Will Schryver: Kneel before Zod

[_dartagnan]

I really cannot understand why I have gotten under your skin so badly. If I am a nothing, a gnat to be swatted, why do you spend so much time in instulting me?

I’m insulting you? You came to this forum, started spreading rumors about some mysterious person you say you never met, which everyone knew you were really referring to me. You have accused me of the usual nonsense that continues to float around at MAD (egomaniac, incivility, wants attention, damaged pride, was banned because of my attitude etc). You pretend to have a grasp on events you never took part in. You pretend to have a grasp on issues you have never studied.

You’re annoying here just as you are annoying at MAD. I remember once when the FAIR moderators had to put a posting limit of ten posts per day, on the entire lot of us simply because they didn’t want to single you out. You were posting dozens of posts a day and adding zero substance. You’re one of the reasons FAIR had to invest more in server bandwidth. You are the all time leading poster on that forum, yet nobody can think of a single one of your contributions worth reading. You and bcspace were the two all time leaders last year before the switch to MAD. He has 8,000 posts since 2003 and you’re pushing 12,000 posts since 2005.

Someone needs a life.

And here you are disrupting another thread of mine that has nothing to do with you or any of the nonsense you’re talking about. Just stay out of my way and we’ll all get along just fine.

I have seen posters on FAIR and MA&D that I find silly and completey unpersuasive. I simply do not respond to their posts.

Well you’re jumping in where you’re not wanted and you offer nothing but attacks on me. I don’t have time for your immature antics. I’d prefer to deal with them if they were mingled with cogent arguments, detailed references and plain ole substance, but they never are.

So I can't figure you out. I would ignore you, but it is like watching a train wreck. You know you shouldn't, and it is going to be gruesome, but you just can't help but watch.

You really have not a drop of originality in you do you? Like we haven’t heard that line before.

You could do yourself a favor and leave off the personal insutls.

Stay out of my threads and you won’t have to worry about it.

If you find one of my posts with an argument you want to refute, attack the argument, not me.

But you never have an argument. Ever.

[_Pokatator]

Charity wrote:

I'll be interested also to see who here are independent thinkers, and who here are Kevin's toadys.

And you claim to have some kind of knowledge of psychology?

"How to Win Friends and Influence Toads" by Charity Vindictive Heel

[_charity]

Reply to Kevin: I am not going to respond to your previou post, not to anymore of your personal posts to me. The purpose of this message board is not this type of exchange. I don't think it is anyway. You can post back anything you want and I won't try to get the last word in .

I won't promise to stay out of threads you start or are posting in. As far as I know, you don't own the board, so you can't tell me what to do or not to do. But my posts will not be anything about you personally. Only ideas you express.

I am sorry there has been this bad blood. And I do hope as you said, that someday something about the Book of Abraham comes out that turns you back into a believing member again.

Adios.

[_William Schryver]

What? No one even took note of my assuming the role of Superman in my previous reply?

Oh, well ... on to my real response:



KG:

Will, I was looking over the MAD thread tonight and I have to ask... do you have a split personality disorder?

Yes.

Well, no.

I mean, it hasn’t been diagnosed yet … so … maybe.

Because sometimes it sounds like you’re coming to your senses when you make reasonably well thought posts, but then today…. Jesus.

Why are you offering prayer in mid-sentence?

You’re more of a jackass to him than you ever were when you and I used to go at it over a year ago.

Yeah, well I did it all with a smile on my face and a prayer in my heart. So get over it. When my condescending put downs reach the frequency and level of expertise to which you have attained, then I’ll start to be worried about it. Until then, I’m not going to wallow in any faux self-condemnation.

All he is doing is what you said you would also do if it were not for your testimony premise.

You’ve trotted out my alleged “confession” several times recently, almost as though it were a trophy, but in doing so absent its full context, you’re attempting to attribute to me an attitude I do not hold. But more on that below …

I got a kick out of DCP running to your defense when the Dude tried to calm you down.

I’m always thoroughly entertained by how you can color things with your own peculiar spin of interpretation. LOL. “Calm me down”? Yeah, I was pretty worked up as I was heaping sarcastic invective on poor LittleRicky. Believe me, I’m never so calm as when I’m serving up sarcasm. That it’s a character flaw – well, that much I recognize. But my recognition of the bad habit doesn’t seem to make it any less gratifying. I’m hoping to lose my appetite for it some day, or at least to reduce my consumption to a more respectable level. In the meantime I’m resigned to my apparent incorrigibility.

I’m tempted to start some threads here but I don’t know if you’ll stick around.

Well, I can tell you right now that I’m absolutely certain that I don’t have your level of stamina for the discussion. I’m quite certain you could stay up night and day for a solid week if I chose to accommodate you. And for every 100 words I produced, you would produce 1000. Whether that’s a credit to your scholarly preparation or your lack of literary economy remains for others to decide.

In any event, I have decided to answer this once to the best of my ability – then I will no doubt revert to my previous policy of permitting you to pursue your polemical pasttime unimpeded by my pestering impudence. (Say that ten times fast!)

So, you produce the following two quotes from me:

”As to the so-called "controversy" surrounding the circumstances of its production, I would venture to say that I've looked into the details at least as fully and carefully as anyone ever has. I have come to regard the Book of Abraham as essentially divorced from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, rather than a derivative from them. I think the Book of Abraham derives from an entirely different process than the one at work with the production of the KEP.”

And:

“…if I were an outsider looking in at all of this, I find it difficult to believe that I could be persuaded that the production of the Book of Abraham was anything other than a clumsy imposture perpetrated by Joseph Smith upon his followers. But, of course, I’m not. I came into the discussion already possessing a conviction that the Book of Abraham was divinely-inspired scripture.”

You insinuate that these are incompatible statements. They aren’t. The key phrase in the second quote is “.. if I were an outsider looking in …” I’m not. (Neither are you for that matter.) Nevertheless, I can easily see how someone like a Robert Ritner (or even Chris Smith) would come to the conclusions they do.

But this is not a simple set of questions we are dealing with. There are complexities galore. Metcalfe, Ashment, Marquardt, et al have worked very hard to make it all seem like a set of very simple equations. And people like you have bought into that paradigm for the discussion.

But I couldn’t disagree more.

There is so much more than meets the eye when it comes to the artifacts and circumstances surrounding the production of the Book of Abraham. There is such a complicated dynamic associated with this particular time in LDS Church history, and particularly with the whole Egyptian project and how it was so inextricably related to Joseph Smith’s attempts to incorporate his many talented lieutenants into the revelatory process. Failing to take into consideration all of these peripheral elements of the story is to fail to see all the possibilities for what the Kirtland Egyptian Papers represent. I don’t know if you’ve bothered to listen to Sam Brown’s address from the most recent Sunstone symposium. I think I emailed it to you. Sam touches upon just one small aspect of the dynamic to which I refer.

Make no mistake, I do recognize the reasons why people lose faith over this issue. That said, (and I’ll use you as the prime example here, although I am speaking also of many others) I think you have misinterpreted key pieces of evidence and closed your mind to the other possibilities that are suggested by that evidence.

Still, I do not currently possess what I have frequently termed a “unified theory” of the KEP. I’m not certain such a thing can ever be formulated absent further documentary data, or a return from the dead of the principals involved. What I have come to a firm conclusion about, however, is that the primary premise of the theory propounded by the principal critics is fatally flawed. Simply put, KEPA Mss. #2 and #3 (Metcalfe’s 1a and 1b) are NOT the transcripts of the original oral dictation of Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the Book of Abraham. Of that I would say I am 99% certain.

Now, it could still be that there was no Abraham text present on the scrolls Joseph Smith possessed, and it could still be that Joseph Smith (and/or Williams, Cowdery, Parrish, et al) believed that the text adjacent to the lion couch vignette (the so-called Book of Breathings) was the Egyptian source of the Book of Abraham “translation.” But it’s not because Mss. #2 and #3 are the so-called “translation documents.” I am convinced that the text appearing on the two manuscripts was originally “translated” several months prior to the time Williams and Parrish sat down to create those documents. I have prepared a paper for ultimate submission to FROB on this topic, but I have promised Brian Hauglid that I will not submit it until after his critical edition of the KEP is published. Indeed, my obligations require me to delay any submission of the paper until the images of the KEP are formally released to the public. But I will state that the primary premise will be that KEPA Mss. #2 and #3 are copies of one or more predecessor documents.

Now, please don’t launch into an elaborate explication of why it is “obvious” that they are documents that were created simultaneously from oral dictation, etc., etc., etc. Believe me, I’m fully aware of every item of “evidence” you would cite to that end. I’ve been looking at those two manuscripts for over a year now. I have 4 megapixel high-res scans that I can blow up and see all the various details. Brian and the guys at BYU are working with .tif files that are 10x more detailed, in addition to their frequent examination, under microscope and otherwise, of the originals.

I am also quite aware of the “evidence” that seems to suggest a simultaneous dictation effort. I will simply say that, when weighed against the evidence of visual copying, the dictation theory fails. (And I might add that the evidence of copying is certainly not exclusively text-critical. Indeed, a significant component in disproving the simultaneous dictation theory is the historical evidence. We know what Joseph Smith and these various scribes were doing, and when.

But let me continue, or I’ll never get through this – and it’s already entailed my expending more time than I ever intended …

Of course, this next paragraph comprises your stock answer:

What you did here was admit, however unwittingly, that your perspective is biased to the bone and is determined through the lens of a preexisting theological conviction. But when you post at MAD you make it seem like you are an objective researcher whose analysis is supposed to carry some weight. Your analysis and conclusion are both theologically driven.

Well, in the first place, there is no such thing as an “objective researcher” when it comes to this particular topic. Everyone has an agenda. Everyone’s conclusions are colored by one bias or another. And that’s the way it is with everything. Furthermore, I assure you that I suffer from no delusions about my analysis and conclusions carrying any great weight in the arena of LDS apologetics. I am acutely conscious of the fact that what I say – my meager contributions to the debate – are given little more respect in apologetic circles than they are among you happy revelers here in Shadyburg. I am not a “player” in the same sense that someone like Kevin Barney or Matt Roper (and many others) are “players” in field of LDS apologetics – nor do I aspire to be, contrary to your occasional suggestions otherwise. I’m just an average Joe with an opinion and an irresistible urge to express it on occasion.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the question of “objectivity,” there is a great book you should someday take the time to read:

http://www.amazon.com/That-Noble-Dream- ... 0521357454

So, throwing out condemnations of subjectivity will get you nowhere. Subjectivity on this issue (and most others) is a given. Objectivity is a myth. Next question …

I often see you referring to your personal “examination” and “estimation” as if you’re in a position to give a meaningful analysis.

Indeed, I am. According to the terms to which I have referred above. And within the context of my rather unique access to superb images of the KEP, and within the context of my being good friends with Brian Hauglid, John Gee, and some others who are and have been involved in the study of these questions.

I know you have been privy to some nice photos of the KEP, but you still can’t get around the bias factor. You’re far more biased than any critic could ever hope to become.

Yes. I get it. You consider me a biased source. (Yawn …) See above.

Apologists need the KEP to be divorced from the Book of Abraham more than the critics need it to be related.

Patently untrue.

Indeed, the current critical argument is absolutely dependent on the assertion that KEPA #2 and #3 are the “translation working papers” – transcripts of the original oral dictation. And, even in the face of the evidence to the contrary, they will probably continue to adhere to their theory for a good long while. After all, it’s the best thing to come along in the field of anti-Mormon studies since Joseph Smith’s money-digging trial. Alas, all good things must come to an end …

The fact that you can see the texts up close and personal, doesn’t change the fact that you have an established record of claiming to see things that simply aren’t there.

Yawn … again.

Apparently Royal Skousen, one of the most widely-respected textual analysts currently practicing, is also yielding to his “theologically-driven” bias since he has categorically, and for the record, stated that he can also see the things I have seen – those things “that simply aren’t there.”

Joseph Smith screwed the pooch on facsimile 3 …

Your vocabulary is really expanding these days! Kinda makes “circle jerk” seem PG-13 by comparison.

Joseph Smith claimed he could translate Egyptian.

I don’t recall ever actually reading where Joseph Smith claimed he could translate Egyptian. I may be mistaken, but I don’t recall ever seeing such a thing. Perhaps you could dig it up for our mutual benefit.

Even so, I entirely concur with the consensus opinion in the matter: Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian. At least not as I understand the term “translation.”

On the other hand, I believe Joseph Smith was one hell of a medium for revelation.

I already demonstrated that Dan Peterson’s Ensign article called upon a couple of such “evidences” that he felt were impressive, but were easily accessible facts in Joseph Smith’s day. How many of these “parallels” must we knock down before you give up this gambit?

I guess I missed the part where the parallels with ancient Abrahamic lore have been “knocked down.” Oh, I’ve seen several far-fetched suggestions that Joseph Smith had “easy access” to this information, and I can allow for the possibility that he had read Dick and Josephus, but I have yet to be persuaded in the least that any possibly extant sources (of which there were scant few!) could explain the way in which Joseph Smith crafted the Book of Abraham.

Before you start declaring victory, it should be noted that the critic who was capable of responding was immediately banned, and this same apologetic chestnut of yours was dealt with by Chris Smith back in June: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208197779

I’m not sure where you think I declared “victory” about anything. In any case, I don’t consider Chris’ assertion of his own conjectures to constitute a rebuttal of the conjectural possibilities I offered as explanations for the problems in the KEPA manuscripts at Abr. 1:12. I am content to simply note that there was obviously some confusion as to how to phrase the reference tying the text to the illustration. I don’t think anyone can authoritatively say why. I will state that Chris’ assertion suggested here:

As for my own explanation of this particular emendation, I find myself strongly sympathizing with Metcalfe here. As I'm sure you recall, Metcalfe believes that the confusion was caused because Joseph Smith-- who was dictating to his two scribes-- changed his mind in mid-sentence. He had originally dictated "that is lying before you" and then changed to "at the commencement of this record." This seems plausible to me. It also is not clear to me that Williams' "at the commencement of this record" was strictly an afterthought. The line begins to stray upward as early as "I will refer you to the illustration," without which the sentence would be incomplete. "That is at the" continues to stray upwards, and "commencement of this record" is written in the interlinear space created thereby.

is completely without merit in my opinion. The interlinear insertion commenced with a parenthesis, which overlaid the first line of the following paragraph. Then Williams, recognizing that he could not insert the full phrase intended in the space following the parenthesis, commenced writing “I will refer you …” even further above – the word “will” rising to avoid the top of the parenthesis. He then proceeds to write the remainder of the line to “that is at the …” and then finishes the line by starting with “commencement …” immediately after the parenthesis. There is no closing parenthesis.

Anyway, the Metcalfe explanation endorsed by Chris is not supported by the text-critical evidence. Why exactly both Williams and Parrish show confusion at that phrase is difficult to surmise. I suggest that it is consequent to some confusion being present in the parent document from which they were copying. Certainly other explanations are possible. I look forward to some being offered after the KEP are available to a much wider audience.

Now, in conclusion, I want to emphasize a point that, although you view it as a negative in my personal attempts to understand the KEP and the origins of the Book of Abraham, I rather view it as my “Ace in the Hole” when it comes to these questions.

I regard the Book of Abraham as probably the single most doctrinally-important text in the LDS canon. While it is true that the Book of Mormon serves as the primary witness of the mission of Joseph Smith, and as the vanguard of the restoration scriptures, I would argue that it is the Book of Abraham that provides LDS theology with its most philosophically potent concepts; the basis for the distinct theological ontologiy that we possess.

Because of the Book of Abraham, we possess an understanding of the concepts undergirding the divine council; its reality and import; the desire of that council that all have the opportunity to join them in course of time. We also understand the reality of premortal existence, with its corollary of our co-eternal status with God himself. We also come to understand the purposes for which we have been placed in this mortal environment and the stakes of our current existence – all expressed with a clarity and eloquence that no other text communicates.

Perhaps most of all, we come to understand that God is interested in entering into a covenant and a personal relationship with us that mirrors the relationship he sought with Abraham, a relationship that entails Him inviting us to learn of Him and to one day, with His assistance, to become like Him – One with Him, as it were.

Before I ever read the Book of Abraham, these concepts were known to me. They are engraven on my heart and imprinted on my very soul. I know they are true because they are literally a part of me. Notwithstanding the veil of the flesh that obscures my mind and memory, I am still cognizant of the fact that I have always known these things. Reading the Book of Abraham for the first time simply presented an opportunity for the principles and concepts contained therein to strike a resonant chord with those strings of memory already embedded within my very being.

So, I agree with you that there is nothing that could persuade me that the Book of Abraham is not an expression of God’s truth. I know that it is. That is not a conviction that is subject to revision or rejection at this stage of the game. I could no more reject the concepts and principles embodied by the Book of Abraham than I could reach into my chest and rip out my own heart.

Indeed, in a way, I’m not entirely surprised to see the controversy surrounding this most unique book. I suspect that God wants to see who will believe in it on the basis of reasons similar to the ones I have just expressed: because of its resonance with the inward sensibilities of those who come in contact with it. Those who are inclined by their very nature to see themselves within the context of the ontological realties that the Book of Abraham embodies will then naturally gravitate towards Him and partake of His fulness. Those who, for whatever reason, do not feel that they are adapted to that realm, will no doubt feel a profound revulsion to the concepts that would inevitably lead them there. In this fashion, the Book of Abraham is serving as a great sifter – ironically acting simultaneously as both the primary justification for some to draw near to Him and for others to be repelled, as though it possessed some mystical intrinsic gravity; the philosophical and spiritual energy of its logos alone producing the centrifugal and centripetal forces necessary to effect this final division.

So, while I may continue to explore with great zeal the questions surrounding the production of the Book of Abraham, I do so from a stance of firm conviction regarding its divine origin. And though I admit to a recognition of the difficulties the artifacts of its production present for those whose faith in its words is weak, I nonetheless am not persuaded by the case the critics make for fraud. Indeed, I detect serious inadequacies in many of their arguments.

Still, don’t misunderstand: although I will ultimately submit the paper to which I referred above, I do not flatter myself to be, nor do I even aspire to be a bona fide apologist. I have always been more interested in the human aspects of this whole issue, hence my desire to produce this unique “documentary” of the effects on people of this raging controversy. I really do empathize with someone like you whose faith has been shaken, if not destroyed, by how you have interpreted the various artifacts of the question. I would only try to persuade you to withhold judgment for a while longer; to wait another five years or so to see how things shake down after there are high-quality images of the KEP available to a wide variety of people for a significant period of time. Wait a while longer and see if you can’t be persuaded that there are reasons to question the conclusions that the critics have propounded for the past forty years. Most of all, change the parameters of your internal debate for a while; revisit the text of the Book of Abraham and see if you don’t recognize therein an articulation of eternal principles that you instinctively know to be true. When presented with the prospects found in this promise:

… they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

I would only hope that you might give the Book of Abraham one more chance to convince you before you cast if off forever. Just one more time, forget everything you think you know about how it came to be, and try to allow yourself to be moved once again by what it has to say.

Despite all of our conflicts and jousting and frequent harshness towards each other on this contentious topic, I want you to know that I do greatly respect your evident intellect, your obvious talents, and what I perceive to be your essential goodness of soul. (Notwithstanding your self-identification with General Zod … ;-) I have been deeply saddened by what I have perceived to be your gradually-accelerating alienation from the restored gospel. With so much at stake, I sincerely hope that you will not rashly and prematurely throw it all away on account of things that have never and probably never will lend themselves to unequivocal conclusions.

[_Chap]

Will Schryver:

I don’t recall ever actually reading where Joseph Smith claimed he could translate Egyptian. I may be mistaken, but I don’t recall ever seeing such a thing. Perhaps you could dig it up for our mutual benefit.

See http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History ... rch/Vol_II.

On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit
some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some
two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and
devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought
me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation, and like a
gentleman, he gave me the following certificate:

KIRTLAND, July 6, 1835. This is to make known to all who may be
desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in
deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession,
which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and,
from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I and that of
Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters. MICHAEL
H. CHANDLER,

Traveling with, and proprietor of, Egyptian mummies.

Sunday 5.--I preached in the afternoon. Michael H. Barton tried to
get into the Church, but he was not willing to confess and forsake all his
sins--and he was rejected.

Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies
and papyrus, a description of which will appear hereafter, and with W. W.
Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some
of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of
the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of
Joseph of Egypt, etc.,--a more full account of which will appear in its
place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord
is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth.

If someone says, in effect "He had been told I could translate Egyptian, so he brought me some to translate, and I translated it for him", then
that sounds like a claim to be able to translate Egyptian to me.


Also this:

http://www.irr.org/mit/Books/BHOH/bhoh4.html

Additional evidence shows that Joseph Smith consistently represented the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar and all the material related to it as a serious matter. A good example of this is found in a small pamphlet published in 1844 entitled The Voice of Truth.21 In it, Smith was quoted at length as he demonstrated his linguistic prowess by quoting brief phrases from seventeen different languages, in quick succession:

Were I a Chaldean I would exclaim, Keed'nauh to-me-roon lehoam elauhayauh dey - ahemayana veh aur'hau lau gnaubadoo, yabadoo ma-ar'gnau comeen tehoat sheamyauh allah (Thus shall ye say unto them: The gods that have not made the heaven and the earth, they shall perish from the earth, and from these heavens.) An Egyptian, Su-e-eh-ni (What other persons are those?) A Grecian, Diabolos basileuei (The Devil reigns.) A Frenchman, Messieurs sans Dieu (Gentlemen without God.) . . .

And on Smith goes, quoting brief clips of Turkish, German, Syrian, Spanish, Italian, Hebrew, Danish, Latin, and other languages. It is notable that the phrases Smith uses from various languages do not constitute the related thoughts of a single message, but appear to be randomly selected phrases from various dictionaries. Even the Chaldean quoted is no more than an approximate translation of the Hebrew of Jeremiah 10:11, apparently copied from Smith's Hebrew Bible. The "Egyptian" he quotes, however, comes directly from the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, page A: Sue-e-eh-ni "What other person is that? Who?"22

Of course, a skeptic might question whether Joseph Smith actually uttered such strange words. Did he really write or talk in this manner?

Yes, the evidence shows that he definitely did. On November 13, 1843, Smith wrote a letter that appeared in the newspaper Times and Seasons (of which he had served as editor) which stated in part:

Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is; [O the earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.]

These words were taken directly from pages 29 and 30 of the Grammar material:

Jah-oh-eh: The earth under the government of another or the second of the fixed stars, which is called Enish-go-on-dosh or in other words the power of attra[c]tion it has with the earth. Flo-ees: The moon -- signifying its revolutions, also going between, thereby forming an eclipse. Flos-is-is: The sun in its affinity with Earth and moon -- signifying their revolutions showing the power the one has with the other.23

It is also interesting that the words Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Floeese, and Kli-flos-is-is occur in the "Explanation" of Facsimile No. 2 in the Book of Abraham (see p. 103 of this book).

So according to Joseph Smith, this is Egyptian:

Su-e-eh-ni

And he tells us it means:

What other persons are those?

This is Egyptian too:

Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is

And according to Joseph Smith it means:

O the earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.

Doing a translation of an alleged bit of Egyptian in print surely amounts to a claim to be able to do it, no? (For the present purpose I leave aside the question of whether Joseph Smith's words here are real Egyptian or not.)

Will Schryver:

Even so, I entirely concur with the consensus opinion in the matter: Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian. At least not as I understand the term “translation.”

You're right. He couldn't translate Egyptian. But he certainly was happy for people to think that he could. and indeed wrote things that could have had no other object than to give that impression.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi William,

I hardly have time to debate this at present, but I will make a couple quick comments. First of all, the explanation I proposed in June I falsely attributed to Metcalfe, when in fact its true author was Paul Osborne. Secondly, I no longer particularly subscribe to Paul's explanation for why the straying of the line occurred. I still think it's plausible, but if you look at the draft of my paper I emailed you some time ago, you will find that I don't endorse it.

Third and perhaps more importantly, back in June I understood you to be saying that the interlinear insertion in MS 2 included only the phrase "at the commencement of this record". I now read you as saying that the insertion encompassed the entire phrase, "I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this record." I think that, based on manuscript 2 alone, this is a genuinely tenable argument.



The flow of the manuscript would not be terribly affected if the phrase in question, which does look like an afterthought, were not present: "...that you might have a knowledge of this altar, it was made after the form of a bedstead..." So it's certainly possible that this phrase was added supralinearly sometime after the dictation of the next section was begun.

Manuscript 3 is a similar situation. Since the phrase in question comes at the bottom of the page, and "it" with a lowercase "i" starts the next page, it's feasible that our phrase was tacked onto the bottom of the page as an afterthought.



But even if this reading of the evidence is correct, I still don't see how this phrase being an afterthought allows us to conclude that the record and illustration were not adjacent to one another. Believe it or not, the case therefor is not based solely upon this phrase. And that this phrase was added at all certainly suggests that, in Joseph's mind, the representation and the record were contiguous.

Best,

-Chris

[_dartagnan]

You’ve trotted out my alleged “confession” several times recently, almost as though it were a trophy, but in doing so absent its full context, you’re attempting to attribute to me an attitude I do not hold. But more on that below

Alleged? You’re not seriously going to deny saying this. You sent me this email and I appreciated the gesture. It had been a while since we had gone at it and I was pleased to see a more empathizing side to you. But then I saw your encounter with BishopRic, and thought, what the hell? Will the real Will please stand up?

Well, I can tell you right now that I’m absolutely certain that I don’t have your level of stamina for the discussion.

Well, I have my doubts about that. You did a good job of keeping up last year, and you certainly post online more than I do. I think you averaged something like twice as many posts as I did while at MAD.

I’m quite certain you could stay up night and day for a solid week if I chose to accommodate you. And for every 100 words I produced, you would produce 1000.

This is actually an interesting statement since I am currently watching you respond to six of my short comments (which average 20 words each) with commentary thrice as long.

But I have had extra time on my hands this past couple of weeks, with two broken toes (tip: if you ever want to start playing soccer, don’t start at age 37, and certainly not with a bunch of Brazilians).

Whether that’s a credit to your scholarly preparation or your lack of literary economy remains for others to decide.

It’s the superfluous gravy like this that guarantees your posts to exceed my own. I mean really, what purpose do these kinds of comments serve? If you find yourself spending too much time writing long posts then just get to the point. I mean so far you’ve already typed 350 words, for what? It is as if you feel some sense of obligation to come up with something witty to say after every period.

You insinuate that these are incompatible statements. They aren’t.

I did not say that nor did I insinuate that. What I take issue with is your strange apologist persona that appears on forums, compared to your gentler approach when none of your onlookers are watching. When you emailed me and made that comment, you essentially conceded what we already knew. It was just refreshing to hear you say it. If you were not already a Mormon you, “find it difficult to believe that [you] could be persuaded that the production of the Book of Abraham was anything other than a clumsy imposture perpetrated by Joseph Smith upon his followers.”

Now if you don’t feel that you couldn’t be persuaded as a non-Mormon, then why act surprised when other non-Mormons aren’t persuaded? It just comes across as insincere at the least.

If you’re going to show this kind of empathy with those who fit this category in private emails, one would suspect you’d show it consistently, assuming it was sincere. But what you’re doing to BishopRic and essentially everyone who expresses this critical opinion is grilling them as if their just operating on spite and ignorance, and you treat them with the level of disdain only an Evangelical preacher deserves.

The key phrase in the second quote is “.. if I were an outsider looking in …” I’m not.

There is nothing “key” about this; at least not in any sense that would mitigate my point.

Nevertheless, I can easily see how someone like a Robert Ritner (or even Chris Smith) would come to the conclusions they do.

You’re still not explaining why you switch personalities here. If you believe you would do the same thing someone else does, if you were in their shoes, then you sound hypocritical and arrogant for criticizing them when they do it. For example, I say I would beat the living hell out of someone who molested my daughter. Then tomorrow, the neighbor’s daughter is molested, her father beats the hell out of the pedophile and then what do I do? I start criticizing the Father for overreacting.

What’s the problem with this scenario?

But this is not a simple set of questions we are dealing with. There are complexities galore.

Sure there are complexities, but not to the extent that reasonable conclusions cannot be drawn at this point. The job of the apologist is manifest; complicate the simple, and what is already complicated, complicate it more. The reason for this is because you do not want conclusions to be drawn at this point because most people would and do side with the critics. The only people siding with the apologists are believers who want these things to be true, more than anything. Their world shatters if it turns out otherwise.

I would debate you or anyone else on this subject publicly because I know (as do you) that outside observers would never buy into the apologetic lines you guys are producing. Your focus group is primarily believers who are struggling since they already have some sense of conviction that you can use in your favor. But objective outsiders would never buy into the notion that the Book of Abraham is an ancient text. I don’t think any of you appreciate just how laughable some of your theories strike the typical non-LDS observer. You’re just used to sharing these ideas in the echo chamber called MAD, where any serious critical feedback is hindered, discouraged and limited thanks to a fascist moderating team.

Metcalfe, Ashment, Marquardt, et al have worked very hard to make it all seem like a set of very simple equations. And people like you have bought into that paradigm for the discussion.

No, there is no “work” needed to make something simple. One simply needs to reject the mountain of superfluous apologetic theory that is mostly ad hoc, evasive and even contradictory at times.

As an example, you guys used to argue that the KEP were just a bunch of project papers that had nothing to do with Joseph Smith, and everything to do with the scribes testing their own prophetic ability to translate. Oh yea, and in the process they must have all screwed up by using the wrong scroll. You argued this just as passionately and as confidently as you’re now arguing your newer theories. Now here you are using the KEP as evidence that a phrase wasn’t even in the original Book of Abraham. What the hell? You guys are running about and throwing out anything theory that comes out, like you don’t know what the hell you’re doing. This doesn’t even come across as organized, let alone sound.

There is so much more than meets the eye when it comes to the artifacts and circumstances surrounding the production of the Book of Abraham.

No there isn’t. I see statements like these as reminiscent to “Joseph could have been right since no two Egyptologists agree on any translation anyway.” Again, complicate the simple at all costs.

Failing to take into consideration all of these peripheral elements of the story is to fail to see all the possibilities for what the Kirtland Egyptian Papers represent.

I don’t fail on this point. I’ve heard it all and I remain unimpressed. The more I hear about what’s brewing in the apologetic tea pot, the more disappointed I become. Calling me closed-minded because I don’t agree says more about your tolerance for dissent, than anything else. And it also flies in the face of your emailed statement.

I don’t know if you’ve bothered to listen to Sam Brown’s address from the most recent Sunstone symposium. I think I emailed it to you. Sam touches upon just one small aspect of the dynamic to which I refer.

Yes, I listened … to about half of it. You seemed to be impressed with just about anything any faithful believer is willing to opine on this issue.

I think you have misinterpreted key pieces of evidence and closed your mind to the other possibilities that are suggested by that evidence.

Think all you want. Until you demonstrate this you’re just blowing more smoke. I have written extensively in direct response to many of your apologetic theories and explanations. Until you engage me on the issues you’re in no position to judge me as one who has closed his mind, let alone as someone who has “misinterpreted” evidence.

Still, I do not currently possess what I have frequently termed a “unified theory” of the KEP.

Few apologists do. This is because they are still busy trying to complicate it beyond understanding. This isn’t going to fly for objective outsiders. And when I say objective, I mean those who have no stake in this matter either way. Those who know nothing about the Book of Abraham.

I have come to a firm conclusion about, however, is that the primary premise of the theory propounded by the principal critics is fatally flawed. Simply put, KEPA Mss. #2 and #3 (Metcalfe’s 1a and 1b) are NOT the transcripts of the original oral dictation of Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the Book of Abraham. Of that I would say I am 99% certain.

But this is the core of the debate isn’t it? Of course, you are gravely mistaken in your assumptions and the critical viewpoint will win out in the end as it has been winning all along. I say this because you have yet to show me you have any idea what you’re talking about. Again, I have caught you making stuff up on so many occasions… I’ve come to believe you do it unconsciously.

I am convinced that the text appearing on the two manuscripts was originally “translated” several months prior to the time Williams and Parrish sat down to create those documents. I have prepared a paper for ultimate submission to FROB on this topic, but I have promised Brian Hauglid that I will not submit it until after his critical edition of the KEP is published.

We look forward to it.

Now, please don’t launch into an elaborate explication of why it is “obvious” that they are documents that were created simultaneously from oral dictation, etc., etc., etc. Believe me, I’m fully aware of every item of “evidence” you would cite to that end.

As I am fully aware of your apologetic line… yet you insist on hashing it out anyway.

I’ve been looking at those two manuscripts for over a year now.

Wow, a whole year? Well maybe in twenty more years, you’ll have as much familiarity with them as Brent Metcalfe and Ed Ashment have already.

I have 4 megapixel high-res scans that I can blow up and see all the various details. Brian and the guys at BYU are working with .tif files that are 10x more detailed, in addition to their frequent examination, under microscope and otherwise, of the originals.

I don’t think this is anything but window-dressing. Your argument isn’t going to be made or broken over the difference in quality between Brent’s photos and the ones you guys were finally allowed to scan.

I am also quite aware of the “evidence” that seems to suggest a simultaneous dictation effort. I will simply say that, when weighed against the evidence of visual copying, the dictation theory fails.

No need to convince me that you’re convinced of your own theory. I’m certain you are, just as certain as I am that you’re wrong.

All you’ve done in this post is hype up yet another future “presentation.” It is a big “wait and see” exhibit, which really shows us nothing new. I’ve been wooed by the idea of future presentations in that subsequently flopped. Just over a year ago we were all informed at FAIR that Hauglid’s presentation would be the death of the critical view point. And of course, well, we all know what a flop that turned out to be. If anything, Brent came out of that looking even more impressive as he sent yet another LDS “expert” running away from the public view.

Well, in the first place, there is no such thing as an “objective researcher” when it comes to this particular topic.

Sure there is. This is just your way of adjusting to the fact that objective non-believers would never believe if they heard these arguments. Believers are already biased by default, but it isn’t true that all non-believers carry the same level of bias. Many people enter the fray wanting to believe, but it never works out that way when the Book of Abraham is the topic.

Everyone has an agenda.

Wrong again. This is your way of saying there is no problem with the apologetic bias since everyone else has it too. This is patently false.

Everyone’s conclusions are colored by one bias or another. And that’s the way it is with everything.

This kind of wild generalization won’t fly either. Sure, conclusions are often colored to various degrees, whether significant or minor. This axiom is irrelevant to the fact that in the case of the apologist, the conclusion is determined and dictated by bias. You guys need these things to be true more than non-believers need them to be false. Bokovoy’s recent philosophical rant was proof positive of this. It amounted to little more than, “Whatever your brain tells you, you should never believe the Church is false.”

The only equivalent in apologist bias would be an anti-Mormon whose entire life is consumed with proving the Church false. There are only a handful of these, whereas the apologists are everywhere. But still, I cannot think of a single critic who would be devastated to find out the Church was true, to the extent that a Mormon would be devastated to find out it was false.

I am not a “player” in the same sense that someone like Kevin Barney or Matt Roper (and many others) are “players” in field of LDS apologetics – nor do I aspire to be, contrary to your occasional suggestions otherwise.

OK. Sooooo… why are you trying to publish about this in FROB?

I’m just an average Joe with an opinion and an irresistible urge to express it on occasion.

But you have a history of inventing/seeing things that simply aren’t there. I addressed this on my forum where you completely botched everything you were saying. Many of your claims and allusions didn’t even exist in the manuscript.

And within the context of my rather unique access to superb images of the KEP, and within the context of my being good friends with Brian Hauglid, John Gee, and some others who are and have been involved in the study of these questions.

Sorry, but your friends have been thoroughly discredited on this subject, and you have yet to demonstrate how your super duper images are going make a dent in the dominance of the critical position.

Yes. I get it. You consider me a biased source. (Yawn …) See above.

Again, I am familiar with the trendy notion in academia that pure objectivity doesn’t really exist. But you’re not going to get a free pass with your obvious subjectivity by saying everyone is subjective. Again, it is obvious that you guys need to disprove the critical position more than the critics need to maintain it. The difference is mainly in degree of subjectivity.

Indeed, the current critical argument is absolutely dependent on the assertion that KEPA #2 and #3 are the “translation working papers”

It is no mere assertion, it is established fact as anyone who wants to see, can. That is the difference between the two sides. Just because a bunch of apologists are neck deep in cognitive dissonance, and therefore continue to “object,” doesn’t make the situation truly objectionable. You guys have made it perfectly clear that you’re going to object no matter what the evidence is. Find me some non-LDS who disagree with the critical position.

And, even in the face of the evidence to the contrary

Which are usually conjured up by the good apologist, and based on more assumptions than one can shake a stick at.

they will probably continue to adhere to their theory for a good long while. After all, it’s the best thing to come along in the field of anti-Mormon studies since Joseph Smith’s money-digging trial. Alas, all good things must come to an end

See what you just did here? You do this all the time. You think it is OK to call the entire critical side subjective to the core, and imply that no amount of evidence could possibly sway us – as if our dedication to our positions could ever match your own in the “one true Church” - but when the same is said of your side, you go haywire and protest the very thought. But the fact is there is no need for any of us to assume this because people like Bokovoy and yourself have already proved it for us. You already conceded the point (your strange explanation notwithstanding) in your email statement that outsiders would naturally believe Joseph Smith was a fraud, and you said you would too.

What was that, just sales talk to soften me up so I would do an interview with you?

Pacman said at FAIR, and I quote, “no amount of evidence would convince me Joseph Smith was a fraud.” Of course he later edited it out once he realized this proved the apologetic position was anti-reason. Recently Bokovoy has come here to tell all struggling members that if they have problems with evidence that suggests the church isn’t true, then they need to make their paradigm accommodate those evidences some how without ever altering one’s position that the Church is true.

So you see will, you guys make our case for us. You do so unwittingly, but you still do it.

Apparently Royal Skousen, one of the most widely-respected textual analysts currently practicing, is also yielding to his “theologically-driven” bias since he has categorically, and for the record, stated that he can also see the things I have seen – those things “that simply aren’t there.”

Yet, he has never published these sentiments, nor has he presented any case for it. You’ve been toting him around in your back pocket for two years now. This is just more window-shopping where you advertise something for months, even years, with the promise that one day, just maybe, we’ll be able to test it and see how it really fits.

I don’t recall ever actually reading where Joseph Smith claimed he could translate Egyptian.

You’ll probably never find an explicit quotation where he said he could communicate with God, but the evidence that he believed this is all over the place. You guys are hanging yourselves with this ridiculous attempt to redefine the meaning of translate and then foist in on Smith. We all know what he meant by translate. He meant translating from Egyptian to English, not from “revelation which may or may not actually be what the Egyptian said” to English. Revelation was the means, not the source.

Even so, I entirely concur with the consensus opinion in the matter: Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian. At least not as I understand the term “translation.” On the other hand, I believe Joseph Smith was one hell of a medium for revelation.

So this is how you get around the fact that none of his translations pass the test? Well hell, given that premise you might as well just concede the point that the KEP represent the translation manuscripts. I mean all you have to do is rely on some twisted sense of “translate” to account for the fact that nothing passes the test.

I guess I missed the part where the parallels with ancient Abrahamic lore have been “knocked down.” Oh, I’ve seen several far-fetched suggestions that Joseph Smith had “easy access” to this information

This is why it is difficult to take you seriously. You really are out of the loop aren’t you? There is nothing “far-fetched” about the probability that Joseph Smith read these works. We know Joseph Smith stopped his Book of Abraham translation to learn Hebrew. We know he built a “school of the prophets” with a library and sought after the “best books” of learning that included lexicons, dictionaries, commentaries, etc. But according to you, it is all just a far-fetched hypothesis that Joseph Smith actually read any of these.

Gotcha!

I have yet to be persuaded in the least that any possibly extant sources (of which there were scant few!) could explain the way in which Joseph Smith crafted the Book of Abraham.

You make it sounds like the Book of Abraham is a huge tome that required a plethora of sources. I’m more than willing to grant that it is comprised mostly of Smith’s imagination. But you have missed the point. The apologetic line has traditionally asked “How could Joseph Smith have known these things?” The fact that these “things” were common knowledge in 19th century scholarship, pretty much renders this moot. This is what I pointed out in DCP’s silly Ensign article.

I am content to simply note that there was obviously some confusion as to how to phrase the reference tying the text to the illustration. I don’t think anyone can authoritatively say why. I will state that Chris’ assertion suggested here:[/quote

But you’re an artist man. You say you allow for many possibilities but really you’re pushing for only one, and in this case you jump over holes and leap through hoops to conclude that it is more “likely” to have been a latter addition to the original. You don’t even come close to addressing the observations made by CK, Osborne and myself.

is completely without merit in my opinion.

No offense, but you have yet to add any credibility to your opinion. I know you have made friends with the right people, and have managed to work your way into that circle, but the fact is nothing compelling has been presented by any of you. It can already be taken for granted that you’re going to disagree, but what you cannot do, or at least, have not done, is demonstrate why he is wrong. The fact is there is nothing about this transcription anomaly that cannot easily be explained with the dictation scenario. You take every little thing, complicate it beyond recognition, and then insist on your own explanation as the “likely” one. What makes it “likely” when it is based on so many unproved assumptions?

Since this was originally between you and Christ, I’ll let him take over from here if he is so inclined.

Anyway, the Metcalfe explanation endorsed by Chris is not supported by the text-critical evidence.

Yes it is.

Why exactly both Williams and Parrish show confusion at that phrase is difficult to surmise.

Only if you choose not to surmise. It seems quite simple for the rest of us who aren’t dead set on proving a copying process.

I suggest that it is consequent to some confusion being present in the parent document from which they were copying.

This makes no sense at all. If professional scribes are paid to do a job, you don’t need two of them for the simple task of copying a short document. Secondly, the chances of two scribes messing up in the same exact spot is beyond plausibility- but makes perfect sense if they were transcribing a dictated text and the speaker stopped them in mid-sentence. Thirdly, your explanation that there must have been some mysterious “confusion” in an assumed “original document,” (that’s two huge assumptions you’re already using to hang your theory on) is not a sensible alternative explanation. What kind of “confusion” could it possibly have been? How hard is it to copy a few paragraphs for crying out loud. If the “confusion” consisted of a line crossed out, then surely these paid scribes would have been smart enough to avoid that part. Maybe when you clearly define what this “confusion” really was, even in theory, then we can proceed to testing its plausibility. But you avoid that crucial part of the reasoning process and jump to the conclusion that your theory is the more “likely.” Amazing.

Because of the Book of Abraham, we possess an understanding of the concepts undergirding the divine council; its reality and import; the desire of that council that all have the opportunity to join them in course of time. We also understand the reality of premortal existence, with its corollary of our co-eternal status with God himself. We also come to understand the purposes for which we have been placed in this mortal environment and the stakes of our current existence – all expressed with a clarity and eloquence that no other text communicates.

This makes it all the more devastating when it is shown to be fraudulent.

Oh, and your spiritual testimony (the rest of your post) is noted.

[_cksalmon]

Will Schryver:

I don’t recall ever actually reading where Joseph Smith claimed he could translate Egyptian. I may be mistaken, but I don’t recall ever seeing such a thing. Perhaps you could dig it up for our mutual benefit.

*snip*

Now, in light of the material in Chap's post, well-known to all who have delved even superficially into Book of Abraham issues (such as myself), does anyone really believe that Joseph Smith did not purport that he could translate Egyptian?

I appreciate your post, Chap. I was thinking of the same things. What will be the rebuttal to this? That we shouldn't trust what Joseph Smith thought and claimed he knew in this instance? There's certainly a precedent for that sort of thing in LDS apologetics.

CKS

[_dartagnan]

Will, you guys are committing apologetic suicide if you intend to argue Joseph Smith never believed he could translate Egyptian.

What the heck are you thinking?

Just when I thought Book of Abraham apologetics couldn't be in worser shape...

[_Coggins7]

You have put yourself forward as an expert on this subject. I suppose you do know quite a bit about it. Not your own research, but that you read what a lot of other people have researched and published. But you aren't objective. You have a viewpoint as biased as any apologist you care to name. But in everything I have read from you on the subject, you have not ever said "In my opinnioin" or "the way I interpret this" etc. You make flat out statements that this is the way it is. And you expect all the little puppies to take your word for it.

Your behavior toward other scholars is not "scholarly." If someone disagrees with you they are stupid, ignorant, lying, idiots, etc. This is not the enlightened scholar leading others to truth. It is an ego in search of a reputation.

Thank you for pointing out what I already knew. He may very well be an expert on this subject, and he certainly has some detailed knowledge beyond my more general immersion in it. The problem is, its difficult to tell one way or the other because of the manner in which he overstates and exaggerates the degree of certainly of his and other LDS critics claims.

This is, after all, not hard science, but historical scholarship, a very sticky business fraught with bias, subjectivity, and a very real dearth of clear, direct evidence and facts. It is, like so much in Archeology, Egyptology, and textual criticism, very much a matter of creative reconstruction, and objectivity is, at best, an ideal kept in mind at all times (in theory) but difficult to actualize in practice.