Book of Abraham and the Latest Apologetics

[_Some Schmo]

Why try to catch fish that you have to throw back into the river afterwards? But people do it for fun.

I have spent a long day far (very far; I couldn't get further) away from home, negotiating matters that will have results that matter a lot to me and to others (it all worked out fine). I have eaten, talked to my folks and sent all my emails, and I need some harmless amusement. Would you rather I watched an 'adult' movie?

Well, fair enough, although I will say that I'd find an adult movie far more interesting. I recognize that's just me (well... not just me, but you know what I mean).

I completely believe you, but I get the feeling not everyone's doing it for harmless amusement.

[_Kishkumen]

I’m often struck with amazement at the effort critics put into debunking the Book of Abraham. I honestly don’t understand the point. By arguing about it, you actually lend it credibility it doesn’t deserve.

I understand your amazement. There are, on the other hand, interesting historical questions tied up in all of this. If you are intrigued by them, then you are more likely to pursue them. Some critics are interested not only in the fact that Joseph Smith was not what others claim he was, but also in what he was and how he worked.

As a side note, I think it is profoundly unfair to lump all critics in the same category, as some apologists do, and assume they all have the same aims and modus operandi. Who could possibly equate Scratch with CaliforniaKid?

[_Some Schmo]

As a side note, I think it is profoundly unfair to lump all critics in the same category, as some apologists do, and assume they all have the same aims and modus operandi. Who could possibly equate Scratch with CaliforniaKid?

Well, I certainly wasn't talking about all critics (I mean, I'm a critic too) and I know they aren't all similarly motivated.

However, I should have been clearer and specified "some critics." I'm usually pretty sensitive to such generalizations myself. All I can say is that at the time, I was thinking, "I don't understand why the critics who do this, do this..." Again, clarity is the key. Mea culpa.

[_William Schryver]

I agree on the total time expenditure, however the documentary evidence persuades me that the published portion of the Book of Abraham all dates to 1835; that there was more planned for publication, but that various circumstances conspired to prevent the publication of the rest. That's too bad, because the Book of Abraham, as it currently stands, clearly ends in medias res.

Frankly, there's basically nothing in the documentary evidence that could possibly lead to this conclusion. You have swallowed one of Gee's whales, my friend.

My conclusion is not based on anything Gee has said.

Just as I am anything but Brian Hauglid's doppelganger. (That's one that always makes me and Brian laugh, considering how many times we have disagreed on things.)

It is, rather, based on "documentary evidence." I have identified several pieces of historical evidence that suggest that at least all of the third chapter was produced in Kirtland, almost certainly with Warren Parrish as scribe.

by the way, Chris, you do make me laugh sometimes. You are becoming more Metcalfe-ish with each passing day. What are you going to do next, get a couple piercings? How would your mother react to that?

[_truth dancer]

Going back to an earlier post on this thread:

I discovered a few answers, they are in red!

OK, this is why I am so confused, (tell me it is not just me)...

Will writes...

No one commenced any serious formal study of the KEP until 2005.

No one except Metcalfe could have! (And whoever else had copies of his photos.)

No one had access to the originals, nor to quality images of them. That's why, contrary to the often-repeated suggestions that the final judgment has already been made, the fact is that the trial has barely begun.

My only problem with that argument is that Gee is the one who has access to the original papyri, and claims to have made precise measurements to the 1/10th of a millimeter.

Let me ask as plainly as I can cause I may have not been clear (I apologize is this is silly):

1. Does the LDS church still have the original papyri (not the missing scrolls) from which Brent's copies were made?

Answer: Yes, on another thread Chap quotes Gee saying he has access to the original papyri.
2. If so, does Gee, or any other LDS scholars have access to them? If not, why not?

Answer: Yes Gee has access to the original scrolls. Anyone else have this privilege?

3. Why is Brent blamed for not sharing his copies with others to study when the LDS church has the originals from which his copies were made? (I really don't understand this... what am I missing)?

Big question... I do not understand this at all.

4. Are there not other copies similar to Brent's? (IIR there were two other sets). Who has them?

5. Has the LDS church made any copies of the original, if so, who has seen them, if not why not? Has anyone like Gee for instance asked for copies?

6. Has the LDS church ever (since 1965) allowed non-LDS scholars and experts to examine and study the originals they have in their possession (assuming they still have them)? If so, who, if not why not?

Thanks for any clarification from anyone!

Anyone know the answers to the above questions?

Above bold mine.

[_Chap]

Hmm. And when the papyri were handed over to the CoJCoLDS by the Chicago Museum (?) was it made a condition of the gift that the papyri should be made accessible to bona fide scholars for study?

If I was a museum director, I can't imagine making such a gift without imposing such a condition. How could one find out what the facts of the case are?

[_Kevin Graham]

Proof that John Gee cannot be Trusted

Proof that William Schryver cannot be Trusted

Proof that William Schryver is Intellectually Dishonest

[_William Schryver]

Proof that John Gee cannot be Trusted

Proof that William Schryver cannot be Trusted

Proof that William Schryver is Intellectually Dishonest

Proof that Kevin should have gotten his head hit harder.

But seriously, it's good to know you weren't called to the bar of judgment yet, before you've gotten a decent chance to repent.

by the way, if I am so intellectually dishonest, etc., etc., then why is that my findings vis-a-vis the KEP keep getting confirmed by the experts? Are they all intellectually dishonest, too?

What about the forensics lab? Are you going to call their results intellectually dishonest?

Or are you just going to continue your three-year-long slide into utter irrelevance when it comes to the Book of Abraham controversy?

[_Kishkumen]

by the way, if I am so intellectually dishonest, etc., etc., then why is that my findings vis-a-vis the KEP keep getting confirmed by the experts? Are they all intellectually dishonest, too?

What about the forensics lab? Are you going to call their results intellectually dishonest?

Pardon us for not simply taking your word for all of this.

[_Kevin Graham]

Will we all know you're blowing smoke again. You've admitted being wrong so many times on this subject, and have misrepresented even Hauglid so many times it is hard for anyone to take you seriously anymore, especially when you start referring to these mysterious "experts" who have verified YOUR (Someone who doesn't even reach the status of amateur. Someone who didn't even know what the KEP were until I told you a few years ago, and then became an instant "expert" after a few Nibley readings) conclusions! The fact that Hauglid is willing to consider your crazy ideas only tells us how desperate the Book of Abraham apologetic has become.

But it is pointless to even respond without something solid as a reference for your so-called "experts". Experts in what exactly, bull-shit? We're just supposed to take your word for it right? The same way we were supposed to in the link above when you were proved to be flat out incorrect on virtually every point you thought you had made? It isn't even worth dealing with you any more. Your conclusions are testimony-driven, pure and simple. You and Hauglid and Gee approach the matter with an agenda, as Hauglid was good enough to admit. He came to the matter with a conclusion already in mind and his "job" was to defend it because that would be "defending the kingdom of God."

This is all a joke when you pretend to have any sense of scholarship on your side.