Book of Abraham

[Joshua Butler]

And that Phelps wouldn't have thought that individual characters contain lengthy information, is because he had no reason to!!  The proof that he did is your proof of burden!!

It would seem to me that Phelps - as someone who, in your words, "was well versed in Latin and Greek" - if he knew of Champollion's work, would say something, or refuse to go on with the work of translation.

If Phelps was aware of Champollion's work, why would he continue with the translation?

He had no reason to not continue, for if he knew of Champollion's work and continued anyway, then he would have been doing something he knew to be incorrect based on that work.

[William Schryver]

And that Phelps wouldn't have thought that individual characters contain lengthy information, is because he had no reason to!!  The proof that he did is your proof of burden!!

It would seem to me that Phelps - as someone who, in your words, "was well versed in Latin and Greek" - if he knew of Champollion's work, would say something, or refuse to go on with the work of translation.

If Phelps was aware of Champollion's work, why would he continue with the translation?

He had no reason to not continue, for if he knew of Champollion's work and continued anyway, then he would have been doing something he knew to be incorrect based on that work.

Well, I'm not arguing that Phelps did know of the work of Campollion. Only that the knowledge of the decipherment of ancient Egyptian was a BIG news story in the day, and I find it unlikely that Phelps (for one) would have been ignorant of some of the particulars. Is it possible? Yes. Is it entirely plausible? I don't think so.

I would like to review contemporary newspapers to determine the extent to which the news had penetrated the continent and the extent of the reporting on the particulars.

[Paul Osborne]

Actually, I have not violated "board rules" at all, at least as I understand them.

[William Schryver]

Actually, I have not violated "board rules" at all, at least as I understand them.  Metcalfe, as a public character, and as well one who probably occupies the highest profile position of "Mormon-baiter" and self-appointed critic, does not fall under the same protection as, say, you do.

Board rules make it clear we are not suppose to insult and flame other posters.

You said, "his lies have been instrumental"; which of course is calling him a liar. My understanding is that we aren't suppose to do that on this forum.

Other than that, I have no complaints.

Paul O

I will attempt to bridle my passions in the case of our erstwhile Brother Metcalfe.

But I don't guarantee complete success -- only a sincere effort.

Edit: I have to go feed the horses and do some yard work now or the horses will revolt and my name will be mud when the Mrs. comes home. So, I'll check back in a while to see your responses to my questions.

P, L, & NC

[Joshua Butler]

Well, I'm not arguing that Phelps did know of the work of Campollion. Only that the knowledge of the decipherment of ancient Egyptian was a BIG news story in the day, and I find it unlikely that Phelps (for one) would have been ignorant of some of the particulars. Is it possible? Yes. Is it entirely plausible? I don't think so.

I would like to review contemporary newspapers to determine the extent to which the news had penetrated the continent and the extent of the reporting on the particulars.

If Phelps knew of Champollion's work, but continued in their translation efforts without taking that information into account (provided there is any evidence he knew of Champollion's work, which I doubt you'll find), then Phelps' integrity as a translator becomes clouded at best.

[juliann]

I don't think anybody should be called liars. But as I see it the critics case against the missing papyrus looks well put together, and the case for it looks sloppily put together. Lots of something wrong if the critics have rebutted some of your best apologetic in print.

I see two names being thrown about on the mopologist end. You are not going to get a lot of mopologetics when the documents aren't available, Dale. I am aware of at least three theories and have been for some time. We are back to the tired DNA countermopologetic..."well, you didnt' say it fast enough! Oh...you did? Well..then you didnt' say it often enough!" The game will not start until all scholars can look at the primary documents (does DSS ring a bell?) When that happens, the untrained countermopologists are going to get pushed out of the way anyway.

[Kevin Graham]

The KEP have been available for sale in black and white for years, and they are rather cheap too.

[Lachoneus]

The KEP have been available for sale in black and white for years, and they are rather cheap too.

And of very poor quality.

[Kevin Graham]

== Like you?

Oh yea, I forgot. I am one of the "protected" posters! You're off by a good month and a half if that were meant to be an April fools joke.

== Why you are allowed to remain here after your Muslim bashing and continual name calling is the mystery of the year.

I am sure it must irritate you considerably that your incessant complaining was not enough to get me banned. But that's OK, because you still have that FAIR e-list fiasco to be proud of.

And FTR, I have never done any "Muslim bashing." Those who assert otherwise were those who could not argue points intelligently. The result is bigot-baiting, for which Juliann is an expert. And I am not guilty of "name-calling," at least no more than you or any other poster.

It is clear that Juliann does not intend to add meaningful insight into this KEP discussion. She is here to derail and/or obfuscate, but I hope the participants catch on to this and don't fall for the diversion.

This is clearly a hot topic, and I suspect the damage control police have been sent in as "coolers."

[Paul Osborne]

I feel overwhelmed with so many questions. Originally I was going to just watch this thread and see how Kevin would handle things. Popcorn and soda included! But, I popped in with my big mouth and now am in the thick of things with little time to spare. Sigh.

The EAG bares characters in five degrees for Toantauee and Zub Zool. The

[Dale]

With the reply on the DNA issue I thought the attack on the Book of Mormon was beaten off. With the papyrus issue John Gee published his small Guide, and never responded to criticisms recieved. John Gee said the documents he had were enough to make conclusions. If he did his homework then he should be able to respond to criticisms of his conclusions. If he needs to see originals before making conclusions then he should state he had not done an in-depth study of the originals, therefore cannot comment on them much at this time.

FAIR relied on John Gee's questioned points in some of it's reply to the Lost Book of Abraham film. If Brent is right then the source of the Book of Abraham was found & not missing.

[Paul Osborne]

The KEP have been available for sale in black and white for years, and they are rather cheap too.

And of very poor quality.

It's better than NOTHING!

Paul O

[Kevin Graham]

As the starter of this discussion, I would like to exercise my "authority" here by asking that we stay on topic. DNA issues and gripes about bad moderating should be saved for another thread.

[William Schryver]

juliann:

I appreciate your spirited defense, and I'm inclined, for the most part, to agree with its logic. But we have reached an agreeable state of affairs here, and if we can just get Paul to go along with it as well ( ), then we'll be fine.

I would, however (assuming you have investigated this topic as well) invite you to take part in the discussion vis-a-vis the KEP and their relationship to the Book of Abraham.

[juliann]

FAIR relied on John Gee's questioned points in some of it's reply to the Lost Book of Abraham film. If Brent is right then the source of the Book of Abraham was found & not missing.

That may well be the case. It will have to be changed. Is anyone really going to suggest that scholarship does not change? The problem with these discussions is that the division between cosmic truth! and scholarship becomes blurred. This looks like another gotcha game....we are supposed to stake out a theory on a hill and defend it to the death. If my belief in Mormonism is not tied to any particular theory...what is the point here except scholarship? Wait for the release of the primary documents if you want scholars to engage. Otherwise...you have to be content with the countermopologetics you are seeing here. Don't underestimate patience... the Hoffman scandal taught me that because I initally believed the countermopologists. I'd like to see Metcalfe committed in writing to his theories...he will then be subject to the same disdain being dished out to others when his theory falls apart.

[juliann]

I would, however (assuming you have investigated this topic as well) invite you to take part in the discussion vis-a-vis the KEP and their relationship to the Book of Abraham.

How does one do that based on very selective scans and best very uneducated guesses about what it "looks like"? I don't come from a background where that is tolerated let alone taken seriously. I don't see where to go here without a resolution of your objection and resolving it by calling you a "jackass" isnt' exactly what I was hoping for.

[exegete]

Hi Provis,

Your cocksure comments are so thoroughly ill-informed I scarcely know where to start untying your contorted apologetic knot. (I don't blame you for using an anonymous moniker

[juliann]

Your cocksure comments are so thoroughly ill-informed I scarcely know where to start untying your contorted apologetic knot. (I don't blame you for using an anonymous moniker

[Joshua Butler]

Equally applicable, however...

[Dale]

FAIR relied on John Gee's questioned points in some of it's reply to the Lost Book of Abraham film. If Brent is right then the source of the Book of Abraham was found & not missing.

That may well be the case. It will have to be changed. Is anyone really going to suggest that scholarship does not change? The problem with these discussions is that the division between cosmic truth! and scholarship becomes blurred. This looks like another gotcha game....we are supposed to stake out a theory on a hill and defend it to the death. If my belief in Mormonism is not tied to any particular theory...what is the point here except scholarship? Wait for the release of the primary documents if you want scholars to engage. Otherwise...you have to be content with the countermopologetics you are seeing here. Don't underestimate patience... the Hoffman scandal taught me that because I initally believed the countermopologists. I'd like to see Metcalfe committed in writing to his theories...he will then be subject to the same disdain being dished out to others when his theory falls apart.

I am open to things changing. Brent I understand is preparing a book for publication. Hope he is making progesss on it. And he has put out a lot of his case already on the internet for scrutiny.

[Joshua Butler]

Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.

Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king

[Paul Osborne]

I would like to review contemporary newspapers to determine the extent to which the news had penetrated the continent and the extent of the reporting on the particulars.

The Rosetta Stone didn

[PacMan]

Using my 'authority' as the catalyst to Kevin's 'authority' for starting this thread, I echo him...back to topic people! I don't want people pissed off (particularly those contributing) and leave. I am learning a lot myself, and find the dialogue valuable.

Joshua Butler:

Your insight is full of circulus in probando. In deed Phelps would have refused to go along with the translation if he thought it was wrong. So what if he knew of Champollion if he thought their translation was correct? Also, remember that being 'aware' does NOT mean he had access to Champollion's work. It's plausible they knew of Champollion, didn't want to wait for his work, then realized after trying to plow through it that it just might be better to wait. It's a perfect explanation as to why that work was so obviously cut short.

Kevin,

I'd like you to rebuttle my last post.

TO EVERYONE: Why would JS & Assoc. have spent their time on the Alphabet and Grammar of Egyptian, if they didn't think it was phonetic? Character based languages have NO alphabet. From Webster's 1828:

AL'PHABET, n. [Gr.]

    The letters of a language arranged in the customary order; the series of letters which form the elements of speech.

Phonetic lettering is critical to the definition of an alphabet and being as educated as the team of scribes was, there's no reason to believe they didn't understood that!!

[William Schryver]

I would, however (assuming you have investigated this topic as well) invite you to take part in the discussion vis-a-vis the KEP and their relationship to the Book of Abraham.

How does one do that based on very selective scans and best very uneducated guesses about what it "looks like"? I don't come from a background where that is tolerated let alone taken seriously. I don't see where to go here without a resolution of your objection and resolving it by calling you a "jackass" isnt' exactly what I was hoping for.

I agree that, considering what we have to go on here, everyone is engaging in speculation. I have noted as much in several of my posts. But, I don't feel the discussion is exhausted as of yet. And therefore I am content to continue.

[William Schryver]

PacMan:

TO EVERYONE: Why would JS & Assoc. have spent their time on the Alphabet and Grammar of Egyptian, if they didn't think it was phonetic?

I think the PacMan makes a valid point here. Although, as I understand it, the EAG didn't exactly give "sounds" as the definition for signs, which would be expected for a "phonetic" language. Still, the EAG provides only a fraction of English text per character as compared to the ratio between symbol/text in the "translation" manuscripts. Paul, how do you respond to this?

exegete:

I want you to know that your derision has filled me with unfathomable shame and self-loathing. Is there no balm in Gilead ... for my pain?

By the way, is exegete your real name, or can it be translated into a paragraph that describes who you really are?

And, finally, I might note that even in my errors I can console myself that I am willing and flexible enough to modify my positions in the face of greater light and knowledge. Are you?