Go John Gee! Go John Gee!

[Dan Vogel]

So you have talked to Hauglid...?

Or the equivalent. Ask him if you think I'm wrong.

[Dan Vogel]

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"?

I have no problem with people changing their minds. I do it on a regular basis. I'm not particularly attached to the word "backpeddling." But it probably came to mind based on the certainty and attitude that accompanied Hauglid's first statement. But if he was forthright and open about the points on which he has now come to agree with Brent, I would probably not call that backpeddling [... or backpedaling].

[rameumptom]

I am really looking forward to this, myself. If all you guys will just calm down. After all, he is only a fallible mortal. Or do we believe our scholars are infallible even if the Prophet isn't? I dont know what I am saying. I think I got lost in the CAPITAL LETTERS and the !!!!!!!!!

Well, John Gee may be fallible, but you seriously aren't suggesting that Daniel Peterson is fallible????? That would be blasphemy!

[Hawkmoon]

Well, John Gee may be fallible, but you seriously aren't suggesting that Daniel Peterson is fallible????? That would be blasphemy!

Now that you mention it-- his detractors have called DCP many things but, IIRC, never fallible... which can only lead one to conclude that while the do believe he is quite the bloviating wind-bag and eeeeevill to the core... he is at least an infallible one.

[Dan Vogel]

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.

Actually, I'm sad that Hauglid changed his mind about speaking at FAIR. I think he would have tried to build bridges.

[Hawkmoon]

Actually, I'm sad that Hauglid changed his mind about speaking at FAIR. I think he would have tried to build bridges.

Perhaps, that is something that Brent could learn a little of, eh? Of course, now that I re-read your original message it appears that you were talking about Gee... regardless, the mind-reading was most inappropriate.

[Calm]

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.

The more limited the talent pool for a particular subject, the more likely, imo, that there will be a prolonged delay for an unpaid and generally 'inapplicable to one's actual work' book review. Thus even if FARMS ask for reviews, the reviews have to wait on the 'pleasure' of the reviewer, IOW if a reviewer is quite busy and committed to other projects, it's going to be some time before FARMS will get their material. There are some reviews which will naturally take much longer in development due to their subject matter.

I have an opinion, but I am not qualified to volunteer for FAIR Wiki.

You may not feel like contributing directly, but constructive criticism sent to the FAIR editors can only help the quality of their work. If you feel there are weaknesses or gaps in the FAIR material, I think you should inform them.

[Jan]

Calif Kid and Dan Vogel,

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

Jan

Dan, maybe you missed this.

Where are you getting your information from? And what specifically have you heard?

Thanks,

Jan

[cdowis]

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.

In case you have forgotten, I espouse the mnemonic theory of translation. Please educate me on how I am "losing the battle and not know it".

Looking forward to your response (or lack thereof).

[Dale]

I wasn't commenting on the mnemonic aid idea. I like aspects of that idea right after the catalyst revelation idea. The weakness of the idea is only one article espouses the idea. No further research went into the idea, but what John Tvedtness and I think Richley Crapo did long ago. I am not certain what John Tvedtness or Richley Crapo continues to support the idea. I think Richley Crapo was the name of the man who did the article with him.

[Dan Vogel]

Perhaps, that is something that Brent could learn a little of, eh? Of course, now that I re-read your original message it appears that you were talking about Gee... regardless, the mind-reading was most inappropriate.

I don't recall anticipating what Gee was going to discuss. I did discuss what I anticipated Hauglid was going to discuss. That was based on information I had and the title of the paper. I don't think that was inappropriate or mind reading.

[Dale]

What is John Gee to going to talk about at the FAIR conference?

--------

The only areas of my concern relate to areas that have to do with the missing papyrus idea. The rest of the LDS scholarship relating to the Book of Abraham seems satisfactory to me.

[Dan Vogel]

Dan, maybe you missed this.

Where are you getting your information from? And what specifically have you heard?

Thanks,

Jan

My source is the same as CK's. Hauglid admitted to Brent that he had been somewhat green when they debated here, but had changed his mind on some matters, including the trajectory and relationship of the translation MSS.

[Oracle]

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.

Excellent news, thanks for the extra invite to the FAIR conference.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi folks,

Iâ??m profoundly disappointed by Brianâ??s withdrawal from FAIR 2007. He has much to offer BoAbr studies.

Unless John Geeâ??s approach to the BoAbr has fundamentally matured, Iâ??m afraid that FAIR 2007 attendees will be treated to little more than an unbridled bluster of sophistic hubris. Iâ??m actually tempted to attend the session since I sincerely doubt that FAIR organizers will broadcast Geeâ??s presentation live via the Internet much less post a (reliable) transcript of his presentation on the FAIR Web site in a timely manner.

To reassure my friends Julie and Jan, Brian and I have indeed discussed the prospect of publishing our correspondence on the BoAbr manuscripts and the JSEP. Brian and I share an increasing common ground, but we also have fundamental differences. Our modest hope was to provide believers and nonbelievers with an exemplary model of scholarly discourse. Perhaps we were just dreaming.

Fond regards,

Brent

[Edit: My apologies for the residual code at the beginning of this post; Iâ??m not sure whatâ??s causing it.]

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[juliann]

Hi folks,

Unless John Geeâ??s approach to the BoAbr has fundamentally matured, Iâ??m afraid that FAIR 2007 attendees will be treated to little more than an unbridled bluster of sophistic hubris. Iâ??m actually tempted to attend the session since I sincerely doubt that FAIR organizers will broadcast Geeâ??s presentation live via the Internet much less post a (reliable) transcript of his presentation on the FAIR Web site in a timely manner.

Brent, I will never understand why you expect to be taken seriously when you insult scholars so gratuitously. I did some checking and what is being claimed here about what Hauglid is at best greatly exaggerated and at worst, false. More to come on that.

I hope to see you at the conference for our ritual hug, Brent.

[William Schryver]

Hi folks,

Iâ??m profoundly disappointed by Brianâ??s withdrawal from FAIR 2007. He has much to offer BoAbr studies.

Unless John Geeâ??s approach to the BoAbr has fundamentally matured, Iâ??m afraid that FAIR 2007 attendees will be treated to little more than an unbridled bluster of sophistic hubris. Iâ??m actually tempted to attend the session since I sincerely doubt that FAIR organizers will broadcast Geeâ??s presentation live via the Internet much less post a (reliable) transcript of his presentation on the FAIR Web site in a timely manner.

To reassure my friends Julie and Jan, Brian and I have indeed discussed the prospect of publishing our correspondence on the BoAbr manuscripts and the JSEP. Brian and I share an increasing common ground, but we also have fundamental differences. Our modest hope was to provide believers and nonbelievers with exemplary model of scholarly discourse. Perhaps we were just dreaming.

Fond regards,

Brent

[Edit: My apologies for the residual code at the beginning of this post; Iâ??m not sure whatâ??s causing it.]

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Hawkmoon]

Hi folks,

Iâ??m profoundly disappointed by Brianâ??s withdrawal from FAIR 2007. He has much to offer BoAbr studies.

Unless John Geeâ??s approach to the BoAbr has fundamentally matured, Iâ??m afraid that FAIR 2007 attendees will be treated to little more than an unbridled bluster of sophistic hubris. Iâ??m actually tempted to attend the session since I sincerely doubt that FAIR organizers will broadcast Geeâ??s presentation live via the Internet much less post a (reliable) transcript of his presentation on the FAIR Web site in a timely manner.

... Brian and I share an increasing common ground, but we also have fundamental differences. Our modest hope was to provide believers and nonbelievers with an exemplary model of scholarly discourse. Perhaps we were just dreaming.

Fond regards,

Brent

While I do consider the possibility of a joint publishing a highly interesting proposal and look forward to it indeed happeningâ?¦ I would be remiss if I did not point out that your remark about providing an â??exemplary model of scholarly discourseâ? contradicts your compulsion for disparaging discourse when it involves Gee. Disappointing to say the least.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hi folks,

Iâ??m profoundly disappointed by Brianâ??s withdrawal from FAIR 2007. He has much to offer BoAbr studies.

Unless John Geeâ??s approach to the BoAbr has fundamentally matured, Iâ??m afraid that FAIR 2007 attendees will be treated to little more than an unbridled bluster of sophistic hubris. Iâ??m actually tempted to attend the session since I sincerely doubt that FAIR organizers will broadcast Geeâ??s presentation live via the Internet much less post a (reliable) transcript of his presentation on the FAIR Web site in a timely manner.

To reassure my friends Julie and Jan, Brian and I have indeed discussed the prospect of publishing our correspondence on the BoAbr manuscripts and the JSEP. Brian and I share an increasing common ground, but we also have fundamental differences. Our modest hope was to provide believers and nonbelievers with an exemplary model of scholarly discourse. Perhaps we were just dreaming.

Fond regards,

Brent

[Edit: My apologies for the residual code at the beginning of this post; Iâ??m not sure whatâ??s causing it.]

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Julie,

What Iâ??m claiming that Brian and I have discussed is neither exaggerated nor false. I hope you are going directly to Brian. If what he tells you is anything contrary to what Iâ??ve stated, I will have no other recourse than to post his email messages in fullâ??then readers can judge for themselves whose integrity remains intact.

Hi Will,

You and I have clearly had different experiences with John Gee. In any event, I look forward to receiving your DVD of Geeâ??s presentation within a few days after his FAIR 2007 presentation. Thank you for the kind offer.

My best,

Brent

[My apologies for the residual code at the beginning of this post; Iâ??m not sure whatâ??s causing it.]

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[juliann]

Hi Julie,

What Iâ??m claiming that Brian and I have discussed is neither exaggerated nor false. I hope you are going directly to Brian. If what he tells you is anything contrary to what Iâ??ve stated, I will have no other recourse than to post his email messages in fullâ??then readers can judge for themselves whose integrity remains intact.

I hope you don't get on that bandwagon...I have some emails from you about the ending of the dialogue. (But I don't post personal messages). All you have said is there was talk of publishing. I realize there was talk before the message board boondoggle...I was there. What was the date of all of this talking? I keep asking that....

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Julie,

Iâ??ve never sent private messages to anyone that I wouldnâ??t care if all netizens read. Please feel free to share whatever replies Iâ??ve privately sent in response to your PMs, and I will also feely post yours.

Fair enough?

Kind regards,

Brent

[My apologies for the residual code at the beginning of this post; Iâ??m not sure whatâ??s causing it.]

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Hawkmoon]

What was the date of all of this talking? I keep asking that....

They were on a date? Hm, that explains the sudden Hauglid love-fest... did Gee turn the date down?

[William Schryver]

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.

Having spoken with Brian at length just a few hours ago, I can assure you (and Brent, if this is his impression) that someone has misunderstood. Brian has NOT come to believe that either Ms. #2 or #3 are transcripts from a "translation" session. I'm not sure why anyone would have gotten that impression, because that is not what Brian believes. He believes that the translation of the Book of Abraham predates the production of the KEPA manuscripts. That is the fundamental difference that I thought Brent was referring to in his post above. As to "concessions," I know that there are several things where Brian would agree with Brent. I have, over the course of the past few months, made reference to most of those things in my occasional posts on the topic of the KEP. I'm too weary at the moment to delineate a list of those things upon which his views (and mine, for that matter) have changed over the course of the past year, but they don't amount to "concessions ... at least in part, if not in whole." I will simply state, as I have previously, that it is apparent to me that the scribes, and perhaps Joseph Smith himself, did believe that the Book of Breathings text was the source for the Book of Abraham. That statement, in and of itself, is at the root of any changes in Brian's opinions and my own. I suppose it might be said that, while we don't reject outright the possibility that there was an Abraham text somewhere else on the scrolls, we now tend towards some species of "catalyst" theory regarding the production of the Book of Abraham.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions arising from this thread.

[juliann]

I don't post personal messages to score points, Brent. No one will answer the question...when were these conversations with Hauglid taking place? The impression given is that Hauglid is thinking and saying these things as we speak. Things began well but quickly broke down in the Pundit folder. I don't think it is accurate to represent an interpretation of what was said before the posting as what either you or he think now.