Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_MsJack]

LoaP ~ Read the introduction to this thread again. Read the conclusion.

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.

I wasn't even comfortable doing this thread. Prior to this, I deliberately avoided responding to almost everything William posts on this forum because, frankly, I didn't want to be the next beastie. Or the next liz3564. Or the next KimberlyAnn. I only started this thread because it was clear that someone needed to stand up to him, and no one else was going to do it. I've spoken to several other female community members who have avoided William for the exact same reason.

When William was just another online apologist, I was content to ignore his behavior. Now that he's looking to make legitimate contributions to Mormon academia, I don't think it's appropriate to ignore this behavior anymore.

When William publishes in the Journal of Restoration Scripture or Journal of Mormon History, are women supposed to feel comfortable addressing his arguments given how he treats them? And what kind of scholarly examination will his ideas get if women don't feel like they can participate in the conversation?

That is the point of this thread. That was the question that I asked in my OP.

And this thread has gone to almost twenty pages now without a single person trying to address it.

[_Analytics]

Doctor Scratch said: “I agree that he's been "ambiguous" in so far as he hasn't named any names. But he has clearly said that the MI apologists find "amusing" the things that have happened to him here. And the latest thing that has happened to him here is an extremely thorough and well-documented account of his misogynist behavior. (Which, by the way, you seem to have a neutral attitude towards.)”

Your conclusion that I have a “neutral attitude” towards “misogynist behavior” is just another example of you illogically multiplying inferences.

My brief time here has been a real eye-opening experience. I think I have learned everything I need to know about this place and how much weight to give to the things that are said here.

I thank all of you for your responses to my questions.

Wait, Hammer! You're not going to ask Schryver what group he had in mind? That seemed to be a primary focus. It would seem that that is one thing you've not learned. Why not ask him?

Exactly. While Will denies one particular thing he allegedly said, in general he admits to his behavior and seems quite proud about it. Why not ask him who these otherwise respected academics are who share his humor?

[_RockSlider]

When William publishes in the Journal of Restoration Scripture or Journal of Mormon History, are women supposed to feel comfortable addressing his arguments given how he treats them?

absolutely not

And what kind of scholarly examination will his ideas get if women don't feel like they can participate in the conversation?

An old school male oriented one.

And this thread has gone to almost twenty pages now without a single person trying to address it.

There, answered for ya.

other questions?

p.s. but don't feel bad serveral male fifth columist will be in the same boat.

[_Silver Hammer]

LoaP ~ Read the introduction to this thread again. Read the conclusion.

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.

I wasn't even comfortable doing this thread. Prior to this, I deliberately avoided responding to almost everything William posts on this forum because, frankly, I didn't want to be the next beastie. Or the next liz3564. Or the next KimberlyAnn. I only started this thread because it was clear that someone needed to stand up to him, and no one else was going to do it. I've spoken to several other female community members who have avoided William for the exact same reason.

When William was just another online apologist, I was content to ignore his behavior. Now that he's looking to make legitimate contributions to Mormon academia, I don't think it's appropriate to ignore this behavior anymore.

When William publishes in the Journal of Restoration Scripture or Journal of Mormon History, are women supposed to feel comfortable addressing his arguments given how he treats them? And what kind of scholarly examination will his ideas get if women don't feel like they can participate in the conversation?

That is the point of this thread. That was the question that I asked in my OP.

And this thread has gone to almost twenty pages now without a single person trying to address it.

I followed the link to your personal blog and discovered that you are Bridget Jack née Meyers.

I must say that I am somewhat surprised to see that you participate on this particular blog. I am also disappointed, for many reasons, to see that you are the one who started this particular discussion.

All the same, best wishes to you and your family.

[_Trevor]

I am also disappointed, for many reasons, to see that you are the one who started this particular discussion.

I'm sure the disappointment of an anonymous person who just showed up will really keep her up at night.

[Guest]

I must say that I am somewhat surprised to see that you participate on this particular blog. I am also disappointed, for many reasons, to see that you are the one who started this particular discussion.

Your best bet here is to drop a note to DCP and request that he contacts MsJack via PM and private email. I'm sure he can help set her straight.

[_Analytics]

LoaP I wasn't even comfortable doing this thread. Prior to this, I deliberately avoided responding to almost everything William posts on this forum because, frankly, I didn't want to be the next beastie. Or the next liz3564. Or the next KimberlyAnn. I only started this thread because it was clear that someone needed to stand up to him, and no one else was going to do it. I've spoken to several other female community members who have avoided William for the exact same reason.

When William was just another online apologist, I was content to ignore his behavior. Now that he's looking to make legitimate contributions to Mormon academia, I don't think it's appropriate to ignore this behavior anymore.

When William publishes in the Journal of Restoration Scripture or Journal of Mormon History, are women supposed to feel comfortable addressing his arguments given how he treats them? And what kind of scholarly examination will his ideas get if women don't feel like they can participate in the conversation?

That is the point of this thread. That was the question that I asked in my OP.

And this thread has gone to almost twenty pages now without a single person trying to address it.

Well said. The Mormon apologetic community ought to make it clear that they censor this behavior and don’t promote those who indulge in it. I'm all in favor of forgiving people and letting bygones by bygones. The point is that Will ought to acknowledge how he’s been a sexist ass, sincerely apologize and, well, repent.

The way Will treats his female interlocutors does undermine the ideals of the scholarly system. If I were a publisher, I wouldn’t publish somebody like that for that very reason.

If BYU holds its athletes accountable to upstanding levels of honor and sportsmanship, why wouldn’t the MI require the people it publishes to be ladies and gentlemen?

[_MsJack]

I followed the link to your personal blog and discovered that you are Bridget Jack née Meyers.

I must say that I am somewhat surprised to see that you participate on this particular blog. I am also disappointed, for many reasons, to see that you are the one who started this particular discussion.

I made a sincere effort to give you the benefit of the doubt and be polite to you, and I was going to offer you a substantive response when I got more time tomorrow, but now I'm going to have to go with Trevor's "transparent sock puppet" verdict.

I like how you're calling this message board a "blog" and pretending that you don't know how to use your browser's basic "find" function. Nice touch.

And by the way, my maiden name is Jeffries.

[_Trevor]

Your best bet here is to drop a note to DCP and request that he contacts MsJack via PM and private email. I'm sure he can help set her straight.

Yes, at least when he claims to be "highly disappointed" in her, it will be more believable.

[Gadianton]

Doctor Scratch quotes Will Schryver as saying: “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.”

He then says: “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."”

Actually, the statement links the “brief and amused discussion” to “a long, long string of coordinated attacks” on Mr. Schryver. It’s talking about the “coordinated attacks” and says nothing about the amusement being related to anything Schryver himself has said on message boards. It would be illogical to infer 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."”

Just because someone is aware of “A,” and might find “A” amusing, does not mean that they are aware of “B” or “C” and find them amusing as well.

You are extending the statement to cover things it does not include.

My point is that Schryver appears to be intentionally ambiguous about what he says, and that you and others here are inclined to represent those things according to what YOU believe he really means. From what I have seen so far, in the examples you have given, there is a significant difference between what was ACTUALLY said, and what you CLAIM was said, or meant.

Are there other examples where the meaning is more explicit than in these you’ve already given me?

Folks,

This is what a rational investigation looks like, just so you know.

So, naturally, it will be dismised here. And, who better to start off the dismissal than the lovely beastie, proud defender of mobocracy and the hair salon mod of judgementalism that rules these environs.

Moved to the terrestial forum in 3...2...1...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-