It is currently Wed May 22, 2013 8:35 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 384 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:48 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:25 am
Posts: 14199
Location: Planet Yavin
Ludd wrote:
MsJack wrote:
"Ludd" ~ Plenty of "normal people outside of message boards" have reviewed my thread and decided that William's behavior was unacceptable. Some of them were associated with the Maxwell Institute and made the decision to cancel William's upcoming publications based on it. Argumentum ad populum is already highly fallacious as it is, but in this case, I don't believe the populum you're invoking even exists.

Yes, I made a risqué joke to my personal friend, MrStakhanovite. I did that because I know his sense of humor and I know he's okay with that kind of thing. I would never direct that sort of comment at a stranger on the Internet whom I was having a heated disagreement with. I'm not against occasional bouts of ribald humor with friends. I am against using crude sexual references to debase and deride ideological opponents.

Ideological opponents?

:lol:

Sorry, but that makes me laugh for some reason.

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 confess that music is my drug of choice.Brant Gardner, MDB
Some day you'll be sitting in a telestial kingdom priesthood class with Droopy and Why me as your instructors. Now that's hell.
Yahoo Bot, MDB


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:48 pm 
Elder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 332
liz3564 wrote:
Again, if you honestly believe that Schryver's comments were appropriate, then you know very little about my Church and the way Priesthood holders should 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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:25 am
Posts: 14199
Location: Planet Yavin
Ludd wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
...if you are writing a paper which is published by Brigham Young University, which is an official arm of the Church, and you are publishing that material as an LDS apologist, then you damned well better carry the type of reputation and decorum that is becoming of an LDS Priesthood holder.

Is this true?

I'm serious.

To get published at Brigham Young University, is it a pre-requisite that someone must have "the type of reputation and decorum that is becoming of an LDS Priesthood holder"? Do you have to have a current temple recommend and be abiding by the BYU honor code and all that stuff? If this is true, I had no idea.

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?

_________________
I confess that music is my drug of choice.Brant Gardner, MDB
Some day you'll be sitting in a telestial kingdom priesthood class with Droopy and Why me as your instructors. Now that's hell.
Yahoo Bot, MDB


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:53 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:25 am
Posts: 14199
Location: Planet Yavin
Ludd wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
Again, if you honestly believe that Schryver's comments were appropriate, then you know very little about my Church and the way Priesthood holders should 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?

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.

_________________
I confess that music is my drug of choice.Brant Gardner, MDB
Some day you'll be sitting in a telestial kingdom priesthood class with Droopy and Why me as your instructors. Now that's hell.
Yahoo Bot, MDB


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:56 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:42 pm
Posts: 1499
Location: Sealab
Keep trying "Ludd." I'm sure you'll fool someone.

Image

_________________
"The Sunday School answers really are the best answers." Addams, Emma. "Sunday School Answers." Ensign. Oct 2012


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:57 pm 
Elder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 332
liz3564 wrote:
Ludd wrote:
To get published at Brigham Young University, is it a pre-requisite that someone must have "the type of reputation and decorum that is becoming of an LDS Priesthood holder"? Do you have to have a current temple recommend and be abiding by the BYU honor code and all that stuff? If this is true, I had no idea.

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

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.

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

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. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:59 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 10839
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Ludd wrote:
Kishkumen wrote:
My guess is that his article simply sucked.

So you don't believe the article was squashed because of the online behavior, but because it "simply sucked"?

Why would it have been slated for publication in the first place if it "simply sucked"? And then be pulled only because "it simply sucked"?


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.

_________________
"There seems little of Sméagol left in Kishkumen these days; it's pretty much all Gollum. "~DCP
"Danpologetics is the Sea Org of Mormontology."~LDSToronto


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:04 pm 
Elder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 332
liz3564 wrote:
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.

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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:08 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:26 pm
Posts: 2156
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.

_________________
"I may be on the side of the angels, but don't think for one second that I am one of them." -- Sherlock Holmes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:09 pm 
Elder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 332
Kishkumen wrote:
Who said it was slated for publication? Schryver?

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?

Quote:
Ludd is Will Schryver.

:lol:

Sure, Doctor Scratch.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:12 pm 
Elder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 332
Bob Loblaw wrote:
Who knows what BYU's criteria for publishing are? Schryver didn't meet them or he would have been published.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:14 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:03 pm
Posts: 1188
Location: Don Valley Ward, Toronto, ON
Ludd wrote:
Kishkumen wrote:
My guess is that his article simply sucked.

So you don't believe the article was squashed because of the online behavior, but because it "simply sucked"?

Why would it have been slated for publication in the first place if it "simply sucked"? And then be pulled only because "it simply sucked"?

Kishkumen wrote:

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.

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 ...

_________________
NOMinal member


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:14 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:25 am
Posts: 14199
Location: Planet Yavin
Ludd wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
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.

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?

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.

_________________
I confess that music is my drug of choice.Brant Gardner, MDB
Some day you'll be sitting in a telestial kingdom priesthood class with Droopy and Why me as your instructors. Now that's hell.
Yahoo Bot, MDB


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:18 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 6029
Location: Cassius University
Ludd wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Hey, Will:

Are you scared about what might happen if your blathering about your Nibley connection gets wider airplay? Would the Brethren be mad if they learned what you said?

To me this post is a lot like the one from someone who popped into this thread early on and said something about Schryver committing adultery and getting a woman pregnant. No evidence for the claim. More like graffitti written on the wall by some anonymous person passing by.


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:

Tabitha wrote:
Several people have told me that after his Book of Abraham presentation Schyver claimed publicly to have received communications from the deceased Nibley.


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?

_________________
"[Y]ou need help...Trust me, I've seen kids in combat come back with real anger issues, so I know what it looks like. You have it. Get help." --J Green, MDB, 9/25/11


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:18 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:25 am
Posts: 14199
Location: Planet Yavin
Ludd wrote:
Bob Loblaw wrote:
Who knows what BYU's criteria for publishing are? Schryver didn't meet them or he would have been published.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

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.

_________________
I confess that music is my drug of choice.Brant Gardner, MDB
Some day you'll be sitting in a telestial kingdom priesthood class with Droopy and Why me as your instructors. Now that's hell.
Yahoo Bot, MDB


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:21 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 6029
Location: Cassius University
liz3564 wrote:
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":

DCP's Email wrote:
My wife predicted that you would pull this while I was out of the country -- just as you used my absence last year to suppress Will Schryver's writing without discussion -- and, in fact, you have.


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.

_________________
"[Y]ou need help...Trust me, I've seen kids in combat come back with real anger issues, so I know what it looks like. You have it. Get help." --J Green, MDB, 9/25/11


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:25 am
Posts: 14199
Location: Planet Yavin
Doctor Scratch wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
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":

DCP's Email wrote:
My wife predicted that you would pull this while I was out of the country -- just as you used my absence last year to suppress Will Schryver's writing without discussion -- and, in fact, you have.


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 :redface:

_________________
I confess that music is my drug of choice.Brant Gardner, MDB
Some day you'll be sitting in a telestial kingdom priesthood class with Droopy and Why me as your instructors. Now that's hell.
Yahoo Bot, MDB


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:26 pm
Posts: 2156
Ludd wrote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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.


Because quoting someone is just such a dastardly trick.

_________________
"I may be on the side of the angels, but don't think for one second that I am one of them." -- Sherlock Holmes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:07 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 10839
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Doctor Scratch wrote:
No, Liz: Dan specifically mentioned "Will Schryver's writing":

DCP's Email wrote:
My wife predicted that you would pull this while I was out of the country -- just as you used my absence last year to suppress Will Schryver's writing without discussion -- and, in fact, you have.


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.


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.

_________________
"There seems little of Sméagol left in Kishkumen these days; it's pretty much all Gollum. "~DCP
"Danpologetics is the Sea Org of Mormontology."~LDSToronto


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:22 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 6029
Location: Cassius University
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?

_________________
"[Y]ou need help...Trust me, I've seen kids in combat come back with real anger issues, so I know what it looks like. You have it. Get help." --J Green, MDB, 9/25/11


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:32 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 17809
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Quote:
DCP's Email wrote:
My wife predicted that you would pull this while I was out of the country -- just as you used my absence last year to suppress Will Schryver's writing without discussion -- and, in fact, you have.


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.


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?

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 384 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brad Hudson, consiglieri, Google [Bot], Jaybear, Kevin Graham, madeleine, Molok, Sethbag, Spektical, SteelHead, Tim the Enchanter, why me and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group