Jump to content

The Calculated Suppression Of Mormon Apologetics: The Case Of William Schryver


William Schryver

Recommended Posts

In light of what has happened with the Maxwell Institute over the course of the summer, I think many people here might be quite interested in this blog post I published late yesterday:

Mr. Schryver, your unpublished article sounds very interesting. Is there any chance you would just publish it on your blog so we can all read it? Sorry about what you have gone through. It sounds awful.

My brother in law lived (literally) right across the street from your apartment (east of the capitol) from 1987-1992. I wonder if you lived there at that time?

Link to comment

I think it is more an effort to oppose you personally and paint you as the bad boy of Mormon apologetics. And oppose Dr. Peterson and Dr. Hamblin. In your own individual ways, and differently so, you've been your own worst enemies. (As we all are, really, as am I.) I don't like what you've often posted over there at the bad board, but I'm almost universally hated there as well for different reasons.

I don't think it unreasonable for somebody like Dr. Bradford to decide that he's not going to publish somebody who is controversial in his personal interactions with others. Other academic journals at other universities are likely to do the same thing.

Link to comment

Mr. Schryver, your unpublished article sounds very interesting. Is there any chance you would just publish it on your blog so we can all read it?

If you read my blog post, then you would have seen that I need authorization from the Church Historian and others higher up. I had that authorization for it being published in the JBMORS. I have not sought, and will not seek, authorization to publish the scroll-length article as a blog post. Frankly, it is too important to be published as a mere blog post.

But I am confident that it will be published. I have reason to believe that there are things "afoot" that I cannot speak about now, but that will be made public before too much longer.

Sorry about what you have gone through. It sounds awful.

Yeah, my situation was a rehearsal for Dan's fun of the past couple months. But again, I am confident that all will turn out well in the end. Just wait and see ...

My brother in law lived (literally) right across the street from your apartment (east of the capitol) from 1987-1992. I wonder if you lived there at that time?

We moved to Farmington in the spring of 1987, IIRC (I'm getting old, and it's been a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure it was in early 1987. I'd have to ask my wife to make sure). It was a GREAT apartment. Man, we loved it there! Except for the winters when it was hard making it up East Capitol Boulevard in my old Plymouth Duster.

Anyway, I hope my reply has clarified matters in terms of the publication of the scroll-length article. Suffice it to say that the question of the original length of the scroll of Hor is not nearly as "settled" as Chris Smith and Andrew Cook would have people believe.

There are several people who post here who have read the scroll-length article: Bob Smith, Kevin Christensen, Pahoran, and a few others. They are free to comment about it if they'd like. I have only requested that a couple things be kept "secret" until it is finally published, and they know what those things are.

Link to comment

I think it is more an effort to oppose you personally and paint you as the bad boy of Mormon apologetics. And oppose Dr. Peterson and Dr. Hamblin. In your own individual ways, and differently so, you've been your own worst enemies. (As we all are, really, as am I.) I don't like what you've often posted over there at the bad board, but I'm almost universally hated there as well for different reasons.

I don't think it unreasonable for somebody like Dr. Bradford to decide that he's not going to publish somebody who is controversial in his personal interactions with others. Other academic journals at other universities are likely to do the same thing.

Yes, I'm quite aware of your opinion of my posting style. You've made that abundantly clear over the years.

Bradford's decision to not publish the scroll-length paper had little to do with the allegations made against me, and lots to do with the political struggle that was then going on in the MI. The MDB hit piece was merely a convenient excuse. But the real reasons were not apparent until the blow up at the MI earlier this year. Dan knew the real reasons, but was not at liberty to share them until he was also "shown the door" by Dr. Bradford.

Ironically enough, my scroll-length article does not contain a single polemical or apologetic element. None at all. But Bradford absolutely hates John Gee's work over the years, and since the article was also accompanied by a "side-bar" article from John, Bradford wanted to keep both things out of the JBMORS. He is not a fan of the so-called "missing scroll" argument (an argument I do not make in my article, btw).

Edited to clarify one point.

Link to comment

Will, I'm out of Rep points, but I'd give you 10 if I could.

Wow! Thanks. It's good to know I've got a couple fans out there, all things considered.

Will your work be published anywhere else, any time soon? I do fervently hope so.

It will be published, I'm certain. Where? When? I'm not sure yet. But, (and I hope he doesn't mind my quoting him here) as Dan wrote in an email he sent to me last night:

As the sainted Jesse Jackson says, Keep hope alive!

And keep your ear to the ground.

Patience. Patience.

Link to comment

Yes, I'm quite aware of your opinion of my posting style. You've made that abundantly clear over the years.

I've actually said very little about you, but, yes, I didn't like the things you said to various posters over there on topics that had nothing to do with apologia. What sets me apart from most of the rest over there is that I consider myself to be a defender and an apologist of sorts -- and have been since the early 1990s. So, I'm on your side of the fence when it comes to defense. But I wouldn't worry about my opinion. [And it has never appeared to me that you have.] I try to read what you write on apologetic topics for what you say. I don't recall really disagreeing with anything. I just disagree with the sort of stuff that discredits you as a person. [Again, my posting style over there has a lot to be desired, so I'm no saint.]

Bradford's decision to not publish the scroll-length paper had little to do with the allegations made against me, and lots to do with the political struggle that was then going on in the MI. The MDB hit piece was merely a convenient excuse. But the real reasons were not apparent until the blow up at the MI earlier this year. Dan knew the real reasons, but was not at liberty to share them until he was also "shown the door" by Dr. Bradford.

I would suspect that what you mean here is that Dr. Bradford has been attempting to figure out a way to extricate Dr. Peterson and his allies from the MI editorial process and Dr. Bradford simply saw you as one of the allies.

Ironically enough, my scroll-length article does not contain a single polemical or apologetic element. None at all.

Well, I look forward to reading it and I find your opinions to be helpful. However, if Dr. Bradford is determined to bring MI around to a Mormon Studies program in a traditional environment, folks without credentials are going to have an almost insurmountable hurdle to publication. I mean, BYU Studies is that way. It doesn't like to publish uncredentialed authors.

But Bradford absolutely hates John Gee's work over the years, and since the article was also accompanied by a "side-bar" article from John, Bradford wanted to keep both things out of the JBMORS. He is not a fan of the so-called "missing scroll" argument (an argument I do not make in my article, btw).

Well, I have an open mind about it and am looking forward to what you have to say.

Link to comment

Well, I look forward to reading it and I find your opinions to be helpful. However, if Dr. Bradford is determined to bring MI around to a Mormon Studies program in a traditional environment, folks without credentials are going to have an almost insurmountable hurdle to publication. I mean, BYU Studies is that way. It doesn't like to publish uncredentialed authors.

I think that articles should be judged on their merits alone, irrespective of "credentials." Even so, the fact of the matter is that my articles were received well by virtually everyone at the MI. As I noted in my blog post, Professor Hoskisson was enthusiastically soliciting from me a series of articles that were to appear in the JBMORS, notwithstanding my lack of academic credentials.

That said, I generally agree with the philosophy that journals such as MSR, JBMORS, and BYU Studies would be wise to publish only articles from credentialed scholars. To do otherwise would require extraordinary circumstances. My situation was somewhat extraordinary in that I had received the high-res scan images of the JSP and KEP, and had also examined the original documents themselves, and was therefore in a position to do research that few others were able to do.

Well, I have an open mind about it and am looking forward to what you have to say.

I'm sincerely glad to hear it.

Link to comment

Yesterday, a poster on the other board thought that I was trolling as you. I informed them that I didn't believe I had ever really interacted with you on this board. I do believe this is the first time I have actually engaged you in some sort of dialogue.

I will commend you for the bold move in linking to your inflammatory remarks documented by MsJack. I don't know what the motive of this play would be.

Anyway...good luck in your endeavors.

Link to comment

Yesterday, a poster on the other board thought that I was trolling as you.

:lol:

Well, that makes about two dozen or so people who have been falsely accused of being my sock puppets. I've lost track.

I will commend you for the bold move in linking to your inflammatory remarks documented by MsJack. I don't know what the motive of this play would be.

I have probably linked to that thread several dozen times since it first appeared. I will, no doubt, yet link to it many more times in the future.

My motive is quite obvious, I should think: I want people to read it.

I have noted a strange phenomenon over the years: those who are already apostates, or who sympathize with them, are easily fooled by the MDB propaganda, whereas, with very few exceptions, faithful Saints see through the propaganda to the truth hidden underneath.

Link to comment

:lol:

Well, that makes about two dozen or so people who have been falsely accused of being my sock puppets. I've lost track.

I have probably linked to that thread several dozen times since it first appeared. I will, no doubt, yet link to it many more times in the future.

My motive is quite obvious, I should think: I want people to read it.

I have noted a strange phenomenon over the years: those who are already apostates, or who sympathize with them, are easily fooled by the MDB propaganda, whereas, with very few exceptions, faithful Saints see through the propaganda to the truth hidden underneath.

Why do you want them to read it? Do you have an honest and sincere Christian explanation for the comments you made?

I'm not interested in your personal beef with the posters on that board but you have not painted a very good picture of yourself...or so it would seem.

I have no problems with you personally. I wish to keep it that way.

Link to comment

Why do you want them to read it? Do you have an honest and sincere Christian explanation for the comments you made?

I think it should be quite obvious that I don't believe I ever posted anything worthy of shame.

I'm not interested in your personal beef with the posters on that board but you have not painted a very good picture of yourself...or so it would seem.

So it would seem ... to you. And that's fine ... with me.

I have no problems with you personally. I wish to keep it that way.

Stick around long enough and you may very well change your mind. ;) I am the great sifter of the Mormon message board world.

ETA: Do not attempt to convert this thread into a discussion of MsJack's propaganda hit piece. If you do, I will request that you be banned from the thread.

Link to comment

Will I found your blog post very interesting especially in light of everything that has happened with Dan Peterson over the past few months. I would just advise you to keep up the good fight. I can personally attest that there are many who enjoy and appreciate your works and I am one of them. I have absolutely no scholarly credentials except for a bit of an art history (lets not forget where Linda Schele started) and an emense desire and love for the standard works so your background and accomplishments are inspiring. Don't ever forget what got you interested in this type of stuff because sometimes thats all that keeps you going.

Link to comment

In light of what has happened with the Maxwell Institute over the course of the summer, I think many people here might be quite interested in this blog post I published late yesterday:

The Calculated Suppression of Mormon Apologetics: The Case of William Schryver

While I want to take you at your word... I can't imagine that the so-called anti-Mormon community you described has this much sway with the decisions made at FAIR. In other words, why would they give any credibility to the claims of these so called anti-Mormons unless their claims had some semblance of truth behind them? Did your posts have a misogynistic tone to them? You’re asking us to believe that there was absolutely no basis what so ever for Dr. Bradford’s decision to ax you....and frankly, as a skeptic, that’s a lot to swallow.

Link to comment

While I want to take you at your word... I can't imagine that the so-called anti-Mormon community you described has this much sway with the decisions made at FAIR.

My blog post consists of an absolutely veracious account of what happened.

In other words, why would they give any credibility to the claims of these so called anti-Mormons unless their claims had some semblance of truth behind them?

Did you even read my blog post? Apparently not. Permit me then to quote from it:

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.
Did your posts have a misogynistic tone to them?

No. I categorically deny that I have ever posted anything that could be honestly construed as misogynistic. I am not a misogynist. I am an equal-opportunity polemicist.

You’re asking us to believe that there was absolutely no basis what so ever for Dr. Bradford’s decision to ax you....and frankly, as a skeptic, that’s a lot to swallow.

Based on my observations, you've proven yourself able to swallow quite a bit.

At any rate, I have since come to understand that Bradford did not want the JBMORS to publish anything that could have conceivably propped up what is commonly termed the "missing scroll" theory of Book of Abraham origins.

Worst of all, he did not want a "non-academic outsider" to be published in the JBMORS.

He did not read the article.

He didn't care what it had to say. I am now convinced he ordered the article squashed for purely political reasons. He merely used the smear piece against me as a pretense to do so.

My situation was a pattern for the more recent episode with Greg Smith and his exposè of MormonStories.

Link to comment

Two things:

- Am I reading this correctly that there is an implicit accusation in this blog post that Dr. Hauglid attempted to steal your research?

- In connection with your categorical denial of the allegations in Jack's MDB thread, are you really denying authoring the post commenting on Kimberly's breast size followed by the "whore" comment (through link to scripture)? Be careful here, as you may recall I was a participant in that thread at the time.

Link to comment

William, in a long closed thread you stated that you would be providing evidence that at least one of your posts was edited to read something you did not type, does your blog entry cover this evidence?

No, my blog post is about "The Calculated Suppression of Mormon Apologetics."

But, now that you've asked, I will remind readers that MsJack used at least three forgeries/manipulated posts in her infamous thread. I have already talked about this in another thread from a few months ago.

The most offensive things I was alleged to have said are fakes:

  • The allegation that I called harmony a "c***".
  • The allegation that I called Emma Smith a "champion b****". (As I explained in detail on the other thread, I was even tricked by this one, but ultimately figured out what they had done.)
  • The single post from a sock puppet named "WilliamSchryver," who registered, made a post directed to harmony, and then never made another post.

Did I call harmony and beastie "deceitful **** of a woman"? I did. I don't regret it.

Link to comment

Two things:

- Am I reading this correctly that there is an implicit accusation in this blog post that Dr. Hauglid attempted to steal your research?

- In connection with your categorical denial of the allegations in Jack's MDB thread, are you really denying authoring the post commenting on Kimberly's breast size followed by the "whore" comment (through link to scripture)? Be careful here, as you may recall I was a participant in that thread at the time.

I did not say Hauglid "stole" my research, now did I? You're an attorney, IIRC. Do you often misrepresent witness statements in this fashion?

I've never called anyone a "whore". I did make reference to her having blogged about her breast reduction surgery and her having worn a very immodest dress before that surgery.

Does that qualify me as a misogynist?

Or should it disqualify me to publish a paper through the Maxwell Institute?

Link to comment

I think it should be quite obvious that I don't believe I ever posted anything worthy of shame.

And that is your biggest problem. If you would have sincerely apologized for what you said and promised to start acting like a respectable adult, I bet your article would have been published.

Link to comment

I did not say Hauglid "stole" my research, now did I? You're an attorney, IIRC. Do you often misrepresent witness statements in this fashion?

I'm not an attorney and I asked you a question for clarification as I stated "implicit". I've misrepresented nothing. You're jumping to conclusions again.

Perhaps you would be so kind to explain how footnote 5 to your blog post doesn't imply theft by Dr. Hauglid?

I've never called anyone a "whore". I did make reference to her having blogged about her breast reduction surgery and her having worn a very immodest dress before that surgery.

This is the exact quote, Will:

The breast reduction surgery appears to have been successful.

lol

1 Nephi 14:11

One - do you really think the breast reduction comment was appropriate?

Two - What, exactly, did you mean by dropping in the 1 Nephi 14:11 reference if not the "whore of all the earth" comment?

Does that qualify me as a misogynist?

Or should it disqualify me to publish a paper through the Maxwell Institute?

I never said it did; not sure why you feel compelled to ask me that. However, I do find the public campaign you are waging against Gerald Bradford to be troubling, to say the least.

Link to comment

And that is your biggest problem. If you would have sincerely apologized for what you said and promised to start acting like a respectable adult, I bet your article would have been published.

Give me an example of something I said that I should have apologized for.

In any case, you're wrong. My article was suppressed for political reasons, and not for anything I ever posted at MDB. Nevertheless, I've never written anything online, anywhere, that would require an apology. It's all a big myth concocted by you and your friends.

Link to comment

Perhaps you would be so kind to explain how footnote 5 to your blog post doesn't imply theft by Dr. Hauglid?

What I wrote in footnote 5 is absolutely true:

I was rather chagrined to discover that, in his recent book A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions, Professor Hauglid has presented, without proper attribution, some important findings that originated in my research. Interestingly, since the publication of the book, he appears to have tacitly authorized a friend to, on multiple occasions now, claim (via posts on the mormon*****.*** message board, such as this one) that John Gee compelled him, in some fashion or another, to include those particular findings in the book, and that he does not agree with them.
... do you really think the breast reduction comment was appropriate?

"Appropriate"? What do you mean by "appropriate"? Appropriate for what? I was making a reference to a blog post that the woman herself had published online!

At any rate, does such a comment make me a "misogynist"?

Should such a comment disqualify me to publish an article in a BYU-related journal?

What, exactly, did you mean by dropping in the 1 Nephi 14:11 reference if not the "whore of all the earth" comment?

1 Nephi 14:11 reads:

And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.

I meant it to imply that, prior to her breast reduction surgery, Kimberly could have used her breasts as flotation devices in the event of a water landing. "She sat upon many waters ..."

In any event, I have never called anyone a "whore," as is plainly evident in the quote you have now cited.

... I do find the public campaign you are waging against Gerald Bradford to be troubling, to say the least.

I have done nothing but recount events as they took place. Why do you characterize events as they took place as "waging a public campaign against Jerry Bradford"?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...