Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[LifeOnaPlate]

Here is Brent's account of how he came by the photographs.

Good work. Interesting that George D. Smith had copies and didn't publish them as well, given his own complaints about the church not releasing certain documents etc.

[LifeOnaPlate]

What did you do, besides take your tea and crumpets in the library?

He killed a grizzly bear with his bare hands.

[Daniel Peterson]

Alright.

My list isn't as long as yours.

I just worked for a construction company. (Except when I was in Israel, sleeping on a bunk in a kibbutz bomb shelter, pruning banana trees and, sometimes, loading chickens onto a truck for six or seven hours straight from just before midnight until just after sunrise.)

Every summer, from just before the time I could drive, through graduate school. (I had a paper route and served a mission, too. Do you really, honestly, think such things count?) For about eight months straight after I graduated with my BA, in order to raise money to go to the Middle East. With one exception, I even came home to California every summer from Cairo to work construction.

Nothing glamorous like McDonalds or Lagoon or being a lifeguard or a swimming instructor.

Working the idiot stick (i.e.. the shovel). Wheeling fresh concrete in a wheelbarrow. Holding the stop sign for hour after incredibly boring hour to regulate traffic while asphalt was being laid down. Cleaning the unspeakably filthy employee toilet for the first time in years. Driving a dump truck. Serving as a mechanic's assistant.

If you're really, seriously, trying to score points against me in some sort of idiotic proletarian vs. petty bourgeois one-upsmanship, you're not going to win. If that's what you're going to try, though, could you please explain the point of the exercise?

[USU78]

He killed a grizzly bear with his bare hands.

He was only 3 when he did that.

Do you know many 3-year-olds who hang out in libraries?

[LifeOnaPlate]

could you please explain the point of the exercise?

Looks to me like he's just funnin' you, but forgot the emoticons.

[Chris Smith]

If you're really, seriously, trying to score points against me in some sort of idiotic proletarian vs. petty bourgeois one-upsmanship, you're not going to win.

I think when Mortal Man said he was serious, he meant that those were really his jobs, not that he was really trying to one-up you in blue collarness.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think when Mortal Man said he was serious, he meant that those were really his jobs, not that he was really trying to one-up you in blue collarness.

I certainly hope so.

I'm regularly critiqued from so many angles that I can't possibly keep track of them, but, if he's serious -- and, in fact, others have been in the past, with precisely this attack -- it's one of the weirder ones. (I think the only one that's really struck me as even weirder was my Malevolent Stalker's attempt, a few years ago, to critique my taste in movies, literature, art, and music -- a topic on which I've posted and published essentially nothing. Though, if you look very hard, you may still find a lot of old jazz reviews under my name on amazon.com -- to which the Stalker, who isn't big on facts, never made reference.)

[consiglieri]

I've been pretty busy this past week and so just now got to read this thread.

Sounds like the game's afoot.

In spite of our many past (and current) differences, I would like to go on record as sincerely wishing Will a smashing time presenting his findings at the conference.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Pahoran]

Here's a line from the Deseret News article that caught my attention:

If Schryver, a software engineer, is correct in his analysis, the last 40 years of scholarship about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers will need to be revised.

If you look at this objectively, doesn't the whole thing strike you as incredibly amateuristic and dilettantish? Granted, I have not read Schryver's paper, nor am I an Egyptologist, nor does my knowledge about the BoA extend beyond what most fellow LDS will have learned in Seminary and church (at least my own amateurism is amply established) but a sentence like this in any area I am not familiar with would raise a bunch of red flags.

I don't know. It would have to be superlatively amateuristic and dilettantish to be more amateuristic and dilettantish than to pronounce something amateuristic and dilettantish sight unseen.

IOW, this sounds a lot like the cast-iron pot suspecting that the kettle just might be black, before actually bothering to find out what it's made of.

Why is a software engineer dabbling in Egyptology? How is it possible that he found something that "40 years of scholarship" missed? What does that say about the level of that scholarship? What scholarship are we talking about exactly? Doesn't such a groundbreaking discovery merit a more eminent platform such as a world-reknowned Egyptological society or journal?

Well, I guess we'll just have to wait another week...

Yes. And then you'll be able to wipe all those eggs off your face when you realise that Egyptology simply has nothing to do with the KEP's. And that being a software engineer actually equips him with far more relevant tools for the task he set himself.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mortal Man]

Andrew, my little brother was standing behind me as I read your list, and remarked, "That makes me want to revise my resume."

Glad to be of service.

[Mortal Man]

sometimes, loading chickens onto a truck for six or seven hours straight

Did the chickens have large talons?

I had a paper route

California doesn't have blizzards.

I even came home to California every summer

So you summered in your California home? Sounds rough.

Working the idiot stick (i.e.. the shovel). Wheeling fresh concrete in a wheelbarrow. Holding the stop sign for hour after incredibly boring hour to regulate traffic while asphalt was being laid down. Cleaning the unspeakably filthy employee toilet for the first time in years. Driving a dump truck. Serving as a mechanic's assistant.

Cool, just like Howard Roark.

If you're really, seriously, trying to score points against me in some sort of idiotic proletarian vs. petty bourgeois one-upsmanship, you're not going to win. If that's what you're going to try, though, could you please explain the point of the exercise?

I have no idea what the point is, other than you started it.

I just naturally adopt the posture of those I interact with. It's a character flaw of mine.

BTW, if you're really a man of the people, then why isn't your web site entitled "Mormon Proletarians Testify"?

You threw out the first insult and you aren't going to expand the derailing with a new one. You are out of the thread.

[gtaggart]

If Will is right, he hasn't just changed the game; he's left the Church's critics completely on the wrong field, trying to play with the wrong equipment. My preliminary impression is that this is a watershed moment in Book of Abraham apologetics. We will be able to tell our grandchildren that we remember when the critics thought that the Book of Abraham was a soft target for their anti-Mormon arguments; and that we were there when all that changed. (emphasis added)

I think you may have borrowed one of Greg Smith's coffin nails and hit it on the head there.

Will's presentation left me speechless . . . except for the word "Wow!"

[USU78]

I think you may have borrowed one of Greg Smith's coffin nails and hit it on the head there.

Will's presentation left me speechless . . . except for the word "Wow!"

It's as though nobody had been paying attention to evidence sitting there in their laps ever since the fragments of the Book of Breathings finally surfaced . . . and the KEP were published.

Just like the LGT for BoM geography. The evidence was always there, but we couldn't see it for our preconditioned way of thinking about it.

USU "Sokath! His eyes open!" 78

[Glenn101]

It's as though nobody had been paying attention to evidence sitting there in their laps ever since the fragments of the Book of Breathings finally surfaced . . . and the KEP were published.

Just like the LGT for BoM geography. The evidence was always there, but we couldn't see it for our preconditioned way of thinking about it.

USU "Sokath! His eyes open!" 78

I predict many predictable reactions of the "color me not impressed" type.

Glenn

[William Schryver]

I predict many predictable reactions of the "color me not impressed" type.

Glenn

So do I.

While I have been pleased in many ways by the universally positive response to date, I did not expect it, and I have no illusions that it will continue unabated. Come 2:30pm Friday afternoon, the real fun will begin. (A smile is creeping onto my face just thinking about it.) As soon as the curtain comes down on my presentation, it will come up on what will, I'm quite certain, amount to at least a week or two of almost rabid denunciation from certain quarters.

And while it is somewhat comforting to know that the ad hominem reflex over at The Great and Spacious Trailer Park© has just about expended its first stage, I have no doubt that they will find a "second wind" as soon as they have some fresh meat to gnaw on--and since my flesh is one of the preferred dishes over there, we should get to observe an orgy of such feasting for many days to come. (It's so nice to be loved!)

Anyway, my thanks to everyone who has previewed the presentation; for your valuable observations and feedback. As it turns out, the most relevant feedback came from my wife, Julie Reynolds, and "Nevo," all of whom recognized the same deficiency. That has been remedied in my latest version of the presentation and its video version, which I hope to be able to make available to a general audience as soon as immediately after my presentation at the conference is completed. In any case, I will post links here as soon as the necessary permissions are obtained (intellectual property issues and whatnot, you know).

I am, of course, quite curious about the reactions of a few particular people, like Chris Smith and Don Bradley. They should constitute an accurate bellwether of future critical responses.

My suspicion is that it will take a few years before the critics' grip on the old notions loosens and they are permitted to sink into the dark abyss of "silly things people used to believe." They should take heart at the knowledge that I won't prove the Book of Abraham is true, inspired, ancient, or even interesting. All I am purporting to do is demonstrate that it couldn't possibly have come about in the manner people have suggested for the past 40 years.

I look forward to meeting a few people at the conference. I'll be easy to spot. Just look for a guy napping in a dark corner (this getting up at 5am business has simply got to come to an end!) Shake me by the shoulders, hand me a cold diet Dr. Pepper, and I should be good to go for at least 10 minutes or so, or at least until the caffeine crash sets in.

-WS

(written upon this message board by my own hand)

[why me]

Anyway, my thanks to everyone who has previewed the presentation; for your valuable observations and feedback. As it turns out, the most relevant feedback came from my wife, Julie Reynolds, and "Nevo," all of whom recognized the same deficiency. That has been remedied in my latest version of the presentation and its video version, which I hope to be able to make available to a general audience as soon as immediately after my presentation at the conference is completed. In any case, I will post links here as soon as the necessary permissions are obtained (intellectual property issues and whatnot, you know).

-WS

(written upon this message board by my own hand)

I think that you should FAIR youtube it with the comments section turned off. If your presentation turns out well, FAIR should post it on their youtube page. Just my humble opinion.

[Daniel Peterson]

I predict many predictable reactions of the "color me not impressed" type.

That's absolutely guaranteed. "The Kirtland Egyptian Papers? What? Who ever thought they were important?"

I would like to thank Will Schryver, though, for the entertainment he's already provided. The attempt, in certain circles, to spin his superb and important presentation in advance, to defang or neutralize it sight unseen, to preemptively ad hominem its author into marginalized irrelevance -- which has, plainly, sometimes bordered (to say the least of it) on hysterical panic -- has been a real treat to observe.

[Ariarates]

So, is there anyone who can answer my earlier question?

However, I am indeed labouring under the assumption that the BoA has something to do with Egyptology. This is what the 2004 edition of my scriptures tell me and that's what I see when I look at the facsimiles in the BoA. You suggested I need to revisit this assumption, so my question to you was: what did I miss?

In other words: what changed between 2004, when the church updated the scriptures in my language and now, the moment you are telling me the BoA has nothing to do with Egyptology. Why is the language of the scrolls given in the scriptures but do you consider it irrelevant? I don't get it.

[Wiki Wonka]

In other words: what changed between 2004, when the church updated the scriptures in my language and now, the moment you are telling me the BoA has nothing to do with Egyptology. Why is the language of the scrolls given in the scriptures but do you consider it irrelevant? I don't get it.

Will's presentation has nothing to do with explaining the relationship between the BoA and Egyptology. The answer to your question is that nothing has changed.

WW

[Wiki Wonka]

That's absolutely guaranteed. "The Kirtland Egyptian Papers? What? Who ever thought they were important?"

I would like to thank Will Schryver, though, for the entertainment he's already provided. The attempt, in certain circles, to spin his superb and important presentation in advance, to defang or neutralize it sight unseen, to preemptively ad hominem its author into marginalized irrelevance -- which has, plainly, sometimes bordered (to say the least of it) on hysterical panic -- has been a real treat to observe.

I think that one of the most stunning discoveries by critics was that anyone who had viewed the presentation and was impressed by it has "inoculated" themselves from being capable of applying reason. Some critics are attempting to dismiss the KEP as having any relevance, while other are claiming that it is a devastating argument against Joseph's ability to translate ancient documents.

WW

[Daniel Peterson]

So, is there anyone who can answer my earlier question?

However, I am indeed labouring under the assumption that the BoA has something to do with Egyptology. This is what the 2004 edition of my scriptures tell me and that's what I see when I look at the facsimiles in the BoA. You suggested I need to revisit this assumption, so my question to you was: what did I miss?

In other words: what changed between 2004, when the church updated the scriptures in my language and now, the moment you are telling me the BoA has nothing to do with Egyptology. Why is the language of the scrolls given in the scriptures but do you consider it irrelevant? I don't get it.

Egyptology is indeed relevant to examination of the Book of Abraham, as are Syro-Palestinian archaeology, biblical studies, nineteenth-century Mormon history, the study of ancient Semitic notions of the divine, textual criticism, and a number of other fields.

Egyptology has nothing to do with Will Schryver's excellent arguments.

[Pahoran]

In the early pages of this thread, Greg assembled a list of predicted "critical" responses to Will's presentation. Here is the latest version of the list I could find:

a) a studied silence

b) extensive reference to what a horrible guy Will Schyrver is, and the nasty things he has said or written

c) ignoring Will all together, and continuing to make the same old arguments (after all, when has a decisive rebuttal ever penetrated the inbred, one-inch deep pool that is written anti-Mormonism?

d) a marked failure to understand or follow the argument.

e) Ignore the argument and complain that until they receive free copies of the photos, nothing Will says need be taken seriously.

f) Make remarks about those who find WIll's argument compelling, but not actually explain why that should or should not be the case. Don't forget to do plenty of well-poisoning, by pointing out that of course the Mormons find the argument compelling. This spares one the tedious business of engaging said argument, and allows one to dismiss it via guilt-by-association. If only Will had published with FARMS before, this would already be done, since FARMS can (by definition in some circles) do nothing of value.

(g) "Claiming that Schryver's paper makes claims which it does not, and then ridiculing same."

(h) Acting as if the claim that the KEP were translation doctuments was not a key part of the critical argument, and now claiming that they don't matter at all.

(i) Claiming that an argument cannot be assessed based upon the evidence produced unless "experts" or "peers" have declared upon its validity. (The argument from authority). Besides what makes someone think it hasn't been peer reviewed?

(j) Avoiding the substantive issue(s) by laughter, mockery, derision without providing a reasoned response.

(k) Suppose that key portions of your analogy are self-servingly made of straw.

I'd like to add a couple.

First, I think this will be an excellent litmus test for those who regard themselves as "fair critics," as opposed to anti-Mormons. If they really are committed to the facts and not ideology, this ought to give them reasons to reconsider their opinions.

Second, I suspect that the "others" will be happy to refer to less-informed sources that continue to uphold the tradition they originally created. Just as now happens with the now-discredited "Brigham did it" theory of the MMM, anti-Mormons happily point to sources, such as Wikipedia or journalists recycling outdated scholarship, that repeat the old hate-based falsehoods, ignoring the fact that such sources are not au fait with the current state of the debate.

And not only that, but that the sources being repeated are the very sources which have been discredited, so that the mere repetition of them does not add support to them at all.

Thus it will continue to be.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zeta-Flux]

Will's presentation left me speechless . . . except for the word "Wow!"

CFR

Seriously, what will it take for me to get a copy of this secret presentation?

[Pahoran]

CFR

Seriously, what will it take for me to get a copy of this secret presentation?

You could try promising him your firstborn.

Alternatively, since it's not actually secret, just being kept under wraps until the FAIR conference so as not to spoil the surprise, you could try sending him a PM and seeing if he'll let you have a preview.

I'm sure it will be published in some form after the conference.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zeta-Flux]

You could try promising him your firstborn.

Alternatively, since it's not actually secret, just being kept under wraps until the FAIR conference so as not to spoil the surprise, you could try sending him a PM and seeing if he'll let you have a preview.

I'm sure it will be published in some form after the conference.

Regards,

Pahoran

True. Although I am a bit skeptical that, even with all of the glowing reports, an advance copy of the presentation would merit my firstborn. How about a Snickers bar? [William, I work at BYU, in TMCB 318 (just moved from 312)... give me a call...I'll hook you up.]