Will Schryver's Benefactor

[Guest]

I don't understand what the big deal was in the first place. I met Royal through my friendship with Dallin D. Oaks, whose offices are very close to one another. Both Dallin and Royal like Shakespeare. I live where there is a Tony-award winning Shakespeare theater. My family has a guest house in town. I invite people to come down here frequently. I asked Royal to review my findings. Now that his long-awaited Book of Mormon book is done, he had the time to do so, so he did. I bought him and his wife and son tickets to Macbeth in exchange for his trouble.

There really wasn't anything conspiratorial about any of it.

Yep. It is no big deal. Sounds like good times all around, and I am envious inasmuch as I love that Shakespeare festival in Utah. I have been twice and loved it both times.

[_Will Schryver]

So why in the last few days have you tried to downplay Skousen to the point of having no post-presentation involvement?

I haven't tried to "downplay" anything. That's just part of the conspiracy theories that are running rampant here.

Plus, since our phone conversation of 8/22 (concerning secondary emendations in the Book of Mormon manuscripts) I haven't spoken or corresponded with Royal. I should probably call him to say hello and make some plans for this summer's Shakespeare plays, now that I think about it.

Anyway, you people are the ones imagining things that just aren't there.

[_Will Schryver]

So why in the last few days have you tried to downplay Skousen to the point of having no post-presentation involvement?

Why reward him with any attention? I think the best solution is just to reach a state of apathy regarding Schryver's apologetic activities. I say this not to attack him or anyone else. But really, what does it matter? It is a bunch of noise about nothing of importance.

Believe me, it would not disappoint me in the least to see me ignored by the people of this place. I started counting the threads that have been dedicated to Schryver-bashing in the past year. There are literally dozens and dozens (likely well over a hundred) of them. So if you people don't want to "reward" me with attention, I think the ball is in your court.

[_sock puppet]

So why in the last few days have you tried to downplay Skousen to the point of having no post-presentation involvement?

Why reward him with any attention? I think the best solution is just to reach a state of apathy regarding Schryver's apologetic activities. I say this not to attack him or anyone else. But really, what does it matter? It is a bunch of noise about nothing of importance.

Apart from the fact of lying itself, I am wanting to find out why right after the presentation Will boasted about Skousen's couple of day analysis and blessing Will's findings as correct and Yale/Oxford publication worthy, but now the story is that Skousen's had no post presentation involvement with Will or his thesis. I don't see the need for it being a conspiracy as Will suggests. I suspect that Skousen was taken in at first but is now running from the stinking turd of a thesis, and Will is obligingly helping Skousen put distance between himself and Will's theories.

[_Will Schryver]

What about the couple of days of analysis by Skousen of your findings that Nomad claimed on August 10 you told him took place on August 9 and 10? Is Nomad lying about that?

Nomad never specified any dates for when Royal reviewed my research findings. Nor did I, except to say that they preceded the FAIR conference--which they did. I don't remember the exact dates, and it doesn't really matter, but it would have been in June or July of last year.

Or did you lie to Nomad telling him about that? Or are you lying in the last few days by claiming Skousen didn't do so if he in fact did?

This isn't about me and Nomad. It's about your reading comprehension disability and willingness to engage in bizarre conspiracy theories.

[_sock puppet]

The more posts you make, the more obvious, Will, you are the one with the furtive imagination about conspiracies.

[_Kishkumen]

Apart from the fact of lying itself, I am wanting to find out why right after the presentation Will boasted about Skousen's couple of day analysis and blessing Will's findings as correct and Yale/Oxford publication worthy, but now the story is that Skousen's had no post presentation involvement with Will or his thesis. I don't see the need for it being a conspiracy as Will suggests. I suspect that Skousen was taken in at first but is now running from the stinking turd of a thesis, and Will is obligingly helping Skousen put distance between himself and Will's theories.

Sock, the simple fact is that Will is not lying about Skousen's comments about the whole publication thing. I have known about this from firsthand sources for some time. I think you can chalk a lot of this confusion and the appearance of dishonesty to the enthusiasm of the parties involved.

A great deal of useless emotion (both positive and negative) has been invested in this issue, and people continue to look for something to get out of all of it. There really isn't anything here to get worked up about. Nomad did not lie. Schryver is not lying. I think he enjoys watching us speculating about this to a certain degree, as he has never shied away from attention, but when it gets down to it all of this is pretty pedestrian.

We shouldn't begrudge Schryver the enjoyment of the fruits of his labors. I think that overall his activities regarding the KEP, whatever we make of the correctness of his hypothesis, are pretty cool. He is a smart and talented guy who often acts like an ass on discussion boards. We shouldn't attach too much importance to his online persona. To get worked up about it is a waste of time and energy.

Now, don't imagine I am saying that we should all hold hands and sing Kumbaya together. That really isn't going to happen. What I am saying is that I am finished with this little self-indulgence in empty drama because I have better things to do. I don't care what Royal Skousen thinks about Will's theory regarding the KEP. I don't care about the KEP all that much. None of it changes anything of real moment in our lives. It is one of those things that, if you have a special interest in it, you can really dig into. But for most people it makes almost no difference in the end.

[_Will Schryver]

I suspect that Skousen was taken in at first but is now running from the stinking turd of a thesis, and Will is obligingly helping Skousen put distance between himself and Will's theories.

It's plain to see that you "suspect" many things, but none of them have any basis in reality.

Furthermore, I don't think you've really thought this through very well. You see, part of the reason Royal was inclined to concur with my findings is that they dovetail so well with his own findings vis-a-vis the Book of Mormon. It's easy to understand why people like David Bokovoy and Sam Brown are disinclined to find merit in my findings, since they would undermine their own previously expressed conclusions about the origins of the Book of Abraham text. David and Sam also disagree with Skousen's fundamental conclusions about the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Anyway, you're certainly free to entertain whatever crazy ideas you'd like. I won't try anymore to disabuse you of any of them.

[_Kishkumen]

It's easy to understand why people like David Bokovoy and Sam Brown are disinclined to find merit in my findings, since they would undermine their own previously expressed conclusions about the origins of the Book of Abraham text. They also disagree with Skousen's fundamental conclusions about the translation of the Book of Mormon.

I think there is a great deal of truth in this. Where I would perhaps differ with Will is in the spiritual importance, or lack thereof, I would attach to the disagreement. But, I don't have a dog in that hunt, so I will leave it to those who do.

[Guest]

It's easy to understand why people like David Bokovoy and Sam Brown are disinclined to find merit in my findings, since they would undermine their own previously expressed conclusions about the origins of the Book of Abraham text. They also disagree with Skousen's fundamental conclusions about the translation of the Book of Mormon.

I think there is a great deal of truth in this. Where I would perhaps differ with Will is in the spiritual importance I would attach to the disagreement. But, I don't have a dog in that hunt, so I will leave it to those who do.

I agree that, although there is a pronounced disagreement concerning the method and mechanism of translation, David, Sam, Royal, and I all seem to agree that both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are inspired scripture. I certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise, if that's how it came across.

Anyway, I think I've expended enough time on this thread.

I will say that I appreciate and agree with the majority of your previous post. Well said.