Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[e=mc2]

I will gladly add my 2 cents worth. First I'd like to thank Will for the opportunity to preview his astonishingly informative and intriguing presentation. I think it is a very valuable piece and a quite good argument. I rather like it, and have already encouraged him to proceed with his research (and of course, volunteer in any manner he may wish to use me and my research and capabilities) and get it all put together and publish it. His FAIR presentation will, of course, be an introduction and simply touch on some items that can and ought to be expanded in a printed version of his magnificent findings and research. A new light and new day has entered the discussions to the Book of Abraham. I am rather glad to live in this time, so I too, can say to my children and grandchildren, I was THERE when such significant changes occurred, and when we finally began understanding the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I will really enjoy seeing Will's presentation! What I will say for now will have to suffice, I believe Will has been very inspired with some amazing and very interesting *new* insights that absolutely has escaped ALL critics against the Book of Abraham. GREAT JOB WILL!

[e=mc2]

It's forthcoming.

And fifth coming, and sixth coming, and......well, I mean he showed me the photos and his explanations of them many years ago at one of our earliest FAIR conferences. But really, Will's presentation does not need the photos at all.

[e=mc2]

Yeah, life's rough all around, ain't it?

All I know is that I've been working on this stuff for less than a year--as in not quite eleven months. It hasn't been easy getting up at 5:00am three or four times a week, or letting other obligations and opportunities slide while I worked on this stuff for 12 - 16 hours on a Saturday. The fact is, people do what they want to do. If Metcalfe had something of substance to say about these things, he certainly could have found the time during the past quarter century to at least write up an article or two. Ten, twenty pages maybe. Less than one page a year! But there is nothing. I have no doubt that Brent has many great insights about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers; that he has much to offer to the discussion of their meaning and purpose. The fact remains that he has NEVER said anything about them, with the exception of a few rather ambiguous statements on internet message boards. (I'll bet he's produced over a thousand pages of message board writing over the years, but very little on the KEP.)

What are you talking about!???

I don't know of anyone who ever even requested to study the KEP until Brian Hauglid did in 2005. I wrote up a paper of summary findings and requested access to the originals as well as the high-resolution scan images right after Thanksgiving in 2009. I was granted authorization in January 2010. I obtained the images on February 9, 2010. Now, in August 2010, I will present my first set of findings. And yet I've been criticized and ridiculed ad nauseum about making unfulfilled promises of "forthcoming" things. <sigh>

Who would have written them?

To tell you the truth, I think most people have been intimidated by the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

They won't be anymore.

I substantially agree with WIll's assessment here. I have actually gained an enormous amount of understanding them now that I have seen a preview of Will's presentation. NOW I believe I can finally begin sinking my teeth into these enigmatic documents with some clarity, precision, and far better understanding than absolutely *anything* I have ever read before, by any other scholar on our planet. Will's insights have simply electrified me into excitement for the first time in a very long time on these things.

[e=mc2]

That was quite generous of you to say, Will, and I very much appreciate the private gesture. The read was, in a word, "revolutionary". It even somewhat turned upside-down my own hypothesis about the KEP being a means for learning the Egyptian language.

Might I suggest that as a charitable offering to the critics, that after your presentation you set up in the hallway outside the conference an ideational equivolent of a Red Cross Hospital to treat their mortally wounded. If I am able to attend, I will be pleased to man one of the operating tables, and do what I can to sew up the amputations and stop, where possible, the bleeding. I am not sure what is to be done with the metaphoric decapitatons. Funeral preparations, perhaps?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think BOTH of you guys are a CLASS ACT, and appreciate the demeanor and gentlemanliness you have displayed here. I do believe, excitingly enough, the time has arrived for us all to be ABLE to move forward now in our understandings of these most fascinating documents of early Mormonism. I am really, seriously, going to try and get Will and Brain on video interviewing them and getting more ideas.

[DonBradley]

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.

If the word "critical" here is meant to refer to criticism of the Book of Abraham, rather than of your arguments for an 1835 translation date for Abraham 3, the statement is misworded. I presently see a good deal of evidence for an 1842 translation date for that portion, but my faith doesn't hinge on that dating either way, as I hope yours does not either.

FYI, I offered to Brian, when he recently wrote me, that I would share our evidence for the 1842 translation date, and Chris is agreeable to this as well.

Don

[William Schryver]

If the word "critical" here is meant to refer to criticism of the Book of Abraham, rather than of your arguments for an 1835 translation date for Abraham 3, the statement is misworded. I presently see a good deal of evidence for an 1842 translation date for that portion, but my faith doesn't hinge on that dating either way, as I hope yours does not either.

FYI, I offered to Brian, when he recently wrote me, that I would share our evidence for the 1842 translation date, and Chris is agreeable to this as well.

Don

My faith doesn't hinge on any of this. Never has. Not even in the slightest. I think that has been a distinct advantage in my research.

As for the 1842 translation date for 2:19ff, even if I were to disregard all of my findings, I'm aware of about a half dozen (off the top of my head) historical references that suggest a pre-1842 date for the translation of chapters 3-5, so I will be justifiably curious as to what you think constitutes evidence of a Nauvoo-era translation of the material. I strongly suspect there are alternative interpretations for the material to which you are referring.

[Daniel Peterson]

I just ran across a gem from a (shall we say) rather pro-active critic:

He's dismissing the "circular reasoning" in Will Schryver's presentation, which he hasn't seen.

I'm not making this up.

Many decades ago, the Armenian-American novelist William Saroyan published a book entitled The Human Comedy. I wish the title were still available.

[Wiki Wonka]

I just ran across a gem from a (shall we say) rather pro-active critic:

He's dismissing the "circular reasoning" in Will Schryver's presentation, which he hasn't seen.

I'm not making this up.

Many decades ago, the Armenian-American novelist William Saroyan published a book entitled The Human Comedy. I wish the title were still available.

I'm currently being entertained by Darth J.'s "Punky Brewster" defense, which is that Will's presentation will have an impact upon KEP or BoA studies similar to that of reruns of "Punky Brewster." (Correct me, Darth, if I got this wrong.)

At least HE has pictures!

WW

[William Schryver]

I just ran across a gem from a (shall we say) rather pro-active critic:

He's dismissing the "circular reasoning" in Will Schryver's presentation, which he hasn't seen.

I'm not making this up.

Many decades ago, the Armenian-American novelist William Saroyan published a book entitled The Human Comedy. I wish the title were still available.

William Saroyan is one of my favorite authors--a master of the short story, a now-lost art. I have The Human Comedy on my lap as I type. One of my all-time favorite short stories is in another volume of his entitled My Name is Aram. It is a classic story of only 8 or 9 pages entitled Locomotive 38, the Ojibway. Great stuff! Saroyan was a master observer of the human scene.

[Daniel Peterson]

1.

I just ran across a gem from a (shall we say) rather pro-active critic:

He's dismissing the "circular reasoning" in Will Schryver's presentation, which he hasn't seen.

I'm not making this up.

Many decades ago, the Armenian-American novelist William Saroyan published a book entitled The Human Comedy. I wish the title were still available.

A critic who believes himself to be the one referred to above -- and he may well be the one; I haven't bothered to check and don't really care -- has now offered up an unintentionally hilarious defense of his pre-emptive critique of Will Schryver's alleged reasoning.

Some of these folks are side-splittingly funny.

I would like to thank Will Schryver, again, for the entertainment his presentation has already provided, before he's even presented it. The seemingly desperate attempt, by certain plainly spooked critics, to spin his 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 rare treat and a privilege to watch.

I'm reminded of the old cartoon in which one professor asks another professor whether he's read Dr. So-and-So's new book yet. "Read it?" responds the first professor. "I haven't even reviewed it yet."

2.

Will the Schryver presentation have an enormous impact on the general Church membership? No. Of course not. The overwhelming majority of Church members don't know and probably wouldn't care about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

It's a transparently absurd red herring, and an unmistakable bit of self-serving partisan propaganda, to suggest that it should affect the general membership and -- here's the real point of the ploy -- to insinuate that, if it doesn't do so, it's a failure.

For those who know and care, though, his presentation will be a watershed moment.

Come Friday, though, a number of critics are likely to suddenly join the group that doesn't know and doesn't care about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

[wenglund]

Out of fairness to some of the BoA critics, I have noticed that the more knowledgeable and scholarly the critic, the less they seem inclined to engage in pre-emptive conjectures and well-poising and other things found on Greg's list. Perhaps wisdom comes with knowledge and scholasticism.

In fact, I find it of interest that Brent Metcalfe, who was one of the foremost BoA critics until the last year or so, has been relatively silent on the matter of late, and to my knowledge, hasn't said a word in regards to Will's presentation. Could it be that he may already have joined the group of those who no longer care about the KEP?

Far be it for me to speculate on such things, but I am content to wait and see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I think BOTH of you guys are a CLASS ACT

That is a high compliment coming from one who out-classes us all.

I hope to see you and give you a man-hug during Friday's afternoon session (sadly, personal circumstances don't permit me to attend all two days). I have asked Lamanite (Sione) to save me an isle seat for the occasion, but he hasn't said whether he would or not. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Wiki Wonka]

Out of fairness to some of the BoA critics, I have noticed that the more knowledgeable and scholarly the critic, the less they seem inclined to engage in pre-emptive conjectures and well-poising and other things found on Greg's list. Perhaps wisdom comes with knowledge and scholasticism.

In fact, I find it of interest that Brent Metcalfe, who was one of the foremost BoA critics until the last year or so, has been relatively silent on the matter of late, and to my knowledge, hasn't said a word in regards to Will's presentation. Could it be that he may already have joined the group of those who no longer care about the KEP?

Far be it for me to speculate on such things, but I am content to wait and see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm certain that it is simply because he is smart enough not to critique something he hasn't yet seen, but it would be quite premature to assume that he "no longer cares" about the KEP. Let's not get carried away with projecting in the other direction...

However, your observation that the amount of pre-criticism is inversely proportional to the critic's actual level of experience and knowledge regarding the KEP appears to have some merit. In fact, it seems to be the least knowledgeable people that have already drawn conclusions about the (yet to be presented) data and closed the book.

WW

[William Schryver]

One of my favorite passages from Locomotive 38 - The Ojibway:

I drove that big Packard for this Ojibway Indian, Locomotive 38, as long as he stayed in town, which was all summer. He stayed at the hotel all the time. I tried to get him to learn to drive, but he said it was out of the question. I drove that Packard all over the San Joaquin Valley that sumer, with the Indian in the back, chewing eight or nine sticks of gum. He told me to drive anywhere I cared to go, so it was either to some place where I could fish, or some place where I could hunt. He claimed I didn't know anything about fishing or hunting, but he was glad to see me trying. As long as I knew him he never laughed, except once. That was the time I shot at a jack rabbit with a twelve-gauge shotgun that had a terrible kick, and killed a crow. He tried to tell me all the time that that was my average. To shoot at a jack rabbit and kill a crow.

That's what I often think about when reading some of the things written in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park©: In their peculiar, scatter-shot fashion, when aiming at testimonies, they're just as likely to kill a crow.

Which then leads us to a song I once wrote about people who learn to content themselves with less--kind of like those who give up the promise of eternal life for the best of whatever it is they believe this momentary existence has to offer:

Killing Crows

[Chris Smith]

kind of like those who give up the promise of eternal life for the best of whatever it is they believe this momentary existence has to offer:

From the perspective of those who do not believe in eternal life, they are not actually giving anything up. They are just being realistic.

[DonBradley]

My faith doesn't hinge on any of this. Never has. Not even in the slightest. I think that has been a distinct advantage in my research.

Hey Will,

Excellent. I don't think faith should hinge on this, and don't see why it would have to.

My point was that I don't think my acceptance or rejection of specific arguments for a specific translation date for certain chapters of the Book of Abraham would classify me as a "critic" of anything except those arguments. Other Latter-day Saints on this board disagree on things about the Book of Abraham much bigger than translation date without acquiring such a label.

As for the 1842 translation date for 2:19ff, even if I were to disregard all of my findings, I'm aware of about a half dozen (off the top of my head) historical references that suggest a pre-1842 date for the translation of chapters 3-5, so I will be justifiably curious as to what you think constitutes evidence of a Nauvoo-era translation of the material. I strongly suspect there are alternative interpretations for the material to which you are referring.

Fair enough. Given the evidence I see for Nauvoo translation of 2:19f, I suspect the same of your evidence. But then I think it is actually generally, if not almost always, the case that there are alternative interpretations available for just about any piece of evidence.

I've examined Gee's historical sources for a pre-1842 translation date of Abraham 2:19 through 5, and find them problematic and not properly used. So I'll be interested to see what you have on top of those, as well as the textual evidence you've got.

I'm very interested in what you may have discovered about the nature of the KEP, and the upcoming information exchange certainly promises to be interesting...!

Don

[LifeOnaPlate]

nice sig

[why me]

In fact, I find it of interest that Brent Metcalfe, who was one of the foremost BoA critics until the last year or so, has been relatively silent on the matter of late, and to my knowledge, hasn't said a word in regards to Will's presentation. Could it be that he may already have joined the group of those who no longer care about the KEP?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not likely. I think that he is waiting for the presentation and then will give a reaction. A smart critic will wait for the presentation and then begin the critique, if a critique is necessary. I would see no point in debating the issue now when the presentation has not yet been given. I would wait with notebook and pen in hand, if I were a critic.

[William Schryver]

Out of fairness to some of the BoA critics, I have noticed that the more knowledgeable and scholarly the critic, the less they seem inclined to engage in pre-emptive conjectures and well-poising and other things found on Greg's list. Perhaps wisdom comes with knowledge and scholasticism.

In fact, I find it of interest that Brent Metcalfe, who was one of the foremost BoA critics until the last year or so, has been relatively silent on the matter of late, and to my knowledge, hasn't said a word in regards to Will's presentation. Could it be that he may already have joined the group of those who no longer care about the KEP?

Far be it for me to speculate on such things, but I am content to wait and see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm certain the silence is consequent to the fact that it is widely (and no doubt gleefully) believed that this entire affair promises to be an unprecedented disaster for Book of Abraham apologetics, and therefore no one wants to say anything that might possibly prevent the train wreck they are certain is about to happen.

In their minds, I'm behind the wheel, and FAIR and the NAMI are in the back seats, oblivious to the impending debacle:

(More of these great works by my friend Brian Pike can be found here: Brian Pike - Artist)

[e=mc2]

I'm certain the silence is consequent to the fact that it is widely (and no doubt gleefully) believed that this entire affair promises to be an unprecedented disaster for Book of Abraham apologetics, and therefore no one wants to say anything that might possibly prevent the train wreck they are certain is about to happen.

In their minds, I'm behind the wheel, and FAIR and the NAMI are in the back seats, oblivious to the impending debacle:

(More of these great works by my friend Brian Pike can be found here: Brian Pike - Artist)

HEY! That looks like me in the back seat, but I forgot to wave goodbye as we go down with the wreck......drats!

[e=mc2]

Hey Will,

Excellent. I don't think faith should hinge on this, and don't see why it would have to.

My point was that I don't think my acceptance or rejection of specific arguments for a specific translation date for certain chapters of the Book of Abraham would classify me as a "critic" of anything except those arguments. Other Latter-day Saints on this board disagree on things about the Book of Abraham much bigger than translation date without acquiring such a label.

Fair enough. Given the evidence I see for Nauvoo translation of 2:19f, I suspect the same of your evidence. But then I think it is actually generally, if not almost always, the case that there are alternative interpretations available for just about any piece of evidence.

I've examined Gee's historical sources for a pre-1842 translation date of Abraham 2:19 through 5, and find them problematic and not properly used. So I'll be interested to see what you have on top of those, as well as the textual evidence you've got.

I'm very interested in what you may have discovered about the nature of the KEP, and the upcoming information exchange certainly promises to be interesting...!

Don

Hi Don,

I was seriously quite astounded at Will's ideas. I think Greg Smith had it exactly right, I caught myself on several ocassions (I promise, it was way more than just two!) saying "WHY didn't *I* think of it that way?! I mean, now that he puts the evidence together, it is almost obvious, and it just smacks ya upside the head with a DUH! moment. I truly do believe, if nothing else, some clarity is on the way, BIG TIME about all these documents. Some sorely needed clarification at that. It is just one of those odd quirks that the very best, and most professional of ALL scholars, LDS, and NON-LDS missed it. Will, the consumate amateur (I mean that in the very powerful and wonderful way that Nibley mentioned it in his article decades ago "Day of the Amateur") says, lets take a look at this in the same manner and idea that THEY were looking at it, and the scales of darkness just kept falling off my eyes as the minutes rolled by in Will's analysis in his presentation, and the more he talked the brighter the day became! I cannot wait til his presentation is over so I can interview him and start blabbing about this, and see what comes of it.

[DonBradley]

Hey Kerry,

I don't doubt that Will is going to bring some further light to the KEP, and I await his contribution. What I'm perplexed at is the idea that he has nailed down an 1835 date for Abraham 2:19 thru 5. To really assess when this was translated, one would want to look at the evidence on various sides of the question. I'm open to whatever Will has on this question, and it would seem to me sensible for those who've encountered Will's material to be similarly open to potential evidence for a later translation of this text. I have no real idea what evidence Will has for the 1835 date, but from the way he talks, I have the feeling that he similarly has no idea what the evidence for an 1842 date. Perhaps we're all in for an education...?

Don

[Daniel Peterson]

Those who are actually familiar with Will Schryver's presentation will immediately see how funny this little item is, from one of the various hyperventilating critics: "I wonder why it is an apologist, instead of the Prophet, who is explaining the way scriptures were translated and revelation was received."

Good grief.

I don't believe I've ever enjoyed finer examples of self-parody on the part of critics of the Church than some of these folks are offering up in such rich profusion.

I'm reliably informed that, elsewhere on the same message board, there are detailed reviews of several 2012 blockbuster films and of Dan Brown's 2015 thriller novel, a rebuttal of the President's 2016 State of the Union address, a retrospective on the performance of the stock market 2015-2020, two impassioned denunciations of the Nobel Laureates of 2021, and a history of the 2025 Mexican civil war.

.

[Wiki Wonka]

Those who are actually familiar with Will Schryver's presentation will immediately see how funny this little item is, from one of the various hyperventilating critics: "I wonder why it is an apologist, instead of the Prophet, who is explaining the way scriptures were translated and revelation was received."

This line is from Darth J., the originator of the "Punky Brewster" defense, who is also on this board.

Darth: Will's presentation doesn't explain the way scriptures were translated and revelation were received. The question has no relevance in this case. What he does do is explain the KEP, just like the title of the presentation says.

WW

[wenglund]

I'm certain that it is simply because he is smart enough not to critique something he hasn't yet seen, but it would be quite premature to assume that he "no longer cares" about the KEP. Let's not get carried away with projecting in the other direction...

I agree, which is why I framed it as a question, rather than a declaration, and went on to mentioned that I was content to wait and see. In other words, you need not ironically project about getting carried away.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-