FAIR's Mike Parker: Will Schryver "admitted and apologized"?

[_Blixa]

He wasn't too far wrong about emma. She was difficult to live with but so was joseph. They loved each other to the end and I am sure that emma still loved joseph till the day she died. Her reaction to polygamy was a little over the top especially if she believed her husband to be a prophet.

Now who's speculating...

Some one else who needs to read a book.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Some one else who needs to read a book.

I've read Mormon Enigma a couple of times--terrific book. What I see in Emma is someone who put up with a lot of crap from her husband, who was dragged all over the country, and yet supported her husband in what he was doing. But she drew the line at infidelity, and that doesn't make her difficult. It just makes her a normal human being. I know why the mopologists have to make Emma look bad because otherwise they have to admit Joseph was a self-centered guy who couldn't keep his pants on. Easier to say Emma was a champion bitch or difficult.

[_LDSToronto]

Just stating that she was difficult...so difficult that joseph was a little afraid of her in a nice way of course. I do believe that it was hyrum that showed her section 132 and got her reaction. Then we have this:

LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132:51-56 states:
And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

Nothing like a celestial pimp hand to keep a bitch in line, right whyme?

H.

[_Ludd]

Another interesting thread!

I just finished reading the comments section at millennialstar.org. I see that Schryver has denied having admitted or apologized for anything. I added a comment inviting people to provide examples of the bad behavior of Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver on the thread I started for that purpose. Maybe we'll get some good examples yet?

[_Bob Loblaw]

Another interesting thread!

I just finished reading the comments section at millennialstar.org. I see that Schryver has denied having admitted or apologized for anything. I added a comment inviting people to provide examples of the bad behavior of Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver on the thread I started for that purpose. Maybe we'll get some good examples yet?

That won't happen as long as you think libel, denigrating women, unwanted ogling and fantasizing, meddling in family affairs, harassment, and threats of violence are not "good examples." I guess that's what happens when peoples consciences are seared.

[_lulu]

Easier to say Emma was a champion bitch or difficult.

And a very male point of view.

Did Emma help create the church she wanted by lying to Joseph Smith III about polygamy?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Another interesting thread!

I just finished reading the comments section at millennialstar.org. I see that Schryver has denied having admitted or apologized for anything. I added a comment inviting people to provide examples of the bad behavior of Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver on the thread I started for that purpose. Maybe we'll get some good examples yet?

Hey, what do you know! Right around the same time that you visited our friendly board here, Schryver himself has surfaced to respond to Parker's comments!:

William Schryver says:
July 20th 2012 at 8:05 am

Unfortunately, I am getting ready to leave town this morning and cannot provide a thorough reply to the things said in this comment thread about me. I am rather mystified by Mike Parker’s comments, since I am not aware of ever having “acknowledged” having some kind of “problem” or “apologized” for some offense I have allegedly committed. Suffice it to say that I am in the process of preparing a rather lengthy blog entry concerning this entire issue, and I will post it as soon as I am able (probably no sooner than early next week.)

I categorically deny the allegations made against me here and elsewhere that I have routinely engaged in offensive online behavior. Bridget Jeffries et al. are, however, guilty of forgery, gross exaggerations, out-of-context misrepresentations, and otherwise blatant propaganda–all designed to suppress a completely non-apologetic article I had written concerning the forensic analysis John Gee and I made of the Joseph Smith Papyri in February 2010. This paper was to have been the cover article for JBMORS 20:2 (If I recall correctly); had already been fully edited, peer-reviewed, etc., and was literally pulled at the last minute in consequence of a “full-court press” applied to Jerry Bradford while Dan Peterson was out of the country last year.

I have not had a chance to read this entire comment thread, but I also saw this statement by Mike Parker:

“He was warned by friends that his online behavior was going to kill his scholarly career.”

This is untrue. It never happened. To my knowledge, none of my friends has ever believed any of the propaganda created by the MDB crowd. To my knowledge, none of my friends believes my “online behavior” to have been “vulgar” or “misogynist” or “sexist” or particularly offensive.

There is a myth that has been created about me, but it has no relationship to “things as they really were.”

Again, my upcoming blog post will provide a detailed history of the events of the past two years, since the MDB crowd first attempted to convince Scott Gordon and FAIR to remove me from the agenda for the 2010 FAIR conference. Yes, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, they have been in the business of attempting to suppress the publication of my research for over two years now …

Lol! Better watch out, Tuffy....

[_lulu]

Another interesting thread!

I just finished reading the comments section at millennialstar.org. I see that Schryver has denied having admitted or apologized for anything. I added a comment inviting people to provide examples of the bad behavior of Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver on the thread I started for that purpose. Maybe we'll get some good examples yet?

Hey, what do you know! Right around the same time that you visited our friendly board here, Schryver himself has surfaced to respond to Parker's comments!:

William Schryver says:
July 20th 2012 at 8:05 am

Unfortunately, I am getting ready to leave town this morning and cannot provide a thorough reply to the things said in this comment thread about me. I am rather mystified by Mike Parker’s comments, since I am not aware of ever having “acknowledged” having some kind of “problem” or “apologized” for some offense I have allegedly committed. Suffice it to say that I am in the process of preparing a rather lengthy blog entry concerning this entire issue, and I will post it as soon as I am able (probably no sooner than early next week.)

I categorically deny the allegations made against me here and elsewhere that I have routinely engaged in offensive online behavior. Bridget Jeffries et al. are, however, guilty of forgery, gross exaggerations, out-of-context misrepresentations, and otherwise blatant propaganda–all designed to suppress a completely non-apologetic article I had written concerning the forensic analysis John Gee and I made of the Joseph Smith Papyri in February 2010. This paper was to have been the cover article for JBMORS 20:2 (If I recall correctly); had already been fully edited, peer-reviewed, etc., and was literally pulled at the last minute in consequence of a “full-court press” applied to Jerry Bradford while Dan Peterson was out of the country last year.

I have not had a chance to read this entire comment thread, but I also saw this statement by Mike Parker:

“He was warned by friends that his online behavior was going to kill his scholarly career.”

This is untrue. It never happened. To my knowledge, none of my friends has ever believed any of the propaganda created by the MDB crowd. To my knowledge, none of my friends believes my “online behavior” to have been “vulgar” or “misogynist” or “sexist” or particularly offensive.

There is a myth that has been created about me, but it has no relationship to “things as they really were.”

Again, my upcoming blog post will provide a detailed history of the events of the past two years, since the MDB crowd first attempted to convince Scott Gordon and FAIR to remove me from the agenda for the 2010 FAIR conference. Yes, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, they have been in the business of attempting to suppress the publication of my research for over two years now …

Lol! Better watch out, Tuffy....

Before he leaves town, perhaps he could state whether he had a written agreement with MI and what it said.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Lol! Better watch out, Tuffy....

The question I have is whether the mopologists really believe Schryver's stupid denials or they're just being loyal to the cause.

[_Ludd]

Another interesting thread!

I just finished reading the comments section at millennialstar.org. I see that Schryver has denied having admitted or apologized for anything. I added a comment inviting people to provide examples of the bad behavior of Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver on the thread I started for that purpose. Maybe we'll get some good examples yet?

That won't happen as long as you think libel, denigrating women, unwanted ogling and fantasizing, meddling in family affairs, harassment, and threats of violence are not "good examples." I guess that's what happens when peoples consciences are seared.

I would love to see examples of: "... libel, denigrating women, unwanted ogling and fantasizing, meddling in family affairs, harassment, and threats of violence..."? Do you have some? That is exactly what I'm looking for.

Please post them in the thread I started for that purpose.