William Schryver: Apologist from Krypton

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

William Schryver: Apologist from Krypton

Post by _Kevin Graham »

I am completely fascinated by the hype that has been stirred about Schryver's upcoming presentation. I mean who has ever seen anything like this before? At MADB people like Greg Smith said the presentation was shown beforehand because Schryver simply wanted feedback. That sounded reasonable enough, but then today I find out that FAIR apologists were not the only ones who previewed it. The LDS media was called in and they've been hyping it further, clearly to drive in more revenue for FAIR. ($80 a pop for a 2-day conference is nothing to sneeze at!)

What is most interesting about all of this iis the way everyone insists Will's presentation will be irrevocable, definitive, and end to all criticism. This is strange because for years the apologists tried to posture themselves as scholarly by maintaining that scholarship always changes, and anything can come up later to refute current theories, etc. But they do not treat Will's argument as a theory susceptible to refuting evidence. They treat it as unimpeachable doctrine, which simply blows me away. It blows me away because Will himself has said that he is not presenting any new data whatsoever, and that his entire argument is based strictly on his observation of the cruddy microfilm version of the KEP. Something that the Tanners have been selling for decades. This mean it is merely an interpretation-based argument, which are among the flimsiest of arguments. I also find it interesting the way the apologists misrepresent the "critics" as a group of "frustrated" people who simply don't know how to handle this so called devastating news. This is funny because Schryver told us about this stuff months ago, even a year ago, and we blew it off as more wishful apologetics by Schryver. Only when he's managed to get FAIR and the LDS media to pimp it as an indestructible fact, do the critics get curious as to what's really going on.

Just look at what Deseret News had to say about this:

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 — leading to frustrating speculation by many critics and praise by those who have seen an early version of the presentation. The Deseret News saw a video version of this presentation on July 26. If Schryver, a software engineer, is correct in his analysis, the last 40 years of scholarship about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers will need to be revised.

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers are a collection of documents created in Kirtland, Ohio, by Joseph Smith and his associates. The content of the papers has long presented a puzzle to scholars. Critics have maintained that the papers were used in the process of translating the Mormon scripture called the Book of Abraham — and that the translation is incorrect. Many Mormon scholars, however, have thought the documents show an attempt of Joseph Smith's associates to decipher Egyptian by using the text of the Book of Abraham as a Rosetta stone — a sort of reverse engineering project.

Schryver will argue on Aug. 6 that both approaches are incorrect. "I am purporting to give a comprehensive answer to the question, 'What is the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers?'" Schryver said. "That has never been done."

Greg Smith, one online commenter who had also seen the early version of Schryver's presentation, put it this way: "Schryver has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea the KEP are the 'translation documents' of the Book of Abraham, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates."

Other topics to be covered at the conference include the original text of the Book of Mormon, Fawn Brodie's faulty look at Joseph Smith and plural marriage, Book of Mormon geography, the "Big Love" television program, how people view Mormons and more.

More information can be found on FAIR's website, http://www.fairlds.org. Live online audio streaming of the event will be available for a fee during the conference.


Don't they understand that the higher they raise this thing, the harder it will fall? Does this sound like cautious scholarship, or simply a turned up version of the illicit hype from the 2006 Hauglid presentation?

If critics of the KEP are getting antsy or excitied, it probably has more to do with yet another opportunity to shoot down another apologetic theory built upon sand. I mean all of the people who are bragging about it, admittedly know very little about the subject, and Will doesn't even mention the argument by the critics (according to those who previewed it), which means they have no alternative theory to compare it to. This was a deceptive tactic employed by Hauglid as well. The only way he could sell his argument at the 2006 FAIR conference was by pretending the critics had no argument, and then carefully showed slides that seemed to support only his theory.
Last edited by YahooSeeker [Bot] on Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
_lostindc
_Emeritus
Posts: 2380
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: William Schryver: Apologist from Krypton

Post by _lostindc »

William Schryver: Apologist from Krypton
2019 = #100,000missionariesstrong
_Spider-to-the-Fly
_Emeritus
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:50 pm

Re: William Schryver: Apologist from Krypton

Post by _Spider-to-the-Fly »

Kevin Graham wrote:I am completely fascinated by the hype that has been stirred about Schryver's upcoming presentation. I mean who has ever seen anything like this before? * * * The LDS media was called in and they've been hyping it further, clearly to drive in more revenue for FAIR. ($80 a pop for a 2-day conference is nothing to sneeze at!)

What is most interesting about all of this iis the way everyone insists Will's presentation will be irrevocable, definitive, and end to all criticism. * * * But they do not treat Will's argument as a theory susceptible to refuting evidence. They treat it as unimpeachable doctrine, ... . * * * Only when he's managed to get FAIR and the LDS media to pimp it as an indestructible fact, do the critics get curious as to what's really going on.


Mr. Graham,

It may well be worth the $80. After all, I suspect that they might be serving wine by the tumbler full to prepare the audience for an appearance by Joseph Smith and ministering angels, if not Elohim and Jehovah, too. How else would whatever Mr. Schryver has to say be considered irrefutable by those in attendance?

I wonder if the FAIR organizers are advising registrants to fast from Thursday morning until Mr. Schryver's presentation?

Regards,

Spider.
Speaking of Rodin's sculpture, BYU official Alan Wilkins observed: "'The Thinker' does not represent the sort of activity that we believe is appropriate for the BYU setting."
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: William Schryver: Apologist from Krypton

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

Hello,

The key for Mopologists reference the KEP is to distance the material from the Book of Abraham, and to introduce, a la Mr. Nibley, a tone of confusion into the process of "understanding what they really mean". What is of utmost importance for the Mopologists is to get away from this:

A TRANSLATION OF SOME ANCIENT RECORDS, THAT HAVE FALLEN INTO OUR HANDS FROM THE CATECOMBS OF EGYPT, PURPORTING TO BE THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM WHILE HE WAS IN EGYPT, CALLED THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM, WRITTEN BY HIS OWN HAND, UPON PAPYRUS.


Mr. William "Gookie Cookie" Schryver understands the KEP are damning evidence of Mr. Smith & his cohorts inability to translate Egyptian, thus invalidating the Book of Abraham. If he can spin the KEP by 1) divorcing Mr. Smith from them, and 2) reinventing the KEP as something unassociated with the Book of Abraham he will have done something truly impressive.

That said, it will be interesting to watch the Mormon church's reaction, if it has any. Had Grant Heward just lived 50 years later...

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_Phaedrus Ut
_Emeritus
Posts: 524
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:55 pm

Re: William Schryver: Apologist from Krypton

Post by _Phaedrus Ut »

I'm interested to see what this amazing discovery is. Considering Will's track record I'm surprised by those willing to line up behind him. I recall a incident years ago where he got all hot and bothered accusing Dan Vogel of misrepresenting a footnote with something involved with the KEP. The end result was he just looked like a dumb ass.


Phaedrus
_Benjamin McGuire
_Emeritus
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: William Schryver: Apologist from Krypton

Post by _Benjamin McGuire »

You know, Kevin, I rather liked Will's presentation. He and I have discussed a number of issues relevant to it over the last several months, and I wouldn't say that it is the final word on the subject, but, I do think that conceptually, it is reasonably convincing.

Having said that, it is also very narrow in scope (most of the speculation here has been a bit inaccurate for this reason).

As a general rule, both of Cam's suggestions are wrong. There is no attempt to divorce Joseph Smith from the KEP. There is also no attempt to distance the KEP from the Book of Abraham. Of course, he doesn't really discuss the Book of Abraham as a text - except in that he describes the relationship between the various KEP documents and the Book of Abraham. His primary focus is on is demonstrating that the KEP had to postdate a translation of the majority of the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham. That is all of it in its entirety. It does not analyze handwriting, it doesn't discuss ink. It doesn't even look closely at how the various documents in the KEP are annotated or edited. While there may be future analysis of these kinds of issues, Will's presentation is rather strictly focused on the text - what is written on certain documents in the KEP and using that to produce a better chronology.

I am inclined to generally agree with Will on this issue, and I have other reasons for this agreement than just those that he is presenting on, some of which come from my own research into a related topic. In general, I think that Will's presentation provides a better description of the KEP than has been provided yet. I suspect that from the other side of the fence there may yet be different ways provided of looking at Will's data - although I am relatively confident that his data is accurate enough.

Is there more that can be done to establish his proposal? I think so. There are issues I would like to see addressed if possible at some point in the future. I may even make that attempt at some point. I have some other stuff on my plate at the moment though.

Ben McGuire
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: William Schryver: Apologist from Krypton

Post by _Kevin Graham »

But Ben, the only way to prove Abr chapters 1-3 were completely translated in July of 1835, is to provide an authenticated copy of Abr 1-3 that dates back to July 1835. Will claims to be using the KEP only, which is material that dates to October-November of 1835. He is using this to prove what was created three months earlier? None of this makes any sense to me, but I guess we'll see what the hype is all about soon enough.

Brent Metcalfe won't be making it to the conference unfortunately. So I guess all eyes will be on Chris Smith and Andrew Cook, as far as critical reactions go.
_Benjamin McGuire
_Emeritus
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: William Schryver: Apologist from Krypton

Post by _Benjamin McGuire »

Kevin writes:
But Ben, the only way to prove Abr chapters 1-3 were completely translated in July of 1835, is to provide an authenticated copy of Abr 1-3 that dates back to July 1835. Will claims to be using the KEP only, which is material that dates to October-November of 1835. He is using this to prove what was created three months earlier? None of this makes any sense to me, but I guess we'll see what the hype is all about soon enough.
What you are saying is right, but it isn't an accurate description of the presentation. Will isn't actually demonstrating that Abr chapters 1-3 were completed in July. What he is demonstrating is that the KEP documents are reliant on a pre-existing translation of Abr 1-3. When the translation of Abr 1-3 occurs isn't terribly necessary as a specific in that context - except that it must occur at or after the contact occurs with the papyri. And based on Will's evidence, Abr 1-3 was largely completed before the production of the KEP documents. If that makes it a bit clearer for you.

Ben M.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: William Schryver: Apologist from Krypton

Post by _Kevin Graham »

So we're talking about hints or allusions to a preexisting, yet nonextant, source document from which the extant KEP were copied? It sounds like something he has argued in the past, but based on text-critical evidence. He argued previously that all of the KEP manuscripts were copies of a mysterious Q document. Metcalfe and others had already argued that MS2 was a cleaned up copy of Ms1a and Ms1b. But Will is arguing that Ms1a and MS1b are both copies as well. Ok.

To tell you the truth, it would take a hell of a lot of evidence to convince me that these two documents were not transcribed from dictation simultaneously. I've been waiting for someone to explain the numerous pieces of evidence that strongly suggest this is what was going on, but neither Hauglid nor Schryver have offered any explanation, other than to say these were just copies, and that the scribes decided to copy all the same errors for some mysterious reason.

Anyway, thanks Ben, for clarifying some confusing points.
_onandagus
_Emeritus
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:06 am

Re: William Schryver: Apologist from Krypton

Post by _onandagus »

The usual way to do all this is to first get a manuscript vetted through peer review, then published in a scholarly journal, and then touted as the intellectual coup de grace. I rather agree with Kevin that it isn't wise to hype things in this way when they have yet to be tested in the marketplace of ideas.

Don
"I’ve known Don a long time and have critiqued his previous work and have to say that he does much better as a believer than a critic."
- Dan Vogel, August 8, 2011
Post Reply