Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

[cksalmon]

What, exactly, is meant by “… again, avers …” is not clear to me, since, with the exception of my latest (and most significant) findings, everything I have ever “averred” can be found, complete with accompanying evidence and argumentation, in various threads I have commenced in the Pundit’s forum of the MAD board.

The point, of course, is the always-yet pending, perennial futurity of your scholarly vindication.

Frankly, I’m surprised you haven’t just gone ahead and adopted the Dr. Shades thesis that I am actually fabricating the whole thing.

We'll see what we can see, perhaps, eventually.

At any rate, “future vindication” is something that quite often must be patiently awaited. But truth has a way of eventually compelling such vindication—sooner or later. It may very well take a few years before my findings, as presented in August, and as further elaborated by the forthcoming book-length study, will gain widespread credibility, but I believe the day will eventually come when those findings will achieve something close to a “consensus” of acceptance—for the simple reason that they can be shown to be correct.

You take my point, then, I suppose.

[William Schryver]

What a vulgar charmer you've become.

LOL!

Don't worry, your standing as the most vulgar "charmer" on MD is still secure.

I'm sure this particular MormonDiscussions.com "talking point" will always remain near the top of this list.
.
.
.
"Cracker" Graham:

Who says your "findings are almost exclusively rooted in that discipline [textual criticism]"? Only you do, and a couple of credentialed apologists you managed to woo.

???

Who better to say what my findings are rooted in than I? I think I should be aware of what methodological approaches were employed.

Again, you're becoming increasingly incoherent.

In any case, reiterating my earlier reply to beastlie, my findings are rooted in textual criticism and not in comparative literature, history, etc.

[Nimrod]

reiterating my earlier reply to beastlie, my findings are rooted in textual criticism and not in comparative literature, history, etc.

Will, your findings being rooted in textual criticism, please
1-identify each of the available materials that you examined?
2-identify which text you selected, i.e. the most trustworthy?
3-explain why your selected text is, in our opinion, more trustworthy than each other available text material?
4-identify each error you identified in your selected text?
5-explain why you consider each error to be such?

[William Schryver]

reiterating my earlier reply to beastlie, my findings are rooted in textual criticism and not in comparative literature, history, etc.

Will, your findings being rooted in textual criticism, please
1-identify each of the available materials that you examined?
2-identify which text you selected, i.e. the most trustworthy?
3-explain why your selected text is, in our opinion, more trustworthy than each other available text material?
4-identify each error you identified in your selected text?
5-explain why you consider each error to be such?

It is, as a matter of fact, quite interesting that you should list these particular things. It has been fascinating to see how the Kirtland Egyptian Papers have compelled the development of some new and different methodologies not normally associated with traditional textual criticism. The questions routinely asked of, for example, New Testament manuscripts, are often inapplicable to the questions surrounding the KEP.

Nevertheless, you can rest assured that I will provide all the detailed analysis and findings related to my KEP research. I already have about 300 pages of appendix material. I hope, when the time comes, you'll buy the book and read it very attentively.

[harmony]

I hope, when the time comes, you'll buy the book and read it very attentively.

And that, in a nutshell, is why none of this will ever be God-given, revelation, worthy of being called "truth". IF this was truth, it would come from the prophet, not some guy trying to make a profit. IF this was truth, it would be given away on the street corners, not purchased with money.

Truth is not all about the money. This is.

[William Schryver]

I hope, when the time comes, you'll buy the book and read it very attentively.

And that, in a nutshell, is why none of this will ever be God-given, revelation, worthy of being called "truth". IF this was truth, it would come from the prophet, not some guy trying to make a profit. IF this was truth, it would be given away on the street corners, not purchased with money.

Truth is not all about the money. This is.

Your comments are incoherent.

It is absolutely true that my research and publications concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are not to be considered scripture.

Nor do I anticipate making any money through what will certainly be very limited sales to a very minor niche market interested in the resultant book. Academic books are notorious money-losers, not money-makers. Indeed, if a university press were not willing to finance the publishing of the book, I doubt it would arouse much interest from a commercial publisher.

[Nimrod]

reiterating my earlier reply to beastlie, my findings are rooted in textual criticism and not in comparative literature, history, etc.

Will, your findings being rooted in textual criticism, please
1-identify each of the available materials that you examined?
2-identify which text you selected, i.e. the most trustworthy?
3-explain why your selected text is, in our opinion, more trustworthy than each other available text material?
4-identify each error you identified in your selected text?
5-explain why you consider each error to be such?

It is, as a matter of fact, quite interesting that you should list these particular things. It has been fascinating to see how the Kirtland Egyptian Papers have compelled the development of some new and different methodologies not normally associated with traditional textual criticism. The questions routinely asked of, for example, New Testament manuscripts, are often inapplicable to the questions surrounding the KEP.

Nevertheless, you can rest assured that I will provide all the detailed analysis and findings related to my KEP research. I already have about 300 pages of appendix material. I hope, when the time comes, you'll buy the book and read it very attentively.

Can you tantalize us with an explanation of the new and different methodologies developed for the KEP?

[jskains]

I hope, when the time comes, you'll buy the book and read it very attentively.

And that, in a nutshell, is why none of this will ever be God-given, revelation, worthy of being called "truth". IF this was truth, it would come from the prophet, not some guy trying to make a profit. IF this was truth, it would be given away on the street corners, not purchased with money.

Truth is not all about the money. This is.

Yeah, his position seems like that of the old circus freak shows.

"See the amazing Yak-Woman!"

"Can you explain how she came to be?"

"See for yourself! 50 cents please..."

Will is sounding like the announcer for Hell's Kitchen when they show the next episode. They show something that looks dramatic (like Gordon Ramsay making out with a contestant), and say "It is an eposide one has to SEE to believe! (which they always say), so you see this amazing eposide and it turns out just be his wife.

Will, you are kinda embarassing apologetics here. It FAIR is now nothing more than a freakshow selling tickets, I fear the damage you will be doing if this all turns out to be a trick to sell tickets to the FAIR conference.

But I have to agree with harmony. If this was some great revealing truth, I think you'd have annouced it freely rather than make it a plug for some commercial endever.

*Sigh*

[William Schryver]

Can you tantalize us with an explanation of the new and different methodologies developed for the KEP?

I've been working feverishly to prepare a presentation of only 50 minutes length during which I can adequately explain these things. However, it will require a book-length treatment to do full justice to the material. That is why people write books, you know: in order to explain in meticulous detail things that don't lend themselves to explanation via a brief conversation. I can't imagine a worse venue than a message board for articulating such things.

[William Schryver]

jskains:

Will, you are kinda embarassing apologetics here. It FAIR is now nothing more than a freakshow selling tickets, I fear the damage you will be doing if this all turns out to be a trick to sell tickets to the FAIR conference.

Whether or not I am "embarrassing apologetics here" is not, I should think, something you are in a position to judge. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion on the matter. I have seen nothing to indicate that "FAIR is now nothing more than a freakshow selling tickets." Nor am I engaged in any kind of "trick" to sell tickets to the FAIR conference. Nevertheless, the FAIR conference is the place where I will first unveil at least a summary explanation of my findings. If that doesn't suit you, I'm sorry. But it remains your only option.

But I have to agree with harmony. If this was some great revealing truth, I think you'd have annouced it freely rather than make it a plug for some commercial endever. (sic)

Agreeing with dissonance reflects very poorly on you. In any case, I am engaged in what is purely an academic endeavor. As such, I will utilize academic avenues to publish my findings. If that doesn't suit you, I'm sorry. But it remains your only option. You are certainly free to obtain the Marquardt transcriptions of the KEP and undertake your own study. That's what I did at first, long before I obtained access to the high-resolution scan images of the source materials that the church possesses. Furthermore, I am now under strict contract in consequence of my having obtained those images, and I can only publish my findings after approval from the "powers that be" at 47 E. South Temple. I will not abrogate my obligations in that respect in order to satisfy your immediate curiosity.

[jskains]

You can be as angry as you like, but as a supporter of the Church coming away with this feeling, I got to imagine I am not the only one worried about where you are taking this.

You heavily engage in debate here, but then hold back on this supposed silver bullet. It smells funny, and I am merely expressing my concerns.

[wenglund]

I heard that "Kevin Graham" was back among the living, and I just wanted to pop in and say I hope that he and his lovely family are doing well.

The same goes for jskains.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jskains]

by the way, I don't think Kevin Graham looks all that good either. Often he comes off very angry and biased with an obvious axe to grind. But if you want to impress people you need to stand above folks like him. Graham Cracker and other types of comments drag you down.

JMHO...

JMS

[William Schryver]

You can be as angry as you like, but as a supporter of the Church coming away with this feeling, I got to imagine I am not the only one worried about where you are taking this.

You heavily engage in debate here, but then hold back on this supposed silver bullet. It smells funny, and I am merely expressing my concerns.

Thanks for permission to "be as angry" as I'd like. I'll let you know when I start.

As for the remainder of your post, I must frankly admit that I don't have any idea what you're talking about. I don't "heavily engage in debate here." I haven't for years. I consider it a futile endeavor. Therefore I say next to nothing here when it comes to the details of my apologetic activities. If you want to view some of the serious argumentation I have presented online you'll have to visit the Pundit's forum of the MAD board. My primary intention in coming here is to mock the idiocy of apostates and their sympathizers. That's really all this place is good for.

[jskains]

Christ doesn't want you to mock them. He wants you to love them.

JMS

[William Schryver]

Christ doesn't want you to mock them. He wants you to love them.

JMS

I'm not so sure. After all, he mocked the Pharisees and Sadducees quite effectively during his mortal sojourn.

Besides, I can do both at the same time.

"I love all of you stinking apostates."

[Joseph]

schryver, you and bc space should get together. I am sure The Church would put aside all worry and let the two of you get married. You are of the same stripe, LDS who give the whole outfit its own smell.

[KimberlyAnn]

Can you tantalize us with an explanation of the new and different methodologies developed for the KEP?

Will's too busy tantalizing us with his dancing, Nimrod. (In fact, it's such a diversion that I've not had time to listen to his guitar stuff!)

I prefer the Tango, myself, or even a good Samba, but an awkward Tap will have to do. When it comes to dancing around the Book of Abraham, we takes what we can gets, I suppose.

KA

PS. Book of Abraham apologetics remind me of the Toro Totter for some reason.

[Neo]

Can you tantalize us with an explanation of the new and different methodologies developed for the KEP?

I've been working feverishly to prepare a presentation of only 50 minutes length during which I can adequately explain these things. However, it will require a book-length treatment to do full justice to the material. That is why people write books, you know: in order to explain in meticulous detail things that don't lend themselves to explanation via a brief conversation. I can't imagine a worse venue than a message board for articulating such things.

I can imagine a worse venue. How about text messages?
Since you seem to be in this for the $, you could charge a fee for each text message.
Just think how much you could make by splitting your 50 min presentation down into individual text messages.

[William Schryver]

Since you seem to be in this for the $ ...

???

I'm in what for the money? My work on the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers? Really? You mean there's money to be made?

LOL!

I can't wait for the big payoff! I'll buy myself that '59 Les Paul that I've always wanted ...

[Neo]

I hope, when the time comes, you'll buy the book and read it very attentively.

Since you seem to be in this for the $ ...

???

I'm in what for the money? My work on the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers? Really? You mean there's money to be made?

I am simply following the evidence where it leads me.
Or are you now saying that your book will be free?