SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 16 minutes ago, Tacenda said: With your many posts and replying back and forth with Smac and maybe others on here, I'm really impressed with your knowledge about the topic. Quite envious with it as well. I'm too lazy I guess. That’s nice of you to say, but undeserved. Just a hobbyist here.
CA Steve Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 12 hours ago, OGHoosier said: You may have a point. I would like to hear Hauglid and Jensen discuss their opinions, because I have it on good authority that they are in pretty good standing with the Church, scholastic flame wars aside. Here is a video of a presentation they did at Benchmark Book in Nov of last year where they discuss their views on the Book of Abraham. Robin Jensen & Brian Hauglid--"JS Papers, R&T 4: Bk of Abraham One side is trying to establish a non-extant complete Book of Abraham manuscript produced before the GAEL, arguing that the GAEL was driven by WW Phelps and was either an effort to reverse engineer the BoA text or some sort of cipher (I have never really understood why they would have needed such a convoluted cipher or how it would even be used) and missing portions from either the Hor scroll or a third scroll not mentioned in the first contemporary accounts which is long enough (about 15'-0" min) to have contained the complete Book of Abraham. The other side basically says Joseph saw the Egyptian funerary documents and was inspired to produce the Book of Abraham. They believe the GAEL was a failed secular attempt to actually translate Egyptian, that the first part of Abraham (Abr 1 through Abr 2:18) was written in Kirtland before the GAEL or at least at the same time, and that the balance of the BoA was produced in Nauvoo in 1842.
OGHoosier Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 19 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Here is a video of a presentation they did at Benchmark Book in Nov of last year where they discuss their views on the Book of Abraham. Robin Jensen & Brian Hauglid--"JS Papers, R&T 4: Bk of Abraham One side is trying to establish a non-extant complete Book of Abraham manuscript produced before the GAEL, arguing that the GAEL was driven by WW Phelps and was either an effort to reverse engineer the BoA text or some sort of cipher (I have never really understood why they would have needed such a convoluted cipher or how it would even be used) and missing portions from either the Hor scroll or a third scroll not mentioned in the first contemporary accounts which is long enough (about 15'-0" min) to have contained the complete Book of Abraham. The other side basically says Joseph saw the Egyptian funerary documents and was inspired to produce the Book of Abraham. They believe the GAEL was a failed secular attempt to actually translate Egyptian, that the first part of Abraham (Abr 1 through Abr 2:18) was written in Kirtland before the GAEL or at least at the same time, and that the balance of the BoA was produced in Nauvoo in 1842. Thank you for the link! I'll check it out.
OGHoosier Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: If you read the context of Hauglid’s comment, he is not critiquing their Egyptian work. When stating his own opinions, Hauglid of course refers to the 19th-century document; that's where his expertise lies. However, when it comes to Gee and Muhlestein, Hauglid's own statement doesn't draw any lines. He refers to their scholarship on the BoA as "abhorrent" without any sort of qualifier. Speaking forthrightly, I don't think he has the authority needed to dismiss them so cavalierly, and in such strong language. To me it honestly comes across as petulant.
Tacenda Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: That’s nice of you to say, but undeserved. Just a hobbyist here. I read a lot of it, but can't seem to retain much. You OTOH, have done well on retaining and deciphering it all.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 2 hours ago, OGHoosier said: When stating his own opinions, Hauglid of course refers to the 19th-century document; that's where his expertise lies. However, when it comes to Gee and Muhlestein, Hauglid's own statement doesn't draw any lines. He refers to their scholarship on the BoA as "abhorrent" without any sort of qualifier. Speaking forthrightly, I don't think he has the authority needed to dismiss them so cavalierly, and in such strong language. To me it honestly comes across as petulant. Fair enough. I will say that the stuff I have read from Gee seems nothing more than poor work and obfuscation (I reviewed his article here https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1497&context=jbms as part of my participation in this thread). I would not hesitate to call such scholarship abhorrent, and yes it would be petulant and unprofessional of me. And yes, I certainly lack the authority and expertise to dismiss him so cavalierly, but in an off the cuff conversation? Sure I'd use that language. Absolutely.
Recommended Posts