Is Schyver Nibley's Biological Son?

[_Shulem]

With regard to Hugh Nibley's apologetics of Facsimile No 3., and simple comments William-boy has said about the Facsimile, I have far more respect for William-boy. At least he openly denied the Explanations as a revelation while Nibley kept that rediculous door wide open. Nibley was a liar and a cheat. William-boy is just a fool, but a fun fool at that.



Paul

[_Shulem]

Is this another revelation of Joseph Smith? A marvelous work and wonder! Maybe it's Hugh Nibley's DNA.



Paul O

[_Eric]

It seems we Mormons have a knack for doing this kind of thing. Even though I do not respect Nibley's scholarship on the Book of Abraham and such subjects, I respect him as a good and decent person. He was always kind and friendly with me when I was a young punk BYU-student. His name really deserves better than this kind of thing.

Good and decent people usually don't molest their young daughters.

Just sayin'.

[_Carton]

It seems we Mormons have a knack for doing this kind of thing. Even though I do not respect Nibley's scholarship on the Book of Abraham and such subjects, I respect him as a good and decent person. He was always kind and friendly with me when I was a young punk BYU-student. His name really deserves better than this kind of thing.

Good and decent people usually don't molest their young daughters.

Just sayin'.

In Nibley's defense, I never thought the charges were very believable. Don't get me wrong, Nibley is the one who made "lying for the Lord" the standard practice of the Mopologist. But I was never all that convinced that his daughter's "recovered memories" were very credible.

[_Kishkumen]

Friendly Appalachian nicknames aside, exactly why do you believe it necessary to be so, well, rude? Do I know you?

You need to decide whether you are Will or not; then we can talk about what I think is necessary and why.

My point remains the same. If Tabitha is so gullible as to take a few vague statements and construct a huge conspiracy theory that is this laughably absurd, then this is a forum I want to be a member of!

Classic Will rhetoric.

In any case, Will intimated lots of interesting things. Others will use those statements for their own purposes. I obviously have stated my disbelief in the theory, and I do not take responsibility for the speculations of others. I regret that Will provided others such a rich supply of material to use against Mormonism and people like Hugh Nibley.

My feeling is that if one is to be critical, it is best to be as fair as possible. Will's contributions, being unprincipled, practically invite others to abandon fairness.

[_Carton]

I suggest you read the quotes RayAgostini. This was not my theory, but the conclusion Mr. Schryver clearly wished readers to come to. A lot of people on the board seemed to know about this issue, and I wondered if what Schyrver was suggesting was true.

I suggest, with respect, Mr/Ms Tabitha, that you become more acquainted with "Mr. Schryver's" sense of humour.

Yes, Tabitha. And to get more acquainted with Schryver's kind of humor, I would recommend watching old videos of Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor. Just make sure the kids aren't around.

[_Carton]

My feeling is that if one is to be critical, it is best to be as fair as possible. Will's contributions, being unprincipled, practically invite others to abandon fairness.

Schryver is probably the best friend Mormon critics have ever had, and the worst enemy of Mormon apologetics. That's why I just don't understand why someone like Daniel Peterson would come to his defense. It makes you wonder if Peterson secretly wishes he could get away with the kind of stuff Schryver does.

[_Carton]

The biggest question mark in all of this for me is this: if it's true, why hasn't Will been more vocal about it? I can't quite figure out what he would stand to lose by insisting upon his "heritage."

This is a good point. Of course, if this were true, an attention whore like Schryver would have been shouting it from the housetops.

What would he have to gain by keeping it secret?

[_static]

You need to decide whether you are Will or not; then we can talk about what I think is necessary and why.

My name isn't Will or Willard, at least I am relatively sure without referencing my birth certificate. I don't have a way to prove it to you, but I'm not sure I should feel like I have to. You see, you don't know me, and I don't know you. I just happened to be lurking when I saw this amazing thread, and it inspired me to encourage Tabitha to pursue this vein of research to its logical conclusion.

Without such research, for example, the public would have never known that John F. Kennedy was not assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, but by a well-orchestrated, cross-agency government operation. We would have never known that Franklin D. Roosevelt allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor so that the United States could enter World War 2 without public opposition.

In any case, Will intimated lots of interesting things. Others will use those statements for their own purposes.

Yes, of course they will. That's why I encourage any incongruous conspiracy theory based upon various vague statements to be researched to their logical conclusion!

Without such research, we would never know that 9-11 was an inside job!

I obviously have stated my disbelief in the theory, and I do not take responsibility for the speculations of others. I regret that Will provided others such a rich supply of material to use against Mormonism and people like Hugh Nibley.

I don't hold you responsible for believing the theory.

[_Eric]

In Nibley's defense, I never thought the charges were very believable. Don't get me wrong, Nibley is the one who made "lying for the Lord" the standard practice of the Mopologist. But I was never all that convinced that his daughter's "recovered memories" were very credible.

It has been reported that I claim the memories of the abuse were recovered in therapy sessions. This is categorically untrue.

http://www.leavingthesaints.com/settingrecord.htm