Book of Abraham Real?

[rameumptom]

Elphaba, I must admit that Snow has the more compelling argument. You made claims, and then have dismissed Snow's request for you to back up those claims. Now, you are using snitty comments in various languages in an attempt to show superiority. News for you: it ain't working.

I've known Brent Metcalfe for almost 20 years online, and while he isn't an idiot, he does have an agenda, but not the college background that many LDS scholars have (John Gee included) to show he does quality research. I've read many of his articles and writings, and emails over the years, and while they do have some thought process behind them, they tend to do two things: first, show his intent to destroy the Church; and second, how he takes a small disputable event and blows it up, while ignoring other evidences. You will not see Brent discuss some of the key issues that LDS have shown to be correct about the Book of Mormon or BoA, for example. He dismisses it all with a coincidental wave of the hand, and then goes onto the attack on his limited repertoire of issues.

BTW, Brent can be a nice guy. But his agenda has jumped forward many times over the years. He was a key individual that sought a meltdown of Bill Hamblin's original LDS antiquities email list: Morm-Ant. He was the key to its demise. Then, when it was replaced by SAMU-L (Studies in Ancient Mormonism, Uncontentious), he tried to destroy that list also. The only thing that saved the list was a variety of us demanding him being removed from the new list, or we would go elsewhere. We were serious about Mormon scholarship in a non-contentious environment, and Brent refused to allow it. He was quickly kicked off SAMU-L, and it continued for several years of quality discussion.

Since then, Brent has learned to play much nicer in the sandbox. But then the Internet sandbox has expanded exponentially to include a lot of others that are less scholarly than he, and more anti-Mormon than he, as well.

[Dale]

FAIR Just put online another FAIR talk. It is entitled The Book of Abraham 201:Papyri, Revelation, and Modern Egyptology by Mike Ash.

Book of Abraham 201

[Elphaba]

Elphaba, I must admit that Snow has the more compelling argument. You made claims, and then have dismissed Snow's request for you to back up those claims.

Gulty as charged, and proud of it.

Snow and I have history you know nothing about. Agreeing to provide him information was a huge lapse of judgment on my part. I am allowed to change my mind, and I did so.

As Now, you are using snitty comments in various languages in an attempt to show superiority.

Of course I am.

By the way, "snitty" is not a word.

News for you: it ain't working.

New for you: it's working just fine for me. I am not concerned with what you think.

I've known Brent Metcalfe for almost 20 years online, and while he isn't an idiot,

". . . and while he isn't an idiot"? I could say the same about you. I've read a number of your posts, and while you're not an idiot, I find them vapid and lacking substance.

he does have an agenda,

And you don't? Right.

By the way, I was just making a point about your posts. I do not find them vapid or lacking. However, starting a sentence with the suggestion of idiocy is a device to portray someone as unintelligent without having to take responsibility for actually saying it.

but not the college background that many LDS scholars have (John Gee included) to show he does quality research.

It does not take a college background to be a scholar. I have supervised people with doctorates who were idiots. I have also supervised people with no post-secondary education who were gifted. I have no idea where Metcalfe fits in this scale, but saying he is not an "idiot" is lazy.

The point is Metcalfe proves his research more than his detractors admit. And no, I’m not going to provide references. Your post indicates you are obviously convinced otherwise, and that is valid--you’ve known him long enough to form your opinion and are entitled to it. But you have to admit, I could put proof of Metcalfe’s claims in front of your nose and you would immediately dismiss it until one of your “scholars” verified it.

I've read many of his articles and writings, and emails over the years, and while they do have some thought process behind them, they tend to do two things: first, show his intent to destroy the Church;

Once you and Snow get over your mutual one-upmanship, you’re going to get along just fine. Hyperbole is one of his greatest talents.

No one is going to destroy the Church. Proving the Book of Abraham to be a fake is not going to destroy the Church. The members don't care as their testimony is ultimately why they are members. Metcalfe knows this.

and second, how he takes a small disputable event and blows it up, while ignoring other evidences

I have not seen him do this although I acknowledge I have not known him as long as you have. Metcalfe is not perfect and can be arrogant about his knowledge so I don't doubt your observation is true.

I wonder though, do you hold the Church's apologists to the same standards? I have seen a number of "LDS scholars" post to e-mail lists, boards, and apologetic publications, and they all do the same thing. I think it is a bit disengenuous to say Metcalfe does this and not acknowledge that Hamblin, Gee, Midgley or other apologists do the same thing. Have you really not noticed this?

BTW, Brent can be a nice guy.

Lazy writing.

But his agenda has jumped forward many times over the years. He was a key individual that sought a meltdown of Bill Hamblin's original LDS antiquities email list: Morm-Ant.

Was this before or after "Metcalfe is butthead”?

He was the key to its demise. Then, when it was replaced by SAMU-L (Studies in Ancient Mormonism, Uncontentious), he tried to destroy that list also. The only thing that saved the list was a variety of us demanding him being removed from the new list, or we would go elsewhere. We were serious about Mormon scholarship in a non-contentious environment, and Brent refused to allow it. He was quickly kicked off SAMU-L, and it continued for several years of quality discussion.

It amazes me how much power Metcalfe has over e-mail lists. He “destroys” them because none of you can simply ignore him.

I have watched a number of the people on the e-mail lists and the boards, both believers and non. Metcalfe is not the only one who is guilty of the things you mention above. Many of the members of the group, on "both sides," act like petulant teenagers to this day.

Since then, Brent has learned to play much nicer in the sandbox. But then the Internet sandbox has expanded exponentially to include a lot of others that are less scholarly than he, and more anti-Mormon than he, as well.

I wish the same were true of other regulars on the net I've come to know.

However, I do believe many LDS scholars, such as Richard Bushman, understand that the sandbox is not full of devious anti-Mormons. Rather, it is full of members, non-members and ex-members, like me, who are sincerely interested in the true and accurate history of the Church.

He understands their only agenda is to delve beneath the whitewashed history that, for decades, has been assumed to be the truth. I used to attend church with Richard, and knew his wife Claudia well. (In fact, I e-mailed him a couple of weeks ago about a point in LDS history. He remembered me, and also verified I was correct on my point).

They were forward thinkers thirty years ago, and so I am not surprised that he wrote “Rough Stone Rolling” with an accuracy most members were not aware of. I am also personally thrilled the Church is making the Joseph Smith papers available to the public. This is huge to me. I can't wait to get sand in my toes with others who share my fascination with Church history.

By the way, I am loathe to start a “Snow Fan Club,” but he is kicking your butt.

Elphaba

[Snow]

Gulty as charged, and proud of it.

Snow and I have history you know nothing about. Agreeing to provide him information was a huge lapse of judgment on my part. I am allowed to change my mind, and I did so.

Oh brother.

The point is not that you made a mistake in promising me something. The point is that you made false and misleading statements and then when challenged stuck to them.

Of course I am.

By the way, "snitty" is not a word.

Wrong.

It's a word. If you were familiar with the definition of the word "word" you would know it: (word: A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning)

Besides which, it is actually a known word with an accepted definition. Look it up.

New for you: it's working just fine for me. I am not concerned with what you think.

Wrong.

Your lengthy attempt at rebuttal and insult demonstrate that you care desperately what he thinks.

". . . and while he isn't an idiot"? I could say the same about you. I've read a number of your posts, and while you're not an idiot, I find them vapid and lacking substance. And you don't? Right.

Typical

Get caught doing wrong and you immediately resort to insults and a condescending tone, even if just as a rhetorical device.

By the way, I was just making a point about your posts. I do not find them vapid or lacking. However, starting a sentence with the suggestion of idiocy is a device to portray someone as unintelligent without having to take responsibility for actually saying it.

It does not take a college background to be a scholar. I have supervised people with doctorates who were idiots. I have also supervised people with no post-secondary education who were gifted. I have no idea where Metcalfe fits in this scale, but saying he is not an "idiot" is lazy.

About as lazy as you claiming things about him and providing ZERO support for it.

No one is going to destroy the Church. Proving the Book of Abraham to be a fake is not going to destroy the Church. The members don't care as their testimony is ultimately why they are members. Metcalfe knows this.

Right - Mormons don't care whether or not the BoA is fake. You know so very little about the Church and it's members.

However, I do believe many LDS scholars, such as Richard Bushman, understand that the sandbox is not full of devious anti-Mormons. Rather, it is full of members, non-members and ex-members, like me, who are sincerely interested in the true and accurate history of the Church.

As this thread has shown, you have little concern for accuracy. You're most all agenda and little else. Sure, you'll use truth as a device to help accomplish your ends, but you'll misuse if you have to and ignore it too.

By the way, I am loathe to start a “Snow Fan Club,” but he is kicking your butt.

Elphaba

There's more of the Elphaba agenda - stirring up contention with the members. I am not kicking anybody's butt and rameumptom and I aren't even arguing. We are just making alternate points.

[rameumptom]

I'll leave my rebuttal primarily to Snow, as he did an admirable job. No, he didn't "kick my butt", but actually supported several of my statements. Rather, I think Snow was kicking your (Elphaba's) butt.

Opinions are okay for self-expression, IMO. But if someone begins to establish their opinions as self-evident proofs, then there is need for evidence to back up those statements. Snow was attempting to have you back up some of your statements, which you refused to do. Herein lies the rub: you are still welcome to your opinion, but please do not pretend it is proof, nor necessarily scholarly.

As for name-dropping, I've also known many LDS scholars for many years. It doesn't mean anything to me, except insofar as I can say something about the person's character and scholarship. Richard Bushman's book IS excellent, and I have no problem in recommending it to anyone. I do have a problem with Brent's writings. Bushman sought a balanced and scholarly work, and for the most part succeeded. Brent has never attempted to bring forth a balanced work, but has always sought to shoot holes in the Church, with the desire to help others find their way out of the Church, as he did. How do I know this? Because he's told it to me various times over the years.

Do I have an agenda? Of course I do. It is to do quality research and find quality scholarship and report them as best as I see fit. I also believe in doing quality defense of the LDS Church, which I've done online for 20 years. As it is, I do see the weaknesses in the man, Joseph Smith, as does Richard Bushman. Neither Richard nor I see it as precluding Joseph from being a prophet of God, however.

As for my being "vapid and lacking substance", I suppose you are welcome to your opinion. I don't suppose it would do any good to ask you for evidence supporting this opinion, would it?

BTW, the word "snitty" comes from the word "snit", which means: a state of agitation or irritation. And I believe that I used the word properly, as you seem to have been irritated enough to call me "vapid and lacking substance."

[rameumptom]

FAIR Just put online another FAIR talk. It is entitled The Book of Abraham 201:Papyri, Revelation, and Modern Egyptology by Mike Ash.

Book of Abraham 201

Good article. Mike always provides an excellent talk for FAIR, and his books are good quality scholarship, as well.

[Dale]

I was really pleased with the content of the talk Mike Ash gave. He gave a few responses to a few issues i was uncertain how to handle. I like the fact he said a few things new that were not repeats of old responses. I am very slowly reading Jerald and Sandra Tanners Mormonism Shadow or Reality? on the papyrus issue.

[Elphaba]

Having read your response to my post, I can tell you did not read it in its entirety. If you are not willing to do so with this post, please don’t respond to it.

I'll leave my rebuttal primarily to Snow, as he did an admirable job. No, he didn't "kick my butt", but actually supported several of my statements. Rather, I think Snow was kicking your (Elphaba's) butt.

Of course you have to say that now.

At this point he would not admit he had had the upper hand if he had pounded you, simply because it is me who said so. So his claim that you are just making “alternate points” is laughable. He and I have just been making “alternate points” in our discussions of the past seven months or so, but that’s not what he would call them simply because they were with me.

Opinions are okay for self-expression, IMO. But if someone begins to establish their opinions as self-evident proofs, then there is need for evidence to back up those statements. Snow was attempting to have you back up some of your statements, which you refused to do.

Once again, if you are not going to read my posts, please don’t respond. You said I made claims and then dismissed Snow's request that I back up those claims. I then wrote: "Guilty as charged and proud of it."

What part of "Guilty as charged" do you not understand?

Once more, I agreed to provide Snow with information and then I reneged. I ADMIT THIS. You can repeat this as often as you want and I will continue to admit I backed out of the agreement.

However, it is disingenuous to keep bringing it up as if I have not acknowledged it. Therefore I would appreciate it if you are going to continue mentioning it, that you also mention I admit it. Of course you don't have to agree to this, but it would just be a nice thing if you did.

As I said before, Snow and I have history that you are not aware of. In fact, a friend of mine left the LDSTALK board because of the way Snow talked to me. I know of a few others who have complained about him. I only mention this to demonstrate that Snow is not interested in my information or opinions. Rather, he wants me to write him a post so he can go through it, tear it apart, and demean me. He believes I am guilty of denigrating the Church and Christ. The first is absurd. The second outrages me, but because it is Snow I let it go.

Let me be clear. I DO NOT share the opinion of the person who left the board or the people who complained. I do not believe anyone should be censored including Snow. Snow is an integral member of the board and the board would be lesser if he were to leave. Additionally, he is 99% bluster.

Herein lies the rub: you are still welcome to your opinion, but please do not pretend it is proof, nor necessarily scholarly.

Right back at you.

As for name-dropping, I've also known many LDS scholars for many years. It doesn't mean anything to me, except insofar as I can say something about the person's character and scholarship. Richard Bushman's book IS excellent, and I have no problem in recommending it to anyone. I do have a problem with Brent's writings. Bushman sought a balanced and scholarly work, and for the most part succeeded.

Oh please. I can't mention I knew Bushman, but you can?

I wasn’t name dropping. I was giving an example of Church historians’ ability to tell a more accurate view of the Church’s history. Since RSR is the most recent, and progressive biography, I chose Bushman to demonstrate this.

Brent has never attempted to bring forth a balanced work, but has always sought to shoot holes in the Church, with the desire to help others find their way out of the Church, as he did. How do I know this? Because he's told it to me various times over the years.

In your last post you claimed Metcalfe was out to destroy the Church. There is a huge difference between bringing people out of the Church and being out to destroy the Church. Thus my comment about you using hyperbole.

Your portrayal of Metcalfe vs. LDS scholars is also so black and white it is hard to believe your interpretation. Nothing is that cut and dried. However, you have known him much longer than I have, and I acknowledge you know things about him I do not. I admitted this in my last post, which, once again as demonstrated by your comments, you did not read in its entirety.

However, Metcalfe is not the only person in these circles with attitude. I have seen Gee and Hamblin on MADD act like petulant teenagers.

And, of course, there is always "Metcalfe is butthead."

Do I have an agenda? Of course I do. It is to do quality research and find quality scholarship and report them as best as I see fit. I also believe in doing quality defense of the LDS Church, which I've done online for 20 years. As it is, I do see the weaknesses in the man, Joseph Smith, as does Richard Bushman. Neither Richard nor I see it as precluding Joseph from being a prophet of God, however.

Where did I say otherwise?

As for my being "vapid and lacking substance", I suppose you are welcome to your opinion. I don't suppose it would do any good to ask you for evidence supporting this opinion, would it?

I don’t suppose you would bother to go back and actually read my post, would you?

BTW, the word "snitty" comes from the word "snit", which means: a state of agitation or irritation. And I believe that I used the word properly, as you seem to have been irritated enough to call me "vapid and lacking substance."

No you did not use the word properly because it is not a word.

”Snit” is a word and is, as you say, a state of agitation or irritation. “Snitty,” however, is not a word. The proper derivative of “snit” is “in a snit.”

My career was in publishing. I have an intuitive knack for spelling; thus my suspicion “snitty” was not a word. Searching through every dictionary I could find confirmed my suspicion. I assure I was not agitated with you when I addressed the word. It had nothing to do with you.

R, I'd like to change the direction of the discussion. Please try to understand that I am not as difficult as you believe. If you take the time to actually comprehend what I write, you will see I am not the enemy. My passion is the Church’s history, particularly in the 19th century. I am vocal about my stances, which some people infer as an "anti-Mormon" position. It is not. I do not have any conflict with the Church whatsoever. I do have issues with Church officials sometimes. There is a difference.

Finally, if you are not willing to read this post in its entirety and take the time to comprehend it, please don’t bother to respond to it. I’ll not think anything of it if you don’t. But it is difficult for me to respond when you make comments that show you did not read it.

Thank you in advance,

Elphaba

[Snow]

What part of "Guilty as charged" do you not understand?

Once more, I agreed to provide Snow with information and then I reneged. I ADMIT THIS. You can repeat this as often as you want and I will continue to admit I backed out of the agreement.

However, it is disingenuous to keep bringing it up as if I have not acknowledged it. Therefore I would appreciate it if you are going to continue mentioning it, that you also mention I admit it. Of course you don't have to agree to this, but it would just be a nice thing if you did.

Still avoiding the truth of the matter. The point isn't that you reneged. The point is that you made a false assertion to begin with. You only reneged later because you got got.

As I said before, Snow and I have history that you are not aware of. In fact, a friend of mine left the LDSTALK board because of the way Snow talked to me. I know of a few others who have complained about him. I only mention this to demonstrate that Snow is not interested in my information or opinions. Rather, he wants me to write him a post so he can go through it, tear it apart, and demean me. He believes I am guilty of denigrating the Church and Christ. The first is absurd. The second outrages me, but because it is Snow I let it go.

I wasn’t name dropping. I was giving an example of Church historians’ ability to tell a more accurate view of the Church’s history. Since RSR is the most recent, and progressive biography, I chose Bushman to demonstrate this.

Egads Elphaba. Many of us are name droppers here, me included, but you are too as your post just demonstrated. It's not like it ain't obvious.

”Snit” is a word and is, as you say, a state of agitation or irritation. “Snitty,” however, is not a word. The proper derivative of “snit” is “in a snit.”

Still lost huh? A word is "A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning..." Since snitty is a combination of sounds that communicates meaning, it's a word.

Need more help? Go to the Urban Dictionary ( Urban Dictionary: Define Your World ) and look it up.

My career was in publishing. I have an intuitive knack for spelling; thus my suspicion “snitty” was not a word. Searching through every dictionary I could find confirmed my suspicion. I assure I was not agitated with you when I addressed the word. It had nothing to do with you.

Again - go to Urban Dictionary: Define Your World and look it up. It took me one try and I isn't in publishing.

Excuse me. Now I have to go darn my socks, then off to see the farrier about some shoes.

[Snow]

FAIR Just put online another FAIR talk. It is entitled The Book of Abraham 201:Papyri, Revelation, and Modern Egyptology by Mike Ash.

Book of Abraham 201

Thanks Dale.

I read it this week.

[Elphaba]

Still avoiding the truth of the matter. The point isn't that you reneged. The point is that you made a false assertion to begin with. You only reneged later because you got got.

I got got what?

Still lost huh? A word is "A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning..." Since snitty is a combination of sounds that communicates meaning, it's a word.

No it is not.

Again - go to Urban Dictionary: Define Your World and look it up. It took me one try and I isn't in publishing.

No you are not or else you would have known how little the publishing world thinks of the UD.

The UD is a joke dictionary full of amateurish slang words people make up and submit to be included. For example, I could submit the word: “Snow is Butthead,“ give it a humorous definition, and there is a good chance you would find it in the UD in the next update.

Here is a small sampling of the slang words you’ll find in the UD. You can look them up if you like; however, I’ll warn you ahead of time, their definitions are not rated G, which is typical of the "words" you will find in the UD.

Yoink

subwoofing

Break the seal

Safety buzz

Earjacking

Guitar face

It is well-known in the publishing world the UD is not a reference dictionary to look up the official definition, spelling or existence of a word, as are dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster, Oxford English, Cambridge University, and your favorite, the American Heritage.

If someone in a serious publication used a word and definition from the UD, that person could very likely be looking for a new job.

Excuse me. Now I have to go darn my socks, then off to see the farrier about some shoes.

An apt conclusion.

By the way, did you get a picture of Paul Potts for me?

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

Elphaba,

I note that you admitted being guilty of reneging on your promise. But something you also said is that you are proud of that admission. Most admissions seem a little more sincere when not done insincerely.

I agree that all of us act petulantly on occasion. However, "Metcalfe is Butthead" really was a classic learning event. Metcalfe had claimed back then that some things, like chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, were all coincidental. Having the first letter of every paragraph in a draft rebuttal spell out "Metcalfe is Butthead" was done intentionally by Bill Hamblin to demonstrate a point. Brent was trying to wave off evidence of the Book of Mormon as nonsense, and Hamblin was trying to make Brent see that not all things that occur are coincidental. Your attack on Hamblin missed his main point, and that was to show that Brent's statement on chiasmus was ridiculous, just as supposing "Metcalfe is Butthead" being coincidental was ridiculous. Knowing the entire event helps to understand what Hamblin was doing.

BTW, back then Brent WAS a butthead. As I said, he was very involved in destroying Morm-ANT and in trying to do the same with SAMU-L. In the last 10 years, he's actually been friendly towards many LDS scholars and had some decent dialogue with them on the FAIR site, etc.

And unless he has recanted sometime along the way, Brent has told me in the past that he would be happy to have a hand in destroying the LDS Church, by proving it wrong. Since he hasn't quite achieved that goal, I suppose he has to be content with leading occasional disgruntled or confused ex-members away.

And for someone who has been in publishing, you should realize how English is a constantly changing target. In the past 30 years, it has added hundreds of thousands of terms, both official and slang. You may not accept slang, but if it is used long enough, it often finds itself in regular dictionaries, accepted as standard language. And I've read many great literary works that have used slang, and used it quite appropriately, btw. For example, the word "irregardless" was slang for many years, but is now found in many dictionaries, though still considered non-standard.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

ir·re·gard·less /ˌɪrɪˈgɑrdlɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ir-i-gahrd-lis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adverb Nonstandard.

regardless.

[Origin: 1910–15; ir-2 (prob. after irrespective) + regardless]

—Usage note Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

[rameumptom]

BTW, here's some info on the word, "snitty" and its usage in newspapers, etc.

Dictionary Evangelist: I don't want to be snitty about this

I don't want to be snitty about this

But this AP article about new words in Merriam-Webster is not all it could be:

The year was 1989, and "snitty" started off strong. The word popped up in the Los Angeles Times in January, then appeared in the March and August editions of People magazine.

It was one of hundreds of words being tracked by editors at Merriam-Webster who are always searching for new terms to enter into the Collegiate Dictionary.

But something went wrong. The editors, who were eager to define snitty as "disagreeably agitated," no longer saw the word in national newspapers and magazines. Snitty fizzled. Although it was commonly used in conversation, Merriam-Webster's editors could only find three examples of its use in print. They had no choice but to reject it.

They began noticing it again 2005, first in Entertainment Weekly and then in several newspapers. With about a dozen examples of snitty being published, the term is now a likely shoo-in for next year's Collegiate.

When it comes to making it into Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, spoken word isn't enough.

"We need evidence that it's being used in print," said senior editor Jim Lowe, who is at a loss to explain snitty's six-year publication gap.

Well, it would be difficult to explain a gap that's not there. Lexis-Nexis shows 232 instances of snitty in newspapers before 2005, going back as far as 1978. There are seven instances of its use in the New York Times, 1984–2005. Google Book Search also shows pre-2005 examples, including one from Lucky by Jackie Collins (what, nobody at M-W ever reads beach books?) and a reference in John Ayto's 1992 Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang. It's also in the OED, with four citations from 1978–1987.

The thing is, though, that anyone who relies primarily on eyeballs-to-the-page reading (and the article states "The editors spend hours reading everything from science and medical journals to entertainment and fashion magazines. ... New-looking words are highlighted, and the passage in which they are discovered is typed onto an index card and entered into a computer database.") is going to have this same problem.

Leaving aside the boggling "typed onto an index card" (!!! -- why not enter it directly into the database and then print out index cards if you want them?) this process is a misuse of editorial time.

Instead of having editors read print magazines, why not dump the magazines into a large digital database and use simple sorting and search to find new words? People, even lexicographers, are notoriously inattentive when asked to perform visual tasks. Let the computer, which never sleeps (we're assuming it's not running Vista) do the watching, and let the lexicographers do the analysis.

I'm not saying a database will find ALL the new words -- or that if a lexicographer sees a new word 'in the wild' that he or she shouldn't make a quick note -- but, as fun as it may be to get paid to read Entertainment Weekly, it's not very efficient. I'd rather get paid to suss out how words are being used, not to find them in the first place. Doing new-word-finding by reading, instead of databasing, is like finding underground water by dowsing when you have access to a ground-penetrating-radar satellite.

I should also point out that, despite the inclusion of snitty in the OED, none of the current-English dictionaries has included it yet, as far as I can tell. Of course, none of them have started adding large-circulation popular magazines to their databases yet, either. So it's not like Merriam-Webster is really falling behind ... it's just that they're not as far out in front as they could be. Think of what those 40 lexicographers (which is what the article says M-W has devoted to their reading program) could define with all that extra time!

The article also talks about the Seinfeldian regift, and says that other dictionaries, including the New Oxford American Dictionary, don't yet include it. NOAD actually does include regift ... Orin Hargraves (who I think was the first person to define regift in his 2004 book New Words) has already pointed this out, though, so all you NOAD partisans don't need to email Adam Gorlick at the AP to correct him.

So, I guess your publishing days were a little less valuable to you than you thought!

[rameumptom]

And yes, in that last post, I was being snitty.

[Elphaba]

Egads Elphaba. Many of us are name droppers here, me included, but you are too as your post just demonstrated. It's not like it ain't obvious.

In my last post to you I replied "Nonsense." However, I have given this more thought, and concede you and Rameumpton are right. I was name dropping.

I apologize to the both of you.

Elphaba

[Snow]

In my last post to you I replied "Nonsense." However, I have given this more thought, and concede you and Rameumpton are right. I was name dropping.

I apologize to the both of you.

Elphaba

Come on Elp,

Don't apologize. I like to read your posts and anyone's posts that talk about interesting personal interactions with those we regularly discuss. It's not the name dropping that's a problem - just acting like we don't do it... though maybe that was your point.

[Dale]

The Community of Christ/RLDS of which i am a member does not consider the Book of Abraham scripture. Individually as a member i consider the Book of Abraham is one of my favorite writings of Joseph Smith.

For a long time i pondered whether the evidences for the Book of Abraham were just co-incidence. Does anybody know of any critics attempts to rebut the evidence? I read that some feel Joseph Smith got all his ideas for the book from the 19th century. But i am yet to find an essay coming from that perspective on the subject. Such a critic would reject Abrahamic lore pre-dating the book in support of the Book of Abraham. I know of no critic who has gone after the Kerry Shirts type research.

[Ray A]

BTW, back then Brent WAS a butthead. As I said, he was very involved in destroying Morm-ANT and in trying to do the same with SAMU-L. In the last 10 years, he's actually been friendly towards many LDS scholars and had some decent dialogue with them on the FAIR site, etc.

And unless he has recanted sometime along the way, Brent has told me in the past that he would be happy to have a hand in destroying the LDS Church, by proving it wrong. Since he hasn't quite achieved that goal, I suppose he has to be content with leading occasional disgruntled or confused ex-members away.

I don't consider Brent, or Dan Vogel, as anti-Mormons, though I know some do. Brent may well have had such sentiments in the past, but for what it's worth, this is what Vogel wrote on FAIR:

Neither Brent nor I want to tear down Mormonism. Our concerns are intellectual, not institutional. We seek only to understand our heritage, and want to share what we find...

Of course, I don’t see myself as anti-Mormon any more than you see yourself as anti-non-Mormon. I don’t have a cause. I have a passion for studying Mormon history, and I like writing about what I find, but I don’t tell anyone to leave the church...

My experience in the church was for the most part very beneficial to me in my youth. Brent has expressed to me similar views. Also, Brent and I are concerned with what we see on the RFM board. Their judgments on JS are far too harsh, in our view. The level of anger expressed there is hard for us to identify with. (Posted on FAIR, June 26, 2006)

Vogel was severely criticised on RFM for being "too apologetic" towards Joseph Smith. Brent has also been critical of RFM, and told me directly that he posted there less than a dozen times, because he could not bear the place. He, too, is considered an "apologist for Mormonism" by many on RFM. No doubt they are critics, but whatever he (Brent) may have said in the past, I believe it is his, and Dan Vogel's, intention to expose readers to as many angles of Mormon history as possible. Vogel has never forced his views on anyone, and always clarified that he could be wrong in some of his conclusions. I, for one, appreciate the work they have done, because it has made us think. I certainly prefer them to the screaming and howling and Mormon-bashing that is so common on RFM.

[Elphaba]

I note that you admitted being guilty of reneging on your promise. But something you also said is that you are proud of that admission. Most admissions seem a little more sincere when not done insincerely.

So you would rather I lied?

I agree that all of us act petulantly on occasion. However, "Metcalfe is Butthead" really was a classic learning event. <snip>. Knowing the entire event helps to understand what Hamblin was doing.

Yes, I already know all of this. It was still juvenile. You really don’t see that?

BTW, back then Brent WAS a butthead.

That made me laugh. Good one.

And for someone who has been in publishing, you should realize how English is a constantly changing target.

Should I?

In the past 30 years, it has added hundreds of thousands of terms, both official and slang. You may not accept slang, but if it is used long enough, it often finds itself in regular dictionaries, accepted as standard language.

Does it?

And I've read many great literary works that have used slang, and used it quite appropriately, btw. For example, the word "irregardless" was slang for many years, but is now found in many dictionaries, though still considered non-standard.

Interesting.

So, I guess your publishing days were a little less valuable to you than you thought!

Apparently.

Well, I read the link you directed me to, and while I bow to your superior knowledge, R, are you seriously going to use a BLOG to prove your point? You do understand what a blog is, don‘t you?

A blog is a person‘s opinion. And while you may have been impressed with the owner's excessive exclamation marks and misused ellipses, couldn't you have, for my sake, picked a blog whose author at least used proper punctuation? Did you really think I wouldn't notice?

Additionally, why in the world would you cut and paste her entire blog entry into your post when the majority of it focused on how words were input into the database? What does that have to do with whether “snitty” is a word or not? Why are you wasting my time with such nonsense?

Did you actually read the post? It even acknowledges “snitty” is not a word. It quotes the AP article about Merriam Webster:

"Although it was commonly used in conversation, Merriam-Webster's editors could only find three examples of its use in print. They had no choice but to reject it.

It is absurd to continue dancing around this, writing me lengthy posts trying to torture a word that is not a word into a word!

In fact, I guarantee you that a seasoned editor would reject the word if she, like me, suspected it was not a word, looked for it in the dictionary and found it was not there.

More importantly, your choice of subject matter expert demonstrates you do not have a clue how intricate the profession of writing and editing is. This is not a criticism. You are obviously articulate and write much better than most people

However, when you say my “publishing days were a little less valuable to me than you thought,” after having given a BLOG as a reference, your credibility just shot down to zero.

By the way, I am aware the English language is always adapting (not changing). Also, irregardless was never a slang word as you believe, but was always a word, though no writer/editor would ever use it in print media. Finally, I am aware a slang word often becomes a standard word.

In fact, my favorite is OED's addition of Homer Simpson's infamous "doh." You might consider using it right now.

And yes, in that last post, I was being snitty.

Snitty is not a word.

Elphaba

[Guest Brent_Metcalfe]

Hi rameumptom,

Your claims about me are nothing short of scurrilous. (A friend kindly alerted me to this thread.)

I categorically deny having ever told you, or anyone else for that matter, that I

would be happy to have a hand in destroying the LDS Church, by proving it wrong.

The onus is on you to support your assertion with evidence.

I'm not anti-Mormon (whatever that may entail), but I am anti sloppy argumentation. I have no interest in "deconverting" anyone. For instance, in response to a probing question by a BYU professor who had concluded that several of my text-critical observations about the BoAbr manuscripts are correct, I wrote:

"If our scholarship converges, are you obligated to agree with me on whether Joseph Smith received the BoAbr from God? Heavens no! My faith journey is uniquely mine; yours belongs to you.

Even as a nonbeliever, I can envision reasons for belief - depending on the tangibility, persuasiveness, and lucidity of a person’s spiritual manifestations. What I fail to see room for is fundamentalism and literalism, irrespective of how 'real' otherworldly experiences may seem."

(Brent Lee Metcalfe, email, 2 April 2007.)

Scarcely the virulent diatribe of someone hell-bent on unraveling the fabric of belief, don't you think?

For someone who claims to have known me for two decades, you know virtually nothing about me. Readers need only consider your contorted claims about my early life:

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.

False. First, post-Manifesto polygamy was never a faith-determining issue for me. Second, both of my parents converted to Mormonism. Put simply, I have no ancestors who were involved in early-Mormon polygamy either before or after the Manifesto. Indeed, I have no ancestors who were early Mormons!

Brent was caught up in quite a scandal himself. He worked for a few years for Mark Hofmann ...

False. I wasn't employed by Hofmann for "a few years"; rather, a couple of months.

I believe that Brent (who at the time worked for Wordperfect) was fined for using/making explosive devices ...

False. I have never made or used an explosive device. (See below.)

[brent Metcalfe] was involved, from the studies I've done, with Hofmann's love of automatic weapons and explosives.

False. I've never even discharged a firearm, much less had a "love of automatic weapons and explosives." (See below.)

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.

False. I've never owned a gun, with or without a license. (See above.) You are clearly confusing me with Hofmann associate Shannon Flynn, who was in fact enamored with the soldier of fortune lifestyle.

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.

*sigh!* False. (See above.)

[brent Metcalfe] 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 ...

False. (See above, again.)

[brent Metcalfe] was, however, very closely tied with Hofmann's normal and not so normal work, including the use of automatic weapons.

False. (See above, yet again.)

[W]hile Brent was not an actual part of the scandal, ask him sometime just what he went through as the Feds investigated him.

False. I was never investigated by "the Feds." Along with a cast of many (including prophets and CEOs), I was questioned by the local police, ATF, etc., and I cooperated fully.

Brent was scrutinized and watched very closely by the Feds for months, to see if he was involved.

False. To my knowledge I was never "watched"—"very closely" or otherwise—by "the Feds."

You are skating on precariously thin libelous ice. You owe me an apology, certainly; but you also owe your readers an apology for disseminating falsehoods with such reckless abandon. I don't blame you for posting pseudonymously; I wouldn't want my name associated with such nonsense either.

On the core question posed by Elphaba (i.e., have I persuaded some LDS scholars to change their opinions?), the answer is yes; just as some LDS scholars have led me to rethink my opinions. That is the nature of scholarship.

Cheers,

</brent>

[Snow]

Who's your friend Brent?

... and where can I find your work on the BoA? I have looked at the section on your Scriptures Studies website but don't see much, though I kinda wondered if maybe I was missing something.

[Guest Brent_Metcalfe]

Hi Snow,

Who's your friend Brent?

Someone who wishes to remain anonymous and uninvolved in this forum. Who are you "Snow"?

... and where can I find your work on the BoA? I have looked at the section on your Scriptures Studies website but don't see much, though I kinda wondered if maybe I was missing something.

On my Web site I assume that you read my critique of Hugh Nibley where he relied on textual variants that simply don't exist in any of the BoAbr manuscripts (see "http://mormonscripturestudies.com/boabr/blm/hnillu.asp'>Nibley's Illusory Variants (Abr. 2:15–16, 18b)"). You may also want to listen to the audio of my presentation "Re-Visioning the Book of Abraham: Criticism Beyond Apologetics and Polemics," delivered at 2006 Ex-Mormon Conference (I am, after all, an ex-Mormon). You can access the handout for my presentation here. In addition, I've engaged numerous LDS apologists and scholars (not that those labels are mutually exclusive) on various Internet boards and have provided photographic evidence for my arguments (e.g., see here and here).

In his FAIR 2006 presentation, Brian Hauglid (whom you've cited with approval) graciously acknowledged:

"[T]he only [critic] I know so far that has studied the [] manuscripts as [] probably, maybe more than me, is Mr. Brent Metcalfe []."

(Brian Hauglid, "Investigating the Kirtland Egyptian Papers: Myths and Realities," delivered at FAIR 2006, closed brackets "[]" are used to omit verbal artifacts of the oral presentation.)

Brian has repeated this sentiment in multiple private emails.

If you wish to engage in substantive BoAbr issues, I request that you disclose your identity as I have; otherwise, my time is better spent cleaning the house or playing Rock Band with my son.

Cheers,

</brent>

[Snow]

Hi Snow,

Someone who wishes to remain anonymous and uninvolved in this forum. Who are you "Snow"?

On my Web site I assume that you read my critique of Hugh Nibley where he relied on textual variants that simply don't exist in any of the BoAbr manuscripts (see "http://mormonscripturestudies.com/boabr/blm/hnillu.asp'>Nibley's Illusory Variants (Abr. 2:15–16, 18b)"). You may also want to listen to the audio of my presentation "Re-Visioning the Book of Abraham: Criticism Beyond Apologetics and Polemics," delivered at 2006 Ex-Mormon Conference (I am, after all, an ex-Mormon). You can access the handout for my presentation here. In addition, I've engaged numerous LDS apologists and scholars (not that those labels are mutually exclusive) on various Internet boards and have provided photographic evidence for my arguments (e.g., see here and here).

In his FAIR 2006 presentation, Brian Hauglid (whom you've cited with approval) graciously acknowledged:

"[T]he only [critic] I know so far that has studied the [] manuscripts as [] probably, maybe more than me, is Mr. Brent Metcalfe []."

(Brian Hauglid, "Investigating the Kirtland Egyptian Papers: Myths and Realities," delivered at FAIR 2006, closed brackets "[]" are used to omit verbal artifacts of the oral presentation.)

Brian has repeated this sentiment in multiple private emails.

If you wish to engage in substantive BoAbr issues, I request that you disclose your identity as I have; otherwise, my time is better spent cleaning the house or playing Rock Band with my son.

Cheers,

</brent>

Little testy? Go play with your son then. I choose to remain anonymous on this board.

I would be interested in any important scholarship on the BoA but have no desire to bother with anything from the exmormon foundation which I assume is related to the blackguards at exmormon.org. You may question what being an anti-mormon is but I've visited their website and know who they, at least many of them, are. While your scholarship may be worth reading, and I certainly don't mind critics, they are a cancer and I avoid them.

Yes, I've read your faultfinding with Nibley. That's why I wonder if your website doesn't work with my browser. Both are just short blogs, with the trapping of scholarly apparatus, stating some disagreements with the LDS scholar. I keep wondering if the website isn't working on Safari and I'm missing something.

[Dale]

Brent i heard you have two volumes on the Book of Abraham you are working on? Would you mind giving a desription of each? And when are they going to get published?

I never liked Hugh Nibley's position. Even FAIR does admit Joseph Smith had no involvement with the Kirtland Paper's. Though they do not view them as you do. They don't hold to his position that only the scribe's were to blame. FAIR's main page has a talk my Mike Ash they just put up.

You link to some stuff with some technical issues. The difficulty for me is Brian Hauglid has not published his perspective on your perspective. Hugh Nibley is dead, and i never thought him up to the task. And i doubt unless you make a public challenge to FAIR with an essay that you will ever get them to comment on technical issue's. I would start sending it around PDF until you get a response. I suspect everybody is waiting for you to publish before they advance Book of Abraham apologetics much more.

Just make it a comment on some of the top evidences being used for the Book of Abraham by FAIR and FARMS. Go after the Abrahamic lore, and the Kerry Shirts type research. Comment on the recent talk by Mike Ash in depth.

Its not that i am positive nor sure you are right. I just think that FAIR at times seems to be the leader in LDS apologetics. But at times they take the backseat to FARMS. And FARMS tends to rarely if ever talk technical critics issues. If you are in the right get a debate started with the best FAIR, and FARMS people on the subject.

[NeuroTypical]

I'd just like to point out that this is not the first time a discussion about the Book of Abraham has led to page after page of smart people visciously attacking each other personally and acting like a bunch of 5th grade boys. In fact, this state of affairs seems to be par for the course when talking about the BoA.

Anyone know why that is? Sure, contention is found most everywhere, but it seems like you just can't have a BoA discussion without things getting heated. This phenomenon does not automatically occur when, say, discussing gross vs. net tithing, or the reasons behind polygamy, or the correct succession of the church after Joseph died, or excommunication of scholars, or whether non-white shirts on Sunday are appropriate, or most any other topic that interested smart people disagree on.

Something about the nature of egyptology or egyptologists maybe?

LM