Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Kevin Graham]

Can someone explain to me why anyone cares about this douchebag? He's not very bright, his one claim to fame is a stupid and quickly refuted "theory" that not even his friends defend anymore, and he appears to be a garden-variety sociopath.

Do I have that right? If so, why bother with a low-life like that?

His significance lies in the fact that he's become the darling of the modern apologetic enterprise. He apparently has strong influence on people like Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin, who have rushed to defend him based on insufficient evidence.

It appeared that FAIR was beginning to distance itself from him a couple years back when Brian Hauglid disowned Schryver, and then because of his misogyny, but thanks to Dan Peterson's vocal support of Schryver, they've changed their tune it seems.

Plus, he is always talking about how he is on the verge of publishing "conclusive" arguments to support the apologists on Book of Abraham stuff. FAIR is in desperate need of someone, anyone, willing to step up to the plate and humiliate themselves on these issues, and it seems Schryver is just the guy to do it.

He is also an expert at wooing BYU scholars by giving them free lodging and tickets to Shakespeare plays and such. He and Dan have at least that much in common. They are both lobbyists who get people to support their BS one way or another.

[_Kevin Graham]

Wait a second. Now William is claiming that he never called Emma Smith a champion bitch?

This guy will lie about just about anything it seems. But I guess that's what he is going to have to do if he expects to get back into the good graces of FAIR.

[_Kishkumen]

Wait a second. Now William is claiming that he never called Emma Smith a champion bitch?

This guy will lie about just about anything it seems. But I guess that's what he is going to have to do if he expects to get back into the good graces of FAIR.

What a nut job that guy is.

[Guest]

William, can you address this one, what is the historical context that makes it acceptable?

"No, it’s just because Emma was a champion **** 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.)"

Yes, it is a forgery--one that I was even deceived into believing authentic for a period of time.

I originally wrote "wench" and it was subsequently altered (by someone with moderator capabilities) in the original post and also in any post that quoted it.  For months they tried to get me to admit to saying that, and I consistently denied it, knowing I had not written such a thing.  Then, almost magically one day, they produced a quote.  And I was therefore, I felt at the time, compelled to issue an apology for it.  Only later did I discover the evidence that it was a forgery.  I will soon describe in some detail this and the other methods of propaganda legerdemain employed in the campaign by Mormon apostates to silence my apologetic articles and presentations.

Suffice it to say at present that there are no fewer than three attempts at forgery in MsJack's collection of what are mostly manipulated, out-of-context quotes, or greatly exaggerated claims based on posts typical of online banter.  I should note that I have no reason to believe, at this time, that MsJack was complicit in the forgery element of all of this, only that she was entirely indiscriminate and otherwise without compunction when it came to accepting and manipulating information in such a way as to advance her little endeavor.

This is probably William's most obvious lie yet.

"Champion bitch" is a common phrase for a dog in a show. Do a Google search for "champion bitch" and you'll get 20,600,000 results---most of the top results referring to actual dog shows.

Do a Google search for "champion wench" and Google will say, "Did you mean champion winch"? (With far, far fewer results even then.)

The sentence, "Because Emma was a champion wench and no one would have her but Joseph" also makes little sense. Because Emma was a champion [young woman] and no one would have her but Joseph? If she was a champion woman, why would no one else have her?

There is the archaic meaning of "wench"---i. e. prostitute---but that's just as bad as calling her a bitch.

On top of this, the context of the comments following the "champion bitch" remark in that thread don't sound like people reacting to having heard Emma called a "wench." For example:

LOL! Will, please post these thoughts of yours over on MAD for our general entertainment purposes. I beg of you. Please! Make sure you include your thoughts about God obviously having sex with Mary. And don't forget the part where you call Nancy frigid and Emma a bitch. Also don't forget the part about God's alpha males being rewarded with females. PLEASE!

viewtopic.php?p=144967#p144967

So beastie thought the people at MADB would be up in arms over William calling Emma a "wench"? Yeah right.

Another one:

Emma's a bitch? What if your wife had sex with over thirty men and didn't tell you about it? When you found out and, understandably, freaked, would she and others be within their rights to say you acted like a bit of a "bastard?" Why or why not?

viewtopic.php?p=144954#p144954

So LL thinks "bastard" is the male counterpart in force to "wench"? I don't think so.

Also, if the moderators here were going to pull something like that, don't you think they could have saved the Grand Conspiracy Against William Schryver a lot of trouble and edited the famous c-word post to show William actually calling Harmony the c-word, and every subsequent post quoting it?

I imagine he's lying about this because this quote has been by far the most damaging of his offenses among faithful members.

P.S. --- No one has ever produced evidence that the moderators here alter people's posts here to make it look like they have said things that they did not say. You'd think they would have been caught in the act by now if that were the case.

EDIT: I probably should not say for a fact that William is lying. I guess it's possible that he has deluded himself into believing that he never said it and the entire thing is part of a grand, moderator-abetted conspiracy against him.

But it's still wrong either way.

[_Cylon]

Wait a second. Now William is claiming that he never called Emma Smith a champion bitch?

This guy will lie about just about anything it seems. But I guess that's what he is going to have to do if he expects to get back into the good graces of FAIR.

Yeah, I'm sure he'll have everyone at MDDB eating up his conspiracy theory that his posts were altered, but in reality it's just pathetic.

But even if it's true that he originally wrote "wench," that doesn't actually change anything. It's still a misogynist statement, just a little less harsh. The fact that he thinks this exonerates him just proves he's as backwards as everyone claimed.

[_moksha]

Can someone explain to me why anyone cares about this [harsh name calling withheld]?

Because Mr. Schryver is a game changer at FAIR. Before he came along, you could not make three point shots below the belt.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Wait a second. Now William is claiming that he never called Emma Smith a champion bitch?

This guy will lie about just about anything it seems. But I guess that's what he is going to have to do if he expects to get back into the good graces of FAIR.

Yeah, I'm sure he'll have everyone at MDDB eating up his conspiracy theory that his posts were altered, but in reality it's just pathetic.

But even if it's true that he originally wrote "wench," that doesn't actually change anything. It's still a misogynist statement, just a little less harsh. The fact that he thinks this exonerates him just proves he's as backwards as everyone claimed.

William also admitted to calmoriah or some other female poster at MDDB he did post it, and that it was the only post he regrets,. I beleive he admitted it in the social hall.

[_MsJack]

There's also the fact that, after I first gave him the link showing that he had called Emma Smith a "champion bitch" (before I did my thread), he amended the sentiment to this:

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.

viewtopic.php?p=437952#p437952

Because that's so much better than calling a woman a "champion bitch."

He posted that one within 7 minutes of my response to him, and I saw it go up. No room to claim a moderator conspiracy there.

[Guest]

There's also the fact that, after I first gave him the link showing that he had called Emma Smith a "champion bitch" (before I did my thread), he amended the sentiment to this:

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.

viewtopic.php?p=437952#p437952

Because that's so much better than calling a woman a "champion bitch."

He posted that one within 7 minutes of my response to him, and I saw it go up. No room to claim a moderator conspiracy there.

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.

Still waiting on the "whore" and "slut" evidence ...

(Emphasis mine.)

How is it again that he can he deny calling Emma Smith a "Champion Bitch"?

[_Chap]

To believe Schryver's "the mods did it" denial of having called Emma Smith "a champion bitch", we also have to believe that the moderators on this board also constructed this post, which quoted the Schryver post and commented on it:

viewtopic.php?p=144954#p144954

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.)

Emma's a bitch? What if your wife had sex with over thirty men and didn't tell you about it? When you found out and, understandably, freaked, would she and others be within their rights to say you acted like a bit of a "bastard?" Why or why not?

And what is more - I was reading the board at the time, and I remember reading these posts as they went up. At the time I thought that Schryver had gone just that bit too far, even for him ... now it is clear that he agrees.

It is interesting that Schryver's original 'bitch' post included the following gem:

viewtopic.php?p=144932#p144932

But I do not believe in any such thing as “eternal moral principles.” And, insofar as God is concerned, I have a large body of evidence that would support the argument that He defines “morality” to suit His purposes at any given time.

It seems that Schryver is acting just as he believes his deity to act. Well, that is consistency, of a sort.