DiscussMormonism.com

So we have characters taken sequentially from the papyri, and where there is something missing, Joseph Smith used characters he obtained from other sources. Am I understanding this correctly?

Yep.

And if we also consider the KEP figures for which there was no explanation given, does this same pattern occur?

No, not really. But this is really beside the point and it is where Will diverts onto his favorite straw man, pretending he is refuting something we've actually argued. We for the most part recognize and accept the fact that the GAEL was a cluster fuq of a project. Very little of it makes sense, but we know that Abr 1:1-3 came from characters that were given speciaal attention in the GAEL. Whether they could rationally decipher Egyptian this way is a different question altogether from whether they thought they could.

Having said this, I think everyone needs to read Ed Ashment's piece here: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/docume ... OX=Ashment

He illustrates how Joseph smith borrowed a symbol he miscopied and misinterpreted, from a column on the right side of Facsimile 1.

Kevin Graham wrote:The Williams manuscript shows, more clearly than the rest, that the Egyptian characters were written in before their corresponding English translations. This is the only logical explanation for the margin violations, and the Parrish manuscript actually shows that the scribe stopped after writing in the next Egyptian character.

I thought so, and so I am confused as to how the dittograph is supposedly a conclusively proven, obvious no-brainer, when the absence of a corresponding set of characters would suggest that the copy was deliberate.

I have to admit that one of my favorite things about this message board is when the official "experts" post what amounts to a non sequitur, and then everyone lines up to congratulate each other about the latest "smack down" of the apologists. No matter how many times I've seen it, it never seems to grow stale, and leaves me chuckling to myself for the remainder of the day.

As I've said many times, I just hope that someone, someday, actually commits to some of these positions in formal publications ...
.
.
.
DaftJ,

Once again, thank you. I intend to credit you in some fashion in things I publish about the substantial word study. If you desire me to refer to you as anything other than "DaftJ," make sure to let me know.

by the way, you should probably know that I was the one who put Nomad up to challenging you to do what you did. I also very carefully specified what "clues" he was to give you about the story. He didn't understand what my intentions were, and thought I was telling you too much. But I knew better. I knew I could count on you. And you did not disappoint. So, thank you once again. Your assistance is very much appreciated.

William Schryver wrote:DaftJ,

Once again, thank you. I intend to credit you in some fashion in things I publish about the substantial word study. If you desire me to refer to you as anything other than "DaftJ," make sure to let me know.

I can't wait. You know what would be great? If right around the time your scholarly study gets published, someone decided to put the word out about your frequent references to circle jerks, your claiming to have your calling and election made sure, your accusing Brent Metcalfe of being an accomplice to Mark Hofmann, your constant vulgarity, etc. I am sure that you will find nothing but respect and credibility in the academic world. Feel free to have your pointless exercise, including your clever word play on my screen name, in your final draft that you submit to whatever academic journal you choose. Even better, tell them what message board to look at, including your behavior here. Fratello Schryver, I have said several times that it is my sincere prayer that you become the public face of Mormon apologetics. You will do more damage to Mormonism than the Tanners and Ed Decker could possibly have dreamed. By all means, carry on.

by the way, you should probably know that I was the one who put Nomad up to challenging you to do what you did.

No! I never would have guessed! And to think that I already said something along these lines to your other lap dog, Wade!

I also very carefully specified what "clues" he was to give you about the story. He didn't understand what my intentions were, and thought I was telling you too much. But I knew better. I knew I could count on you. And you did not disappoint. So, thank you once again. Your assistance is very much appreciated.

Fratello Schryver, I hope that you and your mannerisms are known in all corners of the Earth, and you may always count on my assistance in achieving that end. You personally represent all four horsemen of the Apocalypse for the Mormon apologetics community. Whatever credibility and sympathy Mormon apologists may have hoped for outside of FAIR conferences and the MAD board will take a huge and possibly unrecoverable march backward as you become ever more their Chosen One. I am just someone screwing around on a message board, whereas you are now the torch bearer of what Mormon apologetics is all about. My favorite part of this whole thing is the immense collateral damage you will do to the reputations of those who endorse you and the fragile testimonies desperately grasping for anything to explain how the Book of Abraham could possibly be considered a scripture in any meaningful sense.

Forza, Fratello Schryver! You truly are my greatest hope for the future of Mormon apologetics. Referring to me as "Daft J" in your putative published works cannot but help my hopes and dreams be further realized.

Fratello Schryver, I hope that you and your mannerisms are known in all corners of the Earth

Oh they will be, trust me. I think it is hilarious that he thinks he can mention you in publication, and expect his editor to sign off on his choice of "DaftJ."

But then again, this is the Maxwell Institute we're talking about. Ever since the METCALFE IS BUTTHEAD acrostic by Hamblin, nothing surprises me anymore. A Mickey Mouse publication for a Mickey Mouse printing press.

I thought so, and so I am confused as to how the dittograph is supposedly a conclusively proven, obvious no-brainer, when the absence of a corresponding set of characters would suggest that the copy was deliberate.

Apologists don't care about evidence, they only care about pimping their conclusion which is almost always fabricated from apologetic necessity. Any evidence that is presented to the contrary must be downplayed, dismissed or reinterpreted in a way to conform to their conclusion.

This is the only thing Will is actually good at, which is why he could never get published anywhere outside Church owned printing presses. His methodology is the antithesis to legitimate scholarship. He's a fake, and he knows it. And he knows that I know it, which is why he is afraid to debate me.

This is why I know that Will's fans have simply drunk the koolaid. Perhaps it's possible that Will has uncovered something valid about the KEP - time will tell. But his theory is, as currently presented, weak and problematic. Yet believers are acting as if it's saved the Book of Abraham. It's kind of sad, really.

I am just someone screwing around on a message board, whereas you are now the torch bearer of what Mormon apologetics is all about.

Classic...

So many questions sill unanswered, such as....

what were the "sensitive" things that had to be encoded in a cipher, despite Joseph Smith's almost immediate attempts to publish the Book of Abraham?

did Will know that it was likely Joseph Smith believed the figures on the Masonic cipher were, indeed, Egyptian? If so, why didn't he mention this? And if it wasn't important that figures on the KEP weren't Egyptian, why did Will mention it so frequently and emphatically?

beastie wrote:So many questions sill unanswered, such as....

what were the "sensitive" things that had to be encoded in a cipher, despite Joseph Smith's almost immediate attempts to publish the Book of Abraham?

did Will know that it was likely Joseph Smith believed the figures on the Masonic cipher were, indeed, Egyptian? If so, why didn't he mention this? And if it wasn't important that figures on the KEP weren't Egyptian, why did Will mention it so frequently and emphatically?

My biggest question right now is why code a text no one can read anyway? I keep asking this question and haven't seen a response...did I miss it?

MG