Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[cinepro]

When someone and their cabal has the time and energy to park there all they have to do is be the last man standing everyday.

That is one of the reasons Wikipedia can be so unreliable.

If you could wave a magic want and permanently fix the article on the KEP, what changes would you make? What errors are there?

I've known many people who hated Wikipedia articles because they didn't say what they thought they should say, but I've never known anyone who hated a Wikipedia article because it contained materially erroneous information, or had been hijacked to one ideology.

I mean, here are the footnotes for the article. Are there more from publications critical of the Church, neutral to the Church, or friendly to the Church? I color coded the positive reference green, the negative red, the neutral orange, and I have no idea what #12 is. It looks pretty even to me.

1. ^ Hugh Nibley, "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers," BYU Studies 11, no. 4 (Summer 1971): 350-99, available from http://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/11.4Nibley.pdf.

2. ^ Although Nibley attributed this manuscript to W. W. Phelps, more recent treatments agree that the handwriting is that of Frederick G. Williams. Brian M. Hauglid, "Investigating the Kirtland Egyptian Papers: Myths and Realities," paper presented at the FAIR Conference, Mesa, AZ, August 4 2006; Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Re-Visioning the Book of Abraham: Criticism Beyond Apologetics and Polemics," Oct 14 2006, available from http://mormonscripturestudies.com/exmo2006/boabr-handout_online.doc.

3. ^ Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 355-365.

4. ^ Nibley, "Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers."

5. ^ H. Michael Marquardt, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers, (Cullman, Ala.: Printing Service, 1981).

6. ^ Letter of I. E. Edwards, Keeper of the Department of Egyptian Antiquities, dated June 9, 1966, as quoted in Charles M. Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Institute for Religious Research, 1992), 43.

7. ^ Nibley, "Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers," 357.

8. ^ Jay M. Todd, The Saga of the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1969), 253.

9. ^ Nibley, "Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers."

10. ^ John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000), 24.

11. ^ Samuel M. Brown, "The Translator and the Ghostwriter: Joseph Smith and W. W. Phelps," Journal of Mormon History 34, no. 1 (2008): 62.

12. ^ Richard P. Howard, "The 'Book of Abraham' in the Light of History and Egyptology," Courage: A Journal of History, Thought, and Action (1970): 38.

13. ^ Edward H. Ashment, "Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study," in The Word of God, ed. Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 227-228.

14. ^ Christopher C. Smith, "The Dependence of Abraham 1:1-3 on the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar," John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 29 (2009): 38-54.

[volgadon]

but I've never known anyone who hated a Wikipedia article because it contained materially erroneous information, or had been hijacked to one ideology.

Well, we have never really met.

[Greg Smith]

I'm afraid I don't understand why this thread is so focused on the theoretical reactions of "critics", and I suspect some people are using "critic" as a synonym for "anti-mormon".

Because of the knee-jerk reactions of some who do not seem, shall we say, favorably disposed to the Church's truth claims.

That was not my intention in the thread, but it was a sudden, nearly immediate, and fascinating bonus. If posters would quit giving such good examples, that aspect would probably die away.

And you may parse "critics" however you like--anti-Mormons certainly fit the bill, but not all critics of Mormonism are necessarily "anti-Mormon": though in practice, the two circles of that Venn diagram have considerable overlap.

Until a knowledgeable "critic" has reviewed the presentation (either beforehand, or at the conference), all that can be really ascertained is the reaction of "critics" to a post by Greg Smith effusing praise on a subject (while at the same time admitting his ignorance).

Exactly. :-) And yet, we have had more than one person reject what Will has to say out of hand, without having seen it. And psychoanalyze me to explain why I should be so deluded. Interesting that, don't you think? Well, I do. And, it's my thread. :-)

Are the critics supposed to preemptively accept whatever Will's theory might be just based on this thread? And in not doing so are they demonstrating stubbornness or some other moral failing?

Nope. You're just not supposed to declare up front that it has no validity, that it doesn't prove anything, or that it doesn't matter, or that my poor blighted Mormon mind is all that made me find it compelling. If someone can debunk it after it's out, I don't mind saying mea culpa.

[i love Chris Smith's declaration that " I do not expect to agree with" Will. Really? You've already decided you won't agree? When you don't even know what claims he's making? Bold, that. Will isn't making any claims (that I can see) that because of how he reads the KEP the Church must be true or the BoA a real ancient document. He's just going to demonstrate the date of the BoA English text production, and what Joseph et al were on about with the KEP. These aren't necessarily religious claims; in fact, they turn out to be (I think) quite prosaic historical claims that don't really make a hint of difference what one thinks about Mormonism. The only religious issue will be, I suspect, that the critics will be bereft of one particularly-favored attack on the BoA. I'm sure there are many others; they needn't worry.]

I wonder, incidentally, how far I'd get if I declared prior to the publication of Signature Book's latest oeuvre that I was not expecting to agree with it? I'm allowed to disagree, but first I have to actually read the darn thing.

After reading this thread, I suspect you will accept nothing less from the "critics", and so there you go.

I think you've been reading a different thread than I have. You ought to withhold judgment. Yet, some have not. That's my point.

I don't expect anyone to take my or Will's word for anything. Or, heaven forfend, mine. Not that anyone would anyway.

I do expect people who claim to care about evidence to actually assess said evidence prior to making declarations about its validity, applicability, robustness, or their willingness to accept said evidence. At best anyone who hasn't seen the presentation (which includes everyone except me and a couple of others here at best) ought to be saying, "Well, we'll see." And yet that decidedly wasn't the reaction in some circles, was it? Curious.

I didn't want/expect anything from the critics, or you in particular. I thought people generally might be interested in hearing what one viewer thought of Will's work. And, I want to encourage anyone with an interest in it to pay attention.

The knee-jerk rejection and spin-doctoring from some circles was simply an amusing bonus. If the shoe does not fit you, you need not wear it, nor feel I'm trying to shove it onto your toes. But, such textbook behavior is simply too priceless to avoid pointing out for those playing along at home.

GLS

[Stargazer]

When someone and their cabal has the time and energy to park there all they have to do is be the last man standing everyday.

That is one of the reasons Wikipedia can be so unreliable.

Amen.

Although there are few LDS-related article I stand over at Wikipedia (there are a couple, that I created, such as the article on Elder Bruce Porter and my mission President, Rudolf Poecker), I do watch over a couple of others that tend to draw fire from naysayers and anti-X posters, and it is, indeed, a case of "last man standing".

[Chris Smith]

I love Chris Smith's declaration that " I do not expect to agree with" Will. Really? You've already decided you won't agree?

An expectation is not the same thing as a decision. Expectations are an unavoidable part of the human experience. We all have them. To pretend otherwise would be foolish or dishonest. The key is to avoid letting one's expectations determine one's perceptions and reasoning. My intent is certainly to approach William's presentation with an open mind, as I'm sure was clear to those who approached my previous post in the same way.

[cinepro]

I do expect people who claim to care about evidence to actually assess said evidence prior to making declarations about its validity, applicability, robustness, or their willingness to accept said evidence. At best anyone who hasn't seen the presentation (which includes everyone except me and a couple of others here at best) ought to be saying, "Well, we'll see." And yet that decidedly wasn't the reaction in some circles, was it? Curious.

I didn't want/expect anything from the critics, or you in particular. I thought people generally might be interested in hearing what one viewer thought of Will's work. And, I want to encourage anyone with an interest in it to pay attention.

The knee-jerk rejection and spin-doctoring from some circles was simply an amusing bonus. If the shoe does not fit you, you need not wear it, nor feel I'm trying to shove it onto your toes. But, such textbook behavior is simply too priceless to avoid pointing out for those playing along at home.

GLS

I actually just went back and skimmed this thread, and I'm curious where you are seeing this.

Other than Chris's comment that he didn't expect to agree with Will (which, based on their past interaction, seems to be a perfectly reasonable assumption for someone to be able to make. After all, he didn't say that he would agree with him), I'm not seeing any negative reactions from critics.

Here's what he actually said:

I do not expect to agree with him, but I do expect that his paper will contain interesting observations and insights, and that I will learn some things I didn't know before.

Mortal Man made some jokes, but didn't comment on the theoretical content or validity of the presentation. He also provided references to other threads in which the topic has been discussed (to help provide context for comments Wade had made).

Tango made a comment about how the KEP fits into the larger Book of Abraham context, and the importance of peer review and references.

John Larsen issued a CFR about Metcalfe's photos, and also commented on the wording of the original post. He also offered an analogy about some of the larger problems with the claims made about the Book of Abraham.

And I've gone on the record as preemptively accepting all the claims in Will's presentation just based on the OP, and would like to go even further to personally congratulate Will on a game-changing observation that has redefined the place of the KEP in our understanding of the Book of Abraham.

Are these the "knee-jerk" reactions? Is this the critics at their most biased and worst? I'm hardly seeing any reaction at all (and indeed, non-critics have posted the majority of posts in this thread, with the majority of posts by critics not even mentioning Will's expected claims).

[juliann]

I've known many people who hated Wikipedia articles because they didn't say what they thought they should say, but I've never known anyone who hated a Wikipedia article because it contained materially erroneous information, or had been hijacked to one ideology.

I mean, here are the footnotes for the article. Are there more from publications critical of the Church, neutral to the Church, or friendly to the Church? I color coded the positive reference green, the negative red, the neutral orange, and I have no idea what #12 is. It looks pretty even to me.

You can't be serious. Look at what is available just online. http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers The antis guarding the gate to much of the Wikipedia Mormon information found a way to include a link to the Tanners of all things. Yet they leave out almost all of current LDS scholarship. When it is all compiled and sitting on another wiki it isn't exactly hard to find. And to put Hauglid's publication of the originals in the same sentence as Metcalfe who hasn't even have the originals should be the first clue something is really off. It does show these gatekeepers are aware of current activity though. They just don't want to let anyone else in on it. This entry is only interested in pointing out the criticisms. It is biased. And you don't need to know anyone but Mr. Google to find this is a common complaint...because it isn't just happening to Mormons. http://www.bostonreview.net/BR34.6/morozov.php

[mysteryman]

You can't be serious. Look at what is available just online. http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers The antis guarding the gate to much of the Wikipedia Mormon information found a way to include a link to the Tanners of all things. Yet they leave out almost all of current LDS scholarship. When it is all compiled and sitting on another wiki it isn't exactly hard to find. And to put Hauglid's publication of the originals in the same sentence as Metcalfe who hasn't even have the originals should be the first clue something is really off. It does show these gatekeepers are aware of current activity though. They just don't want to let anyone else in on it. This entry is only interested in pointing out the criticisms. It is biased. And you don't need to know anyone but Mr. Google to find this is a common complaint...because it isn't just happening to Mormons. http://www.bostonreview.net/BR34.6/morozov.php

Metcalfe does possess some excellent color photos of the KEP, the best and most clear photos I have ever seen of them. The photos are supposed to part of his big book about the KEP that we have been waiting for years now for him to complete.

[Lars Umlaut]

Metcalfe does possess some excellent color photos of the KEP, the best and most clear photos I have ever seen of them. The photos are supposed to part of his big book about the KEP that we have been waiting for years now for him to complete.

Speaking of, anyone have any info on Brent's book? When it's due? The publisher? Contributing authors? Anything?

[juliann]

Metcalfe does possess some excellent color photos of the KEP, the best and most clear photos I have ever seen of them. The photos are supposed to part of his big book about the KEP that we have been waiting for years now for him to complete.

Yes, a well known set of photos that was withheld from scholars for decades. Funny the Wikipedia didn't mention this as they spend a paragraph on the church not releasing copies.

I will be very surprised if anyone published a book with obsolete photos that can't be controlled for camera position, etc. concurrent with a publication using state of the art reproductions of the originals.

[Nomad]

Metcalfe does possess some excellent color photos of the KEP, the best and most clear photos I have ever seen of them. The photos are supposed to part of his big book about the KEP that we have been waiting for years now for him to complete.

One interesting thing Schryver mentioned to me some time back is that he believes it is possible that Metcalfe has actually known for years about the stuff he (William) is going to talk about, and that is part of the reason that he has so carefully controlled what images appeared in public. He hasn't wanted people to see things that would lead them to conclusions that he didn't want them to conclude.

[Nomad]

Speaking of, anyone have any info on Brent's book? When it's due? The publisher? Contributing authors? Anything?

It's forthcoming.

[USU78]

One interesting thing Schryver mentioned to me some time back is that he believes it is possible that Metcalfe has actually known for years about the stuff he (William) is going to talk about, and that is part of the reason that he has so carefully controlled what images appeared in public. He hasn't wanted people to see things that would lead them to conclusions that he didn't want them to conclude.

Metcalfe has been threatening to publish a magnum opus of all things KEP for many years now, including on this board and its immediate predecessor.

Assuming you are right and he has known these things for years, his decision to keep kicking the publication can down the road becomes more understandable.

[LifeOnaPlate]

yes I am.

mobipocket free epub software.

OpenOffice

peer2peer network.

I prefer a nice bound copy from a reputable publisher, personally. Truth be told, you're not going to make a lot of money publishing books right now. There are a few books that make a bit of money back, but for the most part publishers want to break even with a little extra, from what I understand.

Besides, I am down with the 1 Timothy 5:18 rule:

"For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."

[LifeOnaPlate]

Schryver's talk is useless without references and peer review.

So truth doesn't exist until it is peer reviewed? Strange world. Also strange that you assume the paper has no references(?) or has not been peer reviewed. Sounding off on something before seeing it=fail.

[Scott Lloyd]

Haven't they already gone silent on their first round of character assassination? I recall a lot of unhinged tales being brought over from certain quarters about FAIR wanting nothing to do with Will. As we were planning a conference with him as a speaker.

Were they the same ones who were snickering and chortling over unfounded gossip that the Church News had been ordered to curtail its coverage of the FAIR Conference? (Incidentally, I plan to be there both days, and I understand one or more of my colleagues from our sister publication, Mormon Times, will be in attendance as well.)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Believers and critics alike would benefit from a Wikipedia that wasn't controlled by an evangelical anti-Mormon. What a lousy synopsis.

As you know, but others evidently don't, Wikipedia on Mormonism is essentially useless. The articles are all heavily puppy-guarded. It's a joke.

[LifeOnaPlate]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page

Serious? Have you ever tried to edit one of the pages? They are immediately edited back to their current state. Good luck.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Metcalfe does possess some excellent color photos of the KEP, the best and most clear photos I have ever seen of them. The photos are supposed to part of his big book about the KEP that we have been waiting for years now for him to complete.

Twenty years or something like that. With all the hubub about the Church not being willing to release certain records, why haven't critics roundly called for Metcalfe to release his goods? George Smith, for instance, has chided the Church in print for not releasing whatever records he cares to request. Why has he not called on Metcalfe to do the same one wonders. By the time Metcalfe gets his things together I suspect it will be inadequate anyway. I'm willing to take a look, but I am not even sure if he plans on publishing something about it anymore. Maybe he can hop into the discussion and let us know.

[cinepro]

Serious? Have you ever tried to edit one of the pages? They are immediately edited back to their current state. Good luck.

So what do you think will happen when someone tries to add Will's theory to the page next week?

[volgadon]

Bart:

[Mortal Man]

Metcalfe has been threatening to publish a magnum opus of all things KEP for many years now, including on this board and its immediate predecessor.

Assuming you are right and he has known these things for years, his decision to keep kicking the publication can down the road becomes more understandable.

He's a single parent working 80+ hours/week for Microsoft to support his family. The church employs hundreds of full time professors with free access to the originals. Where are all the church publications on the KEP?

[ttribe]

He's a single parent working 80+ hours/week for Microsoft to support his family. The church employs hundreds of full time professors with free access to the originals. Where are all the church publications on the KEP?

Those professors with "free access" aren't the one who've been touting a forthcoming publication on the matter for a number of years. Are you now a Metcalfe apologist?

[Glenn101]

He's a single parent working 80+ hours/week for Microsoft to support his family. The church employs hundreds of full time professors with free access to the originals. Where are all the church publications on the KEP?

Hundreds of full time professional what? Secretaries, librarians? The LDS scholars that have the expertise to deal with the KEP are mostly professors with full time jobs themselves. But as for writings on them by LDS scholars, you can start with Hugh Nibley.

Glenn

[William Schryver]

He's a single parent working 80+ hours/week for Microsoft to support his family.

Yeah, life's rough all around, ain't it?

All I know is that I've been working on this stuff for less than a year--as in not quite eleven months. It hasn't been easy getting up at 5:00am three or four times a week, or letting other obligations and opportunities slide while I worked on this stuff for 12 - 16 hours on a Saturday. The fact is, people do what they want to do. If Metcalfe had something of substance to say about these things, he certainly could have found the time during the past quarter century to at least write up an article or two. Ten, twenty pages maybe. Less than one page a year! But there is nothing. I have no doubt that Brent has many great insights about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers; that he has much to offer to the discussion of their meaning and purpose. The fact remains that he has NEVER said anything about them, with the exception of a few rather ambiguous statements on internet message boards. (I'll bet he's produced over a thousand pages of message board writing over the years, but very little on the KEP.)

The church employs hundreds of full time professors with free access to the originals.

What are you talking about!???

I don't know of anyone who ever even requested to study the KEP until Brian Hauglid did in 2005. I wrote up a paper of summary findings and requested access to the originals as well as the high-resolution scan images right after Thanksgiving in 2009. I was granted authorization in January 2010. I obtained the images on February 9, 2010. Now, in August 2010, I will present my first set of findings. And yet I've been criticized and ridiculed ad nauseum about making unfulfilled promises of "forthcoming" things. <sigh>

Where are all the church publications on the KEP?

Who would have written them?

To tell you the truth, I think most people have been intimidated by the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

They won't be anymore.