Will Schryver's Benefactor

[_Will Schryver]

Will, is publication going to happen in the next, say, 3-5 years?

Let's just say I'm confident I'll still beat Metcalfe to print.

And now that Chris Smith is apparently abandoning the field (or at least seriously contemplating it), there is an opening for a bright, enterprising young up-and-comer like you. I look forward to your contributions.

[_Runtu]

I've kind of gotten the impression he doesn't really trust you very much. Not sure as I blame him. I know you don't think so, but you kind of have two faces in your message board posts. At least that's how it seems to me. No offense intended. Just sayin'.

What does trust have to do with answering my questions? And I really don't care who thinks I have "two faces." I'll have to answer to God someday for the things I've said. I have said some unkind and mocking things in the past, which I readily acknowledge. If apologizing for that and trying to do better makes me two faced, then I guess I'm two faced.

I don't trust Will Schryver, either, as he has made an effort to spread misinformation and character assassination about me over the last couple of years. His hostility led to someone sending threats to my wife (which you and he turn around and say she and I are making up), who suffers from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. So, forgive me if I am uninterested in having the trust of someone like him.

Again, if my questions can be answered, why the constant attempt to impeach my character instead of addressing my questions?

[_Kevin Graham]

Let's just say I'm confident I'll still beat Metcalfe to print.

I'm sure Brent will be terribly disappointed to know you'll win that race. I mean, there was always a race, right?

And now that Chris Smith is apparently abandoning the field (or at least seriously contemplating it)

What "field"? LOL! No one outside BYU would consider Book of Abraham "studies" a legitimate field of scholarship, let alone the more focused areas of apologetic brainstorming (i.e. KEP). The Book of Abraham is a fraud as you yourself even admitted was the most likely conclusion for thinkers unburdened with a testimony.

And remember, just a couple years ago you said you were nothing but a bystander who was only interested in documenting the debate from the sidelines. Then suddenly, out of the blue, you emerged as a self anointed expert on the matter. Chris is mopping the floors with you in both publications as well as credibility. He'll be one of the leading non-LDS scholars on Mormonism within the next few decades. You can go to your grave knowing that the kid "barely out of puberty" always got the best of you, and your numerous attempts to discredit him as "anti-Mormon," failed at every turn.

there is an opening for a bright, enterprising young up-and-comer like you. I look forward to your contributions.

There is no need for such an "opening" from our view, since the debate has been over for quite a while now. It is just that some folks are too dumb to realize it. Only the most staunch of LDS apologists would see it any other way. Critics generally just watch in humor as you demonstrate time and time again why yours is an intellectually bankrupt enterprise. You really do most of the work for us. I am not sure what is more humorous. The arguments or the amount of time you put into trying to establish relatively irrelevant points, just to confuse your ignorant LDS audience into thinking you've unlocked something of importance.

Now it turns out you're backing off the only thing you had going for you; the three-year public perception (you created) that you were, in some mysterious way, in kahoots with all sorts of legitimate scholars who were supposedly verifying, with excitement undoubtedly, all of your idiotic theories behind closed quarters. Now Hauglid has backed away from apologetics altogether, most likely due to watching what such a devotion has done to you. Four years of promises rooted in Hauglid's expertise as a text critic has been all for naught. Upon realizing that Hauglid no longer has your back, you've had to go back to the drawing board and lobby for another scholar. Enter Royal Skousen. But now it seems Skousen is unwilling to support you either publicly or privately. He refuses to respond to anyone's emails on the subject and has published nothing about it. All we have is your say-so, which as recent experience has proved, should be taken with a grain of salt.

In a nutshell, you're a hopeless joke, Will.

[_Kishkumen]

Although Kevin does not put it very gently, I think his post well captures why many of us are a little confused by what appear to be the shifting sands of Will's representation of his work. At various points he has appeared to suggest that he has had all of this support from various scholars, and now he seems to be downplaying all of that for one reason or another. Not that it matters all that much.

[_Kevin Graham]

The debate has long since been over. That's clear when one side abandon's the debate (Hauglid left before it even started, and Will refuses to respond to criticisms of his various theories) and refuses to answer questions, while promising one failed hyped up presentation after another. Apologetic credibility has taken a suicidal leap into the abyss. The only question left really, is how many LDS scholars Schryver will try to take down with him.

[_harmony]

The only question left really, is how many LDS scholars Schryver will try to take down with him.

Hopefully, none. I mean, really... who would wish that sort of ill will on anyone?

[_sock puppet]

The debate has long since been over. That's clear when one side abandon's the debate (Hauglid left before it even started, and Will refuses to respond to criticisms of his various theories) and refuses to answer questions, while promising one failed hyped up presentation after another. Apologetic credibility has taken a suicidal leap into the abyss. The only question left really, is how many LDS scholars Schryver will try to take down with him.

I think Greg Smith's credibility went down in flames as he gushed over Will's presentation when he put it this way: "Schryver has, I think, pretty much killed, buried and nailed the coffin shut on the idea the (Kirtland Egyptian Papers) are the 'translation documents' of the Book of Abraham, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt. Doom under the continental plates."

DCP, If I recall correctly, was a little less effusive, but giddy nonetheless, after seeing a preview of the presentation.

[_RockSlider]

He's worked real hard on the two scholarly fifth columnist, Loap and David B. But of course that is in a totally different arena.

Will == not a safe dude to associate with.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I agree that Jensen is key in all this. The thing is: Jensen doesn't act purely on his own. He answers to the Brethren, and the Brethren, in my opinion, are far more paranoid and cautious.

Which, of course, explains perfectly why they would approve a research proposal from an unknown autodidact from Hickville, UT.

Yes---it is peculiar, isn't it? It suggests that something's afoot.

I should probably clarify something: I have no evidence, or any particular reason to believe that anyone at the level of the Q12 or the FP actually read/reviewed my proposal. I'm inclined to believe they did not, for the simple reason that I don't think they would have taken the time necessary to do so. It was about 20 pages long, single-spaced. More than likely, their approval was required by established policy, and that approval was granted—virtually sight unseen, as it were—on the basis of the recommendation of Jensen, Turley, and Rowe.

So you have (good) reason to believe that these men read the entirety of the "20 pages long, single-spaced" document? (And what did the document say, exactly?)

I think the basic question here is this: Was this all a matter of Will's proposal moving up through the chain of authority purely on the basis of its quality? Or did various personal "connections" play a role in the approval of the project?

If anyone else constituting a "connection" got involved, I am unaware of it.

Oh, I bet.

After the fact, I explicitly inquired of John Gee, Brian Hauglid, and Dallin D. Oaks. All three explicitly denied having been contacted by anyone regarding my proposal.

Interesting. They weren't "contacted," but did they do any "contacting"?

Dallin tells me that, to his recollection, he has never in his life talked about me with his father—not even once—on any topic whatsoever.

So I take it that you recently contacted Dallin D. in order to ask him about these matters?

Anyway, I have no reason to doubt what I have been told by these people.

Sure you do. As you yourself said:

why [would they] approve a research proposal from an unknown autodidact from Hickville, UT

Yes... Why would they? Can we seriously chalk up all of this to the generosity of Marlin Jensen? Or is something else going on here?

You have to admit that the timing in all of this is intriguing. Based on what you've said, it seems that you began conversations w/ Gee and Hauglid roughly in 2006. This followed in the wake of your embarrassment over the Vogel/Chozah/Provis thing, and the strange fiasco involving your "documentary." So we have some four years in which you gradually emerge as the principal defender of the Book of Abraham. During that time, Gee quietly withdraws from the fray (so far from it, in fact, that you wind up delivering his paper for him), and Hauglid hits the "eject" button. Both Hauglid and Gee have to maintain a certain level of scholarly professionalism and credibility in order to continue drawing their paychecks. You, though?

The Book of Abraham remains arguably *the* main controversial Mopologetic issue, and you have to admit that your "rise" through the ranks has been most peculiar, particularly when you account for the timeline, and the people involved. So it's really no surprise that worried about being stabbed in the back (though by Bokovoy?). It's not at all hard to imagine that you've been set up as the "fall guy" for Book of Abraham apologetics.

[_Will Schryver]

Extra! Extra!

The Scratch Show Continues!

Scratch:

Yes---it is peculiar, isn't it? It suggests that something's afoot.

Aye, ‘tis something: “I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips, straining upon the start. The game's afoot: Follow your spirit …”

E’en so:

My blood hath been too cold and temperate,
Unapt to stir at these indignities,
And you have found me; for accordingly
You tread upon my patience: but be sure
I will from henceforth rather be myself,
Mighty and to be fear'd …

I wrote:

I should probably clarify something: I have no evidence, or any particular reason to believe that anyone at the level of the Q12 or the FP actually read/reviewed my proposal. I'm inclined to believe they did not, for the simple reason that I don't think they would have taken the time necessary to do so.

To which the inimitable Scratch replied:

So you have (good) reason to believe that these men read the entirety of the "20 pages long, single-spaced" document?

We are thus left to marvel at the wonder of it all.

Scratch continues:

(And what did the document say, exactly?)

Nothing in your native language, I assure you.

I wrote:

I explicitly inquired of John Gee, Brian Hauglid, and Dallin D. Oaks. All three explicitly denied having been contacted by anyone regarding my proposal.

To which Scratch replied:

Interesting. They weren't "contacted," but did they do any "contacting"?

As I already mentioned, no one except a few people on the 4th floor of the Church History Library knew about my research proposal until after it was approved. So unless one of them possesses a clairvoyance of which I have been heretofore unaware, it is simply not possible that anyone did any “contacting” of anyone concerning my research proposal.

Not that you will be deterred by a little obstacle like that.

The Scratch Show continues:

So I take it that you recently contacted Dallin D. in order to ask him about these matters?

I speak with Dallin on a fairly regular basis. We've been friends now for over 3 decades. He and his family were here just a few days ago. But other than in early 2009, which is when my research proposal was approved—and he and I had some reason to speak of it—we have not spoken further of this matter. We have other topics that dominate our conversations—like what kind of armaments to purchase on the Russian black market in order to upgrade the firepower of the New Danites Guild we recently founded.*

Scratch continues his conspiracy theorizing:

Can we seriously chalk up all of this to the generosity of Marlin Jensen? Or is something else going on here?

Aye, ‘tis something. But what it be none can say save the redoubtable Scratch. And say something he shall, though it be nothing more than “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Yet the tale continues:

So we have some four years in which you gradually emerge as the principal defender of the Book of Abraham.

I had no idea!

During that time, Gee quietly withdraws from the fray …

So punch drunk that not even he is aware of having withdrawn “from the fray.”

… Hauglid hits the "eject" button.

Thank goodness the parachute opened.

Both Hauglid and Gee have to maintain a certain level of scholarly professionalism and credibility in order to continue drawing their paychecks.

That’s not what you usually have to say about people associated with BYU and the NAMIRS!

But as the old saw goes: necessity is the mother of invention—and as long-time observers of this board can readily attest, invention is undeniably one of your salient talents.

Mercifully, he concludes:

The Book of Abraham remains arguably *the* main controversial Mopologetic issue, and you have to admit that your "rise" through the ranks has been most peculiar, particularly when you account for the timeline, and the people involved.

… It's not at all hard to imagine that you've been set up as the "fall guy" for Book of Abraham apologetics.

I have long since learned that, when you are involved, literally nothing is hard to imagine, no matter how patently absurd.

For your next act, perhaps you could elaborate further on the rationale you perceive behind this “fall guy” stratagem. I can’t wait.







* = For everyone following along, this is what is called a “tongue-in-cheek” comment.