The Problem with Schryver

[_Trevor]

I have been following Will Schryver's sad antics concerning David Bokovoy's views about the Book of Abraham and other of Joseph Smith's translations both over at MAD and here. Frankly, I have found the whole thing sickening. And, I really do hope that some of the more sober minds in the community of Mormon apologetics think long and hard about what Will is doing to their cause.

What is the problem? First, the problem is that Will has implied repeatedly that David Bokovoy is something of a turncoat for entertaining concepts about Joseph Smith's translations that Bokovoy finds consistent with both his testimony and his expertise in Biblical Studies. Will finds these ideas inconsistent with his own beliefs and his apologetic arguments, hence his attempts at slimy attacks on David.

Second, Will implied at least twice that he was passing along the views of unnamed others, whose identities were easily associated with the well-known scholars' and apologists' names he drops, and who were supposedly displeased with David's opinions about the Book of Abraham and other of Joseph Smith's translations. Will never identified these others, but he tried to claim that he was not threatening David by referring to them in the context of associating Bokovoy with the excommunicated Old Testament scholar, David P. Wright.

So, I am asking all onlooking, serious apologist-scholars a question: Is Will worth it? Is this the kind of apologist you want representing your image online? Do you want him dragging you into his disagreement with David? Does it trouble you that he uses you as a lame threat to bring David "into line?" If you don't tell him to knock it off, or publicly disagree with the way he has conducted his argument with David, what impression do you think that will make on others? If I were you, I would tell this guy to knock off the crap. Because I can tell you one thing: the sight of a wingnut like Will attacking a reasonable and faithful LDS guy like David is not a pretty thing.

Unlike others, I think I can understand the desire to tease and torment anti-Mormons and to put certain "intellectuals" down, but I really do not get Will's exchange with David, and I certainly don't think that it looks good for LDS apologetics. David is one of your own, and he is the kind of guy just about anyone would want on their team. You guys should treat him well and not let a small fry like Will behave like that toward him without any consequences.

I echo David when I say that Will should be impeached, if there is anything to his self-arrogated position as spokesman for certain other apologists and he is not blowing smoke again.

[_beastie]

Yes, I found that an astounding exchange as well.

I think that perhaps some apologists still have some discomfit with the liberal extent of David's view - perhaps he is seen as teetering on the edge of advocating for accepting the inspiration of the Book of Abraham without insisting on its historicity. Then, of course, the Book of Mormon would be next. While I applaud moving in that direction, and think it's actually inevitable, I think it's likely the "leadership" of apologia, whatever that may be, is still working out its reaction to this.

Of course, I'm just speculating, but there must be some reason they're not leaping to David's defense.

[_Ray A]

Will has helped me, enormously, to understand why I should never support Mormonism again (some will say, unfortunately). I know many will think, this is just an over-reaction, but I really have learned my lesson. I do believe, too, that he does have many "silent supporters", even if he won't name them. It is this very "manner of disciple" who persuaded me in the first place to walk away from Mormonism in the late 1980s. But I'm afraid Will isn't the only one, he only represents what's probably a large corpus of Mormonism.

They have drowned out the moderate voices, ironically the very thing Dr. Peterson is trying to counteract in Islam! But I echo Trevor's call, even though I think it only remotely possible. Even when I posted as a more vigourous defender of the Book of Mormon (a book I still respect for its spiritual value), and Will was posting as "Provis", that was not good enough for him. I had this unnerving feeling that I might be an intruder unless I fully adhered to Will's extreme "brand" of Mormonism. Will's message is clear, you are either fully with me (us), or you are totally against us. And again, I really don't believe this is only Will's view. It is, as they say, "the nature of the beast".

[_Trevor]

Thanks beastie and Ray:

Like you, I was hoping that there would be a little more support for what I have long felt to be the more reasonable position on Joseph Smith's translations--that they are inspired pseudepigrapha. Sadly, I am not surprised that there was not a whole lot.

What concerns me more is the message Will's method of criticizing David's view sends. Deny it as I am sure he will continue to do, Will's message was definitely a "step back into line, if you know what is good for you." I'm sorry but his references to unnamed "others" who have affection for David, but who are now concerned about his views in the context of raising David Wright (ex'ed for publishing on the 19th century Book of Mormon) constituted a not-so-subtle threat in my mind.

David evidently felt the same way. He noted that Will was using these "others" as a saber to wave around. Will, of course, being more than disingenuous about his own words, denied that this was the case. I challenge you to go read that MAD thread on the Book of Abraham and see for yourself.

In any case, apologists come around here making fun of Scratch, Gad, and "Scratchkumen" for their conspiratorial views and gags, and they deny that there is anything deceptive or secretive about Mormon apologetics. I am generally inclined to agree with the apologists on this one. And then Will's threatening posture toward David emerges. What am I to think now? That high-level apologists allow themselves to be used anonymously to bring people into line? "Just remember; someone is watching you!"

I would hope that our friends the apologists could see that this is not a small problem for them. I would guess that this is exactly the kind of silly behavior that fires Scratch's imagination. And so I ask: Is Will's behavior helpful to your cause? Do you like how such behavior impacts your image? I agree that Mormon apologetics is not a monolith, but can you see how others might given Will's language? Don't you think it is time to rein in this kind of nonsense? Do you want others to think that menacing suggestions about unknown others (who, in Will's case, will be assumed to be respected LDS scholars because of the way he drops your names) is the way "independent views" are handled in the world of Mormon apologetics... in Mormonism period?

In the recent past, I came to think that my criticism of Mormon apologetics had been unfair. Then Will Schryver behaves like this with seeming impunity, and, while it doesn't change my mind overall, it raises serious questions for me.

[_truth dancer]

Like you Trevor, I am baffled.

I would have guessed that similar to those who challenge DCP and get a stern warning or banned from the MAD board, the mods would not let Will engage in such behavior toward David. Yet there is nothing but silence from the mods and other apologists.

I find it difficult to believe, but I am wondering if Will is not actually sharing the opinions of apologists, (not scholars) could it be?

I think decent, knowledgeable, and honest apologists like David are the best thing the church has going for it; to squelch or silence their voices in my opinion is the last thing they should do.

~td~

[_William Schryver]

I have been following Will Schryver's sad antics concerning David Bokovoy's views about the Book of Abraham and other of Joseph Smith's translations both over at MAD and here. Frankly, I have found the whole thing sickening. And, I really do hope that some of the more sober minds in the community of Mormon apologetics think long and hard about what Will is doing to their cause.

What is the problem? First, the problem is that Will has implied repeatedly that David Bokovoy is something of a turncoat for entertaining concepts about Joseph Smith's translations that Bokovoy finds consistent with both his testimony and his expertise in Biblical Studies. Will finds these ideas inconsistent with his own beliefs and his apologetic arguments, hence his attempts at slimy attacks on David.

Second, Will implied at least twice that he was passing along the views of unnamed others, whose identities were easily associated with the well-known scholars' and apologists' names he drops, and who were supposedly displeased with David's opinions about the Book of Abraham and other of Joseph Smith's translations. Will never identified these others, but he tried to claim that he was not threatening David by referring to them in the context of associating Bokovoy with the excommunicated Old Testament scholar, David P. Wright.

So, I am asking all onlooking, serious apologist-scholars a question: Is Will worth it? Is this the kind of apologist you want representing your image online? Do you want him dragging you into his disagreement with David? Does it trouble you that he uses you as a lame threat to bring David "into line?" If you don't tell him to knock it off, or publicly disagree with the way he has conducted his argument with David, what impression do you think that will make on others? If I were you, I would tell this guy to knock off the crap. Because I can tell you one thing: the sight of a wingnut like Will attacking a reasonable and faithful LDS guy like David is not a pretty thing.

Unlike others, I think I can understand the desire to tease and torment anti-Mormons and to put certain "intellectuals" down, but I really do not get Will's exchange with David, and I certainly don't think that it looks good for LDS apologetics. David is one of your own, and he is the kind of guy just about anyone would want on their team. You guys should treat him well and not let a small fry like Will behave like that toward him without any consequences.

I echo David when I say that Will should be impeached, if there is anything to his self-arrogated position as spokesman for certain other apologists and he is not blowing smoke again.

And thus, in a move unprecedented in the history of Mormon Apologist/Critic Relations, Trevor calls for the official public ostracism of William Schryver.

It simply cannot get any curiouser than this ...

[_beastie]

I would hope that our friends the apologists could see that this is not a small problem for them. I would guess that this is exactly the kind of silly behavior that fires Scratch's imagination. And so I ask: Is Will's behavior helpful to your cause? Do you like how such behavior impacts your image? I agree that Mormon apologetics is not a monolith, but can you see how others might given Will's language? Don't you think it is time to rein in this kind of nonsense? Do you want others to think that menacing suggestions about unknown others (who, in Will's case, will be assumed to be respected LDS scholars because of the way he drops your names) is the way "independent views" are handled in the world of Mormon apologetics... in Mormonism period?

In the recent past, I came to think that my criticism of Mormon apologetics had been unfair. Then Will Schryver behaves like this with seeming impunity, and, while it doesn't change my mind overall, it raises serious questions for me.

Given the social nature of Mormonism, which includes the strong tendency towards the idea of obedience and loyalty to one’s leaders as the default position, and includes the tendency to feel justified in taking interest in other members’ possible violations of the default position and even “tattling” on those same members, I would hesitate in taking the position that Scratch’s theories are all bunk. I do think Scratch exaggerates and dramatizes his theory, which admittedly is more entertaining, but is also unfortunate because it allows apologists to completely deny and mock his underlying theory, which may have an element of truth in it due to the fact that it would be compatible with the social nature of Mormonism.

I think it is quite possible that apologists have a sort of pecking order, and view some apologists as de facto “leaders”, and are inclined to demonstrate loyalty to the viewpoint of those de facto leaders. I think it is quite possible that the LDS tendency to gossip (which is also a human tendency, but is a human tendency that, at least in the past, was outright nurtured and encouraged by LDS leadership - at least in terms of watching out for one’s brother, and gossiping to leaders about possible infractions) combines with this tendency towards leadership loyalty with the result of a kind of “party line” expectation, and expressions of “concern” over those who do not toe that particular party line. I also see no reason to doubt that there is some level of interaction or observation between the GAs and FARMS, and that FARMS would be eager to not violate the “mind and will” of the GAs. In fact, I think it would be quite unusual for it to be otherwise, given, again, the social nature of Mormonism, which includes such a strong reverence for one’s leaders that it almost, at times, seems to provide evidence for the criticism “when the prophet speaks, the thinking had been done”, no matter how much LDS detest that criticism. See a recent example of that on MAD here, from the poster “annewandering”, in regards to tolerance of homosexuality:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 3489&st=20

Hyrum Page’s previous comment:
Until, of course, the prophets receive a revelation and the policy on homosexuality is changed. Then, that perspective will be entirely consistent with your faith, no?

Annewandering’s reply:
Yes. If the prophet said we should accept homosexuality activity as proper and fine then yes. That is exactly what I will do. I do disagree that your moms considering homosexuality to be a sin as being illogical. It is very logical.

So if LDS leaders currently are not open to exploring the pseudepigrapha option, I would expect that to be expressed to the “leadership” of FARMS, and I would expect that said leadership would be eager to respect their views and would be willing to discourage such speculations among their own. Of course, this is not happening in the overt fashion that Scratch speculates, and is likely a far more subtle exchange, which allows apologists to heatedly deny that any such interaction takes place. Or, even absent any word from above, it is quite possible that if the top leadership of FARMS disapproves of the pseudepigrapha option even without any word from the GAs, we could see the same effect. in my opinion the respect and desire to get in line behind leadership isn’t restricted to GAs in Mormonism. And I wouldn’t be surprised that some were gossiping and expressing ‘concern’ over David. Now this doesn’t quite translate to Scratch’s conspiracy theories, but it does demonstrate a kernel of truth therein.

From my past dealings with Pahoran as a moderator on ZLMB, I also know that apologists and believers in general tend to enjoy the more overtly aggressive behavior of some defenders of the faith amongst them. They may not feel comfortable taking the malicious tone of Pahoran in their dealings with critics, but some part of them applauds him and enjoys watching him do what they don’t allow for themselves. I think the same may be true with Will. Most apologists and defenders wouldn’t feel comfortable taking the aggressive and often lewd tone of Will, but I don’t doubt that many of them silently applaud and enjoy his behavior anyway. I also know that defenders of the faith are quite willing and able to shoot their own, if they get in the way. Normally we see this in terms of reactions to chapel Mormons who wander, unawares, onto MAD, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see it in terms of reactions to believers who are expressing other unpopular ideas as well.

[_Paul Osborne]

It does seem that Will has ventured into some vicious forms of arguing and has lost his composure. The best thing he could do now at this time is to apologize for his behavior and act more like a gentleman. Of course, that’s not an easy task for any of us. I’ve spewed my fair share of attacks over the years but have learned that kindness and love is the only way Christ wants us to argue.

It must be that to some degree, Will, is hurting inside and is expressing his frustration through his apologetic mannerism. We should just bear it patiently and let him work it out. He can’t keep this up forever. Eventually he will have to make a serious turn in the direction he is going whether it is good or bad, remains to be seen.

Let’s all just be understanding and let him work things out. The best thing any of us can do is just try to be polite to him, and that might include turning a cheek – for those of us who are Christians that is. For those of us who are not Christians it would be well to remain civil and just be polite.

Paul O

[_Trevor]

And thus, in a move unprecedented in the history of Mormon Apologist/Critic Relations, Trevor calls for the official public ostracism of William Schryver.

It simply cannot get any curiouser than this ...

No, that's not exactly it, Will. You were suggesting the David was the one who needed to fear ostracism, and that unnamed others of some consequence were on board with that.

Now that is curious indeed.

[_Enuma Elish]

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.

While I find the warning offensive, I don't take it too seriously. The truth of the matter is that with the exception of Daniel Peterson and Bill Hamblin, very few, if any, LDS scholars participate with either FAIR and/or the MA&D board and it just so happens that I have a very good relationship with them.

If they were at all considered about my comments and/or ideas they would approach me personally. We should recall that Dan, in particular, has regularly drawn our attention to the fact that fundamentalist thinking often leads to the loss of a testimony, so I can assure you that Dr. Peterson would not feel concerned by my suggestions.

Moreover, though most do not participate with message boards, there is currently a significant community of faithful LDS scholars who sympathize with my suggestions.

Again, sincere thanks.

--DB