Calling & Election made sure: The Case of William Schryver

[_Kishkumen]

So not only did he say that well before his 1,000th post, but he mentions that he's said it before, ostensibly before May 9th, 2007. Mr. Schryver doesn't hit 1,000 posts until August 3rd, 2009. That's when he first mentions getting his Certificate of Godhood.

Thanks, Doc Cam.

[_DrW]

No. All things considered, I still hold to the view that your malice, spite, and complete lack of scruple is the sole motivation for your continued attempt to push this pack of lies.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran,

Assuming that you are a parent and love your children and want the best for them, let me ask you this:

If you had the opportunity to ensure that your children would inherit the Celestial Kingdom, given that you could not be there with them in any case, would you deny them that opportunity?

A simple Yes or No will do.

[_Pahoran]

I am willing to discuss the "Gino" and "Christine" event if it is split from this thread. I believe that Pahoran is deliberately trying to divert this thread, and I think this thread should stay on topic as much as possible.

You believe wrong.

And given your dogged attempts to derail the MDDB thread linked herein, your sudden concern for thread integrity seems -- what's your favourite word? That's right: "hypocritical."

However, to set the proper example, I've started the new thread.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Pahoran,

Assuming that you are a parent and love your children and want the best for them, let me ask you this:

If you had the opportunity to ensure that your children would inherit the Celestial Kingdom, given that you could not be there with them in any case, would you deny them that opportunity?

A simple Yes or No will do.

And now a loaded question. How typical of what passes for an honest discussion in your mind.

• The notion that any living person can be correctly certain that they will never be eligible to inherit the Celestial Kingdom is in all respects contrary to LDS doctrine. The opportunity for repentance is always before us, and "Christine Jonsen" would have understood that, had her mind been working properly.
  
  She would also have understood that most of what had gone wrong in her life was actually the fault of others.
• Given that I want what is best for my children, I would want to give them the best opportunity for personal growth in the years of their mortal probation. Just like every other normally functioning LDS parent.

And now, in deference to Beastie's request, I must insist that we take this discussion to the new thread I have created for this purpose.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Kevin Graham]

Why are we talking about this Geno/Christine crap as if it has anything to do with this topic?

What amazes me is every time someone like Pahoran, Nomad, wade or why me tries to defend Will, they argue about stuff being taken out of context on a single point while ignoring all the other stuff, or water it down to mere "trash talk", making it sound more innocuous than it really is. His wife focused only on the B word and rationalized that it was no big deal since all men have, at some point, used that term when arguing with a female. Then she took off as if her case was proven, before ever dealing with the more offensive material. But the funny thing is that while we end up debating these rather moot points, we start digging through the past and uncover even MORE incriminating comments from Will. Take a look at this link Kish provided. Will said:

I’m really sorry to disappoint you, but like I told you before, I’ve already got my calling and election made sure, so I really can’t go wrong from here on out unless I shed some innocent blood – and we both know I ain’t gonna find any of that here.

How is this not saying he believes he could literally shed our blood, and it would be fine with God?

I don't know what Pahorn is so upset about. Will can always get published at FAIR, or he can publish himself. Of course, FAIR would have to answer to criticism for publishing the guy that was rejected by NAMI for being too much of a vulgar figure.

[_Pahoran]

Take a look at this link Kish provided. Will said:

I’m really sorry to disappoint you, but like I told you before, I’ve already got my calling and election made sure, so I really can’t go wrong from here on out unless I shed some innocent blood – and we both know I ain’t gonna find any of that here.

How is this not saying he believes he could literally shed our blood, and it would be fine with God?

Thank you, Kevin. You see, either both the "calling and election" and the "shed innocent blood" remarks are literal, or neither of them are.

And since he denied the existence of "innocent blood" in connection with something he said, and not in connection with anyone he killed, it follows that neither of them are.

I don't know what Pahorn is so upset about. Will can always get published at FAIR, or he can publish himself. Of course, FAIR would have to answer to criticism for publishing the guy that was rejected by NAMI for being too much of a vulgar figure.

And that would be milked for all it is worth by people who would have not a nanonsecond's hesitation in bleating that Mormon apologists only ever rely upon ad hominem arguments.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Pahoran,

You said:

Thank you, Kevin. You see, either both the "calling and election" and the "shed innocent blood" remarks are literal, or neither of them are.

Pahoran

To which a thorough rebuttal has already been supplied:

Hello,

Mr. Schryver first mentions his Calling and Election Made Sure on May 9th, 2007 to The Dude.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1819&p=38076&hilit=calling+and+election#p38076

However, I’m really sorry to disappoint you, but like I told you before, I’ve already got my calling and election made sure, so I really can’t go wrong from here on out unless I shed some innocent blood – and we both know I ain’t gonna find any of that here.

So not only did he say that well before his 1,000th post, but he mentions that he's said it before, ostensibly before May 9th, 2007. Mr. Schryver doesn't hit 1,000 posts until August 3rd, 2009. That's when he first mentions getting his Certificate of Godhood.

V/R
Dr. CamNCforMe

Very Respectfully,

Dr. Cam

[_Pahoran]

Hello Mr. Pahoran,

You said:

Thank you, Kevin. You see, either both the "calling and election" and the "shed innocent blood" remarks are literal, or neither of them are.

Pahoran

To which a thorough rebuttal has already been supplied:

Hello,

Mr. Schryver first mentions his Calling and Election Made Sure on May 9th, 2007 to The Dude.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... ion#p38076

So not only did he say that well before his 1,000th post, but he mentions that he's said it before, ostensibly before May 9th, 2007. Mr. Schryver doesn't hit 1,000 posts until August 3rd, 2009. That's when he first mentions getting his Certificate of Godhood.

V/R
Dr. CamNCforMe

Very Respectfully,

Dr. Cam

But that doesn't rebut anything, Cam.

It doesn't matter how many times he says it, or how many posts he's got at the time; either both the C&E and the bloodshed are literal, or neither of them are.

The context makes it impossible for the bloodshed to be literal. Therefore, the C&E cannot be either.

And besides, I realise that neither you, nor anyone else who salivates over this statement actually knows anything about LDS life and teaching, but if any of you did, you'd know that anyone who has had their calling and election made sure is not at liberty to tell anyone else about it. And they have no more desire to do evil, but to do good continually. So of course the last thing they'd be doing is listing all the sins they can get away with.

The remark was so obviously a joke that anyone who takes it seriously must be quite astonishingly obtuse.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

And besides, I realise that neither you, nor anyone else who salivates over this statement actually knows anything about LDS life and teaching, but if any of you did, you'd know that anyone who has had their calling and election made sure is not at liberty to tell anyone else about it.

Hello Mr. Pahoran,

Would you mind providing a reference for that assertion? You may also want to put Mr. McConkie on notice, too.

The remark was so obviously a joke that anyone who takes it seriously must be quite astonishingly obtuse.

Regards,
Pahoran

That's not the point. You asserted that it was a joke connected to his 1,000th post. I'm simply pointing out he said it well before his "Godhood" status was granted here.

I do not believe, reading the statement directed toward The Dude, that Mr. Schryver was joking about his CaEMS. The latter statement about shedding blood was clearly a joke.

Very Respectfully,

Dr. Cameron

[_Buffalo]

Had she been a Catholic, you complete dunce, her children would have been baptised as BABIES!