for clarification first.

I've seem to be handing out advice a lot today, sorry to anyone it is getting old for.

Fair enough. Thank you.

[Calm]

And thank you in return for understanding.

[jwhitlock]

No, you just gave it your stamp of approval with the "rep points".

Sure I can. Last time I checked, there are some things God reserves for himself (e.g. "Vengence is mine"), and commands us to do something different (e.g. "love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek", "seven times seventy", "pray for them who despitefully use you", etc.). That's one of God's perks of being omniscient. Unless you and Will are claiming omniscience, I think you're out of line to label people "enemies" without a lot better evidence than I've seen in the last four years.

Really? That's why you're spending all this time defending his behavior and running interferance by turning the focus on me?

You sure Will wasn't serious? Even if true, inappropriate and cruel humor, is still inappropriate and cruel.

Give the snark a rest, would you?

You want to know what I think? I think your defense of Will indicates you've decided that it's more important to support a team member than it is to show civility and compassion to a perceived "enemy." That even when you might know that your fellow team member is in the wrong, it's more important to show loyalty and unity than it is to take a stand for principle and put an end to abusive and harmful behavior.

ETA: Again I have to ask (since you ignored it before) - what lines DO you draw?

After composing a lengthy response in kind, I've decided to not even respond to this garbage. I've been clear about where I'm coming from in my posts, and it's clear from the increasing personal attack tone in your posts (which started with your post in #52, where you characterize Will as dishonest and unprincipled) that you simply want to set yourself up as the judge of what's appropriate or not based on your narrow worldview.

I'll leave you to it. You've certainly built yourself a supportive audience for what you're spouting.

[ttribe]

After composing a lengthy response in kind, I've decided to not even respond to this garbage. I've been clear about where I'm coming from in my posts, and it's clear from the increasing personal attack tone in your posts (which started with your post in #52, where you characterize Will as dishonest and unprincipled) that you simply want to set yourself up as the judge of what's appropriate or not based on your narrow worldview.

I'll leave you to it. You've certainly built yourself a supportive audience for what you're spouting.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Damien the Leper]

Have you happened to read the rest of my posts in this thread? If so, and you were reading for understanding, you wouldn't make this kind of absurd statement.

I have and you've made very clear where you stand concerning things said. And you have still not justified how such statements made can be excused. I understand your loyalty to your friend and I commend your honor to be so. Still, the conduct is unbecoming.

I won't excuse comments such as this, even made in jest, because I do not also do not condone, excuse or laugh at racial, sexual orientation, gender or religious humor(?) that is any way meant to demean or insult.

We'll just have to end this conversation before it escalates into something that will get either of us banned.

Take care.

[jwhitlock]

And you have still not justified how such statements made can be excused.

I've justified how we can look at such statements for understanding. Whether to excuse them or not is irrelevant to the point I'm making.

[William Schryver]

From what I know about Will, he doesn't say things thoughtlessly. At least to me, he's rather deliberate about what he posts.

Knowing that, rather than tuning out and rushing to judgment, I ask myself why he's saying it and what his purpose is. Knowing that Will is an intelligent individual, and that he is not sexist and does not condone abuse, I ask why he would make the choice to post such things.

You come at his comments from the perspective that they are never appropriate in any context I look at his comments and ask why. Because of those differing perspectives, we come to very different conclusions about Will.

I know some very coarse people who would give me the shirt off their back. I've learned that rushing to judgment about perceived coarseness in some situations is exactly the wrong thing to do - and I think this is one of them.

Bingo!

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

[Damien the Leper]

I've justified how we can look at such statements for understanding. Whether to excuse them or not is irrelevant to the point I'm making.

(Sigh) Very Well.

[William Schryver]

Will, I hope you enjoy a break with your reunion. I don't believe most of what's said at the Trailer park, because it's seems to be claimed that some posters post have been tampered with. This has happened to me on another board. It's too easy to get pulled down and let ones standards drop, as it's so sleazy over there, best to stay clear. You're getting piled on here, if you showed a bit of humility, it probably wouldn't happen...but I hate it when people conform or show false humility, which certainly isn't your style. Which is probably part of the problem, it too easy to take you the wrong way.

IMO you owe Cal an apology. She's on of best and fairest posters on this board.

..plus telling someone who's ill and stuck at home, they should get out more, is a bit crass.

I'm one of your fans but think maybe you're feeling a bit picked and got irked here.

I agree.

Cal, I sincerely apologize for firing off a snarky post when I was in a hurry to get on the road earlier today. I will try to find the time to make a more thoughtful post that conveys my meaning better than my post from this morning. Now I must hit the hay ...

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

I didn't even join the site until:

Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 11:11 am Total posts: 128

[0.02% of all posts / 0.29 posts per day]

I'm still looking for the thread but as I recall, I never mentioned anyone by name, only that I'd gotten excoriated for not prioritizing loyalty.

That post title isn't even showing up in the "your content" search under my username and my first public post on that board wasn't until Fri April 27th, 2012. It was a response to Carton correcting him on the mistaken notion that I am the moderator Minos.

eta: In any event, I do remember clearly disclosing that I'd taken a beating privately without disclosing who was on the other end of the correspondence. I did not feel, given the generalities of what I shared, that it was a violation of confidence. In any case, I apologize to you Pahoran.

I was referring to the date and title of the PM conversation here, not the thread on the Sty. Since I was replying directly to your question about "What PMs are you even talking about," I did not think that was particularly obscure.

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