Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for Help

[_Kishkumen]

My guess is that his article simply sucked.

So you don't believe the article was squashed because of the online behavior, but because it "simply sucked"?

Why would it have been slated for publication in the first place if it "simply sucked"? And then be pulled only because "it simply sucked"?

Who said it was slated for publication? Schryver?

I have seen no principle involved, at least anyone trustworthy, who knows for a fact that it was slated for publication.

It could be that turning him down with the excuse that he was just too much of a liability for his online antics was thought gentler than telling him the truth about his scholarship.

But who knows, eh?

You don't. Even if you were to claim you do, we have no good reason to believe you or trust a damn word you write.

I also don't know that I even trust reports of what is supposedly happening inside the MI from those who work there. The politics there are crazy.

The long and short of it is this: I don't care; Ludd is Will Schryver.

[_Ludd]

His comments were inappropriate activity for a Melchizedek Priesthood holder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Will claims this status loud and proud. Therefore, when he decimates that reputation, yes, as a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I have EVERY right to call him on it.

Ok, I suppose I am getting what you mean in terms of having to have a stellar reputation. But I honestly had no idea that there were such strict conditions to publishing through BYU.

What about a temple recommend or taking the sacrament?

[_Bob Loblaw]

Who knows what BYU's criteria for publishing are? Schryver didn't meet them or he would have been published. Either they cared that he acts like a misogynistic dirtbag online or as Kishkumen put it his article sucked. Probably the latter.

It's funny to see this board blamed for an internal decision at BYU. For some reason it's easier to believe he was shot down by enemies here rather than just sucking or being pegged as a nut case. From what I have seen he's one taco short of a combo plate.

[_Ludd]

Who said it was slated for publication? Schryver?

Yes. He said it a while back at MDDB.

That's also what I understood from Daniel Peterson's email to Jerry Bradford. Didn't you? Why would Peterson have been complaining to Bradford about an article that hadn't already been slated for publication?

Ludd is Will Schryver.

Sure, Doctor Scratch.

[_Ludd]

Who knows what BYU's criteria for publishing are? Schryver didn't meet them or he would have been published.

Then why was Peterson making such a big deal about it in his email to Bradford after getting fired?

I'm sorry, but it makes no sense if the Schryver paper hadn't already been set for publication.

It's funny to see this board blamed for an internal decision at BYU. For some reason it's easier to believe he was shot down by enemies here rather than just sucking or being pegged as a nut case. From what I have seen he's one taco short of a combo plate.

Be that as it may, Peterson acted in his email to Bradford as though Schryver had been "shot down by enemies". At least that is the way I read it.

[_malkie]

My guess is that his article simply sucked.

So you don't believe the article was squashed because of the online behavior, but because it "simply sucked"?

Why would it have been slated for publication in the first place if it "simply sucked"? And then be pulled only because "it simply sucked"?

Who said it was slated for publication? Schryver?

I have seen no principle involved, at least anyone trustworthy, who knows for a fact that it was slated for publication.

It could be that turning him down with the excuse that he was just too much of a liability for his online antics was thought gentler than telling him the truth about his scholarship.

But who knows, eh?

You don't. Even if you were to claim you do, we have no good reason to believe you or trust a damn word you write.

I also don't know that I even trust reports of what is supposedly happening inside the MI from those who work there. The politics there are crazy.

The long and short of it is this: I don't care; Ludd is Will Schryver.

Whether Will or not, I get the impression that Ludd is trying to find a way of discrediting the decision makers at MI, and to co-opt board members in doing so.

Just my opinion ...

[_Yoda]

His comments were inappropriate activity for a Melchizedek Priesthood holder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Will claims this status loud and proud. Therefore, when he decimates that reputation, yes, as a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I have EVERY right to call him on it.

Ok, I suppose I am getting what you mean in terms of having to have a stellar reputation. But I honestly had no idea that there were such strict conditions to publishing through BYU.

What about a temple recommend or taking the sacrament?

I am sure that non-members are allowed to submit publications to BYU. However, if an author is submitting an article for publication, and he/she is doing so as a member, and in particular, an apologist of the LDS Church, then yes, they would be required to be an upstanding member. I don't know for sure about the temple recommend, however, it would certainly not surprise me, since all employees of BYU are required to hold current temple recommends. Non members employed by BYU are required to meet the honor code requirements.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hey, Will:

Are you scared about what might happen if your blathering about your Nibley connection gets wider airplay? Would the Brethren be mad if they learned what you said?

To me this post is a lot like the one from someone who popped into this thread early on and said something about Schryver committing adultery and getting a woman pregnant. No evidence for the claim. More like graffitti written on the wall by some anonymous person passing by.

Hi there, Will.

There is actually pretty decent evidence, such as your own remarks on this thread:

viewtopic.php?p=324411#p324411

I suppose you could dismiss it by claiming that you were "just joking," but, then again, you are still caught in the situation of trying to "make jokes" about things like this.

There's also this:

Several people have told me that after his Book of Abraham presentation Schyver claimed publicly to have received communications from the deceased Nibley.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23652

Plus there's the fact of your inexplicable access to sensitive and normally-very-well-protected Church documents. Plus there is your inexplicable (and probably dangerous, reputation-wise, for him and his various causes) friendship with Dan Peterson, despite the fact that Dan was talking trash behind your back and badmouthing you to your own enemies.

Finally, there has been your very own reaction right here on this thread. You're rattled, Will. Why is that, I wonder? Will they take away your access and your publication opportunities if you start blabbing the truth?

[_Yoda]

Who knows what BYU's criteria for publishing are? Schryver didn't meet them or he would have been published.

Then why was Peterson making such a big deal about it in his email to Bradford after getting fired?

I'm sorry, but it makes no sense if the Schryver paper hadn't already been set for publication.

It's funny to see this board blamed for an internal decision at BYU. For some reason it's easier to believe he was shot down by enemies here rather than just sucking or being pegged as a nut case. From what I have seen he's one taco short of a combo plate.

Be that as it may, Peterson acted in his email to Bradford as though Schryver had been "shot down by enemies". At least that is the way I read it.

You do not have your facts straight at all. Dan was referring to the article which was accused of being a hit piece on Dehlin. This was a completely different article, not authored by Schryver at all.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You do not have your facts straight at all. Dan was referring to the article which was accused of being a hit piece on Dehlin. This was a completely different article, not authored by Schryver at all.

No, Liz: Dan specifically mentioned "Will Schryver's writing":

My wife predicted that you would pull this while I was out of the country -- just as you used my absence last year to suppress Will Schryver's writing without discussion -- and, in fact, you have.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24378

As for the bit about this having to do with "Schryver 'being shot down by enemies'", I think that's more just a function of Will/Ludd's own interpretation of the events--probably conversations he's had with Dan.