A couple of weeks of civil bloggernacle discourse

For those of you who have missed the scintillating discussion throughout the Bloggernacle over the past couple of weeks, please allow us to provide you with a handy summary.

Once upon a time there was a sincere seeker of truth, named RoastedTomatoes, who sought to bring a little more civility to discourse on LDS Scholarship. This is his story.

RoastedTomatoes wrote: I think Bro. Midgley made too big of a deal about Palmer’s “Paul Pry” thing. However, a greater fault is, I believe, his tone. Don’t you all think that calling someone’s heartfelt testimony of Christ the Lord “sentimentality about Jesus” is crossing the line? ps. I know what to expect, so I am not letting folks comment on this brief statement.

John W. Redelfs wrote: How dare you malign Midgley? Don’t you understand that he is seeking to restore faith in the Lord’s one true church? What are you, apostate or, even worse, a Sunstone subscriber? I’m telling!

John Dehlin wrote: While he’s off calling all his FARMS/FAIR cronies, I just want to say that the vast majority of apologetic work takes underhanded, drive-by cheapshots. Also, I’m practically an apologist myself. Please be on my show: I want to get more podcast subscribers in Utah County.

Louis Midgley wrote: You are right, Roasted. I messed up with some of the Pry stuff. Also, I think that you display an unfortunate credulity when addressing Palmer’s Pry explanation. More importantly, you are obviously an apostate.

SerenityValley wrote: Hey, I know apostates, I’ve worked with apostates, and my husband, sir, is no apostate.

Daniel Peterson wrote: Hi, I’m the Zodiac Killer. Why won’t people ever listen to my arguments, instead always focusing on the blood on my hands? WWWWHHHHHYYYY?

Dave (of DMI fame) wrote: Man, look at the train-wreck over there. Yeesh!

Guy Murray wrote: I just want to say that I loves me some Midgley and Peterson, yessir. Also, has my paperwork to be adopted by Bro. Welch come through yet?

Louis Midgley wrote: I apologize for calling RoastedTomatoes an apostate. However, I stand by my statement regarding his mother’s propensity for dressing in military footwear.

Daniel Peterson wrote: Howdy, Ed Gein here. Why won’t anyone seriously approach what I have said? Is it the Bowie Knife?

Clark Goble wrote: I think maybe we’re painting with too broad a brush. Ad Hominem isn’t always inappropriate. Humor and Satire can also be appropriate. That said, both can be abused. What do you think we could do to make sure our discourse is uplifting?

DKL wrote: You suck!

Daniel Peterson wrote: Hi, I’m Ted Bundy. What is this sucking of which you speak? Prove it, pretty boy! Also, you’re ugly.

Matt Elggren wrote: This is apologetics. Behold, the violence inherent in the system, THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!

John Fowles wrote: Are you all mad? Don’t you know that Nibley entered this life fully formed, emerging from a blooming lotus blossom on a still pool? Don’t you know John Gee descended to earth directly from heaven? Don’t you know that Richard Anderson didn’t die, but rather rode a chariot of fire into the sky? that Jack Welch is my father-in-law? that Daniel Peterson is Bel-Shamharoth, the Soul Eater? (Seriously, don’t cross that guy) They would never, ever, ever, ever, eva, sink to the level of anti-Mormons in terms of writing hateful prose and snarky asides, nuh uh. Matt Elggren, apologetics isn’t what you say it is.

Matt Elggren wrote: well, if you read what I wrote you would see that in context “this is apologetics” doesn’t actually mean “this is apologetics”. It meant “HELP, HELP! I’M BEING OPPRESSED!” Sheesh, don’t you people understand English?

Daniel Peterson wrote: Hi, I’m the dark lord Satan himself, Beelzebub, Lucifer, Voldemort, Hitler, ya know, the whole deal. Why is everyone focusing on me? What about the issues? WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE ISSUES?

Clark Goble wrote: Guys, calm down! I just wanted to have a nice civil discussion about civility in LDS scholar…you know what? Forget it. You suck!

And so it goes…