FAIR's Mike Parker: Will Schryver "admitted and apologized"?

[_Doctor Scratch]

My attention was just directed to something very interesting written by our old pal: former FAIR Secretary and infamous Mopologist Mike "Tuffy" Parker. Perhaps others noticed this when it first appeared, but I found his claims remarkable, especially this one:

I’m not suggesting that Will Schryver be appointed as editor of the Mormon Studies Review or or made a director at the Maxwell Institute. He was warned by friends that his online behavior was going to kill his scholarly career. He’s admitted his error and apologized.

Whoa! This is shocking! Will Schryver "apologized"? This sure is news to me! Can we verify this somewhere, or is this just Parker blowing a bunch of smoke? I would prefer to give him (i.e., Good Ol' Tuffy) the benefit of the doubt on this one, but then again--he was also comparing Will Schryver to Wagner:

I won’t defend Will Schryver’s intemperate public comments (even he has admitted he has a problem), but it really is a shame about his research not being published. It’s top-notch stuff; it will, in some important areas, completely change the study of the Book of Abraham.

[...]

Richard Wagner wrote some immensely complex, moving, and inspiring music. He was one of the most important composers of the 19th century, and a pioneer in world of classical.

He was also a thoroughgoing racist and a raving anti-Semite whose views inspired the Nazi movement in the 20th century.

just because he was a bad man, however, doesn’t mean we should ban his music.

(Imagine Apocalypse Now without “Ride of the Valkyries.”)

Elsewhere, Parker claims to have even more "insider knowledge":

Yes, there is a mole at the Maxwell Institute. His identity is known. Bradford has done nothing about it.

Gerry Bradford’s email to Dan Peterson, dismissing him as editor of the Review, was not CC’ed to anyone. It was being circulated by anti-Mormon critics withn a few days. (The copy in my possession was sent by Eric Johnson of Mormonism Research Ministries.)

It is ludicrous to think that Dan himself would send that message to his enemies. Someone with access to Gerry Bradford’s email did it.

Okay, this last bit is bizarre. "Someone with access to Bradford's email"? Is Parker cooking up a conspiracy theory here? How does he know that nobody was BCC'ed? E.g., President Samuelson? Further, if Eric Johnson sent him the email, doesn't it stand to reason that it had been circulating prior to Johnson's obtaining a copy? Further, if the "mole's" identity is known, why have the Mopologists said nothing? Does Parker know who the "mole" is? Or is he just relying on Hamblin's *claim* that he "knows" who the mole is?

In any event, later in the thread, MsJack appeared and asked Parker to clarify his Schryver comments:

# 22 & # 50 Mike ~ I won’t defend Will Schryver’s intemperate public comments (even he has admitted he has a problem)

He’s admitted his error and apologized.

He has? Where has he done this?

Because all he ever told the members of MDB, when they complained about his behavior, were sentiments to the effect of, “I feel neither regret nor contrition for anything I have ever written on this message board. I am willing to have it all read as I stand and listen at the day of judgment.” (See the sub-heading “Has William Ever Addressed This Behavior?” in the thread Kaimi linked in #21.)

My thread could have ended on page one if William had simply admitted that his behavior was ill-thought-out and inappropriate, and apologized to the women in question.

it really is a shame about his research not being published. It’s top-notch stuff; it will, in some important areas, completely change the study of the Book of Abraham.

If his stuff is so top-notch, why doesn’t he simply submit to another peer-reviewed journal? Dialogue, Journal of Mormon History, JWHA Journal, etc. It’s not like the Maxwell Institute houses the only Mormon studies journals out there.

And Parker's peculiar reply:

I distinctly recall Will apologizing for his behavior. But this was several years ago; I’m afraid I don’t have a link.

His research was done in Church archives with the assistance and support of MI scholars. I don’t know the details, but I think MI has publication rights.

"Several years ago"? Uh... The Schryver Debacle was scarcely more than one year ago. Are you remembering things poorly, Mr. Parker, or are you being dishonest?

Regardless, I thought there were a lot of interesting details here.

http://www.millennialstar.org/the-maxwe ... ntroversy/

[_Doctor Scratch]

Parker also rather annoyingly (or disingenuously?) posted this:

Time and again, supporters of FARMS’ apologetics have asked its critics to come up with examples of its “mean and nasty” “ad hominem” approach, and consistently the critics have refused to provide examples (or have given a few old, indirect examples of things done or written outside of FARMS).

Really now! "Refused to provide examples"? We've got a whole thread pinned right here at MDB for your reading pleasure, Mr. Parker. And I can rattle off several examples right off the top of my head:

--"Text and Context"
--"That Old Black Magic"
--Gee's piece on Quinn
--Greg Smith's Laura Compton hit piece
--"Questions to Legal Answers," and all the attendant controversy related to this article
--Though not an example drawn directly from the pages per se, I would also include the time that DCP & Co. were sued for libel
--Midgley's Grant Palmer piece.

Heck, Mike: you yourself admit that it's been "embarrassing" at times:

(And, for what it’s worth, I can think of one article in the Review, years ago, that was poorly conceived and executed. But that article does not represent the sum and substance of what FARMS has achieved.)

What article was this, I wonder? Regardless, Bro. Parker: I sincerely hope you won't go on pretending as if examples haven't been given, because they have. Many times. While you can dismiss them, or claim that they somehow "don't count," the fact remains that specific examples have been given--and those are just from the pages of the Review. This is to say nothing of the various postings and antics of the people who oversaw and contributed to it.

[_Stormy Waters]

If Schyver or others honestly believe that Schyvers paper will change the way that the Book of Abraham is studied, why not just release it? If it were really what they've claimed it is, it would stand on it's own merits. It would possibly save a couple testimonies as well. So why continue to sit on it?

Same with Greg Smith and his John Dehlin piece. If you honestly believe that John is a wolf in sheeps clothing and that he is leading people astray. Why are you just sitting on the piece that is alleged to expose him?

[_Doctor Scratch]

If Schyver or others honestly believe that Schyvers paper will change the way that the Book of Abraham is studied, why not just release it? If it were really what they've claimed it is, it would stand on it's own merits. It would possibly save a couple testimonies as well. So why continue to sit on it?

Same with Greg Smith and his John Dehlin piece. If you honestly believe that John is a wolf in sheeps clothing and that he is leading people astray. Why are you just sitting on the piece that is alleged to expose him?

I think that sad fact is that most of the FARMS supporters don't actually care what these documents say. Instead, they've depended all along on the faux-scholarly patina that has come along with the BYU/MI imprimatur. Take Mike Parker, for example. He's more than happy to boast that Schryver's work will be a "game changer," but he seems incapable of (or unwilling to?) summarize the gist of the argument. It's like they don't care about the content or substance of this stuff--the don't feel the need to read it, comprehend it, or think about it--it's enough that it simply exists, and that it's got BYU's stamp of approval on it. (Or it did, anyhow.) Perhaps the worst offender in terms of encouraging this sort of thing was DCP himself; he was notorious for responding to substantive questions by simply posting a link to some FARMS Review article. He would never, ever offer up the gist or kernel of the material, rather, he'd just say (in effect), "There it is! Look! It exists!"

This is, as I've said before, one of the main reasons why there was such an uproar over the changing of the guard at the Review. The lower-tier Mopologists have always cared more about the status of the articles than the actual content. Now that the Greg Smith hit pieces and the Will Schryver "game changers" have been cut loose from "official" BYU endorsement, they just don't have the same gravitas.

If it were strictly about substance and content, these Mopologists wouldn't care where the items were published, but for many of them, it has never really been about that, unfortunately.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I won’t defend Will Schryver’s intemperate public comments (even he has admitted he has a problem)

He’s admitted his error and apologized.

Schryver has been saying he's the victim of a vicious smear campaign. Why would the victim apologize? Maybe he's taking Richard G. Scott's advice too literally.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Parker's hypocrisy is really pretty striking. Take a look at this:

Also, after Dehlin sent his series of preemptive emails, which attempted to silence criticism against him, he then publicly attempted to claim that he had done so in a different order and to different people (i.e., he outright lied), in order to make his actions look more reasonable and less threatening and desperate.

This, too, has all been been documented and will be published someday. Hopefully soon.

First of all, Parker himself has apparently been caught in an "outright" lie by claiming that Will Schryver "apologized" for his misogynist comments. (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt: if Parker posts somewhere that he was mistaken, and that he mis-remembered, and that he apologizes for the confusion, all is forgiven, in my opinion.) Second, he is seemingly rubbing his hands together with glee at the prospect of the John Dehlin "hit piece" being made public. This is enormously hypocritical on Parker's part. This was the same guy who erupted in terror after his widely available photo was posted on this board:

I'm Mike Parker. And under Universal Rule #7, I request that my photograph be removed from this discussion board.

viewtopic.php?p=426613#p426613

I don't see how Parker has any legitimate grounds to criticize Dehlin for his not wanting the "hit piece" to be made public. I mean, how would Parker like it if someone assembled a "100-page, well-documented" piece on his Mopologist antics and posted it? He practically crapped his pants in fear after someone tried to tie him to SHIELDS and FARMS during the TIME Lightbox fiasco. Methinks Parker ought to think twice about his remarks in this vein. "Do unto others," and all of that.

[_Bob Loblaw]

He practically crapped his pants in fear after someone tried to tie him to SHIELDS and FARMS during the TIME Lightbox fiasco. Methinks Parker ought to think twice about his remarks in this vein. "Do unto others," and all of that.

A friend recommended that Lightbox stuff to me. Very entertaining. Three FARMS hacks tag-team Brian Shumway and then get all pissy because someone noted their connection to each other. Then Schryver shows up to tell everyone how evil it was of someone to mention their ties to FARMS. With such ambassadors for the Lord, who needs anti-Mormons?

[_malkie]

I’m not suggesting that Will Schryver be appointed as editor of the Mormon Studies Review or or made a director at the Maxwell Institute. He was warned by friends that his online behavior was going to kill his scholarly career. He’s admitted his error and apologized.

1. Did Will have a scholarly career that we didn't know about? If not, how could it be killed.
2. Is Mike Parker really suggesting that, sans Will's online "behaviour", Will could be a candidate for either "editor of the Mormon Studies Review" or "a director at the Maxwell Institute"?

Or am I just in a post-nap fuzz, and unable to read plain English.

[_Cicero]

Can anyone post a link to the "Lightbox material" or send me a PM if any of it is available online?

[_Bob Loblaw]

Can anyone post a link to the "Lightbox material" or send me a PM if any of it is available online?

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/12/05/hap ... pbringing/