Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Silver Hammer]

I followed the link to your personal blog and discovered that you are Bridget Jack née Meyers.

I must say that I am somewhat surprised to see that you participate on this particular blog. I am also disappointed, for many reasons, to see that you are the one who started this particular discussion.

I made a sincere effort to give you the benefit of the doubt and be polite to you, and I was going to offer you a substantive response when I got more time tomorrow, but now I'm going to have to go with Trevor's "transparent sock puppet" verdict.

I like how you're calling this message board a "blog" and pretending that you don't know how to use your browser's basic "find" function. Nice touch.

And by the way, my maiden name is Jeffries.

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.

[_Trevor]

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.

Well, most of us at least know each other. Where you fit into all of this is less than certain, but you shouldn't be surprised, and in fact I am pretty sure you are not, that your vague statements don't inspire any trust. Indeed, your very presence here appears to be a calculated distraction designed to put everyone on the defensive.

Frankly, I don't take you the least bit seriously. There is no reason I should.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So it's less about getting apologies, though those are being demanded, and more about thinking Will S. somehow will reflect poorly on a huge swath of people who write about Mormon studies or apologetics?

Not the "huge swath," per se. It's more what I would tend to label Mopologists. For example, Will's behavior doesn't reflect at all on, say, Richard Bushman or Terryl Givens. But it *would* reflect on the institution and individuals who are involved in the publication of his work. It's sort of like how James Frey's publisher had to issue a huge retraction, offer to refund money, etc., after the scandal broke. You could argue that the Mopologists "didn't know" about Will's behavior (which is, for reasons already made clear) already problematic, but that's not really going to absolve them of this particular stain.

[_MsJack]

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.

I know exactly who you are and why you got my last name wrong.

You all must be very concerned about this if you came out here to take a peek.

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.

I'm sure.

Next time you want to talk to me about something, talk to me yourself. Messengers and anonymous sock puppets don't make a good impression on me.

[_Doctor Scratch]

LoaP ~ Read the introduction to this thread again. Read the conclusion.

As a female academic, I would not feel comfortable addressing the academic arguments of someone with William's track towards women. On this forum, when women challenge his ideas, he attacks their ages, their bodies, their appearances, their sexuality, etc.

I wasn't even comfortable doing this thread. Prior to this, I deliberately avoided responding to almost everything William posts on this forum because, frankly, I didn't want to be the next beastie. Or the next liz3564. Or the next KimberlyAnn. I only started this thread because it was clear that someone needed to stand up to him, and no one else was going to do it. I've spoken to several other female community members who have avoided William for the exact same reason.

When William was just another online apologist, I was content to ignore his behavior. Now that he's looking to make legitimate contributions to Mormon academia, I don't think it's appropriate to ignore this behavior anymore.

When William publishes in the Journal of Restoration Scripture or Journal of Mormon History, are women supposed to feel comfortable addressing his arguments given how he treats them? And what kind of scholarly examination will his ideas get if women don't feel like they can participate in the conversation?

That is the point of this thread. That was the question that I asked in my OP.

And this thread has gone to almost twenty pages now without a single person trying to address it.

I still maintain that there are precisely two ways that the Maxwell Institute can proactively handle this: to either drop Schryver like a hot potato, or to demand that he issue a formal, public apology. Those are pretty much the only "face-saving" options available to the apologists, as far as I can see.

Once again, MsJack, I think you deserve a ton of kudos for your work here. (Cue LoaP's complaints that I'm being "hyperbolic.")

[_LifeOnaPlate]

(Cue LoaP's complaints that I'm being "hyperbolic.")

Nah, I'm done. :)

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

Who has been "hostile" to you on this thread, Hammer? As far as I can tell, you've been treated with a great deal of civility. Some people have been a bit suspicious about your motives, but I can't see that anyone has been overtly "hostile" towards you.

And I'm intrigued by your comment that somehow you know me "by reputation." Who told you about me?

[_wenglund]

Well, most of us at least know each other. Where you fit into all of this is less than certain, but you shouldn't be surprised, and in fact I am pretty sure you are not, that your vague statements don't inspire any trust. Indeed, your very presence here appears to be a calculated distraction designed to put everyone on the defensive.

Frankly, I don't take you the least bit seriously. There is no reason I should.

Conspiracy fever in action. It's all about marginalizing those whose minds and ways stray from the herd. And, to think this is a major part of a thread devoted ironically to moralizing against those who allegedly marginalize women.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor Scratch]

Does anyone else here suspect that a "gag order" has been placed on Will?

[_harmony]

Does anyone else here suspect that a "gag order" has been placed on Will?

Not by the moderating staff here.