Jump to content

CA Steve

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,212 Excellent

About CA Steve

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Robert, Breasted, a giant in his field at the time, is writing in 1912 in a response that was published in Joseph Smith, Jr., As A Translator. 56 years later, in the Improvement Era, Nibley will take him to task over and over again for his "high and authoritarian attitude...in dealing with the Book of Abraham." , Nibley concludes that "as knowledge increases, the verdict of yesterday must be reversed today, and in the long run, the most positive authority is the least to be trusted. Few have been more positive than Breasted..." As you no doubt know, Breasted here is talking about Grammaire égyptienne by J.-F. Champollion, published from 1836 through 1841. The question is; did Breasted know that Anthon had his own copy of Precis du Systeme Hieroglyphique Des Ancients Egyptians or maybe even Lettre M. Dacier ? He probably did not know. I am not arguing that Anthon could read Egyptian in 1828 or even if he knew enough to provide a comparison to the characters Harris presented him. I think we don't know enough to claim either way. Certainly without the actual copy of what Harris showed Anthon, we cannot judge. Further we are assuming that "reformed Egyptian" is close enough to some form of Egyptian to make sense of it, a big assumption to be sure. But let's assume you are right, that Anthon could not read it; what does that say about Harris and his claim that Anthon could and did? Harris' testimonies are a vital part of the foundation of Mormonism, if he made the Anthon story up, what else did he make up?
  2. Champollion's and other's works on deciphering Egyptian had been know in the US going back more than a decade when Chandler started touring with and selling off the Lebolo's collection in 1833 to 1835, one of the largest collections the country had ever seen. When Joseph Smith presented Chandler with a "sample decipherment" of some of the characters Oliver Cowdrey had copied, Chandler affirmed that Smith's translation corresponded "in the most minute matters' to other knowledge he had gleaned "in many eminent cites [from] the most learned." And, Chandler was known to have "obtained in some small degree the translations of a few characters" when he was in Philadelphia at the very beginning of his tour. By the end of his tour newspapers were praising him for "intelligent conversation" on the exhibition. It is very likely that at least some of the explanations the Joseph got right on the artifacts he purchased from Chandler were explanations Joseph learned from Chandler himself.
  3. This is an interesting statement Robert. Given your familiarity with the subject, I have a difficult time understanding how you make this claim about what Anthon could not do and the progress of Champollion's work in 1828. 1st regarding what Champollion and many others had published by 1828 we have this from Richard Bennett's excellent article “READ THIS I PRAY THEE”: MARTIN HARRIS AND THE THREE WISE MEN OF THE EAST -See pg 191 Footnote 38 So Champollion had already published quite a bit on the subject and had been doing so for a while and his were not the only works available in 1828. While some of his work was published posthumously after his death in 1832, Lettre M. Dacier and Précis du Systeme Hieroglyphique were known and available. Regarding your claim that Anthon could not read Egyptian we have this from Stanley Kimball's article The Anthon Transcript: People Primary Sources and Problems. Starting page 336 So Anthon had a copy of Champollion's work at least three years before Harris visits him. Perhaps Anthon could not read Egyptian yet when Harris showed up but certainly he could have consulted his own copy of Precis du Systeme Hieroglyphique Des Ancients Egyptians or maybe even Lettre M. Dacier to compare against what Harris presented and offered his judgement on that basis. We are taking Harris's word here for what he claims Anthon said, something Anthon denied, so in fact I think it is likely that Anthon never offered an opinion on whether the translation was correct or not. According to other accounts Anthon claimed he could not translate them.
  4. I hope not, that was not my intent Nor did I. I was just presenting a list of other possibilities, similar to what Lindsay did in his response. The event was advertised like this: So Jensen and Hauglid were there to talk about what they learned in this process. From what I have read, it looks like part of what they learned is that the missing scroll theory is not viable. Well if Lindsay is right, the students learned that some LDS scholars think that the missing portions of the JSP do not contain the papyrus from which Joseph Smith derived the BofA. Maybe, instead of criticizing Hauglid and Jensen for not presenting viewpoints he thinks are important, Lindsay might first want to ask why they think they are wrong. I believe that what something people are overlooking here, in the fault finding of these two men, is how carefully they have been examining these documents. As much as some want to make this a question for Egyptologist, I think that is only a portion, a small one in my opinion, of the issue at hand. For me the question isn't so much; "did Joseph produce an accurate English version of what was on the papyri?", it is more a question of "how he produced the BofA?". And, it is in that question, I think Dr Hauglid has as much knowledge as anyone.
  5. As a child, I lived in Provo near the Nibley's. My mother would tell me the story of a conversation she had with Dr. Nibley's wife where his wife would complain that he would hide books he had bought under their bed because they could not afford them nor did they have room for them. I am afraid I suffer from a similar affliction though clearly it has not had the same affect. I tell my wife that if God did not want me to buy books he would not have created Amazon. For those that are interested, here is a long list of upcoming Mormon themed books, many of which are scheduled for release this year. Forthcoming Books Here are some that catch my eye. Gay Rights and the Mormon Church: Intended Actions, Unintended Consequences by Gregory Prince. Here is the description for it. Creating Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects and the Making of Mormonism (ed. by Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Brian M. Hauglid) No description given. THE PEARL OF GREATEST PRICE: MORMONISM’S BELEAGUERED SCRIPTURE (Terryl Givens and Brian M. Hauglid) Oxford University Press, 2019 Here is a chapter synopsis. Enjoy.
  6. Of course my list was not meant to be all inclusive. As far as which Thompson I mentioned, I was thinking of Stephen (why people insist on spelling Steven wrong is beyond me) Thompson. I am interested in what John Thompson had to say on the BofA if you have any more information on him. Maybe I am misunderstand you, but are you saying no one but someone with a PhD in Egyptology is qualified to comment on the Book of Abraham?
  7. If this is true why did he destroy the Nauvoo Expositor press? Wasn't Oliver Cowdery, in part, excommunicated for selling his own land in Missouri?
  8. Should that obligation extend to presenting the views of scholars like Ritner, Thompson, Vogel, Marquardt, Smith, Cook, Wilson, Bell, Spalding et al, and others? Or, if they are just obligated to mention the work of those mentioned by Lindsay, are they also obligated to explain why they think they wrong? If I went to a BYU presentation on Sorenson's work, should I be disappointed if they didn't present evidence for the heartland model? Also given the enormous amount of readily available material about the Book of Abraham to anyone who is interested, especially a student, shouldn't the response to someone at BYU finding out something new be, "aren't you here to learn"?
  9. Well then it sounds a bit like Lindsay is upset because apologetic work he favors is not being represented.
  10. Has the church expressed a preference between the missing scroll theory and the catalyst theory?
  11. Lincoln when asked to pray that God was on the side of the Union, rejected the suggestion and said that they should pray that the Union was on God's side.
  12. I assume the question is in the context of a LDS point of view. So first we might need to discuss how literal we take the Biblical stories of His life. Obviously we hold to a literal death, resurrection and atonement, but beyond that what do we have to believe about His life? After all we only believe in the Bible as long as it is translated correctly. Maybe instead of a liberal vs conservative lens, he might be better viewed as either radical or reactionary. I tend to agree with Ehrman, that He is best explained as a reactionary apocalyptic prophet. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium
  13. Can you show me where the RLDS acknowledge that they believe in our section107 and that it applies to BY assuming leadership of the church?
  14. Do you know when and how that verse made it into D&C 107? I have been looking at the JSPP and it appears that 107 is a combination of two or more different revelations received years apart, neither of which contain the verse you quote above. It might help to know how and when it came together in our current form to understand the RLDS/CoC positions.
  • Create New...