It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:54 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1610 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 77  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:35 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3457
Location: Palatine, IL
UPDATE (5/19/2011): PLEASE READ

I have received a very brief note informing me that my case as laid out in this thread has been heard and William Schryver's work will not be published by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. I am sharing this information with permission, and while I will not reveal my source, please know that I have 100% trust in the information s/he has passed onto me. Please also know that this was not an official correspondence from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, but an informal one from someone "in the know" who wanted to let me know that my case has been heard.

In light of this development, I see no reason to reproduce the series on any of my blogs. I consider the matter as closed as it ever will be.

Do not send me private messages or e-mails asking for more information about what was said or who said it. I will not tell you.

Thank you everyone who has read my thread and heard me out. I am relieved to know that there are others who share my desire to keep Mormon Studies a friendly place for female academics to participate.

Sincerely,
-Bridget Jack Jeffries aka "MsJack"

----------------------

Table of Contents

Introduction
Some Notes on My Source Material
A Note to the MDB Moderators
Obsessed With Breasts & a Little Black Dress
"You're Only as Young as the Women You Feel"
"Over Your Pretty Little Head"
Other Incidents
Emma Smith: "Champion Bitch" of the Restoration
Has William Ever Addressed This Behavior?
Have Other LDS Scholars & Apologists Addressed This Behavior?
Conclusion: Why It Matters
Addendum: Replies to responses to this thread, including a reply to William's blog post

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Last edited by MsJack on Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:06 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Introduction
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:36 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3457
Location: Palatine, IL
Introduction

This thread concerns William Schryver, a member of the Mormon Discussions community since November 1, 2006, a former member of the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR), and an apologist for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The purpose of this thread is to raise concern over William's treatment of female participants at Mormon Discussions as well as his remarks on other female figures. The behavior William has displayed towards women here at Mormon Discussions has been undeniably and consistently misogynist.

Normally I would not bother with a thread of this magnitude devoted to calling out the poor behavior of another forum participant. Frankly, I see terrible behavior on discussion forums all the time (this one included), from commentators representing all ends of the religious and political spectrum, so if I made this level of effort to call out terrible behavior wherever I see it, I would seldom have time to post about anything else. Furthermore, I do not believe that William's behavior is representative of the men of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that it should be taken to reflect poorly on that organization. I feel that all religions suffer from a certain degree of members who fail to live the high standards of their religion, so William is typical in this regard. I also count faithful and active LDS men (some of them apologists and scholars) among my closest family, friends, and confidants, and I have never seen them display the level of disrespect towards women that I have witnessed from William during my time at Mormon Discussions.

Why this thread then? I feel that this thread has become necessary on account of the fact that William seems to be gaining notoriety in the LDS apologetic and scholarly community. Last year, FAIR invited William to deliver a presentation on his Kirtland Egyptian Papers research at the Twelfth Annual Mormon Apologetics Conference. His then-upcoming presentation was even the focus of a glowing write-up in the Church-owned Deseret News. Egyptologist John Gee asked William to deliver his own Book of Abraham presentation at FAIR when Dr. Gee found himself unable to attend the Conference himself. Most recently, BYU Religion Professor Brian Hauglid thanked William in the acknowledgments for his latest volume, A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions. Finally, William has boasted for some time that the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship "has expressed a strong desire to publish [his] articles on the KEP" and that his arguments concerning the Book of Abraham "will be published as a volume in the Maxwell Institute’s Studies in the Book of Abraham series." I consider both FAIR and the Maxwell Institute to be credible scholarly organizations, so these strike me as significant achievements on William's part.

The point: William Schryver is no longer just another man making misogynist and lewd comments to women on the Internet---after all, it isn't as if those are noteworthy or hard to find. He is now a respected apologist and aspiring LDS scholar making misogynist and lewd comments to women on the Internet. The consequences this will have on the scholarly process when it comes to William's contributions to Mormon academia need to be addressed.

For the record, William is known to have used the following MDB handles:

William Schryver
WilliamSchryver
Will Schryver

Some (myself included) have suspected and accused other community members of being William Schryver sock puppets. For the purposes of this thread, I will be ignoring these theories and only addressing material that was posted under William's confirmed handles.

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Last edited by MsJack on Sun May 01, 2011 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Some Notes on My Source Material
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:37 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3457
Location: Palatine, IL
Some Notes on My Source Material

Several other members of the MDB community have made attempts to compile and document William's poor behavior for the benefit of those who may not be as familiar with his online persona as most MDB members are. Most commonly cited and bumped on our forums is Pokatator's "William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics" thread, which originated on 5/1/09.

I decided it was time for a new thread for three reasons:

(1) To my knowledge, no thread has focused exclusively on William's behavior towards women. While I find much of William's other behavior to be gratuitously rude, vulgar, and just generally unchristian, it is his contempt for women that strikes me as the most odious.

(2) In fairness to William, some community members have attributed statements to him that he never said. For example, William did not say, "I'm married to the kind of woman you have to masturbate to;" that was Kevin Graham (10/25/10). Due to the inaccuracies in citations that have been permeating this forum, nothing is cited below unless I can give the reader a link to the OP where William first said it.

(3) However, William has also denied making statements that he did in fact make (see the section on Emma Smith for an example) and has often complained that his remarks are being taken out of context. For brevity's sake, I cannot possibly cite the full conversation that preceded every statement cited here. Again, I have provided links to the original statements so that the reader can consult the context and decide for himself or herself. It is my own opinion that the vast majority of the material I have cited here would be inappropriate in any context.

My goal was to create something well-organized, well-documented, and easy to navigate. Hopefully I have succeeded in this aim.

I welcome corrections of any errors found in the OP and will update the OP accordingly. Please note that bold emphases are mine unless I say otherwise.

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Last edited by MsJack on Sun May 01, 2011 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: A Note to the MDB Moderators
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:37 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3457
Location: Palatine, IL
A Note to the MDB Moderators

ATTN: MODERATORS ~ You will note that I have posted this thread in the Celestial Forum, and that is where I would like the thread to remain.

It is true that most of William's remarks as cited in my OP are far from "Rated G." However, my own comments and arguments are polite, respectful, and (I hope) void of name-calling or other personal attacks. I believe that I am raising a serious issue here, so it is my goal to hold a mature "Rated G" discussion concerning a "Rated R" subject.

It seems that threads involving William Schryver quickly deteriorate into Terrestrial or Telestial quality. I'm asking in advance that comments which do not meet the standards of the Celestial Forum be split and removed to the appropriate forum rather than moving the thread in its entirety. Thank you.

UPDATE 5-25-2011: Sometime after the thread was started, the moderators asked for my permission to move the thread to Terrestrial, and I gave it. The thread was subsequently moved today.

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Last edited by MsJack on Wed May 25, 2011 4:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Obsessed with Breasts & a Little Black Dress
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:38 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3457
Location: Palatine, IL
Obsessed with Breasts & a Little Black Dress

It all started (apparently) at the 2006 ExMormon Foundation Annual Conference, where community member KimberlyAnn was in attendance. On a thread here at MDB, William chimed in to state that he could remember meeting KimberlyAnn there, and had very vivid memories of the dress she was wearing (8/29/07):

William Schryver wrote:
I did go to the exmo conference to hear Brent. And believe me, I remember very well you and your black dress. As I recall, you were struggling to keep the girls tucked in securely. ;-) But don't worry, I didn't feel threatened or ashamed. If one views God as an artist, then certainly the female breast is one of His masterpieces.

A rather unsettling level of detail to be recalling to a woman on the Internet whom one has barely met, but at the time their exchange over the matter seemed friendly enough.

The next day, William brought the dress up again of his own accord (8/30/07):

William Schryver wrote:
Per Kimberly Ann’s request, and because my heart is still twitterpated at the recollection of her in slinky black dress

A week later, William raised the matter once again in another exchange with KimberlyAnn (9/6/07):

William Schryver wrote:
I’m perfect in my imperfection. You’re perfect in your black dress.

KimberlyAnn (who had no recollection of their meeting at the ExMormon Conference in the first place) wisely ignored the remark.

That was the last anyone heard of the black dress until a year and a half later, when one of the participants recalled William's bizarre fixation with the matter from before. William offered this "defense" of his fixation (4/15/09):

William Schryver wrote:
I might note that, if KA did not desire her breasts to be "ogled" on the evening in question, she might have selected from her wardrobe an item of clothing that more effectively covered the body parts in question. The black dress she chose could not have covered more than 40% of the breastage she brought to the occasion. Her attire would have been more appropriate for an AVN expo in Las Vegas.

"AVN" stands for Adult Video News, a trade magazine for the pornography industry. They hold an exposition in Las Vegas every January. So now William was comparing KimberlyAnn's attire to that of a porn star.

KimberlyAnn later attempted to put the matter to rest by posting a picture of herself in this dress that was allegedly so tawdry that William had been powerless to get it out of his head. Note that at this point in time, KimberlyAnn had undergone a breast reduction surgery, which she had blogged about publicly. KimberlyAnn's post (2/17/10):

KimberlyAnn wrote:
I have to say this ongoing mentioning of a black dress I wore years ago to an Ex-Mormon conference is growing tiresome. It's being made out to be something it's not. The completely unwarranted brouhaha should have died down long ago. I thought by simply letting it go that the comments would stop, but that hasn't proven a successful strategy thus far.

So, I just now--and I do mean just now--put on the dress and snapped some pics of myself so that everyone can see for themselves just how not-a-big-deal the dress was and is. My daughter's camera is crappy. I'm literally wearing the dress over my exercise pants. My white socks and tennis shoes are still on, and they look very silly with a black dress, so there are no full-length shots. The mirror is dirty in my daughter's room. (I must remember to make her clean it soon!)

So, without further ado, the black dress that is supposedly fit for a porn conference:

*images snipped*

There. I'm not embarrassed of it. I don't think it's immodest. If someone has a problem with my dress, I'd say that someone is big-time repressed! Seriously, it's nothing one wouldn't see at any given restaurant on any given Friday night. Good grief!

KimberlyAnn has since removed the images in question, but I recall seeing them when she posted them and will vouch that the dress was remarkably tame. Note that KimberlyAnn states that she was deliberately ignoring William's repeat mentions of the dress in hopes that he would stop bringing it up.

William's reply (2/17/10):

William Schryver wrote:
The breast reduction surgery appears to have been successful.

lol

1 Nephi 14:11

1 Nephi 14:11 reads, "And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people." So now, on top of fixating on her breasts and comparing her to pornography stars, William was calling KimberlyAnn a whore.

Concerning her breast reduction surgery, William also felt the need to add (2/17/10):

William Schryver wrote:
KA was the one who blogged about her breast reduction surgery. It was hilarious. I laughed. I cried. I blew snot bubbles.

Some comments that William had made on the matter earlier and elsewhere (4/14/09 & 4/14/09):

William Schryver wrote:
You know, I was a little chagrined about the thought of you moving down a cupsize, but I have to say that, based on your Easter photo, it worked out very well; you look pretty damn hot for a thirty-something mother of 4!

William Schryver wrote:
And I still say that Kimberly looks pretty damn hot for a thirty-something mother of 4. You go, girl!

None of this was enough for William. In October of last year, just before taking a four-month hiatus from our forums, William commented on the dress thing again---and this time, he wanted to make sure everyone understood that his LDS academic colleagues have been enjoying some good laughs over KimberlyAnn's breasts along with him (10/13/10 ):

William Schryver wrote:
(Kimberly does remain somewhat famous [among a small circle of otherwise respected academics] on account of my descriptions of her having once squeezed her then more voluptuous spirit tabernacle into a slinky black three-sizes-too-small dress at the 2006 Exmormon Foundation conference in Salt Lake City, which I attended. One wouldn't have believed it possible to carry melons in a pair of thimbles suspended from a thread, but miracles happen almost every day in this jaded world of cynical disbelievers.)

This quote, complete with its lewd and unwelcome descriptions of KimberlyAnn's body, will be discussed in more detail below.

Just recently (4/14/11), William attempted to deny that his reference to 1 Nephi 14:11 was meant to call KimberlyAnn a whore. I suppose the only appropriate response to that is ...

2 Nephi 9:34.

(Edited for typo)

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Last edited by MsJack on Wed May 04, 2011 12:11 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: "You're Only as Young as the Women You Feel"
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:38 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3457
Location: Palatine, IL
"You're Only as Young as the Women You Feel"

Beastie is a female community member who has had a number of exchanges with William over the years. Throughout these exchanges, William has often made derogatory comments to beastie about her appearance and her age, in addition to bringing crude sexual material into his exchanges with her.

On 4/11/08, beastie became the second of several women on this forum to be described by William with some variation of the word bitch (liz3564 was the first; see below). In a reply to beastie, he quoted her as "Bitchie."

In that same exchange with William, commenting on the argument he was making, beastie said (4/9/08):

beastie wrote:
IOW, sexual libertinism is only ok when God sanctions it first. Like all mob leaders, God bestows many "privileges" among his alpha males.

To which William replied (4/11/08 --- italics his, bold mine):

William Schryver wrote:
Yes He does. And I am personally gratified that it bothers you so much. But don’t you worry, in the resurrection there will be no “alpha males” who will have any desire for your “Barbie doll-like” immortal body. I mean, I’m sure you’ll be nice to look at – but you’ll be good for nothing when it comes to the things that matter most. ;-)

Then later in the same post, William added:

William Schryver wrote:
[Latter-day Saints] also believe that Joseph Smith knew exactly what he was talking about when he gave the interpretation of the following image:
[Image]
And they intend to do whatever is necessary to guarantee their capacity for such things in perpetuity.

The link to the image William posted no longer works, but he posted a link to the erect phallus of the Egyptian god Min from Facsimile No. 2 Figure 7 of the Book of Abraham. MormonThink.com has a copy of this image here.

In reply to the "Bitchie" appellation, beastie made this remark, alluding to the previous incidents with KimberlyAnn (4/11/08 --- emphasis hers):

beastie wrote:
How surprising that a pretentious, flamboyant, self-flattering* man who prefers to comment on women’s cleavage than anything of substance would revert to this.
Actually, that would be unsurprising,wouldn’t it?

To which William replied (4/15/08):

William Schryver wrote:
[Y]ou’re just jealous that I like Kimberly’s cleavage better than yours. But hey, at 50 what’s a woman to do? ;-)

In another exchange with William the following year, beastie commented on some of the material I quoted above, i. e. William's first comments on KimberlyAnn's breasts here at this forum and his unsettling fixation with them. Beastie said (4/15/09):

beastie wrote:
Heh. I first noticed this trait in Will when he referred to his first meeting with KA long ago (too long ago for me to be able to find the post). IIRC, he stated he could hardly take his eyes off her, hinting strongly that his eyes were drawn mainly toward her breasts. It surprised me for a self-professed LDS believer to make such a comment, so I began to notice other comments he would make, as well. His comments about women's anatomy were frequent enough that he did, indeed, appear to be the cyber equivalent of a "breast-starer".

To this William replied (4/15/09 --- bold mine, italics his):

William Schryver wrote:
beastlie, you are a lying, deceitful bitch of a woman.

I defy anyone to locate anything I have ever written on this board or elsewhere that could be reasonably seen as fitting the description you give above.

Anyone who reads my "Obsessed with Breasts and a Little Black Dress" post in this thread can see that beastie's memory was more than accurate. Furthermore, it seems that later remarks made by William have born out her observations as correct.

This lead to an argument between beastie and William as to whether or not William is really sexist in his dealings with women, i. e. whether or not he really fixates on their appearances, bodies, and sexuality when responding to them. beastie said (4/14/09):

beastie wrote:
For another example, look at your response to me – you focused on my physical characteristics, emphasizing that no man could possibly be attracted to me. (btw, there are enough posters here who have seen pictures of me to render your comment silly)

You have a habit, and perhaps people in real life are too polite to point it out to you, or perhaps you don’t do it in real life, but you certainly do it on this board. You have a habit of sexualizing your comments to women, in responding to them in a way that objectifies them, in the proper sense of the word, not the over-used sense of the word. When you disagree with what a female poster says, you often insert some derogatory comment about her physical appearance. When you have reason to believe you would find a female poster physically attractive, you insert some flirtatious, sometimes suggestive comment while dismissing her comments. This all adds up to someone who cyber ogles women, sizing them up like pieces of meat in the market.

To which William responded (denying that one of his previous replies had focused on her physical appearance --- 4/14/09):

William Schryver wrote:
No it didn’t, you deceitful shrew, it talked about your “ugly soul” that would “come through” and render you unattractive. You’re a liar and a propagandist.
beastie wrote:
… sizing them up like pieces of meat in the market.

If so, I’d liken you to a ham hock.

In the same thread, beastie finally posted a picture of herself so that William would stop calling her ugly (she has since removed the picture). William replied (4/15/09):

William Schryver wrote:
You are quite a hot little dish!

Who woulda thunk it?

Hey, if you're ever in town ... nah, never mind. :lol:

Since then William has mostly focused on poking fun at beastie's age---which is, incidentally, not much older than his. However, the sexual innuendo has remained. Last year, William participated in a lengthy thread that concerned Brent Metcalfe and Mark Hoffman. I simply cannot do justice to everything that was being said on that thread by summarizing here, and strongly encourage anyone who is interested to read the thread from the start. Of interest for the purposes of this section of my thread: at one point, beastie issued the following reply to William, making a mildly crude but non-sexual reference to the Old Testament's King David (9/4/10):

beastie wrote:
Aw, ain't it cute. Little Wee Willie imagines he's David, but instead of a well-placed rock shooting forth from his sling, all he can manage is some hot air so rancid one wonders from which end it originated.

William immediately turned the exchange to the sexual (9/4/10):

William Schryver wrote:
Settle down, beastsheba. I assure you I have no desire whatsoever to watch you bathe.

In the immortal words of Dodge Connelly:
Quote:
"You’re only as young as the women you feel."

And I have no desire to feel sixty-five.

I imagine beastie had no desire to feel creeped out by William's jokes about (not) wanting to feel her up, but it seems it's too late for that now.

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Last edited by MsJack on Sun May 01, 2011 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: "Over Your Pretty Little Head"
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:39 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3457
Location: Palatine, IL
"Over Your Pretty Little Head"

In March of 2008, William was involved in a debate with Who Knows and several other MDB posters on Lamanites, Native Americans and DNA. William digressed from the topic to go off on a rant about WK's wife sleeping in her panties and a tank top. Community moderator liz3564 entered the thread for the first time to tell William to "Quit being such an ass" and stick to addressing WK's argument. To this William replied (3/18/08):

William Schryver wrote:
Go away, Lizzie. This conversation is over your pretty little head. You want to moderate my comments, go right ahead. Put some bite in your bitchiness.

When liz3564 remained in the thread and attempted to engage William's arguments, he added (3/18/08):

William Schryver wrote:
In retrospect, I have no idea if you even have a “pretty little head.” You see, I am as handsome as my avatar suggests, but I have serious doubts that you are as good looking as your avatar would lead us believe. I’ll bet you’re a wrinkled middle-aged woman with varicose veins and more good years behind you than ahead of you.

But he still wasn't done. When his ugly name-calling came up again later that same year, William added (7/1/08):

William Schryver wrote:
By the way, liz, just for the record, I actually think you'd look quite hot in a tank top. On the back of a Harley. With a tattoo. Of a scorpion. On the small of your back.

Oooh, baby! ;-)

From my own observations on this forum, it seems that William is completely incapable of addressing a woman who disagrees with him without commenting on her breasts, her age, her appearance or her femininity. He especially enjoys finding a way to work in the word "bitch."

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Last edited by MsJack on Sun May 01, 2011 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Other Incidents
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:39 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3457
Location: Palatine, IL
Other Incidents

To KimberlyAnn after she complained about William's overt sexism (3/18/08):

William Schryver wrote:
Now get your fat ass back in the kitchen and whip up a batch of cookies before I slap you silly.

To community moderator harmony, William said (8/4/09):

William Schryver wrote:
You're the toughest talking blowhard of a bitch I've ever seen.

"Grrrrrrr ... put up or shut up! Grrrrrrr ... I'm so intimidating when I snarl ..."

:lol:!

OK, you gnarly, snarly wench you, here's some scriptural references for you.

(Note that William often refers to harmony as "dissonance." I think he sees this as one of his witticisms or something.)

To harmony again, on the day after calling her "bitch" and "wench" (8/5/09 --- emphases his):

William Schryver wrote:
I think the real problem is that harmony dislikes women, or rather, being a woman. She resents the fact (as she sees it) that she was born into an inferior (as she sees it) role, body, status, etc.

Of course, she's really not that uncommon in this respect. Modern feminism has now produced at least three generations littered with self-loathing women. It's one of the great tragedies of our times, if you ask me.

If only harmony would think to call more women "bitches" and "whores." Then we would know for sure how highly she thinks of them.

There's also this gem from William, posted just 3 days before his recent four-month hiatus from MDB (10/22/10):

William Schryver wrote:
A despicable lie.

edited by harmony. Blatant personal attack. You're an inch from being suspended.

What did harmony edit out of William's post? What could he have possibly said that was so offensive that it was instantly moderated here in the land of free speech for all?

William called her a "c***." Just in case anyone reading this lives a very sheltered life: "c***" is "an abusive term usually considered the most offensive word [in reference to women] and even more forceful than bitch." I realize the original word is no longer preserved in William's post due to harmony's moderation, but there are several members of our community who remember this exchange and can vouch for this.

But remember, it's harmony who supposedly loathes women and being a woman. William has nothing but the utmost respect for his "c***s" and "bitches" and "whores."

UPDATE 8/2/2012: Did William actually say this? Is this claim a "forgery"? A summary of the evidence. Decide for yourself.

To liz3564 (2/15/10):

William Schryver wrote:
I regard you as too shallow and insignificant to bother with.

You're just the homely waitress wandering from table to table here in the singlewide, hoping that someone will get drunk enough to ask you out.

And finally, there's this gem which William lobbed at harmony just over two years ago (3/23/09):

WilliamSchryver wrote:
Harmony is just bitter that the daily circle jerks in the Great and Spacious Trailer Park™ are the closest she has come to a bona fide sexual experience in over 40 years.

I simply cannot understand how her husband has resisted the urge to off himself for so long. Of all the men in human history who have felt compelled, no matter the cost, to “stick it out” with a bitch of a wife – Joseph Smith included – if anyone deserves the reward of 72 virgins in heaven, it’s that poor man.

From out of nowhere, William decides that speculation on the sex life of a female community member is his business, then drags her spouse into the matter, suggesting that mr. harmony should have committed suicide by now.

BTW, please note that William says here that Joseph Smith had to "stick it out" with a "bitch of a wife" and that he deserves 72 virgins in heaven as a reward for doing so. Joseph Smith had several dozen wives, so which "bitch" did William have in mind for this appellation? Turn to the next section to find out.

[Also: I recommend that any readers unfamiliar with the term "circle jerk" consult the Urban Dictionary entry on the matter.]

UPDATE 8/2/2012: Did William actually make the sole post by "WilliamSchryver"? Is this post a "forgery"? According to him, he wrote it. See for yourself.

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Last edited by MsJack on Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:30 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Emma Smith: "Champion Bitch" of the Restoration
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:40 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3457
Location: Palatine, IL
Emma Smith: "Champion Bitch" of the Restoration

In April of 2008, William was engaged in a debate with beastie wherein the latter made a point about some early Mormon women being permitted to have more than one husband while Emma Smith had just one. To this William replied (4/15/08):

William Schryver wrote:
No, it’s just because Emma was a champion bitch and no one else would have her except Joseph. (Needless to say, I don’t think I’ll be checking out the new “Emma Smith as the Exemplar for All Women” movie.)

At least we can be sure which wife William had in mind when he commented almost a year later about Joseph Smith deserving 72 virgins in heaven for having to "stick it out" with a "bitch of a wife."

Not a very classy thing to say about "the Lord['s] . . . first female leader of this dispensation," IMHO.

Pokatator included this quote in his original "Vulgar Scatologist" thread of 5/1/09. William did not get around to addressing it specifically until over a year later. This was his original response (5/26/10):

William Schryver wrote:
I don’t know where this came from, and it might very well be true, but I didn’t say it.

Note the reaction. William did not denounce the quote, and even indicated that he might agree with it; he simply denied saying it.

The "Vulgar Scatologist" thread was bumped once again in April 2011, and William again denied having called Emma Smith a "champion bitch" (4/1/11):

Will Schryver wrote:
First of all, the bolded quote did not come from me. I have no idea where it came from, but Pokatator included several invented or misattributed quotes in his famous thread.

This time, I was the one who found the link to the original quote where William said it and posted it in the thread for his benefit. To that he replied (4/1/11 --- emphases his):

Will Schryver wrote:
I stand corrected. I did not recall having said that (although I do recall having thought it on occasion).

So, I am guilty of calling Emma Smith a champion bitch.

Certainly a little harsh on my part. I sincerely apologize to Emma. Upon reflection, I would merely say she was an emotionally volatile, high-maintenance woman who would have been a royal pain in the ass to deal with as a wife, and I admire Joseph Smith all the more for having put up with her all those years.

So now "champion bitch" has been switched to "emotionally volatile, high-maintenance . . . royal pain in the ass." Amazingly, William seems to think this was a nicer thing to say about the Lord's "first female leader of this dispensation" than "champion bitch."

Blixa decided to take William to task on the matter (4/2/11):

Blixa wrote:
It's because [William has] never read a book or done any archival reading or research on [Emma Smith]. He's only spewing bile here because he delights in trolling. His beloved Joseph Smith would slap him in the face for such discourtesy. I admit it's difficult to get one's mind around their relationship, but it is pretty clear that Emma and Joseph loved each other deeply and were inextricably bonded to each other. It's possible to put several kinds of psychological interpretation on that, and probably called for as well. But one indication of how far Emma differs from the she-cat of Will's pathetic imagination is how much Joseph trusted Emma with his money: she carried on a great deal of the business end of both family and church. I imagine, in fact, that it was her expertise at such "unwomanly" work that got up the nose of Elders Young and Co.

Later, in reference to the campaign to smear Emma Smith, Blixa added (4/2/11):

Blixa wrote:
That BS was started by Brigham Young. Even Joseph's former polygamous wives who had run-ins with Emma in Nauvoo always spoke of her highly. And no "high-maintenance" woman would have been able to handle the number of sick people and children Emma nursed at home, especially at Nauvoo (nor run an establishment the size of the Mansion House which usually sheltered numbers of newly arrived or destitute members, well before its incarnation as a semi-hotel). After suffering the assassination of her beloved husband, having many of her assets stolen out from under her by BY (including some of Joseph Smith's personal papers), to finally have to endure the heartbreak of David's mental illness---anyone with a shred of human decency would have empathy for her trials.

After that lashing from Blixa, William finally replied (4/2/11):

Will Schryver wrote:
Your posts have induced reflection on my part, and I have concluded that you make some very valid points, and that I need to seriously back off from my harsh criticism of Emma Smith.

In fact, I am going to prepare a formal apology for my unwarranted invective directed towards her. But first I am going to re-read Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, a book which I have already read three times, and have thoroughly enjoyed (despite some criticisms I could level against it). After I have immersed myself again in her story, I will speak to this topic again, here, on this message board.

I will be happy to update this section of my OP with a link to William's formal apology whenever he gets around to posting it.

Should William ever decide to apologize to the living women who have also found themselves the objects of his misogynist abuse over the years, I'll be happy to link to that as well.

UPDATE 8/2/2012: Did William actually say this? Is this quote a "forgery"? Yes, he did say it, and no, it is not a forgery. Examine the evidence yourself.

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Last edited by MsJack on Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Has William Ever Addressed This Behavior?
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:41 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3457
Location: Palatine, IL
Has William Ever Addressed This Behavior?

William has repeatedly claimed that his friends, colleagues, and fellow Latter-day Saints are supportive of his endeavors at Mormon Discussions, including his treatment of women.

Here is one of his earliest responses to complaints about his behavior (4/15/09):

William Schryver wrote:
I feel neither regret nor contrition for anything I have ever written on this message board. I am willing to have it all read as I stand and listen at the day of judgment.

For another example, back when Pokatator's original "Vulgar Scatologist" thread broke, William's initial response (5/1/2009 --- emphases his):
William Schryver wrote:
I don’t think you know anything about my relationships with the people you seem to think constitute “1st class apologists.”

If they are embarrassed by me, it doesn’t show in the regular conversations I have with many of them.

Is it possible, perhaps, that they don’t see things the way you do?

[SNIP]

By the way, thanks for going to such a concerted effort to gather together some of the gems of my days here in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™. Reading through them caused me to laugh out loud several times. Strangely enough, my guilt sensor was not activated even once. Maybe I’m just “past feeling.”

Note that Pokatator's thread contained a number of the quotes about women that I've included here. According to William, he feels no remorse for his behavior and the "1st class apologists" approve of it as well.

Later, on a thread wherein the OP included some of the quotes about women that I cited in this thread (8/13/10):

William Schryver wrote:
The only thing funnier than the quotes you cited above is that you apparently believe they would paint me in a negative light in the eyes of the Saints.

And earlier that year, on another thread (2/17/10 --- emphasis his):

William Schryver wrote:
You see, unlike you, I actually interact with these people on a regular basis. I know what they think about the second-rate propaganda that emanates from The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™. And my popularity among them is directly proportional to the degree to which I have said what others only wish they might have said.

As recently as October 2010, just before his four-month hiatus from this board, William specifically addressed complaints about his treatment of women. He claimed that he speaks not only on behalf of himself, but also on behalf of silent "others" who hold to the same opinions of the women in question as he does and stand by his statements with him (10/25/2010 --- italics his, bold mine):

William Schryver wrote:
Speaking of which, let me hereby reiterate the comments I made towards the two allegedly female posters on this board (I emphasize "allegedly" because, seeing as how they both post anonymously, we therefore have no way of verifying their gender). In my ever-so-humble opinion, the MDB posters who go by the names "beastlie" and "dissonance" (or some variations thereof), are two of the most loathsome specimens of womanhood I have ever encountered in my half-century of life upon this planet. Of course, my opinion of these two females (or shemales, as the case may be) is shared by many, and therefore I speak also in behalf of several others whose association with the two creatures in question has produced sentiments similar to my own.

When another female community member, Lucinda, posted a brief witty reply to William on that same thread, his response (10/25/10):

William Schryver wrote:
What do we have here? A new candidate for the GSTP "loathsome specimen of womanhood" award?

Sad.

It's bad enough to watch what happens to the male apostates, but when the women go down that path, it gets really ugly really fast ...

Apparently all it takes to make William's "loathsome specimen of womanhood" list is disagreement with William and some wit. I suppose this explains why William's misogyny manifests itself so often on our forums.

Finally, there is this reply from William wherein he attempts to specifically address the issue of his poor treatment of KimberlyAnn (10/13/10):

William Schryver wrote:
You might be interested in the fact that a couple people were once given the task of investigating the basis for the oft-repeated claim of my wanton vulgarity. What was the result of this rather exhaustive investigation? It was that, although a few minor blushes were induced (amidst the belly laughs), there was deemed to be virtually no substantive basis for the allegations; quotes were found to have been routinely taken out of context, thus entirely altering their true meaning, and a large proportion of the "vulgarities" attributed to me were entirely fabricated out of whole cloth (like, for example, the frequently repeated allegation that I called the golden-haired Kimberly Ann a "whore.")

(Kimberly does remain somewhat famous [among a small circle of otherwise respected academics] on account of my descriptions of her having once squeezed her then more voluptuous spirit tabernacle into a slinky black three-sizes-too-small dress at the 2006 Exmormon Foundation conference in Salt Lake City, which I attended. One wouldn't have believed it possible to carry melons in a pair of thimbles suspended from a thread, but miracles happen almost every day in this jaded world of cynical disbelievers.)

It was, I must confess, ascertained that I did, in fact, obliquely refer to beastlie and dissonance (once each, as I recall) with variants on the appellative "bitch." But it was concluded that my judgment was so near to the facts of the matter that I could not be convicted by a jury of my peers. LOL!

William has specifically claimed that his fellow LDS apologists and scholars do not mind his misogyny, and that they join with him in his fixation on KimberlyAnn's breasts.

That's just creepy and perverse. I have no other words for it.

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Last edited by MsJack on Sun May 01, 2011 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Have Other LDS Apologists & Scholars AddressedWilliam'sBehav
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:41 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3457
Location: Palatine, IL
Have Other LDS Apologists & Scholars Addressed William's Behavior?

Very few Latter-day Saint apologists and/or scholars have commented publicly on William's misogyny. Below are the exceptions I have noted.

Quite recently on our forums, David Bokovoy (aka "Enuma Elish") started a thread in which he defended William from some of the other attacks that were aimed at William by other posters. Beastie cited some of the same misogynist posts by William that I've presented here, then asked David how he could justify his defense of William in light of that. To this David replied (4/13/11):

Enuma Elish wrote:
I cannot. I was not aware of these comments. I had seen others, but these make me all the more angry and I've been trying to get over my anger. I hate feeling this way. That anyone would post these comments to women is unacceptable, to say the least. That he would do so in the context of defending Mormonism sickens me.

As an active member of the Church, I offer my sincere apology for this behavior.

Then later added (to William) (4/13/11 --- emphases his):

Enuma Elish wrote:
These people, as you refer to them, are still God's children, Will, every single one of them. No matter what criticisms they raise, these people deserve to be treated with kindness by one attempting to defend the Gospel of Christ. If you cannot do this, I would beg you, to simply disengage.

I recall that there were several posts where Simon Belmont acknowledged that William's remarks towards women were over the line. However, I don't recall specifics of what was said, and the terrible search engine at MDB won't allow me to search Simon's posts for general words like "women," so I cannot locate these posts right now. The Nehor also piped up once to indicate that William's post calling KimberlyAnn a whore and laughing over her breast reduction surgery lacked class, and Ttribe told William to "shut up" in response to the issue.

Wade Englund (wenglund) recently posted the following reply on Pokatator's "Vulgar Scatologist" thread. He was responding to the latest additions to the thread from Doctor CamNC4Me, which included some of the misogynist material that I've cited here (4/11/11):

wenglund wrote:
Much appreciation to Cam for culling some of Will's more infamous parodies of this place. What makes them so interesting is how lost the parodies are on so many here. I mean, every day we all swim in this cesspool, and yet some of the good folks here seem oblivious to their own copious potty results floating all about them, and yet get all exercised when others infrequently parody them. I am pleased, though, to learn that I am not the only one who hangs on Will's every word. [Thumbs Up]

I'm personally at a loss as to what it is that Wade thinks William is parodying with his rank misogyny.

If anyone is aware of other comments on William's misogyny from LDS scholars and apologists that I may have missed, I'll gladly update this section of the thread.

For my own part, I have no expectation that any participant of any message board community ought to engage in "board nannying" over the participation of others. It does not matter to me that some participants may be religious and/or ideological allies with those engaging in bad behavior. I hold each man or woman responsible for his or her own behavior and do not assume that others approve of said behavior simply because they do not comment.

However, as noted above, William has specifically claimed that his LDS colleagues who are familiar with this forum approve of his behavior. In light of this claim by William, it is difficult to interpret the silence from other LDS apologists and scholars as well as the tacit approval of William as he has risen to prominence in the LDS community. I can only think of a few possibilities:

(1) Other LDS scholars and apologists are aware of this behavior and approve of it, but are attempting to save face by not admitting this in public. I sincerely hope that this is not the case as it would mean that the field of Mormon Studies is a very unfriendly place for women.

(2) Other LDS scholars and apologists are aware of this behavior and disapprove of it, but feel that William's forthcoming contributions to the Book of Abraham and Kirtland Egyptian Papers debates are valuable enough to warrant toleration of his misogyny. It is a necessary evil and they secretly hope that knowledge of this behavior will stay relegated to our "obscure message board."

(3) Other LDS scholars and apologists are not fully aware of his misogyny and would be appropriately appalled if it were documented for them.

I personally hope that more LDS apologists and scholars will use this thread as an opportunity to publicly comment on this issue.

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Last edited by MsJack on Sun May 01, 2011 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Conclusion: Why It Matters
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:42 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3457
Location: Palatine, IL
Conclusion: Why It Matters

Earlier this year, I published a review of the NIV-2011 for Priscilla Papers. At one point in my review, I critiqued some remarks that had been made by one of the co-founders of the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. There is a reason that I felt comfortable doing this. Even though I harbor deep and passionate disagreements with the scholar in question, and our disagreements even pertain to the role of women in ministry, I have never seen him display anything but civility towards those who disagree with him. He may write books on why women should not be ordained, but when he addresses women (and men) who disagree with him, he is always scholarly and respectful.

This is not the case with William Schryver. He is frequently hostile towards those who disgree with him and peculiarly hostile towards women, often invoking vitriolic and/or lewd remarks about their appearance, their age, their bodies, or their sexuality instead of sticking strictly to the subject under discussion. I have shown here how he has applied the terms "bitch" and "c***" to his female opponents in addition to using a Book of Mormon reference to imply that another female participant is a "whore." If William does go forward with publication of his Book of Abraham and Kirtland Egyptian Papers work, I cannot imagine that any female academic would feel comfortable addressing his arguments knowing how he routinely treats women who disagree with him. I know I would not.

Ultimately the scholarly process is about conversation, the free and open exchange of ideas by anyone who may be able to make a valid, thoughtful, and well-argued contribution. Bad ideas need to be refuted and refined while good ideas need to be promoted and added to the scholarly corpus. When it is not safe for women to contribute their voices and critiques to an academic conversation due to the misogyny of one of the participants, it's hard to imagine that true scholarship can take place as opposed to the perpetual echo chamber of some good ol' boys network. Which one of those scenarios is William Schryver's participation going to encourage?

Bridget Jack Jeffries aka "MsJack"

BA - Brigham Young University, 2005
MA Candidate - Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2011

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Last edited by MsJack on Sun May 01, 2011 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ---
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:42 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6204
--

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Last edited by Kevin Graham on Sun May 01, 2011 2:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Subsequent Replies by MsJack
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:43 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3457
Location: Palatine, IL
Subsequent Replies by MsJack:

Round 1: 5/1/11 & 5/1/11

Round 2: 5/2/11

Round 3: 5/3/11 & 5/3/11 & 5/3/11

Much Later (8/2/12): William has authored a post on his blog called "The Calculated Suppression of Mormon Apologetics: The Case of William Schryver" which is, in part, a response to this thread. It contains false information about myself and this thread. I have responded to it on my blog here.

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Last edited by MsJack on Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:03 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 3:12 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:15 am
Posts: 1187
MsJack I applaud your work here. Thank you, thank you, thank you. You captured the essence of my motivation to start the Scatologist thread. It was Will's vulgar treatment of women that offended me and motivated me. I truly believe that lots of things begin at home. It was Will's comments about his wife and even his daughters that set me off. I could somehow give a little leeway to Will for his random posts to anonymous posters on an internet message board but to make comments about his own flesh and blood was beyond the pale. It was all downhill from there. The only female he really hasn't mentioned in a vulgar manner is his mother, but there is still time. I am sure that she would not be proud to read Will's posts, but just maybe she is part of the original problem.

Again thanx for the hard work, MsJack, I am in awe of your talents. My next prediction is that Will will try his apologetic skills toward getting this thread "demoted" to terrestrial or telestial. I hope that doesn't happen.

Sincerely, Tator aka Pokatator

_________________
aka Pokatator joined Oct 26, 2006


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Introduction
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 5:37 am 
2nd Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:12 am
Posts: 438
MsJack wrote:
For the record, William is known to have used the following MDB handles:

William Schryver
WilliamSchryver
Will Schryver

Some (myself included) have suspected and accused other community members of being William Schryver sock puppets. For the purposes of this thread, I will be ignoring these theories and only addressing material that was posted under William's confirmed handles.

For the record, I have only posted here under the handles "William Schryver" and "Will Schryver".

The time and effort you have obviously expended in assembling this next stage in the GSTP anti-Schryver propaganda campaign is quite impressive, after a fashion. I wish you as much success in achieving your objectives as those who have gone before you.

_________________
I thought myself the wiser to have viewed the evidence left of such a great demise. I followed every step. But the only thing I ever learned before the journey's end was there was nothing there to learn, only something to forget.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 6:09 am 
2nd Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:12 am
Posts: 438
I had determined to just ignore this thread, since it appeared, at first glance, to be merely a rehash of the same old things said on this board for years. But, in my scanning through it, I came across this statement:

Quote:
What did harmony edit out of William's post? What could he have possibly said that was so offensive that it was instantly moderated here in the land of free speech for all?

William called her a "c***." Just in case anyone reading this lives a very sheltered life: "c***" is "an abusive term usually considered the most offensive word [in reference to women] and even more forceful than bitch." I realize the original word is no longer preserved in William's post due to harmony's moderation, but there are several members of our community who remember this exchange and can vouch for this.

But remember, it's harmony who supposedly loathes women and being a woman. William has nothing but the utmost respect for his "c***s" and "bitches" and "whores."

This is a shameless and baseless LIE.

And you, my dear, are a base propagandist--although I have no doubt your work will be well received in these parts. However, don't expect it to have the result you most desire: the neutralization of my present and future contributions to LDS apologetics.

However, now having so closely associated yourself with the brazen and frantic efforts of people like Kevin Graham and "Kishkumen," you will have at least removed, from the minds of those you aspire to influence, all doubt about your allegiances and motivations. That serves my purposes quite well ...

_________________
I thought myself the wiser to have viewed the evidence left of such a great demise. I followed every step. But the only thing I ever learned before the journey's end was there was nothing there to learn, only something to forget.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 7:06 am 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7911
Will Schryver wrote:
However, don't expect it to have the result you most desire: the neutralization of my present and future contributions to LDS apologetics.


Considering all the damage you do to the church, it's the apologists who want you to stop.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 7:14 am 
Will--

"Where much is given, much is expected."

I would be willing to acknowledge that your prior behavior was a thing of the past, and something which you no longer wish to engage in.

You have managed to avoid misogynistic comments since you have returned to the board. I think that if you commit to keeping your arguments on point from this point forward, and avoid personal attacks, that simple act will dispell a lot of the prior ugliness.

Are you willing to do that?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 7:15 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13427
Ms. Jack,

I am very appreciative of the time and effort you have put into this endeavor. You are correct in that, if, as he insinuates, Will is becoming more respected in the "higher" levels of LDS apologia, then his fellow apologists do themselves no favors by ignoring this behavior. It is quite possible that they are unaware of it, as David apparently was. However, I think some are aware of it because they've been around MD long enough to either witness his behavior or hear it mentioned by others. I do hope that anyone who has private connections to respected apologists will send them a link to this thread and ask for their comments. There are some apologists that I feel like I've grown to know, over the years, even within a fairly adversarial relationship, and I am confident that they would be disgusted by Will's behavior and probably express that openly. Ben McGuire and Brant Gardner come to mind. I cannot imagine either of them ever saying the sort of things that Will says, or condoning such behavior, either. Nor can I imagine any LDS man I have ever known, in real life, doing so (with perhaps a couple of abusive exceptions). So either Will's insinuations that other apologists agree with and enjoy everything he says is a delusion on his part, or LDS men have a secret side of their behavior that they hide from LDS women and only expose among other LDS men. That would be most unfortunate and even sickening if it were true. I can't bring myself to believe that. So instead I believe that they're either unaware of his behavior or don't know how to handle it, so ignore it. But it really can't be ignored, if Will's star is rising. His bad behavior will come out, and it will come out in some sort of embarrassing fashion.

I do not understand why Will thinks he is untouchable. Perhaps it has something to do with his assertion that he's had his "calling and election made sure" (which, if that is true, could be used as an argument against the inspiration of LDS leaders) Perhaps he imagines that others view him with a fondness like Porter Rockwell. If so, he is ignoring the fact that we live in a far different time than Porter. During Porter's time, the church leaders had no desire to be part of any larger culture - religious or social. They despised the larger culture, so were as sensitive to their leaders being portrayed in positive terms in any media. But today it is far different. The church leaders today want the LDS church to be part of the religious mainstream, and to be viewed with respect. Joseph Smith may not have been embarrassed by Porter, but Thomas Monson would be.

It's one thing to be the "bad boy" of LDS internet boards, and quite another to have accumulated the history of interactions that Will has and then try to be a high-tier apologist. Respected apologists need to lance this boil now before it causes even bigger problems in the future.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 7:18 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13427
Will Schryver wrote:
This is a shameless and baseless LIE.

And you, my dear, are a base propagandist--although I have no doubt your work will be well received in these parts. However, don't expect it to have the result you most desire: the neutralization of my present and future contributions to LDS apologetics.

However, now having so closely associated yourself with the brazen and frantic efforts of people like Kevin Graham and "Kishkumen," you will have at least removed, from the minds of those you aspire to influence, all doubt about your allegiances and motivations. That serves my purposes quite well ...


It is not surprising that you claim this is a lie. However, the fact that the comment was so egregious that it was immediately deleted, while all your other name-calling was not deleted (all the variants of bitch and sly "whore" references) lends support to the assertion that you went even further than you normally do in name-calling. Moreover, I know that Harmony remembers quite clearly what you called her. Your memory, at least when it comes to malicious statements about women (see Emma) is not that reliable.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1610 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 77  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aero, badseed, BartBurk, cognitiveharmony, fetchface, Google [Bot], malkie, No_Hidden_Agenda, RockSlider, souldier and 33 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group