Publishing The Kirtland Egyptian Papers

[Mortal Man]

Two observations on your rather flippant reply:

It's just a simple question, nothing flippant about it; a simple "yes" or "no" answer would suffice.

1) "Breathing permit" is incorrect terminology,

Yes, I was fairly certain you were going to say that; Gee's quibbling has clearly worn off on you. What's good enough for Michael Rhodes is good enough for me; so to reiterate, I'm asking for your opinion regarding the funerary book of breathings.

2) We know, without a doubt, that the scroll of H

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So let me see if I understand the key points of your position:

(1) The early saints lacked adequate storage facilities for Chandler's papyri; therefore, they began cutting them up.

(2) They tried to store some of the scrolls in the Mansion and/or Nauvoo Houses, but the guests complained that they were taking up too many rooms, thus they commandeered Lucy's house.

(3) Lucy tried to unroll the Hor scroll for Miss Haven, but this was such a laborious process that Charlotte grew bored and complained to her mother.

(4) Emma's second husband got tired of living with no furniture and offloaded the whole pile with the help of several strong men.

(5) The collection eventually made its way to Chicago.

(6) With such a vast quantity of flammable papyrus entering the city, it was only a matter of time until it burned to the ground.

Is that about right?

Unless I missed something I have never heard him argue this on this board. Infact I have never heard anyone argue this. Perhaps I am ignorant, or you are just making crap up.

[USU78]

Unless I missed something I have never heard him argue this on this board. Infact I have never heard anyone argue this. Perhaps I am ignorant, or you are just making crap up.

Homoletalis is just being cranky. Thinks he's being cute, too. Homonunculi are like that.

[Ceeboo]

Homoletalis is just being cranky. Thinks he's being cute, too. Homonunculi are like that.

"Homoletalis" ?????????

Must be a Pundit thing!

When I looked it up (Homoletalis/Homononculi), it speaks of a rare vegetable found deep in the rain forest.

Huh!!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Chris Smith]

Unless I missed something I have never heard him argue this on this board. In fact I have never heard anyone argue this. Perhaps I am ignorant, or you are just making crap up.

Perhaps you just need to understand Andrew's sense of humor.

[ERayR]

"Homoletalis" ?????????

Must be a Pundit thing!

When I looked it up (Homoletalis/Homononculi), it speaks of a rare vegetable found deep in the rain forest.

Huh!!

Peace,

Ceeboo

Homononculi - is that whats with the rice in rice-a-roni?

[William Schryver]

Perhaps you just need to understand Andrew's sense of humor.

Even I can appreciate it. Seriously. He has a gift. An extraordinary gift. I almost wonder if he has missed his calling in life. He should be a professional satirist (not "satyr" Andrew! Chill!). Maybe he should be writing for Jon Stewart or Colbert instead of wasting his life doing whatever it is he's wasting his life doing. He and cinepro could team up and do some amazing stuff, especially if they turned their sights away from Mormonism and focused instead on national politics or celebrities.

[Vance]

Perhaps you just need to understand Andrew's sense of humor.

That was humor? Well maybe for a critic, I guess.

[Ceeboo]

Homononculi - is that whats with the rice in rice-a-roni?

Does this suggestion mean that when one eats rice-a-roni, they are ingesting "Mortal Man"?

Crazy to see how these threads develop.

Hmmmmmm. I bet Mortal Man is a little on the salty side.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Perhaps you just need to understand Andrew's sense of humor.

That may very well be that case. Perhaps I am just sensetive today too.

Unfortunatly I have had recent discussion with a person that was a little to cynical and I think that may have tainted my view of MM comments.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Even I He and cinepro could team up and do some amazing stuff, especially if they turned their sights away from Mormonism and focused instead on national politics or celebrities.

Here here! I think you have a valid point to this one. That Cinepro, boy...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That was humor? Well maybe for a critic, I guess.

The thing is that over the years, I have learned that some critics want these jokes to be true. I have heard some wild things over the years. I am willing to wager that in the future some one will actually use this as a serious argument. Any takers?

[William Schryver]

It's just a simple question, nothing flippant about it; a simple "yes" or "no" answer would suffice.

Yes, I was fairly certain you were going to say that; Gee's quibbling has clearly worn off on you. What's good enough for Michael Rhodes is good enough for me; so to reiterate, I'm asking for your opinion regarding the funerary book of breathings.

Ok, that doesn't answer my question but I can see that you're not giving up on the long scroll hypothesis, despite declaring that it doesn't make any difference.

So let me see if I understand the key points of your position:

(1) The early saints lacked adequate storage facilities for Chandler's papyri; therefore, they began cutting them up.

(2) They tried to store some of the scrolls in the Mansion and/or Nauvoo Houses, but the guests complained that they were taking up too many rooms, thus they commandeered Lucy's house.

(3) Lucy tried to unroll the Hor scroll for Miss Haven, but this was such a laborious process that Charlotte grew bored and complained to her mother.

(4) Emma's second husband got tired of living with no furniture and offloaded the whole pile with the help of several strong men.

(5) The collection eventually made its way to Chicago.

(6) With such a vast quantity of flammable papyrus entering the city, it was only a matter of time until it burned to the ground.

Is that about right?

I'm not sure why you think Mike Rhodes disagrees with the new understanding about the "formerly-known-as" Book of Breathings. And although John Gee has adopted the more correct title of Letter of Fellowship Made by Isis, he is not the originator of the finding. I'm not going to dig through my files at the moment for the name of the first Egyptologist to make the argument, but it's something that comes from mainstream Egyptology, and it dates back several years. So, if you are under the impression that the new (and more correct) designation for the document is related to Mormon apologetics, I'm afraid you're mistaken.

Now, as to the original length of the scrolls from the Joseph Smith Papyri, I think you are operating under some false assumptions. The mounted fragments were, in fact, cut from the scrolls, presumably to preserve them, since they had begun to fall apart in humid Ohio. That there are references to both "rolls" and "frames" after the outer portions of the two scrolls were mounted is indisputable. Furthermore, we know, at the very least, that Facsimile 3 was not included among the mounted fragments. And, logically, if all that remained of the scroll of H

[Scott Lloyd]

None of the Book of Mormon was translated without seer stones (that we know of). Joseph first used the Urim and Thummim which came with the plates. However, after the lost manuscript incident, Joseph was left with just the seer stones which he already had (and had been using for treasure digs).

Whence comes this newly minted conventional wisdom that the Urim and Thummim were not returned to Joseph along with the plates after the incident of the lost manuscript? Perhaps some sources may have averred that, but to state it as a postulate strikes me as unjustified.

[Chris Smith]

And although John Gee has adopted the more correct title of Letter of Fellowship Made by Isis, he is not the originator of the finding. I'm not going to dig through my files at the moment for the name of the first Egyptologist to make the argument, but it's something that comes from mainstream Egyptology, and it dates back several years.

I'd love to have that reference. I've been debating which title to use in my own publications, but since Gee has not actually published the "Fellowship" argument (as far as I know), I don't really know what to think of it. As recently as 2008, Lanny Bell published an essay using the "Book of Breathing" title. So you can't really give MM too hard a time for that, if that's the title still currently being used in the published Egyptological literature.

You're going to argue that they mounted 68 cm worth of the scroll, and then continued to roll up a piece that was less than half the length of what they were attempting to preserve in the glass frames? I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make any sense.

Presumably what was mounted was mounted because of its fragility. Meaning that what was not mounted was less fragile.

And it doesn't jibe with the multiple eyewitness accounts of "rolls" -- separate and distinct from the "frames".

As in, more than one roll? Other than Charlotte Haven's reference to vignettes "from another roll", what eyewitness accounts indicate that there was more than one intact scroll after the fragments were mounted? (Note that Gee's transcription of Appleby is incorrect. Appleby writes that he viewed the "Roll of Papyrus," not "Rolls," as John Gee transcribes it. Don Bradley confirmed this by an examination of the original.)

[Lars Umlaut]

Whence comes this newly minted conventional wisdom that the Urim and Thummim were not returned to Joseph along with the plates after the incident of the lost manuscript?

It comes from FAIR.

[Mortal Man]

Now, as to the original length of the scrolls from the Joseph Smith Papyri, I think you are operating under some false assumptions. The mounted fragments were, in fact, cut from the scrolls, presumably to preserve them, since they had begun to fall apart in humid Ohio.

Yes, they were.

That there are references to both "rolls" and "frames" after the outer portions of the two scrolls were mounted is indisputable.

No argument here.

Furthermore, we know, at the very least, that Facsimile 3 was not included among the mounted fragments.

Correct.

And, logically, if all that remained of the scroll of H

[William Schryver]

Then I think we agree for the most part. I, for one, feel that Truth in scripture can be revealed in a ficticious, or perhaps more accurately, 'pseudepigraphical' framework. (I feel much of the JST is such an example of this genre) and even in the D&C, there are some scriptures first given in a present day context, and then later 're-framed' or 're-written' to be a revelation directed to Enoch and his ancient community (the version in our current D&C is an inconsistent mishmash of the two versions). The Truth and direction was the same, the framework was not.

I guess I agree in saying that while the Book of Mormon must have as its base an ancient text, it is not necessary for all of the events described therein need to have literally happened for them to communicate Truth. I do recognize that when it comes to teaching Eternal doctrine, Symbols are far more important (and impressing on the mind) than a literal history.

I've chosen to make a reply to your remarks above both to clarify my views in respect to your reaction to them, and also to make what will amount to a reply to a thread that the chief rodents in the GSTP have initiated, and in which they have undertaken to grossly misrepresent what I have written on this thread.

First of all, when I wrote the following:

My personal experience with scripture, and the way in which it has established its value to me is that, when reading it, I find that I am more likely than at any other time to receive personal revelation from my father in Heaven, through the medium of the Holy Ghost. Often, that revelation has nothing to do with the specific text I am reading. And, although I greatly appreciate and highly value many scriptural texts purely on the basis of their primary literary message, it has been my experience that the greatest worth of scripture is that it puts me in a position to receive the personal revelation that I treasure the most. Thus, when reading the Book of Abraham, for example, I can feel an appreciation for the actual words from chapter 3, but what I have come to understand as a result of my reading of that particular passage goes far beyond and far afield of the actual text itself. How can that be so? To tell the truth, I'm not entirely certain. But it is so. And for that reason I have a perspective about the meaning of "scripture" that, while it does not necessarily exclude the possibility of its historicity and literality, transcends those often indeterminable questions. To me, the most meaningful definition of "scripture" is: "something I read that enables me to commune with God." Beyond that, the other questions are substantially superfluous.

I had no thought in my mind that, for example, the Book of Abraham is a "fictitious" (albeit inspired) 19th century production, nor anything similar when it comes to the Book of Mormon. I am fully cognizant of the views of some of my brethren concerning the "origins" of scripture, and I do not, generally speaking, tend to agree with their perspective. My whole point was simply that, in my personal experience, the primary value of "scripture" is that it serves as a medium through which I commune with God. To that extent, I have come to regard questions of historicity and literality as effectively superfluous. Does that mean I don't believe, for example, in the historicity of the Book of Mormon? Not at all! Let me make it perfectly clear that I am personally convinced that there were Nephites! I am personally convinced that a resurrected Nephite, by name of Moroni, appeared to Joseph Smith in 1823, and ultimately delivered unto him a very real, very literal collection of ancient records inscribed on plates having the appearance of gold. Those who would like to twist my statement above into a declaration of disbelief in the traditional foundational truth claims of Mormonism are either being intentionally obtuse or deliberately deceptive.

The only point I was trying to make, and I reiterate it here and now, is that when I stand to bear my testimony to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (for example) I do not have in mind considerations such as the actual geographical location of Zarahemla or Bountiful or whether or not Deutero-Isaiah somehow was delivered to Lehi's party on a papyrus scroll just minutes before they weighed anchor and set sail towards the promised land! No, my testimony is based on the witness of the Holy Ghost that comes over me while reading the Book of Mormon and conveys divine intelligence to my heart and mind in such a way as to draw me closer to my heavenly Father; to motivate me to want to do whatever is necessary to rejoin Him in heavenly realms; to desire light, truth, and virtue more than darkness, deception, and vice.

It is, in my judgment, effectively impossible for me (or anyone else) to determine the actual origins of the text of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Abraham beyond the fact that they were delivered to Joseph Smith via the instrumentality of his seerstone/Urim and Thummim. He was made to see words, or words were conveyed to his mind, which he then recited in the presence of a scribe who recorded them, and thus they have come to us. Any contemplation of whether or not Joseph Smith knew how to translate "Reformed" Egyptian or Hieratic Egyptian--or any other ancient language for that matter (after all, the parchment of John mentioned in D&C 7 was certainly not written in English) is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the texts he produced are scripture.

I believe it is absolutely undeniable that Joseph Smith did not know how to translate ancient languages in the manner that we employ the term "translation" in 2010. "To translate" means, literally, to move something from one place to another. In that sense, Joseph Smith was indeed a translator, for he moved scripture from a state of lost to a state of "restored," which meant serving as the medium by which that scripture was rendered into the modern English language. In this respect, it becomes a question of semantics where critics of Joseph Smith insist on the 21st century idiomatic usage of the verb "to translate" while I and others believe it is much more logical to apply a 19th century idiomatic usage to a man who operated in the 19th century.

At any rate, no one need conclude that I am arguing for viewing the scriptures of the restoration as pseudepigraphical works. I'm not. I'm simply attempting to emphasize what, in my judgment, is the most immediately accessible and practical value of all scripture--that it is:

... given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

[David T]

At any rate, no one need conclude that I am arguing for viewing the scriptures of the restoration as pseudepigraphical (aka "fictional") works. I'm not. I'm simply attempting to emphasize what, in my judgment, is the most immediately accessible and practical value of all scripture

I think I'll clarify as well: I do not believe the Book of Mormon to fall into the pseudepigraphal genre. I currently believe that what we have of it in English to be a modern expansion of a legitimate ancient text compiled by the historical personages Mormon and Moroni.

I do, however, feel that much of the JST (and the related Enoch revelations in the D&C) are not a restoration of records of historical events, but are inspired restorations of truths presented as modern narratives integrated into an expanded Biblical Framework, the same way as are much of the texts classified as Pseudepigrapha, or some Targumim.

I feel it very possible that the Book of Abraham may fall into either - or both - of those genres.

Either way, I believe they all have as their source the inspiration of God, and are very profitable sources for True and reliable doctrine.

[Mortal Man]

or whether or not Deutero-Isaiah somehow was delivered to Lehi's party on a papyrus scroll just minutes before they weighed anchor and set sail towards the promised land!

Deutero-Isaiah wasn't written until long after they set sail. The scroll must have been delivered via carrier pigeon across the Pacific to Jacob (since Nephi had just died). Jacob then must have gone back and inserted some plates pseudopigraphically into Nephi's record.

[William Schryver]

Deutero-Isaiah wasn't written until long after they set sail. The scroll must have been delivered via carrier pigeon across the Pacific to Jacob (since Nephi had just died). Jacob then must have gone back and inserted some plates pseudopigraphically into Nephi's record.

Perhaps not, according to some Bible scholars. David Bokovoy made reference to this very thing at (IIRC) the 2007 FAIR Conference.

Once again you're confronted with the cold, hard fact that what you thought was conventional wisdom is, in fact, not. One might think you'd begin to acquire a little more humility along the way, but ... alas ... your considerable pride remains largely undisturbed ...

[Vance]

IT IS CURRENTLY BELIEVED BY SOME THAT Deutero-Isaiah wasn't written until long after they set sail.

There, fixed it for you.