Will Schryver's Benefactor

[_sock puppet]

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-à-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.

So the differing ways they've lined up on your thesis, Skousen for it, Bokovoy and Brown against it, is in your way of thinking merely a manifestation of that which confirms each of the three person's preconceived notions? A manifestation of confirmation bias in Skousen's case just as you see it in Bokovoy's and Brown's cases?

[_Will Schryver]

So the differing ways they've lined up on your thesis, Skousen for it, Bokovoy and Brown against it, is in your way of thinking merely a manifestation of that which confirms each of the three person's preconceived notions? A manifestation of confirmation bias in Skousen's case just as you see it in Bokovoy's and Brown's cases?

As with most things, it's more complicated and nuanced than your rigid mind will accommodate.

So, go ahead and believe whatever you'd like ...

[_Kishkumen]

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.

Well, I am sorry that you and David have had some unpleasant disagreements. I agree with you that the thing of fundamental importance is your shared belief that LDS scripture is inspired.

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

No problem, and thanks.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Will,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say that you had to get First Presidency approval in order to examine the Book of Abraham materials?

So I was told.

Dr. Gee, in a fairly recent FARMS article, emphasized how difficult and painful it is to gain admittance to the Book of Abraham materials. So, I'm sure you can understand how/why people would be curious as to how some guy w/ no Ph.D. from the "boonies" of Cedar City was magically granted access to some of the most problematic and controversial documents in all of Mormondom.

If that's the case, to whom did you address the letter ...

Elder Marlin K. Jensen, Church Historian.

Why Jensen and not the First Presidency? Why did you assume that Jensen was the proper person to contact?

... and what did your letter say?

It was a research proposal that summarized my findings to date and requested access to the original documents in order to continue my research.

What "findings" could you possibly have in light of zero time spent inspecting the actual documents? Something's not adding up here.

And how were you granted permission? Did the FP send you a letter in return?

I was informed of the approval, via e-mail, by Elder Jensen. I eventually traveled to Salt Lake City to sign a formal research contract governing my use of the source materials--standard intellectual property contract, as far as I could tell.

How interesting.

... were any BYU people involved during the whole approval process?

Not to my knowledge. I specifically asked both Brian Hauglid and John Gee (whom I had listed as references). Both explicitly denied having been contacted. I can't imagine that anyone else would have been contacted besides those two, since--at the time, at least--I was virtually unknown to anyone else at BYU.

To what extent did you know Gee and Hauglid prior to submitting your proposal? How much conversation had you engaged in with them? How influential were they on your research?

[_Will Schryver]

I shan’t participate in this game further, but I think I shall provide some brief responses to at least some of your questions:

Scratch:

Dr. Gee, in a fairly recent FARMS article, emphasized how difficult and painful it is to gain admittance to the Book of Abraham materials. So, I'm sure you can understand how/why people would be curious as to how some guy w/ no Ph.D. from the "boonies" of Cedar City was magically granted access to some of the most problematic and controversial documents in all of Mormondom.

I consent that there was little, if any, antecedent to warrant the confidence with which I authored my research proposal and the accompanying request to obtain access to the original documents.

I think the only plausible explanation is that my abundant personal charisma was sufficient to fool everyone.

(lol!)

Why Jensen and not the First Presidency? Why did you assume that Jensen was the proper person to contact?

I assumed nothing.

The Joseph Smith Papyri and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are under the auspices of the Church Historian. They are housed in the Church History Library. My initial inquiries were made to Glenn Rowe, Director of Special Projects, Church History Library. He directed me to make the formal proposal to Elder Jensen. From there the proposal was elevated through the established channels.

What "findings" could you possibly have in light of zero time spent inspecting the actual documents? Something's not adding up here.

As I have stated publicly on several occasions, all of the findings to which I referred in my proposal were the result of my study of the Jerald Tanner transcription of the purloined microfilm copies of the KEP, as published in Michael Marquardt’s The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers.

[Speaking of my being required to sign a boilerplate intellectual property contract.] How interesting.

Not really. More like standard procedure from what I could gather.

To what extent did you know Gee and Hauglid prior to submitting your proposal?

I submitted my proposal in November 2009. I have known John and Brian since the latter part of 2006.

How much conversation had you engaged in with them?

Considerable.

How influential were they on your research?

Very little, as both of them would, I’m sure, attest.

My research was conducted in virtual isolation from their influence. My findings are original, notwithstanding your rumor mongering to the contrary. I am not nor have I ever been anyone’s “puppet,” as I think should be rather evident from my message board posting history.

[_Kishkumen]

I think the mystery of how Will got access to the KEP was solved the moment he mentioned Marlin K. Jensen. Elder Jensen is a reasonable guy who seems to be interested in opening up access to Church historical materials. It would be perverse to complain about lack of access to such materials, on the one hand, and then complain when someone did get access to them because of Jensen's change in approach to access, on the other hand.

[_Nomad]

I think the mystery of how Will got access to the KEP was solved the moment he mentioned Marlin K. Jensen. Elder Jensen is a reasonable guy who seems to be interested in opening up access to Church historical materials. It would be perverse to complain about lack of access to such materials, on the one hand, and then complain when someone did get access to them because of Jensen's change in approach to access, on the other hand.

You could be right about this. But your theory fails to explain why there had to be approval at a higher level than Jensen. If I recall correctly, Will said it was first approved by Jensen, then by Oaks and Nelson, and only then did it go to the FP. I find it hard to believe that they would have just rubber-stamped Schryver's request without him having given them some good reason to suppose his research had merit and promise. If your theory is right, then why didn't the approvals stop at Jensen, or even someone lower on the ladder?

[_Kishkumen]

You could be right about this. But your theory fails to explain why there had to be approval at a higher level than Jensen. If I recall correctly, Will said it was first approved by Jensen, then by Oaks and Nelson, and only then did it go to the FP. I find it hard to believe that they would have just rubber-stamped Schryver's request without him having given them some good reason to suppose his research had merit and promise. If your theory is right, then why didn't the approvals stop at Jensen, or even someone lower on the ladder?

Do you take my respect for Elder Jensen as a swipe at Will, such that you want to press to get me to say that obviously the "Brethren" and the "First Presidency" were bowled over by the genius and holy purpose of Will's proposal? I don't get it, Nomad. What are you aiming at in pressing this issue?

[_sock puppet]

I think the mystery of how Will got access to the KEP was solved the moment he mentioned Marlin K. Jensen. Elder Jensen is a reasonable guy who seems to be interested in opening up access to Church historical materials. It would be perverse to complain about lack of access to such materials, on the one hand, and then complain when someone did get access to them because of Jensen's change in approach to access, on the other hand.

You could be right about this. But your theory fails to explain why there had to be approval at a higher level than Jensen. If I recall correctly, Will said it was first approved by Jensen, then by Oaks and Nelson, and only then did it go to the FP. I find it hard to believe that they would have just rubber-stamped Schryver's request without him having given them some good reason to suppose his research had merit and promise. If your theory is right, then why didn't the approvals stop at Jensen, or even someone lower on the ladder?

I would not imbue Will's research with 'merit and promise' by reason of the fact he was given access to the KEP. I would say that the fact access was given to a non-academic shows (a) Will has connections, such as through Dallin D Oaks, and/or (b) how desperate the FP/12 are for finding a 'new' theory that will somehow save BoAbr from the intellectual embarrassment that it is.

[_Nomad]

You could be right about this. But your theory fails to explain why there had to be approval at a higher level than Jensen. If I recall correctly, Will said it was first approved by Jensen, then by Oaks and Nelson, and only then did it go to the FP. I find it hard to believe that they would have just rubber-stamped Schryver's request without him having given them some good reason to suppose his research had merit and promise. If your theory is right, then why didn't the approvals stop at Jensen, or even someone lower on the ladder?

Do you take my respect for Elder Jensen as a swipe at Will ...

Wasn't it, in a way? I mean, you're the one who wrote: "I think the mystery of how Will got access to the KEP was solved the moment he mentioned Marlin K. Jensen." I took this as an implication that Elder Jensen was obviously just "opening up" the archives to anyone who asks, regardless of whether they make a good case or not. I guess you're now saying I misuderstood. OK. I apologize.

So, taking your theory under consideration again, my questions remain: Why do you suppose, in this new Jensen era of "opening up access to Church historical materials" that approval for Schryver had to go beyond Jensen?

... such that you want to press to get me to say that obviously the "Brethren" and the "First Presidency" were bowled over by the genius and holy purpose of Will's proposal?

Now who's putting words in someone else's mouth? I never said or even implied anything like what you want to pin on me.

I don't get it, Nomad. What are you aiming at in pressing this issue?

If you didn't mean your original comment as a subtle jab at Schryver, then I guess I'm aiming at nothing. I guess this entire side conversation has been nothing but a misunderstanding between us.