Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[wenglund]

Hi Will,

Excellent find. In my own earlier research I created a spreadsheet and had noticed difference in "sounds" between the various EA, but I didn't think to take it the next important step in comparing the EAs against the GAEL. Nicely done.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Hi Will,

Excellent find. In my own earlier research I created a spreadsheet and had noticed difference in "sounds" between the various EA, but I didn't think to take it the next important step in comparing the EAs against the GAEL. Nicely done.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, Wade.

I had considered keeping this one "under wraps" until I published my summary article, but then I decided to throw it out and see the reactions. Not much of anything, yet, I see.

It is, of course, a significant element of evidence. In light of it, it becomes quite difficult to argue for a scenario where Joseph Smith is dictating the contents of the Alphabet and Grammar. When you consider what a stickler for the spelling of names he was during the translation of the Book of Mormon, it's hard to reconcile this evidence from the Alphabet and Grammar project.

[wenglund]

It is, of course, a significant element of evidence. In light of it, it becomes quite difficult to argue for a scenario where Joseph Smith is dictating the contents of the Alphabet and Grammar. When you consider what a stickler for the spelling of names he was during the translation of the Book of Mormon, it's hard to reconcile this evidence from the Alphabet and Grammar project.

Hi Will,

The textual evidence you provided above for Phelps as most likely THE dominate force behind the GAEL, if not also much of the KEP (isn't the lone Counting document in Phelps' handwriting?), is excellent. It also fits nicely the historical evidence that Phelps, prior to the papyri arriving in Kirtland, spoke more often, at least publically, about "pure language" than the other principles involved with the KEP. As you say, things are starting to fit very nicesly together.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[maklelan]

Those interested in this issue will like to know that Kevin Graham has forfeited a debate on the other board regarding whether or not homoioteleuton took place in a specific translation manuscript. I've attached a photo of the page. The homoioteleuton takes place after the word "Haran," which is alone on a line near the bottom of the page. What follows repeats the previous paragraph, which also begins with the word "Haran" at the end of the line of text at the second-to-last marginal Egyptian character. Williams obviously stopped transcription near the bottom with "Haran," and when he came back, he found the word "Haran" on his parent text, but found the first one, not the second, and ended up repeating what he had already transcribed.

Kevin claimed that homoioteleuton is not the most likely conclusion, but rather that Smith instructed Williams to copy the text down twice because his other scribe ended his transcription at Abr 2:2, right before the text which was doubled. I pointed out that unless he could show it was reasonable for Smith to want two copies of the same text on the same sheet of paper, his theory could not possibly be more likely. After he skirted the issue for several posts I told him he needed to provide an explanation or admit homoioteleuton is more likely. If he could do neither then he would forfeit the question, and, in light of that aggressive lack of objectivity, forfeit the entire debate. These were his responses:

Excuse me, but you said you were not even getting into the dictation argument, and now suddenly you want to pretend this is what we were debating? You said you were only dealing with Abr 1:1-3 for the time being, except of course for the instances when you chose to veer off onto the dittograph in chapter 2. Every time I tried to get your attention on the dictation aspect, you insisted we focus only on your demands while accusing us of circular reasoning. Nice.

I suspect Chris and Brent wouldn't allow you to get away with this kind of "debating" either. Your knowledge of the relevant materials is abysmal, and your overconfidence in your irrelevant expertise is just a sideshow that does nothing but attempt to argue from a false sense of authority.

I also notice you have no response to the thorough refutation of your assertion that the characters have nothing whatsoever to do with the EAG. You just revealed your inability too even pretend to be objective, which is quite ironic given your initial declaration that you're a pure scholar who doesn't let his personal presuppositions get in the way of his "scholarship." By the way, were you typing that with a straight face?

I think I've been gracious and respectful towards you, but apparently you want to be treated as royalty. You refuse to answer questions and respond to valid criticisms. You asked me about the relatiionship between the characters and the EAG and I spent ten minutes on photoshop illustrating the connection. I even emailed you copies of the entire KEP so you could educate yourself on the matter further. So I can only conclude this little spectacle of indignance has more to do with you being too embarrassed to admit being wrong. Pretend all you want that you've actually won a debate. This is a common trait among your ilk, and is hardly surprising.

By the way, did you look up the word "transcribe" in the dictionary? Was being corrected on the meaning of an English term fundamental to this discussion, by someone so intellectually inferior, just to much for your ego to bear?

Good grief Mak, we expected better things from you.

You're right, it isn't a competition really, because Mak is too ignorant of the material. I know because I just emailed it to him two nights ago. Mak is more interested in touting himself as an authority, which is pretty funny given his expertise is in the Hebrew Bible! I've had many debates with scholars far more established than Mak, few of whom were as full of themselves as he is. And how established is he anyway? He's still a student.

Mak stomped off probably because I embarrassed him on more points than he was willing to address. He doesn't even know what the word "transcribe" means for crying out loud. I could have pummeled him on this point but I was nice about it. I would have let it slide, but the meaning of that word was crucial to the debate. But he couldn't stand to be corrected on any point. Even when I presented the graphic illustration (literally "drawing a picture" for him!) proving he was wrong about the Egyptian characters and their relationship to the EAG, his only response was indignance. What business does anyone, with his dearth of knowledge, have starting threads attempting to analyze Zub Zool? He sees what he wants, and focuses only on portions that might have apologetic value. You can't debate people who think they have nothing to learn and everything to teach.

Let it go Mak, I have no interest "debating" someone who demands that I agree with his point before the debate can continue. I don't know what world you live in, but there is nothing objective, respectful or "professional" about this.

Live long and prosper.

Obviously Kevin could not provide that explanation, nor could he bring himself to admit that homoioteleuton is likely here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think I am going to have to watch Will's video again. I am getting lost in some of this debate.

Is there any way to make it easier to understand some of this. Or is this stuff just the nature of the beast?

[Calm]

Those interested in this issue will like to know that Kevin Graham has forfeited a debate on the other board regarding whether or not homoioteleuton took place in a specific translation manuscript. I've attached a photo of the page. The homoioteleuton takes place after the word "Haran," which is alone on a line near the bottom of the page. What follows repeats the previous paragraph, which also begins with the word "Haran" at the end of the line of text at the second-to-last marginal Egyptian character. Williams obviously stopped transcription near the bottom with "Haran," and when he came back, he found the word "Haran" on his parent text, but found the first one, not the second, and ended up repeating what he had already transcribed.

Kevin claimed that homoioteleuton is not the most likely conclusion, but rather that Smith instructed Williams to copy the text down twice because his other scribe ended his transcription at Abr 2:2, right before the text which was doubled. I pointed out that unless he could show it was reasonable for Smith to want two copies of the same text on the same sheet of paper, his theory could not possibly be more likely. After he skirted the issue for several posts I told him he needed to provide an explanation or admit homoioteleuton is more likely. If he could do neither then he would forfeit the question, and, in light of that aggressive lack of objectivity, forfeit the entire debate. These were his responses:

Obviously Kevin could not provide that explanation, nor could he bring himself to admit that homoioteleuton is likely here. A person who can't admit he's wrong in the face of that kind of evidence is not worth debating.

By my tally, that's one putatively objective KEP expert down. Two to go. I've invited Chris and Brent to try to succeed where Kevin failed regarding this text, but I don't anticipate they'll bother.

Sounds like a good topic for Pundits....

[maklelan]

Sounds like a good topic for Pundits....

Good idea.

[Chris Smith]

Mak,

Claiming that Kevin "forfeited" a debate because he didn't argue it to your satisfaction strikes me as a fairly transparent (not to mention unnecessary) rhetorical ploy. If your target audience is the believers on this board then your approach may well be the most effective one available, but if you hope to persuade anyone on the other board then engaging in hyperbole and playing to the MADB crowd will probably only serve to damage your credibility with your intended audience.

Peace,

-Chris

[maklelan]

Mak,

Claiming that Kevin "forfeited" a debate because he didn't argue it to your satisfaction strikes me as a fairly transparent (not to mention unnecessary) rhetorical ploy.

If you review the thread you'll see he directly avoided providing a response to a critical question his theory produced. I pointed out that his theory could not stand without an explanation. To refuse to provide that explanation and refuse to engage my concerns was quite blatant evasion. I gave him an opportunity to show he knew what he was doing and he continued to evade. As far as I'm concerned, that constituted admission of his inability to support his own case. It was a rhetorical calculation because explaining things clearly and logically was getting nowhere. In an academic setting I don't have to do that because I'm not subjected to that kind of sophomoric evasion. I'm not proud of my comportment after that, but Kevin and Kevin alone is responsible for failing to support his argument.

[William Schryver]

I am in the process of preparing a video presentation, similar to my FAIR conference presentation, that will explain this issue of the dittograph on page 4 of Ab2. When I am done, and after obtaining the necessary clearances to post the relevant images, I will then post a link to the video and we can commence a discussion in the Pundit's forum concerning this finding that I first announced 4 years ago on the old FAIR message board (the thread of which is still in the Pundit's forum).

Seeing as how this dittograph serves to confirm my arguments that the Abraham manuscripts are secondary to the originally revealed text of the Book of Abraham, I think this would be a good time to revisit that old debate.

Bear in mind it may take me a week or more to go through the process of obtaining the necessary permissions to post the relevant images ...

[Chris Smith]

Hi William, interesting table. Would you mind clarifying why you think the use of Phelps's "sound" transliterations in the GAEL indicates that he was the mastermind behind these documents? Couldn't it be that Phelps's EA was simply the more convenient or polished copy?

[William Schryver]

Hi William, interesting table. Would you mind clarifying why you think the use of Phelps's "sound" transliterations in the GAEL indicates that he was the mastermind behind these documents? Couldn't it be that Phelps's EA was simply the more convenient or polished copy?

I have never used the word "mastermind." I consider your employment of the term a gesture of pointless rhetoric.

In any case, you are free to engage in as many speculative notions as you'd like, just as you did in your JWHA paper. In my published article, I will be limiting myself to those arguments that are supported by the text-critical evidence. The table I posted above is one of several elements of text-critical evidence that suggests the dominance of Phelps's influence in the Alphabet and Grammar project.

There is additional evidence of his dominance. But I will not be presenting any more of that evidence on message boards.

Dan McClellan's experience of the past few days once again underscores the futility of attempting to engage in scholarly debates via message board. The idiot ratio is far too high.

[Chris Smith]

I rather envision Phelps and Smith sitting at a table together, with Smith looking at his copy and Phelps looking at his own. This seems at least as likely an explanation for your observation as the hypothesis of Phelps's authorial "dominance".

Anyway, I look forward to comparing the evidence for my speculation with the evidence for your speculation.

Your friend the idiot,

-Chris

[Lars Umlaut]

The idiot ratio is far too high.

Says the guy with 4235 posts here and 1339 posts there (not counting sock puppet(s)).

[William Schryver]

Says the guy with 4235 posts here and 1339 posts there (not counting sock puppet(s)).

The measure of idiocy is not expressed in the number of a person's posts, as your current tally of 189 well attests.

[William Schryver]

If you review the thread you'll see he directly avoided providing a response to a critical question his theory produced. I pointed out that his theory could not stand without an explanation. To refuse to provide that explanation and refuse to engage my concerns was quite blatant evasion. I gave him an opportunity to show he knew what he was doing and he continued to evade. As far as I'm concerned, that constituted admission of his inability to support his own case. It was a rhetorical calculation because explaining things clearly and logically was getting nowhere. In an academic setting I don't have to do that because I'm not subjected to that kind of sophomoric evasion. I'm not proud of my comportment after that, but Kevin and Kevin alone is responsible for forfeiting that debate.

I've seen no indication that anyone on that board besides you is capable of engaging this topic objectively. I'm no longer concerned with them as an audience. I'm going to confine this to legitimate academic forums.

Dan, your performance in the pre-insanity stages of the debate with the inimitable Kevin Graham speaks eloquently to your quickly growing mastery of the documents known as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, notwithstanding the fact that you have just recently been in a position to analyze the material in sufficient detail to draw educated conclusions.

Of course, you have now learned a very important lesson that only experience can teach: no one, and I mean no one, has stores of patience sufficient to outlast the stamina of Kevin Graham

[LifeOnaPlate]

Just be cautious, lest <someone> attempts to contact one of your faculty advisors or colleagues.

[Daniel Peterson]

Remarkably, everybody who has ever firmly disagreed with Kevin Graham over the past several years (whether about Mormonism, or Islam, or politics) has eventually revealed himself to be a) a liar, b) a moron, and/or c) a coward. (Choose either a or b, and then, if so inclined, choose c, as well.) There have been no exceptions. Maklelan is but the latest in a long and unbroken series. He won't be the last.

[e=mc2]

It is Kevin's way of desperately trying to keep the information in the old grooves, Pre-Schryver presentation days. He does that with absolutely everyone. Now that I have read Graham's contrivings for a while, I recognize it instantly. His ego is so enormous it won't allow him to learn anymore, hence the mere name calling. He has become, essentially, harmless.

[e=mc2]

Deleted this one also. Now Kevin Graham has PROOF that we apologists are lame, worthless, and canards. We can't even post singular messages telling everyone what a twit Kevin has become without muffing it.

[e=mc2]

Deleted, double post (I am more than sure this will prove to Graham I am an idiot as well.)

[juliann]

Has it ever ended any other way with those people?

[Droopy]

Remarkably, everybody who has ever firmly disagreed with Kevin Graham over the past several years (whether about Mormonism, or Islam, or politics) has eventually revealed himself to be a) a liar, b) a moron, and/or c) a coward. (Choose either a or b, and then, if so inclined, choose c, as well.) There have been no exceptions. Maklelan is but the latest in a long and unbroken series. He won't be the last.

I will here fess up to all three, and some beyond these as well (including, most recently, having nothing more than a High School education).

Mr. Scratch is now a distinct second fiddle.

[Hyrum Page]

I will say that I am especially disappointed by the willingness of Trevor (Hyrum Page on this board) to join in the mobbing that followed Dan

[wenglund]

As I have repeatedly noted, I do not believe that your argument bears on the issue of the truth of Mormonism. The scriptural value of the Book of Abraham is to be found in the book itself, not in the existence of a lost early manuscript or the "purpose and meaning" of the EA and GAEL. None of that is really, in the final analysis, of any importance. One either has a witness of the Spirit, and follows it, or one does not. It is as simple as that.

Nicely said.

Just out of curiousity, which part(s) of Will's and Daniel's arguments do you agree with?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-