Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi there, Silver Hammer. I noticed that you ignored the questions I posed to you... No worries, though.

I understand that you're coming to this "cold," and that you're doing your darndest to view the whole affair in an objective and dispassionate manner. (Though this begs the question when you based your first post on my "yukking it up" remark, seeing as how that remark was buried somewhat deeply into the thread. I guess you read some 4-5 pages in before you decided to ask your question(s)?) So bearing that in mind, let's take a closer look at some of your observations:

Forgive me, but I don’t see much to support MsJack’s statement. She’s making an inference, but I don’t think it is justified. From what I can see in this example, Will didn’t say that “1st class apologists” approve of his behavior on message boards. All he said is that in his conversations with them (he doesn’t say what they talk about) he doesn’t think they are embarrassed by him. Maybe the people he’s talking about don’t even know about what Will writes on message boards.

For one thing, we know for certain that Dr. Daniel C. Peterson, perhaps the very definition of a "1st Class apologist," is aware of Schryver's activities on this messageboard. DCP reads this forum rather obsessively, and he's privately told a number of people that he views Schryver as a "loose cannon." We know, too, that key members of FAIR (like John Lynch and Kevin Barney), along with MI contributors like David Bokovoy and Blair Hodges---are aware of Schryver's antics. This is established fact.

OK, I see what you're talking about now. But is the part in brackets added by someone else? That's what confused me, I think.

At any rate, I still don't see where this implicates people from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. If the part in brackets are his words, then he just mentioned “a small circle of otherwise respected academics.” He doesn’t indicate who these people are, what university they are at, what they do, etc. It’s very ambiguous.

As Beastie points out, it's really not very "ambiguous" at all when you take Will's history and self-admissions into account. Since he has said that he has---up until now, with his Book of Abraham research---had virtually no contact with academia, and since he has said repeatedly that he's made trips to the Maxwell Institute, one kind of has to assume that the "circle of otherwise respected academics" is situated at BYU.

Plus, all he says is that “Kimberly does remain somewhat famous” among those “otherwise respected academics.” I don’t read that to necessarily mean they “yukked it up” or agreed with William, only that his descriptions of the person made her somewhat famous among them.

Hmm. That's an interesting point, Silver Hammer. What, in your view, does "somewhat famous" mean, in this instance? Furthermore, do you believe that William is telling the truth, and that this "circle of otherwise respected academics" really did come to regard KA as "somewhat famous" on the basis of the story he told---the story which has been documented here in rather lurid detail?

It appears to me that you’re reading more into the words than what is justified.

What is it that you think is being "read into" the words, exactly? That the Maxwell Institute people approve of Will? Or that Will has claimed that they find his antics "amusing"?

And on that note:

I know precisely how much credibility this place and its creatures truly have.

I will be in the MI offices again tomorrow. I have no doubt there will be some brief and amused discussion concerning this latest in a long, long string of coordinated attacks on me. It has become a species of comic relief, in a way.

As one rather well-known person observed:

"They're afraid you might be right. Terrified, in fact."

It is well understood why these unremitting ad hominem attacks are taking place.

They are not having the effect you people believe they should have. Rather quite the opposite.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18091&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=168

So, at the very least, Silver Hammer, I think you can agree that Will is saying here that the people at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute: (a) are aware of what he does here, and (b) find it (or reactions thereto) "amusing."

Or perhaps you have an alternative interpretation?

[_beastie]

"They're afraid you might be right. Terrified, in fact."

Now that's funny. The idea that Will is being criticized simply due to the genius of his work is quite amusing.

I don't recall seeing such criticisms leveled at, say, Brant Gardner. Yet he certainly is a shining star in Book of Mormon apologia.

[_Silver Hammer]

I don’t want to “imagine” anything. I just want to see exactly what was said.

Do you have other examples I should look at?

Oh, I see. So despite the fact that Will has explained that he is not an "academic", and hence, does not move in academic circles in general, and also has explained that he has contact with LDS apologists, you are not willing to conclude that he's referring to LDS apologists in his comments.

I think you should read the thread yourself instead of asking other people to hunt down quotes for you, which you then dismiss with no real justification.

I can't see that I'm dismissing anything with no real justification. I'm just looking at the examples you give of where Will has said Maxwell Institute people are "yukking it up" over what he says on message boards. Nothing you have shown me so far says that, in my opinion. You don't need to get defensive. You just need to produce evidence that supports your claims. I don't see where you've done that yet. That's why I asked for some more examples, if there are any. Everything I've seen so far would require me to make assumptions about what are very ambiguous statements. I don't believe in making assumptions like that.

Am I to understand that these are the only good examples you can produce to support your claims about Maxwell Institute people "yukking it up" about breasts or off-color jokes and the like?

[_beastie]

[
I can't see that I'm dismissing anything with no real justification. I'm just looking at the examples you give of where Will has said Maxwell Institute people are "yukking it up" over what he says on message boards. Nothing you have shown me so far says that, in my opinion. You don't need to get defensive. You just need to produce evidence that supports your claims. I don't see where you've done that yet. That's why I asked for some more examples, if there are any. Everything I've seen so far would require me to make assumptions about what are very ambiguous statements. I don't believe in making assumptions like that.

Am I to understand that these are the only good examples you can produce to support your claims about Maxwell Institute people "yukking it up" about breasts or off-color jokes and the like?

Do you read what people post after you or not?

[_Eric]

Are you really saying that the man who made all the other comments on this thread would not be likely to use the C word, and would not be likely to space it out to avoid censorship?

I'm not saying it isn't likely for him to use the C word, although a part of me believes him when he says he doesn't use that word. I use all sorts of foul language, and I don't use that word either. That's a pretty ugly word for anyone to use, even Will.

What I'm saying is this story doesn't add up.

[_Silver Hammer]

Silver,
The following link is from a man whom I believe is well respected by critics and apologist alike. He spoke up in defense of FAIR in a bold and convincing manner in this thread.

viewtopic.php?p=449972#p449972

If you happen to have involvement or influence at MI or for others that have been implicated by William, speak up.

Thank you for the link. You say this is a man who is "well respected by critics and apologist alike." I have no reason to doubt you, but I don't know who "LifeonaPlate" is.

[_Eric]

I think it is quite in character with him, and see no reason to assume that three people are all lying about what he said, particularly given the subsequent comments made to him on the thread, and the absence of any objection from Will regarding unjust moderation.

The three people don't seem to be in agreement about what they saw. It's too bad that the whole post is gone now, I guess we'll never really know what was said.

Anyways, I've shared all my thoughts on this. I'm not really sure what else there is to discuss. I don't think we'll ever know what was deleted by the moderators.

[_Silver Hammer]

LifeonaPlate said: "Like I said earlier, Will's claim about a "small circle of otherwise respected academics" implicates everyone by naming no one."

Forgive me again, but this statement is not coherent or logical. How can a claim that names no one implicate everyone? To me, a claim that names no one cannot possibly "implicate" anyone.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Thank you for the link. You say this is a man who is "well respected by critics and apologist alike." I have no reason to doubt you, but I don't know who "LifeonaPlate" is.

You sure about that, Silver Hammer? I mean, the guy posted right at the top of this very page. Are you sure that you don't know him? Maybe you're just trying to avoid coming between two contributors to the Maxwell Institute?

[_beastie]

Are you really saying that the man who made all the other comments on this thread would not be likely to use the C word, and would not be likely to space it out to avoid censorship?

I'm not saying it isn't likely for him to use the C word, although a part of me believes him when he says he doesn't use that word. I use all sorts of foul language, and I don't use that word either. That's a pretty ugly word for anyone to use, even Will.

What I'm saying is this story doesn't add up.

Will is very ugly towards women. I think using the word is completely in his character.