Missing Scroll Theory

[Xander]

I have little interest in participating in a discussion with the assertion-mad anti-Mormon Energizer Bunny, but I will illustrate, once again, how "Xander" is woefully lacking not when it comes to his understanding of both the critics' historical arguments vis-a-vis the KEP, as well as the KEP documents themselves.

Who do you think you are kidding? Like Daniel Peterson and William Hamblin, you think you can claim to be ignoring me because I'm an anti-Mormon (!) but then, whenever you think you've finally found some sliver of hope in showing how I made an error, you instantly leap to the occasion to, well, ignore me no longer. Funny how that works. The fact is you've been dodging me since 2004 because you cannot respond to the number of refutations that destroy whatever credibility you imagine for yourself. You were gloating on this forum just a few weeks ago before I posted, constantly daring Chris Smith or anyone to prove you wrong. The second I jump in, you make an announcement that Gee has recommended you take a leave of absence. I predicted this to a number of folks offline, and lo and behold, I'm a prophet! Of course, you could prove I am wrong by addressing teh number of threads I started that highlight your abject ignorance on this subject.

Notwithstanding the fact that the first half of my quoted comment specifically excludes Abr. 1:1-3 (which passage only appears in manuscript Ab1),

So? This is only in reference to the first half of your statement.

"Xander" attempts to provide a counter-argument by displaying an image of Ab1 and mapping its characters (for verses Abr. 1:1-3) to the EA/GAEL!

That's right. So you're finally admitting that a number of characters from the GAEL do appear in the Abraham manuscripts? Do you also acknowledge that a number of characters from the Breathings papyrus, are found in the GAEL? I remember you also made the false statement that they were not, which I then proved your ignorance with these images:

Do you finally agree that the GAEL contain more than a dozen characters from the scroll which apologists insist had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham translation?

But that's not his only deception

You've yet to show a deception beyond your own. I've presented this issue to you on a number of occasions and your only response was to leave the forum for a few weeks or months, until your embarrassment blew over. It is your trademark response to all refutations of your arguments. The only reason you're responding to me now is because you think you've found a semantic loophole to crawl out of, which you will then turn around as evidence of my intended "deception." But it is funny how you say you ignore me while at the same time claiming you have constantly shown me to be incorrect. This is a contradiction, as both cannot be true. So which is it? If you've constantly been showing me to be wrong, then please, just link us to one example over the past four years. Of the dozens of exchanges we've had, certainly you're able to provide one.

The "dictated translation manuscripts," according to the critics' historical arguments, are Ab2 and Ab3 (using Hauglid's sigla).

I have repeatedly argued that the Phelps portion of MS2, included in the image I posted, was dictated. This is why I posted that image. Since I was the only critic going on record, denying that you had properly represented what was argued, then naturally you must have been referencing me when talking about critics who are now denying this. Hence, it is my argument that matters here, not what Chris Smith or Dan Vogel have argued. But even if I hadn't argued MS2 was partially copied and partially dictated, you know that your comments would be misleading to an audience virtually ignorant of anything you're talking about. Apologists frequently get confused on this subject the same way you used to confuse the papyri with the KEP.

But this is merely another in a countless string of examples where "Xander" deliberately attempts to confuse and mislead the reader, in addition to making a seemingly endless string of assertions for which his so-called "evidence" does not provide support.

No, this is just another example of William Schryver having no clue what he is talking about by misrepresenting what the critics have argued. Again, if you were interested in what your critics have argued, you wouldn't have to go digging to find out what an obscure RLDS historian once said, and use that as the basis of your apologetic. But then, you didn't really go digging, did you? That would require actual research. In reality you just relayed the same straw man presented by Nibley. Now you can stick around and address the numerous refutations I've provided you, particularly the whammy in the other thread, or you can slink away as usual. If anyone was attempting to "mislead the readers," it was you with your initial claim that none of the characters were found in the Abraham manuscripts the critics claimed to be dictated. As if anyone in your audience were able to distinguish the difference between those claimed to be dictated and those which were copied.

I am convinced that no one is up to the task. From what I have witnessed over the years since your disaffection from the faith, there is no amount or strength of opposing reasoning and evidence that can penetrate even the outer crust of your mufti-layered iron-clad, hermetically sealed skull.

The fact that you would have to resort to referencing my apostasy in order to score rhetorical points, means you lose the debate. All the rhetoric in the world won't make your arguments sound. But now that the puppet master is now present, I'm going to see if he is willing to deal with your problems for you. Not trying to constantly insult you wade, but you simply have too much catching up to do. You spend way too much time on these forums and get too emotionally vested in your presuppositions. Hence, your current meltdown.

And, I am not speaking here just about our not being able to change your mind

But wade, the fact is I have changed my mind on numerous occasions over the years. Not so long ago I was with you, defending the Book of Abraham to the death. The fact that I was able to change my mind well this proves I am reasonable, whereas your dogmatic positions haven't budged even slightly. When have you ever changed your mind? You cannot even admit basic facts that have been demonstrated as conclusive, regarding your mentor's misrepresentation of the manuscripts. I performed an experiment to see how "reasonable" you really were, and you proved my suspicions true. You're unwilling to change your mind in light of evidence. So you're just projecting here.

You're not interested in truth because you think you already have it. You're interested in one thing and one thing only, and that is reinventing evidence to support your predetermined apologetic conclusions which you assume to represent truth. Anything else is just dismiss as someone else's "opinion." You don't understand nor do you appreciate the difference between a dogmatic opinion based on theoretical possibility and loyalty (yours) and one that is based on evidence (mine). I have continuously explained why there is no rational basis for postulating a missing scrol from which the Book of Abraham was translated, and neither you nor your helpers have been able to make a dent in the long list evidences. All you have done is try to fight evidence with rhetoric. If you had the truth on your side to defend, then you wouldn't have to resort to these tactics.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Xander

[Robert F. Smith]

I am now fast running out of patience.

For the life of you, you can't see beyond the confines of your own cranium. You are seemingly an intractable dogmatist who is intolerant of opposing views, and capable of hearing and accepting nothing beyond your own barks,

no amount or strength of opposing reasoning and evidence that can penetrate even the outer crust of your mufti-layered iron-clad, hermetically sealed skull.

These ad hominems are not representative of you at your best, Wade.

I note that some others on this thread enjoy striking out with the term "deceptive," instead of simply sticking to the evidence. Naturally there are going to be disagreements, but we should all understand that at the outset. If you want to suggest that an interlocutor has made an irrelevant, incongruous argument, or nonsequitur, that should be enough. We don't need to be narrow and nasty about it.

I have waited for decades to see whether someone would be brave enough to come out with a critical text of the Book of Abraham, including photos and learned discussion of all the papyri and manuscripts (and any related documents). Despite what certain parties claim, the lack of a thoroughgoing publication of that sort has stymied the drawing of any sort of assured conclusions. True, we have seen some useful publications over the years, but too much remains unstudied and undiscussed in an open atmosphere. It is to be hoped that this will change in the near term, and that the hoarding of fine quality photos and documents will be replaced by full publication and learned discussion. Whatever the case, there should be a full consideration of all positions and arguments across the broad spectrum.

[Bill Hamblin]

Who do you think you are kidding? Like Daniel Peterson and William Hamblin, you think you can claim to be ignoring me because I'm an anti-Mormon (!) but then, whenever you think you've finally found some sliver of hope in showing how I made an error, you instantly leap to the occasion to, well, ignore me no longer.

????????????

I always ignore you, and always will.

[wenglund]

These ad hominems are not representative of you at your best, Wade.

I appreciate your feedback.

However, I believe there comes a point at which it becomes pragmatically necessary to acknowledge cases where there are certain seemingly impregnable barriers to communication, matter-of-factly disclose what those barriers may be, and this in hopes of affecting a change, and if change is not forthcoming after repeated attempts, move on to more productive prospects. I have reached that point with Kevin, and I simply wanted to explain, perhaps for his benefit, why I, and likely many before me, am no longer willing to waste my time trying unsuccessfully to have an intelligent discussion with him--and this, even now, on the off chance that he might be willing to change, though I won't hold my breadth.

I have waited for decades to see whether someone would be brave enough to come out with a critical text of the Book of Abraham, including photos and learned discussion of all the papyri and manuscripts (and any related documents). Despite what certain parties claim, the lack of a thoroughgoing publication of that sort has stymied the drawing of any sort of assured conclusions. True, we have seen some useful publications over the years, but too much remains unstudied and undiscussed in an open atmosphere. It is to be hoped that this will change in the near term, and that the hoarding of fine quality photos and documents will be replaced by full publication and learned discussion. Whatever the case, there should be a full consideration of all positions and arguments across the broad spectrum.

I am all in favor of full consideration of all positions and arguments. I just chose, at some point (after numerous tries), not to continue to indulge the somewhat socially repelling antics of those who defiantly refuse to return the favor.

The good news is, there are people like floatingboy with whom I can carry on a mutually respectful discussion and reasonably express differences of opinions. I plan to address Kevin's earlier points by way of interacting with floatingboy. So, thankfully, Kevin's position will still be covered.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 27, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

i gotta admit that i find this a bit unlikely for reasons that i think are fairly self-evident.

Could you please explain those reasons since they aren't self-evident to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

i think he makes pretty clear just how it means that the arguments of others for a missing papyri are irrelevant, or at least marginalized. as i recall, he agrees that we do not have all original portions of the scrolls. that's universally accepted, correct?

In the interest of clearing up some possible confusion, this thread was a spinoff from another thread in which Kevin posed an incoherent question that several of us attempted to decipher and answer. In that thread, and the questions I asked, and to which he answered at the opening of this thread, were in exploration essentially of the issue: whether or not the historical data contained indication of missing papyri. I presented what I knew of the historical data that explicitly or implicitly described the papyri, and then asked Kevin if all the descriptive points exist on the extant papyri. I posed the question not as evidence against Kevin's position, but rather by way of inquiry. I have had access to the historical data, but I haven't had access to, and for the most part I still am not privy to, all of the papyri fragments. So, I didn't know if the extant papyri fit all the historical data, and so I asked in order to find out.

And, while Kevin was able to point out where many of the historical descriptions fit, in his estimation, the extant papyri, there were other points that did not, and some of his estimations I found to be a stretch or incorrect.

I had thought to press him on the latter, but that was rendered unnecessary when he conceded that we all agree that there are missing portions of the papyri. This, to me, was a tacit admission that the missing scroll issue is relevant in so far as determining how much and what portions of which scrolls aren't extant.

The reason I am making this clarification even thought this issue seems to have been settled, is because determinations about how much and what portions of which scrolls aren't extant, as well as to which scrolls the historical descriptive points related, may factor into the question now before us--that being: Is there historical data that convincingly and directly ties the BoA translation to certain extant papyri, thus rendering irrelevant the missing scroll theory?

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

but the crux of the argument is that virtually all of the references made to the scrolls by those involved can be linked to scroll fragments that still exist. this provides strong evidence that those involved, including JS, believed that the text of the BofA came from the fragments we have.

First of all, I think it important to clarify which scroll fragments we are talking about. If I recall correctly, there are about 11 papyrus fragments in the church archives. There may be reason to believe that not all the fragments belong to the same scroll (the fragments are from at least two different scrolls) or even the same portion of the scroll that certain critics believe to be from whence the BoA is alleged to have been derived.

As best I can tell, of all the extant fragments, the critics typically point to two of the fragments as the alleged source for the BoA: JS XI and JS 1 (superimposed together in a graphic created by Cook/Smith, if I remember right):

My reason for mentioning this is to not only clarify which of the extant papyri are the one's in question, but also to note that many of the historical descriptions of the papyri that Kevin addressed earlier in the thread, do not apply to these two fragments.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 29, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

To reiterate, aside from the historical details that can't be accounted for in the extant papyri, there are several historical accounts that give general descriptions that may apply generically to various fragments (like red and black ink), and there are accounts that include details related specifically to what was considered the record of Joseph (which logically is different from the scroll containing the record of Abraham), and there are other accounts that evidently apply to fragments not identified by the critics as the source for the Book of Abraham. (By the way, I just found an excellent resource for historical data describing the papyri. It is an online chapter written by John Gee, called: "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri," It contains the quote that Kevin Graham claimed earlier in the thread that LDS apologist "mostly ignore." It also contains much of the information Kevin proffered in his first 4 posts on this thread, though without attribution.)

This leaves us to sift through the few remaining bits of historical data for references specifically to the Abrahamic portion of the papyri to see if it clearly identifies the two fragments in question (JSP I and JSP XI). I will do so in my next several posts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 28, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Let's start at the very beginning. Here is the first explicit tie-in between Abraham and the papyri, circa. July 5-6th, 1835:

"...I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.236)

There is no indication in this notation as to where exactly on the Abrahamic roll the characters translated by Joseph may be found.

In a related statement: "Mr. Smith inquired of him the price which was a considerable sum, and finally purchased the mummies and the writing, all of which he retained in his possession for many years; and they were seen by all the church that saw proper to visit the house of the Prophet Joseph and also by hundreds of strangers. The Prophet translated the part of these writings which, as I have said is contained in the Pearl of Great Price, and known as the Book of Abraham." (REMARKS OF CHURCH LEADERS PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 26 VOLS. LIVERPOOL, 1855-1886)

Again, there is no indication in this passage as to which portion of the paypri the Book of Abraham may be found.

On January 30th, 1836, this was said: "Attended school, as usual, and waited upon several visitors, and showed them the record of Abraham. Mr. Seixas, our Hebrew teacher, examined it with deep interest, and pronounced it to be original beyond all doubt." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.26, p. 388)

Still no indication.

In the September 14th, 1836, edition of the Ohio Watchman, there is this: "But the principal [value] in the estimation of the Mormons, attached to [the mummies] is the papyrus, or an ancient Egyptian paper, found in the Catacoms with these mummies, on which is a splendid specimen of Egyptian Hieroglyphics, said to be the same as the characters on the golden plates, from which Smith translated the Book of Mormon. These Hieroglyphics [Mr.] Smith is now translating, and has proceeded so far as to [ascertain] (they say) that a part of them were written by Abraham, and a part by Joseph!"

Still no indication.

On May 13th, 1837, was mentioned: "In the afternoon we went into the [Kirtland] Temple, and saw the mummies and the records which were found with them (we went to the prophet's house to see him. This is the first I saw him, and shook hands with him). Joseph Smith Sen. explained them to us, and said the records were the writings of Abraham & Joseph, Jacob's son. Some of the writing was in black, and some in red. He said that the writing in red, was pertaining to the Priesthood.." (Autobiography of Warren Foote)

Still as yet no indication--except the writing in red that pertain to the Priesthood. Since chapters 1 and 2 of the Book of Abraham speak about the priesthood, and since, as best I can tell, the two extant fragments (JSP Id and JSP XI) do not contain red ink, then one may reasonably surmise that the Book of Abraham didn't come from the two extant fragments.

Here is this 1837 report from William West: "The Mormons have four mummies, and a quantity of records, written on papyrus, in Egyptian hieroglyphics, which were brought from the catacombs near Thebes, in Egypt. They say that the mummies were Egyptian, but the records are those of Abraham and Joseph, and contain important information respecting the creation, the fall of man, the deluge, the patriarchs, the book of Mormon, the lost tribe, the gathering, the end of the world, the judgment, &c. &c. This is as near as I can recollect; if there is an error I hope some of the Mormons will point it out, and I will recall it. These records were torn by being taken from the roll of embalming salve which contained them, and some parts entirely lost; but Smith is to translate the whole by divine inspiration, and that which is lost, like Nebuchadnezzar's dream, can be interpreted as well as that which is preserved; and a larger volume than the Bible will be required to contain them. For further account of these mummies and records, see Mormon Advocate, of December, 1835. " (The Rise and Progress and Pretentions of Mormonism, by Wm. S. West, 1837(

While this account mentions portions of both scrolls having been torn, it does not indicate whether the records of Abraham and Joseph, or the translated portion of the Book of Abraham, were taken from the torn portions of the papyrus or not. So, no help here either.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 28, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

In a book published in 1839, John Corrill stated: "In the summer of 1835, they [the LDS church] purchased three or four Egyptian Mummies, with an ancient Egyptian record, written on papyrus, a part of which Smith professed to translate, making it out to be the writing of Abraham." (John Corrill, History of the Mormons)

No indication there--except to note that only a "portion" of the papyri were translated, thus leaving open the question of which portion.

In the July 28th edition of the The Sun, this was published: "…After he [Joseph Smith] had shown us the fine grounds around his dwelling; he conducted us, at our request, to an upper room, where he drew aside the curtains of a case, and showed us several Egyptian Mummies, which we were told that the church had purchased, at his suggestion, some time before, for a large sum of money. The embalmed body that stands near the center of the case, said he, is one of the Pharaohs, who sat on the throne of Egypt, and the female figure by it was probably one of the daughters. It may have been the Princess Thermutis, I replied, "the same that rescued Moses from the waters of the Nile. It is not improbable, answered the Prophet, but time has not yet allowed fully to examine and decide that point. Do you understand the Hebrew language, said he, raising his hand to the top of the case, and taking down a small Hebrew grammar of Rabbi Seixas. That language has not altogether escaped my attention, was the reply. He then walked to a secretary, on the opposite side of the room, and drew out several frames, covered with glass, under which were numerous fragments of Egyptian papyrus, on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical characters had been imprinted. These ancient records, said he, throw great light on the subject of Christianity. They have been unrolled and preserved with great labor and care. My time has been hitherto too much taken up to translate the whole of them, but I will show you how I interpret certain parts. There, said he, pointing to a particular character, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham. It is indeed a most interesting autograph, I replied, and doubtless the only one extant. What an ornament it would be to have these ancient manuscripts handsomely set, in appropriate frames, and hung up around the walls of the temple which you are about to erect at this place. Yes, replied the Prophet, and the translation hung up with them. " (The Sun)

While some of this account is obviously questionable, we find yet again indication that only a portion of the papyri were translated. Mention is also made of a character on the papyri that represented the so-called "autograph" of Abraham. Unfortunately, in this account we aren't told where on the papyri this "autograph" may be found. And, if Kevin's example is any indicator (see post #2 on this thread), ironically it isn't on the two extant papyri the critics identify as the source for the Book of Abraham.

And, contrary to Kevin's earlier insinuation about ignoring "the most important description," let me quote from William Appleby, as cited in Gee's book I linked to earlier:

Saw the Rolls of Papyrus and the writings thereon, taken from off the bosom of the Male Mummy, having some of the writings of ancient Abraham and of Joseph that was sold into Egypt. The writings are chiefly in the Egyptian language, with the exception of a little Hebrew. I believe they give a description of some of the scenes in Ancient Egypt, of their worship, their Idol gods, etc. The writings are beautiful and plain, composed of red, and black inks. There is a perceptible difference, between the writings. Joseph, appears to have been the best scribe. There are also representations of men, beasts, Birds, Idols and oxen attached to a kind of plough, and a female guiding it. Also the serpent when he beguiled Eve. He appears with two legs, erect in the form and appearance of man. But his head in the form, and representing the Serpent, with his forked tongue extended. There are likewise representations of an Altar erected, with a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar with several Idol gods standing around it. A Celestial globe with the planet Kolob or first creation of the supreme Being a planet of light, which planet makes a revolution once in a thousand years, Also the Lord revealing the Grand key words of the Holy Priesthood, to Adam in the garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and to all whom the Priesthood was revealed. Abraham also in the Court of Pharaoh sitting upon the King's throne reasoning upon Astronomy, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven, with the scepter of Justice and Judgment in his hand. And King Pharaoh, standing behind him, together with a Prince a principal waiter, and a black slave of the King. A genealogy of the Mummies, and Epitaphs and their deaths, etc., etc., are also distinctly represented on the Papyrus which is called the "Book of Abraham."

All the details mentioned above, except the black and red ink and Joseph of Egypt being the better scribe, are said by Appleby to be "distinctly represented on the Papyrus which is called the "Book of Abraham"--which may reasonably be understood as referring to the scroll on which the record of Abraham is found.

What makes this interesting, is that, as Kevin was so kind to indirectly point out in post #4, of all the details described above, only one of them may be found on the fragments the critics point to as the source for the Book of Abraham (JSP 1 & JSP XI).

In other words, Kevin inadvertently provided us with evidence that the historical data DOES NOT always describe, and in this case rarely describes, images that are easily identifiable with the extant fragments considered by the critics to be the source for the Book of Abraham.

And, while Appleby does point out a number of details on the papyri, some of which pertain to the current text of the Book of Abraham, nowhere in his account does he specifically identify which "portion" (according to Corrill) of the papyri is the source for the current Book of Abraham text, but simply, and perhaps mistakenly, he refers to the entire roll as "the Book of Abraham."

As such, this leaves open the door to exploring where on the roll is the actual source for the Book of Abraham, thereby making relevant the missing scroll theory, contrary to Kevin's claim.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 28, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

On February 23rd, 1842, was recorded: "… gave Reuben Hedlock instruction concerning the cut for the altar and gods in the Records of Abraham, as designed for the Times and Seasons."( History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.30, p.518)

The "cut for the altar and gods" is evidently in reference to Facsimili 1, which is clearly represented on one of the two fragments in question (JSP 1). So, here we have a direct tie-in between one of the extant papyri in question, and the "Records of Abraham."

However, the designation "Records of Abraham" may be a way of referring to the scroll on which the facsimile is found, and not necessarily a reference to the specific record we now know as the Book of Abraham, or rather the text thereof. In other words, there is an important difference between the text of the Book of Abraham and the Facsimiles that accompany it. The former is not a translation of the later (though the former contains a few elements of the later), This means that the tie-in between the facsimile 1 and JSP 1, is not a tie-in between the text of the Book of Abraham and JSP1.

So, while this account may place JSP1 on the scroll containing the records of Abraham, it does not indicate that the text of the Book of Abraham is on JSP 1, but may be elsewhere on the Abrahamic scroll.

This point applies to the facsimile 1, itself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 28, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

March 24, 1842: " The last Nauvoo "Times and Seasons,".a Mormon paper edited by Joseph Smith, contains an extract from the Book of Abraham, translated from an ancient record on papyrus in the hand writing of that patriarch, found in one of the Egyptian catacombs, and now in Joe's possession! We presume the faithful will have no doubt of its authenticity. The Mormon paper contains a fac simile engraving from the same manuscript, which adds very little to Abraham's fame, as far as drawing is concerned; it represents Abraham bound upon an altar, and the idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to sacrifice him to his gods, the images of which surround the altar." (The Morning Chronical)

As with the previous quote, this account places facsimile 1 on the same scroll as the Book of Abraham, but does not place the Book of Abraham on the same fragment as facsimile 1.

In a booklet written by Reverend Caswell titled, "The City of the Mormons," published in 1842, pp. 22 - he gives this somewhat dubious account of seeing the papyri:

The storekeeper now proceeded to redeem his promise of obtaining for me access to the curiosities. He led the way to a room behind his store, on the door of which was an inscription to the following effect: "Office of Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Latter Day Saints." Having introduced me, together with several Mormons, to this sanctum sanctorum, he locked the door behind him, and proceeded to what appeared to be a small chest of drawers. From this he drew forth a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics. These had been unrolled from four mummies, which the prophet had purchased at a cost of twenty-four hundred dollars. By some inexplicable mode, as the storekeeper informed me, Mr. Smith had discovered that these sheets contained the writings of Abraham, written with his own hand while in Egypt. Pointing to the figure of a man lying on a table, he said, "That is the picture of Abraham on the point of being sacrificed. That man standing by him with a drawn knife is an idolatrous priest of the Egyptians. Abraham prayed to God, who immediately unloosed his bands, and delivered him." Turning to another of the drawers, and pointing to a hieroglyphic representation, one of the Mormons said, "Mr. Smith informs us that this picture is an emblem of redemption. Do you see those four little figures? Well, those are the four quarters of the earth. And do you see that big dog looking at the four figures? That is the old Devil desiring to devour the four quarters of the earth. Look at this person keeping back the big dog. That is Christ keeping the devil from devouring the four quarters of the earth. Look down this way. This figure near the side is Jacob, and those are his two wives. Now do you see those steps?" "What," I replied, "do you mean those stripes across the dress of one of Jacob's wives?" "Yes," he said, "that is Jacob's ladder." "That," I remarked, "is indeed curious."

Here we have references presumably to Facsimile 1 & 2 and the Neferirub fragment (I don't know the JSP #) found on two separate sheets of papyrus. However, even though this account gives indication as to which of the scrolls may contain the writings of Abraham, it tells us nothing about where the text of the Book of Abraham may be found on that scroll--except that it is likely not found on the Neferirub segment of the scroll (assuming it is a part of the same scroll as Facsimile #1, which I don't know for sure if it is).

[Edit: to reflect a minor correction brought to my attention in a PM]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 2, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Now let's look at the "full context" of another somewhat dubious account, posted earlier in the thread by Kevin Graham, of Charlotte Haven being shown the papyri during her visit to Nauvoo in February of 1843:

"...we called on Joseph's mother, passing the site of the Nauvoo House, a spacious hotel, the first floor only laid. It is like the Temple in being erected on the tithe system, and when finished will surpass in splendor any hotel in the State. Here Joseph and his heirs for generations are to have apartments free of expense, and they think the crowned heads of Europe will rusticate beneath its roof. Madam Smith's residence is a log house very near her son's. She opened the door and received us cordially. She is a motherly kind of woman of about sixty years. She receives a little pittance by exhibiting the mummies to strangers. When we asked to see them, she lit a candle and conducted us up a short narrow stairway to a low, dark room under the roof. On one side were standing half a dozen mummies, to whom she introduced us, King Onitus and his royal household, -- one she did not know. Then she took up what seemed to be a club wrapped in a dark cloth, and said, "This is the leg of Pharaoh's daughter, the one that saved Moses." Repressing a smile, I looked from the mummies to the old lady, but could detect nothing but earnestness and sincerity on her countenance. Then she turned to a long table, set her candlestick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was, "the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sancrit," and she read several minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like passages from the Old Testament - and it might have been for anything we knew - but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who - the serpent, I mean - was standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear. I said, "But serpents don't have legs." "They did before the fall," she asserted with perfect confidence. The Judge slipped a coin in her hand which she received smilingly, with a pleasant, "Come again," as we bade her goodbye.' (Overland Monthly, "A Girl's Letters from Nauvoo," pp.623-624)

At most we can tell from this is that Charlotte was shown two rolls, one containing the writings of Abraham (which she described as "long"), and the other containing a glyph depicting a serpent with legs, whispering in Eve's ear (which, contrary to what Kevin intimated earlier, is different from the walking serpent in JSP V, and this because the former serpent is standing using its tail and two legs to form a tripod, whereas with the later the tail of the serpent is in the air).

Contrary also to what Kevin implied earlier, this account tells us nothing about what portion of the "long roll" the text of the Book of Abraham may be found.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 28, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Then, on May 14th, 1844, we have the respective recollections of two traveling companions, Josiah Quincy Jr. and Francis Adams, in which they describe their experience with Joseph and the papyri:

He then took us down into his mother's chamber and showed us four Egyptian mummies stripped and then undertook to explain the contents of a chart or manuscript which he said had been taken from the bosom of one of them. The cool impudence of this imposture amused me very much. "This," said he, "was written by the hand of Abraham and means so and so. If anyone denies it, let him prove the contrary. I say it." Of coarse [course], we were too polite to prove the negative,1 against a man fortified by revelation. His mother looked on with attention and aided in the explanation whenever the prophet hesitated, from which I inferred that she was usually made the exponent of the writing to strangers. At the close, he notified us that for this instruction, his mother was in the habit of receiving a quarter of a dollar a piece form them, which sum we paid forthwith." (Diary of Charles Francis Adam

All we can tell from this is that Francis was shown a "manuscript" written by the hand of Abraham. There is no mention of a scroll (likely because by this time portions of the scrolls had been unwound, separated into sheets, an put under glass--see below). It gives us no indication as to where on the scroll the text of the Book of Abraham may be found.

Now, here is the somewhat conflated, recollection of Josiah Quincy, Jr., which conflict in part with Francis:

"...We agreed to stop at Nauvoo," says my journal… "And now come with me," said the prophet, "and I will show you the curiosities." So saying, he led the way to a lower room, where sat a venerable and respectable-looking lady. "This is my mother, gentlemen. The curiosities we shall see belong to her. They were purchased with her own money, at a cost of six thousand dollars;" and then, with deep feeling, were added the words, "And that woman was turned out upon the prairie in the dead of night by a mob." There were some pine presses fixed against the wall of the room. These receptacles Smith opened, and disclosed four human bodies, shrunken and black with age. "These are mummies," said the exhibitor. "I want you to look at that little runt of a fellow over there. He was a great man in his day. Why, that was Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt!" Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us. They were preserved under glass and handled with great respect. "That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful," said the prophet. "This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the creation, from which Moses composed the first book of Genesis." The parchment last referred to showed a rude drawing of a man and woman, and a serpent walking upon a pair of legs. I ventured to doubt the propriety of providing the reptile in question with this unusual means of locomotion. Why, that's as plain as a pikestaff," was the rejoinder. "Before the Fall snakes always went about on legs, just like chickens. They were deprived of them, in punishment for their agency in the ruin of man." We were further assured that the prophet was the only mortal who could translate these mysterious writings, and that his power was given by direct inspiration…. The exhibition of these August relics concluded with a similar descent into the hard modern world of fact. Monarchs, patriarchs, and parchments were very well in their way; but this was clearly the nineteenth century, when prophets must get a living and provide for their relations. "Gentlemen," said this bourgeois Mohammed, as he closed the cabinets, "those who see these curiosities generally pay my mother a quarter of a dollar. (Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past From the Leaves of Old Journals, 3rded (Boston, 1883), pp. 376-400)

Not much more can be gleaned from this account than from Francis, except that, by sifting through the evident conflations for possible facts, we learn that there were multiple parchments, and these parchments were preserved under glass, among which Joseph allegedly pointed here and there to show the writing of Abraham and other prophets and also the account of the creation. And, the account of the creation was said to be on the same parchment as a glyph with a man and woman and also a glyph of a walking serpent.

In short, the writings of Abraham were numbered among the parchment the were preserved under glass. This tells us virtually nothing about where the text of the Book of Abraham, particularly Abr. 1:1 - Abr. 2:18, may be found on the papyri.

However, we learn that the creation story, presumably Abraham chapters 4 & 5, were on the same parchment as a glyph of a man and a woman as well as a walking serpent. We don't know if this is the same parchment that contained the writings of Abraham, but it was likely one of the parchments preserved under glass.

More important, as best I can tell, neither JSP 1 or JSP XI have glyphs of a man and a woman nor a glyph of a walking serpent. So, contrary to what Kevin has intimated, at least the creation story (chapters 4 & 5) of the Book of Abraham is evidently NOT represented as being on those two extant papyri.

One might reasonably conjecture that since there are glyphs that somewhat meet the description on JSP V, that it may be the source for Abraham chapters 4 &5, though because of the somewhat common nature of those glyphs, it is quite possible that they may also have been found on some other parchment.

Either way, these two pieces of historical evidence stand in contravention to Kevin's implication that the evidence points to the Book of Abraham being derived from JSP 1 and JSP XI.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

[delete inadvertent post]

Edited November 29, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I have 13 more accounts that I can present if anyone is interested. However, they, like many of the accounts I already presented, tend not to shed much more light on the subject.

By my count, in addition to the many quotes I provided in the previous thread, there are about 23 eyewitness statements that are Abraham specific, though value neutral in telling us where on the papyri the text of the Book of Abraham may be found.

However, 3 of the eyewitness accounts suggest that at least portions of the Abraham text are NOT on JSP I or JSP XI, but are located on some other portion of the scrolls.

Two of the accounts tie Facsimile 1 to JSP 1 (no surprise there), and one of the accounts tie Facsimile 2 to a non-extant portion of the scroll, though neither tells us where the text of the Book of Abraham may be found.

To me, this adds up to just the opposite from what Kevin would have us believe.

This leaves us then to look at the historical circumstantial evidence to see if it is of any help to Kevin's cause.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 29, 2011 by wenglund

[floatingboy]

you mention this quote:

"He said that the writing in red, was pertaining to the Priesthood.." (Autobiography of Warren Foote)

And then you surmise:

Still as yet no indication--except the writing in red that pertain to the Priesthood. Since chapters 1 and 2 of the Book of Abraham speak about the priesthood, and since, as best I can tell, the two extant fragments (JSP Id and JSP XI) do not contain red ink, then one may reasonably surmise that the Book of Abraham didn't come from the two extant fragments.

Note that the account does not say "only the red portions pertain to the priesthood". To decide that this excludes any other text on any other scroll from referring to the priesthood is a bit of a jump.

On another note:

Even if one believes that Joseph and others thought the BoA was derived from the extant portion of the papyri' date=' one may believe that these men were mistaken, which then leaves open the question of where else on the papyri the BoA may have been derived, thus making relevant the issue of the missing scroll.[/quote']

i gotta admit that i find this a bit unlikely for reasons that i think are fairly self-evident.

Could you please explain those reasons since they aren't self-evident to me.

Here is what I presume to be the logical progression of events within such an argument:

1. Mummies/scrolls arrive in Kirtland.

2. Much to the delight of the faithful' date=' the scrolls contain the writings of Abraham and Joseph.

3. The foregoing is ascertained upon a brief perusal of the scrolls.

4. It must've been a non-specific inspiration from the Holy Ghost that the text is there, [i']somewhere.

5. This inspiration is specific enough to tell them which scroll contains whose writings, but not specific enough to tell them exactly where the writings are upon the scrolls.

6. The work of translation is commenced.

7. The scrolls are consulted in order to make the translation (see JFS' account [as a 5 yr old] of the scrolls spread out in the "Nauvoo House"; also, some characters obviously come from the extant portions of the papyri).

8. Since contemporary accounts largely indicate a focus on portions of the scrolls that are still extant, #7 ostensibly implies that Joseph Smith et al. do not really know that said portions are not really the actual writings of Abraham.

9. The text of the book flows through Joseph Smith regardless of this oversight.

10. Ergo, the scrolls are not needed.

11. The $2400 (current day $50,076) spent on the scrolls is...justified? Why were scrolls needed at all?

Edited November 29, 2011 by floatingboy

[Xander]

I always ignore you, and always will.

Bill, that's demonstrably false. Your comment is a refutation of what you just said. But you certainly weren't ignoring me when I commented on your radio interview over at Shirts’ blog a few years ago. I proved that you falsely accused me of misrepresenting what you said. All I did was quote you word for word. It was at that point, and only that point, that you chose to "ignore" me. Such is the way in LDS apologetics. You have to keep up the perception that you’re always “kicking anti-Mormon butt," especially when you're not. And when you're not - which is often the case- you have to bow out and pretend you were ignoring that guy all along. But we both know you weren't ignoring me. You were only refusing to address the embarrassing fact that you weren't aware of what you said in your own interview. And you obviously do not "ignore" me whenever I post here on subjects which you clearly know nothing about. You're always there waiting with your dismissive quips and pom-poms to help your budding apologists. You clearly have nothing informative to say on this topic, so why are you even posting in my threads? Oh, that's right, because you're "ignoring" me!

I should really confine my posts for the weekends but wade's straw man massacre needs to be nipped in the butt and exposed for what it really is.

Before I do, I just want to point out that wade absolutely refuses to admit William was wrong in his misrepresentations of the Book of Abraham manuscripts. The evidence is indisputable, the case against him is rock solid. And neither one of them will acknowledge it. Wade promised he'd answer my question if I answered his, but then he refused once he realized the only intellectually honest answer would probably remove him from the good graces of his mentor. This proves he is not here in the interests of truth. He's here for the sake of loyalty and apologetic presentation. Without evidence, rhetoric is now his best friend. But even that won't really help him.

In the interest of clearing up some possible confusion, this thread was a spinoff from another thread in which Kevin posed an incoherent question that several of us attempted to decipher and answer. In that thread, and the questions I asked, and to which he answered at the opening of this thread, were in exploration essentially of the issue: whether or not the historical data contained indication of missing papyri.

Sigh! Wade, I'm not the one who has been diagnosed with multiple learning disabilities. Calling me incoherent is just more rhetoric on your part. I've stated my case clearly, but you misrepresent it out of necessity.

I presented what I knew of the historical data that explicitly or implicitly described the papyri, and then asked Kevin if all the descriptive points exist on the extant papyri.

No, you merely cut and pasted portions from a FAIR article, being completely oblivious to the historical context of any of the citations alluded to or the well-established refutations. Your presentation of the Nibley family legend about the Mansion house incident is classic. It is indicative of what passes for "evidence" in your world. And your questions about red ink and female figures, reveal just how unfamiliar you really are with the Joseph Smith papyri. This reminds me of Schryver in the summer of 2006, when he was asking me all these ridiculously basic questions about the documents he had claimed to have studied “extensively.” As it was, he thought the KEP referred to the papyri alone. I just shook my head and tried to ignore him because he obviously had nothing of substance to add. But that seemed to have triggered something vicious in his ego, and he's had it out for me ever since. Now the pony-tailed crusader has a side-kick to fight his battles for him. How special.

I posed the question not as evidence against Kevin's position, but rather by way of inquiry.

And I proved, via graphic examples, that every instance can legitimately be attributed to either an extant portion of the papyri, or papyri that had been preserved otherwise. I have been waiting for you to present some historical evidence that alludes to any of the papyri that was said to pertain to the Abraham record. It is safe to say you cannot produce, which explains your attempt to shift the burden of proof below.

I have had access to the historical data, but I haven't had access to, and for the most part I still am not privy to, all of the papyri fragments. So, I didn't know if the extant papyri fit all the historical data, and so I asked in order to find out.

How do you explain this level of ignorance? I mean it isn't like the papyri haven't been readily available for years. Why hasn’t your mentor passed along photos? As I said, you have way too much catching up to do before you’ll be in a position to offer credible insight. All you’ve done the past two years is regurgitate Will Schryver’s theories in one form or another.

And, while Kevin was able to point out where many of the historical descriptions fit, in his estimation, the extant papyri, there were other points that did not, and some of his estimations I found to be a stretch or incorrect.

Wrong. I’ll let readers judge the evidence for themselves.

I had thought to press him on the latter, but that was rendered unnecessary when he conceded that we all agree that there are missing portions of the papyri. This, to me, was a tacit admission that the missing scroll issue is relevant in so far as determining how much and what portions of which aren't extant.

This is irrelevant, as I have explained to you relentlessly. You can't just say there is missing papyri, therefore the Book of Abraham could have been on some of this missing material. You actually have to present evidence that would lead anyone to believe the Book of Abraham had anything to do with this “missing” material. My case is rock solid. All historic references appear to be describing extant, not missing papyri.You have no historical reference pointing to a missing scroll of Abraham. None. And even worse for your theory is the fact that virtually all historical references can be explicitly or reasonably attributed to extant portions. Hence, there is no reason to propose a missing scroll.

The reason I am making this clarification even thought this issue seems to have been settled, is because determinations about how much and what portions of which scrolls aren't extant, as well as to which scrolls the historical descriptive points related, may factor into the question now before us--that being: Is there historical data that convincingly and directly ties the BoA translation to certain extant papyri, thus rendering irrelevant the missing scroll theory?

Yes, as I have demonstrated time and time again, while you're playing catch-up with LDS apologetic articles on the subject. But not only does the evidence tie the BoA translation to the extant papyri, another problem with your theory is that you have no evidence pointing to a missing papyrus of Abraham. If you had any, you would have presented it by now.

As best I can tell, of all the extant fragments, the critics typically point to two of the fragments as the alleged source for the BoA: JS XI and JS 1 (superimposed together in a graphic created by Cook/Smith, if I remember right):

That is not entirely correct. It isn't only the critics who point to this. LDS scholars pointed to this. In fact, the LDS canon points to this scroll. It was canonized, remember? The canonized scripture explicitly references Facsimile #1 at the beginning of this scroll. So the argument that the Book of Abraham was on some other papyrus or some other "long roll" is simply untenable. There is no hope for such an argument. None. Of course, I don't expect this to stop you from showering us with pages of fluff and empty rhetoric. I'm not interested in any of that. I'm interested in the evidence. If you have some, then present it.

Evidently, you realize your position is without hope, so you decided to change the argument and introduce us to a slew of posts that intend to shift the burden of proof. So now you're pointing out that some of these historic references don't explicitly refer to the Book of Abraham, as if this somehow discredits anything I've been saying. That was never the argument. The point, as I have repeated over and over, is that virtually all the historic references explicitly refer or allude to papyri that are extant, leaving scant hope for a missing scroll of Abraham. Continued...

Edited November 30, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

All the details mentioned above, except the black and red ink and Joseph of Egypt being the better scribe, are said by Appleby to be "distinctly represented on the Papyrus which is called the "Book of Abraham"--which may reasonably be understood as referring to the scroll on which the record of Abraham is found...What makes this interesting, is that, as Kevin was so kind to indirectly point out in post #4, of all the details described above, only one of them may be found on the fragments the critics point to as the source for the Book of Abraham (JSP 1 & JSP XI).

This should serve as another fine example of the way in which some folks allow their presuppositions to cloud comprehension. There is nothing in the Appleby account to suggest "all the details" refer to the Book of Abraham. Pay close attention here:

Saw the Rolls of Papyrus and the writings thereon, taken from off the bosom of the Male Mummy, having some of the writings of ancient Abraham and of Joseph that was sold into Egypt. The writings are chiefly in the Egyptian language, with the exception of a little Hebrew. I believe they give a description of some of the scenes in Ancient Egypt, of their worship, their Idol gods, etc. The writings are beautiful and plain, composed of red, and black inks. There is a perceptible difference, between the writings. Joseph, appears to have been the best scribe. There are also representations of men, beasts, Birds, Idols and oxen attached to a kind of plough, and a female guiding it. Also the serpent when he beguiled Eve. He appears with two legs, erect in the form and appearance of man. But his head in the form, and representing the Serpent, with his forked tongue extended. There are likewise representations of an Altar erected, with a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar with several Idol gods standing around it. A Celestial globe with the planet Kolob or first creation of the supreme Being a planet of light, which planet makes a revolution once in a thousand years, Also the Lord revealing the Grand key words of the Holy Priesthood, to Adam in the garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and to all whom the Priesthood was revealed. Abraham also in the Court of Pharaoh sitting upon the King's throne reasoning upon Astronomy, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven, with the scepter of Justice and Judgment in his hand. And King Pharaoh, standing behind him, together with a Prince a principal waiter, and a black slave of the King.

This clearly describes the collection of both records. He then qualifies his final remark, attributing the description to a single papyrus:

A genealogy of the Mummies, and Epitaphs and their deaths, etc., etc., are also distinctly represented on the Papyrus which is called the "Book of Abraham."

As you can clearly see, Appleby’s account constantly refers to multiple records. He alludes to these multiple records throughout this account. It was only at the tail end did he narrow his description to one “papyrus” (singular), which he said was the Book of Abraham. Only at that point can we attribute those details to this papyrus. But wade wants to spin this around and have this qualification refer to everything above, just so he can then say none of these things appear on the Breathing text!

I’m not sure what’s more stunning here. His attempt to twist the evidence in such a way, or that he apparently thought he could get away with it. I mean this isn’t even ambiguous enough to excuse his misreading. The explicit description of the Abraham papyrus is confined to only that which was mentioned in the context of “the papyrus.” Meaning, the “genealogy of the Mummies, and Epitaphs and their deaths, etc., etc.” And there is simply no reason to believe this couldn’t be referring to the scroll from which the Breathings text was taken.

Clearly Appleby was describing the collection as a whole, and his description would describe the Book of Joseph in one breath and then the Abraham record in the next. As I already demonstrated, his descriptions fit a number of images in both "books." Even his remark about Joseph being the best scribe, implies that the deteriorated papyrus represents the Book of Abraham, which is precisely what the critics have been arguing all along. Nibley was careful to omit this data in his original rubrics argument because he knew it would be self-refuting. I remember about eight years ago when the critics provided the context of Appleby's account, and it was enough to convince reasonable apologists like Kevin Barney who said Nibley's argument simply didn't hold water. This is old news. It is why no apologist has been crazy enough to bring it up since. Well, that is, until wade just did.

As I said wade, you're too far behind on this subject to expect an informative exchange. You continue to throw me these softball pitches that I knock out of the park, but then you act as if you're the one teaching me something.

In other words, Kevin inadvertently provided us with evidence that the historical data DOES NOT always describe, and in this case rarely describes, images that are easily identifiable with the extant fragments considered by the critics to be the source for the Book of Abraham.

Is this really the only way you can hope to score points, by misrepresenting what I argued and hope no one notices? Sorry, but you should know by now that I won’t let you get away with this. I never once said all historic references can be found on this specific papyrus roll. Not once.

As such, this leaves open the door to exploring where on the roll is the actual source for the Book of Abraham, thereby making relevant the missing scroll theory, contrary to Kevin's claim.

So you're essentially saying that because all historic references don't specifically refer to the Book of Abraham, then you're free to continue your never ending search for the missing scroll. Well, knock yourself out. But the point is you have no logical basis for proposing a missing scroll of Abraham. The only reason is apologetic necessity. The fact is we would expect, given its importance, that at least some of the eye witnesses would have described a missing papyrus of Abraham. Instead, we have a plethora of accounts providing explicit details of the collection, all of which can be found on the extant papyri.

At most we can tell from this is that Charlotte was shown two rolls, one containing the writings of Abraham (which she described as "long"), and the other containing a glyph depicting a serpent with legs, whispering in Eve's ear (which, contrary to what Kevin intimated earlier, is different from the walking serpent in JSP V, and this because the former serpent is standing using its tail and two legs to form a tripod, whereas with the later the tail of the serpent is in the air).Contrary also to what Kevin implied earlier, this account tells us nothing about what portion of the "long roll" the text of the Book of Abraham may be found.

Sigh! Here we go again. That isn't what I said nor is it what I “implied.”

First of all, Gee and Schryver misrepresented her account. There is no way around this and I have yet to see anyone defend their apologetic. Secondly, Wade wants to believe that maybe Haven referred to a missing scroll simply because she didn't recollect with exact precision how the serpent was represented. By that logic, we have to assume the same thing about Appleby since he said the serpent had a forked tongue. Is it more logical to assume there were three different papyrus documents containing three different "walking serpent" scenes? Or is it more logical to assume that human memories are imperfect? They provided enough detail as to identify the scroll containing the “walking serpent.” That’s the point.

I'll address your other errors over the weekend...

Edited November 30, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

you mention this quote:

"He said that the writing in red, was pertaining to the Priesthood.." (Autobiography of Warren Foote)

And then you surmise:

Note that the account does not say "only the red portions pertain to the priesthood". To decide that this excludes any other text on any other scroll from referring to the priesthood is a bit of a jump.

I don't think it is a jump at all. However, I would agree that it can be reasonably be interpreted otherwise. Either way, it runs contrary to what Kevin would have us believe.

Here is what I presume to be the logical progression of events within such an argument:

1. Mummies/scrolls arrive in Kirtland.

2. Much to the delight of the faithful, the scrolls contain the writings of Abraham and Joseph.

3. The foregoing is ascertained upon a brief perusal of the scrolls.

4. It must've been a non-specific inspiration from the Holy Ghost that the text is there, somewhere.

5. This inspiration is specific enough to tell them which scroll contains whose writings, but not specific enough to tell them exactly where the writings are upon the scrolls.

6. The work of translation is commenced.

7. The scrolls are consulted in order to make the translation (see JFS' account [as a 5 yr old] of the scrolls spread out in the "Nauvoo House"; also, some characters obviously come from the extant portions of the papyri).

8. Since contemporary accounts largely indicate a focus on portions of the scrolls that are still extant, #7 ostensibly implies that Joseph Smith et al. do not really know that said portions are not really the actual writings of Abraham.

9. The text of the book flows through Joseph Smith regardless of this oversight.

10. Ergo, the scrolls are not needed.

11. The $2400 (current day $50,076) spent on the scrolls is...justified? Why were scrolls needed at all?

I don't see how this alleged argument makes it unlikely that people might believe that the producer of the 1835 Abr. Mss. may have been mistaken as to where on the scrolls the Book of Abraham was derived. The assumption isn't that the Book of Abraham isn't to be found on the scrolls at all--they may believe it is (which makes the purchase of the papyrus meaningful), but rather that it may not be found on the JSP I and JSP XI fragments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Kevin continues to crank up his self-deluding fog machine to the point he can't even see straight enough to realize that in a way I was doing him a favor by clarifying and focusing his vague and somewhat meaningless assertion--even now he can't see the contradiction in his shotgun position.

However, as promised, I won't be interacting with him until he demonstrates a change from his dogmatic posting style to something approximating open-minded and productive dialogue. So, if floatingboy wishes to take up some of Kevin's expressed points, I will be happy to explore them with him. If not, then oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 30, 2011 by wenglund

[Bill Hamblin]

I claim the privilege of ignoring anyone according to the dictates of my conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them ignore who, where, or how they may.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Robert F. Smith]

Bill, . . . Such is the way in LDS apologetics. You have to keep up the perception that you’re always “kicking anti-Mormon butt," especially when you're not. And when you're not - which is often the case- you have to bow out and pretend you were ignoring that guy all along. But we both know you weren't ignoring me. You were only refusing to address the embarrassing fact that you weren't aware of what you said in your own interview. And you obviously do not "ignore" me whenever I post here on subjects which you clearly know nothing about. You're always there waiting with your dismissive quips and pom-poms to help your budding apologists. You clearly have nothing informative to say on this topic, so why are you even posting in my threads? Oh, that's right, because you're "ignoring" me!

You have made a tremendous, well-illustrated effort on this thread to present your views, and I have no doubt that many appreciate it very much. I certainly do.

That being said, I don't find these personal remarks (and others) to be particularly helpful. You didn't even bother to observe that Bill Hamblin has now tempered his old motto with a new one: "Exchanging views with people who really love Mormons since 1984." I think that you and I ought to be generous enough to take note of that -- especially in view of the old "Butthead" fiasco, on which I am sure you had at least as much to say as I did.

You will gain far more respect and cache by calmly dealing with the facts than by voicing contempt and invective -- regardless of the perceived provocations.

[floatingboy]

I don't see how this alleged argument makes it unlikely that people might believe that the producer of the 1835 Abr. Mss. may have been mistaken as to where on the scrolls the Book of Abraham was derived. The assumption isn't that the Book of Abraham isn't to be found on the scrolls at all--they may believe it is (which makes the purchase of the papyrus meaningful), but rather that it may not be found on the JSP I and JSP XI fragments.

that imagined line of reasoning was specifically responding to, as what i see to be the logical extension of, this:

Even if one believes that Joseph and others thought the BoA was derived from the extant portion of the papyri, one may believe that these men were mistaken, which then leaves open the question of where else on the papyri the BoA may have been derived, thus making relevant the issue of the missing scroll.

[wenglund]

that imagined line of reasoning was specifically responding to, as what i see to be the logical extension of, this:

Yes, a logical extension that is reasonably based on certain presuppositions that the parties, with the belief in question, may not share.

In other words, the reason you think the belief in question is self-evidently unlikely is because you presuppose things that those with the belief may not. The belief is only unlikely to those who share your presupposition. It isn't unlikely to those who don't. Correct?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-