The KEPA Manuscripts as Oral Dictation Transcripts

[_truth dancer]

Something kind of strange about a guy who thinks his testosterone levels, number of testicles, and number of ear piercings, are pertinent to a discussion on the Book of Abraham.

Hmmm...

;-)

~dancer~

[_William Schryver]

Not nearly as strange as a guy who will suggest that credentials are essential to participate in a discussion when he, himself, lacks them.

In the immortal words of Professor William Hamblin:

… Metcalfe's writing betrays an academic immaturity which could benefit from a healthy dose of disciplined tutelage in a good undergraduate program. His entire article has the form of scholarship, but denies the power thereof. It exhibits such a consistent pattern of misrepresentation of both primary sources and the arguments of his intellectual rivals, that it raises serious questions as to whether any of Metcalfe's work should be taken seriously.

An Apologist for the Critics: Brent Lee Metcalfe's Assumptions and Methodologies, Review of Apologetic and Critical Assumptions about Book of Mormon Historicity by Brent Lee Metcalfe, Reviewed By: William J. Hamblin, Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994. Pp. 434–523

[_Mister Scratch]

Not nearly as strange as a guy who will suggest that credentials are essential to participate in a discussion when he, himself, lacks them.

In the immortal words of Professor William Hamblin:

… Metcalfe's writing betrays an academic immaturity which could benefit from a healthy dose of disciplined tutelage in a good undergraduate program. His entire article has the form of scholarship, but denies the power thereof. It exhibits such a consistent pattern of misrepresentation of both primary sources and the arguments of his intellectual rivals, that it raises serious questions as to whether any of Metcalfe's work should be taken seriously.

An Apologist for the Critics: Brent Lee Metcalfe's Assumptions and Methodologies, Review of Apologetic and Critical Assumptions about Book of Mormon Historicity by Brent Lee Metcalfe, Reviewed By: William J. Hamblin, Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994. Pp. 434–523

Ah, right. Wasn't this the same article that had to be hurriedly re-edited in order to remove the "Metcalfe is Butthead" acrostic? Yup. Prof. Hamblin (the same guy who went on an anti-semitic rant at RfM and who watches anti-Mormon silent films for Family Home Evening) is an absolute model of "academic maturity."

[_dartagnan]

I really don't have time for message boards at this time, but this was drawn to my attention and I was asked to comment.

Occupation:
Metcalfe: Professional software developer
Schryver: Professional software developer

Since when? About a year ago you tried telling us that by unplugging the router you could bypass any forum administrator who was trying to block you from a message board. Being a routing expert I knew you hadn't the faintest clue what you were talking about. Liz laughed about this as well and then you went back and deleted your post. So now, after a year of that little bit of comic relief, you've become a "professional" developer of software? I suppose its possible, but not likely.

Metcalfe was hired by Microsoft. Who do you work for? You once said you worked for yourself as an "independent film maker." And come to think of it, what films have you produced?

Access to Relevant Source Materials:
Metcalfe: Quarter-century old photographs of originals.
Schryver: Two-year-old high-resolution scans of originals.

Those "quarter-century old" photographs are top notch, and professionally made. They are high resolution. You guys have yet to show a single example where the Hauglid photos Trump Metcalfe's. But that doesn't stop you from insinuating it. And these photos were clearly good enough to prove John Gee had been misrepresenting the facts - which remains the single most embarrassing event in LDS apologetics (in my opinion).

Furthermore, you failed to mention that Brent was working with Ed Ashment a"quarter-century" ago. Ashment actually handled the originals and analyzed them as an employee of the Church. The evidence led him out of the Church. Brent has been studying these manuscripts for decades, while you and Hauglid are as green as they come.

It was apparent that Hauglid hadn't even studied the manuscripts until a couple of months before he was to give a presentation on them at the FAIR conference! He was posting at MADB as Al Ghazali and admitted he hadn't studied them. Then he disappeared for a month, got access to them by some stroke of magic, and immediately returned to the forum as an "expert" whose sole intention was to assure the believers that Nibley wasn't wrong after all. No detailed arguments were in order, just the usual faith-promoting platitudes in the spirit of "wait and see... just trust me on this...stay faithful...wait and see... I got a PhD... so you can trust me on this... the critics are wrong... Metcalfe is an apostate overcome by evil spirits." His off the cuff, drive-by apologetic has proved embarrassing as Metcalfe has categorically dismantled every single "rebuttal" Brian has managed to make sound "plausible."

Number of Known PhDs in Accord with Analysis:
Metcalfe: Unknown
Schryver: At least 2.

Gee and Hauglid are apologists who really have no more business pretending to be able to offer anything of substance here. They had their chance and they screwed up badly, utterly destroying their own credibility. They have proven themselves to be interested in nothing except proving a predetermined position. Their expertise is not in ink analysis or forensics in documents or anything relevant. So stop pretending your analysis is supported by relevant experts in the field. How many forensic scientists would the Church permit to study the manuscripts? Well I guess that depends on how many temple-recommend holding forensic scientists there are. You guys are no closer to an "objective" analysis than the critics.

Not nearly as strange as a guy who will suggest that credentials are essential to participate in a discussion when he, himself, lacks them.

Again, there is no comparison to you and Metcalfe. He has studied these closely for more than 20 years, whereas you are a greehorn who just came onto the scene because nobody else wanted to step up to the plate. Metcalfe's integrity and scholarship has been established, whereas yours has not.

There are many spats between you two where you either left the scene, admitted being wrong or fought tooth and nail over moot points that you would later concede to the critics anyway. You have never shown Metcalfe to be wrong in anything he has asserted.

So why do you expect everyone to take you seriously just because you have been privy to a secret circle of apologists who get to see the manuscript photos and congratulate each other on whatever cockamaime scenario they can come up with?

I would encourage Brent not to engage you because all it does is delay the publication of his book.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I will shortly initiate a thread in the “School of the Pundits” forum of the MAD board to continue this topic. Professor Hauglid has indicated he just may drop in for a visit. You are certainly invited to do likewise.

And Mormon Discussions' populism takes a backseat to MAD elitism. Since Will is an accomplished musician maybe he can write a song explaining why Hauglid won't just come here.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

You are manifestly wrong—I have 3 ear piercings, not "1."

That aside, I'll send an email to Brian tomorrow—which I'll also post here—inviting him to publicly discuss his support for your interpretation of the textual history of Abraham 1:12.

(Your quote from Hamblin's more than fourteen-year-old rodomontade is... ummm... timely?!)

My best,

</brent>

[_Bond...James Bond]

Hi Will,

You are manifestly wrong—I have 3 ear piercings, not "1."

Psst.

You didn't answer the important *cough* testicular *cough* question Brent.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Bond...James Bond,

One less than ear piercings.

Cheers,

</brent>

[_Bond...James Bond]

One less than ear piercings.

I hate math, it's the primary reason for my persuit of degrees in the social sciences...*tries to figure the issue out on fingers*

[_ludwigm]

You didn't answer the important *cough* testicular *cough* question Brent

One less than ear piercings.

I hate math, it's the primary reason for my persuit of degrees in the social sciences...*tries to figure the issue out on fingers*

Please do not mention the word "testicular" and "fingers" in the same environment.

Where are the moderators?