Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I should hope not. The hypocrisy coming from CamNC4Me is astounding.

Doc Cam,

Is it true that you are an active LDS male who is making a bid to publish your work with a scholarly outfit that is officially supported by an LDS university?

I mean, the way Simon Belmont is scrutinizing you here, you would definitely think that this must be the case. Otherwise, why the fuss?

Thanks,

K

Hello Dr. Kishkumen,

I hadn't realized Mr. Simon was scrutinizing me since he's on Ignore. Oh my...

Edited to add for Mr. Belmont's edification:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18091&p=449362#p449362

I think it would be wonderful if Mr. Schryver would repent, make amends, and start fresh. I suppose the key difference between Mr. Schryver and myself is ego. His ego prevents him from doing the right thing. Mine does not.

I'd also like to take this moment to call Mr. Simon to repentance. Mr. Simon, you are a faithful Mormon male, endowed (I assume) with the Priesthood. I recommend you uphold your covenants, repent, make amends, and let your light shine forth!

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Pahoran]

I'll bet that "parh" was supposed to say "Pah"---as in "Pahoran." It's obvious that his blood pressure has been spiking dangerously the last few days, hence his insane, rage-fueled posting here. But I've also been told that Pahoran was appointed a moderator over at MDD, which may help to explain why some people have abandoned that board. If I recall correctly, LoaP mentioned in a post that he *used to be* a moderator, but isn't anymore. I wouldn't doubt that he stepped down after Pahoran was appointed.

You've "been told" have you? I love the way you use the passive voice like that. It makes it sound so authoritative and informed. Who would guess that you really had just "been told" that by your own reflection when you said it in the mirror?

Why am I not surprised that you would be the one to figure that out?

Nice sleuthing.

Yes, I'll accept that deciphering a misspelled abbreviation is beyond your capabilities.

Perhaps Pahoran could be induced to let us know whether he was involved in my banning . . .

I hope that he steps forward, too, Consig. It seems the "honourable" thing to do.

Hey, everybody; we're about to be treated to a comedy skit: Scratch is talking about honour!

Okay Scratch. I shall do the "honourable" thing, on condition you tell us the punchline to your joke.

I now confess and admit that I am not now, and never have been, a moderator at MD&D, MA&DB, the FAIRBoard, or any other forum.

I further admit that I have no moderator or administrator privileges of any kind, and never have had them.

While I have on occasion used the "Report" function over there, I confess that I have not reported Consig at any time in the last month. In fact, I have no recollection of having ever reported him at all.

And while I have occasionally taken issue with things that Consig has written, I admit that I cannot recall having ever noticed him posting anything that seemed like an outright rule infringement, with the exception that he recently ran what he coyly called a "mirror thread," i.e. he cross-posted something here that he had already posted there. But I did not mention that to anyone at MD&D.

I now confidently predict that Scratch will say something like "Aha! I knew he was a mod, and that proves it!" English comprehension is not his strong suit.

I further predict that if Kevin "The Cracker" Graham weighs in, it will be to dump a truckload of abuse and invective and insist that his unsupported speculation Trump's my direct testimony, just because.

Then about four of his ardent admirers with sigh and gush with admiration.

Now: I've answered your question, Scratch. So do tell us the punchline: what, exactly, do you know about honour?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_beastie]

Believers who are dismayed at this turn of events are being extremely short-sighted. Many pages ago I mentioned the fact that the (much milder) "Metcalf is a Butthead" eventually was mentioned in a Deseret News article. You can read about that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Hamblin

The article was titled ""Book of Mormon Scholars Unleash Salvo of Barbs".

Now, can you imagine the article that an industrious journalist like Mr. Anderson could write about Will's internet antics? Imagine the reaction it could cause in this age when GAs repeatedly call for civility on the internet? MI is not going to want to be associated with that taint. In fact, I very much doubt that MI is doing this to "punish" Will in some manner, but rather doing this to protect the reputation of their own institution. I would think that goal would be one shared by internet defenders of the faith here.

[_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.

[_Yoda]

Also, this is the last time that I'm going to say it:

The primary purpose of this thread was never to get William's work canceled. I've never engaged William in a debate on the Book of Abraham or the KEP, nor do I have much interest in the topic, therefore what's getting published in that field is of little concern to me and cannot possibly pose a threat to me. Furthermore, I've always maintained that apologetics is a useful branch of theology, and I approve of and encourage my LDS friends to develop this branch for themselves.

The purpose of this thread was to raise awareness of William's behavior via careful documentation and persuade him to stop treating women in this manner, because of the negative impact that such behavior would have on the scholarly process in regards to his work.

If William were to acknowledge that treating women in the manner documented here is inappropriate and uncalled for, apologize for it, and cease the offending behavior, I would have no problems with his work appearing in any scholarly forum.

An outcome where William is barred from publishing because he refuses to abandon his offending behavior is not what I would have wanted, but in 47+ pages of this issue being discussed, William showed not the slightest sign of changing his ways.

AMEN!

I believe that has been the goal of all of us here who are Church members, and privy to the whole situation.

Also, I notice that Pahoran never bothered to answer my question posed to him. He stated here:

But I will concede that this is not merely a dog-pile by anti-Mormons. It is a dog-pile by anti-Mormons and a few of their "useful idiots."

My question to him, which I will restate, is that does he consider David, LOAP, and Abman, all defenders of the faith....David and LOAP both published apologists.....to be "useful idiots"?

All three of these men participated in this thread, and attempted to privately council Will about his behavior. All three of these men were rebuffed by Will. And, both LOAP and David were accused of having some sort of ulterior motive.

Do these men qualify as "useful idiots" to you, Pahoran?

[_malaise]

[quote="harmony"

1. This board is not Will's "private life". This is a public forum, open to anyone with internet access.
[/quote]
Private and public are not opposites- they are a spectrum. My house is more private than the bars I like to frequent, but when I go those bars with my friends I am still engaged in my "private" life. Trying to publish a book on any subject is much more public than posting an internet message board, many of which are essentially private clubs with the same few members talking about the same topics over and over again.

2. This thread was not created so females on this site could claim to be "ever so offended" or to ruin Will's ability to have his arguments "taken seriously". This thread was created to show Will's words in one easily accessed thread, so in the future, when Will again denies his words, we can refer to them in one step. Our claim to being "ever so offended" took place long ago, and is also documented.

Maybe you are right about why the thread was created (I remain skeptical)....The way that people celebrated after he lost the ability to become a respectable apologist was still uncalled for. I enjoy being offensive because it amuses me, and it bothers me that most important things can only by done by milquetoast people with no real personality. To misquote a much better thinker than me, in elite occupations all the interesting people are missing.

3. Will has already put "sexualized comments" into his published words. This forum is considered "published", and if you don't believe that, I suggest NAMI does... and so would the Trib and the DN, should NAMI ever actually print something Will wrote.

This is clearly an example of equivocation. When I said publish I meant publish a book or publish formally.

4. Will has made a contribution to LDS apologetics in the real world. He presented at the FAIR conference last fall. His arguments have nothing to do with his over-the-top behavior here. He refuses to defend his argument here, so it's not like the posters here haven't tried to engage his argument.

I've never accused the people here of refusing to engage his arguments; I've accused them of wanting to silence his ability to make those arguments in a certain kind of forum, and of celebrating when he could no longer do so.

5. Current events in California regarding Arnold's offensive behavior spotlight the current acceptability within society of those who walk outside sexual mores. While I wish NAMI had published Will (simply because I think the blowback from the media would be HUGE, once this thread was delivered at approximately the same time as Will's book was delivered to market), I completely understand their reluctance, due to the current media circus. No one, especially no one who was associated with the LDS church, wants to look foolish to the public, and Will's sexualized behavior here would be media fodder for weeks (as long as there wasn't another war or MMM to push him and NAMI off the front page).

That is a societal problem. We should all be willing to tolerate offensive behavior from public officials as long as they can do their job.


I responded to harmony instead of the other posters that responded to me because I felt like she covered most of the points other posters have raised.

[_Doctor Scratch]

A "misspelled" acronym, Pahoran? The "honourable" thing to do here would be for you to explain what was actually meant. (And how is it that you know this in the first place?) Finally, I notice with great amusement that you've repeatedly dodged inquiries from both Kevin Grahm and Liz. Why is that, I wonder? Do you consider that "honourable"?

[_MsJack]

Maybe you are right about why the thread was created (I remain skeptical)....The way that people celebrated after he lost the ability to become a respectable apologist was still uncalled for.

[SNIP]

I've never accused the people here of refusing to engage his arguments; I've accused them of wanting to silence his ability to make those arguments in a certain kind of forum, and of celebrating when he could no longer do so.

I am the originator of the thread, and I never engaged in anything that could remotely be considered a "celebration" after I received the news that I reported here. Your reasons for second-guessing my plainly stated purposes in creating this thread don't line up.

[_malaise]

Maybe you are right about why the thread was created (I remain skeptical)....The way that people celebrated after he lost the ability to become a respectable apologist was still uncalled for.

[SNIP]

I've never accused the people here of refusing to engage his arguments; I've accused them of wanting to silence his ability to make those arguments in a certain kind of forum, and of celebrating when he could no longer do so.

I am the originator of the thread, and I never engaged in anything that could remotely be considered a "celebration" after I received the news that I reported here. Your reasons for second-guessing my plainly stated purposes in creating this thread don't line up.

I didn't say that I was skeptical because you celebrated like they did, I said I was skeptical. I suppose it isn't fair for me to second guess your motivations, but something about your stated motivations just seems odd to me. I'll accept them for now.

[_MsJack]

I didn't say that I was skeptical because you celebrated like they did, I said I was skeptical. I suppose it isn't fair for me to second guess your motivations, but something about your stated motivations just seems odd to me. I'll accept them for now.

How generous of you.

When you figure out what it is about my stated motivations that "seems odd" to you, do let me know.