Will Schryver's Benefactor

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

Hi there, Will. You're misunderstanding me. Why I referred to "these men," I was referring to whoever it was (in your view) that decided to approve the work of "an unknown autodidact from Hickville, UT." So do you think that Jensen slogged his through the whole document?

(And what did the document say, exactly?)

Nothing in your native language, I assure you.

Why don't you want to tell us, Will? You scared?

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.

So, to clarify: You're saying that you were speaking at length with Gee and Hauglid---asking them, presumably, in some depth---about the Book of Abraham, and yet you were working "in secret" on your 20-page, single-spaced "proposal"? So, did you borrow from their ideas at all? And if so, did you make sure to give proper credit?

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.*

You said, "Dallin tells me that..." which suggest that you spoke with him recently. Oh, Will! What is it you're hiding?

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.”

Hey, if you want to keep it all a big secret and to carry on with this impersonation of USU78, that's certainly your prerogative.

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.

It's not hard to figure out, Will. The Book of Abraham is something that apologists have really taken a beating over, and Hauglid and Gee apparently want nothing more to do with it. They're tired of the butt-kickings, and so they've decided to set you up as the "fall guy" who will wind up taking all the heat for failing to cough up an effective Mopologetic argument.

No wonder you're paranoid, Will. You're really being thrown under the bus.

[_Buffalo]

Will Schryver's benefactor found!

[_Will Schryver]

Scratch:

So do you think that Jensen slogged his through the whole document?

If he did, I’m confident he would not have characterized his experience as “slogging.” It was, I believe, a rather compelling and literarily economical treatise, notwithstanding its relatively considerable length—a genre completely foreign to the negligible material with which you are most familiar.

… did you make sure to give proper credit?

To whatever extent I have been the recipient of beneficial ideas, advice, or critiques of others, I am confident they have been or will be duly credited.

You said, "Dallin tells me that..." which suggest that you spoke with him recently. Oh, Will! What is it you're hiding?

Other than your perversely promiscuous imagination, what leads you believe I’m hiding anything? On the stage of this uniquely Scratchian chimera, what’s my motivation?

It's not hard to figure out, Will. The Book of Abraham is something that apologists have really taken a beating over, and Hauglid and Gee apparently want nothing more to do with it. They're tired of the butt-kickings, and so they've decided to set you up as the "fall guy" who will wind up taking all the heat for failing to cough up an effective Mopologetic argument.

Right. The “fall guy” stratagem.

From whence this artifice? Who is the mind behind this cunning cozenage? And, again, what’s my motivation?

If, as you conjecture, I either volunteered or was selected to be the “fall guy” for “failing to cough up an effective Mopologetic argument,” how exactly will I (presumably) take upon myself the putative cumulative failures of Book of Abraham apologetics?

What form will this Schryver Gethsemane take, and how do you imagine it will serve to atone for the alleged failures of those who preceded me? Whose interests do you imagine will best be served by this propitiation?

No wonder you're paranoid, Will.

I am?

You're really being thrown under the bus.

Whose wheels, no doubt, turn one eternal round …

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scratch:

So do you think that Jensen slogged his through the whole document?

If he did, I’m confident he would not have characterized his experience as “slogging.”

In other words: you don't know whether he (or anyone) read the whole thing.

… did you make sure to give proper credit?

To whatever extent I have been the recipient of beneficial ideas, advice, or critiques of others, I am confident they have been or will be duly credited.

"Will be"? Well, if you stole ideas from Hauglid or Gee, might that furnish them with motivation to keep mum on the topic of whether or not they'd been in contact with Turley, Jensen, et al.?

You said, "Dallin tells me that..." which suggest that you spoke with him recently. Oh, Will! What is it you're hiding?

Other than your perversely promiscuous imagination, what leads you believe I’m hiding anything? On the stage of this uniquely Scratchian chimera, what’s my motivation?

Did you contact him recently or not?

Right. The “fall guy” stratagem.

From whence this artifice? Who is the mind behind this cunning cozenage? And, again, what’s my motivation?

What your "motivation"? You tell us, Will. From where I'm sitting, your motivation is "glory." You want to take on the critics and try to defend what you apparently think is a sacred "translation." You also want respect from the top-tier apologists.

Right?

If, as you conjecture, I either volunteered or was selected to be the “fall guy” for “failing to cough up an effective Mopologetic argument,” how exactly will I (presumably) take upon myself the putative cumulative failures of Book of Abraham apologetics?

What form will this Schryver Gethsemane take, and how do you imagine it will serve to atone for the alleged failures of those who preceded me?

I anticipate one of two things:
(a) you never publish anything, and just try to drag this out as long as possible
(b) you publish, and wind up thoroughly embarrassed by the critics.

I don't think your "Gethsemane" will in anyway "atone" (interesting choice of metaphor, by the way) for the mistakes of Nibley, Gee, et al. But it would/does relieve them of some of the blame. I bet it would be an incredible relief for Professor Gee if the critics would--for once!--leave him alone so as to focus their attacks on you.

Whose interests do you imagine will best be served by this propitiation?

Upper-tier apologists.

Remember, Will: you characterized yourself as an "autodidact from Hicksville, UT." You'd do well to ask yourself why, in light of both your own characterization and all your behavior (lack of professionalism, vulgarity, misogyny, past drug use), they would take your "scholarship" seriously. What's in it for them? Do you think they believe that you'll be able to do better than Nibley and Gee? Think about this for a moment. Ask yourself whether you're viewed as an equal, or whether you're being used. Think about it.

No wonder you're paranoid, Will.

I am?

Aren't you?

[_Will Schryver]

Oh, my!

Those of you following along: tell the truth, have you ever seen Scratch wax quite so mind-numbingly bizarre (and inherently contradictory) in any previous threads? I mean, really?

In any event, against my better judgment—and only because leading him further along this path of ignominy is, I confess, somewhat wickedly satisfying—I will chain this thing out by at least one more post.



Scratch:

In other words: you don't know whether he (or anyone) read the whole thing.

I have a pretty good idea, but I choose to perpetuate the ambiguity as long as you are willing to multiply your fantasies to the entertainment of us all.

If you’d like (and I think you would), it similarly pleases me to watch and wonder as you imagine that no one among the possible candidates has ever read anything I’ve written—nor ever intended to do so—and that I am merely the bravado-driven unwitting pawn of powers and designs far beyond my comprehension.

… if you stole ideas from Hauglid or Gee, might that furnish them with motivation to keep mum on the topic of whether or not they'd been in contact with Turley, Jensen, et al.?

I have really, really tried, but I simply cannot get the dots to connect in this effectively incoherent sentence. I am, nevertheless, impressed by how much logical inconsistency you can pack into so few words. Economical idiocy is, without a doubt, the most tolerable idiocy of all.

Did you contact him recently or not?

Truth be told, in this most recent instance, he contacted me.

What your "motivation"? You tell us, Will. From where I'm sitting, your motivation is "glory."

As a ”fall guy?”

You want to take on the critics and try to defend what you apparently think is a sacred "translation."

I’ve been doing that for several years now, with an appreciable (and steadily augmenting) degree of success—at least in the eyes of those whose judgment matters most.

You also want respect from the top-tier apologists.

As a ”fall guy?” That’s the path at whose end this “respect” can be found? Really?

I anticipate one of two things:
(a) you never publish anything, and just try to drag this out as long as possible

Drag what out? Being a “fall guy?” How exactly can I possibly play this “fall guy” role without ever really publishing anything? Sometimes I think you must suffer from some strange species of adult attention deficit disorder that prevents you from recognizing the inherent contradictions in your accumulated profusion of random fantasies.

(b) you publish, and wind up thoroughly embarrassed by the critics.

If the consensus of opinion on this forum is to be believed, this would constitute a redundant eventuality.

Again … this Falstaffian fall-guy routine benefits whom?

I don't think your "Gethsemane" will in anyway "atone" (interesting choice of metaphor, by the way) for the mistakes of Nibley, Gee, et al. But it would/does relieve them of some of the blame.

I have really, really tried, but I simply cannot get the dots to connect in this effectively incoherent sentence. I am, nevertheless, impressed by how much logical inconsistency you can pack into so few words. Economical idiocy is, without a doubt, the most tolerable idiocy of all.

I bet it would be an incredible relief for Professor Gee if the critics would—for once!--leave him alone so as to focus their attacks on you.

Ah, a momentary respite from the devastating rout. And this would last … how long?

Again … this Falstaffian fall-guy routine benefits whom?

Upper-tier apologists.

Oh, right.

So, let me get this straight: An impenitent autodidact entirely outside the realm of LDS academia has been deliberately selected by some secretive cabal of Church leadership and “upper-tier apologists” in order to bombastically saunter onto the stage of Book of Abraham apologetics, and there make a stunningly complete fool of himself, to the almost orgasmic delight of Mormon critics worldwide, in order that their focus might be distracted—if only for a matter of days or weeks—from their otherwise merciless evisceration of the long-outclassed buffoons at BYU.

Is that about right?

Remember, Will: you characterized yourself as an "autodidact from Hicksville, UT."

I don’t consider it a pejorative. Indeed, I’m convinced it has been a pronounced advantage.

You'd do well to ask yourself why, in light of both your own characterization and all your behavior (lack of professionalism, vulgarity, misogyny, past drug use), they would take your "scholarship" seriously. What's in it for them? Do you think they believe that you'll be able to do better than Nibley and Gee?

I have really, really tried, but I simply cannot get the dots to connect in this effectively incoherent sentence. I am, nevertheless, impressed by how much logical inconsistency you can pack into so few words. Economical idiocy is, without a doubt, the most tolerable idiocy of all.

It is shockingly incomprehensible to me that you apparently fail to appreciate the endless chain of contradictory elements you forge.

Think about this for a moment.

I have. Have you?

Ask yourself whether you're viewed as an equal …

An equal what?

… or whether you're being used.

As a “fall guy” to draw fire long enough for the besieged “upper-tier apologists” to duck and catch their collective breath … right?

Think about it.

I have. Have you?
.
.
.
At any rate, it’s no wonder Bokovoy, Hodges et al. are so exercised about this seemingly inexorable debacle—made many orders of magnitude worse by virtue of the fact that the whole thing is, assuming you are correct, the stillborn issue of an unholy union of the highest levels of Church leadership and some of its most eminent scholar defenders.

No wonder you're paranoid, Will.

No wonder.

Then again, the Falstaff role is frequently the vehicle best adapted to steal the show …

Counterfeit! I lie; I am no counterfeit:
To die is to be a counterfeit;
For he is but the counterfeit of a man
Who hath not the life of a man.
But to counterfeit dying, when a man thereby liveth,
Is to be no counterfeit, but the true and perfect image of life indeed.
The better part of valour is discretion;
in the which better part I have saved my life.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scratch:

In other words: you don't know whether he (or anyone) read the whole thing.

I have a pretty good idea, but I choose to perpetuate the ambiguity as long as you are willing to multiply your fantasies to the entertainment of us all.

You have a "pretty good idea"? That sounds pretty weak to me, Will.

If you’d like (and I think you would), it similarly pleases me to watch and wonder as you imagine that no one among the possible candidates has ever read anything I’ve written—nor ever intended to do so—and that I am merely the bravado-driven unwitting pawn of powers and designs far beyond my comprehension.

I don't know whether this is true or not. What I *can* tell you with 100% certainty is that some people support you out in the open while they stab you in the back via PM.

… if you stole ideas from Hauglid or Gee, might that furnish them with motivation to keep mum on the topic of whether or not they'd been in contact with Turley, Jensen, et al.?

I have really, really tried, but I simply cannot get the dots to connect in this effectively incoherent sentence.

Oh, it's not that hard to understand, Will. I was just offering up a potential explanation for why Gee/Hauglid *may* have given Turley et al. a "heads up" about your willingness to head down the Book of Abraham rabbit hole.

Did you contact him recently or not?

Truth be told, in this most recent instance, he contacted me.

Thus sure is coincidental, isn't it? The opportunity to ask him about Mopologetic gossip just *happened* to fall into your lap! The Lord works in mysterious ways.

You want to take on the critics and try to defend what you apparently think is a sacred "translation."

I’ve been doing that for several years now, with an appreciable (and steadily augmenting) degree of success—at least in the eyes of those whose judgment matters most.

And whose eyes are those, Will? You've already said that your unsure whether Jensen et a. read your proposal. You've admitted that you're even less sure about any of the General Authorities bothering to look at it. So who does that leave? Skousen? DCP? Gee? Blair Hodges? Whose judgment matters?

You also want respect from the top-tier apologists.

As a ”fall guy?” That’s the path at whose end this “respect” can be found? Really?

You're misunderstanding me, Will. *They* aren't going to "respect" you as a "fall guy." That's the whole point of setting up a "fall guy"---it's some jerk who can shoulder all the blame for the organization's failures. My suggestion is simply this: "they" don't respect you know. They never respected you and they never will respect you. You are just a convenient "autodidact from Hicksville, UT." Sure: maybe some of the lower-tier people like Greg Smith and Wade Englund will happily scarf down your theories. But are they the "eyes whose judgment matters most"?

I anticipate one of two things:
(a) you never publish anything, and just try to drag this out as long as possible

Drag what out? Being a “fall guy?” How exactly can I possibly play this “fall guy” role without ever really publishing anything?

That's a good point. You're right---if you never publish, you'll neatly escape taking the "fall" on this.

By any chance have certain "powers that be" been checking in on your progress? Have you gotten any encouraging PMs or emails lately, urging you to hurry up and finish?

Upper-tier apologists.

Oh, right.

So, let me get this straight: An impenitent autodidact entirely outside the realm of LDS academia has been deliberately selected by some secretive cabal of Church leadership and “upper-tier apologists” in order to bombastically saunter onto the stage of Book of Abraham apologetics, and there make a stunningly complete fool of himself, to the almost orgasmic delight of Mormon critics worldwide, in order that their focus might be distracted—if only for a matter of days or weeks—from their otherwise merciless evisceration of the long-outclassed buffoons at BYU.

Is that about right?

Something like that, yes. Then again, maybe you have a better explanation for the way things have turned out?

Remember, Will: you characterized yourself as an "autodidact from Hicksville, UT."

I don’t consider it a pejorative. Indeed, I’m convinced it has been a pronounced advantage.

Really? In what sense?

You'd do well to ask yourself why, in light of both your own characterization and all your behavior (lack of professionalism, vulgarity, misogyny, past drug use), they would take your "scholarship" seriously. What's in it for them? Do you think they believe that you'll be able to do better than Nibley and Gee?

I have really, really tried, but I simply cannot get the dots to connect in this effectively incoherent sentence. I am, nevertheless, impressed by how much logical inconsistency you can pack into so few words. Economical idiocy is, without a doubt, the most tolerable idiocy of all.

It is shockingly incomprehensible to me that you apparently fail to appreciate the endless chain of contradictory elements you forge.

It's not hard to understand at all, Will. It boils down to this:

Why have certain Powers-that-Be within the LDS Church handed over this apologetic baton to "[a]n impenitent autodidact entirely outside the realm of LDS academia"? Why is that, Will? What's your explanation?

Ask yourself whether you're viewed as an equal …

An equal what?

Not of "what"---of whom. Gee? Peterson? Jensen? Hauglid? Are you on an equal footing with these people? On any level?

… or whether you're being used.

As a “fall guy” to draw fire long enough for the besieged “upper-tier apologists” to duck and catch their collective breath … right?

Well... Simply put, yes, though I do think there's more to this than meets the eye.

At any rate, it’s no wonder Bokovoy, Hodges et al. are so exercised about this seemingly inexorable debacle—made many orders of magnitude worse by virtue of the fact that the whole thing is, assuming you are correct, the stillborn issue of an unholy union of the highest levels of Church leadership and some of its most eminent scholar defenders.

Bokovoy and Hodges are "exercised"? Well, now, that's interesting. Would you care to elaborate? It sounds as if you're saying that these two have a problem with your "situation."

Then again, the Falstaff role is frequently the vehicle best adapted to steal the show …

Will you steal the show? Hmmm.... I wonder.....

[_wenglund]

I know I shouldn't say anything about this, but given the intense interest in such things here, you may be pleased to learn that I recently spoke with my own informant who I have begun meeting regularly in the parking garage of the Church Office Building. I can't disclose who my informant is, but s/he is and has long been a well-connected member of the STMC, and has been acting as a kind of double agent between the Packer and Oaks factions.

Anyway, my informant let slip that a secret organization has been formed specifically to clear any and all possible hurdles to Will publishing his KEP paper.

Evidently, the "Brethren" have read and studied in-depth the proposal, and they believe the published article will cause no small stur among the critics, and thus distract their attention away from such mortally damaging issues as polygamy and the like, and chance averting the tsunami of members leaving the Church.

Interestingly enough, this new secret organization has dubbed themselves the "Aluminati"--owing to the aluminum foil hats (in lieu of tin foil) they use to communicate with each other and to receive orders from the Powers-That-Be.

Beyond this, I dare not say. Please, tell no one.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Will Schryver]

And so the conversation turns predictably tiresome …

<sigh>

Well, a few parting thoughts, and then I’ll permit the Scratch imagination to wander unimpeded by my influence.


Scratch:

I *can* tell you with 100% certainty is that some people support you out in the open while they stab you in the back via PM.

So you have claimed on numerous occasions.

I remain blissfully unconcerned.

I was just offering up a potential explanation for why Gee/Hauglid *may* have given Turley et al. a "heads up" about your willingness to head down the Book of Abraham rabbit hole.

Your “potential explanation” is nonsensical.

You've already said that your unsure whether Jensen et a. read your proposal. You've admitted that you're even less sure about any of the General Authorities bothering to look at it. So who does that leave? Skousen? DCP? Gee? Blair Hodges? Whose judgment matters?

Well, if formal publication is the objective in these kinds of scenarios, then I suppose the judgment that matters most would be that of the editors of journals where such publications might logically appear.

You're misunderstanding me, Will. *They* aren't going to "respect" you as a "fall guy."

Whew! That’s a relief.

That's the whole point of setting up a "fall guy"---it's some jerk who can shoulder all the blame for the organization's failures.

I feel like Atlas.

My suggestion is simply this: "they" don't respect you know. They never respected you and they never will respect you. You are just a convenient "autodidact from Hicksville, UT."

Still trying to connect the logical dots of your theory—but with negligible success.

By the way, it’s “Hickville” to you city slickers.

Sure: maybe some of the lower-tier people like Greg Smith … will happily scarf down your theories. But are they the "eyes whose judgment matters most"?

Indeed, I think Greg Smith’s judgment has and will yet matter rather much as this story continues to unfold.

You're right---if you never publish, you'll neatly escape taking the "fall" on this.

Then, alas, there will be no such “neat” escape.

By any chance have certain "powers that be" been checking in on your progress? Have you gotten any encouraging PMs or emails lately, urging you to hurry up and finish?

Funny you should ask, since I must quickly bring this missive to a close in order to reply to correspondence from the lovely and eminently capable Shirley Ricks and the charming and ever dapper Paul Hoskisson. My experience in the halls of academia over the past few years has been, at times, somewhat disillusioning. But my experience with Shirley and Paul has been uniformly positive throughout. I look forward to a continued—and continuingly satisfying—relationship with them both, as unlikely and unforeseen as such a thing may have seemed even a couple short years ago.

… maybe you have a better explanation for the way things have turned out?

Providence perhaps?

I mean, it’s kind of like comparing the Spalding/Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon authorship to Joseph Smith’s explanation of angels and gold plates. When you really make a concerted effort to assess the merits of the two alternatives, the angels and gold plates answer emerges more plausible.

Or so it seems to me.

Why have certain Powers-that-Be within the LDS Church handed over this apologetic baton to "[a]n impenitent autodidact entirely outside the realm of LDS academia"? Why is that, Will? What's your explanation?

Quite simple really: There is no “handed over.” There is no “apologetic baton.” As you are so notoriously wont to do, you are again confusing your delusions with reality.

Are you on an equal footing with these people? On any level?

Why, yes. Yes, I am. I’m taller than any of them. And I quite likely have longer hair than all of them combined.

Well... Simply put, yes, though I do think there's more to this than meets the eye.

That hasn’t escaped our attention. With you, there’s always “more to this than meets the eye.” And in a vacuum of real intelligence, your promiscuous imagination is never loath to fill in the gaps, no matter how wide.

[_jon]

Will, I don't know you so I hope you won't take my post personally as it is aimed at Mormon Apologists in totality.

What is the point of Mormon apologetics?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is purportedly the one true Church on the Earth today and was restored as such directly by Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith.

Why does God, when he has a living Prophet, need academic smoke and mirror merchants to answer the seemingly difficult questions?

Where did the Book of Mormon take place?
The answer is simple and could be simply stated by the Lords Prophet. The answer has not been stated by said Prophet and therefore we must assume that either we are not to be told for some reason or that it's a fraud or that the current Prophet is a fraud.
If God has decided that we are not to be told then Mormon apologists pursuing the answer to this question are out of step with their God. So they should stop.

Now you can apply that principle to any 'apologist' hot little topic.
The Mormon answer always has to be God has chosen not to tell us the answer to that or for the current Prophet to tell us the answer.

For Mormon Apologists to exist they have to either think the current Prophet ain't good enough to answer the question or else think they know better than what God has decided.


I wonder which it is...

[_Kishkumen]

You know, I am not a huge fan of Will Schryver, to put it mildly, and I have no idea what actually transpired to bring about the present state of affairs in Book of Abraham apologetics, in which Will appears to be the most prominent of the defenders of a more traditional approach to the problem (granting, of course, that his proposed solution is not by any means "old hat"). My guess would be that apologists were excited to see someone attempt something with the KEP that was positive, helpful, and explanatory beyond the usual shoulder shrugging and "scribes did it" claims.

You know, when Will first spoke, I congratulated him and opined that he had indeed changed the conversation on the topic. Now, I doubt a number of his claims, but I do think he deserves credit for his accomplishment. And it is a real accomplishment to bring the attention of others to a topic, especially one as obscure as the KEP. And not only did he bring our attention to it, but he made some interesting, and ultimately indisputable observations (like the appearance of Masonic cypher in the document). Whether his larger thesis bears out remains to be seen, and while I rather doubt it, I don't think this is really reason to ridicule all of Will's efforts with the Book of Abraham.

Scholarship often proceeds by small steps. When someone sheds new light on a topic, no matter its size, they have done interested scholars a service. Will has done that. I think he deserves at least that much credit and respect for his achievement, not matter what else he might do to piss us off or behave poorly.

The problem with both sides of this debate on the Book of Abraham as it unfolds in apologetic and critical circles is that we are really ultimately more interested in justifying ourselves than understanding the topic, or, you might say, we want to understand the topic with a certain agenda commanding our view. Now, while much can be accomplished by looking at the topic from all angles, it is kind of silly when people on both sides make grandiose claims, final dismissals, and the like. Maybe it serves a purpose, but I am not sure right now what that is.

So, Will, while I really don't like your online persona much at all, except on occasion when you manage to share some genuine nuggets of worthwhile material, I thank you for your efforts in studying the Book of Abraham. I concur with others when I say that Greg Smith's comment about Mount Doom, etc., was silly. But so too are efforts to dismiss you as a complete moron with nothing to add to the conversation. At the very least people should be able to admit that you sparked a lot of discussion.

As for the notion that there is something conspiratorial in all of this. It strikes me that the same set of facts can be seen as either conspiratorial or mundane, especially when the topic itself is fairly innocuous. The KEP are just far enough removed from the Book of Abraham to protect the Book of Abraham from just about any negative hypothesis that would seek to discredit the Book of Abraham as a book of scripture. This is why it did little harm to allow Will Schryver to see them, and had anyone with a decent proposal approached Marlin K. Jensen, I believe he is the kind of guy who is reasonable enough to let them examine them.

For critics there is enough in the Book of Abraham and the facsimiles to demonstrate decisively that this is a 19th century work and that Joseph Smith did not have the foggiest clue what he was doing when he "translated" the papyri, at least in terms of a real-world linguistic rendering of Egyptian into English. But believers will always find room to believe, if they want to believe. Nibley once said that evidence of Smith on trial for glass looking would be devastating. Believers weathered that. Will has shown that believers can weather the KEP, so long as they place their faith in the notion that the Book of Abraham came through revelation.

I rather think that there is indeed no single thing in the world that will necessarily deter or diminish the faith of a person who truly wants to believe. The argument is always over whether there is good enough reason for them to do that. For Mormons the answer to that question is ultimately in the witness of the Spirit. A critic need only say that one's feelings are no basis for confidence in certain facts. Beyond that, I do not know what the argument is. It certainly isn't a historical one.