DiscussMormonism.com

Thanks to an informant's tip, I was keyed into a fascinating, aptly named MADthread, where Will "Wheat" Schryver is gloating about his demolition of John "The Hatchet" Tvedtnes's Book of Abraham theories. The thread can be read in its entirety here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 42143&st=0

It is always interesting to observe the in-fighting among apologists. In this case, the nastiness began with Charles Dowis:

cdowis wrote:William, interersting stuff. Last year I gave a prediction regarding the Book of Abraham translation, and it is coming to pass. I believe the current view by apologists of the translation process is going to get blown it away.

Now, for what it is worth, your conclusion regarding the real origin of the Book of Abraham is also based on a flawed assumption. I have talked about that several times in the past.

Will replies:

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, Charles. Perhaps you could elaborate again for those of us with fading memories. How do you envision "the real origin of the Book of Abraham"? And how would you characterize "the current view by apologists of the translation process," and how do you foresee it being "blown ... away"?

cdowis comes back with this:

erhaps I have this whole thing wrong -- I have not slogged my way through the thread in the Pundit, but I am guessing that the whole ink analysis is that you want to tie the KEP to the Book of Abraham, is that correct?

And the apologists say that the KEP plays no practical role in the translation of the Book of Abraham, that it is an outlier.

You want to demonstrate that, rather than ignoring the KEP, it actually takes a central role.

Or am I misreading this whole thing.

And:

cdowis wrote:In either case, and perhaps my memory is fading, I would appreciate sharing with us this source of your certitude. I personally know no such thing (poor ignorant fellow, that I am).

Based on Tvedtnes' analysis, I gave a straight-foward scenario tying Abraham to the Sesen document. Just a proposal from a believer.

Certitude is such a rare thing, and I look forward to the link. Refuting Tvedtnes will be an interesting read.

It is here that Schryver's hubris---his thirst for Mopologetic recognition and accolades---become nakedly apparent.

William Schryver wrote:Your reply leads me to believe that you haven’t understood the import of anything I’ve written in the past 2 ½ years on the relationship of the KEP Abraham manuscripts and the translation of the Book of Abraham. That is actually quite discouraging to me on many levels. I had hoped that the arguments were better articulated and more easily accessible than they have apparently been.

Even more intriguing, though, is Schryver'sapparently deep envy of and antipathy towards Tvedtnes:

Schryver wrote:

Refuting Tvedtnes will be an interesting read.

I assume you are taking a posture as an advocate of John’s “mnemonic device” theory of Book of Abraham production, and that you are challenging me to refute it.

Well, although I am an admirer of much of John’s work over the years, I will say I find his “mnemonic device” theory unpersuasive. In fact, I consider it to have been ill-advised to publish such a speculative notion. To those confused and prone to doubt about the entire Book of Abraham controversy, I think John’s theory comes across as an act of apologetic desperation, more inclined to erode faith than to erect it.

Nevertheless, I have no desire to “refute” it. Frankly, I think it resides so far into the realm of conjecture that it is virtually unfalsifiable.

Wow! This is astonishing. Schryver is hurling practically every epithet in the book at Tvedtnes: the SHIELDS Associate is, by Schryver's reckoning, a: "ill-advised" speculator; an apologist acting out of "desperation"; "unpersuasive" as a scholar; and, worst of all, a faith-destroyer! If this is true, then Tvedtnes ought to be thrown out on his keyster, embarrassed and completely ostracized from the Mopologetic FARMS/FAIR community.

Or, instead, is Schryver tying his own hangman's knot by attempting to blacken Tvedtnes's character in this way? Perhaps not, since "Helorum" goes on to imply that Tvedtnes's "Mnemonic" theory may have led to some kind of "forced retirement":

Helorum wrote:I asked John (a few years ago) point blank about how he currently viewed his dated mnemonic theory.

Anybody who wants to utilize that theory for any reason might want to have a chat with him.

He retired from the Maxwell Institute not too long ago but he can probably be contacted through his website.

Was Tvedtnes forced out of the MI due to embarrassment over the so-called "mnemonic theory"? The juxtaposition of sentences in this paragraph leads me to suspect that that may have been the case. Certainly, throwing one another under the bus is en vogue in Schryver's universe:

Chozah wrote:Hey, Helorum, how are things? I trust all is well with you and yours. I didn't know you still tainted your reputation by frequenting the message boards. wink.gif

And what's with you teasing us with this report of your conversation with John, and then not leaving even a hint of his current sentiments vis-a-vis his old "mnemonic device" theory? Come on! At least tell us if he is more or less enthusiastic about it now than he was when he first proposed it.

Quite a cheap shot! It makes me wonder what will happen next. There can be no doubt, in any event, that someone is going to wind up looking rather foolish in all of this.

This is hardly the worst that Schryver has produced. I do find it amusing, though, that he thinks the mnemonic device theory's tendency is to erode faith while still clinging to the missing papyrus theory as if it has a shred of credibility left to cling to.

CaliforniaKid wrote:This is hardly the worst that Schryver has produced. I do find it amusing, though, that he thinks the mnemonic device theory's tendency is to erode faith while still clinging to the missing papyrus theory as if it has a shred of credibility left to cling to.

Tsk, tsk, Chris. Don't you know that you need a reading knowledge of Egyptian to make any comments at all on this subject? :)

Is Helorum someone we should recognize? Is Chozah? The remarks remind me of coming into a conversation in which I don't know any of the history, a few of the names are familiar but not all, and they're all talking past each other. Kinda like MAD.

This is all pretty fascinating. I'm left to wonder how much of Will's criticism reflects his own detailed study, and how much reflects his desire to promote himself by jumping on the popular theory and leaving the fellow apologist originator of the competing theory to the vultures in a heated repudiation. I personally see some opportunism here.

Gadianton wrote:This is all pretty fascinating. I'm left to wonder how much of Will's criticism reflects his own detailed study, and how much reflects his desire to promote himself by jumping on the popular theory and leaving the fellow apologist originator of the competing theory to the vultures in a heated repudiation. I personally see some opportunism here.

Dr. Robbers---

To what extent do you sense a "forced retirement" here?

A provocative question. One I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer. I will take a stab at it though and hope something I say can contribute to further enlightenment on the subject in some way.

At first glance, I'd be tempted to say given the "theory" was proposed in 1968, it's unlikely it would lead to such an ejection thirty some odd years later. I did some research on this earlier in the evening, including the FAIR wiki, and the impression one gets is that this theory was original and interesting but ultimately disfavored for a competing theory, and that Brother Tvedtnes has changed his mind now and the apologists are all in lock-step agreement once again.

But is there more to the story?

There are some things I need to do now, but I will reveal a darker side to these events later tonight, be prepared for at least one discomforting revelation.

Thanks to an informant's tip, I was keyed into a fascinating, aptly named MADthread, where Will "Wheat" Schryver is gloating about his demolition of John "The Hatchet" Tvedtnes's Book of Abraham theories.

It's one thing to gloat. It's quite another to actually put up.

So, Mister Scratch, I have to ask myself, is John Tvedtnes the kind of guy who just loves to admit that he's wrong, who looks for opportunites to step aside and defer to the larger intellect, who simply doesn't mind if he's not quoted and passed over when it comes to something he's put a considerable effort into?

And if you don't mind me going off on a tangent a bit here, you know, in my field, if a junior tier were to use a "failure" of mine to promote himself and talk down to me like Schryver is to Tvedtness, he'd be corrected. Where is Tvedtnes? Why isn't he pulling the smack down on Schryver? Tvedtnes is a senior apologist, third or fourth max to DCP himself --- at least he was. Schryver is junior to mid-tier at best, he's basically nothing. Yet, he talks about "John" as if they are equals. He speaks about his two and a half years of discussing his own theories, but who gives a rat's ass about Schryver's theories? He's no one. Yet, look at how he's mouthing off to a senior apologist, it's a miracle Tvedtnes doesn't register immediately at MAD and set the record straight. How is it that Schryver speaks with such impunity? Well, You've intoned a serious suggestion, that Schryver is riding by the coat tail of a stronger body working against Tvedtnes's theory that may have ultimately silenced him.

So, where was I?

According to FAIR Wiki, Tvedtnes's theory never really "took off".

According to Pahoran, Tvedtnes's theory was a "blind ally".

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/lofive ... 20975.html

And according to Cdowis,

Cdowis wrote:in a conversation with Tvendtnes, he has basically deferred to John Gee's efforts and is conducting his research elsewhere. If Gee should fail, it would be reasonable to assume that this theory will be resurrected

Ouch! A cocksure young John Gee walks through the doors and Tvedtness is left playing second violin! And his only hope of achieving the recognition and greatness he deserves, is if John Gee fails. These are some heavy stakes.

Helorum wrote:Anybody who wants to utilize that theory for any reason might want to have a chat with him.

Well, someone has had a chat with him. His name is Kerry Shirts.

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/mnemonic.htm

After speaking with Tvedtnes over the phone just a few years ago, it doesn't sound to me like Tvedtnes had left the impression with Kerry that his theory is a dead end, rubish, a second-string attempt.

Listen to what Kerry has to say:

Kerry wrote:First I want to thank Brother Tvedtnes for granting permission to put his magnificent study on my website. He and Richley Crapo deserve wider recognition and understanding of this breakthrough discovery that is far too obscure as of today. In talking with Bro. Tvedtnes on the telephone, I asked him specifically about Klaus Baer's criticism of his research into the mnemonic device and he noted that Baer's comments were found in Jay Todd's book "The Saga of the Book of Abraham," and that Baer apologized for his crisp and premature remarks

Does it look like to you, Mister Scratch, that Tvedtnes had given up on his theory, and humbly bowed out? A breakthrough? Magnificant? And critics were apologizing for talking trash about it?

I can't say what all went down in the final days of Tvedtnes's association with the MI. But the suggestion raised above is at least plausible, given what you've brought to the table already and my evidence here, and I think the entire situation itself is open to more discussion. There is something fishy about all this for sure.

Gadianton wrote:Richley Crapo

Someone is actually named Richley Crapo????