The KEPA Manuscripts as Oral Dictation Transcripts

[_Bond...James Bond]

Where are the moderators?

I am one of the mods.

[The Stig]

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>

Three, huh?

Well, last I saw you, you were only sporting a single stud. Quite attractive, too, I might add.

As for Professor Hauglid's interpretation of the textual history of Abr. 1:12 in KEPA #2, he might just have the same "no spoilers allowed" mentality that you have exhibited. I suppose we'll have to wait and see on that.

And, finally, as for Professor Hamblin's somewhat famous assessment of the Metcalfe methodological approach -- it hardly qualifies as a "rodomontade," which generally is understood as a description of self-aggrandizement. In any event, it just cries out for citation every time you attempt to make "credentials" a prerequisite for participating in this particular discussion. I would think that you, of all people, would be careful to avoid that mistake. But alas, you yield to the same temptation at seemingly every opportunity.

[_Who Knows]

If there's anything of substance in that MAD SOP thread, can someone post it here? I prefer reading the shady sanitized version.

Thanks.

[_dartagnan]

In any event, it just cries out for citation every time you attempt to make "credentials" a prerequisite for participating in this particular discussion.

Do you know what "credentialed" means?

Credentialed: That which entitles one to confidence, credit, or authority.

My "credentials" to teach English at a Brazilian University had nothing to do with degrees and everything to do with the fact that I was an American. I was more familiar with the language than anyone else who was interested in the job. This is what makes Brent far more credentialed than yourself.

For decades the KEP have been out of the reach of the lay person and inaccessible to the scholars. Even John Gee, hadn't witnessed the actual papyri before publishing his "guide" about them (how embarrassing!). What makes Gee "credentialed" to talk about documents he had never handled? The reason the KEP were made unavailable after Ashment, probably has much to do with the fact that Ashment left the faith because of the evidence. How embarrassing that must have been. Everyone else just took Nibley for granted, whereas Ashment actually had the opportunity to handle and study the KEP and see what a load of bunk Nibley was really selling us. The Church had to make sure that if anyone was going to analyze the KEP up close, then that person better have a testimony immune to reason. That is why nobody had studied them over the decades until Hauglid. He passed all the required interviews apparently.

Brent has professional, upclose "high resolution" photos that he has been studying for decades. He has been sharing his analysis with Ashment over the same course. Together they are perhaps the two most qualifed people on the planet to discuss the KEP. Every time Hauglid presented an argument Metcalfe quickly, and rather effortlessly, shot it down. It was an embarrassment that led to teh immediate shutting down of the thread at MADB. Hauglid chose to move the discussion to the private arena because he was tired of ruining his own credibility every time Brent would publicly correct him.

Taking all of this together, this makes Brent far more credentialed than anyone in your camp. In fact, I'm pretty sure Hauglid has even suggested as much. Didn't he admit to Metcalfe in email that he was quite "green" on this matter?

Brent, even without benefit of publication, has produced more scholarly light on the KEP than Nibley could have ever hoped to do. Nibley offered long-winded apologetic fluff that we were simply supposed to take for granted since he was the only person who had handled the KEP. We were supposed to trust him. We got screwed. Gee simply followed in Nibley's footsteps by providing misleading information for apologetic purposes.

And to this day, you and your "Phd's" haven't managed to show where Brent is wrong in a single instance. Not once. Instead we got a lot of ad hominem and failed attempts at character assassination. Pacman was over at MADB telling people Brent had probably stolen the photos and then tweaked the photos to say something they shouldn't. But the second Brent calls someone a jackass he gets reprimanded. You guys let Pacman's crap stand because it gave the struggling fence sitters a reason to hang on. Another "wait and see" promise that never came to bear fruit.

Ultimately, Brent has earned credibility whereas Hauglid and Gee have not. They haven't produced a single verifiable argument that questions Brent's qualification to speak on the matter. They offer only apologetic innovation for faith-promoting purposes. That's it. No amount of window-dressing your rhetoric with "PhD" is going to change that fact. One has to consider who these "PhD's" are.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Pacman was over at MADB telling people Brent had probably stolen the photos and then tweaked the photos to say something they shouldn't.

Somebody over at MADB-- I think Juliann?-- also claimed that Metcalfe was the one who stole the EAG microfilm for the Tanners. As far as I know, that's not the case, but at the time I didn't have enough information to call the person on it.

[_truth dancer]

They haven't produced a single verifiable argument that questions Brent's qualification to speak on the matter.

The apologists seem completely unable to refute (or even respectfully discuss) Brent's arguments so they must...

1. Tell everyone Brent is a really bad guy and accuse him of stealing. (And, no Brent did not steal anything).

2. Keep telling folks Brent doesn't have the "required" seven or eight PhD., so you can't trust him.

;-)

I have yet to see (in a discussion between apologists and Brent), even one actual discussion on the topic of the Book of Abraham where apologists don't resort to one or both of the above.

~dancer~

[_ludwigm]

Where are the moderators?

I am one of the mods.

Who does guard the guards?

[_KimberlyAnn]

They haven't produced a single verifiable argument that questions Brent's qualification to speak on the matter.

The apologists seem completely unable to refute (or even respectfully discuss) Brent's arguments so they must...

1. Tell everyone Brent is a really bad guy and accuse him of stealing. (And, no Brent did not steal anything).

2. Keep telling folks Brent doesn't have the "required" seven or eight PhD., so you can't trust him.

;-)

I have yet to see (in a discussion between apologists and Brent), even one actual discussion on the topic of the Book of Abraham where apologists don't resort to one or both of the above.

~dancer~

You're right, TD, but at least Will didn't stop with those two tired arguments. He implied Brent was short on testosterone and had too many piercings. Thank goodness neither is true! Brent can still be trusted. *Breathes a sigh of relief*

Now, if he had five piercings and only one testicle, I'd not believe a thing he said! ;)

KA

[_Bond...James Bond]

Where are the moderators?

I am one of the mods.

Who does guard the guards?

My lord and master Satan of Seattle.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

Good grief—you're right, there's nothing inherently boastful or pretentious about PhD-"credentialed" Hamblin dismissively characterizing my arguments as "betray[ing] an academic immaturity which could benefit from a healthy dose of disciplined tutelage in a good undergraduate program"!?

(For what it's worth, I've had two earrings in my left ear for over a decade—so once again our memories are at odds.)

Hi folks,

Here is the email message that I sent to Brian earlier tonight.

——————————
BEGIN
——————————

Hi Brian,

Sorry for bothering you with more Will Schryver antics, but your self-appointed online surrogate now claims that you fully agree with his reconstruction of the textual history for Abraham 1:12 (see http://tinyurl.com/5tgbwb; for Will's reconstruction, see http://tinyurl.com/5l863t). Will also says that you may contribute to a thread on the topic that he plans to open in School of the Pundits on mormonapologetics.com.

For several text-critical reasons, I consider Will's (and your?) reconstruction insufficient and, in some instances, inaccurate. If you're amenable, I'm willing to discuss the topic with you publicly (perhaps on a thread where only you and I can post). Many netizens from across the spectrum of belief/unbelief would undoubtedly benefit from a scholarly exchange between interlocutors who frame their rigorous arguments with goodwill.

I trust that life is treating you well.

Kind regards,

</brent>

——————————
END
——————————

Cheers,

</brent>

[Edit: Removed a duplicate word.]