Calling & Election made sure: The Case of William Schryver

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

He says he was.

Hello Mr. Pahoran,

Wait. When did he say this?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Tator]

As I said before, Pahoran's only argument relies on Will's say so. Will told him this isn't what he meant,

So everyone who hates Will less than Hitler hated Jews will accept the rather non-startling fact that Will is the sole world authority on what is in Will's mind at any time.

And will accordingly accept that while they are free to speculate about what he might have meant by anything he wrote, his actual knowledge is definitive.

But that only applies to people who hate Will less than Hitler hated Jews. Clearly that is a set that does not include you.

Good grief. There is a reason Pahoran will not address the fact that William has a documented history of denying stuff only because the thinks he can get away with lying about it.

And the reason is that I'm not about to chase every red herring you choose to drag across my path.

Snip red herring.

What Droopy and Pahoran won't address is the fact that William said his calling and election had been made sure long before he reached Godhood status.

And I can now tell you why.

There was, it seems, a time when Will and The Dude got on rather well. (Rather better than The Dude and I did, in fact.) During those halcyon days, there was a kind of running joke between the two of them about whether or not one could drink beer if they had their C&E. The 2007 remark was in reference to that.

Lest there be any doubt: Will has explicitly, and seriously, denied that he has his Calling and Election Made Sure.

In which case, no honest critic of Will -- if such there be -- is going to assert that he actually claims it.

Regards,
Pahoran

I await for The Dude to chime in on the validity of the (bolded) statement above.

I don't recall Will ever denying his Calling and Election Made Sure, ever.

[Guest]

Right.

Right exactly. So why are you pretending the issue is what Will knows to be true? The issue is what's true, not what Will knows.

But what Will says about his own intent is evidence about his intent.

Technically, yes. In the same way OJ Simpson's claim that he didn't kill anyone, is evidence that he didn't. But for you, all you need is Will's say so. You ignore the mountain of evidence that runs contrary to his claim.

What you assume about his intent because you hate him too much to allow him to speak for himself is only evidence of your own boundless spite.

Nobody here asked you to come here and act as Will's proxy. He hasn't been banned. Nobody here, myself included, has done anything to prevent him from defending himself, so why are you lying about this? I've done nothing to suggest I won't "allow" him to speak on his behalf. And I know you think you're getting somewhere by accusing your opponents of hatred, bigotry, boundless spite, anti-Mormonism, etc. That has always been your schtick, but it is also one of the reasons you are horrible at debate. You always take on the hopeless cases that DCP and others refuse to touch with a twenty foot pole. Maybe you do this because you use a pseudonym and feel you have nothing to lose. Either way, you've been bobbing and weaving ever since you stepped foot in the door, and now, as MsJack indicated, you're left with nothing except name-calling and attacking the messengers.

But when it comes to ranting about the so-called dishonesty of the many targets of your maniacal hatred, you have no credibility.

This is a lie too, but this thread is not about me. You're forever trying to take focus off of the subject at hand, which is Will Schryver's credibility. My credibility isn't the issue and I expect no one to take my word for anything. The evidence speaks for itself, and all I do is direct them to it. Your job is apparently to blow smoke and adjust the mirrors accordingly. Will has lied on numerous occasions on a number of topics. This is indisputable fact which neither of you can ever defend. So yes, you look like an absolute fool for coming here claiming to be in a knowledgable position to take Will's word for anything.

And do you really think you can add a shred of credibility to your claims simply by charging them with so much emotional baggage? Maniacal hatred? My my. I know your readers at MADB eat this up and mistake it for an effective intellectual response, but over here you're addressing rational folks who think you look foolish for doing it. It seems you know little to nothing about the history between Wilbur and I. It was always he who initiated hostitilities between us, but you refuse to see the record proving this because it disrupts your presupposition that apostates are always the hostile ones. For a couple of years Will and I got along fairly well, until I noticed he started invoking my name at MAD in negative contexts, using my "apostasy" to prove something credible about his perceptions, and repeatedly insisting I was upset because I had become a nothing in the Book of Abraham debate, etc etc... This went on for months before I started publicly challenging him and began writing up formal responses to his various, idiotic apologetic arguments. In the process I caught him lying and misrepresenting his sources. This is his method, and I have proved it. When showed the proof, William thinks it is best to place me on ignore instead of explaining why he felt the need to lie so often.

But I challenge you to provide any examples, from my extensive history posting as both an apologist or critic, over the course of the past decade and a half, where I have lied. As far as I can tell, I have credibility among a broad spectrum of posters, including LDS apologists and LDS scholars. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever been challenged or called out as a liar on any given point, ever. But you can be the first Pahoran, so go for it. Show us why I have no credibility compared to William Schryver. Just do us all a favor and start another thread.

As I know from personal experience, all it takes is "he said she said," and if you hate the "he," then that's enough to make him a "proven liar" in your own strange mind.

Your personal experience with me led to an embarassment to yourself. You said you apologized to JP Holding for revealing his in real life identity in publication. The reason I didn't believe you wasn't because I hated you and not the other guy, The reason is because I owned the emails between the three of us and know for a fact that you never apologized. In short, you lied about something nearly a decade later because you didn't think there was definitive proof to the contrary. Gee, sounds familiar to what Will Schryver did recently, so it is hardly surprising you rush to help him out. You two obviously have no respect for the truth.

And only those who share your malice agree with your conclusions.

Yes that must be it Pahoran. All those LDS apologists and LDS scholars must agree with me because of the shared "malice" towards poor innocent Wilbur. The good folks at NAMI, despite their frequent lunch appointments with William, also have a shared "malice" towards him. It is never Will's fault is it. Everyone else is to blame, always.

Will's "recent history as a liar" according to the swine who hate him is absolutely irrelevant when the swine have nothing but their own swill to offer in rebuttal.

No it is according to the evidence which you will never have the courage to engage, as usual. In the slew of evidences listed by MsJack, you focus only on one where there is just enough room to claim plausible deniability, and then you ignore the other examples, or dismiss them out of hand as mere "trash talk." Right. "Trash talk" presupposes that there are two sides trash talking. But that isn't what the record shows. It shows William attacking the women here for no reason whatsoever. All you're trying to do here is minimize the significance of his antics and pretend he is some kind of victim.

And if you weren't in a constant state of near-apoplectic rage that Will continues to consume oxygen, you'd be able to see that his C&E remarks are so obviously made with tongue in cheek that nobody with a brain larger than a walnut would imagine for a moment that they were serious.

I never raised the C&E issue because I don't see how this is a crucial point to MsJack's argument. I am more concerned with his attacks against the women here, calling them whores and bitches and such. You seem intent on covering for him, which says plenty about the despicable nature of your character as well. The good folks at NAMI had the sense to know publishing this guy would eventually turn into a PR nightmare for both them and the Church.

I simply responded to your claim that the C&E reference was all a joke based on his godhood status. That argument was shot out of the water with a previous example provided by DrCam. You then had to ask Will to explain that one too. And of course Will gives you some BS explanation related to some off-forum banter between he and the Dude, which you swallow whole uncritically as usual. What matters is that it is a loyal member speaking against apostates. That's all that you need to know for you to choose who you're going to believe. You're just loyal to the tribe and/or too naïve to understand what posters here have endured with William's presence over the course of the past five years. You obviously do not have enough familiarity with his posting style. You seem to think it is impossible to be intentionally insulting while at the same time speaking "tongue in cheek". WIlliam takes pride in his ability to insult the living hell out of people here while trying to come off as humorous and witty. That doesn't make his attacks any less insulting or his method any less despicable. Your argument is ridiculous.

Note to self:

Never, under any circumstance, enter into a debate with a MDB memebr who goes by the name of Kevin Graham.

If you do, it is a very high probability that you will lose.

Ceeboo (trust me on this one), just read his posts, measure them , digest them, but be VERY cautious when replying to them.


:)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Kevin Graham]

Ceeboo, my tendency to win debates against LDS apologists probably has more to do with the untenable nature of the positions they defend than it does anything to do with my ability to debate. But I appreciate the compliment.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

If you do, it is a very high probability that you will loose.
Peace,
Ceeboo

Hello Mr. Ceeboo,

What are we loosing?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_beastie]

snip baloney

Oh, for heaven's sake, Pahoran. Here was the statement you originally made on Z:

My experience is that the person telling the pack of lies that "the Church broke up my marriage (sob)" either has committed adultery, was abusive or is a miserable anti-mormon tyrant.

This is, beyond question, a polemic point you were trying to score.

You cited several examples:

But I do not rest my categorical statement upon that case alone. I know of many others. One occurred in my own family. Another occurred in a family I home-taught. Still another happened in a matter where I sat on the disciplinary council. One rather notorious case happened when I lived in Australia, wherein the apostate husband murdered his wife and children, then burned the house down with them in it. In that particular case, the bishop in question did in fact finally advise the wife to leave her increasingly abusive husband, but she didn't move quickly enough.

You used the tragedy caused by mental illness to score a polemic point. And yet you had the audacity to proclaim:

And an honest critic of the Church of Jesus Christ -- if such there is, or ever could be -- would admit this fact, and not attempt to exploit such a tragedy for polemical purposes.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/442 ... riticisms/

[_RockSlider]

What are we loosing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lJZiqZaGA

[_Ceeboo]

Hello Kevin,

Ceeboo, my tendency to win debates against LDS apologists probably has more to do with the untenable nature of the positions they defend than it does anything to do with my ability to debate.

Modest as well (Admirable, IMHO)

But I appreciate the compliment.

You're welcome!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Doc,

Hello Mr. Ceeboo,

What are we loosing?

V/R
Dr. Cam

I guess that depends on who you ask.

If you ask me (I think you just did), you lose the appearance of having the ability/quality to separate the team/people/side from the topics/discussions/stances (A rare but most admirable human value, IMHO)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_3sheets2thewind]

Droopy and Pahoran, mostly Pahoran, "silence is consent", you silence or rather non-objection to WS making a mockery of sacred things and making lite of sacred things is very telling.

You condemn others for raising issues against WS and you condemn others for speaking ill of the LDS Church; yet you have yet to speak out against and condemn WS mockery of things held sacred by the LDS. Your silence is your consent to his mockery.