Who can count the windings?

[_Kevin Graham]

Been thinking on this for a bit.

How can one count the windings on a rolled out scroll, when each winding would be longer than the previous one?

You can count them by identifying anchor points that would appear consistently on a rolled text. For example, take a sheet of paper and roll it up as tightly as you can. Then take pen or knife and slice a small cut to create an anchor point. When you unroll the sheet, you'll see that the cut you made created multiple anchor points that can be used to determine how many times the sheet was wound up.

Egyptian papyri generally have some kind of anchor points, especially towards the outer end of the roll (created from deterioration) and like you said, the winding gets longer towards the outer portion of the roll, which is why you see the distance diminish between anchor points as you move towards the inner portion of the roll.

[_Fence Sitter]

Egyptian papyri generally have some kind of anchor points, especially towards the outer end of the roll (created from deterioration) and like you said, the winding gets longer towards the outer portion of the roll, which is why you see the distance diminish between anchor points as you move towards the inner portion of the roll.

I understand that there is a piece of papyri missing between fragments XI and X in P. Joseph Smith 1. Can any conclusions be drawn about the length of the missing portion between these two pieces based on the winding points or are the damages area (winding points) to broad to draw any solid conclusions?

[_Kishkumen]

If on the Book of Abraham you are tempest-tossed,
If you are discouraged, your testimony lost,
Count the many windings,
Name them one by one,
And it will surprise you what John Gee has done!

(This kind of genius comes effortlessly for me. I apologize for being unable to contain it.)

KA

I am a fellow traveler. Unfortunately, and much to the unsettling of my missionary companions and the members of the wards wherein I served, I tended to do that kind of thing a lot on my mission.

I really like this one, though. I think it is the best I have seen yet.

I am a child of darkness,
I tempt and lead astray,
deceive them with my lying words,
until they fall away.

I feel your pain.

[_Kevin Graham]

Egyptian papyri generally have some kind of anchor points, especially towards the outer end of the roll (created from deterioration) and like you said, the winding gets longer towards the outer portion of the roll, which is why you see the distance diminish between anchor points as you move towards the inner portion of the roll.

I understand that there is a piece of papyri missing between fragments XI and X in P. Joseph Smith 1. Can any conclusions be drawn about the length of the missing portion between these two pieces based on the winding points or are the damages area (winding points) to broad to draw any solid conclusions?

Yes that is the whole point behind the formula debate. Gee is misusing the formula to come with outrageous lengths whereas Andrew and Chris properly apply it to come up with figures that pretty much corroborate Ritner and Baer's opinion that the original length doesn't really go far beyond what it available today (noting the possible absence of a vignette and facsimile). We have the beginning, middle and ending of the roll, and each portion refers to Hor. It would be unprecedented for a funerary scroll of this kind to be interrupted abruptly with an entirely different narrative - especially something like an entire "book" of Abraham. Whoever prepared this papyrus for Hor, what the hell was he thinking if that is what he did? It just makes no sense.

[_Carton]

Kevin,

I read the Gee article in the latest issue of the JBMORS. I found it to be typical obtuse Gee crapola. No surprise there.

But do you remember Schryver saying that Gee had tested the Cook formula, the Hoffman formula, and Schryver's formula against the Toronto scroll? Schryver was beating his chest about the fact that his formula was the most accurate. It seems like this was on the MADB board. I can't seem to find it. Do you remember that?

Anyway, in Gee's article there is no mention at all of Schryver and his alleged formula! What a fraking liar he is! I can't believe people like DCP give Schryver any credibility at all.

Also, Schryver made a comment yesterday about you possibly helping Hauglid with his EAG book. I think he was just trying to be funny. But I think that would be a great idea. Have you discussed this with Hauglid? Any chance of you assisting him? He'd be smart to enlist your help.

And did you also see where Schryver claimed Hauglid's transcription is wrong? What do you think of that? I didn't really look at it closely, but I wondered if you had and what you thought.

Thanks,

Carton

[_Kishkumen]

Anyway, in Gee's article there is no mention at all of Schryver and his alleged formula! What a fraking liar he is! I can't believe people like DCP give Schryver any credibility at all.

You're not the only one. The guy is a narcissist and a charlatan.

[_Carton]

Anyway, in Gee's article there is no mention at all of Schryver and his alleged formula! What a fraking liar he is! I can't believe people like DCP give Schryver any credibility at all.

You're not the only one. The guy is a narcissist and a charlatan.

I've given it some thought, but I haven't come up with any explanation. There must be some factor that we don't know about. The Nibley love child thing is obviously just a joke that Doctor Scratch is pulling on us. But the joke plays on our desire to explain why someone who seems so reprehensible is rubbing shoulders with people who you'd think would want to project some semblance of respectability. It just seems like a strange match. Makes you wonder how Schryver got in the door in the first place.

[_Kevin Graham]

The best thing to do with Schryver is to ignore him. He's a non-entity on this subject. He's already provided years of documented examples of lies, outrageous claims, overblown hype and failed apologetics.

I wouldn't read too much into his relationship with Dan Peterson. Will does this crap all the time, trying to give the impression that his friendships with BYU academians somehow translates to support for his apologetic theories. He used to boast of his relationship with Royal Skousen, how they would hang out together and watch movies and talk about anti-Mormons. He told us that Royal "confirmed" many of his observations with respect to the KEP documents, and yet Royal has never come forward in publication to support him. All we have is WIlbur's say so on that point.

So now he and his family are mingling with Dan Peterson and his family. That's nice. But I wonder why that would be. Well, consider this...

Last month I drove from Salt Lake to Las Vegas, and I happened to pass through the town where Schryver calls home, Cedar City, Utah. It is really way out in the boonies, and so there is really no reason why an uneducated, pony-tail sportin', canyon-dwelling hippie, would be constantly having meetings with BYU academians unless he were the one to initiate them. Do you think these scholars go out of their way to seek Schryver's advice on apologetic issues? No one knew who this guy was until 2006 when he started screaming from the rooftops just how impeccable and irrefutable his pet theories are. No, it is most certainly the other way around: Schryver has been trying to recruit support for his theories for years, and his main target has to be the faculty at BYU.

First it was Brian Hauglid, beginning back in 2006 when I first introduced Schryver to the KEP. William immediately started to ride on the coat-tails of Hauglid, trying to get him to accept all kinds of theories he had come up with. Well, when Hauglid finally explained to William that he had to respectfully disagree with his cipher theory, William responded by ceasing all communications with him. Brian said he hasn't heard from him since. Brian was even kind enough to share sensitive KEP images with him and include Schryver's name in his book, crediting him with "researching." But since the book was not apologetic at all, it is unclear how Schryver contributed to the project. None of his "text-critical" theories which he had promised to be published, were mentioned in the book. But the point is, Schryver clearly viewed disagreement with him as a sign of apostasy / betrayal. He equates betrayal towards him with betrayal of the gospel. Talk about a monstrous ego.

In any event, Schryver has become his own worst enemy, and I see no reason to even acknowledge him since he's done nothing of value on the subject. He has no credibility because he cannot handle debate. He can't defend his arguments without referring us to some future, never to appear publication. Last year he challenged Chris Smith to prove his cipher theory was wrong, but Chris didn't want to deal with Schryver's antics and simply referred him to some earlier posts from this forum. But Schryver and wade were goading him arrogantly so I stepped in and provided a detailed refutation of his theory, and he and wade had a conniption fit that got so ridiculously out of hand that he was suspended and then said he would leave the forum for good because the moderators didn't see how he was a victim. That was the MAD forum, which is the Mormon friendly forum owned and operated by the same folks who run FAIR. And now that I am no longer on the forum, he crawls back out of the wood-works to start talking about me again? Now that it is safe? LOL! No wonder Dan Peterson likes him so much. They share the same lack of integrity and intense cowardice.

And no, I don't think Hauglid needs me to help him with his book. If he were to engage in an apologetic treatment of the EAG, then maybe. But that isn't what he is going to do. He is just providing a basic primer for students of the Book of Abraham, so that they have the necessary documents for their own analysis and can draw their own conclusions. Besides, it would be academic suicide to include the name of an apostate in his book. He wanted to include Brent Metcalfe's name in his previous book, but since it was published by NAMIR, John Gee had total control over it and made sure Metcalfe's name didn't appear. He also inserted a few idiotic apologetic assertions, such as the existence of Abraham manuscript 0. This is why Hauglid won't be publishing with NAMIR for his next book.

Having said that, I've been nudged long enough to the point that I think I've given in to the pressure to write my own book on this subject. My wife and kids are in Brazil until August so I should have time over the summer to get a basic outline started. There is so much that needs to be published on this subject that the most difficult part would be deciding what kind of book it should be. Most of the people wanting me to publish are those who are begging for a basic introduction, something like a "Book of Abraham for Idiots" guide. Because most of the stuff I post in refutation of Gee and Schryver, generally deals with the more sophisticated apologetic arguments that are based on previous theories, etc... which means it tends to go right over their heads anyway. But I'm always open to suggestions...

[_Carton]

If Gee (and others? That wasn't clear.) forced Hauglid to include material in his book that Hauglid did not himself believe is an intolerable situation, if you ask me. Wow! Especially when you consicer that the book wasn't joint-authored. Can you imagine having John Gee exercising final editorial authority over the book you want to write about the KEP? No amount of money ... well, I suppose I could be bought for a while for the right price ...

But seriously, I can see why he won't be publishing any of his future stuff through the Maxwell Institute. It sounds like he's going the pure scholarly route and isn't going to toe the MI party line of "take my word for it" apologetics. Oh, and "you can't believe anything those devilish apostates critics say. They've lost the spirit and they can't see the light of truth anymore."

I wonder if Hauglid will write up an addendum of sorts that could be inserted into his book. Something that briefly explains what happened and then provided the various corrections to the first edition. That would be a pretty classy move, if you ask me.

[_Carton]

And in case you didn't notice, I took your advice about Schryver in my last post. I think you're right.