Who can count the windings?

[_Kevin Graham]

How can William criticize Hauglid for tying to empathize with former members who have lost their faith in the Church when that is precisely what William claimed he was interested in back in 2006-2008?

Remember, he sent Dan Vogel an email back in May 2006 claiming to be an independent filmmaker who wanted to interview him because he was interested in documenting the viewpoints of former members. He claimed he was going to interview a number of people, including me, but ultimately he only interviewed Chris Smith and then he apparently lost interest in the "project." But the most interesting thing to me about that correspondence is that William presented himself to Vogel as though he were just some objective guy not interested in supporting one view or another. He claimed he wasn't interested in apologetics and that he fell into the camp of "believers" at this juncture in his life, implying that he may be on the edge of apostasy like so many he wanted to interview. This was his deception, trying to build relationships of trust so we'd let him into our world. No doubt, for the purposes of finding ammunition to use against us.

And he accuses us of being wolves in sheep's clothing? At MAD we're actually sheep in wolves clothing.

That same month he emailed me and pretty much characterized himself in the same way. In the Fall of 2007 he sent me another email wanting to interview me for a documentary, and in that email he admitted he was completely new to this subject (the Book of Abraham) and that he respected the strengths of my arguments (which he would never admit on the forums). He also said that if he were an outsider, that he didn't think he could come to believe the Book of Abraham was true based on the evidence. He said he'd have to believe Joseph Smith was a fraud. But because he began studying this topic with a conviction that the Church is true, he can't accept that possibility.

So a few years later he starts to attack Brian Hauglid and David Bokovoy, accusing them of betrayal and potential apostasy, simply because they succeeded where Schryver failed. They managed to win the trust of those who have left the fold. And they succeed because, unlike Schryver, they are sincere and honest.

[_3sheets2thewind]

The red arrows indicate spots where the papry do not match up. Starting from the arrow on the left , the vertical lines do not line up.

The blue rectangle that the center upper right arrow is pointing at does not line up with the segment to its right.

It seems like this picture shows pieces that are mismatched.

[_Chap]

The red arrows indicate spots where the papry do not match up. Starting from the arrow on the left , the vertical lines do not line up.

The blue rectangle that the center upper right arrow is pointing at does not line up with the segment to its right.

It seems like this picture shows pieces that are mismatched.

Wouldn't you say that it is just a question of how the fragments have been laid out?

A couple of small rotations would deal with both of the misalignments you mention. It may of course be that the papyrologists who handled this wanted to be extra gentle for fear of causing further cracks in forcing slightly distorted fragments to line up perfectly.