Jhall118 wrote:It makes me wonder when the OP posts just a summary of the email he sent to Daniel Peterson, but gives us an exact quote of the response he got. It sounds like we are missing part of the conversation.
Just being skeptical.
More of these communications can be found on MDD.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
First, Peterson could have diffused the current drama by responding to John’s email in a professional manner. For example, he could have said,
Dear John,
Yes, an article has been submitted to the Journal that reviews Mormon Stories. We haven’t made a decision on whether or not to publish it. As always, we will continue our endeavor to provide insightful and provocative articles, and I’m confident that if we publish this piece, it will meet those expectations.
Sincerely,
DCP
With a response like that, the story would now be that the MI might be reviewing Mormon Stories, Dehlin is afraid of criticism and is a tattle tale, and the MI is cool and professional. Nobody likes a tattle tale, so if DCP would have projected himself professionally, the GA would have likely taken his side in the assessment of the situation.
Second, we’ve now seen two battles between the Maxwell Institute and critics, where the GA’s become involved and take the critics side. It’s superlatively ironic to hear apologists complaining about censorship when it is the general authorities of the church they’re ostensibly defending that’s doing the censoring. What is this world coming to?
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Jhall118 wrote:It makes me wonder when the OP posts just a summary of the email he sent to Daniel Peterson, but gives us an exact quote of the response he got. It sounds like we are missing part of the conversation.
Just being skeptical.
More of these communications can be found on MDD.
Specifically, see posts #32 and #47 on this thread:
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Kishkumen wrote:Who knows what goes on, eh? Will is a shameless self-promoter, so he could be making everything up just for kicks. I wouldn't put it past him at this point. It could be that Daniel and others just keep their mouths shut when he lies about all of his play-dates with them because it seems to drive critics nuts. They may even think it is funny and add their own stories about get togethers for movies and popcorn, trips to El Azteca for "churros," and family picnics.
Do you really think so? Man, that would be just ....... bizarre! I just can't imagine such a crazy thing as that. What does it gain them to do something like that? I mean, why encourage anyone to really believe that they have a friendly relationship with such a toxic person as Schryver, when in fact they don't? I just don't get it. But then I don't get a lot of the things that these people do.
"I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
liz3564 wrote:Is Will even really considered a serious apologist? In my mind, I think he appears as more of a joke.
+1
I sort of feel sorry for Will because I think that he is used by apologists to get out a nasty rant. And, because it's Will, no one has to feel guilty. It is just Will being psychotic again.
Still, I can't understand why they wouldn't do everything they can to distance themselves from a psychotic, toxic person like Schryver.
"I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Carton wrote:Do you really think so? Man, that would be just ....... bizarre! I just can't imagine such a crazy thing as that. What does it gain them to do something like that? I mean, why encourage anyone to really believe that they have a friendly relationship with such a toxic person as Schryver, when in fact they don't? I just don't get it. But then I don't get a lot of the things that these people do.
The things they do in the name of sticking it to the critics are fairly well known and, in my opinion, no more bizarre than this speculation. If anything, this would be far less bizarre than other things they have actually done.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
RockSlider wrote:But the age old questions is still there, how did Will get access to the KEP when no-one else could?
This is a great question. I mean, the KEP have been like "TOP TOP SECRET" forever, haven't they? So how did a freaking nobody from nowhere who is not a scholar, never published any scholarly works ........ how did he manage to get the church to open the top secret vault and hand him the KEP and the Joseph Smith Papyri? It makes no sense at all!!
IT makes me wonder: do we really know that Schryver did get access to this stuff? Or is this (like his lunch dates and friendships with MI people) just a total fabrication dreamed up in Schryver's twisted mind?
What proof do we have that Schryver really was given access to the most guarded items in the church vault?
"I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Carton wrote:This is a great question. I mean, the KEP have been like "TOP TOP SECRET" forever, haven't they? So how did a freaking nobody from nowhere who is not a scholar, never published any scholarly works ........ how did he manage to get the church to open the top secret vault and hand him the KEP and the Joseph Smith Papyri? It makes no sense at all!!
IT makes me wonder: do we really know that Schryver did get access to this stuff? Or is this (like his lunch dates and friendships with MI people) just a total fabrication dreamed up in Schryver's twisted mind?
What proof do we have that Schryver really was given access to the most guarded items in the church vault?
Maybe he broke his kid's piggy bank and cashed in his 401k to make a generous donation.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Carton wrote:What proof do we have that Schryver really was given access to the most guarded items in the church vault?
I've wondered this all along.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.