Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[Ceeboo]

Many Catholics also have hair

Some have so much

They look like a bear

Some part their hair and comb to the side

I'm not really sure what their trying to hide

Some wear it long while others are fine

To shave it all off and let their head shine

I prefer to have some hair on my head

It gives the bride something to play with in bed

You see Catholics have many styles and reasons to share

The blessings and gifts we find in our hair

Today I announce my plan for the upcoming years

Ceeboo's ponytail begins growing right below his ears

[wenglund]

I wonder if you looked up the word "iconaclast" would you find Will's ponytailed picture there?

Be that as it may, whatever presuppositions people may have had about Will prior to his presentation, hopefully now they will know what I have been priviledged to know for multiple months now, and that is he is a very bright and very funny guy.

But, enough of the idolistic adorations. These fanatic drewlings are making the good folk on the other board nausiated, and we wouldn't want that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Will

[the narrator]

Be that as it may, whatever presuppositions people may have had about Will prior to his presentation, hopefully now they will know what I have been priviledged to know for multiple months now, and that is he is a very bright and very funny guy.

He is also very tall, which is beneficial for him when he tries to stare down midgets.

It was nice to meet you in person though, Wade.

[wenglund]

He is also very tall, which is beneficial for him when he tries to stare down midgets.

I think the politically correct term is "little people". LOL

But, yes, Will does stikes an imposing figure--though from what I can tell, he, like the very tall Brent Metcalfe with body-builder arms, tends not to use his height and size to special advantage, but instead he gently relies on his brains.

And, from what I could tell, with your admirable intelletual qualities, you loom equally imposing.

It was nice to meet you in person though, Wade.

The sentiment is quite mutual.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

So, next question, Chris - when the EA deals with Genesis 3 - the story of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, where does the idea come from that the fruit smelled "precious" or "delightful"?

The Book of Mormon? Joseph's imagination? I'm afraid I fail to see the relevance of the question.

[the narrator]

The sentiment is quite mutual.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course, now I feel like I have to be nice to you. Which is completely against my modus operandi.

[wenglund]

Of course, now I feel like I have to be nice to you. Which is completely against my modus operandi.

No problem. Be true to yourself. Besides, uou can always use the "you've got to be cruel to be kind" excuse. It works for me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

I thought Will

[selek]

Can you say the same for the Discredited Anti-Mormon Theory (hereafter DAMT) to which you cling like a drowning man to a straw?

Regards,

Pahoran

Actually that would be the Discredited Anti-Mormon-Interim Theory as they continue to revise it (downward) in order to maintain the predetermined conclusion for which they lust so mightily.

The correct acronym, therefore, is DAM-IT).

[e=mc2]

Actually that would be the Discredited Anti-Mormon-Interim Theory as they continue to revise it (downward) in order to maintain the predetermined conclusion for which they lust so mightily.

The correct acronym, therefore, is DAM-IT).

Or we could, with all propriety propose the Discredited Anti-Mormon Nonsense Interim Theory, and call it (damn-it)

[SkepticTheist]

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:

http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208891918

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.

It doesn't make sense that they are ciphers of D&C material because we are missing so much of the Book of Abraham text. I suggest that these things represent portions of the Book of Abraham text that are not extant that merely parallel the D&C the way portions of the Grammar/Alphabet parallel the Facsimile #2 Explanations, and so forth.

Ed Goble

[SkepticTheist]

Ben,

I'm not at all sure why you think the EAG must be borrowing from the BoA rather than the other way around.

Indeed, why should it matter if the Book of Abraham is dependent on the Alphabet/Grammar. What do people hope to accomplish by insisting on this? I would like a coherent and detailed explanation for the rationale for making such an assertion with such ambiguity of evidence. I simply do not see it. All I can see is that some apologists insist on this because they do not want the KEP to be an actual translation exercise, and do not want dependence on the KEP and Sensen for the Book of Abraham text. To me this is highly counter-productive to make such unbending assertions of this manner, and just ideological. Will Schryver insists that this must absolutely be the case, but for what reason? It is not because the evidence demands it, at all.

Ed Goble

[SkepticTheist]

Actually that would be the Discredited Anti-Mormon-Interim Theory as they continue to revise it (downward) in order to maintain the predetermined conclusion for which they lust so mightily.

Is not the apologist position that the KEP does not represent a translation of authentically ancient material a pretedetermined conclusion? I would say it is, and that it is not supported very well from the evidence at hand. And I would also say that it is argued for mightily for some reason.

Ed Goble

[Nomad]

Ben,

I'm not at all sure why you think the EAG must be borrowing from the BoA rather than the other way around.

Over on that "other board", Smith also wrote this:

Ben expresses a kind of vague intuition that the EAG entries couldn't have been produced without using the BoA as a source text, but doesn't identify any specific textual features that indicate this. My response, by contrast, identifies several specific features of the BoA verses in question that indicate they were composed by assembling Alphabet and Grammar entries. This pretty much encapsulates the state of the debate, in my opinion.

I have concluded that although you present the image of one who is objective and level-headed, the only explanation for your being able to believe the things you write (like the above) is that you must be an exceptionally motivated anti-Mormon who is extraordinarily blinded by preconceptions.

It

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

Your response was full of bravado and triumphalism, but like your theory it was without substance. Seriously, I think you goofed when you compared your theory to Masonic ciphers, because your demonstration with the

[William Schryver]

Will,

Your response was full of bravado and triumphalism, but like your theory it was without substance. Seriously, I think you goofed when you compared your theory to Masonic ciphers, because your demonstration with the

[SkepticTheist]

Over on that "other board", Smith also wrote this:

The cipher explanation is all fine and dandy and I do think that Schryver is on to something with it. And sure, that

[wenglund]

Those whose exposure to this controversy has been minimal are enchanted by the cipher key thesis. That

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

I watched your presentation once, so it is quite possible I didn

[SkepticTheist]

I believe you showed inter-dependence between GAEL and BofA, but not directionality.

This is what I'm seeing as well, and why I think the triumphalism of some people is not warranted on this point.

Ed Goble

[William Schryver]

/snip/

Will, until such time you can definitively demonstrate the directionality of dependence textually, I believe researchers are obligated to follow the simple chronological reconstruction I have given above.

Fair enough. We are convinced that "directionality" can be definitively demonstrated.

Incidentally, your "chronological reconstruction" above (the details of which I know quite well) does not, in any way, establish what parts of the text of the Book of Abraham were translated on any given date.

Of course, you know that. That is why you felt the need to editorialize so much in order to suggest that such and such was being translated at such and such points in time.

Until such time as you can definitively demonstrate what was "translated" on any given date, then I think you will agree that the text-critical evidence must be given priority over any ambiguous historical reference to "translation."

[LeSellers]

Or we could, with all propriety propose the Discredited Anti-Mormon Nonsense Interim Theory, and call it (damn-it)

I successfully denied myself the luxury of this very thought, down to the wording, and especially the acronym.

I don't know whether to be proud of myself or ashamed for not posting it.

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

[maklelan]

Will, until such time you can definitively demonstrate the directionality of dependence textually, I believe researchers are obligated to follow the simple chronological reconstruction I have given above.

Hi Dan. I've been interested in this topic for less than a week, but I saw Will's presentation and realized it's primarily a text-critical question, which happens to be my specialization. I'm not aware of anything published, posted, or presented on the KEP by formally trained textual critics, so I thought I'd get involved. Here's a short preview of what I've come up with over the last couple days that I posted at MDB. Chris Smith responded to some of my points and I in turn responded to his concerns. Anyone who is interested can find my post on the thread "How Schryver and his dittoheads get the truth," and can look at that thread for my responses to Chris and a few refinements of my analysis. This is research that I've quite literally just begun, but the data I've analyzed so far unanimously points to the chronological priority of the narrative of Abr.

Character 14 is said to mean "eye, to see, or sight; sometimes me, myself." These two semantic qualities are unrelated. It makes little sense for a person composing a lexicon out of thin air and working from no context at all to arbitrarily put these senses together. If we look at Abr 1:1-2, however, we see "I saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence; And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness." The terms are juxtaposed in the text, and even in the same order they appear in the alphabet. It's incredibly unlikely that the words and their order in the alphabet were determined arbitrarily and then a narrative was composed to fit around their arrangement, especially considering the fact that, were Smith following the papyri letter for letter, we would expect to find the same characters in close juxtaposition to allow for both meanings of character 14 to be found within the same sentence. It is much, much more likely that the narrative was in place, and the dual meaning was simply plucked from that narrative.

It happens again between the alphabet and the grammar in character 18, which means in the alphabet "the beginning, before, ap/pointing to." Abr 1:3-4 has "it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to ["pointing to"] the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me. I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed." When we look at the grammar, however, we see the sense expanded to include more of the context from the Abr narrative, especially in degree 5, which only has "The first born, or the first man; or father or fathers." Look at Abr 1:3 again:

it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.

The order of the meanings aligns perfectly with the narrative. How does the grammar expand from "the beginning, before, ap/pointing to" to "The first born, or the first man; or father or fathers" and ironically match up perfectly with the content words of the narrative in their correct order? Character 2 is related. In the grammar, first degree, the word which means "The first man, or one who has kingly power, or king" in the alphabet has the following added: "The first man