Kishkumen wrote:Well, he can claim that not publishing is something he is doing out of obedience to his leaders. For example, I believe it was suggested by Daniel Peterson that Greg Smith was not going to pursue publication of the Dehlin piece because he considered this contrary to the desires of his ecclesiastical leaders.
Wonder if it has dawned on Smith that LDS Inc's putting the kibosh on the publication of the Dehlin piece suggests that Smith, having researched and written that piece, is out of step with LDS Inc?
If the publication of the high res photos is the issue, would it be possible to publish the article using high res photos from another source?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
If the publication of the high res photos is the issue, would it be possible to publish the article using high res photos from another source?
I'm confused by your question. I thought Schryver's claim to fame was that he was one of the few people who had the high res photos. Is that not true? Are they available elsewhere? If so, then what is the big deal? Why would he act as though that was a problem in the first place? I thought it was a copyright issue.
If the publication of the high res photos is the issue, would it be possible to publish the article using high res photos from another source?
I'm confused by your question. I thought Schryver's claim to fame was that he was one of the few people who had the high res photos. Is that not true? Are they available elsewhere? If so, then what is the big deal? Why would he act as though that was a problem in the first place? I thought it was a copyright issue.
Ludd wrote:I'm confused by your question. I thought Schryver's claim to fame was that he was one of the few people who had the high res photos. Is that not true? Are they available elsewhere? If so, then what is the big deal? Why would he act as though that was a problem in the first place? I thought it was a copyright issue.
Hi Will!
Good to see you.
Get over it already, would you. Surely you hvae something better to do than chase me around this board and say "hi Will" everytime I post.
If the publication of the high res photos is the issue, would it be possible to publish the article using high res photos from another source?
I'm confused by your question. I thought Schryver's claim to fame was that he was one of the few people who had the high res photos. Is that not true? Are they available elsewhere? If so, then what is the big deal? Why would he act as though that was a problem in the first place? I thought it was a copyright issue.
If contractually Will is prevented from publishing his article because he cannot use the high rep photos he has, then maybe he can get copies from another source (Like Ritner did) and proceed with those photos.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
As Wills arrogance, pride, and denial of his own action.s prevented him.from being published....his arrogance, pride and denial of his own will continue to prevent him.from published. If what he posted as to limitations on his publication is true, then he could easily get around those limitations; however his arrogance, pride and denials prevent him from doing so.
William when you can swallow your unrighteous arrogance and your unrighteous pride, then you will be able to repent of your actions....then you will be able to publish. However, so long as you pull the "its ok to lust after a woman in a black dress, because she brought it first" then you will never have the humility needed for you to publish.
You are your own problem, take responsibility for your actions.
Fence Sitter wrote:If contractually Will is prevented from publishing his article because he cannot use the high rep photos he has, then maybe he can get copies from another source (Like Ritner did) and proceed with those photos.
That's a good point. Did Ritner use high resolution photos? If so, where did he get them from? I don't think Gee even had high res photos in his little book on the Joseph Smith papyri.
U.S. copyright law provides for a work to pass into the public doman after, what, 50 years? And the author or his/her estate can apply for a 25-year extension?
Therefore, the Book of Abraham papyrii have been in the public domain for approximately 2,000 years. Will should have no problem publishing his scans of them. What is the church going to do, claim a copyright violation?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"