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

[ttribe]

What I wrote in footnote 5 is absolutely true:

So, "without proper attribution" doesn't imply "theft", in your mind?

"Appropriate"? What do you mean by "appropriate"? Appropriate for what? I was making a reference to a blog post that the woman herself had published online!

Appropriate for someone who has taken it upon himself to defend The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in public fora.

At any rate, does such a comment make me a "misogynist"?

I think it doesn't help your defense against such an allegation.

Should such a comment disqualify me to publish an article in a BYU-related journal?

Since I hold no authority over such things, I can't imagine how it would be appropriate for me to opine.

1 Nephi 14:11 reads:

I meant it to imply that, prior to her breast reduction surgery, Kimberly could have used her breasts as flotation devices in the event of a water landing. "She sat upon many waters ..."

In any event, I have never called anyone a "whore," as is plainly evident in the quote you have now cited.

That didn't help your case even a little bit.

I have done nothing but recount events as they took place. Why do you characterize events as they took place as "waging a public campaign against Jerry Bradford"?

Come now Will, be honest with yourself. Here (on this board) and on your blog, you have been very critical of Gerald Bradford.

[William Schryver]

So, "without proper attribution" doesn't imply "theft", in your mind?

I wrote what I wrote. I stand by it. Of course, you seem to missing the most fascinating part of what I did write:

Interestingly, since the publication of the book, he appears to have tacitly authorized a friend to, on multiple occasions now, claim (via posts on the mormon*****.*** message board, such as this one) that John Gee compelled him, in some fashion or another, to include those particular findings in the book, and that he does not agree with them.

So, he included this important finding without attribution, but now claims (according to Kevin Graham, who has reported this same thing multiple times) that John Gee forced him to put it in, and that he does not agree with it, and for this reason he will no longer publish through the MI.

Appropriate for someone who has taken it upon himself to defend The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in public fora.

Yes. Yes, I do.

Does that make me a misogynist?

I think it doesn't help your defense against such an allegation.

And such a serious allegation, to boot! Oh, my! Will Schryver talked about the blog post of a woman who had breast reduction surgery! Can you believe it????!!!! I'm sure there are women all over the world who have required smelling salts to recover from the shock of reading such a thing.

... I can't imagine how it would be appropriate for me to opine.

Nor can I.

That didn't help your case even a little bit.

You are perhaps the single most humorless person I have encountered today.

Come now Will, be honest with yourself. Here (on this board) and on your blog, you have been very critical of Gerald Bradford.

Yes. Yes I have. I intend to continue to criticize him.

By the way, have you also been hounding Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin for waging a public campaign against Jerry Bradford? Because I'm rather late to the game. They've been at it for weeks now, and I'd really hate for you to miss out on other opportunities to seize the moral high ground. After all, you do it so well ...

[Calm]

I don't think you are doing yourself any favours by you clarifying what you actually meant, Will.

I don't particularly think it is appropriate to comment on a woman's (or man's body) in such a way even if someone else did so.

As to any effect your comments have....they should be dealt with in the arena they are spoken of and hopefully left there, but it would appear that you are not that concerned about spreading the comments since you are defending and repeating them here rather than informing ttribe of any regret or second thoughts about saying them (for themselves, not for the fact they were used against you.)

That you seem to have no regret for saying such things, think they are humorous even is unfortunate, in my opinion.

[jwhitlock]

And that is your biggest problem. If you would have sincerely apologized for what you said and promised to start acting like a respectable adult, I bet your article would have been published.

That's rich.

Let me translate what you're really saying: "Will, if you would acknowledge that all the anti-Mormons are right and respectable, then maybe we'll grudgingly acknowledge you as a human being."

Good luck with that - along with all the other things you want us to concede to our enemies.

[Bob Crockett]

Will. Stop it.

[jwhitlock]

In light of what has happened with the Maxwell Institute over the course of the summer, I think many people here might be quite interested in this blog post I published late yesterday:

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

Very interesting blog post, Will. Looking forward to reading your research when it gets published by an organization with more ethical credibility than those in charge at the MI possess.

Dealing with enemies of the Church is a courageous thing to do. I don't agree with the inclinations of some who would prefer that we "play nice" with them, and who sniffingly accuse you of not being Christ-like when you describe exactly what they're doing and what they are.

I too found Elder Oaks' counsel about documenting everything to be prescient. Care is needed especially at BYU when dealing with the politics there - which politics sometimes take precedence over the principles of the restored gospel. It's unfortunate that anyone would blindly accept accusations from MDB as having any credibility, but the presence of apostates masquerading as faithful church members certainly explains why some of that happens.

[Bob Crockett]

blindly accept accusations from MDB

I think it almost as unwise to accept blindly the accusations from your friends. Accusations made against good men at BYU. You've not heard their explanation. The great and vaunted apologetic community of the Mormon faith has stubbed their toes on this one and look as to be laughing stocks; jumping to conclusion, making harsh judgment against people with real names, with the slender reeds of evidence that are out there.

[William Schryver]

Will. Stop it.

Bob. Zitto.

[Damien the Leper]

Nevermind.

[William Schryver]

I don't think you are doing yourself any favours by you clarifying what you actually meant, Will.

I don't particularly think it is appropriate to comment on a woman's (or man's body) in such a way even if someone else did so.

As to any effect your comments have....they should be dealt with in the arena they are spoken of and hopefully left there, but it would appear that you are not that concerned about spreading the comments since you are defending and repeating them here rather than informing ttribe of any regret or second thoughts about saying them (for themselves, not for the fact they were used against you.)

That you seem to have no regret for saying such things, think they are humorous even is unfortunate, in my opinion.

Of course, context is the key to understanding. I highly recommend Kimberly's blog post about her breast reduction surgery. It is extremely humorous. My wife and I literally laughed until we cried while reading it.

As for there being some taboo of talking about the human body ... well, I don't subscribe to your perspective on such things. In fact, I find it downright weird. Kimberly clearly had no compunction for discussing her breast-reduction surgery. Why should I when speaking in reference to it? I said nothing vulgar or obscene--not at all. The suggestion that I did is absurd. What I said did not manifest misogyny. The allegations against me are ludicrous, and I reject your stiff-collar condemnation.

[jwhitlock]

I think it almost as unwise to accept blindly the accusations from your friends. Accusations made against good men at BYU. You've not heard their explanation. The great and vaunted apologetic community of the Mormon faith has stubbed their toes on this one and look as to be laughing stocks; jumping to conclusion, making harsh judgment against people with real names, with the slender reeds of evidence that are out there.

You seem to think that their silence gives them some kind of immunity. It doesn't.

You seem to think - as you've posted - that all the evidence against them doesn't matter. It does.

"Slender reeds of evidence" is an inaccurate characterization of that evidence. That you prefer to take the side of enemies of the church and parrot their accusations and gloating about what's happened doesn't mean that you're correct. In fact, given the nature of those who you side with, I find the credibility of Dan, Will, Bill, and others on this subject to be far better than you want to admit.

Your little taunt about those who engage in Apologetics doesn't speak highly of your particular perspective. On the other hand, I would rather be associated in some small minute way with apologetics in defense of the restored gospel, rather than defending the academic politics of administrators at BYU as you have done. I'll leave you to your agenda; good luck with that.

[Calm]

I said nothing vulgar or obscene--not at all.

Then why the censorship of the names you called the two women?

I did not claim you were a misogynist. I said the comments were inappropriate. I still think they are.

I have seen the results of too many young women being mortified, even traumatized by comments about their breasts or other parts of their body or when they hear about comments being made about other women. Perhaps young men are not so sensitive, but I would encourage people to be just as respectful of men's bodies as they are of women. I think this is an inappropriate public conversation even if a person is talking about their own body.

[ttribe]

I wrote what I wrote. I stand by it. Of course, you seem to missing the most fascinating part of what I did write:

So, he included this important finding without attribution, but now claims (according to Kevin Graham, who has reported this same thing multiple times) that John Gee forced him to put it in, and that he does not agree with it, and for this reason he will no longer publish through the MI.

Enlighten me. How does that address my question about whether you implicitly accused Hauglid of theft?

Yes. Yes, I do.

Does that make me a misogynist?

Do you truly not understand that such conduct is offensive to many people?

And such a serious allegation, to boot! Oh, my! Will Schryver talked about the blog post of a woman who had breast reduction surgery! Can you believe it????!!!! I'm sure there are women all over the world who have required smelling salts to recover from the shock of reading such a thing.

Having been a witness to the event, I cannot agree with your characterization of this.

Nor can I.

So, instead of just civilly responding, you respond with snark. That's unfortunate, Will. Honestly, if you intend to be taken seriously for your work, you'll need to address this penchant for petulance.

You are perhaps the single most humorless person I have encountered today.

These are serious allegations made against your character. It's unfortunate that, of the two of us, it seems I'm the only one taking them seriously.

Yes. Yes I have. I intend to continue to criticize him.

By the way, have you also been hounding Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin for waging a public campaign against Jerry Bradford? Because I'm rather late to the game. They've been at it for weeks now, and I'd really hate for you to miss out on other opportunities to seize the moral high ground. After all, you do it so well ...

On the whole, I find the public display put on by the three of you to be distasteful and lacking any professional decorum. I doubt any of you, and especially you, care what I think. I've expressed my disappointment before on this board; but again, I'm sure you don't care.

Interestingly enough, you've provided no direct answers to either of my questions. That's unfortunate as well.

[ttribe]

You seem to think that their silence gives them some kind of immunity. It doesn't.

You seem to think - as you've posted - that all the evidence against them doesn't matter. It does.

"Slender reeds of evidence" is an inaccurate characterization of that evidence. That you prefer to take the side of enemies of the church and parrot their accusations and gloating about what's happened doesn't mean that you're correct. In fact, given the nature of those who you side with, I find the credibility of Dan, Will, Bill, and others on this subject to be far better than you want to admit.

Your little taunt about those who engage in Apologetics doesn't speak highly of your particular perspective. On the other hand, I would rather be associated in some small minute way with apologetics in defense of the restored gospel, rather than defending the academic politics of administrators at BYU as you have done. I'll leave you to your agenda; good luck with that.

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

[treehugger]

William, in a long closed thread you stated that you would be providing evidence that at least one of your posts was edited to read something you did not type, does your blog entry cover this evidence?

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.

Thanks for the update/clarification, do you plan on blogging when you came to believe it was a forgery? as for "wench" comment, is there a particular meaning you had in mind? That she was too good for anyone else?

[ttribe]

Jack has responded

[ERayR]

That's rich.

Let me translate what you're really saying: "Will, if you would acknowledge that all the anti-Mormons are right and respectable, then maybe we'll grudgingly acknowledge you as a human being."

Good luck with that - along with all the other things you want us to concede to our enemies.

More like roll over and play dead

[ERayR]

I think it almost as unwise to accept blindly the accusations from your friends. Accusations made against good men at BYU. You've not heard their explanation. The great and vaunted apologetic community of the Mormon faith has stubbed their toes on this one and look as to be laughing stocks; jumping to conclusion, making harsh judgment against people with real names, with the slender reeds of evidence that are out there.

What do you mean by against people with real names? If you mean people with academic doctorates then I have a problem. I have seen academic arrogance get in the way of common sense several times.

[ttribe]

What do you mean by against people with real names? If you mean people with academic doctorates then I have a problem. I have seen academic arrogance get in the way of common sense several times.

He's talking about public posting on the Internet about real people, under their real names; not just anonymous usernames.

[Calm]

I think he means it is different when people are attacked using their real names rather than alias since if they are only known by aliases there can't be connections made with jobs, etc.

[ERayR]

Do you truly not understand that such conduct is offensive to many people?

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

[Nemesis]

Jack has responded

If i wanted her to have access and a voice here I would let her post here. I don't so I removed the link.

Nemesis

[ERayR]

I think he means it is different when people are attacked using their real names rather than alias since if they are only known by aliases there can't be connections made with jobs, etc.

OK I was relating it as meaning the difference between academic standing between Will and Bradford.

[ERayR]

Jack has responded

Speaks more to the veracity of Will's claim than most anything else. That and Mrs.Jacks own behavior on this board in the past really lends credibility to Will's assertions.

[Pahoran]

Jack has responded [link removed per Nemesis]

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