Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_DonBradley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:58 am

Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _DonBradley »

Hi Again Droopy,

It's part of the definition of not believing in Mormonism that one would not believe in the literal reality of Joseph Smith's experiences with God the Father, the resurrected Moroni, and various resurrected biblical figures. If Jack were to answer your questions, this would not prove that she is anti-Mormon, only that she is not Mormon, something on which I believe all are presently agreed.

Note also that criticism of, and even an attack against, a particular Mormon doesn't make someone anti-Mormon. If it did, many LDS apologists on the boards would be anti-Mormon for their screed against their fellow LDS who propound the Heartland geography model, like Rodney Meldrum; and anyone who campaigns against Romney or Huntsman would also be "anti-Mormon" even if their opposition to these candidates had nothing to do with their religion.

If you want to think that Jack's interaction with Will, who is LDS, overrides in importance her relationship with her husband, who is also LDS, or her cordial relationships with a great number of other Latter-day Saints, you are welcome to think that. But opposition to a particular Mormon seems an exceedingly strange basis for labeling someone "anti-Mormon" on the whole.

Let Jack alone and spend your time jousting with actual anti-Mormons.

Cheers,

Don
DISCLAIMER: Life is short. So I'm here to discuss scholarship, not apologetic-critical debate.
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Blixa »

I can not thank you enough for the timeliness of your response, Don. Have just recently---in fact, moments ago---endured an attack in which my scholarly interests and political positions were taken to be not just indicative of mere anti-Mormonism, but in fact commensurate with complete lack of intelligence and human decency has left me non-plussed to say the least. A defense of Mormonism that trades in quips about "nipple clamps" and "butt plugs" would make T.B.H Stenhouse blush and probably send Jedediah Grant to an earlier grave.

Perhaps it is too early to hope for a seismic shift in Mormon history scholarship. I think I see a few camps on the horizon, I pray they are not mirages. The blustering maneuvers of Mopologetics 1.0., grounded as they've always been in sheer spitefulness, may soon be buried in the geological strata of new formations of history. Let's hope all that rich topsoil yields bushels of cross-pollinated and nourishing produce.
Last edited by Ahoody on Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Droopy »

Blixa wrote:I can not thank you enough for the timeliness of your response, Don. Have just recently---in fact, moments ago---endured an attack in which my scholarly interests and political positions were taken to be not just indicative of mere anti-Mormonism, but in fact commensurate with complete lack of intelligence and human decency has left me non-plussed to say the least.


Exactly and precisely what you initiated against me and the way you have treated me in every exchange we've ever had.

Stop your sniveling. And, as I recall, its against the board rules here to whine about what was said in the chat room, as no evidence remains of the claims made.

A defense of Mormonism that trades in quips about "nipple clamps" and "butt plugs" would make T.B.H Stenhouse blush and probably send Jedediah Grant to an earlier grave.


Scratch initiated the vulgar discourse about the butt plugs, to bait me into a free for all with him, while others were posting photos of gay pornography and temple garments. Your juvenile glee at all this was noted, as was that of others. I did not ask him. I responded by asking him about his nipple clamps. Tsk, tsk. Cut and thrust. You appear to be of the same six legged species as Scratch, and perhaps living under the same baseboard.

Can't resist, can you? Yes, all your "intellect."

Worthless, in the end.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Droopy »

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13285&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=msjack

While I take Don's perspectives on MsJack in the spirit in which they are given, the above thread can be pursued for some context and background to my own views.

Several things stand out here. The first is that I am not at all the only one to have developed precisely the same perceptions of both her views of the Church and her general demeanor toward those who defend it.

Secondly, a pattern emerges in this thread, which will certainly be present in others, in which Jack is confronted with her own words and arguments, backpedals leaving a trail of smarmy ad hominems in her wake, all the while crying foul and attempting to sit of the fence above the fray as an objective observer, taking strong positions at the outset, but then interpreting those positions as nothing more than bland, disinterested asides when challenged.

One poster here even mentions here feminist inclinations, and their relevance to here criticism of the Church. Her response to me when I noticed this a while back? To deny any feminist ideology in her personal philosophy. Everyone who disagrees with her is wrong about disagreeing with her. Nothing she says is ever actually what she was perceived to have said. The pattern seems to repeat. Take a strong position in the beginning from a specific perspective, and then, when challenged, retreat to a position of vague disinterest without a clear ideological or philosophical base.

I've called her "anti-Mormon." bc asserts she is an "intellectually dishonest Tannerite." Yahoo bot implies a leaning toward "feminist theology." Yahoo bot again speaks of her "blogging amongst all your feminist ex-LDS apostates." In each case, she will deny each and every perception, and yet, in each case, multiple people have come to the same conclusions about her own philosophcial leanings. Clearly, at some point along the line, its going to dawn on one that perhaps she is creating these impressions herself.

Everyone who deals with her seems to come away with the same impression: intellectual integrity issues, hostile to the LDS religion, feminist, secularistic, and comfortable with the general disaffected ex-Mormon perspective common in this forum. She denies each charge, and calls you an idiot, or stupid, for expressing them.

Fly, meet ointment?
Last edited by Guest on Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Droopy »

Jack's classic feminist approach to criticism of the Church can be seen here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12771&p=317900&hilit=msjack#p317900

This is, of course, the same old proportional representation mentality seen within the secular world among the ideological feminist Left and the rest of the civil rights grievance culture. Much of it also displays a substantial lack of understanding of LDS doctrine and philosophy, not to mention appearing to be fairly overwrought (I've known many sister missionaries, in different wards. Loads of them. They're not as prevalent as males in the field, but then, without the egalitarian "proportional representation" mentality that seeks equality above quality, there is no reason to expect such).

When you talk like Naomi Wolf, one suspects similar ideological tendencies. When you deny them, but keep talking in the same way within the same intellectual categories, people begin to suspect you are playing a game.

But Jack is not a feminist, not a leftist, and not anti-Mormon.

Jack is the un-Mormon.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Droopy »

gf
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _MsJack »

Don ~ Thanks for everything. I've always known you were a class act.

Droopy ~ Your questions:

Droopy wrote:1.The First Vision.

It's possible that someone or something did appear to Joseph Smith in the grove. I don't believe it was God the Father & Jesus Christ telling Joseph Smith that all other Christian churches were wrong---I think that was added as Joseph Smith's theology and ecclesiology developed---but I'm not opposed to the idea that Joseph did really have some visionary experience there. The entirety of the 1832 account of the First Vision could have really happened and it would be completely consistent with my own theological worldview.

This doesn't have to do with the First Vision per se, but I've always liked what Paul Owen had to say about Joseph Smith:

Paul Owen wrote:I do believe that Joseph can be viewed as a prophet of sorts (something along the lines of Balaam in Numbers 22-24), who experienced a taste of the charismata, and who may have been used to speak a true word of rebuke upon a wordly, divisive church which was gripped by the spirit of revivalism. God used Joseph to speak to the churches, and to expose their shallow versions of the Christian religion… When the Church does not bear witness to its Catholicity, when the Faith becomes more of a mechanism of producing converts than maintaining the unity and identity of the visible body, God raises up men and movements to rebuke the worldly church. The Rechabites (Jer. 35) and the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) provide us with comparable models in which to understand God’s purpose in raising up Joseph Smith and the Mormons.

Sadly, the Web page where he originally said this is now defunct; it's cited at my friend aquinas's blog here.

Droopy wrote:2.The literal visit of Moroni to Joseph Smith and the physical reality of the gold plates.

I don't believe that it happened. I don't know whether Joseph Smith intentionally made it all up to deceive people, whether he made it all up because he honestly believed in the power of his message and the need to augment that message (i .e. "pious fraud), or had some kind of Beautiful Mind-style mental illness that made him think it was real. I'm pretty apathetic on the matter.

Droopy wrote:3.The personal visitation to Joseph Smith and others of physical, resurrected beings, such as Moses, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Peter, James, and John etc., to restore keys and ordinances.

I don't believe that it happened and I don't believe in "priesthood" in the sense that Mormons teach it. I think the accounts of his ordinations to priesthoods by resurrected beings were added years later to deal with challenges to his authority in the church. Even Richard Bushman has stated that "the late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication" (RSR 75). I imagine it's a pretty standard take on the matter among non-LDS historians.

Droopy wrote:4.The doctrine of preexistence.

I don't believe that it happened, although I don't think there's anything in the Bible that contradicts it. Kevin Barney's response to Chapter 3 of James Patrick Holding's The Mormon Defenders contains some work on non-LDS Christians who have taught preexistence.

Droopy wrote:The whole "misogyny" claim I consider to be nothing more than a libel, and a deeply tendentious, if not mendacious one at that.

Well, you're wrong on all counts. And the fact that I critiqued a single Latter-day Saint whose behavior I strenuously objected to (and believed to be very much out of harmony with the teachings of his church) does not make me an "anti-Mormon."

Droopy wrote:viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13285&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=msjack

While I take Don's perspectives on MsJack in the spirit in which they are given, the above thread can be pursued for some context and background to my own views.

Pretty disingenuous of you to cite this thread without citing my thorough and in-depth response, Droopy.

I don't deny having feminist inclinations or critiquing the way the LDS church treats women, just as I critique the way many evangelical denominations treat women. I have a daughter who is a member of record with the church and attends the LDS church with her father at least twice a month. I think I would be an irresponsible parent if I didn't keep tabs on what others are teaching my daughter about her identity. None of that makes me "anti-Mormon" though, or else I would also be "anti-evangelical." What it makes me is "anti-patriarchy," or maybe "anti-male-privilege."

I have repeatedly clarified that a good number of feminists wouldn't think I am a feminist because I'm pro-life. I don't have a problem identifying as a feminist, but many of them would object.

Droopy wrote:Yahoo bot implies a leaning toward "feminist theology." Yahoo bot again speaks of her "blogging amongst all your feminist ex-LDS apostates."

Yahoo Bot also agreed with me about William Schryver:

Yahoo Bot wrote:I whole-heartedly endorse Ms. Jack's expose of Mr. Will Shyrver, and that fellow ought to have no place in decent Christian society. But that's just my opinion.

viewtopic.php?p=465377#p465377

I guess he's an anti-Mormon in your book, too?

Droopy wrote:But Jack is not a feminist, not a leftist, and not anti-Mormon.

Yeah, that's right Droopy, I'm a "leftist." The kind of "leftist" who can count the number of Democrats that she's voted for on one hand.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (?????????) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _MsJack »

Missed this post.

Droopy wrote:Joseph Smith may have had sexual relations with some of his plural wives. That, after all, is one primary purpose of that institution. The utter lack of known descendants of any such relations militates against hasty inferences, however. But even if he did, these were, by definition, so long as lawfully performed under the mediation of the Melchizedek priesthood, non-adulterous by definition.

When someone does not personally believe in what Mormons call "the Melchizedek priesthood," where does that leave Joseph Smith's "marriages," Droopy? What "law" were they performed by then?

Droopy wrote:Legitimate plural marriage is biblical doctrine, and well attested in the OT.

I agree. So is slavery.

Droopy wrote:To accuse Joseph of adultery requires both a deep misunderstanding of core LDS doctrine regarding the various facets of eternal marriage as well as what could only be understood as a fundamentally apostate or certainly apostate-like intellectual/psychological orientation that places one's own personal biases/prejudices and perspectives above revelation, both ancient and modern.

Seems to me it would merely require rejection of LDS principles. It has nothing to do with misunderstanding them.

Droopy wrote:Joseph was no adulterer so long as he was called and ordained to the practice of plural marriage by legitimate priesthood authority.

A proposition that I and all other non-members reject. It really just sounds like you're saying that all people who don't believe in Mormonism and form non-faith-promoting opinions on its claims are anti-Mormons, Droopy.

Droopy wrote:Getting rid of Joseph's ministerial legitimacy has always been, of course, pivotal to subverting the entire basis of the Church's claims to divine legitimacy as an institution.

I don't believe in the church's claims to "divine legitimacy as an institution." There's no need to subvert anything.

Droopy wrote:I'd be pleased to hear your pro-Mormon perspectives of the Book of Abraham, Jack.

I don't have "pro-Mormon" perspectives on the Book of Abraham any more than I have "anti-Mormon" perspectives on the Book of Abraham. Its English text is a 19th century religious document created by the founder of Mormonism who believed he was literally translating 1st century BC Egyptian papyri. Later Egyptologists have determined this papyri to be ordinary Egyptian funerary documents having nothing to do with Abraham. How Mormons reconcile point A with point B is really none of my concern, but points A and B are generally acknowledged as facts, even by Mormon apologists.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (?????????) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
_Will Schryver
_Emeritus
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:12 pm

Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Will Schryver »

As foreseen:
Instead of the desired objective of, once and for all, impugning me such that (in fulfillment of your fondest dreams) I would be permanently repudiated by powers you imagine sufficient to silence me, all you have done is permanently cover with disrepute your entire propagandistic enterprise.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.


Just as Trevor’s “Silence Schryver” gambit ultimately failed in its objective and only served to dispel the mirage of his own false reputation, so now has MsJack chosen to break herself on the same stone. Of course, maybe it’s for the best. Now she can, deprived of any further pretensions to moral superiority, shamelessly join the rest of the GSTP women in the infamous “Goddess Suite” for a raucous session of suggestive excess.

Original post here.

The lines of demarcation have been waxing wider and wider in the past few years. I like to believe that I have played some small role in effecting an enhanced sense of “enemy recognition” among those whose faith remains firm even as ostensibly friendly forces seek to undermine it. The alluring intellectual sophistries of the so-called “progressive” faction of the LDS intelligentsia (with which MsJack and others like her are consciously confederate, by design) are increasing in popularity among those who imagine themselves the vanguard of 21st century Mormon thought, and its savior from apologetic ruin.

In the long run, they will fail in their enterprise, and be despised by those who now flatter them.

When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not.
I thought myself the wiser to have viewed the evidence left of such a great demise. I followed every step. But the only thing I ever learned before the journey's end was there was nothing there to learn, only something to forget.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Buffalo »

Will Schryver wrote:The lines of demarcation have been waxing wider and wider in the past few years. I like to believe that I have played some small role in effecting an enhanced sense of “enemy recognition” among those whose faith remains firm even as ostensibly friendly forces seek to undermine it. The alluring intellectual sophistries of the so-called “progressive” faction of the LDS intelligentsia (with which MsJack and others like her are consciously confederate, by design) are increasing in popularity among those who imagine themselves the vanguard of 21st century Mormon thought, and its savior from apologetic ruin.

In the long run, they will fail in their enterprise, and be despised by those who now flatter them.


Image
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
Post Reply