Book of Abraham Real?

[Elphaba]

Try reading your own post. Only one of the three pertains to knowing involvement. The others merely refer to involvement.

Metcalfe did research for the murderer - research that the murderer used to commit fraud.

Metcalfe appeared on TV, despite your incorrect claims to the contrary, and supported the murderers attempt to validate one of his forgeries.

Metcalfe got duped by the murderer and passed on disinformation about another (the OC history) fake of the murderer.

He may not have been knowingly involved, but he was complicit - was involved... at least in a world where black is black and truth is truth.

No he was not. He did not know about Hofmann's forgeries or his murder attempts until after the crimes had been committed.

... if course, if you can find substantive proof that complicity requires knowledge of wrongdoing and that any such definition that don't so specify are in error, then that would help make your point.... but we both know you can't do that.... nature of semantics and all.

I did provide substantive proof. The following are the definitions of "complicitly" I provided in my previous post.

1.She is suspected of complicity in the fraud.

2.Involvement in guilt as an accomplice in a crime or offense

3. Involvement as an accomplice in a questionable act or a crime.

4. The state of being an accomplice; partnership or involvement in wrongdoing; complicity in a crime.

And since you're ignorant of the definition of "complicit," I will provide you the definition of "accomplice," just in case you don't understand it either.

Main Entry: ac·com·plice

Pronunciation: &-'käm-pl&s, -'k&m-

Function: noun

Etymology: alteration (from incorrect division of a complice) of complice, from Middle French, associate, from Late Latin complic- complex partner, confederate

: one who intentionally and voluntarily participates with another in a crime by encouraging or assisting in the commission of the crime or by failing to prevent it though under a duty to do so <the accomplice of the burglar> <an accomplice in a robbery>

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Just in case you don't understand the definition, "accomplice" means the person assisted in the crime intentionally. He/she knew about the crime. And to be complicit in a crime, one must be an accomplice in a crime. I know that's a lot of words, but, seriously Snow, it's grade school English.

If you want to remove #1, fine. Numbers 2 through 4 definitely indicate to be complicit one must be an accomplice.

So, despite your insistence I could not prove "complicit" does not mean the person was not aware of the crimes of the other person, obviously I did.

By the way, my thanks to you for setting me straight about Metcalfe going on tele about the OC history was sincere. Since you didn't acknowledge it, I thought perhaps you didn't see it.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Gee - I'm not responsible for your posts. I'm only responsible for mine. I don't self-censor because you might say something bad.

Likewise.

Elphaba

[Snow]

No he was not. He did not know about Hofmann's forgeries or his murder attempts until after the crimes had been committed.

I did provide substantive proof. The following are the definitions of "complicitly" I provided in my previous post.

1.She is suspected of complicity in the fraud.

2.Involvement in guilt as an accomplice in a crime or offense

3. Involvement as an accomplice in a questionable act or a crime.

4. The state of being an accomplice; partnership or involvement in wrongdoing; complicity in a crime.

And since you're ignorant of the definition of "complicit," I will provide you the definition of "accomplice," just in case you don't understand it either.

Main Entry: ac·com·plice

Pronunciation: &-'käm-pl&s, -'k&m-

Function: noun

Etymology: alteration (from incorrect division of a complice) of complice, from Middle French, associate, from Late Latin complic- complex partner, confederate

: one who intentionally and voluntarily participates with another in a crime by encouraging or assisting in the commission of the crime or by failing to prevent it though under a duty to do so <the accomplice of the burglar> <an accomplice in a robbery>

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Just in case you don't understand the definition, "accomplice" means the person assisted in the crime intentionally. He/she knew about the crime. And to be complicit in a crime, one must be an accomplice in a crime. I know that's a lot of words, but, seriously Snow, it's grade school English.

If you want to remove #1, fine. Numbers 2 through 4 definitely indicate to be complicit one must be an accomplice.

So, despite your insistence I could not prove "complicit" does not mean the person was not aware of the crimes of the other person, obviously I did.

By the way, my thanks to you for setting me straight about Metcalfe going on tele about the OC history was sincere. Since you didn't acknowledge it, I thought perhaps you didn't see it.

Elphaba

Your childish and disrespectful assertion that I am ignorant notwithstanding you are so wrong that it hard to imagine why you would even argue such a faulty position. It certainly can't be because you think you are right.

Your position is, that since you have found a definition to your liking, all definitions to the contrary are false. Any thinking person would instantly understand how wrong such a silly position is.

I don't care what examples you find. They don't negate all other examples. The American Heritage Dictionary defines complicit as: "Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime."

It is factually unequivocal that Metcalfe was associated with questionable acts in what turned out to be criminal activity. It is a fact that he did research for Hoffman, It is a fact that he help perpetrate the crime by purporting to have evidence proving a forgery to be valid. It is a fact that he spread disinformation.

No one disputes that Metcalfe was just a dupe of someone more clever than him with a similar anti-Mormon agenda. He didn't KNOW - as far as we can prove - that he knew that activities he engaged in were associated with illegality - but he WAS involved. He, if even in a small way, helped facilitate Hoffman's evil designs.

Whaddya expect from such as he - ethical behavior? He's as agenda driven as you are.

[Snow]

Likewise.

Elphaba

Then it seems silly that you brought it up to begin with, doesn't it.

[Elphaba]

Your childish and disrespectful assertion that I am ignorant notwithstanding you are so wrong that it hard to imagine why you would even argue such a faulty position. It certainly can't be because you think you are right.

Your position is, that since you have found a definition to your liking, all definitions to the contrary are false. Any thinking person would instantly understand how wrong such a silly position is.

I don't care what examples you find. They don't negate all other examples. The American Heritage Dictionary defines complicit as: "Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime."

Are you seriously telling me that if you did some research for someone, which included the definition of "complicit," you would purposely leave out the word "accomplice," knowing that it is included in many definitions? And not feel unethical about it?

No matter. Let’s look where it really matters--the law.

From the New South Wales

Public Defenders

Annual Criminal Law Conference

3rd & 4th March 2007

Principles of Complicity

The accused may be convicted on the basis of differing degrees of complicity in the crime committed by the principal offender —

1. as an accessory before the fact of that crime;

2. as an aider and abettor present at the commission of that crime, aiding and abetting its commission;

3. as an accessory after the fact of that crime;

4. as a party with the principal offender in a joint criminal enterprise to commit the particular crime for which the accused has been charged (straightforward joint criminal enterprise);

5. as a party with the principal offender in a joint criminal enterprise to commit a crime other than the crime with which the accused has been charged, but where the crime charged falls within the scope of that enterprise (extended joint criminal enterprise or common purpose);

6. as a party with the principal offender in a joint criminal enterprise to commit a crime other than the crime with which the accused has been charged, but where the crime charged falls outside the scope of that enterprise but within the contemplation of the accused; or

7. as a party with the principal offender in a conspiracy to commit the particular crime which is the object of that conspiracy.

http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/benchbks/criminal/ch02s10.html#d4e5602

Criminal Trials Court Bench Book

Complicity

The principles of complicity makes a person liable for an offence which he or she has intentionally assisted another to commit. Assessorial liability arises in several ways. A person who provides assistance before or during the commission of the offence may be liable for the offence itself. A person who participates pursuant to an understanding or agreement may be liable for the offence under the principles of joint criminal enterprise or common purpose. Assistance provided after the commission may make a person liable for the offence of accessory after the fact, or a related offence such as conceal serious offence (s.316 Crimes Act (NSW)), or hinder investigation of an offence (s.315 (1) Crimes Act (NSW))

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/pdo/ll_pdo.nsf/pages/PDO_principlescomplicity

Unfortunately I was not able to find a legal definition from the U.S. that I didn’t have to pay for, and frankly, this conversation is not worth it. I think British Law is close enough.

Hopefully you now understand that “complicit” means the person had to have knowledge of the crime, and was not just an unknowing participator.

It is factually unequivocal that Metcalfe was associated with questionable acts in what turned out to be criminal activity. It is a fact that he did research for Hoffman, It is a fact that he help perpetrate the crime by purporting to have evidence proving a forgery to be valid. It is a fact that he spread disinformation.

No one disputes that Metcalfe was just a dupe of someone more clever than him with a similar anti-Mormon agenda. He didn't KNOW - as far as we can prove - that he knew that activities he engaged in were associated with illegality - but he WAS involved. He, if even in a small way, helped facilitate Hoffman's evil designs.

You can repeat yourself as many times as you like. Metcalfe was not an accomplice, and therefore he was not complicit.

He's as agenda driven as you are.

I think I’ve finally figured out why you think I am agenda driven.

When you see that I have followed discussions, such as the Book of Abraham debates, and then mention it here, you take that to mean I have an “anti” agenda. I don't. It just means what I said--that I’ve been following the debate and the issues. If someone where to claim Gee had made a mistake when I knew he had not, I would say so as well. Admitting I find Metcalfe’s arguments the most compelling is not an agenda--it’s an opinion.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Then it seems silly that you brought it up to begin with, doesn't it.

Perhaps.

Elphaba

[Snow]

Are you seriously telling me that if you did some research for someone, which included the definition of "complicit," you would purposely leave out the word "accomplice," knowing that it is included in many definitions? And not feel unethical about it?

No matter. Let’s look where it really matters--the law....

Who cares what the law says. No one, (NO ONE but you) is arguing about his legal guilt in Hoffman's crimes. The point is that you are calling me ignorant and trying to prove that I misused a word. The FACT is that I used the word in exact accordance with one of it's standard definitions. You then resort to an absurdity of claiming that since you found other definitions, the definition of, say, The American Heritage is therefore incorrect. Using your illogic I could claim that most every single word you post is used incorrectly - also an absurdity.

I think I’ve finally figured out why you think I am agenda driven.

When you see that I have followed discussions, such as the Book of Abraham debates, and then mention it here, you take that to mean I have an “anti” agenda. I don't. It just means what I said--that I’ve been following the debate and the issues. If someone where to claim Gee had made a mistake when I knew he had not, I would say so as well. Admitting I find Metcalfe’s arguments the most compelling is not an agenda--it’s an opinion.

Elphaba

Wrong - You aren't simply promoting an anti agenda because you find the web page designer's BoA opinions superior to those of LDS scholars and Egyptologists. You promote your agenda in post after post after post. You glom onto most any point of view you find handy that paints anything relating to the Church in what you think is a negative light and continually harp on how you have been stomped on by some Church leader or other.

When I challenged you to back up your assertions about Metcalfe, you failed, saying that you hoped some book he might publish in the future would have something. When challenged again to support your 'factual claims' you again avoided the topic and only posted a few words about a couple of topics, but no evidence. Obviously I knew that would be the case when I challenged you. How did I know? Because it was obvious that you were speaking from an agenda, not from any actual fact.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Can somebody give me some more detailed information about this Hoffman? It seems like over there in the US you guys know things that we don't get to hear about over here. So I'm totally ignorant about most of this discussion and would love to know more. Are there any on-line links you can post so I can read up on it?

[Snow]

Can somebody give me some more detailed information about this Hoffman? It seems like over there in the US you guys know things that we don't get to hear about over here. So I'm totally ignorant about most of this discussion and would love to know more. Are there any on-line links you can post so I can read up on it?

I haven't read it but you can try Wiki:

Mark Hofmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mathonihah]

Hi guys,

I am new to this forum for one reason bringing me here. I had a christian friend show me this video about the orgins of the lost book of abraham.

The Lost Book of Abraham video - Video Clips

I have recently been talkin to him about doing a chaple tour to meet our missionaries. but he asked me to watch this video first. I know my first thought was "great some more anti-mormon stuff." I have to be honest after watching the video it made me do some research on ancient egyptian gods and goddeses. It shows how the original Papyri's that Joseph Smith said he translated were directly from Abraham while he was in Egypt, was found in a New York museum in 1967 and our church was able to obtain the Papyri from the museum to do their own investigations. Our church hired some world leading egyptoligists to read the egyptian words and it all came out to be an old egyptian funeral notice or obituary. the main point they stated that not only did Joseph not interperate it correctly but he drew a human head on the man who is sacrificing Abraham. That man really has the head of an ardvark and is the Egyptian God Anubis who oversees the mummification and burial process. And the picture is Anubis mummifying the egyptian man who died. Also the sword in Josephs picture is never to be found in ancient egyptian pictures of burials. Have any of you seen this info or the orginal scrolls that are torn in certain spots that would lead someone to draw in pictures? Any comments would be appreciated, I would also recommened watching the video if this doesn't make sense. There are several videos to make it easier to download and stream.

I've watched the video. I beg to differ about the interpretation of facsimile one. THe video sade that this french guy noted simularities between this facsimile and others from burial documents. Okay let us take the position that facsimile one was translated correctly by Joseph Smith and it is Abraham being sacrificed on the altar. What could then be the reason for it to be simular to the others. Wow! They are all Egyptian. Stand to reason that Egyptian hieroglyphs should be simular to each other. Hey, aren't burial, resurrection, and sacrifice religious rites? Shouldn't one expect there to be alot of simularities? It makes sense that the gods are there in each account, they being all religous rites. It makes sense that a table or altar would be in each too. The body has to lay on something, doesn't it? Which brings us to the body. It makes sense that in all three the body is on its back spread out on the table. What would the diffence be then, bwteen the representation of the bodies? Oh, I know! One is dead(burial), one is alive (sacrafice), and one is becoming alive(resurrection). And what three images did we see in the movie? Shockingly we see one body is dead(he's in a sarcofogus) one body which is alive(note position of the arms, hands and feet in facsimile no. 1), and the last is being raised from the dead(feet apart=alive but note position of the hands?). The last two(sacrifice and resurrection) are harder to diferentiate because they are both alive(feet apart=alive). But notice in facs. 1, that one leg is clear off the table? In the resurrection one both feet are on the table. Also the hands in facs. 1 are both outstretched(Pleading for divine aid?) while the in the resurrection one, only on hand is seen with its elbow bent and hand not outstretched(Perhaps not quite awake yet?). All three we would expect to find an officiator(priest or god). Someone needs to be there to raise the dead. Someone is needed to bury the dead. Someone is needed to sacrifice. The other major figure is the bird. I have no problem accepting it as the angel of the Lord.

There is a tear where the knife should be and where the head of the officiator should be. So the head and knife may not be accurate. I believe someone replying to in this thread sugests both knife and human head are in other hieroglyphs so that its not unreasonable for the figure in facs. 1 to have a human head and a knife.

So I guess if there isnt better (I hardly call 2 simular hieroglyphs good evidence, 10 or 15 maybe) evidence, I'll continue to believe that facs. 1 is correct.

[Elphaba]

Who cares what the law says. No one, (NO ONE but you) is arguing about his legal guilt in Hoffman's crimes. The point is that you are calling me ignorant and trying to prove that I misused a word. The FACT is that I used the word in exact accordance with one of it's standard definitions. You then resort to an absurdity of claiming that since you found other definitions, the definition of, say, The American Heritage is therefore incorrect. Using your illogic I could claim that most every single word you post is used incorrectly - also an absurdity.

Wrong - You aren't simply promoting an anti agenda because you find the web page designer's BoA opinions superior to those of LDS scholars and Egyptologists. You promote your agenda in post after post after post. You glom onto most any point of view you find handy that paints anything relating to the Church in what you think is a negative light and continually harp on how you have been stomped on by some Church leader or other.

When I challenged you to back up your assertions about Metcalfe, you failed, saying that you hoped some book he might publish in the future would have something. When challenged again to support your 'factual claims' you again avoided the topic and only posted a few words about a couple of topics, but no evidence. Obviously I knew that would be the case when I challenged you. How did I know? Because it was obvious that you were speaking from an agenda, not from any actual fact.

Snow,

I started reading and got bored. Sorry.

Elphaba

[Snow]

Snow,

I started reading and got bored. Sorry.

Elphaba

Translation:

"I got up this morning and came right away to read what Snow had written but then wanted to say something dismissive because I couldn't address his point... and this was the best I could come up with."

[WillowTheWhisp]

I haven't read it but you can try Wiki:

Mark Hofmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for that. I think I must have been carried away with the susquecentennial stuff here when all that was going on.

[Mathonihah]

Snow and Elphaba, don't you have each others email so you can send each other hate mail?

I thought this thread was about the Book of Abraham, not about the meaning of accomplice..., or how great you are at making quick jabs at each other. Snow if Elphaba is incapable of giving you the last word, be gracious and move on... Elphaba, if Snow is incapable of giving you the last word, be gracious and let her have it and move on...

Elphaba, there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion or an unbiased view point. Your biases are set by previous experience. Pevious experience makes you biased one way or another. This gets in our way in learning the truth sometimes, but hey it makes it so you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time something simular comes on the horizon...

[Snow]

Snow and Elphaba, don't you have each others email so you can send each other hate mail?

I thought this thread was about the Book of Abraham, not about the meaning of accomplice..., or how great you are at making quick jabs at each other. Snow if Elphaba is incapable of giving you the last word, be gracious and move on... Elphaba, if Snow is incapable of giving you the last word, be gracious and let her have it and move on...

Elphaba, there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion or an unbiased view point. Your biases are set by previous experience. Pevious experience makes you biased one way or another. This gets in our way in learning the truth sometimes, but hey it makes it so you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time something simular comes on the horizon...

Thank you for the lecture. I was really at a loss on how to proceed.

[Elphaba]

Hi Mathonihah,

". . . there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion or an unbiased view point. Your biases are set by previous experience. Pevious experience makes you biased one way or another. This gets in our way in learning the truth sometimes, but hey it makes it so you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time something simular comes on the horizon...

I'm not sure what your point here is at it pertains to this discussion; however, I couldn't agree more with you in what you have said.

I will add, however, in such debates as these, I back up my biases with references if appropriate. Just because it is our bias, does not make our bias wrong.

Elphaba

[sixpacktr]

Elphaba, there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion or an unbiased view point. Your biases are set by previous experience. Pevious experience makes you biased one way or another. This gets in our way in learning the truth sometimes, but hey it makes it so you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time something simular comes on the horizon...

Now you've gone and done it. You've dared get btw Emma and her precious stance of being a victim. You're making too much sense!

You're young here, so it is understandable. It is better to have a 'move-along, nothing-to-see-here-folks' kind of attitude, or else you'll get dragged down to the mud in self-pity as well...

Emma comes here argue mostly, or to show how she has been mistreated, by either the church or by men (or both), or to try, every once in a while, to garner some type of pity.

'Ignore' works well...

[WANDERER]

Etymological definition anyone?

[Elphaba]

Hi Manonihah,

I wanted to make sure you knew that when Six is touting all of "Emma's" fabulous qualities, he is actually referring to me, Elphaba. You've probably already made that connection, but I just wanted to make sure.

Six calls me Emma because it was my screen name in a previous incarnation. Elphaba is my current name.

Elphaba

[Snow]

I'm not sure what your point here is at it pertains to this discussion; however, I couldn't agree more with you in what you have said.

I will add, however, in such debates as these, I back up my biases with references if appropriate. Just because it is our bias, does not make our bias wrong.

Elphaba

In "debates such as theses" but obviously not this debate.

... still waiting for those "references" where LDS scholars and Egytologist (for example Gee, Rhodes, Tvedtnes, and Hauglid) believed differently but then got schooled by the web page designer who did research for Mark Hoffman, and then changed their minds.

[Snow]

Emma comes here argue mostly, or to show how she has been mistreated, by either the church or by men (or both), or to try, every once in a while, to garner some type of pity.

'Ignore' works well...

Really? I've never noticed that.

[Dale]

Before Brian Hauglid i had pretty much given up on the missing papyrus idea. I see the traditonal arguments for it as being weak. I saw no LDS scholar doing research that was equal to Brent Metcalfe. Reading a tiny bit of Brian Hauglid's available research convinced me he was aware of Metcalfes issues. And he had access to better copies than Metcalfe did.

I heard two things were holding up publication of Brents book on the KEP. I don't know if these reasons are true. I heard the LDS Church owns copywrite on the pictures. And he needs legal permission to publish. The other reason i heard was his book will be expensive. So he has to find a publisher if not Signature Books to get it out in print. Publishing a book a common reader won't buy will be a risk to a publisher. Plus the preparation of the book if very scholarly will take a lot of pre-preparation. I am not sure he has submitted it to a publisher even.

I caution that what i know is the product of the internet rumor mill. I prefer if possible to get the facts directly from Brent Metcalfe. While i would like to see his book out soon, or within five years i don't know.

The difficulty is see LDS apologists and scholars commenting on the KEP that are not familiar with Brents areas. So his scholarship is more advanced than theirs. LDS scholars are not planning a similar book themselves. Unless Brent gets out his book out its unlikely they will make much comment on more advanced issues. Brian Hauglid's research is unpublished outside of what he has shared. I do not know if he is planning a book.

[Elphaba]

Before Brian Hauglid i had pretty much given up on the missing papyrus idea. I see the traditonal arguments for it as being weak. I saw no LDS scholar doing research that was equal to Brent Metcalfe. Reading a tiny bit of Brian Hauglid's available research convinced me he was aware of Metcalfes issues. And he had access to better copies than Metcalfe did.

I heard two things were holding up publication of Brents book on the KEP. I don't know if these reasons are true. I heard the LDS Church owns copywrite on the pictures. And he needs legal permission to publish. The other reason i heard was his book will be expensive. So he has to find a publisher if not Signature Books to get it out in print. Publishing a book a common reader won't buy will be a risk to a publisher. Plus the preparation of the book if very scholarly will take a lot of pre-preparation. I am not sure he has submitted it to a publisher even.

I caution that what i know is the product of the internet rumor mill. I prefer if possible to get the facts directly from Brent Metcalfe. While i would like to see his book out soon, or within five years i don't know.

The difficulty is see LDS apologists and scholars commenting on the KEP that are not familiar with Brents areas. So his scholarship is more advanced than theirs. LDS scholars are not planning a similar book themselves. Unless Brent gets out his book out its unlikely they will make much comment on more advanced issues. Brian Hauglid's research is unpublished outside of what he has shared. I do not know if he is planning a book.

Dale,

Thanks for that information, especially about the book.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Really? I've never noticed that.

That's because you couldn't if you tried. I am your drug of choice!

Elphaba

[Dale]

FARMs Studies In The Book of Abraham serie's run about $50.00. I figure if Brent Metcalfe's book is bigger it will cost more. I don't think he is planning a paperback book. If he want's it a durable hard bound book i am sure it will be costly to produce. And those costs will be passed on to readers who want to buy them.

I do caution i might have repeated misinformation about why he has not published yet.