I am responsible for all of Kevin's sins

[_beastie]

DCP just provided a good example of quibbling over words:

Actually, the Gall-o-Bitterness Board appears to have reached a rough consensus that The Threat Once Contained in John Gee's Letter But Surreptitiously Edited Out, which then morphed into The Threat Contained in A Mysterious E-Mail from John Gee That Was Dishonestly Suppressed and then, more recently (if I understand the evolution correctly), became The Threat Delivered by Will Schryver as John Gee's Authorized Spokesman, was actually contained in The Lost and Dishonestly Suppressed Introduction to John Gee's Letter That was Written by Juliann/Moderator Chaos.

I highlighted the phrase that is the example of Hoffer's observation about True Believers.

Note that DCP is not denying, nor can he deny, that Schryver relayed the lawsuit thread in behalf of Gee. No one is calling Schryver a liar. But the question is now: was Schryver an "AUTHORIZED SPOKESMAN"????

This is how ridiculous these conversations become. Does Will have a notarized statement from Gee authorizing him to make such a statement in his behalf? If not, well, then, how dare anyone claim that Gee threatened a lawsuit!

[_dartagnan]

As usual Beastie, you get it. So does everyone else here it seems. According to the mod there my “allegations” were only to try “stirring the pot” again. That is what they really think? My comment was in the context of my response to Dan, which pointed out the hypocrisy for crying about lawsuits when LDS have recently been making legal threats. I was simply pointing that out. Will provided it, Chaos provided it too, and they were both talking about Gee. It is unthinkable that both would refer to Gee threatening a lawsuit unless he really did.

Bokovoy wrote an interesting claim that seems to have resonated with Michael Ash (unfortunately):

Sadly, I believe that when an active LDS apologist desperately graves public accolades, he or she is susceptible to becoming a critic. When, as a believer, the individual proves incapable of earning the public recognition which he or she so desperately wants, there are plenty of others on the other side who stand more than willing to supply the individual with the attention he or she craves.

Real smooth David. So it all boils down to vanity, right? That’s why I became a “turncoat.” The LDS were not giving me all the recognition I so desperately required. And of course we know that now I am a God among anti-Mormons right? Yes, this must be the reason. I get a kick at the way apologists always try to make sense of the fact that some people no longer believe as they do. If we’re not obviously demon-possessed, they have to conjure up some other disgusting scenario - supported by nothing more than their need to believe, of course.

It couldn’t happen to have anything to do with my evident and documented five-year struggle with Book of Abraham apologetics. No, that must have been an early charade to hide the fact that I needed “accolades.” And of course, as a fairly known apologist I was praised frequently at Church, asked to give talks, called to deal with struggling investigators, spear-headed open houses at Stake Centers, firesides, etc. And I gave all that up so I could be fairly known among a handful of critics on Shades’ forum. Is that what I am supposed to believe? Yes, my social life has certainly sky-rocketed since becoming a "critic" just ask my wife! The joys and accolades are plentiful now, thanks.

Good grief, look at what they’re doing. All I did was email Ritner to confirm a rumor. It is apparently up to Dan to decide why I did so My reasons have no meaning for them. Is it really impossible for them to see this as a genuine inquiry and search for truth? It seems that they are only supportive of truth searches when those searches involve Church bookstores, LDS videos, FAIR’s website, etc. They’re really scared to death of what they might find if they for a second just take a step outside their theological safety zone and look around. I’ve been browsing the danger zones for years, but what really has done it for me is not what I found outside, but rather, what I found when I returned with what I found. The entire tribe goes into Defcon 5 and the jets are scrambled as I’m interrogated for treason.

But think about this. Do any of us doubt for a second that Bokovoy’s attack here, if provided in a context by a critics and applied towards Dan Peterson, John Gee, or any other LDS notable, would be shot down as “disgusting” and “morally outrageous” by the band of Mad indignitaries? This is precisely what I am talking about. These guys are no more righteous or just or reluctant to engage in ad hominem or rumor-mongering than any non-LDS or critic.

[_Runtu]

Bokovoy wrote an interesting claim that seems to have resonated with Michael Ash (unfortunately):

Sadly, I believe that when an active LDS apologist desperately graves public accolades, he or she is susceptible to becoming a critic. When, as a believer, the individual proves incapable of earning the public recognition which he or she so desperately wants, there are plenty of others on the other side who stand more than willing to supply the individual with the attention he or she craves.

Real smooth David. So it all boils down to vanity, right? That’s why I became a “turncoat.” The LDS were not giving me all the recognition I so desperately required. And of course we know that now I am a God among anti-Mormons right? Yes, this must be the reason. I get a kick at the way apologists always try to make sense of the fact that some people no longer believe as they do. If we’re not obviously demon-possessed, they have to conjure up some other disgusting scenario - supported by nothing more than their need to believe, of course.

I saw that too. As I said in response to David, that's why I became a countermopologist. I just wasn't getting the attention I wanted as an apologist.

[_dartagnan]

Didn't you used to be a professor at BYU?

Yea, you really gave up obscurity there for the opportunity of stardom here!!

Congratulations!

[_harmony]

Ze only recourse at thees point eez permanent institutionalization in a country far far avay vair he can only do harm to heemself and to zee many angry voices screaming in heez head.

William, just a word to the wise: the ink blots have been discredited. There is no psychoanalyzing being done here. We tend to talk about that which exists, instead of figments of your imagination. Do you deny any of your part of this situation? Do you have any comment?

[_Runtu]

Didn't you used to be a professor at BYU?

Yea, you really gave up obscurity there for the opportunity of stardom here!!

Congratulations!

No, that was guy sajer.

The only "stardom" I ever had was that some people liked my blog. lol

[_The Dude]

I veel show you a series of pictures und you veel tell me vhut you see:

William, I find art strongly vaginal.

[_dartagnan]

Bokovoy has now taken his comments and started an entire thread based on them. Apparently he thinks he has been enlightened and knows the motives for those dastardly "Apologists turned critics."

I’m not going to personalize the discussion. I believe, however, that this point is not only valid

This is't personal? And why does he think his "point" is valid? He offers no proof, no evidence, nothing. It is based in a need to demonize dissidents. Their motives can never be anything other than malicious. In this case, I have fallen into the sin of vanity. Apparently Bokovoy is deluded into thinking I became of Book of Abraham critic because it makes me popular. He doesn't want to consider what i gave up on the flip side. If he did, and if he knew, he would realize that his point is pure bunk. Well, actually he probably wouldn't realize it.

He acts as if there are enough of us out there to perform some kind of study and offer an analysis. The only other apologist turned critic that I can think of is Chris Tolworthy. Aside from that, I think we're pretty much an endangered species. Yet, Bokovoy thinks I am in need for "public recognition."

I think what has made the difference between my decision to think critically and those who fixated on the path to ignorant bliss, has much to do with the weight of our anchors. I don't have an entire family anchored in the Church. That anchor is on my wife's side of the family, and only slight. I didn't have an entire childhood anchored in the Church either. I joined the Church when I was 19, and everything Juliann has been arguing about sociology makes perfect sense to me in light of my conversion. The Church provided everything I needed at the time, sociologically speaking. So when I eventually came across damning information that proved the Church was wrong on a number of issues, unlike most apologists who have virtually every aspect of their lives invested in the premise that the Church is true, I didn't have to conjure up all sorts of excuses or perform mental gymnastics to get around the problems. I decided to make the attempt to think as objectively as I possibly could, and I decided I would go where the evidence took me. Right now I still consider myself at a crossroads because I made a promise to myself three years ago that I would give the Book of Abraham issue more time. But time is running out and it seems the apologetic force is moving backwards.

I guess that is my fault too.

I would like to turn this into a positive thread.

Given the validity of my claim, to what extent can we, as an online community of LDS believers, assist those whose need for public recognition makes them susceptible to becoming a critic of Daniel Peterson, FARMS, BYU, FAIR, the Book of Abraham, etc.?

Any thoughts?

One comes to mind. You're a jackass. You're everything I despised about myself as an apologist. You see all critics, LDS or not, as the "other" who earn your scorn while you pretend to actually care about them. DO you want to do us all a favor? Then bury your stupid condescending theory and accept the reasons and motives the "critics" offer for themselves. You'd expect nothing less from critics who psychoanalyze Joseph Smith and your host of LDS scholars who often fall under scrutiny.

[_Black Moclips]

Kevin -

Its interesting how times have changed. I remember years ago when I first stumbled across online message boards, and the first one I went to was Apologetics.com, and I marveled as you did battle as Metatron against Rob Bowman. I was impressed, and I think we even corresponded a couple of times (though I wasn't Black Moclips then). Then I migrated to FAIR, ZLMB, back to MAD and now here. I haven't followed all of your history, but I have noticed the changes in your position. Have you posted a summary about your situation? Have you left the church officially? Anyway, just curious. Interestingly enough, I have become a doubter myself, though active in appearance. I realized early on that I didn't have the stamina to go for the title of "apologist". But its was the lack of spiritual experiences that got me where I am, not the apologetic issues. Funny how that can happen.

Anyway, like I said before, just wondering if you had any sort of summarized post about you personal struggles. I'd be interested in reading that story.

[_harmony]

I would like to turn this into a positive thread.

Given the validity of my claim, to what extent can we, as an online community of LDS believers, assist those whose need for public recognition makes them susceptible to becoming a critic of Daniel Peterson, FARMS, BYU, FAIR, the Book of Abraham, etc.?

Any thoughts?

One: criticizing Daniel Peterson, FARMS, BYU, and FAIR is not and can in no way be construed to be criticism of the LDS church. Just as the church is not God, Daniel is not the church.