Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_beastie]

If, as his screen name seems to imply, silver hammer is from the Maxwell Institute and was checking out the problem, then one of the questions that underlies my interest in this has been answered.

If this is the going to be the reaction of MI - that Will's misogyny has been exaggerated, and the real problem is the hostility of this place - then they deserve what they will get when Will's misdeeds become the next Metcalfe is a Butthead episode. And I guarantee it will. I'm imagining a Sunstone article discussing online behavior in defending the church, say, as an illustration of why some of the brethren appear to be concerned about this issue.

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.

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

[_beastie]

Some questions for Silver Hammer about his analysis.

Observe the following quote, which was included in the very first set of quotes in my OP:

(Kimberly does remain somewhat famous [among a small circle of otherwise respected academics] on account of my descriptions of her having once squeezed her then more voluptuous spirit tabernacle into a slinky black three-sizes-too-small dress at the 2006 Exmormon Foundation conference in Salt Lake City, which I attended. One wouldn't have believed it possible to carry melons in a pair of thimbles suspended from a thread, but miracles happen almost every day in this jaded world of cynical disbelievers.)

viewtopic.php?p=369575#p369575

1. Can you point me to the coarse and vulgar material that surrounded this comment so as to render it "relatively mild" by comparison?
2. What provocative rhetoric did KimberlyAnn engage in which led to, justified, or in any way encouraged this comment?
3. Please note the time stamp on this quote---October 13, 2010. Please also note that William did not post at Mormon Discussions between October 25, 2010 and February 19, 2011. This being the case, how is it that "all" of the quotes you saw came from 2 or 3 years ago, leading you to the conclusion that William has learned his lesson and ceased engaging in his offending behavior?

Thanks in advance.

And SH, please keep in mind that Will now claims he realized it was a case of "mistaken identity" when he saw the picture KA posted of her dress. Yet his response to that very picture that supposedly helped him see he had made an error was to comment on the breast reduction and cite a scripture about whores.

[_beastie]

I'm also curious to know what vulgarity was surrounding Will's comment to Liz about her being old, with varicose veins, etc, on a thread that had to do with what the word Lamanite means.

I also want to point out to Silver Hammer that the issue isn't necessarily the severity or vulgarity of Will's attacks, but rather it is that Will's attacks on women follow a very predictable pattern: he focuses on their sexual attractiveness, or lack thereof.

If Will, as he continually insinuates along with his braggadocio about having his calling and election made sure and having the power to "curse" apostates, is an up-coming apologist star, just imagine what he'll have to say about any woman who dares to criticize his theory. Great environment for scholarly exchange, eh?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

All we need is an appearance from Nomad to make the Schryverian triumverate complete! Oh my...

I think one of the reasons why Mr. Schryver can abuse women he deems as apostates is because he views apostates thusly:

If religion is the opiate of the masses, then spiritual cynicism is the opiate of the faithless--especially the LDS apostate who has chosen to willingly yield himself to the vicious dictates of the natural man. And yet, notwithstanding its having long-since lost its capacity to produce in its victims any sense of satisfaction whatsoever, they continue to shoot it in their veins with famished abandon.

And how he views himself (note the sexual subcontext once again):

A meaningless hypothetical. I have my calling and erection made sure. :lol:

I think it's in that light he's able to make comments like this about "apostate/fifth column" women:

In retrospect, I have no idea I would want to see liz in a tank-top. I’ll bet she's a wrinkled middle-aged woman with varicose veins and more good years behind her than ahead of her. Right? ;-)

And then in an almost bi-polaresque flip he almost immediately says:

By the way, liz, just for the record, I actually think you'd look quite hot in a tank top. On the back of a Harley. With a tattoo. Of a scorpion. On the small of your back.

Oooh, baby! ;-)

From my take, we have a Mormon apologist who is clearly unhinged. This sloppy, emotional style of posting when his anger gets ahold of him translates quickly into self-grandiosity & sexually themed assaults on suspect females he, apparently, views as whores, drug users, trailer park deniznes, or whatever insult with which he can color the non-TBM.

Lastly, I have to wonder if Mr. Schryver hasn't "had a few" when posting. He seems to slide toward vulgarity on occasion, and he has said he's a fan of malt beverages. If this is the case, perhaps his posting style is a little more understandle, and could evoke a bit of sympathy? I don't know.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Tator]

Pardon me for the name mistake. I actually meant to say Jeffries but had a senior moment when I wrote my post and typed your married name. No offense intended.

Also pardon me for not being familiar with correct message board terminology.

Last of all, I am saddened by the extreme hostility you demonstrate here. I would not have expected such a thing and would not have believed it if I had not seen it with my own eyes.

In fact, extreme hostility seems to be the governing emotion on this particular “message board.” As I said before, this has been a very eye-opening experience for me. I had no idea.

Mr. Hammer you are mistaken. MsJack has stayed with the direct quotes and the facts, it's called the truth. She has not strayed into any hostility what so ever. But I on the other hand when I started the Vulgar Scatologist thread I did.

Examples:

Pokatator Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 7:41 am

My speculation on Willie is that he is trying to over compensate for his inadequacies; intellectually, physically and socially. Usually when you see a guy beating his chest like Tarzan beefing up his virility, his conquests, his studness, usually they are the opposite. That is how I see Will when he constantly infers sexually into everything. I can pretty much stomach guys like this in male gatherings, locker room talk, on the golf course, male work settings, and etc. But what really offends me is when be berates females and even his wife. This is a great big character flaw in my opinion. He sees women as an object, a sex object.

So, in my view, Willie was rejected by the women in his life whether it started with his mom, who knows, but most likely he had no girl friends growing up. Also I think Willie was blessed with being born with a very small penis and now tries to compensate for it.

Truly, Willie does not equal stud.

Pokatator Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 9:47 am

Willie,

In the thread, "According to BC, the posters at MDB are preoccupied with sex" bcspace is quoted:

Sex once tried, frankly, is usually very difficult to give up. There is a reason why the apostle Paul says it is better to marry than to burn (with lust). It is similar to why you see virulent antiMormons, such as those who inhabit mormondiscussions.org, constantly talking and worrying about sex. They are similarly afflicted and/or they know that sex and porn are the best ways to get an active LDS person to fall.

I do believe that you are as crude, rude and sexually perverted as anyone who has ever used this board. I believe that bc should use you as the "poster boy" for his argument.

There were other posts, so I am guilty as charged in your last sentence of your post but MsJack is not. She called me out on my online behavior and rightly so. I'm glad she did.

I do hope you open your eyes a little wider and see who you are defending and aligning yourself with......who ever you are.

[_Kevin Graham]

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.

Call for references.

You see, you don't get to just waltz in here and make comments like this while pretending to be a newcomer. Show us just one example of "extremely coarse and vulgar material" directed towards Schryver, that would make his despicable "whore" insinuation "mild" by comparison.

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.

[_truth dancer]

Hey Jack,

I haven't been on the boards lately but checked in this morning and want to reply to your OP. I have not read the entire thread here so my response may reflect that.

I'm by no means an academician or scholarly participant, and this board for me has been more about learning, playing, discussing, sharing, entertainment, and relaxation. I consider most participants here cyber friends, (a few in real life friends), and many here I have know for years.

I enjoy this board because I think we can tailor it to our personal tastes. I'm not one for the tawdry, crass, vulgar, and cruel so tend to skip over those sorts of threads. I have a few folk on ignore and rarely visit the telestial forum.

To your OP... I am one who will not engage in discussion with anyone who personally attacks me or whose response to me is filled with vulgarity. I do not want to waste my time nor do I want to have the insults and cruelty come into my space. It is just my way of making sure this board is fun and enjoyable for me.

Having said this, after reading many of Will's smutty and uncouth attacks on women, (the ones you documented and others), on this forum and being the recipient of a few myself I put him on ignore. I think this is evidence that your thoughts are accurate.

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.

But, perhaps these gentlemen are not representative of LDS apologists. I do not know.

One last point... what is up with people feeling "disappointed" in you? Wow, this is just really weird to me. What in the world? It reminds me of when I have to respond to a child who has misbehaved. :-) You get a time out missy! LOL!


~td~

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Oh, I'm sure you are. You understand the "unwritten order of things" about as well as any young apologist, I think. But I'm curious: were you told to stand down, or do you merely understand that this is how it's going to be?

Only one person told me to stand down. That one person was myself, in all the posts in this thread encouraging people to quit wasting their time. Time to practice what I preach is all. I'm following my own written order of things.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

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

My guess is that Silver Hammer is Will.

[_Buffalo]

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.

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.

At any rate, I saw nothing to persuade me that Will Schryver has misogynist tendencies. He does have an acerbic and sometimes cutting tongue, that much is certain. But that is not a sin in my judgment. Although not always angelic in his expressions, in my opinion he has been falsely accused.

In fact, the conclusion I will take away from my brief experience here is that the common thread running through everything I read is a high degree of anti-Mormon hostility that frequently manifests itself through intentional misrepresentation.

'Sup, Will?