Schryver in 2012 perhaps?

[_Carton]

MsJack posted that she had received a private notification from a NAMIRS insider that the unpleasantl language used towards women by Schryver and complained of in her post on that topic had led to NAMIRS deciding that they wanted nothing to do with him or his article.

I don't doubt what MsJack said, but don't you find it a little odd that a "NAMIRS insider" would have been dealing with MsJack directly and telling her about MI editorial decisions? Don't you think that was what Peterson was alluding to in his TIME blog comment? Is it possible someone was just jerking MsJack around? Schryver sure doesn't act like someone who has been black-balled from the MI.

[_Kishkumen]

Why do you think he would run the risk of "alienating the apologetic establishment"? It sure seems to me that he is a darling of the "apologetic establishment". I view the "establishment" as being Peterson, Hamblin, Midgley, etc. Schryver fits right in with that group.

There is something of a stigma attached to the perception that one is doing this to turn a buck. And, frankly, that is precisely what I am advocating that he do. I think it is unlikely that he will do it for this very reason. Schryver is an interesting character, however. He has invested a lot of effort in courting the BYU apologetic elite. At the same time, he has all the makings of a charismatic crackpot rebel: his intimations of having his calling and election made sure, his absolute devotion to making his argument reach the predetermined conclusion that it is all as glorious as faithful members want to imagine it was, his self-presentation as this homespun, reactionary, autodidact renaissance man; he has all of the necessary ingredients to be a real phenomenon in the rural Utah desert. The firesides would be magnificent.

So, he is, in a sense, walking a tightrope. Thus far his deference to his superiors has kept him in the good graces of the BYU and COB crowd. They view him as a colorful, extremely dedicated, Porter-Rockwellish fellow. But he will never fully satisfy his narcissistic tendencies as long as he keeps one foot in the BYU establishment world. He would have to go full Meldrum in order to make the most of his talents. I think, however, that he will probably resist.

[_Chap]

MsJack posted that she had received a private notification from a NAMIRS insider that the unpleasantl language used towards women by Schryver and complained of in her post on that topic had led to NAMIRS deciding that they wanted nothing to do with him or his article.

I don't doubt what MsJack said, but don't you find it a little odd that a "NAMIRS insider" would have been dealing with MsJack directly and telling her about MI editorial decisions? Don't you think that was what Peterson was alluding to in his TIME blog comment? Is it possible someone was just jerking MsJack around? Schryver sure doesn't act like someone who has been black-balled from the MI.

I do not feel like going back over all the relevant threads, but I seem to recall that there were major howls of outrage from Schryver supporters and sock puppets about the evil anti-Mormon feminists having prevented his work from appearing with NAMIRS, which is where he had been saying it would appear, and where there are no longer any signs of it appearing.

It certainly sounded very much as if a hit had been scored, and a painful one at that. DCP just seems to be dancing around to avoid having to say anything relevant on the subject, which is more or less what we might expect.

[Guest]

I don't doubt what MsJack said, but don't you find it a little odd that a "NAMIRS insider" would have been dealing with MsJack directly and telling her about MI editorial decisions?

Not when you recall that MsJack is a Brigham Young University alumna and former research assistant for the Religion Department who counts quite a few BYU employees and professors as personal friends.

I stand by the update that I posted on my thread on May 19, 2011. I had 100% confidence in the information I received and would not have gone public with it had that not been the case.

To my knowledge, William has confirmed the essential details of what I reported in two different places. Doctor Scratch started this thread on May 22, 2011. Two days later, William replied (via Nomad):

I regret to say that it is true what has been reported about the traitors Hauglid and Bokovoy. My only commentary on their actions is: “You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.”

I never reported a word about either Bokovoy or Hauglid, but apparently other people think they were involved (William included).

Over at MDDB, William said to Chris Smith on October 15, 2011:

Your disingenuousness is disgraceful. I have made only one unfulfilled promise: that a rebuttal to your scroll-length paper was about to be published. And, as you well know, it WAS about to be published; was already typeset and was to have been the cover article of the most recent issue of The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture when your friends and cohorts in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park produced their Schryver Smear Sheet in a one-shot desperation attempt to silence your opponent's arguments. Of course, you know all of this and were no doubt quite pleased with the results of your friends' endeavor, for it permitted you to proclaim victory in this debate. So congratulations on your friends having bought you a few months of illusory triumph.

You're all free to draw your own conclusions on how reliable and trustworthy I am.

In any case, it's nice to hear that William is still plugging away at a critique of "traitor" Brian Hauglid and "career anti-Mormon" "Chrissy" Smith. I'm sure his critiques (if they ever see the light of day) will be nothing but clinical, professional, and free of personal bias.

EDIT: I made a mistake in my this post. "Chrissy" was a reference to Chris K. Salmon, not Chris Smith. (Not that calling someone as polite and professional as Chris Salmon by the diminutive "Chrissy" is really any better than calling Chris Smith "Chrissy," but I'm ever concerned with accuracy.)

[_Runtu]

In any case, it's nice to hear that William is still plugging away at a critique of "traitor" Brian Hauglid and "career anti-Mormon" "Chrissy" Smith. I'm sure his critiques (if they ever see the light of day) will be nothing but clinical, professional, and free of personal bias.

I just thought you should know that I am impressed with how you have handled this situation, despite all the garbage that has been thrown at you. If you had cherry-picked quotes from Will that were unrepresentative of his online persona, he might have had a valid reason to complain. But you didn't do that. Everyone knows that, even Will. I would imagine that, had anyone been able to make the case that you were "smearing" Will, the Maxwell Institute would have pressed on with the publication. But no one did or could make that case.

[_Carton]

Not when you recall that MsJack is a Brigham Young University alumna and former research assistant for the Religion Department who counts quite a few BYU employees and professors as personal friends.

I stand by the update that I posted on my thread on May 19, 2011. I had 100% confidence in the information I received and would not have gone public with it had that not been the case.

Don't misunderstand me, MsJack, I believe you are telling the truth. I just wonder if it might be possible that people at the MI are not telling the truth.

To my knowledge, William has confirmed the essential details of what I reported in two different places. Doctor Scratch started this thread on May 22, 2011. Two days later, William replied (via Nomad):

I regret to say that it is true what has been reported about the traitors Hauglid and Bokovoy. My only commentary on their actions is: “You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.”

I never reported a word about either Bokovoy or Hauglid, but apparently other people think they were involved (William included).

Very brave of Hauglid and Bokovoy to do what they did! Let's hope they are the leaders of a new direction in Mormon apologetics.

Over at MDDB, William said to Chris Smith on October 15, 2011:

Your disingenuousness is disgraceful. I have made only one unfulfilled promise: that a rebuttal to your scroll-length paper was about to be published. And, as you well know, it WAS about to be published; was already typeset and was to have been the cover article of the most recent issue of The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture when your friends and cohorts in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park produced their Schryver Smear Sheet in a one-shot desperation attempt to silence your opponent's arguments. Of course, you know all of this and were no doubt quite pleased with the results of your friends' endeavor, for it permitted you to proclaim victory in this debate. So congratulations on your friends having bought you a few months of illusory triumph.

You're all free to draw your own conclusions on how reliable and trustworthy I am.

Again, I have no doubt that you are trustworthy. I'm just not sure if the people at the MI are trustworthy. The one sentence in Schryver's post above that is very interesting is: "So congratulations on your friends having bought you a few months of illusory triumph." That seems like he's saying that his paper is still going to published, and he seems to imply that it will happen through the MI. Plus, you remember how Peterson said lots of things on this board, before he left, about how he had read your thread and wasn't convinced. Something like that (I don't feel like searching out the posts.) I have also seen Peterson post things to effect of: "I want to see Will's research published as soon as possible." So I wonder if maybe Peterson has pulled strings and that's why Schryver is acting so confident and talking about his articles/book being published in the near future. Makes you wonder.

In any case, it's nice to hear that William is still plugging away at a critique of "traitor" Brian Hauglid and "career anti-Mormon" "Chrissy" Smith. I'm sure his critiques (if they ever see the light of day) will be nothing but clinical, professional, and free of personal bias.

I'm sure. lol

[_Kishkumen]

I think it is safe to say that Will is the one who is not trustworthy. Reports of his successes and progress are usually highly exaggerated. Frankly I am surprised that he even got together a FAIR presentation. That was the first and last accomplishment he managed to pull off in this whole mess. We'll see whether he comes through this time.

[_MsJack]

I made a mistake in my last post. "Chrissy" was a reference to Chris K. Salmon, not Chris Smith. (Not that calling someone as polite and professional as Chris Salmon by the diminutive "Chrissy" is really any better than calling Chris Smith "Chrissy," but I'm ever concerned with accuracy.)

Runtu ~ Thank you for your kind words and support.

Carton ~ I have complete confidence that my source was neither "jerking my chain" nor unknowingly giving me false information about the MI's decision to cancel William's publication(s). I can't really reveal how I know this without giving out more information about my source, which I will not do.

I was there when Dan completely dismissed my aggregate of William's misogyny, and I'm aware that William has been thundering that his work will be published after all. As I see it, that leaves four possibilities: (1) the MI has changed its mind; (2) William has found another outlet for publication; (3) William will be self-publishing or publishing through another venue that lacks a peer review process, or (4) William is just making stuff up and dangling carrots for his sycophants. And the truth is, I'm pretty indifferent to whichever it is.

The purpose of my thread was never to bar William from publication forever. I had no idea it would even have the effect of temporarily halting his publication(s)---assuming that's what has happened---and was quite shocked when that news reached my inbox. My primary objectives were to end his ugly treatment of women and to force the LDS apologetics community to confront the issue. I'm satisfied that both of these objectives were achieved. While I do not believe that William has had a change of heart and repented and come to understand why it's wrong to treat women the way he did, I do believe that he understands that behaving that way can get in the way of his other goals (even if he'll never admit this). That may be enough of a leash. Only time will tell.

In the weeks after I posted my thread, I received an outpouring of private "thank yous" from people involved with or interested in LDS apologetics who were concerned about William, but hesitant to speak out against a fellow apologist. Especially someone like William who was pretty much demonizing anyone who tried to express concern to him and accusing them of backstabbing, treachery, apostasy, etc. But I know for sure now that there are people in the apologetics community who care about things like this and will take action if necessary.

I've done my best to avoid these "zomg wut is Will doing next??" threads for the past seven months, and that's because I don't much care what William is doing next. There is no encore to my misogyny thread in the works, and unless William reverts back to his former behavior in force, there never will be. I made my point and I've moved on. If William's work can pass a peer review process, then he's as welcome in Mormon studies as anyone. If it can't, then his work will never have much traction anyways.

I personally think that William cannot get his feral behavior under control and that he will prove an embarrassment to anyone who chooses to associate with him for reasons that go far beyond misogyny. But anyone who can't see that in his online behavior by this point is probably never going to see it.