Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[Guest]

Have Other LDS Apologists & Scholars Addressed William's Behavior?

Very few Latter-day Saint apologists and/or scholars have commented publicly on William's misogyny. Below are the exceptions I have noted.

Quite recently on our forums, David Bokovoy (a.k.a. "Enuma Elish") started a thread in which he defended William from some of the other attacks that were aimed at William by other posters. Beastie cited some of the same misogynist posts by William that I've presented here, then asked David how he could justify his defense of William in light of that. To this David replied (4/13/11):

I cannot. I was not aware of these comments. I had seen others, but these make me all the more angry and I've been trying to get over my anger. I hate feeling this way. That anyone would post these comments to women is unacceptable, to say the least. That he would do so in the context of defending Mormonism sickens me.

As an active member of the Church, I offer my sincere apology for this behavior.

Then later added (to William) (4/13/11 --- emphases his):

These people, as you refer to them, are still God's children, Will, every single one of them. No matter what criticisms they raise, these people deserve to be treated with kindness by one attempting to defend the Gospel of Christ. If you cannot do this, I would beg you, to simply disengage.

I recall that there were several posts where Simon Belmont acknowledged that William's remarks towards women were over the line. However, I don't recall specifics of what was said, and the terrible search engine at MDB won't allow me to search Simon's posts for general words like "women," so I cannot locate these posts right now. The Nehor also piped up once to indicate that William's post calling KimberlyAnn a whore and laughing over her breast reduction surgery lacked class, and Ttribe told William to "shut up" in response to the issue.

Wade Englund (wenglund) recently posted the following reply on Pokatator's "Vulgar Scatologist" thread. He was responding to the latest additions to the thread from Doctor CamNC4Me, which included some of the misogynist material that I've cited here (4/11/11):

Much appreciation to Cam for culling some of Will's more infamous parodies of this place. What makes them so interesting is how lost the parodies are on so many here. I mean, every day we all swim in this cesspool, and yet some of the good folks here seem oblivious to their own copious potty results floating all about them, and yet get all exercised when others infrequently parody them. I am pleased, though, to learn that I am not the only one who hangs on Will's every word. [Thumbs Up]

I'm personally at a loss as to what it is that Wade thinks William is parodying with his rank misogyny.

If anyone is aware of other comments on William's misogyny from LDS scholars and apologists that I may have missed, I'll gladly update this section of the thread.

For my own part, I have no expectation that any participant of any message board community ought to engage in "board nannying" over the participation of others. It does not matter to me that some participants may be religious and/or ideological allies with those engaging in bad behavior. I hold each man or woman responsible for his or her own behavior and do not assume that others approve of said behavior simply because they do not comment.

However, as noted above, William has specifically claimed that his LDS colleagues who are familiar with this forum approve of his behavior. In light of this claim by William, it is difficult to interpret the silence from other LDS apologists and scholars as well as the tacit approval of William as he has risen to prominence in the LDS community. I can only think of a few possibilities:

(1) Other LDS scholars and apologists are aware of this behavior and approve of it, but are attempting to save face by not admitting this in public. I sincerely hope that this is not the case as it would mean that the field of Mormon Studies is a very unfriendly place for women.

(2) Other LDS scholars and apologists are aware of this behavior and disapprove of it, but feel that William's forthcoming contributions to the Book of Abraham and Kirtland Egyptian Papers debates are valuable enough to warrant toleration of his misogyny. It is a necessary evil and they secretly hope that knowledge of this behavior will stay relegated to our "obscure message board."

(3) Other LDS scholars and apologists are not fully aware of his misogyny and would be appropriately appalled if it were documented for them.

I personally hope that more LDS apologists and scholars will use this thread as an opportunity to publicly comment on this issue.

[Guest]

Conclusion: Why It Matters

Earlier this year, I published a review of the NIV-2011 for Priscilla Papers. At one point in my review, I critiqued some remarks that had been made by one of the co-founders of the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. There is a reason that I felt comfortable doing this. Even though I harbor deep and passionate disagreements with the scholar in question, and our disagreements even pertain to the role of women in ministry, I have never seen him display anything but civility towards those who disagree with him. He may write books on why women should not be ordained, but when he addresses women (and men) who disagree with him, he is always scholarly and respectful.

This is not the case with William Schryver. He is frequently hostile towards those who disgree with him and peculiarly hostile towards women, often invoking vitriolic and/or lewd remarks about their appearance, their age, their bodies, or their sexuality instead of sticking strictly to the subject under discussion. I have shown here how he has applied the terms "bitch" and "c***" to his female opponents in addition to using a Book of Mormon reference to imply that another female participant is a "whore." If William does go forward with publication of his Book of Abraham and Kirtland Egyptian Papers work, I cannot imagine that any female academic would feel comfortable addressing his arguments knowing how he routinely treats women who disagree with him. I know I would not.

Ultimately the scholarly process is about conversation, the free and open exchange of ideas by anyone who may be able to make a valid, thoughtful, and well-argued contribution. Bad ideas need to be refuted and refined while good ideas need to be promoted and added to the scholarly corpus. When it is not safe for women to contribute their voices and critiques to an academic conversation due to the misogyny of one of the participants, it's hard to imagine that true scholarship can take place as opposed to the perpetual echo chamber of some good ol' boys network. Which one of those scenarios is William Schryver's participation going to encourage?

Bridget Jack Jeffries a.k.a. "MsJack"

BA - Brigham Young University, 2005
MA Candidate - Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2011

[_Kevin Graham]

--

[Guest]

Subsequent Replies by MsJack:

Round 1: 5/1/11 & 5/1/11

Round 2: 5/2/11

Round 3: 5/3/11 & 5/3/11 & 5/3/11

Much Later (8/2/12): William has authored a post on his blog called "The Calculated Suppression of Mormon Apologetics: The Case of William Schryver" which is, in part, a response to this thread. It contains false information about myself and this thread. I have responded to it on my blog here.

[_Tator]

MsJack I applaud your work here. Thank you, thank you, thank you. You captured the essence of my motivation to start the Scatologist thread. It was Will's vulgar treatment of women that offended me and motivated me. I truly believe that lots of things begin at home. It was Will's comments about his wife and even his daughters that set me off. I could somehow give a little leeway to Will for his random posts to anonymous posters on an internet message board but to make comments about his own flesh and blood was beyond the pale. It was all downhill from there. The only female he really hasn't mentioned in a vulgar manner is his mother, but there is still time. I am sure that she would not be proud to read Will's posts, but just maybe she is part of the original problem.

Again thanx for the hard work, MsJack, I am in awe of your talents. My next prediction is that Will will try his apologetic skills toward getting this thread "demoted" to terrestrial or telestial. I hope that doesn't happen.

Sincerely, Tator a.k.a. Pokatator

[_Will Schryver]

For the record, William is known to have used the following MDB handles:

William Schryver
WilliamSchryver
Will Schryver

Some (myself included) have suspected and accused other community members of being William Schryver sock puppets. For the purposes of this thread, I will be ignoring these theories and only addressing material that was posted under William's confirmed handles.

For the record, I have only posted here under the handles "William Schryver" and "Will Schryver".

The time and effort you have obviously expended in assembling this next stage in the GSTP anti-Schryver propaganda campaign is quite impressive, after a fashion. I wish you as much success in achieving your objectives as those who have gone before you.

[_Will Schryver]

I had determined to just ignore this thread, since it appeared, at first glance, to be merely a rehash of the same old things said on this board for years. But, in my scanning through it, I came across this statement:

What did harmony edit out of William's post? What could he have possibly said that was so offensive that it was instantly moderated here in the land of free speech for all?

William called her a "c***." Just in case anyone reading this lives a very sheltered life: "c***" is "an abusive term usually considered the most offensive word [in reference to women] and even more forceful than bitch." I realize the original word is no longer preserved in William's post due to harmony's moderation, but there are several members of our community who remember this exchange and can vouch for this.

But remember, it's harmony who supposedly loathes women and being a woman. William has nothing but the utmost respect for his "c***s" and "bitches" and "whores."

This is a shameless and baseless LIE.

And you, my dear, are a base propagandist--although I have no doubt your work will be well received in these parts. However, don't expect it to have the result you most desire: the neutralization of my present and future contributions to LDS apologetics.

However, now having so closely associated yourself with the brazen and frantic efforts of people like Kevin Graham and "Kishkumen," you will have at least removed, from the minds of those you aspire to influence, all doubt about your allegiances and motivations. That serves my purposes quite well ...

[_Themis]

However, don't expect it to have the result you most desire: the neutralization of my present and future contributions to LDS apologetics.

Considering all the damage you do to the church, it's the apologists who want you to stop.

[_Yoda]

Will--

"Where much is given, much is expected."

I would be willing to acknowledge that your prior behavior was a thing of the past, and something which you no longer wish to engage in.

You have managed to avoid misogynistic comments since you have returned to the board. I think that if you commit to keeping your arguments on point from this point forward, and avoid personal attacks, that simple act will dispell a lot of the prior ugliness.

Are you willing to do that?

[_beastie]

Ms. Jack,

I am very appreciative of the time and effort you have put into this endeavor. You are correct in that, if, as he insinuates, Will is becoming more respected in the "higher" levels of LDS apologia, then his fellow apologists do themselves no favors by ignoring this behavior. It is quite possible that they are unaware of it, as David apparently was. However, I think some are aware of it because they've been around MD long enough to either witness his behavior or hear it mentioned by others. I do hope that anyone who has private connections to respected apologists will send them a link to this thread and ask for their comments. There are some apologists that I feel like I've grown to know, over the years, even within a fairly adversarial relationship, and I am confident that they would be disgusted by Will's behavior and probably express that openly. Ben McGuire and Brant Gardner come to mind. I cannot imagine either of them ever saying the sort of things that Will says, or condoning such behavior, either. Nor can I imagine any LDS man I have ever known, in real life, doing so (with perhaps a couple of abusive exceptions). So either Will's insinuations that other apologists agree with and enjoy everything he says is a delusion on his part, or LDS men have a secret side of their behavior that they hide from LDS women and only expose among other LDS men. That would be most unfortunate and even sickening if it were true. I can't bring myself to believe that. So instead I believe that they're either unaware of his behavior or don't know how to handle it, so ignore it. But it really can't be ignored, if Will's star is rising. His bad behavior will come out, and it will come out in some sort of embarrassing fashion.

I do not understand why Will thinks he is untouchable. Perhaps it has something to do with his assertion that he's had his "calling and election made sure" (which, if that is true, could be used as an argument against the inspiration of LDS leaders) Perhaps he imagines that others view him with a fondness like Porter Rockwell. If so, he is ignoring the fact that we live in a far different time than Porter. During Porter's time, the church leaders had no desire to be part of any larger culture - religious or social. They despised the larger culture, so were as sensitive to their leaders being portrayed in positive terms in any media. But today it is far different. The church leaders today want the LDS church to be part of the religious mainstream, and to be viewed with respect. Joseph Smith may not have been embarrassed by Porter, but Thomas Monson would be.

It's one thing to be the "bad boy" of LDS internet boards, and quite another to have accumulated the history of interactions that Will has and then try to be a high-tier apologist. Respected apologists need to lance this boil now before it causes even bigger problems in the future.