Will Schryver's Benefactor

[_Gadianton]

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.

I wonder if this implies that the "atta boy" D. Oaks gave to the FAIR leaders during the several meetings he had with them at that fireside a while back was partially motivated by having his "inside man" shouldering the Book of Abraham material. I think it's less important whose material it is, I have no problem taking Will's word for it being his own, and more important that his handlers have shaped him into a docile, trustworthy party man, who, acting through his own agency, will achieve the goals of his benefactors.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

At the very least I think we can say that we have identified the social milieu in which Will Schryver is operating. This in itself is interesting, as it is now established that he is hardly an isolated character who happened to make some out of the blue connection with a BYU linguistics professor in pursuit of his amateur Book of Abraham apologetic.

I don't want to make too much out of it, because it may be no more significant than that, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Nomad or Will himself pop in with the usual mocking denials telling us what a bunch of silly conspiracy theorists we are. That is par for the course.

What really interests me here is Elder Oaks involvement in LDS apologetics. That is what I want to know more about. My aunt's widower husband (she is recently deceased), who wrote on metal plates in antiquity for FARMS, once bragged to me that he had a pile of correspondence from Elder Oaks. Oaks keeps popping up here and there in connection with the people involved in apologetics.

I am eager to learn more.

[_Will Schryver]

This thread, perhaps more than any other in the history of The Great and Spacious Trailer Park, epitomizes what this place is all about.

For the record, there is only one person who could properly be characterized as my "benefactor," and that would be Brian Hauglid. He was the one who, in the summer of 2006, out of the blue, contacted me and invited me to become more involved in the research of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

That said, my acquisition of the high-resolution images of the JSP and KEP was the result of a pair of research proposals authored solely by me and submitted to the "powers that be" in SLC , without the knowledge of anyone associated with FAIR/FARMS/NAMIRS. No one could have been more surprised than I when the requests contained in my research proposal were so promptly approved--and when it became public knowledge, I know of at least a few people associated with FAIR/FARMS/NAMIRS who were not entirely pleased.

Finally, BYU Professor of Linguistics Dallin D. Oaks is a close friend, but he has no involvement (or interest) in LDS apologetics, and never has. He has had absolutely no involvement (or interest) in my KEP research, and any insinuation that I have somehow leveraged my relationship with him in order to garner favor among the church hierarchy is entirely without merit.

[_RockSlider]

Dang Will, I've been totally consumed with work for the last 6 weeks and missed all the action.

Way to go with David! You even caught the wrath of Mercy and Grace, But of course she's likely a fat ugly middle aged woman so who cares.

Keep up the good work there brother!

[_Kishkumen]

For the record, there is only one person who could properly be characterized as my "benefactor," and that would be Brian Hauglid. He was the one who, in the summer of 2006, out of the blue, contacted me and invited me to become more involved in the research of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Very interesting, Will. Thanks for popping by to set the record straight. So, are you saying that Royal Skousen has not given you any advice, say, after your presentation, about your work?

And would it be fair to say that Dr. Hauglid remains very intensely involved in your KEP work, providing continuing guidance to see it through, as a benefactor or mentor might be expected to do?

That said, my acquisition of the high-resolution images of the JSP and KEP was the result of a pair of research proposals authored solely by me and submitted to the "powers that be" in Salt Lake City , without the knowledge of anyone associated with FAIR/FARMS/NAMIRS. No one could have been more surprised than I when the requests contained in my research proposal were so promptly approved--and when it became public knowledge, I know of at least a few people associated with FAIR/FARMS/NAMIRS who were not entirely pleased.

Yes, I imagine so, since people with solid scholarly credentials had been turned down. But, if it is the case that you promised to do something with the texts with computer analysis that no one else had done, then that might have been persuasive. That and there is no doubt that you are a talented writer.

Finally, BYU Professor of Linguistics Dallin D. Oaks is a close friend, but he has no involvement (or interest) in LDS apologetics, and never has. He has had absolutely no involvement (or interest) in my KEP research, and any insinuation that I have somehow leveraged my relationship with him in order to garner favor among the church hierarchy is entirely without merit.

Well, that is kind of an exaggeration, now, isn't it? He did, after all, speak at a FARMS brown bag, and he does at least do work that would be of interest to apologists. So, your claim that he as *no* involvement or interest in LDS apologetics isn't entirely true, unless you want to define LDS apologetics in a very narrow and exclusive sense. No doubt he has no interest in Skinny-L and SHIELDS, but that isn't exactly the same thing as having no interest in apologetics at all. One might say that Richard Bushman, because he does not do the whole FARMS/FAIR/SHIELDS/NAMIRS "thing" is not involved in apologetics, and yet he held a summer seminar devoted to the topic.

[_Will Schryver]

Kishkumen:

So, are you saying that Royal Skousen has not given you any advice, say, after your presentation, about your work?

Professor Skousen reviewed my FAIR presentation before the fact. He was persuaded by the arguments I made for the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. I did not otherwise consult with him beyond a few e-mails here and there—none since the 2010 FAIR Conference.

Truth be told, Royal is not interested in apologetics, BoA-related or otherwise. He is not and has not been my “mentor” or “benefactor.”

… would it be fair to say that Dr. Hauglid remains very intensely involved in your KEP work, providing continuing guidance to see it through, as a benefactor or mentor might be expected to do?

No, it would not be “fair to say” this. Nor would it be accurate. Dr. Hauglid is not “intensely involved” in my KEP research. He is not even “casually involved.”

… if it is the case that you promised to do something with the texts with computer analysis that no one else had done, then that might have been persuasive.

My research proposal mentioned nothing about computer analysis. For that matter, although I did apply database analysis concepts to the problem, I have employed no computer analysis in my study of the KEP.

That and there is no doubt that you are a talented writer.

I’m flattered you think so.

Well, that is kind of an exaggeration, now, isn't it? He did, after all, speak at a FARMS brown bag, and he does at least do work that would be of interest to apologists. So, your claim that he as *no* involvement or interest in LDS apologetics isn't entirely true, unless you want to define LDS apologetics in a very narrow and exclusive sense.

If I recall correctly, the FARMS brown bag presentation he did was over 10 years ago, and did not touch upon a topic that could be construed as apologetic in nature.

Look, I know precisely what Dallin has been doing for the past decade. He’s been writing his just-published magnum opus on structural ambiguities in the English language: Structural Ambiguity in English: An Applied Grammatical Inventory. I know him very well, and I can assure you that he has no involvement or interest in LDS apologetics, and he never has.

[_Kishkumen]

Truth be told, Royal is not interested in apologetics, Book of Abraham-related or otherwise. He is not and has not been my “mentor” or “benefactor.”

Come now. He is not directly interested in apologetics, but his position on the Book of Mormon has apologetic implications, surely.

No, it would not be “fair to say” this. Nor would it be accurate. Dr. Hauglid is not “intensely involved” in my KEP research. He is not even “casually involved.”

That's what I thought.

My research proposal mentioned nothing about computer analysis. For that matter, although I did apply database analysis concepts to the problem, I have employed no computer analysis in my study of the KEP.

OK. Well, I would be interested to know what your proposal did contain that was so persuasive.

I’m flattered you think so.

Huh. I wouldn't have imagined. Well, you are a talented writer.

If I recall correctly, the FARMS brown bag presentation he did was over 10 years ago, and did not touch upon a topic that could be construed as apologetic in nature.

Well, the precise division between LDS scholarship and apologetics is sometimes hard to pick out. And, certainly he has devoted no small effort to LDS scholarship. I can easily imagine the possible apologetic applications his work might have. Surely you can too.

I know him very well, and I can assure you that he has no involvement or interest in LDS apologetics, and he never has.

Could be! I guess his father's interest in apologetics didn't rub off on him, even though he has still presented a healthy number of papers and written a number of articles on topics related to Mormon names and Joseph Smith's "translation." Never have we seen those topics come up in apologetics. LOL. Neither do these topics relate in any way to the Book of Abraham.

Well, if it didn't dawn on you earlier that you might benefit from chatting with your friend about these topics, then maybe you ought to. At the very least it would probably make for an interesting conversation.

[_sock puppet]

Professor Skousen reviewed my FAIR presentation before the fact. He was persuaded by the arguments I made for the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. I did not otherwise consult with him beyond a few e-mails here and there—none since the 2010 FAIR Conference.

Truth be told, Royal is not interested in apologetics, Book of Abraham-related or otherwise. He is not and has not been my “mentor” or “benefactor.”

Why be so coy and protecting of Royal Skousen? Your presentation was made 8/6/2010.

I’ve exchanged e-mails with William in the past hour. He had just returned from having lunch with Royal Skousen (Skousen and his wife have been visiting the Schryvers the past couple days.)

Skousen spent a few days carefully examining Schryver’s detailed findings and believes the dependency question entirely unassailable on purely text-critical grounds, much as Daniel McClellin is beginning to observe, as seen by his posts here. He (Skousen) believes William should consider submitting his eventual book to Oxford or Yale for publication, rather than to BYU, since his findings are not polemical or apologetic at all, and he (Skousen) seems to believe that either place would give them serious consideration.

And of course, Will himself did not correct this notion when responding to a post that mentioned the Skousens' visit to the Schryver home.

Even so, I talked on the phone with Royal Skousen for a long time this past weekend, explaining the situation with the common emendations;

So now, I am wondering Will. What is the truth of the matter regarding the extent of your involvement with Royal Skousen after your presenation was made on August 6, 2010? Initially, it was played up by you/Nomad and balihooed, but now your dismissing it as just a couple of short e-mails (and before the presentation, at that).

Why are you trying to distance yourself from Royal Skousen? Has Skousen started to treat you like a pariah, insisting that you not mention further his having blessed your half-cocked theory/presentation? Or is this just another Schryverism (i.e., the inability to keep his lies straight)?

[_Kishkumen]

Why be so coy and protecting of Royal Skousen? Your presentation was made 8/6/2010.

I’ve exchanged e-mails with William in the past hour. He had just returned from having lunch with Royal Skousen (Skousen and his wife have been visiting the Schryvers the past couple days.)

Skousen spent a few days carefully examining Schryver’s detailed findings and believes the dependency question entirely unassailable on purely text-critical grounds, much as Daniel McClellin is beginning to observe, as seen by his posts here. He (Skousen) believes William should consider submitting his eventual book to Oxford or Yale for publication, rather than to BYU, since his findings are not polemical or apologetic at all, and he (Skousen) seems to believe that either place would give them serious consideration.

Wow. Fantastic find, sock! The juicy nuggets keep pouring forth. So, Royal Skousen had a weekend stay at chez Schryver directly after Will's KEP presentation. In that time, Skousen spent a few days carefully examining Will's findings. And now Will would have us believe that this unheard of degree of personal attention over several days does not add up to mentorship or benefaction. LOL. Maybe it would take Skousen paying him a regular wage for Will to agree to that characterization of the relationship. In the academic world, one would readily accede to the fact that Skousen played the role of mentor and benefactor by giving so much personal attention to Will and his work.

Of course, it could be that the whole Skousen-Schryver weekend retreat for Book of Abraham studies undertaken to protect the faith claims of the Church was a complete lie that Will tried to foist on us through "Nomad."

And of course, Will himself did not correct this notion when responding to a post that mentioned the Skousens' visit to the Schryver home.

Even so, I talked on the phone with Royal Skousen for a long time this past weekend, explaining the situation with the common emendations;

But what do we have here? Nomad said that the Skousens had been staying with the Schryvers for the weekend, but Will's report contradicts his version in that the sleepover has suddenly turned into a long phone call! Huh. Interesting. What is up with this? Did Will embellish his story for his fawning minion, only to dial it back when he had to write it himself? Was there ever a weekend stay? Ever a conversation?

And, if so, do these things not qualify as scholarly mentorship or benefactions?

So now, I am wondering Will. What is the truth of the matter regarding the extent of your involvement with Royal Skousen after your presenation was made on August 6, 2010? Initially, it was played up by you/Nomad and balihooed, but now your dismissing it as just a couple of short e-mails (and before the presentation, at that).

Yes the story is diminishing with each telling, which suggests to me that he is not telling the truth.

Why are you trying to distance yourself from Royal Skousen? Has Skousen started to treat you like a pariah, insisting that you not mention further his having blessed your half-cocked theory/presentation? Or is this just another Schryverism (i.e., the inability to keep his lies straight)?

One wonders.

[_sock puppet]

Professor Skousen reviewed my FAIR presentation before the fact. He was persuaded by the arguments I made for the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. I did not otherwise consult with him beyond a few e-mails here and there—none since the 2010 FAIR Conference.

Truth be told, Royal is not interested in apologetics, Book of Abraham-related or otherwise. He is not and has not been my “mentor” or “benefactor.”

Why be so coy and protecting of Royal Skousen? Your presentation was made 8/6/2010.

I’ve exchanged e-mails with William in the past hour. He had just returned from having lunch with Royal Skousen (Skousen and his wife have been visiting the Schryvers the past couple days.)

Skousen spent a few days carefully examining Schryver’s detailed findings and believes the dependency question entirely unassailable on purely text-critical grounds, much as Daniel McClellin is beginning to observe, as seen by his posts here. He (Skousen) believes William should consider submitting his eventual book to Oxford or Yale for publication, rather than to BYU, since his findings are not polemical or apologetic at all, and he (Skousen) seems to believe that either place would give them serious consideration.

And of course, Will himself did not correct this notion when responding to a post that mentioned the Skousens' visit to the Schryver home.

Even so, I talked on the phone with Royal Skousen for a long time this past weekend, explaining the situation with the common emendations;

So now, I am wondering Will. What is the truth of the matter regarding the extent of your involvement with Royal Skousen after your presenation was made on August 6, 2010? Initially, it was played up by you/Nomad and balihooed, but now your dismissing it as just a couple of short e-mails (and before the presentation, at that).

Why are you trying to distance yourself from Royal Skousen? Has Skousen started to treat you like a pariah, insisting that you not mention further his having blessed your half-cocked theory/presentation? Or is this just another Schryverism (i.e., the inability to keep his lies straight)?

BUMP for Schryver