Master Timeline of Mopologetics

[_Shulem]

Will John Gee's various exploits (2 Inks etc) be featuring?

Do you think John Gee will be able to crack the name of the king in Facsimile No. 3? I'm not aware of him settling that matter. Isn't he supposed to be an Egyptologist of preeminence and isn't he an expert in reading the ancient hieroglyphic language? You'd think he could read just a little bit of Egyptian for us.

[_moksha]

Are you including catalysts for the movement? If you are, I'd suggest that Reed Durham's 1974 speech "Is There No Help for the Widow's Son?" be included.

I am still weighing the possibility, Morley.

Such as the work of Thomas Stewart Ferguson and the rediscovery of the Joseph Smith Papyri at the Metropolitan Museum?

[_Philo Sofee]

And Robert Ritner's sending it all finally to the gave.....the Egyptologists winning is a huge part of the important Book of Abraham timeline.

[_Kishkumen]

And Robert Ritner's sending it all finally to the gave.....the Egyptologists winning is a huge part of the important Book of Abraham timeline.

Any citation or dating information you can provide would be appreciated.

[_Kishkumen]

CHURCH ESSAYS

Shulem,

I have added references to the church essays to the timeline. Thank you for providing this information!

[_Dr Moore]

2012
2/3 August Daniel Peterson delivers paper, "Of 'Mormon Studies' and Apologetics," at FAIR conference.

This 2012 Fair paper mostly consisted of a word-for-word re-post of his Editor's Introduction to the 2010 FARMS Review (Vol. 22, No 2) Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989-2011.

Original (2010):
https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=msr

The FAIR presentation (2012):
https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/a ... pologetics

And the reprint of the reprint in Interpreter (2012):
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... n-studies/

[_Lemmie]

From the timeline:

1 August Phil Jenkins calls an end to the debate upon realizing that Hamblin has abandoned the field

Jenkins added a link a month later at the end of that post that collects links to all Jenkins-Hamilton exchanges that is extremely helpful:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p ... bating.htm

Link directs to page titled:
“DEBATING THE Book of Mormon”

A fascinating piece of mopologist history.

[_Kishkumen]

A fascinating piece of mopologist history.

Yes it is. Effectively, for those who are paying attention and have an open mind, he kills any idea that there is an ancient Book of Mormon, and he calls it for what it is, when it is treated as ancient history, pseudo-history. At this time, knowing what we know, it is unacceptable to promote pseudo-history as the real deal. It is one thing to say a book is spiritually valuable for the lessons it teaches. It is another to say that a fiction is the real history of a people who have suffered mightily, almost to complete destruction, at the hands of their colonizers.

Jenkins did a real service. What could Hamblin say? The LDS commenters on the blog show their desperation and inability to understand what it is that Jenkins is talking about.

You don't need to disprove something that was never established in the first place. All Jenkins is doing is showing that the Book of Mormon was never shown to be ancient. Nothing to disprove.

[_Dr Moore]

It seems the profanity filter dislikes how your phrasing combines a certain sequence letters, Reverend. Perhaps you should try "The Hit Piece of Greg Smith" so as to bypass detection of S followed by HIT.

4 January Doctor Scratch unpacks Morgan Davis' letter to Daniel C. Peterson and Louis C. Midgley wherein he expresses his disapproval for Greg Smith'____ piece.

[_Kishkumen]

It seems the profanity filter dislikes how your phrasing combines a certain sequence letters, Reverend. Perhaps you should try "The Hit Piece of Greg Smith" so as to bypass detection of S followed by HIT.

4 January Doctor Scratch unpacks Morgan Davis' letter to Daniel C. Peterson and Louis C. Midgley wherein he expresses his disapproval for Greg Smith'____ piece.