Hi Paul,

I too believe that Trevor should be making preparations to pay. In kind, at least as far as the domain of Church "metaphysics" goes, will and Seth are indeed brothers and if Seth is a full-blown apostate it is only a small degree that separates Will from Seth. Will also doubts the "metaphysics" of the church, just read what he's had to say on the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon. Sethpayne has only been expressing a slightly more aggressive version of Internet Mormon principles we've been hearing over the years -- don't take everything so literally, concern yourselves with the metaphors and narrative and quit looking for "proof". Will's very own project which is steadfast in the current "Moby Dick" tradition of apologetics is designed to take the Book of Abraham debate closer to Sethpayne's world than any Chapel Mormon perspective.

In fact, if you haven't already set the terms on what constitutes "apostasy", if one's apostasy doesn't have to be self-described, then I think Trevor owes you 100 bucks right now because Will is already an apostate based on his Internet Mormon beliefs. Don't take it from me, take Schryver's views on "translation" -- with his scare quotes and all -- and submit these views to the typical Chapel Mormon associated with FIRM. You know what you'll hear? You'll hear Will being criticized for all the same reasons Will is criticizing Seth. Only a small degree separates their worlds, in the domain of "metaphysics" that is. In fact, all Sethpayne would probably have to do is take a more supportive stance towards apologetics and without changing a single one of his "metaphysical" positions they'd probably be patting him on the back rather than criticizing him.

August is coming soon as William nervously cuts his work out of Joseph Smith's book of lies. It's a lost cause. His friends will not support him like he thinks they will. They will be laughing at him and talk behind his back. He has become the newest fruitcake of BofA apologetics! It's the apologist with a ponytail - the hippie professor of FAIR. Move over Kerry Shirts. William is taking over.

I think we should all gather around in a circle and sing songs about William Schryver and make fun of him. It will take us back to the 5th grade when life was so simple. Isn't that right, William?

I will gladly mail Trevor's $100 to William just as soon as William denies the BofA and gets on board with the winning team.

Paul O

I don't have a great deal of faith in your spooky prognostications from the Dark Side of the Force, my friend. You are completely off concerning Will. I become more convinced of it with each new post he offers. I'm not saying I applaud or agree, but I am totally persuaded that his faith is practically unshakable.

Only misreading would lead you to that conclusion.

Saying Joseph Smith didn't "translate" the Book of Abraham or the plates in the way Will explained it would be unacceptable to most church members. Just as denying a real flood or the creation (by affirming evolution) are also compromises. Sure, you can spin it however you wish and say that these aren't "core" matters of belief in Mormonism but Seth can make the exact same case. Just because Will swims out 20 yards before he compromises and Seth does so at 15 yards doesn't matter that much to me in my estimation as to which one is the true believer since both claim to be TBMs.

Wade, you would have to have a sense of shame before you would be capable of feeling ashamed.

I sense a great disturbance in William's faith (no pun intended). His manner of testimony bearing reminds me of someone who used to be strong in the faith, namely me. My instincts tell me he is breaking and falling apart at the seams. I will be flabbergasted to learn otherwise. It won't be long in order to come to a realization in this matter because I think William is about to snap and transition himself into a new arena.

If I'm proven wrong then I will send you the $100 and shut my mouth about William. I'll consider myself swatted down like a bug.

But, if I win, then clearly we have more to talk about. I'm sure you will agree with that.

Paul O

Ditto.

What you fail to see is pretty predictable considering who you are and what you think. Loyalty to the leadership of the LDS Church as God's anointed and appointed is the sine qua non of the faithful Mormon's good standing in the Gospel. It is clear that sethpayne's decision to stand publicly against certain initiatives of the Church leadership set him at variance with them, and thus in a marginal position. Will is a completely different story, and no matter what he might intimate about the value of the facsimile's as part of the canon, etc., it is no matter. Clearly the leadership of the LDS Church leaves open the possibility that some aspects of LDS practice, etc., may prove to be expendable if they compromise the greater goal. What matters is that Will is behind the leadership of the Church 100% and has vociferously testified. See the difference?

But Trevor, I thought we were just discussing the "metaphysics" of Mormon belief? An anthropologist studying Mormon society might come to the conclusion that lip service to leadership, falling in line when ordered etc. define standing. I might even agree with that to an extent. But there are two points I need to make. 1) I'm challenging the apologists' assumptions about orthodoxy, not yours. Your point actually backs my point up substantially, Will doesn't have a leg to stand on to condemn Sethpayne on grounds of rejecting "metaphysical" aspects of Mormonism as he's done the very same, just in slightly different degrees. In fact, in my original post you responded to, I anticipated your objection when I wrote this:



So we are actually in agreement that in reality, "metaphysical" positions aren't defining TBM standing. However, the apologists don't see it that way, and this is why I point out their failed criteria for rejecting folks like Sethpayne. In fact, there is even less difference between Sethpayne and other TBMs the apologists do accept, Richard Bushman, and half the folks who post over at Times and Seasons.

2) There is still quite a bit of perspective at work in deciding who is loyal to the anointed. From what I've just read, Sethpayne considers himself loyal to the anointed, therefore, he offers his Bishop's contact info etc. Internet Mormon apologists like Will have made a career of picking and choosing what prophetic edicts to take seriously. You might be thinking, but who is more likely to be Sept sixthed, Will or Seth? I'm not sure the answer is so obvious as I've followed Times and Seasons and especially the "postmodern" approach to being LDS. I'm pretty sure Seth would not be condemned by the folks over at Times and Seasons and while there is a rivalry between them and FAIR, there are shared persons and perspectives especially including Yale and Claremont ties, I've never seen claims of outright apostasy traded. So, where I'm going with this is FAIR accepts T&S and I'd bet T&S would accept Seth, so Seth isn't really that far removed from orthodoxy by any definition.

Slightly different degrees? Maybe I don't know Seth well enough to say, but I would wager that the degrees separating them are many. Will is way closer to that McConkiesque Mormonism that has come to define the "orthodox" posture for quite some time. Seth seems more of a "McMurrin-Bennion let's live the Christlike life even though in the specifics Mormonism is a useful myth" mode of LDS membership. Maybe I am completely off here. Seth can correct me, and I say what I say not to denigrate him in the least. He is most definitely a "Dehlin" Mormon, and while I love John Dehlin as a brother, I think it needs to be acknowledged that he is not a literal believer.



And if you think Will doesn't have problems with the belief of a lot of the Times and Seasons folk, you would likely be mistaken. Will sees himself and his way as the real deal. All of these effete intellectual types who soft-pedal and qualify Mormon claims in any way--in short, who do not accept literally in the fullest sense the foundational claims of the LDS Church--are anathema to Will in that he sees them in various stages on the road to apostasy. Will very carefully considers his own views in the light of his own notion of being firmly rooted in a literal acceptance of these claims, as shaped by the guidance of personal revelation. Don't think for a moment that Will is casually casting aside anything in order to retain intellectual respectability. Of the latter he gives not a tinker's damn.



First, it should be clear that I am very sympathetic to sethpayne. Having said that, anyone who would openly decry the LDS Church's position on Prop 8 and gay marriage, anyone who would even entertain the appellation of critic, no matter how defined, is obviously much more easily pegged as an apostate, in the ways that seem to count these days, than Will Schryver. Just sayin'.

Hi Trevor,

I think you have a pretty good grasp of where I am coming from. I am not a literal believer. My goal as a member of the Church is to build on commonalities I share with my fellow Mormons. I don't pretend to believe in things that I don't but I also don't get up in testimony meeting and advertise my heterodoxy either. Depending on the circumstances I will share my reasons for viewing things the way I do but the absolute last thing I would want to do is damage an individual's testimony of the Church. If that testimony works for them and makes for a happy life, then that testimony is good.

On the other hand, there have been occasions where people have come to me saying that they have serious concerns over X or Y etc... In those cases I will be more open about my views.

What William fails to grasp is that I have plenty of places to share my personal views of the LDS Church and its teachings. I have here, my blog, MADB etc... Sacrament meeting, Sunday School, and Priesthood are not venues for me to espouse my beliefs if those beliefs are at odds with the official teachings of the Church.

You see, I have respect for the LDS Church as an institution. The Church has the right and responsibility to teach members what the FP and Q12 feel should be taught. Who am I to tell the LDS Church what to believe or what to teach? It is not my place.

I go to Church because I love the community and I have more in common with my fellow Saints one might imagine.

Just the other day in Priesthood we were discussing the Book of Enos. Now, I personally don't' believe that Enos was a real person or that the events described took place in actual history. However, the story of Enos has great power and is illustrative of the benefits of honest prayer. So, when at Church and when interacting with my fellow ward members I focus on those things I do believe and not on the things I don't believe. Again, I try and build on commonalities.

And, to be perfectly honest, I could be completely wrong. When I die I could end up before God and he could say "Seth, you were SO off-base.... I'd like you to meet some friends of mine. Nephi, Moroni, Alma, and Enos.... come on over and meet Seth." However, believing that God is merciful and has a perfect understanding of all things I could, with a clear concscience, say that I simply did the best I could with what I was given.

Seth

Hey, Seth-

Thanks for your candid depiction of where you are coming from. And, I think it is easy to see, based on what you have written, why you and Will would be at odds concerning your standing. Personally, I think the important thing in life is our actions, not our opinions. Indeed, it is possible to be dead wrong about a lot of things while being of inestimable benefit to others. Which is more important? I think service to others is.

Just my two cents.

T

You are absolutely right, Trevor. My willingness to openly critisize a Church policy clearly puts me in an odd position considering that I regularly attend Church services and am generally supportive of the Church as an institution.

For me, I *try* -- although I do not always succeed -- to be constructive in my criticism and, I get a quite irritated when people try to simply classify Mormons as bigots or homophobes. I understand the LDS position on the matter and I know it is not borne out of hate, but out of a particular theological viewpoint.

Also, my criticism of LDS Church policies is limited to my personal conversations, my blog, here, and MADB. Church services are not an appropriate platform for me to share these views.

Seth

Trevor, I could not agree more. So much hurt, pain, and suffering has been caused by people who were convinced they absolutely knew the mind and will of God (9/11, MMM, Crusades, etc...) that I think it is safe to say we will all be surprised to find out just how much we don't know about God.

What I do know, without any question, is that some members of my ward are struggling financially and need help. I know that Sister X is a widow and appreciates a visit where we read the scriptures together..... I don't just believe these things.... I KNOW them. As a result, I try to base my actions on what I know for certain, rather than on what I simply believe.

Seth

I find myself more in this position lately, and I am trying to find a place within the community, even though I don't believe in the specifics. But even in my "angry" period, I never expended any effort to undermine anyone's faith, especially not people I interact with in my life. Exactly two people in my ward know where I stand: my bishop and my former home teacher. Telling my home teacher was a huge mistake, one that I won't repeat.



I was criticized recently for expressing "certainty" about some troubling facts of the restoration, and I wondered at that. Your approach seems pretty common, as most of us recognize that we may well be wrong. But if I'm wrong, I feel the same way you do: I did my best to learn and follow truth.

Oh, and by the way, I'm in the Oak Hills Seventh Ward, Provo Oak Hills Stake, just in case someone wants to get the disciplinary council ball rolling.

When will this pose end? Its already run its course Darth.

Let's take a look at some salient excertps from Sethpayne's blog:



This, perhaps, might be the ultimate definition one could field regarding the term "Cultural Mormon".



This is pregnant with implications, but we'll move on for brevity's sake.



Now Sethpayne's claim to be a "believing" Mormon begins to show its problematic nature. Note that the gospel's foundational "truth claims" have been, to a large measure, rejected, while something approaching, if Sethpaynes arguments here are any indication, a vague ethical/social Christian worldview that goes little beyond, what from an LDS perspective would be a arguable positive and admirable - but spiritually tepid (the gospel of Jesus Christ offers deification and eternal life, after all) ethical engagement with the world.



This is logically incoherent. Sethpayne has already claimed, in the same essay that "I have no real interest in the veracity of Mormon truth claims", and hence, by definition, has become a critic of those claims. I don't think an attempt at a pure neutrality is going to wash, philosophically (it never does) here, because this would imply, if taken seriously, that Sethpayne, when confronted with a fundamental LDS truth claim, could claim absolute neutrality and simply throw up his hands and walk away from "the terrible questions".

This isn't philosophically tenable for the reason that, in the first instance, by having no interest in core metaphysical truth claims, one has already staked out a critical position regarding them. In the second place, if forced into a corner and asked to make some intellectually substantive statement regarding those truth claims, that response could not be anything other than the reasons one does not find them interesting or relevant. It would seem to me that not finding the fundamental propositions of the gospel regarding the nature and meaning of existence and our mortal experience of any interest or relevance is, itself, a clear statement of value judgment as well as a clear intellectual positioning upon those subjects that both, by definition, would place one in an apostate situation regarding those truth claims (as the details of gospel belief are inextricably linked with the core metaphysical propositions).



No single criticism of Church social and moral views could be more exemplary of open hostility ( an open condition of apostasy, in other language), than this. Again, that position of homosexual marriage is inextricably linked to the Church fundamental view of sexual morality and the purpose and place of human sexuality within the mortal context, and these understandings are themselves inextricably linked to the gospel''s fundamental truth claims.




This is interesting in and of itself, as I do not have many such friends, nor does anyone I know. What we could have here is yet another example of running to the Great and Spacious Building when the finger pointing and mocking from the cool people becomes to great a perceived burden, no? There are welcoming arms in that building for one who sees the error of his ways and comes to hold the "politically correct" positions.



I have no idea what Seth knows or does not know about "most Mormon families with gay or lesbian members", but suffice it to say that, with exclusive homosexual orientation existing at about 3% of the population, its presence in LDS families could not be more than this, making the phenomena exceeding rare.

A close family member came out as homosexual about ten years ago, and then later left it behind. In no case was he ever not accepted as a family member. Nor at any time did our faith in and testimony of the Church's teachings of eternal principles on this matter waver.



Woe, the scriptures tell us, to all who are, in the end, "overcome of the world".



No, it isn't



This is no surprise for someone who does not take the core metaphysical claims of the Church seriously, as without this, even a rudimentary understanding of the deep importance and sacredness of the Temple is not even approachable.



One can see Sethpayne playing psychological and rhetorical games with both himself and his readers now.



In other words, as Sethayane here makes quite clear, what he defends when he does defend is not the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, or the restored Kingdom of God on earth (the Church), but his tribe; his people and his culture.

Belief that the BofM and BofA are "apocryphal" places Sethpyane, of course, in a position of essentially being a non-member of the Church in all but name. This raises problems for the individual (participating in the religious services and practices of a religious system that is, as to fundamental truth claims, a bald fraud) but perhaps not for others around him, if as sethpyane claims, he is not an evangelist of unfaith. But is this logically plausible?

Can one who believes both the BofM and the BofA - both foundational sources of core truth claims - are fictitious creations, possible avoid, in any discussion with faithful lDS, making those beliefs explicit, and the reasons for holding them? Might this not have an effect on others, especially those spiritually weak or immature and who are susceptible to intellectual/psycholgical doubt and instability?

Most "believing" LDS would think such people need precisely the opposite.

Hmmmmm. Sound very much like my testimony and witness of the BofM, BofA, Joseph Smith, and the divinity and divine authenticity of the Church and its work.

It's already run its course, Darth.

Hi Trevor,

In general, you and Seth are both trying your hand at Shades's exercise of defining Chapel and Internet Mo's - "literal" vs. "non-literal" belief etc. Maybe you are right that Will would take issues with the T&S crowd, I don't know, but the apologists in general never have from what I've seen taken issue with them for doctrinal reasons. Take this statement:



This statement could be coming straight from the apologists, at least half the time. Maybe you weren't there on MAD or Z when the apologists came after the critics constantly for being "fundamentalists" who believe in "truth" and the supposed literal nature of scripture, who don't have the scholarly sophistication to appreciate metaphor and hold outdated positivist worldviews. Juliann even mentioned one day she has good friends who don't believe in a "literal Book of Mormon" though she herself believes it is "historical" -- whatever that means without being too historico-critical about it and tore people down constantly for suggesting the prophet should be held to any supernatural standards or anything beyond being an important figurehead for the community, as that's how a "prophet" is understood from the methodological naturalism POV.

Will's belief that the facsimiles will be dropped from canon, that the narrative is more important than the actual historical happenings, that Joseph Smith didn't "translate" anything, is very much in line with the whole Yale/Claremont "narrative theology" stuff and in my view, from a "metaphysical" perspective, puts Will closer to Sethpayne than say, to my parents. Here's what I see coming from these two:

Will -- I believe in God, and I believe the literal historical truth of the Book of Abraham is the wrong issue for debate, the narrative is what's important. Though I think the events are historical in some way -- let's not be too specific here -- dwelling on that is a distraction from the real message.

Seth -- I believe in God, and I believe the literal historical truth of the Book of Abraham is the wrong issue for debate, the narrative is what's important. Though I think the events aren't historical, I could be wrong, but dwelling on them is a distraction from the real message.

If I have the time and inclination, I might create a sockpuppet that holds all the essential "metaphysical" positions of Sethpayne and see if I can gain the acceptance of Will and others. I really believe it's Sethpayne's MO and personality that gets him labeled as an apostate by the apologists.

BTW, Trevor, do you think Seth would be considered an outright apostate by LoaP who apparently has sent drafts of his writings to Seth? If not, is Will or LoaP, both "literal believers" (which I think covers a lot of ground) better qualified to make a call on Seth's standing in the church?