Why Nibley and Gee cannot be trusted

[_Paul Osborne]

I see this difference. Nibley, and Gee in less clear terms, have both stated that they were continually learning. Any scholar would do that. Nibley said in one paper that in the field of Egyptology that anything more than three years old probably should be revised.

Nibley was covering his butt. He knew that his scholarship was flawed and he had to provide an out for himself for those points that would be disproved. And for the record, everything that Nibley wrote about the Book of Abraham is over 3 years old and should be completely overhauled. His presentation of the Book of Abraham saga was atrocious. He constantly bashed the early brethren of the Church by putting down their work and refusing to accept what he didn’t like. Nibley doesn’t even compare with those who developed the KEP! He attacked it and stomped all over it like it was a worthless piece of crap. In my view he was no better than the antiMormons who stomped all over the Book of Mormon.

Anyway, Nibley's agenda is over. He can do nothing more to damage the credibility of the KEP on this earth. He can take up the issue with those spirits who went before him. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes!

Paul O

[_dartagnan]

Permission is different than commission.

Not if it is intended to mean simply "to authorize," which is a perfectly valid definition of the term. I don't know why this is such an important point for you. The Church clearly authorized the photography. But I see the obvious reason behind trying to distance the Church from it as much as possible. It makes for juicy apologetic fodder if you can imply the people who have them obtained them, did so using less than honorable means.

After all, the two people involved ended up leaving the Church over it. But Edward Ashment was given permission by the Church to handle an analyze the KEP manuscripts first hand. He was probably the first to do so, given Nibley's obvious lack of familiarity with them.

Should your assertion damage the trust one might put in your post should it be proven to be incorrect?

How so?

You guys are hilarious. You're dead silent on the KEP issue for months, even years, until you think you have found a way to "discredit" a messenger by some stretch of the imagination.

Yes, you're right. Everything I have said should be discarded as untrustworthy now. Long live the Book of Abraham!

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.

What does his intent have to do with anything? Why don't you go ask his widow, OK?

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.

Yes they were purchased. Metcalfe explained the story in detail somewhere, but I don't remember exaxctly which forum he posted it.

I have a very reliable source, let's just call him "Limy," who told me that Metcalfe is really struggling getting that book finished.

He has other contributors who are not finsihed with their contributions. I learned of this from Robert Ritner who said his manuscript - which is a response to much of Gee's arguments- is not yet complete.

In what sense do you think Metcalfe is struggling?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Permission is different than commission.

Not if it is intended to mean simply "to authorize," which is a perfectly valid definition of the term. I don't know why this is such an important point for you. The Church clearly authorized the photography. But I see the obvious reason behind trying to distance the Church from it as much as possible. It makes for juicy apologetic fodder if you can imply the people who have them obtained them, did so using less than honorable means.

Actually my concern was that you appeared to be presenting Christensen as some official agent for the Church. That he was commissioned to photograph the papyrus by the Church is simply not factual.

After all, the two people involved ended up leaving the Church over it. But Edward Ashment was given permission by the Church to handle an analyze the KEP manuscripts first hand. He was probably the first to do so, given Nibley's obvious lack of familiarity with them.

Do you have a reference for Ashment's involvement? I realize I can just google it, but I'm curious as to the account you are following, specifically.

Should your assertion damage the trust one might put in your post should it be proven to be incorrect?

How so?

You guys are hilarious. You're dead silent on the KEP issue for months, even years, until you think you have found a way to "discredit" a messenger by some stretch of the imagination.

Yes, you're right. Everything I have said should be discarded as untrustworthy now. Long live the Book of Abraham!

I'm just wondering, if you are misrepresenting Christensen, even if it is by mistake, what else might you be misrepresenting? Isn't that what this thread was built upon; the credibility of certain apologists based on methods, misrepresentation or mistakes?

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.

What does his intent have to do with anything? Why don't you go ask his widow, OK?

It might have something to do with his "commission" from the Church you are apparently pulling out of thin air.

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.

Yes they were purchased. Metcalfe explained the story in detail somewhere, but I don't remember exaxctly which forum he posted it.

If you ever recall, I'd be interested in knowing, thanks.

He has other contributors who are not finsihed with their contributions. I learned of this from Robert Ritner who said his manuscript - which is a response to much of Gee's arguments- is not yet complete.

In what sense do you think Metcalfe is struggling?

How long has Brent been working on his magnum opus? [/quote]

[_dartagnan]

Actually my concern was that you appeared to be presenting Christensen as some official agent for the Church.

And what, pray tell, would an "official agent" of the Church look like exactly?

That he was commissioned to photograph the papyrus by the Church is simply not factual.

In the sense that he was authorized, yes, this is apparently factual. You still haven't offered us any other scenario to test for plausibility.

Do you have a reference for Ashment's involvement? I realize I can just google it, but I'm curious as to the account you are following, specifically.

I doubt you'll find much from google. My information comes from various conversations online with people like Metcalfe.

I'm just wondering, if you are misrepresenting Christensen, even if it is by mistake, what else might you be misrepresenting?

Well, you're the one who brought up the mysterious role of "official agent" of the LDS Church. Since I never said any such thing, it appears you're just tinkering with a straw man. My claim that he was authorized by the Church to take photos of highly sensitive material, is based on common sense, deduced from the fact that there has never been any accusations towards Christensen that he had illegally done so. Again, how do you explain his obvious authorization to photograph them?

Isn't that what this thread was built upon; the credibility of certain apologists based on methods, misrepresentation or mistakes?

Yes, and apparently you're unable to explain away the dishonesty of John Gee, so you thought you could at least try to make an attempt to drag me into his world of deception. Right?

It might have something to do with his "commission" from the Church you are apparently pulling out of thin air.

Then prove it. Show us the historical evidence that Steve Christensen was denied access to the KEP, and somehow pulled an Ethan Hunt, in an operation that perhaps involved a stealth helicopter and suction cups.

Again, it isn't "out of thin air" to state what appears to be obvious. And you never answered my quiestion. If the Church didn't authorize him, them who did?

How long has Brent been working on his magnum opus?

What does this have to do with anything?

What evidence do you have that Brent is "struggling" with it?

Limey?

If your source is John Tvetdness or anyone from that crowd, then I can assure you it is unreliable. Tvetdness is the one who told me Brent obtained the photos after Christensen's widow was swindled, by unknowingly giving them over to wolves in sheeps clothing. So the theory goes, she had no idea Brent and Ashment and George Smith were apostates! When Brent corrected this rumor, John immediately backed away and said he could have been wrong.

[_truth dancer]

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.

(sigh)

This little gossipy tactic is really nauseating. :-(

How about this... why don't you come right out with your story, tell us who your "reliable source" is, and we can just ask Brent if it is all true.

I'm sure he would be happy to set the record straight.

My guess for any delay? Real life.


~dancer~

[_LifeOnaPlate]

This thread has been thoroughly enlightening for me, and I thank all for their answers. (And no, Tvetdness is not a source I have on the subject.)

I do not believe Christensen was commissioned by the Church, you apparently do. Since you're the one making the assertion I would have hoped you could offer substantive evidence. As you cannot, other than your hearsay, I can conclude your version of things belies more opinion than you seem to be willing to grant, and that's fine. :)

(Parenthetically, I stopped reading your post when I saw your comment about Christensen, so I missed the other stuff regarding Gee. Call me a coward if you want; it's an avenue I've yet to explore; can't do everything at once!)

[_dartagnan]

As you cannot, other than your hearsay, I can conclude your version of things belies more opinion than you seem to be willing to grant, and that's fine. :)

What "hearsay" are you talking about? I base this on verifiable facts:

1.Christensen was granted access to the sensitive documents
2.Christensen photographed them
3.Christensen gave copies to Ashment, who was commissioned by the Church to study them.
4. The Church has never claimed the documents were photographed illegally, and neither has anyone else for that matter.

The logical deduction here is simple. Christensen was authorized by the Church to take the photos. If you want to mitigate this thesis. you'll have to at least offer up another scenario that explains the facts above. You haven't even come close to doing this.

[_Paul Osborne]

LifeOnaPlate,

Your avator cracks me up. What the hell is it?

Paul O

[_truth dancer]

LOAP,

If the church didn't allow/authorize/give permission to Christensen to take photgraphs of the documents how do you think he got the photographs?

Maybe I'm missing something here but it seems to me that if the church didn't authorize Steve to take the photographs he was doing something very illegal.

Certainly you are not suggesting that... are you?

I'm baffled here...

~dancer~

[_LifeOnaPlate]

As you cannot, other than your hearsay, I can conclude your version of things belies more opinion than you seem to be willing to grant, and that's fine. :)

What "hearsay" are you talking about? I base this on verifiable facts:

1.Christensen was granted access to the sensitive documents
2.Christensen photographed them
3.Christensen gave copies to Ashment, who was commissioned by the Church to study them.
4. The Church has never claimed the documents were photographed illegally, and neither has anyone else for that matter.

The logical deduction here is simple. Christensen was authorized by the Church to take the photos. If you want to mitigate this thesis. you'll have to at least offer up another scenario that explains the facts above. You haven't even come close to doing this.

I'm not here to prove anything to you. I'm satisfied with the information I have and appreciate you sharing your insights.

Paul: it is Mr. Grey Spaceman.