Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[Mansquatch]

Seriously though, is the conference streamed? And how can I sign up?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't usually do this, but I think this occasion merits it.

I won't be making it to the FAIR conference this year due to other commitments.

Knowing my interest, Will Schryver was kind enough to let me see his slides and presentation on the Book of Abraham "Kirtland Egyptian Papers."

I am not an expert on the Book of Abraham; I follow it with interest but from a distance.

Schryver has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea the KEP are the "translation documents" of the Book of Abraham, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates.

I suspect that it will soon be historically indefensible to claim that at least the first three chapters of the BoA were translated later than between 4-17 July 1835. And, what Will has discovered/concluded also has some broader implications for the history of that period that will be quite interesting--some of the implications are obvious to me immediately; others more deft than me will doubtless see other things.

The only question I had at the end was, "Why have the critics (esp those with access to photos of the papers) not figured this stuff out already? The 40-year assumptions that the papers were translation docs are clearly false. Even Nibley bobbled this one.

But, more mature reflection tells us why the critics haven't dug any deeper. They will have to now, if they're going to be taken at all seriously. But, it's not bad to eviscerate the foundation of most critical approaches in a stroke. That may sound like hyperbole, but in this case I think it's deadly accurate.

So, if you're on the fence about going to the conference, I think Will's presentation alone is worth your time.

Congrats on a job well done, and I look forward to seeing what others think when the data all becomes "public." And, my thanks to Will for allowing me a "sneak peak." I hope no one asks me about the issue between now and then, because I'd be hard pressed to keep my mouth shut. :-)

Best to all,

Greg

I fear FAIR is to far above my head

[Greg Smith]

yes I am.

mobipocket free epub software.

OpenOffice

peer2peer network.

Believe it or not, most people still don't consider digital "self" publishing to be quite the same thing.

Some people do still read (and prefer) stuff in dead tree form. :-) Especially academics and academic libraries, which would presumably be the target audience for such a publication as part of the JSP project or allied endeavors.

I guess I can add (e) to my predicted responses:

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

We can also add one for Mortal Man:

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.

It really is nice to get these all out of the way early. :-) Any that I've missed?

GLS

[Greg Smith]

I fear FAIR is to far above my head

[Mansquatch]

Believe it or not, most people still don't consider digital "self" publishing to be quite the same thing.

Some people do still read (and prefer) stuff in dead tree form. :-) Especially academics and academic libraries, which would presumably be the target audience for such a publication as part of the JSP project or allied endeavors.

I guess I can add (e) to my predicted responses:

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

We can also add one for Mortal Man:

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 engage said argument, and allows one to dismiss it via guilt-by-association.

It really is nice to get these all out of the way early. :-) Any that I've missed?

GLS

Well now it's:

g) all of the above <----

[Stargazer]

In a privately published book for profit? If this is the case, this just seems wrong to me.

Rock, I don't know what you do for a living, but isn't it terribly selfish of you to accept remuneration for it? I mean, you're denying the public the fruits of your labors unless they cough up some precious valuta. In other words, unless they exchange a little of their own labor for the fruit of yours, you won't give it to them! Mercenary, just plain mercenary. I expected better of you.

edited to fix incorrect word order

[Mortal Man]

We can also add one for Mortal Man:

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.

I just want to know if William will be signing autographs after his presentation, or do you have to have special connections to get one?

[Greg Smith]

I just want to know if William will be signing autographs after his presentation, or do you have to have special connections to get one?

Yup, definitely (f).

We may have to start using Greek and Hebrew characters after 26....

GLS

[Mortal Man]

Yup, definitely (f).

We may have to start using Greek and Hebrew characters after 26....

GLS

Or you could use Egyptian hieratic characters. Heck, you could even make up your own characters if you like.

[Greg Smith]

Seriously though, is the conference streamed? And how can I sign up?

It is being streamed, and you can sign up here:

http://bookstore.fairlds.org/category.php?id_category=77

See the top link.

GLS

[USU78]

Larsen: CFR

They were published for all to see? Where do I get a copy?

(and to spare off-topic nitpicking, I should have specified his photos, meaning those he does have, rather than saying "the" photos as if he has photos of everything. There is just an element of hypocrisy in insisting one side should publish what they have in their possession when the other isn't expected to.)

I'm astonished that M. Larsen has missed the many times the very failure to share those photos, which were obtained under very odd circumstances, was defended by Metcalfe on these very boards, never with much success.

[Calm]

I fear FAIR is to far above my head

[Tango]

I don't usually do this, but I think this occasion merits it.

I won't be making it to the FAIR conference this year due to other commitments.

Knowing my interest, Will Schryver was kind enough to let me see his slides and presentation on the Book of Abraham "Kirtland Egyptian Papers."

I am not an expert on the Book of Abraham; I follow it with interest but from a distance.

Schryver has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea the KEP are the "translation documents" of the Book of Abraham, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates.

I suspect that it will soon be historically indefensible to claim that at least the first three chapters of the BoA were translated later than between 4-17 July 1835. And, what Will has discovered/concluded also has some broader implications for the history of that period that will be quite interesting--some of the implications are obvious to me immediately; others more deft than me will doubtless see other things.

The only question I had at the end was, "Why have the critics (esp those with access to photos of the papers) not figured this stuff out already? The 40-year assumptions that the papers were translation docs are clearly false. Even Nibley bobbled this one.

But, more mature reflection tells us why the critics haven't dug any deeper. They will have to now, if they're going to be taken at all seriously. But, it's not bad to eviscerate the foundation of most critical approaches in a stroke. That may sound like hyperbole, but in this case I think it's deadly accurate.

So, if you're on the fence about going to the conference, I think Will's presentation alone is worth your time.

Congrats on a job well done, and I look forward to seeing what others think when the data all becomes "public." And, my thanks to Will for allowing me a "sneak peak." I hope no one asks me about the issue between now and then, because I'd be hard pressed to keep my mouth shut. :-)

Best to all,

Greg

Schryver has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea the KEP are the "translation documents" of the Book of Abraham, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates.

Only in your mind. Besides KEP is only part of the equation. There is enough dribble from the facsimiles to kill, nail and bury the "Written by Abraham in his own hand" non-sense.

Schryver's talk is useless without references and peer review.

[John Larsen]

I find it interesting that the name of this thread is "game changer". Is that a tacit acknowledgment that apologetics is currently losing the game?

[rockslider]

More thoughts about my previous statement:

Am I mistaken that all access to the material, which is owned by the church has been unavailable to even be viewed at the archives (except for the very few), let alone made public and now they are allowing it out in this form (private published book)? I've heard talk of high resolution TIF or want ever electronic formatted material which I assume is owned by the church and provided to these book writers/publishers. Or am I mistaken and it's likely that the Church will make the high resolution electronic format available for anyone to download, for free? If this is the case, I have no complaints. If not, it seems pretty exclusive rights have been granted.

[Greg Smith]

Only in your mind. Besides KEP is only part of the equation. There is enough dribble from the facsimiles to kill, nail and bury the "Written by Abraham in his own hand" non-sense.

Schryver's talk is useless without references and peer review.

Don't be silly. I'm not talking about the entire Book of Abraham issue. I'm talking about the claim that the KEP represent translation documents for the Book of Abraham. That claim will be dead. Or, so I predict.

The list is getting longer:

(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?

Keep 'em coming. These are gold.

GLS

[Greg Smith]

I find it interesting that the name of this thread is "game changer". Is that a tacit acknowledgment that apologetics is currently losing the game?

No. It's an explicit claim that the "game" is going to change with regards to the translation date of the Book of Abraham text, and the meaning of the KEP.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. If I think the apologetics side is losing, I'll say so. You won't have to intuit it.

GLS

[Greg Smith]

More thoughts about my previous statement:

Am I mistaken that all access to the material, which is owned by the church has been unavailable to even be viewed at the archives (except for the very few), let alone made public and now they are allowing it out in this form (private published book)? I've heard talk of high resolution TIF or want ever electronic formatted material which I assume is owned by the church and provided to these book writers/publishers. Or am I mistaken and it's likely that the Church will make the high resolution electronic format available for anyone to download, for free? If this is the case, I have no complaints. If not, it seems pretty exclusive rights have been granted.

I don't know who is publishing. I'm not sure what you mean by "private published book." If, for example, the book was being published by the Church Historian's Press, then I guess that would be "private" in the sense of it being "the Church's". It's not unusual for archives to grant private authors to publish items from their holdings.

You'd have to ask Hauglid and Will who their publisher(s) will be.

But again, the 1970 print by the Tanners and Marquart will be sufficient for your purposes here. This isn't subtle stuff hinging on strokes of a pen or different kinds of ink, or snazzy infrared photos. (Those add a couple of things, perhaps, but Will did 90%+ of the work with the 1970 version. It's all there for anyone.

As I say, that's why it surprised me that no one had noticed it. But, I never read the 1970 edition, so perhaps I can comfort myself with the idea that if I had I would have noticed too. Yeah, that's the ticket.....

[Tango]

Don't be silly. I'm not talking about the entire Book of Abraham issue. I'm talking about the claim that the KEP represent translation documents for the Book of Abraham. That claim will be dead. Or, so I predict.

The list is getting longer:

(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?

Keep 'em coming. These are gold.

GLS

Wow, are you serious? Gold? Claiming, acting, critical? LMAO-

[wenglund]

Only in your mind. Besides KEP is only part of the equation. There is enough dribble from the facsimiles to kill, nail and bury the "Written by Abraham in his own hand" non-sense. Schryver's talk is useless without references and peer review.

Folks,

That whooshing and banging sound you hear is the mind of a critic premptively slamming shut.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jskains]

There is enough dribble from the facsimiles to kill, nail and bury the "Written by Abraham in his own hand" non-sense.

That is pure nonsense. Other than simply using an available set of art to help with interpretation (regardless of original meaning), many other possibilities exist, including the fact that the changes are minor enough that comparing these pieces to known pieces may also be wrong.

JMS

[juliann]

The list is getting longer:

(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?

Keep 'em coming. These are gold.

GLS

(h) seems to be the fall back position. They have been doing the same avoidance techniques for so long I doubt they even realize how transparent it is. They have been doing it for far too long with Mesoamerica as they have had to watch dates move into BOM time frames. It is as if they haven't quite caught up to the fact that when they publish "hahahoho" comments on the internet they don't go away when a new set of data rolls in.

[juliann]

Schryver's talk is useless without references and peer review.

What in the world would possess you to think there aren't references or peer review? Is that just desperate hope overwhelming your common sense?

[John Larsen]

Suppose I have a 20 dollar bill that I claim is genuine. However, the experts say that it is a counterfeit. The say that the paper is wrong, the serial numbers aren't correct, the ink isn't the right quality, the signatures are from the wrong people and there are several spelling errors on the bill. My supporters however insist that it is real. The acknowledge that I, in fact printed them, but they say it is genuine and that I had authority from the Federal reserve to print them. There is no evidence I had any such authority.

Now, one of my supporters is about to release a paper explain why my methodology shows that it is real. The problem is two fold, the very nature of the twenty shows that it isn't real, it is full of mistakes. Secondly I have not demonstrated that the Fed gave me authority. The means of my production are irrelevant.

[John Larsen]

Folks,

That whooshing and banging sound you hear is the mind of a critic premptively slamming shut.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It seems that unexamined the critics are rejecting it and the apologists are accepting it. How is one an example of a fixed position and the other is not?