My Defense of Will Schryver

Tator · **Joined:** Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:15 am **Posts:** 640

Enuma Elish wrote:

These people, as you refer to them, are still God's children, Will, every single one of them. No matter what criticisms they raise, these people deserve to be treated with kindness by one attempting to defend the Gospel of Christ. If you cannot do this, I would beg you, to simply disengage.

David, I appreciate your sincerity, truly I do. While we are on opposite ends of the theological debate and I feel you are sincerely wrong and verse visa, I respect you. I respect you because you deserve it because of your actions and behavior. I wish other TBMs were the same. I also wish that, I as a critic, I would behave and have similar actions toward TBM apologists.....I try and have been both successful and unsuccessful. I am doing better in that regard as more time passes. Thanx for your example.

Kevin Graham · **Joined:** Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm **Posts:** 4870

Quote:

David also needs to chastize fairly. The critics can be just as abusive and yet, get a free pass from other critics

I challenge you to provide a single example of anyone being "just as abusive" on this forum. There are dozens of critics posting here, and they've been posting for years. Surely you can come up with some examples where we called LDS women, whores, right?

Quote:

now apologists we need to understand their pain and sorrow.

I understand it perfectly well because like many here, I used to be an apologist too. The pain and sorrow comes from having to defend the indefensible.

Expecting David to "chastize the critics equally" presupposes that we're equally guilty. You haven't shown that this is true. William lumps us all together as an apostate group. He doesn't discriminate between Trevor or Eric. To him, we're all sinners who deserve his wrath, simply because we are apostates. Our mannerisms, no matter how cordial or polite, mean nothing to him. The only thing that matters to him is that we're among "these people."

David has every right to be pissed off at William because William is supposed to be acting as an apologist. He effectively damages apologetic agendas and gives the whole enterprise a bad name. As an apologist, I'd be pissed to, and I'd feel compelled to denounce him the same way the Church denounces those practicing polygamy. It doesn't want people to think those people are products of the Church, and for good reason.

Will employs guilt by association to anyone, believer and critic alike, who regularly posts here with an open mind. But you have a problem when David supposes, understandably, that critics might do the same thing by associating LDS apologetics, and the LDS Church itself, with Will's disgusting antics.

Tator · **Joined:** Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:15 am **Posts:** 640

why me wrote:

You make me want to become a critic, where I can be very aggressive and bully the apologist, and get a wonderful kind response from you. And then, go to another apologist, say very unkind things about him or her personally, and receive nothing but kindness in return. And if I do happen to get abused in turn by the apologist, have you scold the apologist for being unkind to me. It is a win win for me.

Most of the time, the critic is not responding from a position of pain but from a position of aggression. No one and I mean no one has the right to abuse another regardless of the pain they are in or the misery of their lives. We all experience unfairness, pain and misery because we are human beings. But really david, you seem to give the critic a clean run for being abusive.

Why me, you are by far the most pathetic and clueless poster this thing called the internet has ever seen. David, has the dignity to call Will out on his behavior and antics and it is abusive to you????? I hope he would do the same to me if I deserved it. He shows far more integrity, honesty, fairness and Christ like love than you or DCP and many others can even comprehend. Maybe you could read the book of Timothy and you might see that David is treating Will very correctly.

You're giving me that flu-ish feeling again.

why me · **Joined:** Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:19 pm **Posts:** 7904

Tator wrote:

Why me, you are by far the most pathetic and clueless poster this thing called the internet has ever seen. David, has the dignity to call Will out on his behavior and antics and it is abusive to you????? I hope he would do the same to me if I deserved it. He shows far more integrity, honesty, fairness and Christ like love than you or DCP and many others can even comprehend. Maybe you could read the book of Timothy and you might see that David is treating Will very correctly.

You're giving me that flu-ish feeling again.

My case in point in critic bi-polarism. Compare this post above with Tator's post to david (also above). Thank you tator for making my point. (pathetic, clueless, flu-ish feeling...)

why me · **Joined:** Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:19 pm **Posts:** 7904

quaker wrote:

There is one difference I notice between the content of Will's posts and the content of the large majority of the content on this board, and other (ex)LDS themed boards.

Will speaks badly to the people he is engaging while most of the 'acts' on here speak badly about people from whom they are far removed. Another issue is that Will lacks anonymity while the majority of the other liars, deceivers, offenders and bad-mouthed characters are mere sock puppets. No one beats them up because they know they can't be hurt.

You have hit the nail on the head. Thank you...

why me · **Joined:** Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:19 pm **Posts:** 7904

Kevin Graham wrote:

Why me you should be ashamed of yourself. Have you not read a DAMN WORD on this thread? There is no way in Hell you can make Will out to be a victim. He never once claimed to be a victim, nor did he claim his disgusting comments were ever in response to attacks on him. He attacks because quite simply, we are different. We are just "these people" and according to his William Law approach, we can only be on one side. God's side, or the Devil's. And of course, by God's side, he means his side.

For you to come here and pretend Will is just a great guy who sometimes gets carried away in the moment after being unfairly attacked, you're an absolute fool who cares nothing about truth. You only care about allegiances, which is what Will is most concerned with too. Again, for him this is a war. You have to pick a side. Those with integrity will distance themselves from this disgusting character named William Schryver. Unfortunately you're not among that group of people, but this is hardly surprising for those using pseudonyms.

I am speaking about fairness. Good ol' Polygamy Porter has called me many unkind things and yet he has never been reprimanded by any critic on this board. Lets face it, I have been called many negative things on this board without a single condemnation of the critic making the post. Where was David when I needed him.

What you don't seem to get is that some of the critics on this board are not nice in their posts. But I do not see you anywhere reprimanding these critics. And that was my point.

beastie · **Joined:** Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm **Posts:** 12420

why me wrote:

My case in point in critic bi-polarism. Compare this post above with Tator's post to david (also above). Thank you tator for making my point. (pathetic, clueless, flu-ish feeling...)

You have no sense of proportion. Using the words "pathetic, clueless, flu-ish feeling" are hardly the equivalent of telling a woman, in response to her objecting to your definition of "Lamanite", that she's old, with varicose veins, and ugly, insinuating that Brent shared Hofmann's guilt in some way and then telling the woman who objected to that foul statement that he doesn't want to "see her bathe" because she's old, calling a woman a whore, and telling a man who just shared a story about his daughter that he'll soon be divorced.

That you cannot differentiate between the degrees of these statements versus tator's tells us everything we need to know about why you're defending Will. You have no sound judgment.

Kevin Graham · **Joined:** Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm **Posts:** 4870

why me wrote:

quaker wrote:

There is one difference I notice between the content of Will's posts and the content of the large majority of the content on this board, and other (ex)LDS themed boards.

Will speaks badly to the people he is engaging while most of the 'acts' on here speak badly about people from whom they are far removed. Another issue is that Will lacks anonymity while the majority of the other liars, deceivers, offenders and bad-mouthed characters are mere sock puppets. No one beats them up because they know they can't be hurt.

You have hit the nail on the head. Thank you...

I think it can be safely said that I am the poster who is most critical of Will Schryver, and I do not use a pseudonym. None of Schryver's defenders can illustrate how he is the victim of anything except his own ego. Will makes arguments, I refute said arguments, Will responds by attacking me and the entire forum. He never once responds to my detailed responses to his MAD posts. Not once. I've posted a slew of links to threads I started over the years, addressing key arguments Schryver has proposed in relation to the Book of Abraham. Never once does he even pretend to deal with the substance of my criticisms. Not once. All he ever does here is attack the crowd simply because they are, in his view, apostates who deserve to be cursed and sent to hell. What a charming fellow indeed.

Your attempts to downplay or justify Will's disgusting behavior is funny since only idiots using pseudonyms would do so. It would be embarrassing for the two of you if your friends, wives, or children were to come across this forum and find out what kind of person you were defending. So your complaint is ironic since the folks who give Will the hardest time, aren't hiding behind pseudonyms like you few people who try to support him.

Kevin Graham · **Joined:** Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm **Posts:** 4870

Quote:

I am speaking about fairness.

No you're not. You're only trying to justify Will's behavior by making silly excuses.

Quote:

Good ol' Polygamy Porter has called me many unkind things and yet he has never been reprimanded by any critic on this board.

So what? This forum doesn't represent a Church or any recognized organization. Virtually everyone on this forum has argued with everyone else on some subject or another. There is no monolithic philosophy that drives the group to agree with one another. I have argued with PP in the past and I know others have too, but the fact is I don't give a craop what he says because nothing he says could possibly be attached to me. But having said that, I doubt he has been as abusive as Will has towards the women here, and let's face it, there is something particularly creepy and revolting about a man who derides the women more than the men.

Polygamy Porter is just a pseudonym and he doesn't get much attention around here, so why the hell do you care what he says? Will is supposed to be the savior of Book of Abraham apologetics who is going to be published by a Church owned entity in the near future. There is every reason in the world to expect LDS members and especially apologists, to denounce Will Schryver's antics on this forum. He is an embarrassment to the Church, to apologetics, to his family and to himself.

Quote:

Lets face it, I have been called many negative things on this board without a single condemnation of the critic making the post. Where was David when I needed him.

Sometimes I think you must be 14 years old.

Quote:

What you don't seem to get is that some of the critics on this board are not nice in their posts.

True, but no one, from what I have witnessed, has crossed the lines William Schryver loves to play hop-scotch over.,

Quote:

But I do not see you anywhere reprimanding these critics. And that was my point.

It is a dumb point because I feel no reason to "reprimand" them since nothing PP says can be attached to me. And like I said, I see nothing in their posts that compares to what Will has said. And we don't belong to the same organization, especially one that proclaims to teach morality from God. But if anyone started deriding LDS WOMEN, then you can bet your ass you'll see me bitching them out. The fact that William has called women whores, and made fun of their aging bodily features, with nary a protest from the LDS participants, can only be viewed as silent support.

Bokovoy is an honorable guy, which is something you and Will are not. The real reason you're pissed is the same reason Will is pissed. It is because a fellow LDS apologist is shown to be far below the apostates on the morality/integrity ladder. Schryver is on a horse, but it is black. That isn't something that supposed to happen in your world view. Apostates are supposed to be the disgusting liars and offenders, right? Not the divinely ordained, priesthood holding apologists of the "one true Church."

beastie · **Joined:** Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm **Posts:** 12420

whyme,

If your main point is that critics are hypocrites because they didn't chastise PP the way they chastise Will, you ought not to be simultaneously chastising PP while giving Will a free pass.

IOW, don't act like a hypocrite while accusing others of hypocrisy.

Kevin Graham · **Joined:** Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm **Posts:** 4870

It makes no sense to me why Bokovoy would first need to wait for a critic to criticize other critics in order for it to be appropriate, or "fair", for him to criticize one of his own. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Does why me imagine some scoreboard somewhere, for when critics and apologists are reprimanded by their own?

Why me's argument is just dumb, plain and simple.

His argument sounds more like something my six year old daughter would cry about when her four year old brother got something she didn't. This isn't about fairness, it is about their frustration over the fact that one of their own is clearly a despicable person who makes the critics look really good by comparison.

Will Schryver · **Joined:** Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:12 pm **Posts:** 438

why me wrote:

to assume that Saint Francis never got angry or showed aggressive emotion would be false. He was very much a human being and if he did need to always suppress such human emotions which are inherently apart of our human nature I feel sorry for him.

Thanks for your attempts to defend me, why me. They have not gone unnoticed. I will only remark, in reference to your statement above, that you simply cannot assume that the things you are told by the people here are true. The apostate evangelist, from the very beginning, has excelled in no other endeavor quite as well as the propaganda campaign. Given a relatively isolated environment, they can turn black white, up down, right wrong, and wrong right.

You will be deceived if you accept "at face value" the words they appear to place in my mouth. Very little, if anything, I have ever said here was said "in the heat of the moment" so much as it has been a calculated reflection/deflection of things they themselves were saying. Therefore nothing can be viewed divorced from its original context. It has no meaning outside that context, and is therefore subject to misrepresentation--which is precisely the skill the apostate evangelist has mastered best.

Make no mistake, these are wolves we are dealing with here. The overwhelming majority of the DAMU* that posts here is not simply garden variety disaffected Latter-day Saints who are struggling with a faith issue, or wrestling with a troubling aspect of church history, but who otherwise have sincere desires to seek and follow the light of truth. Rather, this is an assemblage of some of the most vicious and determined enemies of the restored gospel; calculating individuals who have committed themselves to undermining, in any and every way they can, the faith of the Saints. They are committed to draining the dregs of the cup of apostate wrath: kicking against the pricks, persecuting the Saints, and fighting against God.

They gnash their teeth at me for the simple fact that I have always seen through their act, from the very beginning. I expose them for who they really are, and consequently they are filled with hate and rage towards me. On the other hand, there are people like David Bokovoy and Blair Hodges (among many others), who naïvely pat them on the head and simper, "Nice sheep, nice sheep." Such people are, for lack of a better term, fools--who, if they linger here long, will ultimately be taken down and devoured by the very pack of predators they have mistaken for friends.

So, please, why me, don't labor to apologize for me or to explain my motivations. With very few exceptions, what I have said and done here I have said and done consciously, deliberately, and with considerable forethought. I have only rarely attempted to correct their misrepresentations, and I have vowed to never do so again. I am content to permit them to "do their worst" in respect to me.

I know my friends; they know me; I know myself; I know the enemy--therefore in the end they cannot triumph in the battle thus joined. They will merely destroy themselves and all those who make the mistake of aligning with them.

* = "DAMU," for the uninitiated, is an acronym for "Disaffected Mormon Underground"

Yoda · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:59 am

Will Schryver wrote:

why me wrote:

to assume that Saint Francis never got angry or showed aggressive emotion would be false. He was very much a human being and if he did need to always suppress such human emotions which are inherently apart of our human nature I feel sorry for him.

Thanks for your attempts to defend me, why me. They have not gone unnoticed. I will only remark, in reference to your statement above, that you simply cannot assume that the things you are told by the people here are true. The apostate evangelist, from the very beginning, has excelled in no other endeavor quite as well as the propaganda campaign. Given a relatively isolated environment, they can turn black white, up down, right wrong, and wrong right.

You will be deceived if you accept "at face value" the words they appear to place in my mouth. Very little, if anything, I have ever said here was said "in the heat of the moment" so much as it has been a calculated reflection/deflection of things they themselves were saying. Therefore nothing can be viewed divorced from its original context. It has no meaning outside that context, and is therefore subject to misrepresentation--which is precisely the skill the apostate evangelist has mastered best.

Make no mistake, these are wolves we are dealing with here. The overwhelming majority of the DAMU* that posts here is not simply garden variety disaffected Latter-day Saints who are struggling with a faith issue, or wrestling with a troubling aspect of church history, but who otherwise have sincere desires to seek and follow the light of truth. Rather, this is an assemblage of some of the most vicious and determined enemies of the restored gospel; calculating individuals who have committed themselves to undermining, in any and every way they can, the faith of the Saints. They are committed to draining the dregs of the cup of apostate wrath: kicking against the pricks, persecuting the Saints, and fighting against God.

They gnash their teeth at me for the simple fact that I have always seen through their act, from the very beginning. I expose them for who they really are, and consequently they are filled with hate and rage towards me. On the other hand, there are people like David Bokovoy and Blair Hodges (among many others), who naïvely pat them on the head and simper, "Nice sheep, nice sheep." Such people are, for lack of a better term, fools--who, if they linger here long, will ultimately be taken down and devoured by the very pack of predators they have mistaken for friends.

So, please, why me, don't labor to apologize for me or to explain my motivations. With very few exceptions, what I have said and done here I have said and done consciously, deliberately, and with considerable forethought. I have only rarely attempted to correct their misrepresentations, and I have vowed to never do so again. I am content to permit them to "do their worst" in respect to me.

I know my friends; they know me; I know myself; I know the enemy--therefore in the end they cannot triumph in the battle thus joined. They will merely destroy themselves and all those who make the mistake of aligning with them.

* = "DAMU," for the uninitiated, is an acronym for "Disaffected Mormon Underground"

Will, your claims are, in a word, ridiculous. Your denials and claims that your quotes are untrue, or "taken out of context" says to me that you are, at the very least, embarrassed by them, and rightfully so. Those quotes were not taken out of context, Will. Everyone who posted quotes from you in this thread provided links to the threads they came from. The reader is able to view, whole cloth, what your context was with your comments. And David, an upstanding LDS Priesthood holder, future BYU professor and scholar, who you label now as a fool, apologized on your behalf.

I understand that you view some of the posters here as anti-Mormons, and, in a few cases, I would agree with you. Polygamy Porter has made no bones about the fact that he would like to see everyone here out of Mormonism. Thews has also made claims of this nature.

However, I will say, that even these posters, who you claim are "the enemy", I would hardly classify in that realm. Polygamy Porter is a devoted father to six children, a brilliant photographer and computer programmer. He suffered horrific child abuse by his LDS parents, and has overcome these trials. The abuse, in my opinion, has a lot to do with why he feels the way he does about the Church. He is, when you are able to really communicate with him, a very good man.

Thews had a daughter who died of cancer. He has actually defended you on the board, and was one of your most avid supporters when your daughter was hospitalized for cancer because he understood what you were going through. Someone who has that type of compassion can hardly be termed as evil simply because they have issues with the LDS Church.

I suppose that you would also categorize DCP as a fool? Dan has friendships with myself, Jason, Harmony, Runtu, Simon, Nehor, and Shades, and is posting fairly regularly in the Celestial Forum.

I wish you could take your blinders off and see us all as people rather than painting us all with such a broad stroke.

However, it is your loss.

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:37 am

Kevin Graham wrote:

Does why me imagine some scoreboard somewhere, for when critics and apologists are reprimanded by their own?

Clearly. His big concern is with the appearance of winning. For him, it is more important that the apologists appear to win than that they be honest or treat others well. In his mind, if a critic insults an apologist, and the apologist does not strike back in kind or worse, then he is doing a disservice to the cause. Of course, the truth of the matter is that the purported cause is threatened by the apologist's rancid behavior, but guys like why me have a very primitive, non-Christian desire to see people like Will draw blood. Unfortunately, what one actually sees is a negation of all the LDS people claim to stand for both in Will's online shenanigans and why me's obvious enjoyment of them.

Here is what Jesus reportedly said about striking back:

Matthew 5.38-39 wrote:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

That is as simple as it gets, and Will's behavior is clearly in defiance of Jesus' words, as he himself knows. Listen, Will has admitted to feeling compelled to win these exchanges. Obviously he understands that every time he goes down this path it is at the expense of his Christian walk. There really is no question about the right and wrong of this from a purely Christian perspective. The only question is whether Will will continue to justify his sin in the name of a higher cause or come to the wise realization that he is acting contrary to the divine decrees of his God.

consiglieri · **Joined:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm **Posts:** 2972

Will Schryver wrote:

I know my friends; they know me; I know myself; I know the enemy

Do you know your choo-choo just chugged around the bend?

Buffalo · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:06 am

Will Schryver wrote:

Enuma Elish wrote:

I cannot. I was not aware of these comments. I had seen others, but these make me all the more angry and I've been trying to get over my anger. I hate feeling this way. That anyone would post these comments to women is unacceptable, to say the least. That he would do so in the context of defending Mormonism sickens me.

As an active member of the Church, I offer my sincere apology for this behavior.

How noble of you.

Please, however, I beg of you, don't bother with your apologies. I am fully able to apologize to whatever extent it is warranted.

And remember this one thing that I tell you now: if you continue to join with these people in their cunning and concerted propaganda attacks, you will only be harming your own interests. By exposing your allegiances and ideological inclinations, you already have harmed them to some degree. You would be wise to not compound your error any further by continuing to make common cause with these people.

More threats from the vulgar scatologist Schryver.

"Conform or you'll pay! If you call me out on my sins you're an enemy!"

You're a complete joke.

Buffalo · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:10 am

why me wrote:

Rambo wrote:

Who else feels the love of this latter day saint? Sooo Christ like of him.

Will does have a point. I have seen critics here be very unkind to the apologists. Should the critic get a free ride for releasing their aggressions steming from their own life circumstances? And the apologist or believer must always respond in kindness and rise above the abuse? Maybe you also need to hold the critics to standards that David attempts to hold for apologists. And likewise, David also needs to recognize the abuse that some critics use against the apologists.

You give Will a free ride, and he's the worst abuser on this or any forum I've seen.

Buffalo · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:13 am

Will Schryver wrote:

Enuma Elish wrote:

I cannot. I was not aware of these comments. I had seen others, but these make me all the more angry and I've been trying to get over my anger. I hate feeling this way. That anyone would post these comments to women is unacceptable, to say the least. That he would do so in the context of defending Mormonism sickens me.

As an active member of the Church, I offer my sincere apology for this behavior.

How noble of you.

Please, however, I beg of you, don't bother with your apologies. I am fully able to apologize to whatever extent it is warranted.

And remember this one thing that I tell you now: if you continue to join with these people in their cunning and concerted propaganda attacks, you will only be harming your own interests. By exposing your allegiances and ideological inclinations, you already have harmed them to some degree. You would be wise to not compound your error any further by continuing to make common cause with these people.

15And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.

16And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?

Buffalo · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:17 am

Will Schryver wrote:

They gnash their teeth at me for the simple fact that I have always seen through their act, from the very beginning. I expose them for who they really are, and consequently they are filled with hate and rage towards me.

Sure, it has nothing to do with your calling women whores for disagreeing with you.

Buffalo · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:23 am

"Unfortunately, these were not simply veiled threats. Suffice it to say that he has sent various email accusations against me to BYU and Maxwell Institute scholars. I refuse to air this dirty laundry in public, but it is dirty and provides important context to his post." - David Bokovoy

Will, you're a tremendous pussy. There, I said it. David called you on your b***s***, so you made up lies to try to get him in trouble. You're not a man.

Runtu · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:25 am

I was thinking last night just how ironic it is that the guy who for--what, three years?--has been following me around, attacking my character and trying to discredit me as an insincere phony, can say with a straight face that I'm spreading "propaganda" about him in an effort to destroy people's testimonies. That someone who has told me how happy he is when people like me leave the church, who has gleefully predicted the collapse of my marriage (unfortunately for him, my wife and I are doing fine), can see himself as a victim of a smear campaign from a "wolf" like me is beyond bizarre.

For a brief moment, I thought that, if anyone had a right to be angry about the treatment they've received, it's me. But I'm not angry. I think it's probably that I don't see any of the message board discussion to be of any real importance, whereas I think some people see things in stark terms, as if what is said here has eternal consequences for believers and unbelievers. That would explain the apocalyptic hyperbole.

But let's face it. Nothing I or anyone else can say here will destroy anyone's faith, even if it were intended to. Apologetics has very little to do with faith or testimony, and I suspect it will always be so. But there will always be a group of people who see things in terms of black and white and believe that we are engaged in a struggle for human souls. To that, I say, Get over yourself. This is just a message board.

My Defense of Will Schryver

Who is online