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

[TAO]

I am curious as to whathis response will be concerning your membership timeframe at the other board.

What do you mean, exactly?

[cwald]

... I still feel that site is a waste. I really do not see why any of our best apologists post over there, even if they are the only ones defending the church. I say leave that site, if all the apologist for our church never posted there again it would take a lot of the fun out of the enemies cravings.

Too funny.

.

And what would be the point of that? What value is apologetics if done in an echo chamber? I would hazard a guess that the posters at MDB would say that is the case over here because of the strict bias moderation.

[mercyngrace]

I am curious as to whathis response will be concerning your membership timeframe at the other board.

I think the date of the thread is wrong or something. I know exactly what Pahoran is referring to and I did refer to PMs, but don't recall being indiscreet or ever mentioning him by name. As I recall another poster, with a much longer history than mine (on either board - as join dates and post counts reveal, I've spent most of my time on this board - almost 5000 compared to 128) immediately knew who would privately take me to task.

Either way, I edited my post with an apology to Pahoran. He feels I was indiscreet and the PMs were from him so it's his opinion that matters.

[MorningStar]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

That is all.

[TAO]

And what would be the point of that? What value is apologetics if done in an echo chamber? I would hazard a guess that the posters at MDB would say that is the case over here because of the strict bias moderation.

Many do say that.

Apologetics isn't good when done in an echo chamber, yes, but it also isn't good when flooded with negative implications. Both boards have their flaws.

[Damien the Leper]

What do you mean, exactly?

Pahoran accused her of conduct that took place prior to her membership at MDB. I would like to hear Pahoran's explanation for what took place given the timeframe. The only way for what Pahoran said to be true is if MnG posted under a different handle.

ETA: I stand corrected based on MnG post above.

[BCSpace]

Something desperately needs to be put in the Hit Pieces forum.

[treehugger]

No, Ms Jack isn't responsible for the content of that pit (apart from what she contributes herself.) That is the purview of "Dr Shades."

In fact, much as I criticise Ms Jack for her intensely personal and relentless vendettas, looked at objectively, her contributions are actually around the top end, in terms of quality, for that board.

Which, when you think about it, really says something about that board.

Regards,

Pahoran

It is very interesting that you refer to it as a pit, but you have an account over there, and made many a post over there, you have even earned the title of "First Presidency" with your 832 posts. Infact, most who refer to the place as trailerpark or other terms many thousands of posts.

As for Msjack affecting William irl, wrong wrong wrong. William is responsible for his conduct; personal responsibility is a basic tenant of the gospel.

What is also interesting is that you seem completely accepting of Wills online conduct, and have focused any disgust towards those who dare take him to task for his sexualized comments to both male and female posters.

[Anijen]

OP:

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

has somehow became a childish argument of "yes you/he did, no I/he didn't....."

No wonder my favorite post is #104

[Storm Rider]

I don't recall having ever met Bradford, though it could have happened in a few meetings at BYU. Regardless, the more I read about events where he is involved the worse I think of him. This is just a very sad story and I am saddened when I hear anyone in the Church being treated so poorly by those who should know better.

Even the elect will be deceived and so it is evident.

[treehugger]

Nvm

[Calm]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

That is all.

Nemesis even approves MS!

[Libs]

I saw that (Nemesis' rep) and it made me laugh!

[Calm]

I saw that (Nemesis' rep) and it made me laugh!

According to Nemesis' profile, it is the only one ever given...so I think Nemesis really bonded with MS over their shared response to this thread.

[Glenn101]

I don't recall having ever met Bradford, though it could have happened in a few meetings at BYU. Regardless, the more I read about events where he is involved the worse I think of him. This is just a very sad story and I am saddened when I hear anyone in the Church being treated so poorly by those who should know better.

Even the elect will be deceived and so it is evident.

While I don't like the way the MI has evolved, I think it best not to personalize the issues. It is impossible to read Bro. Bradford's mind. We can understand his motives but dimly, having never met the man.

I think that we could best use these energies by supporting the Restore FARMS project.

Glenn

[jwhitlock]

While I don't like the way the MI has evolved, I think it best not to personalize the issues. It is impossible to read Bro. Bradford's mind. We can understand his motives but dimly, having never met the man.

I think that we could best use these energies by supporting the Restore FARMS project.

Glenn

While I also think that support should be given to a new FARMS project, I disagree that we can't understand Bradford's motives. We do know what his actions (and non-actions) in this situation are, we have what he has written, we know who is applauding what he has done, and we have what I consider reliable first hand insights from a number of people whose opinions and credibility I respect.

Bradford's direction for the MI is clear. It is clear what he wants to cut out. It is clear how he purges what he disagrees with. It is clear that enemies of the Church agree heartily with what he's doing and how he's doing it.

Taken together, they do not paint a pretty picture of the motivations of the person running MI at this point.

As a side note on this, the way Bradford has done things has disturbed many of us who have experienced that same methodology in jobs or other situations outside of the Church. When you've experienced it personally, there's a sickening feeling when you recognize that the same thing is being done by someone in the Church. This is hardly a private situation in many ways, and so I think it is more than fair game for frank discussions concerning the persons involved.

[Calm]

It is clear that enemies of the Church agree heartily with what he's doing and how he's doing it.

Taken together, they do not paint a pretty picture of the motivations of the person running MI at this point.

Just to be clear, you are not suggesting his reasons for doing it are to cause difficulties for the Church or diminish it in any way?

I am thinking you mean more along the lines he is not paying attention to all the potential consequences of his actions, including ones that someone in his position should be paying attention to....

[jwhitlock]

Just to be clear, you are not suggesting his reasons for doing it are to cause difficulties for the Church or diminish it in any way?

I am thinking you mean more along the lines he is not paying attention to all the potential consequences of his actions, including ones that someone in his position should be paying attention to....

That's probably a fair assessment. It's almost like a Dilbert comic strip being acted out within the confines of BYU.

[William Schryver]

In fact, much as I criticise Ms Jack for her intensely personal and relentless vendettas, looked at objectively, her contributions are actually around the top end, in terms of quality, for that board.

Which, when you think about it, really says something about that board.

This is true, and yet, oddly enough, she fits in there quite comfortably. In fact, she is one of what I have characterized, in my blog post, as the "core members" of the anti-Mormons who congregate there.

And make no mistake about it, Bridget Jeffries is anti-Mormon to the very center of her feminazi soul. Of course, she is of that unique variety of which John Williams and Chris Smith are also a part: the passive-aggressive-pretending-to-just-be-interested-in-Mormonism-as-a-cultural-phenomenon brand of anti-Mormon which is, in my judgment, the kind you need to keep your eye on the most.

.

.

.

Now, changing the subject somewhat (and I must be brief, because I am leaving shortly to attend a family reunion), I noted that MsJack has offered up a "reply" of sorts to my blog post. My first comment on her counter-post is this: note how she makes grandiose allegations about my making attacks on men, too! (Oh, shudder!) And that I am always the one to launch the first strike, or throw the first punch, or something like that. Then she provides three links to (presumably) provide evidentiary support to her claims. (This is precisely the pattern she uses in her propaganda smear sheet directed at me.)

The problem is that when you actually follow the links and read what I posted there, you come away thinking to yourself, "how did that support her allegations?" So it is with the allegation that I am a misogynist.

One could accurately accuse me of, on very rare occasions, using double entendre and mild sexual innuendo. It's true. I have no problem with that kind of thing, and I shake my head at those who do. Again, I have never been vulgar or obscene. Talking about a woman's breast reduction surgery when she has already established the context with her own public blog post is not "sexually charged language" as some would like readers to believe. Nothing I have ever posted rises above the level of "PG" in the parlance of the American movie rating system. (I would let my children attend PG movies.)

You see, that's the real issue here: all of this is one big gross exaggeration coupled with a sprinkling of forgeries to give it the patina of real offensiveness.

Now, speaking of the forgeries, MsJack and her cohorts have spilled much ink attempting, for example, to prove that I used the dreaded "c" word in a post directed at harmony. They are liars, and they know it. Those who claim to have "seen" the word in the post in question are liars, since even that board, were one to type in that word in a post, would automatically edit it to read "c***". In any event, I said no such thing. I said nothing even remotely close to that. I have never used that word in my life. They are liars. And, again, they know it.

This is the thing about those people: they practice their brand of "morality" towards each other, but they have no compunction when it comes to lying about those whom they hate, like me. It is a principle spoken of by the Lord here:

D&C 10

25 Yea, he saith unto them: Deceive and lie in wait to catch, that ye may destroy; behold, this is no harm. And thus he flattereth them, and telleth them that it is no sin to lie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him.

And make no mistake about it, that is precisely what these people seek to do: destroy those whom they perceive to be threats to their anti-Mormon cause.

In any case, take away the things they produced via forgery or manipulation of posts, and you've got nothing but comments about breast reduction surgery upon which to hang the charge that Will Schryver is a wicked misogynist.

.

.

.

I want to publicly commend Ray Agostini and Eric Norwood. They are men to whom truth really means something. "Rollo Tomasi" had a chance to be such a man, but he yielded to the demands of the mob of which he is a part. That's sad.

.

.

.

Finally, I want to say this: Neither MsJack nor anyone else has "destroyed" my opportunities to publish scholarly papers regarding the origins of the Book of Abraham. Not at all. In fact, my prestige has been enhanced as a result of the concerted effort that has been made to discredit me. In faithful LDS circles, we have long since learned that those to whom the anti-Mormons pay the most attention and expend the most effort in their attempts to defame are those who must have the most important things to say and do. It's just the way Satan works. He stirs his minions up to anger against that which is good, or that which tends towards truth. Not to suggest that I am inordinately good or righteous or whatnot. I'm not. I'm just a guy who happened to get the opportunity to examine the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and who figured out something that no one had previously perceived: that they are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. The anti-Mormons correctly perceive that this discovery threatens their long-standing mythology of Book of Abraham production, and therefore they are attempting to nip it in the bud, as it were.

But they have not succeeded. I cannot say more at this point in time, but suffice it to say that I have not been permanently discredited; my chances to publish are not destroyed--quite the opposite my friends. The enemies of the Church have rejoiced for a season, but their celebration has been premature, and before long, it will become apparent that their fantasy of destroying Mormon apologetics has simply been a pipe dream sown in a gale.

[MorningStar]

Nemesis even approves MS!

That's because I'm so eloquent.

[ERayR]

Just to be clear, you are not suggesting his reasons for doing it are to cause difficulties for the Church or diminish it in any way?

I am thinking you mean more along the lines he is not paying attention to all the potential consequences of his actions, including ones that someone in his position should be paying attention to....

Although it is unbelievable, to me, that someone who has reached a place in their career that they have been entrusted to manage an organization such as MI, could be that unaware. Well stranger things have happened.

[ERayR]

That's because I'm so eloquent.

Yes you are!

[Calm]

Although it is unbelievable, to me, that someone who has reached a place in their career that they have been entrusted to manage an organization such as MI, could be that unaware. Well stranger things have happened.

I find it hard to believe too, but like you said stranger things have happened.

[ttribe]

This is true, and yet, oddly enough, she fits in there quite comfortably. In fact, she is one of what I have characterized, in my blog post, as the "core members" of the anti-Mormons who congregate there.

And make no mistake about it, Bridget Jeffries is anti-Mormon to the very center of her feminazi soul. Of course, she is of that unique variety of which John Williams and Chris Smith are also a part: the passive-aggressive-pretending-to-just-be-interested-in-Mormonism-as-a-cultural-phenomenon brand of anti-Mormon which is, in my judgment, the kind you need to keep your eye on the most.

Absurd charges on all counts. Good grief, Will; your Mormon version of McCarthyism is out of control. I've been verbally attacked IRL and physically confronted by REAL anti's; these three are nowhere in that classification.

[William Schryver]

Before I leave for the weekend, I wanted to give one example of how MsJack has misrepresented information. In her exposé, she used the following quote to support the claim that I am a misogynist:

Now get your fat *** back in the kitchen and whip up a batch of cookies before I slap you silly.

Now, granted, she does provide a link. But of course no one actually bothered to read the original post, and she was banking on that reality. Here is the original thread, which establishes the entire context:

Lamanite only a political designation?

Here is the specific post I made, on page 5 of the thread:

KimberlyAnn wrote:

What an unwarranted display of hubris! Will Schryver, I doubt anything you could come up with is over Liz's head, and I can assure you it wouldn't be over mine.

I'm going on a fifteen year old memory, but I believe you're still off by sixty or so years with Charlemagne. He may be called by some the "Father of Europe", but his progeny numbered around twenty, if I remember correctly (and I usually do), so I doubt that should be taken literally.

Also, thank you for exemplifying the sexist attributes of Mormon Priesthood holders. I enjoy pointing out the sexism inherent in Mormonism, and your above post does nothing but prove me right.

KA

I'm quite well known for my "unwarranted display of hubris."

But it's nothing my 15-year-old daughter's sharp tongue can't rip to shreds.

Charlemagne (Charles I) lived in the second half of the 8th century A.D. And I think you're right that he had about 20 children. And I'll bet we're distant cousins because we both descend from him and several of his posterity. He's back about 50 generations for me. I can go back another 25 or so from him to a Roman ruler of Gaul who died in 6 A.D.

Oh, and by the way, my "sexist attributes" are not the exclusive province of the "Mormon Priesthood holder." I'm just a normal man. Well, probably a whole lot more manly than many of the "men" I see posting on this board. Most of them have been so utterly emasculated by our oppressive modern feminazi culture that they are only a couple of testosterone molecules shy of being eunuchs.

Now get your fat *** back in the kitchen and whip up a batch of cookies before I slap you silly.

<grin>

I like you KA. I'll bet you'd look good in a tanktop, too. ;-)

Link

Now, granted, the culture and tone on that message board is much more coarse than on this board. That is a reality. And I confess I was much more "coarse" there than I have ever been here. But again, it's quite obvious that I was making a "tongue-in-cheek" parody-style statement. I include the qualifying "<grin>" afterwards to make it perfectly understood. (The tanktop bit refers to an ongoing context of women supposedly looking better in tanktops than garments, btw.)

The point is, everything is dependent on context, and MsJack has cunningly exploited the fact that very few people will seek to view things in their original context.

Well, I have to go now.

I will say this as a parting comment: The sun will not set today before a new dawn arises.