What other term should she use?

Also, you wonder why you are not met with more amicability, and yet you laugh in the face of someone trying to give you an honest explanation of the events which YOU are inquiring about. You also dismiss the information that we have provided as "no big deal", which says to me that you are either a troll, or know very little about the LDS Church, apologetics, and how Melchizedek Priesthood holders, in general, are expected to conduct themselves.

I never said anything about Schryver's comments being "appropriate" or not.

But if I did, the first thing I would want to know is: "Appropriate" for what?

If you are doing so as a representative of the Church, which any apologist is, yes, it is most definitely true.

Are you a member of the Church? What is your relationship to the LDS religion?

You dismissed his comments as being "no big deal". You also didn't seem to understand why we were upset by them.

His comments were inappropriate activity for a Melchizedek Priesthood holder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Will claims this status loud and proud. Therefore, when he decimates that reputation, yes, as a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I have EVERY right to call him on it.

Keep trying "Ludd." I'm sure you'll fool someone.

It's not necessarily that I don't believe you, but I would like some additional confirmation about this.

How do they go about confirming this when someone submits an article to a BYU journal?

This is kind of blowing my mind, to tell you the truth. I honestly never knew this about publishing through BYU.


That's getting a little personal. I think you'll at least need to buy me dinner first before I talk about things like that.

Who said it was slated for publication? Schryver?

I have seen no principle involved, at least anyone trustworthy, who knows for a fact that it was slated for publication.

It could be that turning him down with the excuse that he was just too much of a liability for his online antics was thought gentler than telling him the truth about his scholarship.

But who knows, eh?

You don't. Even if you were to claim you do, we have no good reason to believe you or trust a damn word you write.

I also don't know that I even trust reports of what is supposedly happening inside the MI from those who work there. The politics there are crazy.

The long and short of it is this: I don't care; Ludd is Will Schryver.

Ok, I suppose I am getting what you mean in terms of having to have a stellar reputation. But I honestly had no idea that there were such strict conditions to publishing through BYU.

What about a temple recommend or taking the sacrament?

Who knows what BYU's criteria for publishing are? Schryver didn't meet them or he would have been published. Either they cared that he acts like a misogynistic dirtbag online or as Kishkumen put it his article sucked. Probably the latter.

It's funny to see this board blamed for an internal decision at BYU. For some reason it's easier to believe he was shot down by enemies here rather than just sucking or being pegged as a nut case. From what I have seen he's one taco short of a combo plate.

Yes. He said it a while back at MDDB.

That's also what I understood from Daniel Peterson's email to Jerry Bradford. Didn't you? Why would Peterson have been complaining to Bradford about an article that hadn't already been slated for publication?




Sure, Doctor Scratch.

Then why was Peterson making such a big deal about it in his email to Bradford after getting fired?

I'm sorry, but it makes no sense if the Schryver paper hadn't already been set for publication.


Be that as it may, Peterson acted in his email to Bradford as though Schryver had been "shot down by enemies". At least that is the way I read it.

Whether Will or not, I get the impression that Ludd is trying to find a way of discrediting the decision makers at MI, and to co-opt board members in doing so.

Just my opinion ...

I am sure that non-members are allowed to submit publications to BYU. However, if an author is submitting an article for publication, and he/she is doing so as a member, and in particular, an apologist of the LDS Church, then yes, they would be required to be an upstanding member. I don't know for sure about the temple recommend, however, it would certainly not surprise me, since all employees of BYU are required to hold current temple recommends. Non members employed by BYU are required to meet the honor code requirements.

Hi there, Will.

There is actually pretty decent evidence, such as your own remarks on this thread:

viewtopic.php?p=324411#p324411

I suppose you could dismiss it by claiming that you were "just joking," but, then again, you are still caught in the situation of trying to "make jokes" about things like this.

There's also this:



viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23652

Plus there's the fact of your inexplicable access to sensitive and normally-very-well-protected Church documents. Plus there is your inexplicable (and probably dangerous, reputation-wise, for him and his various causes) friendship with Dan Peterson, despite the fact that Dan was talking trash behind your back and badmouthing you to your own enemies.

Finally, there has been your very own reaction right here on this thread. You're rattled, Will. Why is that, I wonder? Will they take away your access and your publication opportunities if you start blabbing the truth?

You do not have your facts straight at all. Dan was referring to the article which was accused of being a hit piece on Dehlin. This was a completely different article, not authored by Schryver at all.

No, Liz: Dan specifically mentioned "Will Schryver's writing":



viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24378

As for the bit about this having to do with "Schryver 'being shot down by enemies'", I think that's more just a function of Will/Ludd's own interpretation of the events--probably conversations he's had with Dan.

Ah, OK.

This whole mess has gotten so convoluted, it is hard to keep track, anymore. LOL

Who knows? You don't and I don't. It didn't get published and that was a BYU decision not anyone here's decision.



Because quoting someone is just such a dastardly trick.

Exactly. If there is one person whose interpretation if events is bound to be warped, it's that guy.

But doubtless Will/Ludd and DCP will back each other up on whatever excuse or conspiracy theory they have cooked up.

FWIW, I was told in the wake of MsJack's thread that Bradford and his allies at the MI thought that the accusations against Will were "overblown." Nonetheless, they decided that publishing him would be too risky in terms of the damage that might be inflicted on the MI's reputation. Supposedly, DCP, Midgley & Co. argued that failure to publish would be capitulating to blackmail from a bunch of anti-Mormons, whereas Bradford and Co. saw this more as a wise PR move.

Regardless, Will/Ludd is wasting his time trying to convince anyone here that he's somehow not actually guilty of engaging in various things. He really ought to take his case directly to the Powers-That-Be at the MI. Then again, maybe he's convinced that the MI makes crucial decisions based on what gets said here at MDB. As I recall, the poster Lamanite was awarded the prestigious Sampson Avard Golden Scepter Award after he said that a Maxwell Institute employee told him that they (i.e., people at the MI) monitor this board and use it to "test out theories." (This was denied by Dr. Peterson, btw.) So maybe Will thinks that, if he can get us to admit that we were "mistaken," Bradford et al. will reconsider. Who knows?

At this point, now that it's become rather obvious that Ludd=Will Schryver, he has probably blown whatever miniscule chance he had. Then again, maybe his intentions have been different all along, and his questions and activities as "Ludd" have been designed instead to divert attention away from something else that has been eating away at him ever since....oh, what was it? 2005 or thereabouts?

Now wait a second. Either Will's paper was suppressed "without discussion", or Will's paper was suppressed after discussion: "Supposedly, DCP, Midgley & Co. argued that failure to publish would be capitulating to blackmail from a bunch of anti-Mormons, whereas Bradford and Co. saw this more as a wise PR move".

Which is it?