Schryver on Bushman's RSR

[_Hermes]

Unfortunately, the "muscular" critiques I see coming from the old FARMS are anything but, usually. They don't dispute facts in a believable way. They just attack the character of the messenger (as an apostate or an idiot or both). Nibley offered some reasons why Brodie went too far with the information of an earlier day ("we don't have those documents!"), but things are different now ("we got the documents, and Joseph Smith was actually convicted of disorderly conduct as a money digger"). As the new information spreads, the church really needs people like Bushman, people who know how to put the best face possible on the Joseph Smith whom Nibley and crew dismissed as an anti-Mormon fantasy. Bushman is much more useful to the church than Schryver. If (as a young teenager looking for "the truth" about Mormon history) I had read Bushman first instead of Nibley, I might still be happy in the church. Nibley made sure I over-committed to an untenable historical position, precipitating my apostasy.

[_Racer]

I just chalk this up to Schryver and his fake scholar buddies being jealous of Bushman's legitimacy in academic circles and the attention he gets from the media while their bogus writings are summarily dismissed by the public at large.

[_Drifting]

Who listens to the, still unpublished, Schryver?

[_The Dude]

From Will I expect a turgid critique.

[_sansfoy]

Who listens to the, still unpublished, Schryver?

He seems to inspire a good deal of discussion in these parts.

[_Cicero]

Who listens to the, still unpublished, Schryver?

He seems to inspire a good deal of discussion in these parts.

I'm sure he relishes the attention he gets on this board. I guess it's like some people with the Kardashians or car wrecks . . . sometimes you just can't stop yourself from looking.

[_the narrator]

Although I will not "name names," I could rattle off at least a 3 or 4 dozen very prominent LDS scholars/apologists who would ask, "Who is Will Schryver?"

[_Kevin Graham]

They'll know who he is soon enough when he publishes his numerous groundbreaking pieces that will be published by NAMIR, er, I mean some "Academic Press" out "east." Uh no, that's not right either. Oh yeah, now Schryver is saying he might have to publish with Kofford Books.

Someone needs to bring him up to speed on things. Editors at Kofford Books include Loyd Ericson and Christopher Smith who have been his targets in recent past. But I'm sure they'd love to help him get his nonsense published. Maybe that will once and for all shut his trap in accusing his critics of trying to silence him.

In reality, it is Schryver and his ilk who would love to see the critics silenced. For example, Christopher Smith submitted his paper on the missing papyrus to the Mormon History Association back in 2010, and it was rejected after getting two nasty preliminary reviews, one of which came from John Gee (it was a blind review but it obviously came from Gee). In this "review" of his paper, Gee complained that Chris was out of his depth because he wasn't an Egyptologist and that he shouldn't have accused Gee of being a deceiver (which is something Chris never said or implied in his paper).

[_lulu]

They'll know who he is soon enough when he publishes his numerous groundbreaking pieces that will be published by NAMIR, er, I mean some "Academic Press" out "east." Uh no, that's not right either. Oh yeah, now Schryver is saying he might have to publish with Kofford Books.

Someone needs to bring him up to speed on things. Editors at Kofford Books include Loyd Ericson and Christopher Smith who have been his targets in recent past. But I'm sure they'd love to help him get his nonsense published. Maybe that will once and for all shut his trap in accusing his critics of trying to silence him.

In reality, it is Schryver and his ilk who would love to see the critics silenced. For example, Christopher Smith submitted his paper on the missing papyrus to the Mormon History Association back in 2010, and it was rejected after getting two nasty preliminary reviews, one of which came from John Gee (it was a blind review but it obviously came from Gee). In this "review" of his paper, Gee complained that Chris was out of his depth because he wasn't an Egyptologist and that he shouldn't have accused Gee of being a deceiver (which is something Chris never said or implied in his paper).

Gee is reviewing papers for the Journal of Mormon History? Yikes!

[_Bob Loblaw]

Someone needs to bring him up to speed on things. Editors at Kofford Books include Loyd Ericson and Christopher Smith who have been his targets in recent past. But I'm sure they'd love to help him get his nonsense published. Maybe that will once and for all shut his trap in accusing his critics of trying to silence him.

That would be ironic but perfect, but then you wonder if it's good enough to publish without embarrassing Kofford Books.