Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Kishkumen]

Right on the mark, my friend.

Hey, Will. For the record, I hope they do publish your piece with NAMIRS.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The British spellings are kind of a nice touch.

[_Kishkumen]

The British spellings are kind of a nice touch.

Not to mention the fact that he pretends not to know how to use the quote function.

[_Pahoran]

But Kevin tells us that some LDS apologists contacted him to confide to him that they were worried about Will's online behaviour.

Really?

If in fact they do know Kevin, but don't realise what he's on about, then I would definitely characterise them as "useful idiots."

Well, there's some predictably narrow-minded bigotry for you.

In other words, I disagree with Kishkumen.

Got it.

Not to mention the careless thought that rushes to assumptions about why Kevin was contacted.

Actually I'm relying upon what Kevin told us.

And here this guy complains about poison pen campaigns. He certainly isn't above implicating others as unreliable friends of the faith.

Bad form.

When my thread naming and shaming them by quote-mining from their posts has reached 50 pages, then you can talk about "bad form."

Until then, I suggest you look up "double standards."

Regards,
Pahoran

[_asbestosman]

So, I will ask again....Are David, LOAP, and Abman....all stalwart defenders of the faith....two of the three published apologists...."useful idiots", in your estimation?

I'm really a nobody in the world of apologetics. I don't even qualify as a useful idiot because there simply is no use for me in the world of apologetics--pro or con.

I do wish there weren't so many "useful idiots" trying to do Mormon apologetics, or getting in the way of those who do it well.

for what it's worth, I'm not actually trying to do apologetics as such. I try to reason with people using things they value or at least letting them see what others may reason based on what they value. I mostly just try to provide (or learn) other perspectives. I do not have the expertise in history or scholarship to do apologetics and try to make no pretense of doing so.

Better yet, what about those who simply take an interest and are obviously hobbyists -- people like me?

I recall an Ensign article which warned about gospel hobbies. However, I do think trying to study and understand various aspects of doctrine and church history are good things.

In any case, I do think it's good to have a realistic view of one's place. However, I think there are more culturally acceptable ways of making that known--rather than dissing you. Then again, I tend to appreciate frankness so I probably would have been fine if Will directed his comments at me. In fact I suspect he feels much the same way about me, but simply doesn't care enough to even bother mentioning me at all.

My recommendation is to let the issue go. My opinion is that the contra-mos are using it to manipulate you to some extent. Just let go of your hurt feelings and move on. We don't matter to Will. So what? Why should Will matter to us? In the grand scheme of things, we're all just amateurs in the eyes of God. Forgive Will and move on.

Bowler Hat Guy: The... game didn't go so well, huh?
Michael "Goob" Yagoobian: No. I fell asleep in the ninth inning. And I missed the winning catch. Then I got beat up. Afterward, Coach took me aside. He told me to let it go. I don't know, he's probably right.
Bowler Hat Guy: No! Everyone will tell you to let it go and move on, but don't! Instead, let it fester and boil inside of you! Take these feelings and lock them away. Let them fuel your actions. Let hate be your ally, and you will be capable of wonderful, horrid things. Heed my words, Goob: don't let it go.

[_Yoda]

liz3564 posted: "So, I will ask again....Are David, LOAP, and Abman....all stalwart defenders of the faith....two of the three published apologists...."useful idiots", in your estimation?"

It's the easiest thing in the world for "useful idiots" to get published. It doesn't matter if they're apologists or critics. It happens all the time. Will Bagley has done it twice now. Grant Palmer did it.

I do wish there weren't so many "useful idiots" trying to do Mormon apologetics, or getting in the way of those who do it well.

Hi-ho Silver,

I'm not sure I would classify Bagley and Palmer as "useful idiots." They may indeed be idiots, and they are doubtless useful to somebody (although in Bagley's case I'm inclined to see him as hostile rather than stupid.)

I understand the term "useful idiot" to be equivalent to "A person who allows herself to be manipulated by those hostile to what she holds dear." As an example of that: It's been my experience that those in the LDS apologetic community can be divided into two groups, with regard to Kevin Graham. The first group would say "Kevin Who?" The second know that he's one of the most hostile, driven and devious apostates since D. P. Hurlbut.

But Kevin tells us that some LDS apologists contacted him to confide to him that they were worried about Will's online behaviour.

Really?

If in fact they do know Kevin, but don't realise what he's on about, then I would definitely characterise them as "useful idiots."

Regards,
Pahoran

Thank you for answering my question, Pahoran. I'm sure that David and LOAP will enjoy knowing that you consider them "useful idiots".

That being said, I don't see how you can really believe that you will be taken seriously. Both of these men are respected published apologists and defenders of the faith. They both hold the respect of Dr. Dan Peterson, who just happens to be a key decision-maker with MI.

Do you really think that, even though Dan is traveling, that he wasn't, at the very least consulted about this decision? I suppose he must be another "useful idiot" as well.

[_Kishkumen]

In other words, I disagree with Kishkumen.

Got it.

So, in other words, you apparently see no purpose in apologists and critics sharing and discussing some sense of standards despite other disagreements, so you conclude that anyone who would contact Kevin for that purpose or maybe even agree with those who do is a "useful idiot."

Got it. David Bokovoy, Blair Hodges, and maybe Brian Hauglid (I have no idea who contacted NAMIRS, but these guys seem to me not to be fans of Will's style), are all "useful idiots" in your book for not appreciating Will's misbehavior.

Got it.

Thanks.

What makes Will Schryver so valuable in your mind that you are willing to throw some other apologists under the bus to demonstrate your loyalty to him? Is it that you are concerned people have less use for your gratuitous hostility than you have banked on?

I see why you are here, Pahoran. One of your greatest joys and biggest assets--nastiness toward critics--is under fire. No doubt you are concerned about Will's treatment.

Actually I'm relying upon what Kevin told us.

You are also interpreting what Kevin told you.

When my thread naming and shaming them by quote-mining from their posts has reached 50 pages, then you can talk about "bad form."

Pahoran, you wouldn't know good form if it sat on your head and spun around. Nastiness is your daily nourishment.

Until then, I suggest you look up "double standards."

I didn't start the thread, Pahoran. Nor am I on some crusade to stop Will Schryver. I don't care what he whispers in your ear to that effect. I would prefer to see his work published by NAMIRS.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Has Mr. Pahoran condemned Mr. Schryver's use of vulgarity?

V/R
Doc Cam

[_Kishkumen]

Hello,

Has Mr. Pahoran condemned Mr. Schryver's use of vulgarity?

V/R
Doc Cam

Yes, in fairness, he actually has voiced his disapproval.

[_Nomad]

Hello,

Has Mr. Pahoran condemned Mr. Schryver's use of vulgarity?

V/R
Doc Cam

This coming from the plainly misogynistic dog who wrote the following?:

antishock8/CamNC4Me wrote:

Your message is fine. It's worth discussing, but you're leaving out the FACT that woman are straight BITCHES toward people. f*****g BITCHES. But their worst vitirol is reserved for each other. They are unbelieveable toward one another. A level of toxicity I've never seen men get to. f***, if men get to just 50% of the s*** women talk about each other someone is getting shot or beat to death. I've been on both sides of their b***s***, and if you've ever worked or interacted with them on an extended basis the pedestal we men tend to put them on is destroyed by them.

If the women of this board don't want to post here because they're being little drama llamas, or playing the victim card... Whatever. That's on them. They'll just find some other avenue to vent their s***. If they want to stick to the issues, and address the issues... Then fine. Do it. They reap what they sow, too. If they can't see that, and want to, yet again, not take responsibility for their own actions then that's that. It's typical. The women who stick around have my respect, but it's the same kind of respect I would give anyone who sticks around. It take strength to stay on a board that has minimal moderation. Apparently, there are quite a few that lack that kind of courage.




antishock8/CamNC4Me wrote:

Oh, my! What a dumb c***!

Unbelievable.