Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[LifeOnaPlate]

Brushing Dan aside for Will was a little cheesy, but it made me laugh anyway.

Okay, here's the game changer: it's pronounced SKRY-ver? Who else thought it was SHRY-ver?

I had no idea either.

[wenglund]

I missed in the presentation where it dealt with MSS 6 and 7, which are obvious translations? Nor did I see anything tangible that defines the translation manuscripts... other than "the GAEL is a cipher, so the manuscripts must be also."

I am sure it was a challenge to pack as much useful information into the 40 minute presentation as it was. From what I understood, Will's presentation was not intended to be an exhaustive analysis of the KEP, but a way of setting forth the framework for a coherent theory that will be fleshed out in follow-up papers and discussions and blog-postings. Stay tuned.

I believe the symbols in the GAEL are subparts that when connected make whole symbols, thus why we come up short finding Egyptian characters. I explain my reasoning here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/50675-more-thoughts-on-the-kep-the-gael/page__view__findpost__p__1208892275

Please see my response to you on that thread. Suffice it to say that for at least six of the GAEL/alphabet characters, there is good reason to believe that they are not Egyptian, nor pieces of Egyptian characters, since they were contained in a Phelp's letter months before the Egyptian papyri arrived in Kirtland.

Other than the characters dissignated as dissected parts, I wish you good luck in connecting the subparts in making whole Egyptian characters. Let us know when that task is completed. Please don't forget the characters on the Counting document while your at it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[juliann]

I never thought I'd see the day when the Mormons were advancing Masonic and 19th century connections with the contramopologists fighting it.

This reminds me of the DNA controversy after the slamdunk articles by the LDS scientists were published. The only response was a little side skirmishing that never directly addressed the content of the articles.

Congratulations Will!

[selek]

I never thought I'd see the day when the Mormons were advancing Masonic and 19th century connections with the contramopologists fighting it.

This reminds me of the DNA controversy after the slamdunk articles by the LDS scientists were published. The only response was a little side skirmishing that never directly addressed the content of the articles.

Congratulations Will!

Agreed.

Given that they are so vehemently ignoring what they normally try to tout as 'damning' evidence of conspiracy tells me that this IS the game-changer it was advertised to be.

The counter-mo's are scrambling in an increasingly obsolete play-book and coming up desperately short.

[wenglund]

Complaints are surfacing in certain environs regarding some of the things that Will didn't address in the 40 or so minutes he had available to him. Why he didn't mention anything about polygamy or Joseph's gun at Carthage or a number of other controversial topics, is anyone's guess--though likely having something to do with white-washing and sanitizing if not also conspiring to hide things from the critics. LOL

Reasonable people, however, will understand that given the breadth and depth for even the seemingly narrow scope of the topic Will addressed, 40 minutes is far from sufficient. Several hours wouldn't even suffice.

But, I suspect much of what still needs to be covered will be covered through articles and books and blogs in the coming months.

I suspect, too, that if you found some of the several points of his presentation to be rather stunning, there is more where that comes from. I am particularly anxious to learn what Will has to say about the "sounds" that are included along with the characters and texts in the alphabets. From what I can gather, while the existence of non-Egyptian characters gives clear indication that the alphabets and the GAEL were not intended as a key to translate the Egyptian papyri into the BoA, the "sounds", which may also not be Egyptian, go even further in nailing down that point, while also further supporting Will's coherent theory. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No, it's not.

And, as a matter of fact, a substantial portion of this discussion is starting to take on aspects of the old "Chinese Whispers" party game. ( <sigh> )

-WS

I guess that is my fault. Sorry, I was trying to remember what you had said and got part of it mixed up.

[e=mc2]

I never thought I'd see the day when the Mormons were advancing Masonic and 19th century connections with the contramopologists fighting it.

This reminds me of the DNA controversy after the slamdunk articles by the LDS scientists were published. The only response was a little side skirmishing that never directly addressed the content of the articles.

Congratulations Will!

HOWLING LAUGHTER!!!!!!! I guess that is rather odd on the likes of it isn't it.....wowie.

[Chris Smith]

I never thought I'd see the day when the Mormons were advancing Masonic and 19th century connections with the contramopologists fighting it.

This reminds me of the DNA controversy after the slamdunk articles by the LDS scientists were published. The only response was a little side skirmishing that never directly addressed the content of the articles.

Congratulations Will!

I have never accepted the hypotheses that the Anthon Transcript characters were derived from Masonic or Irish ogham ciphers, so don't be too surprised when I reject the same proposed derivation for the non-Egyptian KEP characters. This is not a reversal on my part.

[Facsimile 3]

After finally getting a chance to rest and have quality high speed internet, I finally saw your video presentation on the KEP.

SLAM DUNK!

You rock!

I'm sad I could not be there to see this presentation live.

[Benjamin McGuire]

So, Chris, I am curious to know your opinion on an issue -

From the EA, pages listed:

P. 2 [Fifth Degree]

Ah brah-oam

[Chris Smith]

Ben,

I'm not at all sure why you think the EAG must be borrowing from the BoA rather than the other way around. Indeed, the entries for each ascending "degree" seem to build on each other rather than borrowing from a pre-existing narrative text. Note for example how the entry goes from "great righteousness" in the second degree to "greater righteousness" in the third degree. The third degree entry in fact appears to be referring to the second, since otherwise we would be left asking, "greater than what?" This pattern of the meaning of a given symbol becoming intensified or ampilified as we ascend through the various degrees is mirrored in a number of other Grammar entries.

Now compare this to the text of the Abr. 1:2. The amplification of "great" to "greater" makes sense in the context of the Grammar, but what purpose does it serve in the BoA narrative? None that I can see. Does the text of Abraham 1:2 sound smooth and polished to you? Or would you agree that it is a rather rambling string of somewhat redundant phrases? In my opinion, the style of this verse indicates that it is the product of composition by assembling Grammar entries. As Don Bradley and I argue in our paper on the BoA translation timeline,

Grammar and A[l]phabet, p. 3:

. . . a father of many nations; a prince of peace; one who keeps the commandment^ of God; a patriarch; a rightful heir; a highpriest.

Abraham Manuscript # 1, p. 1:

. . . a father of many nations; a prince of peace; one who keeps the commandments of God; a righful heir; a high priest . . .

As Brent Metcalfe has noted, these two loci comprise

[Chris Smith]

I think in either case, whether written down or not, it seems to me that the content of BoA 1:2 was already determined before the EA was produced - wouldn't you agree?

I should add, Ben, that I do think a sort of proto-Abraham narrative existed in Joseph's mind prior to the creation of the Grammar. I wouldn't say the final text of Abraham 1:2 was already determined, but certainly Joseph had some idea of the direction the narrative would take, and the theological issues it would explore.

Peace,

-Chris

[Dan Vogel]

I thought Will

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Will,

Just wanted to pop in and let you know I finished watching both parts of the presentation. Very intriguing.

To Dan Vogel, Chris, etc.: Will's hypothesis may in time play out to be completely (rare in any hypothesis), partially (typical), or not at all valid. Your remarks are valid to some point. I would caution however against throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The previous theory has had 40 years to gain strength via nuances and variations as well as research. This new theory is all of about five days old since its presentation. I think one of the most important aspects of this work is that it does expand the mind to other possibilities when all other research focused on just one in the past.

I think the cipher idea is very interesting. I am not sure all the details are there yet Will, but I know you said there was much more you could not cover. Either way, I think at its most basic level, it opens up an interesting new path. I hope to see you and others continue down it for some time, whether it is to the proving or disproving. Both ends expand our knowledge.

[USU78]

I think the cipher idea is very interesting. I am not sure all the details are there yet Will, but I know you said there was much more you could not cover. Either way, I think at its most basic level, it opens up an interesting new path. I hope to see you and others continue down it for some time, whether it is to the proving or disproving. Both ends expand our knowledge.

Will will be making further commentary in blog and/or article form on his research and conclusions in the future. We should keep watching, as his presentation was only a portion of what he has in store for us. A 45 minute presentation must necessarily be conclusory with only tantalizing hints on the substance. Those who missed the presentation missed a fair bit, as Will went "off script" a little and the final version of his presentation differed a lot from the preview that he'd shared with several people. From what I understand, he has an article coming out soon on the issue of the probable size of the original JS Papyri. This should be an interesting companion to the one that came out a few days ago.

Life is good in BoA land!

[wenglund]

Brother Vogel may be correct that "the critics believe JS was making things up".

However, he may not correctly grasp that this belief is not directly relevant to the issue at hand.

This belief of the critics addresses the question of HOW the KEP were essentially produced; whereas, Will and others are addressing the question of WHY or for WHAT purpose the KEP were produced (the meaning of the KEP).

Does this HOW belief of the critics necessarily negate a rational WHY explanation such as Will's cipher theory? I don't see that it does. I am not even sure that in terms of the KEP, Vogel's HOW is that much different from Will's HOW.

In fact, I would think that for those with Vogel's HOW belief, that to the extent that they might care one way or another about the WHY, it would lend itself more to Will's WHY explanation than the alternatives. After all, in terms of PRIVATE papers, it would make more sense to "make things up" for the purpose of keeping things PRIVATE, than it would be to "make things up" to supposedly act as a translation key for making things PUBLIC.

But, either way, Vogel's HOW doesn't so much matter to Will's WHY.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Vogel:

Will

[Benjamin McGuire]

So, next question, Chris - when the EA deals with Genesis 3 - the story of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, where does the idea come from that the fruit smelled "precious" or "delightful"?

[Ceeboo]

Good day Mr. Shryver,

WHAT ABOUT THE PONYTAIL?

How long is it?

How long have you worn it?

Do you ever go places without ponytail? (If so, what style choices?)

What does Mrs. Shryver think about it?

Thanks in advance for the answers.

BTW, the photo of you and Chris Smith was precious! (I have a copy hanging on my bedroom ceiling)

Peace,

Ceeboo

[William Schryver]

Good day Mr. Shryver,

WHAT ABOUT THE PONYTAIL?

How long is it?

How long have you worn it?

Do you ever go places without ponytail? (If so, what style choices?)

What does Mrs. Shryver think about it?

Thanks in advance for the answers.

BTW, the photo of you and Chris Smith was precious! (I have a copy hanging on my bedroom ceiling)

Peace,

Ceeboo

As regards my lengthy locks, I say only this:

Almost Cut My Hair

Almost cut my hair

It happened just the other day

It was getting kind of long

I could've said it was in my way

But I didn't, and I wonder why

I feel like letting my freak flag fly

I feel ... like I owe it to someone.

[USU78]

As regards my lengthy locks, I say only this: [snipsies]

Hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair

Flow it, show it

Long as God can grow it

My hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair

Flow it, show it

Long as God can grow it

My hair

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm glad Will represented the Mormon facial hair demographic among the FAIR conference speakers this year. Too many clean shaven folk up there. (Also, as usual, the conference needed more women presenters, although the FAIR board is aware of that and has been making efforts to get more women scholars involved.)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm glad Will represented the Mormon facial hair demographic among the FAIR conference speakers this year. Too many clean shaven folk up there. (Also, as usual, the conference needed more women presenters, although the FAIR board is aware of that and has been making efforts to get more women scholars involved.)

You know something about Will, is that I actually pictured him to look something like he does. He is a rock star after all. Now why don't I have long hair?

Simple I just don't like how it feels on my back.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You know something about Will, is that I actually pictured him to look something like he does. He is a rock star after all. Now why don't I have long hair?

Simple I just don't like how it feels on my back.

I'd have longish hair if I wasn't balding.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'd have longish hair if I wasn't balding.

Well, that is a bummer.