Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Trevor]

There appears to be some misunderstanding of what I said.

Yes, I wasn't agreeing with his characterization of your words. I was simply saying that whatever you might say would not really determine Jack's motivations.

[_wenglund]

Wade, there is no "now understand" about it..

Yes there is. Go back to your first reply to my comment to you. YOU clearly musunderstood what I said. Notice that I then went on to corrected your misunderstanding.

What I am saying now is the same thing that I said before, and the same thing I have said all along. Your hearsay evidence is not as authoritative as someone providing documented first-hand testimony. My point hasn't changed, but hopefully your understanding of it has.

This is the last I will say on the matter. If you don't get it this time around, then I am fine with leaving it at that.

You are free to diverge from the topic to your hearts desire. For my part, i will make a conserted effort to get back on topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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.

I've considered the source of this assessment and advise, and will give it all the consideration it is due---which, in the words of LBJ, is worth as much as a warm cup of spit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Well, I suppose Mr. Englund just invalidated the Bible, and the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Simon Belmont]

Hello,

Well, I suppose Mr. Englund just invalidated the Bible, and the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses.

V/R
Dr. Cam

You, sir, are a dolt.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I want to drive home a trifecta with this one:

And no, I feel no fear as I tread the winding paths here in Shadyland. I am like Quai Chang Caine walking through the rattlesnakes in the pit -- though I walk through the valley of the Shadyville bottoms, I will fear no evil. My baseball bat and my .45, they comfort me. My wife still prepares my lunch and serves me it in the presence of my enemies. She anointeth me with sloppy kisses -- my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and chocolate ice cream will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

Mr. Schryver 1) let's everyone know what he thinks of the apostate, 2) uses violent imagery as some sort of strange Mormon anti-Hero looking for trouble, and 3) paints a female, once again, in a servile role lavishing sexuality upon him.

This is the man who fronts Mormon apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Kevin Graham]

Your hearsay evidence is not as authoritative as someone providing documented first-hand testimony. My point hasn't changed, but hopefully your understanding of it has.

I guess this is another example of my "convoluted imagination"? Did wade not just bring up "documented first hand testimony" or didn't he? Why bring this up at all wade unless you're trying to say the apologists have "documented first hand testimony" and the critics do not? You're obviously trying to slink away while pretending you've made some kind of significant point, when all you did is illustrate your uselessness on these forums.

And for the record, when the Tanners tell their story, they effectively provide "documented first hand testimony" since they were there.

Simon claimed their story was disproved. Trevor said it wasn't disproved. You then jumped in to "correct" Trevor by insinuating rather strongly that he was wrong, and that he didn't understand what hearsay meant.

The worst thing about your posts wade is that this would be comedic coming from most ignorant folks, but when it comes from you it is just downright annoying for some reason. Probably has something to do with your blissful ignorance to the fact that you're not an educated man in a position to be "correcting" or "teaching" children, let alone educated adult men.

[Guest]

Hello,

This well keeps coughing up oil. Mr. Schryver about Ms. Beastie:

I'd much rather discuss beastlie's nice legs. :lol:

One more for Ms. KA:

xxooxx to you, too.

You know, I was a little chagrined about the thought of you moving down a cupsize, but I have to say that, based on your Easter photo, it worked out very well; you look pretty damn hot for a thirty-something mother of 4!

An observation about a poster named Katherine the Great:

As for your question, the answer is simple: as much as I like ktg, in her uptight, seemingly sexually-frustrated way, I still have to say that Kimberly Ann is orders of magnitude hotter, apostate or not.

Make you wonder who the sexually frustrated one is...

Mr. Schryver attacking Ms. Beastie's husband:

I think perhaps Belinda hit the nail on the head: she saw what only one woman could see in another woman. You're a control freak. At least now you are. Sure, you probably had a bastard of a first husband, and I'm really sorry about that. Men who don't respect and adore their women aren't worthy to have a woman at their side.

But, more likely than not, her assessment of the situation is spot on: your reaction to the first mistake was to find someone you could dominate psychologically and probably intellectually, too. That way, you are guaranteed of holding the reins all the time.

Well, guess what, my dear -- that's not trust and respect. That's distrust set in stone, and disrespect in the form of faithless control.

If it works for you and your man, more power to you. But it's not how I would choose to live, and my bet is that most women would not prefer a man who was so easily dominated and so willingly disrespected.

Mr. Schryver bringing his wife, Belinda, into his posting libido:

As a matter of fact, however, Mrs. S and I were just reading KA's blog entry about her breast exam (hilarious, by the way -- I highly recommend it) and I reminded her (Mrs. S.) that KA was the hot little dish I had seen in the black spaghetti strap number at the exmo conference in '06. (KA, to my knowledge, doesn't remember our brief meeting. I think she'd had a little to drink that evening.)

V/R
Dr. Cam

[Guest]

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.

I've read a number of those over the years, and all I've ever really seen there is attacks on those author's sloppy thinking, logical slovenliness, less than sterling intellectual integrity on a number of occasions, and in some cases, self serving rhetorical or intellectual tactics (as with Quinn, for one example)

Some anti-Mormon authors, on the other hand, have left no other alternative, given what they have written, then to comment on their mental state and ethical bearings. That's a legitimate subject for serious reviewers when warranted.

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.

An overwhelmingly vast number of them traditionally have, yes. Just look at this board for a clear case in point. Or most of your own posts on any given subject.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Wade,

Could you please provide a quote from Trevor that would indicate that he did not understand what hearsay evidence is?