Go John Gee! Go John Gee!

[Chris Smith]

When someone makes a confrontational or controversial claim, a CFR is understandable. When somebody relates a neutral anecdote or makes a casual comment intended to be neither confrontational or controversial, issuing a CFR and accusing them of circulating false information is simply uncalled for. If you doubt that the information is 100% correct, that's fine. If you care enough to set the record straight, good for you. But I'm tired of having my integrity questioned, and your demand that I defend such a trivial soundbite honestly seems more than a little unreasonable. If you care to email Brian, I will listen with interest to what he has to say. Otherwise, leave me alone.

[juliann]

CK, you are on a message board making public statements, a demand to be left alone is hardly appropriate. Furrther, we have had several instances of your friends sending out tattlemails at the first opportunity...not to find out information but to do personal damage. So your appeal for special treatment that you are not willing to give others rings hollow.

Back to the topic, you felt it important to announce that Dr. Hauglid would be publishing with someone he refused to continue in a message board dialogue. A call for references is entirely appropriate and your attempt to make a reasonable rand appropriate request something improper and even sinister also rings hollow.

[Dan Vogel]

I just read in the email version of the FAIR Journal that unfortunately Brian Hauglid will not be able to attend the FAIR conference this year, but John Gee is taking his place. NOW we can ALL get together and have HIM tell us HIS views, if he is so inclined....... so now, ALL OF YOU CRITICS ought to show up now and lets see the REAL point of views of John Gee, not second or third hand, but from the man himself.

Do you imply that we don't have the "real" John Gee through his writings?

[Dan Vogel]

The title of Hauglid's paper was so interesting. I couldn't wait to hear what he had to say. Does anyone know what sort of thesis he was going to be arguing?

Don

Undoubtedly a little backpedaling on his views of the translation MSS not being dictations, and some concessions to Metcalfe, at least in part, if not in whole. We'll see if Gee can admit that his missing papyri theory is nothing but wishful thinking and the fallacy of possible proof.

[Dan Vogel]

I think you are on the wrong board for tattlemails. You are responsible for validating your own tales. I can say with 99.9% certainty that you are spreading false information.

Well, I know %100 that he's not.

[Chris Smith]

CK, you are on a message board making public statements, a demand to be left alone is hardly appropriate.

I don't want the message board public to leave me alone. I want you to leave me alone.

Back to the topic, you felt it important to announce that Dr. Hauglid would be publishing with someone he refused to continue in a message board dialogue.

He refused to continue for copyright reasons, if I recall correctly, but committed to continue the dialogue with Brent in a private venue. Hauglid also had a problem with the peanut gallery here nipping at his heels. I don't recall any real personal differences with Brent except over the matter of ostensible photo doctoring-- a minor difference that I'm certain they can/could overcome.

And for the record, I didn't say that he would be publishing with Brent. I stated that they have talked about publishing, but that I don't know if it will ever happen.

-CK

[juliann]

Well, I know %100 that he's not.

So you have talked to Hauglid...?

[juliann]

I don't want the message board public to leave me alone. I want you to leave me alone.

You are in a public forum making public statements, participation is not by private invitation only. If you to be left alone then stay off the message board. Good grief.

He refused to continue for copyright reasons, if I recall correctly, but committed to continue the dialogue with Brent in a private venue. Hauglid also had a problem with the peanut gallery here nipping at his heels.

But you have never communicated with Hauglid.

And for the record, I didn't say that he would be publishing with Brent. I stated that they have talked about publishing, but that I don't know if it will ever happen.

I stand corrected.

[juliann]

Undoubtedly a little backpedaling on his views of the translation MSS not being dictations, and some concessions to Metcalfe, at least in part, if not in whole. We'll see if Gee can admit that his missing papyri theory is nothing but wishful thinking and the fallacy of possible proof.

Just an aside and regardless of the facts here....I find it interesting that a change of view is "backpeddling" if a Mormon scholar reworks theories based on new findings .... but enlightenment and knowledge if someone else does it. Has every change of course you have had as a historian also qualify as "backpeddling"?

[Chris Smith]

But you have never communicated with Hauglid.

I read his posts here, and I also read the moderators' explanations for his withdrawal from the discussion. Are you suggesting that the moderators misrepresented his motives for withdrawing? Or that Hauglid misrepresented his own motives?

[juliann]

I read his posts here, and I also read the moderators' explanations for his withdrawal from the discussion. Are you suggesting that the moderators misrepresented his motives for withdrawing? Or that Hauglid misrepresented his own motives?

I don't recall the moderators saying there were discussions about publishing.

So all of your information comes from that time period? None of this is current?

[Dale]

All the critics of John Gee I have seen seem to have made reasonable disagreements with him. I don't know of anybody that has misrepresented the content of his writings. I am sure he may have gotten a few bad criticisms but his key points have been disputed. Hauglid had some points unique to me, and other than Brent Metcalfe's posts I havn't seen critics give him any negative reviews.

The missing papyrus idea is only a proposed source of the Book of Abraham. The content of the missing content is unknown and even if it were found Joseph Smith could have speculated the Book of Abrahan out of it. The content may not help the Book of Abraham even if found. Though I understand that John Gee has acknowledged that. The missing papyrus idea is more for believers who wish to believe the Book of Abraham was literally upon the papyrus.

I think that to much effort has been placed upon building up the missing papyrus idea by FAIR and FARMs. I think they ought to include the catalyst revelation idea alongside the other position. To put all your polemic effort alongside one theory and to ignore an equally good idea is not good.

[juliann]

I think that to much effort has been placed upon building up the missing papyrus idea by FAIR and FARMs. I think they ought to include the catalyst revelation idea alongside the other position. To put all your polemic effort alongside one theory and to ignore an equally good idea is not good.

FAIR isn't pushing anything and I doubt FARMS is, either. We publish articles. We put up competing articles...but somebody has to write them. This is like arguing if Lehi came to an empty or occupied continent, 90% of members don't care.

[Chris Smith]

Juliann,

You quoted me:

He refused to continue for copyright reasons, if I recall correctly, but committed to continue the dialogue with Brent in a private venue. Hauglid also had a problem with the peanut gallery here nipping at his heels.

And you responded:

But you have never communicated with Hauglid.

I said,

I read his posts here, and I also read the moderators' explanations for his withdrawal from the discussion. Are you suggesting that the moderators misrepresented his motives for withdrawing? Or that Hauglid misrepresented his own motives?

To which you replied,

I don't recall the moderators saying there were discussions about publishing.

Why are you changing the subject? Your predilection for this sort of bait-and-switch "gotcha" tactic is precisely why I want you to leave me alone. I am done with this thread.

-CK

[juliann]

CK, my comments are pertinant and right on target..you just don't want to answer them. You continue to represent Hauglid's thoughts but you have never communicated with him. When I ask you specific questions you dodge by bringing up more second hand information that you refuse to verify.

You said on a previous page that there were discussions about publishing Metcalfe and Hauglid exchanges. You did indeed say that. Then you dodge verifying this by saying you are simply repeating what moderators said. Well, I don't recall moderators talking about publishing. Now if you want to have a temper tantrum and stomp off because I remind you of that be my guest. It is certainly obvious that you are not representing Hauglid from any direct communication and now that you are shifting this to something said on the message board you are acknowledging that you never have. It is important that your information comes from the message board time period because there was certainly no such correspondance or agreement at that point and I do have communication on that. I do not publish personal emails to score points, however. Perhaps you can ask your friend who does to verify all of this for you if you refuse to back up your claims.

[Dale]

The publish stuff without keeping up with the best of critics criticisms. John Gee's handwriting point is disputed by critic's. FARMS, and FAIR could be having articles written that comments on that. Have you read They Lie In Wait To Decieve volume 1 on D.J. Nelson. I can't recall the article from Hugh Nibley in it's exact title, but all his popularpoints in it are rebutted by critic's of him. FAIR put the volume up without any updated material that was better. Kevin Graham withdrew his support from the review he wrote of Mormonism 101 Pearl of Great Price. One of his points were admitted to me on the FAIR e-mail listing to be valid. The person thought his article was still basically sound.

They publish articles, but stop at a few popular repeated points mostly. The critic's of the Book of Abraham are more prolific. Brent Metcalfe is a busy man, but even he has gotten his position out on the internet. Defenders of the Book of abraham are losing the battle and not knowing it. I doubt the soundness, and completeness of some of their stuff. I was running into arguments by critic's and comparing FARMS polemic to it, and feeling it couldn't hold it's own on this issue.

[juliann]

Dale, one more time...I can't speak for FARMS but FAIR is a volunteer organization. We rely on people writing articles, we don't go get them. There are a lot of countermos who like to rag on the BoA but there are few experts. There will be re-evaluations of data and even new findings as more emphasis is put on the BoA (and the BOM). This is only disturbing to the countermos. Mormons tend to roll with it. I am sure the countermos think the BoA is a phony as they ever did and no amount of "winning" is going to change that. We aren't going to "lose" until all the information is on the table because it is such a narrow field and requires such specialized knowledge. So if you think a bunch of untrained countermos can win anything, well...I don't think many of us share that concern. It's not over until the trained scholars sing.

[helix]

I don't want the message board public to leave me alone. I want you to leave me alone.

I think it's better just to ignore juliann. Fighting simply occurs too frequently with her.

Helix, this is off-topic and inappropriate as a post. PM this kind of sutff. OK gang, stop the off-topic personal posts about Juliann and address the content of the posts, please. ~mods

[juliann]

I think it's better just to ignore juliann. Fighting simply occurs too frequently with her.

It is always effective to complain about "fighting" while joining in. I am asking valid questions which is why he can't ignore me. If anyone thinks that is fighting I suggest they use the ignore function (I certainly do) and get out of the peanut gallery.

There have been some pretty bold statements made in this thread that involve real people and I want verification. Sue me or ignore me but I will ask for it.

[Dale]

The content of FARMS Review of Books I am sure is chosen in some manner. The books they review are chosen in some manner. If they need a review of a book that's something they can get a volunteer for. FAIR had no problem in getting volunteers for it's review of the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith Anti-Mormon film. At FAIR Wiki they have lot's of Book of Abraham/papyrus articles. The content could be easily broadened to include discussions of criticisms of LDS scholars key points on things like the missing papyrus theory, or whatever related issue.

Brian Hauglid may have reversed the losing streak I saw going on with his FAIR talk he gave. I think he can give Brent Metcalfe a bit of decent competition. I think the best that can be done in some discussions is that each side hold their own. I hope John Gee can do so in his upcoming talk. But until I can get a CD, or transcript I can's compare it mentally to the critic's arguments I have seen. I hope it will be a good talk.

[juliann]

The content could be easily broadened to include discussions of criticisms of LDS scholars key points on things like the missing papyrus theory, or whatever related issue.

Are you volunteering?

[juliann]

Brian Hauglid may have reversed the losing streak I saw going on with his FAIR talk he gave. I think he can give Brent Metcalfe a bit of decent competition. I think the best that can be done in some discussions is that each side hold their own.

I don't think that the qualified scholars feel the urgency that some do and there is more coming. I have not seen or heard of any concern whatsoever from them.

[Jan]

Calif Kid and Dan Vogel,

Are you hearing this from Brent? If so, specifically what?

Jan

[Dale]

Juliann i look forward to see if anything new of interest is published. I assume that FARMS large Book of Abraham volumes will treat such issues in the future. I bought the first two volumes. I plan to buy the third one in the set. Perhaps the fourth in the set will treat such issues. FAIR might have a policy only to respond to big things, and not browse the internet looking for objections to respond to.

Maybe the policy of FARMs is only to review published works. So though they may be awaiting Brent Metcalfes promised vlumes to say much more on the issues. I am pleased with Brian Hauglid and FAIR giving him past time to share some of his thoughts. Perhaps I will be quite pleased with John Gee's presentation.

I have an opinion, but I am not qualified to volunteer for FAIR Wiki. I have a few objections to some apologist issues relating to the Book of Abraham. If I had the answers I would not be open to looking for answers. I have not discounted the possibility my concerns might have answers. I tend to lean towards the catalyst idea of the papyrus myself.

The only area of my concern is not related to the Book of Abraham, or Joseph Smith's facimile explanaions. My concerns relate to arguments used to point away from the Book of Breathings as the spurce of the Book of Abraham. I don't think any harm exists in excersising faith that missing papyrus was the source of the Book of Abraham as long as the arguments behind it are valid. Belief in the Book of Abraham is a matter of faith not in my mind having to be effected by believers disputes over the source.

[Hawkmoon]

Undoubtedly a little backpedaling on his views of the translation MSS not being dictations, and some concessions to Metcalfe, at least in part, if not in whole. We'll see if Gee can admit that his missing papyri theory is nothing but wishful thinking and the fallacy of possible proof.

Ah! I am glad to see that you have turned your perceptive mind-reading skills you employ on JS towards Hauglid.... now I can be sure of what really happened. Thanks.