Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[Chris Smith]

FWIW, here is a brief summary of my personal beliefs that I just shared in a PM to someone who inquired:

I was raised an evangelical-- Pentecostal, to be exact-- and seriously considered becoming a Mormon at one time in my life. (I attended early morning seminary for about six bleary-eyed months in high school and have the certificate to prove it!) These days I hover somewhere between liberal Christianity and secular humanism. I consider myself a spiritual person, see value in religion, and attend a Christian church on Sundays. However, I do not believe in a personal God or an afterlife. My idea of eternal life is that we never truly cease to exist due to the nature of space-time. My idea of God is that he is a symbol for the connectedness of all beings-- the common origin and substance of which we are all comprised, and the common interest we have in our collective happiness and well-being. And my idea of spirituality is to achieve a sort of mystical or transcendent awareness of this fundamental connectedness. I believe that all the religions can and do contribute to such an awareness, though at times they inhibit it as well. Ideally, we should hold onto those aspects of the religions that are good, and let go of those that are not.

Peace,

-Chris

[USU78]

The KEP will no longer be a "cause celebre" for the critics/skeptics and they will have to find soemthing else to chew on concerning the Book of Abraham.

I don't believe that was what the OP intended to convey. As I understood it, the OP is claiming that those who use the KEP as a tool to challenge JSJr as prophet should be wary of doing so in future as they have in the past, since their approach is insupportable by the evidence.

Whether they can find another use for the KEP in their never-ending quest to challenge JSJr's prophethood is quite another matter, and isn't dealt with by the OP or, presumably, Will's presentation.

[USU78]

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.

You have no grasp of the absurdity of the whole mess. He has a cheerleading section, part of whose cant is to holler about the Church's deep, dark vaults containing their deep, dark secrets including the originals of the KEP. He has, in addition, mentioned in far from casual fashion on this and its predecessor board on many, many occasions that he'll be publishing his own findings soon. He has had what he claims to be state-of-the-art color photos of the KEP since the mid to late '80s. He doesn't share them.

The absurdity of making the Church's granting access to serious scholars from time to time of valuable historical documents a far worse thing than Metcalfe's refusal to release his findings or share his photos is patent.

I don't think you appreciate the low comedy.

You need more Curly in your life.

[Chris Smith]

He has a cheerleading section, part of whose cant is to holler about the Church's deep, dark vaults containing their deep, dark secrets including the originals of the KEP. He has, in addition, mentioned in far from casual fashion on this and its predecessor board on many, many occasions that he'll be publishing his own findings soon. He has had what he claims to be state-of-the-art color photos of the KEP since the mid to late '80s. He doesn't share them.

I assume you're talking about Brent, not me. (Just clarifying, since the post you quoted was referring to me.)

[USU78]

I assume you're talking about Brent, not me. (Just clarifying, since the post you quoted was referring to me.)

You assume correctly, sir! (Since the post the poster was referring to referred to Brent)

You and I may disagree on a wide variety of things, but I've seen nothing that looks like game-playing in anything you've written and I've read.

Which, BTW, makes you pretty OK.

I do wish you'd have more fun with this stuff, though. Maybe it's there, but I'm too obtuse to see it.

[Chris Smith]

Thanks, man. I do have fun, but unfortunately I'm not very funny, despite the occasional half-witted attempt.

[Kenngo1969]

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.)

Oh, come on! We all know you're going there just to keep things well under wraps!

[Pahoran]

Oh, come on! We all know you're going there just to keep things well under wraps!

No, no. It's because the Nelson faction has prevailed over the Bednar faction (probably by using half-nelsons on them all) and so the DN has the green light again.

The great thing about Malevolent Stalkerism is that, not only is there no fact or set of facts that could possibly count against any part of it, but every possible outcome serves to confirm it. Including mutually exclusive ones.

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

No, no. It's because the Nelson faction has prevailed over the Bednar faction (probably by using half-nelsons on them all) and so the DN has the green light again.

The great thing about Malevolent Stalkerism is that, not only is there no fact or set of facts that could possibly count against any part of it, but every possible outcome serves to confirm it. Including mutually exclusive ones.

Regards,

Pahoran

I've got the playbook here, and it definitely calls for full nelsons, illegal in most countries, being used on the Bednaristas.

The horror!

[Wiki Wonka]

The presentation will be such that cognitive laymen will be able to grasp the implications.

This is the key item to keep in mind. You didn't understand the KEP before, but you will after the presentation.

WW

[Tango]

FWIW, here is a brief summary of my personal beliefs that I just shared in a PM to someone who inquired:

I was raised an evangelical-- Pentecostal, to be exact-- and seriously considered becoming a Mormon at one time in my life. (I attended early morning seminary for about six bleary-eyed months in high school and have the certificate to prove it!) These days I hover somewhere between liberal Christianity and secular humanism. I consider myself a spiritual person, see value in religion, and attend a Christian church on Sundays. However, I do not believe in a personal God or an afterlife. My idea of eternal life is that we never truly cease to exist due to the nature of space-time. My idea of God is that he is a symbol for the connectedness of all beings-- the common origin and substance of which we are all comprised, and the common interest we have in our collective happiness and well-being. And my idea of spirituality is to achieve a sort of mystical or transcendent awareness of this fundamental connectedness. I believe that all the religions can and do contribute to such an awareness, though at times they inhibit it as well. Ideally, we should hold onto those aspects of the religions that are good, and let go of those that are not.

Peace,

-Chris

Chris, I saw my mother after she passed away the night she died for about 15 seconds. What does this tell me? That my mom is alive in some way, she knows who I am, and that she showed me herself. I do think there was some kind of vibration wave between myself and my mom..it is hard to explain. My question is does this experience fit into your idea of an after life?

[Ron Beron]

Studying the Book of Abraham and the KEP has never held much interest for me, but I am becoming excited about the prospect of hearing Will's presentation at the conference. From what I have read of his work in the past it promises to enlighten.

[mysteryman]

You have no grasp of the absurdity of the whole mess. He has a cheerleading section, part of whose cant is to holler about the Church's deep, dark vaults containing their deep, dark secrets including the originals of the KEP. He has, in addition, mentioned in far from casual fashion on this and its predecessor board on many, many occasions that he'll be publishing his own findings soon. He has had what he claims to be state-of-the-art color photos of the KEP since the mid to late '80s. He doesn't share them.

The absurdity of making the Church's granting access to serious scholars from time to time of valuable historical documents a far worse thing than Metcalfe's refusal to release his findings or share his photos is patent.

I don't think you appreciate the low comedy.

You need more Curly in your life.

There is nothing to grasp. I am very well aware of peoples claims that the church hides things. As for Metcalfe, he didn't hide his photos from me. He showed me his pictures, they are very good photos. He of course didn't send me copies, so on that you are corrrect. As far as I know he is still planning on one day publishing them with his findings. But I am not sure what you want him to do, send them out to everybody or what? It is normal to hold on to what you consider a gem until you publish them. Looks like Hauglid may beat him to the punch. Much like the Mountain Meadow Massacre book, the authors and the church were committed to give access to all the documents they were using that had previously been withheld, but not until the book was published. Do I agree with the church on this? No, I think access should have been given to previous scholars. Should Metacalfe set up a web site with his pictures? Perhaps. But this was not the point of my post. I was referring to how similar and identical critics and defenders can be in some of their absurd accusations. Previous to the Mountain Meadow book, I heard multiple times that the reason they continued to push the publication further into the future was that the evidence didn't say what they wanted it to say. I heard similar accussations back in the 1980s and 1990s of why Dean C. Jesse's volume 3 of the Papers of Joseph Smith was never published. Now, in your previous post, you echoed an identical accusation against Metcalfe. That he is taking so long to publish his book because the evidence doesn't say what he wants it to, so he keeps pushing it back. Of course that accusation is absurd as was your counterparts accusations about the MMM book. I am simply entertained by the identical accusations that both critics and defenders of Mormonism use many times.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Tango,

There are definitely pluralists who believe in an afterlife, and who would agree that your experience reflects some sort of objective reality. Personally, I hope that there is some kind of life after death, but I have not been able to fully convince myself of it. That could just be an excess of skepticism on my part. My conclusion is based on what I know of neuroscience, and on a gut feeling that if it seems too good to be true then it probably is. But I haven't done an in-depth study of NDEs, which I know many people find to be very persuasive evidence for an afterlife.

There is one kind of "eternal life" that I do believe in-- one that I think has considerable scientific plausibility. Relativity suggests that all moments in time are equally real and equally "present", and never "cease" to be so. The appearance that time is continually "flowing" away from the past and toward the future is an illusion. If we can see past the illusion, then we will see that death is not actually a cessation of one's existence, but simply a sort of bookend that brackets it. One still exists, and is still living one's life-- but only within the bookends. This isn't quite an afterlife, I suppose, but I still find it comforting. It means that the people we have lost are not really lost. Somewhere, sometime, we are having a great time together.

This doesn't stop us from missing them in the subjective present, of course. But we always carry their memory with us.

Peace and condolences,

-Chris

[Greg Smith]

That is all you know? Whoa.

Dude, you just blew my mind.

Now I don't even know that. Whoa.

[Greg Smith]

I don't believe that was what the OP intended to convey. As I understood it, the OP is claiming that those who use the KEP as a tool to challenge JSJr as prophet should be wary of doing so in future as they have in the past, since their approach is insupportable by the evidence.

Whether they can find another use for the KEP in their never-ending quest to challenge JSJr's prophethood is quite another matter, and isn't dealt with by the OP or, presumably, Will's presentation.

Precisely.

[Pahoran]

For whatever it may be worth:

The storm of ad hominem over at the sty is an exercise in irrelevance. If Will were as smugly self-important as Shades, as continuously drunk as Osborne, as determinedly dilettantish as Beastie or as maliciously obsessed as the Malevolent Stalker, his arguments would still have to stand or fall on their merits.

And it happens that I have had a rather nice preview of his arguments. And they do have merits.

When I first saw Greg et al talking about them, I was disposed to be cautious. I wondered whether they had over-hyped the importance of his presentation.

Having gone through it, I no longer think they have.

If Will is right, he hasn't just changed the game; he's left the Church's critics completely on the wrong field, trying to play with the wrong equipment. My preliminary impression is that this is a watershed moment in Book of Abraham apologetics. We will be able to tell our grandchildren that we remember when the critics thought that the Book of Abraham was a soft target for their anti-Mormon arguments; and that we were there when all that changed.

Oh, and I hope no-one is offended; but if an argument that seeks to prove that a sacred, revealed Scripture was produced by naturalistic, pseudoscholarly means is not anti-Mormon, then I doubt that anything could be.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Greg Smith]

Oh, and I hope no-one is offended; but if an argument that seeks to prove that a sacred, revealed Scripture was produced by naturalistic, pseudoscholarly means is not anti-Mormon, then I doubt that anything could be.

But, but, but...I thought it was just about the disinterested neutral pursuit of historical truth, with no religious implications?

*illusions shatter*

Greg, picking up the shards.

[Greg Smith]

For whatever it may be worth:

The storm of ad hominem over at the sty is an exercise in irrelevance. If Will were as smugly self-important as Shades, as continuously drunk as Osborne, as determinedly dilettantish as Beastie or as maliciously obsessed as the Malevolent Stalker, his arguments would still have to stand or fall on their merits.

Isn't there anyone over there with a real name? It's like a bad knock-off of the X-men.

(The Ex-ed Men?)

Still, "The Malevolent Stalker" would make an awesome Spiderman villain.

GLS

[Wiki Wonka]

But, but, but...I thought it was just about the disinterested neutral pursuit of historical truth, with no religious implications?

*illusions shatter*

Greg, picking up the shards.

Greg, I've just determined that after Will's presentation, we can actually remove the word "gobbledygook" from the Wiki.

I just thought that you needed to know that.

WW

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm the only true and living Wiki Wonka.

[Wiki Wonka]

Isn't there anyone over there with a real name? It's like a bad knock-off of the X-men.

(The Ex-ed Men?)

Still, "The Malevolent Stalker" would make an awesome Spiderman villain.

GLS

If you were to post over there, you would be required to go by something like "Doctor Smith."

I know...it somehow sounds anticlimactic.

Unless you happen to be a fan of "Lost in Space"...then it's cool.

Your second option is to become an apprentice to a Sith Lord.

I'm afraid, however, that there can only be one "Wonka."

WW

[Ron Beron]

I guess we are being heard....This is from Deseret News

</h2>

<h2>A Book of Abraham mystery to be solved at FAIR Conference

By Michael De Groote

Deseret News

Published: Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:00 p.m. MDT William Schryver is onto something big, and it's driving critics of the Book of Abraham crazy.

Schryver is scheduled to speak at the FAIR Conference, an annual event presented by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research or FAIR. The conference focuses on defending The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints against misrepresentation.

This year's conference is Aug. 5 and 6 at the South Towne Exposition Center in Sandy. Schryver's presentation on "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers" is one of several topics by other speakers such as David Bokovoy, Jeff Bradshaw, William Duncan, Craig Foster, John Gee, Brian Hales, Valerie Hudson, Gary Lawrence, Steve Mayfield, Dan Peterson, Shirley Ricks, Stephen Ricks, Matthew Roper, Royal Skousen and Peter Watkins.

Schryver's topic has garnered the most buzz on the Internet

[Mortal Man]

I guess we are being heard....This is from Deseret News

Can you provide a link to this article?

Oh, and Will, I like your "purporting" quote.

[Lars Umlaut]

Here's the link:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700051663,00.html?pg=1