Go John Gee! Go John Gee!

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

I think the easiest way to clear things up would be to simply post the emails that Brian sent to me. Since you and he seem to be on very close terms, please ask him if that is acceptable (Iâ??d, of course, post all of my email messages as well).

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

(

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Julie,

Brian and I were discussing collaborating as recently as April 2007, some eight months after our FAIR exchange.

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 Will,

I think the easiest way to clear things up would be to simply post the emails that Brian sent to me. Since you and he seem to be on very close terms, please ask him if that is acceptable (Iâ??d, of course, post all of my email messages as well).

Since you are still in contact...why don't you email him and clarify this? Why in the world would you want to start posting private email? I would hate to see you join the group that does that kind of thing.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Julie,

Good grief. I thought that you already had clarification on good authority. Were you just making that up?!

Youâ??ve lost me, Julie.

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,

Good grief. I thought that you already had clarification on good authority. Were you just making that up?!

Youâ??ve lost me, Julie.

You are claiming otherwise. I don't think that is hard to see at all. These are the specifics mentioned here that I would like clarified when you email Hauglid again:

My understanding is they continued their correspondence privately and are now much closer together in their views than they were at the time. They've talked about publishing their correspondence.

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.

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.

[William Schryver]

Hi Will,

I think the easiest way to clear things up would be to simply post the emails that Brian sent to me. Since you and he seem to be on very close terms, please ask him if that is acceptable (Iâ??d, of course, post all of my email messages as well).

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

(

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Julie,

All of the snippets that you quote from CK and Dan are essentially accurate.

Hi Will,

Please reread my initial post. I made it very clear that â??Brian and I share an increasing common ground, but we also have fundamental differences.â?

I stand by that observation. If Brian tells you otherwise, Iâ??ll take that as tacit permission to post his emails that explicitly confirm my claim.

Goodnight â?¦

Best wishes,

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]

I think a storm is beginning to brew that is quite needless to say the least... both Will and Brent have said in some form or other that they (Brent and Hauglid) have found some common ground, yet still have some fundamental disagreements. Whether Will and Brent understand those differences and similarities identically hardly seems reason enough to start all this talk of publishing emails, intact integrity and so forth. Really, sometimes there is too much tendency to defend that is seems either people are just talking past one another or fighting out of habit.

Brent, I would hardly think this thread is worth all thatâ?¦ especially if you are indeed serious about publishing with Hauglid. Why weaken that constructive relationship over a mb?

[Dan Vogel]

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.

How could there be an "exemplary model" without those who are more combative? I think Brent speaks from experience.

In his FARMS review of Brent's New Approaches to the BOM (6/1 [1994]), Gee said it

was filled with deceptive and specious claims, questionable assumptions, shoddy methodology, and distorted facts. (52)

And in conclusion:

If this assortment of logical errors, contradictory hypotheses, shaky methodology, and distorted history were more honest, it would carry the standard disclaimer often attached to fictional works: Any resemblance to actual persons or events is purely coincidental. (120)

Between these two statements, Gee can't seem to appreciate the legitimacy of some of the issues and evidence raised in the book, especially by David Wright, Ed Ashment, Deanne Matheny, Brent or myself. It's all worthless to Gee. And this coming from someone who thinks his missing papyri theory is serious scholarship? In short, it should be quite apparent why critics would prefer Hauglid to Gee.

[JNclone]

Dan Vogel:

In his FARMS review of Brent's New Approaches to the BOM (6/1 [1994]), Gee said it

was filled with deceptive and specious claims, questionable assumptions, shoddy methodology, and distorted facts. (52)

And in conclusion:

If this assortment of logical errors, contradictory hypotheses, shaky methodology, and distorted history were more honest, it would carry the standard disclaimer often attached to fictional works: Any resemblance to actual persons or events is purely coincidental. (120)

I can quite see why John Gee does not post on this board. The moderators would simply not allow him to say that kind of thing about his scholarly opponents. If he wanted to stay here after posting words such as those quoted above, a CaliforniaKid style apology would be certainly be in order for his claims that they are in effect liars, cheats, and dishonest. We just don't let people talk like that round here.

[Dan Vogel]

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.

OK. I'll settle for agreement in part, if not in whole. We will take what we can get. That's a start.

[jerryp48]

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.

Not even close. You're right about members not caring whether Lehi came to an empty or occupied continent. But to compare that to whether Joseph Smith's translation was literal or a catalyst translation (which we'd eventually have to take on due to overwhelming evidence that it wasn't a translation at all)? Thatâ??s where you are dead wrong IMO.

Speaking from a members perspective, nothing has affected my belief system so drastically than the BOA debate. If I force myself to sit on the sidelines I have to give the entire debate to Brent and his ilk. It's seems soooo obvious once you take an objective position.

[charity]

Speaking from a members perspective, nothing has affected my belief system so drastically than the BOA debate. If I force myself to sit on the sidelines I have to give the entire debate to Brent and his ilk. It's seems soooo obvious once you take an objective position.

What difference does it make? Joseph had the gold plates, and translated them to give us the Book of Mormon. He received the Book of Moses without any physical anything to "translate" from. What difference does it make by what method we have the Book of Abraham? The textual evidence is proof enough for anyone who requires proof.

[jerryp48]

What difference does it make? Joseph had the gold plates, and translated them to give us the Book of Mormon. He received the Book of Moses without any physical anything to "translate" from. What difference does it make by what method we have the Book of Abraham? The textual evidence is proof enough for anyone who requires proof.

Why have the plates at all? What difference did they make? Why have papyri at all? Why have the facimiles in the BOA today?

And why teach that JS translated anything? If I can't trust that what was written on the papyri is the same in what we find in the BOA then why should I trust that what was written on the plates is written in the BOM?

Don't you think it would be nice if the stories you and I were told from youth actually were true as we were taught to believe them?

[juliann]

I can quite see why John Gee does not post on this board. The moderators would simply not allow him to say that kind of thing about his scholarly opponents. If he wanted to stay here after posting words such as those quoted above, a CaliforniaKid style apology would be certainly be in order for his claims that they are in effect liars, cheats, and dishonest. We just don't let people talk like that round here.

I am afraid that it is the countermopologists who would suffer most if they were not able to describe our books in their preferred manner. I'll restore a portion of the sentence that was removed.

since this volume was filled with deceptive and specious claims, questionable assumptions, shoddy methodology, and distorted facts. (52)

And here is the rest of this quote:

Though some of the authors may indeed be sincere about their work, there is nonetheless a good deal of posturing going on in the book. The authors, in betraying their scriptural text, are not true to the faith, true to the facts, nor even necessarily true to the methods to which they give lip-service. If this assortment of logical errors, contradictory hypotheses, shaky methodology, and distorted history were more honest, it would carry the standard disclaimer often attached to fictional works: Any resemblance to actual persons or events is purely coincidental. (120)

Gee could have easily made it on this board with what he said...we see it all the time here. Those non-LDS he quoted weren't as restrained, however. I still find Shipps assessment striking:

Brent Metcalfe, a man whom Jan Shipps has described as "clearly intoxicated . . . with the idea that he possessed knowledge that would alter the world's understanding of the beginnings of Mormonism."

Neusner was a little less personal:

Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner viewed the approach as a "remarkable exemplification of the costs of ego-centrism in scholarship" which "illustrates the heavy price paid by self-absorbed intellectual provincialism in religious life."

If you want to make a case then take on the examples Gee produced, like this one:

For example, comparison of Ashment's list of "Words Used in Unusual Ways" (pp. 379-80) with Tvedtnes's original list shows that none of Ashment's examples is the same as anything from Tvedtnes's list.

I don't find that honest...I find it alarmingly deceptive in a book claiming to be scholarly.

Second, if we judge this book by its dust cover, we might be struck by the citations of three deceased General Authorities (specifically labelled by their ecclesiastical offices) on the back of the dust-jacket where plaudits are usually found. This seems to imply that these General Authorities would vigorously approve of what Metcalfe and company are doing. My guess is that, were they in the mortal sphere, they would not.

That sounds deceptive, too.

The list of contributors also presents a distorted picture. Thus we are often told that such and such a person was "former coordinator" of this or "has been a part-time faculty member" at that institution or "holds degrees" from such-and-such an institution (pp. 445-46), while leaving out what they are doing now, why the Church no longer employs them (some of them were fired),9 or exactly what the degrees are.

That is just plain bizarre.

[juliann]

Not even close. You're right about members not caring whether Lehi came to an empty or occupied continent. But to compare that to whether Joseph Smith's translation was literal or a catalyst translation (which we'd eventually have to take on due to overwhelming evidence that it wasn't a translation at all)? Thatâ??s where you are dead wrong IMO.

Well, go ask your GD class if they really care how the BoA came about as long as it is what it claims to be. They aren't going to care about the specifics of the translation of the BOM, either...as long as it is what it claims to be. You are in for a painful journey if you are not willing to accept additional knowledge on any of this...or anything else in a church that stands on the principle that there is more to come.

If I force myself to sit on the sidelines I have to give the entire debate to Brent and his ilk. It's seems soooo obvious once you take an objective position.

The LDS scholarship on this is in its infancy. The "ilk" are working from photographs while the LDS are working from the originals. Just because some countermos shoot bullets at their feet and scream "dance!" does not mean that LDS scholars are going to proceed any faster in their work on this or even pay attention. That gives the countermopologists a lot of rope. Let them use it...and let them get this stuff published so the LDS scholars can respond. For you to make a decision when they have not even produced what they are obviously working on is shocking.

[Dale]

Why have the plates at all? What difference did they make? Why have papyri at all? Why have the facimiles in the BOA today?

And why teach that JS translated anything? If I can't trust that what was written on the papyri is the same in what we find in the BOA then why should I trust that what was written on the plates is written in the BOM?

Don't you think it would be nice if the stories you and I were told from youth actually were true as we were taught to believe them?

The plates had witnesses like angels, and plates. After the Book of Mormon translation was done God had said the translation was correct. Why would God have had to confirm the truth of the translation if the possibility it being a wrong translation never existed? With the papyrus as early as 1829 Joseph Smith was reptedly told by God that revelations could be of God, man, or the Devil. I recall Orson Hyde saying Joseph Smith said his revelations needed to be tested in the leading quorums of the church before going to the people. He knew he could give speculateive translations, revelations, and that God wouldn't correct him.

I have seen ways Joseph Smith's interpretation of the facimilies have support in Egyptology. Kerry Shirts Mormonism Researched website presents the evidence behind this position.

I am not sure if you can reject a true translation based on a speculative translation. I think you should judge the Book of Mormon, and Book of Abraham seperately.

The evidence for the main text in the Book of Abraham has scholarship for it's antiquity.

The papyrus was probably a catalyst for in the best case scenario a mix of inspiration, and speculation. I have become less concerned about the main text being upon the papyrus than I used to. I see some intellectual evidences for it's inspirations as impressive as Bible reliability evidences Evagelicals are into.

Do you believe in the inspiration of the Book of Genisis? We can find Egyptologist's that will tell you the Book of Abraham is a myth I bet we could find an equal number of scientists that tell you the creation account is myth. I am not giving up my use of scripture over expert testimony. The scripture has inspirational value to me, so I use them disputes of experts and believers notwithstanding. Although I am Reorganized LDS and we treat the book as Joseph Smith's speculative writing. I myself have some reasons to believe in some of it intellectually, but not all. We never canonized the Book of Abraham as scripture.

[Hawkmoon]

How could there be an "exemplary model" without those who are more combative? I think Brent speaks from experience.

In his FARMS review of Brent's New Approaches to the BOM (6/1 [1994]), Gee said it

And in conclusion:

Between these two statements, Gee can't seem to appreciate the legitimacy of some of the issues and evidence raised in the book, especially by David Wright, Ed Ashment, Deanne Matheny, Brent or myself. It's all worthless to Gee. And this coming from someone who thinks his missing papyri theory is serious scholarship? In short, it should be quite apparent why critics would prefer Hauglid to Gee.

Who cares... now I know that may shock you, and I know your desire to have your issues taken seriously are quite personal; however, when someone in a single post "talks" about raising discourse and providing an "exemplary model" yet in the same post exhibits the opposite-- well, it should be pointed out, IMO.

[Hawkmoon]

OK. I'll settle for agreement in part, if not in whole. We will take what we can get. That's a start.

I find it interesting that the "exemplary model" seems to indicate that the apologist comes closer to the view held by the critic, but NOT the other way around...

[Hawkmoon]

Not even close. You're right about members not caring whether Lehi came to an empty or occupied continent. But to compare that to whether Joseph Smith's translation was literal or a catalyst translation (which we'd eventually have to take on due to overwhelming evidence that it wasn't a translation at all)? Thatâ??s where you are dead wrong IMO.

Speaking from a members perspective, nothing has affected my belief system so drastically than the BOA debate. If I force myself to sit on the sidelines I have to give the entire debate to Brent and his ilk. It's seems soooo obvious once you take an objective position.

*sigh*

Congratulations! You have taken your first step towards becoming the intellectually and morally superior being known as the critic. Good luck in your quest.

[e=mc2]

Brent:

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.

Brent, can I just say in the strongest possible way that what you and Brian are planning is VERY VALUABLE, at least to me. I will strogly ***encourage*** you two to carry on a dialogue, and publish as far as that goes. I hope you haven't given up on the idea, since I notice you are talking in the past tense.

Good to see you again, hope all is well, and see ya at FAIR....

Best,

Kerry

[Dan Vogel]

Jullian:

You quoted Gee:

For example, comparison of Ashment's list of "Words Used in Unusual Ways" (pp. 379-80) with Tvedtnes's original list shows that none of Ashment's examples is the same as anything from Tvedtnes's list.

This struck you as

I don't find that honest...I find it alarmingly deceptive in a book claiming to be scholarly.

I didn't find that dishonest at all. The point was that JS used words in unusual ways in his revelations. The specific examples were not important, to either Tvedtnes or Ashment, in this category. Other categories like construct state, adverbials, etc. were.

Regarding the use of general authorities on the dustjacket, you said:

That sounds deceptive, too.

That is just plain bizarre.

That wasn't Brent's decision. I don't think it was intended to give the impression that Roberts, Widtsoe, or Richards would have approved of the book's conclusions. But their statements sound like they would have approved of such an investigation nonetheless.

The BOM must submit to every test, literary criticism with the rest. Indeed, it must submit to every analysis and examination. It must submit to historical tests, to the tests of archaeological rsearch and also to the higher criticism.

--B. H. Roberts

Now, why is it dishonest to use this quote. It's certainly something on which both critic and apologists can agree. I think Gee sees deception where none was intended. It amounts to nothing more than an ad hominal attack to discredit the critics.

[Dan Vogel]

I find it interesting that the "exemplary model" seems to indicate that the apologist comes closer to the view held by the critic, but NOT the other way around...

Well, I have always allowed for the possibility that JS was a "true prophet" who was inspired to use deception as a means of converting the most people possible. I have also always encouraged apologists to take the catalyst theory over the lost papyrus theory, provided they acknowledge JS deceptively used the papyri to increase faith in his revelation. The reason I insist on this is because the text of Abraham twice mentions Fac. 1. So, in my mind, the only way to argue that catalyst theory is to include pious deception in the explanation.

You might not like my way of moving closer to the apologists, but at least I'm trying.

[Pahoran]

Now, why is it dishonest to use this quote. It's certainly something on which both critic and apologists can agree. I think Gee sees deception where none was intended. It amounts to nothing more than an ad hominal attack to discredit the critics.

No, it's not.

As you know, the purpose of quoting those GA's on the cover blurb was exactly the same as every single time an anti-Mormon trots out these prooftexts: it is to lull unsuspecting Latter-day Saints into thinking that the "investigation" contained in the book is something the GA's would approve of.

Which, of course, is not the case, and neither you nor Brent--the author of the rumour that the FP's vault has an Oliver Cowdery History concealed in it, which rumour is still in circulation--has the slightest reason to suppose that it would be. Roberts, Widtsoe and Richards were very able missionaries and staunch defenders of the faith, and they rightly regarded anti-Mormonism in all its forms as something rather repugnant.

Regards,

Pahoran

[juliann]

Now, why is it dishonest to use this quote. It's certainly something on which both critic and apologists can agree. I think Gee sees deception where none was intended. It amounts to nothing more than an ad hominal attack to discredit the critics.

Let me say up front that I do not have the book so I am relying on the review. I cannot imagine a scholar putting quotes from those who disagree with him on the jacket to make it appear as if they were supporting the book. That should be self-evident. As long as the name calling goes on it is apologetics and the problem the countermopologists have is that Mormons will admit up front that that is exactly what it is. It is the countermos who find that problematic. Until the countermos can clean up their act and take it outside of the circus as the Mormons are able to do, they are engaging in nothing more than in house polemics that almost no one is interested in.