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

[ttribe]

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, 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:

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.

Did you really think that helped your case?

[William Schryver]

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.

Your inability to discern such things is, unfortunately, quite common these days. Fortunately, it is not universal.

[mapman]

"Feminazi?" Is that what you call feminists?

[ttribe]

Your inability to discern such things is, unfortunately, quite common these days. Fortunately, it is not universal.

As if you knew the first thing about me, Will.

"Feminazi?" Is that what you call feminists?

He got the phrase from Rush Limbaugh.

[jwhitlock]

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.

Context is the point, isn't it.

FWIW, I think you've done a good job explaining yourself. You're not afraid to jump in with both feet and call it like it is.

Some people forget about the colorful side of Mormonism and want to sterilize things to pander to the PC attitudes of our day. I suspect J. Golden and Orrin Porter wouldn't be received too well in some quarters were they around today.

And lest someone suggest I'm comparing Will to either of them, I'm not. I'm simply saying that anyone who thinks apologetics should never have any rough and tumble to it has set an artificial standard that is probably more related to presentist political correctness than to any real life gospel ethics.

[Calm]

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.

There is a difference between making tongue-in-cheek statements among those who consider themselves your friends and making them among those who have criticized you and who you have just finished criticizing.

Using a <grin> afterwards is most likely to be read like someone telling you that you are going to burn in hell for eternity and then signing off "In love in Christ".....sounds more like an attempt to excuse or justify one's bad behaviour then a sincere loving gesture.

And I confess I was much more "coarse" there than I have ever been here.

I think justifying one's coarseness because others are coarse is problematic.

[ttribe]

Context is the point, isn't it.

FWIW, I think you've done a good job explaining yourself. You're not afraid to jump in with both feet and call it like it is.

Some people forget about the colorful side of Mormonism and want to sterilize things to pander to the PC attitudes of our day. I suspect J. Golden and Orrin Porter wouldn't be received too well in some quarters were they around today.

And lest someone suggest I'm comparing Will to either of them, I'm not. I'm simply saying that anyone who thinks apologetics should never have any rough and tumble to it has set an artificial standard that is probably more related to presentist political correctness than to any real life gospel ethics.

Actually, I'm thinking the real point should be that we've evolved culturally since the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As such, there are a different set of standards by which our conduct will be judged. Will's conduct is that of the proverbial dinosaur, and should be treated as such.

[Calm]

I'm simply saying that anyone who thinks apologetics should never have any rough and tumble to it has set an artificial standard that is probably more related to presentist political correctness than to any real life gospel ethics.

There is a difference between "rough and tumble" and coarseness.

And since when does a woman's breast size have anything to do with apologetics? Or telling a woman (or a man for that matter) she has a "fat a**" or that you are going to "slap her silly"?....yes, I understand that Will was playing the part of the "sexist Priesthood holder" she was accusing him of. He is not among friends on that board for the most part, "playing" in such a way is at the very least foolish.

And whether or not you want to believe it is political correctness, there are some things you don't make jokes about and I believe one of those things is physical abuse. I don't see any context where that type of humour is actually the least bit funny. How would you feel if someone joked about "slapping silly" your spouse or one of your children?

[mapman]

Will, your blog post has helped me understand where you are coming from a lot better. I'm sorry that you've had to deal with all the troubles you've had. I look forward to reading your papers as I found your FAIR presentation to be interesting. I just have to say though, if you don't take into account what other people think is appropriate you will inevitably risk making enemies and not having people cooperate with you.

[Calm]

I just have to say though, if you don't take into account what other people think is appropriate you will inevitably risk making enemies and not having people cooperate with you.

Exactly.

[jwhitlock]

Actually, I'm thinking the real point should be that we've evolved culturally since the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As such, there are a different set of standards by which our conduct will be judged. Will's conduct is that of the proverbial dinosaur, and should be treated as such.

I see no real evidence that we've evolved culturally in a way that compares positively to the past, especially since that cultural evolution involves a fair amount of PC.

Will's conduct is purely a matter of your own opinion, and that perspective is not shared by everyone here. "Dinosaur" is a subjective term that I don't agree with in this case.

[Bob Crockett]

I inquired as to the reasons for this sudden decision, and was told that it was prompted by the allegations made against me by the anti-Mormons at the Mormon Discussions message board. I requested that I be permitted to defend myself against these allegations. My request was denied. I categorically denied the veracity of the allegations. Dr. Hoskisson replied, and I quote: "It doesn't matter if they're true or not. If we publish you, they will take these things to the media and bring disrepute upon the Maxwell Institute, BYU, and the Church." I expressed shock that the Maxwell Institute would permit itself to be intimidated and manipulated by a group of mostly anonymous anti-Mormons associated with an obscure internet message board. Hoskisson expressed sympathy for my cause, but indicated he could do nothing.

Time to stop, Will. You haven't defended yourself adequately here. If a member of my law firm posted in an email the stuff you've posted here from your exchanges with Kimberly, he or she would be disciplined. It doesn't matter that you try and make a joke out of it.

And to bring Paul Hoskisson's name into this mess is really poor form.

I call on your high-falutin' friends, your mega posters on this board, the Pahorans, the Seleks, the USUs, the Calmoriahs, the Petersons, the Hamblins, the Christiansens, the Gardners, to step forward and say here and now that they see no offense to or problems with any of your justifications in this thread. If at least half of that list do so, I'll shut up. Otherwise, I hope you don't mind if I have made up my mind here and now to say that I must disavow your voice amongst the voices of apologists.

I will then call for a boycott of your work and say that my mind is no longer open about your work.

[ttribe]

I see no real evidence that we've evolved culturally in a way that compares positively to the past, especially since that cultural evolution involves a fair amount of PC.

Will's conduct is purely a matter of your own opinion, and that perspective is not shared by everyone here. "Dinosaur" is a subjective term that I don't agree with in this case.

That's just sad.

[ttribe]

Time to stop, Will. You haven't defended yourself adequately here. If a member of my law firm posted in an email the stuff you've posted here from your exchanges with Kimberly, he or she would be disciplined. It doesn't matter that you try and make a joke out of it.

And to bring Paul Hoskisson's name into this mess is really poor form.

I call on your high-falutin' friends, your mega posters on this board, the Pahorans, the Seleks, the USUs, the Calmoriahs, the Petersons, the Hamblins, the Christiansens, the Gardners, to step forward and say here and now that they see no offense to or problems with any of your justifications in this thread. If at least half of that list do so, I'll shut up. Otherwise, I hope you don't mind if I have made up my mind here and now to say that I must disavow your voice amongst the voices of apologists.

I'm with Bob. If the consensus is behind you and sees no problem with your conduct, then clearly I am an outlier in this particular corner of the Internet and will walk away accordingly.

ETA: I will just say, if Will was at my firm and had conducted himself like this, he wouldn't just be disciplined. I'd fire him. End of story.

[Analytics]

Will is in a unique situation. While Peterson, Hamblin, et. al. are free to go find or create publishing venues that are willing to support their style of apologetics, Schryver can’t publish his work anywhere without the express permission of the top leadership of the church, in accordance with the research contract he signed.

Jerry Bradford is willingly taking the blame for the change in direction at the MI, but think about what would happen if he received the following phone call: “Hi Brother Bradford, it’s Elder Jensen from the Church Historian’s office calling. Elder Oaks, Elder Nelson, the First Presidency, and I have approved of William Schryver’s research project, and we would like to see his research published by the MI as we originally intended.” If Bradford received that phone call, do you really think he'd say sorry, I’ve unilaterally made the decision not to publish that kind of thing at the MI? And if Elder Jensen and his superiors still supported Will's research, do you think he'd hesitate to make that phone call? Of course not—if Elder Jensen and his superiors wanted the MI to publish Schryver’s research, it would happen.

And if they don’t want Schryver’s stuff published by the MI, it’s hard to imagine that they’d give permission for it to be published elsewhere.

This thread demonstrates that not all members of the Church share Schryver’s sensibilities about what kind of behavior is appropriate for a member of the church, let alone for a member who is conducting elite research with the explicit permission of the First Presidency. I won’t argue with Schryver about whether or not his antics are appropriate—I just want to help clarify what level of the Church is suppressing Schryver’s publication endeavors.

ETA: this thread inspired me to change my signature.

[MorningStar]

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.

Nemesis and I are BFF's.

[Anijen]

When a church disciplinary meeting is over, all those involved very rarely speak about it again and even rarer in public. I sure would like to see us just stop talking about what Will posted in his past and face the future with an attitude that we all are human and all of us are our Fathers children and I would like to see a more brotherly love spread especially to one of our own. We all have skeletons in the closet, some of those bones are our own. I say let the bones stay in the closet and be forgiven (and forgotten) and move on.

Okay I will step off my soap box now

[Anijen]

Re quoting old posts of Wills do not help.

Lets recover, get over and be a happy family.

[jwhitlock]

There is a difference between "rough and tumble" and coarseness.

And since when does a woman's breast size have anything to do with apologetics? Or telling a woman (or a man for that matter) she has a "fat a**" or that you are going to "slap her silly"?....yes, I understand that Will was playing the part of the "sexist Priesthood holder" she was accusing him of. He is not among friends on that board for the most part, "playing" in such a way is at the very least foolish.

And whether or not you want to believe it is political correctness, there are some things you don't make jokes about and I believe one of those things is physical abuse. I don't see any context where that type of humour is actually the least bit funny. How would you feel if someone joked about "slapping silly" your spouse or one of your children?

Thanks for the lecture, Cal.

The fact is, you come from a very different cultural perspective and experience than I do. To speak in absolutist terms like you do, and to say that there is no context for such remarks indicates that you're coming at this from a narrow perspective that doesn't leave any room for valid parody, for instance.

I understand enough that while I wouldn't necessarily make the same comments as Will, I have tried and think I understand a bit where he's coming from. I don't have a problem with it because I also understand that Will is none of those things that he's accused of being by making such comments.

You have a subjective opinion on this. That's fine, but I disagree with how you and others are perceiving the reality of what Will is saying.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I have a curiosity question for Analytics.

Suppose that Schryver's piece gets published in some venue in the future. What would this imply about Elder Jensen, et al.?

Ben M.

[Nevo]

I consider Will a friend. I believe he's a good man and I would trust him with my life. However, I agree with Calmoriah and Bob Crockett that Will's taunting and harassment of posters on the other board went beyond the pale. I am saddened—truly—that Will sees nothing objectionable in anything that he posted. I do not want him to be silenced. On the contrary, I think he has one of the sharpest, most perceptive minds in LDS apologetics. But I think he is showing himself to be his own worst enemy.

[William Schryver]

Will, your blog post has helped me understand where you are coming from a lot better. I'm sorry that you've had to deal with all the troubles you've had. I look forward to reading your papers as I found your FAIR presentation to be interesting. I just have to say though, if you don't take into account what other people think is appropriate you will inevitably risk making enemiep and not having people cooperate with you.

Thanks for the kind remarks. They are much appreciated.

As for the risk you mention, it's one I'm willing to take. I don't mind having enemies.

ttribe: I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh.

cal: You really, really need to get out more. You spend far too much of your life glued to a monitor. This has become the universe for you, and your perspectives are entirely molded by it. I like you and I think you always mean well, but you DON'T have any conception whatsoever of what it's like on the front lines of this war, nor can you consistently identify the enemy, and therefore you are being made into a tool. It's sad to me, because you weren't always like this.

jwhitlock: You are a stalwart. I would go to war with you anytime.

Anijen: You're a good man, too.

Ok, gotta hit the road.

Remember my prophecy: The sun will not set today before a new dawn arises.

[treehugger]

Does the church the entire copyright to wills paper or just portions like pictures and such, what is too prevent him from publishlying all but the church owned portions?

[Anijen]

You have a very good point, but when someone's claim innocent victim, then what the person did needs to brought, as William et al are concerned about context. It is unfortunate to repost Williams trash, but he fains innocence

I just do not think this is the best place to do that. I wish Will toned down his remarks as well however, this is not the right place and causes more contention than healing.

I think I will continue to read this thread but I think I will choose to bow out of the conversation now. Trying to keep friends and the peace.

[Calm]

When a church disciplinary meeting is over, all those involved very rarely speak about it again and even rarer in public. I sure would like to see us just stop talking about what Will posted in his past and face the future with an attitude that we all are human and all of us are our Fathers children and I would like to see a more brotherly love spread especially to one of our own. We all have skeletons in the closet, some of those bones are our own. I say let the bones stay in the closet and be forgiven (and forgotten) and move on.

Okay I will step off my soap box now

Amen