Calling & Election made sure: The Case of William Schryver

[_Pahoran]

Regarding Beastie's malicious false accusation that Pahoran used a horrific tragedy caused by mental illness to score a polemic point, see this old thread here:

viewtopic.php?p=250630#p250630

There. Fixed it for you.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Kevin Graham]

As I said before, Pahoran's only argument relies on Will's say so. Will told him this isn't what he meant, so Pahoran thinks he can waltz in here with this as his only ammunition, and mount a case with rhetoric.

Good grief. There is a reason Pahoran will not address the fact that William has a documented history of denying stuff only because the thinks he can get away with lying about it.

Again, when we complained that he called Emma Smith a "B", he vehemently denied it, calling us all liars. But he denied it because he thought the evidence was deleted by a mod. When the link was provided, proving he said this, he had no choice but to pull his foot from his mouth and admit saying it. This fact alone makes all of Will's subsequent denials worthless. He has no credibility. And the only reason he is denying his intention with the "C&E" remark is because he knows the spotlight on this matter has extended beyond the immediate audience of this forum. He knows now that the folks at NAMI, MAD, and even his own family, are watching these threads with interest. Making such a public statement carries with it serious ecclesiastical repercussions, so he is now in the process of covering his tracks by relying on the tribe's loyal premise that apostates are always liars.

What Droopy and Pahoran won't address is the fact that William said his calling and election had been made sure long before he reached Godhood status.

[_Jersey Girl]

Kevin,

What do you think WS was referring to in the first, most recent, incidence of his use of the phrase?

What do you think WS was referring to in the second, earliest and only other, incidence of his use of the phrase?

[_Jersey Girl]

Kevin,

Do you think WS was not referring to posting status in both cases?

[_Jersey Girl]

Kevin,

Excuse the near duplicate post questions. I didn't think the first post went up and I'm not inclined to delete either of them.

You wrote

As I said before, Pahoran's only argument relies on Will's say so. Will told him this isn't what he meant, so Pahoran thinks he can waltz in here with this as his only ammunition, and mount a case with rhetoric.

What is Pahoran's motivation for doing this? As you see it...

[_Pahoran]

As I said before, Pahoran's only argument relies on Will's say so. Will told him this isn't what he meant,

So everyone who hates Will less than Hitler hated Jews will accept the rather non-startling fact that Will is the sole world authority on what is in Will's mind at any time.

And will accordingly accept that while they are free to speculate about what he might have meant by anything he wrote, his actual knowledge is definitive.

But that only applies to people who hate Will less than Hitler hated Jews. Clearly that is a set that does not include you.

Good grief. There is a reason Pahoran will not address the fact that William has a documented history of denying stuff only because the thinks he can get away with lying about it.

And the reason is that I'm not about to chase every red herring you choose to drag across my path.

Snip red herring.

What Droopy and Pahoran won't address is the fact that William said his calling and election had been made sure long before he reached Godhood status.

And I can now tell you why.

There was, it seems, a time when Will and The Dude got on rather well. (Rather better than The Dude and I did, in fact.) During those halcyon days, there was a kind of running joke between the two of them about whether or not one could drink beer if they had their C&E. The 2007 remark was in reference to that.

Lest there be any doubt: Will has explicitly, and seriously, denied that he has his Calling and Election Made Sure.

In which case, no honest critic of Will -- if such there be -- is going to assert that he actually claims it.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Kevin Graham]

So everyone who hates Will less than Hitler hated Jews will accept the rather non-startling fact that Will is the sole world authority on what is in Will's mind at any time.

Whether Will is the ultimate authority on what is in his mind is irrelevant. What is at stake here is credibility. It isn't whether Will knows the truth, but rather if he is willing to tell the truth. Surely you can distinguish between the two, right? My point is Will has no credibility here or anywhere else, and he has a history of denying stuff until evidence if presented to the contrary.

This proves one or two things:

1) Will is willing to lie about things he has said.

2) Will has a very weak memory of the things he has said.

One or both has to be true, period. This makes Will a weak witness. Not because he doesn't know what he meant, but because he refuses to tell the truth, whether he knows it or not.

And the reason is that I'm not about to chase every red herring you choose to drag across my path.

Don't use big words you do not understand. Red herring! You mean to tell me that Will's recent history as a liar has no bearing on his credibility? Far from being a red herring, it is gemane to the issue. This cuts straight to the heart of the matter. You want it to be a simple case of he said (Will), she said (Harmony), and then you bear your testimony about how you'll never believe harmony over Will. So you raised the issue of credibility but do not have the intellectual fortitude to stick with it when the evidence takes a drastic turn against your presuppositions. Why? Because I just proved this makes you a fool, since Will doesn't only have a documented history of lying, but he has a recent history of lying about the same exact thing that is being disputed right now; lying about what he has said in the past.

Lest there be any doubt: Will has explicitly, and seriously, denied that he has his Calling and Election Made Sure.

But he never denied it until recently, when he really had no other choice but to deny it. Will has no integrity. He lies left and right, shamelessly. I have documented these lies in several threads and no one has been able to explain them away, Will included. It is why he places me on ignore and it is why people like you tend to ignore my responses as well. It is because you have no valid response. When i dare you to respond you think you can get away with a dismissive "red herring" assertion. Nice try, but the evidence is simply too overwhelming that your client, William Schryver, is a liar who cannot be trusted. His testimony would be thrown out of court as worthless and you know it. The fact that only a few anonymous posters rush to his defense, is telling. For every apologist upset about Will's current plight, there are three others who are glad it turned out the way it did. Bottom line is you're too ignorant of WIll's history on this forum. You're relaying the garbage he wants you to say while he refuses to tell you the reasons why so many LDS scholars and apologists have chosen to distance themselves from him.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Well, at least Mr. Pahoran continues unabated in his quest to sink to new depths. Business as usual...

It's the End of the World as we know it, and I feel fine...

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

2007

However, I’m really sorry to disappoint you, but like I told you before, I’ve already got my calling and election made sure...

Not only did Mr. Schryver say this waaaaay back in 2007, but he himself said he said it before that date. Mr. Schryver has been throwing this little gem around for years.

V/R
Dr. Cameron, NC

[_3sheets2thewind]

Droopy and Pahoran, it is a simple question.

Do you approve of sacred Temple ordinances being used as the butt of jokes?