Degrees, Credentials, Egyptian, Hypocrites and Will

[_wenglund]

Kevin (and any other critic on this thread),

Before addressing the on-topic portions of your posts above, I am wondering if you would mind answering some general and relevant questions--questions intended to create a basic framework for effectual dialogue on the subject at hand.

1. Do you agree that in terms of the Book of Abraham, KEP, and Papyri, there are certain specific matters (like the meaning of Egyptian characters, or the general content and historical context of Egyptian papyri, etc.), though certainly not all, that are best trusted to people with related credentials and demonstrable expertice?

2. If so, would you agree that in the case of these specific matters, it may be valid to question, comparatively, the credentials and expertice of critics or apologists who chose to address such specific matters?

3. Do you agree that there are areas of study and discussion related to the Book of Abraham that do not require credentials or expertice, and that whatever may be stated in these areas ought to be judged on their own merits, and not on the credentials of those making the statements?

4. Do you agree that were the questioning of credential to be restricted to specific matters that are best trusted to those with credentials and expertice, that it would not be hypocritical to not question the credentials of people addressing Book of Abraham and related matters that don't require expertice?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

1. Do you agree that in terms of the Book of Abraham, KEP, and Papyri, there are certain specific matters (like the meaning of Egyptian characters, or the general content and historical context of Egyptian papyri, etc.), though certainly not all, that are best trusted to people with related credentials and demonstrable expertice?

No, for two reasons.
1. What field of expertise is necessary? It was once the general field of "document analysis" and then it became "chemical ink analysis," and then "forensic document analysis," then it was general "textual criticism," then John Gee made it "Egyptology," etc etc. It all depends on what kind of argument a person is trying to make. In my view, general exposure to the relevant documents is what made Ed Ashment and Brent Metcalfe the world's leading experts on the subject for decades. You study something for that long you get to the point you recognize it like the back of your hand. They became experts for years while apologists in general were denied access to the materials that Metcalfe and Ashment already had in their own private possessions. Metcalfe knows these documents backwards and forwards. Will and HauGee are relatively "Green" on this subject, as Hauglid admitted to Metcalfe a couple years ago.

2. But more to the point, I'd rather trust these documents with (being an expert doesn't make you honest!) those who are trustworthy, and thus far those on the apologetic end have a horrible, even disgusting track record of untrusworthiness. Beginning with Nibley, going through Gee/Rhodes, and ending with Hauglid and Schryver. I can point out where each and every one of these people have been moderately disingenuous at best, and flat out liars at worst. Conversely, Will and his crew of scholars can only offer innuendo that Metcalfe and Ashment have been proven wrong on any particular matter. You hear everything about how Metcalfe tricked a grieving widow in order to obtain the KEP photos (popular lie among apologists), but very little response to his arguments. They present nothing rock solid and they refuse to debate on the matter. They only want to lecture in a controlled environment, because lecturing is safe.

2. If so, would you agree that in the case of these specific matters, it may be valid to question, comparatively, the credentials and expertice of critics or apologists who chose to address such specific matters?

I have no relavant expertise in this subject, but I think I've managed to deduce logically the data that we have, and I've offered my insights to people like Chris Smith and Brent Metcalfe over the years, and we generally find ourselves on the same page.

3. Do you agree that there are areas of study and discussion related to the Book of Abraham that do not require credentials or expertice, and that whatever may be stated in these areas ought to be judged on their own merits, and not on the credentials of those making the statements?

Yes I do, but we were quickly castigated, ridiculed and continually reminded that we had no expertise to say anything on this subject since the documents were with the "experts" who were of course, conveniently, apologists for the Church.

4. Do you agree that were the questioning of credential to be restricted to specific matters that are best trusted to those with credentials and expertice, that it would not be hypocritical to not question the credentials of people addressing Book of Abraham and related matters that don't require expertice?

The questioning of credentials is to be restricted to critics alone. That is the apologetic standard, which is what makes this whole "presentation" stink of hypocrisy.

[_moksha]

Have any of the people who have passed this Egyptology test been able to shed more light on the idolatrous Gods Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash?

.

[Gadianton]

Hi Kevin,

I very much appreciate you responding to my general questions, and I hope you don't mind if I ask a couple more to follow up:

5. While you may not agree that there are any specific Book of Abraham matters that are best left to those with credential or recognized expertice, would you still think it hypocritical for those who do believe there are SOME Book of Abraham matters best left to experts, and who restrict their questioning of credential to those expert matters, yet who do not question credentials in those Book of Abraham matters that they do not believe are best left to experts?

In other words, is it hypocritical for people to question credentials in matters where they believe credentials are warranted, but not question credentials in matters where they don't believe credential are warranted?

1a. Do I understand you correctly to have suggested that even with things like reading and understanding Egyptian papyri, the opinion of a Phd. in Egyptology is no better than the opinion of someone like me, who may not be able to tell an Egyptian character from a scratch on the wall?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Have any of the people who have passed this Egyptology test been able to shed more light on the idolatrous Gods Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash?
.

Since I couldn't pass the Egyptology test to save my life, I don't view myself as in a position to really say.

However, if I understand Kevin correctly, he would suggest that my thoughts on the matter ought to be considered as valid as those who have passed the Egyptology test.

Assuming Kevin is correct, here is the light that I wish to shed on the named idolotrous gods: given that they have the head of a dog and the body of a man, I can empathize with the dilemma they may face when they catch a nose and chest cold--do they visit a veterinarian or a human doctor or both? I say both.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

In other words, is it hypocritical for people to question credentials in matters where they believe credentials are warranted, but not question credentials in matters where they don't believe credential are warranted?

It's suspiciously convenient that believers tend to find credentials are warranted only in critics.

[_CaliforniaKid]

1. Do you agree that in terms of the Book of Abraham, KEP, and Papyri, there are certain specific matters (like the meaning of Egyptian characters, or the general content and historical context of Egyptian papyri, etc.), though certainly not all, that are best trusted to people with related credentials and demonstrable expertice?

Hey Wade,

Would you agree that someone who is not trained in the relevant field(s) may nevertheless be capable of gaining the requisite knowledge by consulting experts or expert publications? The major benefit of being trained in a field, from where I'm sitting, is that it gives you a general background knowledge and a familiarity with the methodological tools of the discipline. What it does not do is automatically make one an expert in all of the discipline's subject areas. For example, Egyptologists do not generally graduate knowing the average length or thickness of a papyrus scroll. This is something that even an Egyptologist would have to investigate and consult the literature to determine. I, as a non-Egyptologist, am capable of consulting the same literature. The main advantage Gee has over someone like me in this regard is that he could get access to large collections of papyri if he wanted to make an assessment of his own, whereas an outsider to the discipline like myself is more limited to previously published data. That is a meaningful advantage, perhaps... but only if Gee avails himself of the opportunity.

Peace,

-Chris

[_Kevin Graham]

In other words, is it hypocritical for people to question credentials in matters where they believe credentials are warranted, but not question credentials in matters where they don't believe credential are warranted?

It is hypocritical only if they have a history of arguing the opposite, and that is the point here with respect to the folks at MADB. In 2002, when Metcalfe let loose some photos that demolished John Gee's arguments that he published in 2001 - in conjunction with my ever increasing frustration as an apologist, with LDS apologetics on the KEP situation - the increasing sentiment at FAIR was that the KEP were just too complex and too much of a mystery for anyone to dare declare anything definitive about what they are. And yet, that is precisely what Will plans to do on Saturday, does he not?

When arguments were put forward by the lowly "critics," we were literally laughed at by people like Juliann and Will, who insisted that only the apologists had bonafide "experts" who had any business studying these documents. Juliann kept ridiculing Brent for not being an academic, and taunted him relentlessly for it. Will explained his sciolist involvement on the subject as justified since he was constantly rubbing elbows with those scholars who gave him the nod in everything he presented. Nevermind the fact that just a few months prior, he thought the KEP and the Joseph Smith papyri were one and the same (as evidenced by his ignorant remark that "the critic's argument is based on the false assumption that we have all the material Joseph Smith had; he then lied, saying he had "studied the KEP extensively as much as anyone has," not knowing that the KEP were unavailable for inspection at the time). He was an apologist willing to dive in, so that was all that was needed to be acceptable at FAIR. You could be a newbie and ignorant, so long as your conclusions are faith promoting at all times. But if you are a critic, if you're anything less than an academic with awards in textual criticism and forensic document analysis, then you have no buisiness talking about this stuff.

Will also kept bragging about how his ideas were constantly being confirmed or verified by scholars. Chris and I watched Will pump out one crazy theory after another, only to be shot down soon afterwards, and of course, Will woud never discuss his screwups unless it was in Pundits at MADB, where he knew I could not attend and, where, thanks to the moderators, he is guaranteed to come out the winner no matter how badly he screws up. But Will has argued so many contradictory things over the past few years it is astounding, and each time he presents his new theory as definitive just like he's doing now.

1a. Do I understand you correctly to have suggested that even with things like reading and understanding Egyptian papyri, the opinion of a Phd. in Egyptology is no better than the opinion of someone like me, who may not be able to tell an Egyptian character from a scratch on the wall?

Again, it depends on which expert you're talking about. If there is really a question about translation from Egyptian to English, why in the world would I need to trust a proven liar like John Gee whose only agenda is to produce faith promoting material? I could just as easily email Stephen Thompson, Lanny Bell or Robert Ritner and ask them to confirm a translation. But the Egyptian question is irrelevent since even the apologists admit that the translation Joseph Smith offered on the Facsimile doesn't agree with what professional Egyptologists say it means. The best they can do is hope for the "Egyptian is so mysterious that even Egyptologists are just guessing what it means" theory. Because if Egyptian is so mysterious that nobody can translate a given line with absolute certainty, then that is all the leeway an LDS apologist needs to say Joseph Smith's translations might actually be correct. Arm of the flesh, and all that jazz.

[_beastie]

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.

Wade,

Speaking of credentials, why are you insinuating here that you have some sort of training that enables you to be qualified to engage in your constant stream of psycho-babble when apparently you have no training? In other words, your eye is untrained as well. Regardless of whether or not credentials are required for conversation about a given matter, one should not insinuate one has had training when one has not.


I have nothing against occasional dabbling in psycho-babble and do it myself, but you engage in it repeatedly, almost in every post. Of course, I recognized what you were doing long ago. For whatever reason, you've decided against simply asserting that apostates are inspired by Satan and sin, and have slightly adjusted the prejudicial teachings of the LDS church into a twisted form of psycho-babble: there's something psychologically dysfunctional with apostates. It's just a slightly different form of the same silly old dance. And, by the way, while I don't view the LDS church as a cult over-all, the persistent tendency to demonize apostates, whether by Satan-association or mental dysfunction, is a hallmark of cults.

[Guest]

But the Egyptian question is irrelevent since even the apologists admit that the translation Joseph Smith offered on the Facsimile doesn't agree with what professional Egyptologists say it means.

And this is why I am completely astounded that any of this continues to be discussed, except as a point of pure historical interest. OK, once we all agree that Joseph Smith was not translating Egyptian, what is there to disagree about, at least productively? If one wants to exercise faith that Joseph Smith miraculously channeled a text written by Abraham, well, that is a matter of faith, and what can I say about it? I hardly think it is my responsibility to convince that person that he or she is up in the night, because if that person wants to believe that Smith's Book of Abraham is the real deal from antiquity, although the evidence for that position is probably outweighed by the unlikelihood of it being true as well as a number of other problems, then what will I be able to do to persuade them otherwise? And why would I really want to? Here is what comes to my mind when I consider the value of debating such people:

Milo took the shiny pencil from his pocket and quickly calculated that, at the rate they were working, it would take each of them eight hundred and thirty-seven years to finish.

"Pardon me," he said, tugging at the man's sleeve and holding the sheet of figures up for him to see, "but it's going to take eight hundred and thirty-seven years to do these jobs."

"Is that so?" replied the man, without even turning around. "Well, you'd better get on with it then."

"But it hardly seems worth while," said Milo softly.

"WORTH WHILE!" the man roared indignantly.

"All I meant was that perhaps it isn't too important," Milo repeated, trying not to be impolite.

"Of course it's not important," he snarled angrily. "I wouldn't have asked you to do it if I thought it was important." And now, as he turned to face them, he didn't seem quite so pleasant.

"Then why bother?" asked Tock, whose alarm suddenly began to ring.

"Because, my young friends," he muttered sourly, "what could be more important than doing unimportant things? If you stop to do enough of them, you'll never get to where you're going." He punctuated his last remark with a villainous laugh.

"Then you must -----" gasped Milo.

"Quite correct!" he shrieked triumphantly. "I am the Terrible Trivium, demon of petty tasks and worthless jobs, ogre of wasted effort, and monster of habit."

And to treat your eyes, a picture of the Terrible Trivium:



Why is he faceless? You can answer that for yourself, but for the purposes of this discussion, let me say that one can put on that head the face of any one of the dozens of posters, apologists, or critics, who waste our precious time with petty issues, problems, and conundrums of no consequence.