Mormon Discussions
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/

My Defense of Will Schryver
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17821
Page 3 of 12

Author:  Enuma Elish [ Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

Runtu wrote:
Enuma Elish wrote:
I really need to make a PDF of my First Place Butt award that hangs over the fireplace mantel so that I can show you guys. I don't like to brag, but it is an impressive thing!


I wonder what the real agenda was behind your pork butt entry?


To suggest that I don't care what you say, I can take that Texas restaurant and as soon as the weather warms up a bit I'm going to prove it to you by having you and your wife over for the best damned BBQ you've ever eaten!

Don't give me that Texas, crap!

Author:  Runtu [ Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

Enuma Elish wrote:
To suggest that I don't care what you say, I can take that Texas restaurant and as soon as the weather warms up a bit I'm going to prove it to you by having you and your wife over for the best damned BBQ you've ever eaten!

Don't give me that Texas, crap!


I don't know. I've never had better BBQ than at Martin's Place:

http://www.robbwalsh.com/2010/07/legend ... -in-bryan/

Author:  Enuma Elish [ Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

Runtu wrote:
Enuma Elish wrote:
To suggest that I don't care what you say, I can take that Texas restaurant and as soon as the weather warms up a bit I'm going to prove it to you by having you and your wife over for the best damned BBQ you've ever eaten!

Don't give me that Texas, crap!


I don't know. I've never had better BBQ than at Martin's Place:

http://www.robbwalsh.com/2010/07/legend ... -in-bryan/


You, my friend, have now thrown down the gauntlet. So much for all the good will (no pun intended) and happiness expressed throughout this thread. IT IS ON NOW, BRO! You are so going to eat those words! You have officially woken a sleeping giant!

You are so dead meat (again, no pun intended)!

Author:  thews [ Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

Enuma Elish wrote:
thews wrote:
Your underlying agenda is the purpose of this thread and is one I find sickening


No offense, Thews, but honestly, you crack me up. I can assure you, I'm a very transparent soul. Those who know me can attest that I wear my passion and my sentiments on my sleeve. I don't have any underlying agendas in life that I know of.

Then I'm asking you to prove me wrong with one answer to a simple question.

Who was it that said the words regarding the descendant of Ham in the Kinderhook translation according to Mormon history?

Insert just the name here___________________________.

A) Answer the question.
B) Ignore the question.

Author:  Jersey Girl [ Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

You know what's so funny? I was in chat not just a few minutes ago complaining about these current threads and my lack of interest in them. It was not until I saw Enuma's reply to a quote from thews that my antenna sort of went up and then I went back into the thread and clicked into thews full post. The content of which contained the following:

thews
Quote:
This need to form alliances is your motivation IMO, and whether or not it's rooted in supposed good intent, its heart is outright deception.


It is not often that I have an opportunity to give testimony on this LDS-related board, but here goes. :-)

For all the years that I have known David/Enuma, he has gained a place on the list of LDS apologist posters whom I can count on one hand, and who actually live out their faith before my eyes on the screen.

He has no need to "form alliances", thews. He has one ally, his Savior. It is his belief in the ways and practices of Jesus Christ that inspires him to make posts like the one you see to and about Will on this thread via his OP.

When he says that he loves Will, he is being genuine. He is not making a show of it, he is making his thoughts and feelings known about the current situation in public for in public, is where the conflict took place.

He does not discriminate between LDS, Ex-LDS or Never's. He treats every person with the same regard because he believes that we are all God's creation and to be respected as such.

He is a self-admitted flawed human being who is striving to be what his Savior claims he can be by obediently following is example. He is not kissing Will's butt to win over or maintain an alliance, he is sincerely extending the hand of Christian love to him.

When I think of David, I think of the Apostle Paul. He is every man. He understands the journey of doubting and ex-Mo's, Mormon's and I have never seen him treat either one (including this Never) without the love of Christ in his heart. He is able to move through these boards and interact with all by finding the common ground he shares with them, and that is why he has gained the respect of many.

So thews, try getting to know these posters before you pass judgement based on the stereotypical bias that drives what passes for your mind. You are one who erroneously pegged me as LDS because I posted congenially to LDS here. You are as wrong about David as you were about me. Instead of looking for targets, you might begin to realize that the targets out here are actually multi-dimensional people with diverse connections, a variety of opinions on differing topics/issues and shared common ground.

One size, thews, does not fit all.

Jersey Girl

Author:  Enuma Elish [ Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

Thanks Jersey Girl. Those have to be the nicest words anyone has ever written about me. I'm going to have to pull up that post anytime I start to feel a bit down. Please know that the admiration is mutual.

Despite our disagreements, I do love Will. I remember how deeply upset he was during the Elizabeth Smart trial and how he shared those feelings publicly. Will's recent comments that some have belittled regarding how he as a Father enjoys showing affection for his daughter during Conference need to be read in the context revealed by these earlier posts.

I too was deeply disturbed by the Elizabeth Smart case, and could not move beyond the first page or so of her testimony, so I connected with Will on this issue. I have three daughters, ages 17, 14, and 8 whom I'm absolutely crazy about and I therefore greatly admire Will's ability to express publicly his fatherly love and concern.

That is an admirable quality that opposed to his posting style, I believe manifests his true character.

Author:  wenglund [ Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

I applaud all the good in this thread, and I am encouraged to see people working to uplift rather tear each other down. May this kind of healthy thread inspire more of the same in others as it has in me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Author:  Enuma Elish [ Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

thews wrote:
Then I'm asking you to prove me wrong with one answer to a simple question.

Who was it that said the words regarding the descendant of Ham in the Kinderhook translation according to Mormon history?

Insert just the name here___________________________.

A) Answer the question.
B) Ignore the question.


Thews, I'm not interested in proving you wrong.

Given the fact that I believe Joseph produced one of the most inspired books ever written by pondering over Egyptian funerary texts, you're talking with a person who would have accepted as scripture Joseph's translation of the Kinderhook plates and who wishes that the Prophet would have had a chance to complete what he started.

Author:  Jersey Girl [ Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

Enuma Elish wrote:
Thanks Jersey Girl. Those have to be the nicest words anyone has ever written about me. I'm going to have to pull up that post anytime I start to feel a bit down. Please know that the admiration is mutual.

Despite our disagreements, I do love Will. I remember how deeply upset he was during the Elizabeth Smart trial and how he shared those feelings publicly. Will's recent comments that some have belittled regarding how he as a Father enjoys showing affection for his daughter during Conference need to be read in the context revealed by these earlier posts.

I too was deeply disturbed by the Elizabeth Smart case, and could not move beyond the first page or so of her testimony, so I connected with Will on this issue. I have three daughters, ages 17, 14, and 8 whom I'm absolutely crazy about and I therefore greatly admire Will's ability to express publicly his fatherly love and concern.

That is an admirable quality that opposed to his posting style, I believe manifests his true character.


Romans 13:8

It's in the book. Look it up.
;-)

Author:  Doctor Scratch [ Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

Gadianton wrote:
Zeezrom wrote:
Do you admire these qualities because Will happens to be deeply committed to the same social group as you or is it because being deeply committed to a belief is a good thing all by itself?


Zee (and others), I wouldn't be too worried if DB can't be openly persuaded to consider Mopologetics for what it is. I think he's revealed enough to show that he clearly understands the problems. The foundation of Mopologetics is a kind of bullying. Bullies, of course, are what they are due to problems that they have that aren't always necessarily their fault. Getting "beat up" on a mission during a bible bash can leave emotional scars, for instance. DB, of course, will be required to disagree with this, but I think deep down he understands what's going on -- his posts reveal this.


This is a brilliant assessment.

Quote:
The thing is, if one desires to be a force for good among one's peers, and if the peers happen to have these deep personal issues, their behavior is unlikely to be curtailed by showing them the truth about themselves -- the bully is highly skilled at evading his reflection. While the critic is certainly right in pointing out these flaws, one among the ranks who wishes to make a difference will likely need to take another path. Bullies most likely can't be cured, or truly repent, but their behavior in theory can be defused, and this can happen with the help of those who have a vested interest in the Bullies well-being; it won't be by the way of pointing out truth though, but much like, you know, what DB is doing now, some guidance administered with a healthy dose of encouragement and self-esteem building. I hope it works out, it might with the rising generation of mid-tiers.


I agree with this, too.

Quote:
"I couldn't have done better had I been in their circumstance", I gotcha, *wink*, I really do. And I echo what Scratch has said elsewhere, the Church will be greatly credited if David one day in the future becomes the leader for the next generation of Mopologists.


It would be mind-blowing if David were to become the de facto leader of the Mopologetic movement. It would be utterly game-changing--a "for real" watershed moment. It would have the potential to completely uproot a major portion of Church membership.

Of course, it would set back some important Mopologetic goals by 25 years or so, but then again, it would make the Church way more attractive to critics, neutral observers, and potential converts. I mean, who would you rather hang out with? Bokovoy, who can make some kick-ass BBQ, or DCP, whose idea of a good time is taking a crap all over Branford Marsalis?

Author:  EAllusion [ Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

Quote:
From my perspective, Will's wit and passion


You can be witty and passionate without resorting to habitual lying and highly mean-spirited attacks. In fact, the former have almost nothing to do with the latter. Who would have a problem with a poster who was just thought of as witty and passionate? I think you misunderstand where the difficulties with Will's behavior are coming from. Evil is a harsh word, but if you're saying "Will isn't a bad guy, he's just passionate," I guess I can only wonder if you'd see anyone as a bad guy who engages in the same behavior then. And if not, we can just revise your post to say, "Lying, mean-spirited people aren't all that bad. They just have faults." To which I say "Ok..."

Author:  beastie [ Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

Good grief. Schryver is a jerk who deliberately provokes and insults. He's particularly piggish when it comes to women, whom he treats either by drooling over their sexual appeal, or insulting them by telling them they're old, ugly, and sexually unappealing. These sort of comments by him can be easily found.

I'd be embarrassed to defend him.

Author:  Doctor CamNC4Me [ Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

Hello,

For what it's worth Mr. William "Gookie Cookie" Schryver & his friend Mr. Peterson make the Mormon church appear more like the Scientologist cult.

Mr. Enish makes the Mormon church appear more Christian.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

Author:  thews [ Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

Enuma Elish wrote:
thews wrote:
Then I'm asking you to prove me wrong with one answer to a simple question.

Who was it that said the words regarding the descendant of Ham in the Kinderhook translation according to Mormon history?

Insert just the name here___________________________.

A) Answer the question.
B) Ignore the question.


Thews, I'm not interested in proving you wrong.

I'm not asking that your prove me wrong. I'm asking you to acknowledge historical fact regarding Joseph Smith. What you didn't do is answer the question.

Enuma Elish wrote:
Given the fact that I believe Joseph produced one of the most inspired books ever written by pondering over Egyptian funerary texts, you're talking with a person who would have accepted as scripture Joseph's translation of the Kinderhook plates and who wishes that the Prophet would have had a chance to complete what he started.

Here's the problem Enuma... what you try so hard to defend (Mormonism truth claims) is rooted on the foundation that it came from God/Jesus Christ. If God/Jesus Christ wanted Joseph Smith to finish the "translation" of the Book of Joseph and the JST version of the bible, then God would have protected Joseph Smith allowing him to finish them. That isn't what happened, and it didn't happen for a reason, and that reason is Joseph Smith was not of God/Jesus Christ. This cause you champion is based on a false prophet of God (as dictated by the bible) under the pretense that it is "Christian" in some way. The fact that you would believe that translation of a known hoax (Kinderhook plates) shows your ignorance to intellectual honesty. The fact that you just can't admit it was Joseph Smith who made the translation of the Kinderhook plates shows your agenda to mask the truth in order to further your agenda, which would be rooted in deception of the truth. I have no problem with people placing belief in whatever they choose to believe in, but I do take issue with intentional deception. The way you pick and choose your words to defend the truth claims in Mormonism by using deception is your choice, but understand it's a conscious choice. For every member you convert, or every member you convince to believe the truth claims of Joseph Smith using deception is a testament to your soul... who you are. The bible warns of the wolf in sheep's clothing, and I contend you are one of the wolves. You can choose to be honest, or you can choose to deceive. As noted above, you chose to fail to answer the question... there's a reason.

Author:  Kishkumen [ Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

Enuma Elish wrote:
But Will Schryver is not an evil person.


I really don't think the question of his ultimate moral standing matters. Obviously, he is not 'evil' in some theological sense, like the sons of Perdition, or the Gadianton Robbers, or Satan is 'evil.' He could be a well-intentioned dunce (although he is certainly not stupid), and yet be a corrosive influence. I view his behavior as being a corrosive influence, and so I oppose his activities. 'Evil' has nothing to do with it.

Author:  Buffalo [ Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

As admirably as the approach of the thread starter is, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that Will is a good person. He might be in person, but he does his best to hide it online.

Author:  Will Schryver [ Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

Buffalo wrote:
As admirably as the approach of the thread starter is, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that Will is a good person. He might be in person, but he does his best to hide it online.

I assure you I am essentially the same in person as I am online, for whatever it's worth.

by the way, I've always wondered why the quote of mine used in your signature is always left incomplete. Could it be that Kevin Graham doesn't want anyone to know what I said, in full? Because, if my statement (made to him in a private e-mail) were viewed in full, then it would be quite obvious how much out of context the partial quote is.

Could it be that he is intentionally and dishonestly attempting to misrepresent me?

Could it be that this practice is consistent with other propagandizing efforts employed in the GSTP against me?

Gee, I wonder ...

Author:  Kishkumen [ Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

Will, we are aware that you have stated that the important thing is that you have a testimony that the Book of Abraham is ancient scripture that was divinely revealed to Joseph Smith. That part is simply taken for granted. It isn't interesting. What is interesting is that you granted that, without that divine witness, you would essentially see the text in terms much like those the critics hold.

Author:  stemelbow [ Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

I have to say I took issue with David's calling out Will at MD&D. Its not that I disagree at all with the things he's said. I've come here preaching, for whatever reason, love and compassion on this board and have met some very stiff resistence, but I also feel I've made some significant headway (not meaning to boast). This thread and its sentiments, afterall, align perfectly with my agenda. I too hold as priority love and compassion in spite of my many faults.

Anyway, I should apologize to David first off. I hope I didn't add to his guilt in a negative way. That was not my intention. I just felt it was not the right place and time. Perhaps some efforts to take him aside one-on-one would be far more appropriate. I don't know if that's been done, so in ignorance I should just let it go.

With that, i think David and Will hold a common goal. At MD&D Will sincerely said his goal is to bring people unto Christ. Certainly he has a different way of going about it. Certainly he'd hold to a tough love front. It also appears he holds a far more conservative view about what it means to come unto Christ than David or even I. But in the end, their goals are similar. In the end their disagreements appear very silly, and we all can be pretty silly sometimes.

Its not unlike the silliness that often goes on over here, afterall. The remedy in my mind is that which I'd always preach--love for all, the stripping away of pride and hostility, sincere efforts to listen but not pick apart people, and the avoidance of self-righteousness.

See ya.

Author:  Kishkumen [ Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

stemelbow wrote:
I just felt it was not the right place and time.


Since Will's repeated critical remarks about David have been made publicly in these fora, I think it entirely appropriate for him to reply in the same fora and I believe that he has generally acted with a great deal more class than Will in the way he has gone about it.

Author:  stemelbow [ Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: My Defense of Will Schryver

Kishkumen wrote:
Since Will's repeated critical remarks about David have been made publicly in these fora, I think it entirely appropriate for him to reply in the same fora and I believe that he has generally acted with a great deal more class than Will in the way he has gone about it.


I hear ya. I don't know if its even a feasible thing, considering the lack of any apparent bond between the two. thus, I let it go. I'll grant that I took too hasty a position on it yesterday.

Page 3 of 12 All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/