The Problem with Schryver

[_beastie]

David,

Why, in your opinion, was Will allowed to make such statements unchallenged?

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Beastie,

I've received a few emails, and Joey Green, whom I sincerely respect, did make a comment on the thread. Other than that, I'm just not sure who we would expect to appear and counter the notion.

Speaking personally, I'm comfortable with my position. I'm currently employed as an official LDS Chaplain for Harvard University, teach full-time Institute courses at Harvard, MIT, and Wellesely College and have worked as a writer for the revised Institute manuals, so I'm not on the verge of apostasy or excommunication.

Despite my openness to alternative views, I couldn't be more dedicated to both the Church and LDS scholarship. I am certainly a true believer.

best

[_beastie]

To be frank, I would have expected DCP to make a comment, and/or the mods themselves to at least slap his wrist.

by the way, I don't doubt that you are a true believer in the sense that you are using the word. I do not believe that discarding the defense of the historicity of the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham necessitates a loss of belief - it just requires changing some previously accepted ideas. I don't know why many believers tend to fight against it so vigorously. Yes, it would require a bit of creativity to explain some statements of Joseph Smith, but they already have to use that sort of creativity to defend the historicity arguments.

[_truth dancer]

Hi David,

Just a quick question, ( ), do you think your opinions/beliefs/interpretations/paradigm regarding scripture and traditional church teachings, is/are consistent with church doctrine? With the general opinions and beliefs of LDS leaders? With the majority of LDS believers?

I know you can't speak for others, and I'm not really asking what they believe just wondering how you see your beliefs in relationship to what you think the majority of the LDS church holds as true.

I recall your suggestion that some (dare I say chapel Mormons...smile) may find "expanding the paradigm" beneficial, so do you think the expanded paradigm is what is held by LDS leaders? Do you think many believers have done this?

It just seems to me that the "expanded paradigm" has little resemblance to the teachings of LDS leaders and the beliefs held by most LDS members.

I recall a conversation I had with Max Scousen just prior to his death and I got the impression that this "expanded paradigm" was more like, "further light and knowledge", what do you think?

Thanks for your thoughts,

~td~

[_Runtu]

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?

[_Ray A]

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.

Perhaps there's a common ground, but it would have to be in personal friendships, not belief or theology.

From DCP's PBS interview:

FARMS is perceived in interesting ways. There are those who see us as absolute literalists, just rigid literalists. They're wrong on that; we're not.

Good start.

However:

We believe that Lehi was a real historical person, Moroni was a real historical person, and that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by divine inspiration. We're committed to those sorts of things. (Emphasis added)

And:

Well, as someone who aspires at least to what some call a so-called intellectuality, that sort of worries me sometimes. Frankly, I see the danger, though. There is a danger that intellectuals will set themselves up as the doctrinal authorities in the church and try and supplant the leaders in the church. I think that's an occupational hazard in a way, that we see ourselves often as: We know more, we're brighter, and so let me run things. I know what I'm doing; you don't.

What's the difference between an "intellectual" who holds the non-historicity view, or is even very open to such a view, and a scholar? A scholar (such as David Wright) pulls more weight (but they too are in a sense "intellectuals"), thus becomes a threat to "Iron Rodders" and literalists.

Our model of the apostasy of the early Christian church puts a lot of blame on intellectuals, some of whom I think intended to do well. The early Christian apologists meant to defend the church and make it respectable to fashionable Roman-Hellenistic society, but by doing it they transformed Christianity. They didn't mean to necessarily, but they did. ...

Just like scholars who "intend well", but in reality could, in the eyes of TBMs like Will, "transform the Church" and even send it into apostasy.

Note in particular:

I regard challenges to the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon as misguided.

The problem Will addresses, as explained by DCP in the interview:

I think they're mistaken. I really do believe it's kind of an either/or, that either the Book of Mormon is historical, or if it's not, all the founding narratives of the church become ... problematized, to use the intellectual word for it. If there were no Nephites, who was Moroni? Where did the plates come from? ... Is God using deception? Is Joseph Smith using deception? Then what happens to all the claims of the church? It seems to me very hard to maintain a consistent middle ground there, and so I'm troubled by those sorts of arguments. (Emphasis added)

"Not in a hurry to throw them out."

On the other hand I know people who are active, faithful members of the church who don't believe in the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. ... I'm not in a hurry to throw them out. I would like to convince them otherwise, but as long as they're doing their home teaching and doing the things they should be doing and raising their children well, I see no reason to take action against them, unless they begin to teach and advocate that in church meetings. ...

David Wright did not, as far as I know, advocate anything in Church meetings, but he paid the severest penalty any Mormon scholar could face, by being excommunicated, very much against his wishes.

So it should be no mystery to anyone what Will sees himself as defending. He has, in fact, taken a public stand, as I said before, on what a "large corpus" of Mormons really believe, i.e., the vast majority. In the above quotations, DCP also makes it clear where he stands, and in substance it is little if any different to Will's. And to answer beastie's query, that's probably why DCP hasn't condemned Will's "behaviour", because in doing so he'd be condemning himself.

How far David will go in "advocating" his views is yet to be seen, but he has already done so on a well-known Mormon board which has had over 1 million posts. David Wright never had this kind of exposure to the ordinary person and member.

One major difference between DCP and Will, is that DCP is more willing to dialogue, and be tolerant, of alternative views, but not to the point where they may influence ordinary members in "Church settings", which could, in his own terms, call for more drastic measures, in harmony with the mission of the Brethren to keep the Church clean of "intellectuals" and their "apostate ideas".

As I said in my previous post, Will has done me (and maybe all of us) a favour by reminding us that it is, in DCP's words, "either/or".

I see no immediate resolution, except in compromise, and if there is eventually going to be compromise, it will have to be on David's part - unless he wants to join his good friend David Wright "in the scholarly wilderness".

If we are at some "turning point", then the compromise will have to come from the likes of Will and DCP. To be realistic, I don't see this happening. 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.

[_Trevor]

David,

Thanks for being understanding about me persisting in making a point about this. What Will did is something that particularly rankles me. It is one thing to disagree about which views about the Gospel are the correct ones, though this is somewhat regrettable too, but it is something entirely different to practice the kind of manipulation he was attempting.

That was my big point of disagreement with Will, and far more important to me than my differences with him over the nature of the scriptures. It is about how we treat our fellow human beings in the context of the Gospel, really. Although I am not a believer, I still believe those teachings of Jesus are important, and that those who represent themselves as Christians ought to behave as such.

Will might feel vindicated by the fact that part of my journey out of the fold included the treatment I received from others because I held views similar to David's about the scriptures. I say vindicated because he might think it is inevitable that someone with such views should eventually leave. I would say that it was how others behaved toward me for thinking that way that had far more impact on me than the beliefs themselves.

I still maintain that one can have a testimony of Mormonism and see the scriptures as pseudepigrapha. Too many books in the canon have questionable authorship not to at least entertain the possibility that this was a legitimate way of writing sacred things in antiquity and for Joseph Smith. Disagree with me all you like, but please let's not make it a disagreeable disagreement. Let's not try to hold things over each other when reasoning together.

Runtu,

I have supposed that the Wright case was different because he published his argument that the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century book. Maybe I am wrong, but I think the prohibition has been against publishing this kind of thing. I would like to see that change too, but I am not in a position to recommend such things to anyone. Maybe it has already changed and I just missed the memo.

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?

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

[_harmony]

I say vindicated because he might think it is inevitable that someone with such views should eventually leave.

This should never... NEVER... be the object of any conversation, let alone a conversation between LDS members. When a person leaves the church, those who are true followers of the gospel of Jesus Christ experience a deep heartfelt sorrow, for the loss of one of our own. No one should ever want someone else to leave... no one should ever tell someone to leave... no one should ever rejoice that someone is gone. Such behavior is contrary to the gospel, contrary to the parable of the lost sheep. Only those who seek to subvert the gospel would ever behave in such a manner. Those wolves in sheep's clothing who have called for any of us to leave are holding the gospel hostage to their own egos. Shame on them. Shame on their leaders. Shame on their unrighteousness... their priesthood is null and void and they stand naked before God, clothed only in shame and fear.

[_William Schryver]

Trevor:

… threatening a CES employee with the disapproval of secret associates and the specter of excommunication?

My exact words to David were:

“…there are some, including silent observers, who have discerned a perceptible increase in your degree of dogmatism when advocating your own favored beliefs.”

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.

Simple as that.

There was no indication of the “disapproval of secret associates” in terms of David’s views about anything. The criticism had nothing to do with content, and everything to do with posture and tone.

Furthermore, the “spectre of excommunication” was never raised, except in your own paranoid and motivated interpretation of my words, which of course you are wont to do in any case when it comes to me.

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.

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.

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.
.
.
.
Ray,

I was actually quite amazed to see that I agree with about 95% of what you wrote above. Very astute observations, my erstwhile friend from Oz.

[_KimberlyAnn]

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

Humble apologetics may have been the ideal, but was it ever actually practice? From what I can tell, struggling LDS folk are the most disdained of posters on MADB. The consensus seems to be that they should either shape up or get out.

I wasn't a Mormon like EE. I was (and still am) more of a black/white thinker. When Mormonism was true for me, I was a hundred percent believer. When I no longer believed it to be true, I left and swore to never again go back. Heaven forbid I ever be found on middle ground. ;)

I do hope, however, that middle ground is being cultivated for folks who need it. The supposed displeased unnamed others would do well to support to EE.

KA