The Specter of the Book of Abraham Continues to Haunt Mopologetics

[_Dr Exiled]

Rule No 1 for Magicians: Keep up the illusion. Peterson, Nelson, L. Tom Perry, fraudsters, etc. always need to allude to hidden papers, secret meetings with deity, etc., etc. in order to retain power or whatever semblance of power remaining. It appeals to the imagination and sounds so good. Just think of the marvelous things President Nonsense Nelson is discussing with Jesus, probably almost every day! Certainly, they are too sacred and magical to tell, but we will learn in the future. So, stay tuned Mormon astronauts, the universe is unlimited!! And DCP certainly has the answers, but alas, they cannot be published at this time.

[_Tom]

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.

Truth. I also noticed that Dr. Peterson lifted exact language from Wikipedia regarding Godel.

Dr. Peterson’s post highlights the publication of a significant new Joseph Smith Papers volume: “Stephen Smoot interviews Robin Scott Jensen, associate managing historian and project archivist for the Joseph Smith Papers Project, regarding the Project’s newly released Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts.”

And who co-edited said volume? Reliable sources tell me that it was some guy named Brian Hauglid.

And still Dr. Peterson asks, “Am I supposed to care a lot about what Brian Hauglid thinks on this matter?” It’s not a serious question.

[_Holy Ghost]

"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.....

Maybe the only transcript of Schryver's paper was in the brief case buried with L. Tom Perry.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

You know what? I'm starting to get a real 2nd Watson Letter vibe with Schryver's paper. Was there an actual piece written and queued up for publication? Or has this been some sort of Mopologist running gag where they all claimed they read Schryver's paper and for some unknown reason it fell off the face of the earth?

- Doc

[_jfro18]

I thought the Book of Abraham issues were solved when it was revealed on that insane blog that the source text was actually on the lost Amenhotep scroll.

[_Mortal Man]

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.

He was trying to publish on scroll length. If I recall correctly, the title of his rejected MI paper was, “The Interminable Roll: Determining the Original Length of the Scroll of Hor”. His KEP cipher theory was a separate project.

[_Gadianton]

You know what? I'm starting to get a real 2nd Watson Letter vibe with Schryver's paper. Was there an actual piece written and queued up for publication? Or has this been some sort of Mopologist running gag where they all claimed they read Schryver's paper and for some unknown reason it fell off the face of the earth?

My belief is that there really is such a paper, but indeed, there is also a Watson/missing papyri element to this story (the proof that the papyri is missing is itself, missing? Is this one of Godel's theories?). I think from a pro-apologist stance, the story is compelling: through malice, the seminal work to settle a long controversy was blocked from the world to receive. The fact that Satan actively suppressed the paper increases its credibility. Every time it's alluded to, its aura grows. If the aura expands much more, then there will be a heavy incentive -- if not already -- to never release it, because its power as a lost magic sword will be more faith promoting than the arguments it contains.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You know what? I'm starting to get a real 2nd Watson Letter vibe with Schryver's paper. Was there an actual piece written and queued up for publication? Or has this been some sort of Mopologist running gag where they all claimed they read Schryver's paper and for some unknown reason it fell off the face of the earth?

My belief is that there really is such a paper, but indeed, there is also a Watson/missing papyri element to this story (the proof that the papyri is missing is itself, missing? Is this one of Godel's theories?). I think from a pro-apologist stance, the story is compelling: through malice, the seminal work to settle a long controversy was blocked from the world to receive. The fact that Satan actively suppressed the paper increases its credibility. Every time it's alluded to, its aura grows. If the aura expands much more, then there will be a heavy incentive -- if not already -- to never release it, because its power as a lost magic sword will be more faith promoting than the arguments it contains.

It's definitely something like that. Earlier today, I was actually considering the far-flung possibility that the apologists really are concerned about having their reputation damaged due to association with Schryver, but then I remembered that they willingly and publicly ally themselves with people ranging from Russell McGregor, to Martin Tanner, to John Gee and Louis Midgley. Just recently, I saw Dr. Peterson openly claiming that NIbley was "a brilliant scholar." (That just tells you so, so much, doesn't it?) So they will associate with perceived allies even over their calculations about reputation. So I don't think this is the real reason.

Honestly, it may just be something as petty and simple as the idea that DCP doesn't like Will Schryver any more. (And if this is true--LOL. What a greater and more powerful admission than the one re: Hauglid. Only "friends" as long as they're useful, eh? No more Shakespeare Festival tickets? Then quit wasting my time!)

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm officially calling for the release of the Schryver Papers. I'm calling out the mopologists. I'm declaring that:

1) They haven't read the Scryver Papers because

2) There never were any ready-to-print essays.

This is actually pretty stunning when you think about it. They've been alluding to the papers as a sort of deus ex chartam explanation for the Book of Abraham. There's a sort of passing reference to them in context of some conversation where they give it the whiff of credibility, but never seem to be able to *snap* actually produce a copy.

This is getting stranger and stranger as time passes, yet these slippery treasures seem to never manifest, don't they?

- Doc

[_Philo Sofee]

The pattern is the very same as that of the missing gold plates, and Jesus missing for over 2,000 years, but he secretly meets with certain chosen individuals and he is going to make a second come back! What the world has to do is just be patient and stay tuned. After so many centuries the charade is just a big open secret that no one actually believes anymore.