Book of Abraham Real?

[rameumptom]

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:

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.

I can't speak for Dan Vogel. Besides reading some of his stuff, I haven't known him. As I've stated, Brent has mellowed over the years. He is very different from who he was 20 years ago. And no, I do not place him in the same group as the Recovery from Mormonism. His writings are better than the drivel they spew out at RFM. Still, Brent has admitted his agenda in the past. Given people can change over years, I would allow his interest in Church history to be more important to him than wanting to destroy the Church. Then again, if he were on the whole, balanced, then his writings should seem more balanced, as well. Instead, his articles/books discuss only the problems he sees, and not the evidences that support LDS teachings.

[rameumptom]

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

Actually, it IS the nature of Egyptologists and other archaeology scholars. The environment they are in is filled with big egos. The leading Mayan scholar, Dr Thompson, kept the language from being translated for almost 40 years, simply because he insisted the language was not decipherable.

Herschel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeological Review magazine, has been sued on many occasions by scholars that took offense for one thing or another. And if you think BoA discussions get heated, you should see some of the heated discussions on the Minimalist/Maximist views on whether Biblical history prior to King Solomon is actually historical or mythical.

While I prefer not getting into heated discussions, sometimes they go that direction. And as long as there is an Internet, things like BoA will be as political as Republican/Democrat debates.

[Elphaba]

Rameumpton,

Are you going to respond to Metcalfe's post to you?

Elphaba

[Snow]

Rameumpton,

Are you going to respond to Metcalfe's post to you?

Elphaba

It appears that Brent has left the building.

[Ray A]

Instead, his articles/books discuss only the problems he sees, and not the evidences that support LDS teachings.

To be fair, do "apologists" generally discuss problems and evidences against the Church? FARMS certainly addresses them, but would they ever, for example, consider that the Book of Abraham could be a fraud? And admit so? When we get to the more sanguine apologetics there has even been denials, or omissions, about polygamy, or very little and obscure mention of it. The most startling thing about many "ex-Mos" is that so many of them have lost faith because of what they haven't been told, hence later angry about not being told the full truth. This is not an imaginary phenomenon, though everyone handles it differently, but it is a reflection on deliberate omissions in history for the purpose of "building faith" (when in fact generating the very opposite reaction in many).

I don't expect Brent or Dan, or anyone else, to defend something they don't believe, any more than I expect Richard Dawkins to concede that there might be some truth in seances, any more than I expect to see on the FARMS website an article titled "How Shall We Escape These Difficulties?". From Roberts, yes, and lets' not forget the Church's response to Roberts. It took some 50 years for his Studies to officially come to light, and that was first done by Signature, not FARMS, who later followed up with a different version minus Brigham Madsen's Introduction.

Such is the nature of bias, and no one is free from it. New Approaches to the Book of Mormon (edited by Metcalfe), does in fact have some apologetic entries, like Anthony Hutchinson's contribution. The best way to approach this is to expect different approaches, study them, then draw our own conclusions. Roberts is a rare phenomenon, but it makes him all the more interesting and readable.

[Guest Brent_Metcalfe]

Hi Snow,

Well, I suppose that "testy" is better than "petulant" (sounds better anyway). Truth be told, I'm neither. I'm just weary of the unbridled personal attacks that drip from the virtual pens of so many netizens.

I consider it progress that you now think my "scholarship may be worth reading."

Regards,

</brent>

[Guest Brent_Metcalfe]

Hi Dale,

Two books are tentatively planned—the first (photographic plates and typographical facsimiles) is much closer to completion than the second (historico-literary analyses of the BoAbr). LDS and non-LDS authors alike will be critically evaluated.

Thanks for your interest.

My best,

</brent>

[Guest Brent_Metcalfe]

Hi rameumptom,

If nothing else, you've got chutzpah—evidently, in abundance.

Perhaps you missed my list of almost a dozen factual errors that I compiled from your previous posts?

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.

Enough with the charade—you don't know me nor my motivations. You have no credibility in this discussion. All you've left me with is a stark reminder of why I no longer actively participate on Internet forums.

Cheers,

</brent>

[Elphaba]

It appears that Brent has left the building.

I asked Rameumpton, not Brent.

R is the one who accused Brent of serious and appalling acts in numerous affiliations. Brent has responded to them, demonstrating quite effectively that R was eggregiously wrong about these claims.

It's Rameumpton's turn to respond.

Elphaba

[Snow]

I asked Rameumpton, not Brent.

R is the one who accused Brent of serious and appalling acts in numerous affiliations. Brent has responded to them, demonstrating quite effectively that R was eggregiously wrong about these claims.

It's Rameumpton's turn to respond.

Elphaba

You might have a point, I suppose, but someone coming on a message board, saying he is so and so and denying something isn't much of a demonstration. What it is is someone coming on a message board and denying something.

I'm Shirley Chisholm and I approved this message.

[Snow]

Hi Snow,

Well, I suppose that "testy" is better than "petulant" (sounds better anyway).

Yep - I thought so too, upon reflection.

Truth be told, I'm neither. I'm just weary of the unbridled personal attacks that drip from the virtual pens of so many netizens.

True that. That's why I am anonymous. There are types around that dig into your personal life for the sake of mischief making and make threats and such.

I consider it progress that you now think my "scholarship may be worth reading."

Regards,

</brent>

I spent an afternoon with Hugh Nibley the week before FARMS pried his One Eternal Round papers from his finger and been waiting since then for something new and significant to come out... (be it from you or someone else) not that I've exhausted the old stuff yet. Frankly I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic yet to know exactly how much water some of the various points of view hold. As a result I look at things like the publisher, academic credentials, peer review, and scholarly counter-point to help sort it out - and I haven't seen that yet in your work on the BoA.

... which makes me ask, why do you bother with exmo.org? Sure they must be a friendly audience but it can't much help anybody's credibility.

[Elphaba]

Yep - I thought so too, upon reflection.

True that. That's why I am anonymous. There are types around that dig into your personal life for the sake of mischief making and make threats and such.

I spent an afternoon with Hugh Nibley the week before FARMS pried his One Eternal Round papers from his finger and been waiting since then for something new and significant to come out... (be it from you or someone else) not that I've exhausted the old stuff yet. Frankly I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic yet to know exactly how much water some of the various points of view hold. As a result I look at things like the publisher, academic credentials, peer review, and scholarly counter-point to help sort it out - and I haven't seen that yet in your work on the BoA.

... which makes me ask, why do you bother with exmo.org? Sure they must be a friendly audience but it can't much help anybody's credibility.

Who are you and what did you do with Snow?

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Edit: I'm not quite ready for this yet.

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

Hi rameumptom,

If nothing else, you've got chutzpah—evidently, in abundance.

Perhaps you missed my list of almost a dozen factual errors that I compiled from your previous posts?

Enough with the charade—you don't know me nor my motivations. You have no credibility in this discussion. All you've left me with is a stark reminder of why I no longer actively participate on Internet forums.

Cheers,

</brent>

You'll have to excuse me. I've been sick the last several days, and am only now returning to life and the computer. Brent, where I've been wrong, I apologize. It has been several years since the days of Hoffman, and I admit my memory of all that went on is not as it once was.

Still, where my memory doesn't fall short is in issues over the years on Morm-Ant, where you and Louis Midgely brought the email list to an end. Then with Samu-L, you continued to introduce ideas that virtually stalled any discussion, until you were removed from the list.

As I mentioned, you aren't quite the harsh person you were back then. You definitely are not in the RFM realm. Yet, I do not pretend for a moment that you are in this solely for the joy of Church history. Jan Shipps studies and writes on Mormonism for that purpose, and shows the weaknesses and strengths of the LDS Church from her viewpoint. Your books and articles have constantly sought to display only the perceived problems and weaknesses. Definitely not a balanced approach, such as Richard Bushman's Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling provided. Instead, your approach is as negative toward the Church as Joseph F. Smith's writings glossed things over concerning the Church. Neither approach benefits anyone in the long run.

I hope with your KEP books that you report things fairly - pros and cons. If so, we'll all be pleasantly surprised and you should deserve accolades for it. Yet, I'm not certain from your past writings if that is what we'll get.

[rameumptom]

One more thing, the things I stated were about Shannon Flynn, and not Brent. I had to go back over my past research, and was indeed in error on this. Once again, Brent, I apologize for the mistake.

[Elphaba]

One more thing, the things I stated were about Shannon Flynn, and not Brent. I had to go bAack over my past research, and was indeed in error on this. Once again, Brent, I apologize for the mistake.

Rameumpton,

I have no idea how long ago you performed your "research," about the Hofmann murders, but surely you learned who Shannon Flynn was and the role he played.

Additionally, you participated on e-mail lists with Metcalfe. In fact, Metcalfe was something of a nemesis to you and you disliked his presence on the list greatly. You knew him well, including your personal conversations where he told you he wanted to destroy, and to help members out of, the Church.

The point is, by your own admission, you knew Brent Metcalfe well from your mutual participation on the e-mail lists.

Let's talk about the e-mail lists for a moment. If they were ongoing at the time of the murder investigation, how often did you discuss Metcalfe's role in the murders with those on the list? Sometimes? More than that? Ever? And what did you talk about when/if you did?

Don't you think that if Metcalfe's role had been of the same scope as Flynn's, it would have been a topic of discussion? Especially since YOU wanted him gone?

But what if your "research" took place after you had left the lists? It doesn't matter. By then you already knew Brent well enough to recognize his name, and to NOT recognize it when it did not apply, all due to your e-mail lists.

Also, how is it possible that this week, in your apology to Metcalfe, you write: “I admit my memory of all that went on is not as it once was.”

But at the same time you write: Still, where my memory doesn't fall short is in issues over the years on Morm-Ant, <snip>until you were removed from the list.”

Impossible. Your memory fails you in the Hofmann murders, where you make precarious accusations about Metcalfe. Yet it comes roaring back about participating with Metcalfe in e-mail lists from the SAME time period.

I'm curious. Just when did you begin to think the man YOU KNEW as Brent Metcalfe, from your e-mail lists, was also the man who was helping Hofmann to shoot firearms in 1985?

Brent. I had to go back over my past research, and was indeed in error on this. Once again, Brent, I apologize for the mistake.

What about apologizing to me? I am the one who adamantly told you, in more than one post, that you were wrong and wrong and wrong. Yet you refused to acknowledge I might be right.

I believe this quote of yours is appropriate at this juncture. Speaking of Metcalfe, you wrote:“I just think that if he could make a mistake on a very close friend like Hofmann, he can just as easily be mistaken about his view on Mormonism.”

My reply to you: I just think if you could make a mistake by accusing an innocent man of acts that helped facilitate the Hofmann murders, you can just as easily be mistaken about anything you write on this board.

I wouldn't believe anything you said if your tongue came notarized.

Elphaba

[Ray A]

One more thing, the things I stated were about Shannon Flynn, and not Brent. I had to go back over my past research, and was indeed in error on this. Once again, Brent, I apologize for the mistake.

I'm wondering when Dan Peterson's critics will make such an apology to him? Brent hasn't been subjected to such innuendo and LIES. I'm kinda hoping that Brent will realise what Dr. Peterson has gone through, being labelled as "sick" and "mentally ill". I'm sure Brent doesn't agree with these labels.

Criticism is part and parcel of Internet discussion, but I think there should be a line drawn in regard to personal character defamation.

[Snow]

I wouldn't believe anything you said if your tongue came notarized.

Elphaba

Oh my Elphaba, if you had some credibility yourself, that might sound almost, what's the word? Dolichocephal? Horn-mad? Proceleusmatic?

What about apologizing to me?

And me?

What about my aunt? And her bishop?

Can I get an apology for all the pretty little horses?

[MorningStar]

I'm wondering when Dan Peterson's critics will make such an apology to him? Brent hasn't been subjected to such innuendo and LIES. I'm kinda hoping that Brent will realise what Dr. Peterson has gone through, being labelled as "sick" and "mentally ill". I'm sure Brent doesn't agree with these labels.

Criticism is part and parcel of Internet discussion, but I think there should be a line drawn in regard to personal character defamation.

I can't imagine having to deal with that. It's like they're trying to intimidate him into a hole, never to be seen again.

[MorningStar]

Oh my Elphaba, if you had some credibility yourself, that might sound almost, what's the word? Dolichocephal? Horn-mad? Proceleusmatic?

And me?

What about my aunt? And her bishop?

Can I get an apology for all the pretty little horses?

I think I missed something.

[Snow]

I think I missed something.

Silence please. I am busy jeering.

[MorningStar]

Silence please. I am busy jeering.

All right ......

[MorningStar]

I love The Book of Abraham and the Spirit testifies of its truthfulness to me. :) Someday we'll know how it came to be, but right now I'm happy just to have it.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Wow! The way this topic has gone makes me feel so glad that I live in England. We miss so much.

[Elphaba]

Oh my Elphaba,

I'm not your Elphaba.

if you had some credibility yourself, that might sound almost, what's the word? Dolichocephal? Horn-mad? Proceleusmatic?

Those are a lot of long words, Snow, and I am not but a humble poster. However, since everyone knows Mormons have horns, it is fairly obvious yours have a serious flaw, causing their normal effects to become more pronounced and uncontrollable. Very sad, but it does explain much.

I must say, in spite of your horny problem, I was absolutely dumbfounded when you engaged Metcalfe in a conversation. Suddenly you turned into a real human being, and a civil one at that. You even subdued the bluster you are so well-known for.

And even when you disagreed with his interaction with the ex-Mormon Foundation, you asked about it in an assertive manner, and with no disrespect.

Left behind was the snide Snow I‘ve come to love and loathe, only to be replaced by a well-mannered, curious and respectful conversationalist. It's a miracle!

In fact, you were fawning over Metcalfe so much I half expected you to ask him out for dinner and dancing!

What about my aunt? And her bishop?

Why? What did you do to them?

Can I get an apology for all the pretty little horses?

If you take out the “little,“ then absolutely not! It's one of my favorite novels.

You would enjoy it, that is if you could read the proceleusmatic book without your dolichocephal head getting in the way.

Elphaba