Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[jmordecai]

I need to correct what I thought I heard Will say. He said that "almost no egyptian characters from the papyri were on the GAEL". If it were a translation as the critics assert, why are ther almost no egyptian characters on the GAEL. That is what I would like to see a response to.

David Stewart just posted here that Schryver is mistaken that Arabic and Sanskrit are not related to Egyptian.

If indeed the project was to create an "Egyptian Alphabet", as what MSS 1,3-5 are labeled, then we presume Smith would invent symbols to fill in the gaps.

Besides, even without authentic Egyptian symbols in the GAEL, doesn't change the fact that Smith quotes the very words and definitions in it and calls it "Egyptian" to those not privy to any secret cipher project. You have ignored this point.

The bigger issue for skeptics lies with the Translation Manuscripts (#1-4), in which contained ARE Egyptian symbols copied directly from JSP I and XI, along with text corresponding to the BoA. These docs were largely ignored by the thesis.

Also ignored were other KEP MSS, such as #6 and #7, which contents state directly on them that they are translations.

MSS #6 has a paragraph of symbols and below it its English translation.

MSS #7 actual says it is "a translation of the next page", thus page 1 is the English translation of the script and illustrations found on page 2.

Isolating the GAEL, calling it a cipher, and then dismissing the entire KEP is haphazard. If the GAEL is a cipher it would be fairly useless, as I pointed out here:

We are to believe the cipher was developed to encrypt future communications, yet Schryver developed this theory by finding parallels to previously given D&C revelations in it... which is circular reasoning.

[Daniel Peterson]

David Stewart just posted here that Schryver is mistaken that Arabic and Sanskrit are not related to Egyptian.

Arabic and Sanskrit are not related to Egyptian.

[maklelan]

Arabic and Sanskrit are not related to Egyptian.

I second this.

[wenglund]

I need to correct what I thought I heard Will say. He said that "almost no egyptian characters from the papyri were on the GAEL". If it were a translation as the critics assert, why are ther almost no egyptian characters on the GAEL. That is what I would like to see a response to.

There are no Egyptian characters on the Counting document, but I don't know the exact ratio for the alphabets and the grammar (if memory serves me correctly, its about 60/40 Egyptian to non-Egyptian).

This, to me, is one of the most critical points. It raises the salient qustion: "Would it make sense for Joseph and others to use characters that are not Egyptian and not on the papyri, as a part of a 'key' to translate the Egytian papyri?"

The answer to me is an obvious "no".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[maklelan]

David Stewart just posted here that Schryver is mistaken that Arabic and Sanskrit are not related to Egyptian.

EDIT: After going and reading what Stewart has to say, I take no real issue with his comments. There is no significant relationship between the scripts, but the comment to which he was responding was absolute enough to merit some nuanced correction.

If indeed the project was to create an "Egyptian Alphabet", as what MSS 1,3-5 are labeled, then we presume Smith would invent symbols to fill in the gaps.

Why wouldn't he use script from the papyri as he did to fill in gaps in the facsimiles? A small percentage of the characters from the papyri were used. Why change methodologies, leaving most of the characters unused and incorporating characters from unrelated scripts, if the procedure was the same?

Besides, even without authentic Egyptian symbols in the GAEL, doesn't change the fact that Smith quotes the very words and definitions in it and calls it "Egyptian" to those not privy to any secret cipher project. You have ignored this point.

Not much of a point. Secret codes are meant to be secret. Calling it Egyptian for the unawares was the entire point.

The bigger issue for skeptics lies with the Translation Manuscripts (#1-4), in which contained ARE Egyptian symbols copied directly from JSP I and XI, along with text corresponding to the BoA. These docs were largely ignored by the thesis.

They weren't the topic of the research.

Also ignored were other KEP MSS, such as #6 and #7, which contents state directly on them that they are translations.

MSS #6 has a paragraph of symbols and below it its English translation.

MSS #7 actual says it is "a translation of the next page", thus page 1 is the English translation of the script and illustrations found on page 2.

Isolating the GAEL, calling it a cipher, and then dismissing the entire KEP is haphazard.

Where does Will simply dismiss the rest of the KEP? Certainly you don't mean to insist that any research on any section of the KEP is obligated to address the entire KEP and it's relationship the the Book of Abraham.

If the GAEL is a cipher it would be fairly useless, as I pointed out here:

Which is what the historical context shows was the ultimate result. The project was abandoned.

We are to believe the cipher was developed to encrypt future communications, yet Schryver developed this theory by finding parallels to previously given D&C revelations in it... which is circular reasoning.

I understood it to be a method of encoding the scriptures, thus the incorporation of the Book of Abraham and other scriptures.

[mapman]

He is mistaken. Egyptian is one family within the larger Afro-Asiatic classification. Arabic is a member of the South Semitic group of the Semitic family, which is another family within the Afro-Asiatic classification. While Arabic developed out of Arabian languages dating to the early first millennium BCE, the language itself does not overlap, chronologically, with Egyptian. Sanskrit is a member of the Indo-Iranian family, which comes from Indo-European. They are not related in any way that can be considered meaningful.

I'm pretty sure that David Stewart was refering to the Arabic and Sanskrit scripts not the languages. And if I'm not mistaken, those come from Phoenician and ultimately from Egyptian heiroglyphics.

[Deborah]

Not much of a point. Secret codes are meant to be secret. Calling it Egyptian for the unawares was the entire point.

Which as I recall Will made clear if not in the text, in the question and answer period.

This really struck me as I had developed a cipher for my journal several years ago. It was very simple to me but no one else could figure out. I thought what would have happened if some future generation found this in the ruins of some building. Would they think they found some great important secret and spend years trying to find out only to eventually discover it was a teenager's musings?

Anyway it just goes to show that evidence has to be looked at in context and with the right interpretation or it is of no value in proving anything.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There are no Egyptian characters on the Counting document, but I don't know the exact ratio for the alphabets and the grammar (if memory serves me correctly, its about 60/40 Egyptian to non-Egyptian).

This, to me, is one of the most critical points. It raises the salient qustion: "Would it make sense for Joseph and others to use characters that are not Egyptian and not on the papyri, as a part of a 'key' to translate the Egytian papyri?"

The answer to me is an obvious "no".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for the clarification. I guess my main point be hind hilighting this, is that if it was a translation as the ciritics suggest I would expect to find all egyptian characters. Instead we find on one document no egyptian characters and on other we find some.

[maklelan]

I'm pretty sure that David Stewart was refering to the Arabic and Sanskrit scripts not the languages.And if I'm not mistaken, those come from Phoenician and ultimately from Egyptian heiroglyphics.

I've reviewed Stewart's comments and think the comment to which he was replying was absolute enough to merit some nuanced correction. There's no meaningful relationship between the scripts, but there is a relationship, at least between Arabic and Egyptian, as shown below.

The Phoenician script is the first alphabet. While it developed slowly from a number of adaptations of early Egyptian hieroglyphs, the scripts have become quite distinct, both functionally and iconographically. Phoenician is alphabetic. Egyptian is logographic and phonographic. Arabic is a further adaptation of the script, and is rarely recognizable as graphically related to Phoenician, which itself is rarely recognizable as graphically related to Egyptian. There's no meaningful graphical relationship between Arabic and Egyptian scripts.

Sanskrit is based on Brahmic scripts, which are alphasyllabic. Some people think this writing system developed independently, and some think it developed from Imperial Aramaic, but there is no real consensus. Irrespective, the system, and the Sanskrit script specifically, is graphically unrelated to Egyptian or Arabic.

[maklelan]

Which as I recall Will made clear if not in the text, in the question and answer period.

This really struck me as I had developed a cipher for my journal several years ago. It was very simple to me but no one else could figure out. I thought what would have happened if some future generation found this in the ruins of some building. Would they think they found some great important secret and spend years trying to find out only to eventually discover it was a teenager's musings?

Anyway it just goes to show that evidence has to be looked at in context and with the right interpretation or it is of no value in proving anything.

Will did mention during the presentation that it was meant to throw people off the trail. I leaned over to Dan Peterson and said it worked for almost 200 years.

[Tribunal]

Will did mention during the presentation that it was meant to throw people off the trail. I leaned over to Dan Peterson and said it worked for almost 200 years.

At what cost?

[Deborah]

At what cost?

To whom? It wasted a lot of critics time, but true believers continued believe the BOA was the word of God. Besides I hardly think Joseph and the others thought that people would be arguing about their little project to such a degree.

[maklelan]

At what cost?

Historically, a rather significant cost, but they had no way of knowing that these documents would contribute over a century later to serious criticisms of the Book of Abraham.

[Tribunal]

Deborah and Maklelan, I agree that Joseph had no way of knowing how much attention and debate the KEP would cause. I believe the KEP has been a major distraction for critics and the faithful. I also believe a lot of critics would have been less critical and actually open to the Church and the Gospel if they had watched Will Schryver's presentation two hundred years ago.

[selek]

Historically, a rather significant cost, but they had no way of knowing that these documents would contribute over a century later to serious criticisms of the Book of Abraham.

I disagree, sir.

Those who are receptive to the Spirit and sincere in their yearnings to be united to the true Church of Christ are seldom so easily dissuaded.

I am unaware of any otherwise faithful member who's testimony was fatally damaged by the overwhelming triviality of the KEP.

It has also been my experience that those seeking to leave will seize upon any reason to do so- know matter how many you take away.

In my not-so-humble opinion, the suggestion that somebody was driven out of the Church because we didn't have a clear, concise answer to the KEP enigma is simply a variation on the tried and trite "the Church didn't pry open my skull with a can-opener and pour in knowledge like motor oil and therefore lied to me" gambit.

It provides a very satisfactory sense of victimhood, but it cannot stand up to close examination.

It is, in short, an attempt to blame the Church for one's own shortcomings.

[selek]

Deborah and Maklelan, I agree that Joseph had no way of knowing how much attention and debate the KEP would cause. I believe the KEP has been a major distraction for critics and the faithful. I also believe a lot of critics would have been less critical and actually open to the Church and the Gospel if they had watched Will Schryver's presentation two hundred years ago.

Again, I disagree.

The KEP is a bit of obscure esoterica of which the vast majority are flatly ignorant- either for or against.

Given the nature and behavior of the critics who circle around this issue like vultures over a dying coyote, I see nothing to suggest that this was the sole- or even primary- reason for thier disaffection.

Can you honestly see someone like Metcalf being swayed by Schryver's argument? Or the Tanners? Or Tal Bachmann?

No.

I see no evidence at all that the KEP is anywhere near the stumbling block that you are suggesting.

[Tribunal]

Again, I disagree.

The KEP is a bit of obscure esoterica of which the vast majority are flatly ignorant- either for or against.

Given the nature and behavior of the critics who circle around this issue like vultures over a dying coyote, I see nothing to suggest that this was the sole- or even primary- reason for thier disaffection.

Can you honestly see someone like Metcalf being swayed by Schryver's argument? Or the Tanners? Or Tal Bachmann?

No.

I see no evidence at all that the KEP is anywhere near the stumbling block that you are suggesting.

Thank you Selek. You've corrected my misconceptions here and on the other thread. The KEP presentation has opened a can of worms and also a can of possibilities.

[why me]

Which as I recall Will made clear if not in the text, in the question and answer period.

This really struck me as I had developed a cipher for my journal several years ago. It was very simple to me but no one else could figure out. I thought what would have happened if some future generation found this in the ruins of some building. Would they think they found some great important secret and spend years trying to find out only to eventually discover it was a teenager's musings?

Anyway it just goes to show that evidence has to be looked at in context and with the right interpretation or it is of no value in proving anything.

For critics who don't believe in Joseph Smith and his prophetic calling the KEP provides a can of worms now. If Joseph wrote this book he certainly went about it a little differently and he certainly made it very complicated with another elaborate plan to fool people and enlist more people in on the fraud. And all this seems very unlikely for a fraudster to do.

Will's presentation blew a role in the critics arsenal. And they still are attempting to recover.

[maklelan]

I disagree, sir.

Well, it's not just members who have been influenced by criticism of the book of Abraham.

[hagoth7]

...I believe the KEP has been a major distraction for critics and the faithful...

Dunno.

I doubt you'd find one in a hundred LDS who even know what the KEP are and who have kept abreast of the criticism related to the PofGP.

As to the rest of us, we shrug and say, "What's the KEP? And what's to criticize?"

I also believe a lot of critics would have been less critical and actually open to the Church and the Gospel if they had watched Will Schryver's presentation two hundred years ago.

People tend to find what they want to find.

Whether it's in the PofGP or elsewhere.

[Chris Smith]

The fact that there is hardly any egyptian charactors on the KEP. Whoa.

FWIW, that is not, in fact, a "fact".

[Chris Smith]

I am not convinced that Smith and his scribes considered the Alphabet and Grammar manuscripts to be used as a cipher.

1. For starters, Joseph quotes from the GAEL in his letter to Bennet, published in the Times and Seasons:

"... Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is; [O the earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.] ..." T&S Vol. 4, p. 373

Which words and definitions are in Eg. MSS 1, 3, & 4. In particular GAEL, pp.29-30:

Joh-oh-eh: The earth under the government of an other or the second of the fixed stars, which is called Enish-go-on-dosh or in other words the power of attra[c]tion it has with the earth

Flo-ees: The moon

[Chris Smith]

Also ignored were other KEP MSS, such as #6 and #7, which contents state directly on them that they are translations.

MSS #6 has a paragraph of symbols and below it its English translation.

MSS #7 actual says it is "a translation of the next page", thus page 1 is the English translation of the script and illustrations found on page 2.

This is an excellent point, as well. Incidentally, the first "part" of the Egyptian Alphabet documents parallel the "translated" material in the notebook. Thus it would seem that the notebooks indicate that the first part, at least, was understood to be a deciphering of Egyptian rather than an enciphering into Egyptian.

[e=mc2]

FWIW, that is not, in fact, a "fact".

Are you saying there are, then, actual Egyptian characters on the Counting documents that real Egyptologists would advance as actual Egyptian? Which ones? I saw Arabic and Sanskrit as Will presented, but nothing Egyptian. It appears to me that Will has a rather solid case with this.

[e=mc2]

Good people,

I just returned from attending half of todays FAIR session. And I must tell you that at the very least, Will's presentation has and will stur some great discussion. In fact, following the presentation, I had the fortune of talking things over with Chris Smith and Narrator and Don Bradly and others--Will stepped in for a few brief comments (the BackyardProfessor took videos of portions of the discussion, and he promises to upload it to his Youtube website sometime this weekend).

Understandably, the critics weren't convinced, and that is okay. It took me several viewings for it all to sink in, and even as I watched the presentation in person today, I made certain informative connections that I hadn't before. There is a lot to absorb

Chris did compliment the presentation as an interesting "outside-the-box" theory. Only time will tell if the presentation ends up changing the game for everyone--there may even be some apologist who weren't entirely ready to give up on the old paradigm, and that's okay too.

I didn't get to see Gee's presentation because I was in a very lengthy, but friendly and enjoyable and passionate discussion with Darin regarding William Duncan's excellent talk on "Religion in the Legal Controversy Over Marriage" (surprised? LOL). So, I will have to wait until it is published before learning what was said.

I wish you all could have been there.

Let the discussion continue...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Kerry notes:

I think Gee is onto something as well. If I am understanding what Will showed, Gee has a VERY powerful refutation that the Sensen document CANNOT be a translation document, based on where from the document the characters came from which are supposedly being translated. The pattern absolutely FLOORED me. WHY didn't I think of seeing WHERE from the document the characters came from? Gee brilliantly showed that there is no logical pattern whatever, but there appears to be a hop skip and jumping all over the loving place in the document to get some characters. This ties in beautifully with Will's idea of an ENcryption technique the brethren were doing. It also explains the entire paragraph from a mere character idea. This is no translation at all, but an ENcryption, with the brethren showing THEIR OWN KEY TO IT ALL. Each character is THEIR CHOOSING of whatever paragraphs they want the character to represent. Will's idea is truly worth working through, and I intend on making many a video SHOWING these things. This is something we must SEE as well as hear, and video is the VERY BEST way to show it. Talk about more material for videos, as if I need that anyway.