Will, why don't you send this to me in a Masonic supercryptogram? At least it would look good. You could even stroke your manhood by referring to me as "little man" again! LOL. What a tool.

So, tell me, Will. Are you the one who coached Nomad in leveling serious accusations at Bell? A serious scholar and tough guy like you should know how lame and pathetic that is. Of course, we understand that he could have merely been following your sterling example, but I was wondering if you had offered a little more "hands on" guidance in this.

And, just what do I have to know that improves on the fact that, as you readily acknowledge, the only thing that really matters in all of this for LDS people is that they have faith that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who received divine revelation? It is a pretty poor faith to have to rely on your sub-Dan-Brownian nonsense. Why not cut out the dubious middleman (that would be you), and simply live one's religion with confidence that the witness of the Holy Spirit is sufficient in itself?

I don't get it.

I have a couple of extra points following my earlier post:

1. Frankly, on the basis of comparison with the relief from Dendera, it looks very much as though the 'couch' scene on the Joseph Smith papyri is in fact a damaged version of a scene depicting the begetting of Horus on Isis by the dead Osiris inseminating her in the form of a hawk that hovers over his erect penis, attended by Anubis. There is no human priest, and no knife ... and of course no Abraham on this interpretation. Now no doubt this is no more than an old anti-Mormon chestnut that has repeatedly and specifically refuted in detail, even though I had never heard of it before I started searching on Google for 'Anubis.. couch ...' and so on. But where do I have to look to find that refutation?

2. If you would like to find the original source of the book illustration of Osiris inseminating Isis linked in my earlier post, here is the original source:

E.A. Wallis Budge: Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection (1911)

It is apparent that you are not very observant. That's what happens when your conclusions are always so agenda-driven.

Oh, I know very well that we (all apologists in general, and John Gee and I in particular) are routinely accused of suffering from that unique strain of blindness. But in my 5+ years of exposure to anti-Mormon evangelists such as congregate here, I have concluded that, generally speaking, just the opposite is the case. Your JWHA Abr. 1:1-3 paper, and this newer one in Dialogue, are revealing examples of what happens when one looks at the data longingly enough for long enough until it magically transforms itself to produce the desired conclusions.

I will continue to watch your developing career in anti-Mormon publishing, but I won't expect a whole lot to change in terms of your being able to objectively and accurately assess bodies of evidence.

I do expect that you will always have a core of acolytes among the exmormon crowd, but your long-term hopes for broad respectability will inevitably be dashed by careful scrutiny of your "scholarship" by those willing to take the time and effort necessary to methodically assess its accuracy.

Today, you and Andrew are flush with the accolades being heaped upon you by an indiscriminate coterie of the willfully uninformed, similar to what Metcalfe has enjoyed during the quarter-century period of his literary indolence. Enjoy it while you can. The tide of events is against you.
.
.
.
Kishkumen:

I know you fancy yourself a 21st century manifestation of the noble Aristotelian tradition, as you (figuratively speaking) palm the broad leather arms of your imagined academic throne, and raise the snifter to your lips. I can picture you deliberately measuring your words and punctuating their delivery with a certain arrogant detachment, confident that everyone within earshot is hanging on each and every profound utterance.

Ah ... self-delusion is the sweetest wine of all, is it not?

Well, at the very least, you can reliably revel in the "respect" that flows to you from your sycophants here. You should remember, however, that I have actually been able to peek behind the curtain of your manufactured reputation, only to find a frumpy mediocrity cowering in the corner of his own deeply rooted insecurities.
.
.
.
Kevin Graham:

Speaking of the indiscriminate coterie of the willfully uninformed …
.
.
.
Chap:

You are laboring under the false impression that these lion couch vignettes (there are many that have been discovered) manifest some kind of universal consistency in terms of the elements portrayed within them. They don’t.

All three of the vignettes included in the published Book of Abraham are unique productions based on generic templates. Your strained conclusions are therefore nonsensical.
.
.
.
And with that, I must take my leave again. I trust your customary gnashing of teeth will shortly ensue, and it always engenders within me a certain degree of voyeuristic curiosity, but the unpleasant aftertaste has grown wearisome for me, and therefore I shall permit it to proceed in my absence.

You should have someone read this aloud for you so you can hear how it sounds.

Actually, you have no idea. I offer relatively pedestrian observations that you amateur wizards just don't know anything about. It is not that you are stupid, because you are actually highly intelligent. It is just that you have no idea how to conduct yourself as a professional would, and don't have any formal training. If you did, you would very likely be much better than I am at what I do. My principal objection to you is that your behavior actually harms the organizations and real professionals with which you associate.



I know that mischaracterization works well for you, but it really rather sounds like you are talking about yourself or Daniel. I am not the one who has acolytes and fans. I do not aspire to have them. I am a rather unassuming character. I don't spend a lot of time vaunting my superior knowledge, promoting my work, and calling everyone else uninformed and stupid, while at the same time failing to provide the factual material and rational arguments that would support my view. I really can't help the fact that you have failed to provide these things thus far. I look forward to reading what you have to say in your forthcoming article, and if it turns out that I am pleasantly surprised, I will happily tell you so.

You see, I don't need to put you in your place to be a happy guy. You exist in your place; I exist in mine, and I do not envy you in the least. I would respect you if you behaved more like Wiki Wonka, Kevin Barney, or David Bokovoy. Unfortunately, your ego is too precious for you to place FAIR, the LDS Church, or your own work first.



Well, you would seem to know better than I would.



Yes, I too realize that you are a human being, Will. And so I have been able to step outside of our conflict to praise you for the things you do that I actually find worthwhile and commiserate with you too (if you recall). I don't need to distort you in some kind of cartoonishly sinister or pathetic way, as you feel the need to do to me. Why is that, do you suppose?

If anyone respects me, it is because of my decency toward them, not because I have bamboozled them into believing that I am some kind of guru. I haven't even tried. Go ahead and ask someone whom you hold to be my most fawning sycophant. I don't see that I have a single one, but you go ahead and try the one you feel best fits your characterization.

I await the results of your serious research. May your ego flourish in the process.

My only comments:

• You don't know WikiWonka as well as he knows you and I know him.
  `
• I have no desire to be like either Kevin Barney or David Bokovoy. While I continue to hold the former in esteem, as I have previously held the latter, I disagree with both on many questions of a very fundamental nature, and consider them to be (albeit unconsciously and well-intentioned) representative examples of an ultimately destructive element within the Church of Jesus Christ. I predict that both will, before their mortal sojourn ends, have hard decisions thrust upon them that will test the limits of their humility and obedience.

I don't have to. I don't need him to like me. I respect what I have seen him do. I cannot say the same for you.



Yes, and this is one of the many reasons I fundamentally don't trust you, respect you, or like you very much. You are in some ways a pretty disturbing character. But, hey, Daniel thinks you are "bright" and "interesting," and I hear that you didn't insult members of his family when you met them! So, I guess that has to count for something.

I've often wondered whether they would have purchased the papyrus had that portion been intact. At the very least, I think chapter 1 would have been different.


Yup

The jackal class can duel wield.

I love the way you just can't resist a shot at me. Why? I am just me, whether you think I'm posturing or not. And which is a better posture, anyway: well-meaning and humble, or insufferably arrogant and ludicrously self-important?

The sad thing is I think your posture is every bit as sincere as mine. You really do see yourself and others the way you describe in your posts. That ought to give everyone pause.

I am quite confident that this is true. And, yes, it should give everyone pause. Some prominent apologists, however, have obviously been sucked in quite thoroughly. So, one must give the man his due. He is a bird of that feather in the ways that seem to really count.

This from a guy who just moments earlier said: "You could even stroke your manhood by referring to me as "little man" again! LOL. What a tool."

Amazing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

A sense of continuity is not the strong suit of these people. They're the kind of folks who, if a character in a movie is seen in one shot with a beard, and in the next is suddenly clean-shaven, will not perceive the obvious inconsistency.

I wasn't aware that I was here representing my field. Are we discussing my academic discipline, Wade? Am I associating with my professional peers? Are you holding out on me here?

What is amazing, Wade, is that you guys parade around as champions of the cause of Jesus Christ. That is amazing.

Something you have undoubtedly spent much time practicing.

Kind of like all those different versions of the First Vision. Nephi/Moroni/Jesus/God/angels, they're all the same.

Will, why not stop with the silly "you all suck and I'm the greatest" antics and actually try to prove your mettle with some serious debate? You used to do this until it became clear to you and everyone else that you had no case that could withstand basic criticism. There are at least a half dozen threads waiting for you to defend your various idiotic claims. Why are you such a coward? Do you really think you're impressing anyone here with your strokes of rhetoric? You're a mouse among men here, and always will be until you address the numerous refutations that have been handed to you.

Don't worry Will, as bad as it gets here for you, you're not in any danger of losing another tooth.

I suspect that in some cases this may have something to do with a deep loathing of self-reflection, born of taking themselves and others too seriously. This was brought home to me when many of them have had sifgnificant emotional reactions over the years when I publically held up a textual mirror to their face. They have an amazing capacity to disdain in others (sometimes mistakenly) what is unwittingly pronounced in themselves.

Some here suffer more from this malady than others. I can't think of anyone who suffers more from it than Kevin Graham. He is in a world all his own, to the point that it can't help but envoke pity in the gentle-hearted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You know, Wade, as mean-spirited as your post comes across, I honestly think you mean well. I can't say the same about Will, but I think you do. My problem with your "mirror" approach has always been that it wasn't so much a reflection of what people were actually saying and doing as it was your interpretation of others' actions and words.

Lately things have gotten really personal around here, on both sides, and I've had enough. I've been quite ill the last two weeks or so, such that I am barely able to work (I've missed 4 days of work in the last 2 weeks), and the atmosphere around here is not helping. Plus, I tend to be a bit irritable when I am in as much pain as I am. So I'm going to take a break, get some rest, and watch some basketball. I'll be back when I'm feeling better.

Passive-aggressive = Wade thinks he is winning

Hmmm... very interestink, Dr. Freud. Your penetrating powers of observation are most fascinatink.





How would you know? Did you consult someone like that?