Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[Kevin Barney]

Like Greg, I've had the opportunity to view the presentation in advance. I frankly had no idea what to expect. But, also like Greg, I was deeply impressed. I thought Will did a tremendous job.

I've long been of the view that we need to bracket the polemics for now and concentrate on trying to understand the documents. Forget about the BoA; the question is what in the hell were those guys trying to do?

That's why I loved what my friend Sam Brown did. He made a good faith effort to take those documents seriously and figure them out from the perspective of their creators. And I think that's exactly the kind of thing Will's presentation accomplishes.

If anyone is truly interested in this, you need to physically be there. As I understand it, the streaming option is audio only. The visuals are absolutely essential to the impact of the argument. So anyone who is interested in this subject needs to follow Chris' and Don's example and physically be in the room so that you can see the visuals as well as hear the audio.

I'll be there, and hope many of you will as well.

[Pahoran]

Like Greg, I've had the opportunity to view the presentation in advance. I frankly had no idea what to expect. But, also like Greg, I was deeply impressed. I thought Will did a tremendous job.

I've long been of the view that we need to bracket the polemics for now and concentrate on trying to understand the documents. Forget about the BoA; the question is what in the hell were those guys trying to do?

That's why I loved what my friend Sam Brown did. He made a good faith effort to take those documents seriously and figure them out from the perspective of their creators. And I think that's exactly the kind of thing Will's presentation accomplishes.

If anyone is truly interested in this, you need to physically be there. As I understand it, the streaming option is audio only. The visuals are absolutely essential to the impact of the argument. So anyone who is interested in this subject needs to follow Chris' and Don's example and physically be in the room so that you can see the visuals as well as hear the audio.

I'll be there, and hope many of you will as well.

I won't be, for reasons of geography.

Given that the visuals are just as important as the words, are there any plans to fell a few trees so that those of us who live "just a convenient 20-hour flight away" might be able to see them too?

Given that the number of people who will be able to attend is actually rather vanishingly small, if Will's presentation is as seminal as Greg and Kevin believe, it would be a real shame if the critics were able to simply resume normal transmission immediately thereafter.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

Wish I could be there this year. I would also be interested to hear from Royal Skousen (and get my book signed!) There are a few gems on the schedule this year for sure. I hope FAIR will be able to make Will's presentation available on dvd or video online so folks who can't be there can check it out.

[Greg Smith]

I won't be, for reasons of geography.

Given that the visuals are just as important as the words, are there any plans to fell a few trees so that those of us who live "just a convenient 20-hour flight away" might be able to see them too?

The version I saw was an on-line video of the slides, with Will's narration over it. I would be astonished if this or something like it wasn't made public soon after the conference. (It's very professionally done, too--my PowerPoint slides always look like a drunk, astigmatic monkey made them).

Truth in advertising, I guess.

GLS

[Chris Smith]

Kevin, thanks for chiming in here. Your endorsement raises my expectations considerably. You are someone who knows what he is talking about and whose opinion I respect.

[wenglund]

Kevin, thanks for chiming in here. Your endorsement raises my expectations considerably. You are someone who knows what he is talking about and whose opinion I respect.

Darn. Kevin just had to go and be respectible and make the rest of us yokels look bad.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nathair/|\]

Wish I could be there this year. I would also be interested to hear from Royal Skousen (and get my book signed!) There are a few gems on the schedule this year for sure. I hope FAIR will be able to make Will's presentation available on dvd or video online so folks who can't be there can check it out.

I'd buy a dvd of the FAIR conference if it was available.

[juliann]

Wish I could be there this year. I would also be interested to hear from Royal Skousen (and get my book signed!) There are a few gems on the schedule this year for sure. I hope FAIR will be able to make Will's presentation available on dvd or video online so folks who can't be there can check it out.

Hey, you live there! You have no excuse to miss it.

[mysteryman]

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.

Well that is of course possible. Just as possible that the Church is hiding the order Brigham Young made to kill the Fancher's or Smith's repudiation of polygamy. Of course all the above is possible but not very probable. But the most interesting thing is how similar anti-Mormons and Mormon defenders really are. I heard both sides claim the other side knows the other is right, but conspires to hide it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hey, you live there! You have no excuse to miss it.

But two considerations stood in the way this time. For one, no money. We're down to a single and somewhat inadequate income, WifeOnaPlate is jobless (and living in Russia! I miss her!) This problem was rectified by a generous offer from our friend Lamanite, however. By then, though, the days had become blacked out for time-off requests at work, and that closed the door. And that is my sad tale.

[mysteryman]

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.

Like I said above, it is interesting how similar anti-Mormons and Mormon defenders really are. I heard 15 years ago the reason the publication of Dean C. Jesse's Papers of Joseph Smith volume 3 was with held was due to what it would have revealed. More recently the rumor was going around that the reason it was taking so long to publish the Mountain Meadows book (originally was supposed to be published in 2003) was because the authors just couldn't deal with what the facts actually said so they continued to kick it down the road. The conspiracy theories of both sides always amaze me. But what is even more incredible is that each side can't see they do and claim the same things about the other.

Another example of what I am talking about is the criticism of Chris Smith on this thread, that he already believes he will disagree with Schryver's paper. Yet, I guarantee if someone was presenting a paper that claimed they would be able to prove the BOM is 19th century publication, most Mormons on this discussion board would have preconceived notions they would not agree as well. The irony amazes me.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well that is of course possible. Just as possible that the Church is hiding the order Brigham Young made to kill the Fancher's or Smith's repudiation of polygamy. Of course all the above is possible but not very probable. But the most interesting thing is how similar anti-Mormons and Mormon defenders really are. I heard both sides claim the other side knows the other is right, but conspires to hide it.

This is one of the problems we see in these discussions, this bifurcating of the world. There are anti-Mormons and Mormon defenders. The more people I meet the less I believe in such a terribly binary world.

[Calm]

But two considerations stood in the way this time. For one, no money. We're down to a single and somewhat inadequate income, WifeOnaPlate is jobless (and living in Russia! I miss her!) This problem was rectified by a generous offer from our friend Lamanite, however. By then, though, the days had become blacked out for time-off requests at work, and that closed the door. And that is my sad tale.

You should at least try to come out for Friday evening and the Wednesday get together...I am now thinking of gritting my teeth and coming up for the Friday Afternoon session at least. Mornings are highly unlikely unless a miracle happens, but I might be able to do both afternoons if my husband is free to drive.

[Wiki Wonka]

But two considerations stood in the way this time. For one, no money. We're down to a single and somewhat inadequate income, WifeOnaPlate is jobless (and living in Russia! I miss her!) This problem was rectified by a generous offer from our friend Lamanite, however. By then, though, the days had become blacked out for time-off requests at work, and that closed the door. And that is my sad tale.

WifeOnaPlate?

[mysteryman]

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.

I have no idea how long he has been working on publishing his paper, I know of at least 10 years, but 20 is likely closer. I have heard through hearsay, and I must emphasize it is hearsay, that Metacalfe is a bit of a procrastinator and has a difficult time completing projects. For example, the hearsay is that American Apocrypha was taking him forever to complete editing, therefore Dan Vogel got involved and finished it which is the reason it was published as being co-edited by Vogel and Metcalfe. But to claim Metcalfe hasn't completed it because he knows the other side is right is wishful thinking at best, just like it was wishful thinking that the Massacre book was delayed due to the authors being unable to deal with the evidence REALLY said.

As for George A. Smith, I have no idea if he has ever consulted Metcalfe to see the pictures, Metcalfe showed many of them to little old me, so I imagine he might with Smith as well. But he might be holding them back so he can be the first to publish them I don't know. Maybe he should way in on this, if he hasn't already since I am on page 5 of a 9 page thread.

[why me]

I won't be, for reasons of geography.

Given that the visuals are just as important as the words, are there any plans to fell a few trees so that those of us who live "just a convenient 20-hour flight away" might be able to see them too?

Given that the number of people who will be able to attend is actually rather vanishingly small, if Will's presentation is as seminal as Greg and Kevin believe, it would be a real shame if the critics were able to simply resume normal transmission immediately thereafter.

Regards,

Pahoran

I think FAIRYoutube may be the answer. But this will not be live. But it could have the same effect later for critics and members.

[why me]

Hey, you live there! You have no excuse to miss it.

I think that if Life needs funds to go, FAIR can perhaps help him out. He has served the cause well and as done a good job for apologetics. Throwing him a couple of bucks will not hurt.

[Chris Smith]

This is one of the problems we see in these discussions, this bifurcating of the world. There are anti-Mormons and Mormon defenders. The more people I meet the less I believe in such a terribly binary world.

Hear, hear!

[mysteryman]

This is one of the problems we see in these discussions, this bifurcating of the world. There are anti-Mormons and Mormon defenders. The more people I meet the less I believe in such a terribly binary world.

Another problem with such discussions is when people just nit pick and miss the point of what another is saying. Would it make you feel better if I said SOME Mormon critics and SOME church defenders engage in SOME identical absurd tactics to discredit the other side?

[Greg Smith]

Another example of what I am talking about is the criticism of Chris Smith on this thread, that he already believes he will disagree with Schryver's paper. Yet, I guarantee if someone was presenting a paper that claimed they would be able to prove the BOM is 19th century publication, most Mormons on this discussion board would have preconceived notions they would not agree as well. The irony amazes me.

Will is not claiming that the Book of Abraham is inspired, or that he's proved that it's scripture, or anything else. He will, I emphasize, make a thoroughly historical case (as Kevin has pointed out, this has no polemic purpose at all--other than to demonstrate that the critics' version of events cannot be true, whatever the truth is). He will simply prove:

a) an authorship date for the English BoA text;

b) demonstrate that the KEP papers are not BoA translation documents.

That's it. No religious implications (save in the negative sense of disproving a common critical trope--but, as I've said, even Nibley got this one wrong).

Proving the BoM was a 19th century production has a polemic purpose with religious implications far beyond this example.

GLS

[mysteryman]

Will is not claiming that the Book of Abraham is inspired, or that he's proved that it's scripture, or anything else. He will, I emphasize, make a thoroughly historical case (as Kevin has pointed out, this has no polemic purpose at all--other than to demonstrate that the critics' version of events cannot be true, whatever the truth is). He will simply prove:

a) an authorship date for the English BoA text;

b) demonstrate that the KEP papers are not BoA translation documents.

That's it. No religious implications (save in the negative sense of disproving a common critical trope--but, as I've said, even Nibley got this one wrong).

Proving the BoM was a 19th century production has a polemic purpose with religious implications far beyond this example.

GLS

I didn't say Will is claiming the Book of Abraham is inspired, nor is that relevant at all to my point. It is simply silly to think that someone who has already reached a conclusion on a certain topic won't already be suspicious they will disagree with someone who is presenting the opposite conclusion. Religious implications don't matter, the point is that there are future arguments to be made out there that you know you will likely disagree with before actually hearing them. I could have used any number of examples. I assume if someone was making an argument that Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger was an affair and not a marriage you would be suspicious of the argument before ever hearing it. It seems common on any issue that has disagreement, each side claims it is the other side that has preconceived notions and won't approach their arguments with an open mind. Are you going to the ex-Mormon conference this year to hear their arguments with an open mind that they might be right on any given topic?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have no idea how long he has been working on publishing his paper, I know of at least 10 years, but 20 is likely closer. I have heard through hearsay, and I must emphasize it is hearsay, that Metacalfe is a bit of a procrastinator and has a difficult time completing projects. For example, the hearsay is that American Apocrypha was taking him forever to complete editing, therefore Dan Vogel got involved and finished it which is the reason it was published as being co-edited by Vogel and Metcalfe. But to claim Metcalfe hasn't completed it because he knows the other side is right is wishful thinking at best, just like it was wishful thinking that the Massacre book was delayed due to the authors being unable to deal with the evidence REALLY said.

As for George A. Smith, I have no idea if he has ever consulted Metcalfe to see the pictures, Metcalfe showed many of them to little old me, so I imagine he might with Smith as well. But he might be holding them back so he can be the first to publish them I don't know. Maybe he should way in on this, if he hasn't already since I am on page 5 of a 9 page thread.

I have a feeling he's already too late by the end of this year. (And I never said he hasn't published because he knows the other side is right. Did I miss that claim? More likely to me is that he isn't satisfied that he's solved the puzzle to the detriment of the Church enough yet. And besides, it's fun to say "I have something you don't have!"

[LifeOnaPlate]

Another problem with such discussions is when people just nit pick and miss the point of what another is saying. Would it make you feel better if I said SOME Mormon critics and SOME church defenders engage in SOME identical absurd tactics to discredit the other side?

I don't think it's a nitpick, though. I see enough of this your-team-my-team talk on the boards, it is easy to slip into this thinking. Sometimes I have to deliberately pull myself out of it. Reminders are a good thing, not a nit-pick, imo.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think that if Life needs funds to go, FAIR can perhaps help him out. He has served the cause well and as done a good job for apologetics. Throwing him a couple of bucks will not hurt.

If the FAIR folks let those who serve the cause, so to speak, pop in for free they would lose a sizable chunk of change. There are lots of people who volunteer, and we all pay to do it, however minimal the payment is. And Lamanite said he'd pay my way, a good and generous friend, and muscles to die for, but by then I wasn't able to get time off from work. There will be other conferences, of course.

[mysteryman]

I have a feeling he's already too late by the end of this year. (And I never said he hasn't published because he knows the other side is right. Did I miss that claim? More likely to me is that he isn't satisfied that he's solved the puzzle to the detriment of the Church enough yet. And besides, it's fun to say "I have something you don't have!"

You didn't make the claim, others did. As for why he hasn't published it yet, I assume it has to do with he hasn't completed it to his satisfaction. That it is because he hasn't solved the puzzle to the detriment of the church enough yet is of course as silly as he he knows the other side is right, but I know your just being sarcastic. But again, it is the type of smart remark I would expect from SOME Mormon critics as well. If you know Metcalfe at all, you know he could careless about the detriment of the church.