Schryver - have we discussed this?

[_Dr. Shades]

They had set out to silence an important new voice in Mormon apologetics, and they had succeeded far beyond their wildest expectations.

He's 100% wrong.

Now that Mormon Interpreter is online, he can post his essay/article/book there anytime he wants.

Who is stopping him? Certainly no one on this website.

[_Darth J]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58537-the-calculated-suppression-of-mormon-apologetics-the-case-of-william-schryver/

....an important new voice in Mormon apologetics....

Ipse dixit.

[_Chap]

They had set out to silence an important new voice in Mormon apologetics, and they had succeeded far beyond their wildest expectations.

He's 100% wrong.

Now that Mormon Interpreter is online, he can post his essay/article/book there anytime he wants.

Who is stopping him? Certainly no one on this website.

+ Ever such a lot. Clearly Schryver's essay must be published now - I see the hand of the Lord in this.

[_Darth J]

They had set out to silence an important new voice in Mormon apologetics, and they had succeeded far beyond their wildest expectations.

What would this even mean, anyway? Silencing someone is just silence. Zero noise is silence, which is what Schryver fantasizes as being the goal of his enemies. How could you succeed far beyond zero noise? Was Schryver silenced so thoroughly that he is in the realm of antimatter or antiprotons, and is now making anti-noise?

On second thought, I think I just answered my own question.

[_Drifting]

They had set out to silence an important new voice in Mormon apologetics, and they had succeeded far beyond their wildest expectations.

What would this even mean, anyway? Silencing someone is just silence. Zero noise is silence, which is what Schryver fantasizes as being the goal of his enemies. How could you succeed far beyond zero noise? Was Schryver silenced so thoroughly that he is in the realm of antimatter or antiprotons, and is now making anti-noise?

On second thought, I think I just answered my own question.

He is 100% wrong. We WANT him to be published, we are desperate that his work see's the light of day, we have offered numerous suggestions as to where he could get published.

The only person stopping William Schryver being published is William Schryver...

[_3sheets2thewind]

William is hidding behind the Church to claim he can not publish; yet his supposed contractual agreement is that he not publish church copyright material without church permission.

I can't image that the church owns the.copyright to the entire writing.

[_Drifting]

William is hidding behind the Church to claim he can not publish; yet his supposed contractual agreement is that he not publish church copyright material without church permission.

I can't image that the church owns the.copyright to the entire writing.

So it is the Church stopping his publication...
Why hasn't Will complained in print about the evil General Authorities who are seeking to scupper his scholastic endeavours at every turn...?

[_Kishkumen]

Well, he can claim that not publishing is something he is doing out of obedience to his leaders. For example, I believe it was suggested by Daniel Peterson that Greg Smith was not going to pursue publication of the Dehlin piece because he considered this contrary to the desires of his ecclesiastical leaders.

[_Chap]

William is hidding behind the Church to claim he can not publish; yet his supposed contractual agreement is that he not publish church copyright material without church permission.

I can't image that the church owns the.copyright to the entire writing.

So it is the Church stopping his publication...
Why hasn't Will complained in print about the evil General Authorities who are seeking to scupper his scholastic endeavours at every turn...?

I don't see that. The relevant portions of Schryver's screed run:

A little over a year ago, I had just completed the final revisions of an article entitled The Interminable Roll – Determining the Original Length of the Scroll of Hor. This article had been submitted to and approved for publication by the Church Historian, and I had been informed by Professor Paul Hoskisson, editor of the Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture, that it would appear as the "cover article" of the next issue (20:2, as I recall). In addition, Professor Hoskisson had been enthusiastically encouraging and soliciting from me a series of articles for subsequent issues of the JBMORS, treating upon my ongoing analysis of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

….

I had met with Professor Hoskisson on multiple occasions to discuss the future publication agenda for the series of articles I was preparing, and therefore, when he requested another meeting for May 16, 2010, I assumed its purpose was to further discuss these matters. I drove from Cedar City to Provo that morning for a lunch meeting with him. I arrived at the Maxwell Institute offices about noon, and was invited to join him in his office. There he succinctly informed me that Dr. Bradford had ordered that my scroll-length article be removed from the forthcoming issue of the JBMORS. He also informed me that Dr. Bradford had taken steps to prevent my being published by any journal associated with BYU, and that I was no longer welcome in the offices of the Maxwell Institute.

Needless to say, I was stunned. I inquired as to the reasons for this sudden decision, and was told that it was prompted by the allegations made against me by the anti-Mormons at the Mormon Discussions message board. I requested that I be permitted to defend myself against these allegations. My request was denied. I categorically denied the veracity of the allegations. Dr. Hoskisson replied, and I quote: "It doesn't matter if they're true or not. If we publish you, they will take these things to the media and bring disrepute upon the Maxwell Institute, BYU, and the Church." I expressed shock that the Maxwell Institute would permit itself to be intimidated and manipulated by a group of mostly anonymous anti-Mormons associated with an obscure internet message board. Hoskisson expressed sympathy for my cause, but indicated he could do nothing. He then showed me the door, and that was that.

He only seems to have been told that his paper can't be published in any journal associated with BYU. He nowhere complains that he has been disbarred from publication anywhere else. If he had been, would he not have said so?

[_Ludd]

He only seems to have been told that his paper can't be published in any journal associated with BYU. He nowhere complains that he has been disbarred from publication anywhere else. If he had been, would he not have said so?

You would think that he would prefer publishing his article(s) in a journal(s) not associated with BYU, like Dialogue, especially the scroll-length article, since the Cook/Smith paper was published in Dialogue. I would think that Dialogue would be happy to publish the Schryver paper as a reply to the Cook/Smith paper. You know, let it's readers see both arguments and make a judgment as to which is stronger. The only thing I can think of as a problem is if the church wouldn't permit him (because of the contract he says he signed with them) to publish the "high-resolution photos" somewhere besides the BYU journals. But if his findings are so earth-shaking, then why wouldn't the church want to see them published somewhere, even if it isn't through BYU? Unless (and somehow I suspect this is the real reason) they don't think that much of Schryver's arguments? Of course, if that's the case, it makes you wonder why they would have approved the paper being published through BYU. Then again, we only have Schryver's word for it that the church did approve it being published in the JBMORS. Is there any way to confirm what Schryver claims in that respect? Maybe the truth is that they didn't approve it, and Schryver is just trying to play the martyr card now, counting on the fact that no one from the church is going to wade into the public controversy over the whole thing.