Newsflash: Will Schryver is a meanie

Bond...James Bond · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:43 pm

Recently over at MAD a thread was going on about women being barefoot and pregnant. Now I'm sure everyone knew it was going to end with a pissing match over feminism, but it took a turn for the worst when Will Schryver dropped this little bit of jerkweedery (is that a word?) on John W (who was responding to a version of events as imagined Will):

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1765&st=60

William Schryver wrote:

Quote:

QUOTE(John W @ Jan 14 2008, 03:42 PM)

Here's the real conversation (sorry, Will, you're way off):

Daughter: Dad, why does Heavenly Father like boys more than girls?
John: Why would you say that? Heavenly Father loves all His children.
Daughter: Yeah, but He loves boys more than girls.
John: Why do you think that?
Daughter: Boys can be anything they want to be, but girls can't.
John: You can be whatever you want to be.
Daughter: No I can't. I can't ever be a bishop or a leader in the church.
John's wife: Well, boys can't be mothers.

That's as close to how she said it as I can remember. It was about a year ago.

Yeah, right.

I consider the above reconstruction of this alleged conversation to be incredibly implausible. If indeed it did take place, it was most certainly preceded by some other indoctrination events that put those ideas and phrases into her head.

But you're certainly free to indoctrinate your children in whatever fashion you choose, although I suspect the future will find you doing so within the context of weekend visits.

As far as the love of God being somehow linked to the respective roles of men and women in the church, there is absolutely nothing in the teachings or tradition of the church that would lead to that conclusion. It is purely the construct of modern feminist propaganda, perpetuated and used to advantage by those individuals who seize upon these ideas as a justification for their alienation from the church.

As far as I'm concerned, it would be more logical for men to believe God loves them less for making them be bishops. I'd personally prefer the rigors of childbirth over the rigors of being a bishop any day!

This is over the line, don't talk to anybody like that again. ~Mods

(my bold)

Now most posters should assume they're going to get their ass chewed at MAD (as is the nature of the beast), but did Will really have to include the bolded section? I think not. It was just a lowblow, but beyond a regular lowblow. It was so low it threw up a little dirt around John's ankles. Bad William, Bad!

Addendum: Before the thread was closed quite a few posters on both side of the aisle took Will to task for his post. I think we all should remember to think twice, post once.

Who Knows · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:51 pm

Maybe Will slept on the couch last night.

Ray A · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:52 pm

I thought the mods only targeted critics, and are horribly biased to Mormons.

TAK · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:56 pm

Quote:

I'd personally prefer the rigors of childbirth over the rigors of being a bishop any day!

Its a shame his wife does not shove a bowling ball up his *ss so he could have a bit of context..

CaliforniaKid · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:57 pm

Ray A wrote:

I thought the mods only targeted critics, and are horribly biased to Mormons.

Actually, they originally only said something like, "be careful of personal comments" to Will. But when I made a stink and they censured me for it, they apparently felt they had to make a show of being even-handed by altering William's red text.

Scottie · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:58 pm

Oh, they modified the warning. At first, it just said, "Please watch the personal insults. ~Mods"

And, you left out some of it...

Runtu wrote:

Morningstar wrote:

Yeah, it's kind of funny how certain men think we're victims of sexism and they react by trying to protect us from it, as if we are helpless dingbats who need protection! Who are the real sexists?

I don't feel the need to protect anyone from the church's obvious sexism. But I grieve when my daughter asks me why Heavenly Father likes boys more than He likes girls.

William Schryver wrote:

Transcript of the conversation:

Quote:

John W: (speaking to daughter Sunday morning) I don’t believe in the Church anymore, but I’ll still come to hear your talk today.

John’s Daughter: I’m glad you’re going to be there Dad. But why don’t you believe in the church anymore?

John W: Well, there are lots of reasons, honey. One thing that bothers me is that the church doesn’t think girls are as important as boys.

John’s Daugther: It doesn’t?

John W: Nope. They think that men are better than women; that women are on earth only to serve men, just like slaves.

John’s Daughter: Wow! I never knew that. They never taught us that in primary or Sunday school. Is that something you learn in the temple?

John W: That’s right, dear. They trick you into going to the temple and promising to never tell what you learn there, and then they make you promise to be a slave to your husband forever. And they tell you that if you break your promise that you will never go to heaven.

John’s Daughter: Why would heavenly Father want me to be a slave?

John W: The only reason I can come up with is that He likes boys more than He likes girls.

John’s Daughter: Why does heavenly Father like boys more than He likes girls?

John W: Why don’t you ask the bishop? Bishops know everything. (Smiles wickedly as he turns away . . . )

John W wrote:

Here's the real conversation (sorry, Will, you're way off):

Daughter: Dad, why does Heavenly Father like boys more than girls?
John: Why would you say that? Heavenly Father loves all His children.
Daughter: Yeah, but He loves boys more than girls.
John: Why do you think that?
Daughter: Boys can be anything they want to be, but girls can't.
John: You can be whatever you want to be.
Daughter: No I can't. I can't ever be a bishop or a leader in the church.
John's wife: Well, boys can't be mothers.

That's as close to how she said it as I can remember. It was about a year ago.

P.S. I think Will was trying to be funny. At least I hope he was.

William Schryver wrote:

Yeah, right.

I consider the above reconstruction of this alleged conversation to be incredibly implausible. If indeed it did take place, it was most certainly preceded by some other indoctrination events that put those ideas and phrases into her head.

But you're certainly free to indoctrinate your children in whatever fashion you choose, although I suspect the future will find you doing so within the context of weekend visits.

As far as the love of God being somehow linked to the respective roles of men and women in the church, there is absolutely nothing in the teachings or tradition of the church that would lead to that conclusion. It is purely the construct of modern feminist propaganda, perpetuated and used to advantage by those individuals who seize upon these ideas as a justification for their alienation from the church.

As far as I'm concerned, it would be more logical for men to believe God loves them less for making them be bishops. I'd personally prefer the rigors of childbirth over the rigors of being a bishop any day!

Looks like I took a pretty big ding by calling Juliann out...oops...

Ray A · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:59 pm

CaliforniaKid wrote:

Actually, they originally only said something like, "be careful of personal comments" to Will. But when I made a stink and they censured me for it, they apparently felt they had to make a show of being even-handed by altering William's red text.

I see. I'll have a look at the thread anyway. I know it's locked now.

Blixa · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:00 pm

Ray A wrote:

I thought the mods only targeted critics, and are horribly biased to Mormons.

As in this example.

Seriously, this post is so vile on so many levels.

Quote:

there is absolutely nothing in the teachings or tradition of the church that would lead to that conclusion.

Just nearly everything ever said or implied to me in church, seminary, or in church publications on both general issues of gender or me as a woman personally. This is one of the most over-reaching claims I've read on a website devoted to denying many aspects of lds cutlure that plenty of us recognize all too well.

I had a severe reaction to this kind of thing well before I ever heard of "feminism."

karl61 · **Joined:** Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:29 am **Posts:** 2871

isn't this the guy that is interview people regarding the Book of Abraham - and reportedly will let them give the okay to use their thoughts. He is the editor ???

Runtu · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:24 pm

I've decided to take a break from MAD for a while. I know I shouldn't let people get to me, but what Will said has really upset me, so I'm just going to leave it alone for a while.

I was gratified to see the original tepid mod response changed, but I think Chris is right that it wouldn't have happened had he not raised a stink.

And thanks to all those who stood up for me. Means a lot.

Ray A · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:28 pm

Runtu wrote:

I've decided to take a break from MAD for a while. I know I shouldn't let people get to me, but what Will said has really upset me, so I'm just going to leave it alone for a while.

I can sympathise with that. I haven't forgotten what was said about my daughter. (Nothing personal here)

Runtu · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:30 pm

Ray A wrote:

Runtu wrote:

I've decided to take a break from MAD for a while. I know I shouldn't let people get to me, but what Will said has really upset me, so I'm just going to leave it alone for a while.

I can sympathise with that. I haven't forgotten what was said about my daughter. (Nothing personal here)

That's when things go wrong, IMO, when people turn things to the personal. I simply recounted a conversation I had with my daughter that I found rather heartbreaking. For my troubles, I was told twice that I'm a liar and that my kids have been indoctrinated with my anti-Mormonness and my marriage is headed for divorce.

No one deserves that, and no one should have gone after your daughter, either.

Ray A · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:43 pm

Runtu wrote:

That's when things go wrong, IMO, when people turn things to the personal. I simply recounted a conversation I had with my daughter that I found rather heartbreaking. For my troubles, I was told twice that I'm a liar and that my kids have been indoctrinated with my anti-Mormonness and my marriage is headed for divorce.

I believe your conversation with your daughter. It sounds realistic to me, and I certainly don't believe you fabricated it. I think Will was wrong to dig in so deep, and so personal (but who am I to pick out eyes when I've done similar myself? But often in return for personal attacks) Don't forget he gave me a good tongue-lashing here too, laced with some colourful adjectives. He did get some good returns from Mormons as well, on that thread, not just the mods.

I know I need to change some of my attitudes as well, but personal attacks don't facilitate such progress.

Blixa · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:46 pm

Ray A wrote:

Runtu wrote:

That's when things go wrong, IMO, when people turn things to the personal. I simply recounted a conversation I had with my daughter that I found rather heartbreaking. For my troubles, I was told twice that I'm a liar and that my kids have been indoctrinated with my anti-Mormonness and my marriage is headed for divorce.

I believe your conversation with your daughter. It sounds realistic to me, and I certainly don't believe you fabricated it. I think Will was wrong to dig in so deep, and so personal (but who am I to pick out eyes when I've done similar myself? But often in return for personal attacks) Don't forget he gave me a good tongue-lashing here too, laced with some colourful adjectives. He did get some good returns from Mormons as well, on that thread, not just the mods.

I know I need to change some of my attitudes as well, but personal attacks don't facilitate such progress.

It wouldn't bother me as much if it had come amidst mud slinging on both sides...but it didn't. Runtu is pretty tame in his commentary on MADD and is completely cordial in his responses to others there...

Bond...James Bond · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:47 pm

Runtu wrote:

That's when things go wrong, IMO, when people turn things to the personal.

I can understand when people start calling each other names and whatnot...but when it spills over and people start talking negatively about kids and wives (who aren't involved in the issue in anyway except perhaps as part of an anecdote) it has gone too far in my opinion.

Yoda · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:49 pm

That's what bothers me about the moderating over there. It is so slanted in favor of what they consider "high profile" posters, it's ridiculous. If a critic had said something similar to a TBM, they would have been banned on the spot.

Will is an ass, Runtu. Stay away from that place.

And, Will, if you're lurking over here, yes, I called you an asshole. I dare you to come over here and post where you're unprotected by the MAD Mods.

You are low and hypocritical for treating someone as nice as Runtu like that.

Shame on you.

Bond...James Bond · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:49 pm

Blixa wrote:

Runtu is pretty tame...

That is what I can't understand. Runtu is one of the most tame posters I've come across on these boards and he gets raked over the coals more than anyone it seems. Maybe it's cause he went from apologist to critic, but it still is weird that he seems to catch a lot of flak. *shrugs*

Runtu · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:50 pm

Blixa wrote:

It wouldn't bother me as much if it had come amidst mud slinging on both sides...but it didn't. Runtu is pretty tame in his commentary on MADD and is completely cordial in his responses to others there...

I seem to recall a conversation a long time ago with Will wherein he said that when people call the church sexist he sees it as a personal attack on his daughters and wife (and by extension on him as a father and husband). So I understand on some level why he said what he said, but it was still wrong and uncalled for.

Doctor Steuss · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:50 pm

Yoda · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:53 pm

Runtu wrote:

Blixa wrote:

It wouldn't bother me as much if it had come amidst mud slinging on both sides...but it didn't. Runtu is pretty tame in his commentary on MADD and is completely cordial in his responses to others there...

I seem to recall a conversation a long time ago with Will wherein he said that when people call the church sexist he sees it as a personal attack on his daughters and wife (and by extension on him as a father and husband). So I understand on some level why he said what he said, but it was still wrong and uncalled for.

No excuses. He's an ass if he doesn't apologize.

Charity, what is your view of this?

Blixa · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:54 pm

Runtu wrote:

Blixa wrote:

It wouldn't bother me as much if it had come amidst mud slinging on both sides...but it didn't. Runtu is pretty tame in his commentary on MADD and is completely cordial in his responses to others there...

I seem to recall a conversation a long time ago with Will wherein he said that when people call the church sexist he sees it as a personal attack on his daughters and wife (and by extension on him as a father and husband). So I understand on some level why he said what he said, but it was still wrong and uncalled for.

Well that's just ridiculous, but fascinating in terms of the psychology of identification.

Newsflash: Will Schryver is a meanie

Who is online