Hi.
Yes, indeed, I’m still alive. (It seems odd to be writing that.)
No, I never finished my dissertation: a fascinating and massive study of the NK netherworld books. (Time ran out, and I had a family to support and raise.) Believe it or not, I still work on it.
Labor ipse voluptas.
If ‘maintaining membership’ means ‘active’, then the answer is no. I have undergone six ‘worthiness’ interviews because of my writings; so there are those who have tried to ‘resign’ me from the church.
I don’t know Mr. Schryver. It would be useful to see the bibliography of his publications that have ‘demonstrated that virtually everything’ of what little I wrote about the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers ‘was incorrect’.
I haven’t retired. Rather, I’ve
moved on. (See my Précis here:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/precis.shtml) Years of experience have taught me that there can be little or no dialogue between ‘proclaimers of Truth’ (religious and secular ideologues) and ‘discoverers of truth’ (empiricists). The former tend to debate; the latter tend to discuss.
Daniel Patte’s observation is apropos in this context:
'For instance, the fundamentalist interpreter as exegete affirms, against the historian, the historicity of the virgin birth and of the empty tomb. Why? Because he abides by the modern historical conviction which can be summarized in the phrase:
if it is historical it is true, even more than does the historian! For this fundamentalist exegete, truth and historicity are so much identified with each other that he is led to conclude:
if it is true (according to my faith),
it is historical. Jesus' resurrection is a cornerstone of his faith. Consequently the empty tomb must be a historical fact. This obscurantist attitude which intended to provide a biblical interpretation free from modern culture ends by being bound to that culture. It is now assumed that the modern historical conviction belonged instrinsically to the biblical faith! The obscurantist attitude can be termed "historicism" since it absolutizes the modern historical conviction in its very attempt to dismiss it. When combined with a conviction about the literal inspiration of the Bible, such historicism leads, nevertheless, to a hermeneutic which is accepted as meaningful by a sizable section of our society.' (Daniel Patte,
What Is Structural Exegesis?, Guides to Biblical Scholarship, New Testament Series [Fortress Press, 1979], 7.)
In other words, apologists are committed to a Truth that must be defended as historical, which leads them to make arguments, some of which can be hysterical.
Mr. Schryver will have to find someone else with whom to ‘publicly debate’. For, not only do I not have a dog in this hunt, I discuss.
Re: ‘Perhaps Ashment is not suffering from andropause to the same degree as that guy in Washington’. I see that not everyone has learned civility.
Some have wondered what I’ve published or written. Here is a fairly complete list:
PUBLICATIONS
2001. ‘Abraham’ in the Breathing Permit of Hôr (pJS 1).
<http://mormonscripturestudies.com/boabr/eha/abrhor.asp>
1994. “The Temple: Historical Origins and Religious Value.”
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 27, no. 3 (Fall): 289-298.
1993. “‘A Record in the Language of My Father’: Evidence of Ancient Egyptian and Hebrew in the Book of Mormon.” In
New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, edited by Brent Lee Metcalfe. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.
1993. T
he Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham. Salt Lake City: Resource Communications, Inc.
1992. “Historiography of the Canon.” In
Faithful History, edited by George D. Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.
1990. “Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham As a Case Study.” In
The Word of God, edited by Dan Vogel. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.
1990. “Making the Scriptures ‘Indeed One in Our Hands’.” In T
he Word of God, edited by Dan Vogel. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.
1982. Review of The Firm Foundation of Mormonism, by Kirk H. Vestal and Arthur Wallace.
The SunStone Review 2, no. 2: 24.
1980. “The Book of Mormon and the Anthon Transcript: An Interim Report.”
SunStone 5, no. 3 (May-June): 29-31.
1980. “The Book of Mormon—A Literal Translation?”
SunStone 5, no. 2 (Mar-Apr): 10-14.
1979. “The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: A Reappraisal.”
SunStone 4, nos. 5-6 (Dec): 33-48.
1978. Review of The Nag Hammadi Library, ed. Marvin W. Meyer.
SunStone 3, no. 4 (May-June): 30.
UNPUBLISHED PAPERS
1990. “Aspects of Hugh Nibley’s ‘Methodological Philosophy’.” SunStone West Theological Symposium. Pasadena, California.
1989. A Response to “Ancient Sources of Masonic Ritual,” by David Ellis. SunStone West Theological Symposium. Concord, California.
1984. A Response to “Restoring Plain and Precious Truths: Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible and the Synoptic Gospels,” by Robert L. Millet. Mormon History Association Annual Meeting. Provo, Utah.
1984. A Response to “Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham,” by H. Donl Peterson. Mormon History Association Annual Meeting. Provo: Utah.
1983. “The Fundamentalist Challenge of Religious Authority.” SunStone Theological Symposium. Salt Lake City, Utah.
1980. “Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papers.” SunStone Theological Symposium. Salt Lake City, Utah.
I hope this has been helpful. If you wish to communicate with me, you may do so through Kevin Graham.
Ed.