Bofa: Missing Texts

[Chris Smith]

Then you should have said that in the first place. Thank you for the admission that your use of the word, "we" was not a good choice.

You accused me of "shoddy and agenda-driven scholarship" because I used the word "we" rather than "me"?

OK, I'll admit it: we do not share this conclusion. But we should, because the evidence is laid out right there in my post above. I feel quite safe in saying that those who deliberately overlook it have an agenda of their own.

Best.

-Chris

[T-Shirt]

You accused me of "shoddy and agenda-driven scholarship" because I used the word "we" rather than "me"?

OK, I'll admit it: we do not share this conclusion. But we should, because the evidence is laid out right there in my post above. I feel quite safe in saying that those who deliberately overlook it have an agenda of their own.

Best.

-Chris

Wow, a rank, amateur, anti-Book of Abraham apologist accusing LDS of deliberately overlooking evidence. That's nice.

T-Shirt

[Dale]

Why doesn't the KEP use characters from the lost Book of Abraham? They only seem interested in trying to line up the Book of Abraham with the Book of Breathing's.

Why use the Book of Breathings to base some of the KEP on? If they were knowledgeable of a missing source why didn't they ever use that source? It would be preet easy for the scribe's and Joseph Smith to jot down characters from the missing source. But all the interests of the men were focused on the material we have now.

I side with John Gee in holding to the possibility of a second text on the papyrus. But i don't know Joseph Smith had ever claimed to translate that now missing text. And even if we had the lost part's of the papyrus it likely contain's non-Abrahamic material.

[Chris Smith]

Wow, a rank, amateur, anti-Book of Abraham apologist accusing LDS of deliberately overlooking evidence. That's nice.

T-Shirt

rank

â??adjective, -er, -est.

1. growing with excessive luxuriance; vigorous and tall of growth: tall rank weeds.

2. producing an excessive and coarse growth, as land.

3. having an offensively strong smell or taste: a rank cigar.

4. offensively strong, as a smell or taste.

5. utter; absolute: a rank amateur; rank treachery.

6. highly offensive; disgusting: a rank sight of carnage.

7. grossly coarse, vulgar, or indecent: rank language.

8. Slang. inferior; contemptible.

I can't help but wonder which one you intended.

I provided evidence in a post above. You have not responded to it. Therefore, you are ignoring evidence in favor of taking potshots. Even a "rank amateur" like me can see that.

Best.

-Chris

[T-Shirt]

rank

â??adjective, -er, -est.

1. growing with excessive luxuriance; vigorous and tall of growth: tall rank weeds.

2. producing an excessive and coarse growth, as land.

3. having an offensively strong smell or taste: a rank cigar.

4. offensively strong, as a smell or taste.

5. utter; absolute: a rank amateur; rank treachery.

6. highly offensive; disgusting: a rank sight of carnage.

7. grossly coarse, vulgar, or indecent: rank language.

8. Slang. inferior; contemptible.

I can't help but wonder which one you intended.

I provided evidence in a post above. You have not responded to it. Therefore, you are ignoring evidence in favor of taking potshots. Even a "rank amateur" like me can see that.

Best.

-Chris

The term, "rank amateur", I thought, was a commonly understood term. (see definition #5) It simply means, utter or absolute amateur. It was not intended to be a pot shot. You seem to be a bit touchy.

It seems a bit odd, to me, that you would accuse LDS of overlooking evidence, when it appears that you tend to do the same thing. I am glad that you have drawn your conclusions, but there are many who do not share your conclusions while looking at the same evidence you have provided.

My best,

T-Shirt

[Chris Smith]

The term, "rank amateur", I thought, was a commonly understood term. (see definition #5) It simply means, utter or absolute amateur. It was not intended to be a pot shot. You seem to be a bit touchy.

It seems a bit odd, to me, that you would accuse LDS of overlooking evidence, when it appears that you tend to do the same thing. I am glad that you have drawn your conclusions, but there are many who do not share your conclusions while looking at the same evidence you have provided.

My best,

T-Shirt

In the links and information I provided I directly responded to all the major evidences that are adduced in support of the missing papyrus theory. Feel free to show me where I'm wrong.

[EVOLVING]

It seems a bit odd, to me, that you would accuse LDS of overlooking evidence, when it appears that you tend to do the same thing. I am glad that you have drawn your conclusions, but there are many who do not share your conclusions while looking at the same evidence you have provided.

My best,

T-Shirt

T-Shirt

what conclusions do you draw, having looked at all of the evidence provided by Chris? I would be very interested in your interpretation or explanation of the evidence, and which pieces of evidence lead you to your conclusions.

[T-Shirt]

In the links and information I provided I directly responded to all the major evidences that are adduced in support of the missing papyrus theory. Feel free to show me where I'm wrong.

Chris, it is not about whether you are right or wrong. You made a statement that seemed to indicate that your interpretation of the evidence is the definitive way in which the evidence should be interpreted and you went as far as to claim that "We most definitely know...". I called you on your choice of words and you revised your statement.

You know that others interpret the evidence different than you do, without overlooking anything.

T-Shirt

[AKS]

"We most definitely know...".

T-Shirt

As long as Chris knows of others that agree with him, his use of we seems perfectly reasonable. Who understood his post to mean that TBM's also shared his view? And honestly, your contrived effort to detract from a legitimate post on the basis of semantics is frustrating to say the least. Obviously you're trying too hard to emulate pahoran.

[LifeOnaPlate]

As long as Chris knows of others that agree with him, his use of we seems perfectly reasonable. Who understood his post to mean that TBM's also shared his view? And honestly, your contrived effort to detract from a legitimate post on the basis of semantics is frustrating to say the least. Obviously you're trying too hard to emulate pahoran.

I think the point is Chris is saying the verdict is in and T-Shirt is saying the jury is still out. Sounds alright to me.

[AKS]

I think the point is Chris is saying the verdict is in and T-Shirt is saying the jury is still out. Sounds alright to me.

I agree, loap. The problem is that Chris actually took the time to present evidence while tshirt beat him up over a use of we.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I agree, loap. The problem is that Chris actually took the time to present evidence while tshirt beat him up over a use of we.

Who said something about overlooking evidence?

[T-Shirt]

As long as Chris knows of others that agree with him, his use of we seems perfectly reasonable.

Good grief, if I had made a similar statement, say, for example, "We know, most definitely that the source for the Book of Abraham is missing", I would have been lambasted by you critics. While I admire Chris' confidence, the fact of the matter remains, there is insufficient evidence to make a definitive conclusion, one way or the other.

Who understood his post to mean that TBM's also shared his view?

Chris knows that many pro-Book of Abraham folks disagree with his conclusions, but he thinks his interpretation of the evidence is the strongest so he used the word, "we" in the collective sense. I think you are wrong if you think Chris didn't mean it that way.

And honestly, your contrived effort to detract from a legitimate post on the basis of semantics is frustrating to say the least.

I am not trying to distract from anything. The OP asked some questions and Chris comes on as the self-appointed expert and claims that the case is closed, Chris has spoken, the debate is over. Chris has, obviously, spent some time studying this issue, but his conclusions are not definitive and are not shared by all.

The bottom line is, I called Chris on his choice of words, which he then recalled, as he should have. End of story, no distraction intended. I think you are making way too much of this.

Obviously you're trying too hard to emulate pahoran.

I rather like Pahoran, but, frankly, he was not even on my mind when I challenged Chris' statement.

T-Shirt

[T-Shirt]

I agree, loap. The problem is that Chris actually took the time to present evidence while tshirt beat him up over a use of we.

I didn't "beat him up". I simply challenged him on his overstated conclusion. It was a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

T-Shirt

[LifeOnaPlate]

Come on, T, that's clearly abuse.

[Chris Smith]

Fine. I withdraw any and all offensive statements. Obviously "we" do not agree insofar as "we" includes yourself, and my conclusions may appear "most definite" to me, but do not appear so to some people with a strong LDS faith commitment.

But the truth is, the missing papyrus theory is not the only way to maintain one's faith in the LDS Church and/or the BoA. So unless you have a testimony that the missing papyrus hypothesis is true or are just convinced that all knowledge of history is impossible, I'd hope that you'd still take the arguments I've presented into consideration.

-Chris

[T-Shirt]

Fine. I withdraw any and all offensive statements. Obviously "we" do not agree insofar as "we" includes yourself, and my conclusions may appear "most definite" to me, but do not appear so to some people with a strong LDS faith commitment.

But the truth is, the missing papyrus theory is not the only way to maintain one's faith in the LDS Church and/or the BoA. So unless you have a testimony that the missing papyrus hypothesis is true or are just convinced that all knowledge of history is impossible, I'd hope that you'd still take the arguments I've presented into consideration.

-Chris

Chris, I took no offense at your statement. I simply pointed out what I perceived to be a gross overstatement. That's it. I think too much is being made over what I said. Sorry if I was too strong with my words.

My best,

T-Shirt

[MormonMason]

What evidence could be given for another copy of Book of Breathings in the St. Louis Museum, as you seem to be postulating? I am turning up empty-handed thus far. It would appear that I would have to locate a complete copy of the Museum Guide and inventory list to know with some degree of certainty. Your link in the other thread did not work for me and I was not able to view what you claimed was there.

Can we get some valid evidence, please?

[Chris Smith]

What evidence could be given for another copy of Book of Breathings in the St. Louis Museum, as you seem to be postulating? I am turning up empty-handed thus far. It would appear that I would have to locate a complete copy of the Museum Guide and inventory list to know with some degree of certainty. Your link in the other thread did not work for me and I was not able to view what you claimed was there.

Can we get some valid evidence, please?

Hi MormonMason,

The quote from Gustavus Seyffarth from the catalog and from the St Louis Christian Advocate is the main evidence. This is not evidence of another copy, but rather of the remainder of the copy owned by the church. It sounds like you read this post, but didn't really get what I was arguing for:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...entry1208200298

That's probably my fault for not arguing it clearly enough.

You'll notice that Dr. Gee quoted the same passage from the catalog, but not at the same length; I've merely provided context for his quote.

Don't worry about the link at the end of that post; just go back to posts 1 and 13 in the same thread. Best,

-Chris