The Egyptian Test

[_The Dude]

I suspect he was pointed to that thread because somebody felt I was engaging in libelous slander and wanted Gee to either sue me or defend himself, or both.

And he invites you to provide the information needed to sue or harass you:

Any who wish to demonstrate their skills may send their answers to the following to me
at egyptiantest at BYU.edu. All emails must include the person's real name, daytime phone number, and pseudonym under which they post to this board.

[_moksha]

So is this akin to the pencil test for girls, where the bigger boob becomes eligible?

[_Who Knows]

I smell some suspensions/bannings on the horizon. You guys can't question Gee/the moderator like that. Didn't you learn your lesson Dude when you asked Peterson if he had read a certain book?

[_Who Knows]

Jeez. CK apologized for his remark about Gee intentionally lying, but they're still crying about it.

What a soap opera.

[_William Schryver]

I remember Hauglid's FAIR presentation last year. He said how bad Gee felt because of all of the attacks he had undergone - and how unfair he thought it all was - and that he hadn't taken it very well.

He then said how Gee had made a mistake regarding the 2 ink theory, and that the 2 ink theory (that Gee promoted) was officially dead.

Maybe Gee should have undergone some sort of 'ink analysis' test before including it in his book? Or was it perhaps unfair for us ignorant critics to say his 2 ink theory was a bunch of bullcrap (since we hadn't taken any ink analysis test)?

You apparently don't remember Hauglid's presentation very well. He didn't say that the "2 ink theory" was officially dead. He said exactly the opposite. He only acknowledged (as has Gee) that the photos in The Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri were not the valid examples of the argument. Then he went on to say that, in fact, he and others believe that the Egyptian characters, in many instances, were written after the English text -- especially in Williams' Ms. #2. I know for a fact that they continue to adhere to that argument, and will elaborate on it further in the future.

By the way, CK, I think most people who have been paying attention to things are aware of your real name (C.S.) and that you live in the Sacramento area. I'm not sure why Gee thinks having real names is so important, but I'm quite confident that, at this point, there is no legal action contemplated. I think he was just tired of being called a "liar" on issues of opinion. Gee has given sincere arguments for why he thinks Seyffarth's papers suggest a second text on the scroll of Hor. People are free to disagree (as I think Kevin Barney has), but that doesn't mean that Gee is "lying" about it.

Also, I was wondering if either you (Who Knows) or California Kid are planning on attending the FAIR conference?

[_beastie]

Computer: 800 dollars
Internet Connection: 50 dollars
Seeing LDS apologists engaging in any tactic possible to avoid addressing specific criticisms: priceless

[_beastie]

Can someone explain to me why the ability to translate Egyptian is a prerequisite in analyzing the Book of Abraham? It seems to me that if this question is really about translating Egyptian, the apologists are painting themselves in a corner since there is already sufficient evidence Joseph Smith couldn't translate Egyptian from the facsimiles. So if it's all about the ability to translate Egyptian, case closed.

[_Who Knows]

You apparently don't remember Hauglid's presentation very well. He didn't say that the "2 ink theory" was officially dead. He said exactly the opposite. He only acknowledged (as has Gee) that the photos in The Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri were not the valid examples of the argument. Then he went on to say that, in fact, he and others believe that the Egyptian characters, in many instances, were written after the English text -- especially in Williams' Ms. #2. I know for a fact that they continue to adhere to that argument, and will elaborate on it further in the future.

I have it written in my notes that I just referred to. Hauglid said exactly what I said - 'the 2 ink theory is dead'. Granted, he was talking about the theory in regards to the photos in Gee's book - which perhaps excluded a 2 ink theory in other parts of the mss.

But it wasn't my point to argue about the 2 ink theory. My point was that he was wrong - and critics (who may not have been able to pass his little test) called him on it, and he had to finally admit it (through Hauglid).

Also, I was wondering if either you (Who Knows) or California Kid are planning on attending the FAIR conference?

I'm not planning on it. Last year, I only went for Hauglid's presentation, and that was because it was a Friday afternoon, and I was able to skip out of work a little early. I think he's on thursday morning this time, so I probably won't go. And the rest of the presentations - i couldn't care less about.

[_Runtu]

Can someone explain to me why the ability to translate Egyptian is a prerequisite in analyzing the Book of Abraham? It seems to me that if this question is really about translating Egyptian, the apologists are painting themselves in a corner since there is already sufficient evidence Joseph Smith couldn't translate Egyptian from the facsimiles. So if it's all about the ability to translate Egyptian, case closed.

You know, if I didn't already know you were such a silly person, that might make sense.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Could Joseph Smith pass the Egyptian Test? The bigger question is can Egyptians pass the Joseph Smith test, that is translate certain Egyptian characters to mean "And it came to pass..."