asbestosman wrote: Chap wrote: moksha wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote: By contrast, your anti-Mormon allies at the Provo parade targeted my wife, who brought two specimens of their work home with her.
Yikes, what happened? Were powdered donuts thrown?
Let's get this right:
LDS apologist does bad stuff on this board -> Other LDS apologists active on this board are in no way implicated.
non-LDS do bad stuff in Provo -> critics of CoJCoLDS on this board are "allies" of the said non-LDS
Somehow I thnk Dr. Peterson was trying to make the opposite point to cksalmon. In other words, since cksalmon likely wouldn't want Daniel Peterson to blame him for the bad behavior of other protestants nor to hold him (cksalmon) responsible for reprimanding said protestants--likewise Daniel Peterson likely thinks that cksalmon should not hold him (Daniel Peterson) responsible for reprimanding the poor behavior of other LDS posters.
I've said my piece to Dr. Peterson.
A few things, though, Ab:
(1) My initial disdain for Schryver's recent posts was exacerbated by the mere existence of SHIELDS--where "the best of the anti-Mormon web" is hosted. I find it rankly hypocritical to be involved with a website devoted to archiving and ridiculing bad/silly/inappropriate behavior (some of which, to my mind, fits into none of those categories) on the part of a very tiny number of LDS critics and yet maintain that Schryver's posts should be seen as completely independent--or, more specifically, that they should not
reflect in any way whatsoever
upon LDS defenders in general. For me, at least, they certainly do.
(2) Moreover, my already-exacerbated disdain was again heightened by Schryver's unexplained, unspecified implication of the unnamed FARMS associates.
Schryver's response to being called on the carpet was to try to spread the muck around a bit, make it blend in.
(3) I was a bit nonplussed by Dr. Peterson's ready moral pronouncement about the actions of evangelical Christian tracters at a Provo parade when, in the face of Schryver's shenanigans, he would only reiterate here that he does not personally indulge in or approve of crude sexual metaphors.
I believe Dr. Peterson was very much
implicating me with regard to my "anti-Mormon allies." I'm okay with that, frankly. While I disdain anti-Mormon protests that take the form of bullhorning, sign waving, shouting, dressing up as the devil and wearing a name tag reading "Moroni," or other general nincompoopery at religious events, I don't at all think that polite tracting falls into the same category.
I doubt I would have participated, even given the opportunity. Certainly, I think, not with the particular tract in question, or any tract, frankly. But, as far as I can tell, the group in question does not resort to such overblown tactics as I've mentioned above. If they do, or have done in the past, I have no problem unambiguously stating and defending my disdain for such actions.
(4) Dr. Peterson has already
made a general moral pronouncement about the behavior of the "anti-Mormon" offenders at the Provo parade.
With regard to Schryver, he has stated something to the effect: No one likes to be called a snot-nosed shabby bastard to his face (re: Scratch); that's why I use this message board.
I can't help but be reminded of the countless times I have had to watch the "cyber-bullying" commercials on hulu.com: "If you wouldn't say it in person, why say it on the Internet?"
Anyway, just a few disjointed thoughts.