Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Pahoran]

STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD AND READ THIS.

I just had to report most of the last 5 pages of material for removal to other threads.

Which part of this:

Do not "derail" threads or otherwise insert commentary that has nothing to do with a thread's opening post.

Is so hard to understand?

If you are commenting in this thread, you are commenting on something that was discussed in my OP or something related to what was discussed in my OP, or you need to start your own thread.

Whether or not William Schryver made these bizarre "calling and election made sure claims" has nothing to do with this thread. It's not a topic I have commented on. Ever.

Perhaps not.

But Beastie brought it up very early in the thread. Then she made quite a production of it on page 4. Later, Shades chimed in with a direct question about it to Belinda.

I answered Shades' question -- and only then did it become a derail.

How very telling.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Not very "refeened," I admit. About on a par with Beastie describing FARMS as "likely an incestuous community."

I disagree. William has often accompanied his accusations of "circle jerking" with vivid sexual imagery or terms. For example:

By the way, I for one am quite confident that most of you losers here in the Trailer Park are shameless buggerers. Else why your proclivity for the orgiastic circle jerks in which you all enthusiastically participate?

viewtopic.php?p=158004#p158004

After all, you've never been averse to taking your place right in the middle of the circle, heartily pounding out an approving beat for each and every orgiastic excess. You belong here.

viewtopic.php?p=169530#p169530

And then of course there's the quote from which I told readers to consult what the Urban Dictionary says about "circle jerks":

Harmony is just bitter that the daily circle jerks in the Great and Spacious Trailer Park™ are the closest she has come to a bona fide sexual experience in over 40 years.

I simply cannot understand how her husband has resisted the urge to off himself for so long. Of all the men in human history who have felt compelled, no matter the cost, to “stick it out” with a bitch of a wife – Joseph Smith included – if anyone deserves the reward of 72 virgins in heaven, it’s that poor man.

viewtopic.php?p=229889#p229889

So he compares "circle jerks" to "bona fide sexual experience" and then goes on to talk about men who deserve 72 virgins in heaven for sticking it out with "bitches of wives".

Unless you have some examples of beastie engaging in similar sexual imagery in accompaniment with her "incest" metaphors, I would say the two are not the same at all. Not by a long shot.

Tell me, with a straight face, that it's really worse than the notorious "lie back and think of England" remark.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Duplicate post.

[_Pahoran]

In other words, you are relying upon gossip.

In other words, you are mischaracterizing eye witness testimony of an event as "gossip."

Kind of like your mischaracterization of this "well-written," "well-argued" thread which drew the thanks of someone close to the MI, as a "poison pen thread."

It's a disgraceful dog-pile that reflects far more badly upon you than it does upon its target.

Someone -- it might have been Beastie -- smugly pointed out in this connection that people's memories aren't always reliable. But here we are relying upon nothing but people's memories.

Actually, that was me, although I recall nothing "smug" about my post. And I did it in defense of William Schryver since others were accusing him of lying about not having called harmony the c-word. I pointed out that he may believe he is telling the truth, that his memory may have involuntarily deleted the event by now, so automatically characterizing him as a "liar" because his memory disagrees with the memory of several eyewitnesses is unfair.

How sweet. At least two eyewitnesses agree that they didn't see it there either.

Besides, the "C" word doesn't match the description of a personal attack. It's vulgar and insulting, certainly; but it doesn't rise to the level of anything as concrete as a personal attack.

It's widely recognized as one of the most harshly abusive terms that someone can direct at a woman. Of course it's a personal attack, and it's rather inane and ignorant of you to even try to argue otherwise.

Like the other "c" word, which is immensely popular around here, and which I fully expect to see you use, as you devolve towards bog-standard anti-Mormonism, it is merely the verbal equivalent of growling.

Someone else said that if we have to choose between Will's and Harmony's recollections of the event, they'll accept Harmony's.

I've repeatedly stated on this thread that it was MrStakhanovite's testimony that I found to be most powerful, especially since he commented on William's post within minutes of seeing it.

I think the highlighted word should be correctly spelled "useful." Rollo Tomassi, hardly an ally of Will, directly commented on the post before it was edited, and did not see the "c" word therein. But that doesn't suit your vendetta, does it?

No offense to harmony, but I don't know her very well and I don't know her real-life identity. Neither of these things is true for my relationship with Stak.

If this had merely been "harmony v. William," as you now incorrectly try to characterize it, I'd have probably never mentioned it. I am personally more inclined to believe harmony over William, but one "he said" v. one "she said" is not all that convincing.

I am not "trying to characterize" anything. I was referring to what another poster had written.

The fact is that the Will-accusers are unanimously his ideological opponents in this forum. The fact that one or possibly two of those who would be expected to line up against Will did not see that word is actually rather more "powerful" than the fact that one of the usual suspects is willing to stick the knife in.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Kevin Graham]

It's a disgraceful dog-pile that reflects far more badly upon you than it does upon its target...The fact is that the Will-accusers are unanimously his ideological opponents in this forum.

Pahoran, you ignored my response because you cannot refute the facts nor can you deal with them. You ignored it so you can claim ignorance while reiterating the same stupid mantra such as this. No Pahoran, you do not know the facts. The fact is there have been quite a few LDS apologists who have expressed concern with Will's behavior. I was contacted out of the blue by several of them from MAD. Two of them I never knew before and one of them had shared some email exchanges he had with William on the matter and it was clear Will couldn't care less about what other felt about his vulgar behavior. When I informed Will of this, he immediately jumped to the conclusion that David Bokovoy was among those who had been contemplating writing NAMI to express their concerns. Will sent emails to several LDS scholars such as Brian Hauglid and John Gee, and instead of aliging themselves to Will's side, they immediately informed David what Will was up to. Will then made a veiled threat to David, insinuating that his choice to contradict him publicly would result in his own academic downfall, or something of the sort. You see, Will has regularly boasted of his social affiliations with the folks at NAMI and BYU. I found out that he regularly visits the NAMI office to rub elbows with the powers that be, constantly pitching his KEP material for publication. From his lunch dates with Hosskison, to his late night movie nights with Royal Skousen, Will wants people to believe he is very close to the elite in LDS scholarship, and he has also insinuated that they laugh along with him and his literary wit.

So no Pahoran, you don't know the facts. The fact is any number of us here could have made an effort to disclose Will's antics to the NAMI, but we didn't. It was initially a project born from concerned apologists but ultimately it was a female Evangelical and BYU graduate who collected all the evidence together and made her concerns known in a very lucid manner.

In the end, Will gets embarrassed once again. Contrary to Will's predictions, Bokovoy's career moves on, while it is William who gets knocked off his ambitious path to academic respectability.

[Guest]

Ouch, that's two of us down for simply starting a thread on Mormon Dialogue and Discussion trying to open up discussion about William's situation with MI.

consiglieri started a thread there this evening. The thread has been deleted and consiglieri's user is now marked as banned.

Dialogue and Discussion, what a joke that is.

This is about all they have left

Visiting the MDD community

[_Pahoran]

Ouch, that's two of us down for simply starting a thread on Mormon Dialogue and Discussion trying to open up discussion about William's situation with MI.

consiglieri started a thread there this evening. The thread has been deleted and consiglieri's user is now marked as banned.

Dialogue and Discussion, what a joke that is.

MDDB has a strong rule against cross-posting and board wars.

Consig has cross-posted between here and there more than once.

If Will wants to open a thread there to defend himself against the calumny here, they may well tolerate that; but probably not otherwise.

[Edit] That's not me on the banjo. He's better-looking than me. A better conversationalist, too.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Runtu]

Hey, Pahoran, is it 6 pm yet over there? Has the rapture started yet?

[_Kevin Graham]

Repost to see if Pahoran will eat the crow prepared for him:

It's a disgraceful dog-pile that reflects far more badly upon you than it does upon its target...The fact is that the Will-accusers are unanimously his ideological opponents in this forum.

Pahoran, you ignored my response because you cannot refute the facts nor can you deal with them. You ignored it so you can claim ignorance while reiterating the same stupid mantra such as this. No Pahoran, you do not know the facts. The fact is there have been quite a few LDS apologists who have expressed concern with Will's behavior. I was contacted out of the blue by several of them from MAD. Two of them I never knew before and one of them had shared some email exchanges he had with William on the matter and it was clear Will couldn't care less about what other felt about his vulgar behavior. When I informed Will of this, he immediately jumped to the conclusion that David Bokovoy was among those who had been contemplating writing NAMI to express their concerns. Will sent emails to several LDS scholars such as Brian Hauglid and John Gee, and instead of aliging themselves to Will's side, they immediately informed David what Will was up to. Will then made a veiled threat to David, insinuating that his choice to contradict him publicly would result in his own academic downfall, or something of the sort. You see, Will has regularly boasted of his social affiliations with the folks at NAMI and BYU. I found out that he regularly visits the NAMI office to rub elbows with the powers that be, constantly pitching his KEP material for publication. From his lunch dates with Hosskison, to his late night movie nights with Royal Skousen, Will wants people to believe he is very close to the elite in LDS scholarship, and he has also insinuated that they laugh along with him and his literary wit.

So no Pahoran, you don't know the facts. The fact is any number of us here could have made an effort to disclose Will's antics to the NAMI, but we didn't. It was initially a project born from concerned apologists but ultimately it was a female Evangelical and BYU graduate who collected all the evidence together and made her concerns known in a very lucid manner.

In the end, Will gets embarrassed once again. Contrary to Will's predictions, Bokovoy's career moves on, while it is William who gets knocked off his ambitious path to academic respectability.

[_MsJack]

I answered Shades' question -- and only then did it become a derail.

Only then, and five pages of constant commentary later, did it become a derail. When it was just an occasional comment here and there, I left it alone. I'm not surprised that the difference is hard for you to understand.

The "Christine Jonsen" derail though, that was 100% initiated by you.

Tell me, with a straight face, that it's really worse than the notorious "lie back and think of England" remark.

Of course it was worse. Beastie's remark didn't joke about suicide, something that I consider no laughing matter in any context.

That said, I did think beastie's remark was crass, inappropriate, and in extremely poor taste. However, my understanding is that she has apologized repeatedly over the matter and seems to show genuine regret for the incident. As you observed from this thread, William isn't even remotely sorry for what he said to harmony. He proudly owned it and reiterated that he stands by what he said.

It's a disgraceful dog-pile that reflects far more badly upon you than it does upon its target.

Again, the MI seems to disagree with you. Is there some reason I should think more highly of your opinion than theirs?

At least two eyewitnesses agree that they didn't see it there either.

[SNIP]

Rollo Tomassi, hardly an ally of Will, directly commented on the post before it was edited, and did not see the "c" word therein. But that doesn't suit your vendetta, does it?

Something that I've acknowledged on numerous occasions. Rollo Tomasi has also repeatedly stated that it may have been there and he simply saw the post after it was edited, and has disagreed with the constant efforts in this thread to portray harmony as a liar on the matter.

But that part of his testimony doesn't suit your vendetta now, does it?

Like the other "c" word, which is immensely popular around here, and which I fully expect to see you use, as you devolve towards bog-standard anti-Mormonism, it is merely the verbal equivalent of growling.

Oh good, I was wondering when you would bust out your "anti-Mormon" canard. Base name-calling is pretty much all you have left.

In any case, thanks for taking the time to vindicate everything I wrote about "the other 'c' word" as well as your favorite a-word on my blog here:

7. Is Mormonism a cult?

No. Only stupid people think this.

8. Are you an anti-Mormon? Is this site anti-Mormon?

No. Only stupid people think this.

If you want a more serious response to those last two questions, in the context of discussions on Mormonism, I think the words “cult” and “anti-Mormon” are two sides of the same coin. Each term has a legitimate and proper meaning that (once upon a time) could have been used to facilitate meaningful discussion. Unfortunately, in practice, these terms have been excessively abused by the respective sides in the debate so that they have been diminished to little more than pejorative, thought-stopping rhetoric. These terms generally poison the well and move to circumvent thoughtful exploration of the subject under discussion, and it seems that it’s the less-capable counter-cultists, LDS critics, and Mormon apologists who thrive on a liberal application of said terms.

I think the highlighted word should be correctly spelled "useful."

Of course you do, but that's because you're making stuff up.

The fact is that the Will-accusers are unanimously his ideological opponents in this forum.

The fact is that William has been proven in this thread to have forgotten and denied harsh things he said about women when he did in fact say them, like calling the first female leader of the Mormon church a "champion bitch." The fact is that no similar flaws have been demonstrated for MrStakhanovite.

Honestly though, Pahoran . . . two days of posting on this thread and the best you can come up with is to follow William's example and make hash over the c-word incident? What's the matter, couldn't find anything in the context of the remaining dozens of quotes that I used that would bail William out?

Of course you couldn't.