Three from Gee:
"Known Contents . . . Papyrus of Hor . . . another text of which only the opening words ('Beginning of the Book of...') have been preserved." (Guide
"While Joseph slightly revised the translation preparatory to its publication in 1842, there is no other evidence that he worked on the translation of the existing Book of Abraham after 1835." (Guide
"The characters in the manuscripts are an enigma. . . . They are placed in the manuscripts at the beginning of every paragraph, but there is no pattern to the order in which they are taken from one of the papyri. They seem to be taken at random which completely undermines the theory that the English text (which in many cases is clearly written before the characters) represents a translation of them." (Gee letter posted online
, Jan 16 2010)
There are many more, but these should suffice. Note that you have at one time or another endorsed the first two claims, and continued to endorse the second even after overwhelming evidence was presented to the contrary. I don't recall if you've ever made the third claim, but you certainly did try to argue that the characters are not aligned with the English text, a claim that I believe originated with Nibley and is equally problematic. You have also tried to discredit an eyewitness account because it had Joseph Smith estimating Mormon membership at 100,000. Again, you persisted in this line of reasoning even after I showed that this was a common Mormon claim, and had appeared in the Times and Seasons
under Joseph's editorship. These are just the examples the spring to mind. I don't keep archives of your posts and don't intend to hunt them up to provide links. And, I don't particularly expect you to agree with my assessment that these are cases of confirmation bias. But that, too, is simply a symptom of the same.
I also don't intend to discuss these examples any further. I provide them, in the first place, against my better judgment.
Edited by Chris Smith, 13 February 2010 - 11:57 PM.