Welcome question for Mr. Peterson: Where is the stone box?

[_Brackite]

The LDS Apologist Daniel C. Peterson is also, Unable to find, and Not able to locate 'the "missing papyrus" from which the Book of Abraham was "really translated" from'

[_Daniel Peterson]

Just so that you can relax a bit, Brackite, let me respond very briefly:

I'm aware of Professor Ritner's opinion. The mere fact that he holds an opinion, though, doesn't mean that I have to agree with it. And the mere fact that he holds an opinion doesn't make his opinion right.

That said, this subject doesn't rank among my top one hundred interests.

[_Mister Scratch]

The LDS Apologist Daniel C. Peterson is also, Unable to find, and Not able to locate 'the "missing papyrus" from which the Book of Abraham was "really translated" from.'

While we're at it, he is also "unable to find" the strange and mysterious and apocryphal "2nd Michael Watson Letter." Oh, well!

[_Polygamy Porter]

While we're at it, he is also "unable to find" the strange and mysterious and apocryphal "2nd Michael Watson Letter." Oh, well!

You go boy! Bird dog em!

[_Daniel Peterson]

There's nothing strange or mysterious about it. That's Scratchian hype, of the sort that he routinely injects into his screeds in order to make them more dramatic.

The entire text of the letter has been published. That the original went missing afterwards in the black hole that is Professor Hamblin's office is unfortunate. (It wouldn't have fared any better in mine.) But Michael Watson may still have a copy of it, so that, if truth is really Scratch's concern as he claims it is, all does not appear to be lost. In any event, Professor Hamblin saw the letter, as did I. As did the managing editor of the FARMS Review, as did the two associate editors, as did at least one source checker. That's at least six people who can verify that it said what it's quoted as saying -- which is certainly more verification than the average primary source receives during the publication process for the typical book of, say, American history, where the publisher relies pretty much entirely on the care and honesty of the author of the book.

But whatever. Scratch will continue to insinuate that there's something fishy about the thing, and, for those who want to believe such nonsense, this will be the kind of nonsense that they'll be eager to believe.

I've made the two principal statements that I came here to make, and I'm beginning to waste too much time here.

So, Goodbye.

[_Polygamy Porter]

There's nothing strange or mysterious about it. That's Scratchian hype, of the sort that he routinely injects into his screeds in order to make them more dramatic.

The entire text of the letter has been published. That the original went missing afterwards in the black hole that is Professor Hamblin's office is unfortunate. (It wouldn't have fared any better in mine.) But Michael Watson may still have a copy of it, so that, if truth is really Scratch's concern as he claims it is, all does not appear to be lost. In any event, Professor Hamblin saw the letter, as did I. As did the managing editor of the FARMS Review, as did the two associate editors, as did at least one source checker. That's at least six people who can verify that it said what it's quoted as saying -- which is certainly more verification than the average primary source receives during the publication process for the typical book of, say, American history, where the publisher relies pretty much entirely on the care and honesty of the author of the book.

But whatever. Scratch will continue to insinuate that there's something fishy about the thing, and, for those who want to believe such nonsense, this will be the kind of nonsense that they'll be eager to believe.

I've made the two principal statements that I came here to make, and I'm beginning to waste too much time here.

So, Goodbye.

Riiiiggggggghhhtttttaaaahhh

[_evolving]

There's nothing strange or mysterious about. That's Scratchian hype, of the sort that he routinely injects into his screeds in order to make them more dramatic.

there you go again creating drama -here- to move the attention away from the root cause of the problem -over there-. - I am not privi to your close personal relationship Mr. Scratchian but he has never injected his screeds anywhere close to me.

~evolving

[_Mister Scratch]

There's nothing strange or mysterious about it. That's Scratchian hype, of the sort that he routinely injects into his screeds in order to make them more dramatic.

The entire text of the letter has been published. That the original went missing afterwards in the black hole that is Professor Hamblin's office is unfortunate. (It wouldn't have fared any better in mine.) But Michael Watson may still have a copy of it, so that, if truth is really Scratch's concern as he claims it is, all does not appear to be lost. In any event, Professor Hamblin saw the letter, as did I. As did the managing editor of the FARMS Review, as did the two associate editors, as did at least one source checker. That's at least six people who can verify that it said what it's quoted as saying -- which is certainly more verification than the average primary source receives during the publication process for the typical book of, say, American history, where the publisher relies pretty much entirely on the care and honesty of the author of the book.

Need I remind you, Prof. P., that roughly six people claimed to have heard Tom Murphy attacking Lou Midgley? Further, why not simply ask Michael Watson for a fresh copy? Until then, I personally think that you ought to withdraw your assertion that such a letter even exists.

Also, since you raised the issue of FARMS Review, I'd be interested in learning more about its daunted peer-review process. Based on what you have said elsewhere, it seems I have good reason to believe that you guys are engaging in a kind of "stacking the deck." Would you care to name your peer-reviewers?

[_Jason Bourne]

You know what I lke about this board? No one makes the rules. Your rule that you wrote down in crayon with this post demonstrates your lack of understanding on what participation on this board means.

Put up or shut up dannyboy. You look like an even bigger braying jackass (or is that tapir?) when you write who you will confront and who you will ignore.

If porters question is so difficult possibly you could point us at some scholarly research as to similar sites and stone boxes that meet the same criteria laid forth by Joseph Smith. One must be able to reproduce the same scenario described in the official Canon.

Since you can't do that wthout breaking the rule about scholarship only, I am going to do my "Damn it feels good to be a gangsta" victory dance around my house.

Peterson is butthead

Once again the closet angry man lashes out. But look dopey little tantrum boy, Peterson need not reply if he does not feel like it. It is a free board. Now stop crying about him ingoring the other angry boys STUPID topic.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Further, why not simply ask Michael Watson for a fresh copy?

Indeed. That's what I've invited you to do.

Until then, I personally think that you ought to withdraw your assertion that such a letter even exists.

I know you do. Pretty bizarre.

It passed a thorough source-checking process. What appears in the printed Review is perfectly accurate, right down to punctuation.

Also, since you raised the issue of FARMS Review, I'd be interested in learning more about its daunted [vaunted?] peer-review process.

I've already explained it. In detail. In print.

I've said more than enough to satisfy any reasonable inquirer. I realize, of course, that you're not really inquiring, and that you're not reasonable. As elsewhere, my explanations are not principally aimed at you.

Based on what you have said elsewhere, it seems I have good reason to believe that you guys are engaging in a kind of "stacking the deck."

You have no good reason for believing that. I've explained why. In detail. In print.

Would you care to name your peer-reviewers?

No. I've explained why. In print.