The "missing Papyrus" Theory

[Olavarria]

The circled text identifies the figure on the couch as Abraham.

Dang it Jeru, dont use egyptian stuff that doesnt appear on anti vids, and dont even think of bringing up the Testemant of Abrahams pilfering of Book of the Dea chap 125.

[noel00]

Herr Amun, only a small step to be converted to the view it is a 19th Century production. I think Ben Maguire argues the LDS church should never have canonised the BOA.

[Jerubaal]

If that piece was attached then why not the gap in the BOB? It seems the roll was pulll off the mummy, those sections Fac 1 and the BOB at the top with Fac 3 the least damage inside, hence the gap because the BOB and Fac 1 were glued to the mummy. The gap in the BOB was filled with symbols not know in Egyptian (made up), a similar gap which appears in in Fac 1. Are there fibres in the glue where the knife was supposed to have been?

I can't make make head or tail of what you are trying to say here.

[William Schryver]

So you are arguing that the BOB was connected to some other piece that has no connection in content with the BOB? Thats a long stretch. I think it was Ritner whoe questioned Gee's ideas about the length of papyri in general. You wonder why some nonlds shake their heads in disbelief at some attempts apologists to save the BOA. So u r saying its just a co-incidence that the scribes used the wrong piece to do the reverse-engineering?.

No one is disputing that the surviving papyri fragments represent only a small portion of what Joseph Smith originally possessed. And no one is disputing that the so-called Book of Breathings was attached to Facsimile #1. However, the text at the end of the fragment we have reads "The beginning of the book of …" There was, indisputably, a text that followed the surviving fragment. The question is what it was. And there was more than one scroll.

But, of course, you’re not really interested in discussing the issues. You have a history of popping into these threads about the Book of Abraham and the KEP, making a few drive-by sarcastic remarks, and then avoiding the real meat of the discussion.

Anyone who is really interested can consult the KEP thread in the Pundits forum, where most of the issues were discussed in depth. There are many plausible explanations for why the KEP manuscripts were prepared. And there is powerful evidence to support the argument that all of the extant KEP Abraham manuscripts are copies of older document(s). Brian Hauglid (who is undertaking a methodical and detailed analysis of the KEP) will address many of these arguments in his upcoming FAIR conference address.

Anyway, the bottom line is that, in reference to the question of there being “missing” portions of the scrolls, the answer is undeniably “YES.” We have only a mere fraction of the scrolls that Joseph Smith purchased from Michael Chandler. Anyone who argues to the contrary simply doesn’t know what s/he is talking about.

[structurecop]

Read Rhodes's article. I have for one have been re-converted to catalyst-ism by David Bokovoy.

Welcome back, Brother.

[noel00]

Anyway, the bottom line is that, in reference to the question of there being â??missingâ? portions of the scrolls, the answer is undeniably â??YES.â? We have only a mere fraction of the scrolls that Joseph Smith purchased from Michael Chandler. Anyone who argues to the contrary simply doesnâ??t know what s/he is talking about.

If this is true why did the scribes use symbols to "practice" re-engineer the Egyptian language from the BOB rather than the "missing" BOA? I think some LDS (e.g David B.) no longer accept the "missing scroll" theory.

[Dale]

Whoever put the name of Abraham upon it had to redact the text. If literally translated without such redaction it had nothing to do with Abraham. Joseph Smith did not give a conventional translation of the facimilies. I like Kevin Barney's idea of a Jewish Egyptian Redactor. I can accept either that idea, or viewing Joseph Smith as a modern redactor.

The name of Abraham being found merely keeps the door open for speculating. It would be nice if the missing papyrus supported the Book of Abraham. With the missing papyrus we don't know if it had any such indications of redaction. We can't even have persons examine to look for such indications as long as parts of the papyrus remain lost.

[journeyman]

Do you mean the same critics that state emphatically that DNA evidence has proven the BofM to be false?

Reductio ad absurdum

[journeyman]

No one is disputing that the surviving papyri fragments represent only a small portion of what Joseph Smith originally possessed. And no one is disputing that the so-called Book of Breathings was attached to Facsimile #1. However, the text at the end of the fragment we have reads "The beginning of the book of â?¦" There was, indisputably, a text that followed the surviving fragment. The question is what it was. And there was more than one scroll.

It is quite a stretch to declare that a pagan funerary text would all of a sudden break into the fundamental teachings of the Mormon church that have nothing to do Egyptian pagan beliefs and encantations... and then quickly slip back into pagan encantations again like an aimless dream. I think you would have to completely set aside your god given intellect and reasoning to accept such a premise. Of course this is what the Mormon leaders ask of the church members.

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.

When they propose a plan, it is God's plan. Lucifer

wins a great victory when he can get members of the

Church to speak against their leaders and do their own

thinking."

(Ward teaching message, Improvement Era, June 1945)

"... if the Prophet of God should tell me that a certain principle or theory which

I might have learned was not true, I do not care what my ideas might have been,

I should consider it my duty, as the suggestion of my file leader,

to abandon that principle or theory."

(Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 83)

So if you are told by the Mormon leaders that the Gulf of Mexico is where the City Enoch existed, Noah sailed down the Mississippi, Quakers lived on the moon, the lost ten tribes of Israel lived at the North pole until they where hurled into space and not to return until after Zion was established in Indenpendence Missiouri or the sun gets its light from a greater star named Kolob (as proclaimed in the words of Abraham), it would be your duty to accept it all, as the thinking has already been done.

I hope for your sakes, that you can someday wakeup to your senses and see that you no longer need to do the mental gymnastics that men of the past have laid for you.

[journeyman]

The circled text identifies the figure on the couch as Abraham.

Abraham who?

This is like finding a typed letter that was written in the year 2000 that mentions a man named Jospeh but says nothing else about him, and then trying to say this man was Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet...

Are you making the claim that your egyptian papyri snippet is indeed talking about the great Abraham of the bible.

What else does the snippet say about Abraham? Where did this snippet come from? Why don't you give us the rest of the story? Does it mention Kolob or anything contained in the BoA? or does it give any contexual elements related to the biblical Abraham? If so, please do share...

[Chris Smith]

In his Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri Gee makes the claim that there was a second record on the BoB roll, but that only the first line-- "The Beginning of the Book of..."-- has been preserved. Will reads this in a straightforward way:

No one is disputing that the surviving papyri fragments represent only a small portion of what Joseph Smith originally possessed. And no one is disputing that the so-called Book of Breathings was attached to Facsimile #1. However, the text at the end of the fragment we have reads "The beginning of the book of …" There was, indisputably, a text that followed the surviving fragment. The question is what it was. And there was more than one scroll.

But there is no such phrase at the end of the preserved fragment. Gee's statement is merely an extrapolation from a statement by Gustavus Seyffarth. Seyffarth noted that the papyrus in the St. Louis Museum was "not a record, but an invocation to the Deity Osirus, in which occurs the name of the person, (Horus,) and a picture of the attendant spirits, introducting the dead to the judge, Osirus." Gee argues that since Seyffarth elsewhere translated "the beginning of the book of" as "the book of hymns"-- and since he calls the present roll an "invocation"-- the fragment in the museum must have had the phrase "the beginning of the book of" on it. This is obviously an unwarranted conclusion.

Sometime back I wrote the following summary of why the missing papyrus theory doesn't really get off the ground:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208098112

[cdowis]

Herr Amun, you would believe anything to get your prophet off the hook. So many theories proposed and the true explanation is in front of our noses.

I absolutely agree. Only one explanation remains which ties together the translation with the attempt at reverse engineering. As I have posted several times, but just a voice in the wilderness among such intellectual giants.

[jwhitlock]

Reductio ad absurdum

You took that as a proof?

Wow. I'll have to be facetious more often.

[Olavarria]

Herr Amun, only a small step to be converted to the view it is a 19th Century production. I think Ben Maguire argues the LDS church should never have canonised the BOA.

Small steps add up, but I disagree that conversion comes about thru this kind of stuff, no matter how much you have. Afterall, the Pharasees werent converted by the miracles of Jesus.

I dont think this is such a small step. These three facts exist.

1) In 1842, the BoA was the only document to connect a picture of a mummy,anubis and lion couch with the biblical Abraham

2) Leiden papyrus 384 connects a mummy,anubis and lion couch with the biblical Abraham.

[Olavarria]

Abraham who?

This is like finding a typed letter that was written in the year 2000 that mentions a man named Jospeh but says nothing else about him, and then trying to say this man was Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet...

Hey, Ive posted on this piece of papyrus(lieden 384) more than anyone on the board(not sure that is a good thing). The "Abraham who upon", who upon what(?) really is the biblical Abraham. The same egyptian priest(it was written in hieratic) who made this papyrus(writing at the end, "write these word , with this picture on a knew papyrus") wrote other manusscripts that mention Abraham, Israel, Jehovah, Re and the Ophet(osisris) all in the same text. So yes, it is the biblical Abraham.

Are you making the claim that your egyptian papyri snippet is indeed talking about the great Abraham of the bible.

It does see my other 10 threads on this document

What else does the snippet say about Abraham?

We dont know. It hasnt survived in perfect condition. What we have is Abraham Eppi "Abraham who upon".

Where did this snippet come from?

Thebes about 300ad, the greco roman period, which by the way is the same time in egyptian history as our papyrus. It is part of a collection of spells written by egyptians priests called the Theban Cache. During this time some egyptian priests were borrowing jewish motifs, as evidence by the theban cache, and some jews were adopting egyptian motifs(as evidenced by the Testament of Abraham's use of the 125 chapter of the Book of the Dead,.

Why don't you give us the rest of the story?

Check out some of my posts. But here are some other resources, both Anti and Pro. Both are trained egyptologists. Gee is from Yale, Ashment from U of Chicago

Pro

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbr...am_egyptian.htm

Anti response

http://www.irr.org/MIT/ashment1.html

Pro response to antio response

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?fi...p;type=cmV2aWV3

Does it mention Kolob or anything contained in the BoA?

Nope but its does connect Abraham with a lion couch and an Anubis, "these words with this picture on a new papyrus".

[Lachoneus]

I think you would have to completely set aside your god given intellect and reasoning to accept such a premise. Of course this is what the Mormon leaders ask of the church members.

This is an entirely false statement. To the contrary, our leaders have asked us to exercise to their fullest all our God given intellect and reasoning, in conjuntion with the revelations from the Holy Ghost. The falseness of this statement is further shown in the full and correct quotation of the 1945 Ward teaching message.

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.

When they propose a plan, it is God's plan. Lucifer

wins a great victory when he can get members of the

Church to speak against their leaders and do their own

thinking."

(Ward teaching message, Improvement Era, June 1945)

This quote is a fabrication. It takes bits and pieces of the original text and rearranges and modifies them, thus giving them a false meaning. Here is the full and accurate Ward teaching message:

Ward Teachers' Message for June, 1945

"SUSTAINING THE GENERAL AUTHORITIES OF THE CHURCH"

NO Latter-day Saint is compelled to sustain the General Authorities of the Church. When given the opportunity to vote on the proposition in any of the several conferences held throughout the Church, he may indicate his willingness to sustain them by raising his right hand; he may manifest his opposition in like manner; or he may ignore the opportunity entirely. There is no element of coercion or force in this or any other Church procedure. However, there is the principle of honor involved in the member's choice. When a person raises his hand to sustain Church leaders as "prophets, seers, and revelators," it is the same as a promise and a covenant to follow their leadership and to abide by their counsel as the living oracles of God. Consequently, any subsequent act or word of mouth which is at variance with the will of the Lord as taught by the leaders of the Church places the sincerity of such person in serious doubt. One could scarcely have claim upon complete integrity, if he raises his hand to sustain the Authorities of the Church and then proceeds in opposition to their counsel. Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One cannot speak evil of the Lord's anointed and retain the Holy Spirit in his heart. It should be remembered that Lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting souls that the General Authorities of the Church are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. This sort of game is Satan's favorite pastime, and he has practiced it on believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to "do their own thinking." He specializes in suggesting that our leaders are in error while he plays the blinding rays of apostasy in the eyes of those whom he thus beguiles. What cunning! And to think that some of our members are deceived by this trickery.The following words of the Prophet Joseph Smith should be memorized by every Latter-day Saint and repeated often enough to insure their never being forgotten:I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 156-157.)When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a planâ??it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.

The idea that Saints do not do their own thinking is refuted daily on this board.

[cdowis]

"I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

[John D the First]

Two questions:

1) One argument goes, "Character A that is on fragment B is on the BOA manuscript, therefore the source for BOA manuscript is fragment B." The question of one who knows nothing of Egyptology is this: Couldn't the character A be on both fragment B and a lost fragment C? Are they that unlikely to re-appear?

2) Weren't there other eye witnesses to corroborate Joseph F. Smith's testimony? I thought there were at least three others, a contemperary member and non-member, and Joseph himself.

[Chris Smith]

1) One argument goes, "Character A that is on fragment B is on the BOA manuscript, therefore the source for BOA manuscript is fragment B." The question of one who knows nothing of Egyptology is this: Couldn't the character A be on both fragment B and a lost fragment C? Are they that unlikely to re-appear?

We're talking about something like fifteen or twenty sequential characters from the papyrus that are also sequential in the margins of the manuscript. Where there are holes or missing portions in the papyrus, they are invented or borrowed characters in the manuscript margin.

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/BOA/BOA_5.html

-CK

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.

When they propose a plan, it is God's plan. Lucifer

wins a great victory when he can get members of the

Church to speak against their leaders and do their own

thinking."

(Ward teaching message, Improvement Era, June 1945)

"... if the Prophet of God should tell me that a certain principle or theory which

I might have learned was not true, I do not care what my ideas might have been,

I should consider it my duty, as the suggestion of my file leader,

to abandon that principle or theory."

(Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 83)

[...]

Pppffffttttt....

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208096795

[juliann]

If you want to see where the thinking has been done take a trip to the FAIR Obsession Board where they carefully and masterfully analyze what is said here. You can learn how it really is without having to lift a page in a book.

Good grief how stupid can these people really be?

And CA tells us what he really thinks over there...we are all just brainless liars, you see. Why go further? What else would anyone ever need to know?

Rhodes makes almost as many false assertions about the BoA as Gee and Nibley. I'm sure they're all competent scholars, but they do all seem to check their brains at the door on this subject.

Special thanks to Will Schryver for bringing John Gee's most blatant lie to everyone's attention. In his Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Guide to John Gee's Bull**** might be a better title),

And for a little fluff, we have this from Jersey girl and pal:

And the assumption is that since they are experts in their field, especially since it's closely related to something LDS, then LDS folks tend to allow their awe at their expert credentials to slide over and color their apologetics.

Total nonsense. td, I see that there are people who have invested nearly their whole lives, time and money in defending.

So there we have it. Why think when you can just call the other side stupid, dishonest, brainless people who have wasted their lives getting an education? Only on that site could they put those two things together and draw the same conclusions. But that is what happens when the thinking stops.

[Jersey Girl]

Juliann,

Might you be so kind as to post the entirety of my post?

Jersey Girl

[Jersey Girl]

Nevermind, I'll do it myself. Your posting partial fragments of exchanges does not present a complete thought, portray the posters thought process and is akin to proof texting via excerpts or playing telephone where the initial message is lost in the process. If what you post is partial truth, how is it that you intend to arrive at anything remotely resembling complete truth in your portrayal of people?

truthdancer:

I go back to my simple idea...

What kind of god requires twenty PhDs, a lifetime of study, and the ability to read ten different ancient languages for "truth" to make any sort of remote sense?

There is no discussion about light, love, peace, compassion, goodness... it is all about some twisted way of trying to figure out how something can sort of, kind of, if you look a certain way, and have tons of faith, maybe be a possibility.

I mean seriously, what kind of nonsense is this?

Jersey Girl:

Total nonsense. td, I see that there are people who have invested nearly their whole lives, time and money in defending. It seems to me (being an outsider I know my view may be incomplete) that they publish things that seem impressive yet lack good reason. What disturbs me is the thought that they either knowingly know their products lack good reason and are pedaling it off on their own tribe, or that they truly believe their products are well reasoned and are pedaling it off on their own tribe...and themselves.

Their, oftimes, unwillingness to allow challenge tells me that they care little about truth.

Does that make any sense at all?

And here is the continuation of those exchanges:

truthdancer:

Hey JG...

Yes you make perfect sense. :-)

I am trying to give all apologists the benefit of the doubt and go with the idea that they either don't know they are sharing that which is not true, or they truly believe what they are suggesting is truth, or something, but either way...

It is disheartening.

~dancer~

Jersey Girl:

td,

I agree that it is disheartening. Why engage in apologetics at all? Where does faith enter the equation? Who needs convincing? Is one's testimony not enough? Is apologetics a response to critics? If so, the failure to engage in follow up, tells me that there is a lack of faith in one's product.

Now, Juliann, I have one further request to make of you. Might you find an opportunity to transfer posts I made on MDB over here where I recently posted in open opposition church culpability in a sexual abuse case, defended this board, and defended the TBM's on that board against harsh criticism?

Thanks so much.

Based on my experience and observations, the statements that I made ring true. You don't need to extract one or two sentences out of context to demonstrate what I really think about an issue. Assuming that you are interested in thoughtful exchange of ideas, and not mud throwing, you can openly question me on this board.

In the last post that I transferred, I pose a series of questions. You could start there and begin with "Why engage in apologetics at all?"

Jersey Girl

[Chris Smith]

And CA tells us what he really thinks over there...we are all just brainless liars, you see. Why go further? What else would anyone ever need to know?

First of all, I didn't call anybody brainless. I said that Gee, Rhodes, and Nibley check their brains at the door when it comes to the BoA. Which is true. I did not say that the same is true of people here; most people here probably aren't well-read enough to really know the depth of the problems, and those who do actually subscribe to better theories (like the catalyst theory) than John Gee does.

Also note that I posted that bit about Gee's falsehood over here, too, not just on MDB. In this thread, in fact. Apparently you read MDB more closely than you do MADB, eh? Who's obsessed, again?

So there we have it. Why think when you can just call the other side stupid, dishonest, brainless people who have wasted their lives getting an education? Only on that site could they put those two things together and draw the same conclusions. But that is what happens when the thinking stops.

What happens when the thinking stops is that we get another stupid, dishonest, brainless post from juliann.

-CK

Insults will get you suspended or banned. Knock it off. = mods

[Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl:

Total nonsense. td, I see that there are people who have invested nearly their whole lives, time and money in defending.

Juliann:

So there we have it. Why think when you can just call the other side stupid, dishonest, brainless people who have wasted their lives getting an education?

Juliann, you have misrepresented what I stated. Nowhere in the above did I imply or assert that people have wasted their lives in getting an education. I simply stated that some have invested nearly their whole lives, time and money in defending. The remainder of my comments build on that thought.

Jersey Girl