The Specter of the Book of Abraham Continues to Haunt Mopologetics

[_Doctor Scratch]

I wonder what the view will be in the end--once the dust has settled--of the Mopologists' relationship with the Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham, of course, has been a thorn in the side of the LDS Church going back clear to the discovery of the original Joseph Smith papyri. Things have only gotten worse since then, really. And the Book of Abraham seems to have been the cause of the defection of a number of noteworthy message board participants, including our own Kevin Graham and Shulem, and, I believe, Philo Sofee as well. And it is still causing them problems. John Gee's stunning performance at the recent FAIR Conference (i.e., his slack-jawed unwillingness to answer questions pertaining to Ritner) was one sign of what I'm talking about. And then there is young Stephen Smoot, who went to Canada to study Egyptology, but is apparently "abandoning ship" with a mere Masters degree in that field. If he was the legitimate heir apparent, then why isn't he going for the PhD? (Or is he?) Moreover, his main area of Mopologetics seems to be the most hardheaded dimension of that discipline--i.e., defense of Book of Mormon historicity.

And even more recently, there have been postings on "Sic et Non" dealing with the Book of Abraham, including this entry,which features some remarkable commentary down in the "Comments" section:

On Facebook Brian Hauglid seems to agree with the content of the latest video by Dan Vogel on the Book of Abraham. " For the record, I no longer hold the views that have been quoted from my 2010 book in these videos. I have moved on from my days as an "outrageous" apologist. In fact, I'm no longer interested or involved in apologetics in any way. I wholeheartedly agree with Dan's excellent assessment of the Abraham/Egyptian documents in these videos. I now reject a missing Abraham manuscript. I agree that two of the Abraham manuscripts were simultaneously dictated. I agree that the Egyptian papers were used to produce the Book of Abraham. I agree that only Abr. 1:1-2:18 were produced in 1835 and that Abr. 2:19-5:21 were produced in Nauvoo. And on and on. I no longer agree with Gee or Mulhestein. I find their apologetic "scholarship" on the Book of Abraham abhorrent. One can find that I've changed my mind in my recent and forthcoming publications. The most recent JSP Revelations and Translation vol. 4, The Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts (now on the shelves) is much more open to Dan's thinking on the origin of the Book of Abraham. My friend Brent Metcalfe can attest to my transformative journey. " Interesting journey. Reminds me of the path of Ray Matheny. Anubis can be restored to his rightful place with his face restored. When you look at Fac 2 don't it look like he started off with some ideas on identifying the figures and got bored and run out of ideas? Could the current prophet gives us the solution to figures 12 to 21?

Am I supposed to care a lot about what Brian Hauglid thinks on this matter?

If so, why?

Because, perhaps, of his Egyptological expertise?

What is your expertise? You have a grasp of statistics to argue for a longer scroll? Relying on Nibley's ancestor's report on the length of the scroll? Cooke and Smith demolished the longer scroll theory. Klaus Baer think's Nibley's view came from the fringes of Egyptology.

Alas, Cooke and Smith did nothing of the sort. But the refutation remains sadly unpublished.

Whoa! This was certainly news to me! For those who don't know, there is an extremely fascinating backstory to this. Some years back, the now-deposed Mopologist Will Schryver tried to muscle his way into the annals of Mopologetic respectability, and he did this (naturally) by heading for the K-2 of Mopologetic problems: the Book of Abraham. He was a problematic figure, though: he liked trash-talk, and he was fond of being offensive, especially towards women. It is actually very, very interesting to look back on the Will Schryver incident in the era of #MeToo: the ousting and downfall of Will Schryver preceded the movement by several years. But the significance of Schryver wasn't lost on anyone: here was someone who was poised to help the Mopologists (or perhaps mainly John Gee) out with the debacle of the Book of Abraham.

But this was so damning to the apologists: here they were, patting this misogynistic guy on the back, hoping that he--an outsider--would bail them out on this most embarrassing issue. And things were bad: Gee's PhD advisor dropped him due to his apologetic views, and Gee had also been caught peddling a "two inks" theory vis-a-vis the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, only to have it revealed later that he had doctored his photos to support his case. So here was Schryver--someone plucked from the "backwater" of Cedar City--to help solve the Book of Abraham conundrum. He presented at a FAIR Conference, proffering a "cypher" theory on the Book of Abraham, and even our very own Rev. Kishkumen found the argument compelling at the time.

Schryver was later all set to publish some devastating piece of "scholarship" with the Maxwell Institute, and then Ms. Jack posted her "take-down" documenting Schryver's abhorrent treatment of women, and the publication was canceled. (And we later learned that it was Gerald Bradford who pulled the plug.) In the midst of this was mild-mannered, reasonable-seeming Brian Hauglid: someone who seemed to side with the Mopologists, but who also seemed conflicted over their antics, and also concerned about the larger implications of their work. If the entire rest of the scholarly community thinks that the Mopologists' arguments are pseudo-scholarship, how might that reflect on Hauglid? So, it seems, he quietly withdrew his support, and then gradually came around as a critic of the Mopologists' approach to defending the Book of Abraham.

And now here it all is again, surfacing again.

One other thing for those who don't know the context: the "Smith and Cooke" are Chris Smith (a.k.a. CaliforniaKid) and Andrew Cook[e?], a.k.a. "Mortal Man," who were two critics who published a persuasive article that dismantled one of John Gee's arguments (the argument was that a measurement of the scrolls of papyri indicates that there are pieces of the document that are missing).

What's really striking to me, though, is DCP's odd comment: "Alas, Cooke and Smith did nothing of the sort. But the refutation remains sadly unpublished." The "refutation" he's referring to--unless I am mistaken--is the still-yet-unpublished Book of Abraham article written by Will Schryver. Why is it still unpublished, though? Surely, given the influence he wields over Mormon Interpreter, he could see to it that it got published. Why doesn't he, then? Concerned with the "taint" that Schryver's reputation might add to the blog? Or was Schryver "ordered" out by higher authorities, as it were? My point being: if this is a legitimate "refutation," then the Mopologists ought to publish it. John Gee is badly in need of the help, for God's sake.

[_Kishkumen]

Yeah, I’m calling BS on this. Methinks that Will is being used here. DCP can gesture in the direction of the missing article, which could not be published for a variety of reasons, including Will’s lack of decency, and that will be the placeholder for Mopologists until some future white knight emerges to set the world straight.

I was under the impression that Will’s full piece could not be published because he was unable to use images of the manuscripts. Are the images necessary to make an argument about the length of the scroll? I don’t see how, and, if that is the case, then why not publish a narrower piece on that problem, unless there is no good argument to be made for the longer scroll length, or Will never made one.

To tweak the record here, I was intrigued by Will’s hypothesis because the Mormon concept of sacred writing probably does derive partly from Masonic cyphers. He never, however, provided the kind of detailed study necessary to convince any scholar. I was open to the possibility, even optimistic, that he had something important to contribute. I do recall, however, that Don Bradley and I worked out over the phone that Will’s arguments about the timeline of the translation were flat wrong.

Sadly we have not seen Will’s work. I wish we had. But you can’t be convinced by work you’ve never seen (or even felt through a cloth). And, it is very tedious to see DCP pulling his usual trick of alluding to something he knows he can’t produce in order to keep his position on life support. He is notorious for gesturing to unavailable documents. Those who are taken in by this ploy should be ashamed of themselves. We know DCP is, unfortunately, not above habitually doing this kind of thing, even though he has been repeatedly called on it.

[_Philo Sofee]

Nice recap Dr. Scratch! Not only the antics, but the actual evidence in the arguments are what took the apologists down by the throat. It was especially the Smith and Cooke pieces which truly and totally sealed the deal for me after I went through Ritner, praying in one last gasp to God that he really needed to get down here and help us out. He did, but in an odd sort of way. He sent Smith and Cooke to simply throttle Gee's "faith" piece and publish the singular strongest take down in mopologetic history.

So, we have seen how Gee has been truly man handled by both professional Egyptologists and mathematicians.

We have seen how Bill Hamblin has been completely outargued by professional historians concerning the validity of the Book of Mormon.

We have now recent seen how Daniel C. Peterson was bested by the skeptic Michael Shermer. I accept that someone with a better grasp of Mormonism could have been selected and they ought to have gone into some nitty gritty detail, however, on the whole, the defense just isn't what the impression gave me it was when FARMS was writing the "Review of Books" pieces back in the 1990's.

And now another one of the main apologists have simply said he (Hauglid) no longer accepts the Mormon apologetic.

It looks to me like apologetics is now truly officially resigned to their fate, that of having lost relevance and good arguments. Jesus didn't come to help them, and their evidences have been crushed back onto them with several ton per square inch of power and they have collapsed.

And we internet apologists (Shulem, Graham and I) have certainly followed the evidence and found it lacking. There just seems to me to be nothing else left except perhaps the faith/self promoting flim flam of prophets and apostles. The war is over, and rather than sign a treaty with the enemy, the soldiers for the Book of Abraham have simply walked away due to the obviousness of its falseness, and mishandling of its "evidences."

[_Philo Sofee]

Kishkumen
Sadly we have not seen Will’s work. I wish we had. But you can’t be convinced by work you’ve never seen (or even felt through a cloth). And, it is very tedious to see DCP pulling his usual trick of alluding to something he knows he can’t produce in order to keep his position on life support. He is notorious for gesturing to unavailable documents. Those who are taken in by this ploy should be ashamed of themselves. We know DCP is, unfortunately, not above habitually doing this kind of thing, even though he has been repeatedly called on it.

Yes, this trick has outworn its usefulness. But when I look at it, I see it is simply the preferred methodology of prophets who haven't yet seen Christ come back again either. It is the same methodology that prophets use of God when all evidence fairly seers their brains that there is no such person. It is the same methodology of miracles, and all things theological, more or less. So, I mean Peterson is just being true to his dubious heritage.

[_Gadianton]

Hauglid's change of viewpoint may itself earn a spot in the top ten happenings this year, but if so, the response to Noel earns a spot ahead of it. The reason why is that the line of questioning:

Am I supposed to care a lot about what Brian Hauglid thinks on this matter?

If so, why?

Because, perhaps, of his Egyptological expertise?

undercuts the entire existence of Sic et Non and then some. If this is what he really thinks, then Sic et Non should be voluntarily closed down for good. I shall illustrate by answering the questions posed.

Yes, you are supposed to care what Brian Hauglid thinks. Not *just* because of his expertise in Egyptology, but because of his long history as a Book of Abraham apologist, which includes a respectable amount of work done in conjunction with John Gee, and deep ties to BYU and its ancient scripture department, and all this work long before the end of the Mayan Calendar.

No, I'm not saying that the various staff at Sic et Non should share Hauglid's opinions. What is that argument the Mopologists always use against the critics who dismiss the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham? They say that the critics lack the proper credentials. And then on the occasion when a critic with the right credentials takes a brief interest in Mopologetic scholarship, they dismiss the critic as not being familiar enough with the Mopologetic materials to have a worthy opinion. And now, here is a Mormon Scholar with a bulls-eye on the whole list: He has a near east studies related Phd (check), he's co-authored a book with John Gee himself (super-check) and he he's part of the institution that produces apologist scholarship (check) -- there isn't some overlooked area somewhere that he hasn't considered (check) and yet, to this, the staff at SeN are saying that they shouldn't even care about his opinion! The bar for criticizing any opinion held by the Mopologists now is infinitely high -- nobody on earth is qualified to disagree! Perhaps after taking all the evidence into consideration, the staff at SeN differ in opinion from Hauglid or perhaps they might argue Hauglid has been brainwashed but yeah, whatever the final analysis, they should care, and they should care a lot.

But that's not the end of the story. Sic et Non posts innumerable posts such as the recent one about Kurt Godel, where the author lifts a section of a Wiki article and pumps it out to cyberspace in defense of fundamentalist Christian ideas such as, in this case, Creationism. So here is my main point: If the staff at SeN don't care what Hauglid thinks about the Book of Abraham, who is probably the most qualified person in the world per the Mopologist's own set of criteria to hold an opinion on the Book of Abraham, who holds a contrary opinion to Gee and the gang, then why should anybody on the planet care about what the staff at Sic et Non say on matters they have no experience with whatsoever?

The force of this logic should impose upon the staff at SeN to either retract the line of questions to Noel or to close down Sic et Non for good. I expect one of these outcomes finalized by 6:30 PM tonight.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sadly we have not seen Will’s work. I wish we had.

Well, you can thank Ms. Jack's vendetta for that one. If she had been a little more clever, her exposé, if that's what one wants to call it, could've waited until Will got published and then wowza she would've scored a double-whammy against the Patriarchy.

Instead, she was so eager to get him she pulled the trigger too quick, and now we'll most likely never see Will's opus turdus published.

- Doc

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hauglid's change of viewpoint may itself earn a spot in the top ten happenings this year, but if so, the response to Noel earns a spot ahead of it. The reason why is that the line of questioning:

Am I supposed to care a lot about what Brian Hauglid thinks on this matter?

If so, why?

Because, perhaps, of his Egyptological expertise?

undercuts the entire existence of Sic et Non and then some. If this is what he really thinks, then Sic et Non should be voluntarily closed down for good. I shall illustrate by answering the questions posed.

Yes, you are supposed to care what Brian Hauglid thinks. Not *just* because of his expertise in Egyptology, but because of his long history as a Book of Abraham apologist, which includes a respectable amount of work done in conjunction with John Gee, and deep ties to BYU and its ancient scripture department, and all this work long before the end of the Mayan Calendar.

No, I'm not saying that the various staff at Sic et Non should share Hauglid's opinions. What is that argument the Mopologists always use against the critics who dismiss the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham? They say that the critics lack the proper credentials. And then on the occasion when a critic with the right credentials takes a brief interest in Mopologetic scholarship, they dismiss the critic as not being familiar enough with the Mopologetic materials to have a worthy opinion. And now, here is a Mormon Scholar with a bulls-eye on the whole list: He has a near east studies related Phd (check), he's co-authored a book with John Gee himself (super-check) and he he's part of the institution that produces apologist scholarship (check) -- there isn't some overlooked area somewhere that he hasn't considered (check) and yet, to this, the staff at SeN are saying that they shouldn't even care about his opinion! The bar for criticizing any opinion held by the Mopologists now is infinitely high -- nobody on earth is qualified to disagree! Perhaps after taking all the evidence into consideration, the staff at SeN differ in opinion from Hauglid or perhaps they might argue Hauglid has been brainwashed but yeah, whatever the final analysis, they should care, and they should care a lot.

But that's not the end of the story. Sic et Non posts innumerable posts such as the recent one about Kurt Godel, where the author lifts a section of a Wiki article and pumps it out to cyberspace in defense of fundamentalist Christian ideas such as, in this case, Creationism. So here is my main point: If the staff at SeN don't care what Hauglid thinks about the Book of Abraham, who is probably the most qualified person in the world per the Mopologist's own set of criteria to hold an opinion on the Book of Abraham, who holds a contrary opinion to Gee and the gang, then why should anybody on the planet care about what the staff at Sic et Non say on matters they have no experience with whatsoever?

The force of this logic should impose upon the staff at SeN to either retract the line of questions to Noel or to close down Sic et Non for good. I expect one of these outcomes finalized by 6:30 PM tonight.

There is a noticeable undercurrent of bitter nastiness behind Peterson's remark, and now that I think about it, my recollection is that Hauglid played a pivotal role in squashing Schryver's article. The Mopologists--notably Hamblin, DCP, Greg Smith, and Midgley--are often darkly alluding to some "traitor" whom they thought was a friend, but who ultimately tossed them under the bus and helped "abet" Gerald Bradford's ejection of them from the Maxwell Institute. I'd be willing to bet that Hauglid is one of these "traitors." How many decent Latter-day Saints have they chased off? How many enemies have these guys made, exactly?

[_Holy Ghost]

Nice recap Dr. Scratch! Not only the antics, but the actual evidence in the arguments are what took the apologists down by the throat. It was especially the Smith and Cooke pieces which truly and totally sealed the deal for me after I went through Ritner, praying in one last gasp to God that he really needed to get down here and help us out. He did, but in an odd sort of way. He sent Smith and Cooke to simply throttle Gee's "faith" piece and publish the singular strongest take down in mopologetic history.

So, we have seen how Gee has been truly man handled by both professional Egyptologists and mathematicians.

We have seen how Bill Hamblin has been completely outargued by professional historians concerning the validity of the Book of Mormon.

We have now recent seen how Daniel C. Peterson was bested by the skeptic Michael Shermer. I accept that someone with a better grasp of Mormonism could have been selected and they ought to have gone into some nitty gritty detail, however, on the whole, the defense just isn't what the impression gave me it was when FARMS was writing the "Review of Books" pieces back in the 1990's.

And now another one of the main apologists have simply said he (Hauglid) no longer accepts the Mormon apologetic.

It looks to me like apologetics is now truly officially resigned to their fate, that of having lost relevance and good arguments. Jesus didn't come to help them, and their evidences have been crushed back onto them with several ton per square inch of power and they have collapsed.

And we internet apologists (Shulem, Graham and I) have certainly followed the evidence and found it lacking. There just seems to me to be nothing else left except perhaps the faith/self promoting flim flam of prophets and apostles. The war is over, and rather than sign a treaty with the enemy, the soldiers for the Book of Abraham have simply walked away due to the obviousness of its falseness, and mishandling of its "evidences."

The score card here has many hash marks for slam dunks, doesn't it, Neal?

[_Philo Sofee]

OK, on a good note for the beat up boys, there is Dan Peterson, Lou Midgley, and Robert Smith. They still have these three amigos so can perform some tap dancing scenarios with which the deliberately faithful and deliberately ignorant can still sway to the tune of Old MacDonald Had a Farm... I suppose.

[_Dan Vogel]

Hauglid's change of viewpoint may itself earn a spot in the top ten happenings this year, but if so, the response to Noel earns a spot ahead of it. The reason why is that the line of questioning:

Am I supposed to care a lot about what Brian Hauglid thinks on this matter?

If so, why?

Because, perhaps, of his Egyptological expertise?

undercuts the entire existence of Sic et Non and then some. If this is what he really thinks, then Sic et Non should be voluntarily closed down for good. I shall illustrate by answering the questions posed.

Yes, you are supposed to care what Brian Hauglid thinks. Not *just* because of his expertise in Egyptology, but because of his long history as a Book of Abraham apologist, which includes a respectable amount of work done in conjunction with John Gee, and deep ties to BYU and its ancient scripture department, and all this work long before the end of the Mayan Calendar.

No, I'm not saying that the various staff at Sic et Non should share Hauglid's opinions. What is that argument the Mopologists always use against the critics who dismiss the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham? They say that the critics lack the proper credentials. And then on the occasion when a critic with the right credentials takes a brief interest in Mopologetic scholarship, they dismiss the critic as not being familiar enough with the Mopologetic materials to have a worthy opinion. And now, here is a Mormon Scholar with a bulls-eye on the whole list: He has a near east studies related Ph.D. (check), he's co-authored a book with John Gee himself (super-check) and he he's part of the institution that produces apologist scholarship (check) -- there isn't some overlooked area somewhere that he hasn't considered (check) and yet, to this, the staff at SeN are saying that they shouldn't even care about his opinion! The bar for criticizing any opinion held by the Mopologists now is infinitely high -- nobody on earth is qualified to disagree! Perhaps after taking all the evidence into consideration, the staff at SeN differ in opinion from Hauglid or perhaps they might argue Hauglid has been brainwashed but yeah, whatever the final analysis, they should care, and they should care a lot.

But that's not the end of the story. Sic et Non posts innumerable posts such as the recent one about Kurt Godel, where the author lifts a section of a Wiki article and pumps it out to cyberspace in defense of fundamentalist Christian ideas such as, in this case, Creationism. So here is my main point: If the staff at SeN don't care what Hauglid thinks about the Book of Abraham, who is probably the most qualified person in the world per the Mopologist's own set of criteria to hold an opinion on the Book of Abraham, who holds a contrary opinion to Gee and the gang, then why should anybody on the planet care about what the staff at Sic et Non say on matters they have no experience with whatsoever?

The force of this logic should impose upon the staff at SeN to either retract the line of questions to Noel or to close down Sic et Non for good. I expect one of these outcomes finalized by 6:30 PM tonight.

Peterson is saying he doesn't care about Hauglid's opinion because Hauglid isn't an Egyptologist. The apologists like to play the authority game, but as I said at the end of my 6th video: Egyptology has nothing to do with most of what Gee and Muhlestein say in defense of the Book of Abraham. My videos examine their apologetic theories about the Kirtland Egyptian papers, which have nothing to do with Egyptology. Most of their nonsense centers on their attempt to assign authorship of the Egyptian Alphabets and bound Grammar to W. W. Phelps instead of Joseph Smith. To do that, they need to have all the Book of Abraham text dictated in July 1835 before the English texts. They failed.