Once again I've missed the fun...

[_Pahoran]

Just as Will's filthy imagination speaks of his heart.

Will is clearly the most important person on this board. Every thread somehow becomes all about him.

I don't defend the insults he made. I oppose the petty vendettas expressed in dedicated attack threads. I argue -- and argue again -- that this board would be far better if it were to confine itself to discussing ideas.

But then again, perhaps none of you actually have any.

And again, maybe it's safer that way.

After all, Will had some rather original ideas about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, and look where they got him.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Runtu]

After all, Will had some rather original ideas about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, and look where they got him.

Regards,
Pahoran

It wasn't his ideas about the KEP that got him where he is.

[_Pahoran]

On the one hand, he claimed to have written a particular piece before he returned to the Church. On the other, he says he is still interested in writing "erotica." Granted that this may well be problematic, depending upon what's in it (contrary to the spiteful asinumptions of the herd, I haven't read any of it) the "contradiction" appears to be either manufactured or merely imagined.

LOL. This may go down as another tattoo incident.

What "tattoo incident" is that?

Are you referring to the incident where the haters went nuts over a photo of an athlete that supposedly had a tattoo "airbrushed" out of it; I defended BYU for that; and then when it turned out that the athlete in question didn't have the tatt at the time the picture was taken, so the "airbrushing" accusation was false -- and the accusers therefore had egg all over their faces -- somehow that made me look bad?

That "tattoo incident?"

Indeed, you may be right.

Jack already provided a link to a piece of LDS apologia that he wrote in May 2007. He wrote the piece in question in June 2007. He asserted an interest in writing erotica on his myspace profile at the same time as he was an active LDS member.

And yet you still think it's justified to assert his erotic writing occurred when he was "one of our lot."

You are wilfully misrepresenting my argument. As, indeed, you must.

I'm going to try just one more time, Beastie. This time I'll type r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y in the hope that you can keep up.

SGW said that he wrote a particular piece of "erotica" at a time when he was disaffected towards the Church.

Are you with me so far, Beastie?

Do you agree that a particular piece of "erotica" is not the same as "erotica" in general?

I am not going to comment one way or the other about the appropriateness of any written material I have not read, or about which I have heard no reliable reports from someone who has read it, except to say that I don't think "erotica" is a genre in which Latter-day Saints ought to be writing.

But the subject of my remarks is not "erotica" as a genre.

Nor is it "erotica" as a setting for "hardboiled" detective fiction.

Are you still with us, Beastie?

The subject of my remarks is a particular piece of "erotica" which SGW claims to have written at a time when he was disaffected towards the Church.

It happens that I have no particular reason to disbelieve what he says about that.

And MsJack's "Rita Skeeter" scoop, consisting as it does of a mere juxtaposition of dates, which may well be explained by other means than her and your shared hostile assumptions, still does not give me any particular reason to disbelieve what he says about that.

Is that now, at long last, clear?

Or are you going to continue to try to conflate two distinct things?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Buffalo]

After all, Will had some rather original ideas about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, and look where they got him.

Regards,
Pahoran

Let's just keep pretending that Will's ideas and not his sexual harassment are at the heart of this. I'm sure that's a comforting thought to hold onto. :)

[_Buffalo]

Pahoran, you really are a saint. :)

[_Pahoran]

After all, Will had some rather original ideas about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, and look where they got him.

Regards,
Pahoran

It wasn't his ideas about the KEP that got him where he is.

Really?

Perhaps you didn't see the "Introduction" written by MsJack, the Rita Skeeter of MDB, in which she justified her dedicated attack. I reproduce it here for your convenience.

This thread concerns William Schryver, a member of the Mormon Discussions community since November 1, 2006, a former member of the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR), and an apologist for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The purpose of this thread is to raise concern over William's treatment of female participants at Mormon Discussions as well as his remarks on other female figures. The behavior William has displayed towards women here at Mormon Discussions has been undeniably and consistently misogynist.

Normally I would not bother with a thread of this magnitude devoted to calling out the poor behavior of another forum participant. Frankly, I see terrible behavior on discussion forums all the time (this one included), from commentators representing all ends of the religious and political spectrum, so if I made this level of effort to call out terrible behavior wherever I see it, I would seldom have time to post about anything else. Furthermore, I do not believe that William's behavior is representative of the men of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that it should be taken to reflect poorly on that organization. I feel that all religions suffer from a certain degree of members who fail to live the high standards of their religion, so William is typical in this regard. I also count faithful and active LDS men (some of them apologists and scholars) among my closest family, friends, and confidants, and I have never seen them display the level of disrespect towards women that I have witnessed from William during my time at Mormon Discussions.

Why this thread then? I feel that this thread has become necessary on account of the fact that William seems to be gaining notoriety in the LDS apologetic and scholarly community. Last year, FAIR invited William to deliver a presentation on his Kirtland Egyptian Papers research at the Twelfth Annual Mormon Apologetics Conference. His then-upcoming presentation was even the focus of a glowing write-up in the Church-owned Deseret News. Egyptologist John Gee asked William to deliver his own Book of Abraham presentation at FAIR when Dr. Gee found himself unable to attend the Conference himself. Most recently, BYU Religion Professor Brian Hauglid thanked William in the acknowledgments for his latest volume, A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions. Finally, William has boasted for some time that the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship "has expressed a strong desire to publish [his] articles on the KEP" and that his arguments concerning the Book of Abraham "will be published as a volume in the Maxwell Institute’s Studies in the Book of Abraham series." I consider both FAIR and the Maxwell Institute to be credible scholarly organizations, so these strike me as significant achievements on William's part.

The point: William Schryver is no longer just another man making misogynist and lewd comments to women on the Internet---after all, it isn't as if those are noteworthy or hard to find. He is now a respected apologist and aspiring LDS scholar making misogynist and lewd comments to women on the Internet. The consequences this will have on the scholarly process when it comes to William's contributions to Mormon academia need to be addressed.

Bottom line: if Will was just insulting people, she wouldn't have been motivated to go after him. It was only because he was making traction in LDS apologetic circles that he became a worthy target.

Now Runtu: what was it that was gaining Will traction in LDS apologetic circles?

Think about it. Take your time.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Runtu]

Really?

Perhaps you didn't see the "Introduction" written by MsJack, the Rita Skeeter of MDB, in which she justified her dedicated attack. I reproduce it here for your convenience.

This thread concerns William Schryver, a member of the Mormon Discussions community since November 1, 2006, a former member of the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR), and an apologist for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The purpose of this thread is to raise concern over William's treatment of female participants at Mormon Discussions as well as his remarks on other female figures. The behavior William has displayed towards women here at Mormon Discussions has been undeniably and consistently misogynist.

Normally I would not bother with a thread of this magnitude devoted to calling out the poor behavior of another forum participant. Frankly, I see terrible behavior on discussion forums all the time (this one included), from commentators representing all ends of the religious and political spectrum, so if I made this level of effort to call out terrible behavior wherever I see it, I would seldom have time to post about anything else. Furthermore, I do not believe that William's behavior is representative of the men of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that it should be taken to reflect poorly on that organization. I feel that all religions suffer from a certain degree of members who fail to live the high standards of their religion, so William is typical in this regard. I also count faithful and active LDS men (some of them apologists and scholars) among my closest family, friends, and confidants, and I have never seen them display the level of disrespect towards women that I have witnessed from William during my time at Mormon Discussions.

Why this thread then? I feel that this thread has become necessary on account of the fact that William seems to be gaining notoriety in the LDS apologetic and scholarly community. Last year, FAIR invited William to deliver a presentation on his Kirtland Egyptian Papers research at the Twelfth Annual Mormon Apologetics Conference. His then-upcoming presentation was even the focus of a glowing write-up in the Church-owned Deseret News. Egyptologist John Gee asked William to deliver his own Book of Abraham presentation at FAIR when Dr. Gee found himself unable to attend the Conference himself. Most recently, BYU Religion Professor Brian Hauglid thanked William in the acknowledgments for his latest volume, A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions. Finally, William has boasted for some time that the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship "has expressed a strong desire to publish [his] articles on the KEP" and that his arguments concerning the Book of Abraham "will be published as a volume in the Maxwell Institute’s Studies in the Book of Abraham series." I consider both FAIR and the Maxwell Institute to be credible scholarly organizations, so these strike me as significant achievements on William's part.

The point: William Schryver is no longer just another man making misogynist and lewd comments to women on the Internet---after all, it isn't as if those are noteworthy or hard to find. He is now a respected apologist and aspiring LDS scholar making misogynist and lewd comments to women on the Internet. The consequences this will have on the scholarly process when it comes to William's contributions to Mormon academia need to be addressed.

Bottom line: if Will was just insulting people, she wouldn't have been motivated to go after him. It was only because he was making traction in LDS apologetic circles that he became a worthy target.

Now Runtu: what was it that was gaining Will traction in LDS apologetic circles?

Think about it. Take your time.

Regards,
Pahoran

Oh, sure, his KEP stuff is part of it, but none of this would have happened had he behaved like a decent person on this board. That's the real reason. Pretending that what MsJack posted is an aberration that does not represent his otherwise Christlike behavior here is silly.

[_Jaybear]

Jack already provided a link to a piece of LDS apologia that he wrote in May 2007. He wrote the piece in question in June 2007.

You are wilfully misrepresenting my argument. As, indeed, you must.

I'm going to try just one more time, Beastie. This time I'll type r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y in the hope that you can keep up.

SGW said that he wrote a particular piece of "erotica" at a time when he was disaffected towards the Church.

Are you with me so far, Beastie?

What am missing here?
He wrote LDS Apologia May 2007.
He wrote "piece in question" June 2007.

In any event, who cares if he wrote erotica while an apologists. Let them do both.

What I find disturbing is the allegation that he solicited money for a nonexistent LDS journal, and suggested that the donations were charitable.

I also find troubling the allegation that he served a takedown letter leading to a shutdown even though the image in question was not registered with the copyright office.

Has he, or one of his defenders ever addressed those two actions?

[_stemelbow]

Oh, sure, his KEP stuff is part of it, but none of this would have happened had he behaved like a decent person on this board. That's the real reason. Pretending that what MsJack posted is an aberration that does not represent his otherwise Christlike behavior here is silly.

+1

[_Pahoran]

Oh, sure, his KEP stuff is part of it, but none of this would have happened had he behaved like a decent person on this board. That's the real reason. Pretending that what MsJack posted is an aberration that does not represent his otherwise Christlike behavior here is silly.

I don't deny that Will provided the ammo. But the fact is that MsJack, by her own up-front admission, decided to go after him only because he was getting somewhere in LDS apologetics.

Evidently LDS apologists must be like Caesar's wife, while anti-Mormons are allowed to be as swinish as they like.

Regards,
Pahoran