Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[frankenstein]

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.)

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>

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.

i know of a radio DJ in austin texas who has proclaimed over the airwaves the LDS Church is a farce because of the Book of Abraham - I do not know if that the same as the KEP - but your insight will be interesting; probably would be perals before swine to send this dj your presentation though.

[wenglund]

I also want to thank Wade Englund for abiding by my wishes to not speak about certain things that he started to figure out several months ago on a thread related to these things. To his credit, he had made some very astute observations that threatened to

[Greg Smith]

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.

Maybe we're using "critic" in a different sense then.

I wrote the following:

Schryver has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea the KEP are the "translation documents" of the Book of Abraham, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates.

No claims about truth of the BoA, just a historical claim about what the KEP are.

To which Tango was kind enough to reply:

Only in your mind.

You rendered this as:

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

Nice gloss. I'll let readers decide if this adequately summarizes his contribution. :-)

Will's talk was also weighed in the balance and found wanting:

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

Assuming (without evidence) that it would be:

a) useless

b) not peer reviewed

c) without references

I didn't see you or any critic calling him on it.

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.

Yes, a decidedly straw-ridden analogy. And, he also claimed that the "apologists" were accepting it sight unseen:

It seems that unexamined the critics are rejecting it and the apologists are accepting it.

A decidedly counterfactual reading, I think, since those who have accepted it have actually seen it. :-)

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.

I assumed you were joking. Such congratulation on your part would be premature. As I've now said two or three times now.

On mine, it is not.

Are these the "knee-jerk" reactions? Is this the critics at their most biased and worst?

Some are, and some aren't. I was speaking of the ones which are. I had thought that would be clear.

And, as I said, I think it fun to predict what the reaction will be, since we get a taste of some of it here now. Its a nice petrie dish for a broader phenomenon.

Before, I would have bet on "studied silence," but might be proven wrong. Stay tuned, gentle reader.

And, you might think that if Mortal Man's humor is not out of place, mine just might not be either. [i did say "play prophet"--that was a hint. :-)]

Chris Smith quoth:

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.

I'm delighted to hear it. In the same spirit, little of what I've seen of your interaction with Will on this topic here (and especially elsewhere) has led me to "expect" you're capable of being "open minded" where he (or the Church) is concerned--but we can but try, as you say.

But, given the modest outlines of what Will is claiming (not modest in its implications, but modest in the claims being made), I will be surprised if any "open minded" person doesn't find little if anything to disagree with. Which I grant is unusual. But, true in this case.

I will be thrilled if the reaction from the peanut gallery isn't what I expect. But, anti-Mormons and critics have rarely underperformed on my expectations in that regard. :-)

GLS

[Wiki Wonka]

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

Even after Will presents at the FAIR conference, his data cannot be added to Wikipedia until it appears in a publication. Wikipedia will not allow a citation to an oral presentation made by an apologetic organization. Once an article or book comes out, then the cited information can be added to Wikipedia and defended against removal. So in the short term, Wikipedia will remain the same. In the long term, Will's data will be added to the appropriate article.

WW

[Alf O'Mega]

Its a nice petrie dish for a broader phenomenon.

Is that the dish that Laura Petrie made for Rob's television sponsor when his old army buddy showed up? (Hilarity ensued, natch.)

I just wanted in on this historical thread before Will hits the autograph circuit and forgets all his old pals around here. I am burning with curiosity, of course, but I'll probably have to wait in line with all the other critics to see the published product. (Nonchalantly whistling, hands in pockets, rocking on the balls and heels of my feet...)

[Chris Smith]

I'm delighted to hear it. In the same spirit, little of what I've seen of your interaction with Will on this topic here (and especially elsewhere) has led me to "expect" you're capable of being "open minded" where he (or the Church) is concerned--but we can but try, as you say.

Just for you, Greg, I will do my best to set aside my overwhelming bias and depravity, and give Will a fair hearing.

[Wiki Wonka]

I will play prophet and make a prediction. The replies will take one or more of the follow forms:

a) a studied silence

b) extensive reference to what a horrible guy Will Schyrver is, and the nasty things he has said or written

c) ignoring Will all together, and continuing to make the same old arguments (after all, when has a decisive rebuttal ever penetrated the inbred, one-inch deep pool that is written anti-Mormonism?

d) a marked failure to understand or follow the argument.

I would be delighted to be proven wrong. But will I? Stay tuned, gentle reader....

GLS

OK Greg, your item (b) is coming to pass as we speak on MDB. Every old thread related to Will and the BoA is being bumped for the purpose of demonstrating his alleged lack of knowledge regarding all things Abraham, for the purpose of poisoning the well regarding anything that he might present in the future.

I've seen the presentation. It is well crafted, easy to follow, and engaging. The title of the presentation is accurate: What it is going to accomplish is to make the KEP understandable by those who are not familiar with the subject.

Critics will claim that the KEP cannot be adequately understood without accounting for the known critical arguments presented by KEP experts.

A quote from Syndrome comes to mind...yes, I know he's the villain, but it's relevant...

"*Everyone* can be super! And when everyone's super--no one will be."

So here's to hoping that when everyone understands the KEP, that the subject may become significantly less interesting to argue about. :-)

WW

[SilverKnight]

Why is it that the bare mention of the name Will Schryver and the Book of Abraham enough to raise the hackles of usually even-tempered critics and provoke angry pre-emptive strikes from both sides?

I am mystified.

[ttribe]

Why is it that the bare mention of the name Will Schryver and the Book of Abraham enough to raise the hackles of usually even-tempered critics and provoke angry pre-emptive strikes from both sides?

I am mystified.

Two words: lightening rod.

[SlackTime]

I know I'm really bummed that I won't be at the conference this year. I am going to try to stream it... when I get paid, but I am so looking forward to Will's presentation! GO WILL!

- SlackTime

[Nomad]

Two words: lightening rod.

One word: lightning.

[ttribe]

One word: lightning.

Crap.

[why me]

Why is it that the bare mention of the name Will Schryver and the Book of Abraham enough to raise the hackles of usually even-tempered critics and provoke angry pre-emptive strikes from both sides?

I am mystified.

Will always takes a beating on the other board. And because of this, his reputation inspires mocking and respect. He is in the same boat as Daniel in this regard.

[why me]

This thread is basically a preview of the future. After Will's presentation, the discussion and debate will be heated. Lets hope that Will does a good job and presents his case very well.

[SlackTime]

This thread is basically a preview of the future. After Will's presentation, the discussion and debate will be heated. Lets hope that Will does a good job and presents his case very well.

While I, unlike Greg, have not seen Will's presentation, I have been priviledged to work with him, and I have great faith in his work. He will do a good job. It is in his nature. I really look forward to his presentation. If I was going to be anywhere near Utah, I would be there.

- SlackTime

[Chris Smith]

Why is it that the bare mention of the name Will Schryver and the Book of Abraham enough to raise the hackles of usually even-tempered critics and provoke angry pre-emptive strikes from both sides?

[why me]

Such is the view of many people on the other board. Will has struck a cord with critics and this means, like Daniel, he is effective. I know that the other board is waiting for the conference with baited breath. It will be interesting to see just how this all pans out. I hope the best for Will because we need a top job from him and a convincing agrument. However, if he fails, the apologists will suffer somewhat.

This tread has put some pressure on Will.

[why me]

While I, unlike Greg, have not seen Will's presentation, I have been priviledged to work with him, and I have great faith in his work. He will do a good job. It is in his nature. I really look forward to his presentation. If I was going to be anywhere near Utah, I would be there.

- SlackTime

It would be nice to be in utah during the fair conference and see some people who post here. It is much better to meet in person and see faces. It creates a more human atmosphere for the discussion forum. But we will all hear all about it soon enough. This board will light up with Will threads as the other board will and also other critic boards.

[wenglund]

There is the perception among some critics that Will talks up a hurricane and delivers but a butterfly cough, but from my experience, such perceptions typically take the form of projections. It will be interesting to see whether the same holds true this time or not.

At the very least, for those who have lost faith due to the BoA controversy, if they are so inclined, they may find in Will's presentation (and perhaps John Gee's as well) ample room to regain faith. To me, that is a win-win situation, and makes it all worthwhile regardless of how some may react.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David T]

Hey, I think there's no better use for the chat room than to have a simul-chat with those listening in on the streaming broadcast of the conference...

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

What do I think will happen? It will promptly be deleted. If there is a wiki editor willing to fight over it, literally spend hours, then days, it might make a scratch in the article. But no matter how solid (or even weak) it is, the guardians are not likely to allow inclusion unless at their own instigation.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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?

Also, Will isn't an employee of the church. According to him, most of what he has done comes from materials that have been accessible to you since before I was born.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.)

Exactly. A fellow with his post count has little excuse about not having enough time to at least get one article published in twenty years' time.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Even after Will presents at the FAIR conference, his data cannot be added to Wikipedia until it appears in a publication. Wikipedia will not allow a citation to an oral presentation made by an apologetic organization. Once an article or book comes out, then the cited information can be added to Wikipedia and defended against removal. So in the short term, Wikipedia will remain the same. In the long term, Will's data will be added to the appropriate article.

WW

And that after much fighting, I suspect.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Why is it that the bare mention of the name Will Schryver and the Book of Abraham enough to raise the hackles of usually even-tempered critics and provoke angry pre-emptive strikes from both sides?

I am mystified.

Part of the reason is because he has deliberately it some fires in online conversations. In my opinion, his tone and statements have been inappropriate at times. Unfortunately, these things can impact perceptions of his work, even though such things are irrelevant to his actual conclusions.