The Specter of the Book of Abraham Continues to Haunt Mopologetics

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

So to recap:

- Will Schryver, Daniel C. Peterson and other Mopologists have been publicy stating for years at what a game changer Will's unpublished paper is for the Book of Abraham.

-Benjamin McGuire states that Will, in his unpublished paper discusses how he measured the thickness of the scoll using an eddy current device (ECD).

-Dr. W, a nationally well-respected scientist explains why using the ECD method would be problematic (at best) and would not work on measuring the thickness of the scroll, for various reason.

-In addition, due to the condition of the scroll and the fact that it has been glued to another surface, it would be almost impossible to measure the thickness using ECD.

-The real reason for Will's game changing paper is now plainly obvious. Mainly, Will used a very flawed method for measuring the scroll thickness.

-Daniel C. Peterson and the other Mopoligists have egg on their face and have been exposed yet once again for their dishonesty.

[_Shulem]

BOTTOM LINE

If Will Schryver had the goods to deliver he would have delivered them. If he had what it took to make his case he would have made his case. It's clear to me that Schryver ran into road blocks and during the process of trying to peddle his idea he realized it wasn't going to fly. Schryver came to terms that his theory was nonsense and nobody (except for weirdos) was going to accept it. So, he abandoned ship and moved on.

I doubt very much that Schryver has a testimony of the Book of Abraham and he knows full well that the church is a fraud. He's probably smoking weed and doing things to find satisfaction in life. I wish him all the best.

[_Kishkumen]

For clarification, the possibility of placing papyrus on a conductive metal plate to make a ECD measurement was included in my original post of Nov 13 as an ETA just after midnight EST.

Yeah! I know! I missed it the first time I skimmed your post. I went back to add this after re-reading your post more carefully to credit you, not to take credit. Everything I wrote was inspired by your post.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I bet there would indeed be calibration issues. I reckon you could probably handle them by doing control measurements of various thicknesses of other paper or parchment or cloth inside similar mylar envelopes. You have to know the mylar envelope well to use this method, anyway. Did Schryver's team do all that properly? Perhaps they did, but if not—if Schryver's ECD experts just slapped a meter down on the papyrus frame, assuming everything would work just like measuring paint thickness—then their measurements might be worthless even though they had tons of experience in using ECD devices in routine ways.

Maybe Ben can clarify, but I was never under the impression that Schryver had a "team." In fact, the suggestion of such a thing strikes me as laughable (though, I guess possible, even if remotely). Schryver also--to my knowledge--does not have a degree in the sciences; certainly not a graduate degree. I won't deny that it's possible for an autodidact to learn to do something like this, but Will? The whole thing smells like a scam to me. Pending publication of the actual essay, I'm happy to go on believe that it's a scam.

[_Shulem]

The whole thing smells like a scam to me.

The Book of Abraham published in the Times and Seasons by Joseph Smith was a dishonest scheme and a fraud in every respect. The foolish and ignorant First Presidency of 1880 canonized the book proving again that the Spirit of Mormonism really is a scam.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, considering as late as March of this year Mr. Schryver's cipher theory has been taken seriously enough to reference in an online essay produced by Kerry Muhlestein:

https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/2018/ ... retations/

In a FAIR conference in August of 2010, William Schryver made an important and cogent presentation arguing that the GAEL was actually W.W. Phelps’s attempt to encode, or cipher, ideas into Egyptian characters.

It strikes me as, well, bizarre that his other work, so well received it was heralded in the Church's own newspaper, now only merits passing references from Mr. Schryver's academic colleagues. His peers quote him, make reference to this as-of-yet mysterious essay, but it never finds the light of day?

Something's rotten in Denmark.

- Doc

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Paul -

You've been able to see a blow up view of the printing plate wherein the head of Anubis provides new details that nobody ever could have guessed. The nose was hacked off after having been originally carved on the plate. Don't you think the nose was hacked out, Benjamin? Just look at it! You can see the jackal eye, it looks fine. You can see the jackal ear atop the head, it's there good enough. But the nose, it was removed, was it not? And if so, why?

Surely you have an opinion on this. I think you know that the original head on the papyrus in both vignettes of Facsimile No. 1 & 3 was a jackal not that of a human.

I don't think that the nose was hacked off. It doesn't look like it to me. And there are too many assumptions that have to go in to such a claim to make me feel comfortable with it. It doesn't mean that it didn't happen, I just don't think that the woodcut contains the evidence that it did. I don't disagree with the idea that the original text likely had that figure as you describe it. The problem with not having an original for facsimile 3 is of course that we don't know what kind of condition it was in. It was likely to have significant deterioration in spots, don't you think? And since you bring up facsimile 1, there was definite damage there which made the change easier. Certainly the decision (if one was made) to change the face could easily have been made before carving began. But the suggestion that the spike coming from the head could be ears is certainly has merit sans the original papyrus.

Ben McGuire

[Guest]

I don't think that the nose was hacked off. It doesn't look like it to me. And there are too many assumptions that have to go in to such a claim to make me feel comfortable with it. It doesn't mean that it didn't happen, I just don't think that the woodcut contains the evidence that it did. I don't disagree with the idea that the original text likely had that figure as you describe it. The problem with not having an original for facsimile 3 is of course that we don't know what kind of condition it was in. It was likely to have significant deterioration in spots, don't you think? And since you bring up facsimile 1, there was definite damage there which made the change easier. Certainly the decision (if one was made) to change the face could easily have been made before carving began. But the suggestion that the spike coming from the head could be ears is certainly has merit sans the original papyrus.
Ben McGuire

Eventually a professional artisan will provide an opinion or an intelligent assessment of what happened to the lead material in front of Anubis's face. The etchings and grooves made by engraving tool(s) are very curious indeed and an artist will better understand what happened. There is a lot happening in the lead -- the cuts, grooves, gashes, strokes -- all that seems to suggest or show that something else was going on other than just removing a chunk of material in front of a human face. It shows afterthought and precise mechanical action in removing something that was previously preeminent to the design, such as a jackal's snout. A decision to leave out the snout prior to carving would be believable if there wasn't such a mess in front of Anubis's face. Clearly, there is an outline of what appeared to be an original snout. There is too much stuff going on in there rather than simply removing the lead in a smooth fashion. We need a professional analysis. Right?

Our friend Anubis was given the short end of the stick in the Times and Seasons. He has his jackal ear and jackal eye but no nose. I find this to be a bit cruel and is disrespectful to another religion's god. The church is in a position to correct this. The church should make amends. There is every reason to believe the original vignette of Facsimile No. 3 was fully intact.


"Recitation by Anubis,
who makes protection(?),
foremost of the embalming booth,…"

[_kairos]

It's been a while but did not Gee say the Missing scroll contains all of the Book of Abraham thus to be true the missing scroll must be of sufficient length to contain it. Thus Will tried to get such a length from his measurements and then Calif Kid proved the length not even close to Will's measurements. Was not Gee instrumental in getting Will into the archives and may have accompanied him. by the way did Will come up with a length ! Otherwise how could CK demolish it

Just asking
k

[_Shulem]

And since you bring up facsimile 1, there was definite damage there which made the change easier.

Well, yes the lucuna facilitated the need to include a head atop the body of the so-called priest. But for goodness sake, can't we at least have a black man's head atop a black man's body like in Facsimile No. 3? It's totally inexcusable and goes against nature itself. How would you like to have a black head atop your body, Benjamin? You wouldn't like that, would you? Well, Anubis doesn't want a white head. He's black and that's the way he is. Anubis in Facsimile No. 1 & 3 are one in the same person. I can testify of that. So can any qualified Egyptologist that doesn't allow modern religion to cloud their judgment.