From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Re: BoA Papyrus (SLCM-9/92-intro)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:23:58 GMT
Summary: A Short Review of a Response to A Review :-)


Glenn Clapp has once again shown us how his nimble fingers can type,
type, type away. With Headers, my printout came to 2057 lines of text.

While this "dump" was suppose to "expose" the review of John Gee, it
actually did nothing of the sort. After printing out the Tanners'
"expose" which Glenn so patiently typed in, I went carefully over his
material and then went back carefully over John Gee and Michael Rhodes
reviews of Larson's book.

What struck me first was that the Tanners first of all attack Nibley for
not being an Egyptologist, then they criticize Gee (who is an
Egyptologist) for not supporting their point of view, then they cite
material that almost always dates from before 1971. There are a few
interesting exceptions when they do cite materials dated after 1971.

About three months ago, Mark Fuller attempted to claim that Ashment had
critized Nibley and that Nibley was supposed to have said that all his
previous writings were inaccurate (Distortion on BOTH counts). Glenn has
foolishly supplied us with Mark's source. Apparently the Tanners were
guilty of this distortation and Mark believed them.

A number of other things really stood out:

Gee points out how the Wilford Wood donation to the Kirtland Egyptian
Papers in 1945 dwelt probably the fatal blow to the Tanners' model of
"How Joseph Smith Was Suppose To Have Done It," but the Tanners never
bring it up, not even in passing! Gee :-), I wonder why?

Gee points out a number of serious problems with Larson's
"reconstruction" of Fasc No 1 and challenges him to name exactly what
"professional" Egyptologist was responsible for this reconstruction and
to demonstrate from similar papyri scenes examples to support his
"reconstruction." What do the Tanners do? They complain like little
children, "Well the reconstruction was based on Klaus Baer's
interpretation back in 1968." Well, then let's see Klaus Baer's
reconstruction, not the hack job performed by Larson or some other
anti-Mormon-non-Egyptologist cohort.

I was also amused by their extreme emphasis on "magical papyri,"
mentioned in passing by Gee. One would think that if the Tanners were
going to spend so much time on the topic, it would suppose to be rather
significant to Gee. Not so. Is this simply a diversionary tactic?

The last thing that really stood out was that contents of Michael Rhode's
rather short review was hardly touched. Instead we are treated to
several 1988 interpretation of Rhode's which may or may not reflect his
views of 1992.  In his review, Rhode pointed out seven instances
where Joseph Smith's interpretation of fasc 1-3 is in the correct
ballpark, yet the info would not be known until long after his death.
For example:

1- Kolob and the semitic root QLB have similar meaning and the arabic
   form relates to several of the brightest stars in the heavens
   Direct Hit.
2- In Joseph Smith's explaination of fig 1 in Facs No 2, he states that
   the Earth is called Jah-oh-eh by the Egyptians. The Egyptian word for
   earth is approximately pronounced as "yoh-heh." 
   Direct Hit.
3- Rhode also points out "Direct Hits" on figure 3, 4, and 6 on Facs No
   2.

I was very interested to see how the Tanners were going to explain this
away. Well, they didn't, surprised?

In short, I am very glad that Glenn typed in the Tanners' sorry attempt
to rebut the reviews of Gee and Rhode. I think that everyone ought to
get a copy of their reviews and read them if you don't believe me.  You
can order a copy of _Review of Books on the Book of Mormon_, vol 4 from
FARMS, address:

    F.A.R.M.S.
    P.O. Box 7113, University Station
    Provo, Utah 84602

    or call toll free 1-800-327-6715

Hey, Glenn shouldn't mind a bit, if he really thinks that the Tanners
zapped their reviews, then there shouldn't be any real problem with
examining the actual review. But I am very confident that anyone who
compares carefully what Glenn so patiently typed in with the actual
reviews will agree with me: The Tanners' response is miserable.

Thanks Glenn!!
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.censorship,alt.sex