Why Nibley and Gee cannot be trusted

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Bump.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Bump again, seeking answer to question.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Monday bump.

[_cksalmon]

How would Metcalfe know? Well, Metcalfe had previously obtained color photos of the KEP from Steve Christensen, who was commissioned by the Church to photograph them before he was killed by Mark Hoffman.

Christensen was commissioned by the Church, you say?

Collector Steven F. Christensen (purchaser of the Salamander Letter) himself commissioned the photographing of KEP.

This is a useful website: www.google.com.

[_truth dancer]

Collector Steven F. Christensen (purchaser of the Salamander Letter) himself commissioned the photographing of KEP.

Did not the church ask Steve to purchase the document and donate it to the church?

~dancer~

[_LifeOnaPlate]

How would Metcalfe know? Well, Metcalfe had previously obtained color photos of the KEP from Steve Christensen, who was commissioned by the Church to photograph them before he was killed by Mark Hoffman.

Christensen was commissioned by the Church, you say?

Collector Steven F. Christensen (purchaser of the Salamander Letter) himself commissioned the photographing of KEP.

This is a useful website: www.google.com.

Who said I was unfamiliar with what went on? Not I.

Still waiting for an explanation from dart as to how, when, and why "The Church" commissioned Christensen to photograph the papyrus.

[_dartagnan]

Still waiting for an explanation from dart as to how, when, and why "The Church" commissioned Christensen to photograph the papyrus.

Well if the Church didn't, then who did?

Is it logical to say Johnny Blue went into the vaults of the Vatican and photographed never before seen documents, for the purpose of pubishing a commentary about them, without the permission of the Catholic Church?

Christensen commissioned both Brent Metcalfe and Edward Ashment to publish a commentary on the KEP, which is why he gave both of them a set of color copies. The negatives were given to George Smith.

[_cksalmon]

How would Metcalfe know? Well, Metcalfe had previously obtained color photos of the KEP from Steve Christensen, who was commissioned by the Church to photograph them before he was killed by Mark Hoffman.

Christensen was commissioned by the Church, you say?

Collector Steven F. Christensen (purchaser of the Salamander Letter) himself commissioned the photographing of KEP.

This is a useful website: www.google.com.

Who said I was unfamiliar with what went on? Not I.

Still waiting for an explanation from dart as to how, when, and why "The Church" commissioned Christensen to photograph the papyrus.

I assumed you were unfamiliar as you kept bumping the thread for an answer you might have found for yourself in about 5 seconds. I guess you were just being belligerent.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Well if the Church didn't, then who did?

I believe you answer your own question, below.

Is it logical to say Johnny Blue went into the vaults of the Vatican and photographed never before seen documents, for the purpose of pubishing a commentary about them, without the permission of the Catholic Church?

Permission is different than commission. Should your assertion damage the trust one might put in your post should it be proven to be incorrect?

Christensen commissioned both Brent Metcalfe and Edward Ashment to publish a commentary on the KEP, which is why he gave both of them a set of color copies.

I know that is how they wound up with the photos, but I have to look further into Christensen's intent. He was paying these two to do research on it, for certain.

The negatives were given to George Smith.

I heard G. Smith denied having copies. I'll have to check my source on it. It was suggested he even purchased them for around 6 large. Meanwhile, I have a very reliable source, let's just call him "Limy," who told me that Metcalfe is really struggling getting that book finished.

[_Paul Osborne]

2) Nibley doesn’t understand that Cowdery describes the entire collection consisting of two different records (Abraham’s record and the other from Joseph)

Oh but he did understand. Nibley was not stupid – he was cunning in making his points look truthful and complete in effort to assure his readers that Nibley the Great has determined what they need to believe rather than what the evidence really shows.

It appears to me that Nibley spun a web of what he thought was righteous lies in order to justify the need to keep the faithful from questioning the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham. Nibley and Paul H. Dunn did not report things in a truthful manner. Were they two peas in a pod?

3) Nibley doesn’t acknowledge that among the papyri that were rediscovered in 1967, rubrics do appear on fragments IV and VIII.

Nibley was like a sneaky lawyer who advanced his cause using scholarly tricks and carefully worded sentences that lead a person to believe exactly what he wants them to believe. Indeed, he is not to be trusted. I’ve seen time and time again how his writings are shady and less than honest. I don’t trust him anymore than the critics. He employed methods used by his critics and than had the gull to point fingers at his critics in a self righteous manner.

I cannot abide the lack of integrity demonstrated by this former LDS scholar.

Paul O