My Defense of Will Schryver

Yoda · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:25 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.

Critics shouldn't get a free pass. I don't like the ad homs that happen here, and have taken many a critic to task.

That being said, like it or not, if you are professing to be a defender of the gospel of Jesus Christ, then you have a responsibility to emulate Christ. That is what David was trying to point out. With greater blessing comes greater responsibility. You are not an active priesthood holder, Why Me. You are a Catholic. As such, this concept of the added responsibility that an LDS Priesthood leader holds may be foreign to you.

But David is well-aware of it...as I trust Will is also. He simply chooses to ignore it.

cafe crema · **Joined:** Mon May 10, 2010 11:07 pm **Posts:** 1056

Kishkumen wrote:

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.

I think what he's looking for is what Will gave him here.

Will Schryver wrote:

Thanks for your attempts to defend me, why me. They have not gone unnoticed.

harmony · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:32 am

why me wrote:

My point: David also needs to chastize fairly. The critics can be just as abusive and yet, get a free pass from other critics or get a David: now apologists we need to understand their pain and sorrow. David's notion that apologists need to rise above the fray is idealistic and requires apologists who are human beings, to suppress a human emotion that at times should not be suppressed.

Second point: Critics also need to take personal responsibility for their own posting style and post with the understanding that a human being is at the other end of the line.

David's point, and the point of others here and there and everywhere is... if you're going to claim to be a Mormon Christian, then act like one... or else you damage the church (Will is not alone in this behavior; he's just the one we're discussing right now. You could substitute Pahoran, Juliann, or any of a number of self-appointed apologists who cause the same problems because of their own personal twisted behavior). No one cares about Will's personal credibility (hint: he has none). Those of us who still love the church want him to cease and desist embarrassing the church and us. Those of us who hate the church love to see Will exhibit his loss of priesthood, his unChristlike behavior, and his lack of virtually any of the necesssary Christilike attributes.

As for me... I am patient. God does not forget.

For your second point: only those who claim to be followers of Christ (like thews) have a similiar responsibility. He doesn't get it either, but at least he's not an embarrassment to the church.

Rambo · **Joined:** Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:43 am **Posts:** 1896

Will Schryver wrote:

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.

Does anyone else here get a laugh out of this. I guess I am in the great a spacious building laughing at one of the defenders of mormonism.

This is actually pretty hard to take seriously. Especially after I have gotten to know the people on this forum. To me most people here are just trying to make sense of things in the best way they know how.

Will, I do love reading your posts. Always entertaining!

Yoda · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:43 am

David wrote:

"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--

This is the second time I am aware of that you have REALLY crossed the line. The other case was Trevor's article.

However, this is FAR WORSE.

What is wrong with you? You're dealing with someone's career here! This isn't some immature message board fight we're dealing with now.

You REALLY have no boundaries! Are you really that insecure? You would damage someone's livelihood just to win an argument?

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:44 am

Buffalo wrote:

"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.

Hey, Buffalo. I must have missed this. Could you link the post where David reports this? If true, this is the lowest thing I have ever read about Will doing. It beats my little run in with him by a country mile. Unbelievable. There truly is a wolf in the flock, and his name is Will Schryver--a man out to destroy those who dare to aspire to behave as Jesus commanded.

Buffalo · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:49 am

Kishkumen wrote:

Buffalo wrote:

"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.

Hey, Buffalo. I must have missed this. Could you link the post where David reports this? If true, this is the lowest thing I have ever read about Will doing. It beats my little run in with him by a country mile. Unbelievable. There is truly is a wolf in the flock, and his name is Will Schryver--a man out to destroy those who dare to aspire to behave as Jesus commanded.

It's in that "Can apologists be kind" thread on MAD, a couple of pages from the end.

Rambo · **Joined:** Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:43 am **Posts:** 1896

liz3564 wrote:

why me wrote:

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.

Critics shouldn't get a free pass. I don't like the ad homs that happen here, and have taken many a critic to task.

That being said, like it or not, if you are professing to be a defender of the gospel of Jesus Christ, then you have a responsibility to emulate Christ. That is what David was trying to point out. With greater blessing comes greater responsibility. You are not an active priesthood holder, Why Me. You are a Catholic. As such, this concept of the added responsibility that an LDS Priesthood leader holds may be foreign to you.

But David is well-aware of it...as I trust Will is also. He simply chooses to ignore it.

You are right Liz crtics do not get a free ride. But most the critics here do not believe in Jesus and don't claim to be his disciple. I think a critic would just laugh at me if I said the same thing to him/her. I also don't like getting involved if it's not an attack on me (granted I am not perfect at doing this). Will, makes general comments that attack most people on this board and I think it is all right if I defend myself.

Fence Sitter · **Joined:** Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am **Posts:** 3511

Kishkumen wrote:

"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

Hey, Buffalo. I must have missed this. Could you link the post where David reports this? If true, this is the lowest thing I have ever read about Will doing. It beats my little run in with him by a country mile. Unbelievable. There is truly is a wolf in the flock, and his name is Will Schryver--a man out to destroy those who dare to aspire to behave as Jesus commanded.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/53983-can-lds-apologists-be-kind/page__st__200

The Reaping · **Joined:** Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:54 pm **Posts:** 41

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.

Hey aren't you the same guy who was talking about making Will your bitch the other day?? Tell us again about integrity. No, really.

Jason Bourne · **Joined:** Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm **Posts:** 8850

Quote:

I understand your point. But let me ask, is the fact the Paul met an untimely death indicative that he was a false apostle? How about Peter? James? It seems clear from the Bible that Paul and other Christians fully expected the end times and the return of Jesus to be in their lives. It seems Jesus may have as well. Does this make Christianity false in your mind?

thews wrote:

No.

http://biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm

Quote:

Deu 13:1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder,
Deu 13:2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them,"
Deu 13:3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deu 13:4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
Deu 13:5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

My point is given this standard not only should you reject Joseph Smith but you should reject Jesus because he said that there were those living that would not see death before he comes in power and glory. You ought to reject Paul because Paul told people Jesus was coming in their life as well. You ought to reject other parts of the OT that have prophecy that has not been fullfilled. That is all. It seems to me you hold Mormonism to one standard that you refuse to apply to Christianity.

But that is typical of those who attack one religion and yet favor another. The typically cannot see the problems in their own faith system. Maybe you really have examined Christianity with a critical eye. But it seems to me you may be demanding someone to so something you are not doing with your own beliefs. Maybe not.

But it does not matter to me. I really am all for giving people space to let them believe, worship and have faith in whatever way they choose and how it works for them. But I do think it is wrong of you to accuse David and others of dishonesty because they may know the same facts about LDS history and conclude something entirely different than you do.

Doctor CamNC4Me · **Joined:** Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am **Posts:** 4542

Hello,

I think this picture pretty much sums up a Mopologist's modus operandi.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:22 am

The Reaping wrote:

Hey aren't you the same guy who was talking about making Will your bitch the other day?? Tell us again about integrity. No, really.

Way to stick up for the guy who is conducting a slimy email campaign against David Bokovoy, a CES instructor in good standing. You should be proud of yourself. No, really.

The Reaping · **Joined:** Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:54 pm **Posts:** 41

Kishkumen wrote:

The Reaping wrote:

Hey aren't you the same guy who was talking about making Will your bitch the other day?? Tell us again about integrity. No, really.

Way to stick up for the guy who is conducting a slimy email campaign against David Bokovoy, a CES instructor in good standing. You should be proud of yourself. No, really.

Is this an example of tribal loyalty? I'm pretty sure I didn't stand up for will at all.

consiglieri · **Joined:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm **Posts:** 2980

liz3564 wrote:

You REALLY have no boundaries! Are you really that insecure? You would damage someone's livelihood just to win an argument?

Apparently, yes.

But I think the good thing is that this came out on the MDD Board; not over here where most don't come to read for themselves what Will posts (and those who do, such as MercyNGrace, are appalled).

Then Will called David a liar and challenged him to bring forward the documents proving what Will had been up to.

And all the moderator will do is beg Will to "please stop."

It was an amazing moment in MDD Board history.

And I think Will's reputation will not recover.

We really shook the pillars of heaven, didn't we, Wang?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

stemelbow · **Joined:** Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:40 pm **Posts:** 5872

The Reaping wrote:

Is this an example of tribal loyalty? I'm pretty sure I didn't stand up for will at all.

That's been my rub in this whole affair too. I have questioned certain criticisms, but in spite of me not standing up for Will I keep getting people trying to throw me in their tub of sewage that they have reserved for Will and any LDS who doesn't post hate for the man in each and every post.

stemelbow · **Joined:** Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:40 pm **Posts:** 5872

Runtu wrote:

To that, I say, Get over yourself. This is just a message board.

Best comment yet. Such dramatic prose exhibited in Will's posts, sometimes. But he's not alone on that front, of course.

The Reaping · **Joined:** Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:54 pm **Posts:** 41

stemelbow wrote:

The Reaping wrote:

Is this an example of tribal loyalty? I'm pretty sure I didn't stand up for will at all.

That's been my rub in this whole affair too. I have questioned certain criticisms, but in spite of me not standing up for Will I keep getting people trying to throw me in their tub of sewage that they have reserved for Will and any LDS who doesn't post hate for the man in each and every post.

Yes, apparently if you don't join in on the dogpile, you're sticking up for will. Maybe someone who has been here a while could put up a list of acceptable things to say, so I don't end up accidentally defending the anti christ again.

Black Moclips · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:46 am

[quote="consiglieriWe really shook the pillars of heaven, didn't we, Wang?
[/quote]

Awesome.

wenglund · **Joined:** Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm **Posts:** 4702

Kudos to the participants on this thread for reminding me that charity never faileth.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

Runtu · **Posted:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:30 am

wenglund wrote:

Kudos to the participants on this thread for reminding me that charity never faileth.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

It's a no-win situation, Wade. When I try to be charitable towards Will, he accuses me of being passive-aggressive and insincere. When I express any frustration with his treatment of me, he says I'm showing my true colors.

I don't harbor any ill will (no pun intended) towards Will. I genuinely do not understand why he does what he does. Perhaps it's a fault of mine, but there are certain behaviors and thought processes I will never understand, but I'm going to say what I think when I feel it's appropriate. I don't think that's being uncharitable.

My Defense of Will Schryver

Who is online