Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[Cazier]

Hello,

Don't you think you're being a little harsh? I've known Kevin since 1987. My brother baptized him.

I've read the discussions on both websites usually with wide eyes and a dropped jaw.

Why hasn't anyone updated this discussion with news of Mr. "Maklelan"'s apology to Kevin? He said:

I'm willing to offer an apology for my attitude. I overreacted, and I apologize for being rude. You

were being reasonably respectful throughout the thread, and it's only natural that my ultimatum would

be taken as an attempt at antagonism. I apologize for that. The reason I did not respond to your entire

post earlier was because I was frustrated that you didn't seem to understand how critical it was to your

position on the text of Ab2 to be able to provide a reasonable explanation. You've since clarified that your

primary piece of evidence is the idea that evidence for dictation in other pages of Ab2 should weigh in

our consideration of page 4. I've explained that if the text was alternatively being dictated and transcribed,

then the evidence on one page does not bear on the next page.

So maybe Kevin's frustration was justified? Kevin was the only person on that forum who tried to keep

Maklelan there. He told other abrasive posters to leave the discussion.

And Mr. Peterson, I think you may want to reconsider your position. From where I am sitting, Kevin does

not attack everyone he disagrees with "without exception." I happen to know that he had a pleasant email

exchange with Brian Hauglid recently. He has also maintained friendly relationships with other LDS scholars

who have disagreed with him in the past. He even told me that he and Hyrum Page used to spar in heated

political debates. And the told me that you were instrumental in changing his previous views on Islam. So it

seems to me that Kevin isn't quite as stubborn, irrational or idiotic as he is usually portrayed over here.

Just my opinion.

[Hyrum Page]

Nicely said.

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, Wade.

I find the argument for homoioteleuton in the Williams manuscript pretty persuasive, although I am not exactly sure what to make of it. I am now completely open to the idea, which seems like a good possibility, of Phelps or Joseph Smith reading to the scribes from a manuscript. It could be that the dittograph is from that manuscript. I am still not sold on the existence of a manuscript to the end of chapter three from early July. I am a historian, so my preference, without having seen all of Will's evidence, would be to see better historical evidence than we have for such a thing. I am also not convinced that his view of the purpose and meaning of the KEP is correct. The direction of dependency is something I can see going either way, but I am inclined to see it in the direction opposite to the one Will is proposing. Still, I have not seen his argument as a whole, and I have not been able to devote intense concentration on the issue now that I am back to teaching and working in earnest on my own research and writing again.

So, I look forward to reading his article. I hope Daniel M. also offers something, since, as Will recognizes, Daniel's training brings something very valuable to the table.

All of this is very exciting on historical grounds. At the same time, I want to reiterate that I think it is of limited apologetic application. No offense to anyone, but as an apologetic I see it as the refutation of a critical argument that was not all that interesting in the first place. But that could be because I have always been a "papyri as catalyst" kind of guy. I think where Will and I have always fundamentally differed is on the exact nature of the process of BoA composition. I see nothing wrong with the EA and GAEL being among the revelatory processes that helped the BoA along. Naturally, however, if Will demonstrates conclusively that this is untenable, I will change my opinion.

[Hyrum Page]

Don't you think you're being a little harsh? I've known Kevin since 1987. My brother baptized him. I've read the discussions on both websites usually with wide eyes and a dropped jaw.

I like Kevin, although I sometimes disagree with him. At the same time, he is often abrasive, which I think accounts for much of the antagonism the LDS apologetic community communicates toward him. So, I understand something about the problem. Indeed, it is more involved than this, but I am not all that comfortable getting caught in the middle by going into details.

What I am put off by is the blithe dismissals of Kevin. Kevin is a smart guy who does offer stiff challenges to people. I have been in enough arguments with him to know this.

He even told me that he and Hyrum Page used to spar in heated

political debates.

Among other things. That was the last thing we really crossed swords on, and it got very heated. LOL. Can't say I miss being in Kevin's rifle sights.

[Nemesis]

Being that Kevin is permanently banned from the site and has announced his visit to your area Cazier, I suggest you have your own discussions and not be used as Kevin's mouth piece. We do not care to have his input here, or dealing with one of his many sock puppets.

Nemesis

[wenglund]

Thanks, Wade.

I find the argument for homoioteleuton in the Williams manuscript pretty persuasive, although I am not exactly sure what to make of it. I am now completely open to the idea, which seems like a good possibility, of Phelps or Joseph Smith reading to the scribes from a manuscript. It could be that the dittograph is from that manuscript. I am still not sold on the existence of a manuscript to the end of chapter three from early July. I am a historian, so my preference, without having seen all of Will's evidence, would be to see better historical evidence than we have for such a thing.

It would certainly be nice if that manuscript were extant. It would also be nice to have what was translated of the Book of Joseph between the 5th and 9th of July, 1835, and perhaps beyond. (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.236) But, then, that would have spoiled all the fun for the last 40 years.

I am also not convinced that his view of the purpose and meaning of the KEP is correct. The direction of dependency is something I can see going either way, but I am inclined to see it in the direction opposite to the one Will is proposing.

What, to your way of thinking, is the content of the manuscript that you believe could be the source for the dittograph? And, what leads you to believe this in the absence of "better historical evidence"? In other words, given that there is no extant source document for the dittograph, what cuases you as a historian to lean one direction or the other?

Still, I have not seen his argument as a whole, and I have not been able to devote intense concentration on the issue now that I am back to teaching and working in earnest on my own research and writing again.

So, I look forward to reading his article. I hope Daniel M. also offers something, since, as Will recognizes, Daniel's training brings something very valuable to the table.

All of this is very exciting on historical grounds. At the same time, I want to reiterate that I think it is of limited apologetic application. No offense to anyone, but as an apologetic I see it as the refutation of a critical argument that was not all that interesting in the first place. But that could be because I have always been a "papyri as catalyst" kind of guy.

I don't think there would be an apologetic position on the KEP were there not the level of interest shown to them over the last 40 years by the critics and the testimony-compromising impact of those criticisms. Clearly, some people certainly believe them to be of sufficient importance to the verity of the restored gospel as to write critical books and articles about them, to some degree lose their faith over them, and to now seemingly hold tenaciously to that critical position even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. As such, I think an apologetic response seems reasonably warranted.

Besides, I think further exploration of the KEP, in light of Will's cipher hypothesis, may bring to light new dimensions in understanding the lives of Joseph and other founders of the Latter-day Church. As a historian, I would think you would weloome this.

I think where Will and I have always fundamentally differed is on the exact nature of the process of BoA composition. I see nothing wrong with the EA and GAEL being among the revelatory processes that helped the BoA along. Naturally, however, if Will demonstrates conclusively that this is untenable, I will change my opinion.

Are you open at this time to exploring more in-depth Will's cipher hypothesis? Or, would you prefer to wait until after Will's "conclusive" demonstration?

I ask because I have been doing some historical work in testing his hypothesis.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[maklelan]

What I am put off by is the blithe dismissals of Kevin. Kevin is a smart guy who does offer stiff challenges to people. I have been in enough arguments with him to know this.

I'm sure that he is capable of challenging a lot of people, but I've honestly not seen that in the time since I apologized to him. For instance, when he offered up his list of errors that point to dictation I explained why several of them are not that strong. Primarily I was concerned with changes in spelling and adding equal signs and the like. I provided quite a bit of textual evidence from the KEP to show that the changes he was pointing to were not unique and were not indicative of dictation. In his response to me he recognized that one concern I had (about the legibility of stricken-through words) was valid, but regarding the spelling issue he simply asserted that I was wrong. He didn't even bother acknowledging that I showed quite clearly, with several examples from the KEP, that those differences in spelling don't help his argument. He did not respond. Issues like that make it hard for me to continue to engage him without being suspicious that if he gets stuck in a corner he's going to simply (1) assert I'm wrong, (2) change the subject, or (3) not respond. The way he dealt with the dittograph confirmed my suspicions. In responding to my evidence he got to the point where he had to admit that he did not know why the dittograph was there, but that he still felt it didn't make sense as a transcription error. Evidently he's since changed his mind, but he doesn't realize that the challenge he's set forth was answered in the OP of the thread. This was his comment:

In my proposal, this is a copying error. But what about the rest of the mss that were clearly dictated? This is where the fight has to be fought, not on page four of Ms1a.

Here's what I said in the OP:

My response was that the evidence is easily reconciled if we conclude a pre-existing text is at the root of both the dictation and transcription. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that someone (Smith or Phelps) dictated portions of the text while he was available, and simply had his scribe continue transcribing when he was not available. Chris Smith has noted that the repeated portion of text is sloppier than the previous text. This is easily accounted for if we conclude Williams sat down to transcribed after the dictator finished dictating, accidentally repeating the last part dictated. The method of copy changed, and Williams was not able to transcribe the text with the same accuracy that he was able to record the dictation. This also accounts for the absence of the Egyptian character in the margins. The dictator was providing them, but when Williams sat down with just the text, it was not there.

The fight has been fought and has ended. The only objections that have been offered are rather weak assertions that it makes little sense for someone to dictate an already-written text to two scribes. If one accepts that Williams' dittograph came from a pre-existent text then the conclusion is inescapable that it existed for the text previous to Abr 2:3-5. If one accepts that Williams' dittograph came from a pre-existent text then there is absolutely no logical reason to reject the notion of a parent text for the preceding chapters of Abr.

Then there is the antagonism that he continues to hurl at my person after I sincerely apologized and have remained perfectly respectful:

Is this the best you've got?

Wrong. Sigh..

I guess he'd also accept a theory that I hand washed my clothes tonight, just before throwing them into the washing machine.

Using Mak's objective perspective and intellectual honesty, lets see if he is willing to apply the same standard of evidence to these facts as he is with his precious dittograph.

I know I know, "but I explained the dittograph dammit! It is an academic issue you know nothing about!" Well, I know a thing or two about logic and common sense, and the apologetic argument is lacking in both.

No attitude here, but I think it is weird that two guys who come here slamming us with bombastic certitude in left-field arguments which they insist are definitive, conclusive, texbook, etc, have a problem with me expecting a little evidence.

I've provided numerous pieces of evidence that he's never even acknowledged, much less engaged. I cannot maintain a discussion with someone who does not respect me enough to acknowledge my argument.

[Hyrum Page]

It would certainly be nice if that manuscript were extant. It would also be nice to have what was translated of the Book of Joseph between the 5th and 9th of July, 1835, and perhaps beyond. (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.236) But, then, that would have spoiled all the fun for the last 40 years.

If there is such a thing, then, yes, of course it would be marvelous to have. If there were a manuscript of Homer dating from the 8th century BCE, then Walter Burkert's idea that he post-dates Hesiod would pretty much be dead in the water. Of course, I don't expect to find one, and I can always argue that later material found its way into the text thanks to Peisistratan tampering in the 6th century anyways.

But yes, I would also love to see a Book of Joseph. My best guess is that most of the Book of Joseph material got folded into the first chapter of Abraham.

What, to your way of thinking, is the content of the manuscript that you believe could be the source for the dittograph? And, what leads you to believe this in the absence of "better historical evidence"? In other words, given that there is no extant source document for the dittograph, what cuases you as a historian to lean one direction or the other?

I am not sure I follow you. Are you asking me whether I think it goes all the way to the end of chapter three or not? Whether it is as messy as the dittograph? I am not sure I am following you.

I don't think there would be an apologetic position on the KEP were there not the level of interest shown to them over the last 40 years by the critics and the testimony-compromising impact of those criticisms. Clearly, some people certainly believe them to be of sufficient importance to the verity of the restored gospel as to write critical books and articles about them, to some degree lose their faith over them, and to now seemingly hold tenaciously to that critical position even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. As such, I think an apologetic response seems reasonably warranted.

Undoubtedly so. But it seems to me that some apologists are willing to move past the kind of thinking that is really just the flip-side of the bad thinking of some of these critics. It is only because some people think it is a big deal that Joseph Smith is apparently not translating the Egyptian in the way a linguist would that they get up in arms about it. I think there is a better way.

Besides, I think further exploration of the KEP, in light of Will's cipher hypothesis, may bring to light new dimensions in understanding the lives of Joseph and other founders of the Latter-day Church. As a historian, I would think you would weloome this.

Doubtless Will's presentation has sparked different kinds of thinking about the subject, and that is a good thing. What makes you think I don't welcome that?

Are you open at this time to exploring more in-depth Will's cipher hypothesis? Or, would you prefer to wait until after Will's "conclusive" demonstration?

I ask because I have been doing some historical work in testing his hypothesis.

I would certainly be interested in anything you might have to add about the cipher hypothesis. Lacking an axe to grind, and being full of curiosity, I am interested in pursuing all avenues of inquiry.

[Hyrum Page]

I'm sure that he is capable of challenging a lot of people, but I've honestly not seen that in the time since I apologize to him.

Mak, I was speaking about longstanding issues. I am not serving as Kevin's proxy here, and I am not interested in you picking up your argument with him in a place he can't respond.

[maklelan]

Mak, I was speaking about longstanding issues. I am not serving as Kevin's proxy here, and I am not interested in you picking up your argument with him in a place he can't respond.

I'm not arguing with Kevin, I'm letting you know how I feel about your comment. If you're referring to other instances, that's fine. My post explains how I feel about Kevin as an academic interlocutor.

[Cazier]

Being that Kevin is permanently banned from the site and has announced his visit to your area Cazier, I suggest you have your own discussions and not be used as Kevin's mouth piece. We do not care to have his input here, or dealing with one of his many sock puppets.

Nemesis

I am my own mouthpiece thank you very much, and as far as I know Kevin doesn't know I'm posting. Believe it or don't. I don't care one way or the other. He doesn't need me to defend him but I am LDS and the attitudes here are not in the spirit of anything I have learned from the LDS faith. Your hatred and unfairness towards him makes you all an embarrassment to the Church.

[Hyrum Page]

I'm not arguing with Kevin, I'm letting you know how I feel about your comment. If you're referring to other instances, that's fine. My post explains how I feel about Kevin as an academic interlocutor.

Really? Is that all you were doing? I guess succinctness isn't your strong suit.

Do you have any other nuggets to share about Kevin Graham? I'm sure Nemesis is just dying to read them.

[Hyrum Page]

I am my own mouthpiece thank you very much, and as far as I know Kevin doesn't know I'm posting. Believe it or don't. I don't care one way or the other. He doesn't need me to defend him but I am LDS and the attitudes here are not in the spirit of anything I have learned from the LDS faith. Your hatred and unfairness towards him makes you all an embarrassment to the Church.

Watch out! You don't want to be banned after only two posts, do you?

[maklelan]

Really? Is that all you were doing? I guess succinctness isn't your strong suit.

Do you have any other nuggets to share about Kevin Graham? I'm sure Nemesis is just dying to read them.

I'm trying to be sincere. The antagonism isn't helpful. I really don't care what Kevin has to say. I apologized for being disrespectful and he continued to be disrespectful. I promised to remain professional and he ignored it, continuing to antagonize. I shared a great deal of evidence that he flatly ignored. I asked him to tone down the attitude and he cranked it up. I'm no longer going to hope that he will engage me with respect and objectivity. He simply will not, and so I'm done.

[Hyrum Page]

I'm trying to be sincere. The antagonism isn't helpful.

Antagonism? Try playfulness. Man, what a serious lot.

Moreover, it was a friendly reminder that Nemesis doesn't seem to want people discussing a certain person with the initials KG.

Oh, but I guess you were bagging on him and not defending him, so that's probably OK.

[Cazier]

One final comment and I'm done here...

I'm not arguing with Kevin, I'm letting you know how I feel about your comment. If you're referring to other instances, that's fine. My post explains how I feel about Kevin as an academic interlocutor.

You are basing your view on a brief experience with Kevin but others have had years of experience with him. Your view is clearly tainted by an experience that didn't turn out the way you had hoped. It seems to me that you needed to come here to gain some sense of accomplishment and this tells me Kevin probably did a better job with you than you're willing to admit. I saw your first discussion and things only went bad after Kevin corrected your misunderstanding of the documents. You said a certain character had no representation in the EAG, and Kevin kindly corrected your error by presenting a visual for you. He corrected a few other mistakes too that you ignored. He wasn't bragging about it. He just wanted you to get acquainted with the materials before speaking as an authority. This is why he emailed you the documents. He also provided a very respectful and detailed explanation for his reasoning in that post. Being the "professional academic" as you keep reminding everyone, you didn't take kindly to correction. So you threw your hands up and demanded he accept your argument or else -

When you can provide that reason or explain that you have no reason, then I will respond to the rest of your post. If you cannot provide a reason then you've forfeited this debate. I'm interested in a respectful, objective, and professional discussion. So flippantly tossing my concerns aside violates all three of those standards

Did Kevin respond with vicious anti-Mormon attacks? No:

With all due respect Dan, there is nothing scholarly about demanding everyone address only the fine details you want addressed, while refusing to address the broader issues raised by others.

What a horrible guy! It went downhill from there until you eventually did the right thing and apologized to him. But then Kevin accepted your argument that the dittograph was a copying error. You responded to this admirable concession by running back over here to poke fun at him again by presenting short phrases he said, totally removed from their contexts. I don't know what kind of "academic" does this kind of thing but you are not the gentleman you pretend to be.

And since people over here appear interested in slamming Kevin for name calling, I'll have you know that Will Schryver has been taunting Kevin for a couple of weeks calling him everything from "ignoramus" to "idiot" and Maklelan took his jabs too, saying "youre no scholar Kevin." The truth is Kevin doesn't even bother responding to most of these attacks, even this ridiculous nonsense by Schryver:

I don

[Hyrum Page]

I'm no longer going to hope that he will engage me with respect and objectivity. He simply will not, and so I'm done.

Sounds like a plan. S'ok. I understand that critics of the Church can get under your skin. It's not like they are trying very hard to be polite or fair. And it is true that KG won't tiptoe around your feelings. I was surprised he was as nice to you as he was.

[maklelan]

Antagonism? Try playfulness. Man, what a serious lot.

N.B. - Sarcasm doesn't translate over the internet, whether you're just pretending you were joking or you were actually joking.

Moreover, it was a friendly reminder that Nemesis doesn't seem to want people discussing a certain person with the initials KG.

Oh, but I guess you were bagging on him and not defending him, so that's probably OK.

I asked him several times to tone down the attitude since I apologized to him, but he responded to my sincerity with more antagonism. I don't understand why you're criticizing me for pointing this out. My accusations are perfectly accurate, and even if he could post here he wouldn't defend himself, he would just criticize me. If he wants to prove me wrong and show he can recognize when he's been a jerk he can do it on the other board and I would be happy to apologize, here and there. That's not going to happen, though. He doesn't think he's been a jerk. No matter how much he insults, condescends, and belittles, and no matter how much evidence he's ignored, the other guy is the jerk, and he's just speaking the truth.

[selek]

One final comment and I'm done here...

Ayup.....one more unsubstantiated drive-by sneer from a Kevin Graham apologist.

We'll keep the hanky handy to wipe away the tears your sob-story invokes......

You are basing your view on a brief experience with Kevin but others have had years of experience with him.

Such as his legion of personally abusive, vulgar, and dismissive rants over at the Great and Spacious Trailer Park?

Clearly, you're drinking his Kool-aid- but don't damn the rest of us because we prefer a slightly less noxious brew.

Did Kevin respond with vicious anti-Mormon attacks? No:

Graham's tenure over at the GSTP stands as a monumental refutation to your willful act of blindness.

That's it. I've said my piece.

And thus closed the circle of anti-Mormon tactics.

When this thread was first postulated, we made a number of predictions about how the critics would handle Schryver's presentation: most folk suggested that the critics would try desperately to change the subject- which is precisely what you're attempting to do here.

Every other attempt to refute Schryver's presentation has bogged down into unsubstantiated (and often, counter-factual) opinion or simply failed outright- and so the only recourse left to you is to try and change the subject to the alleged persecution of your beloved "Saint Kevin".

Unable to refute Schryver's facts or logic, you're only remaining play is to call names, whinge about your victimhood, and hope to distract us with rounds and rounds of personal attacks.

You're hoping the simple facts and arguments that Schryver presented (and you've been unable to refute) will be lost amid all of the politicking and name-calling from Shady's Sewer.

But this too was predicted.

Thank you for fulfilling the predictions so ably.......

....but do you have anything substantive to say about Schryver's presentation?

[maklelan]

Sounds like a plan. S'ok. I understand that critics of the Church can get under your skin. It's not like they are trying very hard to be polite or fair. And it is true that KG won't tiptoe around your feelings. I was surprised he was as nice to you as he was.

His respect was rather sporadic. He was nice in emails and during certain types of exchanges, but when I criticized his methodologies or his evidence his concern for decorum would taper off.

[Hyrum Page]

His respect was rather sporadic. He was nice in emails and during certain types of exchanges, but when I criticized his methodologies or his evidence his concern for decorum would taper off.

Well, it is clear to me that you are not very familiar with Kevin, which is understandable. I like him, but I can understand why you are put off by him. Heaven knows I've had my dust-ups with the guy.

[maklelan]

One final comment and I'm done here...

You are basing your view on a brief experience with Kevin but others have had years of experience with him. Your view is clearly tainted by an experience that didn't turn out the way you had hoped. It seems to me that you needed to come here to gain some sense of accomplishment and this tells me Kevin probably did a better job with you than you're willing to admit. I saw your first discussion and things only went bad after Kevin corrected your misunderstanding of the documents. You said a certain character had no representation in the EAG, and Kevin kindly corrected your error by presenting a visual for you.

I never read that far in that post before I posted my ultimatum, and the reason I posted the ultimatum was because he was refusing to answer a direct question that was critical to the entire argument. Additionally, his correction was actually just a misunderstanding on his part. When I said there was no corresponding character in the EAG I was referring exclusively to Ab2, page 4, not to Phelps' section of Ab1. It all stems from my post at Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:04 pm. He's done that a few times.

He corrected a few other mistakes too that you ignored. He wasn't bragging about it. He just wanted you to get acquainted with the materials before speaking as an authority. This is why he emailed you the documents. He also provided a very respectful and detailed explanation for his reasoning in that post. Being the "professional academic" as you keep reminding everyone, you didn't take kindly to correction.

I didn't read past the first paragraph in that post. What I didn't take kindly to was the way he was refusing to answer a direct question because he knew how much it undermined his argument.

So you threw your hands up and demanded he accept your argument or else -

Another falsehood. I did not demand he accept my argument. I demanded he provide an explanation for a critical aspect of his theory. These were my exact words:

Can you give me a logical reason for Smith wanting to have this section of text copied twice on this one piece of paper? If you cannot, then your argument cannot possibly hold, and homoioteleuton becomes the only logical solution. I invite anyone else reading to explain why that is not the case.

When you can provide that reason or explain that you have no reason, then I will respond to the rest of your post. If you cannot provide a reason then you've forfeited this debate. I'm interested in a respectful, objective, and professional discussion. So flippantly tossing my concerns aside violates all three of those standards.

I just asked him to support his rejection of my theory or admit he could not. He could do neither.

Did Kevin respond with vicious anti-Mormon attacks? No

He also didn't answer the question. He equivocated, reasserted his assertion without explaining how it was at all logical, and then tried to insist that the topic needed to be changed. Here's exactly what he said:

I didn't say that. I said he obviously wanted two copies, and he did. He probably learned from his past mistakes and didn't want another Martin Harris incident. Now I agree that putting the second copy on the same page wasn't the best place for it, but then this all depends on what Smith planned on using it. Joseph Smith could have very well told Williams to make a copy and then left the room. Maybe the three of them got into an argument, Parrish stomped out and then Williams was being a smart *** by copying it on the same page? We can see the session ended abruptly, so it is anyone's guess what was going on in the room at the time. Maybe that was the last sheet of paper he had at the time and he wanted to make it all fit? Who knows? The list of plausible scenarios is endless.

My point is you're not dealing with the main reason why I reject this theory. You keep reiterating the silliness of my proposed explanations, and I agree they do sound silly. But I'm confident that if we were able to travel back and time and be a "fly on the wall", we'd find plenty that was silly and irrational. I remember being told by apologists that Joseph Smith couldn't have possibly believed an entire paragraph of text could derive from a single character, because that would have been completely irrational. But we know this is exactly what he believed and it must be dealt with no matter how irrational we find it to be. Martin Harris once said that while translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith would translate entire sentences from single characters. So this idea that a character = many words, is something we know Joseph Smith believed.

What a horrible guy! It went downhill from there until you eventually did the right thing and apologized to him.

Of course, he never apologized for the things he said about me in the interim, and he continued to be antagonistic. My outburst was not arbitrary. It was catalyzed by his evasion. If that's unjustified (and I'm perfectly happy admitting that it is unjustified) then his insults and belittling were also unjustified. He didn't heel it was necessary for him to apologize or even change his tone. He even demanded I rebuke Will just to show I was being sincere. I've tried to be professional, and when he's been antagonistic I've just asked him to drop the attitude, but he refuses to take correction of any kind. In his mind he is above reproach, even when he has to admit the evidence is not in his favor.

But then Kevin accepted your argument that the dittograph was a copying error. You responded to this admirable concession by running back over here to poke fun at him again by presenting short phrases he said, totally removed from their contexts. I don't know what kind of "academic" does this kind of thing but you are not the gentleman you pretend to be.

I didn't ever read a post where he explained that he accepted my theory. If he says that now then I didn't see it happen. That hardly makes up for his antagonism, though.

And since people over here appear interested in slamming Kevin for name calling, I'll have you know that Will Schryver has been taunting Kevin for a couple of weeks calling him everything from "ignoramus" to "idiot" and Maklelan took his jabs too, saying "youre no scholar Kevin." The truth is Kevin doesn't even bother responding to most of these attacks, even this ridiculous nonsense by Schryver

I asked him to tone down the attitude and he insisted there was no attitude and then continued to insult me. I've apologized for my indiscretions, and I will continue to do so if I'm convinced that I've been out of line, but Kevin's not a scholar and he's not even trying to be one. At this point he's just trying to tell scholars how little they know.

Does this ranting nonsense make you people feel better? Yes Kevin has some issues with the Church and we are trying to help him with that, but then I come online and see what kind of hell he has to deal with from what appears to be a bunch of fringe Mormons who base their faith in apologetics. The hatred you people have for him is just sickening.

I don't hate him at all and I don't base my faith on apologetics at all.

All because he disagrees with some of your apologetics. You'd think he snuck into your homes and night and ate your children or something. I don't even consider him anti-Mormon. He doesn't trash the Church to my family and he doesn't forbid his own children from attending. Maybe you people should spend more time listening to Church counsel on love and forgiveness and less time picking fights with people and driving them even further away from the Church.

That's it. I've said my piece.

I really don't care what relationship he has with the church, and I've never criticized him for the nature of that relationship, whatever it be.

[wenglund]

My best guess is that most of the Book of Joseph material got folded into the first chapter of Abraham.

In reading through the brief description of the Book of Joseph given by Cowdery in the Dec., 1835, Messenger and Advocate, I don't see what you are seeing, but I suppose it is possible.

I would certainly be interested in anything you might have to add about the cipher hypothesis. Lacking an axe to grind, and being full of curiosity, I am interested in pursuing all avenues of inquiry.

Excellent! Perhaps you remember me mentioning a week or so ago about looking into Kabbalistic ciphers? Well, I have begun scratching the surface, and I have found some interesting correlations between Kabbalah and the KEP--three in particular.

First, just as the Egyptian Counting document in the KEP assignes numerical values to various characters, so also does the Kabbalistic gematria (see also HERE)

Second, just as the Egytian Alphabet in the KEP assigns sounds/names and brief meaning to various characters, so also does the Kabbalistic Alefbiet.

Third, just as the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language that is part of the KEP assignes simple concepts to various characters and parts of characters, so also does the Kabbalistic notaricon (see also HERE)

Similar parallels can be found with the gnostic Order of Nazorean Essenes (ONE).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Hyrum Page:

My best guess is that most of the Book of Joseph material got folded into the first chapter of Abraham.

For example?

Incidentally, there are characters in the GAEL whose explanations refer to things apparently drawn from the story of Joseph--but none of those things are mentioned in the published Book of Abraham.

Matt Roper has also assembled several historical references to material that was reported to be part of the translated BoA--but none of those things are mentioned in the book as it was published in 1842.

So we have both textual and historical evidence of the fact that there was material translated that was either lost or has been deliberately withheld.

[Hyrum Page]

For example?

I need to consult Don Bradley and Chris Smith before I give away anything they are working on.

Incidentally, there are characters in the GAEL whose explanations refer to things apparently drawn from the story of Joseph--but none of those things are mentioned in the published Book of Abraham.

That is interesting. If you want to quote the material here, that would be nifty.

Matt Roper has also assembled several historical references to material that was reported to be part of the translated BoA--but none of those things are mentioned in the book as it was published in 1842.

Cool. Do you have a reference for me? Or are Matt's findings unpublished?

So we have both textual and historical evidence of the fact that there was material translated that was either lost or has been deliberately withheld.

I like your exercise of care here when you use the term "material." Do you lean towards lost or withheld, and if the latter, why?

[Hyrum Page]

Excellent! Perhaps you remember me mentioning a week or so ago about looking into Kabbalistic ciphers? Well, I have begun scratching the surface, and I have found some interesting correlations between Kabbalah and the KEP--three in particular.

First, just as the Egyptian Counting document in the KEP assignes numerical values to various characters, so also does the Kabbalistic gematria (see also HERE)

Second, just as the Egytian Alphabet in the KEP assigns sounds/names and brief meaning to various characters, so also does the Kabbalistic Alefbiet.

Third, just as the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language that is part of the KEP assignes simple concepts to various characters and parts of characters, so also does the Kabbalistic notaricon (see also HERE)

Similar parallels can be found with the gnostic Order of Nazorean Essenes (ONE).

So, Wade, what conclusions, even tentative ones, might one draw from this material regarding the meaning and purpose of the KEP?

I am not knowledgeable in Kabbalah, but I do know a very little bit about language and magic. My basic understanding about gematria is that hidden meanings can be drawn from the text of the Torah based on the numerical values of the characters and finding their equivalents. Are you proposing that there were plans for engaging in a similar exercise using the EA?

I am curious about Kerry's thoughts concerning this. He must find this avenue of exploration very interesting indeed!