THE MORMON CURTAIN
Containing 5,709 Articles Spanning 365 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Archives From 2005 thru 2014
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"WILLIAM SCHRYVER".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
| |
WILLIAM SCHRYVER
Total Articles:
5
Will Schryver, Mormon Apologist, self appointed expert in Egyptology.
|
|
I admit I've been very busy this last week and haven't been carefully following all the threads devoted to Will's "game changing" upcoming presentation. Aside from wondering what game this is supposed to change, because, after all, the papyri still don't match the BoA, I've also been amused at watching the double standard being applied by believers in regards to Will. Critics are routinely dismissed and criticized for lack of appropriate degrees, credentials, and education. Who can forget, for example, Gee's Magnificent Egyptian Test that he wanted critics to take to prove they were qualified to deal with the BoA? And I can't count how many times I was told I was "pretending to be an expert" when I educated myself regarding Mesoamerica.
And yet, somehow, all that flies out the window with Will. No matter that he has no degree in the field, no expertise, no education (other than self education which so many MADdites sneer at, at least in my experience), and no ability to translate Egyptian. Regardless, he is an acclaimed "game changer" and skeptics are accused of "poisoning the well" if they express doubt in regards to the depth of this "changed game."
There is often hypocrisy and double standards applied by both sides of this issue, and certainly this tendency is universally part of human nature. But normally human beings also make at least a superficial attempt to avoid open hypocrisy and double standards, if for no other reason than they know the "others" watch eagerly for any signs of such. And yet any even superficial attempt to cloak or minimize the hypocrisy and double-standard has been vigorously and enthusiastically thrown out the window in this case, which, of course, adds inordinately to the entertainment value.
Lest anyone accuse me of my own hypocrisy, I'm not the one who carries on about degrees and credentials, and think someone like Will, who has self-educated himself seriously about a topic - you know, much like I have regarding Mesoamerica - certainly can change a game. Whether or not he has done so remains to be seen, and as I stated in the first paragraph, any game that can be changed with regards to the BoA is rather minimal, given the still standing lack of correlation between the papyri and the BoA.
| I would be remiss if I did not take advantage of this opportunity to formally thank Will Schryver for this latest episode of How The Mopology Turns. Seriously. This has been the most entertaining episode for quite a while. The sight of Will trumpeting the genius of his own work combined with the frenzy whipped up on MAD, the Des. News "Book of Abraham Mystery to be Solved", the subsequent refusal of Will to engage with substantive criticism of his theory, preferring to call people career anti-Mormons are throwing out other irrelevant ad homs (while DCP proclaims that it is critics who simply call names instead of engage), none of Will's fans being able to clearly articulate what the "meaning of the KEP" really is, Will bragging that he'd debate Brent in a "heartbeat" only to beat a hasty retreat while his supporters enter BizarroLand in their insistence it was Brent retreating.... all these things add up to:
Great Internet Entertainment
So thank, you, Will, thank you.
My second reason to thank Will is that he has unwittingly provided even more reason to accept the critics’ assertion that these texts originated within the mind of Joseph Smith and had nothing to do with any Egyptian text. This reminds me of the example I’ve used earlier. When believers first hear rumors that JS married women who already had living husbands, and they turn to apologists or defenders of the faith for help, what they want and hope for is good evidence demonstrating that this claim is all a filthy lie. Joseph Smith did no such thing. Instead, what they find is the admission that yes, JS did marry women who already had living husbands, but he probably didn’t have sex with them. Yet if he did, he would have been justified because they were “married.” This provides little comfort to those who are truly questioning. It may appease those who are determined to keep believing at any cost, for various reasons. When believers hear disturbing rumors about the BoA papyri being found and bearing no relationships whatsoever, what they want and hope to be told is that this is a vicious lie, and that there is clear evidence supporting the contention that JS did, indeed, accurately translate the ancient Egyptian papyri as the BoA. And yet what they hear is Will’s theory. Again, this will provide little comfort to those who are genuinely questioning instead of simply looking for reasons to feel better about what they are determined to keep believing.
Here’s why I believe Will’s theory actually gives more ammunition to the critics than aid to believers. By the end of this talk, Will affirms that JS received the BoA through revelation alone, in a process that had nothing to do with the papyri. In fact, he affirms it is impossible that the process involved the papyri. He concludes:
The evidence also strongly suggests that the text of the Book of Abraham must have been translated by Joseph Smith in the same way he had produced the text of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and the translated parchment of John known as Doctrine and Covenants section 7 – by revelation. There is no evidence that he attempted any sort of what we would term an academic translation Egyptian papyri. The textual evidence simply will not support such a thesis.
Think about this for a moment from the standpoint of a member who has just recently discovered that the “real” translation of the papyri are completely unrelated to the BoA. Instead of being told that’s a vicious lie, they’re being told that is actually correct. That will only comfort those who, as I said, are determined to believe no matter what.
There are other issues with Will’s talk, obviously. Many posters have already pointed them out, but I’m going to briefly outline the ones I find most problematic. Of course, I have not carefully studied the BoA or the KEP, so I may be incorrect on some details and am open to corrections.
To me, this topic will only be of interest to those who already believe that JS “translated” (of course that word doesn’t mean what it normally means anymore) the BoA by the power of God. It quibbles about details, but details that all rest upon that predetermined conclusion. Why? Because the issues that Will raises to support his theory actually also can be explained by the critical assumption that these texts arose within the mind of Joseph Smith. He excitedly tells us that:
One of the first things that became apparent in the process of this particular study, before attempting to quantify anything, is that we are quite obviously dealing with a very limited set of unique words with very specific applications, as opposed to a more non-contextual selection of wide-focus building block words that one would reasonably expect to encounter in a document intended as a tool to decipher an unknown text. Instead, we find words and phrases focused on a narrow subject matter. As a result, what was intuitively evident to me was that this thing was being driven by an already known text, rather than being a means by which to produce an unknown text.
Any thesis of the Alphabet and Grammar as a papyri deciphering tool presupposes that the authors don’t already know the text their tool is being designed to produce!
Analysis by substantial words strongly suggests a dependency of the Alphabet on a pre-existing text of much of the first three chapters of Abraham.
So what? Even if an earlier text is found to support Will’s theory, SO WHAT? I already believe Joseph Smith created the BoA, so if both the BoA and the KEP originated in the mind of Joseph Smith…well, you see my point. The chronology doesn’t matter. That’s like discussing the authorship to a sequel to a novel, and asserting that since the sequel had to come after the first novel because it was dependent on the ideas in the first novel, a that proves that someone else wrote the novels other than the claimed author. Yeah, of course the ideas are dependent on one another: the same author thought them up. The chronology is irrelevant as to whether or not the same author is implicated. So the chronology can only be relevant to those who already firmly believe that the BoA was a divine “translation”, whatever that word now means.
Here’s another point that aids critics, not defenders of the faith. Will takes great effort to explain that, to JS and his cohorts, Egyptian was synonymous with “pure language of the ancients” because:
In the mind of Phelps and the others, Egyptian was apparently believed to have somehow avoided the confounding of the languages at the Tower of Babel. Egyptian, therefore, became a term that, for them, was synonymous with “pure language.”
But then he ignores his own premise and pretends that Joseph Smith and his cohorts would have recognized the fact that they were including nonEgyptian elements in the KEP and would have realized that meant it wasn’t really Egyptian at all. (insert Scooby-Do “HUNH” here?) Joseph Smith thought Egyptian was the pure language of the ancients because it escaped the confounding of the Tower of Babel. Some elements were missing from the written text of the papyri as well as the facsimiles, and Joseph Smith inserted other elements for those missing portions. No one, including Joseph Smith, had the ability at that time period to correctly identify elements as non-Egyptian, since the cracking of the Rosetta Stone was in its early days. So when JS relied on Masonic elements or other elements that he, like so many others, thought were related to the “pure language of the Egyptians”, he most likely thought those elements were Egyptian.
This does not mean that JS did not “intend the documents to translate Egyptian”. It means that JS didn’t know Egyptian, and neither did anyone else.
In fact, Will’s thesis is dependent on one of the worst cases of presentism that I’ve ever seen. Since we are able to now know what real Egyptian looks like, then Joseph Smith must have known that as well. !?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Continuing with Will’s quote:
“In the mind of Phelps and the others, Egyptian was apparently believed to have somehow avoided the confounding of the languages at the Tower of Babel. Egyptian, therefore, became a term that, for them, was synonymous with “pure language. Thus, they see no contradiction in titling as Egyptian Counting a document that contains not a single element that is Egyptian, nor do they perceive any contradiction in titling the other documents Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, notwithstanding the fact that most of the characters they translate are not Egyptian, nor are the source texts themselves. Again, the evidence strongly suggests that the Alphabet and Grammar was never intended nor designed to decipher anything. Quite to the contrary, it was a short-lived attempt to construct an idiographic cipher and lexicon, whereby those who produced it took selections of Joseph Smith’s body of revelatory texts, written in English, and assigned to them simple character values. Intheir minds, the capacity of a single character to represent a word, or a sentence, or even an entire paragraph of over a hundred words, was typical of what they believed to have been the pure language of the ancients. Don’t misunderstand – I have encountered no evidence to date that they believe they were actually restoring the language of Adam, although it is possible that they believed that some of the characters they produced had come to them through inspiration. No, it appears they were merely producing their own rendition of what they believed pure language would be like. Deciphering Egyptian scrolls was not their purpose.”
Let me get this straight. Joseph thought Egyptian was synonymous with pure language because it escaped the corruption of the Tower of Babel. Joseph Smith had no way of knowing what elements were or were not Egyptian at that time period. He included nonEgyptian elements from sources that he thought were associated with the pure language of the ancients. And yet that means he knew he wasn’t using real Egyptian characters? So that means he knew this key would not decipher real Egyptians??
If Joseph Smith thought Egyptian was synonymous with the pure language of the ancients because it escaped the corruption of the Tower of Babel, when he used elements “through inspiration” or by borrowing from sources he thought used the pure language of the ancients… then he thought those elements were Egyptian. And there was certainly no John Gee to correct him.
And, of course, others have pointed out that JS and his cohort put revelations in code when those revelations contained problematic information. Even Will recognizes this when he states:
Sensitive revelations were being encrypted in various ways at this point in time to hide the identity of people and places..
Yeah, he was hiding the identity of people and places when the information could be dangerous in the wrong hands. That hardly describes the BoA.
To sum, I think believers who are wetting themselves in excitement over Will’s theory haven’t thought carefully about what this theory conveys to people who are genuinely troubled by and questioning the origins of the BoA. It clearly tells those people that the critics are right when they assert that the papyri have nothing to do with the BoA, and there was no “translation” from those papyri.
| Recently, you ran stories about Brother William Schryver's presentation at the FAIR conference, making reference to what you termed "frustrating speculation by many critics" on internet message boards. I think it is a safe assumption that you were referring to this message board. You also quoted a post from Greg Smith on Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board about Brother Schryver killing critical theories about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and burying them under Mount Doom, etc.
I am aware that you will be cutting back your publication and laying off staff members, but since you devoted two whole stories to the new champion of the faithful and hero of Mormon apologetics, shouldn't you take the time to share with your dwindling readership (as evidenced by your recently-announced cutbacks and layoffs) more about this internet buzz regarding Brother Schryver? He is certainly proud of his behavior, as he has explicitly said. Shouldn't you and faithful members of the Church also be proud of your new hero?
Let us all bask in the humble piety and Christ-like character of Brother Schryver, who is to the LDS faithful as Lancelot was to King Arthur. I only have time for a few examples of his noble, pious, and humble spiritual insights.
Speaking of Jesus loving others, Brother Schryver said:
William Schryver wrote:
I'm not so sure. After all, he mocked the Pharisees and Sadducees quite effectively during his mortal sojourn.
Besides, I can do both at the same time.
"I love all of you stinking apostates."
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=13192andp=327387#p327387
Regarding the sudden necessity for both himself and Brent Metcalfe to be published before a debate can happen:
William Schryver wrote:
So, if I understand you correctly, on the basis of my not having yet published, in a formal venue, any of my findings, they are to be regarded as "lies and b***s***" until that time?
Is this same criteria applied equally to Brent Metcalfe?
I have, at least, "e-published," as it were, several arguments in the Pundit's forum of the MAD board that pertain to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, as well as my first draft of the scroll-length article that will soon be published in the JBMORS.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=13192andp=326667#p326667
On respect for women:
William Schryver wrote:
In fact, the more I think about it, the more abused I feel. Do you realize that I am surrounded by a veritable cloud of estrogen from day to day? I am verbally and emotionally abused by females from dawn to dusk, day after day, week after week, and year after year, and they have, each and every one, learned far too well how to hit where it hurts.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=13064andp=323302#p323302
On his feelings about talking about group masturbation, unbelievers being the spawn of whores, and other Christ-like topics:
William Schyrver wrote:
As I’ve said many times, I hope people DO read everything I have ever written on this message board. Not only will doing so put the lie to the propaganda campaign that has been waged against me, but it will be entertaining for them as well!
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=9005andp=323178#p323178
On how people who lose their faith in the LDS Church must be stupid:
William Schyrver wrote:
Granted, you and John are nearer the dark end of the spectrum, but then you have people like Polygamy Porter and Liz and Paul Osborne et al. who simply lack the intellect sufficient to be as effective evangelists as you are. That's all right, though, because the majority of apostates are more like them than you, so the presence here of a large number of extremely average people makes it a welcoming environment for all. ;-)
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=13036andp=322631#p322631
On having civil discourse and friendly relationships with those who disagree with you:
William Schyrver wrote:
The difference being, of course, that it's always clear that I'm just passing through, whereas you and your cohorts belong.
When the day comes that people here start praising me, then you can say that I belong, too. Until then, the lines of demarcation are stark and bold, just as I prefer them.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=13032andp=322250#p322250
On respect for people of other faiths---in this case, Ceeboo, who is a Roman Catholic:
William Schryver wrote:
Seepoo:.......
From what I've seen so far, I couldn't fill a thimble with the coherent thoughts generated by "follk" like you, so I'm rather disinclined to concern myself with what you think.
As for my "contributions" here in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™, I can only assure you that they are carefully calibrated to produce precisely the effect you have observed here today. Feel free to use the "Ignore" function to hide my posts from your offended gaze in the future.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=11835andp=294745#p294745
More on his respect for women:
William Schyrver wrote:
Edit: KA was the one who blogged about her breast reduction surgery. It was hilarious. I laughed. I cried. I blew snot bubbles.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=11836andp=294717#p294717
On his sincerity:
William Schyrver wrote:
I, on the other hand, am trying to be insulting. Being witty is simply an unavoidable byproduct of my saying anything at all.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=11811andp=294645#p294645
On his respect and compassion for working class people:
William Schryver wrote:
You're just the homely waitress wandering from table to table here in the singlewide, hoping that someone will get drunk enough to ask you out.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=11811andp=294086#p294086
And even more on his chivalrous attitude toward the fair sex:
William Schyrver wrote:
I think the real problem is that harmony dislikes women, or rather, being a woman. She resents the fact (as she sees it) that she was born into an inferior (as she sees it) role, body, status, etc.
Of course, she's really not that uncommon in this respect. Modern feminism has now produced at least three generations littered with self-loathing women. It's one of the great tragedies of our times, if you ask me.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=9957andp=257645#p257645
On his status as a meek and humble follower of Jesus Christ:
William Schryver wrote:
You see, I don’t care in the least about your bawdy sins. Nor am I interested in whatever “punishment” they might merit.
No, what fills me with the thrill of anticipation is the thought of the mighty Jehovah finally smacking down the pride and haughty looks of the arrogant bastards, like you, who have been mocking the Saints from the balconies of the great and spacious building since time immemorial. I couldn’t care less what they do behind the closed doors of their penthouse suites. But I am greatly offended–viscerally outraged–at how the meek and humble followers of Christ have been mocked and ridiculed throughout the ages by people like those of you who continue the apostate tradition on this message board.
The Lord has patiently enjoined His Saints to leave vengeance to Him. And we have patiently done so.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=9950andp=257410#p257410
On his overall Christ-like persona:
William Schyrver wrote:
You're the toughest talking blowhard of a bitch I've ever seen.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=9950andp=257348#p257348
And his status vis-à-vis God:
William Schryver wrote:
Besides, as I've indicated previously, I have my calling and election made sure. I'd have to shed innocent blood to fall from my exaltation at this point. And we both know I ain't gonna find any of that here.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=9950andp=257348#p257348
On missionary work:
William Schryver wrote:
You're the toughest talking blowhard of a bitch I've ever seen.
"Grrrrrrr ... put up or shut up! Grrrrrrr ... I'm so intimidating when I snarl ..."
:lol:!
OK, you gnarly, snarly wench you, here's some scriptural references for you. Go educate yourself about the law of the celestial kingdom"
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=9950andp=257336#p257336
And to the cheerleaders at MADB who are lurking here and reading this thread, stand and and be proud. Tell the world about your new hero. Show us the Christ-like, humble attitude that Mormon apologetics should be known for, as demonstrated by its new poster boy.
I look forward to more about Brother Schryver as soon as the Deseret News and/or Mormon Times has the space to devote to it.
Sincerely, Darth J
P.S. Other board members may also contribute their favorite examples of Brother Schryver's humble, Christ-like character to this thread to help you spread the word. Don't be ashamed of your hero and champion.
| William Schryver's "Primary Thesis" About A Preexistent Text, Re: The Book Of Abraham
Tuesday, Dec 6, 2011, at 01:06 PM
Original Author(s): Kevin Graham
Topic: WILLIAM SCHRYVER -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | Regarding his "primary thesis", the most important thing to note is that his methodology for determining a preexistent text is one of his own making. Yes, that's right, he just made it up. The "substantial word" analysis, as he likes to call it, is something he came up with on his own, and so there is absolutely no reason to believe it could be used to reach the conclusions he does. What William needs to do, for once, is explain to us why we should accept his methodology as one that could ever hope to establish what he claims to have established. I've asked him a dozen times, and he continues to ignore the question. Until he justifies his method, there is really no reason to take it or him seriously.
His method relies on a subjective collection of words which he then arbitrarily categorizes as "generic" or "unique," using a mysterious system alien to all known scholarship. Once he inputs the data into his model (which hasn't been fully explained either), he leaps to the illicit conclusions that all this stuff was based on a preexistent text. So this "study" as he likes to call it, essentially produces results that he doesn't even pretend to explain in logical terms.
(These are my notes taken a year ago while listening to his online presentation. It ends with the first video, and I'll probably post my notes on the second video later on.)
So he goes on to point out how a certain list of words are attested in certain Abraham verses, and then informs us that it is "intuitively evident" (not just to William, but to everyone, apparently; more sales talk) that the Alphabet is based on a "preexistent text." So Schryver lowers his hand and reveals the fact that the primary driving force behind his thesis amounts to "intuition." This is hardly an objective tool by which rigorous scholarly analyses are formed, but William appears confident that his intuition provides fertile ground for a healthy thesis.
He then goes on to show a graph that illustrates the frequency of word attestation in each chapter of the Book of Abraham. What jumped out at me is that the very beginning of Abraham chapter one you see the graph skyrocket to over 80 words, and then immediately plummet to under ten and then fluctate with an occasional spike upwards to around 30 words for the rest of the chapters.
William never explains this phenomenon in his graph, but to the critics the spike is understandable and expected. If William had properly understood the critical argument presented by Chris Smith, then he would have known that he just proved his point. Chris argued that the GAEL was used to shape the first three verses of the Book of Abraham. But like so much of William's presentation, he moved quickly, threw up graphs and images and made numerous baseless assertions without explication. He went on to point out that there is no significant attestation of words in the later chapters, and the critics are sitting here going, "DUH!" That's because the later chapters were produced later on, contrary to William's baseless claim that the entire Book of Abraham preexisted the GAEL. But he doesn't even acknowledge, let alone explain how this graph undermines that fundamental assumption in his thesis.
William doesn't even understand the significance of his own findings and how they pertain to what the critics have actually argued. All he did here was observe the degree to which some Alphabet words correspond to the Book of Abraham chapters, but then he leaps to the unwarranted conclusion that this somehow proves the former is dependent on the latter. Yet, he did nothing to show direction of dependency. Nothing. It was just something he asserted as "intuitively evident," but he never explains why the direction of dependency couldn't go the other way.
He then explains why chapter two showed little correlation with the Alphabet. He notes that the "Grammar" explanations are attested throughout chapter two, but he then makes the same illicit conclusion and asserts that the former is dependent on the latter. But the assertions get even bolder, as he claims the Grammar is attested in chapters 4 and 5, but he produces nothing (not even a graph) to illustrate the degree of attestation. He just keeps asserting that the preexistent translation of all the chapters provided all the data found in the GAEL.
He then goes on to "demonstrate dependency" by using the first three verses of the Book of Abraham, which is precisely the portion of the Book of Abraham which the critics have used to make their case. So obviously we're expecting to see a lot of correlation between the GAEL and Abr 1:1-3. But Schryver doesn't mention any of this to his audience. Instead, whenever he alludes to the critical argument he makes it sound like we've been arguing all along that the GAEL was used to produce the entire Book of Abraham, providing him with a convenient straw man to knock over. So he goes on to unwittingly make our case for a high degree of correlation between the GAEL and Abr 1:1-3. He then leaps to Abraham 1:22-26 to show further correlation and then later on he leaps to an example in Facsimile #2.
So why is he skipping around ike this? If this attestation is consistent throughout the entire Book of Abraham, then why not go in sequence from beginning to end? Why is he skipping around? Well, the answer is hilarious and it is something only the critics would have understood. It is because both of these sections were already explained by Chris Smith in his previously published paper! However, William attributes none of this to Chris. But the point here isn't plagiarism. The point is that William is using the two areas with a high degree of correspondence to make the case that the entire Book of Abraham preexisted the GAEL. In fact, that's essentially what he says after showing these slides. He claims, with a stern and intense voice, that all five chapters are "substantially attested" in the Alphabet. Well if this is true, then why did he produce only those examples which had already been demonstrated and explicated by that "anti-Mormon," Chris Smith? William was counting on the fact that not a single person in his audience had read Smith's essay and he clearly presented his argument as if all these things he mentioned, he discovered via his own "studies."
We saw the same thing with William's misuse of the Phelps letter. He only found out about this when reading Chris' paper, but made no mention of this fact in his presentation. Instead, he kept up the perception that the apologists were the ones constantly uncovering new data that sheds light on the subject. In reality, Smith already dealt with the letter explaining that Phelps was living with Joseph Smith at the time, and that the letter in context tells us that Phelps would reveal things from the Lord as they received them. This strongly indicates that the "pure language" translation an example of this "new thing" and that it was Joseph Smith who provided it. Joseph Smith even appended a message to Sally in the same letter, so to suppose this was something Phelps was doing on his own is absurd. And as we explained later, this was clearly based on an 1832 revelation by the Prophet. Of course, William neglects to tell his audience about any of this because it is crucial to the success of his presentation thathe share only carefully selected tid-bits of information, which he strings together in a way that would drive home the conclusion he is trying to support. All other evidence that undermines his thesis is either ignored or downplayed. But mostly ignored. Sam Brown is an LDS scholar who has researched this matter extensively and he believes the evidence suggests that Joseph Smith, at the very least, supervised the project.
Having said all that...
This business about another missing Q documents that the apologists keep proposing, really misses the point. In reality there could very well be a missing Q document from which all these things were copied, and the problems facing the apologists still exist. That's what's so funny about this. Even if everything William says is true, what has he really accomplished? At best - and this is assuming, for the sake of argument, that he has properly understood three "critics" (though he hasn't) - all he has done is correct three brief comments from Ed Ashment, Chris Smith and an obscure RLDS historian. That's all his "primary thesis" claims to do. It doesn't justify Joseph Smith's incorrect translations. It doesn't explain why virtually all these men, Joseph Smith included, believed the Book of Abraham derived from something beside the "missing" scroll. And as I explained to wade, I have always believed that the narrative preexisted these documents. What he and wade have to do is show evidence that this narrative was presented on a document from which these KEP documents were supposedly copied. But again, this is irrelevant to virtually everything the critics have been saying. So imagine our reaction when William declared that he had rendered forty years of criticisms moot.
| Introduction
This thread concerns William Schryver, a member of the Mormon Discussions community since November 1, 2006, a former member of the Foundation for Apologetic Information andamp; Research (FAIR), and an apologist for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The purpose of this thread is to raise concern over William's treatment of female participants at Mormon Discussions as well as his remarks on other female figures. The behavior William has displayed towards women here at Mormon Discussions has been undeniably and consistently misogynist.
Normally I would not bother with a thread of this magnitude devoted to calling out the poor behavior of another forum participant. Frankly, I see terrible behavior on discussion forums all the time (this one included), from commentators representing all ends of the religious and political spectrum, so if I made this level of effort to call out terrible behavior wherever I see it, I would seldom have time to post about anything else. Furthermore, I do not believe that William's behavior is representative of the men of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that it should be taken to reflect poorly on that organization. I feel that all religions suffer from a certain degree of members who fail to live the high standards of their religion, so William is typical in this regard. I also count faithful and active LDS men (some of them apologists and scholars) among my closest family, friends, and confidants, and I have never seen them display the level of disrespect towards women that I have witnessed from William during my time at Mormon Discussions.
Why this thread then? I feel that this thread has become necessary on account of the fact that William seems to be gaining notoriety in the LDS apologetic and scholarly community. Last year, FAIR invited William to deliver a presentation on his Kirtland Egyptian Papers research at the Twelfth Annual Mormon Apologetics Conference. His then-upcoming presentation was even the focus of a glowing write-up in the Church-owned Deseret News. Egyptologist John Gee asked William to deliver his own Book of Abraham presentation at FAIR when Dr. Gee found himself unable to attend the Conference himself. Most recently, BYU Religion Professor Brian Hauglid thanked William in the acknowledgments for his latest volume, A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions. Finally, William has boasted for some time that the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship "has expressed a strong desire to publish [his] articles on the KEP" and that his arguments concerning the Book of Abraham "will be published as a volume in the Maxwell Institute’s Studies in the Book of Abraham series." I consider both FAIR and the Maxwell Institute to be credible scholarly organizations, so these strike me as significant achievements on William's part.
The point: William Schryver is no longer just another man making misogynist and lewd comments to women on the Internet---after all, it isn't as if those are noteworthy or hard to find. He is now a respected apologist and aspiring LDS scholar making misogynist and lewd comments to women on the Internet. The consequences this will have on the scholarly process when it comes to William's contributions to Mormon academia need to be addressed.
For the record, William is known to have used the following MDB handles:
William Schryver
WilliamSchryver
Will Schryver
Some (myself included) have suspected and accused other community members of being William Schryver sock puppets. For the purposes of this thread, I will be ignoring these theories and only addressing material that was posted under William's confirmed handles.
Some Notes on My Source Material
Several other members of the MDB community have made attempts to compile and document William's poor behavior for the benefit of those who may not be as familiar with his online persona as most MDB members are. Most commonly cited and bumped on our forums is Pokatator's "William Schryver - The Vulgar Scatologist of LDS Apologetics" thread, which originated on 5/1/09.
I decided it was time for a new thread for three reasons:
(1) To my knowledge, no thread has focused exclusively on William's behavior towards women. While I find much of William's other behavior to be gratuitously rude, vulgar, and just generally unchristian, it is his contempt for women that strikes me as the most odious.
(2) In fairness to William, some community members have attributed statements to him that he never said. For example, William did not say, "I'm married to the kind of woman you have to masturbate to;" that was Kevin Graham (10/25/10). Due to the inaccuracies in citations that have been permeating this forum, nothing is cited below unless I can give the reader a link to the OP where William first said it.
(3) However, William has also denied making statements that he did in fact make (see the section on Emma Smith for an example) and has often complained that his remarks are being taken out of context. For brevity's sake, I cannot possibly cite the full conversation that preceded every statement cited here. Again, I have provided links to the original statements so that the reader can consult the context and decide for himself or herself. It is my own opinion that the vast majority of the material I have cited here would be inappropriate in any context.
My goal was to create something well-organized, well-documented, and easy to navigate. Hopefully I have succeeded in this aim.
I welcome corrections of any errors found in the OP and will update the OP accordingly. Please note that bold emphases are mine unless I say otherwise.
A Note to the MDB Moderators
ATTN: MODERATORS ~ You will note that I have posted this thread in the Celestial Forum, and that is where I would like the thread to remain.
It is true that most of William's remarks as cited in my OP are far from "Rated G." However, my own comments and arguments are polite, respectful, and (I hope) void of name-calling or other personal attacks. I believe that I am raising a serious issue here, so it is my goal to hold a mature "Rated G" discussion concerning a "Rated R" subject.
It seems that threads involving William Schryver quickly deteriorate into Terrestrial or Telestial quality. I'm asking in advance that comments which do not meet the standards of the Celestial Forum be split and removed to the appropriate forum rather than moving the thread in its entirety. Thank you.
UPDATE 5-25-2011: Sometime after the thread was started, the moderators asked for my permission to move the thread to Terrestrial, and I gave it. The thread was subsequently moved today.
Obsessed with Breasts andamp; a Little Black Dress
It all started (apparently) at the 2006 ExMormon Foundation Annual Conference, where community member KimberlyAnn was in attendance. On a thread here at MDB, William chimed in to state that he could remember meeting KimberlyAnn there, and had very vivid memories of the dress she was wearing (8/29/07):
William Schryver wrote: I did go to the exmo conference to hear Brent. And believe me, I remember very well you and your black dress. As I recall, you were struggling to keep the girls tucked in securely. ;-) But don't worry, I didn't feel threatened or ashamed. If one views God as an artist, then certainly the female breast is one of His masterpieces.
A rather unsettling level of detail to be recalling to a woman on the Internet whom one has barely met, but at the time their exchange over the matter seemed friendly enough.
The next day, William brought the dress up again of his own accord (8/30/07):
William Schryver wrote: Per Kimberly Ann’s request, and because my heart is still twitterpated at the recollection of her in slinky black dress
A week later, William raised the matter once again in another exchange with KimberlyAnn (9/6/07):
William Schryver wrote: I’m perfect in my imperfection. You’re perfect in your black dress.
KimberlyAnn (who had no recollection of their meeting at the ExMormon Conference in the first place) wisely ignored the remark.
That was the last anyone heard of the black dress until a year and a half later, when one of the participants recalled William's bizarre fixation with the matter from before. William offered this "defense" of his fixation (4/15/09):
William Schryver wrote: I might note that, if KA did not desire her breasts to be "ogled" on the evening in question, she might have selected from her wardrobe an item of clothing that more effectively covered the body parts in question. The black dress she chose could not have covered more than 40% of the breastage she brought to the occasion. Her attire would have been more appropriate for an AVN expo in Las Vegas.
"AVN" stands for Adult Video News, a trade magazine for the pornography industry. They hold an exposition in Las Vegas every January. So now William was comparing KimberlyAnn's attire to that of a porn star.
KimberlyAnn later attempted to put the matter to rest by posting a picture of herself in this dress that was allegedly so tawdry that William had been powerless to get it out of his head. Note that at this point in time, KimberlyAnn had undergone a breast reduction surgery, which she had blogged about publicly. KimberlyAnn's post (2/17/10):
KimberlyAnn wrote: I have to say this ongoing mentioning of a black dress I wore years ago to an Ex-Mormon conference is growing tiresome. It's being made out to be something it's not. The completely unwarranted brouhaha should have died down long ago. I thought by simply letting it go that the comments would stop, but that hasn't proven a successful strategy thus far.
So, I just now--and I do mean just now--put on the dress and snapped some pics of myself so that everyone can see for themselves just how not-a-big-deal the dress was and is. My daughter's camera is crappy. I'm literally wearing the dress over my exercise pants. My white socks and tennis shoes are still on, and they look very silly with a black dress, so there are no full-length shots. The mirror is dirty in my daughter's room. (I must remember to make her clean it soon!)
So, without further ado, the black dress that is supposedly fit for a porn conference:
*images snipped*
There. I'm not embarrassed of it. I don't think it's immodest. If someone has a problem with my dress, I'd say that someone is big-time repressed! Seriously, it's nothing one wouldn't see at any given restaurant on any given Friday night. Good grief!
KimberlyAnn has since removed the images in question, but I recall seeing them when she posted them and will vouch that the dress was remarkably tame. Note that KimberlyAnn states that she was deliberately ignoring William's repeat mentions of the dress in hopes that he would stop bringing it up.
William's reply (2/17/10):
William Schryver wrote: The breast reduction surgery appears to have been successful.
lol
1 Nephi 14:11
1 Nephi 14:11 reads, "And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people." So now, on top of fixating on her breasts and comparing her to pornography stars, William was calling KimberlyAnn a whore.
Concerning her breast reduction surgery, William also felt the need to add (2/17/10):
William Schryver wrote: KA was the one who blogged about her breast reduction surgery. It was hilarious. I laughed. I cried. I blew snot bubbles.
Some comments that William had made on the matter earlier and elsewhere (4/14/09 andamp; 4/14/09):
William Schryver wrote: You know, I was a little chagrined about the thought of you moving down a cupsize, but I have to say that, based on your Easter photo, it worked out very well; you look pretty damn hot for a thirty-something mother of 4!
William Schryver wrote: And I still say that Kimberly looks pretty damn hot for a thirty-something mother of 4. You go, girl!
None of this was enough for William. In October of last year, just before taking a four-month hiatus from our forums, William commented on the dress thing again---and this time, he wanted to make sure everyone understood that his LDS academic colleagues have been enjoying some good laughs over KimberlyAnn's breasts along with him (10/13/10 ):
William Schryver wrote: (Kimberly does remain somewhat famous [among a small circle of otherwise respected academics] on account of my descriptions of her having once squeezed her then more voluptuous spirit tabernacle into a slinky black three-sizes-too-small dress at the 2006 Exmormon Foundation conference in Salt Lake City, which I attended. One wouldn't have believed it possible to carry melons in a pair of thimbles suspended from a thread, but miracles happen almost every day in this jaded world of cynical disbelievers.)
This quote, complete with its lewd and unwelcome descriptions of KimberlyAnn's body, will be discussed in more detail below.
Just recently (4/14/11), William attempted to deny that his reference to 1 Nephi 14:11 was meant to call KimberlyAnn a whore. I suppose the only appropriate response to that is ...
2 Nephi 9:34.
"You're Only as Young as the Women You Feel"
Beastie is a female community member who has had a number of exchanges with William over the years. Throughout these exchanges, William has often made derogatory comments to beastie about her appearance and her age, in addition to bringing crude sexual material into his exchanges with her.
On 4/11/08, beastie became the second of several women on this forum to be described by William with some variation of the word bitch (liz3564 was the first; see below). In a reply to beastie, he quoted her as "Bitchie."
In that same exchange with William, commenting on the argument he was making, beastie said (4/9/08):
beastie wrote: IOW, sexual libertinism is only ok when God sanctions it first. Like all mob leaders, God bestows many "privileges" among his alpha males.
To which William replied (4/11/08 --- italics his, bold mine):
William Schryver wrote: Yes He does. And I am personally gratified that it bothers you so much. But don’t you worry, in the resurrection there will be no “alpha males” who will have any desire for your “Barbie doll-like” immortal body. I mean, I’m sure you’ll be nice to look at – but you’ll be good for nothing when it comes to the things that matter most. ;-)
Then later in the same post, William added:
William Schryver wrote: [Latter-day Saints] also believe that Joseph Smith knew exactly what he was talking about when he gave the interpretation of the following image:
[Image]
And they intend to do whatever is necessary to guarantee their capacity for such things in perpetuity.
The link to the image William posted no longer works, but he posted a link to the erect phallus of the Egyptian god Min from Facsimile No. 2 Figure 7 of the Book of Abraham. MormonThink.com has a copy of this image here.
In reply to the "Bitchie" appellation, beastie made this remark, alluding to the previous incidents with KimberlyAnn (4/11/08 --- emphasis hers):
beastie wrote: How surprising that a pretentious, flamboyant, self-flattering* man who prefers to comment on women’s cleavage than anything of substance would revert to this.
Actually, that would be unsurprising,wouldn’t it?
To which William replied (4/15/08):
William Schryver wrote: [Y]ou’re just jealous that I like Kimberly’s cleavage better than yours. But hey, at 50 what’s a woman to do? ;-)
In another exchange with William the following year, beastie commented on some of the material I quoted above, i. e. William's first comments on KimberlyAnn's breasts here at this forum and his unsettling fixation with them. Beastie said (4/15/09):
beastie wrote: Heh. I first noticed this trait in Will when he referred to his first meeting with KA long ago (too long ago for me to be able to find the post). IIRC, he stated he could hardly take his eyes off her, hinting strongly that his eyes were drawn mainly toward her breasts. It surprised me for a self-professed LDS believer to make such a comment, so I began to notice other comments he would make, as well. His comments about women's anatomy were frequent enough that he did, indeed, appear to be the cyber equivalent of a "breast-starer".
To this William replied (4/15/09 --- bold mine, italics his):
William Schryver wrote: beastlie, you are a lying, deceitful bitch of a woman.
I defy anyone to locate anything I have ever written on this board or elsewhere that could be reasonably seen as fitting the description you give above.
Anyone who reads my "Obsessed with Breasts and a Little Black Dress" post in this thread can see that beastie's memory was more than accurate. Furthermore, it seems that later remarks made by William have born out her observations as correct.
This lead to an argument between beastie and William as to whether or not William is really sexist in his dealings with women, i. e. whether or not he really fixates on their appearances, bodies, and sexuality when responding to them. beastie said (4/14/09):
beastie wrote: For another example, look at your response to me – you focused on my physical characteristics, emphasizing that no man could possibly be attracted to me. (btw, there are enough posters here who have seen pictures of me to render your comment silly)
You have a habit, and perhaps people in real life are too polite to point it out to you, or perhaps you don’t do it in real life, but you certainly do it on this board. You have a habit of sexualizing your comments to women, in responding to them in a way that objectifies them, in the proper sense of the word, not the over-used sense of the word. When you disagree with what a female poster says, you often insert some derogatory comment about her physical appearance. When you have reason to believe you would find a female poster physically attractive, you insert some flirtatious, sometimes suggestive comment while dismissing her comments. This all adds up to someone who cyber ogles women, sizing them up like pieces of meat in the market.
To which William responded (denying that one of his previous replies had focused on her physical appearance --- 4/14/09):
William Schryver wrote: No it didn’t, you deceitful shrew, it talked about your “ugly soul” that would “come through” and render you unattractive. You’re a liar and a propagandist.
beastie wrote: … sizing them up like pieces of meat in the market.
If so, I’d liken you to a ham hock.
In the same thread, beastie finally posted a picture of herself so that William would stop calling her ugly (she has since removed the picture). William replied (4/15/09):
William Schryver wrote: You are quite a hot little dish!
Who woulda thunk it?
Hey, if you're ever in town ... nah, never mind. :lol:
Since then William has mostly focused on poking fun at beastie's age---which is, incidentally, not much older than his. However, the sexual innuendo has remained. Last year, William participated in a lengthy thread that concerned Brent Metcalfe and Mark Hoffman. I simply cannot do justice to everything that was being said on that thread by summarizing here, and strongly encourage anyone who is interested to read the thread from the start. Of interest for the purposes of this section of my thread: at one point, beastie issued the following reply to William, making a mildly crude but non-sexual reference to the Old Testament's King David (9/4/10):
beastie wrote: Aw, ain't it cute. Little Wee Willie imagines he's David, but instead of a well-placed rock shooting forth from his sling, all he can manage is some hot air so rancid one wonders from which end it originated.
William immediately turned the exchange to the sexual (9/4/10):
William Schryver wrote: Settle down, beastsheba. I assure you I have no desire whatsoever to watch you bathe.
In the immortal words of Dodge Connelly:
Quote: "You’re only as young as the women you feel."
And I have no desire to feel sixty-five.
I imagine beastie had no desire to feel creeped out by William's jokes about (not) wanting to feel her up, but it seems it's too late for that now.
"Over Your Pretty Little Head"
In March of 2008, William was involved in a debate with Who Knows and several other MDB posters on Lamanites, Native Americans and DNA. William digressed from the topic to go off on a rant about WK's wife sleeping in her panties and a tank top. Community moderator liz3564 entered the thread for the first time to tell William to "Quit being such an ass" and stick to addressing WK's argument. To this William replied (3/18/08):
William Schryver wrote: Go away, Lizzie. This conversation is over your pretty little head. You want to moderate my comments, go right ahead. Put some bite in your bitchiness.
When liz3564 remained in the thread and attempted to engage William's arguments, he added (3/18/08):
William Schryver wrote: In retrospect, I have no idea if you even have a “pretty little head.” You see, I am as handsome as my avatar suggests, but I have serious doubts that you are as good looking as your avatar would lead us believe. I’ll bet you’re a wrinkled middle-aged woman with varicose veins and more good years behind you than ahead of you.
But he still wasn't done. When his ugly name-calling came up again later that same year, William added (7/1/08):
William Schryver wrote: By the way, liz, just for the record, I actually think you'd look quite hot in a tank top. On the back of a Harley. With a tattoo. Of a scorpion. On the small of your back.
Oooh, baby! ;-)
From my own observations on this forum, it seems that William is completely incapable of addressing a woman who disagrees with him without commenting on her breasts, her age, her appearance or her femininity. He especially enjoys finding a way to work in the word "bitch."
Other Incidents
To KimberlyAnn after she complained about William's overt sexism (3/18/08):
William Schryver wrote: Now get your fat ass back in the kitchen and whip up a batch of cookies before I slap you silly.
To community moderator harmony, William said (8/4/09):
William Schryver wrote: You're the toughest talking blowhard of a bitch I've ever seen.
"Grrrrrrr ... put up or shut up! Grrrrrrr ... I'm so intimidating when I snarl ..."
:lol:!
OK, you gnarly, snarly wench you, here's some scriptural references for you.
(Note that William often refers to harmony as "dissonance." I think he sees this as one of his witticisms or something.)
To harmony again, on the day after calling her "bitch" and "wench" (8/5/09 --- emphases his):
William Schryver wrote: I think the real problem is that harmony dislikes women, or rather, being a woman. She resents the fact (as she sees it) that she was born into an inferior (as she sees it) role, body, status, etc.
Of course, she's really not that uncommon in this respect. Modern feminism has now produced at least three generations littered with self-loathing women. It's one of the great tragedies of our times, if you ask me.
If only harmony would think to call more women "bitches" and "whores." Then we would know for sure how highly she thinks of them.
There's also this gem from William, posted just 3 days before his recent four-month hiatus from MDB (10/22/10):
William Schryver wrote: A despicable lie.
edited by harmony. Blatant personal attack. You're an inch from being suspended.
What did harmony edit out of William's post? What could he have possibly said that was so offensive that it was instantly moderated here in the land of free speech for all?
William called her a "c***." Just in case anyone reading this lives a very sheltered life: "c***" is "an abusive term usually considered the most offensive word [in reference to women] and even more forceful than bitch." I realize the original word is no longer preserved in William's post due to harmony's moderation, but there are several members of our community who remember this exchange and can vouch for this.
But remember, it's harmony who supposedly loathes women and being a woman. William has nothing but the utmost respect for his "c***s" and "bitches" and "whores."
To liz3564 (2/15/10):
William Schryver wrote: I regard you as too shallow and insignificant to bother with.
You're just the homely waitress wandering from table to table here in the singlewide, hoping that someone will get drunk enough to ask you out.
And finally, there's this gem which William lobbed at harmony just over two years ago (3/23/09):
WilliamSchryver wrote: Harmony is just bitter that the daily circle jerks in the Great and Spacious Trailer Park™ are the closest she has come to a bona fide sexual experience in over 40 years.
I simply cannot understand how her husband has resisted the urge to off himself for so long. Of all the men in human history who have felt compelled, no matter the cost, to “stick it out” with a bitch of a wife – Joseph Smith included – if anyone deserves the reward of 72 virgins in heaven, it’s that poor man.
From out of nowhere, William decides that speculation on the sex life of a female community member is his business, then drags her spouse into the matter, suggesting that mr. harmony should have committed suicide by now.
BTW, please note that William says here that Joseph Smith had to "stick it out" with a "bitch of a wife" and that he deserves 72 virgins in heaven as a reward for doing so. Joseph Smith had several dozen wives, so which "bitch" did William have in mind for this appellation? Turn to the next section to find out.
[Also: I recommend that any readers unfamiliar with the term "circle jerk" consult the Urban Dictionary entry on the matter.]
Emma Smith: "Champion Bitch" of the Restoration
In April of 2008, William was engaged in a debate with beastie wherein the latter made a point about some early Mormon women being permitted to have more than one husband while Emma Smith had just one. To this William replied (4/15/08):
William Schryver wrote: No, it’s just because Emma was a champion bitch and no one else would have her except Joseph. (Needless to say, I don’t think I’ll be checking out the new “Emma Smith as the Exemplar for All Women” movie.)
At least we can be sure which wife William had in mind when he commented almost a year later about Joseph Smith deserving 72 virgins in heaven for having to "stick it out" with a "bitch of a wife."
Not a very classy thing to say about "the Lord['s] . . . first female leader of this dispensation," IMHO.
Pokatator included this quote in his original "Vulgar Scatologist" thread of 5/1/09. William did not get around to addressing it specifically until over a year later. This was his original response (5/26/10):
William Schryver wrote: I don’t know where this came from, and it might very well be true, but I didn’t say it.
Note the reaction. William did not denounce the quote, and even indicated that he might agree with it; he simply denied saying it.
The "Vulgar Scatologist" thread was bumped once again in April 2011, and William again denied having called Emma Smith a "champion bitch" (4/1/11):
Will Schryver wrote: First of all, the bolded quote did not come from me. I have no idea where it came from, but Pokatator included several invented or misattributed quotes in his famous thread.
This time, I was the one who found the link to the original quote where William said it and posted it in the thread for his benefit. To that he replied (4/1/11 --- emphases his):
Will Schryver wrote: I stand corrected. I did not recall having said that (although I do recall having thought it on occasion).
So, I am guilty of calling Emma Smith a champion bitch.
Certainly a little harsh on my part. I sincerely apologize to Emma. Upon reflection, I would merely say she was an emotionally volatile, high-maintenance woman who would have been a royal pain in the ass to deal with as a wife, and I admire Joseph Smith all the more for having put up with her all those years.
So now "champion bitch" has been switched to "emotionally volatile, high-maintenance . . . royal pain in the ass." Amazingly, William seems to think this was a nicer thing to say about the Lord's "first female leader of this dispensation" than "champion bitch."
Blixa decided to take William to task on the matter (4/2/11):
Blixa wrote: It's because [William has] never read a book or done any archival reading or research on [Emma Smith]. He's only spewing bile here because he delights in trolling. His beloved Joseph Smith would slap him in the face for such discourtesy. I admit it's difficult to get one's mind around their relationship, but it is pretty clear that Emma and Joseph loved each other deeply and were inextricably bonded to each other. It's possible to put several kinds of psychological interpretation on that, and probably called for as well. But one indication of how far Emma differs from the she-cat of Will's pathetic imagination is how much Joseph trusted Emma with his money: she carried on a great deal of the business end of both family and church. I imagine, in fact, that it was her expertise at such "unwomanly" work that got up the nose of Elders Young and Co.
Later, in reference to the campaign to smear Emma Smith, Blixa added (4/2/11):
Blixa wrote: That BS was started by Brigham Young. Even Joseph's former polygamous wives who had run-ins with Emma in Nauvoo always spoke of her highly. And no "high-maintenance" woman would have been able to handle the number of sick people and children Emma nursed at home, especially at Nauvoo (nor run an establishment the size of the Mansion House which usually sheltered numbers of newly arrived or destitute members, well before its incarnation as a semi-hotel). After suffering the assassination of her beloved husband, having many of her assets stolen out from under her by BY (including some of Joseph Smith's personal papers), to finally have to endure the heartbreak of David's mental illness---anyone with a shred of human decency would have empathy for her trials.
After that lashing from Blixa, William finally replied (4/2/11):
Will Schryver wrote: Your posts have induced reflection on my part, and I have concluded that you make some very valid points, and that I need to seriously back off from my harsh criticism of Emma Smith.
In fact, I am going to prepare a formal apology for my unwarranted invective directed towards her. But first I am going to re-read Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, a book which I have already read three times, and have thoroughly enjoyed (despite some criticisms I could level against it). After I have immersed myself again in her story, I will speak to this topic again, here, on this message board.
I will be happy to update this section of my OP with a link to William's formal apology whenever he gets around to posting it.
Should William ever decide to apologize to the living women who have also found themselves the objects of his misogynist abuse over the years, I'll be happy to link to that as well.
Has William Ever Addressed This Behavior?
William has repeatedly claimed that his friends, colleagues, and fellow Latter-day Saints are supportive of his endeavors at Mormon Discussions, including his treatment of women.
Here is one of his earliest responses to complaints about his behavior (4/15/09):
William Schryver wrote: I feel neither regret nor contrition for anything I have ever written on this message board. I am willing to have it all read as I stand and listen at the day of judgment.
For another example, back when Pokatator's original "Vulgar Scatologist" thread broke, William's initial response (5/1/2009 --- emphases his):
William Schryver wrote: I don’t think you know anything about my relationships with the people you seem to think constitute “1st class apologists.”
If they are embarrassed by me, it doesn’t show in the regular conversations I have with many of them.
Is it possible, perhaps, that they don’t see things the way you do?
[SNIP]
By the way, thanks for going to such a concerted effort to gather together some of the gems of my days here in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™. Reading through them caused me to laugh out loud several times. Strangely enough, my guilt sensor was not activated even once. Maybe I’m just “past feeling.”
Note that Pokatator's thread contained a number of the quotes about women that I've included here. According to William, he feels no remorse for his behavior and the "1st class apologists" approve of it as well.
Later, on a thread wherein the OP included some of the quotes about women that I cited in this thread (8/13/10):
William Schryver wrote: The only thing funnier than the quotes you cited above is that you apparently believe they would paint me in a negative light in the eyes of the Saints.
And earlier that year, on another thread (2/17/10 --- emphasis his):
William Schryver wrote: You see, unlike you, I actually interact with these people on a regular basis. I know what they think about the second-rate propaganda that emanates from The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™. And my popularity among them is directly proportional to the degree to which I have said what others only wish they might have said.
As recently as October 2010, just before his four-month hiatus from this board, William specifically addressed complaints about his treatment of women. He claimed that he speaks not only on behalf of himself, but also on behalf of silent "others" who hold to the same opinions of the women in question as he does and stand by his statements with him (10/25/2010 --- italics his, bold mine):
William Schryver wrote: Speaking of which, let me hereby reiterate the comments I made towards the two allegedly female posters on this board (I emphasize "allegedly" because, seeing as how they both post anonymously, we therefore have no way of verifying their gender). In my ever-so-humble opinion, the MDB posters who go by the names "beastlie" and "dissonance" (or some variations thereof), are two of the most loathsome specimens of womanhood I have ever encountered in my half-century of life upon this planet. Of course, my opinion of these two females (or shemales, as the case may be) is shared by many, and therefore I speak also in behalf of several others whose association with the two creatures in question has produced sentiments similar to my own.
When another female community member, Lucinda, posted a brief witty reply to William on that same thread, his response (10/25/10):
William Schryver wrote: What do we have here? A new candidate for the GSTP "loathsome specimen of womanhood" award?
Sad.
It's bad enough to watch what happens to the male apostates, but when the women go down that path, it gets really ugly really fast ...
Apparently all it takes to make William's "loathsome specimen of womanhood" list is disagreement with William and some wit. I suppose this explains why William's misogyny manifests itself so often on our forums.
Finally, there is this reply from William wherein he attempts to specifically address the issue of his poor treatment of KimberlyAnn (10/13/10):
William Schryver wrote: You might be interested in the fact that a couple people were once given the task of investigating the basis for the oft-repeated claim of my wanton vulgarity. What was the result of this rather exhaustive investigation? It was that, although a few minor blushes were induced (amidst the belly laughs), there was deemed to be virtually no substantive basis for the allegations; quotes were found to have been routinely taken out of context, thus entirely altering their true meaning, and a large proportion of the "vulgarities" attributed to me were entirely fabricated out of whole cloth (like, for example, the frequently repeated allegation that I called the golden-haired Kimberly Ann a "whore.")
(Kimberly does remain somewhat famous [among a small circle of otherwise respected academics] on account of my descriptions of her having once squeezed her then more voluptuous spirit tabernacle into a slinky black three-sizes-too-small dress at the 2006 Exmormon Foundation conference in Salt Lake City, which I attended. One wouldn't have believed it possible to carry melons in a pair of thimbles suspended from a thread, but miracles happen almost every day in this jaded world of cynical disbelievers.)
It was, I must confess, ascertained that I did, in fact, obliquely refer to beastlie and dissonance (once each, as I recall) with variants on the appellative "bitch." But it was concluded that my judgment was so near to the facts of the matter that I could not be convicted by a jury of my peers. LOL!
William has specifically claimed that his fellow LDS apologists and scholars do not mind his misogyny, and that they join with him in his fixation on KimberlyAnn's breasts.
That's just creepy and perverse. I have no other words for it.
Have Other LDS Apologists andamp; Scholars Addressed William's Behavior?
Very few Latter-day Saint apologists and/or scholars have commented publicly on William's misogyny. Below are the exceptions I have noted.
Quite recently on our forums, David Bokovoy (aka "Enuma Elish") started a thread in which he defended William from some of the other attacks that were aimed at William by other posters. Beastie cited some of the same misogynist posts by William that I've presented here, then asked David how he could justify his defense of William in light of that. To this David replied (4/13/11):
Enuma Elish wrote: I cannot. I was not aware of these comments. I had seen others, but these make me all the more angry and I've been trying to get over my anger. I hate feeling this way. That anyone would post these comments to women is unacceptable, to say the least. That he would do so in the context of defending Mormonism sickens me.
As an active member of the Church, I offer my sincere apology for this behavior.
Then later added (to William) (4/13/11 --- emphases his):
Enuma Elish wrote: These people, as you refer to them, are still God's children, Will, every single one of them. No matter what criticisms they raise, these people deserve to be treated with kindness by one attempting to defend the Gospel of Christ. If you cannot do this, I would beg you, to simply disengage.
I recall that there were several posts where Simon Belmont acknowledged that William's remarks towards women were over the line. However, I don't recall specifics of what was said, and the terrible search engine at MDB won't allow me to search Simon's posts for general words like "women," so I cannot locate these posts right now. The Nehor also piped up once to indicate that William's post calling KimberlyAnn a whore and laughing over her breast reduction surgery lacked class, and Ttribe told William to "shut up" in response to the issue.
Wade Englund (wenglund) recently posted the following reply on Pokatator's "Vulgar Scatologist" thread. He was responding to the latest additions to the thread from Doctor CamNC4Me, which included some of the misogynist material that I've cited here (4/11/11):
wenglund wrote: Much appreciation to Cam for culling some of Will's more infamous parodies of this place. What makes them so interesting is how lost the parodies are on so many here. I mean, every day we all swim in this cesspool, and yet some of the good folks here seem oblivious to their own copious potty results floating all about them, and yet get all exercised when others infrequently parody them. I am pleased, though, to learn that I am not the only one who hangs on Will's every word. [Thumbs Up]
I'm personally at a loss as to what it is that Wade thinks William is parodying with his rank misogyny.
If anyone is aware of other comments on William's misogyny from LDS scholars and apologists that I may have missed, I'll gladly update this section of the thread.
For my own part, I have no expectation that any participant of any message board community ought to engage in "board nannying" over the participation of others. It does not matter to me that some participants may be religious and/or ideological allies with those engaging in bad behavior. I hold each man or woman responsible for his or her own behavior and do not assume that others approve of said behavior simply because they do not comment.
However, as noted above, William has specifically claimed that his LDS colleagues who are familiar with this forum approve of his behavior. In light of this claim by William, it is difficult to interpret the silence from other LDS apologists and scholars as well as the tacit approval of William as he has risen to prominence in the LDS community. I can only think of a few possibilities:
(1) Other LDS scholars and apologists are aware of this behavior and approve of it, but are attempting to save face by not admitting this in public. I sincerely hope that this is not the case as it would mean that the field of Mormon Studies is a very unfriendly place for women.
(2) Other LDS scholars and apologists are aware of this behavior and disapprove of it, but feel that William's forthcoming contributions to the Book of Abraham and Kirtland Egyptian Papers debates are valuable enough to warrant toleration of his misogyny. It is a necessary evil and they secretly hope that knowledge of this behavior will stay relegated to our "obscure message board."
(3) Other LDS scholars and apologists are not fully aware of his misogyny and would be appropriately appalled if it were documented for them.
I personally hope that more LDS apologists and scholars will use this thread as an opportunity to publicly comment on this issue.
Conclusion: Why It Matters
Earlier this year, I published a review of the NIV-2011 for Priscilla Papers. At one point in my review, I critiqued some remarks that had been made by one of the co-founders of the Council on Biblical Manhood andamp; Womanhood. There is a reason that I felt comfortable doing this. Even though I harbor deep and passionate disagreements with the scholar in question, and our disagreements even pertain to the role of women in ministry, I have never seen him display anything but civility towards those who disagree with him. He may write books on why women should not be ordained, but when he addresses women (and men) who disagree with him, he is always scholarly and respectful.
This is not the case with William Schryver. He is frequently hostile towards those who disgree with him and peculiarly hostile towards women, often invoking vitriolic and/or lewd remarks about their appearance, their age, their bodies, or their sexuality instead of sticking strictly to the subject under discussion. I have shown here how he has applied the terms "bitch" and "c***" to his female opponents in addition to using a Book of Mormon reference to imply that another female participant is a "whore." If William does go forward with publication of his Book of Abraham and Kirtland Egyptian Papers work, I cannot imagine that any female academic would feel comfortable addressing his arguments knowing how he routinely treats women who disagree with him. I know I would not.
Ultimately the scholarly process is about conversation, the free and open exchange of ideas by anyone who may be able to make a valid, thoughtful, and well-argued contribution. Bad ideas need to be refuted and refined while good ideas need to be promoted and added to the scholarly corpus. When it is not safe for women to contribute their voices and critiques to an academic conversation due to the misogyny of one of the participants, it's hard to imagine that true scholarship can take place as opposed to the perpetual echo chamber of some good ol' boys network. Which one of those scenarios is William Schryver's participation going to encourage?
Bridget Jack Jeffries aka "MsJack"
BA - Brigham Young University, 2005
MA Candidate - Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2011
| |
|
How to navigate:- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
| |
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.
Website © 2005-2021
Compiled With: Caligra 1.119
HOSTED BY
 |
| |
|
