Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

Your response is so weak and merely reasserts your flawed logic and misreading of the historical sources that I feel no overwhelming urge to respond point for point. Neither side of this debate believes the GAEL was a

[USU78]

Neither side of this debate believes the GAEL was a

[William Schryver]

Wade,

Your response is so weak and merely reasserts your flawed logic and misreading of the historical sources that I feel no overwhelming urge to respond point for point. Neither side of this debate believes the GAEL was a

[William Schryver]

Ahem.

Utter and contemptible nonsense.

The "anti" side has held that position ever since the KEP were published.

And the "anti" side is manful in the attempt to save this arrow in their quiver, for which, I suppose, they deserve a modicum of respect for tenacity.

But to claim that nobody on either side believes the GAEL, et al. were translation documents is just not honest.

Unless you meant something else by what you just posted.

Please to explain.

The only kind of history at which Vogel seems to excel is the revisionist kind.

[USU78]

The only kind of history at which Vogel seems to excel is the revisionist kind.

Perhaps his post was intended to convey that he just knocked his own king over.

USU "Or not" 78

[phaedrus ut]

Readers must always keep in mind one important thing when dealing with the would-be historian Dan Vogel: he is very adept at assembling historical sources, but he is notoriously inept when it comes to interpreting them.

Apparently pretension and bravado go hand in hand with myopic self confidence. As a reminder, the "would-be historian" Dan Vogel's biography of Joseph Smith won both the Best Book Award from the John Whitmer Historical Association along with the Best Biography award from the Mormon History Association. Will made a slide show presentation at the FAIR Conference at the South Towne Exposition Center in Sandy, Utah.

Phaedrus

[William Schryver]

Apparently pretension and bravado go hand in hand with myopic self confidence. As a reminder, the "would-be historian" Dan Vogel's biography of Joseph Smith won both the Best Book Award from the John Whitmer Historical Association along with the Best Biography award from the Mormon History Association. Will made a slide show presentation at the FAIR Conference at the South Towne Exposition Center in Sandy, Utah.

Phaedrus

Yes, and having done so will continue to constitute a blot on the reputations of those organizations for years to come. Joseph Smith - The Making of a Prophet is, without a doubt, one of the single worst specimens of "history" to ever emerge from the field of Mormon Studies, and, as such, is a suitable ornament to the credibility of its author.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ahem.

Utter and contemptible nonsense.

The "anti" side has held that position ever since the KEP were published.

And the "anti" side is manful in the attempt to save this arrow in their quiver, for which, I suppose, they deserve a modicum of respect for tenacity.

But to claim that nobody on either side believes the GAEL, et al. were translation documents is just not honest.

Unless you meant something else by what you just posted.

Please to explain.

Even this poster knows that there are plenty of critics that think that the GAEL was a translation key to the BoA. In light of Will's presentation I am amazed that people hold to that old tired theory.

Does that mean that Dan's credibility is slipping?

[juliann]

Apparently pretension and bravado go hand in hand with myopic self confidence. As a reminder, the "would-be historian" Dan Vogel's biography of Joseph Smith won both the Best Book Award from the John Whitmer Historical Association along with the Best Biography award from the Mormon History Association. Will made a slide show presentation at the FAIR Conference at the South Towne Exposition Center in Sandy, Utah.

Will's work will be published so that is a strawman. Vogel will always have a place in Mormon Studies. Vogel was always mentioned at some time or another by lecturers at Claremont as the program was being developed. (I went to every one of them). His earlier work is held in high esteem. The problem with the biography is that it was immediately assigned to the Fawn Brodie genre by those within Mormon Studies. That limits how or if it will be used.

[phaedrus ut]

Yes, and having done so will continue to constitute a blot on the reputations of those organizations for years to come. Joseph Smith - The Making of a Prophet is, without a doubt, one of the single worst specimens of "history" to ever emerge from the field of Mormon Studies, and, as such, is a suitable ornament to the credibility of its author.

Thanks for proving my point. Your criticism of dan reminds me of your wonderful piece of gotcha Schryver scholarship in your thread "Vogel's The Making Of A Prophet Inaccuracies in the "definitive" bio?" where you not only demonstrated unfamiliarity with the source material, a penchant for making unfounded accusations and insinuations, and your laughable ignorance of the difference between a footnote and a endnote.

Phaedrus

[William Schryver]

Thanks for proving my point. Your criticism of dan reminds me of your wonderful piece of gotcha Schryver scholarship in your thread "Vogel's The Making Of A Prophet Inaccuracies in the "definitive" bio?" where you not only demonstrated unfamiliarity with the source material, a penchant for making unfounded accusations and insinuations, and your laughable ignorance of the difference between a footnote and a endnote.

Phaedrus

And yet, in my copy of the book, the reference in question remains incorrect. Funny, that.

[phaedrus ut]

And yet, in my copy of the book, the reference in question remains incorrect. Funny, that.

Which reference? The footnote or the endnote?

Phaedrus

BTW, both thread are there for anyone who cares to judge the accuracy of Will's accusation.

[wenglund]

Wade,

Your response is so weak and merely reasserts your flawed logic and misreading of the historical sources that I feel no overwhelming urge to respond point for point.

Now you know how I felt about your initial and follow-up responses to me. It all comes down to you and I interpreting and weighting the data differently. We each see each others arguments as weak and as misreading the historical sources. And, that's okay. To each their own.

Neither side of this debate believes the GAEL was a

[wenglund]

Does this look like anything you might have seen in relation to the KEP?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Does this look like anything you might have seen in relation to the KEP?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You know what, Wade? This is some pretty cool stuff you're turning up. If you get a chance, e-mail me some of these images and URLs of the sites where you found the stuff. No hurry, though. In fact, if you'd like, keep searching for now and then assemble all the stuff into a single document. Look for the highest resolution images of things you can find, too. If I end up using anything at all from the material you assemble, you can rest assured that you will be fully credited.

You know what else is interesting? I saw how the inimitable Cracker Graham has been trying to draw connections between the counting document and the "caractors". Although I don't think his correspondences are all that impressive (most of them only bear a slight or partial resemblance), Graham doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that even if the characters do originate with the Anthon manuscript, that would also be perfectly consistent with my so-called "cipher thesis" of the KEP. The point is that they were willing to use characters from all sorts of places. They knew perfectly well that they weren't Egyptian, but that didn't matter in light of what they were doing.

The other thing I think is interesting is how some people are operating under the mistaken notion that if they can somehow discredit the cipher theory, then the dependency theory goes with it. In fact, I think it was also Graham that tried to suggest that. Of course, there is no relationship between the two things at all, as I made perfectly clear last week. They are completely independent of one another. The dependency question is paramount, and is, in my judgment and that of several others, a powerfully conclusive case. The cipher theory is simply a working hypothesis for their underlying purpose. It is also only about two months old, as I've told you before. I expect to learn lots more about that angle of things over the course of the coming months, especially with other people looking into it, too.

Anyway, great work. Keep it up.

-WS

[Dan Vogel]

Maklelan,

Since his version of the Manuscript reads

[Dan Vogel]

Ahem.

Utter and contemptible nonsense.

The "anti" side has held that position ever since the KEP were published.

And the "anti" side is manful in the attempt to save this arrow in their quiver, for which, I suppose, they deserve a modicum of respect for tenacity.

But to claim that nobody on either side believes the GAEL, et al. were translation documents is just not honest.

Unless you meant something else by what you just posted.

Please to explain.

What I meant was that nobody believes the GAEL was used as a translation key. My side of the debate doesn't believe anything was translated. And if JS intended it to be understood that such were the case, the GAEL would be tied closer to the translation. It was for display purposes only, while JS gathered his thoughts on the subject. In my reconstruction he spent about five months on the Alphabets and GAEL, and about a week or two on the translation.

[Dan Vogel]

The only kind of history at which Vogel seems to excel is the revisionist kind.

That's a strange comment coming from someone touted as overturning preconceptions of both the critics and old apologists.

[wenglund]

In fact, if you'd like, keep searching for now and then assemble all the stuff into a single document.

This is probably best since I am seeing only bits and pieces of a supposed puzzle that may fit together at this point, but I am not sure whether they will fit so nicely the more data I collect. We'll see.

You know what else is interesting? I saw how the inimitable Cracker Graham has been trying to draw connections between the counting document and the "caractors". Although I don't think his correspondences are all that impressive (most of them only bear a slight or partial resemblance), Graham doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that even if the characters do originate with the Anthon manuscript, that would also be perfectly consistent with my so-called "cipher thesis" of the KEP. The point is that they were willing to use characters from all sorts of places. They knew perfectly well that they weren't Egyptian, but that didn't matter in light of what they were doing.

I saw the same thread and was actually pleased to find the beloved Mr. Graham focusing his energies in a productive way rather than pumping out more hot, airy, and stenchy verbage like he typically billows forth. The thread even got me looking more carefully at the characters again.

What I found fascinating, though, is that Chris and others are concentrating first on the manuscripts and the characters contained therein. This seems to me to be working backwards in the production process. Since the manuscripts post-date the GAEL, and the GAEL post-date the EA and presumably the Counting document, then why aren't they trying to account for, in accordance with their "modus operandi" theory, the characters on the EA and the Counting document first? In terms of a coherent theory, explaining the earlier documents first, then working forward in the production process, makes the most sense.

But, I think you are wise to keep the focus on the dependacy issue since, if the scholarly tests of your theory prove in your favor (which I believe they will), then the "modus operandi" argument becomes moot.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

lol, Dan. I told Mak almost exactly the same thing about his "appointing" argument over on the other board.

Wade,

Backward is the direction historians work. We look at events in history and try to find their causes. Historical persons were able to live out these events in forward motion, but we historians do not have that luxury. It would be impossible, unless we could recreate all the conditions that led to the outcomes. And even if we somehow had the technological capability to do that, we'd first have to know what those conditions were-- which, again, requires working backward.

Peace,

-Chris

[William Schryver]

Vogel:

I don

[wenglund]

What I meant was that nobody believes the GAEL was used as a translation key.

How, then, do you interpret the critics' use of the phrase "modus operandi" in relation to the KEP, if not "translation key"?

It was for display purposes only, while JS gathered his thoughts on the subject. In my reconstruction he spent about five months on the Alphabets and GAEL, and about a week or two on the translation.

Really? This is your thesis for explaining the meanings of the EAs and the GAEL and the Counting documents?

Have you worked out this theory in any coherent sense? Or, is this just a working hypothesis at this point? And, If you have worked out portions of your thesis, is there some place where we can read it? And, is this Brent's position as well.

I ask because this raises a flood of questions, and I want to see if what you have to say already answers some of those questions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

How, then, do you interpret the critics' use of the phrase "modus operandi" in relation to the KEP, if not "translation key"?

Really? This is your thesis for explaining the meanings of the EAs and the GAEL and the Counting documents?

Have you worked out this theory in any coherent sense> Or, is this just a working hypothesis at this point? And, If you have worked portions of your thesis out, is there some place where we can read it? And, is this Brent's position as well.

I ask because this raises a flood of questions, and I want to see if what you have to say already answers some of those questions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

The reason they have now chosen to greatly limit the idea of the Alphabet and Grammar as the modus operandi for the translation of the BoA (except for verses 1:1 - 1:3) is because of the inconvenient fact that the Abraham manuscripts they insist to be the "dictated translation manuscripts" don't reference any characters from the Alphabet and Grammar.

Of course, this creates several intractable problems for them, but they appear to be blissfully unaware of them ...

[Chris Smith]

The reason they have now chosen to greatly limit the idea of the Alphabet and Grammar as the modus operandi for the translation of the BoA (except for verses 1:1 - 1:3)

More like 1:1-1:26. 1:1-1:3 just represent the most thoroughgoing instance of this.

is because of the inconvenient fact that the Abraham manuscripts they insist to be the "dictated translation manuscripts" don't reference any characters from the Alphabet and Grammar.

You might want to look again.

Peace,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

BTW, here's what I said in my JWHA paper:

In Abraham 1:1