William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

[_Trevor]

I'm beginning to think you may be worrying about loosing the bet. Are you starting to get a little concerned? You should be. Our friend William is getting close to the breaking point. It won't take much more to break him. I can feel it. I see him in my mind's eye.

I don't have a great deal of faith in your spooky prognostications from the Dark Side of the Force, my friend. You are completely off concerning Will. I become more convinced of it with each new post he offers. I'm not saying I applaud or agree, but I am totally persuaded that his faith is practically unshakable.

[_Trevor]

Will also doubts the "metaphysics" of the church, just read what he's had to say on the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon.

Only misreading would lead you to that conclusion.

[_Gadianton]

Will also doubts the "metaphysics" of the church, just read what he's had to say on the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon.

Only misreading would lead you to that conclusion.

Saying Joseph Smith didn't "translate" the Book of Abraham or the plates in the way Will explained it would be unacceptable to most church members. Just as denying a real flood or the creation (by affirming evolution) are also compromises. Sure, you can spin it however you wish and say that these aren't "core" matters of belief in Mormonism but Seth can make the exact same case. Just because Will swims out 20 yards before he compromises and Seth does so at 15 yards doesn't matter that much to me in my estimation as to which one is the true believer since both claim to be TBMs.

[_Darth J]

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, you would have to have a sense of shame before you would be capable of feeling ashamed.

[_Paul Osborne]

I don't have a great deal of faith in your spooky prognostications from the Dark Side of the Force, my friend. You are completely off concerning Will. I become more convinced of it with each new post he offers. I'm not saying I applaud or agree, but I am totally persuaded that his faith is practically unshakable.

I sense a great disturbance in William's faith (no pun intended). His manner of testimony bearing reminds me of someone who used to be strong in the faith, namely me. My instincts tell me he is breaking and falling apart at the seams. I will be flabbergasted to learn otherwise. It won't be long in order to come to a realization in this matter because I think William is about to snap and transition himself into a new arena.

If I'm proven wrong then I will send you the $100 and shut my mouth about William. I'll consider myself swatted down like a bug.

But, if I win, then clearly we have more to talk about. I'm sure you will agree with that.

Paul O

[_Trevor]

If I'm proven wrong then I will send you the $100 and shut my mouth about William. I'll consider myself swatted down like a bug.

Ditto.

[_Trevor]

Saying Joseph Smith didn't "translate" the Book of Abraham or the plates in the way Will explained it would be unacceptable to most church members. Just as denying a real flood or the creation (by affirming evolution) are also compromises. Sure, you can spin it however you wish and say that these aren't "core" matters of belief in Mormonism but Seth can make the exact same case. Just because Will swims out 20 yards before he compromises and Seth does so at 15 yards doesn't matter that much to me in my estimation as to which one is the true believer since both claim to be TBMs.

What you fail to see is pretty predictable considering who you are and what you think. Loyalty to the leadership of the LDS Church as God's anointed and appointed is the sine qua non of the faithful Mormon's good standing in the Gospel. It is clear that sethpayne's decision to stand publicly against certain initiatives of the Church leadership set him at variance with them, and thus in a marginal position. Will is a completely different story, and no matter what he might intimate about the value of the facsimile's as part of the canon, etc., it is no matter. Clearly the leadership of the LDS Church leaves open the possibility that some aspects of LDS practice, etc., may prove to be expendable if they compromise the greater goal. What matters is that Will is behind the leadership of the Church 100% and has vociferously testified. See the difference?

[_Gadianton]

What you fail to see is pretty predictable considering who you are and what you think. Loyalty to the leadership of the LDS Church as God's anointed and appointed is the sine qua non of the faithful Mormon's good standing in the Gospel.

But Trevor, I thought we were just discussing the "metaphysics" of Mormon belief? An anthropologist studying Mormon society might come to the conclusion that lip service to leadership, falling in line when ordered etc. define standing. I might even agree with that to an extent. But there are two points I need to make. 1) I'm challenging the apologists' assumptions about orthodoxy, not yours. Your point actually backs my point up substantially, Will doesn't have a leg to stand on to condemn Sethpayne on grounds of rejecting "metaphysical" aspects of Mormonism as he's done the very same, just in slightly different degrees. In fact, in my original post you responded to, I anticipated your objection when I wrote this:

In fact, all Sethpayne would probably have to do is take a more supportive stance towards apologetics and without changing a single one of his "metaphysical" positions they'd probably be patting him on the back rather than criticizing him.

So we are actually in agreement that in reality, "metaphysical" positions aren't defining TBM standing. However, the apologists don't see it that way, and this is why I point out their failed criteria for rejecting folks like Sethpayne. In fact, there is even less difference between Sethpayne and other TBMs the apologists do accept, Richard Bushman, and half the folks who post over at Times and Seasons.

2) There is still quite a bit of perspective at work in deciding who is loyal to the anointed. From what I've just read, Sethpayne considers himself loyal to the anointed, therefore, he offers his Bishop's contact information etc. Internet Mormon apologists like Will have made a career of picking and choosing what prophetic edicts to take seriously. You might be thinking, but who is more likely to be Sept sixthed, Will or Seth? I'm not sure the answer is so obvious as I've followed Times and Seasons and especially the "postmodern" approach to being LDS. I'm pretty sure Seth would not be condemned by the folks over at Times and Seasons and while there is a rivalry between them and FAIR, there are shared persons and perspectives especially including Yale and Claremont ties, I've never seen claims of outright apostasy traded. So, where I'm going with this is FAIR accepts T&S and I'd bet T&S would accept Seth, so Seth isn't really that far removed from orthodoxy by any definition.

[_Trevor]

Your point actually backs my point up substantially, Will doesn't have a leg to stand on to condemn Sethpayne on grounds of rejecting "metaphysical" aspects of Mormonism as he's done the very same, just in slightly different degrees.

Slightly different degrees? Maybe I don't know Seth well enough to say, but I would wager that the degrees separating them are many. Will is way closer to that McConkiesque Mormonism that has come to define the "orthodox" posture for quite some time. Seth seems more of a "McMurrin-Bennion let's live the Christlike life even though in the specifics Mormonism is a useful myth" mode of LDS membership. Maybe I am completely off here. Seth can correct me, and I say what I say not to denigrate him in the least. He is most definitely a "Dehlin" Mormon, and while I love John Dehlin as a brother, I think it needs to be acknowledged that he is not a literal believer.

In fact, all Sethpayne would probably have to do is take a more supportive stance towards apologetics and without changing a single one of his "metaphysical" positions they'd probably be patting him on the back rather than criticizing him.

So we are actually in agreement that in reality, "metaphysical" positions aren't defining TBM standing. However, the apologists don't see it that way, and this is why I point out their failed criteria for rejecting folks like Sethpayne. In fact, there is even less difference between Sethpayne and other TBMs the apologists do accept, Richard Bushman, and half the folks who post over at Times and Seasons.

And if you think Will doesn't have problems with the belief of a lot of the Times and Seasons folk, you would likely be mistaken. Will sees himself and his way as the real deal. All of these effete intellectual types who soft-pedal and qualify Mormon claims in any way--in short, who do not accept literally in the fullest sense the foundational claims of the LDS Church--are anathema to Will in that he sees them in various stages on the road to apostasy. Will very carefully considers his own views in the light of his own notion of being firmly rooted in a literal acceptance of these claims, as shaped by the guidance of personal revelation. Don't think for a moment that Will is casually casting aside anything in order to retain intellectual respectability. Of the latter he gives not a tinker's damn.

2) There is still quite a bit of perspective at work in deciding who is loyal to the anointed. From what I've just read, Sethpayne considers himself loyal to the anointed, therefore, he offers his Bishop's contact information etc.

First, it should be clear that I am very sympathetic to sethpayne. Having said that, anyone who would openly decry the LDS Church's position on Prop 8 and gay marriage, anyone who would even entertain the appellation of critic, no matter how defined, is obviously much more easily pegged as an apostate, in the ways that seem to count these days, than Will Schryver. Just sayin''.

[_sethpayne]

Slightly different degrees? Maybe I don't know Seth well enough to say, but I would wager that the degrees separating them are many. Will is way closer to that McConkiesque Mormonism that has come to define the "orthodox" posture for quite some time. Seth seems more of a "McMurrin-Bennion let's live the Christlike life even though in the specifics Mormonism is a useful myth" mode of LDS membership. Maybe I am completely off here. Seth can correct me, and I say what I say not to denigrate him in the least. He is most definitely a "Dehlin" Mormon, and while I love John Dehlin as a brother, I think it needs to be acknowledged that he is not a literal believer.

Hi Trevor,

I think you have a pretty good grasp of where I am coming from. I am not a literal believer. My goal as a member of the Church is to build on commonalities I share with my fellow Mormons. I don't pretend to believe in things that I don't but I also don't get up in testimony meeting and advertise my heterodoxy either. Depending on the circumstances I will share my reasons for viewing things the way I do but the absolute last thing I would want to do is damage an individual's testimony of the Church. If that testimony works for them and makes for a happy life, then that testimony is good.

On the other hand, there have been occasions where people have come to me saying that they have serious concerns over X or Y etc... In those cases I will be more open about my views.

What William fails to grasp is that I have plenty of places to share my personal views of the LDS Church and its teachings. I have here, my blog, MADB etc... Sacrament meeting, Sunday School, and Priesthood are not venues for me to espouse my beliefs if those beliefs are at odds with the official teachings of the Church.

You see, I have respect for the LDS Church as an institution. The Church has the right and responsibility to teach members what the FP and Q12 feel should be taught. Who am I to tell the LDS Church what to believe or what to teach? It is not my place.

I go to Church because I love the community and I have more in common with my fellow Saints one might imagine.

Just the other day in Priesthood we were discussing the Book of Enos. Now, I personally don't' believe that Enos was a real person or that the events described took place in actual history. However, the story of Enos has great power and is illustrative of the benefits of honest prayer. So, when at Church and when interacting with my fellow ward members I focus on those things I do believe and not on the things I don't believe. Again, I try and build on commonalities.

And, to be perfectly honest, I could be completely wrong. When I die I could end up before God and he could say "Seth, you were SO off-base.... I'd like you to meet some friends of mine. Nephi, Moroni, Alma, and Enos.... come on over and meet Seth." However, believing that God is merciful and has a perfect understanding of all things I could, with a clear concscience, say that I simply did the best I could with what I was given.

Seth