Currently at MADB - Will loses his mojo

[_harmony]

However, Will keeps hinting at supporters who are well placed and disagree with David enough to use Will as a liaison of some kind to warn David that he is apparently treading the path of David Wright.

This cannot be. Not that Will has supporters, but that they are having Will be their liaison to warn David. That defies reality as we know it. The day any LDS scholar asks Will to be a liaison with anyone is the day the sun is green and the grass is bright pink.

Will's a loud-mouthed wannabe. No self-respecting LDS scholar would give him an assignment of any importance.

[_Trevor]

Will's a loud-mouthed wannabe. No self-respecting LDS scholar would give him an assignment of any importance.

Uh, but Brian Hauglid has clearly been working with Will on the KEP.

[_Kevin Graham]

But Will has misrepresented even his closest ally, Brian Hauglid, on so many differnt occasions that Brent Metcalfe doesn't even bother debating Will anymore.

It isn't that Will has quickly become irrelevant, its just that he never was relevant.

[_harmony]

Will's a loud-mouthed wannabe. No self-respecting LDS scholar would give him an assignment of any importance.

Uh, but Brian Hauglid has clearly been working with Will on the KEP.

Perhaps I should define self-respecting LDS scholar. Anyone who consorts with the likes of Will puts themselves outside that group.

[_Trevor]

It isn't that Will has quickly become irrelevant, its just that he never was relevant.

Then it seems to me that it would be in the best interests of scholars like Hauglid to cut this guy loose. If he is using them for his own purposes and in ways that they don't want to be used, then it would probably be a good idea for them to avoid the possible damage he could do to their reputations (to name only one aspect of the harm Will is doing).

[_Trevor]

Perhaps I should define self-respecting LDS scholar. Anyone who consorts with the likes of Will puts themselves outside that group.

And this is precisely my point. That argument is too easy to make for it to be helpful to LDS scholars. We are no longer talking about some unknown Cranston character who is registering complaints, but a faithful LDS scholar like David Bokovoy.

My question to these established LDS scholars: would you really prefer to have people think that you would back Will Schryver over David Bokovoy? It doesn't matter whether you actually do, because Will implies that you do. Unless you speak up, then your silence will settle the matter.

[_Kevin Graham]

Well, Will did come up with the dittograph argument and Hauglid and his little clan of "text-critics" have been trying to remodel it into a coffin nail for the dictation theory. It is really sad when you have to hang your entire argument on something as flimsy as this.

Since 2007, Hauglid has been rewarding Will by giving him some sense of importance.

[_Kevin Graham]

Then it seems to me that it would be in the best interests of scholars like Hauglid to cut this guy loose. If he is using them for his own purposes and in ways that they don't want to be used, then it would probably be a good idea for them to avoid the possible damage he could do to their reputations (to name only one aspect of the harm Will is doing).

One incident immediately comes to mind. A couple years ago Dan Vogel mentioned that Hauglid had been admitting he was wrong on several point in his FAIR presentation, and that Hauglid admitted to being "green" on the subject. Will immediately jumped in and implied Vogel didn't know what the hell he was talking about. Juliann jumped on that bandwagon too challenging the source. Vogel referred to an email exchange betweeh Brent and Brian. Brent came to the forum and threatened to post the entire email exchange, and said he would do so only if Brain denied anything Vogel had said. So he asked Will to find out if Brian denied it, and if he wanted him to post the exchange. Well, Brian contacted Brent privately and requested that they drop the matter, to which Brent kindly agreed. Brent wasn't out to make Brian look like a bumbling fool who admitted errors in what he had previously declared to be so obviously factual. But he very well could have, and it almost happened because of the idiot Will Schryver who tried to pick a fight, insisting he knew Hauglid's views better than Vogel. What an embarrassing moment that would have been, all because of Schryver's pride.

My question to these established LDS scholars: would you really prefer to have people think that you would back Will Schryver over David Bokovoy? It doesn't matter whether you actually do, because Will implies that you do. Unless you speak up, then your silence will settle the matter.

I'm pretty confident no scholar wants to run to Will's defense on the forum. You don't see Dan Peterson do it unless Bill Hamblin is already in on it. But usually Hamblin is respnding to something Metcalfe or Vogel has said. I'd be interested to hear Hamblin's views. But Will keeps alluding to Skousen and a bunch of other experts who are taking his dittograph theory and running with it in the upcoming publication, so I guess we will see soon enough.

[_Dr. Shades]

But Will keeps alluding to Skousen and a bunch of other experts who are taking his dittograph theory and running with it in the upcoming publication, so I guess we will see soon enough.

When you say "the" upcoming publication, has this been confirmed?

Will has been talking about some mysterious apologetic coup on the horizon, and how many top-tier apologists are working day and night on it, but I'm beginning to have my doubts about it all. Is there anyone making a claim about such a publication outside of Schryver himself?

[_Trevor]

I'm pretty confident no scholar wants to run to Will's defense on the forum. You don't see Dan Peterson do it unless Bill Hamblin is already in on it.

I am not expecting them to come to Will's defense, but it might be time for them to come to their own defense. Will's suggestions have the potential of implicating any one of these LDS scholars with whom he claims to associate. He bandies about their names to provide himself with some kind of legitimacy, and so when he speaks of unnamed "others" who are concerned about Bokovoy, who are we to imagine he is talking about? I am not engaged in speculation here. I am simply pointing out that the clear inference to draw is that Will wants us to imagine that these respected LDS scholars are those "others."

If I were one of these scholars, I would put an end to his misuse of their reputations.