William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

[_Nimrod]

By these standards, I am an apostate persecuting Will because of (and thereby vindicating) his righteousness; I am also a leftist poseur.

Was there ever any question? ;-)

I hate it when you call me out for stating the obvious. ;-))

[_William Schryver]

sethpayne:

If you believe I represent a danger to the Church and evangelize unfaith, then you have a moral duty to alert my Priesthood leaders. Please, don't shirk your responsibilities.

Truth be told, I don’t believe you represent a danger to the Church. You're not sufficiently persuasive or charismatic to pose any great danger, except perhaps to your children and other family members.

Oh, to be sure, you do evangelize your particular brand of unfaith. That goes without saying. Your posting record both here and elsewhere, as I have observed it, speaks eloquently to the fact that you do not have a testimony of the divinity of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as embodied in the Church of Jesus Christ. You couch your disbelief in rather ambiguous terminology, much like your hero John Dehlin, but it’s nonetheless very transparent to all but the most obtuse observer. Indeed, in your most recent blog post (the one where you make particular mention of me) you make your stance on these issues perfectly clear.

Simply put, your peculiar way of evangelizing your brand of unfaith is readily apparent in the things you have written over the years. I’m sure it also comes out in your daily conversations with people. It can’t help but come out. You see, Seth, everyone is an evangelist for what they believe. Everyone. You’re no exception to this hard and fast rule. Your methods vary from those employed by others, and may consist of little more than the example of unfaith you set for your family and friends. But evangelize you do, and to the extent your defense of your unfaith is persuasive, then you most certainly do constitute a “fifth-columnist” element within the church.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Were I your bishop, I strongly suspect you would say similar things about me as you say about your current bishop. You might find that shocking for me to say. But I’m sure it’s true. Because I know precisely how I would approach someone like you. I would welcome you. I would attempt to encourage you to do things that might put you in a position to be moved by the spirit of faithfulness. I would express unfeigned love towards you. But I would not fool myself into believing that you were anything other than the “apostate” you are. You see, when I use the word “apostate” as a descriptor for the kind of man who “walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol,” I do so absent any sense of a nefarious connotation. I use it to mean nothing more than precisely what it does mean: one who, by choice, stands apart from the believers in the restored gospel.

That, my would-be brother, is what you do. Even when you congregate with them, you stand apart from them. That is your choice. It is the path you have chosen, and you walk it “in your own way, and after the image of your own god,” which, of course, is no god at all, but merely a variation on a very, very old theme. Its substance is that of an idol, and it is part of the world which will ultimately be destroyed.

Now, as to whether or not I am “a small, paranoid little man,” I can only say that you are entitled to your opinion. I doubt that anyone who knows me would find any resemblance between me and the characterization you employ, but no matter. You’re upset that I have spoken “hard things” to you. I can understand that. Your reaction is therefore to be expected, for, as it is written: “…the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.”

[_sethpayne]

Truth be told, I don’t believe you represent a danger to the Church. You're not sufficiently persuasive or charismatic to pose any great danger, except perhaps to your children and other family members.

Thanks Will. There is no doubt that I lack persuasiveness and charisma.

Well, if i don't present a danger to the Church, I certainly represent a danger to my ward, don't you think? Shouldn't you alert my Bishop?

Also, would you like to speak with my family members and see how my evangelism has impacted them? I'd be happy to provide contact information as I am sure they would absolutely love to speak with you.

Oh, to be sure, you do evangelize your particular brand of unfaith. That goes without saying. Your posting record both here and elsewhere, as I have observed it, speaks eloquently to the fact that you do not have a testimony of the divinity of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as embodied in the Church of Jesus Christ. You couch your disbelief in rather ambiguous terminology, much like your hero John Dehlin, but it’s nonetheless very transparent to all but the most obtuse observer. Indeed, in your most recent blog post (the one where you make particular mention of me) you make your stance on these issues perfectly clear.

John Dehlin is a good man and I admire his Christ-like charity. I don't think its any mystery that my faith in God is different from many Church members but I do have faith in God and do my best to emulate Jesus of Nazareth. As a Pragmatist I care little for metaphysics but I recognize the power and strength of religious experience.

You are pretty much stating the obvious here.

Simply put, your peculiar way of evangelizing your brand of unfaith is readily apparent in the things you have written over the years.

Again, stating the obvious.

I’m sure it also comes out in your daily conversations with people. It can’t help but come out.

Yes, you are quite right. My faith does come out in daily conversation. Love God and emulate the live and love of Jesus. Pretty damaging stuff, to be sure.

You see, Seth, everyone is an evangelist for what they believe. Everyone. You’re no exception to this hard and fast rule.

Again, you are quite right. I evangelize the love of God and the love of Jesus. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your methods vary from those employed by others, and may consist of little more than the example of unfaith you set for your family and friends.

So when I share my belief in God with my family and friends and when I read with them from the Gospels or the Book of Mormon I am perpetuating "unfaith." Got it.

But evangelize you do, and to the extent your defense of your unfaith is persuasive, then you most certainly do constitute a “fifth-columnist” element within the church.

So anyone who has doubts about the Church's metaphysical claims is part of a fifth-columnist element? And it is worse if I they actually voice and discuss those doubts. I'm with you.

Were I your bishop, I strongly suspect you would say similar things about me as you say about your current bishop.

I very much doubt this. In fact, I not only doubt it, I find the very suggestion absurd.

When I read your posts it is like a candle is being blown out in a dark room. I feel dark and empty. When I see my Bishop I feel the Christ-like love he has for me. Also, my Bishop tends not to employ words such as circle-jerk or refer to struggling or former members as whores etc... He also avoids the use of racial slurs.

You might find that shocking for me to say. But I’m sure it’s true.

It is shocking and it is also patently false.

Because I know precisely how I would approach someone like you. I would welcome you. I would attempt to encourage you to do things that might put you in a position to be moved by the spirit of faithfulness. I would express unfeigned love towards you. But I would not fool myself into believing that you were anything other than the “apostate” you are.

So you are a man of duplicity. Here you have reservations about being insulting, offensive, sexually crude, and essentially being the antithesis of Christian charity. I don't believe for one moment that you simply flip a switch and "express unfeigned love towards [me]." You have stated here that your online persona is exactly the same as your offline persona. Again, I pray for your Stake and Ward members if the methods you employ to welcome them to the fold even remotely resemble the methods you employ here.

You see, when I use the word “apostate” as a descriptor for the kind of man who “walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol,” I do so absent any sense of a nefarious connotation. I use it to mean nothing more than precisely what it does mean: one who, by choice, stands apart from the believers in the restored gospel.

How, exactly, do I "stand apart?" I attend services with my brothers and sisters. I pray with them. I home teach them. I am home taught by them. I share my belief in the love of God and in the power of the Church to help those who suffer.

That, my would-be brother, is what you do.

Will, I am not your "would-be" brother. I am your brother in Christ.

Even when you congregate with them, you stand apart from them. That is your choice. It is the path you have chosen, and you walk it “in your own way, and after the image of your own god,” which, of course, is no god at all, but merely a variation on a very, very old theme. Its substance is that of an idol, and it is part of the world which will ultimately be destroyed.

How is the view from that Rameumpton?

Again, I'm not sure how you can possibly argue that I stand apart from my fellow Mormons. I support them in their faith and they support me in mine.

Now, as to whether or not I am “a small, paranoid little man,” I can only say that you are entitled to your opinion. I doubt that anyone who knows me would find any resemblance between me and the characterization you employ, but no matter.

Ah, but it does matter.

Again, I very much down that William Schryver has an on/off switch. You can't come online and call people whores and then attend Church and be vessel of Christ-like charity.

You’re upset that I have spoken “hard things” to you. I can understand that. Your reaction is therefore to be expected, for, as it is written: “…the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.”

I'm not upset so much as I am saddened by the very poor representative of the LDS Church you are. How many people have come here as lurkers or doubters only to see a true believer behave in such an offensive and un-Christian way?

You could learn a thing or two from my saint of a mother.

[_beastie]

Seth, I was so touched by your tribute to your mother. I believe our reactions towards others who differ from ourselves in some significant way is impacted by how we were raised and loved ourselves. Do we see them as an enemy, or do we see them as someone more like us than not? I think having the steadfast love and acceptance of at least one significant adult in one's childhood is crucial to being able to understand how we're more alike than not.

Eric Hoffer's theory was that people who become black and white "true believers" are, in fact, compensating for a hidden sense of a tainted self. I'm betting he's right more often than not.

[_sethpayne]

Seth, I was so touched by your tribute to your mother. I believe our reactions towards others who differ from ourselves in some significant way is impacted by how we were raised and loved ourselves. Do we see them as an enemy, or do we see them as someone more like us than not? I think having the steadfast love and acceptance of at least one significant adult in one's childhood is crucial to being able to understand how we're more alike than not.

Eric Hoffer's theory was that people who become black and white "true believers" are, in fact, compensating for a hidden sense of a tainted self. I'm betting he's right more often than not.

Thank you for the kind words, Beastie. I feel incredibly fortunate to have been raised by such a kind and caring mom. As I get older, I can see more clearly the influence she has had on the person I have become and on the person I will continue to become.

I am not familiar with Hoffer but it sounds like I need read more about his ideas.

It saddens me that we live in a world of "us vs. them." When we boil things down..... we all really care about the same things: loving others and being genuinely loved.

[_Trevor]

Hey sethpayne,

If there is one thing I have learned in all of my interactions with online apologists like Will, this is it: you can try to shame them into behaving better, according to your understanding, but if an apostle couldn't do it, then your chances of success are slender indeed.

Also, your tribute to your mother was wonderful. She sounds like a real pillar of her faith community.

[_sethpayne]

Hey sethpayne,

If there is one thing I have learned in all of my interactions with online apologists like Will, this is it: you can try to shame them into behaving better, according to your understanding, but if an apostle couldn't do it, then your chances of success are slender indeed.

I'm afraid you are right, Trevor. It just bothers me to see true representatives of Christian charity -- of which there are too many to count within the Church -- get drowned out by the offensive and crude behavior of a vocal minority. I fear that others impression of our faith may be shaped by this minority. I suppose then, that I will continue to point out the virtues of Mormonism -- and occasionally offer my opinion on controversial matters -- so as to put forth a more positive view of Mormons to those within my limited sphere of influence.

Also, your tribute to your mother was wonderful. She sounds like a real pillar of her faith community.

Thank you. She really is a pillar -- I like the way you phrased that.

[_William Schryver]

You could learn a thing or two from my saint of a mother.

I'm sure she wishes you had learned more from her and less from the world that has been your preferred and primary tutor.

In any case, your rhetorical gnashing of teeth is typical of those to whom I represent "the foe." It's almost as though you all read from the same script. You and your friends here are in complete accord on all the points you reference above. I am not surprised, for I know you well, as I know your friends. As I also know myself, and my friends. We are all being gathered into the camps we prefer.

I also know very well why some people are so viscerally offended by me and my words, just as you are now--and it is not to your credit that you have yielded yourself to the spirit that stirs you up to anger against me.

Nevertheless, I will not attempt further to "open your eyes," for I know you will not. At least not now. Your feet are set on the course you have chosen for yourself. Your self-delusion is willful and your rationalizations relentless. You claim to have faith in god, but it is a god of your own creation, whose substance is that of an idol. And both it and you will, absent a mighty change of heart, ultimately fall. I sincerely hope that somewhere along the way, before it is everlastingly too late, the scales of darkness will fall from your eyes, and you will cease to worship your idol god. But if not, it will not be for lack of warning.

[_Trevor]

I'm afraid you are right, Trevor. It just bothers me to see true representatives of Christian charity -- of which there are too many to count within the Church -- get drowned out by the offensive and crude behavior of a vocal minority. I fear that others impression of our faith may be shaped by this minority. I suppose then, that I will continue to point out the virtues of Mormonism -- and occasionally offer my opinion on controversial matters -- so as to put forth a more positive view of Mormons to those within my limited sphere of influence.

I like your general understanding of the Gospel, which seems to center on something like this:

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

When it gets down to it, these are some of the most important things. Most of what passes as the Gospel are appendages, as it were, to the few central tenets of the faith.

And, from what I have heard, Will too engages in this religion. He is a very dutiful hometeacher, for example. My take on this problem you raise is that we are seeing Will at his worst. It is difficult to judge. I know that much of what he posts doesn't encourage me to do better, but now and then, when he is not locking horns with critics, but sharing his knowledge of the LDS Gospel outside of his apologetic projects, he really has some interesting, and inoffensive (in the sense of not being insulting, etc.), things to say.

I take comfort in the realization that apologetics and polemics are a very tiny part of Mormonism. Most Mormons are not involved in this at all. Will too has identified himself as one passing through. Good! I would venture to say that his considerable talents would be better applied elsewhere. Not that I am dismissing his KEP work. I am actually refering to the things you are complaining about. I think it would be better for most everyone, including Will, if he absented himself from public online discussions of Mormonism.

Having said that, I offer this is in no way as a disinvitation from MDB.

[_Trevor]

I also know very well why some people are so viscerally offended by me and my words, just as you are now--and it is not to your credit that you have yielded yourself to the spirit that stirs you up to anger against me.

Who else talks like this? Jesus? I'm asking seriously here. Maybe I am completely wrong, but this strikes me as the rantings of a self-righteous and deluded person. I really don't get it. Maybe Elder McConkie in this stern letters to Eugene England, but, he spoke sternly from the position of apostle, and indeed stipulated that this was the grounds for his frankness.

I am not poking fun, here. I simply cannot remember, ever, any righteous LDS person whom I respected dressing down another person like this in public. And let's be clear here, we know who both of you are. What on earth gives Will the right to judge seth like this? Is he seth's bishop suddenly?