From My Informant: Was Bokovoy Blackballed at BYU?

[_Kishkumen]

I am uncomfortable about Daniel Peterson posting here through surrogates. I don't know if that was his intention, but if it is I think those who facilitate this should consider what they are at.

I did, and I had no problem with it. Many people apparently participate in this discussion from behind the scenes. It often goes under the title "intel," some of it is inaccurate, some of it accurate. I don't think anyone should feel constrained when it comes to posting on "intel" Daniel Peterson provided, any more than they feel constrained from posting other "intel."

Effectively they give him the chance of posting without here his having to commit his message to actual words over his signature. No-one can effectively answer back or question.

See above. It is not as though he were the only person off-board to influence the conversation here. Why should there be a special standard for Daniel's communications?

I will not engage in manipulative ploys to compel Daniel to return to posting here.

May I ask that if he sends any further messages to people who post here, those who receive them should consider simply saying "Why don't you post that on MDB yourself, Daniel?", while making no reference to the message in public? Obviously if they want to respond to his email in private, that is their privilege.

It is my privilege to post whatever he sends me if I so choose. Sorry to sound testy, but I don't understand why you think Daniel deserves to be treated differently from others who contribute to the board indirectly.

I understand that you are not saying this "by way of commandment or constraint," but I don't like this approach in which Daniel is treated as a particular enemy that we have to take special measures against. I don't view him as an enemy. I view him as someone with whom I have significant disagreements.

[_Kishkumen]

I seriously doubt that Will knows diddly squat about anything. He strikes me as a blow hard who tries to make people think that he knows a lot more than he really does.

I am not saying he knows the internal workings of Religion's hiring. I am saying that, motivated by his usual sense that he has a mission to smoke out the apostates and wolves in sheep's clothing, he would contact someone in Religion about his knowledge of David's opinions, expressed online, with which Will obviously does not agree, as we all know.

I certainly wouldn't put that past Will Schryver. If he is going to crow about his self-appointment to be the Porter Rockwell of our day, I will hold him to his words. He is the very first person who would come to my mind in this case. He accused David Bokovoy and Brian Hauglid of conspiring against him in the matter of getting his publication pulled. If he believes that, do you think he is the kind of guy who would not seek payback?

As Scratch pointed out, he creepily told David that people were watching him and predicted didn't have a prayer for a job at BYU. Well, well...

Who really knows about any of these things? This past year, I was passed over for two jobs at my university that looked like they were tailor-made for me. I still don't understand the decision process. And, one of my colleagues who went to bat for me, and put in a recommendation for me, was really upset when I didn't get hired into his department. However, a couple of months later, I was actually ASKED to post for the Computer Lab Director position I have now, so things do tend to happen for a reason. I am sure that the economy being what it is right now, and budgets being cut everywhere didn't help things, either.

Yeah, I understand that times are tight and hiring is unpredictable, but I don't know why we should utterly ignore Schryver's self-professed creepy agenda, his paranoia about Bokovoy, and his prophecies of doom concerning David's job prospects.

[_RockSlider]

My interest is more in following with the whole issue of GA censure of MI (and possibly Dan). Has instruction of his online activities come down from the Brethren? If not why wouldn't Dan want to simply speak up for himself from time to time, verses having to proxy his message?

Others "leaking" Intel while the messenger protects their identity is a totally different thing.

[_Kevin Graham]

It sounds to me like your informant was likely flat-out wrong in this case.

About what?

The only thing that I could think of is that if the dossier was prepared by someone in MI, it was done in an unofficial capacity, and without Dan's knowledge. (Certainly without Dan's approval.)

You give Dan too much credit. This is the same guy who ran over to MAD to inform his readers that William Schryver couldn't possibly be a misogynistic soul. Why? Well, because he met his family and didn't see any indication that Mrs. Schryver was an abused woman. He then informed his readers that Schryver has been demonized unjustifiably, even though he read all the evidence against him.

This is the same guy who cackles out loud whenever his buddy, and Bigot-in-Chief, Louis Midgley turns red and shouts out a rant while behind the podium. And he had no problem, for example, with his buddy going to the Tanner book store and asking the Tanners, "Are you still sell books written by that queer?"

This is the same guy who for 4+ years made libelous allegations against another scholar (Ritner), who had no idea Dan was spreading false rumors about him. When he found out that Ritner was upset and was considering legal action, Dan whined about his plight because he was in no financial position to defend himself in court, and so he managed to spin the situation as if he were the victim, attacking me for having the audacity to email Ritner to verify his claims. You see, in Dan Peterson's world, if you're an LDS person who is upset by something a non-LDS person says, then you're always a victim and so anything you do short of burning that person's house down, is probably acceptable.

And this is the same guy who has signed off on a number of pathetic hit-pieces that he published in the form of FARMS "reviews" for more than a decade.

So I have no problem whatsoever believing Dan Peterson would be perfectly fine with someone in his organization keeping a file on suspected apostates. I mean isn't that what the STCMC does anyway?

David doesn't believe Dan is behind it, and I don't either. What we do know for a fact is that David was interrogated about his devotion and his relationship with his apostate friends, during a job interview for full-time at BYU. Everyone in his dept took their turn pummeling him with the same stupid questions and I know for a fact that one of the questions dealt specifically with something he had said in the past in response to Dan Vogel's "pious fraud" theory. This could have only come from comments he made on these forums, and so we know they've been keeping a file on him and they've finally used it against him to justify hiring someone who was far less qualified than him when it comes to teaching experience and academic credentials.

It seems to me that Scratch's informant has largely gotten it right, and then speculated on minor points that weren't made clear to him/her.

And I also have it on good authority that Schryver's connections aren't nearly as impressive as he likes to pretend. He'll try to rub elbows with folks like Skousen and then point out one little thing to him that Skousen knows little about, and then based on some blase response that meets Schryver's satisfaction, he'll run back to the forums and state that he has Skousen supporting all of his arguments. He's done this in the past, we know, with folks like Hauglid who now wants to distance himself from virtually everything he does and says.

[_Chap]

I am uncomfortable about Daniel Peterson posting here through surrogates. I don't know if that was his intention, but if it is I think those who facilitate this should consider what they are at.

I did, and I had no problem with it. Many people apparently participate in this discussion from behind the scenes. It often goes under the title "intel," some of it is inaccurate, some of it accurate. I don't think anyone should feel constrained when it comes to posting on "intel" Daniel Peterson provided, any more than they feel constrained from posting other "intel."

Effectively they give him the chance of posting without here his having to commit his message to actual words over his signature. No-one can effectively answer back or question.

See above. It is not as though he were the only person off-board to influence the conversation here. Why should there be a special standard for Daniel's communications?

I will not engage in manipulative ploys to compel Daniel to return to posting here.

May I ask that if he sends any further messages to people who post here, those who receive them should consider simply saying "Why don't you post that on MDB yourself, Daniel?", while making no reference to the message in public? Obviously if they want to respond to his email in private, that is their privilege.

It is my privilege to post whatever he sends me if I so choose. Sorry to sound testy, but I don't understand why you think Daniel deserves to be treated differently from others who contribute to the board indirectly.

I understand that you are not saying this "by way of commandment or constraint," but I don't like this approach in which Daniel is treated as a particular enemy that we have to take special measures against. I don't view him as an enemy. I view him as someone with whom I have significant disagreements.

You have considered, and issued a high-minded refusal. Fine by me.

But if you are going to channel DCP at all frequently, could you perhaps do it as a direct voice medium, please, and just post what he sends you, with private references deleted of course?

Or is this board going to end up like one of those marriages where the parents are Not Speaking, and the dialogues go like this at the breakfast table:

"Jimmy, tell your mother that if she takes the car out again without filling it up with gas when it's near empty, I'll put a padlock on the garage"

"Jimmy, tell your father that if he gave me more money to run the house I'd be able to afford the gas the car needs'

and so on ...

by the way, I don't see DCP as an enemy. But I do see him as a committed and not very scrupulous online polemicist who will take any advantage he can of a situation where he does not have to face opponents who might weaken his points. I would not personally want to do anything that might facilitate that.

[_Kishkumen]

But if you are going to channel DCP at all frequently, could you perhaps do it as a direct voice medium, please, and just post what he sends you, with private references deleted of course?

*****

by the way, I don't see DCP as an enemy. But I do see him as a committed and not very scrupulous online polemicist who will take any advantage he can of a situation where he does not have to face opponents who might weaken his points. I would not personally want to do anything that might facilitate that.

I wrote what I felt like writing. To be honest, I didn't post everything he sent verbatim because he didn't tell me that it was what he wanted. He sometimes does that, and I usually don't do it then either. Also, I am not sure how I feel about quoting him. I would almost rather tell him to post it himself than become his messenger boy. In this case, he persuaded me sufficiently to lead me to conclude that he and Bill probably hadn't acted against David.

I guess liz reached a different conclusion for her own reasons. I respect her choice. I just thought about it differently.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I have two updates--I was contacted by an "informant" who clarified a couple of things. The first of these is that, just as Liz said, Dan Peterson had no control whatsoever over this "blackballing." That said, DCP may have had "concerns" about David, and may have vocally stated them to people who are/were in a position to do the blackballing. The impression I'm left with is that DCP does genuinely like David and want the best for him, *but* he may have had some legitimate worries and concerns about some of Bokovoy's views--about David's "spiritual state," as it were. E.g., he may very well have felt--as did others, apparently--that Bokovoy had been too powerfully influenced by David Wright. But, again: the key thing here is that he ultimately did not have control over any of the hiring decisions.

The second, and perhaps more important, update is this: I've been told that it was indeed Paul Hoskisson who ordered up the dossier. So, per this "intel," it was an "Old Guard" person at the Maxwell Institute who oversaw this sordid affair--and it was a friend of Will Schryver's.

[_Kishkumen]

I've been told that it was indeed Paul Hoskisson who ordered up the dossier. So, per this "intel," it was an "Old Guard" person at the Maxwell Institute who oversaw this sordid affair--and it was a friend of Will Schryver's.

Didn't Kevin say, though, that it was Hoskisson who ultimately got Schryver's piece pulled? Doesn't seem to be the kind of relationship that would result in a dossier being used against David, unless Hoskisson has had second thoughts about Schryver....

[_Doctor Scratch]

I've been told that it was indeed Paul Hoskisson who ordered up the dossier. So, per this "intel," it was an "Old Guard" person at the Maxwell Institute who oversaw this sordid affair--and it was a friend of Will Schryver's.

Didn't Kevin say, though, that it was Hoskisson who ultimately got Schryver's piece pulled? Doesn't seem to be the kind of relationship that would result in a dossier being used against David, unless Hoskisson has had second thoughts about Schryver....

I thought it was Gerald Bradford who pulled the plug on Schryver's publication. It's Bradford, after all, who is the Executive Director. (He is also apparently the one who put the kibbosh on the Greg Smith "hit piece.)

[_MrStakhanovite]

One thing is for certain. Dan and Bill's argument that BYU scholars enjoy full academic freedom, has just taken a huge credibility blow to the gut. His job as a professional apologist and anti-truth propagandist, in convincing us that BYU scholars are free to think and believe as they choose, has just become much harder.

Any University that requires all of its teaching staff to be “recommend carrying” immediately discredits any pretense of academic freedom, despite what the duo of quivering chins assert.

In the long run, I think this will end up being a victory for David Bokovoy, the guy is a true mensch and I would study under him at the drop of a hat. He’ll find a place more conducive to the honest scholarship he participates in, and not the 3rd rate polemics Dan or Bill are known for.