Well, Nevo, I'll let Kevin speak for himself. My guess is that you are not offended by what I said about Willie but are offended about what I said about Tommy. But really how much time has gone by that Willie has played games with this issue. The reality is that Willie isn't going to respond to Kevin with anything real. Just like DCP won't answer Scratch. And yes, I guess I grew impatient with Willie, just like I grew impatient and gave up on Tommy and all the other "prophets" in my life time for not being a prophet. The reality is that Joseph Smith couldn't translate, Tommy can't speak for God on anything and Moroni's promise is hot air.

bump

quick reminder or Schryver's shoddy research and refusal to ever admit being wrong.

Over the last few years, there seem to be two ways the Church deals with difficult issues.

The first is "no official position." (E.g., if they can be inspired to say "gender" (they meant "sex") is part of one's eternal identity, then why can't we get an eternal perspective on why so many people feel that they are homosexual by nature? Or if we can be inspired to know the temporal age of the Earth, why can't we get a yes or no about whether humans evolved from a lower life form or not?)

The second is outsourcing the issue to apologists who marginalize the Church's claim to continuing revelation even more, particularly because the apologists are the champions of letting us all know how prophets, seers, and revelators almost incessantly speculate and give opinions. And, of course, apologists are never speaking on the Church's behalf.

Apologists will also be the first to tell us that prophets aren't fortune tellers or historians. However, that avoids the issue.

If the Book of Abraham, or the Book of Mormon, were translated by the power of God, then I fail to see why the current prophet cannot be inspired to resolve the issue of reconciling beliefs with evidence.

And this is why Mormon apologetics is a dead end for many struggling members. No matter how much you want to theorize about some missing ten-foot scroll that just happens to have the "real" Book of Abraham on it, a struggling member of the Church is going to find a prophet who's asleep at the wheel. If the only function a prophet has is to tell us where the next temple is going to be, then tell us a story about bringing cookies to widows and recite a Robert Frost poem, what is it that the apologists are defending, anyway?

Whatever you think about Joseph Smith, at least he had the guts to stand up and say "this is what God told me." If FARMS and FAIR are now the arbiters of what the scriptures mean and how we got them, then the Church they are purporting to defend is irrelevant.

And, from one perspective, that is where the trouble all began.

The major reason I never bothered to respond to much of what Graham has to say on this topic is that he is almost completely ignorant of the historical information as well as the physical properties of the papyri. The historical references he does cite are almost always misrepresented. In addition, he is simply not aware of other historical references, some of which have surfaced only recently, and at least one of which will be cited in my recently completed paper (The Interminable Roll – Calculating the Original Length of the Scroll of Hôr) which will be published later this year in The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture, having been, just three days ago, approved by the First Presidency.

As many others, even on this message board, have learned over the years, engaging Graham in a discussion on any topic requires more stamina and commitment than is possessed by the average person. This is not due to the volume and merit of his arguments, but because of his extraordinary talent for obfuscation and unremitting (and mind-numbingly frustrating) misrepresentation of the counter-arguments presented by his opponents.

I will, however, address a few things that I noted while quickly scanning through this thread:

Chris Smith:

John is planning to soon publish a formal retraction/correction of his originally published winding length measurements, correcting them to more closely correspond to those I will soon publish. Even so, the fact remains that the Joseph Smith Papyri are written on a very, very thin stock of papyrus. The scroll of Hôr is of a different, thicker stock than the scroll of Tshemmin, but both are very thin. The undamaged portions of the scroll of Hôr that we measured (on February 5, 2010) averaged between 100 – 125 μm, which is just about the thickness of ordinary printer/copier paper. (Contrary to Dr. Shades’ continuing disbelief, I was “in the same room” with the Joseph Smith Papyri [and have been on two separate occasions] and the measurements were conducted according to my directions, utilizing a rigorous methodological approach.) The undamaged portions of the scroll of Tshemmin we measured were even thinner—in some cases much thinner. There were several places on the scroll (like around the image of the serpent with legs speaking to the woman) that were as thin as 70 – 80 μm, which is not much thicker than “onion skin” paper, or the paper used in deluxe versions of the LDS scriptures. It is beautifully manufactured material, the quality of which cannot be replicated today.
.
.
.
Dan Peterson:

Wise counsel I have taken to heart.
.
.
.
Brent Metcalfe:

I do not claim to have discovered any “new sources” when it comes to eyewitness testimony of the papyri. However, my good friend Matthew Roper has, and I will cite at least one of those findings in my upcoming paper.

In addition, I understand Kerry Muhlestein (sp?) will soon be publishing a paper that will consist of an exhaustive compilation of all known historical references to the Joseph Smith Papyri.
.
.
.
“Cracker” Graham:

I haven’t seen anything in my quick reading of this thread where I was “wrong” about anything. In fact, I can’t think of any case, right off the top of my head, where Graham has been “right” in claiming I was “wrong” about anything. I’ve recently talked about the visual copying error in Ab2 (Metcalfe’s BA1a) as well as the interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12 in the same document. In addition, I have argued that the emendations in Ab2 and Ab3 (BA1a and BA1b) are almost exclusively secondary; Ab1 (the Abr. 1:1-3 portion of Metcalfe’s “BA2”) is a visual copy of a predecessor text; and most recently that the presence of “Koash” in Ab3 (BA1b) is an evidence (among many) that Ab3 is also a copy of a predecessor text.

All of these arguments are correct. They have been confirmed by several others with text-critical and other appropriate expertise. They will be formally published in an upcoming volume in the Studies in the Book of Abraham series.

And, consistent with Dan Peterson’s wise counsel cited above, I no longer have interest in debating these issues with people whose knowledge of the material is fragmentary at best, and who are seemingly incapable of engaging in anything approaching a “scholarly” discussion. Henceforth, I will publish my findings in appropriate venues. If people like Brent Metcalfe, or Kevin Graham, or Paul Osborne (or anyone else) desire to contest my arguments, they will have to find someone willing to publish their findings and arguments, too. Otherwise, they will have to content themselves with the kind of posturing and meaningless rhetoric that passes for scholarly argumentation (and is universally acclaimed, regardless of its merit) in places such as this.

Who do you think you are fooling with this BS?

This isn't rocket science. You lied, now own up to it. You invented four witnesses out of one and all you can do in response is say that I'm the one misrepresenting history? Well prove it! Stop making excuses because it makes you look even more like an idiot.

I called you out for lying and you didn't respond because you would be forced to admit you were wrong. And as we all know too well, William Schryver doesn't admit he's wrong, especially when the guy calling you out is the same guy you have been trying to portray as an ignorant fool ever since he educated you on the subject in early 2006. And yes, I can document that too, as I have before, which you of course ignored.

You must have serious mental issues because even if what you say is true, how do you explain the fact that you claimed just recently that you've NEVER seen me respond to any of your arguments? And the fact that you were actually promising a response to me over at MAD, until you quickly ran to the mods and had me banned and all the damning evidence against you was conveniently removed. Is there no limit to far you will go in lying?

Also, you were a participant in most of the rebuttals I offered up over the years, but you thought you could just lie again (saying you never saw them) and people would just assume I was the one lying. You're so used to indoctrinating gullible doofs at MAD, so I guess that explains why you think you can get away with it here. Because it is what you're used to.



Again, you're a liar because you know damn well I was at MAD calling you out on these points and you said you were going to get back with me soon, but instead you ran to the moderators and had me banned so the points I made would be deleted and you could go on your merry way deceiving the MADites into thinking you know what you're talking about. I pointed out your misrepresentation of the evidence. You knew I did this, and now you pretend none of this happened? CK and Andrew Cook were in on this too if I recall. You even went on a rant saying I had to get the source from CK and had Metcalfe helping me, which I didn't; anything you could invent from thin air to change the subject. You seemed shocked that I was able to obtain a source document in an hour, when you couldn't. So you said I must've had Metcalfe or Vogel helping me. What an idiot. By contrast, you decided you'd cut and past an excerpt from a John Gee article and leave it at that. So when I was banned and all the comments were removed, I brought the discussion over here and suddenly you pretend you can't respond to me because nobody can discuss anything with me. What a pathetic copout. You WERE responding to me, but the only thing that changed was you were presented the opportunity to hide behind the MAD curtain where the mods protect you.

You gladly took that way out because you're a coward who can't defend his own arguments.

I guess that makes three papers that are likely to be published on this subject soon. It should be very interesting to compare their results. Why was First Presidency approval needed for your paper? Do all FARMS papers get submitted to the First Presidency for approval?


Good for him!


What was your conclusion?


My understanding was that it would be a book.

Peace,

-Chris

While he's at it, he should offer a formal retraction of the arguments he presented in his book. I understand he's backed away from them, so he should do so formally. I mean, his book is still a big hit among apologists, and they should know how flawed it is before forking out money on it.

Since Will merely mimicks Gee, maybe his retraction will encourage him to do likewise, and retract the dozen or so falsehoods he has used to pollute these web forums.

Here is the part where Will spends three paragraphs to explain why he doesn't have time or energy to respond to my criticisms.

From the non-pundit, highly uneducated, borderline stupid section of MDB posters (Where most Catholics like Ceeboo are kept by design), might I suggest this thread has been a fascinating read.

I, for one, look forward to reading more contributions from the folks who have been involved thus far (minus the personal insults).

Thanks to all who have shared (GREAT STUFF!)

Peace,
Ceeboo

When did you submit this paper? And, to echo Chris' query, why did the FP have to approve it?


When and where will this be published?

I took a grad school class with a group of teachers. We had a book to read; it was a report of a study that was done with high school students in Chicago. In the middle of the book, the writers morphed from researchers reporting their findings to advocates for those students. When we discussed the book in class, none of the teachers had noticed the change in tone. They assumed that because something was published, it was gospel truth and not to be confronted.

They failed that day. I got an A. Just because something is published doesn't mean it's right or the truth.

Heck, *I've* been published. It's not that big of a deal. Will's paper, Brent's book, Gee's book... they're interesting, but they aren't somehow transformed into the goshdanged truth, just because they get published.

I couldn't agree more. I too have been published, on 11 occasions in peer-reviewed, national publications. On one occasion, I received after publication a letter from the editorial board proclaiming it to be the best piece so published in the previous 5 years. Unfortunately, when I have had reason to re-read any of my past published pieces, I've cringed with how a word here or a thought there didn't quite measure up to what I knew at the time of re-reading. Publication means it's been printed, not that its accurate. Peer-review helps the accuracy, but does not assure accuracy.

My sense of it is that Mormon apologists tend to look at "publication" as a sign of credibility. But "scholarly" credibility is implied when published in a "peer-reviewed" journal. These examples are often thrown up to trump a publication that wasn't peer-reviewed.

I promise you that within the next year Will's trump card will be that his arguments were published in a "peer-reviewed" journal, whereas Metcalfe's have not.

Of course to those of us who know better, this means squat when your "peers" are essentially your cheerleaders at BYU. This is one of those fringe benefits that the Church receives by owning a large private university. They can essentially fabricate any kind of "scholarly" credibility they want.

Indeed, I have been told by my colleagues that it is actually easier to publish a book than to publish articles, because peer-reviewed articles often receive more rigorous scrutiny than books do!

Well how can we expect scholars at BYU to rigorously scrutinize Will's article when it has already received the sacrosanct approval of the Lord's Prophet?

I wasn't aware that President Monson is a skilled textual critic.

As I'm sure you're aware, the value of a peer reviewed journal article is correlated to the perceived quality of the journal, and there are many factors that come in to play when assessing a journal's quality.

For example, I occasionally receive a "call for papers" announcement from journals in my field. Typically, they are newer, less established journals. Last week, I received one that I looked up. The journal has it's office in Bangladesh and was in it's 3rd year. It was not indexed in the standard databases in my field (although it was indexed in others), had no published impact factor (it's too new), and had an h-index of '2'. Glancing over the available issues, it appears to have a high 'journal self-citation' rate. Based on the quality of the articles, I would guess that it may have a low rejection rate. Submitting a manuscript to this journal would have the potential to reflect poorly on a C.V or tenure application package in many academic programs.

I was curious as to how the publications coming out of the Maxwell Institute would fare in a similar assessment. A quick search yielded little information. I didn't find the journals indexed in any of the relevant databases (which included many journals that were religion-specific; ie. Evangelicals, Presbyterians, Ba'hai, Buddhism, Judaism, etc.). I am curious if the M.I. has applied for any of their publications to be included in these databases. Consequently, I found no 'impact factor' info. However, I'm not sure how relevant that is in religious studies. I did find an h-index of '2' for the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. Looking at some of the articles in the M.I., there appears to be a significant amount of 'journal self-citation'. It would be interesting to know the rejection rates for these publications. I couldn't find any information on that (which isn't that uncommon, especially in lower tier journals).

In contrast, there are a number of journals specific to the Baha'i faith (comparable to the LDS church in size and length of history) that are indexed and have published impact factors. The indexing provides greater accessibility to a wider group of scholars which can contribute greatly to the impact of the journal. For this reason, I'm curious as to whether or not the M.I. publications have applied for indexing, and if not, why not?

How would a tenure committee assess a 'Journal of Book of Mormon and other Restoration Scripture' article on an applicant's C.V. versus the Journal of Baha'i Studies? How about other religion-specific journals? I honestly don't know, but it is an interesting question.

LOL! Ring any bells?

Actually, I am very aware, since I have been given a list of the top journals in my field that will be used to judge whether my publications rate sufficiently well for tenure consideration.



I think we have a pretty good sense of how the JBMS rates in the larger world of scholarship. But in the end it is the quality of the work published therein that matters. It is easy to get hung up on the prestige of a certain publication, and I would not say there is nothing to such reputations, but other considerations matter as well. First of all, some topics are fashionable and others are not. Just because a topic is marginal does not mean that great work cannot be done on it. It is difficult to get work on a marginal topic published in the big journals. The prejudice against the topic is a big challenge. Sometimes, important articles are published in out of the way journals.



This is not that surprising, given the fact that the Baha'i faith is rather more popular among liberal academics and intellectuals than the markedly conservative LDS faith. But times are changing, and very soon I think we should expect more articles on Mormon topics in prestigious journals.



I really can't say.



I am sure they are always happy to see people publish in the best Religious Studies journals. How they assess other pieces will depend on the tenure committee, the university administration, the quality of the work, and many, many other factors.

Would this be connected to a Romney run for the presidency? To what would you attribute this, if not to the political environment?

The fact that more major academic presses like Oxford University Press are publishing books on Mormon topics. And the fact that there are more Mormon Studies programs in universities than ever before, oh, and that Mormon panels and papers are appearing in greater numbers at the annual meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature.