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

[_TrashcanMan79]

Wow. Over 1000 thread views in less than an hour and a half. This has gotta be a record.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

I think Tuffy Parker means that it would be "killed" before it even got its feet off the ground. for what it's worth.

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.

No, that's really what he said. I suppose the next most obvious question here is: Why on earth does Mike Parker think such a thing? I mean: does he genuinely think this, all on his own? Was he given this impression by Will's work (which is unpublished, and, for all we know, unwritten)? Or did the Senior Tier Mopologists convince him of this?

It is rather hyperbolic, in any case. Parker himself probably has better credentials as far as serving in the posts he named. At least Parker has published in the Review.

[_lulu]

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.

Doing research in the Church archives does not give MI publication rights.

Having the assistance and support of MI scholars does not give MI publication rights.

The only thing that would give MI publications rights is if the author signed a document giving it such rights.

If such a document exists, Schryver should say so specifically and publicly.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

Doing research in the Chruch archives does not give MI publication rights.

Having the assistance and support of MI scholars does not give MI publication rights.

The only thing that would give MI publications rights is if the author signed a document giving it such rights.

If such a document exists, Schryver should say so specifically.

It's an interesting question. We know that Jerry Bradform "canceled" Schryver's publication with the MI. If the MI still holds the rights to it, does that mean that it will never see the light of day? If that's the case, it may help explain the Mopologists' weird behavior about all of this stuff. They can't exactly attack MI administration/BYU/the Church and complain that these institutions are "censoring" Schryver's "research."

I bet you're on to something here, Lulu. After all, the apologists have FAIR--so why not publish both the Schryver stuff and the Greg Smith "hit piece" on FAIR? They just sit there: waiting and waiting and waiting, always saying, "I hope it is one day published." Now that you mention this, it makes it seem as if they cannot publish due to MI/BYU/the Church holding the publishing rights!

Wow: I bet that's exactly what's going on. Because think about it: Schryver was given access to highly sensitive Church materials, so there is probably no way that a publication would ever see the light of day without it getting vetted by Church admin. I don't know that the same is the case for the Greg Smith article, but it may very well be. (Or that it won't ever appear due to the admonitions from Elder ________). What a bummer for them.

[_Dr. Shades]

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"?

No, that's really what he said. I suppose the next most obvious question here is: Why on earth does Mike Parker think such a thing? I mean: does he genuinely think this, all on his own? Was he given this impression by Will's work (which is unpublished, and, for all we know, unwritten)? Or did the Senior Tier Mopologists convince him of this?

The solution is simple. As the illegitimate spawn of Hugh Nibley, they're convinced that Will is simply owed a high-ranking position due to lineage alone.

[_Blixa]

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!

Is it possible he's referring to the still forthcoming apology for my calling him out over deriding Emma Smith as "a champion bitch" and an "emotionally volatile, high-maintenance woman who would have been a royal pain in the ass to deal with as a wife?"

Blixa,

Your posts have induced reflection on my part, and I have concluded that you make some very valid points, and that I need to seriously back off from my harsh criticism of Emma Smith.

In fact, I am going to prepare a formal apology for my unwarranted invective directed towards her. But first I am going to re-read Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, a book which I have already read three times, and have thoroughly enjoyed (despite some criticisms I could level against it). After I have immersed myself again in her story, I will speak to this topic again, here, on this message board.

It's the kind of thing someone could claim was some sort of apology, I guess....

[_Blixa]

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

That fracas was even mentioned to me by a number of friends and academic colleagues who know of my Mormon past and interest in Mormon history, but who all had no idea I knew of any of the characters involved. One friend mentioned someone he knew at Time/Life that was flabbergasted that Peterson had made nearly a 100 posts in the comment section, most of which having nothing to do with the photographs themselves....

[_angsty]

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/

Snort. The Lightbox debacle. I'm still mildly annoyed that DCP, who apparently knows little about photography, decided to hijack a comment section that should have been used to discuss Brian Shumway's photography. That being said, after refreshing my memory of his behavior there, his tenacity is impressive (if not a sign of some pathology). It doesn't seem to matter how many times he gets called out for his behavior, or out-argued when he attempts a half-assed on-topic comment, he just keeps going, shamelessly, as if he's in the middle of the performance of his life.

[_CaliforniaKid]

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/12/05/happy-valley-a-photographer-reflects-on-his-mormon-upbringing/

A classic downward spiral of shenanity.

[_Equality]

But first I am going to re-read Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, a book which I have already read three times, and have thoroughly enjoyed (despite some criticisms I could level against it). After I have immersed myself again in her story, I will speak to this topic again, here, on this message board.

So he had read the book three times and was going to read it a fourth time to figure out if Emma really was a bitch, eh? Mormon Enigma must be the most aptly named book ever.