The Specter of the Book of Abraham Continues to Haunt Mopologetics

[_Dr Exiled]

Nothing like good ole fashioned Mormon magic to satiate the questioning masses. Bro. Schryver has the key to solving Book of Abraham problems and everyone can be satisfied. There is no need to go further. So, don't ask questions, just believe. Just trust that it is there like one trusts that Sorenson's long a$$ book proves historicity without even reading it.

[_Doctor Scratch]

My, my. Lol. There was a part of me that thought this thread would be little more than a lark. Ah, hey, look: Here's Dr. Peterson crapping all over someone that, one would assume, is normally regarded as "one of the good guys." But oh no! It turns out that something far more extensive and important has turned up!

Wow: I am really blown away. The "Schryver Essay" has achieved a sort of apocryphal status, and the main mystery all along was the reason why it's never been published. The main reasons have already surfaced on this thread: the Brethren kiboshed it. It was kiboshed by Bradford for "political" reasons. It was "canceled" because of MsJack's expose. There are "other" reasons, but they are not "academic" or "ecclesiastical." And so on. The most plausible explanation we've yet been given is the one that was provided by Ben McGuire on this very thread: it's mainly *bureaucratic*--the Church requires one to sign so many approval forms that it simply isn't pragmatic for Will to re-do all that paperwork. Oh, and by the way: the reason that Will's paper is important is because of this specialized measuring technique that he uses.

Ah. So that's it. Wow. I didn't realize that I would see something like this--something that actually tops the "truth" of the 2nd Watson Letter. If what Ben McGuire says is true--and I have absolutely zero reason to doubt him--then the simple reason why the Schryver paper has never been published is this: the Mopologists have known all along that it was a scam. They realized that they could probably use it to fool some of the people who were partly in their circle (hence why Ben would relay it here, apparently thinking that it was "serious" scholarship), but knew that, if the wider world saw what they were doing, they would be exposed as pseudo-scholars. So that is why they've buried Schryver's essay all this time.

See: it's very easy to circulate this mythology about critics being these evil people who distort all the facts and just want to "lure" people out of the Church. But what does it tell you when your "scholars" are circulating claims in private but are unwilling to subject those same claims to real scrutiny? If they--and by "they" I mainly mean the classic-FARMS crowd--want to share this "secret" with you, but then don't want you talking about it, and don't want the critics to know about it, either (which you know is true based on their circumspect public utterances), then what does that tell you?

[_Philo Sofee]

Nice to see you again Ben! Hope all is well with all your family.

[_Gadianton]

Thank you Dr. W, I appreciated your explanations. Ben did mention something like, the preservation techniques made it impossible to measure with calipers. I read that as implying laminating the papyri or something? Thinking about your examples, I'd use that metallic plate idea. Get three or four kinds of paper preserved in the exact same fashion as the papyri, have precise measures of the paper first, of course, and then use them preserved to calibrate the ECD.

The use of standard measuring equipment, employing standard methods, that can be readily repeated by others is part and parcel of good science.

Yeah, it sounds like "peer review" is the downfall again. Now that they've seen your comments on this thread, they know that if they ever publish that paper, then at least one scientist will review the measuring techniques very, very carefully, and that just may be enough to kill the desire to publish for good.

[Guest]

Oh, boy. This doesn't look good. No, not at all. What happened?

On the one hand we have a testimony by someone who says they've seen the paper with their physical eyes, they reviewed it, and that the paper was ready to go. All set. Queued up, as it were! I had to go back to my notes of an unfinished manuscript of mine and review my interaction with Mr. McGuire.

There was a paper written (and ready for publication). I reviewed it personally. I still have my correspondence with Will on this issue. I have never felt that I had the right to release this material.

Is it me, or do I now see this comment in a different light thanks to Dr. W's explanation? There seems to be a carefully set of chosen words here.

"There was a paper written." "I still have my correspondence with Will on this issue." "... this material."

I'm sorry to be so doggedly determine here, my good colleagues, but I cannot deny this internal truth of mine, this beacon as it were, burning more brightly now than a lighthouse leading sailors to safe harbor when the fog is thick. But I must say this, even at the risk of being an offender for the word:

There was never any essay.

There. I said it. I feel as if Atlas shrugged, and the world fell from his shoulders. I'm free from this terrible truth! I can breathe!

We now have, sadly, two instances where a cabal of truthbenders have created and floated the notion of a record on a matter of doctrine, allowing fevered minds to believe in a fact that cannot be seen, measured, nor verified.

A ready-to-print piece, The Schryver Essay, never existed.

- Doc

[_Kishkumen]

Doc, I don’t agree, but I have to say you’ve really ramped up your writing in a delightful way. Keep up the good work!

[_Kishkumen]

So, you cut off a small piece of papyrus and put it on a metal plate. Then you use the ECD. Does that work?

I get the point about a repeatable measurement, but I have to hand it to Will for coming up with a creative way to get results.

ETA: I see DrW already edited his post to include this possibility.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Gadianton:

I think one guy alone in a room with a ruler would be a prime target for confirmation bias, and then if using this thing goes beyond point and click, that just makes it worse.

As far as I know, there were at least three others with Will who were not associated with the Church History Department. Two of those individuals were well acquainted with the use of the equipment and who (I assume) took the actual measurements. Will was not the one taking the measurements as far as I know.

Doctor Scratch:

I’m sure I’m not alone in being curious.... What is the backstory to Dr. Peterson’s apparently acrimonious feelings towards Brian Hauglid?

If there are issues, I do not know what they are. Both of them have been extraordinarily kind to me in our interactions.

Paul:

What about you, Ben? Do you have a problem with a white man's head atop a black man's body? How do you feel about someone chopping the nose of a dog? You do realize, Joseph Smith was a butcher, do you not? Ben, do you like dogs? Would you help a dog in distress?

While I admit that I may not be particularly in line with mainstream LDS views, I think that there is no question that there is some religious appropriation going on here. That is, Joseph Smith is re-purposing the facsimiles for use with his Book of Abraham text. In that sense, I don't, for a minute, believe that Joseph Smith was creating (or even working towards) some sort of original Egyptian document (although he and his associates might have come to believe that this is what they were doing). Nor do I think that this is significantly different from any other religious group (or even non-religious groups) doing the same sort of thing.

Because of this, the only way in which this is a problem that must be solved comes for those who believe that the facsimiles (as we have them in the wood cuts) are accurate reconstructions of an original Egyptian document and that this original document can and should be understood exclusively within the context of the LDS Book of Abraham as it now exists. Since I don't accept that premise, I don't really have a problem with changes being made to that source to make it more illustrative (in some sense) of the Book of Abraham narrative. A more relevant question (at least for me) exists over the issue of which came first. Did we get the narrative which was then illustrated by the facsimiles? Or were the facsimiles in some way inspiration for the narrative? And was the use of the illustrations in either case a way of connecting the text to the papyri? This is more or less the same question that exists about the grammar documents. Which came first, the grammar documents or the Book of Abraham narrative? And of course, there are lots of things that can help us with that question, like the Hebrew connections to Seixas and the Gibbs text. In my 2016 FairMormon presentation, I spent some time talking about translation, and the language used in translation, and how a text that claims to be a translation functions differently in an audience than a text that claims to be an original work. This was with respect to the Book of Mormon. But some of that applies here to the Book of Abraham as well.

Kerry:

Nice to see you again Ben! Hope all is well with all your family.

Thank you, and yes, they are all doing reasonably well.

[_Shulem]

Shulem,

Think back to the moments just before your psychological transition from an Uber TBM who believed the Gods numbered the particles of ink on facsimile 3, to the disbeliever who rejects every last jot of LDS teachings.

If someone would have asked you right at that moment before the transition from slug to butterfly, “Shulem, what is the name of the king?”

What is the name you would have given in response?

I knew from the very beginning (when I first started investigating the Facsimiles using the public library -- back in the day) that the hieroglyphic writing on the Facsimiles was something entirely different than what Joseph Smith came up with. I knew that. That's why from the very beginning I ascribed to the catalyst theory and believed that Smith was using the papyrus as a vehicle to move about within his spiritual mind and restore the story of Abraham. I was not very impressed with Nibley and felt that I couldn't trust him any further than I could throw him.

Had you asked me the name of the king which was represented by the writing in Facsimile No. 3, I would have said "Onitah" a royal family that ruled Lower Egypt during Abraham's ministry.

Well, there.

I wonder what our good friend Benjamin McGuire would say?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

So, you cut off a small piece of papyrus and put it on a metal plate. Then you use the ECD. Does that work?

Clearly that would be the way to go. But my understanding is that are a couple of problems with this in this specific case. First, the Church seems to be really adverse to doing anything that might damage the papyri. Second, the papyri are not in particularly good shape. The thickness varies (it actually seems to get thinner as you move towards the inner windings according to the measurements taken for Will's project). But more to the point, there are areas where there is clear erosion of the surface of the papyri, so taking a small piece that was safe to take (i.e. that wouldn't cause potential problems later) might not give you an adequate measurement. Third, the fragments are mounted (glued) to a backing paper, which is then sealed inside of a mylar sleeve, placed in a larger paper frame, and kept together in a 'book'. Since measuring the papyri in this way probably isn't high on the Church's list of priorities, you are forced to work within the limitations caused by those circumstances.

Having said this, I personally think that the whole debate is something of a waste of time. No matter where we end up, it won't actually change anyone's opinions. Perhaps it is a safe battleground because no matter what comes out of it, it doesn't force anyone to change their minds.