The Calculated Suppression Of Mormon Apologetics: The Case Of William Schryver

[treehugger]

Do you not truly understand the attacks launched by you and friends against the church and apologists is truly offensive to many people?

Is someone an anti-Mormon or enemy of the LDS Church for speaking out against William Schyvers conduct?

[ttribe]

Do you not truly understand the attacks launched by you and friends against the church and apologists is truly offensive to many people?

What are you accusing me of? Who are my "friends" that you are alluding to? Do you not remember the years I spent defending this Church on this very board? Do you not recall how my REAL name was dragged through the mud by Doctor Scratch for my defense of this Church on this board and on MDB. Don't you dare accuse me of treason. One of the reasons I left Mormon apologetics behind is because of how incredibly low our own "side" would sink. I simply DO NOT accept the notion that we should sacrifice honesty and principle to "win" a fight. Because of that, I have no compunction with criticizing people on "our" side when they are doing more harm than good. In my estimation, Will does more harm than good.

[TAO]

No, my blog post is about "The Calculated Suppression of Mormon Apologetics."

But, now that you've asked, I will remind readers that MsJack used at least three forgeries/manipulated posts in her infamous thread. I have already talked about this in another thread from a few months ago.

The most offensive things I was alleged to have said are fakes:

• The allegation that I called harmony a "c***".
  
• The allegation that I called Emma Smith a "champion b****". (As I explained in detail on the other thread, I was even tricked by this one, but ultimately figured out what they had done.)
  
• The single post from a sock puppet named "WilliamSchryver," who registered, made a post directed to harmony, and then never made another post.
  

Did I call harmony and beastie "deceitful **** of a woman"? I did. I don't regret it.

She does provide links, you know. How are they fakes, I must ask?

I will be very unhappy if you really did say those things. Apologists shouldn't be saying things like that - it just gives critics ammunition.

In the least case, I hope that those things aren't true. And if they are true, I hope they aren't being said anymore. Regardless of her slightly ad-hominem argument, apologists should be better than that.

[ERayR]

Is someone an anti-Mormon or enemy of the LDS Church for speaking out against William Schyvers conduct?

No but the intent to silence apologists is. That coupled with a long history of content could certainly pas for such.

[Damien the Leper]

A detail that might be of some interest here.

At the time of her original poison pen campaign against Will, Ms Jack proclaimed that it had given her no pleasure to start another dog-pile exercise; indeed, she said that she had shed many and bitter tears (in the dark watches of the night) while gathering her ammunition. Evidently the obvious relish and malicious zest she displayed as she stuck it to Will was just a matter of putting on a brave face to mask her deep anguish.

Anyway, when this subject came up again a few weeks ago, she somehow managed, despite being so deeply traumatised the first time around, to screw up her courage and bump her original hit piece back to the top of the forum that has the wildly optimistic descriptor of "Terrestrial."

Also, she gave a remarkable justification for the effort that cost her so much agony: the poor, poor women that Will had so deeply hurt might be intimidated about disagreeing with anything he published in a formal venue. You see, in Ms Jack's mind, "Mormon studies" is only secondarily about Mormons; mostly, it's about the wimmin.

And yet, despite that, she denied that she ever wanted Will's publication to be suppressed. Exactly what she did hope to achieve -- and how it would help protect helpless anti-Mormon females from his male cruelty if his article was published and they dared to comment -- remains opaque.

Regards,

Pahoran

Vintage Pahoran...so nice to see that you don't disappoint when it comes to your eloquently transparent and condescending responses. Yet again an epic failure to advance the argument of your camp.

It is also comically simplistic that your failure is dependent partly upon your apparent disdain for the cause of the 'wimmin' folk.

I await your further condescension.

[treehugger]

She does provide links, you know. How are they fakes, I must ask?

I will be very unhappy if you really did say those things. Apologists shouldn't be saying things like that - it just gives critics ammunition.

In the least case, I hope that those things aren't true. And if they are true, I hope they aren't being said anymore. Regardless of her slightly ad-hominem argument, apologists should be better than that.

Toa, the quick response is, he claims a posts were edited by mods of the board; on this board he claimed stating "champion wench"; as for the williamschyver the claim is that someone else created the account- also known as a sockpuppet.

As for posts which are sexually charged, the defense is that the sexually charged post is taken out of context. The entire thread over there is about 70+ pages long of back and forthwith of defenders of the posts claiming context is the key to understanding.g nothing sexual was meant.

[Pahoran]

Vintage Pahoran...so nice to see that you don't disappoint when it comes to your eloquently transparent and condescending responses. Yet again an epic failure to advance the argument of your camp.

It is also comically simplistic that your failure is dependent partly upon your apparent disdain for the cause of the 'wimmin' folk.

I await your further condescension.

So, no substantive response, then?

Perhaps you'd like to tell us why protecting women from the awful trauma of seeing, in a print publication, the name of someone who might have said something unkind so some other women on a message board somewhere is more important than actually discussing the relevance of the KEP's to the Book of Abraham?

Or why the personal vendetta of a self-proclaimed protector of all women everywhere should be considered nothing less than the "cause of the 'wimmin' folk?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[Anijen]

Will, I think you are alright. I appreciate your patience and indomitable spirit. You have many on your side, many who remain silent but are pulling for you.

I for one enjoy reading Brother Hauglids papers, yours and of course Brother Gee.

I thought your presentation on the KEP was brilliant.

Jeff aka Anijen

[TAO]

Toa, the quick response is, he claims a posts were edited by mods of the board; on this board he claimed stating "champion wench"; as for the williamschyver the claim is that someone else created the account- also known as a sockpuppet.

Nonetheless, I am not okay with him regarding the remarks of that 'sock-puppet', if it is one, as "a tongue-in-cheek (albeit sharply barbed) remark". It was a lot worse than that.

As for posts which are sexually charged, the defense is that the sexually charged post is taken out of context. The entire thread over there is about 70+ pages long of back and forthwith of defenders of the posts claiming context is the key to understanding.g nothing sexual was meant.

I'll try and verify this. Thanks.

[Damien the Leper]

So, no substantive response, then?

Perhaps you'd like to tell us why protecting women from the awful trauma of seeing, in a print publication, the name of someone who might have said something unkind so some other women on a message board somewhere is more important than actually discussing the relevance of the KEP's to the Book of Abraham?

Or why the personal vendetta of a self-proclaimed protector of all women everywhere should be considered nothing less than the "cause of the 'wimmin' folk?"

Regards,

Pahoran

I wasn't aware that your post warranted a substantive response that would undoubtedly fail to reach your celestial expectations.

As for Schryver and his KEP work...whatever. I hope he gets published. I hope that he is able to provide great academic responses to the responses of the malevolent critics and their ilk that can be found at a certain EV board.

[treehugger]

Nonetheless, I am not okay with him regarding the remarks of that 'sock-puppet', if it is one, as "a tongue-in-cheek (albeit sharply barbed) remark". It was a lot worse than that.

I'll try and verify this. Thanks.

As my Dad counseled "Do not ask questions you do not want the answer too"; my own council is be careful where you go. There is toxic material everywhere and it comes from both sides of debate.

TAO in Google search this: "I respectfully request the moderators" site:mormondialogue.org

The only result you will is to post 353 on page 18 of closed thread, in that post you will read Williams response that the quotes used where in part taken out of context.

[Pahoran]

I wasn't aware that your post warranted a substantive response that would undoubtedly fail to reach your celestial expectations.

As for Schryver and his KEP work...whatever. I hope he gets published. I hope that he is able to provide great academic responses to the responses of the malevolent critics and their ilk that can be found at a certain EV board.

Val, I think you're a good guy, and I'm sorry you feel condescended to. But the fact is that I've had a number of interactions with Ms Jack. I reported her remarks accurately according to my recollection. I find her protestations of deep sorrow while she sharpened up the knife to stick into Will to be utterly unconvincing; I believe she enjoyed every minute of it, and revelled in the thought that she was causing trouble for him. I find her to be totally partisan in all of her dealings relating to Mormon things -- for example, if an extreme anti-Mormon contradicts a Latter-day Saint, she absolutely and implicitly trusts everything the anti-Mormon says and assumes that the Mormon is lying. I speak from personal experience in this.

I also regard her as a zealous ideological feminist who holds the most peripheral interests of even a very few women to be overwhelmingly more important than anything they might possibly come in contact with. Which is to say, however much I might distrust her descriptions of her personal struggles, I believe her to be completely sincere when she declares that the hurt feelings of three or four women who choose to feel insulted by Will are more important -- to her -- than the publication of a potentially significant paper on Mormon historiography.

And it just so happens that I think her priorities in that matter are as heavily skewed by her ideology as her views towards Will are by her intense personal hatreds.

Regards,

Pahoran

edited at request of poster

[treehugger]

TAO and anyone else interested her isWilliams response posted on this board concerning the thread from elsewher

[ttribe]

Val, I think you're a good guy, and I'm sorry you feel condescended to. But the fact is that I've had a number of interactions with Ms Jack. I reported her remarks accurately according to my recollection. I find her protestations of deep sorrow while she sharpened up the knife to stick into Will to be utterly unconvincing; I believe she enjoyed every minute of it, and revelled in the thought that she was causing trouble for him. I find her to be totally partisan in all of her dealings relating to Mormon things -- for example, if an extreme anti-Mormon contradicts a Latter-day Saint, she absolutely and implicitly trusts everything the anti-Mormon says and assumes that the Mormon is lying. I speak from personal experience in this.

I also regard her as a zealous ideological feminist who holds the most peripheral interests of even a very few women to be overwhelmingly more important than anything they might possibly come in contact with. Which is to say, however much I might distrust her descriptions of her personal struggles, I believe her to be completely sincere when she declares that the hurt feelings of three or four women who choose to feel insulted by Will are more important -- to her -- than the publication of a potentially significant paper on Mormon historiography.

And it just so happens that I think her priorities in that matter are as heavily skewed by her ideology as her views towards Will are by her intense personal hatreds.

Regards,

Pahoran

I've met Jack in real life. This characterization of her is as about as far from the truth as one can get. I met real anti-Mormons on my mission in Tennessee and Kentucky who wanted to do me bodily harm. Jack is no anti-Mormon. Not even in the same stratosphere. She is a kind individual who feels strongly about certain issues. If you and Will could cease your testosterone-filled posturing long enough to be civil with her, you'd know better.

[jwhitlock]

Do you really think the ends justify the means, without exception? That's the implication of this line of argument.

I fail to see where you justify this absurd accusation from what I posted. The "implication" is in your mind.

[ttribe]

I fail to see where you justify this absurd accusation from what I posted. The "implication" is in your mind.

Okay. It's not worth fighting with you about it.

[Damien the Leper]

Val, I think you're a good guy, and I'm sorry you feel condescended to. But the fact is that I've had a number of interactions with Ms Jack. I reported her remarks accurately according to my recollection. I find her protestations of deep sorrow while she sharpened up the knife to stick into Will to be utterly unconvincing; I believe she enjoyed every minute of it, and revelled in the thought that she was causing trouble for him. I find her to be totally partisan in all of her dealings relating to Mormon things -- for example, if an extreme anti-Mormon contradicts a Latter-day Saint, she absolutely and implicitly trusts everything the anti-Mormon says and assumes that the Mormon is lying. I speak from personal experience in this.

I also regard her as a zealous ideological feminist who holds the most peripheral interests of even a very few women to be overwhelmingly more important than anything they might possibly come in contact with. Which is to say, however much I might distrust her descriptions of her personal struggles, I believe her to be completely sincere when she declares that the hurt feelings of three or four women who choose to feel insulted by Will are more important -- to her -- than the publication of a potentially significant paper on Mormon historiography.

And it just so happens that I think her priorities in that matter are as heavily skewed by her ideology as her views towards Will are by her intense personal hatreds.

Regards,

Pahoran

Thank you for the kind response. I'll weigh both of your content fairly and do my best not to take sides.

Perhaps since she doesn't have a voice on this board, as Nemesis pointed out, you should address her with your criticisms of her on the other board or on her blog. Just to be fair to her and you.

[Pahoran]

nul

[ttribe]

So she was nice to you in person; lucky you. If ever she decides to turn on you, you'll know all about it.

I didn't say she was an anti-Mormon. I said that if a Mormon says "Yes I did" and an anti-Mormon says "no you didn't," she'll jeer -- gleefully and with obvious schadenfreude -- that the Mormon was "caught red-handed lying." I know this from personal experience, and it was not an artifact of me being uncivil to her.

Just like her long, meticulous and sustained poison pen campaign against Will was not an artifact of him being uncivil to her. Indeed, it seems rather transparently obvious to me that she was the one being uncivil.

And I am astonished that you can so blithely overlook that glaringly obvious fact.

I guess Will and I both have to get our testosterone so thoroughly purged that we can grovel to her as you do.

Regards,

Pahoran

Oh get real. You know better.

[Pahoran]

Thank you for the kind response. I'll weigh both of your content fairly and do my best not to take sides.

Perhaps since she doesn't have a voice on this board, as Nemesis pointed out, you should address her with your criticisms of her on the other board or on her blog. Just to be fair to her and you.

Been there, done that, got the (thoroughly shredded by her fingernails) T-shirt. For the present, I am simply content to report my observations of the history of events as they unfolded. It is clear that Ms Jack has her share of cloyingly loyal acolytes right here to speak up for her.

And mercyngrace to give them rep points therefor.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Oh get real. You know better.

Than what?

Regards,

Pahoran

[jwhitlock]

Okay. It's not worth fighting with you about it.

Good call.

[ttribe]

Been there, done that, got the (thoroughly shredded by her fingernails) T-shirt. For the present, I am simply content to report my observations of the history of events as they unfolded. It is clear that Ms Jack has her share of cloyingly loyal acolytes right here to speak up for her.

And mercyngrace to give them rep points therefor.

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm an acolyte of no one Pahoran. I simply criticize that which I see as wrong and the behavior I'm seeing by many apologists is wrong. Before you accuse me otherwise, you know I've taken plenty of bullets for the cause. Lest I need remind you, Scratch tried to damage my IRL career. Don't even think about suggesting I've not earned the right to speak out on this.

[ttribe]

Than what?

Regards,

Pahoran

Than to suggest I grovel for anyone.

[jwhitlock]

Been there, done that, got the (thoroughly shredded by her fingernails) T-shirt. For the present, I am simply content to report my observations of the history of events as they unfolded. It is clear that Ms Jack has her share of cloyingly loyal acolytes right here to speak up for her.

And mercyngrace to give them rep points therefor.

Regards,

Pahoran

It's very interesting to see who's giving rep points for various posts. The sides line up in instructive ways.