I have replied on my blog: "The Calculated Suppression of Misogyny: Or, the Real Story of My Involvement in L'Affaire de William Schryver."

Enjoy.

This is true, and yet, oddly enough, she fits in there quite comfortably. In fact, she is one of what I have characterized, in my blog post, as the "core members" of the anti-Mormons who congregate there.

And make no mistake about it, Bridget Jeffries is anti-Mormon to the very center of her feminazi soul. Of course, she is of that unique variety of which John Williams and Chris Smith are also a part: the passive-aggressive-pretending-to-just-be-interested-in-Mormonism-as-a-cultural-phenomenon brand of anti-Mormon which is, in my judgment, the kind you need to keep your eye on the most.
.
.
.
Now, changing the subject somewhat (and I must be brief, because I am leaving shortly to attend a family reunion), I noted that MsJack has offered up a "reply" of sorts to my blog post. My first comment on her counter-post is this: note how she makes grandiose allegations about my making attacks on men, too! (Oh, shudder!) And that I am always the one to launch the first strike, or throw the first punch, or something like that. Then she provides three links to (presumably) provide evidentiary support to her claims. (This is precisely the pattern she uses in her propaganda smear sheet directed at me.)

The problem is that when you actually follow the links and read what I posted there, you come away thinking to yourself, "how did that support her allegations?" So it is with the allegation that I am a misogynist.

One could accurately accuse me of, on very rare occasions, using double entendre and mild sexual innuendo. It's true. I have no problem with that kind of thing, and I shake my head at those who do. Again, I have never been vulgar or obscene. Talking about a woman's breast reduction surgery when she has already established the context with her own public blog post is not "sexually charged language" as some would like readers to believe. Nothing I have ever posted rises above the level of "PG" in the parlance of the American movie rating system. (I would let my children attend PG movies.)

You see, that's the real issue here: all of this is one big gross exaggeration coupled with a sprinkling of forgeries to give it the patina of real offensiveness.

Now, speaking of the forgeries, MsJack and her cohorts have spilled much ink attempting, for example, to prove that I used the dreaded "c" word in a post directed at harmony. They are liars, and they know it. Those who claim to have "seen" the word in the post in question are liars, since even that board, were one to type in that word in a post, would automatically edit it to read "c***". In any event, I said no such thing. I said nothing even remotely close to that. I have never used that word in my life. They are liars. And, again, they know it.

This is the thing about those people: they practice their brand of "morality" towards each other, but they have no compunction when it comes to lying about those whom they hate, like me. It is a principle spoken of by the Lord here:



And make no mistake about it, that is precisely what these people seek to do: destroy those whom they perceive to be threats to their anti-Mormon cause.

In any case, take away the things they produced via forgery or manipulation of posts, and you've got nothing but comments about breast reduction surgery upon which to hang the charge that Will Schryver is a wicked misogynist.
.
.
.
I want to publicly commend Ray Agostini and Eric Norwood. They are men to whom truth really means something. "Rollo Tomasi" had a chance to be such a man, but he yielded to the demands of the mob of which he is a part. That's sad.
.
.
.
Finally, I want to say this: Neither MsJack nor anyone else has "destroyed" my opportunities to publish scholarly papers regarding the origins of the Book of Abraham. Not at all. In fact, my prestige has been enhanced as a result of the concerted effort that has been made to discredit me. In faithful LDS circles, we have long since learned that those to whom the anti-Mormons pay the most attention and expend the most effort in their attempts to defame are those who must have the most important things to say and do. It's just the way Satan works. He stirs his minions up to anger against that which is good, or that which tends towards truth. Not to suggest that I am inordinately good or righteous or whatnot. I'm not. I'm just a guy who happened to get the opportunity to examine the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and who figured out something that no one had previously perceived: that they are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. The anti-Mormons correctly perceive that this discovery threatens their long-standing mythology of Book of Abraham production, and therefore they are attempting to nip it in the bud, as it were.

But they have not succeeded. I cannot say more at this point in time, but suffice it to say that I have not been permanently discredited; my chances to publish are not destroyed--quite the opposite my friends. The enemies of the Church have rejoiced for a season, but their celebration has been premature, and before long, it will become apparent that their fantasy of destroying Mormon apologetics has simply been a pipe dream sown in a gale.

Time to stop, Will. You haven't defended yourself adequately here. If a member of my law firm posted in an email the stuff you've posted here from your exchanges with Kimberly, he or she would be disciplined. It doesn't matter that you try and make a joke out of it.

And to bring Paul Hoskisson's name into this mess is really poor form.

I call on your high-falutin' friends, your mega posters on this board, the Pahorans, the Seleks, the USUs, the Calmoriahs, the Petersons, the Hamblins, the Christiansens, the Gardners, to step forward and say here and now that they see no offense to or problems with any of your justifications in this thread. If at least half of that list do so, I'll shut up. Otherwise, I hope you don't mind if I have made up my mind here and now to say that I must disavow your voice amongst the voices of apologists.

And make no mistake about it, Bridget Jeffries is anti-Mormon to the very center of her feminazi soul. Of course, she is of that unique variety of which John Williams and Chris Smith are also a part: the passive-aggressive-pretending-to-just-be-interested-in-Mormonism-as-a-cultural-phenomenon brand of anti-Mormon which is, in my judgment, the kind you need to keep your eye on the most.

The problem is that when you actually follow the links and read what I posted there, you come away thinking to yourself, "how did that support her allegations?" So it is with the allegation that I am a misogynist.

D&C 10

25 Yea, he saith unto them: Deceive and lie in wait to catch, that ye may destroy; behold, this is no harm. And thus he flattereth them, and telleth them that it is no sin to lie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him.

And make no mistake about it, that is precisely what these people seek to do: destroy those whom they perceive to be threats to their anti-Mormon cause.

Finally, I want to say this: Neither MsJack nor anyone else has "destroyed" my opportunities to publish scholarly papers regarding the origins of the Book of Abraham. Not at all. In fact, my prestige has been enhanced as a result of the concerted effort that has been made to discredit me. In faithful LDS circles, we have long since learned that those to whom the anti-Mormons pay the most attention and expend the most effort in their attempts to defame are those who must have the most important things to say and do. It's just the way Satan works. He stirs his minions up to anger against that which is good, or that which tends towards truth. Not to suggest that I am inordinately good or righteous or whatnot. I'm not. I'm just a guy who happened to get the opportunity to examine the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and who figured out something that no one had previously perceived: that they are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. The anti-Mormons correctly perceive that this discovery threatens their long-standing mythology of Book of Abraham production, and therefore they are attempting to nip it in the bud, as it were.

But they have not succeeded. I cannot say more at this point in time, but suffice it to say that I have not been permanently discredited; my chances to publish are not destroyed--quite the opposite my friends. The enemies of the Church have rejoiced for a season, but their celebration has been premature, and before long, it will become apparent that their fantasy of destroying Mormon apologetics has simply been a pipe dream sown in a gale.

Who here doesn't want to see william published. Why does he keep saying that supressing his publication is our goal? Some needs to start a voting thread to see who, here, actually doesn't want to see him publish his gamechanger?

I'm just a guy who happened to get the opportunity to examine the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and who figured out something that no one had previously perceived: that they are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. The anti-Mormons correctly perceive that this discovery threatens their long-standing mythology of Book of Abraham production, and therefore they are attempting to nip it in the bud, as it were.

Time to stop, Will. You haven't defended yourself adequately here. If a member of my law firm posted in an email the stuff you've posted here from your exchanges with Kimberly, he or she would be disciplined. It doesn't matter that you try and make a joke out of it.

And anyone would find that to be a problem because....

waiting....

waiting....

waiting....

Well, I can't come up with any reason why I, or anyone else, would be threatened by the notion that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham before the KEP were put together. I have yet to see a convincing argument put forth to show that. But I see nothing potentially damaging or enhancing to the LDS position in such a chronology.

Essentially Will is saying Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham via revelation about a papyrus fragment that is now missing. Because it is missing, no one can test Will's hypothesis to determine whether it is correct.

Yawn.

I've been peeking in on the thread. I feel bad for TreeHugger. He/She is discovering the hard truth that a priesthood holder is only a priesthood holder when acting as such.

IMO his argument eliminates the KEP as evidence that the Book of Abraham was incorrectly translated in MS1-3 (or at least the first chapter and change) from the extant PSJ XI part of the Hor Book of Breathings.

One could accurately accuse me of, on very rare occasions, using double entendre and mild sexual innuendo. It's true. I have no problem with that kind of thing, and I shake my head at those who do. Again, I have never been vulgar or obscene.

You see, that's the real issue here: all of this is one big gross exaggeration coupled with a sprinkling of forgeries to give it the patina of real offensiveness.

And make no mistake about it, that is precisely what these people seek to do: destroy those whom they perceive to be threats to their anti-Mormon cause.

I want to publicly commend Ray Agostini and Eric Norwood. They are men to whom truth really means something. "Rollo Tomasi" had a chance to be such a man, but he yielded to the demands of the mob of which he is a part. That's sad.

In fact, my prestige has been enhanced as a result of the concerted effort that has been made to discredit me.

In faithful LDS circles, we have long since learned that those to whom the anti-Mormons pay the most attention and expend the most effort in their attempts to defame are those who must have the most important things to say and do.

The anti-Mormons correctly perceive that this discovery threatens their long-standing mythology of Book of Abraham production, and therefore they are attempting to nip it in the bud, as it were.

I cannot say more at this point in time, but suffice it to say that I have not been permanently discredited; my chances to publish are not destroyed--quite the opposite my friends.

The enemies of the Church have rejoiced for a season, but their celebration has been premature, and before long, it will become apparent that their fantasy of destroying Mormon apologetics has simply been a pipe dream sown in a gale.

Many more have followed since then, and although I am still unaware of any substantive counter-arguments to the primary thesis of my presentation (that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham),

a pervasive même has evolved such that it is now the received wisdom, in anti-Mormon circles, that not only is William Schryver the single most offensive LDS apologist on the planet, but that the Schryver thesis of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers was comprehensively "destroyed" within days of its original presentation.

Of course, no one can tell you precisely how the thesis was destroyed,

but there is now a universal consensus among the participants at Mormon Discussions that "all qualified scholars" have rejected my thesis as a ridiculous apologetic imposture.

What you are telling me is that it is helpful to maintain a certain preconception some Mormons have about Joseph Smith's revelation process.

Ultimately, it does nothing to enhance or damage the LDS position.

I stand by my judgment.

Another interesting tidbit from Bob Crockett.

Maybe I need to understand the distinction you make between the LDS position and the preconceptions some Mormons have about Joseph Smith's revelation process. How do they differ? Certainly Will's cipher theory allows for a response to the dependence of the Book of Abraham on the KEP.

I think most LDS believe Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham, not revealed it. Though I see more and more LDS trying to claim, contrary to what Joseph Smith himself stated, that it was revealed. Usually these are those LDS familiar with some of the issues and are trying to distance Joseph Smith from his own translation claims.

Thread banned. A first. I don't take such things lightly. I will take my dolls and go home, back to worshipping Mammon. Thus ends 20 years of BBS, Compuserve or internet apologetics. Histrionics over.