Ten Questions - Interview with the Stake Presidency

[_beastie]

John, I'm not saying you're TOO trusting. Perhaps I am too skeptical or cynical. But I really cannot see how anything Will said could be interpreted as joking. "I was only joking" sounds like the back-pedaling of someone who knows he went too far, but can't bring himself to admit it frankly - someone who wants the freedom of mouthing off when he feels like it without having to be later held accountable for that same mouthing off.

Of course, "I was only joking" lost any persuasion with me many years ago, as it was a favorite ploy of my exhusband's. He could say any nasty thing, call the children or me any vicious name, and then when we protested, say "I was only joking. The problem is that YOU don't have a sense of humor."

So you could say I have a built-in bias against that justification, unless it's obvious that it really was a joke. And it certainly was not in this case.

But we can certainly discuss this without referring specifically to what Will said to you, personally.

[_Mister Scratch]

The story about Schryver and Vogel goes like this: Will solicited Dan for an interview, and meanwhile, Schryver, using a nom de guerre on the ironically named FAIRboard, was being insulting and nasty. In other words, he was being all nice and ass-kissy as "Will Schryver," but as "Provis/Chozah," he was being insulting and aggressive. Does that sound very honest to you?

Will's two-facedness and cheapshots extend into other arenas as well. I documented on my blog the time that Will tried to smear Dan via his claim that one of Dan's footnotes had been "invented" out of whole cloth. Will eventually had to eat crow for that, however. It turned out that Dan had made a very understandable error (and, unless I'm mistaken, it was an organizational error that wasn't even his own fault), which he acknowledged, and Will wound up embarrassed by his failed smear. He tried very, very hard on that thread to make Dan seem like an unscrupulous and dishonest scholar, but instead, Will was the one who wound up with egg on his face.

[_William Schryver]

beastie:

… you have been soliciting exmormon interviews …

I never denied that. I only denied that I had done it under any false pretenses.

Please, please enlighten me and let me know which of these statements were meant as a "funny". You know, tongue-in-cheek. Sarcastic. Ironic.

Well, to tell the truth: almost all of it. In a way. Especially this part:

Indeed, I was quite emphatic about the specific type of person I think should be identified and rooted out our congregations: the hard-core apostates like John who feign victimhood and masquerade behind a smokescreen of seemingly measured tones and breathy soft speech as they methodically work to undermine the faith and beliefs of loyal Latter-day Saints.

I say give the people what they want. If they will buzz over the thought that Torquemada has risen from the dead, then that’s what I intend to provide them with.

You see, these online forums are all performance art when it comes right down to it. I’m just one of the few who refuse to hide behind a mask, like you and Blixa do.

Last year I got to play the plum role in a production of To Kill a Mockingbird: the abusive, racist father, Bob Ewell. Never had so much fun in my life. The role of Tom Robinson was filled by a fine Shakespearean actor from LA, Alem Brhan Sapp. Due to some prior commitments, Alem could not be there until the final week of rehearsals. I think he was initially quite disturbed by the intensity of my performance. He found it difficult to even talk to me. The tension on the stage was palpable. And yet, after the initial performance, Alem and I became fast friends: a black Shakespearean actor from southern California and a white Mormon from southern Utah. Why? Because he came to grips with the fact that the man who growled, “I saw that nigger ruttin’ on my Mayella . . . “ was not me.

Now, I could have had the role of Atticus Finch and been everyone’s hero. But I wanted the part of Bob Ewell. To me, it was the only part worth my time.

So, what does this all mean? Well, I’ll let you work that out.

In the meantime, you can mold me into whatever shape you prefer and then stamp “Mormon” on my forehead and show me off to your friends. It’s all the same to me.

All kinds of fantasies! That I’m being watched! A rat! Steps! Breath held and then . . .

(He breathes out.)

Then babble, babble, words, like the solitary child who turns himself into children, two, three, so as to be together, and whisper together, in the dark.

Moment upon moment, pattering down, like the millet grains of that old Greek, and all life long you wait for that to mount up to a life.

At least Beckett understood . . .

[_William Schryver]

The story about Schryver and Vogel goes like this: Will solicited Dan for an interview, and meanwhile, Schryver, using a nom de guerre on the ironically named FAIRboard, was being insulting and nasty. In other words, he was being all nice and ass-kissy as "Will Schryver," but as "Provis/Chozah," he was being insulting and aggressive. Does that sound very honest to you?

Will's two-facedness and cheapshots extend into other arenas as well. I documented on my blog the time that Will tried to smear Dan via his claim that one of Dan's footnotes had been "invented" out of whole cloth. Will eventually had to eat crow for that, however. It turned out that Dan had made a very understandable error (and, unless I'm mistaken, it was an organizational error that wasn't even his own fault), which he acknowledged, and Will wound up embarrassed by his failed smear. He tried very, very hard on that thread to make Dan seem like an unscrupulous and dishonest scholar, but instead, Will was the one who wound up with egg on his face.

If so, it washed up quite well in the shower.

Old Scratch finally makes an appearance! Well, welcome Scratchy! Truth be told, you're one of my favorite performers. Of course, I can't make a lick of sense out of anything you say, but you say it with such conviction that I'm often just spellbound by what I perceive as the sonorous tone of your words.

Anyway, I have to go chop up some interview footage now and rearrange it so that it appears the exmo being interviewed is actually saying, "I know the church is true, I know the church is true, I know the church is true, but I would rather sin than sit through sacrament meeting ..."

Ciao.

[_Mister Scratch]

The story about Schryver and Vogel goes like this: Will solicited Dan for an interview, and meanwhile, Schryver, using a nom de guerre on the ironically named FAIRboard, was being insulting and nasty. In other words, he was being all nice and ass-kissy as "Will Schryver," but as "Provis/Chozah," he was being insulting and aggressive. Does that sound very honest to you?

Will's two-facedness and cheapshots extend into other arenas as well. I documented on my blog the time that Will tried to smear Dan via his claim that one of Dan's footnotes had been "invented" out of whole cloth. Will eventually had to eat crow for that, however. It turned out that Dan had made a very understandable error (and, unless I'm mistaken, it was an organizational error that wasn't even his own fault), which he acknowledged, and Will wound up embarrassed by his failed smear. He tried very, very hard on that thread to make Dan seem like an unscrupulous and dishonest scholar, but instead, Will was the one who wound up with egg on his face.

If so, it washed up quite well in the shower.

Old Scratch finally makes an appearance! Well, welcome Scratchy! Truth be told, you're one of my favorite performers. Of course, I can't make a lick of sense out of anything you say, but you say it with such conviction that I'm often just spellbound by what I perceive as the sonorous tone of your words.

Anyway, I have to go chop up some interview footage now and rearrange it so that it appears the exmo being interviewed is actually saying, "I know the church is true, I know the church is true, I know the church is true, but I would rather sin than sit through sacrament meeting ..."

Ciao.

Right. You spent a couple of posts trying to tell Beastie that she had totally butchered her account of your two-facedness. Well, here I come along, with the correct version of the story, and here you go out the door. C'mon, Will. If you are going to try and accuse people of "twisting" things, only to get smacked down, at least stick around along enough to apologize.

[Tator]

Well, to tell the truth: almost all of it. In a way. Especially this part:

Quote:
Indeed, I was quite emphatic about the specific type of person I think should be identified and rooted out our congregations: the hard-core apostates like John who feign victimhood and masquerade behind a smokescreen of seemingly measured tones and breathy soft speech as they methodically work to undermine the faith and beliefs of loyal Latter-day Saints.

I say give the people what they want. If they will buzz over the thought that Torquemada has risen from the dead, then that’s what I intend to provide them with.

You see, these online forums are all performance art when it comes right down to it. I’m just one of the few who refuse to hide behind a mask, like you and Blixa do.

In other words, you're just playing to your "audience", and none of these thoughts represent your actual sentiments on the matter?

Just how many of the MADdites do you imagine understood that you weren't really expressing your actual thoughts and opinions on the matter, but were instead, playing the evil character, written in some hidden play in your mind, simply due to the fact that those characters are more interesting?

Those poor saps. I think they all thought you actually meant what you said. None of them knew they were simply an unwitting audience in your ego play.

All of this, of course, makes you even less trustworthy. People who can't differentiate between playing a role in an actual artistic performance and real life interactions tend to be problematic. In other words, you can't trust 'em. After all, Will is probably just playing one more role for the spotlights in his mind.

[_William Schryver]

Kindly leave me out of this. Frankly, Will, your posts on MADB seemed rather threatening, and I took them that way until you told me repeatedly that you were just joking. I take you at your word, but then I am probably too trusting, as beastie said.

Actually, John, I never said I was "joking". "Joking" is not a truly accurate term when it comes to these things. In some ways, I was very serious. Just not in the ways you thought.

But I suspect this is a futile undertaking. It's like trying to explain the meaning of Act Without Words to someone for whom everything must be spelled out with cold, concrete clarity.

I am willing to have you all believe whatever most gratifies you.

Until I get bored enough again to come visit ... farewell.

[_William Schryver]

I can’t resist one last retort:

beastie:

In other words, you're just playing to your "audience",

We are all actors and audience. We take turns.

… and none of these thoughts represent your actual sentiments on the matter?

What is an “actual sentiment?” If it means the way I felt in the moment, then I will say that everything I say, at any point in time, represents my actual sentiments. I don’t know what it means to you, however. That’s up to you.

Just how many of the MADdites do you imagine understood that you weren't really expressing your actual thoughts and opinions on the matter, but were instead, playing the evil character, written in some hidden play in your mind, simply due to the fact that those characters are more interesting?

I don’t care. Really. I never have. I doubt I ever will.

Those poor saps. I think they all thought you actually meant what you said. None of them knew they were simply an unwitting audience in your ego play.

An “ego” play? Hardly. If anything, I would characterize it as an “anti-ego play.” As for what “they” thought I actually meant, well, I think I answered that question already. At the moment, I’m only fascinated in what you think I actually mean.

All of this, of course, makes you even less trustworthy.

Don’t then. You are free to trust whom you will.

People who can't differentiate between playing a role in an actual artistic performance and real life interactions tend to be problematic.

I’m not sure if this is true or not. You say it is for you. I accept that. As for myself, I would contend that all “real life interactions” consist of “playing a role in an actual artistic performance.” As it is written:

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts.

Make of it what you will, my dear. I must go now. Curtain call . . .

[_beastie]

LOL! You are so full of yourself, Will. Just the Little Theatre type. I know them well.

[_Jason Bourne]

… why are they entertaining your ten questions anyway? For what reason are you and they doing this?

They don’t yet know that they are going to be asked to “entertain” my questions. This is their first week on the job. I thought I made my intent clear: I want to expose them, right now, to the kinds of questions they may get from troubled members who come into their offices over the course of the next nine years

.

But what will they think when you say to them that "I think it is my job to expose you to these issues...." Might they not view you as a bit of an upstart?


An interesting “wild guess” which I suspect tells us more about you than it does anything else.

In any event, I don’t plan on “sugar-coating” the list of ten questions I present to them. They will be a representative selection of the “tough” questions that one might encounter within 24 hours of poking around on internet forums such as this one. And I’m fairly confident that the initial reaction of the members of this particular stake presidency will be to claim that, “These are all anti-Mormon lies. None of this is true.” And, I suppose I’ll feel pretty bad if, two years or so down the road, one or more of them has apostatized. But my attitude is that if you can’t come to grips with these “tough” questions, then you probably didn’t have a valid basis for your faith in the first place.

Personally I think it may behove leaders to have exposure to the issues and access to some reasonable answers. I doubt that they will appreciate your efforts though. Most active members are happily ignorant of these things.