William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
William Schryver
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by William Schryver »

harmony wrote:Welcome, Dan. We are truly blessed, with your presence and Mr Bagley's also. I'm not sure what we did to deserve such celebrities among us, but it was probably our penchant of allowing William to hang himself regularly here. It's definitely worth the price of admission.

Settle down, dissonance. You'll give yourself a stroke.

:lol:!

Who knew that sycophancy was capable of achieving orgasm?
.
.
.
======================>
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22171
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by moksha »

William Schryver wrote:.

It has been said, quite repeatedly in fact, that I have spouted "vulgarities" and what not. Now you have come along and claim that what I have written is "provocative." In all of this, no one has ever actually pointed to something specific I have said/written and singled it out for condemnation.

I have asked, over and over and over again, for examples of my "excesses," but no one will accommodate me.


Personally, I hate research that take more than 10 minutes of Googling. It is non-recreational. :biggrin: What we need is for Scratch to extend his powers beyond the scope of Dr. Peterson for this one. Perhaps he could make a compendium to help jog our memory.


I asked you also to specify what things you found "provocative" (I assume you have used that term in a somewhat pejorative fashion, but I'm not certain).


Let's just say that I think provocative in this case, means something you have written that draws strong responses. The terms vugar and scatological seem pejorative. I think of provocative as a more kinder and gentler description. Hope that makes sense. Have you ever noticed when any of those cretinous morons who make anti-mormon rants, take offense when described in this manner? Not that you personally would ever say anything remotely similar to this provocative description.

:wink:
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by harmony »

William Schryver wrote:
harmony wrote:Welcome, Dan. We are truly blessed, with your presence and Mr Bagley's also. I'm not sure what we did to deserve such celebrities among us, but it was probably our penchant of allowing William to hang himself regularly here. It's definitely worth the price of admission.

Settle down, dissonance. You'll give yourself a stroke.

:lol:!

Who knew that sycophancy was capable of achieving orgasm?


Your jealousy is showing, William.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by harmony »

William Schryver wrote:Spoken by one whose entire raison d'etre is to discredit the legitimacy of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, and to erode the foundations of the church he founded.

Self-awareness is obviously not one of your strong suits.


I suspect his reasons for existence include more than just that. Family... friends... spouse... lover... career... neighborhood... hobbies...

Just because they are unknown to you doesn't mean they don't exist (we've had this discussion before, William. Your egocentric worldview notwithstanding, you are not the center of everyone's universe, no matter what those who love you say.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.

User avatar
William Schryver
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by William Schryver »

moksha:
Have you ever noticed when any of those cretinous morons who make anti-mormon rants, take offense when described in this manner? Not that you personally would ever say anything remotely similar to this provocative description.

So, so true. I'm much more eloquent when describing the "cretinous morons who make anti-mormon rants."
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

Paul Osborne

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by Paul Osborne »

Who knew that sycophancy was capable of achieving orgasm?


Oh William, you're such a bad boy. Clean up your mess.

:wink:

Paul O

AlmaBound
Bishop
Posts: 494
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:19 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by AlmaBound »

moksha wrote:Personally, I hate research that take more than 10 minutes of Googling. It is non-recreational.


I've decided that I will take the time to point out those lines of dialogue that I think are funny and render honor to those who meet my ever-changing and undefined criteria of amusing and/or of interest.

This line met that criteria. Congrats, little penguin. May they someday write songs about you.

User avatar
William Schryver
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by William Schryver »

dissonance wrote:Your jealousy is showing, William.

I've never been jealous of sycophants.

Especially those who are so desperate to associate with "celebrity" that they believe people like Dan Vogel and Will Bagley constitute such. :lol:

All celebrity is relative, of course, but when you consider the fact that Vogel and Bagley are only known for writing bad Mormon history, and that the market for bad Mormon history represents a mere fraction of the already small market for Mormon history in general, then I think you get closer to appreciating how "celebrated" these two would-be "historians" really are.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

AlmaBound
Bishop
Posts: 494
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:19 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by AlmaBound »

William Schryver wrote:...bad Mormon history...Mormon history in general...


What do you know, two in a row.

It is hard for a gentile such as myself to distinguish between them.

Well said, good sir.

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by harmony »

William Schryver wrote:
dissonance wrote:Your jealousy is showing, William.

I've never been jealous of sycophants.


Oh, try again, William. You are jealous of anyone who draws the spotlight off yourself.

Especially those who are so desperate to associate with "celebrity" that they believe people like Dan Vogel and Will Bagley constitute such. :lol:


They are published; you aren't. People buy their books; no one buys anything of yours, especially your lame arguments. They are strangers here; you aren't. I welcome most people when they first land on our corner of the 'net. You, alas, don't.

All celebrity is relative, of course, but when you consider the fact that Vogel and Bagley are only known for writing bad Mormon history, and that the market for bad Mormon history represents a mere fraction of the already small market for Mormon history in general, then I think you get closer to appreciating how "celebrated" these two would-be "historians" really are.


I'm an equal opportunity welcomer, William. Heaven knows, every time Daniel returns, I welcome him too. You, I ignore, but that's only to be expected.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.

Eric

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by Eric »

harmony wrote:
They are published; you aren't. People buy their books; no one buys anything of yours, especially your lame arguments.



Image


:lol:

User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 15290
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by Some Schmo »

William Schryver wrote:
Some Schmo wrote: I'm not sure Will has been sincere about a single thing he's written about himself... well, ever. Not on this board, anyway.

Mmmmmmm ... how intriguing.

Just what do you imagine the truth to be?

I don’t know what the truth is, but I have a pretty good idea what it isn’t. It’s not difficult to recognize an unrealistic caricature when I see one.

I suspect the truth is that you’re a frightened, insecure little boy hiding in a misogynistic, deluded adult’s body, but I’ll resist declaring that as fact, despite the abundance of evidence favoring that conclusion. Benefit of the doubt, and all that.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.

User avatar
cksalmon
God
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:20 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by cksalmon »

William Schryver wrote:Chrissie Kellie Salmon


Will apparently knows that my first name is "Chris[topher]" (Gr. "bearer of Christ") and that my middle name is "Kelly" (a masculine spelling derived from the name of an Irish friend of my parents).

What I find interesting here is that William Schryver has apparently attempted to insult me via the feminization of the spellings of my first and middle names. Rather than "Chris" or "Christopher," William Schryver here inserts a feminine form, derivative of my first name: "Chrissie." And, for my middle name, he inserts, again, a typically feminine spelling, "Kellie," rather than, in deference to the heritage of my Irish middle name, the masculine "Kelly."

Oh my, it must just strike William Schryver as oh-so-clever to refer to me in an artificially feminized manner.

To be sure, I don't care one way or the other, in this instance. I just find it quite telling that Schryver finds, and must find, if his intended insult is to carry any weight at all, his intentional feminization of my first and middle names to be derogatorily humorous.

This is, to be sure, a glowing example of a quite contrived, and amateur, lay LDS apologetic. But, there it is: Plain Stupid.

cks

User avatar
William Schryver
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by William Schryver »

cksalmon wrote:
William Schryver wrote:Chrissie Kellie Salmon


Will apparently knows that my first name is "Chris[topher]" (Gr. "bearer of Christ") and that my middle name is "Kelly" (a masculine spelling derived from the name of an Irish friend of my parents).

What I find interesting here is that William Schryver has apparently attempted to insult me via the feminization of the spellings of my first and middle names. Rather than "Chris" or "Christopher," William Schryver here inserts a feminine form, derivative of my first name: "Chrissie." And, for my middle name, he inserts, again, a typically feminine spelling, "Kellie," rather than, in deference to the heritage of my Irish middle name, the masculine "Kelly."

Oh my, it must just strike William Schryver as oh-so-clever to refer to me in an artificially feminized manner.

To be sure, I don't care one way or the other, in this instance. I just find it quite telling that Schryver finds, and must find, if his intended insult is to carry any weight at all, his intentional feminization of my first and middle names to be derogatorily humorous.

This is, to be sure, a glowing example of a quite contrived, and amateur, lay LDS apologetic. But, there it is: Plain Stupid.

cks

My sincerest apologies!

All along, I thought you were a girl.

Thanks for setting the record straight.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by beastie »

This is, to be sure, a glowing example of a quite contrived, and amateur, lay LDS apologetic. But, there it is: Plain Stupid.


This is the third time a defender of the faith has engaged in this behavior within recent history on this board. It's beginning to look like a pattern.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

User avatar
cksalmon
God
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:20 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by cksalmon »

William Schryver wrote:My sincerest apologies!

All along, I thought you were a girl.

Thanks for setting the record straight.


Absolutely Priceless. William Schryver here attempts to excuse his manifest sexism by feigning ignorance of my gender: "All along, I thought you were a girl." Which, would make his obvious feminization tactics a moot point, as he apparently thinks.

And this is the "rising" star to whose posts DCP has affixed his manifest approval, on more than one occasion.

Folks, this just is LDS apologetics in its very most amateurish, lay-level, instantiation.

Behold, I give you: William Schryver.

I would venture a guess that William Schryver's mind has not entertained a genuinely, sincere, thought for, lo, these many years.

Behold the fruit of your apologetic loins, DCP.

cks

User avatar
KimberlyAnn
Cupcake Queen
Posts: 3171
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:03 am

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by KimberlyAnn »

There is reason to believe that our resident Vulgar Scatologist has been defacing ladies' rooms across the country. I offer as evidence this restroom door I encountered at a historical monument in Santa Fe, New Mexico:

Image

KA

Yoda

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by Yoda »

Will wrote:I've never been jealous of sycophants.


Hmmm....it must be the orgasm you're jealous of, then. :wink:

It's OK, Will.....In this life, women can easily experience multiple orgasms.

Maybe if you become a God in the next life, you can improve men's chances of the same. :lol:

User avatar
RockSlider
God
Posts: 6749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:02 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by RockSlider »

My sincerest apologies!
All along, I thought you were a girl.
Thanks for setting the record straight.


I figured this was said with the greatest possible sarcasm and as a further insult.

But then again, with such a duality/integrity problem how could one make the call?

User avatar
Dan Vogel
Prophet
Posts: 874
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:26 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by Dan Vogel »

I can handle my mistakes being pointed out ...

Yes, that was so apparent in the thread where I pointed one out. :lol:


Yes, in that thread it was apparent that I can gracefully handle my mistakes being discussed. It was equally apparent that you couldn’t.

I don't choose my enemies, they choose me. They need enemies to define themselves, I don't.

Spoken by one whose entire raison d'etre is to discredit the legitimacy of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, and to erode the foundations of the church he founded.

Self-awareness is obviously not one of your strong suits.


Well, if you knew me as well as your statement above implies, you would know that I have consistently stated, both on the MAD board and in print, that scholarship cannot “discredit the legitimacy of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.” That is a matter of faith. What my work might do is bring the definition of “prophet” more in line with historical data. Ironically, some true believers regard the efforts of FARMS and other apologists who try to bring Book of Mormon historicity in line with archaeological data by suggesting limited geography , etc. as an attempt to “to erode the foundations of the church.” Challenging traditional views is what scholars do. Whether this leads to a crisis of faith, a modification, or a complete denial is not a concern for scholars.

True, a lot of what I do pertains to controversial subjects, but not everything. I’m no different than some of the leading apologists (such as Dan Peterson, Jack Welch, Bill Hamblin, etc.) who also write on less controversial topics, such as glossolalia (or in tongues tongues) in the early LDS Church or James Colin Brewster. Indeed, I have spent the last decade working on a critical edition of the History of the Church, which I assure you will benefit all scholars working on Mormon studies regardless of personal conclusions. Anyone familiar with my five-volume Early Mormon Documents knows that I debunk many favorite anti-Mormon claims. I can’t stop you from defining me through your narrow apologetic prism, but I remain confident that those who do not choose me as their enemy will have a more balanced view.

Will, I have not chosen you as an enemy—that is not my intention. I do not seek the demise of the LDS Church. I only seek to impart information and to raise the level of discussion. Why in your world view are those who have a different interpretation of Mormon origins automatically enemies? Is it wise or healthy to make enemies of everyone who questions Book of Mormon historicity or some of Joseph Smith’s historical claims?
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics

Post by harmony »

Dan Vogel wrote:Will, I have not chosen you as an enemy—that is not my intention. I do not seek the demise of the LDS Church. I only seek to impart information and to raise the level of discussion. Why in your world view are those who have a different interpretation of Mormon origins automatically enemies? Is it wise or healthy to make enemies of everyone who questions Book of Mormon historicity or some of Joseph Smith’s historical claims?


Will's a lightweight, an apologist wannabe with a vulgar vocabulary who craves attention. Why do you care what he thinks?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], sunstoned and 18 guests