Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Jersey Girl]

malaise,

As I see it, WS intended to publish apologetics (articles, perhaps a book) as a representative/member of this church. I doubt that his comments (now collected) on this board and directed toward females would have been taken as positive by other members and/or representatives of the LDS church.

You assert that his private life shouldn't effect his public life.

Ted Haggard, former pastor of New Life Church, engaged in drug abuse and homosexual behavior while both married and pastoring a church. Do you think that the public should have released Haggard, as a representative and member of New Life Church, of responsibility for his private behavior?

[_Jason Bourne]

Believers who are dismayed at this turn of events are being extremely short-sighted. Many pages ago I mentioned the fact that the (much milder) "Metcalf is a Butthead" eventually was mentioned in a Deseret News article. You can read about that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Hamblin

The article was titled ""Book of Mormon Scholars Unleash Salvo of Barbs".

Now, can you imagine the article that an industrious journalist like Mr. Anderson could write about Will's internet antics? Imagine the reaction it could cause in this age when GAs repeatedly call for civility on the internet? MI is not going to want to be associated with that taint. In fact, I very much doubt that MI is doing this to "punish" Will in some manner, but rather doing this to protect the reputation of their own institution. I would think that goal would be one shared by internet defenders of the faith here.

And this is really the crux of it as I think I have tried to point out. I may be a NOMer and thus nominal in the eyes of many of the defenders that post here. But I am still a member of the LDS Church and I participate. I take no joy in seeing harm done to the LDS Church in spite of some of the complaints I have in the past posted here. I used to be a hobby defender. But as I have pointed out the leaders of the Church that the defenders defend ask for civility in our interactions with others even those who may despise the Church. Our scriptures call for a higher level of behavior. The D&C tells us the priesthood holders need not use compulsion on the souls of humans and that we should behave with patience, kindness, love and so on in our interactions with our brothers and sisters. This is the only point I have tried to make towards Will-and he has ignored me. And all I got from Wade was scorn.

But my only point was (and if you recall I was willing to concede to Will that he did not use the nasty word) that his behavior even without that did nothing other than to make him look bad and also would certainly not help his cause. It would seem a wise course to apologize and then attempt to change. But even on this thread Will acted proud of his antics. And it does not matter that it was a few dozen posts or so among thousands. What does that have to do with anything? And sure, his behavior has no bearing on the truth claims that he defends. He may be a really good defender even while being nasty to people he disagrees with. The head of the IMF may be a great economist but it seems that his very bad behavior is catching up to him.

Bad behavior when one operates in the public eye comes out to bite you ( as it does even when one is not in the public eye).

And no I am not perfect and no by posting this and the other few comments I have made I am not thinking I am holier than anyone. I am not. I have said mean and rotten things to people on the internet hear and there but I think I typically have apologized after such bad behavior.

Anyway, it just seems a wiser course to admit error and move on. If Will refuses no big really. It just ultimately hurts Will.

[_harmony]

[quote="harmony"

1. This board is not Will's "private life". This is a public forum, open to anyone with internet access.

Private and public are not opposites- they are a spectrum. My house is more private than the bars I like to frequent, but when I go those bars with my friends I am still engaged in my "private" life. Trying to publish a book on any subject is much more public than posting an internet message board, many of which are essentially private clubs with the same few members talking about the same topics over and over again.

This forum is not a private club. Anyone can register and post.

2. This thread was not created so females on this site could claim to be "ever so offended" or to ruin Will's ability to have his arguments "taken seriously". This thread was created to show Will's words in one easily accessed thread, so in the future, when Will again denies his words, we can refer to them in one step. Our claim to being "ever so offended" took place long ago, and is also documented.

Maybe you are right about why the thread was created (I remain skeptical)....The way that people celebrated after he lost the ability to become a respectable apologist was still uncalled for. I enjoy being offensive because it amuses me, and it bothers me that most important things can only by done by milquetoast people with no real personality. To misquote a much better thinker than me, in elite occupations all the interesting people are missing.[/quote]

If Will has lost the ability to become a "respectable" apologist, it's not the fault of MsJack or any of his targets here. Will alone make that choice. And important apologetic things are often done by people with real personality... David has real personality; so does Dan. Both get their points across without sinking to vile namecalling. That Will chooses to rain vile epithets down on women is a sideline to his apologetics, and says a great deal about his "respectability" or lack thereof.

3. Will has already put "sexualized comments" into his published words. This forum is considered "published", and if you don't believe that, I suggest NAMI does... and so would the Trib and the DN, should NAMI ever actually print something Will wrote.

This is clearly an example of equivocation. When I said publish I meant publish a book or publish formally.

Then say what you mean. No one can be accused of equivocating if you aren't communicating clearly.

4. Will has made a contribution to LDS apologetics in the real world. He presented at the FAIR conference last fall. His arguments have nothing to do with his over-the-top behavior here. He refuses to defend his argument here, so it's not like the posters here haven't tried to engage his argument.

I've never accused the people here of refusing to engage his arguments; I've accused them of wanting to silence his ability to make those arguments in a certain kind of forum, and of celebrating when he could no longer do so.

No one is silencing him here. He's not banned from here. NAMI is not under the control of MDB, and we cannot control what they publish. Will is welcome to publish his arguments here. I'm sure there are many posters who would find the ensuring discussion very interesting.

Personally I hope someone will publish his articles and books. I'd really really like them to be in print so he can't change anything.

5. Current events in California regarding Arnold's offensive behavior spotlight the current acceptability within society of those who walk outside sexual mores. While I wish NAMI had published Will (simply because I think the blowback from the media would be HUGE, once this thread was delivered at approximately the same time as Will's book was delivered to market), I completely understand their reluctance, due to the current media circus. No one, especially no one who was associated with the LDS church, wants to look foolish to the public, and Will's sexualized behavior here would be media fodder for weeks (as long as there wasn't another war or MMM to push him and NAMI off the front page).

That is a societal problem. We should all be willing to tolerate offensive behavior from public officials as long as they can do their job.

I disagree. Because offensive behavior makes it impossible for any public official do to their job.

[_Pahoran]

A "misspelled" acronym, Pahoran?

No, a misspelled abbreviation, Scratch.

Like I said: English comprehension is not your strong suit.

The "honourable" thing to do here would be for you to explain what was actually meant.

"What was actually meant" by what? A message I did not send, or moderator action I did not take?

(And how is it that you know this in the first place?)

How is it that I know what? That I'm not a moderator?

I have my ways.

Finally, I notice with great amusement that you've repeatedly dodged inquiries from both Kevin Grahm and Liz. Why is that, I wonder? Do you consider that "honourable"?

I have "repeatedly dodged" nothing. I consider it perfectly honourable to ignore spiteful hectoring and badgering, and to respond to what it pleases me to respond to.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Doctor Scratch]

Liz's question to you is "spiteful hectoring"? Are you serious?

[_Yoda]

Pahoran,

How is my question "spiteful hectoring"(your words)?

You were the one who made the comment that this thread was nothing but a huge dopile on Will by anti-Mormons. When I mentioned that there were several members of the Church and defenders of the faith who had participated on this thread, and had agreed with Ms. Jack's findings, you stated the following:

But I will concede that this is not merely a dog-pile by anti-Mormons. It is a dog-pile by anti-Mormons and a few of their "useful idiots."

"Useful idiots" is your term, Pahoran, not mine.

So, I will ask again....Are David, LOAP, and Abman....all stalwart defenders of the faith....two of the three published apologists...."useful idiots", in your estimation?

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello Mr. Tator,

I agree. The posts are vulgar. What do you think of my explanation and apology? Would that have any bearing on the way you regard my contributions to this forum?

V/R
Dr. Cam, NC

I hope you don't mind my saying what *I* think about your explanation and apology. Someone mentioned those to me when you posted them and I think I had already seen it when reading while logged out.

I see your explanation and apology as nothing short of a preemptive strike/tactical move on your part intended to provide you a legitimate ticket into this discussion regarding WS's language towards females on this board, allowing you to criticize WS without having your own credibility challenged.

[_moksha]

I now confidently predict that Scratch will say something like "Aha! I knew he was a mod, and that proves it!"
Regards,
Pahoran

He may accuse you of lying for the Board.

[_Silver Hammer]

liz3564 posted: "So, I will ask again....Are David, LOAP, and Abman....all stalwart defenders of the faith....two of the three published apologists...."useful idiots", in your estimation?"

It's the easiest thing in the world for "useful idiots" to get published. It doesn't matter if they're apologists or critics. It happens all the time. Will Bagley has done it twice now. Grant Palmer did it.

I do wish there weren't so many "useful idiots" trying to do Mormon apologetics, or getting in the way of those who do it well.

[_Jersey Girl]

liz3564 posted: "So, I will ask again....Are David, LOAP, and Abman....all stalwart defenders of the faith....two of the three published apologists...."useful idiots", in your estimation?"

It's the easiest thing in the world for "useful idiots" to get published. It doesn't matter if they're apologists or critics. It happens all the time. Will Bagley has done it twice now. Grant Palmer did it.

I do wish there weren't so many "useful idiots" trying to do Mormon apologetics, or getting in the way of those who do it well.

Interesting response. Would you like to answer liz's question?