Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for Help

[_Drifting]

Garbo began posting here in fall of 2010, long before my misogyny thread. Even if she were a long-term sock puppet that William planned ahead on, I imagine he would have trotted her out long ago.

So no, I don't believe she is a sock.

Ludd, on the other hand, reeks of sock.

First of all, I want to thank you for the information about Daniel Peterson and Bill Hamblin that you linked to from your blog.

Second, my socks don't stink.

Lastly, I'm disappointed that no additional quotes from Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver have been provided on this thread. I appreciate that so many of you dislike them for the things they have said online, but I still need the actual quotes and links! I'm sorry, but lame jokes about boobs and cheerleader pompoms and tatoos and "butthead" acrostics just don't cut it. I'm looking for things that go far beyond that kind of stuff.

I gave the link to this thread to my acquaintance who is looking for this information and he has been checking it out from time to time. Needless to say, he hasn't been that impressed with what he has seen so far. So I hope someone can get some really good stuff and post it.

Thanks..........

Ludd have you tried reading Will Schryvers recent publications?
What?
Can't find any?
Go figure......

[_Kevin Graham]

Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand that I'm not being disgusted by being reembraced or forgiven, but by you being treated well only as a condition of your continued loyalty to the faith. That you say DCP wasn't like this means something to me, but based on what I saw online, that certainly isn't true of everyone who reembraced you. Make no mistake, if you apostasize again and are openly critical of the LDS faith, you're going back to the shark tank. I view that kind of friendship as hollow

+1

Well said, EA.

My wife would say Don is "innocent" because she tends to translate literally from Portuguese to English, and in this instance innocence means naïve. Don is such a good person that he doesn't grasp the possibility (or perhaps he just doesn't want to entertain the possibility) that the "embrace" he feels from social Mormonism, comes with a price. He has to carefully limit what he says, how he does his research and who he associates with. Don knows that he is walking on egg shells in their eyes, since he is a former apostate, but for some reason that doesn't seem to bother him. I know it would drive me nuts if people befriended me because of a perceived loyalty to the same tribe, and then lay down implicit requirements for that friendship to continue. In my view, these people aren't really friends at all. And it is one of the things that turned me off from Mormonism. Mormons generally want to do what's best for themselves, for their salvation, and they are commanded to treat everyone like a potential convert. If you respond well to their attempts, then they pummel you further with kindness until you submit, and then that will go down as a "good work" in their book of life. However, if you make it clear to them you're not going to change your mind, off to outer darkness you go. Because they can't be wasting their time with you when they could be spending it trying to convert someone else.

At first I didn't like to think this was true, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I really don't have any sustaining friendships with Mormons since I left the faith. There are a few exceptions of course, with recent encounters, but on the whole, Mormons tried the "fellowshipping" thing because that is what they were commanded to do. Like clockwork, they'd come over Sundays while they were doing the runs with other inactive members, trying to obey what the Church expected of them so they could work out their salvation. But if they were really interested in being my friend, then why did they stop as soon as they realized I wouldn't come back to Church? Why was it always on Sunday on their time table?

Even when Don was an "apostate" I don't think anyone believed his heart was quite in it. I certainly don't recall seeing anything from Don that would have given me the impression he was anti-Mormon. The point is there was always hope for Don in the eyes of those who wanted him back with the tribe. I'm not surprised people held out for him.

[_Ludd]

You could look into what they did to Michael Quinn's career, including all the "we know more about this than we can tell" hints about Quinn's character, sexuality, and the reasons for his excommunication.

You need to explain more of this. I know who Quinn is, but I don't know about what "they" (who are "they"? Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver?) did to his career. Is there a link to a thread where this is discussed?

Similarly, Kevin Graham has documented where Peterson did the same thing to Robert Ritner, saying that John Gee had him removed from his dissertation committee and that Ritner might be gay.

Why is it would be a big deal to have someone removed from a dissertation committee? Are you sayin g that Peterson accused Ritner of being gay? Links?

I've already mentioned Schryver's creepy stalking and fantasizing about a woman he saw at the exmormon conference (the one he made the boob jokes about)...

Somehow I think it's going to be hard to know what someone was "fantasizing" about, but I am interested in the stalking part of the story. How was Schryver stalking the woman? How do we know about this? Again.............links?

...a friend I trust tells me Schryver stalked him for a long time and threatened him and his wife with violence.

OK, this is rather interesting. But it smacks of hearsay ("a friend I trust") without some specific evidence. Your saying that Schryver threaten someone and his wife with violence? That sounds like a criminal offense. Was a police report made? Is there any evidence we can point to on this? Links?

The reason you're not finding any "good stuff" is that you're not looking very hard.

The problem is that I don't know where to look. I have done searches for Peterson and Schryver posts on this board, but there isn't a search option for "good stuff" so all it does is return all their posts. There are lots of posts that are: preachy, arrogant, sarcastic. But I haven't been able to find much in the way of sexist, misogynist, etc. So if it's easy to find this stuff, then I guess I'm just too dumb to do it. That's why I've asked for help.

Looks like Schryver has shaved his beard:

What's this from? Where is he speaking? What about? Why is it relevant?

[_Ludd]

This last post by the OP confirms everyone's suspicions.

Forgive me, but I have no idea what this means. Please explain.

[_Ludd]

Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand that I'm not being disgusted by being reembraced or forgiven, but by you being treated well only as a condition of your continued loyalty to the faith. That you say DCP wasn't like this means something to me, but based on what I saw online, that certainly isn't true of everyone who reembraced you. Make no mistake, if you apostasize again and are openly critical of the LDS faith, you're going back to the shark tank. I view that kind of friendship as hollow

+1

Well said, EA.

My wife would say Don is "innocent" because she tends to translate literally from Portuguese to English, and in this instance innocence means naïve. Don is such a good person that he doesn't grasp the possibility (or perhaps he just doesn't want to entertain the possibility) that the "embrace" he feels from social Mormonism, comes with a price. He has to carefully limit what he says, how he does his research and who he associates with. Don knows that he is walking on egg shells in their eyes, since he is a former apostate, but for some reason that doesn't seem to bother him. I know it would drive me nuts if people befriended me because of a perceived loyalty to the same tribe, and then lay down implicit requirements for that friendship to continue. In my view, these people aren't really friends at all. And it is one of the things that turned me off from Mormonism. Mormons generally want to do what's best for themselves, for their salvation, and they are commanded to treat everyone like a potential convert. If you respond well to their attempts, then they pummel you further with kindness until you submit, and then that will go down as a "good work" in their book of life. However, if you make it clear to them you're not going to change your mind, off to outer darkness you go. Because they can't be wasting their time with you when they could be spending it trying to convert someone else.

At first I didn't like to think this was true, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I really don't have any sustaining friendships with Mormons since I left the faith. There are a few exceptions of course, with recent encounters, but on the whole, Mormons tried the "fellowshipping" thing because that is what they were commanded to do. Like clockwork, they'd come over Sundays while they were doing the runs with other inactive members, trying to obey what the Church expected of them so they could work out their salvation. But if they were really interested in being my friend, then why did they stop as soon as they realized I wouldn't come back to Church? Why was it always on Sunday on their time table?

Even when Don was an "apostate" I don't think anyone believed his heart was quite in it. I certainly don't recall seeing anything from Don that would have given me the impression he was anti-Mormon. The point is there was always hope for Don in the eyes of those who wanted him back with the tribe. I'm not surprised people held out for him.

What does any of this have to do with the topic of the thread?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Just sayin' Ludd...

In Dan’s case, I reffer you to:

Scholars Misbehaving: A Mormon Flavor (part one)

Scholars Misbehaving: A Mormon Flavor (part two)

And then for my thoughts on why this is a serious issue see here:

This lack of substance should be troubling, and the reason why I included that passage from 1st Peter at the top of this entry, as it is the primary call for all believers to engage in reasoned defense (apologia) for their faith. The part of that passage that is often skipped is “Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts…” and this is a vital precondition before engaging in your reasoned defense. I can’t read Daniel’s heart, but if there is any truth to the LDS notion of judging based on fruits, I can tell you that I’m far from impressed.

Also unlike Chesterton, Daniel Peterson is a trained scholar and translator of Islamic texts. He knows the vital importance of context, the subtleties of philosophical and theological thought and how both need to be explained to any audience not steeped in the study of said text in question. Yet, Daniel did not do this when he bothered to invoke Camus to an audience at FAIR. Daniel stood up, in front a audience of Mormons looking for edification, and seriously misrepresented Camus to people who paid money to hear him speak. As a scholar, that should be a cardinal sin for Daniel, but he doesn’t seem to care and that is what bothers me the most about Mormon apologetics.

There is a level of just how bad the various examples I’ve provided are, The guys at the Church Office Building who edited that church manual were probably unaware just how religiously illiterate they are, merely products of Utah Mormon culture. Myers is at least dimly aware of how religiously illiterate he is, but he doesn’t want to interrupt the textual back rubs from his fans and the feel good vibes the drum circle at FreeThought blogs provides. Daniel is another order of magnitude above this, he is religiously literate, but misinforms his fellow Mormons for reasons that elude me to this day.

[_Ludd]

Just sayin' Ludd...

MrStak:

I did read what you wrote. Very well done, by the way. It's obvious that Peterson, when it comes to serious scholarship, either doesn't understand the sources, or is willing to misrepresent them for his own purposes.

It's amazing to me that he has a reputation among TBMs for being some kind of genius polymath. He sounds to me more like a wikipedia master.

[_Darth J]

Back to Morley's comment on the OP:

Ludd. You don't know why the unknown person is asking for this or why they don't look for it themselves or really who the subjects are or what issues are involved but you need the information ASAP and it needs to meet these parameters. Is that a good summary?

But this person does know enough to have determined that the c##t thing isn't true, the "champion bitch" thing is a forgery by the moderators, and there are precisely three examples of Schryver's being misogynist, none of which count.

And this person IS taking the time to look through this thread, but not enough time to search the board, regarding information that for some implausible reason could reverse the decision to change editors at the Mormon Studies Review.

However, this person is not impressed that people are not really interested in doing his homework for him.

Ludd, if this person is so concerned with this board (and this thread in particular), and it is a matter that could affect hiring decisions at BYU, why doesn't this person join the board and ask us himself (even using a pseudonym), instead of sending you?

Some General Authority or official at BYU or influencing BYU knows enough about this board to know there are all these allegations and make a determination of how many he thinks there are, and which ones are credible or relevant. But he doesn't know enough to research it for himself. So he sends you, and doesn't tell you why he's chosen you, even though you say you don't know a whole lot about the board either. Except that you do know enough to make a determination of how many examples of "antics" you think there are, and which ones are credible or relevant. But you don't know enough to research it for yourself on behalf of the person who for some reason is unable to research it for himself. So you give a homework assignment to the members of the board in general. And we are supposed to be concerned that the person whose agent you are is not impressed with our collective unwillingness to do homework for you that you will forward to him that will have some indeterminate impact on hiring decisions at a major university.

That's your story, right?

[_Alter Idem]

;)

While I want my fellow Latter-day Saints to continue in the vigorous defense of the faith, I would like to help them also understand what people go through when they "drift" and to accept them as people and treat them kindly.

Don

I didn't read this thread, but I did see your comment; I think members like you who have left the faith and have returned ARE in a very unique and valuable position to help others. There are several members in my ward who left or were inactive for a while and came back. Their contributions in serving and teaching--even in making comments in meetings are very insightful. I've thought many times how lucky we are to have their wisdom and experience to draw from in our ward.

[_Bob Loblaw]

You need to explain more of this. I know who Quinn is, but I don't know about what "they" (who are "they"? Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver?) did to his career. Is there a link to a thread where this is discussed?

Why is it would be a big deal to have someone removed from a dissertation committee?

You can't get someone removed from your dissertation committee without cause, and to say you did is to say that Ritner had done something wrong. The story is a lie, anyway.

Are you saying that Peterson accused Ritner of being gay? Links?

This will get you started:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2109&hilit=Ritner%Second Amendment

Somehow I think it's going to be hard to know what someone was "fantasizing" about, but I am interested in the stalking part of the story.

If someone says they're fantasizing about you, it's probably best to take them at their word.

How was Schryver stalking the woman? How do we know about this? Again.............links?

Just about everyone here is familiar with how he treated her: sending suggestive PMs, putting subtly sexual references in his posts about her, and generally behaving like a douchebag. Why can't you just look at Schryver's posts yourself? Is that too hard for you? I've seen enough to know what kind of person he is, but it's not my job to do your homework for you. There is a search feature on this board that can help you to document everything that has been said here.

OK, this is rather interesting. But it smacks of hearsay ("a friend I trust") without some specific evidence. Your saying that Schryver threaten someone and his wife with violence? That sounds like a criminal offense. Was a police report made? Is there any evidence we can point to on this? Links?

I will not involve my friend in this. This is another situation that most people here remember.

The problem is that I don't know where to look. I have done searches for Peterson and Schryver posts on this board, but there isn't a search option for "good stuff" so all it does is return all their posts. There are lots of posts that are: preachy, arrogant, sarcastic. But I haven't been able to find much in the way of sexist, misogynist, etc. So if it's easy to find this stuff, then I guess I'm just too dumb to do it. That's why I've asked for help.

What exactly are you looking for? You've been given information, but then you say it's not good enough.

What's this from? Where is he speaking? What about? Why is it relevant?

[/quote]

It was a joke. That's Bradlee Dean, not Schryver.