Who can count the windings?

[_Kishkumen]

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.

You would be surprised how vulnerable vain and insecure intellectuals are.

[_TrashcanMan79]

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.

Speaking of Brent, does anyone know anything about the Book of Abraham book he's editing? I first read about it on this board four or five years ago, I think, but I haven't heard an update in quite a while.

Anyone? Anything?

[_Kevin Graham]

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.

Speaking of Brent, does anyone know anything about the Book of Abraham book he's editing? I first read about it on this board four or five years ago, I think, but I haven't heard an update in quite a while.

Anyone? Anything?

Brent has more important things going on right now withbut job and family but his book is mostly done. The problem is he is a perfectionist and keeps having the thing polished over and over.

[_Darth J]

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.

Well, Schryver believes in a religion started by Joseph Smith. Sometimes the ideological apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[_aussieguy55]

Kevin, I hope you do get to write your book. You always sound like you have the subject matter down, and I like your street fighter approach.

[_Drifting]

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.

And that's just the stuff he's good at...

[_Fence Sitter]

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.

Thanks.


Here is my understanding of the of the Breathing Permit of Hor. There are three extant pieces owned by the Church, fragments I, XI & X. Fragments I & XI are known to connect and we know there is a gap between fragments X & XI. This gap, as you noted, is the focus of the winding lengths debate. We also know that Facsimile No.3 which is lost, followed fragment X.

Which end was toward the inner portion of the rolled up scroll? Fac No.3 correct?

Do all sides assume that Fac No.3 was attached to fragment X or are there those that believe that more of the scroll is missing between X & Fac No.3? I have not seen any thing to indicate that there was any lacuna on the original Fac No.3.If it was attached to fragment X it seems it should have been damaged also even if it was toward the inside of the roll. There seems to be so much damage to fragment X it is hard to see how Fac No.3 would not have some damage if it were connected to X.

Is anyone claiming that there might have been additional parts of the scroll, contrary to how it is described in the Book of Abraham, before Fac No.1 or after Fac No. 3?

It seems strange that if there was a large section of missing scroll between X & XI that the damage to the two fragments is so similar.

[_dblagent007]

Brian Hauglid posted this reply to Will over on MDD.

Dear Will,

I feel a need to respond to your public criticisms of my work (and me).

It is saddening and disappointing that you have chosen to take pot shots at my work from the sidelines rather than trying to be supportive of a larger effort to assist the Church (via CHD and JSPP) in acquainting the saints with these complex documents.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am working in a vacuum. This is patently not true. The CHD and the JSPP invited me to contribute my work to the JSPP website and offered their full support. I gladly accepted. The JSPP has graciously assigned several very skilled and competent researchers and transcribers to assist me. For this I am very grateful. This support will continue until all the documents have been published both online and in print.

The content currently on the website is in the interim phase because it has not gone through the third-level (most rigorous) verification process, which takes place before it can go into a print volume. However, the CHD and the JSPP thought that it would be acceptable to put it up now and make changes along the way.

I appreciate your critique. We will take it under advisement.

As far as my previous book is concerned I have never said it is the final word in any way. Fortunately I had help from many people, including some very capable and skilled transcribers such as John Gee and Robin Jensen, who went through every letter and word in the transcriptions. Although I take full responsibility for the final product, it could never have happened without the help of these and others who willingly took time from their busy schedules to offer assistance.

It is really quite easy to point out different interpretations in transcriptions. This is the nature of documentary editing. It is a difficult task to say the least. However, your criticisms have the tone and tenor of someone who has a chip on the shoulder. You seem more interested in discrediting me than trying to contribute to helping the saints come to grips with these documents.

You say I have committed some egregious errors in my last book and, perhaps, in what is currently on the JSPP website. Please send me your critique. Most know that this is an academic work where research is always in flux, but I am always open to suggestions, revisions, and corrections to improve my work.

If you have any desire to be involved in making a difference in how the saints look at these documents I would strongly encourage you to take a different approach than the one you have chosen. We would be most grateful for your input. However, if you continue to treat my work with the CHD and JSPP with polemics then that is your choice.

You also criticize me for reaching out to those who disagree with us. I do not apologize for that. I have learned much from their point of view that has been helpful in how I will present these documents.

Please know I have no hard feelings against you.

We are brothers in Christ and should act accordingly.

My best to you and yours,

Brian Hauglid

The Church needs more apologists like Brian.

[_Joe Geisner]

The Church needs more apologists like Brian.

No truer words, thank you very much dblagent007 for posting Brian's response. Brian is a class act and I think a very good scholar.

I hope Brian is able to reach out to others; those are not in the employ of the Church. Associating with people like Mike Marquardt, Brent Metcalfe, Chris Smith and Andrew Cook can only help this project.

The transcription does have its errors, but to make the images available, and hopefully all the pages will be made available soon, is a major move forward. I am very glad to see this kind of openness.

[_Kevin Graham]

I have no idea what William is complaining about over there, because I've refrained from visiting that forum (for good hopefully).

I will say that Brian Hauglid is a class act and he proves this with every post he offers. Years ago he opened his arms and welcomed William's Schryver's apologetic passion when there was really no particular reason to do so. Schryver was an absolute know-nothing on the subject (he literally didn't know what the KEP were!) but he had a passion for apologetic theory and Hauglid appreciated that in him. He even gave William a complete set of the KEP documents which no other person on the planet had access to at the time. And how does William repay his kindness?

By calling him a traitor for having the decency to seek civil dialogue with his critics.

Are you paying attention, Daniel C. Peterson?

This despicable character is your new buddy.

I hope you're proud.

Incidentally I had a nice conversation with Brent Metcalfe last night. He mentioned the Schryver criticisms being posted at MAD and pretty much said it is true that Brian's transcription - as it is posted online - contains numerous errors; most of them are minor and none of them have any apologetic significance so it is unclear why Schryver thinks it is such an important point to "correct" his former mentor. The only reasonable explanation, as Brian concludes, is that Schryver still has a chip on his shoulder ever since Hauglid refused to support his cipher theory.

Brent also said William Schryver's transcription is equally problematic. I suggested he contact Hauglid to offer help on this matter but Brent decided that he is instead going to publish his transcription of this document which will offer a more accurate and polished transcription of the Joseph Smith EG document.