Will Schryver's Benefactor

[_Nomad]

I guess not. So help me out. What is being said here?

I'm afraid not, Nomad. Thanks for taking interest, however.

Translation: what is being said here makes no sense.

I figured as much.

[_Kishkumen]

Translation: what is being said here makes no sense.

I figured as much.

Think what you like, Nomad. Why should I care what Will's buddy and primary defender makes of all of this? I am not out to win you over.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I imagine it is Dallin D. Oaks that Will is talking about, a linguistics professor now at the BYU, and, of course, Dallin H. Oaks' son.

It appears they served together in the Italy Cantania mission, '79-'81.

Wow, that's really interesting, Gramps. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Dallin D. Oaks in the same BYU linguistics department as Royal Skousen?

[_Kishkumen]

In looking over Professor Oaks' vita, I noticed the following interesting items:

Presentation at the Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium. March 7, 1991.
Topic: The Tower of Babel Reexamined

Presentation to the BYU English Society. April 15, 1997.
Topic: Onomastics: The Meaning of Names in LDS Theology

Presentation to the Joseph Smith Workshop. June 27, 1997.
Topic: Some observations about translation and the local dialect of the young Joseph Smith

Presentation at a joint session of the MLA and American Name Society. December30, 1997.
Topic: Onomastics and the Mormon World View

Presentation at the Shenandoah Language and Linguistics Symposium. March 26, 1999.
Topic: Names in the LDS Scriptural Canon: Some Examples of Interpretive Significance.

Presentation to the FARMS Brown Bag Series. Nov. 15, 2000.
Topic: Contributions of the Restoration to an Understanding of Scriptural Names.

Forthcoming publications:

"Language of the Translated Text." Book of Mormon Reference Companion. ed. Dennis L. Largely and David R. Seeley. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, (forthcoming)

"Onomastics and Mormon Belief." in Eggington, William G., Oaks, Dallin D. and Baltes, Paul. Mormon Naming Practices. [tentative title] (forthcoming--under contract with Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd.)

[Guest]

So this guy (1):


is the son of this guy (2):


and the former missionary companion of this guy (3):


as well as the colleague of this guy (4):


And it just so happens that (4) was the mentor of (3) on the KEP project, while (2) is a strong supporter of LDS apologetics and in a position to influence access to sensitive historical documents, as we know from his interactions with D. Michael Quinn.

All very interesting stuff. Not saying it means anything, but it is interesting.

[_Runtu]

All very interesting stuff. Not saying it means anything, but it is interesting.

I don't really care who is Will's "benefactor." I know Dallin Oaks and Royal Skousen, and I like and respect both of them a lot. In the church, everyone is connected, so it's not surprising one would find such connections. What would be surprising is someone's not using their connections for help on relevant research.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't really care who is Will's "benefactor." I know Dallin Oaks and Royal Skousen, and I like and respect both of them a lot. In the church, everyone is connected, so it's not surprising one would find such connections. What would be surprising is someone's not using their connections for help on relevant research.

Thanks for chiming in, Runtu. I agree that it would not be unusual for Will to use his connections with the Linguistics Department at BYU as well as the LDS apostles to his advantage in formulating his Book of Abraham apologetic. It is in some ways entirely unremarkable, if true. On the other hand, it is something that could fill out our understanding of how this all came together, if it proved to be correct. It is not like drawing these connections is any more controversial than the fact that they could have facilitated his Book of Abraham apologia. No?

[_Runtu]

Thanks for chiming in, Runtu. I agree that it would not be unusual for Will to use his connections with the Linguistics Department at BYU as well as the LDS apostles to his advantage in formulating his Book of Abraham apologetic. It is in some ways entirely unremarkable, if true. On the other hand, it is something that could fill out our understanding of how this all came together, if it proved to be correct. It is not like drawing these connections is any more controversial than the fact that they could have facilitated his Book of Abraham apologia. No?

I don't care either way about this issue and probably shouldn't have chimed in. I don't think it's "controversial" at all, which is why I don't really care. If I were working on something that a friend might be able to help with, I'd be kind of stupid not to at least ask.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't care either way about this issue and probably shouldn't have chimed in. I don't think it's "controversial" at all, which is why I don't really care. If I were working on something that a friend might be able to help with, I'd be kind of stupid not to at least ask.

Well, I am glad you added your two cents. It is true that it would be mistaken to make all of these possibilities out to be some kind of dark conspiracy, when the reality would likely be much more mundane and not controversial at all. Still, I think it is interesting to speculate on how all of these things might have happened. Clearly we have a constellation of people with the requisite interests, resources, and motivations to help Will's project along. At the same time, it could very well be the case that none of this has much of anything to do with Will's presentation, beyond his coincidental friendship and the mentoring of Royal Skousen.

I just find the whole thing fascinating. I hope you don't mind my curiosity.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't care either way about this issue and probably shouldn't have chimed in. I don't think it's "controversial" at all, which is why I don't really care. If I were working on something that a friend might be able to help with, I'd be kind of stupid not to at least ask.

Well, I am glad you added your two cents. It is true that it would be mistaken to make all of these possibilities out to be some kind of dark conspiracy, when the reality would likely be much more mundane and not controversial at all. Still, I think it is interesting to speculate on how all of these things might have happened. Clearly we have a constellation of people with the requisite interests, resources, and motivations to help Will's project along. At the same time, it could very well be the case that none of this has much of anything to do with Will's presentation, beyond his coincidental friendship and the mentoring of Royal Skousen.

I just find the whole thing fascinating. I hope you don't mind my curiosity.

It is fascinating. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether Schryver did all of this stuff 'himself,' (as Nomad is apparently suggesting) or whether he had to kiss butt all along the way (as Kevin Graham has said). All of these connections would seem to lend more credence to Kevin's position.