Degrees, Credentials, Egyptian, Hypocrites and Will

[_mledbetter]

That's a fair answer to my question and makes sense. I sincerely didn't know why it would be so difficult.

[_Runtu]

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-

I sometimes wonder why I even bother. Sigh.

[_wenglund]

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.

As one who has seen the presentation, I can, with some authority, telll you that your assumption about Will's presentation is, in certain significant ways, false, though understandable given that you haven't the least clue what he will be presenting--again, not that ignorance has ever stopped you from emphatically conjecturing in the past.

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.

The scope of your OP was clearly Book of Abraham issues, but this is not important enough a nit to pick with you.

Be that as it may, I think the problem that most LDS are having with certain critics in regards to Book of Abraham issues, isn't their lack of credentials, but rather those times when they speak to things about which they haven't a clue--like when they make emphatic claims and conjectures about Will's presentation which they haven't seen nor have they been informed in any meaningful detail as to what it is about. (present company not excluded)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I sometimes wonder why I even bother. Sigh.

I, for one, am glad you did bother. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Joseph]

" a way of demonstrating what scholastic training is required to correctly grasp some of his specific arguments".

Kind of like being in the mindset and trained so you cannot recognize that the King doesn't really have a suit of new clothes only visible to the 'worthy', but that the King is naked.

You are 'trained' and then look at things through that training. Without the 'training' you tend to ask all sorts of embarassing questions, right?

[_Runtu]

I sometimes wonder why I even bother. Sigh.

I, for one, am glad you did bother. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your previous post reminded me of how difficult it is to be kind and civil online. If nothing else, maybe it was just a reminder that I need to behave better.

[_beastie]

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.

As one who has seen the presentation, I can, with some authority, telll you that your assumption about Will's presentation is, in certain significant ways, false, though understandable given that you haven't the least clue what he will be presenting--again, not that ignorance has ever stopped you from emphatically conjecturing in the past.

LOL. There's that excellent training again.

The scope of your OP was clearly Book of Abraham issues, but this is not important enough a nit to pick with you.

LOL again. Wade, you are so predictable. Now you're telling me what my OP was about. I clearly stated it was about hypocrisy, and used the Gee test as simply one example.

Be that as it may, I think the problem that most LDS are having with certain critics in regards to Book of Abraham issues, isn't their lack of credentials, but rather those times when they speak to things about which they haven't a clue--like when they make emphatic claims and conjectures about Will's presentation which they haven't seen nor have they been informed in any meaningful detail as to what it is about. (present company not excluded)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Emphatic claims? All I said was that his presentation, if it's about the KEP, must be about the translation process. Now perhaps he's doing his best to dissociate it from the Book of Abraham, but it is still about the translation process.

But I won't go down this rabbit hole any more with you. That was just one example in my larger point.

[_Ray A]

Will isn't the only Mormon amateur at work in a field for which he has no specific training. Hugh Nibley was also an amateur in this field. Which reminds me of his article The Day of the Amateur.

Beastie's point is well taken.

Mormon amateur: Scholar

Critic amateur: Poseur

(Now let's hope to God this thread and can stay on track and not descend into yet another Book of Abraham debate, or ye shall face the wrath of my marshmellows coming at you.)

[_Kevin Graham]

Beastie makes an excellent point, and it is the same point I made just the other day. Anyone familiar with the initial KEP exchanges in 2006, will remember the favored apologetic tactic, which was to attack Brent Metcalfe and myself for being nonexperts. Hell, Will even attacked Chris Smith by referring to him as some kid "barely out of puberty." The context of that suggested he objected to the idea that any of us, especially Chris, could possibly have anything inmsightful, intelligent or meaningful to say on the matter. Our educational backgrounds precluded us from ever being able to play on the same level as the apologists, who could boast a couple of Egyptologists and a few "Text-Critics."

I'll have more to say on this after Will presents his 700 kiloton presentation. Assuming there is anything left of us after he totally obliterates our arguments, I'll try to crawl from the rubble and offer some feedback.

As it is, I wont be listening to the presentation or attending it. The idea that I have to pay FAIR money to listen to Will Schryver say pretty much what he's been saying for a while, well that is just too much to digest on my relaxing offday. Metcalfe won't make it either so we're gonna have to rely on Smith and Cook to fill us in, to say nothing of shouldering the burden of being brow beaten during the Q&A.

[_wenglund]

" a way of demonstrating what scholastic training is required to correctly grasp some of his specific arguments".

Kind of like being in the mindset and trained so you cannot recognize that the King doesn't really have a suit of new clothes only visible to the 'worthy', but that the King is naked.

Actually, for those who aren't looking at Gee's or my comment through the distorting lense of self-justification, will likely see that it is quite the opposite. What Gee is suggesting is a way of testing whether some of the viewing and critical public are correct in seeing themselves as clothed adequately with knowledge, or in truth whether they, on specific topics, are intellectually naked and haven't a stitch of a clue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-