William Schryver:
June 26, 2012 at 9:12 pm

Both my wife and I have read Greg Smith’s timely article. It is a well-written and exhaustively foot-noted treatise that shines a revealing light upon Dehlin and the numerous “contradictions” to which Ralph alludes above. Whether in the Mormon Studies Review at this time or in another venue at a later date, Smith’s article constitutes a much needed analysis of the growing “ministry” of the most successful example, to date, of a species of Latter-day Saint I have lovingly dubbed the “Evangelizing Apostates of Mormonism.”

Whether this article ought to have been, or not, published at this particular point in time is a valid question, many of the implications of which are entirely unrelated to the future direction of the Maxwell Institute. Therefore I concur with Ralph’s caveat concerning the causal relationships between Dehlin, the apparent suppression of Smiths’ paper, and the recent radical excision from the Maxwell Institute of the last remnant of F.A.R.M.S.

That said, it has been quite apparent to me, as I have observed matters over the course of the past several days since this story broke on a notoriously hostile ex-Mormon-dominated message board, that the Evangelizing Apostates of Mormonism have already established their own narrative that has defined the chain of causality in this affair. From their perspective, LDS Church leadership has hopped on John Dehlin’s bandwagon, moved to formally promote a secularist-dominated Mormon Studies program at Brigham Young University, and, to punctuate the abrupt change of direction, ruthlessly (and ever so publicly) repudiated Dan Peterson and F.A.R.M.S. and everything they stood for.

It was Greg Smith who wrote what Dehlin referred to right? If that's the case then on Ralph Hancocks' blog Schryver posted a comment saying both he and his wife read it.

Link to Hancock's blog

The timing of my dismissal, coming immediately after my public crucifixion over the John Dehlin debacle, guarantees that it will be read as an institutional rebuke of me and all my works.

One thing I find troubling (among many) about Schryver's screed there is the repetition of the apologetic lie that critics are the ones making the causal link between the spiking of the Dehlin hit piece last month and the sacking of DCP and Co. this month. That link was made by DCP himself in his email response to Bradford.

Is there no historical event to which the apologists will not try to give the revisionist treatment? It's only been ten days since this story broke, ferchrissakes. How stupid do they think we are?

It's kind of embarrassing how many of the apologists seem to think it's appropriate for an academic journal, sponsored by a major university, to publish a 100+ page, "footnoted" exposé of the religious views of the host of an Internet podcast. The tone of the article could be all hugs and kisses, and it would still be cringe-worthy.

It's kind of embarrassing how many of the apologists seem to think it's appropriate for an academic journal, sponsored by a major university, to publish a 100+ page, "footnoted" exposé of the religious views of the host of an Internet podcast.

It's kind of embarrassing how many of the apologists seem to think it's appropriate for an academic journal, sponsored by a major university, to publish a 100+ page, "footnoted" exposé of the religious views of the host of an Internet podcast. The tone of the article could be all hugs and kisses, and it would still be cringe-worthy.

I'm still waiting for Stephen Hawking's searing invective against Bill Nye The Science Guy to appear in Nature.

H.

I wonder why Schryver bothers to mention that his wife read the piece if no one is to read her independent impressions of it. Are her views exactly the same as his? Or is he exercising his role as patriarch in speaking for both of them? Perhaps they established a consensus on the piece before he wrote this deliberate misrepresentation of "apostate" views of the Dehlin situation.

One thing I find troubling (among many) about Schryver's screed there is the repetition of the apologetic lie that critics are the ones making the causal link between the spiking of the Dehlin hit piece last month and the sacking of DCP and Co. this month. That link was made by DCP himself in his email response to Bradford.

Is there no historical event to which the apologists will not try to give the revisionist treatment? It's only been ten days since this story broke, ferchrissakes. How stupid do they think we are?

Well I am positive that she is the better half of that union and is far more honest and trustworthy than Willy which makes it understandable that he would turn to her.

Is there no historical event to which the apologists will not try to give the revisionist treatment? It's only been ten days since this story broke, ferchrissakes. How stupid do they think we are?

Perhaps they established a consensus on the piece before he wrote this deliberate misrepresentation of "apostate" views of the Dehlin situation.