Scratch wrote:Oh! Well, I'm glad he finally got back to you. I remember you saying to me that you were very interested to see his response. I remember, too, that he never replied here, and that you wound up having to ask him a second time over at The Cafeteria. Regardless, I'm glad that he finally gave you an answer.
Thanks!
The reason Dan didn't answer publicly on Cafeteria was that he was in the middle of traveling, and he wanted to research my question a bit more. When he did give me an answer, it was just easier to answer me by email because we were talking about other things as well.
harmony wrote:Might want to rethink a couple of those... they've been closely associated with William, a more "mean-spirited" individual would be difficult to find. (and I'm pretty sure I can say that, since I'm one of his favorite targets)
I will happily settle for people not being nasty themselves. We all associate with nasty characters on occasion. Since Will is only nasty to "apostates" and liberals he gets a pass from many people who should know better.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
harmony wrote:Might want to rethink a couple of those... they've been closely associated with William, a more "mean-spirited" individual would be difficult to find. (and I'm pretty sure I can say that, since I'm one of his favorite targets)
I will happily settle for people not being nasty themselves. We all associate with nasty characters on occasion. Since Will is only nasty to "apostates" and liberals he gets a pass from many people who should know better.
Is Will even really considered a serious apologist? In my mind, I think he appears as more of a joke. 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.
Liz wrote:Is Will even really considered a serious apologist? In my mind, I think he appears as more of a joke. 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.
Oh Daniel Peterson and Royal Skousen, perhaps others too, seem to consider Will a friend. Daniel even defends the guy as "clever" or some such. It really makes one wonder.
I think you can chalk it up to a general lack of concern for how this looks to others. Will spews his carefully, laboriously crafted slams, and some apologists chortle with glee. And others sit on the sidelines wishing the guy would find a new hobby, but afraid to speak up when Will appears to have such warm relations with the guys he buys lunch at the Maxwell Institute.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Liz wrote:Is Will even really considered a serious apologist? In my mind, I think he appears as more of a joke. 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.
Oh Daniel Peterson and Royal Skousen, perhaps others too, seem to consider Will a friend. Daniel even defends the guy as "clever" or some such. It really makes one wonder.
I think you can chalk it up to a general lack of concern for how this looks to others. Will spews his carefully, laboriously crafted slams, and some apologists chortle with glee. And others sit on the sidelines wishing the guy would find a new hobby, but afraid to speak up when Will appears to have such warm relations with the guys he buys lunch at the Maxwell Institute.
Yeah, I never have understood the dynamic of friendship there. Although, I will say I think that the real friendship that gives Will clout in the apologetic world is his friendship with Skousen. It seems to me that they apparently have a significant history as close friends. He and Dan are more of "friendly acquaintences". From what I gather from Dan, anway, he doesn't really associate with Will that much. Dan also did genuinely attempt to "rein Will in" when he was acting unprofessionally with your FAIR article. I am just speculating here, but maybe the reason Dan doesn't do more to outwardly speak up against Will's antics is due to Will's friendship with Skousen? I don't know. I could be totally offbase there. What does seem to come across in my conversations with Dan is that the main reason he doesn't consider much of what Will says is because he simply doesn't take the time to read him, speak with him, or pay him much mind.
liz3564 wrote:Yeah, I never have understood the dynamic of friendship there. Although, I will say I think that the real friendship that gives Will clout in the apologetic world is his friendship with Skousen. It seems to me that they apparently have a significant history as close friends. He and Dan are more of "friendly acquaintences". From what I gather from Dan, anway, he doesn't really associate with Will that much. Dan also did genuinely attempt to "rein Will in" when he was acting unprofessionally with your FAIR article. I am just speculating here, but maybe the reason Dan doesn't do more to outwardly speak up against Will's antics is due to Will's friendship with Skousen? I don't know. I could be totally offbase there. What does seem to come across in my conversations with Dan is that the main reason he doesn't consider much of what Will says is because he simply doesn't take the time to read him, speak with him, or pay him much mind.
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.
At this point it is neither here nor there. If they want to let a mangy old dog slobber on visitors, that is their business. But I will have a little fun ribbing them over it, just as they would if they were in my shoes.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
liz3564 wrote:Yeah, I never have understood the dynamic of friendship there. Although, I will say I think that the real friendship that gives Will clout in the apologetic world is his friendship with Skousen. It seems to me that they apparently have a significant history as close friends. He and Dan are more of "friendly acquaintences". From what I gather from Dan, anway, he doesn't really associate with Will that much. Dan also did genuinely attempt to "rein Will in" when he was acting unprofessionally with your FAIR article. I am just speculating here, but maybe the reason Dan doesn't do more to outwardly speak up against Will's antics is due to Will's friendship with Skousen? I don't know. I could be totally offbase there. What does seem to come across in my conversations with Dan is that the main reason he doesn't consider much of what Will says is because he simply doesn't take the time to read him, speak with him, or pay him much mind.
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.
At this point it is neither here nor there. If they want to let a mangy old dog slobber on visitors, that is their business. But I will have a little fun ribbing them over it, just as they would if they were in my shoes.
liz3564 wrote:Although, I will say I think that the real friendship that gives Will clout in the apologetic world is his friendship with Skousen. It seems to me that they apparently have a significant history as close friends.
I don't know that Skousen is exactly considered "royalty" in "the apologetic world" if you will pardon the pun. He is certainly respected, but I'm not sure that friendly relations with him is enough to give one "clout" with other LDS scholars.
If he and William Schryver have "a significant history as close friends" it seems a little strange that Schryver would publicly criticize Skousen's decision to publish The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text with Yale University Press, arguing that Skousen's action had "clearly trespassed into the realm of [the First Presidency's] stewardship."
But maybe that's what close friends do. I don't know.
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.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
