Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[MAsh]

The EAG is also a much more theological document than has hitherto been recognized. It contains a number of original theological insights, including information about the astronomy and the priesthood that is not found in the BoA or elsewhere.

I've skimmed through this & other threads & really haven't had the time to study these issues in depth so my question here may have already been addressed or might be way off the mark (and I know it's nothing more than speculative), but according to some early accounts the original English translation of the BoA took much longer to read than what we currently have. Isn't it possible that some of these additional bits of "astronomy & priesthood" info was in an earlier copy of the BoA English "translation."

BTW, Chris, I'd really like to get an e-copy of your paper on the KEP if that's possible (mash@xmission.com).

[SkepticTheist]

You're certainly welcome to make an argument along these lines, but I don't believe it has any merit. Feel free to demonstrate it, if you can.

There are none of the so-called Book of Breathings characters in the Alphabet & Grammar documents, so far as I have ever seen. The EA/GAEL characters that come from the papyri, come from places other than the "Sensen" text.

What you have demonstrated is that a few things resemble the characters you show as coming from other places, as well as making assumptions about a Masonic cipher. You haven't demonstrated an entirely plausible case about the origin of the characters. What you have shown is that a cipher is in the works, which I agree with you on fundamentally, as I have been going this direction for a very long time. As I said, John Gee dismissed my suggestion of a literary device a long time ago, but now he is applauding your suggestion, only because your suggestion of it does not fundamentally alter the FARMS ideology.

In other words, it is pretty plain that your reason for invoking the cipher to begin with is to once again follow the "FARMS standard model" following Nibley in denial and make it something other than it is. In other words, you are still doing all that you can to deny that it is an actual translation of the Sensen papyrus, and that the Book of Abraham translation is intimately tied to the Sensen papyrus. This is why you continually try to make assertions for the directionality of dependence

In other words, what Joseph Smith was actually doing with the grammar and alphabet was not something he invented, but something the ancient person that wrote or redacted the Book of Abraham as the Sensen papyrus was doing with it. This is where your model fails.

Ed Goble

[USU78]

What you have demonstrated is that a few things resemble the characters you show as coming from other places, as well as making assumptions about a Masonic cipher. You haven't demonstrated an entirely plausible case about the origin of the characters.

You discount the characters in the Phelps letter matching exactly the order contained in the alphabet in Phelps' handwriting then?

What you have shown is that a cipher is in the works, which I agree with you on fundamentally, as I have been going this direction for a very long time. As I said, John Gee dismissed my suggestion of a literary device a long time ago, but now he is applauding your suggestion, only because your suggestion of it does not fundamentally alter the FARMS ideology.

In other words, it is pretty plain that your reason for invoking the cipher to begin with is to once again follow the "FARMS standard model" following Nibley in denial and make it something other than it is. In other words, you are still doing all that you can to deny that it is an actual translation of the Sensen papyrus, and that the Book of Abraham translation is intimately tied to the Sensen papyrus.

The data are the data. Are you prepared to make a full demonstration of how your hypothesis, whatever it is, accounts for the data?

This is why you continually try to make assertions for the directionality of dependence

In other words, what Joseph Smith was actually doing with the grammar and alphabet was not something he invented, but something the ancient person that wrote or redacted the Book of Abraham as the Sensen papyrus was doing with it. This is where your model fails.

So let's have it. Establish the inverse directionality.

[SkepticTheist]

You discount the characters in the Phelps letter matching exactly the order contained in the alphabet in Phelps' handwriting then?

The data are the data. Are you prepared to make a full demonstration of how your hypothesis, whatever it is, accounts for the data?

So let's have it. Establish the inverse directionality.

Well, then let's have it. Your camp must account for the mechanics of the Grammar, which you dismiss and you have not accounted for. And Chris Smith has already done it, as well as Richley Crapo. Data is data, so you say. Then explain Chris Smith away, and deny what he has done.

No, actually I have discounted nothing at all, especially not the Phelps letter. The Phelps letter factors in in quite important ways.

There is no data to establish directionality, period, one way or the other, which is my point about why your camp goes beyond where you have the ability to make the claims you do.

Actually, yes, I have my hypothesis fully developed and in rough draft form, but no I'm not going to make a full demonstration of my hypothesis until my writings are fully fleshed out, and then the likes of your camp will just dismiss it all as you always do. But damn the torpedoes, I'm going to put it out anyway so you can all choke on it. I'm tired of the dismissal from your camp.

Ed Goble

[wenglund]

I conclude that Joseph Smith made inspired Abrahamic translations of characters from the Sensen papyrus in the GAEL, just as he did with Facsimile #2,

Since the Egytptian Alphabets and Counting document evidently pre-date the GAEL, does your conclusion apply to those earlier documents as well? And, if so, have you mapped out where each of the characters on the EA and Counting Document, either as a whole character or as pieces of characters, occur on the papyri?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

USU78: You discount the characters in the Phelps letter matching exactly the order contained in the alphabet in Phelps' handwriting then?

Well, then let's have it. Your camp must account for the mechanics of the Grammar, which you dismiss and you have not accounted for. And Chris Smith has already done it, as well as Richley Crapo. Data is data, so you say. Then explain Chris Smith away, and deny what he has done.

No, actually I have discounted nothing at all, especially not the Phelps letter. The Phelps letter factors in in quite important ways.

For example . . .?

USU78: The data are the data. Are you prepared to make a full demonstration of how your hypothesis, whatever it is, accounts for the data?

There is no data to establish directionality, period, one way or the other, which is my point about why your camp goes beyond where you have the ability to make the claims you do.

"Your camp." What camp would that be? "The claims you do." What claims would those be? I kinda asked you some questions. You're kinda not answering them. If you missed it, I wasn't attacking you. I was asking for clarification. Was I so very wrong to do so?

USU78: So let's have it. Establish the inverse directionality.

Actually, yes, I have my hypothesis fully developed and in rough draft form, but no I'm not going to make a full demonstration of my hypothesis until my writings are fully fleshed out, and then the likes of your camp will just dismiss it all as you always do. But damn the torpedoes, I'm going to put it out anyway so you can all choke on it. I'm tired of the dismissal from your camp.

Again with the "Likes of your camp." Did somebody bite you on the butt? I'm quite sure it wasn't me. I'll even produce the dental records if required. But first, clarify for me this: Just above you say there are insufficient data to establish directionality, then you say you have your own hypothesis, which you refuse to share. How's that work again? My question had to do with directionality: you say nonesuch can be established: then you say you have a hypothesis anyway.

If answering questions is something you just don't/won't do, then why even come here? Folks tend to actually exchange views here. You might find you enjoy it if you were to try it.

[Daniel Peterson]

follow the "FARMS standard model" following Nibley in denial and make it something other than it is

I'm a bit curious as to what motivated this seemingly gratuitous passing insult to FARMS and to the hundreds of authors who have published with FARMS.

I expect such things from the less responsible critics, but am a bit surprised when I encounter them from believers.

[SkepticTheist]

For example . . .?

"Your camp." What camp would that be? "The claims you do." What claims would those be? I kinda asked you some questions. You're kinda not answering them. If you missed it, I wasn't attacking you. I was asking for clarification. Was I so very wrong to do so?

Again with the "Likes of your camp." Did somebody bite you on the butt? I'm quite sure it wasn't me. I'll even produce the dental records if required. But first, clarify for me this: Just above you say there are insufficient data to establish directionality, then you say you have your own hypothesis, which you refuse to share. How's that work again? My question had to do with directionality: you say nonesuch can be established: then you say you have a hypothesis anyway.

If answering questions is something you just don't/won't do, then why even come here? Folks tend to actually exchange views here. You might find you enjoy it if you were to try it.

I "kinda" have a lot of work to do on a fully fleshed out model before I let it just get "dismissed" by FARMS. I've shared the very most basic ideas of my research without getting into the specifics which are not unlike "trade secrets", especially if fundamentals end up changing in the course of my study. I've been working on this for quite some time, and I'm not going to let this happen again.

You guys don't seem to have had an issue with Will Schryver keeping everybody in suspense. Well, I'm doing something no different than that. So you can just all wait. But not that you really cared to begin with. I'm just the lunatic fringe of the apologetics world.

Ed Goble

[SkepticTheist]

I'm a bit curious as to what motivated this seemingly gratuitous passing insult to FARMS and to the hundreds of authors who have published with FARMS.

I expect such things from the less responsible critics, but am a bit surprised when I encounter them from believers.

Well Brother Peterson, as Joseph Smith says, "no man knows my history." I have a long history with various people not taking me seriously, especially from your organization, and it has grown tiresome over the years. Its only been in the last two years that I have been a part of FAIR, and I still have ill feelings that I'm trying to get over from encounters with FARMS over the years. So without rehearsing each and every situation I've been through, this is the reason.

Yes, I have a lot of work to do to become more Christlike. But I don't foresee anything changing with regard to the dismissal and lack of getting the time of day for any of my research from FARMS, let alone from FAIR, even though I'm supposed to be a part of it. So now I'm signing off for a little while before I let myself become more of a spectacle.

Ed Goble

[wenglund]

I think what Dan was trying to say was that no one on the critical side believes the GAEL was a key for an Egyptologically correct BoA translation. This is a significant point because Wade's (and others') arguments have sometimes failed to sufficiently distinguish between his own assumption that the BoA is an Egyptologically correct translation and the critics' assumption that it is not.

I am glad you underscored this distinction, and while in terms of the KEP I no longer view it as an Egyptologically correct translation (Will's presentation changed my mind), I need to do a better job of clarifying this.

Regarding my comments to Vogel, though, I thought I was pretty clear in seeing his position as that the KEP were "made up".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[selek]

Yes, I have a lot of work to do to become more Christlike.

Don't we all.

In that vein, may I offer some constructive criticism and some earnest advice?

But I don't foresee anything changing with regard to the dismissal and lack of getting the time of day for any of my research from FARMS, let alone from FAIR, even though I'm supposed to be a part of it.

Setting aside the sour-grapes nature of this insinuation, the best way to prove that your research deserves serious consideration is to present serious and well-reasoned arguments.

You insist that your arguments are well-supported, but in the absence of actual evidence, how can those of us not part of the FARMS Cabal know?

How can we innocent bystanders assess whether FARMS and FAIR have treated you fairly when all you offer is accusation and supposition?

Please, for the sake of truth and reasoned discourse, set aside your enmity and make your case.

Let your light so shine (and your arguments and evidence so gleam) that no one can deny their brilliance.

Instead of stooping to FARM's level of partisan sniping, rise above and transcend them, and make the case for all to see. Don't join them in muddying the waters, but make your case plainly and clearly.

If your arguments and reasoning are as sound as you believe, then all of FARMS petty, grasping prejudices cannot silence them.

The truth will out- despite all of Peterson's imperious interference and sanctimonious interference.

You demand that we take your arguments seriously- but unless you give us something serious to consider, how can we?

[SkepticTheist]

Setting aside the sour-grapes nature of this insinuation, the best way to prove that your research deserves serious consideration is to present serious and well-reasoned arguments.

You insist that your arguments are well-supported, but in the absence of actual evidence, how can those of us not part of the FARMS Cabal know?

How can we innocent bystanders assess whether FARMS and FAIR have treated you fairly when all you offer is accusation and supposition?

Please, for the sake of truth and reasoned discourse, set aside your enmity and make your case.

Let your light so shine (and your arguments and evidence so gleam) that no one can deny their brilliance.

Instead of stooping to FARM's level of partisan sniping, rise above and transcend them, and make the case for all to see. Don't join them in muddying the waters, but make your case plainly and clearly.

If your arguments and reasoning are as sound as you believe, then all of FARMS petty, grasping prejudices cannot silence them.

The truth will out- despite all of Peterson's imperious interference and sanctimonious interference.

You demand that we take your arguments seriously- but unless you give us something serious to consider, how can we?

I never accused Brother Peterson of anything. I've never had dealings with him personally. And I'm not accusing everyone at FARMS of things, though its hard not to lump them all in one basket sometimes. I've had specific dealings with others.

And I don't owe anybody anything on this board, let alone an explanation for why I say what I say. Everybody has pre-conceived notions of me, and even though I think some of my ideas are good, one man's gems are definitely most often another man's trash. I'm just another voice in the wilderness. So if you think I have some good ideas when my stuff comes out, more power to you. But I owe nobody an explanation, especially people who are demanding one. As Brother Englund said to me the other day on another thread, you don't have power or authority in my life unless I give it to you. So you don't have it. And I'm not wanting to be upset at any of you, so I'm leaving this conversation now.

Ed Goble

[USU78]

I "kinda" have a lot of work to do on a fully fleshed out model before I let it just get "dismissed" by FARMS. I've shared the very most basic ideas of my research without getting into the specifics which are not unlike "trade secrets", especially if fundamentals end up changing in the course of my study. I've been working on this for quite some time, and I'm not going to let this happen again.

You guys don't seem to have had an issue with Will Schryver keeping everybody in suspense. Well, I'm doing something no different than that. So you can just all wait. But not that you really cared to begin with. I'm just the lunatic fringe of the apologetics world.

To the extent you are a fringee, it's easy to see that you've put yourself there with your off-putting-ness. So . . . since I have never met you, have never heard of you, and have never read anything you've ever written other than what has appeared in these threads . . . I've got to say I don't care whether you think you're ready . . . I don't care whether you think you've been treated unfairly by unnamed third parties . . . and I especially don't care if you think you've got the plans to the best moustrap knocking around your hard drive . . . put up or shut up.

Your whininess is decidedly annoying. Your sniping unimpressive.

I'd much rather engage with Ceeboo or just about any nonMormon participant than an allegedly faithful Mormon who goes out of his way to gratuitously p!$$ off his co-religionists over trivialities.

[wenglund]

As Brother Englund said to me the other day on another thread, you don't have power or authority in my life unless I give it to you. So you don't have it. And I'm not wanting to be upset at any of you, so I'm leaving this conversation now. Ed Goble

A very wise move.

However, a wiser move would have been not to have entered the discussion with the giant chip on your shoulder to begin with (though at this point that bell can't be unwrung).

I mention this only in hopes that you will be mindful of it were you to decide to enter discussions such as this in the future. It doesn't help your prospects in a discussion when your bad attitude alienates your readers before you have a chance to make your case. One cannot expect one's point of view to be respected if one starts off discussions being disrespectful. Perhaps things might work better for you in the future by letting the Golden Rule, rather than an eye-for-an-eye, be your guide.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[SkepticTheist]

To the extent you are a fringee, it's easy to see that you've put yourself there with your off-putting-ness. So . . . since I have never met you, have never heard of you, and have never read anything you've ever written other than what has appeared in these threads . . . I've got to say I don't care whether you think you're ready . . . I don't care whether you think you've been treated unfairly by unnamed third parties . . . and I especially don't care if you think you've got the plans to the best moustrap knocking around your hard drive . . . put up or shut up.

Your whininess is decidedly annoying. Your sniping unimpressive.

I'd much rather engage with Ceeboo or just about any nonMormon participant than an allegedly faithful Mormon who goes out of his way to gratuitously p!$ off his co-religionists over trivialities.

Well, then I can definitely add you to the list of people to whom I refer as the parties who have treated me badly. And I don't owe you jack crap.

Ed Goble

[SkepticTheist]

A very wise move.

However, a wiser move would have been not to have entered the discuss with the giant chip on your shoulder to begin with (though at this point that bell can't be unwrung).

I mention this only in hopes that you will be mindful of it were you to decide to enter discussions such as this in the future. It doesn't help your prospects in a discussion when your bad attitude alienates your readers before you have a chance to make your case. One cannot expect one's point of view to be respected if one starts off discussions being disrespectful. Perhaps things might work better for you in the future by letting the Golden Rule, rather than an eye-for-an-eye, be your guide.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My bad attitude.... Very nice. I'm supposed to be the one that always takes it, and can never dish it out when it needs to be said.

Ed

[USU78]

Well, then I can definitely add you to the list of people to whom I refer as the parties who have treated me badly. And I don't owe you jack crap.

Suit yourself.

As for me and my house: Put up or shut up.

Your trials and tribulations are breaking my heart.

They are unique in the annals of the sorrows of man.

The vicissitudes of fate which have led you to this abject state of misery

Must indeed impinge themselves upon your sensitive soul.

My gums bleed for you.

I feel for you.

But I just can't quite reach you.

[Deborah]

Well, then I can definitely add you to the list of people to whom I refer as the parties who have treated me badly. And I don't owe you jack crap.

Ed Goble

Wow! and you expect people to take you seriously when you make such immature comments.

[SkepticTheist]

Suit yourself.

As for me and my house: Put up or shut up.

Just remember me as the "least of these" to whom you should have had charity in the last day, and remember that you have no idea who I was at the time you decided to be this way to me.

Ed Goble

[USU78]

Just remember me as the "least of these" to whom you should have had charity in the last day, and remember that you have no idea who I was at the time you decided to be this way to me.

My gums are still bleeding.

[SkepticTheist]

Wow! and you expect people to take you seriously when you make such immature comments.

No, actually after what has happened, including stuff like this, I can't say that I ever really had any expectation of being taken seriously. Not entirely as a result of what is supposed to be my supposed bad attitude.

Ed Goble

[Calm]

Everybody has pre-conceived notions of me

I wouldn't assume this, I suspect that a goodly percentage haven't heard of you at all, not meaning to be insulting or anything, but if they are only superficially interested in the area you've been known for, at best they are likely to have heard only your name and many not even that. I consider myself relatively well educated as far as variety of topics, but I don't have anything beyond a vague impression of your possible position...

So give the board a chance and let those of us less familiar get to know you without too many expectations on either side.....

PS: if you walk into something expecting to be treated badly, it's not surprising if it happens unfortunately.

If you want some enjoyable discussion with people of varied interests, perhaps you might consider metaphorically walking out, shaking off the bad vibes and then coming back in and giving us and yourself another chance without preconceived notions on your side as well as ours, as that's the only way it's going to work.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well Brother Peterson, as Joseph Smith says, "no man knows my history." I have a long history with various people not taking me seriously, especially from your organization, and it has grown tiresome over the years.

To the best of my recollection, I know nothing about any of this.

Please remember that FARMS -- now, really, the Maxwell Institute -- is not a monolith. It is an organization involving a number of people, for which literally hundreds of authors have written.

Its only been in the last two years that I have been a part of FAIR, and I still have ill feelings that I'm trying to get over from encounters with FARMS over the years. So without rehearsing each and every situation I've been through, this is the reason.

Yes, I have a lot of work to do to become more Christlike. But I don't foresee anything changing with regard to the dismissal and lack of getting the time of day for any of my research from FARMS, let alone from FAIR, even though I'm supposed to be a part of it. So now I'm signing off for a little while before I let myself become more of a spectacle.

All of this is news to me.

[selek]

Just remember me as the "least of these" to whom you should have had charity in the last day,

We HAVE offered you charity- invited you to make your point and welcomed you without prejudice.

You have met our welcome with incessant accusation, innuendo, and bitterness.

Despite misgivings you yourself have caused, we invited you to engage in the discussion, to make your case, and to reason with us instead of flogging your self-proclaimed victimhood.

You have flatly refused to discuss, and have instead whined about persecution and the fair shake you "weren't given".

and remember that you have no idea who I was at the time you decided to be this way to me.

Nor have you any idea who WE were when you decided to behave in this fashion.

You insist that your ideas have merit- but flatly refuse to make your case, offering only shadows and insinuation.

You insist that we take you seriously- but behave in a decidely unserious fashion- offering only attacks and accusation.

You insist that we treat you with respect- while offering us only derision and dismissal in return.

We have offered you a forum in which to make your arguments and offered you an unbiased examination of your ideas.

You have offered only vituperation, accusation, and attempted emotional black-mail in response.

It is you, not we, who is arguing in bad faith.

It is you, not we who should be ashamed.

[SkepticTheist]

We HAVE offered you charity- invited you to make your point and welcomed you without prejudice.

You have met our welcome with incessant accusation, innuendo, and bitterness.

It is you, not we, who is arguing in bad faith.

It is you, not we who should be ashamed.

Then its me that is asking for information on how to unsubscribe myself from this board, as I can't seem to find it. So I'm asking for a personal message from someone halfway friendly to me to point me the way to what to click on.