Publishing The Kirtland Egyptian Papers

[the narrator]

His experience and knowledge of the remaining papryi, he has personally examined them more than once, has the trust and confidence of those experts whom have written many papers and books on the subject, Has the permission from the CoJCoLDS to do so, has been vetted and vouched by experts.

I think these qualifications are sufficient. They are more than Brent Metcalf and Chris Smith can say, but because Brent and Chris have a paper published makes them more special or more qualified? Okay I can agree with that it makes them more special and qualified with a critical eye and in my opinion seems no matter what is said by Gee, Hauglid, Schriver the critics are so invested in their myopic view they wouldn't budge if the Original BoA fell out of the sky and hit them on the head.

Elder Marlin K Jensen has all of the 'qualifications' you just listed, but he would be clearly adamant that he is not qualified to make any real assessments of them.

[the narrator]

Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why is that obvious Wade?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Elder Marlin K Jensen has all of the 'qualifications' you just listed, but he would be clearly adamant that he is not qualified to make any real assessments of them.

Just as a side note Elder Jensen was my area70 on my mission. Yippy.

[Anijen]

Elder Marlin K Jensen has all of the 'qualifications' you just listed, but he would be clearly adamant that he is not qualified to make any real assessments of them.

CFR on all the qualifications I listed for Elder Jensen that he would be "clearly adamant that he is not qualified to make any real assessments of them". And CFR that he has even studied them to the degree brother Shcryver has.

[the narrator]

CFR on all the qualifications I listed for Elder Jensen that he would be "clearly adamant that he is not qualified to make any real assessments of them". And CFR that he has even studied them to the degree brother Shcryver has.

My personal correspondence with him.

CFR that William has any qualifications other than that a few Mormon apologists took him under their

[Anijen]

My personal correspondence with him.

that is not an answer to my cfr.

[the narrator]

that is not an answer to my cfr.

well then you'll just have to cry. i'm sorry for not videotaping the whole thing so that i could mail it to you.

Start contributing something besides sarcasm.

[William Schryver]

Loyd:

I have no idea. But also, I don't pretend to be any sort of authority on anything. I'm still working on my GED.

I know of people with only a GED who, in my estimation, are as brilliant and knowledgeable in their areas of interest as those with doctorates in the same field.

You, however, do pretend to be an authority.

I don

[Anijen]

My personal correspondence with him.

CFR that William has any qualifications other than that a few Mormon apologists took him under their

A few??? Perhaps, but there is none better qualified than Dr.Gee and Brian Hauglid IMO. I don't see it as "took him under their [wing]." I see it as these men are very busy and William has the fortitude and stamina to delve into these issues and place himself as a vanguard to all your and other critics onslaught. Just because not too many people have even had the guts or know how in the past finally someone is pushing back and doing so intelligently has made the critical beehive swarm.

[the narrator]

Loyd:

....

thanks. that's all i was looking for. I know little of the KEP and am not wholly convinced by Chris's conclusions. Thus I am interested in your findings and hope to be able to read them soon.

Personally, I think that both the critics and the apologists have been looking at the BofA wrong, but my interpretation is something that I am far too lazy to do the research for.

[the narrator]

there is none better qualified than Dr.Gee and Brian Hauglid IMO

Well that's where I disagree. I don't see how their training in Egyptology and Arabic/Islamic studies makes someone qualified for the KEP.

[Debroux]

Narrator, this isn't a scholarly event that happens to have some apologists. It is an apologetic event that happens to have some scholars. Not everyone invited to speak at FAIR conferences are scholars. They're just apologists trying to offer a faith-promoting talk, so these events usually turn out to be little more than glorified testimony meetings. So why act surprised that normal folks with no credentials sometimes are invited to speak. Just look at the history of guest speakers in the past. Kerry shirts, Mike Ash, Rene Olsen, etc..

I think you don't see many apologetic breakthroughs at these events, so don't expect Will to obliterate the critics. He's just getting his feet wet here, so cut him some slack. Hauglid and Gee are supposed to be the most qualified guys on their side, and their overhyped FAIR presentations have turned out to be flops as far as critics were concerned, because they offered none of the devastating arguments that were promised. SO if Hauglid and Gee can't live up to the hype, don't expect Will to.

[wenglund]

Why is that obvious Wade?

Isn't it obvious to you, narrator? If so, then why wouldn't it be obvious to me?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Loyd:

I think that both the critics and the apologists have been looking at the BofA wrong ...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but I do agree that, when it comes to the KEP, there has been a long-standing pre-disposition to look at things from the wrong side of the question, as it were. When it comes to the text of the Book of Abraham itself, I will say this: If it is an actual translation of an Egyptian text that appeared somewhere on the scrolls that came into Joseph Smith's possession, I am personally convinced that Joseph Smith never knew where the text was located on the papyri, nor did he ever, in any way, consult that text in the process of producing his "translation" of the Book of Abraham. Indeed, I am persuaded that the text of the Book of Abraham was received entirely independent of the papyri themselves, just as the Book of Mormon was received entirely independent of the plates upon which, according to Moroni, it was written; just as D&C 7 was received entirely independent of any "parchment" produced by John the Revelator; just as the Book of Moses was received entirely independent of the text of the Old Testament.

I have a mind to spend a few minutes of my FAIR address speaking directly to the question of "What is scripture?". I think it is a very pertinent question when it comes to our understanding of how Joseph Smith functioned as a prophet of God.

[William Schryver]

Narrator, this isn't a scholarly event that happens to have some apologists. It is an apologetic event that happens to have some scholars. Not everyone invited to speak at FAIR conferences are scholars. They're just apologists trying to offer a faith-promoting talk, so these events usually turn out to be little more than glorified testimony meetings. So why act surprised that normal folks with no credentials sometimes are invited to speak. Just look at the history of guest speakers in the past. Kerry shirts, Mike Ash, Rene Olsen, etc..

I think you don't see many apologetic breakthroughs at these events, so don't expect Will to obliterate the critics. He's just getting his feet wet here, so cut him some slack. Hauglid and Gee are supposed to be the most qualified guys on their side, and their overhyped FAIR presentations have turned out to be flops as far as critics were concerned, because they offered none of the devastating arguments that were promised. SO if Hauglid and Gee can't live up to the hype, don't expect Will to.

I'm quite fond of "normal folks" myself. "Normal folks" are the backbone of the world in which we live and have, quite miraculously at times, produced some of the greatest breakthroughs in every field of endeavor.

And no, I have no illusions about "obliterating" the critics. I have come to realize that critics are very much like the poor--in this world, they will always be with us. That said, I won't be entirely surprised if there are a handful of "critics" who will be given cause for pause as a result of what I have to say. For the most part, however, I anticipate the typical boilerplate reactions for which they have become so notorious.

[Debroux]

I think these qualifications are sufficient. They are more than Brent Metcalf and Chris Smith can say, but because Brent and Chris have a paper published makes them more special or more qualified?

Give us a break. Will is more qualified than Brent?

For more than two decades Brent was one of only a few people (ex-Mormons) who had access to high quality color images of the KEP. He's examined them profusely and closely with Ed Ashment (former Church employee) over the years. For example, Ashment was responsible for identifying Frederick G. Williams' handwriting in on of the manuscripts. Hauglid mentions this in his FAIR presentation back in 2006, but did not give credit to Ashment for the finding. For years the critics had been making progress, showing how dozens of puzzle pieces fit perfectly within their model. While the apologists essentially ignored the issue, relying on Hugh Nibley's outdated piece as the final word whenever a critic brought it up.

So what does Will have to match that kind of expertise? .

[Vance]

When it comes to the text of the Book of Abraham itself, I will say this: If it is an actual translation of an Egyptian text that appeared somewhere on the scrolls that came into Joseph Smith's possession, I am personally convinced that Joseph Smith never knew where the text was located on the papyri, nor did he ever, in any way, consult that text in the process of producing his "translation" of the Book of Abraham. Indeed, I am persuaded that the text of the Book of Abraham was received entirely independent of the papyri themselves, just as the Book of Mormon was received entirely independent of the plates upon which, according to Moroni, it was written; just as D&C 7 was received entirely independent of any "parchment" produced by John the Revelator; just as the Book of Moses was received entirely independent of the text of the Old Testament.

One thing is for sure. Joseph's usage of the word "translation" (in all forms) is consistent with a broader definition than the very narrow one that the critics prefer.

It might be useful to spend a half a minute on the definition of "translation" as Joseph used it.

[William Schryver]

Give us a break. Will is more qualified than Brent?

For more than two decades Brent was one of only a few people (ex-Mormons) who had access to high quality color images of the KEP. He's examined them profusely and closely with Ed Ashment (former Church employee) over the years. For example, Ashment was responsible for identifying Frederick G. Williams' handwriting in on of the manuscripts. Hauglid mentions this in his FAIR presentation back in 2006, but did not give credit to Ashment for the finding. For years the critics had been making progress, showing how dozens of puzzle pieces fit perfectly within their model. While the apologists essentially ignored the issue, relying on Hugh Nibley's outdated piece as the final word whenever a critic brought it up.

So what does Will have to match that kind of expertise? .

I'm pretty new to all of this, of course, and you appear to have a good grasp on the history of this whole thing. So, could you perhaps point out a few publications where critics presented arguments and evidence to support the assertion that two of the Abraham manuscripts (Ab2 and Ab3, Metcalfe's BA1a and BA1b) are simultaneously produced transcripts of Joseph Smith's original oral dictation of the translation of the Book of Abraham? I'm sure there must be several published articles out there, but I guess I'm not very good at that kind of research, and so I haven't come across much of anything yet.

Thanks for your help.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm pretty new to all of this, of course, and you appear to have a good grasp on the history of this whole thing. So, could you perhaps point out a few publications where critics presented arguments and evidence to support the assertion that two of the Abraham manuscripts (Ab2 and Ab3, Metcalfe's BA1a and BA1b) are simultaneously produced transcripts of Joseph Smith's original oral dictation of the translation of the Book of Abraham? I'm sure there must be several published articles out there, but I guess I'm not very good at that kind of research, and so I haven't come across much of anything yet.

Thanks for your help.

I am not holding my breathe. Hey, you never know.

[Debroux]

There have been numerous point by point rebuttals to just about everything the apologists have pumped out online. I'd offer a link to several but that would be breaking board rules. And besides, you're already familiar with them - unless someone else was using your name over there.

From what I understand the stalemate over publications is about to cease. Hauglid will publish his book soon and Metcalfe will edit his upcoming book to address those argument. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

[the narrator]

Loyd:

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but I do agree that, when it comes to the KEP, there has been a long-standing pre-disposition to look at things from the wrong side of the question, as it were. When it comes to the text of the Book of Abraham itself, I will say this: If it is an actual translation of an Egyptian text that appeared somewhere on the scrolls that came into Joseph Smith's possession, I am personally convinced that Joseph Smith never knew where the text was located on the papyri, nor did he ever, in any way, consult that text in the process of producing his "translation" of the Book of Abraham. Indeed, I am persuaded that the text of the Book of Abraham was received entirely independent of the papyri themselves, just as the Book of Mormon was received entirely independent of the plates upon which, according to Moroni, it was written; just as D&C 7 was received entirely independent of any "parchment" produced by John the Revelator; just as the Book of Moses was received entirely independent of the text of the Old Testament.

I have a mind to spend a few minutes of my FAIR address speaking directly to the question of "What is scripture?". I think it is a very pertinent question when it comes to our understanding of how Joseph Smith functioned as a prophet of God.

Well then now I am more interested in your presentation, as I am writing a paper right now on something like this. I think a methodological flaw exists in the assumption that 19th century 'translations' can be treated as ancient documents. Furthermore, I think it is fallacious to assume that the texts all have to be ancient in order to be inspired (regardless of what Joseph thought he was doing). For example, I see the BofA more as a inspired key to Joseph's construction of the temple endowment, rather than a translation of a text written by Abraham.

The truth of the scripture is in what it does, and not in what it is.

[William Schryver]

There have been numerous point by point rebuttals to just about everything the apologists have pumped out online. I'd offer a link to several but that would be breaking board rules. And besides, you're already familiar with them - unless someone else was using your name over there.

From what I understand the stalemate over publications is about to cease. Hauglid will publish his book soon and Metcalfe will edit his upcoming book to address those argument. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Oh, I see. So, what you're trying to say is that no one, on either side (with the notable exception of Hugh Nibley, whose prescient, albeit somewhat flawed overview was published almost 40 years ago), has yet published anything substantive in terms of the meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. There's been online message board banter to fill volumes, but no formal publications of anything.

I get it now. No wonder I wasn't able to find anything.

[William Schryver]

Well then now I am more interested in your presentation, as I am writing a paper right now on something like this. I think a methodological flaw exists in the assumption that 19th century 'translations' can be treated as ancient documents. Furthermore, I think it is fallacious to assume that the texts all have to be ancient in order to be inspired (regardless of what Joseph thought he was doing). For example, I see the BofA more as a inspired key to Joseph's construction of the temple endowment, rather than a translation of a text written by Abraham.

The truth of the scripture is in what it does, and not in what it is.

While I would likely disagree with you on some aspects of your thesis, I will say this:

My personal experience with scripture, and the way in which it has established its value to me is that, when reading it, I find that I am more likely than at any other time to receive personal revelation from my father in Heaven, through the medium of the Holy Ghost. Often, that revelation has nothing to do with the specific text I am reading. And, although I greatly appreciate and highly value many scriptural texts purely on the basis of their primary literary message, it has been my experience that the greatest worth of scripture is that it puts me in a position to receive the personal revelation that I treasure the most. Thus, when reading the Book of Abraham, for example, I can feel an appreciation for the actual words from chapter 3, but what I have come to understand as a result of my reading of that particular passage goes far beyond and far afield of the actual text itself. How can that be so? To tell the truth, I'm not entirely certain. But it is so. And for that reason I have a perspective about the meaning of "scripture" that, while it does not necessarily exclude the possibility of its historicity and literality, transcends those often indeterminable questions. To me, the most meaningful definition of "scripture" is: "something I read that enables me to commune with God." Beyond that, the other questions are substantially superfluous.

[the narrator]

While I would likely disagree with you on some aspects of your thesis, I will say this:

My personal experience with scripture, and the way in which it has established its value to me is that, when reading it, I find that I am more likely than at any other time to receive personal revelation from my father in Heaven, through the medium of the Holy Ghost. Often, that revelation has nothing to do with the specific text I am reading. And, although I greatly appreciate and highly value many scriptural texts purely on the basis of their primary literary message, it has been my experience that the greatest worth of scripture is that it puts me in a position to receive the personal revelation that I treasure the most. Thus, when reading the Book of Abraham, for example, I can feel an appreciation for the actual words from chapter 3, but what I have come to understand as a result of my reading of that particular passage goes far beyond and far afield of the actual text itself. How can that be so? To tell the truth, I'm not entirely certain. But it is so. And for that reason I have a perspective about the meaning of "scripture" that, while it does not necessarily exclude the possibility of its historicity and literality, transcends those often indeterminable questions. To me, the most meaningful definition of "scripture" is: "something I read that enables me to commune with God." Beyond that, the other questions are substantially superfluous.

I agree with you here. In fact part of my paper is pointing out that when a member gets up in F&T meeting and says, "I know the Book of Mormon is true" she testifying about the role that the Book of Mormon plays in her life as a spiritual guide, comfort, etc. and she the question of the historicity of the text is furthest from her mind.

For the most part, we do not hear people get up in F&T meeting and declare "I know that Nephi built a boat." I do recognize that this happens, but I argue that doing so is a confusion and is about as spiritually efficacious as standing up and declaring "I know that Salt Lake City is the capital of Utah."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I get it now. No wonder I wasn't able to find anything.

Prediction fulfilled. 2 points for team Mola!