Why FAIR Tolerates Schryver

[_Darth J]

I am making three predictions:

1. Will and/or FAIR is going to deny that Will ever claimed that the First Presidency approved his KEP presentation. When presented with evidence that Will did make this claim on this board, they will wax eloquent about enemies of the Church and the Great and Spacious Trailer Park instead of admitting that Will is a liar.

2. Will, like most Mormon apologists, is already apostate. He already disregards the Church's teachings in favor of his current pet theories. There is an inverse relationship between how much faith one has and how much explaining one needs to do. Will is going to be completely apostate---that is, not even pretending to believe in the parts of the Church he claims to believe in currently---within two years.

3. Will's presentation on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, if it ever is actually presented, will have approximately the same world-shaking impact on Mormonism as a rerun of Punky Brewster.

Just look at this. Fear, loathing, paranoia, eye bulging calumny.

I think it safe to say that we now have a Holy Trailerpark Trinity of bigotry, mendacity and intellectual vacuity that might well be termed, in light of the popular acronym "TBM" (True Believing Mormon) the TTM (Trailer Trash Mormon), the charter members being the triumvirate of Kevin Graham, Darth J., and Paul Osborne.

Its all one can do to choose between the foul, vulgar language, viscous ad hominem attacks, personal slander, snarling hostility and abuse, and sometimes barely marginal knowledge of actual LDS doctrine and policy (while claiming expertise in such) when seeking some way of symbolically categorizing the behaviors and characterological attributes of such individuals and the anti-Mormon Zeitgeist they represent.

So I now official dub these illustrious bigoted fanatics the TTMs, to exist alongside the TBMs in a state of perpetual and unrelenting bloodshot-eyed hostility until the very, bitter end.

Of course, one can always humble oneself and repent, before that end comes.

Militant cafeteria Mormons typically equate criticizing an apologetic theory with criticizing the Church itself.

An interesting secondary behavior is talking about the supposed illiteracy of others while demonstrating your own. Here, we see Droopy using "official" as an adverb while telling us how stupid we are.

Researchers studying the militant cafeteria Mormon may also consider the jihad waged on behalf of apologists while throwing actual prophets and apostles under the bus. In this case, Droopy plays the part of Will's would-be attack dog to defend a theory that Will hasn't even presented yet, while defending academic credentials that Will doesn't have.

This presents an fascinating juxtaposition, as Will's statements so far about the KEP necessarily require one to believe that the Church is wrong about its own scriptures (that Abraham didn't write the papyrus, that Joseph Smith didn't need or reference the papyrus, that the facsimiles that have been canonized should not be there).

Now, think about how "humble oneself [sic] and repent" implicitly means stopping the second-guessing of Will's inchoate presentation on the KEP, and anti-Will is the same as anti-Mormon. For example, the prediction that Will's presentation will have no discernible impact on Mormonism is supposed to be proof of anti-Mormonism. However, the truth claims of the Church are irrelevant to Will Schryver's opinions, or even his existence. If I say that the new book claiming to be based on visitations from the resurrected Joseph Smith will have no effect on Mormonism, this is not a claim about the Church. It is a claim about the book. Yet in the case of the militant anti-Mormon, a fatwah must be issued on anyone who disputes the theories or claims of apologists, to whom cafeteria Mormons have outsourced the interpretation of the gospel.

The militant cafeteria Mormon is indeed one of the most interesting subjects of study in Mormon culture.

[_Droopy]

Militant cafeteria Mormons typically equate criticizing an apologetic theory with criticizing the Church itself.

Oh please don't be so coy Darth, it really doesn't do you justice. You're after the Book of Abraham itself, and any particular apologetic theory about it is wholly tertiary.

An interesting secondary behavior is talking about the supposed illiteracy of others while demonstrating your own. Here, we see Droopy using "official" as an adverb while telling us how stupid we are.

It should be (obviously) "offically", not "official. So (obviously) this was a typo, not a grammatical mistake.

Scratch casts a long shadow here indeed.

Researchers studying the militant cafeteria Mormon may also consider the jihad waged on behalf of apologists while throwing actual prophets and apostles under the bus.

This is interesting coming from someone who has thrown both in front of a speeding train.

In this case, Droopy plays the part of Will's would-be attack dog to defend a theory that Will hasn't even presented yet, while defending academic credentials that Will doesn't have.

Don't be deceptive about what I've claimed in public Darth. That does do you justice, but you still shouldn't do it. I am well aware that Will does not have formal academic credentials. Neither does Brent Metcalf. All I've said is that he is a leading scholar in Book of Abraham study, to be which and to become which takes no formal credentials whatever (as is the case in many areas of the humanities). If Will is an autodidact here, then so am I, to an overwhelming extent, in my own areas of interest, despite four years of formal advanced education so far. So what? You are swinging at a strawman.

This presents an fascinating juxtaposition, as Will's statements so far about the KEP necessarily require one to believe that the Church is wrong about its own scriptures (that Abraham didn't write the papyrus, that Joseph Smith didn't need or reference the papyrus, that the facsimiles that have been canonized should not be there).

See, you don't even know what you're talking about. This is the problem Will has and I can understand perfectly the frustration he fields here on a continual basis.

I'm quite confident that, over time, your actual agenda will become quite apparent...wittingly or unwittingly.

[_William Schryver]

Dearth J:

1. Will and/or FAIR is going to deny that Will ever claimed that the First Presidency approved his KEP presentation.

I never have claimed that the FP approved my KEP presentation slated for the FAIR conference.

You struggle with accuracy, don't you? Of course, that is a pervasive malady here, so I'm not really surprised.

In any case, apparently everybody ignored my response to Christopher Smith's inquiry as posted here.








`

[_Darth J]

Dearth J:

1. Will and/or FAIR is going to deny that Will ever claimed that the First Presidency approved his KEP presentation.

I never have claimed that the FP approved my KEP presentation slated for the FAIR conference.

You struggle with accuracy, don't you? Of course, that is a pervasive malady here, so I'm not really surprised.

Prediction #1 = fulfilled.

Two more to go.

[_Darth J]

If Will is an autodidact here, then so am I, to an overwhelming extent, in my own areas of interest, despite four years of formal advanced education so far. So what? You are swinging at a strawman.

Like constitutional law, for example. An area in which you have demonstrable expertise developed from being self-taught.

Droopy, if "case law" is contrary to the Constitution, please give us an alternative way for courts in a common law jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution.

You are trying to tell everyone that there is a difference between case law and common law, right?

After you finish explaining how judges and lawyers in a common law jurisdiction should interpret the Constitution in a way that does not involve case law, maybe you could tell us how engineers don't need math.

"Autodidact militant cafeteria Mormon" is getting long. Is AMCAM acceptable, or do you agree with BCSpace that "Chuck-a-Rama Mormon" covers it?

[_William Schryver]

Dearth:

This presents an fascinating juxtaposition, as Will's statements so far about the KEP necessarily require one to believe that the Church is wrong about its own scriptures (that Abraham didn't write the papyrus, that Joseph Smith didn't need or reference the papyrus, that the facsimiles that have been canonized should not be there).

Loran is so right. You (like so many here) don't have a clue what you're talking about. And I never cease to be amazed at how it's always the apostates who try to hold Latter-day Saints to the most rigid and fundamentally false beliefs concerning Mormonism. It's a strange irony.

At any rate, apparently I'm not the only one who think "radical" thoughts such as you list above. I have heard it reported in such a way as to believe it that the current Church Historian, in an address given just days ago in Kansas, made mention of the fact that it is likely Joseph Smith didn't need nor reference the papyri when producing the Book of Abraham--the same as when he produced D&C 7. I don't know if that's because he always thought such things, or if he has been influenced by reading papers I have submitted to him in the past six months or so, but it does go to show that this kind of thinking is hardly considered heretical, nor should it be so considered. Indeed, as I noted above, it is only viewed that way by apostates who love to impose their now-abandoned radical fundamentalist beliefs on the faithful and believing among the Saints.

[_William Schryver]

Prediction #1 = fulfilled.

Two more to go.

What a tool you are. In fact, in the immortal words of Ulysses Everett McGill, you're "dumber than a bag of hammers."

So, bright boy, please produce the evidence that I ever claimed the FP had "approved" my KEP presentation? Or will you simply take the route employed by everyone else here, and attempt to transform baseless allegations into established fact through the simple act of unremitting repetition?

[_Darth J]

So, bright boy, please produce the evidence that I ever claimed the FP had "approved" my KEP presentation? Or will you simply take the route employed by everyone else here, and attempt to transform baseless allegations into established fact through the simple act of unremitting repetition?

If Chris (or anyone else) wants to request similar access, s/he'll have to do precisely what I did: produce a summary paper describing any findings to date, along with a detailed description of intentions and research objectives, and then send it to Elder Marlin K. Jensen, the Church Historian. If Elder Jensen approves the request, it will then be forwarded to two members of the Twelve who oversee that area of things, and if they approve the request, it will then be forwarded to the First Presidency, from whom final approval is required. I don't see that process being modified much even after the high-quality images appear in print, for reasons related to the analogy I gave above.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12896&p=320102&hilit=kep+first+presidency+approval#p320102

I'm sure it's just because I am so "new on the scene" and, since there probably haven't been too many "faithful" researchers with a long pony tail who show up at the Church History Library expecting to examine the Joseph Smith Papyri and the KEP, let alone request the images of them, I imagine they just wanted to make sure I wasn't one of those "wolves in sheep's clothing," or, in this particular case, "a wolf in wolves' clothing," as it were. <grin>

I'm all but certain that no one in the First Presidency actually even looked at my paper. Rather, probably someone in their staff who is assigned to do such things was the one who quickly scanned it, took stock of the images I am requesting to use, and then rubber-stamped the recommendation of someone at the Church History Library to permit the paper to be submitted for publication.

The First Presidency "approval" does not, in any way, constitute an "endorsement" of the paper's content, but only signifies that I was permitted to use the images of the Joseph Smith Papyri. The paper must still pass through the rigorous Maxwell Institute peer-review process, so it's altogether possible that it could be tied up in extensive rewritings for months before it ever appears in print, assuming it ever does. For all I know, you and Andrew could have the field to yourselves for a long, long time.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9323&p=321863&hilit=kep+first+presidency+approval#p321863

You also say right here why approval was needed. It was approval for a specific purpose. It is unlikely you would get approval to use the KEP to demonstrate that the Book of Abraham is false.

[_William Schryver]

So, bright boy, please produce the evidence that I ever claimed the FP had "approved" my KEP presentation? Or will you simply take the route employed by everyone else here, and attempt to transform baseless allegations into established fact through the simple act of unremitting repetition?

If Chris (or anyone else) wants to request similar access, s/he'll have to do precisely what I did: produce a summary paper describing any findings to date, along with a detailed description of intentions and research objectives, and then send it to Elder Marlin K. Jensen, the Church Historian. If Elder Jensen approves the request, it will then be forwarded to two members of the Twelve who oversee that area of things, and if they approve the request, it will then be forwarded to the First Presidency, from whom final approval is required. I don't see that process being modified much even after the high-quality images appear in print, for reasons related to the analogy I gave above.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... al#p320102

I'm sure it's just because I am so "new on the scene" and, since there probably haven't been too many "faithful" researchers with a long pony tail who show up at the Church History Library expecting to examine the Joseph Smith Papyri and the KEP, let alone request the images of them, I imagine they just wanted to make sure I wasn't one of those "wolves in sheep's clothing," or, in this particular case, "a wolf in wolves' clothing," as it were. <grin>

I'm all but certain that no one in the First Presidency actually even looked at my paper. Rather, probably someone in their staff who is assigned to do such things was the one who quickly scanned it, took stock of the images I am requesting to use, and then rubber-stamped the recommendation of someone at the Church History Library to permit the paper to be submitted for publication.

The First Presidency "approval" does not, in any way, constitute an "endorsement" of the paper's content, but only signifies that I was permitted to use the images of the Joseph Smith Papyri. The paper must still pass through the rigorous Maxwell Institute peer-review process, so it's altogether possible that it could be tied up in extensive rewritings for months before it ever appears in print, assuming it ever does. For all I know, you and Andrew could have the field to yourselves for a long, long time.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... al#p321863

You also say right here why approval was needed. It was approval for a specific purpose. It is unlikely you would get approval to use the KEP to demonstrate that the Book of Abraham is false.

You're confused Dearth. As usual.

None of that has anything to do with the KEP. It's all about a paper on the original length of the scroll of Hor that I recently completed. The use of restricted images must always be approved at the level of the office of the FP. Even John Gee has to get his use of the papyri images approved at that level. It doesn't mean that President Monson or his counselors read, let alone endorse our articles. It means, as I explained above, that the use of the intellectual property is approved. I'm all but certain that happens at the hands of a staff person in the office, and on the recommendation of the Church History Department, to whom we first submit the draft copies of our work, and only if we desire to utilize copyrighted materials in the papers.

[_Darth J]

reference the papyrus, that the facsimiles that have been canonized should not be there). Loran is so right. You (like so many here) don't have a clue what you're talking about. And I never cease to be amazed at how it's always the apostates who try to hold Latter-day Saints to the most rigid and fundamentally false beliefs concerning Mormonism. It's a strange irony.

This statement of Will's is how the militant cafeteria Mormon deals with the realization that he is in fact picking and choosing which of the Church's teachings are correct in order for his personal opinions to be right, yet still retain a claim at being a believing member of the Church. This technique involves claiming that it is critics who claim that believing members should not selectively decide what prophetic counsel members should follow, when in fact it is the prophets and apostles who teach that members should not disregard prophetic counsel at their convenience.

At any rate, apparently I'm not the only one who think "radical" thoughts such as you list above. I have heard it reported in such a way as to believe it that the current Church Historian, in an address given just days ago in Kansas, made mention of the fact that it is likely Joseph Smith didn't need nor reference the papyri when producing the Book of Abraham--the same as when he produced D&C 7.

Observers of militant cafeteria Mormonism will recognize my previously-referenced appeal to the authority of another apologist, rather than a general authority of the Church, on the proper interpretation of church doctrine.

I don't know if that's because he always thought such things, or if he has been influenced by reading papers I have submitted to him in the past six months or so, but it does go to show that this kind of thinking is hardly considered heretical, nor should it be so considered. Indeed, as I noted above, it is only viewed that way by apostates who love to impose their now-abandoned radical fundamentalist beliefs on the faithful and believing among the Saints.

The cherry on top of the sundae for militant cafeteria Mormons is to second-guess the founding prophet of Mormonism and explain why he was mistaken about the particulars of his God-given mission, then declare that it is only apostates who believe that Joseph Smith should be taken at his word when speaking on things that are specifically part of his role as a prophet.

It is one thing to describe these phenomena to students of militant cafeteria Mormonism, but Droopy's and Will's demonstrating these principles in action are a much more powerful way of teaching by example.