Ryan Dahle

I don't think Joseph had any "doubt" about whether Martin saw the vision. He clearly was convinced Martin had the vision. It seems Joseph was just trying to be careful about not speaking for Martin. Joseph couldn't definitively say what Martin saw, especially in this sort of quasi-legal context. He could only certainly declare what he himself experienced in that moment. Fortunately, Martin repeatedly testified throughout his life about the experience. For a recent treatment of Martin's testimony, see Neal Rappleye, "Material Plates, Spiritual Vision: Martin Harris, Divine Materiality, and Seeing with 'Spiritual Eyes'," in Steadfast in Defense of Faith, ed. Shirley S. Ricks, Stephen D. Ricks, and Louis C. Midgley (Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2023), 271-298.

That is a pretty outdated description of the team (in the link). John Thompson, Matt Roper, and others are now on board. These new Marvelous Work videos are primarily developed by the video team, with researchers playing sort of a consulting and reviewing role, and sometimes we will participate in interviews etc. Other than watching the trailer, I don't personally know much more than anyone else about exactly what all will be in the first episodes and what is planned for future ones. I hope they are awesome.

Can you elaborate on this? If a church member confesses actions of abuse to a member of the clergy of a Church, and the state's laws make that confession a legally privileged communication, how would breaching that privilege not be illegal? For instance, the Idaho law stipulates: What does this legal privilege mean if the clergyman can then disclose the confession contrary to the confessor's wishes without any legal consequences to the clergyman? Stated another way, if there is nothing legally barring the clergyman's unauthorized disclosure of the confession, then in what way is the confession legally "privileged"?

Apology accepted. I'm glad you feel remorse and have repented of your sins. 😉

Let's just end our conversation on this happy note, after such a good-faith effort towards mutual understanding and healthy dialogue.

If you read my statements in context, I think you will find that the description of sexual child abuse wasn't intended as a "perfectly analogous" comparison to homosexuality (as in, item A is basically the same as item B). I am fully aware of a variety of important differences, despite these behaviors belonging to the same general category of sexual sins, under orthodox Latter-day Saint views of sin. Rather, I used pedophilia and adultery because, generally speaking, they are sexual activities with which pretty much everyone on this board will likely agree are not morally acceptable (even when those engaging in such activities have strong, innate desires driving their behavior). In other words, I used them for comparison precisely because so many people feel differently about them in contrast to homosexuality (and not because I think they are precisely the same as homosexuality). And this was all part of a broader set of points that you will have to go back and read for yourself, if you want to understand it and engage. Thus, in the context in which I used the comparison, and for the purpose of me using it, I think it was perfectly appropriate. That is just how philosophical and especially ethical discussions work: the interlocutors compare and contrast all sorts of related thoughts and behaviors for different purposes, and any given proposed comparison can have drastically different implications, depending on the nuances of the surrounding statements.

True enough. The truths that someone needs to most hear in any given moment can be difficult to discern, especially because sometimes people don't initially respond well to what they most need to hear or learn. Other than through inspiration, I think it is often very hard to know what the right thing to say is. Sometimes parents say things to their children that are rejected and initially turn their kids away from the parents. But later in life the children remember their parents' teachings and return (sort of like Alma the younger, who remembered the words of his father). On the other hand, sometimes we really can (and often do) say the wrong truths at the wrong time and unnecessarily push people away. And of course, sometimes we can say things that aren't even true or helpful at exactly the wrong time. Probably me more often than I would like to admit.

Yes. The fact that we chose to come here and that it is a relatively short portion of our eternal existence should definitely influence our perceptions of disparities and suffering.

I think it may depend on the purpose of describing the unfairness. My goal in this portion of the post wasn't so much about identifying a good path forward, but rather was aimed towards recognizing the problem with using perceived "unfairness" as the ultimate measuring stick of goodness or divinity (hence why I used the term). I actually see the Plan of Salvation (as it has been revealed in multiple Restoration texts) as collectively developing a sort of comprehensive theodicy, which is intended to help us NOT see life as unfair and to NOT see ourselves as victims. But your point is well taken. I'm still struggling to figure out how to relate these ideas in a way that isn't off-putting or isn't easily misunderstood.

I think the bolded words are probably the only portions with which @Calm disagrees (f I understand her correctly). Perhaps another way to look at it isn't about the law imposing an unfair or unequal burden upon the individuals, but rather that, at least in some cases, nature itself is creating the disproportionate burden. You seem to be looking at the LofC almost like the law of gravity. It affects all people equally, but the elderly or the unwell are often burdened by this law to an extent that healthy individuals aren't (and often can't fully imagine or empathize with). It isn't the law itself that is unfair or unequal, but rather various individuals' ability to abide by or function under the law (which may be due to nature or to their personal choices which lead to a lack of health or to both). I think all that Calm is saying is that if we go to a nursing home where people are upset about the unfairness of their not being able to walk freely as most people can, it may be wise to empathize with their plight rather than to focus on the fairness of gravity. On the other hand, to Smac's point, if residents of a nursing home truly are railing against gravity and emphasizing how unfair and unjust the law is, it may be helpful for some of them to recognize that the law itself actually isn't to blame, but that the undue burden comes from another source. Whether those suffering just need empathy or whether they may need more clarity about the true source of their plight may depend on their individual circumstances. Most people probably need both to some extent. One final point. I think that in the end, it is crucial to recognize that whether it is the law of gravity or the law of entropy (as human bodies eventually grow old and break down) that is causing someone's challenge (under the above scenario) then the burden can ultimately be traced back to the creator of these laws, especially if the lawgiver knew what he was doing and had the capacity to make things fair. In other words, the unfairness in relation to our varying capacities and burdens in relation to gravity ultimately is a product of God's intentional creative acts. It is how he intentionally designed the world. Similarly, if (1) God is the author of the law of chastity, and also (2) the creator of our mortal bodies, and (3) knew when he created our bodies that some people would have a harder time with the law of chastity than others for different reasons, and (4) he could have created our bodies differently so that no one would have an unequal burden in this area, and (5) if he could take away that burden at any time but chooses not to then, (6) we have to conclude that God is the ultimate sources of the unfairness (not BYU or the Church) and therefore that (7) we need to find a way to reconcile his unfairness with his justice and goodness or else (8) we must conclude that God is evil. This is why, for me, the argument that we know the LofC isn't from God (due to its blatantly obvious unfairness) is insufficient. The God I believe in has created the world so that disparities and unfairness confront us around every corner. True, many of the injustices of life are caused by other mortals. But underneath it all is a God who designed a world to test and try us, a place where bad things happen to good people simply because they get sick or because a hurricane destroys their home. Inequity and inequality is built into the system intentionally, so that one way or another we all get a pretty healthy taste of it. And God hasn't given the details for the vast majority of these disparities. Thus, for me, once we can solve the broader problem of evil, it seems like that same solution might very well be able to solve specific challenges to faith that fall under this general umbrella, such as the LofC.

Thanks for making this point. I was actually worried at the end of my post that I sort of lumped your views into a into a silo to which they didn't belong. My initial comments started off by addressing contrasting views of impact, held by you and Smac, but then much of the rest of my post was aimed much more broadly at different perspectives about impact (and weren't intended to be representative of your own specific views). Thanks again for the clarification and I apologize if my post inadvertently implied incorrect ideas about your own views (I wasn't careful enough about that and can see why it came across that way).

So it would appear that those conversing about the issues (@smac97 and @Calm) definitely have different views of "impact." A lot of it also probably has to do with the way that certain subjective desires are perceived as well as the way that homosexual behavior is perceived. The current gospel view is that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and spiritually harmful. Therefore, desires to engage in this behavior, even if they arise from biological or psychological conditions largely out of one's control, are nevertheless to be viewed as something like temptations to commit sin. The law is there to help warn and protect individuals and communities against the harmful effects of these behaviors. Thus, homosexual attraction could be compared (as Smac has done) to other inappropriate desires (such as committing adultery or assault or some other widely eschewed behavior). One might also note that people don't generally have a lot of pity or sympathy or empathy for those who molest children, no matter how strong or authentic their subjective urgers to commit this behavior may be. Thus, it would appear that the positive perception of homosexual behavior and desires (in contrast to something like child abuse) is likely what is driving the pushback against Smac's views, not merely the subjectively perceived disproportional impact itself. In contrast to the above gospel view, those who indeed view homosexual behavior as morally acceptable and even something to be commended, will likely view homosexual desires in the same positive light. And from that perspective, any law against homosexual behavior won't seem like it is meant to protect individuals and communities from true spiritual harm, but rather to unfairly stifle their completely legitimate and appropriate desires. Thus, from this perspective, analogies to laws against adultery or child abuse would seem completely invalid. Here is another interesting way of looking at impact that might shed light on the divergent views. One could certainly argue that the commandment against adultery disproportionately affects those who desire adultery compared to those who don't. And from a personal, subjective perspective that seems to be true. However, even from a subjective viewpoint (rather than a legalistic view) there are potentially different ways of viewing this disparate impact. Imagine, for a moment, that a man has been tempted to commit adultery for many years but chooses to never give in to the temptation. And imagine that part of his resolve to resist has come from the negative consequences that he knew would follow: not only would giving in to temptation harm his marriage, but he knew it would be a sin against God, reduce his capacity to serve God, and lead to Church discipline of some sort. And then imagine that eventually this temptation subsides, so that he no longer desires to commit adultery and he is grateful that he never did. How might this individual look at the disproportionate impact of the law? Would he see it as an oppressive rule that unfairly stifled his innate desires, not allowing him to authentically carry out his very natural biological and social tendencies. Or would he see the disproportionate affects of the law as a blessing, helping save him from a temptation to commit harm that many other people might not fully understand or appreciate? If viewed from the latter perspective, the disproportionate impact would be seen as a blessing rather than as unfair oppression. The law might be seen as "targeting" him in order to help him resist evil, rather than merely as a vehicle to unfairly condemn him and limit his freedom to be himself. So, I think what this really all boils down to is whether or not we believe that God has truly prohibited homosexual behavior, as well as assumptions about why he has or hasn't done so. It isn't just the fact that the law of chastity seems (from a subjective viewpoint) to disproportionately impact gay and lesbian Latter-day Saints that seems to rile people up (as most people seem perfectly okay that the law disproportionately impacts those with desires to commit child abuse or other harmful acts). Rather, what seems to be driving the outrage against the disparate impact is the perception held among many people that the law of chastity itself is wrong and that homosexual desires and behavior are morally acceptable and commendable (and in no way spiritually harmful or truly against God's commandments in any way). Late Note: I might just add that I think that no matter one's personal weaknesses or sins, whether great or small, God has perfect empathy, sympathy, and love for his children. That is the whole point of the Atonement. And we should strive as best we can to follow in Christ's footsteps. I want to clarify that I am in no way advocating that gay or lesbian members of the Church don't deserve empathy, sympathy, or love. I think they deserve all three. I think they truly are disproportionately impacted by the law of chastity in a way that would be extremely difficult for those not in their situation to understand or appreciate. The fact that this disproportionate impact is caused by differences in their subjectively perceived desires or attractions (which to a large extent may be out of their control) does not invalidate its reality for their lives. I think the way forward, at least for those who uphold and believe in the law of chastity, is to help others to trust in God and to subjectively frame this disproportionate impact in a different light.

Nope. I actually didn't say that or imply it. I knew that they aren't the main reason people leave. But this topic still matters and it isn't insignificant. Even when it isn't a main reason, it is often a contributing factor at some point. In any case, I will let you have the last word, until our next pleasant conversation.

Or maybe you are just being hasty. Maybe I've actually looked at a lot of this data and have just reached a different conclusion than you. Perhaps part of the problem is that you think people that disagree with you must hold different views because they are too shallow to control their biases or because they just must be wedded to pet theories that confirm what they want to believe. Maybe you should adopt a different style of discourse.

Actually, those who try to account for the ancient features in the facsimiles definitely do have to start resorting to "plausibility" arguments to try to explain away the ancient correspondences. Whether the faithful Latter-day Saint Egyptologists involved are holding to their pet theories or you are holding to your unwarranted assumptions remains to be seen. As you say, there is a lot of minutia to dig through. No, we don't. You feel that need (for whatever reason). I don't. I have no problem with the idea that Joseph's connecting his text to the papyri was simply wrong. I should point out that we haven't yet dealt with the any of the allegedly ancient features of any of the facsimile explanations (we haven't even got to that). And that is mostly what is driving my conclusions (rather than some "need" to save some interpretation at all costs). I will point out, though, that you seem to frequently impute shallow motives and biases to those you converse with that turn out to be wrong. It might be better to just talk about the data and the possible interpretations of it. We are clearly on the same team. But we can drop the conversation. And we probably should as it is technical enough that it will take up too much of my time.

Well, sure, we can say that the vignette discovered in a funerary context. But that doesn't mean that the facsimile itself is a standard funerary scene or that it wasn't ever perceived anciently to be connected to the BofA. You seem to be conflating specific trees for the forest. Most forests, even if they are predominantly one type of tree, tend to have all sorts of other trees scattered here and there in different contexts. Not all texts buried in funerary contexts are themselves funerary texts. I'm not saying that they didn't make that assumption. But it technically a separate issue. Here are the two different assumptions: Assuming that the images on the vignette relate to the text of the BofA. Assuming that because the characters from the Book of Breathings are adjacent to the vignette that they must correspond to the BofA text. It is possible that Joseph received the explanations of the vignette by revelation (or at least that revelation played a significant role in the explanations) but then he (or his associates or both) mistakenly assumed that the text next to the vignette (which he knew was correlated to the BofA), must itself be the BofA. In fact, having a revelatory basis to first connect the vignette to the text may actually help explain why the adjacent characters from the Book of Breathings show up in the KEP. So your point here is pretty much irrelevant. On the other hand, there are still major question marks concerning these characters and their use in the KEP. There are several reasons to think that those involved didn't actually think the characters and their explanations correlated directly to the Book of Abraham. There are major problems with a simplistic backwards translation theory. Something else was going on, and nobody seems to know what it was. So your point is also inconclusive.

Well, that is fine if you don't want to dig into the minutiae. But whether or not Skousen's interpretation is correct may very well depend on it. And that is what this thread is about. As I guess you are aware, concerns about the authenticity of the Book of Abraham rank pretty high on intellectual reasons for people losing their testimonies and leaving the Church. So, while it may not be that important to many members of the Church, it is obviously important to many who leave or who are in the processes of leaving. It isn't just a matter of comparative doctrinal significance. It is a matter of trust. It is a matter of the limits of prophetic fallibility and the ability to place faith in Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, which obviously is a key pillar of one's testimony in the Restoration. If I truly felt like there were no basis for the text being translated from ancient papyri and that the facsimile explanations were purely a product of Joseph's mistaken conjectures, then I would probably adopt something like your view. But I think that is not only the less likely option but also a less helpful one, when it comes to most people trying to navigate a faith crisis.

I'm not creating your argument for you. We obviously agree about some things and disagree about others, often in complex ways in relation to general topics. Where our ideas intersect, great. I think you must have misunderstood. I'm not saying that the insertion was ancient. I don't think it was. I think Joseph Smith most likely made it. But I think it is plausible that the reason he made the insertion was because he believed, based on other revealed details, that there was an ancient perceptual link between the vignette and the text of the BofA. In other words, the reason for the insertion may have ultimately derived from antiquity rather than being due to his own conjecture. Joseph's use of Sephardic Hebrew doesn't really play into that assumption. It is a separate issue.

I don't actually think this argument works. What you are essentially suggesting is that there was an original. That original was appropriated by ancient Egyptians at some point in the past, giving it a new meaning and context. Joseph Smith then sees the original before it was appropriated and returns it to its original context. I think this is splitting hairs to try and protect some value or idea that doesn't need to be protected. What is your underlying concern that you are trying to protect by keeping Joseph Smith from appropriating the image? That is not what I am saying. I'm saying that Joseph's explanations may reflect a variety of concepts: Concepts related to the the original BofA and Abraham's worldview. Concepts that were held by later interpreters or redactors of the text or facsimiles (likely Jews living in Egypt). Concepts that Joseph learned through his study of Hebrew. Concepts adapted to modern audiences by revelation. I'm not splitting hairs to protect something that doesn't need to be protected. I just have a hard time seeing the facsimile explanations as purely a product of Joseph's (1) conjecture (2) Hebrew studies or (3) modern revelation for modern audiences. I see things in each of the facsimile explanations that seem to be (1) genuinely ancient and relevant to ancient Hebrew or Egyptian culture, (2) unlikely to be guessed by Joseph Smith, and (3) non-inferable from the text of the BofA. So we have to come up with some theory to accommodate both the ancient and modern aspects of the text itself and of Joseph's explanations of the vignettes.

What I meant was that ancient people (most likely ancient Jews living in Egypt) may have, at some point, conceptually linked these or similar vignettes with the text of the Book of Abraham. They may have been transcribers or redactors of the text (not necessarily its "authors"), or just readers of it. It is also possible that some ancient people more directly associated the text and the facsimiles by writing down interpretations or descriptions linking the two together. In that case, they would be "authors" of the explanations. These potential "authors" or individuals could have written or perceived these relationships before the text took its final form and therefore Joseph's explanations could be derived from a context not directly related to the Joseph Smith Papyri (although they could be related, as we are still missing lots of papyri). Whether or not the vignette represented by Facsimile 1 is meant to be associated with its adjacent funerary text or with the text of the BofA (or both) is not clear merely from its proximity to the Book of Breathings. As the gospel topics essay states: "Some have assumed that the hieroglyphs adjacent to and surrounding facsimile 1 must be a source for the text of the book of Abraham. But this claim rests on the assumption that a vignette and its adjacent text must be associated in meaning. In fact, it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary." And I'm guessing you know that whether or not the vignette itself is merely a common funerary scene is a debated position and that some key differences may indeed support Joseph's explanations: https://mormonchallenges.org/2013/02/10/abraham-challenge-2/ https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-idolatrous-priest-facsimile-1-figure-3/ https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/facsimile-1-as-a-sacrifice-scene/ Furthermore, as Gee has pointed out: "In working with the Facsimiles, I assume that as Ptolemaic period vignettes they should be treated as Ptolemaic period vignettes, with the same approaches and knowledge of the range of possibilities. There are over twenty-two hundred Ptolemaic period books of the dead known. Very few Egyptologists have explored this material in any depth and have an idea about the scope of this material. I only know of about five of us. Last month one expert who twenty years ago put together thirty-nine Ptolemaic manuscripts (which at the time had not been done before) made some conclusions based on those thirty-nine manuscripts. Now there are two data sets dating to the Ptolemaic period of 833 manuscripts and 1386 manuscripts respectively, so almost 57 times as many manuscripts. Those who have been through the larger data set rightfully questioned some of the conclusions based on the much smaller data set. Until one has looked at a few thousand Ptolemaic period vignettes one is really not able to comment on them in an informed manner. Even with the larger number of manuscripts, there are still surprises. I showed a vignette from one of the Joseph Smith Papyri to one of the experts who had cataloged all of the known vignettes from Ptolemaic period manuscripts, and he could only think of one that was remotely similar, and none that were identical. He found the matter curious, not alarming." Gee has also remarked: "Interpretations of the facsimiles by most Egyptologists begin with the assumption that the facsimiles are standard illustrations for funerary texts. (Egyptologists describe any text found buried with someone as funerary whether or not the text was originally intended to be connected with a burial.) These interpretations are often hampered by the lack of good recent studies on the class of illustrations to which the various facsimiles belong. Comparisons between Joseph Smith’s explanations and those of the ancient Egyptians have inherent problems: (1) We only know what Joseph Smith called the figures in the facsimiles, but we do not have corresponding portions of the Book of Abraham that would tell the story portrayed in two of the facsimiles. (2) The ancient Egyptian interpretation of figures does not necessarily match those of modern scholars." Maybe. It is also possible that he edited and updated existing or preliminary explanations with his newly acquired Sephardic knowledge. Either way, this doesn't really affect the core issue here (at least not under my working assumptions). But it is interesting and helpful to consider. But that is just the problem. You seem to presume that we can confidently assume a given context for the production of the document and facsimile. First of all, we don't know whether or not the BofA was on the missing papyri. And that obviously influences what we might presume about Hor's understanding of the text and its possible relationship to Facsimile 1. Unless we know one way or the other, we can't determine what this particular individual likely "understood" about the possible relationship. Yet even if the missing papyri theory is wrong and the catalyst theory is correct, that still doesn't solve the bigger problem. Which is that there would still remain a host of complex possibilities pertaining to the BofA text and these Facsimiles before they came into the possession of Hor. If anything should be clear from modern studies of ancient pseudepigrapha, it is that we often simply can't tell all of the convoluted steps that may have been taken before any given text has reached its final form. Dating a text's final form is often possible, but teasing out all the layers of translation, transmission, redaction, original source materials, and so forth is often impossible. The history of some texts we can ferret out better than others, but there are always limits, sometimes major ones. Until we know many more specifics about the history of the BofA text and the potential history of its association with the vignettes, we can't really say much about how these items were anciently understood. We can only guess, based on similar examples of vignettes and caches of similar texts. But that is a problem because the extant data, as robust is it may appear, is likely still a highly fragmentary and incomplete picture of what all ancient people might have ever thought of these texts and vignettes. And as Gee has pointed out, there are actually very few people in a position to make authoritative assessments based on the data that we have.

Yeah. I get that. I'm not saying that Tweed's posts aren't in the same ball park of the discussion. Tweed just seems to be flitting from one claim to another, with very minimal engagement with his (or her) interlocutors.

The problem is that even if the editorial comment in the text was from Joseph, it doesn't necessarily follow that the relationship between text and the facsimiles wasn't ever intended or perceived by any ancient authors. A big part of the analysis depends on what people think about the explanations in the facsimiles. Do they look like Joseph was simply trying to match up images with the text, merely inferring a relationship? Or are there aspects of the explanations that seem (1) authentically ancient, (2) unlikely for Joseph Smith to think up on his own, and (3) non-inferable from the text itself. If the latter is the case, then it is possible that instead of reflecting Joseph's own inference, the editorial insertion into the text (pointing to its relationship to Facsimile 1) represents an ancient (and not merely modern) perceptual link between the text and images. Ancient cultures were reappropriating iconography long before Joseph Smith came on the scene. That is so well attested that it hardly needs mentioning. The issue might further be complicated by the possibility of the text itself and the facsimile interpretations having some content that is ancient and other content that has been repurposed for modern audiences. I think the text of the Book of Mormon is also like this, as it appears to be a dynamic translation, ranging from literal, to functional equivalent, to expansion in some areas. In fact, I suspect that pretty much all of Joseph's translations were like this. If this possibility is correct, it means that one can't simply identify elements that seem to be modern or Joseph's (like his use of Hebrew terms in the Sephardic tradition) and see that as dispositive evidence for a strictly modern repurposing (when it comes to either the text itself or the facsimile interpretations). Another analog would be the temple endowment. It would be fallacious to assume that just because there are aspects of the temple endowment borrowed from freemasonry that the whole thing is Joseph just cribbing off his 19th century environment, or merely creating something new through inspiration. As for me, I think there are enough seemingly ancient details in the facsimile explanations meeting the three criteria stated earlier that I don't think these are merely Joseph's "new" creations (even though some aspects of the explanations certainly could be and probably are adaptations for modern audiences or somewhat filtered through Joseph's own understanding of ancient languages, etc.).

Is it allowed for members of the board to just randomly spew out claims like this, without any real dialogue? Whoever Tweed1944 is, it is clear that he/she is just using the board as a propaganda outlet.

I don't think that is really true. In a number ways, Egyptological expertise plays into the complex assessment of determining the source of the Book of Abraham. In my experience, the Egyptologists in the Church are generally better equipped to assess the situation because they are very familiar with both the historical data AND the Egyptological material. For instance, whether or not the characters adjacent to Vignette #1 should be viewed as necessarily connected with the vignette is an Egyptological question. The typical length of scrolls and what types of texts might be found on what types of scrolls is also an Egyptological question (and no, the length of the Horus scroll and other scrolls is not yet settled, imo). The identification of the characters in the KEP and how they relate to the characters in the extant fragments is also at least partially an Egyptological question (as it deals with the identification of the characters). And so on. This also doesn't seem to be true. The catalyst theory doesn't necessitate that the text of the BofA is not authentic or ancient, nor would it even necessarily mean that the text isn't associated with Ptolemaic-era documents. Nor would it necessarily invalidate the explanations of the facsimiles. I personally don't prefer the catalyst theory, but even if it were true it hardly "eliminates" most of the work of Egyptologists. The fact is that there are many aspects of the explanations of the facsimiles that have ancient Egyptian correspondences or which fit ANE worldviews. And the same thing is true with the text itself. Until someone can actually demonstrate the true source of the text(s)/revelation(s) (under the catalyst theory), and how this information was conveyed to Joseph Smith, and its possible redactions over time, and all of its potential ancient contexts, then all of those discoveries by Latter-day Saint Egyptologists would still be on the table and potentially relevant, until disproven.

A better assessment would be to just look at their comprehensive CVs. Of the 148 publications listed in Gee's compiled curriculum vitae from 2019, I counted 70 that were from non-Latter-day Saint publishing outlets. So just under half. Are you somehow implying that he isn't a legitimate Egyptologist, based on his resume? The "missing scroll" theory posits that Joseph had a scroll in his possession from which at least some, much, or all of the BofA text was derived. Even if the theory is correct, whether or not Joseph's translation filled in missing lacunae in the papyri fragments can't be known. Thus we can't compare Joseph's approach to possible lacunae in the text with lacunae in the facsimiles. Even if we could, I'm not sure that anyone would be in a position to determine whether lacunae should or shouldn't be filled in by revelation in any given context. In other words, you first would need to set forward a theory as to why any lacunae in any given context should be expected to be filled in by revelation. As for me, it doesn't seem strange at all that Joseph or God would not think it is necessary to fill in these particular missing portions. And I'm perfectly okay with the theory that Joseph simply used filler text from the extant JSP fragments, probably for aesthetic reasons. Interestingly, Joseph's treatment of these characters (opting not to give them explanations) poses somewhat of an obstacle to those who think that Joseph believed his BofA text was translated from the characters adjacent to facsimile 1 (which is one of the major contested issues in the larger debate). See: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/2020-fairmormon-conference/the-answer-under-our-heads