William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

[_Trevor]

Hey, Seth-

Thanks for your candid depiction of where you are coming from. And, I think it is easy to see, based on what you have written, why you and Will would be at odds concerning your standing. Personally, I think the important thing in life is our actions, not our opinions. Indeed, it is possible to be dead wrong about a lot of things while being of inestimable benefit to others. Which is more important? I think service to others is.

Just my two cents.

T

[_sethpayne]

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''.

You are absolutely right, Trevor. My willingness to openly critisize a Church policy clearly puts me in an odd position considering that I regularly attend Church services and am generally supportive of the Church as an institution.

For me, I *try* -- although I do not always succeed -- to be constructive in my criticism and, I get a quite irritated when people try to simply classify Mormons as bigots or homophobes. I understand the LDS position on the matter and I know it is not borne out of hate, but out of a particular theological viewpoint.

Also, my criticism of LDS Church policies is limited to my personal conversations, my blog, here, and MADB. Church services are not an appropriate platform for me to share these views.

Seth

[_sethpayne]

Hey, Seth-

Thanks for your candid depiction of where you are coming from. And, I think it is easy to see, based on what you have written, why you and Will would be at odds concerning your standing. Personally, I think the important thing in life is our actions, not our opinions. Indeed, it is possible to be dead wrong about a lot of things while being of inestimable benefit to others. Which is more important? I think service to others is.

Just my two cents.

T

Trevor, I could not agree more. So much hurt, pain, and suffering has been caused by people who were convinced they absolutely knew the mind and will of God (9/11, MMM, Crusades, etc...) that I think it is safe to say we will all be surprised to find out just how much we don't know about God.

What I do know, without any question, is that some members of my ward are struggling financially and need help. I know that Sister X is a widow and appreciates a visit where we read the scriptures together..... I don't just believe these things.... I KNOW them. As a result, I try to base my actions on what I know for certain, rather than on what I simply believe.

Seth

[_Runtu]

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.

I find myself more in this position lately, and I am trying to find a place within the community, even though I don't believe in the specifics. But even in my "angry" period, I never expended any effort to undermine anyone's faith, especially not people I interact with in my life. Exactly two people in my ward know where I stand: my bishop and my former home teacher. Telling my home teacher was a huge mistake, one that I won't repeat.

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

I was criticized recently for expressing "certainty" about some troubling facts of the restoration, and I wondered at that. Your approach seems pretty common, as most of us recognize that we may well be wrong. But if I'm wrong, I feel the same way you do: I did my best to learn and follow truth.

Oh, and by the way, I'm in the Oak Hills Seventh Ward, Provo Oak Hills Stake, just in case someone wants to get the disciplinary council ball rolling.

[_Droopy]

In summary:

If you think OCDroopy is an asshole: you are a leftist.

You are a leftist when and if you are a leftist and hold positions and beliefs in harmony with that philosophical genus.

If you think Will is an asshole: you are apostate.

If you hold beliefs regarding the Church and its teachings similar to those held by Sethpayne, Harmony, Mel Tungate, Loyd Ericson etc., etc., you should be understood to be in apostasy, yes.

If you demonstrate that you know what you are talking about and OCDroppy does not: you are a poseur.

A poseur is someone, like say, Kevin Graham, who has very limited intellectual background in many of the areas upon which he opines, is only marginally read, if at all, beyond the perimeters of that which he already believes to be the case, and has little temperament for sustained, critical thought or argument.

Darth is simply a troll.

If you tell Will that he is being an asshole: you are vindicating his righteousness.

Or you may simply be retreating from the arena of ideas and trying to save face.

If Will says objectively offensive things, or says things that would make South Park embarrassed: he's defending the Church.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

If you call Will names or say offensive things to him: you are persecuting him because he is righteous.

See above for alternative reasons this may occur.

If you are an active, believing member of the LDS Church who thinks Will is a douchebag: you're apostate.

If you're an active, "believing" member of the LDS Church who does not accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the divine authenticity of the Book of Abraham; do not accept Joseph Smith as the divinely appointed - and worthy, in all respects - prophet of the Restoration, or are hostile to and openly fight against the Church when it takes positions on social issues such as Prop 8 etc., you are actively in apostasy in some very salient ways.

If you are an active, believing member of the Church who interprets the scriptures in a way that conflicts with OCDroopy's AM radio platitudes: you are apostate.

If you are an active "believing" member of the Church who disagree and interpret the teachings of the Church in a manner incompatible with the teachings of the Church, you are in apostasy.

Logic is a harsh mistress.

Don't worry, Will. When your own apostasy from the Church's teachings and conducting yourself in a way that is offensive to someone claiming to defend Jesus' true church reach their logical destination, we will forgive and forget. Unlike the judgmental, self-righteous TBM's whose side you still pretend to be on.

When will this pose end? Its already run its course Darth.

[_Droopy]

Let's take a look at some salient excertps from Sethpayne's blog:

I believe there are two major types of LDS critics; those who are critical of particular Church policies and practices, and those who are critical of specific LDS truth claims. If I am to be considered a Mormon critic, I would fit in the former category as I have no real interest in the veracity of Mormon truth claims.

This, perhaps, might be the ultimate definition one could field regarding the term "Cultural Mormon".

Granted, when I get together with my Mormon buddies who find such things interesting, we’ll discuss Mormon doctrine critically — meaning we will analyze specific doctrinal truth claims in an academic, rather than a strictly spiritual way.

This is pregnant with implications, but we'll move on for brevity's sake.

Frankly, I have no real interest in criticizing Mormon truth claims, even though there are many I don’t personally find plausible (see below).

Now Sethpayne's claim to be a "believing" Mormon begins to show its problematic nature. Note that the gospel's foundational "truth claims" have been, to a large measure, rejected, while something approaching, if Sethpaynes arguments here are any indication, a vague ethical/social Christian worldview that goes little beyond, what from an LDS perspective would be a arguable positive and admirable - but spiritually tepid (the gospel of Jesus Christ offers deification and eternal life, after all) ethical engagement with the world.

So, while I am not a critic of Mormon truth-claims; I am a critic of some LDS Church policies.

This is logically incoherent. Sethpayne has already claimed, in the same essay that "I have no real interest in the veracity of Mormon truth claims", and hence, by definition, has become a critic of those claims. I don't think an attempt at a pure neutrality is going to wash, philosophically (it never does) here, because this would imply, if taken seriously, that Sethpayne, when confronted with a fundamental LDS truth claim, could claim absolute neutrality and simply throw up his hands and walk away from "the terrible questions".

This isn't philosophically tenable for the reason that, in the first instance, by having no interest in core metaphysical truth claims, one has already staked out a critical position regarding them. In the second place, if forced into a corner and asked to make some intellectually substantive statement regarding those truth claims, that response could not be anything other than the reasons one does not find them interesting or relevant. It would seem to me that not finding the fundamental propositions of the gospel regarding the nature and meaning of existence and our mortal experience of any interest or relevance is, itself, a clear statement of value judgment as well as a clear intellectual positioning upon those subjects that both, by definition, would place one in an apostate situation regarding those truth claims (as the details of gospel belief are inextricably linked with the core metaphysical propositions).

Namely, I vehemently disagree with the Church’s stance on Same-sex Marriage and I have made my views public on several occasions.

No single criticism of Church social and moral views could be more exemplary of open hostility ( an open condition of apostasy, in other language), than this. Again, that position of homosexual marriage is inextricably linked to the Church fundamental view of sexual morality and the purpose and place of human sexuality within the mortal context, and these understandings are themselves inextricably linked to the gospel''s fundamental truth claims.

Most of my criticism of the Church’s stance came right after the Proposition 8 fallout in 2008. I have many close gay and lesbian friends and one, in particular, who’s Mormon family disowned him after he “came out” in 2008.

This is interesting in and of itself, as I do not have many such friends, nor does anyone I know. What we could have here is yet another example of running to the Great and Spacious Building when the finger pointing and mocking from the cool people becomes to great a perceived burden, no? There are welcoming arms in that building for one who sees the error of his ways and comes to hold the "politically correct" positions.

I want to stress that this is not typical of Mormon families. Most Mormon families with gay or lesbian members struggle with it, but in the end they ultimately accept their son/daughter/sibling despite the fact that Mormon doctrine is clearly opposed to homosexuality.

I have no idea what Seth knows or does not know about "most Mormon families with gay or lesbian members", but suffice it to say that, with exclusive homosexual orientation existing at about 3% of the population, its presence in LDS families could not be more than this, making the phenomena exceeding rare.

A close family member came out as homosexual about ten years ago, and then later left it behind. In no case was he ever not accepted as a family member. Nor at any time did our faith in and testimony of the Church's teachings of eternal principles on this matter waver.

My open criticism of this policy came as a result of my personal relationships with friends who were deeply hurt by this particular Church position.

Woe, the scriptures tell us, to all who are, in the end, "overcome of the world".

Having said that, I become extremely frustrated when people try and label Mormons as “homophobic” or “bigots” etc… Its just not that simple. My mother, for example, absolutely adores my gay friend Devan but she supports the Church in its policy. This is not bigotry.

No, it isn't

The other Church policy I have been openly critical of is the one-year waiting period required to receive what is known as a temple sealing if they chose to have a civil ceremony first. I understand the origins and intent of the policy but at this point in time I feel it does more harm than good. Additionally, it only applies in the United States (and perhaps Canada). Most countries require a civil wedding ceremony. In those countries the Church does not require a waiting period. To me the current policy is antiquated and counter-productive. I would not be surprised to see this policy change at some point in the next 5-10 years.

This is no surprise for someone who does not take the core metaphysical claims of the Church seriously, as without this, even a rudimentary understanding of the deep importance and sacredness of the Temple is not even approachable.

Am I an apostate? My own personal views are rather heterodox and some things I enjoy (in terms of the Word of Wisdom etc…) are certainly heteroprax but I think it is completely inappropriate to call me an apostate. I love attending Church and participating in Church activities. Simply put, I like being a Mormon and as I’ve stated above, Mormon truth-claims are really not all that important to me. Serving within my Mormon community is what matters.

One can see Sethpayne playing psychological and rhetorical games with both himself and his readers now.

Granted, I am not trying to defend the historicity of the Book of Mormon or the authenticity of the Book of Abraham — I believe both to be apocryphal. However, I will defend Mormonism against offensive and absurd attacks.

In other words, as Sethayane here makes quite clear, what he defends when he does defend is not the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, or the restored Kingdom of God on earth (the Church), but his tribe; his people and his culture.

Belief that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are "apocryphal" places Sethpyane, of course, in a position of essentially being a non-member of the Church in all but name. This raises problems for the individual (participating in the religious services and practices of a religious system that is, as to fundamental truth claims, a bald fraud) but perhaps not for others around him, if as sethpyane claims, he is not an evangelist of unfaith. But is this logically plausible?

Can one who believes both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham - both foundational sources of core truth claims - are fictitious creations, possible avoid, in any discussion with faithful lDS, making those beliefs explicit, and the reasons for holding them? Might this not have an effect on others, especially those spiritually weak or immature and who are susceptible to intellectual/psycholgical doubt and instability?

Most "believing" LDS would think such people need precisely the opposite.

[_Droopy]

I don't just believe these things.... I KNOW them. As a result, I try to base my actions on what I know for certain, rather than on what I simply believe.

Hmmmmm. Sound very much like my testimony and witness of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith, and the divinity and divine authenticity of the Church and its work.

[_Darth J]

When will this pose end? Its already run its course Darth.

It's already run its course, Darth.

[_Gadianton]

Hi Trevor,

In general, you and Seth are both trying your hand at Shades's exercise of defining Chapel and Internet Mo's - "literal" vs. "non-literal" belief etc. Maybe you are right that Will would take issues with the T&S crowd, I don't know, but the apologists in general never have from what I've seen taken issue with them for doctrinal reasons. Take this statement:

I have no real interest in the veracity of Mormon truth claims

This statement could be coming straight from the apologists, at least half the time. Maybe you weren't there on MAD or Z when the apologists came after the critics constantly for being "fundamentalists" who believe in "truth" and the supposed literal nature of scripture, who don't have the scholarly sophistication to appreciate metaphor and hold outdated positivist worldviews. Juliann even mentioned one day she has good friends who don't believe in a "literal Book of Mormon" though she herself believes it is "historical" -- whatever that means without being too historico-critical about it and tore people down constantly for suggesting the prophet should be held to any supernatural standards or anything beyond being an important figurehead for the community, as that's how a "prophet" is understood from the methodological naturalism POV.

Will's belief that the facsimiles will be dropped from canon, that the narrative is more important than the actual historical happenings, that Joseph Smith didn't "translate" anything, is very much in line with the whole Yale/Claremont "narrative theology" stuff and in my view, from a "metaphysical" perspective, puts Will closer to Sethpayne than say, to my parents. Here's what I see coming from these two:

Will -- I believe in God, and I believe the literal historical truth of the Book of Abraham is the wrong issue for debate, the narrative is what's important. Though I think the events are historical in some way -- let's not be too specific here -- dwelling on that is a distraction from the real message.

Seth -- I believe in God, and I believe the literal historical truth of the Book of Abraham is the wrong issue for debate, the narrative is what's important. Though I think the events aren't historical, I could be wrong, but dwelling on them is a distraction from the real message.

If I have the time and inclination, I might create a sockpuppet that holds all the essential "metaphysical" positions of Sethpayne and see if I can gain the acceptance of Will and others. I really believe it's Sethpayne's MO and personality that gets him labeled as an apostate by the apologists.

by the way, Trevor, do you think Seth would be considered an outright apostate by LoaP who apparently has sent drafts of his writings to Seth? If not, is Will or LoaP, both "literal believers" (which I think covers a lot of ground) better qualified to make a call on Seth's standing in the church?

[_sethpayne]

Let's take a look at some salient excertps from Sethpayne's blog:

I believe there are two major types of LDS critics; those who are critical of particular Church policies and practices, and those who are critical of specific LDS truth claims. If I am to be considered a Mormon critic, I would fit in the former category as I have no real interest in the veracity of Mormon truth claims.

This, perhaps, might be the ultimate definition one could field regarding the term "Cultural Mormon".

Granted, when I get together with my Mormon buddies who find such things interesting, we’ll discuss Mormon doctrine critically — meaning we will analyze specific doctrinal truth claims in an academic, rather than a strictly spiritual way.

This is pregnant with implications, but we'll move on for brevity's sake.

Frankly, I have no real interest in criticizing Mormon truth claims, even though there are many I don’t personally find plausible (see below).

Now Sethpayne's claim to be a "believing" Mormon begins to show its problematic nature. Note that the gospel's foundational "truth claims" have been, to a large measure, rejected, while something approaching, if Sethpaynes arguments here are any indication, a vague ethical/social Christian worldview that goes little beyond, what from an LDS perspective would be a arguable positive and admirable - but spiritually tepid (the gospel of Jesus Christ offers deification and eternal life, after all) ethical engagement with the world.

So, while I am not a critic of Mormon truth-claims; I am a critic of some LDS Church policies.

This is logically incoherent. Sethpayne has already claimed, in the same essay that "I have no real interest in the veracity of Mormon truth claims", and hence, by definition, has become a critic of those claims. I don't think an attempt at a pure neutrality is going to wash, philosophically (it never does) here, because this would imply, if taken seriously, that Sethpayne, when confronted with a fundamental LDS truth claim, could claim absolute neutrality and simply throw up his hands and walk away from "the terrible questions".

This isn't philosophically tenable for the reason that, in the first instance, by having no interest in core metaphysical truth claims, one has already staked out a critical position regarding them. In the second place, if forced into a corner and asked to make some intellectually substantive statement regarding those truth claims, that response could not be anything other than the reasons one does not find them interesting or relevant. It would seem to me that not finding the fundamental propositions of the gospel regarding the nature and meaning of existence and our mortal experience of any interest or relevance is, itself, a clear statement of value judgment as well as a clear intellectual positioning upon those subjects that both, by definition, would place one in an apostate situation regarding those truth claims (as the details of gospel belief are inextricably linked with the core metaphysical propositions).

Namely, I vehemently disagree with the Church’s stance on Same-sex Marriage and I have made my views public on several occasions.

No single criticism of Church social and moral views could be more exemplary of open hostility ( an open condition of apostasy, in other language), than this. Again, that position of homosexual marriage is inextricably linked to the Church fundamental view of sexual morality and the purpose and place of human sexuality within the mortal context, and these understandings are themselves inextricably linked to the gospel''s fundamental truth claims.

Most of my criticism of the Church’s stance came right after the Proposition 8 fallout in 2008. I have many close gay and lesbian friends and one, in particular, who’s Mormon family disowned him after he “came out” in 2008.

This is interesting in and of itself, as I do not have many such friends, nor does anyone I know. What we could have here is yet another example of running to the Great and Spacious Building when the finger pointing and mocking from the cool people becomes to great a perceived burden, no? There are welcoming arms in that building for one who sees the error of his ways and comes to hold the "politically correct" positions.

I want to stress that this is not typical of Mormon families. Most Mormon families with gay or lesbian members struggle with it, but in the end they ultimately accept their son/daughter/sibling despite the fact that Mormon doctrine is clearly opposed to homosexuality.

I have no idea what Seth knows or does not know about "most Mormon families with gay or lesbian members", but suffice it to say that, with exclusive homosexual orientation existing at about 3% of the population, its presence in LDS families could not be more than this, making the phenomena exceeding rare.

A close family member came out as homosexual about ten years ago, and then later left it behind. In no case was he ever not accepted as a family member. Nor at any time did our faith in and testimony of the Church's teachings of eternal principles on this matter waver.

My open criticism of this policy came as a result of my personal relationships with friends who were deeply hurt by this particular Church position.

Woe, the scriptures tell us, to all who are, in the end, "overcome of the world".

Having said that, I become extremely frustrated when people try and label Mormons as “homophobic” or “bigots” etc… Its just not that simple. My mother, for example, absolutely adores my gay friend Devan but she supports the Church in its policy. This is not bigotry.

No, it isn't

The other Church policy I have been openly critical of is the one-year waiting period required to receive what is known as a temple sealing if they chose to have a civil ceremony first. I understand the origins and intent of the policy but at this point in time I feel it does more harm than good. Additionally, it only applies in the United States (and perhaps Canada). Most countries require a civil wedding ceremony. In those countries the Church does not require a waiting period. To me the current policy is antiquated and counter-productive. I would not be surprised to see this policy change at some point in the next 5-10 years.

This is no surprise for someone who does not take the core metaphysical claims of the Church seriously, as without this, even a rudimentary understanding of the deep importance and sacredness of the Temple is not even approachable.

Am I an apostate? My own personal views are rather heterodox and some things I enjoy (in terms of the Word of Wisdom etc…) are certainly heteroprax but I think it is completely inappropriate to call me an apostate. I love attending Church and participating in Church activities. Simply put, I like being a Mormon and as I’ve stated above, Mormon truth-claims are really not all that important to me. Serving within my Mormon community is what matters.

One can see Sethpayne playing psychological and rhetorical games with both himself and his readers now.

Granted, I am not trying to defend the historicity of the Book of Mormon or the authenticity of the Book of Abraham — I believe both to be apocryphal. However, I will defend Mormonism against offensive and absurd attacks.

In other words, as Sethayane here makes quite clear, what he defends when he does defend is not the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, or the restored Kingdom of God on earth (the Church), but his tribe; his people and his culture.

Belief that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are "apocryphal" places Sethpyane, of course, in a position of essentially being a non-member of the Church in all but name. This raises problems for the individual (participating in the religious services and practices of a religious system that is, as to fundamental truth claims, a bald fraud) but perhaps not for others around him, if as sethpyane claims, he is not an evangelist of unfaith. But is this logically plausible?

Can one who believes both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham - both foundational sources of core truth claims - are fictitious creations, possible avoid, in any discussion with faithful lDS, making those beliefs explicit, and the reasons for holding them? Might this not have an effect on others, especially those spiritually weak or immature and who are susceptible to intellectual/psycholgical doubt and instability?

Most "believing" LDS would think such people need precisely the opposite.

Droopy,

Three things:

1) I have never made it a secret that I am not a literal believer in the metaphysical truth-claims of Mormonism. My Bishop knows it, my family knows it, and my EQP knows it. In other words, I have never claimed to be a "believer" in the sense that you are a "believer." Certainly, our beliefs differ. I'm a bit confused at your attempt to "out" me as a non-believer by quoting from my blog.

2) Saying that I don't view the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham as plausible history is not a "rejection" -- it is simply my opinion. You can't prove the Book of Mormon isn't history just as you can't prove that it is.

3) If my membership in the Church is a concern to you please feel free to contact my Bishop, my EQP, and the families I home teach. I have provided this information previously in the thread but for convenience I will repeat it here:

Stake: Manhattan, NY
Ward: Morningside Heights Ward
Bishop: John Moe

PM me if you would like to speak with my Mother, or any of my siblings. I will happily provide you with contact information so you can warn them of the wolf within their family.

Seth