The Problem with Schryver

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello John,

Aside from Will acting like an ass (as usual), it's interesting to see that David shares the very views that got David Wright excommunicated, and yet he's still an active member, indeed one who is trusted to teach the gospel professionally. Things have definitely changed in the last 15 years or so, and that's probably a good thing.

And yes, Will's denial that there was any implicit threat in his post is, as usual, disingenuous. He comes across as Millhouse trying to pretend he's Nelson Muntz. People don't ostracize Millhouse, do they?

I just wanted to clarify that I do not hold the exact same views as David Wright concerning the Book of Mormon. Even though I recognize that due to its anachronisms, the Book of Mormon cannot be a literal translation of the ancient plates in Joseph's possession, I still believe in literal plates, Nephites, and an angel Moroni.

In addition, I strongly contest the validity of the fundamentalist view that one must believe in literal plates, Nephites, and an angel Moroni to retain a testimony of Mormonism.

best

[_CaliforniaKid]

Will is now accusing Mortal Man of dishonesty, without justification.

[_Ray A]

Ray A,

Again, I can see what Will thinks he is defending, and why he feels he is in the right, but shouldn't that be a different matter from how that defense is conducted? I mean, so what if SHIELDS puts the barbed missives of apologists to anti-Mormons on display, but threatening a CES employee with the disapproval of secret associates and the specter of excommunication? Are there to be no limits?

Trevor,

I fully agree, and that's why I wrote:

If there's going to be any dialogue, then it will have to be based on agreeing to disagree amicably. And judging by the past, that isn't going to be easy.

I do not at all agree with Will's approach most of the time. But to reiterate, is it any different from Packer/Mc Conkie, et al, or even DCP's in substance? DCP has long ago made it known he's not inclined to adopt "crudeness" into his style, but has never directly implicated Will in such clarifications, and although exempting himself from "crudeness", he fundamentally holds the same views as Will, but has adopted another style of "apologetic acidity" (as in the Review), and to change those views would be to retract on a lifetime of "TBM belief". He has said, in effect, that Mormonism would not be worth it unless it was literally true. Although in disagreement with DCP, I can accept that he's entitled to hold such views, as I do mine, contra DCP.

What happened to the idea of humble apologetics, especially when dealing with fellow believing and/or struggling LDS folk!?!?!

I ask the very same question. Many Mormon scholars, David included, have approached this with humility, in my opinion. I have been impressed with many of them, but in the end however one approaches apologetics, what will count, ultimately, is not approach but the very substance of what is at stake (Kevin has already outlined what he feels are some inconsistencies in David's ideas, and again that comes back to the "either/or" question). No matter how kind David is, one is going to have to address whether his arguments/ideas can consistently be maintained within a Mormon framework, and whether the Church really is ready to tolerate such ideas (it has clearly shown in the case of David Wright that it is not). This battle has been going on in Christianity since the 19th century.

Ultimately, also, we have to ask, what is at stake here for us? Do we want the Church to change? If so, why? Is it because we fear that eventually intolerant fundamentalist Mormons will "fly planes into buildings", so to speak? Has history shown that? I'm including myself in this reflection. And with continuing growth could we in fact eventually see such drastic actions, or the like, because of these "fundamentalist beliefs". I disagree with those beliefs, but what I would seek is a way to curb excesses, and point out what I feel is unreasonable, rather than condemn such beliefs, and at the same time calling for the civility we see in approaches such as David's. But ultimately, to be honest, I doubt that anything will change my mind about the historicity question, not even David's kindness, which I appreciate, and his alowing for alternative beliefs, and the idea that literalism isn't necessary to true belief. But it isn't going to motivate me to rejoin the Church and start paying tithing. I'm not on the fence on the historicity question, and I will not be supporting such literalist beliefs, but likewise I don't expect them to bend nor accommodate. But very true, as you note, there could be much more charity and real Christianity in this approach, even without spoiling Will's penchant for being a "larrikin".

Sometimes, nay often, it does help to call a spade a spade so we know exactly where we all stand, and by addressing the very substance of the issues, and what really is at stake. However much we may dislike or detest it - that is what Will has done.

[_Trevor]

Despite your disingenuous insistence on making something else of my words other than what I actually said, and notwithstanding the fact that you will almost certainly continue to do so, regardless of what I say now, I will once again attempt to underscore the obvious fact (as plainly illustrated by my actual words as cited above) that my comment had nothing to do with David’s beliefs, per se, but rather with what I (and others) have seen as a perceptible increase in David’s degree of dogmatism when advocating his personal views and critiquing those views of fellow believers with whom he disagrees.

I saw two separate references to "others," including the one you quoted above, and this one:

(However, I would say that it bears some remarkable similarities to things David Wright has said in the past. That is worrying, to me and others who have developed sincere affection for you over the years.)

Suffice it to say (and I am done with this thread on this note) there is no sentiment that I hold, or that is held by people with whom I associate, that fits the description of Mormonism and LDS apologetics you articulate above. However, I find it very troubling that you feel the way you do. It is not a good sign …

Now, I can assure you that there is nothing in the least bit disingenuous in my concern about your rhetoric, specifically in references to the views of unnamed "others" who seem to think that David is sounding more dogmatic and more like David Wright, who was excommunicated for publishing an argument that the Book of Mormon is 19th century (a view David B. does not share). While you would perhaps like us to ignore that the content of his views did have something to do with your and presumably their objections, I think it is pretty clear from the MAD thread and my second quote from it that his ideas were an issue.

Moreover, you are not simply disagreeing with me when you try to wiggle out of this, but it would seem that David himself has more than once expressed disagreement with your use of these "others" in your argument with him:

I suggest you let the others speak for themselves rather than waving them around like a saber in your defense. For suffice it to say, if you are indeed the spokesman for LDS apologetics, I for one call for an impeachment.

Hello Trevor,

Sincere appreciation, Brother, for your continued on-line support. I agree with your assessment of the matter, and did not appreciate a "warning" regarding the sentiments of a non-specified group of others.

So are you charging David similarly? Or are you trying to continue your argument with him through me because you haven't the courage to pursue it directly with him?

I have clearly become a very polarizing figure in certain quarters, but you should understand that the views held by the frequenters of this message board (and those who sympathize with them) are not likely to be equally appreciated by those whom you hope to influence to publicly denounce and ostracize me.

First, I draw attention to your narcissism. "I have clearly become a very polarizing figure..." And I add, "Oh my, little ole me. How could this have happened? I am just shocked!"

Hopefully, you will be viewed as an increasing liability if you continue to behave poorly. Whether that means you will be publicly denounced and ostracized or not is not something I am terribly invested in. I, like a number of others, happen to believe that your mode of apologetics is counterproductive, and I will happily share my views with whoever reads these posts. I think I have a pretty sound argument on my side. If "others" disagree, more's the pity for them. I think that better behavior would actually strengthen the cause of Mormon apologetics, not hobble it.

I believe I have a very realistic and informed view of my relationship with and place among the “others” to whom I have made oblique reference. Consequently, I’m inclined to believe that you and your friends here are laboring under many delusions. No surprise there, of course. In a place where the antics of a “Dr. Scrotch" are welcomed with open arms and minds, one should not expect a very high order of reasonable conclusions emerging from your deliberations.

Well, I am not Dr. Scratch and I feel very comfortable in my interpretation of your tactic, since the reasonable gentleman Dr. Bokovoy had a similar interpretation. Now, I have no idea about your relationship and place among the "others" and, frankly, I don't care very much, except that I have found you to be a poor representative of your Church. You are divisive not only between Mormon and non-Mormon, and critic and apologist, but also between fellow believers. It is at the latter point that I would hope someone would take notice and begin to engage you on toning it down. Since no one except the understandably aggrieved Dr. Bokovoy was doing that, I thought it behooved me as a reasonably decent fellow to add my disapproval.

As to these unidentified “others” I have mentioned, suffice it to say that your conception of who they are probably bears little resemblance to the reality of their identity. But if it furthers your desired end of painting a picture of devious intrigue, I welcome you to your games.

Again, I don't care and that is largely beside the point. What I object to is the way you conduct yourself in the pursuit of your cause. Whether your "friends" are General Authorities or teenagers ditching school means nothing to me. What I did was point out that you were creating the impression of having LDS scholars hide behind you to send their warnings to others. I don't believe this is the case, but I think your careless rhetoric opens the door for others to run with that interpretation. If I were an LDS scholar whom you claim to associate with, I wouldn't be thrilled about that.

You seem to mistake me for Scratch, when the position I have carved out bears little resemblance to what Dr. Peterson calls a "Scratchoscopy." I merely pointed out the carelessness and problematic implications of your silly and divisive rhetoric, which, were I an LDS scholar and apologist of some intelligence and reputation with whom Will claims to associate, I would be concerned about. Do I like you? No. Do I think you are the frontman for a vast Mopologetic conspiracy? No. Do I think you would attempt to manipulate others and puff yourself up at the same time? You betcha.

[_Trevor]

I do not at all agree with Will's approach most of the time. But to reiterate, is it any different from Packer/Mc Conkie, et al, or even DCP's in substance? DCP has long ago made it known he's not inclined to adopt "crudeness" into his style, but has never directly implicated Will in such clarifications, and although exempting himself from "crudeness", he fundamentally holds the same views as Will, but has adopted another style of "apologetic acidity" (as in the Review), and to change those views would be to retract on a lifetime of "TBM belief". He has said, in effect, that Mormonism would not be worth it unless it was literally true. Although in disagreement with DCP, I can accept that he's entitled to hold such views, as I do mine, contra DCP.

Fantastic post, Ray. You raise a lot of important issues that must be engaged. Unfortunately, I spent the day at Disney with the kids and I haven't the time or energy to do it now. One thing I would say is that the problem is in part who Will was gunning at here. David does not fit the usual profile for a person that Mormon apologists would usually disparage or engage aggressively. He is not an anti-Mormon, he is not an "intellectual" trying to tell the Church what to do or reveal its dirty laundry, and he is not an uninformed member attempting ineffectively to write about a scholarly topic. David is a faithful LDS man and expertly trained scholar who approaches LDS topics with deference to those in actual authority. He is not Loftus Tryke, Paul Toscano, or Rodney Meldrum. I would not expect a mature LDS scholar-apologist to go after David in the way Will did. It was clearly bad form.

I'll get back to you on the rest later. It is so challenging that I can't possibly do it justice tonight.

You're the man, Ray. Great stuff as usual.

[_William Schryver]

CS:

Will is now accusing Mortal Man of dishonesty, without justification.

What a hypocrite you can be at times!

Whatever.

You like to flatter yourself that you’re more even-tempered, cool-headed, and “objective” than most of the fanatical exmormons that post here, but when it comes right down to it, you’re more than willing to do the same kinds of things they do: craft baseless allegations out of thin air, and twist people’s words far beyond their possible intended meaning. I’m sorry to see you become just like the rest of these wahoos. I can only hope that someday you’ll grow tired of these message boards (as I am) and after leaving them behind, your good-natured self will return.

In the meantime, why don’t you explain how your and your sidekick's measurements paint the picture of a scroll in reverse?

Trevor:

… were I an LDS scholar and apologist of some intelligence and reputation with whom Will claims to associate, I would be concerned about [his online behavior].

Of course, you’re not—thank goodness. You’re just another exmormon would-be intellectual with a smattering of knowledge and a modicum of eloquence, but who lacks the talent and discipline necessary to ever turn your modest acquirements into something meaningful.

As for those who fall into your category of “scholar and apologist of some intelligence and reputation,” there aren’t that many with whom I associate. I am, alas, (as I have repeatedly acknowledged) a rather insignificant voice in the wilderness of LDS apologetics. Of those scholars and apologists “of some intelligence and reputation” with whom I do have some association, I am quite certain that none share your opinions or concerns regarding me. And I’m even more certain that they are unlikely to be influenced by the counsel you have so magnanimously offered them.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Those few who are conscious of your concerns (as you have repeatedly been wont to expose them here in the pleasant environs of The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™) have expressed a mild degree of amusement on account of your modest entertainment value. Some have noted your considerable capacity to feign sincerity. Beyond that, I can’t say they’ve been substantially impressed.

Again, sorry to disappoint you.

Do I like you? No.

Oh, well … altrettanto.

[_Enuma Elish]

WIll,

You’re just another exmormon would-be intellectual with a smattering of knowledge and a modicum of eloquence, but who lacks the talent and discipline necessary to ever turn your modest acquirements into something meaningful.

It is possible to disagree with someone without resulting to these sorts of tactics. Moreover, your assessment of Trevor's abilities couldn't be more wrong.

[_Trevor]

Of those scholars and apologists “of some intelligence and reputation” with whom I do have some association, I am quite certain that none share your opinions or concerns regarding me. And I’m even more certain that they are unlikely to be influenced by the counsel you have so magnanimously offered them.

I am sorry that none of your friends is concerned that you have behaved poorly toward David, me, and others. It speaks well of no one when bad behavior is ignored and therefore indulged in with impunity.

Sorry to disappoint you.

What are you about to say concerning my feigned sincerity?

Those few who are conscious of your concerns (as you have repeatedly been wont to expose them here in the pleasant environs of The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™) have expressed a mild degree of amusement on account of your modest entertainment value. Some have noted your considerable capacity to feign sincerity. Beyond that, I can’t say they’ve been substantially impressed.

I am completely sincere about my anger regarding your mistreatment of David. I regret that your friends rush to question my sincerity. That may have something to do with some of my choices concerning its objects. When I am sincere in line with their views, they might be glad to see it, but when I am sincere regarding things they do not care for, perhaps they see me as fickle and inconsistent. The problem is that I do not toe a particular party line. I try to remain true to my own principles.

As for your assessment of my abilities and knowledge, who are you to judge? The fact is that I am an academic with one published peer-reviewed article in a journal published by Brill, another peer-reviewed article accepted for publication in one of the top journals of my field, and yet a third submitted to yet another esteemed journal. David is far more qualified than you are to judge my abilities, and it is no surprise that he has come to quite the opposite conclusion.

I note again for onlookers with a horse in this race: consider Will's haste to create enemies. Is this the way to serve best the interests of the LDS Gospel and the Church? I couldn't be more sincere about my bad feelings about this kind of behavior by apologists toward fellow members (sometimes doubters, sometimes truly faithful like David). I have been bothered by it from at least the late '90s. It is counterproductive. I know it did nothing to help me feel like a part of the Church as I was drifting away from it. What Will has done here is to give the impression that there is a narrow and unforgiving "orthodoxy" operating in certain apologetic circles that values "rightness" more than the lost sheep or even the fellow sheep in the fold. I really want to continue to believe that he is dead wrong about that. If you doubt me, please PM me and I would be happy to discuss it with you. If you doubt my sincerity, let's talk about it.

As a further note, one of those "onlookers" may recall fielding a question through his close friend Stephen Ricks about the concerns of a young graduate student regarding that onlooker's review of Brooke's Refiner's Fire. My basic feelings about this issue have not changed, although my impressions of that particular reviewer have vastly improved through further interaction. If you think I am insincere about that, then you are seriously mistaken.

[_Ray A]

Just in case anyone didn't realise, I'm an occasional contributor to the online edition of MAD Magazine. Sorry, I just felt left out.

[_Trevor]

Just in case anyone didn't realise, I'm an occasional contributor to the online edition of MAD Magazine. Sorry, I just felt left out.

No need to feel left out Ray. Even if certain dunderheads don't take you seriously, the fact is that they are dunderheads. You are a very thoughtful and eloquent person. I have long enjoyed reading your posts and your blog entries.