It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:40 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:22 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:27 am
Posts: 4080
Location: Planet Earth
MsJack wrote:

Well done. Whatever the merits of Will's article (and I'll withhold judgment until I actually read it), Will has no one to blame but himself for getting the article tubed. There is no way that BYU (or any other scholarly institution) would publish an article by someone (like Will) whose public rants/postings reveal a very warped view of women. Ms. Jack did BYU (and, by extension, the LDS Church) a HUGE favor by exposing Will's public character before it was too late. How Will (and his minions) could complain about this with a straight face, is beyond me.

_________________
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:16 am 
CTR B
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Korriban
This is the latest from Schryver concerning MsJack and addressing the posters and intent of this board:

Quote:
This is true, and yet, oddly enough, she fits in there quite comfortably. In fact, she is one of what I have characterized, in my blog post, as the "core members" of the anti-Mormons who congregate there.

And make no mistake about it, Bridget Jeffries is anti-Mormon to the very center of her feminazi soul. Of course, she is of that unique variety of which John Williams and Chris Smith are also a part: the passive-aggressive-pretending-to-just-be-interested-in-Mormonism-as-a-cultural-phenomenon brand of anti-Mormon which is, in my judgment, the kind you need to keep your eye on the most.
.
.
.
Now, changing the subject somewhat (and I must be brief, because I am leaving shortly to attend a family reunion), I noted that MsJack has offered up a "reply" of sorts to my blog post. My first comment on her counter-post is this: note how she makes grandiose allegations about my making attacks on men, too! (Oh, shudder!) And that I am always the one to launch the first strike, or throw the first punch, or something like that. Then she provides three links to (presumably) provide evidentiary support to her claims. (This is precisely the pattern she uses in her propaganda smear sheet directed at me.)

The problem is that when you actually follow the links and read what I posted there, you come away thinking to yourself, "how did that support her allegations?" So it is with the allegation that I am a misogynist.

One could accurately accuse me of, on very rare occasions, using double entendre and mild sexual innuendo. It's true. I have no problem with that kind of thing, and I shake my head at those who do. Again, I have never been vulgar or obscene. Talking about a woman's breast reduction surgery when she has already established the context with her own public blog post is not "sexually charged language" as some would like readers to believe. Nothing I have ever posted rises above the level of "PG" in the parlance of the American movie rating system. (I would let my children attend PG movies.)

You see, that's the real issue here: all of this is one big gross exaggeration coupled with a sprinkling of forgeries to give it the patina of real offensiveness.

Now, speaking of the forgeries, MsJack and her cohorts have spilled much ink attempting, for example, to prove that I used the dreaded "c" word in a post directed at harmony. They are liars, and they know it. Those who claim to have "seen" the word in the post in question are liars, since even that board, were one to type in that word in a post, would automatically edit it to read "c***". In any event, I said no such thing. I said nothing even remotely close to that. I have never used that word in my life. They are liars. And, again, they know it.

This is the thing about those people: they practice their brand of "morality" towards each other, but they have no compunction when it comes to lying about those whom they hate, like me. It is a principle spoken of by the Lord here:

Quote:
D&C 10

25 Yea, he saith unto them: Deceive and lie in wait to catch, that ye may destroy; behold, this is no harm. And thus he flattereth them, and telleth them that it is no sin to lie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him.


And make no mistake about it, that is precisely what these people seek to do: destroy those whom they perceive to be threats to their anti-Mormon cause.

In any case, take away the things they produced via forgery or manipulation of posts, and you've got nothing but comments about breast reduction surgery upon which to hang the charge that Will Schryver is a wicked misogynist.
.
.
.
I want to publicly commend Ray A and Eric Norwood. They are men to whom truth really means something. "Rollo Tomasi" had a chance to be such a man, but he yielded to the demands of the mob of which he is a part. That's sad.
.
.
.
Finally, I want to say this: Neither MsJack nor anyone else has "destroyed" my opportunities to publish scholarly papers regarding the origins of the Book of Abraham. Not at all. In fact, my prestige has been enhanced as a result of the concerted effort that has been made to discredit me. In faithful LDS circles, we have long since learned that those to whom the anti-Mormons pay the most attention and expend the most effort in their attempts to defame are those who must have the most important things to say and do. It's just the way Satan works. He stirs his minions up to anger against that which is good, or that which tends towards truth. Not to suggest that I am inordinately good or righteous or whatnot. I'm not. I'm just a guy who happened to get the opportunity to examine the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and who figured out something that no one had previously perceived: that they are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. The anti-Mormons correctly perceive that this discovery threatens their long-standing mythology of Book of Abraham production, and therefore they are attempting to nip it in the bud, as it were.

But they have not succeeded. I cannot say more at this point in time, but suffice it to say that I have not been permanently discredited; my chances to publish are not destroyed--quite the opposite my friends. The enemies of the Church have rejoiced for a season, but their celebration has been premature, and before long, it will become apparent that their fantasy of destroying Mormon apologetics has simply been a pipe dream sown in a gale.

_________________
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-Theodore Roosevelt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:19 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:49 am
Posts: 5595
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
Another interesting tidbit from Bob Crockett.

Quote:
Time to stop, Will. You haven't defended yourself adequately here. If a member of my law firm posted in an email the stuff you've posted here from your exchanges with Kimberly, he or she would be disciplined. It doesn't matter that you try and make a joke out of it.

And to bring Paul Hoskisson's name into this mess is really poor form.

I call on your high-falutin' friends, your mega posters on this board, the Pahorans, the Seleks, the USUs, the Calmoriahs, the Petersons, the Hamblins, the Christiansens, the Gardners, to step forward and say here and now that they see no offense to or problems with any of your justifications in this thread. If at least half of that list do so, I'll shut up. Otherwise, I hope you don't mind if I have made up my mind here and now to say that I must disavow your voice amongst the voices of apologists.


I am betting he might get 2 of those to conditionally support Will's remarks.

_________________
The Law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once.
John Taylor, husband of 3 wives, 15 Nov 1844

"I consider them Christian not because of the church they go to on Sunday, but because of how they treat their fellow human beings." Ceeboo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:26 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:26 pm
Posts: 3323
Schryver wrote:
And make no mistake about it, Bridget Jeffries is anti-Mormon to the very center of her feminazi soul. Of course, she is of that unique variety of which John Williams and Chris Smith are also a part: the passive-aggressive-pretending-to-just-be-interested-in-Mormonism-as-a-cultural-phenomenon brand of anti-Mormon which is, in my judgment, the kind you need to keep your eye on the most.


Interesting. Can someone explain this to me? In what ways would someone pretending to be interested in Mormonism threaten the church? This paragraph stands out because it doesn't make any sense, at least to me.

Quote:
The problem is that when you actually follow the links and read what I posted there, you come away thinking to yourself, "how did that support her allegations?" So it is with the allegation that I am a misogynist.


Some believers have come away thinking that MsJack was right.

Quote:
D&C 10

25 Yea, he saith unto them: Deceive and lie in wait to catch, that ye may destroy; behold, this is no harm. And thus he flattereth them, and telleth them that it is no sin to lie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him.

And make no mistake about it, that is precisely what these people seek to do: destroy those whom they perceive to be threats to their anti-Mormon cause.


This guy can't be a real person. No one is that paranoid.

Quote:
Finally, I want to say this: Neither MsJack nor anyone else has "destroyed" my opportunities to publish scholarly papers regarding the origins of the Book of Abraham. Not at all. In fact, my prestige has been enhanced as a result of the concerted effort that has been made to discredit me. In faithful LDS circles, we have long since learned that those to whom the anti-Mormons pay the most attention and expend the most effort in their attempts to defame are those who must have the most important things to say and do. It's just the way Satan works. He stirs his minions up to anger against that which is good, or that which tends towards truth. Not to suggest that I am inordinately good or righteous or whatnot. I'm not. I'm just a guy who happened to get the opportunity to examine the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and who figured out something that no one had previously perceived: that they are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. The anti-Mormons correctly perceive that this discovery threatens their long-standing mythology of Book of Abraham production, and therefore they are attempting to nip it in the bud, as it were.


Maybe they pay attention to him because he's such a douchebag.

Quote:
But they have not succeeded. I cannot say more at this point in time, but suffice it to say that I have not been permanently discredited; my chances to publish are not destroyed--quite the opposite my friends. The enemies of the Church have rejoiced for a season, but their celebration has been premature, and before long, it will become apparent that their fantasy of destroying Mormon apologetics has simply been a pipe dream sown in a gale.


Curses! Foiled again!

_________________
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:35 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:49 am
Posts: 1568
Who here doesn't want to see william published??? Why does he keep saying that supressing his publication is our goal? Someone needs to start a voting thread to see who, here, actually doesn't want to see him publish his gamechanger?

_________________
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents
"At this point in my faith journey, I have no doubt that God is a God of discrimination." - wenglund


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:39 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:49 am
Posts: 5595
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
schreech wrote:
Who here doesn't want to see william published. Why does he keep saying that supressing his publication is our goal? Some needs to start a voting thread to see who, here, actually doesn't want to see him publish his gamechanger?


This has been said repeatedly on both boards and even on his blog and he continues to try and play it as a primary reason for the attacks on him. Instead of starting a voting thread or in addition to such a thread, I'd like to see quotes from anyone besides Will stating they do not want to see him published, critic or apologist alike. Anyone?

_________________
The Law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once.
John Taylor, husband of 3 wives, 15 Nov 1844

"I consider them Christian not because of the church they go to on Sunday, but because of how they treat their fellow human beings." Ceeboo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:51 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13871
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Wilbur the Scribbler wrote:
I'm just a guy who happened to get the opportunity to examine the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and who figured out something that no one had previously perceived: that they are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. The anti-Mormons correctly perceive that this discovery threatens their long-standing mythology of Book of Abraham production, and therefore they are attempting to nip it in the bud, as it were.


And anyone would find that to be a problem because....

waiting....

waiting....

waiting....

Well, I can't come up with any reason why I, or anyone else, would be threatened by the notion that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham before the KEP were put together. I have yet to see a convincing argument put forth to show that. But I see nothing potentially damaging or enhancing to the LDS position in such a chronology.

Essentially Will is saying Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham via revelation about a papyrus fragment that is now missing. Because it is missing, no one can test Will's hypothesis to determine whether it is correct.

Yawn.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:04 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13871
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Bob Crockett wrote:
Time to stop, Will. You haven't defended yourself adequately here. If a member of my law firm posted in an email the stuff you've posted here from your exchanges with Kimberly, he or she would be disciplined. It doesn't matter that you try and make a joke out of it.


Pay real careful attention folks, because this is what all of this hullabaloo is really about: the future posture and image of LDS scholarship on Mormonism. What is being decided here is whether there will be an expectation of professionalism or not. In that decision-making process, Will finally gets to play a truly important role: something that he can rightly be remembered for.

How?

Because Will is an excellent example of what it is to be unprofessional in one's behavior in the conduct of LDS scholarship. Indeed, he has shown us his complete disregard for professional behavior on numerous occasions. Those that stand out in my mind are as follows:

1) His continual inappropriate conduct toward others as he has gone about defending the LDS Church. His sexual comments loom large here, but his paranoid attacks on other LDS scholars like Professor Brian Hauglid are also unacceptable.

2) While I hate to bring it up yet again, his complete disregard for the confidentiality of the peer-review process by advertising his rejection of my Sunstone notes, which I generously allowed FAIR access to in response to their polite request, is another excellent example.

Now, I don't really care whether you stand on the pro-Mormon, anti-Mormon, or interested bystander side. Any side will view these impolitic and unprofessional actions as a liability. It is only "classic-FARMS" that seemed to think such sophomoric pranks were funny stuff to be yukked up instead of called out and corrected. Gerald Bradford has taken a lot of heat from the goons who thought that their National Lampoons contributions to LDS scholarship were simply innocent good times. Evidently Bradford, being an adult professional, did not agree.

Bob Crockett, as much as I have disagreed with and disliked many things he has done here, is an adult professional too. Others ought to listen to the grown up in the room and end the indulgence of these perpetual adolescents who think they are entitled to promote themselves at the expense of the LDS Church they claim to defend.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:20 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:49 am
Posts: 5595
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
Kishkumen wrote:
And anyone would find that to be a problem because....

waiting....

waiting....

waiting....

Well, I can't come up with any reason why I, or anyone else, would be threatened by the notion that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham before the KEP were put together. I have yet to see a convincing argument put forth to show that. But I see nothing potentially damaging or enhancing to the LDS position in such a chronology.

Essentially Will is saying Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham via revelation about a papyrus fragment that is now missing. Because it is missing, no one can test Will's hypothesis to determine whether it is correct.

Yawn.


IMO his argument eliminates the KEP as evidence that the Book of Abraham was incorrectly translated in MS1-3 (or at least the first chapter and change) from the extant PSJ XI part of the Hor Book of Breathings.

_________________
The Law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once.
John Taylor, husband of 3 wives, 15 Nov 1844

"I consider them Christian not because of the church they go to on Sunday, but because of how they treat their fellow human beings." Ceeboo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:25 am 
Deacon
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 8:11 am
Posts: 217
I've been peeking in on the thread. I feel bad for TreeHugger. He/She is discovering the hard truth that a priesthood holder is only a priesthood holder when acting as such.

_________________
"In my more rebellious days I tried to doubt the existence of the sacred, but the universe kept dancing and life kept writing poetry across my life." ~ David N. Elkins, 1998, Beyond Religion, p. 81


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:26 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:26 pm
Posts: 3323
mercyngrace wrote:
I've been peeking in on the thread. I feel bad for TreeHugger. He/She is discovering the hard truth that a priesthood holder is only a priesthood holder when acting as such.


Excellent.

_________________
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:29 am 
\m/ \m/
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 12484
Location: at the point
WS likely 'suspects' that Dr Bradford = Dr Scratch.

_________________
Zadok The Mormon God is just so bat-shit crazy that I can't believe in him at all

Bill Maher Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking.

Mark Twain defined faith as believing what you know ain’t true.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:31 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13871
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Fence Sitter wrote:
IMO his argument eliminates the KEP as evidence that the Book of Abraham was incorrectly translated in MS1-3 (or at least the first chapter and change) from the extant PSJ XI part of the Hor Book of Breathings.


What you are telling me is that it is helpful to maintain a certain preconception some Mormons have about Joseph Smith's revelation process.

Ultimately, it does nothing to enhance or damage the LDS position.

I stand by my judgment.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:36 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:27 am
Posts: 4080
Location: Planet Earth
Will Schryver on MADB wrote:
One could accurately accuse me of, on very rare occasions, using double entendre and mild sexual innuendo. It's true. I have no problem with that kind of thing, and I shake my head at those who do. Again, I have never been vulgar or obscene.

This guy has "never been vulgar or obscene"? He's deranged. A quick review of MsJack's 5/1/11 post reveals these words from Will (and I'm not even including the "c-word") to describe several women on this bb:

1. KimberlyAnn -- Will's referring to (i) her breasts as "the girls" and "melons," (ii) her body as a "voluptuous spirit tabernacle," (iii) her dress as something a porn star would wear, (iv) her "fat ass," and (v) KimberlyAnn herself as a "whore" (via his reference to 1 Nephi 14:11);

2. Beastie -- Will's referring to her "'Barbie doll-like' immortal body" that no man will want in the CK, and calling her "Bitchie," "a lying, deceitful bitch of a woman," "deceitful shrew," "ham hock," "hot little dish," and "beatsheba";

3. liz3564 -- Will's referring to her "bitchiness" and as a "wrinkled middle-aged woman with varicose veins," and "homely waitress";

4. harmony -- Will's characterizing her as "the toughest talking blowhard of a bitch" and "gnarly, snarly wench";

5. Emma Smith -- Will's describing her as a "champion bitch" and "emotionally volatile, high-maintenance ... royal pain in the ass";

6. Lucinda -- Will's nominating her for the "'loathsome specimen of womanhood' award"; and

7. Unnamed MDB female posters -- Will's referring to them as "allegedly female," "shemales," and "creatures."

Will Schryver on MADB wrote:
You see, that's the real issue here: all of this is one big gross exaggeration coupled with a sprinkling of forgeries to give it the patina of real offensiveness.

Oh, this is rich, in light of the above quotes.

Will Schryver on MADB wrote:
And make no mistake about it, that is precisely what these people seek to do: destroy those whom they perceive to be threats to their anti-Mormon cause.

Dude, only the folks around here want your paper published so we can read it. Post it on your blog.

Will Schryver on MADB wrote:
I want to publicly commend Ray A and Eric Norwood. They are men to whom truth really means something. "Rollo Tomasi" had a chance to be such a man, but he yielded to the demands of the mob of which he is a part. That's sad.

I have not yielded to anyone. My position has never changed. I did not see the "c-word" in your post, but there was a time I was not on the thread and could have missed it. Other folks here did see it and harmony has stated unequivocally that she deleted the word. I believe them and her ... and NOT you, based on your past lies and embellishments (as well as your consistent misogynistic behavior).

Will Schryver on MADB wrote:
In fact, my prestige has been enhanced as a result of the concerted effort that has been made to discredit me.

Don't kid yourself -- you're a laughing stock now more than ever.

Will Schryver on MADB wrote:
In faithful LDS circles, we have long since learned that those to whom the anti-Mormons pay the most attention and expend the most effort in their attempts to defame are those who must have the most important things to say and do.

Do you include the administration at BYU and MI as among the "faithful LDS circle" since they canned your arse?

Will Schryver on MADB wrote:
The anti-Mormons correctly perceive that this discovery threatens their long-standing mythology of Book of Abraham production, and therefore they are attempting to nip it in the bud, as it were.

C'mon ... all the so-called "antis" are those who want to read the damn thing -- under your theory, Satan's minions include the administrators at BYU and MI who tubed your article.

Will Schryver on MADB wrote:
I cannot say more at this point in time, but suffice it to say that I have not been permanently discredited; my chances to publish are not destroyed--quite the opposite my friends.

Oh, good, more conspiracy tripe from Will.

Will Schryver on MADB wrote:
The enemies of the Church have rejoiced for a season, but their celebration has been premature, and before long, it will become apparent that their fantasy of destroying Mormon apologetics has simply been a pipe dream sown in a gale.

Again, are you including BYU and MI administrators among "the enemies of the Church"?

_________________
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:45 am 
\m/ \m/
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 12484
Location: at the point
William Schryver wrote:
Many more have followed since then, and although I am still unaware of any substantive counter-arguments to the primary thesis of my presentation (that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham),

Despite knowing of 100+ threads trying to discredit William, he is unaware of any substantive counter-arguments. Perhaps we all ought to chip in and cover the tuition for William to audit Reading Comprehension 101 at his local community college.
William Schryver wrote:
a pervasive même has evolved such that it is now the received wisdom, in anti-Mormon circles, that not only is William Schryver the single most offensive LDS apologist on the planet, but that the Schryver thesis of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers was comprehensively "destroyed" within days of its original presentation.
How could it be destroyed when it is yet to be constructed? William has yet to explain a cogent theory with any supporting facts or circumstances. His homemade word print methodology showed that the KEP and the Book of Abraham text use similar words. Duh. They were drafted by the same man(men). But that both have similar words does not indicate which came first, simply that it suggests that one had some dependency on the other (or co-dependency in their simultaneous development). William's verbiage study and observations do not indicate whether the chicken-or-the-egg came first, and do not reverse the order that is otherwise indicated by the text and historical circumstances that the Book of Abraham text came from and drew upon portions of the KEP. Chris Smith has made a very insightful analysis regarding Abr 1:1-3, and the case for the likelihood of that text being depend on expansions (through successive degrees) that were in all likelihood composed as part of the KEP before the text of Abr 1:1-3 was then drafted. BTW, is William having trouble reading Chris's postings and other writings in that regard?
William Schryver wrote:
Of course, no one can tell you precisely how the thesis was destroyed,
No they cannot. At least not until William can tell us precisely what that thesis is. Of course, he could publish his magnum opus transcript about it on his blog, since its obvious he can't find a journal willing to publish it, now some two years later.
William Schryver wrote:
but there is now a universal consensus among the participants at Mormon Discussions that "all qualified scholars" have rejected my thesis as a ridiculous apologetic imposture.
Yes, it is being dismissed. After all, when William himself cannot/will not explain his thesis in detail, it is just a moving target. But when that inability/unwillingness to explain the these in detail persists, now going on two years, that thesis is suspiciously rejected as being a half-baked theory that its proponent (William) now realizes.

_________________
Zadok The Mormon God is just so bat-shit crazy that I can't believe in him at all

Bill Maher Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking.

Mark Twain defined faith as believing what you know ain’t true.


Last edited by sock puppet on Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:46 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:49 am
Posts: 5595
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
Kishkumen wrote:
Fence Sitter wrote:
IMO his argument eliminates the KEP as evidence that the Book of Abraham was incorrectly translated in MS1-3 (or at least the first chapter and change) from the extant PSJ XI part of the Hor Book of Breathings.


What you are telling me is that it is helpful to maintain a certain preconception some Mormons have about Joseph Smith's revelation process.

Ultimately, it does nothing to enhance or damage the LDS position.

I stand by my judgment.


Maybe I need to understand the distinction you make between the LDS position and the preconceptions some Mormons have about Joseph Smith's revelation process. How do they differ? Certainly Will's cipher theory allows for a response to the dependence of the Book of Abraham on the KEP.

I think most LDS believe Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham, not revealed it. Though I see more and more LDS trying to claim, contrary to what Joseph Smith himself stated, that it was revealed. Usually these are those LDS familiar with some of the issues and are trying to distance Joseph Smith from his own translation claims.

_________________
The Law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once.
John Taylor, husband of 3 wives, 15 Nov 1844

"I consider them Christian not because of the church they go to on Sunday, but because of how they treat their fellow human beings." Ceeboo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:51 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:27 am
Posts: 4080
Location: Planet Earth
Fence Sitter wrote:
Another interesting tidbit from Bob Crockett.
Quote:
Time to stop, Will. You haven't defended yourself adequately here. If a member of my law firm posted in an email the stuff you've posted here from your exchanges with Kimberly, he or she would be disciplined. It doesn't matter that you try and make a joke out of it.

And to bring Paul Hoskisson's name into this mess is really poor form.

I call on your high-falutin' friends, your mega posters on this board, the Pahorans, the Seleks, the USUs, the Calmoriahs, the Petersons, the Hamblins, the Christiansens, the Gardners, to step forward and say here and now that they see no offense to or problems with any of your justifications in this thread. If at least half of that list do so, I'll shut up. Otherwise, I hope you don't mind if I have made up my mind here and now to say that I must disavow your voice amongst the voices of apologists.

Kudos to Bob!!! He has said what many of us would have liked to if we could post over there.

_________________
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:57 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:10 pm
Posts: 1579
Location: Outside The Cult
Just read through your response MsJack. Both Schryver and DCP are nothing more than wounded animals at this point.

_________________
Read: MormonCurtain. Resign: MormonResignation. Recover: ExMormonForums.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:59 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13871
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Fence Sitter wrote:
Maybe I need to understand the distinction you make between the LDS position and the preconceptions some Mormons have about Joseph Smith's revelation process. How do they differ? Certainly Will's cipher theory allows for a response to the dependence of the Book of Abraham on the KEP.

I think most LDS believe Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham, not revealed it. Though I see more and more LDS trying to claim, contrary to what Joseph Smith himself stated, that it was revealed. Usually these are those LDS familiar with some of the issues and are trying to distance Joseph Smith from his own translation claims.


Well, the LDS position, it seems to me, is that the Book of Abraham is the word of God and sacred scripture. Beyond that, I am not sure what one could say. It seems to me that the precise meaning of "translate" is unknown, as is the precise process by which Joseph Smith received divine revelation when he "translated" such records. I know there are theories, but there is no consensus, and there is certainly no doctrinal position on the matter.

So, I don't see how Will's alleged scholarship either damages or enhances the LDS position on the Book of Abraham. He presents his vision, which is informed by his preconceptions about Joseph Smith's revelatory process. I don't see much more than that at this point, but I have not read his scholarship, thanks mostly to his own shilly-shallying about it.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:08 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:37 pm
Posts: 2706
Thread banned. A first. I don't take such things lightly. I will take my dolls and go home, back to worshipping Mammon. Thus ends 20 years of BBS, Compuserve or internet apologetics. Histrionics over.

_________________
Yahoo Bot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: William Schryver - Modern Martyr
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:18 pm 
Deacon
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 8:11 am
Posts: 217
Yahoo Bot wrote:
Thread banned. A first. I don't take such things lightly. I will take my dolls and go home, back to worshipping Mammon. Thus ends 20 years of BBS, Compuserve or internet apologetics. Histrionics over.


Am I right to presume you are Bob?

If so, I want to thank you for taking a principled stand against vulgarity and in favor of toning down the anti-Bradford rhetoric.

_________________
"In my more rebellious days I tried to doubt the existence of the sacred, but the universe kept dancing and life kept writing poetry across my life." ~ David N. Elkins, 1998, Beyond Religion, p. 81


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Doctor CamNC4Me, Equality, karl61, Yahoo [Bot] and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group