William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

[_KimberlyAnn]

There is reason to believe that our resident Vulgar Scatologist has been defacing ladies' rooms across the country. I offer as evidence this restroom door I encountered at a historical monument in Santa Fe, New Mexico:



KA

[_Yoda]

I've never been jealous of sycophants.

Hmmm....it must be the orgasm you're jealous of, then.

It's OK, Will.....In this life, women can easily experience multiple orgasms.

Maybe if you become a God in the next life, you can improve men's chances of the same.

[_RockSlider]

My sincerest apologies!
All along, I thought you were a girl.
Thanks for setting the record straight.

I figured this was said with the greatest possible sarcasm and as a further insult.

But then again, with such a duality/integrity problem how could one make the call?

[_Dan Vogel]

I can handle my mistakes being pointed out ...

Yes, that was so apparent in the thread where I pointed one out.

Yes, in that thread it was apparent that I can gracefully handle my mistakes being discussed. It was equally apparent that you couldn’t.

I don't choose my enemies, they choose me. They need enemies to define themselves, I don't.

Spoken by one whose entire raison d'etre is to discredit the legitimacy of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, and to erode the foundations of the church he founded.

Self-awareness is obviously not one of your strong suits.

Well, if you knew me as well as your statement above implies, you would know that I have consistently stated, both on the MAD board and in print, that scholarship cannot “discredit the legitimacy of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.” That is a matter of faith. What my work might do is bring the definition of “prophet” more in line with historical data. Ironically, some true believers regard the efforts of FARMS and other apologists who try to bring Book of Mormon historicity in line with archaeological data by suggesting limited geography , etc. as an attempt to “to erode the foundations of the church.” Challenging traditional views is what scholars do. Whether this leads to a crisis of faith, a modification, or a complete denial is not a concern for scholars.

True, a lot of what I do pertains to controversial subjects, but not everything. I’m no different than some of the leading apologists (such as Dan Peterson, Jack Welch, Bill Hamblin, etc.) who also write on less controversial topics, such as glossolalia (or in tongues tongues) in the early LDS Church or James Colin Brewster. Indeed, I have spent the last decade working on a critical edition of the History of the Church, which I assure you will benefit all scholars working on Mormon studies regardless of personal conclusions. Anyone familiar with my five-volume Early Mormon Documents knows that I debunk many favorite anti-Mormon claims. I can’t stop you from defining me through your narrow apologetic prism, but I remain confident that those who do not choose me as their enemy will have a more balanced view.

Will, I have not chosen you as an enemy—that is not my intention. I do not seek the demise of the LDS Church. I only seek to impart information and to raise the level of discussion. Why in your world view are those who have a different interpretation of Mormon origins automatically enemies? Is it wise or healthy to make enemies of everyone who questions Book of Mormon historicity or some of Joseph Smith’s historical claims?

[_harmony]

Will, I have not chosen you as an enemy—that is not my intention. I do not seek the demise of the LDS Church. I only seek to impart information and to raise the level of discussion. Why in your world view are those who have a different interpretation of Mormon origins automatically enemies? Is it wise or healthy to make enemies of everyone who questions Book of Mormon historicity or some of Joseph Smith’s historical claims?

Will's a lightweight, an apologist wannabe with a vulgar vocabulary who craves attention. Why do you care what he thinks?

[_William Schryver]

Vogel:

Will, I have not chosen you as an enemy …

Nor I you.

What, pray tell, led you to conclude otherwise?

I do not seek the demise of the LDS Church.

Well, I only claimed that you have sought to erode its foundations. Your attempt to rephrase my statement for polemical effect is noted. I stand by my own statement concerning your underlying intentions. I believe they have become abundantly clear over the years. Furthermore, I’m fairly certain that a poll of your “friends” above (Peterson, Welch, and Hamblin) might return a result not entirely consistent with your claim that “I’m no different than some of the leading apologists …,” unless you simply mean that you occupy a place opposite them in the debates over these questions.

Why in your world view are those who have a different interpretation of Mormon origins automatically enemies?

They aren’t. There is a distinct difference between a polemical adversary and an “enemy.” Don’t you think so?

Is it wise or healthy to make enemies of everyone who questions Book of Mormon historicity or some of Joseph Smith’s historical claims?

To dispute the conclusions of those who argue against Book of Mormon historicity or Joseph Smith’s historical claims is not equivalent to making “enemies.” You, of all people, should understand that concept.

.
.
.
.
.
.
========================>

[_Dan Vogel]

Will, I have not chosen you as an enemy—that is not my intention. I do not seek the demise of the LDS Church. I only seek to impart information and to raise the level of discussion. Why in your world view are those who have a different interpretation of Mormon origins automatically enemies? Is it wise or healthy to make enemies of everyone who questions Book of Mormon historicity or some of Joseph Smith’s historical claims?

Will's a lightweight, an apologist wannabe with a vulgar vocabulary who craves attention. Why do you care what he thinks?

It's my way of pointing out Will's binary world view.

[_Dan Vogel]

Vogel:

Will, I have not chosen you as an enemy …

Nor I you.

What, pray tell, led you to conclude otherwise?

Your apparent inability to distinguish between the intentions of various unbelievers.

I do not seek the demise of the LDS Church.

Well, I only claimed that you have sought to erode its foundations. Your attempt to rephrase my statement for polemical effect is noted.

That statement was not intended as an attempt to rephrase your statement. It is my own statement to distinguish myself from avowed enemies of "Mormonism."

I stand by my own statement concerning your underlying intentions. I believe they have become abundantly clear over the years.

And there you have it. Will, the mind reader. Despite the clear statements I have made to the contrary, prescient Will knows better.

Furthermore, I’m fairly certain that a poll of your “friends” above (Peterson, Welch, and Hamblin) might return a result not entirely consistent with your claim that “I’m no different than some of the leading apologists …,” unless you simply mean that you occupy a place opposite them in the debates over these questions.

Will, there you go again with your partial quotes and distortions. My point was: they are not always apologists, and I'm not always a critic.

Why in your world view are those who have a different interpretation of Mormon origins automatically enemies?

They aren’t. There is a distinct difference between a polemical adversary and an “enemy.” Don’t you think so?

It would be nice if you viewed things that way. But I don't think so. To you, I'm more than someone that simply has a different opinion than you. I'm trying to discredit Joseph Smith's prophetic claims and erode the church he founded.

Is it wise or healthy to make enemies of everyone who questions Book of Mormon historicity or some of Joseph Smith’s historical claims?

To dispute the conclusions of those who argue against Book of Mormon historicity or Joseph Smith’s historical claims is not equivalent to making “enemies.” You, of all people, should understand that concept.

Again, this is not an accurate portrayal of your position.

[_wenglund]

For multiple reasons the irony meter on my computer has been stuck on full throughout this thread.

P.S. for the record: as an apologists, I am not ashamed of Will Schryver.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Ray A]

P.S. for the record: as an apologists, I am not ashamed of Will Schryver.

Will has some entertainment value, but that's about all. He's perhaps the sort of person I'd like to have a drink with in a pub (seriously). But apart from being an attention-whore I think, unfortunately, he's also dishonest. I now firmly believe that he created the Wheat sockpuppet. And he created it as a sort of Dorothy Dixer on Book of Abraham threads. He's also a great divider of people, who can only see in black and white, and sees evil lurking in every criticism of Mormonism, no matter how innocuous or well-intended, and his comments to Dan Vogel show just how divisive he is. Not even DCP will venture there, now, but Will is more than willing to oblige to set the Saints straight on whom they should expurgate and ostracise.

In this category Will is a three star General. Droopy a five-star General.