DiscussMormonism.com

I am of the opinion that it should

I think they should too. However, I think Schryver's misogyny is a smoke screen to cover up the real reason they decided not to publish his arguments - they suck. That's saying something since the threshold to get an apologetic argument published is pretty low.

I think we should petition the NAMI to have him reinstated as a scheduled author.

Hello,

Just to put the Mohadist canard to rest (that critics don't want to see William Schryver published) I voted Yes. I absolutely want the Mormon church to publish Mr. Schryver and his theories as much as possible!

V/R
Dr. Cameron

If I were a faithful member I would vote 'No', and here's why.

by the way, I am making assumptions about certain lines of reporting/management/authority that may not be accurate - I have not taken the time to research the management structure. However, I don't think that it really matters too much - I think that the principle would hold true regardless of the details.

Whoever at NAMI took heed of Ms Jack's thread on William Schryver's online behaviour surely did not make the decision on his/her own to pull the plug on the publication - I would expect that, given the potential for bad publicity associated with the appearance of supporting Mr S, the matter was kicked upstairs to the boss.

If I were the boss at NAMI, I would want to be sure that my boss was onside - so I expect that the president of BYU would be involved. In fact, I'd be surprised if he did not consult senior GAs.

Does anyone really think that, in the chain of authority, nobody took the time to pray about the decision being made?

My conclusion is, from the faithful LDS PoV, those involved in the decision are convinced that their god supports their decision - and may even have made the decision. And I would not want them to go against what they know, beyond reasonable doubt, to be the right thing to do.

(OK, my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek as I typed the last para, but I mean, really, is this a totally unreasonable scenario?)

My real preference, by the way, would be to see the work published, whether by NAMI or not. I believe that Will put a lot of time, effort, and creativity into it, and feel it would be a shame if it were not to be published. There are almost certainly ideas there that should be discussed and debated. I'd be surprised at any scholar, pro or anti, who wished to suppress it. But I can understand that an organization might be reluctant to bring upon itself the kind of scrutiny that publication could bring.

Edit: My vote was inconsistent with my reasoning as a supposed TBM.

I don't think his online behavior should matter. His work should rise and fall on the merits. Lots of important researchers are privately terrible people. James Watson is a notorious asshole. I've read enough Will to be not impressed, to say the least, but I think his material probably falls in line with the kind of quality we can expect from the Maxwell Institute. So, probably.

I have no idea how to answer this poll. None of the options represent the KEY point. I personally think that an academic journal should publish an article based on its scholastic merit and on its having passed peer-review. Should Will Schryver's paper have academic merit and pass peer-review, then I think it should be published.

That being said, if it were to get through peer review with any fatal flaws intact, then this would be a humongous black mark for the MI, especially given the extenuating circumstances surrounding the paper.

George Miller wrote:I have no idea how to answer this poll. None of the options represent the KEY point. I personally think that an academic journal should publish an article based on its scholastic merit and on its having passed peer-review. Should Will Schryver's paper have academic merit and pass peer-review, then I think it should be published.

That being said, if it were to get through peer review with any fatal flaws intact, then this would be a humongous black mark for the MI, especially given the extenuating circumstances surrounding the paper.

Hopefully it will get a chance to be examined by a journal with a rigorous peer-review process.

Kevin Graham wrote:I am of the opinion that it should

Me too.

Kevin Graham wrote:I think we should petition the NAMI to have him reinstated as a scheduled author.

I completely agree. However, I believe this would have to come from MsJack et al. to have any effect. There's an opportunity here to take the high road. It is in everyone's best interest to see the NAMI publish Will's work. No research paper should be rejected based on anything but what's in the paper itself. The rejection of William's work (apparently after it had already been accepted) constitutes a bad day for free speech and academic freedom. It sets a terrible precedent and will have a chilling effect on the IRL-known participants of this message board.

Like it or not, journals are affected by the reputations of the people who publish in them. This is especially true for a journal with a strong ethical or ideological focus.