Kerry Muhelstien On The Book Of Abraham

[wenglund]

I invite interested readers to click on the link Nomad supplied and read the text of Will's presentation for themselves. It won't take you long to find the explicit declaration of his thesis (which idoesn't include the cipher theory) and clear presentation of related arguments as I mentioned, or his emphatic note (that the cipher theory is secondary) that Pahoran mentioned. The reader may then decide for him or herself who has been "insulting" and "embarrassing".

Certainly, there is little to be gained by arguing further with Xander on this point.

Besides, Schryver points out several examples where critics have argued for the KEP as the "modus operandi" for translating the BoA, either in part or whole. He could have referenced others, like Sock Puppet and Chris Smith and Brent Metcalfe, and several Pahoran mentioned. Yet, Xander ironically suggests that it is Will who is the one who is uninformed about the critics arguments--and this even though Zander has been informed about the arguments of these other critics on multiple occasions by me and others. Evidently, Xander is not only intent on putting words into his opponents mouths, but he also seems intent on taking words out of the mouths of his fellow critics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 2, 2011 by wenglund

[Calm]

I have been in many of a meeting, class and lecture where something that is less important or central, but more complex takes more time to discuss than something more important, but simpler. Relying on time devoted to a subject is a poor measure in my opinion of ultimate importance.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have been in many of a meeting, class and lecture where something that is less important or central, but more complex takes more time to discuss than something more important, but simpler. Relying on time devoted to a subject is a poor measure in my opinion of ultimate importance.

Amen.

[wenglund]

Is anyone else interested in exploring the texts of the KEP to determine if there may be indications of a pre-existing BoA translation?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is anyone else interested in exploring the texts of the KEP to determine if there may be indications of a pre-existing BoA translation?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am. I think it is an interesting venture. I admit that I do not know a whole lot about these as others do though.

[Xander]

No, but what your bean-counting exercise tries to obfuscate is that Schryver says at least once, and very emphatically, that the cipher theory is secondary to the fact that the Book of Abraham text pre-exists the KEP's.

Yes of course, because to your mind, anyone who doesn't mention something, is trying to "obfuscate" or "conceal" it, remember? Unless of course that person is LDS. Yes, I am aware of what Will has argued. I watched his silly presentation more times than I'd like to admit.

Thus, to say that he is "backing away from his own argument" when he is actually reiterating what he said all along, is to assert something that is simply not true.

My claim that he has backed away from his argument is based on anecdote. On the other forum William advertised his presentation. He seemed very willing to engage with critics and their feedback, but that was before we gave it to him. After we punched holes in his thesis, he realized he had much more explaining to do and so he started to talk about how this presentation doesn't really mention all the hard hitting evidence that he has stored up his sleeve; that we would have to wait for yet another upcoming presentation before can see it. He then refused to defend anything he said in his presentation, and hung around the forum just to make wise cracks. Heck, even at the FAIR conference he stayed away from the camera and relied on folks like Wade to defend his arguments. Watching how so many apologists misunderstood his argument as he sat by and said nothing, was a marvel in itself. From every perspective, the hoopla was about the cipher. The other argument about a preexistent text was briefly discussed because the evidence was based on a self-serving methodology he created from his imagination. Substantial word analysis? Seriously? And who gets to decide which words are "substantial"? Will does, of course. He rigged his methodology to produce results that conformed to his already predetermined conclusions. And yes, you can't pretend these weren't his conclusions when he had been asserting them for years without a single piece of evidence to back it up.

"Identified?" That's an unusual way to spell "smeared." The fact (again) is that what you try to characterise as "after the fact" merely reiterates what he said from the outset.

Yes, he identifies a "primary thesis" in the beginning but his presentation is incoherent to say the least. He begins by assuring us that "The key to understanding the meaning and purpose of the KEP is found within the documents entitles Egyptian Alphabet, Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, and Egyptian Counting."

He used these documents to argue for a cipher.

But then he concludes by telling us that the "primary key to understanding the meaning and purpose of the KEP" is by recognizing that the Alphabet and Grammar "materials" were dependent on a pre-existing text!?! Of course, this doesn't even begin to make any sense. How could a preexistent text tell us the meaning of the KEP? And how did the "primary key" change so quickly? The rage was all about the cipher, before,during and after the presentation. The other argument, his "primary" argument, would have only appeared to be significant to critics.

Of course, you can pick whichever poison you want, since both arguments are fatally flawed. Both arguments were shown to be terribly wrong, and he refused to defend either argument. So yes, my point stands. He backed away from his cipher argument after it took a pounding from those who were more familiar with these documents. Whether or not it was identified as his "primary" argument is irrelevant. The fact is he spent 12 minutes on his "primary" argument and the last 23 minutes trying to prove that the meaning and purpose of the KEP is that it was used to encipher scripture.

It is relevant because it cogently argues that the purpose of the KEP's is something other than a translation-in-progress of the Book of Abraham, which has been the critics' darling theory since approximately forever.

And it was the theory among those LDS who initially came across the materials, too. It was also the belief by LDS scholars that the papyri was the source for the Book of Abraham. That is, of course, until Egyptologists revealed that it had nothing to do with Abraham. Then suddenly the source had to be something else. Something missing, preferably.

Yes, we know it's been a very long time since you had any loyalty to any Latter-day Saints.

My loyalty is to the truth, sorry.

If Will's cipher theory is to be discarded because it doesn't make sense, then you should set the example by discarding the "translation in progress" theory, because that never made sense.

It made perfect sense, but the problem is you do not understand the subject well enough.

As your drunken buddy Paul Osborne slobbers to anyone who will listen, Joseph specifically identified columns of up to eight characters as representing the name of a single person.

The fact that you have to keep trying to associate me with people I don't know, but people who you've managed to demonize in the worst way, says more about the desperation of your own position. You were never very good at debating, but most of this has to do with the fact that you simply didn't know the subject matter well enough. You were always more interested in scoring rhetorical points for your apostate-phobic audiences. So if you are allowed to associate me with some guy you like to describe as "drunk," does this mean I get to associate you with... oh, let's say, the guy who presented this nonsense in the first place? You know, the guy who you tried to defend on the other forum even though he called Joseph Smith's wife Emma the "B" word? The guy who called women on the other forum the "W" word? The guy who accused the entire forum of engaging in "orgiastic sodomy"? The guy who claimed he could get away with it all because his calling and election had been made sure? I'd take a drunk over that guy any day of the week. Somehow I doubt I would be able to get away with that, because he is a faithful LDS member. But you could, right? I mean, so long as you're attacking people you can classify as evil apostates, right?

Does it really "make sense" to you that, in the course of the very same project, he was translating entire paragraphs from single characters? Fifty words and more from three strokes and a dot?

For Joseph Smith it made perfect sense. If you knew the subject well enough, you'd probably know this already. David Whitmer's eye-witness testimony of the Book of Mormon translation process proves the point. He said, "frequently one character would make two lines of manuscript." Sorry, back to the drawing board for you.

Oh, so you (plural, I presume you include Charles Larson, Walter Martin and Dee Jay Nelson in your club) "have been saying this all along," namely that the KEP's do not represent a translation in progress?

You don't understand what the KEP is, or else you wouldn't keep referring to it as if it were one document with a single purpose. But yes, the evidence is overwhelming. The Book of Abraham manuscripts within the KEP most likely represent the original translation manuscripts - though most are copies - and nothing you, WIll, Gee or Nibley has presented, comes even close to being a "better explanation." However, even if these do not represent the original manuscripts, this really doesn't help you much. You're still left trying to explain why so many people close to Joseph Smith, all his hired scribes -including Parrish who said he was directly involved with transcribing the translation as Joseph Smith received it from heaven - thought the source for the Book of Abraham came from the wrong papyri. The apologetic argument is convoluted to say the least, and you don't seem to be up to speed on the subject.

Incidentally, I challenge you to provide anything DJ Nelson or Walter Martin has said on this matter. Typical well poisoning as usual. But that's the Pahoran we all know and love.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

Not wishing to get sucked into arguments about what happened a year or so ago, I would simply like to correct at least one point of Xander's selective and self-serving recollections. Contrary to what Zander claimed, Will didn't just stand by and let the misunderstanding about the cipher theory flourish. During the "hoopla" on the other board, which I was the lone instigator, Will had looked in on the discussion and immediately sent an email to me attempting to curb my zeal and correct my misunderstanding by pointing out that the cipher theory wasn't his thesis, but an interesting side issue. Since he was disinclined to enter the fray himself--thinking it better to take the debate to more scholarly venues/journals, he requested that I try and move the discussion in the right direction. He also encouraged the same of his friend, Nomad. We both attempted to do so, but with no success. Because of the persistence of the misunderstanding on the other board, Will decided, against his better judgement, to make a personal appearance and correct the misunderstanding himself. His pointed quips were drowned out, as with here, by certain critics unwarrantedly beating their chest and falsely accusing Will of back-peddling. In short, Will was consistent all along about his thesis and the secondary importance of the cipher theory, and he did make at least some attempts early on to correct the misunderstanding. But, evidently, some people yah just can't reach.

This is the last I will say here on the matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

Oh, Will's sock puppet has come to his own rescue with wild claims and denial. What a surprise! Of course, the problem here is that this shouldn't be a matter of he said/ he said, because all of this is easily verified by perusing the relevant documentation. But it is found on a forum that I am not permitted to hyperlink for your convenience. So I will leave it up to the audience to "Google" on their own to see who is really "lying." The difference here is that I am willing to put my name and credibility on the line whereas most of Will's defenders hide behind pseudonyms. Will's arguments have been thoroughly decimated and he has been shown to be very dishonest with the source documents on numerous occasions. And this is putting it mildly given the evidence.. His attacks on women and the entire community in general, is a matter of indisputable fact.

And before you kid yourself further, Pahoran is the one who started this nonsense by associating me with all sorts of people I never met. Just as an experiment I thought I'd associate him with the guy he keeps trying to defend, to see how he likes it. Will Schryver is a despicable character who is being rejected by LDS scholars because of the same exact behavior you folks want to blame on the "antis." That is why NAMI threw him off the publication trail and that is why he left the internet in shame. At what point does this guy own up to his own repugnant behavior? Stop making excuses. If you want to attack people like Paul Osborne because he drinks, why not be equally upset about the misogynistic behavior of one of your most vocal apologists?

If the discussion has "degraded" it has been this way as long as Pahoran has participated. You're just upset because you know I tell the truth, and you won't get away with misrepresenting the facts. At least, not until the moderators delete the evidence of suspend me. Something you're wishing for I know.

All I did was present another target for you all, but the difference is that I don't sit back and take a pounding. That irks you to no end. You like being able to beat up on critics without having to hear what they have to say about it. So stop whining about how I am the one who is making this discussion go downhill. This is Pahoran's doing.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Xander

[Nomad]

Oh, Will's sock puppet has come to his own rescue with wild claims and denial. What a surprise! Of course, the problem here is that this shouldn't be a matter of he said/ he said, because all of this is easily verified by perusing the relevant documentation. But it is found on a forum that I am not permitted to hyperlink for your convenience. So I will leave it up to the audience to "Google" on their own to see who is really "lying." The difference here is that I am willing to put my name and credibility on the line whereas most of Will's defenders hide behind pseudonyms. Will's arguments have been thoroughly decimated and he has been shown to be very dishonest with the source documents on numerous occasions. And this is putting it mildly given the evidence.. His attacks on women and the entire community in general, is a matter of indisputable fact.

Same old, same old. Some things never change.

Yes, there are indisputable facts here, they're just not the ones Xander is talking about.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Will's arguments have been thoroughly decimated and he has been shown to be very dishonest with the source documents on numerous occasions.

CFR. I have yet to see a substantial rebuttal to Will's thesis. I have seen this assertion alot that it has been show to be thoroughly decimated. I have yet to see a single argument that is substantial and moves beyond a mere assertion.

[Xander]

CFR. I have yet to see a substantial rebuttal to Will's thesis. I have seen this assertion alot that it has been show to be thoroughly decimated. I have yet to see a single argument that is substantial and moves beyond a mere assertion.

That's because you choose not to. I was responding to it for days after it was presented. So was Chris Smith, Don Bradley, Andrew Cook, Brent Metcalfe, and several others. Schryver backed off almost immediately and refused to answer specific questions that cut to the heart of his ridiculous methodology. I even made it easy for people who wanted to see a collection of links that detail why Schryver can never be trusted. He totally misrepresents the documents in question. I pointed this out numerous times. I'd be glad to post my responses here if I knew they would be allowed to stand.

[wenglund]

Personal vendettas? Hardly.

Pahoran wanted to smear folks he doesn't know, and try to poison the well by implying some kind of association between them and me. Does he have a "personal vendetta" against Paul Osborne or Walter Martin? Be consistent. If anyone has veered off the topic it is Pahoran. You guys were perfectly happy with that so long as the impression was he was sticking it to me. But now that this turned out to be a very embarrassing moment for him and Schryver, suddenly you want to get back on topic, right?

I didn't ask for this.

Getting back to Kerry's Q&A article, do you have anything to say about his intimation that the text of the KEP may contain evidence of a pre-existing translation of at least portions of the BoA?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Skylla]

Another thread that will be quickly closed if it degenerates into carping about personalities. The next poster to use names instead of the content of an article, book, etc. will be banned from the thread.

You were all warned. Thread closed.

Skylla