Degrees, Credentials, Egyptian, Hypocrites and Will

[_Runtu]

As far as Runtu's comments are concerned, when it comes to a discussion of the Book of Abraham, I'm not all that compelled by anybody's credentials.

Neither am I. As I said, it doesn't take a degree in Egyptology to understand that the explanations do not match the facsimiles. I think we can all agree on that. Whether or not the text is inspired or true in any sense is the real question.

[_beastie]

Oh, Bob is just trolling. Anyone who has perused my website knows I've heavily documented my sources, and very few are "google" searches. I own almost every text I cited, with few exceptions. For some reason, he loves to get a rise out of me, and it scores him "points" in his imaginary game. For heaven's sake, look at his new sig line. He's acting as if I did something wrong by referring to his real name in my joke when he makes it a point of pride that he uses his real name. It's just not possible to take him seriously at all.

And, of course, this isn't just about me, or at my relatively minor level of dabbling. There are critics who have spent a good portion of their lives studying Mormon history, who are still dismissed due to lack of credentials. (Metcalfe and Vogel come to mind)

[_mledbetter]

Oh, Bob is just trolling. Anyone who has perused my website knows I've heavily documented my sources, and very few are "google" searches. I own almost every text I cited, with few exceptions. For some reason, he loves to get a rise out of me, and it scores him "points" in his imaginary game. For heaven's sake, look at his new sig line. He's acting as if I did something wrong by referring to his real name in my joke when he makes it a point of pride that he uses his real name. It's just not possible to take him seriously at all.

And, of course, this isn't just about me, or at my relatively minor level of dabbling. There are critics who have spent a good portion of their lives studying Mormon history, who are still dismissed due to lack of credentials. (Metcalfe and Vogel come to mind)

How difficult would it be for one to learn Egyptian, do you think? I'm seriously curious. Why is it so difficult? Access to proper materials? Is there so few people well versed in Egyptian because it's a dead and useless language to most people, or because you have to be a genius to understand it? I doubt that all of the ancient people who spoke the language were actual geniuses. If I were you and it bothered me so bad that Gee basically called me ignorant, I guess I would pursue these questions a little further.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Oh, Bob is just trolling. Anyone who has perused my website knows I've heavily documented my sources, and very few are "google" searches. I own almost every text I cited, with few exceptions. For some reason, he loves to get a rise out of me, and it scores him "points" in his imaginary game. For heaven's sake, look at his new sig line. He's acting as if I did something wrong by referring to his real name in my joke when he makes it a point of pride that he uses his real name. It's just not possible to take him seriously at all.

And, of course, this isn't just about me, or at my relatively minor level of dabbling. There are critics who have spent a good portion of their lives studying Mormon history, who are still dismissed due to lack of credentials. (Metcalfe and Vogel come to mind)

I think your response to the Mercer findings about the pre-Columbian Yucatan horse is just google nonsense.

[_wenglund]

Wade, you just can't help yourself, can you? Even when you're pretending, to yourself, that you are caring and reaching out to build bridges to critics, your posts drip with usually unwarranted condescension and judgment, often cloaked in psycho-babble.

To the untrained eye, "tough love" may at times be misconstrued as suggesting that the caring is "pretended". Those who take me and themselves too serious, may also be prone to making this same judgemental mistake. In both cases, maybe a bit of so-called psycho-babble would do them a world of good.

Whatever the case, I wonder why this important clarifying point wasn't bolded:

Many construed the test to mean that if you did not know Egyptian you could not discuss the Book of Abraham. This is utter nonsense, as they all immediately went on to argue. Egyptian, however, is necessary if you wish to discuss the Book of Abraham as a translation of Egyptian (whether you think it was or wasn't). [/qyote]

Beastie goes on to say:

I think it's fair to say this appears to be a test designed to ascertain if one is qualified to discuss the translation of the Book of Abraham papyri. I'm assuming Will's research has something to do with that.

You assume incorrectly--which makes sense since you haven't the least clue what Will's presentation is about, not that ignorance has stopped you from conjecturing in the past..

Aside from this example, I literally cannot count the number of times I've been accused of "pretending to be an expert" by believers on MAD.

Could you please point to just a couple of examples where they have said this in regards to your comments in relation to the BoA--since that is the topic of this thread?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Yahoo Bot]

As far as Runtu's comments are concerned, when it comes to a discussion of the Book of Abraham, I'm not all that compelled by anybody's credentials.

Neither am I. As I said, it doesn't take a degree in Egyptology to understand that the explanations do not match the facsimiles. I think we can all agree on that. Whether or not the text is inspired or true in any sense is the real question.

That is entirely correct.

I can just see Joseph Smith and his associates swept along in a fervor of speculative enthusiasm about historical matters, and getting all charged about Egyptian when there was nothing known about proper translation methods. The incidents with Anthon and Mitchell show, as well, that these guys were swept along with all things Egypt.

Complicating the analysis, of course, is the canonization of the facsimiles (or portions thereof), and as to the meaning of that I don't have much of an explanation.

I think we in the Church take the text for what it is. Unlike the plates, where there were witnesses to them, we don't have any witnesses to testify about the translation method for the Book of Abraham.

[_beastie]

To the untrained eye, "tough love" may at times be misconstrued as suggesting that the caring is "pretended". Those who take me and themselves too serious, may also be prone to making this same judgemental mistake. In both cases, maybe a bit of so-called psycho-babble would do them a world of good.

Lol. If someone trained you, get your money back.

Whatever the case, I wonder why this important clarifying point wasn't bolded:

Gee

Many construed the test to mean that if you did not know Egyptian you could not discuss the Book of Abraham. This is utter nonsense, as they all immediately went on to argue. Egyptian, however, is necessary if you wish to discuss the Book of Abraham as a translation of Egyptian (whether you think it was or wasn't).

Wade, Will isn't just discussing the Book of Abraham. He's discussing the translation process - which is exactly what Gee claimed one must know Egyptian to discuss.

Could you please point to just a couple of examples where they have said this in regards to your comments in relation to the BoA--since that is the topic of this thread?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I don't discuss the details of the Book of Abraham, because I've never bothered to study it deeply. The topic of this thread wasn't the Book of Abraham. The topic was the fact that believers are hypocrites when they dance excitedly and applaud Will's research, but criticize nonbelievers for their lack of credentials.

[_wenglund]

Given that, the actual papyri and the KEP ought to be irrelevant to apologists, as it's clear that something other than translation was going on..

That is an astute observation. And, to think you were able to make it, as a non-believing LDS, and without a post-graduate degree in Egyptology, and without having your comment peer-reviewed or published in scholarly journals. From the standpoint of certain critics, how is that possible?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_MrStakhanovite]

How difficult would it be for one to learn Egyptian, do you think? I'm seriously curious. Why is it so difficult? Access to proper materials? Is there so few people well versed in Egyptian because it's a dead and useless language to most people, or because you have to be a genius to understand it? I doubt that all of the ancient people who spoke the language were actual geniuses. If I were you and it bothered me so bad that Gee basically called me ignorant, I guess I would pursue these questions a little further.

When you start taking historical research beyond just being well read, it often requires a person to often learn 3 to 5 languages and it's a good bet a few of them are not in use anymore. On top of that, we are talking about a level of proficiency that goes far beyond what most people consider fluent. It's one thing to carry on a good conversation in Spanish in Madrid, it's another to read Cervantes.

To make matters worse, it's hard to import an arcane language into something practical in the modern day market. Having a vast knowledge of Hieroglyphics isn't useful outside of the Academy, that means that the only schools that are going to have decent programs are those with the money and endowments to spend, which means competitive programs. Job outlook for researchers and Professors in the Humanities are abysmal, and most people don't want to dedicate 10 years to becoming competent in a field just so they can teach High school to pay the bills.

So John is well within his rights to lay down a litmus test and say, " If you want me to take you seriously, and spend my limited time reading what you have got to say, you damn well better know your stuff." I can sympathize with his frustration with Internet critics who probably go out of their way to smear him as some kind of incompetent goon

[_MrStakhanovite]

Also, learning a dead language is made more difficult by the fact you can't immerse yourself in the language, so learning them is made even more tedious because it's pretty much restricted to learning in the classroom and rote drills in your spare time.