Go John Gee! Go John Gee!

[e=mc2]

Dale:

The ways in which Joseph Smith's ideas parallel Egyptology has been well demonstrated. The main text has support in old Abrahamic lore. So I am open to the story being possibly true even if the story is, and never was a translation of any part of the whole payrus.

Which is pretty much why I view all the fuss about the papyri in the same spirit as Hugh Nibley did. They are irrelevant to whether Joseph was a true prophet or not, as Klaus Baer even noted!, or to the truthfulness of the story of Abraham.

[juliann]

Dale, I'd still like a list of books written by critics about the BoA.

[Dale]

By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus by Charles Larson.

I recall a couple of titles by Hugh Nibley though I cannot recall the titles exactly. I read one of these in High school. I only read two in High school, but my memory of the titles I read before I graduated in 1989 is pretty vague.

Most of the treatments on the Book of Abraham are in book's I know of rather than the whole book devoted to it.

I have the first two volumes in the FARMS Studies In The Book of Abraham series. I plan to buy the third volume when I can.

I had the book from the Book of Abraham project until I threw it out recently. I don't find their responses to the critic's convincing anymore.

Mormonism Shadow or Reality by Jerald and Sandra Tanner

Major Problem's in Mormonism by Jerald and Sandra Tanner

The Word of God Edited by Dan Vogel (It had a great essay by Ed Ashment in it.)

They Lie In Wait To Decieve by Robert L. and Rosemary Brown (They have an article by Hugh Nibley in it.)

A Guide To The Joseph Smith Papyri by John Gee (Typically LDS book's omitt, or gloss over information that I was finding in critic's writings. FARMS Studies In The Book of Abraham Series look's better to me. Though until they get down to publishing Brian Hauglid's research if that's the plan they are avoiding the big subject.)

So the titles I am aware of and own mostly are a mix of critic's, and LDS author's.

When the Lost Book of Abraham film from Living Hope Ministries came out I printed up all the LDS responses. My doubts about the missing papyrus idea only grow's the more I see arguments for it.

I cannot honestly tell you everything a critic writes because it disagrees with FARMS, or FAIR is wrong.

[e=mc2]

A lot of it may not necessarily be wrong Dale, but it may be too hastily coming to hard conclusions on many things.

[Dale]

Dale:

Which is pretty much why I view all the fuss about the papyri in the same spirit as Hugh Nibley did. They are irrelevant to whether Joseph was a true prophet or not, as Klaus Baer even noted!, or to the truthfulness of the story of Abraham.

Most of what I doubt is a good thing is arguments for a literal Book of Abraham upon the papyrus that's missing. I think Hugh Nibley presented a case on it that look's rebutted by the critic's. That scribes would have tried to associated 4 pages of text with Book of Breathings without Joseph Smith being involved seem's unlikely. I even doubt all advocates of the reverse engineering idea believes Joseph Smith felt the BOB/Book of Abraham were unrelated.

I think the Book of Abraham can more easily defended using the catalyst revelation idea. Some Book of Abraham reliability evidences have been proposed by believers that makes Joseph Smith look quite good as a prophet. The glass instead of being empty is still half full. The critic's will argue that no water exists in the glass. I mean by water as a symbol for evidence.

[cdowis]

I think the Book of Abraham can more easily defended using the catalyst revelation idea.

How does the catalyst theory handle the issue of the figures? We have specific translation of individual figures.

[Dale]

The best way to explain it has to do with redaction of the figures to tell a different story. The interpretations Joseph Smith gave was non-conventional. Kevin Barney has an article now online at FARMS that I forget the exact title of. I think the Article comes out of FARMS most recent Studies In The Book of Abraham. Though he argues that ancient writers could have redacted the text. I see his idea and the catalyst idea to be slightly similar.

I don't have any objections to Kevin Barney whatever my questions about John Gee might be.

The catalyst idea is more for believers in the Book of Abraham and those open to being believers. Such theories are to unbelievers just believers trying to dodge the problem of Joseph Smith being proven totally wrong. To me using things like the figures in the facimilies to get the interpretations Joseph Smith gave is like turning water into wine.

[cdowis]

The catalyst idea is more for believers in the Book of Abraham and those open to being believers. Such theories are to unbelievers just believers trying to dodge the problem of Joseph Smith being proven totally wrong. To me using things like the figures in the facimilies to get the interpretations Joseph Smith gave is like turning water into wine.

In this case, I tend to be in the same camp as the unbeliever. The catalyst theory is just "water into wine".

[juliann]

Most of the treatments on the Book of Abraham are in book's I know of rather than the whole book devoted to it.

In other words, you are depending on article hit pieces. There hasn't been an in depth treatment from those you want to believe in so badly. It is disengenuous in the extreme to say that LDS haven't dealt with the critics when the critics won't even touch the textual evidence. The only way they get away with what they do is try to convince gullible people that what is in the text itself doesn't matter. Anybody can write an article to tear down but what I am not seeing from the antis is a book treatment that includes everything in depth.

[Dale]

I compared different positions and felt that facts were being withheld by LDS scholars, or argued weakly by LDS scholars. As an example of a weak article is Hugh Nibley's Judging and Prejudging The Book of Abraha, (They Lie In Wait To De, Volume Deceive, Volume 1, pages 236-245) After comparing and contrasting his points I became convinced his points wasn't really answering to my satisfaction what I was reading from critics. I don't reject what critic's say just because they are critics. One cannot reject the content of a critic's article on the basis they are seen as hit pieces. They raise some good apologetic's point and Hugh Nibley's points wasn't standing up to scrutiny, or up to the test. This devestated my support for the missing papyrus theory, and bad experiences with the Book of Abraham Projects, FARMS, and FAIR apologetic material.

Which of these critic's book have you read, or own? Or are you rejecting what they say out of total unfamiliarity of the critic's points?

[e=mc2]

I can appreciate your situation Dale. I figured Nibley just couldn't be correct in all things, so I didn't worry so much about the source of the Book of Abraham so much as his incredible illumination of the text itself, that going into thousands of pages! THAT, in my opinion, is where the real gold is. How it came about is irrelevant to the fact that what we have is awfully powerful for a light in our own lives of how to live with others, not to mention God. It also is a powerful flood light of interest that these ideas concerning Abraham are actually considered by other ancient cultures, so Joseph tapped into something here. The papyri are uninteresting in this much more important and fascinating angle. His materials on the facsimiles are equally as impressive and eye-catching, for me anyway. The papyri can wait, there is a mass of materials in Nibley's FOOTNOTES that await wonderful discovery, of which I have gotten a decent start on. The more I read of just Nibley's sources, the more fascinating, interesting, and downright fun the actual Book of Abraham and the facsimiles get for me.

[Dale]

I think Hugh Nibley is great in many areas myself. Some try to falsely portay him as a crackpot who used shoddy methodology in defense of his beliefs. I am even open to the papyrus containing a second now lost text. The missing papyrus idea may not be dead inspite of my doubts on popular polemic points for the idea. When Kevin Graham withdrew his support from the Mormonism 201 article I asked about that on the FAIR e-mail listing. Another said other than one weak point in the article that it was still basically sound.

I do not endorse critic's, but at times they can make good points inbetween many bad points. I think they are over-hard on the Book of Abraham based on Egyptologists. I know I can find Egyptologists that reject the Book of Genisis based on science. We can play the expert testimony game against the Book of Genisis like critic's have plated with the Book of Abraham.

[e=mc2]

Dale:

I do not endorse critic's, but at times they can make good points inbetween many bad points. I think they are over-hard on the Book of Abraham based on Egyptologists. I know I can find Egyptologists that reject the Book of Genisis based on science. We can play the expert testimony game against the Book of Genisis like critic's have plated with the Book of Abraham.

And this was the stance of Klaus Baer in one of his letters to an anti-Mormon who wished to use him against Nibley and the Book of Abraham. Baer said basically nothing doing, you are going about it all wrong, and I won't play your silly game.

[Chris Smith]

I know I can find Egyptologists that reject the Book of Genisis based on science. We can play the expert testimony game against the Book of Genisis like critic's have plated with the Book of Abraham.

Substantial portions of the Book of Genesis are bunk.

[William Schryver]

Substantial portions of the Book of Genesis are bunk.

I personally love Genesis and make a point of reading it in its entirety at least once a year (along with the gospel of John, the books of Mosiah and Ether, and the book of James.)

Oh, and also D&C 88 and 133. Can't get enough of that.

Anyway, I'm sorry you think that Genesis is "bunk." Or maybe all you mean to say is that you don't believe it is historical.

Well, even if it isn't "historical," (and I'm not entirely convinced on that score) I still value it highly. But I'm an especially gullible sap when it comes to such things.

Ok, it's very late now. Buona notte ...

[DonBradley]

As far as Gee's claim that at least some of the characters were written after the text, he is most certainly correct. Or, at least it is obvious in one glaring instance:

Hi Will,

I was wondering if you'd explain to me how the above image demonstrates the characters being written after the text.

So far as I can guess, you think it's telling that the line where the characters intrude past the margin is indented, while the line below (where the characters do not intrude) is not indented.

I don't have my BoA mss. materials in front of me, but, as I recall, each character or set of characters in the margin is associated with a single paragraph on the manuscript--i.e., the paragraphing and the marginal recording of characters were correlated. Aren't all the first lines of the paragraphs indented? And doesn't this consistent scribal pattern of placing a paragraph beginning next to a character explain why the text of the first line is indented while the second is not?

As I said, I don't have a fuller image of the page in front of me; so, I may be wrong. But I was under the impression that the image above simply demonstrates normal scribal practice and has nothing to do with whether the characters or text was written first.

Don

[Edit:] I see better what you're referring to now. The character string curves sideways, and you're suggesting this was done to avoid the words already written on the second line. However, the margin was apparently drawn first, and the scribe could also have curved the character string upward to minimize its invasion into the area intended for the text. Couldn't he? If not, why not?

Another problem for your reading of this evidence is that if the text were written first, the scribe would most naturally have placed the character string on the first line of the paragraph--in the space provided by the indentation!

[DonBradley]

Now CK, you know that's not true. As you perfectly well know, I made a number of substantive points. I rather suspect you affect disdain in order to avoid responding to them.

Actually, CK has recently written a lengthy reflection on rudeness and personal attacks in Internet discussion, and on his intention to avoid dignifying them with a response. And if you'd care to be civil, Pahoran, you could easily put CK in the position of having to respond to your arguments. If you won't do that, then it rather appears that you, not he, is attempting to avoid further discussion--at least if doing so would require you to stick to substance.

Don

[Hawkmoon]

Actually, CK has recently written a lengthy reflection on rudeness and personal attacks in Internet discussion, and on his intention to avoid dignifying them with a response. And if you'd care to be civil, Pahoran, you could easily put CK in the position of having to respond to your arguments. If you won't do that, then it rather appears that you, not he, is attempting to avoid further discussion--at least if doing so would require you to stick to substance.

Don

Hm... I take it then that CK is no longer speaking to you?

[Chris Smith]

Or maybe all you mean to say is that you don't believe it is historical.

That is basically all I mean... though I must admit that the penchant of many fundamentalist Christians to take it literally and historically (and to bring scientific progress to a grinding halt in order to promote that view) rather poisons my mind against any mythical or theological significance it might have above and beyond historicity.

-CK

[DonBradley]

Hm... I take it then that CK is no longer speaking to you?

Actually, Hawkmoon, I believe that was you.

Don

[Hawkmoon]

Actually, Hawkmoon, I believe that was you.

Don

Hm, actually I have no problem talking with you, but whatever.

[DonBradley]

Hm, actually I have no problem talking with you, but whatever.

With me? Heck, you have trouble talking at all.

Don

[William Schryver]

Don Bradley:

[Edit:] I see better what you're referring to now. The character string curves sideways, and you're suggesting this was done to avoid the words already written on the second line. However, the margin was apparently drawn first, and the scribe could also have curved the character string upward to minimize its invasion into the area intended for the text. Couldn't he? If not, why not?

Another problem for your reading of this evidence is that if the text were written first, the scribe would most naturally have placed the character string on the first line of the paragraphâ??in the space provided by the indentation!

Actually Don, if you examine the manuscripts, youâ??ll find that there is no consistency to the placement of the characters. Sometimes they correspond with the beginning of a paragraph. Sometimes they are found placed between the first and second lines of a paragraph. Sometimes they are placed between lines right in the middle of a sentence. In the case I document above, it is apparent that the scribe began writing the character roughly at the bottom of the second line and then, when it became apparent that he would run out of space, he was forced to finish the morpheme by moving up (not sideways) to the unoccupied space in the indentation above the â??Iâ?. If there were no text already on the page, there would obviously be no logical reason for the scribe to curve the morpheme upwards in avoidance of something.

Bottom line: there is no â??problemâ? in my reading of this particular evidence. (I donâ??t recall Metcalfe giving an explanation for this, but if he is failing to acknowledge that the character was written after the text, I will be very interested to hear his contra-explanation.) This one is entirely a â??no-brainerâ? for an amateur, let alone a professional textual critic. Itâ??s obvious what has happened. The other cases make it much more difficult to tell if the characters were written after the English text. However, I find it strange that there are several cases where the character seems to appear quite randomly, between lines in the middle of a sentence with no discernible demarcation of content at that point. To simply say that the characters marked the beginning of paragraphs is an entirely inaccurate and simplistic explanation of what is seen in the manuscripts.

[why me]

Of course, no one is talking about "neutral facts," like JS was born on 23 Dec. 1805, which are clearly excluded by the context. We were talking about interpretations of facts. If a non-Mormon wrote about Mormonism by simply repeating traditional understandings of early history, like Remini, that would also be faith promoting. But an author who doesn't give the traditional account, would be categorized at the church librarly in SLC under "controversal works." The reaction of individual Mormons would, of course, be varried, but negative. The negative word being used -- "insulted" -- was borrowed from Jullian as a cover term. Feel free to substitute whatever negative term suits you.

I don't see this to be true. There are critics out there who desire to destroy the lds church. When they write on church doctrine it is their intent to sow doubt in the minds of the lds. However, when a neutral historian writes about JS and he or she has no agenda but to render facts or understandings in an objective way, I do think that these books can be valuable and useful for understanding and these books can be classified as 'historical'. I do think Dan that in your work you may have an agenda. I don't know if I would call you a neutral writer on Mormonism.

The JS story is rather compelling to say the least. Of course, one can push a theory but it is quite another thing to prove the theory being pushed. The lds church is surviving mainly because lds members still believe in the book and in the spiritual manifestations that the book presents in their lives.

And it is this understanding that makes all the difference.

[Chris Smith]

If there were no text already on the page, there would obviously be no logical reason for the scribe to curve the morpheme upwards in avoidance of something.

...

This one is entirely a â??no-brainerâ? for an amateur, let alone a professional textual critic. Itâ??s obvious what has happened.

Hi Will,

The scribe might have curved upward in order to avoid the space that he intended to use for the second line of English text. In fact, simply allowing the characters to bleed over the margin into the space reserved for the second line of English text would be unusually sloppy for the author of MS 1. But, admittedly, your explanation does seem like the most obvious on the face of it.

I presume, then, that you consider it as least as much a no-brainer that the ink-change of page 1 of MS 1, the widening margins (to make room for the characters) in MS 2, and the character-with-no-translation at the end of MS 3 all militate against the notion that the characters were written after the English text.

-CK