DiscussMormonism.com

I’d like so comments about whether or not I’m synthesizing all of this correctly.

Over the last couple of years, Will Schryver and Greg Smith were both penciled-in to be published by the Maxwell Institute. On both occasions, anti-apologists believed that the forthcoming publications would reflect poorly on the LDS Church, and either directly or indirectly informed a General Authority about their concerns. In both cases, the general authority was sympathetic to the anti-apologists. In both cases, the GA exercised his influence to pull the plug on what the MI wanted to publish. In both cases, apologists whined about how they were being censored.

Is something that seismic really going down?

I'm unaware of any GA involvement in the Schryver Affair. I thought that was handled wholly within the Maxwell Institute.

I thought it was the MI itself that decided to pull the plug on Schryver's Middle Earth Essay, due to potential embarrassment from his online misogyny.

Analytics wrote:I’d like so comments about whether or not I’m synthesizing all of this correctly.

Over the last couple of years, Will Schryver and Greg Smith were both penciled-in to be published by the Maxwell Institute. On both occasions, anti-apologists believed that the forthcoming publications would reflect poorly on the LDS Church, and either directly or indirectly informed a General Authority about their concerns. In both cases, the general authority was sympathetic to the anti-apologists. In both cases, the GA exercised his influence to pull the plug on what the MI wanted to publish. In both cases, apologists whined about how they were being censored.

Is something that seismic really going down?

I think the big difference between these two incidents is that in the former the plug was pulled due to concerns about how the author's behavior would reflect on MI and the Church while in the later the concerns were based on how the article itself would reflect on the Church. Ironically in both cases the apologist tried to focus the blame on the critics rather than questioning the powers that be who made the editorial decision.

Doctor Scratch wrote:

Analytics wrote:I’d like so comments about whether or not I’m synthesizing all of this correctly.

Over the last couple of years, Will Schryver and Greg Smith were both penciled-in to be published by the Maxwell Institute. On both occasions, anti-apologists believed that the forthcoming publications would reflect poorly on the LDS Church, and either directly or indirectly informed a General Authority about their concerns. In both cases, the general authority was sympathetic to the anti-apologists. In both cases, the GA exercised his influence to pull the plug on what the MI wanted to publish. In both cases, apologists whined about how they were being censored.

Is something that seismic really going down?

I'm unaware of any GA involvement in the Schryver Affair. I thought that was handled wholly within the Maxwell Institute.

Thanks for the clarification. Would it be fair to say that there is still the commonality in that a power above the editor intervened in an editorial decision?

Fence Sitter wrote:Ironically in both cases the apologist tried to focus the blame on the critics rather than questioning the powers that be who made the editorial decision.

Exactly!

Analytics wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote:I'm unaware of any GA involvement in the Schryver Affair. I thought that was handled wholly within the Maxwell Institute.

Thanks for the clarification. Would it be fair to say that there is still the commonality in that a power above the editor intervened in an editorial decision?

According to what I was told--yes. In both cases, the Executive Director of the Maxwell Institute--M. Gerald Bradford--wound up siding against the "Old Guard" Mopologists. He was the one who ultimately made the decision to kibbosh the Schryver publication (though, again, I've heard that this decision might be overruled in the future), and it's believed that he was the one who torpedoed the Greg Smith "hit piece."