Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Trevor]

You see, you don't get to just waltz in here and make comments like this while pretending to be a newcomer.

Precisely.

Good luck with that Will. And yes, I know who you are. The real Will Schryver would never disappear for long on a thread like this. I guess you got tired of using "Nomad" and figured you needed to create this impression that more and more LDS folks support you. The stupid stuff you quibble about on this thread is something only Schryver would do.

Hey, and why not simply conclude that?

At the very least, this person is the kind of old school apologist who probably inspires others to such bad behavior. Maybe the kind of "in your face" apologist who would go to public functions and jump in people's faces, or go to an anti-Mormon bookstore and throw around some choice epithets.

Whether Kevin is right about the precise identity of Silver Hammer, I think his conclusion that this person is to be dismissed is spot on. Whoever it is, this person was never interested in addressing anyone's concerns, but rather in damage control and justifications for the fellow apologist.

My bottom line is this: I think Jack's concerns are legitimate, and the fact that an LDS-sympathetic outsider like her would take the time to raise them should cause thoughtful people to reflect. She is not in this because of some personal axe to grind or anti-Mormon sentiment, no matter what Silver Hammer wants to claim. Only the most hardened partisan would suppose otherwise. Who better than her to raise something that a reasonable person might imagine a responsible apologetic community would be concerned about?

And the hopeful thing is that there are plenty of younger apologists who do have a problem with objectionable behavior in their own ranks. No one should be discouraged if Lou Midgley himself were to come in here and defend such things with the kind of "tit for tat" justification that Silver Hammer employed, because, frankly, what kind of credibility would such a person have in this matter? The bankruptcy of the justification is obvious on its face, and only the most biased person will refuse to see that.

But I have to say, in the end, that I think LOaP is correct. I am not saying it was inappropriate of Jack to register her concerns (rather, it was an important thing to do), but I think that job has been done and it is time to move on. The new generation appears to be more attuned to these problems than the old generation. When that older generation passes on, as surely it must, then no more Silver Hammers will drop by to feign impartial investigation and proceed to defend the indefensible.

The pseudo-apologists who come to get their taste of flesh and ego boost in the pretense of defending Mormonism are best left to wither under the shade, robbed of the sunlight of attention they desperately crave. The Silver Hammers who protect these "frat boys" are unlikely to be moved by the wisdom of a younger generation of apologists. Old dogs have a difficult time learning new tricks. And when that new generation takes the helm, they will handle the frat boy apologists more effectively.

[_harmony]

I applaud LoaP for having the integrity to object to Will's behavior, while not condoning the behavior of others. However, at this point I'm having a hard time believing LoaP is representative of the MI. That is unfortunate.

Given my own experiences at the MI, which are pretty limited I admit, I doubt anyone there really knows about any of this nonsense. Dan knows because he posts here. I think that's about it. Dan knows he's out of the norm when it comes to online participation.

I think Dan is out of the country for another couple of weeks or more.

Unless, of course, Silver Hammer was just Will in disguise. Then I retract the above comments.

My guess is that Silver Hammer is Will.

Well, someone's got to support Will. Wade and Droopy are getting tired.

[_Trevor]

My guess is that Silver Hammer is Will.

I think that is the best conclusion to reach. Even if it is not the case, it would be better for NAMIRS for us not to believe that someone such as a Lou Midgley would drop by here and defend this nonsense. What is astounding, although unfortunately not at all unexpected, is that he would think nothing of throwing all of his more prestigious associates under the bus in a desperate attempt at self-serving damage control.

You're a smart man, LOaP.

[_harmony]

I find it astounding that anyone representing or participating in the LDS church would approve of, let alone defend dispicable sexist behavior toward women, even more unbelievable to me is the idea that LDS members would not find such behavior offensive and unchristianlike.

Lifeonaplate is representative of most LDS believers/apologists I know. I am certain LDS men like Kevin Barney, Brant Gardner, Ben McGuire, Mike Ash, etc, etc., would not behave in such a way, and I feel confident they would not support or encourage others engaging in such behavior.

I appreciate Lifeonaplate for posting on this thread. His support is welcome and shows the church in a good light.

As for the absence of the others, that could be interpreted several different ways. I doubt they would come and engage in some sort of lame encounter; they'd come using their normal accounts, give their opinion, and leave. This isn't their kind of thread.

[_harmony]

Even if it is not the case, it would be better for NAMIRS for us not to believe that someone such as a Lou Midgley would drop by here and defend this nonsense.

That would be monumentally disappointing... not to mention astounding.

In order for us to believe NAMIRS sent someone, they'd have to show up using their real name. And if they came, they'd be defending the institution, not an individual.

[_RockSlider]

Silver Hammer, by the way of Maxwell's Silver hammer, sure followed the loose cannon pattern of William by implicating the whole of MI by naming none.
The Porter hero complex also comes through loud and clear with the words of that song. Silver is here to knock the nasty denizens of trailer park dead, and return to his small academic circle of friends for a few beers, as it were, and good laughts and celebration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1JOFhfoAD4

[_wenglund]

Lest this gets lost amidst the flurry of speculation about Silver Hammer's identity (no conspiracy theorizing there) and CFR's for surrounding vinuendos and vulgarities (we all know this board is pure as the driven snow), let me repost this on-topic query:

As a female academic, I would not feel comfortable addressing the academic arguments of someone with William's track towards women. On this forum, when women challenge his ideas, he attacks their ages, their bodies, their appearances, their sexuality, etc.

A couple of questions if I may:

Do you consider the atnosphere of this board to be conducive to academically addressing Will's academic arguments? Or, might there be better venues where your concerns may not come into play?

Were the women you mentioned above only academically challenging Will's ideas? Or, was there more or less to it?

Are you and the women you mentioned not capable of academically challenging the alleged attacks on your age, bodies, appearance, and sexuality? In other words, can you not just ignore or simply point out the alleged ad hominems like we apologists must do multiple times on a daily basis here?

In short, should you, as a female academic, be treated differently (better?) on this board than the men--like Will for example.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor Scratch]

Somehow I managed to wade through all of MsJack’s allegations of “misogyny” that started this discussion. I even clicked on many of the links and read parts of the discussions where the quotes originated.

My conclusion? The charge of misogyny is a gross exaggeration with no basis in the actual evidence. Yes, there was some occasional sexual innuendo associated with Will’s banter with the women in question. But all in all it struck me as relatively mild fare in comparison to the extremely coarse and vulgar material that I often saw surrounding Schryver’s comments.

I also discovered that the women involved were frequently engaged in very provocative and offensive rhetoric themselves. It seems to me they were more than willing to offend in their own way, and now want to make themselves appear to be innocent victims. The context of the comments does not support such a conclusion.

That's interesting that you would say that, Silver Hammer. It seems that there is some speculation here that you are a representative of the Maxwell Institute (hence your "[Maxwell's] Silver Hammer" nom de guerre). Part of MsJack's concern about Schryver's behavior has to do with the way that this seems to reflect on the "atmosphere" at the MI, and indeed, this was initially what you were trying to defend. I, for one, share MsJack's concerns, and I think there is real reason to suspect that there is a very rancid and virulent strain of misogyny flowing through some of the more remote veins of the MI. Take this individual, for example:



This man---Dr. Louis Midgley---was engaged in vicious, sexually-tinged verbal assault on Sandra Tanner in the woman's own place of business. Dr. Midgley's hostility and anger were so over-the-top and out of control that he was eventually thrown out of the building by Jerald Tanner.... And Jerald Tanner is almost universally regarded as a calm, mild-mannered man.

So this really should give you pause. If Midgley is willing to engage in this sort of behavior, and he's also a key figure at the Maxwell Institute, it should raise major-league concerns about the attitudes present within the MI.

Don’t misunderstand, I don’t “approve” of everything Will has said and done. I think some of it was ill-advised and demonstrated poor judgment. Seeing as how all the quotes I saw seemed to date to two or three years ago, I think it likely that he has learned from his mistakes.

Since he hasn't apologized or repented, I beg to differ. The gospel clearly teaches a way for matters such as this to be resolved. Without a clear process of repentance---without clear signs of contrition---Schryver remains stained by this sinful activity. And if he is allowed to publish with the Maxwell Institute, that stain will carry over to the MI as well.

[_harmony]

A couple of questions if I may:

Do you consider the atnosphere of this board to be conducive to academically addressing Will's academic arguments?

Yes. Witness the ongoing (almost 80 pages) of discussion about the Jockers' study.

Or, might there be better venues where your concerns may not come into play?

No. No other board offers a level playing field for all participants. And this forum is the correct forum for the concept.

Were the women you mentioned above only academically challenging Will's ideas? Or, was there more or less to it?

The context is available on the provided links.

Are you and the women you mentioned not capable of academically challenging the alleged attacks on your age, bodies, appearance, and sexuality?

Age, bodies, appearance, and sexuality are not academic issues subject to challenge. Therefore attacks on same are not academic challanges.

In other words, can you not just ignore or simply point out the alleged ad hominems like we apologists must do multiple times on a daily basis here?

1. I don't consider you an apologist, Wade, so your "we" is strange. Dan is an apologist; LoaP is an apologist. Mike Ash, Brant Gardner, Ben McGuire, etc...all apologists. You are not (that's not an insult).

2. Personal insults have no place in academic discussions. Thus any discussion where personal insults are present is not an academic discussion. Ignoring or deflecting personal insults will not elevate a discussion to higher plane.

In short, should you, as a female academic, be treated differently (better?) on this board than the men--like Will for example.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

All people should be treated with respect. Jack does that. All priesthood holders are required to listen to the prophet regarding treatement of women. Some here obviously don't.

[_Simon Belmont]

This man---Dr. Louis Midgley---was engaged in vicious, sexually-tinged verbal assault on Sandra Tanner in the woman's own place of business. Dr. Midgley's hostility and anger were so over-the-top and out of control that he was eventually thrown out of the building by Jerald Tanner.... And Jerald Tanner is almost universally regarded as a calm, mild-mannered man.

This was shown to be a bald-faced lie multiple times. Yet you perpetuate the myth.