Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[e=mc2]

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

HOWLING LAUGHTER!!!!!!!!!!

Between you and HERR DOKTOR Peterson, we are learning more humor all the time. This is simply hilarious. Obviously Mr. Clueless hasn't seen the presentation yet. Most haven't, but Friday is coming REALLY quickly, and after Will gives his spill (poetry anyone?) we can all discuss this til the moon leaves her orbit and crashes into the earth....or is it getting further away? (I'm rusty o my Asimov reading, cantchta tell?). I predict there will be multitudinous frothings (now that I have seen some of the spoutings going on in never never land) from critics that Will didn't tell them what THEY *THOUGHT* he should have! As if that will be at all relevant to anything he has to share. I am quite fascinated by this.

[e=mc2]

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.

.

It is without one of the singular most fascinating psychological studies I have ever witnessed. If someone would have predicted all this for the future, there would have been precious few of us who would have honestly believed it was possible, even from the critics' point of view. Now that we have the evidence, it is, indeed, precioussssssssssssssssssss.

[e=mc2]

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

I'll let you and he hash that little ditty out.

[Daniel Peterson]

Gosh, this is good stuff: "The MADB pep squad," says one critic who seems especially exercised of late, "really does seem to think that Will is finally going to end any plausible criticism of Mormonism."

And, thus, the straw man is set up.

So, when Will Schryver's paper fails to end all "plausible criticism of Mormonism" (as it inevitably will, since, among other reasons, it was never intended to do anything of the sort and nobody ever made such a claim), it can be airily dismissed as an enormous disappointment to desperate "Mopologists," a joke, and a flop.

Shameless.

[Stargazer]

Slight break from the main thrust of the thread, and I am REALLY looking forward to Will's presentation at FAIR (which I wish I could attend).

After reading Chris Smith's announcement in this thread that he didn't know if he could believe in an afterlife and all that (what, five days ago now), I am finally only just finished jacking my jaw off the floor. What, after all that Bible study and presumably all the prayer that should have gone into it, he doesn't know if there's an afterlife? Oh, my.

Not wishing to derail the thread, nor start up a personal thread about this, please let me say, Chris, that I deeply sympathize with your lack on this subject. I will pray earnestly on your behalf that the Lord will enliven your soul with a conviction of the truth of this: that God is our Father, and He wants to see all of us home.

[why me]

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.

That could be. But like I said, a smart critic will wait for the presentation and then begin the critique. I would see no point in giving a critique to a presentation that I haven't seen, if I were a critic. I would just wait patiently with a smile on my lips, hoping for a dismal failure by the presenter. And then, strike without mercy. But in an academic sort of way.

[why me]

Gosh, this is good stuff: "The MADB pep squad," says one critic who seems especially exercised of late, "really does seem to think that Will is finally going to end any plausible criticism of Mormonism."

And, thus, the straw man is set up.

So, when Will Schryver's paper fails to end all "plausible criticism of Mormonism" (as it inevitably will, since, among other reasons, it was never intended to do anything of the sort and nobody ever made such a claim), it can be airily dismissed as an enormous disappointment to desperate "Mopologists," a joke, and a flop.

Shameless.

I think that we need to make some allowances for the nervousness overthere and elsewhere. Many people have built up a new identity now that they are no longer mormons. No one who is an exmo wants their new identity shaken especially when it comes to beleifs. In my humble opinion, many are thickening their exmormon skin so that their exmormon beliefs are not influenced by Will and his presentation.

[Chris Smith]

After reading Chris Smith's announcement in this thread that he didn't know if he could believe in an afterlife and all that (what, five days ago now), I am finally only just finished jacking my jaw off the floor. What, after all that Bible study and presumably all the prayer that should have gone into it, he doesn't know if there's an afterlife? Oh, my.

I regretted doing a biblical studies major by the time I was done. I ended up not really believing in the Bible, which essentially left me unemployable, at least in my field. I started out with the intention to do some kind of ministerial work, but for obvious reasons most churches wouldn't want me now, and I wouldn't want to do ministry anymore anyway. My change of beliefs also created some tension in my family. Fortunately the academic study of religion interested me enough that I could fall back on that and my degree wasn't a complete waste. And my family has more or less come to terms with what I believe. But if I could do it all over again, I'd probably go political or computer science.

Not wishing to derail the thread, nor start up a personal thread about this, please let me say, Chris, that I deeply sympathize with your lack on this subject. I will pray earnestly on your behalf that the Lord will enliven your soul with a conviction of the truth of this: that God is our Father, and He wants to see all of us home.

Well, I appreciate that. FWIW, I don't feel that my soul is "unenlivened". Maybe I'm just a naturally positive person, or maybe it's that I have found other modes of spiritual belief and expression, but my loss of my evangelical faith hasn't been quite as devastating as it seems to be for many other people who go through the same bereavement. The worst part was the way my relationships with family and friends changed. But there have been upsides as well, including more free time, less cognitive dissonance, and some new friendships that might not otherwise have flowered in quite the same way.

In any event, I appreciate your prayers and your sympathetic understanding. Hopefully if I turn out to be wrong about everything, God will at least recognize that I acted in all sincerity and with good intentions and he'll cut me a little slack in the afterlife.

Peace,

-Chris

[DonBradley]

In any event, I appreciate your prayers and your sympathetic understanding. Hopefully if I turn out to be wrong about everything, God will at least recognize that I acted in all sincerity and with good intentions and he'll cut me a little slack in the afterlife.

Of course he will, Chris. You're saved!

Don

[Nomad]

Daniel Peterson wrote:

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."

I think this is actually a very telling statement from the poster in question. It implies an expectation that the prophet is the fountain of all knowledge, on all subjects, and that we therefore should rely on the prophet to guide us in every single little thing we do. Buying a new car? Can't decide between a Ford and a Chevy? Let's ask the prophet. He'll know which is best. And if the prophet drives a Chevy, and therefore you buy a Chevy, and it breaks down after a couple years, then you'll have good reason to conclude the church isn't true. Because the prophet should have known!

[Scott Lloyd]

Daniel Peterson wrote:

I think this is actually a very telling statement from the poster in question. It implies an expectation that the prophet is the fountain of all knowledge, on all subjects, and that we therefore should rely on the prophet to guide us in every single little thing we do. Buying a new car? Can't decide between a Ford and a Chevy? Let's ask the prophet. He'll know which is best. And if the prophet drives a Chevy, and therefore you buy a Chevy, and it breaks down after a couple years, then you'll have good reason to conclude the church isn't true. Because the prophet should have known!

Through a set of circumstances that I won't go into here, I found myself seated at lunch some years ago at a hotel in Columbia, South Carolina, with President Gordon B. Hinckley and others of his party (he was there to dedicate a temple). At the end of the meal, as his personal secretary was signing the check, President Hinckley said, "You can put on there, Don, that the service was good, but the food was terrible."

I had thought, myself, that the food, although not great, was not exactly terrible. To my own benefit, I have avoided harboring in my heart a spirit of apostasy because I happen to have differed in opinion with the prophet on that minor, non-salvific matter.

[Vance]

Hopefully if I turn out to be wrong about everything, God will at least recognize that I acted in all sincerity and with good intentions and he'll cut me a little slack in the afterlife.

Peace,

-Chris

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson (I think), "He would rather honest questioning than blind belief" or something like that.

[William Schryver]

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.

Kerry,

As a connoisseur of fine hyperbole ( ), I thank you for your post. Truth be told, one of my primary objectives was to present this material in such a way that everyone who hears what I have to say will come away finally, at least, with a fundamental understanding of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I have very deliberately crafted every single aspect of the presentation in order that it will be accessible to a general audience.

With that in mind, I have been extremely gratified by the responses I have gotten from those who I knew to be less-knowledgeable about the KEP. For example, I was very pleased to read this post from Julie Reynolds:

I don't pay a whole lot of attention to things that don't interest me much and I hopscotch through threads if they bore me because it's easier to say oops than wade through all the noise around here. So I've never understood what the KEP is let alone what it all means. Now I get it. Which means I can talk about it now without blundering too badly.

That actually may be the greatest value of this presentation. Regardless of conclusions, lot more people are going to understand the conversation.

If I succeed in nothing else, getting more people to "understand the conversation" will have been a significant achievement.

[Daniel Peterson]

I continue to watch the critics' response to Will Schryver's not-yet-delivered presentation with utter and complete fascination. Here's a recent gem: "The Mormon media will be there to report how the audience lapped it up like a dog and accepted it, but where will be Hauglid, Hamblin, Roper and Mad Dog Peterson?"

The implication, of course, is that we're all going to be boycotting Schryver's presentation -- out of pique, or to avoid embarrassment, or because we hate him, or because we disdain his viewpoint, or some such thing.

But I plan to be there. (And I've already seen his presentation, and like it very much.) And I expect that Matt Roper will be there. And, so far as I know (I haven't asked him), Brian Hauglid may well be there, as well.

It's true, though, that Bill Hamblin won't be there. Apparently, he wanted so badly to avoid being in the audience for Will Schryver's presentation that he arranged to go over and teach at the BYU Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies for the past year. He could, of course, have been back for the FAIR conference, but, instead, he connived with BYU's administration to have the University's academic calendar keep him occupied there in Israel until after Schryver's microphone had been shut off.

[Greg Smith]

I continue to watch the critics' response to Will Schryver's not-yet-delivered presentation with utter and complete fascination. Here's a recent gem: "The Mormon media will be there to report how the audience lapped it up like a dog and accepted it, but where will be Hauglid, Hamblin, Roper and Mad Dog Peterson?"

The implication, of course, is that we're all going to be boycotting Schryver's presentation -- out of pique, or to avoid embarrassment, or because we hate him, or because we disdain his viewpoint, or some such thing.

I am crushed, crushed that my absence isn't likewise being mourned and used as fodder for rampant speculation. What's Matt Roper got that I don't got? (Ok, besides great abs....And a winning smile....and a charming personality. Ok, never mind, but you take my point.)

What's a guy gotta do to boycott a presentation around here?

But yeah, the frantic preemptive spinning has been fascinating, and exceeded my most cynical expectations.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I regretted doing a biblical studies major by the time I was done. I ended up not really believing in the Bible, which essentially left me unemployable, at least in my field. I started out with the intention to do some kind of ministerial work, but for obvious reasons most churches wouldn't want me now, and I wouldn't want to do ministry anymore anyway. My change of beliefs also created some tension in my family. Fortunately the academic study of religion interested me enough that I could fall back on that and my degree wasn't a complete waste. And my family has more or less come to terms with what I believe. But if I could do it all over again, I'd probably go political or computer science.

Peace,

-Chris

I am not wise enough to know what to say here Chris, so I will let scripture do it. Keep the faith

[Daniel Peterson]

I think such things deserve to be noted and remembered:

One of the critics of Will Schryver's still-unpresented presentation on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is now predicting that, when, after the presentation, critics of the Church remain unconvinced, we Morgbots and Mopologists will stupidly lament the lack of "spiritual eyes" that prevents them from beholding The Truth.

Those familiar with the presentation will be as impressed as I was by this prediction (and by the willingness of somebody to speak so specifically about something with regard to which he plainly remains utterly clueless).

[Greg Smith]

I think such things deserve to be noted and remembered:

One of the critics of Will Schryver's still-unpresented presentation on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is now predicting that, when, after the presentation, critics of the Church remain unconvinced, we Morgbots and Mopologists will stupidly lament the lack of "spiritual eyes" that prevents them from beholding The Truth.

Those familiar with the presentation will be as impressed as I was by this prediction (and by the willingness of somebody to speak so specifically about something with regard to which he plainly remains utterly clueless).

Fundamentalists of any stripe do not cope well with even hypothetical threats to their world-view.

GLS

[Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, why are you boycotting Will Schryver's presentation?

I'm boycotting it -- as one critic has somehow managed to discover, even though a cunningly-designed identical simulacrum of me will be there and will be the concluding speaker that day -- for reasons that critics have, thus far, failed to explain to me. And the same goes for Matt Roper, whose body double will be in attendance (and even presenting) but who will, it has been revealed, really be absent.

I was disappointed to learn that you won't be there, since not-me was looking forward to not-seeing you again. (Your superb recent essay on the leader of the new movement to save the Church from its scholars and its leaders is very near going to press.) Will there be a not-you there that not-me can not-visit with?

[Pahoran]

Incidentally, why are you boycotting Will Schryver's presentation?

I'm boycotting it -- as one critic has somehow managed to discover, even though a cunningly-designed identical simulacrum of me will be there and will be the concluding speaker that day -- for reasons that critics have, thus far, failed to explain to me. And the same goes for Matt Roper, whose body double will be in attendance (and even presenting) but who will, it has been revealed, really be absent.

I was disappointed to learn that you won't be there, since not-me was looking forward to not-seeing you again. (Your superb recent essay on the leader of the new movement to save the Church from its scholars and its leaders is very near going to press.) Will there be a not-you there that not-me can not-visit with?

Dan,

what you have to understand is that the speculations of the Stupefaction are definitive. If they're not actually true, then reality is at fault.

(With apologies to Douglas Adams.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[William Schryver]

There have also been numerous suggestions that my presentation will never be available for public viewing afterwards. They seem to believe that the church is so afraid of letting images of the KEP be seen in public that my entire presentation will be drastically redacted immediately afterwards.

Well, I am pleased to announce that I, just this morning, uploaded to an as yet secret URL both high-definition and standard-definition versions of my presentation, precisely as it will be delivered Friday afternoon. I then requested of the powers that be in SLC the authorization to make the narrated slide show available to the general public immediately following my presentation. That authorization has been granted.

Therefore, come Friday afternoon, as soon as I am able following my address, I will post the links to the videos on this thread so that all who were not able to attend the conference will have the immediate capability to see and hear exactly what the audience at the conference will have just seen and heard. The video will be "streaming only," (not available for download) but will otherwise be the same as I will deliver live at the conference.

So, all who are interested, be so advised. As soon as I am able to get online after 3:00pm MDT, Friday August 6, 2010, I will post the links to this thread.

-WS

[Daniel Peterson]

It's a lie. A Mopologetic lie.

It will never happen.

And, if it does . . . well, as Pahoran points out, it'll be reality's fault.

[Greg Smith]

Incidentally, why are you boycotting Will Schryver's presentation?

I'm boycotting it -- as one critic has somehow managed to discover, even though a cunningly-designed identical simulacrum of me will be there and will be the concluding speaker that day -- for reasons that critics have, thus far, failed to explain to me. And the same goes for Matt Roper, whose body double will be in attendance (and even presenting) but who will, it has been revealed, really be absent.

I'm boycotting because I'm taking my kids on a dinosaur-filled weekend extravaganza in the Alberta badlands. But, in my line of work, they tend to frown on me and all my partners leaving town at the same time.

Next year in Jerusalem.

I was disappointed to learn that you won't be there, since not-me was looking forward to not-seeing you again. (Your superb recent essay on the leader of the new movement to save the Church from its scholars and its leaders is very near going to press.) Will there be a not-you there that not-me can not-visit with?

Yes, if I think I'm not popular now, just wait. :-) When do I get all this Mopologetic glory and adulation I keep hearing about?

I dearly did want to be there, so I did appreciate Will offering a sneak peak.

GLS

[Glenn101]

There have also been numerous suggestions that my presentation will never be available for public viewing afterwards. They seem to believe that the church is so afraid of letting images of the KEP be seen in public that my entire presentation will be drastically redacted immediately afterwards.

Well, I am pleased to announce that I, just this morning, uploaded to an as yet secret URL both high-definition and standard-definition versions of my presentation, precisely as it will be delivered Friday afternoon. I then requested of the powers that be in SLC the authorization to make the narrated slide show available to the general public immediately following my presentation. That authorization has been granted.

Therefore, come Friday afternoon, as soon as I am able following my address, I will post the links to the videos on this thread so that all who were not able to attend the conference will have the immediate capability to see and hear exactly what the audience at the conference will have just seen and heard. The video will be "streaming only," (not available for download) but will otherwise be the same as I will deliver live at the conference.

So, all who are interested, be so advised. As soon as I am able to get online after 3:00pm MDT, Friday August 6, 2010, I will post the links to this thread.

-WS

There still will be dvd's available?

Glenn

[erichard]

...So, all who are interested, be so advised. As soon as I am able to get online after 3:00pm MDT, Friday August 6, 2010, I will post the links to this thread.

-WS

Thank you Will,

You have got me interested, too. I look forward to your links.

After this big stir is over, maybe you should upgrade your self-abasement from "Vulgar Sciolist" to "Regular Sciolist". [sciolist: an amateur who engages in an activity without serious intentions and who pretends to have knowledge.]

Just a thought.

Richard