The Specter of the Book of Abraham Continues to Haunt Mopologetics

[_Holy Ghost]

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.

If I recall correctly, there are July 1835 entries in the History of the Church, in which Joseph Smith states that he was then working on the alphabet and grammar. The July 17 entry provides "The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients."

The September 27 entry creates extra problems, as Abraham's astronomy is set forth in Abraham chapter 3. "This afternoon I labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with Brothers Oliver Cowdery and W. W. Phelps, and during the research, the principles of astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients unfolded to our understanding, the particulars of which will appear hereafter."

You probably included those two entries in your videos. I have only just sampled them. They are terrific.

[_deacon blues]

Mr. Vogel, is the research available in your videos going to become available in print or book form?

[_Fence Sitter]

What would Will's unpublished work have to do with the length of the Hor scroll?

[_Dan Vogel]

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.

If I recall correctly, there are July 1835 entries in the History of the Church, in which Joseph Smith states that he was then working on the alphabet and grammar. The July 17 entry provides "The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients."

The September 27 entry creates extra problems, as Abraham's astronomy is set forth in Abraham chapter 3. "This afternoon I labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with Brothers Oliver Cowdery and W. W. Phelps, and during the research, the principles of astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients unfolded to our understanding, the particulars of which will appear hereafter."

You probably included those two entries in your videos. I have only just sampled them. They are terrific.

The July 1835 entries were written by Willard Richards in 1843 probably with the help of Phelps, who was a participant in the event being described, and possibly with Joseph Smith’s approval. The 1 October 1835 entry in Joseph Smith’s journal about astronomy probably refers to the last part of the bound grammar. Abraham 3 dates to March 1842. Everything is discussed in the videos.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

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

If so, why?

This is another shining example of Peterson's blatant dishonesty. Peterson in his own published paper cites Brian Hauglid's research and holds Brian out as an expert on The Book of Abraham/Egyptology. See footnote 66 and 75.

https://publications.mi.BYU.edu/publica ... terson.pdf

Folks, you can't make this stuff up.

[_Philo Sofee]

Peterson is merely trying to limit the damage of so many top notch apologists quitting. He KNOWS he cares GREATLY about what Hauglid thinks, he ain't foolin anyone in the know. It's amusing to watch him try to though. It's as silly as Russ Nelson imagining he is actually fooling anyone that Jesus himself revealed to Nelson how upset he is about the use of Mormon rather than his own.

[_Fence Sitter]

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.

If this is a reference to Schryver's work, it is confusing, perhaps intentionally, because Will was not trying to publish on the scroll length. His work that he was trying to publish dealt with portraying the KEP as a Masonic cipher and had nothing to do with scroll length.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

If this is a reference to Schryver's work, it is confusing, perhaps intentionally, because Will was not trying to publish on the scroll length. His work that he was trying to publish dealt with portraying the KEP as a Masonic cipher and had nothing to do with scroll length.

Well, of course. If it's unpublished, then it can mean anything he would like to imply. He can knit two sentences together, and they may very well radically contradict each other (as you point out), but how is anyone supposed to know?

When asked whether the piece ever *will* be published, Dr. Peterson responds:

We would, I think, be happy to publish it.

But there are obstacles -- and, lest I feed wild speculation, they're of neither an ecclesiastical nor an academic character nor reflective of reservations at the Interpreter Foundation. And that's all I'm likely to say.

I regret the fact that the piece has not appeared and may never be.

However, this exchange reminds me of the issue, and maybe I'll revisit the matter.

"I think"? Either Interpreter is happy to publish it, or it isn't. And can anyone imagine "obstacles" that would prevent publication in a venue like Interpreter *other* than what he listed? This was the same sort of game they played with Greg Smith's "hit piece" on John Dehlin. We know how that turned out. I wonder if a leak of the Schryver paper may be forthcoming.....

[_Philo Sofee]

If it actually was a valid refutation, then Peterson would be the very first to publish it come hell or high water. If there are politics involved, we can rest assure that it doesn't hold answers against the critics, and therefor the church is involved in having it remain barred. He isn't able to fool anyone who has a little know how.

Perhaps he fears Ritner's comebacks against their research? If so, that would not surprise me. Nothing apologetics has ever come up with has survived scrutiny, so to hold forth this one can and does, yet is not able to see the light of day is pure unadulterated pucky-dung, and he knows it.

This would be like Richard Dawkins saying oh we certainly have the evidence against theological studies, and would be happy to produce it, but there are difficulties, none of which have to do with theologians themselves, or with our comrads.

[_MsJack]

For the record, the source who told me that the MI was cancelling publication of William's article also told me that he was encouraged to publish elsewhere. Some of the denizens of the MDDB floated the theory that the MI held the rights to his research and he wasn't able to publish elsewhere, but to my knowledge, William never confirmed nor denied that.

Going by my source at the MI (and my source was correct about the cancellation of the publication, so I believe s/he would be in-the-know on the article rights), there isn't any reason why William couldn't publish elsewhere. Perhaps Dan could explain sometime why the Interpreter hasn't published William's article, since he saw absolutely nothing misogynist about anything William wrote and since the lack of publication is so regrettable.

As far as my 2011 misogyny thread goes . . .



Frankly, I have a pretty good track record of beating the #MeToo movement on a lot of things.