liz3564 wrote: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":
DCP's Email wrote: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.
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.
Ah, OK.
This whole mess has gotten so convoluted, it is hard to keep track, anymore. LOL
Ludd wrote: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.
Who knows? You don't and I don't. It didn't get published and that was a BYU decision not anyone here's decision.
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.
Because quoting someone is just such a dastardly trick.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Doctor Scratch wrote:No, Liz: Dan specifically mentioned "Will Schryver's writing":
DCP's Email wrote: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.
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.
Exactly. If there is one person whose interpretation if events is bound to be warped, it's that guy.
But doubtless Will/Ludd and DCP will back each other up on whatever excuse or conspiracy theory they have cooked up.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
for what it's worth, I was told in the wake of MsJack's thread that Bradford and his allies at the MI thought that the accusations against Will were "overblown." Nonetheless, they decided that publishing him would be too risky in terms of the damage that might be inflicted on the MI's reputation. Supposedly, DCP, Midgley & Co. argued that failure to publish would be capitulating to blackmail from a bunch of anti-Mormons, whereas Bradford and Co. saw this more as a wise PR move.
Regardless, Will/Ludd is wasting his time trying to convince anyone here that he's somehow not actually guilty of engaging in various things. He really ought to take his case directly to the Powers-That-Be at the MI. Then again, maybe he's convinced that the MI makes crucial decisions based on what gets said here at MDB. As I recall, the poster Lamanite was awarded the prestigious Sampson Avard Golden Scepter Award after he said that a Maxwell Institute employee told him that they (i.e., people at the MI) monitor this board and use it to "test out theories." (This was denied by Dr. Peterson, by the way.) So maybe Will thinks that, if he can get us to admit that we were "mistaken," Bradford et al. will reconsider. Who knows?
At this point, now that it's become rather obvious that Ludd=Will Schryver, he has probably blown whatever miniscule chance he had. Then again, maybe his intentions have been different all along, and his questions and activities as "Ludd" have been designed instead to divert attention away from something else that has been eating away at him ever since....oh, what was it? 2005 or thereabouts?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
DCP's Email wrote: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.
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.
Now wait a second. Either Will's paper was suppressed "without discussion", or Will's paper was suppressed after discussion: "Supposedly, DCP, Midgley & Co. argued that failure to publish would be capitulating to blackmail from a bunch of anti-Mormons, whereas Bradford and Co. saw this more as a wise PR move".
Which is it?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:Now wait a second. Either Will's paper was suppressed "without discussion", or Will's paper was suppressed after discussion: "Supposedly, DCP, Midgley & Co. argued that failure to publish would be capitulating to blackmail from a bunch of anti-Mormons, whereas Bradford and Co. saw this more as a wise PR move".
Which is it?
I interpret Dan's comments to mean that Bradford pulled the plug on the basis of his own final word--i.e., that they talked about it beforehand, and then Bradford mad the "executive decision" to cancel the publication without telling Dan, "Woody," or any of the other Old Guard MI crew. This is what I was told by my "informant," and it was corroborated by people who are connected to BYU and are friendly with MsJack and Kevin Graham.
I doubt very much that Bradford would put the kibbosh on Will's writings totally out of the blue, with no explanation and no apparent reason whatsoever. In other words: this is just DCP exaggerating and spinning what actually happened in order to make Bradford look bad.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote: So maybe Will thinks that, if he can get us to admit that we were "mistaken," Bradford et al. will reconsider. Who knows?
What next? The prophet calling Shades to consult about the next revelation? I didn't realize we were so important, especially after years and years of Dan telling us we're worthless.
2005 or thereabouts?
2005?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
It does not matter in the long term whether or not Dan, William, Bill Hamblin, Midgley, et al manage to convince the administration at BYU or the authorities of the LDS church to revive FARMS. It matters in the short term, because if they accomplished that, they could get back to running the FARMS journal and producing material there for the rest of their careers. But it won't matter in the long run, and here's why: it isn't administrators and authorities who need to be convinced. Rather, it's the rising generation of young LDS scholars completing graduate work in biblical studies, history, and other relevant fields, who need convincing.
Without heirs and proteges, the days of the FARMS crowd are numbered. And almost the entire generation of younger Mormon studies scholars (people in their 20s and 30s) has rejected the FARMS approach. Even those who were originally inspired by and drawn to FARMS in their youth have since become disillusioned with their former mentors, and the few who remain nominally interested in apologetics are forging a dramatically kinder and gentler path. A new generation of Hamblins and Midgleys and Peterson's and Gees is not on the rise.
So yeah, keep on rolling sock puppets and baiting people on with whispers of clandestine meetings where the antics of key FARMS apologists are being discussed and the criticisms of them found wanting. There will always be enough people on this forum to care enough about something as transparently stupid as that to drag it on for 15 pages. The real score can be seen by examining the number of young people who have valued the FARMS approach enough to model their lives after it. If you're not a fan of the FARMS approach, then what a glorious future it is.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13
Kishkumen wrote:Maybe this is why Will is so important to Dan: Dan is running out of acolytes and has to take what he can get.
Now that's just depressing.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
