Book of Abraham Real?

[Snow]

I've known Brent Metcalfe for a lot of years. He and I were both on Professor William Hamblin's Morm-Ant email listserv almost 20 years ago. Brent can be a nice guy, but he does seek to discredit the Church.

His desires to attack the Church began a long time ago...

...and that just why some people like him.

[Elphaba]

I admit I do not see him as much of dissident as you both see him. I see him more of a person who is devoted to discovering the truth about the papyri, and who has, in fact, discovered issues that others finally had to acquiese he was correct about.

However, I acknowldge my own unbias, which has only been to find the truth, regardless of who it benefits, may have made his "dissident" behavior invisible to me.

When Metcalfe makes a discovery about the papyri, it takes a while before the LDS scholars come around to acknowledging that he is, after all, correct.

In other words, the bias goes both ways.

Elphaba

[Snow]

It's easy enough to keep track of... simply keep track of those you favor over those you think are mistaken or sloppy or inaccurate, etc on LDS issues; when it comes down to opinions on issues that validate the LDS views or "disprove" LDS views, you'll almost always support that which you think disproves the LDS view. It's what you do, it's who you are. You'll give faint or backhanded praise to the LDS position here and they to represent your claimed (but transparent) "unbias" but you are all about agenda, not truth... in my observant opinion.

So, can you tell me three to five significant things that Metcalfe has discovered about the papyri that the LDS scholars and Egyptologists (for example Tvedtnes, Hauglid, and Gee, Rhodes, or even Nibley -when alive) did understand but now agree on with Metcalfe

[Elphaba]

Brent was caught up in quite a scandal himself. <snip>When some were getting suspicious, he made bombs and killed a few people before getting caught.

Yes, I am well-versed in the Hoffman killings

I believe that Brent (who at the time worked for Wordperfect) was fined for using/making explosive devices, but was not fully aware of the deceit of Hofmann.

And you are so utterly, completely and astonishingly wrong I brought this paragraph up to the front so that anyone reading this will know that Brent Metcalfe was never part of this scandal, never made bombs for Hoffman, was never convicted of making bombs, was never charged for making bombs, and was never fined for making bombs, etc.

Brent Metcalfe had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOFMANN MURDERS.

Brent never did any of the things you have accused him of above. NONE of them. I am simply astonished at how you came up with such an outrageous claim against an innocent man who did nothing.

Then there is this little factoid in your post:

His desires to attack the Church began a long time ago, when he found out that some of his ancestors were married into polygamous marriages after the initial 1890 manifesto, and then were caught up (IIRC) in the second Manifesto.

Do you make this stuff up as you go?I don't know Brent personally, but I know him well enough from years of reading his posts to know he could not care less that he came from polygamous marriages. Your claim that you know him is nonsense, you would you how proud he would be of his heritage, and how passionate he would be of hunting down any available documents he could find from his family.

He and I were both on Professor William Hamblin's Morm-Ant email listserv almost 20 years ago.

Oh, yes. Professor "Brent is butthead" Hamblin.

Still, most of us LDS do not require perfect prophets, only inspired ones, and so such events do not phase us much.

Such as calling perfectly innocent people accomplices to murder?

Guess what? Most people do not require perfect people, period. You don't have to be LDS to understand people aren't perfect, and that they need to keep this in mind when they make mistakes.

But you really crossed a line here.

Please, please do not ever again tell another person that horrible story that Brent had any part of the Hofmann murders again.

Elphaba

[Snow]

Yes, I am well-versed in the Hoffman killings

And you are so utterly, completely and astonishingly wrong I brought this paragraph up to the front so that anyone reading this will know that Brent Metcalfe was never part of this scandal, never made bombs for Hoffman, was never convicted of making bombs, was never charged for making bombs, and was never fined for making bombs, etc.

Brent Metcalfe had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOFMANN MURDERS.

Brent never did any of the things you have accused him of above. NONE of them. I am simply astonished at how you came up with such an outrageous claim against an innocent man who did nothing.

Whether or the poster was correct is one thing. That you are incorrect about Metcalfe is another thing. You are wrong.

Metcalfe was a friend of the murderer Mark Hoffman.

Metcalfe worked for Hoffman as a historical researcher.

Metcalfe appeared on TV falsely claiming that he had evidence to verify the forged Salamander letter.

Hoffman told his friend Metcalfe about, what turned out to be an imaginary, Oliver Cowdery history that was supposed to have been hidden in Church vaults.

Metcalfe spread rumors about the supposed OC history, thus becoming complicit in the murderer Hoffman's desire to make ill-got money and harm the Church of Jesus Christ at the same time.

Brent Metcalfe also worked for Stephen Christensen, one of the people that his friend Hoffman, murdered.

One may note that Metcalfe was also deeply involved with the dishonest Grant Palmer whose anti-Mormon bent is well-known.

But hey - you'd take the web page designer's opinion about the Book of Abraham over legitimate LDS Egyptologists so he can't be all that bad, eh.

[Dale]

To Charley, SSV, Dale and Six,

I do not dismiss your opinions regarding Joseph's writing the BoA. As an atheist, I have no idea how he did it, and therefore cannot dismiss your beliefs. In my opinion, your explanations make more as much sense to me than does that of a literal translation, if the Book of Abraham is, indeed, truth.

I do believe a literal translation has been shown to be the funereal documents of Hor. That is why I am so insistent that it is unfair to criticise Ritner, as he is an expert in Egyptology, and to expect him to use his expertise in a supernatural setting is completely out of line.

Joseph had already demonstrated his translation abilities prior to BoA. As a non-believer, however, I have no idea whether this ability provided real conclusions os not.

However, Joseph's ability is beyond my understanding, and I do keep that possibility open. But what is clear to me is that he had a incredible talent at "translation" that I know I can't explain. To believers, it appears to be yet another proof of Joseph's gifts, and I do not dismiss that.

Last, I know, without a doubt, Joseph firmly believed he was a translator. As the words came to him, he knew he was a conduit for God, and that belief was as real to him as it is to all true believers today.

People who lose their testimonies often point to Joseph as a con man. While I understand this, if they were to read his diaries, they would unerstand his heart was always invested in the survival of the Church. This included his translations.

Elphaba

I only disagree with Ritner where i feel he has been proven wrong. I feel the papyrus had room for a missing 2nd text. Whether that lost text would help the Book of Abraham out any is speculation at this point. But the papyrus was longer that Ritner suggested. But the missing text idea give's room for a belief that lost portion could have had to do with Abraham.

I know Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian. His translation of the facimilies is wrong. I still see some Egptological support for some of his idea's about the facimilies meaning's. I also see some valid Abrahamic lore in support of the Book of Abraham. But not enough in either category that make's me think he didn't think his mistranslation was a translation. What evidence i have keep's me from thinking he lied to us.

With Ritner i would like to see his expertise used to confront Egyptological evidence for the Book of Abraham. I would agree with him on what Joseph Smith got wrong already.

[Elphaba]

Whether or the poster was correct is one thing. That you are incorrect about Metcalfe is another thing. You are wrong.

No, I am not wrong.

Metcalfe was a friend of the murderer Mark Hoffman.

As was Steve Christiansen, Ashment, Pinnock, and even President Hinckley of a sorts.

And of course you know this was before Metcalfe KNEW Hofmann was a forger and a murderer. Metcalfe never knowingly worked with Hofmann in any of his crimes.

Metcalfe worked for Hoffman as a historical researcher.

And of course you know this was before Metcalfe KNEW Hofmann was a forger and a murderer..

Metcalfe appeared on TV falsely claiming that he had evidence to verify the forged Salamander letter.

No he didn't. Christiansen asked him to represent him at a convocation at the LDS Institution of Religion adjacent to the university of Utah in Salt Lake City to discusss the letter, which he DID believe was real. His talk was generally well-received. He answered many questions about the letter's historical context and the convocation lasted well beyond it's allotted time.

And again, it does not matter, because this was before Metcalfe KNEW Hofmann was a forger and a murderer.

Hoffman told his friend Metcalfe about, what turned out to be an imaginary, Oliver Cowdery history that was supposed to have been hidden in Church vaults.

.And of course you know this was before Metcalfe KNEW Hofmann was a forger and a murderer. Metcalfe believed Hoffman when he told him it was the OC history.

Metcalfe spread rumors about the supposed OC history, thus becoming complicit in the murderer Hoffman's desire to make ill-got money and harm the Church of Jesus Christ at the same time.

This is where he went to the press, not with the Salamander letter. However, Hofmann did want Metcalfe to keep the OC history quiet. Metcalfe begged Hofmann to let him go to the press with it, not to make money from it, but because of the incredible historicity of it. Believe it or not, the "web designer" is an incredibly gifted historian in Mormonism. This was just too good to be kept inside, and he wanted everyone to know about it. It had nothing to do with ill-gotten money from the Church.

By the way, you are only complicit in something if you knowingly play a part in the crime. Metcalfe did not know Hofmann was going to steal millions of dollars between all of the parties involved, including the Church. Metcalfe did not know Hofmann was doing this by forgery. Metcalfe knew nothing about Hofmann's hideous crimes or the way Hofmann duped him into them.

Therefore, this is no complicity here. But then, you already knew that.

Brent Metcalfe also worked for Stephen Christensen, one of the people that his friend Hoffman, murdered.

Steve asked Brent to come work with him, because they both had a passion for Mormon history.

And of course, you know this was before Metcalfe KNEW Hofmann was a forger and a murderer.

One may note that Metcalfe was also deeply involved with the dishonest Grant Palmer whose anti-Mormon bent is well-known.

Which has nothing to do with this thread.

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

Yes, I am well-versed in the Hoffman killingsAnd you are so utterly, completely and astonishingly wrong I brought this paragraph up to the front so that anyone reading this will know that Brent Metcalfe was never part of this scandal, never made bombs for Hoffman, was never convicted of making bombs, was never charged for making bombs, and was never fined for making bombs, etc.

Brent Metcalfe had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOFMANN MURDERS.

Brent never did any of the things you have accused him of above. NONE of them. I am simply astonished at how you came up with such an outrageous claim against an innocent man who did nothing.

Elphaba

Elphaba,

First, if you would have actually read what I wrote, you would have read that I said "I believed" that he was fined for bomb making. I wasn't sure about that. Did he know what Hoffman was doing? No. But he was involved, from the studies I've done, with Hofmann's love of automatic weapons and explosives. I just wasn't sure if he was fined for it. I do know that Brent wasn't involved in the forgeries or the killings. He did believe Hofmann's "discoveries" were authentic, as did most people.

Now, I'm astonished you read that much into what I wrote. I stated that he worked closely with Mark Hofmann, which no one involved denies. The point I was making was Brent can be a little too eager to grab onto stuff to "prove" the Church wrong.

Is he an expert on the KEP? No. No one really is. We have very little information regarding them. Does he have a quality copy of the KEP that most LDS scholars do not have? Yes. That, perhaps, is and has been his only advantage.

Has he been correct on some things? Perhaps, but the discussion is still being made (and a good discussion at that), which began at the last FAIR conference.

[rameumptom]

One more thing, while Brent was not an actual part of the scandal, ask him sometime just what he went through as the Feds investigated him. He was affected by the scandal, and that was what I meant. Hoffman's actions dragged him into the investigation, if for no other reason than the two of them spent a lot of time together - including target practice with automatic weapons (without a license), etc.

Brent was scrutinized and watched very closely by the Feds for months, to see if he was involved. I wouldn't have wanted to have such a scandal to live through - especially one not of my own making!

[Elphaba]

Elphaba,

First, if you would have actually read what I wrote, you would have read that I said "I believed" that he was fined for bomb making. I wasn't sure about that. Did he know what Hoffman was doing? No. But he was involved, from the studies I've done, with Hofmann's love of automatic weapons and explosives. I just wasn't sure if he was fined for it.

You're doing it again! You're implicating Metcalfe by association. Why would Metcalfe be fined for anything involving Hoffman's murders? He had nothing to do with them, and you're still saying "I believed." If you believed, then you better make sure you know what you're talking about before you make such a statement, whether you "believed" or not.

Now, I'm astonished you read that much into what I wrote.

You're astonished? You write a whole paragraph about Metcalfe's involvement in a scandal, insinuating he was involved with making bombs for Hofmann, and then come back to defend yourself by saying you wrote "I think," . . . Buried comments are always given lesser status than the lead of a paragraph. You know that.

I stated that he worked closely with Mark Hofmann, which no one involved denies. The point I was making was Brent can be a little too eager to grab onto stuff to "prove" the Church wrong.

Pot meet kettle.

Is he an expert on the KEP? No. No one really is. We have very little information regarding them. Does he have a quality copy of the KEP that most LDS scholars do not have? Yes. That, perhaps, is and has been his only advantage.

Nonsense. He has as much knowledge about the KEP as any LDS, and non-LDS scholars. There is quite a lot of knowledge about the KEP, more than I think you realize.

Has he been correct on some things? Perhaps, but the discussion is still being made (and a good discussion at that), which began at the last FAIR conference.

First, the discussion started way before the last FAIR Conference.

And as far as the last FAIR Conference, what did Haugland come up with that was anything new. FAIR won't even print his talk, so how can we even know what the "discussion" was.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

One more thing, while Brent was not an actual part of the scandal, ask him sometime just what he went through as the Feds investigated him. He was affected by the scandal, and that was what I meant. Hoffman's actions dragged him into the investigation, if for no other reason than the two of them spent a lot of time together - including target practice with automatic weapons (without a license), etc.

Brent was scrutinized and watched very closely by the Feds for months, to see if he was involved. I wouldn't have wanted to have such a scandal to live through - especially one not of my own making!

I am aware of this, and thank you for this clarification. I think it puts things in their proper perspective. I, also, would not have wanted to be Brent during this horrific time. It really shattered him.

Thanks,

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

He was involved with Mark Hofmann in using automatic weapons up in the woods. He was also believed by the police to have been making explosive devices in the woods, although Brent probably did not know they would be used by Hofmann for anything else than for fun in the woods.

I did not insinuate anything. You were reading things into my statements. I stated that Brent was not involved with the forgeries or murders, but was possibly doing some shady, if not illegal things with Mark Hoffman, nonetheless. I had heard that he was fined for the use of the automatic weapons and possibly for creating explosive devices, but was not insinuating anything beyond my statement.

If you must read between the lines in order to find your discourse, then please don't bother discussing your misinterpretations on my dime.

[Elphaba]

I did not insinuate anything. You were reading things into my statements. I stated that Brent was not involved with the forgeries or murders, but was possibly doing some shady, if not illegal things with Mark Hoffman, nonetheless. I had heard that he was fined for the use of the automatic weapons and possibly for creating explosive devices, but was not insinuating anything beyond my statement.

Wow, the modifiers grow with every new post: stated, possibly, if not, nonetheless, heard, possibly.

One thing that I find interesting is that you apparently have thought Metcalfe was possibly guilty of the crimes you wrote about. Have you seriously not known Metcalfe was never convicted of anything and was never fined for anything?

A little advice from a former technical writer. If you are going to make such heinous claims about a person, even modified by "I believe," you need to research the claim before you write it.

Especially when it is insinuates someone like Metcalfe as being involved with the Hofmann murders when you know he wasn't. The modifier "I believe" does not relieve you from the responsibility of making sure your claims are true.

I could say I believe President Hinckley was involved in the Hofmann murders because he refused to testify. I could say, in my opinion, the Church immediately did a massive cover-up to make sure no one could connnect its actions with the forgeries.

I could write paragraphs about these things, like you have about Metcalfe, if I wanted, including "I believe," and every person would think I was telling factual information. I would not say these things I don't believe them. But I could, and people would not catch on to the fact that I don't really believe what I have written, even with the "IMO."

Hopefully you can better understand what I am trying to demonstrate.

Sorry, I used up your dime.

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

Elphaba,

Brent was not involved in the Hofmann murders. I've said that several times now. He was, however, very closely tied with Hofmann's normal and not so normal work, including the use of automatic weapons. The only thing I wasn't sure about, was whether he was fined for those events, or not. You have clarified that he wasn't. I believe you.

I wish you would quit taking my words and dicing them up to fit your astonished shock. You aren't the only technical writer - as if that means anything in the blogosphere. You are, however, a very good politician, in taking things out of context to create a straw man out of me and others on this thread.

[Elphaba]

Elphaba,

Brent was not involved in the Hofmann murders. I've said that several times now. He was, however, very closely tied with Hofmann's normal and not so normal work, including the use of automatic weapons. The only thing I wasn't sure about, was whether he was fined for those events, or not. You have clarified that he wasn't. I believe you.

I wish you would quit taking my words and dicing them up to fit your astonished shock. You aren't the only technical writer - as if that means anything in the blogosphere. You are, however, a very good politician, in taking things out of context to create a straw man out of me and others on this thread.

And with that, I will give you the final word.

Elphaba

[Snow]

No, I am not wrong.

You claimed that the LDS dissident Metcalfe was never part of the scandal.

-Metcalfe was a friend of the murderer.

-Metcalfe worked for the murderer.

-Metcalfe falsely claimed to have evidence supporting the murderer's forgeries

-Metcalfe spread rumors planted by the mkurderer about one of the murderers intended crimes for money.

-Metcalfe worked for one of the murderer's victims.

So sure - Metcalfe was not involved - in a world where black is white and truth is false.

That Metcalfe was the murderers dupe doesn't make him UNinvolved. It just makes him a dupe. That all.

"No he didn't." (appear on TVfalsely claiming that he had evidence to verify the forged Salamander letter. - Snow's claim)

Oh no? The dupe Metcalfe, employee of the murderer Hoffman didn't appear on KUED on November 19, 1985 claiming that he had important new evidence that helped verify the Salamander letter - a supposed inscription in an 1830 Book of Common Prayer that Metcalfe claimed had been authenticated by Dean Jessie?

Sure he didn't... in that same world where black is white and truth false.

By the way, you are only complicit in something if you knowingly play a part in the crime. Metcalfe did not know Hofmann was going to steal millions of dollars between all of the parties involved, including the Church. Metcalfe did not know Hofmann was doing this by forgery. Metcalfe knew nothing about Hofmann's hideous crimes or the way Hofmann duped him into them.

I am looking at the single greatest authority on the meaning of English language words - the Oxford English Dictionary and complicit means that that you are involved, It says nothing about "knowingly" playing a part. Metcalfe was involved in Hoffmans crimes, evne though 'your expert on the BoA' was an unwitting dupe.

Which has nothing to do with this thread.

Elphaba

You claim that Metcalfe is THE expert on the BoA and his character and motivations relating to the LDS Church have nothing to do with the BoA?

Sure - in that same world of yours where black is white and truth false.

[Snow]

Repeat for Elphaba

It's easy enough to keep track of... simply keep track of those you favor over those you think are mistaken or sloppy or inaccurate, etc on LDS issues; when it comes down to opinions on issues that validate the LDS views or "disprove" LDS views, you'll almost always support that which you think disproves the LDS view. It's what you do, it's who you are. You'll give faint or backhanded praise to the LDS position here and they to represent your claimed (but transparent) "unbias" but you are all about agenda, not truth... in my observant opinion.

So, can you tell me three to five significant things that Metcalfe has discovered about the papyri that the LDS scholars and Egyptologists (for example Tvedtnes, Hauglid, and Gee, Rhodes, or even Nibley -when alive) did understand but now agree on with Metcalfe

[Elphaba]

You claimed that the LDS dissident Metcalfe was never part of the scandal.

-Metcalfe was a friend of the murderer.

-Metcalfe worked for the murderer.

-Metcalfe falsely claimed to have evidence supporting the murderer's forgeries

-Metcalfe spread rumors planted by the mkurderer about one of the murderers intended crimes for money.

-Metcalfe worked for one of the murderer's victims.

Fine. If association equals fault, then President Hinckley is also part of the scandal as he was an associate of the murderer. He was as much a dupe as Metcalfe was.

That Metcalfe was the murderers dupe doesn't make him UNinvolved. It just makes him a dupe. That all.

Fine. That President Hinckley was the murderer‘s dupe doesn‘t make him Uninvolved. It just makes him a dupe. That‘s all.

And before you begin your obligatory twisting of my words, no, I do not believe President Hinckley was a dupe. I’m just demonstrating how absurd your insistence that Metcalfe had anything to do with the murders is.

Oh no? The dupe Metcalfe, employee of the murderer Hoffman didn't appear on KUED on November 19, 1985 claiming that he had important new evidence that helped verify the Salamander letter - a supposed inscription in an 1830 Book of Common Prayer that Metcalfe claimed had been authenticated by Dean Jessie?

Thank you for correcting my mistake. I thought I had checked my sources thoroughly; obviously I was wrong. Seriously, thank you.

I am looking at the single greatest authority on the meaning of English language words - the Oxford English Dictionary and complicit means that that you are involved, It says nothing about "knowingly" playing a part. Metcalfe was involved in Hoffmans crimes, evne though 'your expert on the BoA' was an unwitting dupe.

It took me 10 minutes on Google to find these dictionary references:

Cambridge Dictionary of American English

complicity

noun FORMAL

involvement in a crime or some activity that is wrong:

She is suspected of complicity in the fraud.

WorldNet 3.0, 2006 by Princeton University

complicity noun guilt as an accomplice in a crime or offense

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionCopyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

com·plic·i·ty ,com·plic·i·ties Involvement as an accomplice in a questionable act or a crime.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

–noun, plural -ties.

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

As you see, each of them show that complicity involves knowing one is participating in the crime.

You claim that Metcalfe is THE expert on the BoA and his character and motivations relating to the LDS Church have nothing to do with the BoA?

Sure - in that same world of yours where black is white and truth false.

Welcome back Snow.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Repeat for Elphaba

I promise I haven't forgotten this.

Here's the problem. I am trying to discover when his book is coming out, because if it is soon, there is no point for me searching the net for each conversation, paper, presentation, etc., that makes a point. Especially when you're not going to give it any credence anyway.

I have not forgotten and will get back to you as soon as possible.

Elphaba

[Snow]

Fine. If association equals fault, then President Hinckley is also part of the scandal as he was an associate of the murderer. He was as much a dupe as Metcalfe was.

Fine. That President Hinckley was the murderer‘s dupe doesn‘t make him Uninvolved. It just makes him a dupe. That‘s all.

And before you begin your obligatory twisting of my words, no, I do not believe President Hinckley was a dupe. I’m just demonstrating how absurd your insistence that Metcalfe had anything to do with the murders is.

As I typed the word dupe I knew instantly that your retort would be paint God's servants with the same brush - even if you retract it in the next breath.

You are nothing if not transparent in everything you post. All agenda, all the time.

[Snow]

I promise I haven't forgotten this.

Here's the problem. I am trying to discover when his book is coming out, because if it is soon, there is no point for me searching the net for each conversation, paper, presentation, etc., that makes a point. Especially when you're not going to give it any credence anyway.

I have not forgotten and will get back to you as soon as possible.

Elphaba

I thought that when you made the 'factual' claim it was based on some fact, not the hope that one some point in the future you might possibly hear or read something that would back you up.

Oh well.

[Elphaba]

As I typed the word dupe I knew instantly that your retort would be paint God's servants with the same brush - even if you retract it in the next breath.

Then why did you post it?

Plus, I only painted one of God's servants, and yes, I did retract it, because I obviously do not believe he is a dupe. It was an analogy so even you could understand my point. And it worked.

You are nothing if not transparent in everything you post. All agenda, all the time.

I've missed you too.

Elphaba

[Snow]

It took me 10 minutes on Google to find these dictionary references:

Cambridge Dictionary of American English

complicity

noun FORMAL

involvement in a crime or some activity that is wrong:

She is suspected of complicity in the fraud.

WorldNet 3.0, 2006 by Princeton University

complicity noun guilt as an accomplice in a crime or offense

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionCopyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

com·plic·i·ty ,com·plic·i·ties Involvement as an accomplice in a questionable act or a crime.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

–noun, plural -ties.

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

As you see, each of them show that complicity involves knowing one is participating in the crime.

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.

... 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.

[Elphaba]

I thought that when you made the 'factual' claim it was based on some fact, not the hope that one some point in the future you might possibly hear or read something that would back you up.

Oh well.

It is a compilation of Metcalfe's studies and conclusions. It makes perfect sense to wait for it, as long as it isn't too far down the road. Surely even you understand that.

I am more than willing to point out the issues I am aware of today. I know one of them has to do with the red inks. Another has to do with the lengths of the scrolls, if I recall correctly. Then there are issues with the lettering. That is what I recall off the top of my head. I'm sure I've read more . . . and that is why I wanted to wait for the book because obviously it would explain the details of these issues. It also might trigger some of my other memories.

But then, I have an agenda, so you couldn't possibly trust me to do that.

Oh well.

Elphaba

[Snow]

Then why did you post it?

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.

Plus, I only painted one of God's servants, and yes, I did retract it, because I obviously do not believe he is a dupe. It was an analogy so even you could understand my point. And it worked.

It's a horrible analogy.

The prophet was not employed by the murderer.

The prophet did not go on TV and seek to validate the murderer's forgery.

The prophet did not spread misinformation about the OC hx.

The prophet does not seek to harm the Church of Jesus Christ and glom onto unsavory characters like Hoffman, Palmer and Murphy who likewise share a desire to harm the Church and help further their cause....

But Metcalfe did all those things.

Instead - President Hinckley acted like a diligent servant, seeking to acquire or understand documents that may (now we know not) be part of our history, whether or not those documents were pleasant or unpleasant.

But then your intent is not towards understanding or accuracy, you'll side with the dissidents, and malign God's servants and tell us about the raw deal they gave you - all the while giving Mormons in general faint praise so that we (some) like you enough to listen to your disdain for God and his Church.

You could challenge me to prove the above... in which case I'll simply note it after each post of yours that follows the pattern.