Kerry Muhelstien On The Book Of Abraham

[Xander]

Pedro asked for opinions on Kerry Muhlestein's piece. I gave my opinion and explained my reasoning with specific examples. Wade then decided to jump in and since he couldn't prove me wrong, he decides to accuse me of having an ax to grind. He clearly does this in an attempt to downplay my input. All I did was point out the tactic as it is employed by apologists on what seems like a daily basis here. I never dismiss people simply because they are apologists. Wade's argument hasn't been dismissed because he has no argument to dismiss. His psychoanalysis of my motives adds no value to the discussion of Muhelstein's work and I'm certain this violates the rules (which is usually the case, although I'm usually the one reprimanded).

Wade spent all that time explaining why my correct analysis of Muhelstein should take the back seat to my so-called "ax to grind" against John Gee. It should go without saying that if he can convince everyone that I "have it out" for John Gee, then nothing I say will be considered. That is his intention and it does nothing but derail and pollute an otherwise innocuous and potentially informative thread.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Xander

[Robert F. Smith]

I am not sure the article was intended to fully engage the various issues. To me, it read more like an executive summary of the prevailing issues. And that is okay.

Besides, even though the KEP has received considerable air time over the last several years, the sense that I am getting from my online discussions is that it is quickly diminishing in importance, giving way to issues involving translation of the facsimiles. I suspect the reasons for this shift is because the critics are increasing realizing that precious little can be made either way on the matter, particularly in terms of direct relevance to the BoA as reveled by the power of God.

Perhaps like you, I would like to see a more in-depth analysis of things like the "scribal errors and other critical textual clues" that supposedly "make it very clear that these papers represent later copies of the text of the Book of Abraham, not the original translation;" and were "probably not even first- or second-generation copies."

In this and other regards, I think it unfortunate to have lost Will Schryver's participation in the discussion, amateur BoA apologists or not.

You are correct, Wade,

Muhlstein's article was really just a quick summary for CES consumption. It was not intended as a Book of Abraham commentary.

However, your are not correct on the nature of the continuing discussion. With two new major publications out from the Maxwell Institute HERE, the issue is actually heating up and taking on greater substance and professionalism. One hopes that Xander (Kevin Graham) will spend his time commenting on these more substantial books. Regardless of the nature of our opinions on these matters, we all need to hear from diverse points of view -- John Stuart Mill has told us quite correctly that we sharpen our ideas on each other (provided that we can control our ad hominems and vitriol).

[Xander]

Muhlstein's article was really just a quick summary for CES consumption. It was not intended as a Book of Abraham commentary.

Does it need to be in order for one to expect accurate information presented therein? Commentary or not, he proposed to explain all the "problems" with the critical position. The perception of problems is based on numerous failed apologetic arguments which are outdated to say the least. Pedro asked what we thought about Kerry's piece. I thought this meant he was interested in honest feedback, whether positive or negative.

I knew this article looked familiar. Last year I came across this and mentioned it in an email to Brent Metcalfe. This is what I said in reference to Kerry's piece:

From: kevlds@hotmail.com

To: Brent

Subject: RE: BoAbr Stuff

Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 03:15:23

...Incidentally, can you believe this? http://rsc.byu.edu/a...swers#_ednref14

Kerry Muhlestein, "Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: Some Questions and Answers," in Religious Educator 11, no. 1 (2010): 91-108.

He is using Gee's outdated stuff from 8 years ago! For example,

"The Egyptian characters appear to sometimes overwrite the English. If this is the case, then it is clear they were later additions. (3) The first Egyptian characters are written in the order they appear in the Book of Breathings, but some characters in one of the manuscripts skip characters and lines and are even from two different papyri, exhibiting no system or method. It is hard to believe that Joseph thought he was to translate from random parts of the text instead of systematically going from line to line"

Brent was as surprised as I was to see an LDS scholar resurrect some of these well refuted arguments. But if you pay close attention you'll notice that the #3 "problem" which I quoted and highlighted in my email does not appear in the current online version. The link is dead, but if you do a google search for this, it will direct you to an older version of this. Obviously, Kerry updated his article and removed that argument entirely, and for good reason too. This was something John Gee tried to prove at last year's FAIR conference, but the man who presented his argument quickly realized it was untenable and it seems to have been abandoned. So the current version replaced #3 with the claim about eye witness accounts proving the existence of a "long" roll.

However, your are not correct on the nature of the continuing discussion. With two new major publications out from the Maxwell Institute HERE, the issue is actually heating up and taking on greater substance and professionalism.

If this is really what you believe about these books, then I highly recommend you read them. I purchased Hauglid's book the day it was released. I had been bugging him via email for months about the publication date, but the point here is that his book is not an apologetic work at all. It does occasionally make some apologetic comments that are not supported with evidence, but this is excusable since the book was never intended to be anything more than a resource for those wishing to study the matter further. The greatest value of his book is that it publishes the KEP manuscripts in color. It doesn't even begin to address arguments presented by critics.

One hopes that Xander (Kevin Graham) will spend his time commenting on these more substantial books.

I'm willing to do so, if anyone has any questions about them. The second book listed in your link, is by Michael D. Rhodes, called Books of the Dead Belonging to Tshemmin and Neferirnub: A Translation and Commentary. It is precisely what it claims to be; a translation of other papyri that have nothing to do with the Book of Abraham. It has nothing to do with anything the critics have said with respect to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. So why you would suggest I read these two books instead of correcting misinformation presented by others, escapes me entirely.

Regardless of the nature of our opinions on these matters, we all need to hear from diverse points of view -- John Stuart Mill has told us quite correctly that we sharpen our ideas on each other (provided that we can control our ad hominems and vitriol).

Certainly. Unfortunately, I have no control over those who consistently question my sincerity, my motives (i.e. "ax to grind") and my desire to be honest with the data.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Xander

[Loran Blood]

Besides, even though the KEP has received considerable air time over the last several years, the sense that I am getting from my online discussions is that it is quickly diminishing in importance, giving way to issues involving translation of the facsimiles.

Count me as breathing a sigh of relief as this boiling crucible of quibbling over numerous highly ambiguous text critical details that admit, if the years of debate on this issue here and in other forums I have followed are any indication, of multiple interpretations and which, barring the discovery of substantial historical documentary evidence clearing up the problems once and for all, are likely to increase in heat and spark content the further and further they are analyzed (and at what point does the KEP simply cease its usefulness, given its unclear purpose and ambiguous meaning, as a meaningful insight into the question of BofA origins?) and the longer the arguments continue, finally begins winding down.

Personally, I would like to see LDS apologetics return again to and begin emphasizing the content of the text itself; that is, what the BofA actaully says, and the degree to which the ideas, concepts, and motifs of the BofA reflect and parallel teachings and traditions known to be ancient and of salient provenance.

I have to admit to being, as interesting and infectious as the whole KEP question has been over the last few years or so, weary of what I really think is a dead end for LDS apologists. I may be utterly wrong on this, but that's where I stand at the present. The KEP is just too much of a black box; too incomplete and too open to creative interpretation to move us to any final, authoritative conclusions about it any time in the foreseeable future.

Actual existing and clear ancient parallels to BofA concepts and ideas is the very place where critics most fear to tread, and where they are at their weakest (because the historical evidence is far less open to creative intellectual laundering) and is hence where most of the serious apologetic work should be focused, not in chasing the will-o'-the-wisp of coming to clear conclusions regarding the KEP.

I suspect the reasons for this shift is because the critics are increasing realizing that precious little can be made either way on the matter, particularly in terms of direct relevance to the BoA as reveled by the power of God.

Indeed.

In this and other regards, I think it unfortunate to have lost Will Schryver's participation in the discussion, amateur BoA apologists or not.

Yes, it is, and the manner in which this occurred is a standing lesson in both the tactics and psychology of anti-Mormonism of the most virulent variety - ex-Mormon anti-Mormonism.

Its also been a lesson to me to be very careful regrding what I say in public here and in other forums, because, unlike critics of the Church, I will be held to a much higher standard than they hold themselves. I will not be allowed to be a human being with weakness and frailties - including open displays of anger and contempt when endlessly provoked - nor given allowance for personal psychological weaknesses and soft spots.

While being an apostate critic of the Church may mean never having to say you're sorry, being an LDS apologist means moral and characterological perfection or death by yellow journalism.

[Loran Blood]

Absolutely horrible. He is essentially trying to salvage many of John Gee's errors. He also makes some seriously bold claims without offering a shred of evidence (i.e. saying we know the KEP were written when Joseph Smith was out of town!)

LDS apologists can continue to get degrees in Egyptology for the purpose of name-dropping in BoA related literature, but ultimately we're still dealing with the same refuted arguments. The evidence from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers proving Joseph Smith could not translate ancient Egyptian, is really a matter for critical thinkers who know how to process the evidence. It isn't something confined or even related to Egyptology. I can't believe this guy is really trying to resurrect the argument that the English text overran the Egyptian. Where has he been since 2001? Even Gee backed away from that claim. At first I was hoping to give him a pass, thinking maybe this was published back in 2001 or shortly after Gee first started this disastrous spree of apologetic creativity. But the thing is dated to 2010, so he has no excuse and should be held accountable for presenting such horrible scholarship on such an important issue.

Sorry, but you asked.

Notice how this person is always the smartest person in the room, even when surrounded by PhD's in the very disciplines upon which he would feign opine? Kevin has refuted everything in the LDS apologetic world, thoroughly and conclusively.

Let's just close down the message board and all go home.

All is lost, all is lost...

[Loran Blood]

Given that much of Kerry's Q&A wasn't footnoted, and given that at best about a fourth of the footnotes cite Gee, it is clear that the article isn't essentially about what John Gee has written, let alone his alleged errors.

However, it might be instructive were you to specify which of Kerry's statements you believe resurrect Gee's errors. Then, we can see if they are, in fact, errors, or just differences of opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, this is quite important. To what degree is the concept "error" a matter of bias and frame of reference?

[Loran Blood]

This is the first I have heard a critic claim that Egyptology is not related to determining correct translations of Egyptian. Where is the critical thinking in that?

Could it be that newer and better photos of the documents have surfaced since 2001 that may substantiate earlier claims? I would think that principles of critical thinking would advise waiting to hear the supposed new evidence before making sweeping dismissals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why wait when you can come out swinging as soon as you hear the bell?

There is a method in that madness, methinks.

[Loran Blood]

Among whom?

Among Kevin's "critical thinkers," whoever they may actually be.

[Loran Blood]

Nice try. I provided my examples where Kerry shows his ignorance on this matter. These alone prove he has not really kept up with the controversy beyond reading FARMS materials.

My suspicions regarding ESP have just been confirmed.

Wade then decided to jump in and since he couldn't prove me wrong, he decides to accuse me of having an ax to grind.

What could one possibly say about this?

I never dismiss people simply because they are apologists.

As Charlie Brown used to say, "Frightening, isn't it?"

Edited July 26, 2011 by Minos
Devoid of all content, banned from thread.

[volgadon]

Xander, I do agree that this thread should be about Kerry's work, not his motives, and certainly not your motives, or my motives, or the motives of any other poster.

[Xander]

Count me as breathing a sigh of relief as this boiling crucible of quibbling over numerous highly ambiguous text critical details that admit, if the years of debate on this issue here and in other forums I have followed are any indication, of multiple interpretations and which, barring the discovery of substantial historical documentary evidence clearing up the problems once and for all, are likely to increase in heat and spark content the further and further they are analyzed (and at what point does the KEP simply cease its usefulness, given its unclear purpose and ambiguous meaning, as a meaningful insight into the question of BofA origins?) and the longer the arguments continue, finally begins winding down.

I hope you weren't holding your breath as you typed out that paragraph of a sentence.

Personally, I would like to see LDS apologetics return again to and begin emphasizing the content of the text itself; that is, what the BofA actaully says, and the degree to which the ideas, concepts, and motifs of the BofA reflect and parallel teachings and traditions known to be ancient and of salient provenance.

That is pretty much all they ever talk about, because parallelomania is an apologist's best friend. However, historians understand this for what it really is. You can find parallels in just about anything if you try hard enough.

Actual existing and clear ancient parallels to BofA concepts and ideas is the very place where critics most fear to tread

Actually it isn't. Most of these so called "parallels" have been explained away rather easily. The most embarrassing of course, are the parallels to Josephus, which apologists used to rely on until the critics pointed out that Joseph Smith owned the works of Flavius Josephus and Oliver Cowdery cited it three times in reference to the Book of Abraham. Also the claims that Abraham lived among idolaters, was into astronomy, was threatened and saved by God, his father was a priest, etc. etc. Most of these "parallels" were already mentioned in the more popular Bible commentaries like Clarke and Henry.

Yes, it is, and the manner in which this occurred is a standing lesson in both the tactics and psychology of anti-Mormonism of the most virulent variety - ex-Mormon anti-Mormonism.

William Schryver was never involved in any debate on this matter (he absolutely refused to address criticisms of his theories whether on this forum or the other) and his absence has nothing to do with "psychological" tactics of anti-Mormons. I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Anyone interested in the demise of William Schryver's fame can do so with a simple google search. Stop trying to turn this thread into a discussion about Schryver. He's irrelevant.

Notice how this person is always the smartest person in the room, even when surrounded by PhD's in the very disciplines upon which he would feign opine? Kevin has refuted everything in the LDS apologetic world, thoroughly and conclusively.

Surrounded by PhD's? Refuted everything in the apologetic world?

Hyperbole, much?

Yes, this is quite important. To what degree is the concept "error" a matter of bias and frame of reference?

Perhaps you missed the part where wade conceded that I was right?

[volgadon]

(Incidentally, this priest is not alone as a practitioner of Egyptian religion who possessed or used Jewish religious texts. We can identify others, particularly priests from Thebes).5

Kerry's statement doesn't rest on firm evidence.

Apart from pointing to Gee's "Abracadra, Isaac, and Jacob," which has one firm example, and a second possible one, Kerry provides the following sources of his own.

See also David E. Aune, “PGM V. 459–89,” in The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation including the Demotic Spells, vol. 1: Texts, ed. Hans Dieter Betz (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1986), 109–10; and Origen, Contra Celsum I, 22.

Neither of his sources show the use of Jewish texts.

Here is Origen.

After this, Celsus, without condemning circumcision as practised by the Jews, asserts that this usage was derived from the Egyptians; thus believing the Egyptians rather than Moses, who says that Abraham was the first among men who practised the rite. And it is not Moses alone who mentions the name of Abraham, assigning to him great intimacy with God; but many also of those who give themselves to the practice of the conjuration of evil spirits, employ in their spells the expression “God of Abraham,” pointing out by the very name the friendship (that existed) between that just man and God. And yet, while making use of the phrase “God of Abraham,” they do not know who Abraham is! And the same remark applies to Isaac, and Jacob, and Israel; which names, although confessedly Hebrew, are frequently introduced by those Egyptians who profess to produce some wonderful result by means of their knowledge. The rite of circumcision, however, which began with Abraham, and was discontinued by Jesus, who desired that His disciples should not practise it, is not before us for explanation; for the present occasion does not lead us to speak of such things, but to make an effort to refute the charges brought against the doctrine of the Jews by Celsus, who thinks that he will be able the more easily to establish the falsity of Christianity, if, by assailing its origin in Judaism, he can show that the latter also is untrue.

Origen states that Egyptians perform adjurations by invoking the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is far from indicating that an actual Jewish text was used.

The PGM reference shows the same thing that Origen was stating.

PGM V. 459-89

*Another way:" I call upon you who created / earth and bones and all flesh and

all spirit and who established the sea and suspended(?) the heavens, who sepa-

rated the light from the darkness, the Supreme Intelligence" who lawfully ad-

ministrated all things. Eternal Eye, Daimon of daimons, god of gods, the lord of

the spirits, thc invariable AION IAO OYEI, hear my voice.

/ "I call upon you, master of the gods, high-thundering Zeus, sovereign Zeus,

ADONAI, lord IAO 0YEE; I am he who calls upon you, great god in Syrian: 'ZAA-

LAERIPHPHOU,) and you must not / ignore my voice (in Hebrew: 'ABLANATHA-

NALBA ABRASILOA'); for I am SILTHACHoOUCH LAILAM BLASALOTH IAO IEO

NEBOUTH SABIOTH ARBOTH ARBATHIAO IAOTH SABAOTH PA/TOURE ZAGOURE

BAROUCH ADONAI ELOAI ABRAAM BARBARAUO NAUSIPH, high-minded one, Im-

mortal, who possess the crown of the whole [world], SIEPE SAKTIETE BIOU BIOU

SPHE SPHE NOUSI NOUSI / SIETHO SIETHO CHTHETHONI RIGCH OEA E EOA AOE

IAO ASIAL SARAPI OLSO ETHMOURESINI SEM LAU LOU LOURIGCH."

It loosens shackles, makes invisible, sends dreams; [it is] a spell for gaining favor.

(Add the usual for what you want.)

The PGM is very important for understand the BoA, but this doesn't mean that all, or even a majority, use Jewish texts.

[Xander]

Thus, we see the hazard of blindly giving the "benefit of the doubt," simply because someone isn't an "anti-Mormon."

[volgadon]

Thus, we see the hazard of blindly giving the "benefit of the doubt," simply because someone isn't an "anti-Mormon."

Perhaps it is just me, but I always like to check footnotes.

[Robert F. Smith]

If this is really what you believe about these books, then I highly recommend you read them. I purchased Hauglid's book the day it was released. I had been bugging him via email for months about the publication date, but the point here is that his book is not an apologetic work at all. It does occasionally make some apologetic comments that are not supported with evidence, but this is excusable since the book was never intended to be anything more than a resource for those wishing to study the matter further. The greatest value of his book is that it publishes the KEP manuscripts in color. It doesn't even begin to address arguments presented by critics.

I'm willing to do so, if anyone has any questions about them. The second book listed in your link, is by Michael D. Rhodes, called Books of the Dead Belonging to Tshemmin and Neferirnub: A Translation and Commentary. It is precisely what it claims to be; a translation of other papyri that have nothing to do with the Book of Abraham. It has nothing to do with anything the critics have said with respect to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. So why you would suggest I read these two books instead of correcting misinformation presented by others, escapes me entirely.

Apologetics and polemics might not be the best ways to approach the subject matter under discussion here. Certainly not the only ways, although one can imagine that such approaches are currently and sadly the only ones known to our executive and legislative branches of government. Such extreme partisanship is death to scholarly discussion and advancement.

You seem to understand that these latest books are straightforward professional publications from which we can all learn something, and from which we can extrapolate a whole range of theories. As with the Joseph Smith Papers Project, we ought to be less concerned with what sorts of interpretation can be brought to bear upon the evidence and more satisfied with the reality that we now have far more workmanlike information (data) upon which such theories can be tested. Moreover, I understand that there is another volume forthcoming in that same Book of Abraham series from the Maxwell Institute.

Not only that, but recent work by Chris Smith and others has shown a more likely purpose of KEP than has hitherto been imagined.

[wenglund]

Nice try. I provided my examples where Kerry shows his ignorance on this matter. These alone prove he has not really kept up with the controversy beyond reading FARMS materials. You're not going to be able to downplay this by focusing on every single "point" he made and then say this only consitutes a small percentage of all the points made. The dating of the papyri is irrelevant to my criticism.

Since you seem to be experiencing difficulty correctly following the line of discussion, let me be of some assistance. You asserted that Kerry's article cobbled together apologetic argument "without any apparent understanding of their relevance." Notice that you didn't qualify your statement specific to the part of the single, relatively insubstantial, sentence you provided as an example thereof. Instead, it was broad and sweeping about the entire article.

Now, had you done the former rather than the latter, I may not have objected. However, my intent in taking you point by point through the article is to test the credibility of your sweeping assertion, show it devoid of credibility, and this so as to encouraging you to use the kinds of critical thinking skills you mentioned earlier and to be more accurate and reasonable in your language. I am trying to help you develop interactive skills that aren't as unwittingly repelling and self-decredibleizing as your typical style.

If you don't wish to undergo this lengthy exercise and have learned your lesson, then please let me know by graciously acknowledging that you misspoke and by correcting your sweeping assertion.

As a reward, I won't press the point specific to your single example, even though I think you can be shown to be in error there as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

However, your are not correct on the nature of the continuing discussion. With two new major publications out from the Maxwell Institute HERE, the issue is actually heating up and taking on greater substance and professionalism.

Just to clarify, my comment about diminished interest was specific to the KEP and to where the focus of the critics seem to trend, and not to BoA issues in general and the focus of apologists and believers.

One hopes that Xander (Kevin Graham) will spend his time commenting on these more substantial books. Regardless of the nature of our opinions on these matters, we all need to hear from diverse points of view -- John Stuart Mill has told us quite correctly that we sharpen our ideas on each other (provided that we can control our ad hominems and vitriol).

Well said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Pedro asked for opinions on Kerry Muhlestein's piece. I gave my opinion and explained my reasoning with specific examples. Wade then decided to jump in and since he couldn't prove me wrong, he decides to accuse me of having an ax to grind. He clearly does this in an attempt to downplay my input.

Here, again, you are making unwarranted, broad/sweeping assertions and ascribing false motives to me. Whether you realize it or not, these kinds of irresponsible comments tend to undermine your credibility and make reasonable discourse with you quite difficult.

The thing is, I actually would like to hear what you have to say about the BoA, though in a way that isn't socially repelling and which brings light rather than heat to the table.

Now, if you doubt what I am saying, I am willing to patiently walk you through each of your sweeping assertions above as well as the motive you ascribed to me, and point out the decridiblizing distortions. Just let me know.

I am also open to being wrong about you having an ax to grind against Gee.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 25, 2011 by wenglund

[Xander]

gain, you are making unwarranted, broad/sweeping assertions and ascribing false motives to me. Whether you realize it or not, these kinds of irresponsible comments tend to undermine your credibility and make reasonable discourse with you quite difficult.

There is nothing irresponsible about correcting falsehoods and pointing them out.

he thing is, I actually would like to hear what you have to say about the BoA, though in a way that isn't socially repelling and which brings light rather than heat to the table.

This probably isn't possible, since my arguments and evidence run contrary to the theological presuppositions of those on this forum. Everything I say will invoke feelings of confirmation bias, discontent, etc, so it will automatically be interpreted as my fault since those feelings weren't present until I presented my argument. I'm always going to be the one accused of bringing "heat" when in fact all I ever do is argue my points with evidence. You'd be surprised to know how many people email me on the side and tell me they consider my input quite enlightening. It is the conclusions you guys don't like, but more importantly, the fact that my conclusions are shown to be the most reasonable. Nothing drives an apologist more nuts than to know that a critic says something for which no FARMS Review piece successfully addresses. This is why I am constantly side swiped by detractors who want to poison the well (i.e. ax to grind) before I can get my arguments off the ground. The threads always turn into a discussion about Kevin Graham simply because he's here. The mods are bombarded with one report after another simply because I'm posting, and so they're obligated to get involved and micro-manage everything I say.

Now, if you doubt what I am saying, I am willing to patiently walk you through each of your sweeping assertions above as well as the motive you ascribed to me, and point out the decridiblizing distortions. Just let me know.

Your condescending attitude is noted. I guess your audience is unaware that while I have been off this forum for some five years, I have been regularly mopping floors with you on the other forum. You're the same guy who said the Facsimiles had nothing to do with the KEP, remember? So no, you don't get to talk about my credibility.

What you're doing now is what is called sweet revenge. I get it. You finally see me on your home turf where you feel you have an advantage, so you're going to be able to get away with all these condescending remarks, and you're probably going to get away with fooling your audience into thinking that you're providing a "lesson" when all you're really doing is avoiding the subject. The subject is Kerry Muehlstein's article and the incorrect data he provides. You're just derailing. This is your MO and always has been. You also tend to present yourself as an educator, which is quite ironic to say the least.

So enjoy your moment wade. I stand by my statement that Kerry's article is just an amalgam of apologetic talking points, and he has done little to nothing to verify their relevance or veracity. Yoru attempt to downplay this fact by pointing to irrelevant and insignificant poinst he "got right" doesn't change what I said. Seriously, if you want to undermine my claim, you might start by proving his errors are not in fact errors.

I am also open to being wrong about you having an ax to grind against Gee.

We both know this isn't true. Besides, what could I possibly say that would prove I have no ax to grind? Every time I show an LDS scholar is wrong about something, I am immediately accused of having a malicious ulterior motive.

[wenglund]

There is nothing irresponsible about correcting falsehoods and pointing them out....

Xander,

Evidently, you are bent on learning this thing the hard way, if at all. So, it looks like I will have to school you by taking you point by point through the article and test your broad and sweeping assertions.

However, rather than clutter this thread tutoring you in some of the arts of critical thinking and effective discourse, I will open a new thread (Xander's criticsm of Muhlestein) for that purpose. See you there.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 25, 2011 by wenglund

[cinepro]

Not sure if anyone has brought this up yet, but Kerry did an interview on the Church website here:

Episode 4 - Lynde Mott Interviews Kerry Muhlstein

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't know whether anybody has mentioned (or cited) this.

[volgadon]

This is why I am constantly side swiped by detractors who want to poison the well (i.e. ax to grind) before I can get my arguments off the ground. The threads always turn into a discussion about Kevin Graham simply because he's here. The mods are bombarded with one report after another simply because I'm posting, and so they're obligated to get involved and micro-manage everything I say.

To be frank, I disagree with your position regarding the truth claims of the church, but you do have valuable input on a lot of things. I even find myself in full or partial agreement with several of your points, such as Joseph reading the books he owned. The discussion should not turn into a discussion of your motives or of you personally, the posts that do so leave a bad taste in my mouth. It isn't right.

[wenglund]

Muhelstein provided nothing new whatsoever to the Book of Abraham controversy. He merely cobbles together a bunch of apologetic arguments published by Gee without any apparent understanding of their relevance.

As explained earlier, one of the main questions addressed in Kerry's article was whether or not the "the hieroglyphs next to Facsimile 1 are the source of the Book of Abraham." Many of the arguments Kerry presents, then, ought to relate to that question. Since you assert that Kerry doesn't understand the relevance of the arguments, then:

CFS (Call for substantiation) that Kerry supposedly doesn't understand the relevance to the bolded question above to the following arguments he presented:

1) The dationg of the papyri.

2) Common mis-alignment of the text and pictures.

3) Ownership of the papri.

4) The different papyri.

5) The length of the different papyri.

6) What fragments may have been a part of which roll and where they may have been located on the roll.

7) Which vignettes went with which fragment or roll.

8. Egyptian characters on the Abraham mss. match those in the Book of Breathings.

9) Scribal errors and other critical textual clues.

10) The Egyptian characters appear to sometimes overwrite the English.

11) Eyewitness accounts as to which fragment or roll was translated.

12) Evidence that Joseph was absent during the production of some of the KEP.

Another question that Kerry addresses is whether the BoA is ancient in nature or purely a 19th century production. CFS that Kerry doesn't understand the relevance to this question of the following arguments:

13) The nature of the text, itself--does it exhibit characteristics of the period it claims to be from or of the time when it was first published?

14) Astronomical models.

15) Use of the term "Chaldees".

16) The heading of the BoA.

17) Abraham mentions that the altar on which he was nearly sacrificed was located in a valley called Olishem.

18) Corroborated elements in other ancient texts.

Finally, Kerry addresses the question of correctly interpreting the facsimiles. CFS that Kerry doesn't understand the relevance to this question of the following arguments:

19) Modern Egyptologists are often wrong.

20) The problem of looking to Egyptians to interpret the BoA symbols.

21) Rare or unique aspects of Facsimile 1

22) Fac. 1 is not a typical embalming scene.

23) Comparison between Fac. 1 and that lion couch scenes at the Denderah Temple.

24) Person on the lion couch identified as Abraham on papyri dated to Roman period.

25) Egyptian engaged in human sacrifice.

26) Facsimiles 2 and 3 have elements which match up well with Joseph

Smith’s interpretations.

27) both of these kinds of drawings were associated by the Egyptians themselves with Abraham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 26, 2011 by wenglund

[volgadon]

Finally, Kerry addresses the question of correctly interpreting the facsimiles. CFR that Kerry doesn't understand the relevance to this question of the following arguments:

19) Modern Gynecologists are often wrong.

I shudder to think how this relates to the text.

Edited July 26, 2011 by volgadon