DiscussMormonism.com

Nomad wrote:This is one of the best ever, if you ask me. My favorite part was where Scratch was speculating that it was John Huntsman, Jr. that had given FARMS millions of dollars, and was now calling the shots on what FARMS publishes. Or something like that. But that was just one of many crazy theories in this thread.

I think you're referring to a different thread, Nomad. And it wasn't John Huntsman, Jr. who was alleged to have "saved" the MI from severe budget cuts---it was one of the Cannons. The way it was told to me, Dr. Peterson is personal friends with the Cannons, and it was due to this connection that the one of the Cannons was (supposedly) persuaded to donate something like $10 million in order to bail out the MI.

I don't believe I've ever been told anything about any donors "calling the shots." Frankly, I have a hard time imagining the apologists ever agreeing to such a thing. If they won't listen to the exhortations of the Brethren, I sincerely doubt that they'd kowtow to a donor. Then again, you can buy anything in this world with money.

Doctor Scratch wrote:

Nomad wrote:This is one of the best ever, if you ask me. My favorite part was where Scratch was speculating that it was John Huntsman, Jr. that had given FARMS millions of dollars, and was now calling the shots on what FARMS publishes. Or something like that. But that was just one of many crazy theories in this thread.

I think you're referring to a different thread, Nomad. And it wasn't John Huntsman, Jr. who was alleged to have "saved" the MI from severe budget cuts---it was one of the Cannons. The way it was told to me, Dr. Peterson is personal friends with the Cannons, and it was due to this connection that the one of the Cannons was (supposedly) persuaded to donate something like $10 million in order to bail out the MI.

I don't believe I've ever been told anything about any donors "calling the shots." Frankly, I have a hard time imagining the apologists ever agreeing to such a thing. If they won't listen to the exhortations of the Brethren, I sincerely doubt that they'd kowtow to a donor. Then again, you can buy anything in this world with money.

You're right. This was not that thread. But with so many Schryver threads, it's easy to get them confused.

The one where you speculated about Huntsman's involvement with LDS apologetics is this one. The funny part is how "headquarters" supposedly called Schryver on the carpet for criticizing Huntsman and forced him to apologize because (as you conjectured) Huntsman was the rich benefactor of the Maxwell Institute. Or something like that. I'm not going to go back and read the whole thread. It was bad enough the first time.

Nomad wrote:You're right. This was not that thread. But with so many Schryver threads, it's easy to get them confused.

The one where you speculated about Huntsman's involvement with LDS apologetics is this one. The funny part is how "headquarters" supposedly called Schryver on the carpet for criticizing Huntsman and forced him to apologize because (as you conjectured) Huntsman was the rich benefactor of the Maxwell Institute. Or something like that. I'm not going to go back and read the whole thread. It was bad enough the first time.

I would be shocked if the Brethren paid much attention at all to the goings-on of online message board posters and apologists, let alone singled one out for calling on the carpet.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Dr. Peterson is personal friends with the Cannons,

True.

Doctor Scratch wrote:one of the Cannons was (supposedly) persuaded to donate

False.

Strike one.

Doctor Scratch wrote:something like $10 million

False.

Strike two.

Doctor Scratch wrote:in order to bail out the MI.

False.

Strike three.

Yet again.

Doctor Scratch wrote:they won't listen to the exhortations of the Brethren

False.

Strike one.

Runtu wrote:I would be shocked if the Brethren paid much attention at all to the goings-on of online message board posters and apologists, let alone singled one out for calling on the carpet.

So would I. The claim is not only false, it's laughably false.

Nomad wrote:Did you publish a defense of Richard Howard's argument that the KEP were the modus operandi for translating the papyri?

Where? When?

I read your Whitmer Assoc. paper. It looked to me to be more of a denial of Howard's argument than a defense. That's how I saw it. In fact, If I recall correctly, you pretty much shot down most of his argument and were just looking at Abr 1:1-3. Do you believe the KEP was what Joseph Smith used to translated the papyri?

From my JWHA paper:

"In 1968, Jay Todd suggested that the Grammar was reverse-engineered from the Book of Abraham. Richard P. Howard drew the opposite conclusion, writing in 1970 that the Alphabet and Grammar was the modus operandi in the Book of Abraham’s translation. A year later Hugh Nibley rejected Howard’s proposal, preferring the view that the Grammar merely quoted fragmentary Book of Abraham phrases. Decades later, the debate remains more or less polarized between these positions, and little progress has been made toward a satisfactory resolution.

"The present essay will argue, contra Todd and Nibley, that the Book of Abraham translation manuscripts are dependent on the bound Grammar and Alphabet manuscript rather than the other way around. The recognition of the Grammar as the modus operandi for part of the Book of Abraham translation provides a window into the creation of a scriptural text."

So yes, I defended the modus operandi thesis, for at least a portion of the Book of Abraham.

As an aside, it should be noted that I (following Hugh Nibley) and William (following me) probably mischaracterized Howard's thesis. Upon re-reading the Howard essay since publishing my paper, I realized that he wasn't making a claim about the relationship of the Egyptian Alphabet to the translation manuscripts, but rather about the relationship of the Egyptian characters to the English text. The modus operandi Howard was referring to was simply that the English text of Abr. 1:4-2:18 was "created under the stimulus of each of the Egyptian markings [in the manuscript margins]."

The misunderstanding of Howard's thesis arose because of the way Howard referred to the translation manuscripts as part of the "Alphabet and Grammar" material. The Tanners' 1966 publication of Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar made no distinction between the Alphabet and Grammar and the translation manuscripts, and this was the only edition of the Egyptian papers Howard had access to. When Nibley introduced a distinction between the translation manuscripts and the Alphabet and Grammar in 1971, Howard's meaning became confused.

Nomad wrote:I do remember (haven't searched for the link, but I'm sure it's on this board) that Kevin Graham accused Schryver of plagiarizing Smith and Brown. that's a pretty severe allegation, if you ask me. So I wonder what he and others are talking about? What should Will have given credit for?

I'm sorry, are you addressing Kevin Graham, or me? When you start addressing what I write instead of trying to hold me personally accountable for every statement made on this board regarding Will, then get back to me. I see no evidence of you making any attempt to address my perfectly valid point, which, if you really need help understanding it, I will repeat:

It is an adult, professional courtesy to acknowledge that one is part of an ongoing discussion that very much informs and hones one's views. A classy scholar makes an effort to acknowledge that fact with humility and grace.

Blixa wrote:Also, I am sorry for people who don't have good friends like runtu in their lives. You don't know what you're missing, evidently.

+1,000,000,000

I am going to go ahead and bump this thread because I was told something remarkable earlier this afternoon. If what I was told is correct, then I believe I now have the answer to the question I posed in the OP of this thread. Clearly, it has never made sense that the Maxwell Institute Mopologists would give Will the time of day, but if what I was told is true, it suddenly makes a ton of sense (as does a lot of other Will-related stuff).

I still can't decide whether to post the full details.... And I keep thinking: if this is true, and it were to receive wider circulation, what would happen? Would Will effectively be ostracized from the MI and the apologetic community? Or would the fact of his, uh, "lineage" effectively establish a permanent place for him in the Mopologetic hierarchy?

Maybe Will can return to post a bit more about the background of all this?

Doctor Scratch wrote:Or would the fact of his, uh, "lineage" effectively establish a permanent place for him in the Mopologetic hierarchy?

What is Will BKP's bastard son or what? Come on scratch, spill the beans.

Is the poll correct? Does Willy have a Royal benefactor?