Schryver, Masonry, And Mha

[George Miller]

I take it then you can back up this "That is exactly what Joseph Smith thought." with regard to "the same six character found in the Phelps letter sent the end of May of 1835, were also contained in the Hor BoB that arrived in Kirtland a month or so later".

Something seems to be a miss here. Did JS write his ideas down some were regrading this? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

His ideas are contained in the EAJS and the other documents both written in Joseph Smith's hand and dictated by him. Most people think before they write or speak, so yes I can fairly easily determine Joseph Smith's thoughts.

Edited June 28, 2011 by George Miller

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

His ideas are contained in the EAJS and the other documents both written in Joseph Smith's hand and dictated by him. Most people think before they write or speak, so yes I can fairly easily determine Joseph Smith's thoughts.

Just to be clear, you can show that JS thought that 6 characters contained in Phelps letter were contained in the Hor BoB? That is specifically what I am after as this is what prompted you to say what you did after Wade said it.

Oh well carry on, this is pointless as you will not go into more detail, now, any way.

[George Miller]

Just to be clear, you can show that JS thought that 6 characters contained in Phelps letter were contained in the Hor BoB? That is specifically what I am after as this is what prompted you to say what you did after Wade said it.

Oh well carry on, this is pointless as you will not go into more detail, now, any way.

While risking redundancy - Yes! :rolleyes:

Edited June 28, 2011 by George Miller

[Minos]

We are getting multiple complaints about more than one poster in this thread. Do not make snide personal comments about what someone understands, how smart or not they are and other irrelevant snubs. It has nothing to do with the topic and those who are more interested in thumbing their nose at others instead of dialoguing will be banned from the thread.

[Xander]

Delusion -

a false belief or opiniona mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc:

Where is the "malice" in this?

Calling Will's opinion a delusion is actually quite charitable, given his history, and the dearth of evidence he has to support it. It was quite obviously designed to suit an apologetic purpose of distancing Joseph Smith from the work that critics have used to show he didn't know how to translate Egyptian. That is the only reason he is making this argument. He doesn't make because the evidence compels one to believe it. He begins with an apologetic theory and then interprets all the evidence to fit within that model. This has always been his standard protocol, and if I didn't have a documented history of demonstrating his numerous errors - most of which he absolutely refuses to defend- then I wouldn't be so quick to declare his argument a delusion.

I can only assume Pahoran found Will's remarks about me equally "malicious" when he said:

"I don t quite know what it is about self-delusion run amok that so compellingly attracts the gaze of even the most disinterested passersby, but watching Kevin Graham spiral down into the depths of his own disordered delusions of triumph now finds me perilously close to crossing the line from amusement to pity."

Or maybe Pahoran felt his own remarks were malicious when he accused Catholic Girl and Nepheye of being deluded (i.e "I'm not shy; I'll spell it right out. That notion is a delusion")? Double-standards are useful to some, but to others they are a specialty.

Delusion is a charged word. Watch your tone, don't try to justify bad behavior. - Ares

Edited June 29, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

That is exactly what Joseph Smith thought. But to understand why, you have to understand the information in the Masonic books from which Joseph Smith drew his conceptions of the Adamic, Hebrew and Egyptian language. With that information in hand one can fairly easily figure out exactly what Joseph Smith was doing with the EA, and why the same glyphs show up in both documents. Sorry that is ALL I am willing to say right now. Perhaps I will see you at next years MHA!!! BTW it is in Canada so you better pack your hockey stick.

This is confusing. How would my reading an as yet unnamed Masonic book, that I don't currently have access to, that was presumably not written by Joseph, nor written about Joseph, and written prior to 1835, supposedly evince that the six characters that showed up the Phelps letter in May of 1835 were derived by Joseph from the Hor BoB that didn't arrive in Kirtland until July of 1835?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

This is confusing. How would my reading an as yet unnamed Masonic book, that I don't currently have access to, that was presumably not written by Joseph, nor written about Joseph, and written prior to 1835, supposedly evince that the six characters that showed up the Phelps letter in May of 1835 were derived by Joseph from the Hor BoB that didn't arrive in Kirtland until July of 1835?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Keep fishing wade, but he's not going to yield. You're going to have to wait for his publication the same way Will Schryver made us wait months for his rather anticlimactic presentation last August, and more than a year (and counting) on his future publication which is supposed to entail all these wonderful pieces of "compelling" evidence that you keep saying exists in his treatment of the subject.

[wenglund]

Keep fishing wade, but he's not going to yield. You're going to have to wait for his publication the same way Will Schryver made us wait months for his rather anticlimactic presentation last August, and more than a year (and counting) on his future publication which is supposed to entail all these wonderful pieces of "compelling" evidence that you keep saying exists in his treatment of the subject.

You evidently failed to grasp the reductio-absurdem in my question. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[George Miller]

This is confusing. How would my reading an as yet unnamed Masonic book, that I don't currently have access to, that was presumably not written by Joseph, nor written about Joseph, and written prior to 1835, supposedly evince that the six characters that showed up the Phelps letter in May of 1835 were derived by Joseph from the Hor BoB that didn't arrive in Kirtland until July of 1835?

You evidently failed to grasp the reductio-absurdem in my question. Oh well...

Yes you have managed to misrepresent what I said in an absurd fashion. How absurd. I hope you are proud of yourself.

That is exactly what Joseph Smith thought. But to understand why, you have to understand the information in the Masonic books from which Joseph Smith drew his conceptions of the Adamic, Hebrew and Egyptian language. With that information in hand one can fairly easily figure out exactly what Joseph Smith was doing with the EA, and why the same glyphs show up in both documents. Sorry that is ALL I am willing to say right now.

Instead of fishing, your time might be better spent reading some Masonic history. I have given many of the keys you need to make some headway on your own. Frankly, I am being rather generous in pointing you in the right direction given that this is my intellectual property.

[wenglund]

Yes you have managed to misrepresent what I said in an absurd fashion. How absurd. I hope you are proud of yourself.

Could you please point out the alleged misrepresentation?

Instead of fishing...

I wasn't fishing. I was attempting to engage your earlier assertion--thinking this is what discussion boards are for. Given your complete lack of useful cooperation, I will stop pressing you on it.

...your time might be better spent reading some Masonic history. I have given many of the keys you need to make some headway on your own. Frankly, I am being rather generous in pointing you in the right direction given that this is my intellectual property.

That's okay. Your complete lack of useful cooperation has squelched my interest in me vetting on my own your earlier assertion. I am fine with waiting until your material is published online in such a way as to facilitate a meaningful online discussion. Until then..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 29, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

...Will Schryver made us wait months for his rather anticlimactic presentation...

I am not sure that months and months of feverish debate on multiple boards prompted by his presentation can accurately be described as "anticlimactic,," but at least once Will gave his presentation it was made openly available online in order to facilitate online discussion. So, if your having to wait a couple of months for Will's presentation caused you consternation, I can only imaging your ill sentiments towards George Miler for not only his making us wait several months for his presentation, but also his denying us open access to it thereafter. :/

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 29, 2011 by wenglund

[Xander]

I am not sure that months and months of feverish debate on multiple boards prompted by his presentation can accurately be described as "anticlimactic"

You must be confused over what the word debate means. A debate would actually require Will to step up to the plate and defend his arguments. He never did that. Instead, he responded to the call for evidence by informing his critics that the evidence which actually supports his spectacular claims would come at some future point in time via publication. The only people who tried to "debate" anything regarding Will's presentation was you, and most of that was an exercise in futility as it took months before you finally came around to understanding what it was Will was doing and saying.

at least once Will gave his presentation it was made openly available online in order to facilitate online discussion.

Sure, and why wouldn't he? Will is neither an academic nor a scholar. He doesn't produce scholarship.

if your having to wait a couple of months for Will's presentation caused you consternation

Most of us knew Will was bluffing from the start. Since 2006 he has been promising some upcoming apologetic masterpiece explaining why the critics are wrong on the KEP, using "text-critical" analysis from experts. We're still waiting.

I can only imaging your ill sentiments towards George Miler for not only his making us wait several months for his presentation, but also his denying us open access to it thereafter. :/

As is standard protocol for professionals.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

nm

Edited June 29, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mike Reed]

I can only imaging your ill sentiments towards George Miler for not only his making us wait several months for his presentation, but also his denying us open access to it thereafter. :/

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Please. The recording is MHA's to give, not George's. If you want to listen to it, tell MHA. If you want to complain, complain to MHA for taking so long to make it available.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Mike Reed

[wenglund]

Please. The recording is MHA's to give, not George's. If you want to listen to it, tell MHA. If you want to complain, complain to MHA for taking so long to make it available.

I didn't and don't wish to complain. I have no problem waiting for presentations and the publication thereof. Obviously, I was addressing Kevin's complaint against Will, and logically extended it to Gearge--giving Kevin the benefit of the doubt that he isn't selective in his outrage or prone to double standards. However, given Kevin's follow-up comments, my giving him that benefit was evidently mistaken. Imagine my shock.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You must be confused over what the word debate means. A debate would actually require Will to step up to the plate and defend his arguments.

Ironically, it is you who is obviously confused about the meaning of the word "debate". By definition, for there to have been a debate all that was needed was any two or more parties to "engage in argument by discussing opposing points." That is what happened. Will didn't need to be personally involved (though at times he was) for the fevered discussion of opposing views on multiple discussion boards regarding Will's presentation to rightly qualify as a debate. Listen and learn.

Now, I couldn't rightly refer to it as a "rational debate" because...well...you were involved.

He never did that. Instead, he responded to the call for evidence by informing his critics that the evidence which actually supports his spectacular claims would come at some future point in time via publication. The only people who tried to "debate" anything regarding Will's presentation was you, and most of that was an exercise in futility as it took months before you finally came around to understanding what it was Will was doing and saying.

Your personal opinion of the matter is, itself, debatable, though not worth my time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 29, 2011 by wenglund

[George Miller]

You misrepresented my argument by suggesting that the Masonic and quasi-Masonic sources I use would need to be to meet some of the following conditions:

(1) Written by Joseph.

(2) Written about Joseph.

(3) Writen specifically about the characters in the Joseph Smith's revision of the "Sample of Pure Language" revelation.

(4) Written after May of 1835.

Your then characterized your own argument as a reductio ad absurdum argument, which is of course an argument which follows the implications of a statement logically to an absurd conclusion. The problem is that your version of what the sources should look like in NO WAY follows logically from my statement. Your statement was simply illogical and absurd.

I personally don't find the making of pseudo reductio ad absrudum like arguments which don't follow in any way from a person's argument or discussion to be proper board conduct.

Edited June 29, 2011 by George Miller

[wenglund]

You misrepresented my argument by suggesting that the Masonic and quasi-Masonic sources I use would need to be to meet some of the following conditions:

(1) Written by Joseph.

(2) Written about Joseph.

(3) Written specifically about the characters in the Joseph Smith's revision of the "Sample of Pure Language" revelation.

(4) Written after May of 1835.

Your then characterized your own argument as a reductio ad absurdum argument, which is of course an argument which follows the implications of a statement logically to an absurd conclusion. The problem is that your version of what the sources should look like in NO WAY follows logically from my statement. Your statement was simply illogical and absurd.

Let's back up a bit. Earlier I asked you:

"Are you claiming that the same six character found in the Phelps letter sent the end of May of 1835, were also contained in the Hor BoB that arrived in Kirtland a month or so later?"

You responded: "That is exactly what Joseph Smith thought."

You went on to say, "But to understand why, you have to understand the information in the Masonic books from which Joseph Smith drew his conceptions of the Adamic, Hebrew and Egyptian language."

In other words, you are claiming that Joseph thought that the same six characters found in the Phelps letter of May, 1835, were also contained in the Hor BoB that arrived in Kirtland a month or so later, and the way you believe that I would supposedly know this is by me reading a certain unnamed Masonic book to which I don't currently have access.

Logically, in order for the unnamed Masonic book to show me what Joseph thought, particularly about the six characters I specifically asked about and their supposedly being found in both the Phelps letter and the Hor BoB, it would either need to have been written by Joseph and contained his thoughts on the matter, or be written about Joseph and what Joseph thought on the matter, and if the later, it would need to have been written after Joseph supposedly thought what you claim the Masonic book said he did. Hence, points 1-4 above, and contra your asserting that my "version of what the sources should look like in NO WAY follows logically from [yor] statement."

As such, it wasn't my statement, but yours, that was illogical and absurd. I didn't misrepresent what you said. You simply gave me an unwittingly absurd answer to my precise question, perhaps due to a failure on your part to correctly follow the line of discussion. Sorry.

Now, if you would like to restate more rationally your answer, and clarify what you meant to say, I would be pleased to hear it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Now, if you would like to restate more rationally your answer, and clarify what you meant to say, I would be pleased to hear it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I tried to get this from him. I failed and gave up. He made it pretty "clear" what teh answer was and that the risk of redundancy state "yes". I find this conversion to be one of the most obtuse I have ever had on this board.

[Xander]

Obviously, I was addressing Kevin's complaint against Will, and logically extended it to Gearge--giving Kevin the benefit of the doubt that he isn't selective in his outrage or prone to double standards.

You're one of the few people I know who can have his own logic thrown in his face like a mud pie, and then walk away wiping your eyes while telling everyone you were the one making the point about a double-standard. Case in point, and pay close attention: I brought up Will's failure to produce his evidence not because it upset me, but because his number one fan is here complaining about Clinton's refusal to do so. The only difference is that Clinton has professional obligations to keep certain things confidential, whereas William does not. This flies right over your head of course. As I said, I never expected Will to present his evidence because I don't believe he has any. I never once got upset because he wasn't sharing his "reasearch" with us.

Ironically, it is you who is obviously confused about the meaning of the word "debate". By definition, for there to have been a debate all that was needed was any two or more parties to "engage in argument by discussing opposing points."

But Will was never involved in it. As I said, the only person who ever made an attempt at debate was you, and this really wasn't much of a debate mainly because, well, you don't understand how debates are suppose to work. You think it means you get to ask 101 questions while everyone else must answer you. These exchanges (a better word) usually went on forever mainly because you never know when to quit. In the end, it can be safely said that you didn't raise one significant point, and revealed your unfamiliarity with the subject matter, the relevant documents, and yes, the reality of what Will was arguing. Remember, you're the same guy who told me the facsimiles had nothing to do with the KEP. You might as well tell me the moon is made of cheese, and then propose to speak informatively on astronomy.

Tis thread is just another classic example of Wade not getting it while pretending to have everyone feeding out of his palms because we're just not smart enough to avoid your clever traps. Isn't that about right? You'll drive this thread to 80 pages before you let anyone else have the last word, and in the end, you will have contributed not a single thing except to cheerlead for Will.

I tried to get this from him. I failed and gave up. He made it pretty "clear" what teh answer was and that the risk of redundancy state "yes". I find this conversion to be one of the most obtuse I have ever had on this board.

You tried to get me to debate rationally? That's a laugher. All you have done since I've walked in the door is try to poison the well, psychoanalyze everything I say, while refusing to answer simple questions. There is really no point in even trying to have a productive conversation with someone who automatically assumes you have a mischievous agenda behind every breath.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

I tried to get this from him. I failed and gave up. He made it pretty "clear" what teh answer was and that the risk of redundancy state "yes". I find this conversion to be one of the most obtuse I have ever had on this board.

I trust that if or when we gain access to George's presentation and future papers, that what he has briefly asserted here will make more sense. It is more than a bit difficult to carry on an informed and rational discussion when, for perhaps good reason, only one side of the discussion is aware of all or most of the pieces of their ideational puzzle. So, I will stop trying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You're one of the few people I know who can have his own logic thrown in his face like a mud pie, and then walk away wiping your eyes while telling everyone you were the one making the point about a double-standard.

You have a remarkably fertile, if not projective, imagination. It is what makes you so endearing a discussion partner, though the entertainment value wears quite thin at times.

Case in point, and pay close attention: I brought up Will's failure to produce his evidence not because it upset me, but because his number one fan is here complaining about Clinton's refusal to do so. The only difference is that Clinton has professional obligations to keep certain things confidential, whereas William does not. This flies right over your head of course. As I said, I never expected Will to present his evidence because I don't believe he has any. I never once got upset because he wasn't sharing his "research" with us.

But Will was never involved in it. As I said, the only person who ever made an attempt at debate was you, and this really wasn't much of a debate mainly because, well, you don't understand how debates are suppose to work. You think it means you get to ask 101 questions while everyone else must answer you. These exchanges (a better word) usually went on forever mainly because you never know when to quit. In the end, it can be safely said that you didn't raise one significant point, and revealed your unfamiliarity with the subject matter, the relevant documents, and yes, the reality of what Will was arguing. Remember, you're the same guy who told me the facsimiles had nothing to do with the KEP. You might as well tell me the moon is made of cheese, and then propose to speak informatively on astronomy.

This thread is just another classic example of Wade not getting it while pretending to have everyone feeding out of his palms because we're just not smart enough to avoid your clever traps. Isn't that about right? You'll drive this thread to 80 pages before you let anyone else have the last word, and in the end, you will have contributed not a single thing except to cheerlead for Will.

You tried to get me to debate rationally? That's a laugher. All you have done since I've walked in the door is try to poison the well, psychoanalyze everything I say, while refusing to answer simple questions. There is really no point in even trying to have a productive conversation with someone who automatically assumes you have a mischievous agenda behind every breath.

I am glad you had a chance to get that off your con-caved chest. Such ironic fantasizing can, at times, be good for your soul. But, at some point it may be wise to get your feet back on the ground and return your mind to reality even if that means the man in the mirror is far from measuring up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

No fantasizing required, and you know it. I'll be happy to link our audience to any debate you and I have ever had. Are you equally willing?

Didn't think so.

And no, your miserable attempts at being witty do not represent an adequate substitute for your inability to debate coherently.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

No fantasizing required, and you know it. I'll be happy to link our audience to any debate you and I have ever had. Are you equally willing?

Didn't think so.

You may want to take you mind-reading helmet in for a checkup. Its malfunctioning as usual. Just thought you might want to know.

And no, your miserable attempts at being witty do not represent an adequate substitute for your inability to debate coherently.

Feel better now? I hope so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike Reed]

Xander: No fantasizing required, and you know it. I'll be happy to link our audience to any debate you and I have ever had. Are you equally willing?

Didn't think so.

wenglund: You may want to take you mind-reading helmet in for a checkup. Its malfunctioning as usual. Just thought you might want to know.

So does this mean that you *are* willing, or are you just posturing "as usual"?

Shall the games begin?

Edited June 30, 2011 by Mike Reed