Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

[_Persephone]

I couldn’t help but notice a little something in two recent posts:

Speaking of Will Schryver, Nomad (Will?) wrote:

I do look forward to his forthcoming articles …

And then, speaking of MsJack’s devastating exposè, Will (Nomad?) wrote:

… what turned out to be a desperate and ultimately vain attempt to silence his voice.

Are these hints that the MI is still going ahead with plans to publish things authored by this toxic scumbag? Could we really be so fortunate? Oh, I do hope so! I can’t imagine anything that would more effectively destroy what little reputation for professional scholarship they have left.

So let’s keep our fingers crossed!

[_Kevin Graham]

Are these hints that the MI is still going ahead with plans to publish things authored by this toxic scumbag?

No it is just further evidence of his delusion. He has always maintained a safe distance from reality.

Could we really be so fortunate? Oh, I do hope so! I can’t imagine anything that would more effectively destroy what little reputation for professional scholarship they have left.

So let’s keep our fingers crossed!

They won't publish him, but it is interesting that Dan Peterson remains as one of his fans. Will's disgusting antics over the past year don't seem to have had any impact on Dan's view of William. I know he has completely dropped other people like a bad habit, for doing far, far less than Schryver has.

I was reading an old exchange on ZLMB last week. Dan said Brent Metcalfe commented at a FAIR conference how he wished the critics and apologists would be more friendly and cordial towards one another, or something to that effect. He said he agreed with him, but quickly put Metcalfe on his ignore list. Why?

Did he do something crazy like call Emma Smith a bitch? Did he accuse his critics of sodomy? No, nothing so innocuous as that. Instead, Metcalfe dared to offer criticism of Dan's close associate, John Gee. So now, Dan no longer addresses anything Brent Metcalfe says. They have no chance of being friends anymore. Likewise, he absolutely refuses to address anything I have to say, other to than to keep reminding everyone he doesn't want anything to do with me. Why? Apparently, because he thinks my spiritual deficiency and apostate demeanor is contagious, or whatever.

But Will Schryver can call women whores, so long as he's using scripture to do it. He can also invoke images of some of the most disgusting sex acts, and that's fine by Dan. He likes Will and he won't let any of this get in the way of their friendship. He wishes Will would get published soon. It is enough to make me wonder if Dan is deluded as well. Publishing Will is only going to throw his behavior into the spotlight again, which is always going to be bad news for Mormonism. Does Dan not understand this?

[_marg]

But Will Schryver can call women whores, so long as he's using scripture to do it. He can also invoke images of some of the most disgusting sex acts, and that's fine by Dan. He likes Will and he won't let any of this get in the way of their friendship.

Perhaps Dan P. doesn't mind when females are demeaned. I have seen him argue in favor of polygamy ..with an argument that some women benefit by it. Then he cited one women who I believe was a doctor and who freely chose polygamy. I do find that men on the internet who are motivated to present Smith in a favorable light..ignore and argue in favor of the sort of polygamy which J. Smith started and encouraged. It was exploitative and abusive of women and had nothing to do with increasing the numbers... when daughters and other men's wives were being used for sex and encouraged to be exchanged among each other. Religion was it appears much like for Warren Jeff...an excuse to get extramarital sex particularly with young females and simply to use them, using religion to do so. So perhaps it's not surprising that Dan doesn't find Will's excessive vulgar comments to women offensive.

I don't intend this as a derail..but like I said it's not surprising to me that Dan P. wouldn't mind Will's vulgarity against women.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Kevin Graham, meet Marg.

Marg, meet Kevin Graham.

I wish you much joy together.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Kevin Graham, meet Marg.

Marg, meet Kevin Graham.

I wish you much joy together.

And matchmaking skills as well? Is there no end to your amazing talents, DCP?

[_marg]

Kevin Graham, meet Marg.

Marg, meet Kevin Graham.

I wish you much joy together.

It was Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon that you cited ..to illustrate what a wonderful system polygamy can be for women, wasn't it? And I seem to remember that it was part of a discussion in which you also were arguing in favor of burgas for women in some societies ..that many women in those societies appreciate and like wearing burgas. What a liberal progressive thinking man you are. Unfortunately with your 7,000 + posts I don't have the time to track down that thread with those posts.

[_MsJack]

And I seem to remember that it was part of a discussion in which you also were arguing in favor of burgas for women in some societies ..that many women in those societies appreciate and like wearing burgas. What a liberal progressive thinking man you are.

"I've made it clear in numerous venues for many years that I find the burka an abomination." - Daniel Peterson, (4/10/2009)

I, too, am baffled by Dan's apparent indifference to William's treatment of women. But that doesn't make him a burka-apologist.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've seen Will Schryver's treatment of women. I've met and spoken with his wife more than once, and have met one of his daughters. And he's met my burqa-clad wife several times, as well.

It was perfectly horrific, of course.

And matchmaking skills as well? Is there no end to your amazing talents, DCP?

I'm also a pretty good shot with a rifle.

(Quick! Somebody fetch smelling salts for poor Scratch!)

[_MsJack]

I've seen Will Schryver's treatment of women. I've spoken with his wife more than once, and with one of his daughters [SNIP] It was perfectly horrific, of course.

So, in your view, Dan, is this an appropriate thing to say about a woman's body in a public discussion forum?

(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.)

Did he use similar metaphors for the bodies of his wife and daughters ("melons carried in a pair of thimbles") around complete strangers when you observed the family?

Thanks in advance.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

I've seen Will Schryver's treatment of women. I've spoken with his wife more than once, and with one of his daughters. And he's met my burqa-clad wife several times, as well.

It was perfectly horrific, of course.

You seem to repeat the fact that you have met his wife as though that were somehow some sort of defense for his misogyny. It's not. And there is a more troubling implication that concerns me here, which is the idea that you would be able to tell if a woman is in a bad relationship just by casual meetings and ordinary interaction. Please let me be clear, I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with Will's relationship with his wife or daughter. All I am suggesting is that you stop implying that you know that there couldn't possibly be just because you have met them. You don't know that. It would not be possible.

Again, because I know there will be those who skim over this and miss the point I am making, I am not making any comment at all about the relationship Will has with his wife or his daughter.