Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_wenglund]

Please do not continue to pretend that I did not demonstrate a correct understanding of hearsay.

As long as you now understand that what you presented here was hearsay, and that your hearsay is not as authoritative as someone providing documented first-hand testimony, then we are on the same page. If you don't understand this, then do as suggested.

Now, for the third time, back on topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Trevor]

As long as you now understand that what you presented here was hearsay, and that your hearsay is not as authoritative as someone providing documented first-hand testimony, then we are on the same page. If you don't understand this, then do as suggested.

Wade, there is no "now understand" about it. I have shown that I entered the conversation understanding the concept perfectly well, and instead of acknowledging that the error is yours, you continue this charade--something that suggests to me that you have crossed the line into dishonesty.

Now, for the third time, back on topic.

You don't get to dictate to me when it is time for me to stop pointing out your dishonesty or errors in interpreting what I have written.

[_Droopy]

Jack's thread offers a nasty chapter in the long saga of failed Book of Abraham apologetics.

As much as it makes my stomach hurt to have to thank Kevin for anything, this frank admission to what many anti-Mormons on this board and who have participated in these Schryver threads have been trying to swat away as it buzzes annoyingly around there heads - that being the real animating motives for these threads existence - is quite welcome and Kevin should be given credit where credit is now due.

[_Kevin Graham]

Where, in your convoluted mind did you imagine that I had intended to offer evidence--hearsay or otherwise?

Listen Forrest, I know this is hard for you to connect the dots in even a short string of discussion points, but let me, for the sake of our readers, illustrate how this is all flying straight over your head, as usual. Here is how this exchange played itself out:

Scratch: Midgley was a prick at the Tanner's store

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

Trevor: No, it really hasn't. And since I heard the story from someone who was actually present, my source is at least equally authoritative to any you might bring to the table.

wade: I hate to breaak it to you Trevor, but hearsay is not as authoritative as documented first-hand testimony. Sorry.

Ok, is your last comment a figment of my "convoluted" imagination or did you actually bring up "first hand testimony" as if this is what Simon had? If you were not trying to imply that Simon has "documented first-hand testimony" compared to Trevor's "hearsay" then what the hell was your point? If it was to prove that nothing has been proven, then your quibble is with Simon since he is the only one who claimed that something has been proven.

Trevor's point was that both sides rely on testimony offered by people who were there. Therefore Simon is wrong to insist one version has been proven over the other. All you did here was illustrate your abject ignorance on the matter while trying to spin it in a way to make yourself look like you're a teacher. Always giving lessons, eh wade? Do you have any idea how stupid this makes you look? You're slowly deginerating into one of the most useless posters on the boards.

[_Trevor]

As much as it makes my stomach hurt to have to thank Kevin for anything, this frank admission to what many anti-Mormons on this board and who have participated in these Schryver threads have been trying to swat away as it buzzes annoyingly around there heads - that being the real animating motives for these threads existence - is quite welcome and Kevin should be given credit where credit is now due.

Jack knows her own motivations for engaging in this exercise, regardless of Kevin's opinion. We all know that Will's Book of Abraham work will ultimately stand or fall on its own merits. I don't think anyone has any illusions to the contrary. There is absolutely no sense in prolonging a silly, pointless drama about any supposed connections between Will's Book of Abraham arguments and his putrescent online persona. Each should be judged separately.

[_Droopy]

Of course we can always expect the fringe lunatics like droopy, wade (and Will's various sock puppets) to dismiss all Will has done and try to paint him as some kind of victim (i.e. "lynching" as wade puts it) but we can also expect on the more serious posters to see past apologetic and tribal tendencies and denounce his actions as unbecoming of a priesthood holder.

Does anyone else here see Graham's pretensions to being a serous intellectual as almost...perverted?

[_Droopy]

Jack knows her own motivations for engaging in this exercise, regardless of Kevin's opinion. We all know that Will's Book of Abraham work will ultimately stand or fall on its own merits. I don't think anyone has any illusions to the contrary. There is absolutely no sense in prolonging a silly, pointless drama about any supposed connections between Will's Book of Abraham arguments and his putrescent online persona. Each should be judged separately.

But they will not be, in the minds of many, if these threads have their intended effect.

That, my man, is the point.

See the point?

[_Kevin Graham]

As much as it makes my stomach hurt to have to thank Kevin for anything, this frank admission to what many anti-Mormons on this board and who have participated in these Schryver threads have been trying to swat away as it buzzes annoyingly around there heads - that being the real animating motives for these threads existence - is quite welcome and Kevin should be given credit where credit is now due.

Jack knows her own motivations for engaging in this exercise, regardless of Kevin's opinion. We all know that Will's Book of Abraham work will ultimately stand or fall on its own merits. I don't think anyone has any illusions to the contrary. There is absolutely no sense in prolonging a silly, pointless drama about any supposed connections between Will's Book of Abraham arguments and his putrescent online persona. Each should be judged separately.

There appears to be some misunderstanding of what I said. The "nastiness" of the chapter has nothing to do with Jack's motivations and everything to do with the content therein, particularly Will's documented history of attacks on women. I'm not faulting Jack at all for what she has done. I'm glad she did it, but I don't want people thinking this was done for malicious purposes to get Will thrown off his publication path. Jack is a female who is genuinely appalled by Will's remarks and it was appropriate for her to make her concerns known, especially since she is particularly involved in bridge-building between LDS and non-LDS.

Yes, I want Will's apologetics to stand on their own merits as they have and will continue to. I think publishing Will after he has been exposed this way, will only be bad news for NAMI, but I still want it to happen.

[_RockSlider]

Wade, if you persist in claiming that I misunderstand the rules of evidence against the evidence that I have provided that clearly demonstrates otherwise, I will be forced to conclude that you are deliberately lying.

Don't go too hard on poor Wade. He showed eariler in this thread that he has reading comprehension issues and tends to struggle when leaving the realms of his psuedo babble and trying to actually address and issue.

remember Wade, once again, it seems best for you to stick with the psuedo babble.

[_Kevin Graham]

Jack knows her own motivations for engaging in this exercise, regardless of Kevin's opinion. We all know that Will's Book of Abraham work will ultimately stand or fall on its own merits. I don't think anyone has any illusions to the contrary. There is absolutely no sense in prolonging a silly, pointless drama about any supposed connections between Will's Book of Abraham arguments and his putrescent online persona. Each should be judged separately.

But they will not be, in the minds of many, if these threads have their intended effect.

That, my man, is the point.

See the point?

And if it does turn out that way, then it will be poetic justice since LDS apologetics has relied on this method for many years now. FARMS has made sure LDS readers will never need to read an "anti-Mormon" piece because their "reviews" consist of all sorts of attacks on the characters of those authors. This is usually enough to instill some sense of victory in the minds of the faithful. Because in LDS thought, only the anti-Mormons rely on deception. Only anti-Mormons are vile. Only anti-Mormons rely on half-truths and hyperbole to confuse their readers. Only anti-Mormons attack the messengers. These are all the fruits of Satan.

So when all of this is shown to be true of an apologist, what's a struggling Mormon to do?