Missing Scroll Theory

[Xander]

It is worth reminding everyone that I asked William to justify his methodology in his presentation. Thus far, he hasn't provided any justification for it. He also has not explained his numerous errors in describing Manuscript 2. It would be nice if he would at least acknowledge that he was wrong. This is important because of the way in which William presented his argument to Don Bradley a few years ago. He presented his argument with all the same rhetoric and bombastic certitude as he does now with his latest arguments. This is a matter of credibility.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

Then you should be able to provide an example.

I did, and then some. And, were I to have safe access to the other board, I could come up with a number of examples where I had to say something along the lines of "No, Kevin, that is not what I am saying."

Another bald assertion.

Only if one doesn't read the parenthetical example immediately following the statement you claim is a bald assertion.

Your logic is unsound.

It wasn't logic. It was an EXAMPLE of where you misrepresented what Will said. (The irony here being that you just misrepresented what I said, thereby unwittingly supplying even more example in support of my observation. LOL)

This is not a misrepresentation of William's argument.

I disagree, and I believe you would be the last person on this board that would be in a position to correctly judge this.

He hasn't presented any evidence beyond the letter.

Speaking of bald assertions, you keep leveling this false accusation. As previously iterated, and as evidence in favor of Phelps taking a leading roll in the production of the EA/GAEL, I have personally witnessed where Will has posted to a thread (likely one in which you were a participant) a table of various sounds taken from each of the EA's, where the diverse spellings of each were compared to the spelling of the same sounds in the GAEL, and since the spellings matched between EA WWP and the GAEL way far better than the EA JS or EA OC, this was reasonably viewed by Will as evidence of Phelps' having the lead.

Now, you may not agree with Will's conclusion, but that is beside the point that Will has presented other evidence, in addition to the Phelps letter, in support of Phelps as the lead. So, please stop saying otherwise.

Besides, Will has also mentioned on occasion that he has amassed further evidence which he intends to present in a related article.

You're still missing the point and avoiding the problem. The issue isn't whether Phelps had expertise in "foreign" languages. The issue is not only foreign languages, it is about lost languages. There is no conventional means by which an expert in languages could ever hope to restore lost languages like that used by the Egyptians and the first Adamic society. This requires divine revelation, by necessity. It requires someone who could translate ancient documents without the document in hand. Someone who could restore missing text. Now who do you think that could be? Joseph Smith, obviously.

You keep calling the GAEL a "secular" document for rhetorical purposes, but you're ignoring the fact that the content was based on revelation. Thus, the premise for Will's theory is shattered on that basis alone. You guys haven't even accepted or dealt with the fact that all of this stuff appears in a volume explicitly described by Joseph Smith in his journals. He said he wanted to create an Alphabet and Grammar of the Egyptian language. No mystery here. That was his suggesting. His idea. So when a project turns up with a volume with the same exact title and description, there should be no question whose idea it was.

Sorry, but you don't get to decide for me what my issues are and what presuppositions I may base my arguments on. You only get to decide those things for yourself. My argument is that the EA/GAEL, like any lexicon or cipher or things of the sort, are secular documents (even given the religious content and potential religious use). Based on that argument, I am not obliged to consider the content as revelatory (though some of it may be dependent upon preexisting revelations) nor do I need to suppose that the lead in producing those documents needs to be a revelator. You are free to think otherwise, though your thinking is not binding upon mine.

William turns this on its head, saying the GAEL had nothing whatsoever to do with the Egyptian language.

Speaking of bald assertions, please explain.

Never mind the fact that it claims to be dealing with precisely that.

It also claims to be an alphabet, yet one would be hard pressed to find an alphabet, let alone a completely alphabetical listing. Not always do the titles given at the inception of projects necessarily or accurately reflect the content of the project down the road. The EA is a case in point. Please keep that in mind.

For William, Egyptian can't really mean Egyptian to these men. He does this without explaining Joseph Smith's statement to the contrary. He accepts this premise despite the evidence, because he needs it to be true in order for his theory to get off the ground. But as is the case with most bad theories, the evidence won't let it fly.

I am sorry, but again you are the last person on this board that I would trust to accurately portray, let alone reasonably assess, an opponents argument, particularly Will's.

I am blocked from viewing that thread. Why not just post the evidence here?

Okay. I will in a following post (on second thought, I will open a new thread and present the evidence there--see HERE.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 24, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

It is worth reminding everyone that I asked William to justify his methodology in his presentation. Thus far, he hasn't provided any justification for it. He also has not explained his numerous errors in describing Manuscript 2. It would be nice if he would at least acknowledge that he was wrong. This is important because of the way in which William presented his argument to Don Bradley a few years ago. He presented his argument with all the same rhetoric and bombastic certitude as he does now with his latest arguments. This is a matter of credibility.

Let me also remind everyone that while Kevin has been very busy carrying on about tangential issues, at times shadow boxing with ancient history, he has thrice now on this thread alone ignored my on-topic queries, and yet has the gall to speak about credibility. I love the irony. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

I disagree, and I believe you would be the last person on this board that would be in a position to correctly judge this.

Then make an argument. Nomad tried to but I immediately proved that I only restated what William argued a year ago. I then showed how William of 2011 contradicts his previous statement from 2010.

It was an EXAMPLE of where you misrepresented what Will said. (The irony here being that you just misrepresented what I said, thereby unwittingly supplying even more example in support of my observation. LOL)

No, you said, and I quote, "Phelps may have played a dominant role in the project, he acknowledges the participation and possible collaboration of Oliver and Joseph and others, which is a far cry from trying to 'pin it all on Phelps.'" This was supposed to be your proof that I "misrepresented" William, based not on what I said, but on what I didn't say! So I didn't mention that he acknowledged others participated. So what? That still doesn't change the fact that he has been trying to "pin" this on Phelps from the beginning.

Speaking of bald assertions, you keep leveling this false accusation.

I think I've read every post William has provided on this argument. Where is the extra evidence beyond the letter?

As previously iterated, and as evidence in favor of Phelps taking a leading roll in the production of the EA/GAEL, I have personally witnessed where Will has posted to a thread (likely one in which you were a participant) a table of various sounds taken from each of the EA's, where the diverse spellings of each were compared to the spelling of the same sounds in the GAEL, and since the spellings matched between EA WWP and the GAEL way far better than the EA JS or EA OC, this was reasonably viewed by Will as evidence of Phelps' having the lead.

Following this logic, Willard Richards "took the lead" in translating the Book of Abraham since the printers manuscript was in his handwriting. You're indulging William's unjustified methodology, and imaginative misuse of the source documents, as he sees them conforming to his predetermined conclusion as to what they are. It reveals further, his unfamiliarity with these documents and what these men were trying to do. As Chris pointed out in your new thread, there is nothing in this anecdote to support Will's pressuposition that W.W. Phelps was behind the thing.

Now, you may not agree with Will's conclusion, but that is beside the point that Will has presented other evidence, in addition to the Phelps letter, in support of Phelps as the lead. So, please stop saying otherwise.

That's not evidence, for reasons already explained to you.

Besides, Will has also mentioned on occasion that he has amassed further evidence which he intends to present in a related article.

Will has been saying things like this since 2006, about a wide variety of apologetic, KEP related claims, all of which never come to fruition and usually get dropped.

Sorry, but you don't get to decide for me what my issues are and what presuppositions I may base my arguments on.

You've thrown your argument out on the table, so yes, I do get to explain what's wrong with it. Whether that works "for you" is beside the point. The fact remains you have not addressed some of the more important problems for your theory. You can't simply assert that William Phelps believed the stuff he "made up" would have anything to do with the original language of Adam. This is a ridiculous assumption to swallow and thus far you and Will have provided not a single shred of evidence that would lead anyone to believe this were true. On the contrary, it was Joseph Smith who took the reins as "Prophet Seer and Revelator." Understanding the original language of humankind is not something a "worldly education" would allow someone to accomplish. As it is a lost language, it would require a restoration via divine means, which makes the one and only candidate for this job, the Prophet Joseph Smith. This is simple logic.

Your argument is as convoluted and nonsensical as saying a nurse performed brain surgery on a patient, simply because none of the recorded notes of the procedure were in the handwriting of the qualified surgeon. When the job description of each is brought to your attention, it has no influence of your conclusion because you dismiss it. Why? Because it is technically "possible" for a nurse to perform surgery. This is no rational.

You and Will are so entrenched in these "trees" that consume your apologetic bunnytrail. You need to step back and see the absurdity of the argument from an arial view. Yes, you're missing the forest for the trees. Unless you can provide a reasonable basis for the proposition that William Phelps had the ability and inclination to restore lost languages, then your argument doesn't even begin to get off the ground. Will doesn't understand this. He avoids these problems by acting as if they don't exist and attacking anyone who dares mention them. So he just rambles on as if his argument is already flying at high 50,000 ft.

Speaking of bald assertions, please explain.

Exactly what I said. William's argument is that this had nothing really to do with the Egyptian language. Just listen to his rant on the Egyptian counting document, which according to Will, wasn't really supposed to have anything to do with the Egyptian language, simply because none of the characters are in fact Egyptian. Well duh! Of course they aren't Egyptian. But these men obviously thought they were. That's why they called it "Egyptian" counting and included it in the "Egyptian" grammar. But Will tosses that aside and proceeds to mount an evidence-free case for cipher, based on rhetoric and a terrible understanding of the documents. Where the document refers to English explanation (i.e. translation) Will refers to it as a "substitute value." He is literally reinventing what the document says of itself, because injecting cipher-like terminology helps him sway readers who simply don't know any better. Will knows there are only two or three people here who have access to these documents, and he takes full advantage of that fact in his various misrepresentations. I addressed the problems with this here.

It also claims to be an alphabet, yet one would be hard pressed to find an alphabet, let alone a completely alphabetical listing.

So this is your justification for rejecting Joseph Smith's claimed intention to create an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar?

Following this logic, the alphabet wasn't completed, so it couldn't have been an attempt to create an alphabet (!?!) ... which means the the "grammar" must not have been an intended "grammar" either? Wow. It makes you wonder why Joseph Smith just didn't entitle the work, "Tales of Hugh Blue's Journey to Switzerland," since according to you the title tells us nothing about what the project was intended to do.

Seriously, "alphabet" is the best word to use, but obviously Egyptian doesn't have an alphabet in the same sense English does. And there is every indication that Joseph Smith understood this as well. He understood Egyptian characters as representing morphemes and graphemes of individual meanings which take on new meanings depending on the ways in which they are combined.

Not always do the titles given at the inception of projects necessarily or accurately reflect the content of the project down the road. The EA is a case in point. Please keep that in mind.

Amazing. So you reject Joseph Smith's claim of wanting to create a legitimate, Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, simply because, "titles don't always mean what they say"? Good grief! This is like Jskains' "possibility" theory. Yes, I suppose it is "possible" that Joseph didn't really mean to say what he did, and I suppose it is "possible" that the bound Grammar of the Egyptian Language has absolutely nothing to do with Joseph Smith's expressed desire, within the same month, to create an Egyptian Grammar. I mean this is obviously the kind of wishful thinking you'd have to indulge in order to keep dismissing Joseph Smith as the mastermind behind it all.

This proves the point I have always made regarding the apologetic position. There is no attempt to conform one's presuppositions to the available evidence. On the contrary, you're fighting tooth and nail against it in a most dismissive manner, all for the sake of salvaging a baseless, predetermined conclusion.

I am sorry, but again you are the last person on this board that I would trust to accurately portray, let alone reasonably assess, an opponents argument, particularly Will's.

This is just more dismissive assertion, when the record shows that I have repeatedly corrected a number of Will's misleading claims on this subject. I've even started threads pointing this out, and no one, including you and Will, have even attempted to explain how he could be so wrong and still maintain credibility. Case in point, when it was pointed out to Will that he was misrepresenting the critical argument, he accused us all of lying about what our argument really is. Again, he is unwilling to let critics make their own arguments. Here is his nonsensical and accusatory reply:

The reason they have now chosen to greatly limit the idea of the Alphabet and Grammar as the modus operandi for the translation of the Book of Abraham (except for verses 1:1 - 1:3) is because of the inconvenient fact that the Abraham manuscripts they insist to be the "dictated translation manuscripts" don't reference any characters from the Alphabet and Grammar.

Really, Will?

As you can see, William simply doesn't know what he is talking about. The first three characters are found in these documents and the third is taken from the papyri. Again, Will is so busy trying to mine "evidence" for his predetermined conclusions from irrelevant anecdotes, that he is allowing himself to play fast and loose with what the documents really tell us.

Now if you only answer one question in the next response, please let it be this.

Was William wrong in his claim above?

Let's experiment here. I know William refuses to admit being wrong on this point. He refuses to address it entirely. But I'm curious to know if you're willing to admit William is wrong here. If not, then there really is no point in trying to have a continued discussion. Because it means you're apparently more interested in a rhetorical slugfest, than a serious discussion about what these documents tell us.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

Kevin,

I will be pleased to respond point by point to your increasingly tangential diversion once you respond to the on-topic query I am now posting for the fourth time:

You and I agree that the 1835 Abraham manuscripts represent a translation--i.e. there is a translational relationship between the Egyptian characters and the English text. Right?

Where we disagree is whether that translation takes the form of deciphering or enciphering. I view the 1835 Abraham manuscripts as an extension of the EA/GAEL project, and given the many arguments I have presented against the EA;GAEL being intended and used to decipher the BoA from the papyri (see the other thread on the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers), the same arguments, for the most part, apply to the 1835 Abr. Mss. And, since I don't' view them as a deciphering--meaning that I don't view the characters in the 1835 Abr. Mss. as the source from whence the BoA was translated/deciphered by the gift and power of God, then to me the BoA was translated from some other portion of the papyrus, and therefore the issue of missing papyri is relevant to my point of view. Right?

That you may have a different opinion, is fine for you, but my reasoning isn't based on your opinion, but mine.

Even if one were to believe the 1835 Abr. Mss represent a deciphered translation, one may also conclude that Phelps, Williams, Parrish, and perhaps Joseph, were incorrect in assuming that the revelatory deciphering was derived from the characters represented in the Abr. Mss and the extant portion of the papyri, but rather from some other part of the papyri. This then would make relevant the missing portion of the scrolls. Right?

In short, while you may reasonably view things in a way that would render irrelevant the issue of missing portions of the papyri, there are at least two other reasonable ways that people may view things where this issue is relevant. To each their own. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

I will be pleased to respond point by point to your increasingly tangential diversion once you respond to the on-topic query I am now posting for the fourth time:

I started this thread for the purposes of discussing the evidence against a missing papyrus. If the topic has changed it is because I have had to address tangential stuff based on the remarks from a couple of Will's attack dogs.

You and I agree that the 1835 Abraham manuscripts represent a translation--i.e. there is a translational relationship between the Egyptian characters and the English text. Right?

Yes.

Where we disagree is whether that translation takes the form of deciphering or enciphering.

OK, so you part ways with the apologetic consensus which seems to argue that the characters exist in the margins, only because some scribes were confused about which papyrus pertained to the Book of Abraham. Just to be clear, do you concede that they consciously put them there, but that they did so for a different reason?

I view the 1835 Abraham manuscripts as an extension of the EA/GAEL project

Yes, they were in a sense an extension of that project. The GAEL was an attempt by Joseph Smith to create a Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian language, as indicated by his own statements. The Book of Abraham manuscripts are not part of that project, but there is evidence to suggest the GAEL were consulted when translating the first three verses of the BoA as well as the Facsimile. These manuscripts produced October-December 1835 represent, quite simply, the original translation manuscripts of the record of Abraham, and among them are copies of the same documents. It isn't one or the other. There are documents that were dictated as well as copied. The critics have always acknowledged evidence for copying, but some apologists cannot allow for there to be evidence of dictation because that would be conceding too much for their apologetic to withstand.

and given the many arguments I have presented against the EA;GAEL being intended and used to decipher the BoA from the papyri (see the other thread on the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers), the same arguments, for the most part, apply to the 1835 Abr. Mss.

The thread that you just started is about Phelps. Besides, didn't I already explain that the "GAEL used as a Rosetta Stone" argument is a straw man? The GAEL is simply Joseph Smith's project. His attempt to create an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. Your only response to the evidence for this so far is to tell me that titles on books don't always tell us anything about their meaning and purpose. I'm happy to let readers judge that argument on it's merits. The critics have the advantageous position of allowing the GAEL along with Joseph Smith's statements, to speak for themselves. The apologetic position seeks to reinvent these plain meanings and complicate them beyond comprehension. After this is done, they can justify throwing their hands up, say it was "aborted" and assert the whole thing was an exercise in futility, so therefore we can't believe it was anything of importance. But when I bring up Joseph Smith's 1843 statement confirming his desire to continue on with the project - undermining this premise - your only response is to tell me you have a different opinion. Ok that's all well and good, just don't tell me yours is a position that deals with presented evidence. From this pithy retort I can only conclude that yours is a position that seeks to reassert a predetermined conclusion, despite the evidence.

And, since I don't' view them as a deciphering--meaning that I don't view the characters in the 1835 Abr. Mss. as the source from whence the BoA was translated/deciphered by the gift and power of God, then to me the BoA was translated from some other portion of the papyrus, and therefore the issue of missing papyri is relevant to my point of view. Right?

I suppose, but you have no evidence of any such papyrus ever existing. As I demonstrated in the opening post, virtually all historical references to the papyri point in the direction of that "tiny fragmented" collection that we have today. The rest refer to portions that were intentionally preserved via woodcuts and copying. There is absolutely no evidence of any "missing papyrus" that was of any relevance or importance to the production of the Book of Abraham. None.

It seems clear to me that you're willing to entertain any possible theory that can be formulated in the mind, so long as it serves the purpose of distancing Joseph Smith from the project. That seems to be the best reason explaining the constant shift in apologetic arguments over the years. They all serve the same common denominator, which is to distance Joseph Smith from his own work. As refuting evidence is presented the arguments change in form, but they always maintain the same conclusion.

That you may have a different opinion, is fine for you, but my reasoning isn't based on your opinion, but mine.

Naturally, your opinion is your opinion which isn't based on my opinion. Do I really need you to tell me this? The difference, as I continue to explain and demonstrate, is that my opinion is driven by evidence, while yours is driven by what appears to be loyalty and apologetic necessity.

Even if one were to believe the 1835 Abr. Mss represent a deciphered translation

Is this really a crazy assumption given the fact that the first page of Manuscript 1 describes itself as a "translation of the Book of Abraham"? I mean this is a huge piece of evidence that can only be avoided by conscious effort.

..one may also conclude that Phelps, Williams, Parrish, and perhaps Joseph, were incorrect in assuming that the revelatory deciphering was derived from the characters represented in the Abr. Mss and the extant portion of the papyri, but rather from some other part of the papyri. This then would make relevant the missing portion of the scrolls. Right?

Sure, but again, there is no reasonable basis for the assumption that these men would be incorrect in this "assumption." Nor is there evidence that such a roll ever existed. Hence, the opening post listing a dozen pieces of evidence that undermine this theory. You appear to have accepted the evidence as valid, but haven't let the evidence budge you from your position. This indicates a position of dogmatism, not one influenced by evidence. You appear to be interested in our evidences, presumably so you can have an idea what you need to fight against. As I have asked numerous times, how would it even make sense to say anyone, especially Joseph Smith and his closest associates, had no idea which scroll pertained to the Book of Abraham? We know from historical accounts that the "Abraham" roll was identified by Joseph Smith almost immediately upon acquisition and he and his associates advertised this fact publicly to anyone who wanted to see it. They also saw him point to this papyrus and translate "on the fly."

Arguments like these can only hope to succeed with those who have no familiarity with the basic history. Those folks who are unaware of the above, along with the frequency in which Joseph Smith and his associates exhibited the papyri and explained their translations in public settings between 1835 and 1842. Obviously, we have every reason to believe that these men did know which papyrus roll pertained to Abraham. So why are we even entertaining these baseless assertions that they were all ignorant of the Abraham roll?

Given the evidence establishing their knowledge of the "Abraham" roll, for any of them to have their handwriting on numerous documents connecting a Book of Abraham translation (whether original or copied is irrelevant) to symbols from an Egyptian papyrus... well, this is really all the evidence we need to argue that this papyrus roll was what was used to produce the Book of Abraham. And when the Church canonizes the opening facsimile found on this papyrus roll, along with the Book of Abraham, then that further solidifies our argument. It is same reason why LDS scholars understood this papyrus roll to be the source for the Book of Abraham - that is, before Egyptologists proved that it had nothing to do with Abraham.

The "scribes did it" theory is something Nibley came up in order to distance the work from Joseph Smith, but that argument was based on flawed reasoning that was immediately refuted by Ashment.

So it amazes me that some people still try to float this theory and presented as if it were the most reasonable theory, even after all the "evidence" supporting it had been shown to be based in erroneous claims.

In short, while you may reasonably view things in a way that would render irrelevant the issue of missing portions of the papyri, there are at least two other reasonable ways that people may view things where this issue is relevant. To each their own. Right?

Right, except I would point out that "to each their own" has hardly been the standard attitude shared by leading apologists on this forum over the years. Instead, we've seen contempt for our position as it has been mischaracterized as nothing more than "anti-Mormon" angst expressed in argument form. As if there was no evidence or reasonable basis whatsoever for the conclusions we've made concerning the Book of Abraham and its relationship to the extant papyri. As if there was no reason whatsoever to believe the Book of Abraham manuscripts contained the original dictated manuscripts. We've been told that ours isn't based on a shred of evidence, only a desire to harm the Church, etc. I think my presence here has at the very least decimated these silly claims. The arguments are based entirely on the evidence. The potential it has for harming the Church is just an unfortunate consequence that is out of our hands. I can't speak for all critics, but only myself. And I can state with absolute certainty that I never sought to harm the Church when I came to understand the evidence supported these critical arguments. I was a proud apologist with nothing to gain and plenty to lose, by accepting these arguments. But I did so because the evidence was that compelling.

Now that I have responded to your questions, would you please respond to mine?

Was William wrong in his claim above?

BTW, happy holidays to everyone. It snuck up on me as usual. I'll be mostly watching football this weekend and enjoying family time, so I might not post until Monday or later. I'm excited to find out which two SEC teams will be competing against each other in the BCS championship game.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

[snip excuses for tangential meanderings]

OK, so you part ways with the apologetic consensus which seems to argue that the characters exist in the margins, only because some scribes were confused about which papyrus pertained to the Book of Abraham.

What a bizarre response. I part ways with your caricature of the so-called apologetic consensus, particularly as a baffling response to my having simply distinguished between deciphered and enciphered translations and having mentioned that I view the 1835 Abr. Mss. as an enciphered translation.

Please try and get this through your head: I am not interested in your caricature of LDS apologetic. What I am interested in at this point in the discussion is whether you understand the distinction I just made, and which side of the distinction I came down on.

Just to be clear, do you concede that they consciously put them there, but that they did so for a different reason?

It isn't a concession, but rather a reiteration of my long-standing position. Again, bizarre response.

Yes, they were in a sense an extension of that project. The GAEL was an attempt by Joseph Smith to create a Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian language, as indicated by his own statements. The Book of Abraham manuscripts are not part of that project, but there is evidence to suggest the GAEL were consulted when translating the first three verses of the BoA as well as the Facsimile.

I can respect that is your opinion. As you may now be aware, my opinion differs from yours. However, this is tangential to my point. My intent wasn't to get into a lengthy discussion over our differences, but rather to simply point out those differences, and this because those differences impact whether the issue of missing scrolls is relevant or not. All I need to know from you is whether you get that I view the Mss. as an enciphered translation,and as such the issue of the missing papyrus is relevant to me. Does this compute?

These manuscripts produced October-December 1835 represent, quite simply, the original translation manuscripts of the record of Abraham, and among them are copies of the same documents. It isn't one or the other. There are documents that were dictated as well as copied. The critics have always acknowledged evidence for copying, but some apologists cannot allow for there to be evidence of dictation because that would be conceding too much for their apologetic to withstand.

That is your biased and debatable opinion. However, it is beside the simple and relevant point that I was making (see above).

The thread that you just started is about Phelps.

I did start a thread about Phelps, but that isn't the thread I mentioned in the post to which you are now responding. Please pay closer attention.

Besides, didn't I already explain that the "GAEL used as a Rosetta Stone" argument is a straw man?

Yes. And, and I had to explain that you were ironically mistaken in thinking that I was arguing against the GAEL as a Rosetta Stone. It was as bizarre a response to me then as it is now.

The GAEL is simply Joseph Smith's project. His attempt to create an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.

That's your opinion, and beside the point I was making (see above).

Your only response to the evidence for this so far is to tell me that titles on books don't always tell us anything about their meaning and purpose.

It is rather bizarre that you would say this given your mention earlier regarding my thread about Phelps. However, this is beside the simple point of my post (see above).

I'm happy to let readers judge that argument on it's merits. The critics have the advantageous position of allowing the GAEL along with Joseph Smith's statements, to speak for themselves. The apologetic position seeks to reinvent these plain meanings and complicate them beyond comprehension. After this is done, they can justify throwing their hands up, say it was "aborted" and assert the whole thing was an exercise in futility, so therefore we can't believe it was anything of importance. But when I bring up Joseph Smith's 1843 statement confirming his desire to continue on with the project - undermining this premise - your only response is to tell me you have a different opinion. Ok that's all well and good, just don't tell me yours is a position that deals with presented evidence. From this pithy retort I can only conclude that yours is a position that seeks to reassert a predetermined conclusion, despite the evidence.

That is an interesting and self-serving fantasy you just depicted, which is no less tangential to the simple point I was making (see above).

I suppose, but you have no evidence of any such papyrus ever existing.

I invite the reader to peruse the thread on "Scroll Length". However, again, this is beside the simple point of my post (see above)

As I demonstrated in the opening post, virtually all historical references to the papyri point in the direction of that "tiny fragmented" collection that we have today. The rest refer to portions that were intentionally preserved via woodcuts and copying. There is absolutely no evidence of any "missing papyrus" that was of any relevance or importance to the production of the Book of Abraham. None.

Yes, you gave us your opinion about what you view as evidence one way or the other. I don't entirely share your opinion--which, in a way, is the point of my post. Sorry.

It seems clear to me that you're willing to entertain any possible theory that can be formulated in the mind, so long as it serves the purpose of distancing Joseph Smith from the project. That seems to be the best reason explaining the constant shift in apologetic arguments over the years. They all serve the same common denominator, which is to distance Joseph Smith from his own work. As refuting evidence is presented the arguments change in form, but they always maintain the same conclusion.

I am not interested in your caricatures of the arguments. All I need to know at this point in the discussion is whether you get that people reasonably differ in opinion from you, and since they do, the issue of a missing papyri is relevant to them, though it may not be to you.

Naturally, your opinion is your opinion which isn't based on my opinion. Do I really need you to tell me this?

Absolutely, and this because you persistently state your opinions as fact, and you harbor the bizarre and seemingly impregnable perception that the evidence only supports your point of view, thus giving the impression that in discussions where you are a participant, to you only your perception counts. Consequently, some of us need to continually remind you that that isn't the case. This, to some degree, is the point of my post.

The difference, as I continue to explain and demonstrate, is that my opinion is driven by evidence, while yours is driven by what appears to be loyalty and apologetic necessity.

I appreciate you unwittingly underscoring what I said above.

Is this really a crazy assumption given the fact that the first page of Manuscript 1 describes itself as a "translation of the Book of Abraham"? I mean this is a huge piece of evidence that can only be avoided by conscious effort.

I have not suggested that it is "crazy." I have simply pointed out that the word "translation" on that first page doesn't indicate the direction of translation (decipher or encipher).

Besides, one may reasonably conclude that the word "translation" is in reference specifically to the text of the Book of Abraham in the Abr. Mss., and not necessarily to the characters and their correlation to the text.

However, yet again this is taking us a bit far afield of the simple point I was making (see above).

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

-continued-

Sure, but again, there is no reasonable basis for the assumption that these men would be incorrect in this "assumption." Nor is there evidence that such a roll ever existed. Hence, the opening post listing a dozen pieces of evidence that undermine this theory. You appear to have accepted the evidence as valid, but haven't let the evidence budge you from your position. This indicates a position of dogmatism, not one influenced by evidence. You appear to be interested in our evidences, presumably so you can have an idea what you need to fight against. As I have asked numerous times, how would it even make sense to say anyone, especially Joseph Smith and his closest associates, had no idea which scroll pertained to the Book of Abraham? We know from historical accounts that the "Abraham" roll was identified by Joseph Smith almost immediately upon acquisition and he and his associates advertised this fact publicly to anyone who wanted to see it. They also say him point to this papyrus and translate "on the fly."

Arguments like these can only hope to succeed with those who have no familiarity with the basic history. Those folks who are unaware of the above, along with the frequency in which Joseph Smith and his associates exhibited the papyri and explained their translations in public settings between 1835 and 1842. Obviously, we have every reason to believe that these men did know which papyrus roll pertained to Abraham. So why are we even entertaining these baseless assertions that they were all ignorant of the Abraham roll?

Given the evidence establishing their knowledge of the "Abraham" roll, for any of them to have their handwriting on numerous documents connecting a Book of Abraham translation (whether original or copied is irrelevant) to symbols from an Egyptian papyrus... well, this is really all the evidence we need to argue that this papyrus roll was what was used to produce the Book of Abraham. And when the Church canonizes the opening facsimile found on this papyrus roll, along with the Book of Abraham, then that further solidifies our argument. It is same reason why LDS scholars understood this papyrus roll to be the source for the Book of Abraham - that is, before Egyptologists proved that it had nothing to do with Abraham.

The "scribes did it" theory is something Nibley came up in order to distance the work from Joseph Smith, but that argument was based on flawed reasoning that was immediately refuted by Ashment.

So it amazes me that some people still try to float this theory and presented as if it were the most reasonable theory, even after all the "evidence" supporting it had been shown to be based in erroneous claims.

I appreciate you underscoring yet again my earlier comments about caricatures and you not being able to grant the reasonableness of opposing views. You are free to solipsistically dismiss other valid perspectives all you want, and wave your arms and declare that the evidence only supports what you believe, and fantasize, in de-crediblizing ways, about having wiped up the floor with apologists, to your hearts content. It matters little to me, and it is vociferously beside the simple point I was making (see above)

Right, except I would point out that "to each their own" has hardly been the standard attitude shared by leading apologists on this forum over the years. Instead, we've seen contempt for our position as it has been mischaracterized as nothing more than "anti-Mormon" angst expressed in argument form. As if there was no evidence or reasonable basis whatsoever for the conclusions we've made concerning the Book of Abraham and its relationship to the extant papyri. As if there was no reason whatsoever to believe the Book of Abraham manuscripts contained the original dictated manuscripts. We've been told that ours isn't based on a shred of evidence, only a desire to harm the Church, etc. I think my presence here has at the very least decimated these silly claims. The arguments are based entirely on the evidence. The potential it has for harming the Church is just an unfortunate consequence that is out of our hands. I can't speak for all critics, but only myself. And I can state with absolute certainty that I never sought to harm the Church when I came to understand the evidence supported these critical arguments. I was a proud apologist with nothing to gain and plenty to lose, by accepting these arguments. But I did so because the evidence was that compelling.

Again, I am not interested in your self-serving caricatures about your interactions with leading apologists. All I am interested at this point is whether you get that people reasonably view things differently than you, and as such, the issue of scroll length is relevant to them, even if it isn't relevant to you. Do you get this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Then make an argument. Nomad tried to but I immediately proved that I only restated what William argued a year ago. I then showed how William of 2011 contradicts his previous statement from 2010.

That is just it. In nearly every response I have made to you over the several years we have been interacting since your dissaffection from the faith, I have had to repeatedly point out to you where you have misunderstood and mis-characterized what I and/or what other apologists have said. See my posts above for yet more in a seemingly endless attempt by me to point out your confusion. And, at times I have gone to great lengths charitably trying to correct your near inevitable misunderstandings, but to no avail. It is as though you are living in your own little world, with you distorted view of reality, and nothing I or any of your opponents may say can change that. So, I wonder why I continue to try--though here again I find myself doing just that.

However, because it would be a waste of both our time, I have decided not to go through your entier post point by point, but I will restrict myself to responding to the one tangential question you said that you particularly wanted me to address (and this because it will underscore yet again my reservations about trusting you to accurately portray your opponents arguments). I will do so in my next post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill Hamblin]

-continued-

I appreciate you underscoring yet again my earlier comments about caricatures and you not being able to grant the reasonableness of opposing views. You are free to solipsistically dismiss other valid perspectives all you want, and wave your arms and declare that the evidence only supports what you believe, and fantasize, in de-crediblizing ways, about having wiped up the floor with apologists, to your hearts content. It matters little to me, and it is vociferously beside the simple point I was making (see above)

Again, I am not interested in your self-serving caricatures about your interactions with leading apologists. All I am interested at this point is whether you get that people reasonably view things differently than you, and as such, the issue of scroll length is relevant to them, even if it isn't relevant to you. Do you get this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's a waste of time. It's not going to happen.

[Xander]

It's a waste of time. It's not going to happen.

Go away Bill, unless you have something to add to this topic.

[Xander]

It isn't a concession, but rather a reiteration of my long-standing position. Again, bizarre response.

No disrespect intended wade, but you haven't exactly been the leading apologist in this area. Hence, I haven't paid much attention to your commentary since you told me a year ago that Facsimile #2 had nothing to do with the KEP.

What I am interested in at this point in the discussion is whether you understand the distinction I just made, and which side of the distinction I came down on.

Of course I understand the distinction. But as I said, you have given no justification for your argument.

I can respect that is your opinion. As you may now be aware, my opinion differs from yours. However, this is tangential to my point.

But it isn't tangential to my point, obviously. And there is no need to keep reminding us that you have a different opinion. What you need is evidence for your opinion.

My intent wasn't to get into a lengthy discussion over our differences, but rather to simply point out those differences, and this because those differences impact whether the issue of missing scrolls is relevant or not

I understand. But my point was to point out that all opinions are not created equal. Some are based on evidence.

All I need to know from you is whether you get that I view the Mss. as an enciphered translation,and as such the issue of the missing papyrus is relevant to me. Does this compute?

Of course, but I'm still free to point out the simple facts, whether you're "interested" in them or not. Whether it was "your point" is irrelevant to the fact that it is my point. Does this compute?

That is your biased and debatable opinion.

No it isn't. It is a proven fact as demonstrated by the evidence.

However, it is beside the simple and relevant point that I was making (see above)

You don't get to set up the parameters for what's discussed in my thread. If I want to make additional comments in my thread, I will do just that. You can continue to ignore them if you want, but I will say what I want to say. That you feel my remarks are irrelevant, is in fact irrelevant.

Yes. And, and I had to explain that you were ironically mistaken in thinking that I was arguing against the GAEL as a Rosetta Stone. It was as bizarre a response to me then as it is now.

Wade, you said you presented arguments "against the EA;GAEL being intended and used to decipher the BoA from the papyri."

In other words, the straw man about how the EA;GAEL were used to translate (i.e "decipher") the papyrus of Abraham. Looks like you need to pay closer attention to what you say.

That's your opinion, and beside the point I was making (see above).

It isn't beside the point. It pertains directly to the topic at hand. You just don't want to deal with the evidence I present.

I invite the reader to peruse the thread on "Scroll Length".

Nothing in that thread points to any such evidence, or else you'd present it here.

Yes, you gave us your opinion about what you view as evidence one way or the other. I don't entirely share your opinion--which, in a way, is the point of my post. Sorry.

The point of your post is that you have a different opinion???

The point of my response is that your opinion isn't based on evidence. This is something we can test. So present your evidence for the missing scroll of Abraham. I've been waiting for days.

am not interested in your caricatures of the arguments.

I'm not interested in whether or not you're interested in my comments. I'm going to make them anyway because they pertain to the topic. But I understand why you don't like them.

[Xander]

All I need to know at this point in the discussion is whether you get that people reasonably differ in opinion from you, and since they do, the issue of a missing papyri is relevant to them, though it may not be to you.

Reasonably? If it is based in evidence, then yes. But thus far you've presented none to support your opinion. But why do you care so much if I think your opinion is reasonable?

Absolutely, and this because you persistently state your opinions as fact

If I do, then that is because it is supported by evidence. If they aren't then you should be able to demostrate this, instead of constantly complaining about it.

and you harbor the bizarre and seemingly impregnable perception that the evidence only supports your point of view, thus giving the impression that in discussions where you are a participant, to you only your perception counts.

Again, this is a question of evidence. I've presented a ton, whereas you've presented numerous testimonies about how you have a different opinion. Where is the evidence supporting your opinion? Where is the evidence supporting the missing scroll of Abraham? Nothing in that links addresses the point I made in this thread, and you know this otherwise you'd provide. You wouldn't just throw up a link and tell me to go read a 10+ page discussion.

I have not suggested that it is "crazy." I have simply pointed out that the word "translation" on that first page doesn't indicate the direction of translation (decipher or encipher).

Since we know the Egyptian characters were written in before the English text, and since the title refers to a translation of the Book of Abraham, and since we know the papyrus of Abraham contained Egyptian characters, then we know the trajectory on the manuscripts. They were deciphering the characters in the left margin. There is no reason to believe the Book of Abraham manuscripts represent an attempt to "encipher," which seems to be what you're suggesting. The idea is intriguing, but there is no evidence supporting it. Or none that you have presented anyway.

Besides, one may reasonably conclude that the word "translation" is in reference specifically to the text of the Book of Abraham in the Abr. Mss., and not necessarily to the characters and their correlation to the text.

Only if one adopts the baseless and well refuted assumption that the Egyptian characters were written in afterwards, could anyone even begin to work out this theory. But since the evidence flies in its face, there is nothing reasonable about it.

I appreciate you underscoring yet again ....

Wade, you need to stop complaining about the fact that I do not consider your position reasonable. If you really want to change my mind, then you could start by presenting what I have been requesting: EVIDENCE.

If it is too much to ask, then leave the thread and let's see if someone else is up to the task.

All I am interested at this point is whether you get that people reasonably view things differently than you, and as such, the issue of scroll length is relevant to them, even if it isn't relevant to you. Do you get this?

Of course people view things differently. But you don't get to throw in the word "reasonable" just because you like to think your view is reasonable. Present an argument driven by evidence and I will accept that it is reasonable. But I'm beginning to believe you simply cannot do this, otherwise you'd stop with the dancing and just answer the questions. Remember, you still have a few tough questions you promised to answer. I'm still waiting.

OK, kickoff time...

Edited November 25, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

Hi Kevin,

I hope you are enjoying your family time.

This will be my last post on this thread in which I entertain any more of your tangential replies. I will here respond to the one question you particularly wanted me to address.

You quoted Will as saying:

The reason they have now chosen to greatly limit the idea of the Alphabet and Grammar as the modus operandi for the translation of the Book of Abraham (except for verses 1:1 - 1:3) is because of the inconvenient fact that the Abraham manuscripts they insist to be the "dictated translation manuscripts" don't reference any characters from the Alphabet and Grammar.

You then asked, "Really, Will?", and then went on to provide examples where the characters for verses 1:1-1:3, may be found in EA WWP and Phelps' GAEL.

After which you leveled this uncharitable accusation:

As you can see, William simply doesn't know what he is talking about. The first three characters are found in these documents and the third is taken from the papyri. Again, Will is so busy trying to mine "evidence" for his predetermined conclusions from irrelevant anecdotes, that he is allowing himself to play fast and loose with what the documents really tell us.

You then asked this:

Now if you only answer one question in the next response, please let it be this. Was William wrong in his claim above?

Here is my answer: Because of the nuanced way in which Will phrased this off-hand statement, it is understandable that you, of all people, would not correctly grasp what he actually meant. So, let me shed some light on it for you.

If you look very carefully at the first part of the quoted paragraph in question, you may notice that Will is speaking to the reason why the critics "greatly limit the idea of the Alphabet and Grammar as the modus operandi for the translation of the Book of Abraham (except for verses 1:1 - 1:3)."

This should rightly signal to the mind that what Will is at that point (the first part of the paragraph) going to go on to say, doesn't pertain to the admitted "greatly limited" "exception" (verses 1:1 - 1:3), but rather to the remainder of the Mss.

I would think this interpretation would be obvious given the knowledge that Will, perhaps as much if not more so than anyone else, has devoted considerable time over the last half-decade researching the KEP, and is quite familiar with what critics like Chris Smith and others have argued, and has demonstrated uncommon awareness of the three characters found on the Phelps Mss as well as on the Phelps EA and the Phelps GAEL in your examples,

With this correct understanding (in my opinion) of what Will meant, I would say that from what I can tell, "No, Will is not incorrect." Rather, I believe you, in your typical fashion, misconstrued his meaning.

Having said this, let's now look at the loaded experiment you tossed my way:

Let's experiment here. I know William refuses to admit being wrong on this point. He refuses to address it entirely. But I'm curious to know if you're willing to admit William is wrong here. If not, then there really is no point in trying to have a continued discussion. Because it means you're apparently more interested in a rhetorical slugfest, than a serious discussion about what these documents tell us.

I am afraid your experiment is based on a demonstrably false presupposition about who is wrong in this case. Since I have shown what to me seems a very reasonable way to interpret what Will said, and since the evidence you presented doesn't prove incorrect that reasonable interpretation, but only proves you were wrong in your interpretation of what Will meant, I see your so-called experiment turning back on you.

As such, it will be interesting to see if you are willing to admit you are wrong, or at the very least admit that Will 's comment may be reasonably understood in a way where it is correct, and if not, then what might that say about your interest in slugfests.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 25, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

It's a waste of time. It's not going to happen.

The evidence continues to pile up in support of your perception, though Kevin will unlikely see or acknowledge any of it--which may explain, in part, why it isn't going to happen. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 25, 2011 by wenglund

[William Schryver]

"Xander" claims this statement I made is not true:

The reason they have now chosen to greatly limit the idea of the Alphabet and Grammar as the modus operandi for the translation of the Book of Abraham (except for verses 1:1 - 1:3) is because of the inconvenient fact that the Abraham manuscripts they insist to be the "dictated translation manuscripts" don't reference any characters from the Alphabet and Grammar.

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 when it comes to his understanding of both the critics' historical arguments vis-a-vis the KEP, as well as the KEP documents themselves.

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

But that's not his only deception. The "dictated translation manuscripts," according to the critics' historical arguments, are Ab2 and Ab3 (using Hauglid's sigla). Both of those manuscripts begin at Abr 1:4. With one possible, but disputed, exception, neither of them appear to reference characters from the EA/GAEL, precisely as I said.

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. Compare his largely incoherent posts to the easily understandable arguments and evidence I provide here: The Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Edited November 25, 2011 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

Reasonably? If it is based in evidence, then yes. But thus far you've presented none to support your opinion. But why do you care so much if I think your opinion is reasonable?

If I do, then that is because it is supported by evidence. If they aren't then you should be able to demostrate this, instead of constantly complaining about it.

Again, this is a question of evidence. I've presented a ton, whereas you've presented numerous testimonies about how you have a different opinion. Where is the evidence supporting your opinion? Where is the evidence supporting the missing scroll of Abraham? Nothing in that links addresses the point I made in this thread, and you know this otherwise you'd provide. You wouldn't just throw up a link and tell me to go read a 10+ page discussion.

Since we know the Egyptian characters were written in before the English text, and since the title refers to a translation of the Book of Abraham, and since we know the papyrus of Abraham contained Egyptian characters, then we know the trajectory on the manuscripts. They were deciphering the characters in the left margin. There is no reason to believe the Book of Abraham manuscripts represent an attempt to "encipher," which seems to be what you're suggesting. The idea is intriguing, but there is no evidence supporting it. Or none that you have presented anyway.

Only if one adopts the baseless and well refuted assumption that the Egyptian characters were written in afterwards, could anyone even begin to work out this theory. But since the evidence flies in its face, there is nothing reasonable about it.

Wade, you need to stop complaining about the fact that I do not consider your position reasonable. If you really want to change my mind, then you could start by presenting what I have been requesting: EVIDENCE.

First of all, I am not complaining. I am simply trying to open your closed mind. And, as hopelessly optimistic as I can be at times, I am now fast running out of patience.

Second, and here again is the rub, it has become self-evident to me that you measure what is reasonable and what is evidence based on your own point of view. To your way of thinking and discussing, if a view differs from your own, then by virtue of that difference, it is unreasonable, and whatever evidence may be presented in favor of that differing point of view, is to you not evidence (as witnessed on multiple occasions in this thread and others where I and other defenders of the faith have presented evidence only to later find you repeatedly claiming that no evidence was presented). 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, This makes productive and meaningful discussions with you virtually impossible. So, again, I am not sure why I have tried.

If it is too much to ask, then leave the thread and let's see if someone else is up to the task.

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.

And, I am not speaking here just about our not being able to change your mind. It goes well beyond that to our not being able to register on your reasonableness and evidence radar. I may not agree with or be persuaded by what you and other critics have argued over the years, but at least I have acknowledged the reasonableness and validity of many of those opposing points of view.

However, because you obviously lack the capacity to respect differences nor do you seem able to carry on a two-way reasoned discussion, but are simply want to bark your dogma and dismiss what others have to say, I am out of this thread, happily leaving you to fantasize once again, and invariably, about your having wiped the floor with apologists.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 26, 2011 by wenglund

[Bill Hamblin]

First of all, I am not complaining. I am simply trying to open your closed mind. And, as hopelessly optimistic as I can be at times, I am now fast run out of patience. Second, and here again is the rub, it has become self-evident to me that you measure what is reasonable and what is evidence based on your own point of view. To your way of thinking and discussing, if a view differs from your own, then by virtue of that difference, it is unreasonable, and whatever evidence may be presented in favor of that differing point of view, is to you not evidence (as witnessed on multiple occasions in this thread and others where I and other defenders of the faith have presented evidence only to later find you repeatedly claiming that no evidence was presented. 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, This makes productive and meaningful discussions with you virtually impossible. So, again, I am not sure why I have tried. 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 skull. And, I am not speaking here just about our not being able to change your mind. It goes well beyond that to our not being able to register on your reasonableness and evidence radar. I may not agree with or be persuaded by what you and other critics have argued over the years, but at least I have acknowledge the reasonableness and validity of many of those opposing points of view. However, because you obviously lack the capacity to respect differences nor do you seem able to carry on a two-way reasoned discussion, but are simply want to bark your dogma and dismiss what others have to say, I am out of this thread, happily leaving you to fantasize once again, and invariably, about your having wiped the floor with apologists. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't want to say I told you so, but I told you so.

[wenglund]

I don't want to say I told you so, but I told you so.

I hate even more that you had to tell me so. What was I thinking?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Peppermint Patty]

I've read this thread and am trying to understand the arguments. Does this summarize the arguments so far:

Xander, who is not LDS, is arguing the position that the Church has long held in regards to the BoA and its translation;

Wade, who is LDS, is arguing a new theory that goes against the traditional position of the Church, statements and teachings regarding the BoA and its translation.

Is this correct? If so, what in the heck am I missing?

[wenglund]

I've read this thread and am trying to understand the arguments. Does this summarize the arguments so far:

Xander, who is not LDS, is arguing the position that the Church has long held in regards to the BoA and its translation;

Wade, who is LDS, is arguing a new theory that goes against the traditional position of the Church, statements and teachings regarding the BoA and its translation.

Is this correct? If so, what in the heck am I missing?

What you are missing is that there is no official position of the Church regarding the missing scrolls, and for my part on this thread, I am simply drawing into serious question Kevin's presumption that because he believe the historical evidence points only to the extant papyri, this somehow means that the arguments of others for a missing papyri, is made thereby irrelevant. In other words what you pretty much missed is everything of significance--you did get Kevin's and my name right, and you correctly stated my religious affiliation. I don't know if Kevin has yet withdrawn his membership or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 26, 2011 by wenglund

[floatingboy]

...this somehow means that the arguments of others for a missing papyri, is made thereby irrelevant.

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? 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.

wade, can you please briefly summarize for those of us who have not read all the discussions regarding this topic the compelling reasons to believe that those involved with the production of the BofA believed that the text of it came from portions of the scrolls that are not now extant?

thanks in advance.

[wenglund]

wade, can you please briefly summarize for those of us who have not read all the discussions regarding this topic the compelling reasons to believe that those involved with the production of the BofA believed that the text of it came from portions of the scrolls that are not now extant? thanks in advance.

Sure. I will get on it the first part of next week.

Please keep in mind, though, that as I pointed out earlier in the thread, there are two ways of viewing the data which leave reasonable room for the relevance of the missing scrolls.In addition to the position I favor and will support next week, 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 actually been derived, thus making relevant the issue of the missing scroll.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 26, 2011 by wenglund

[floatingboy]

thanks, wade.

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.

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

[Cobalt-70]

Please keep in mind, though, that as I pointed out earlier in the thread, there are two ways of viewing the data which leave reasonable room for the relevance of the missing scrolls.In addition to the position I favor and will support next week, 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 actually been derived, thus making relevant the issue of the missing scroll.

If Joseph Smith actually translated from the hypothetical large missing portion, but thought he was translating from the extant portion, then why did he even need some missing 30-foot section of papyri? If he was mistaken about where on the scroll he was translating, why is he not mistaken about the basic premise that he was translating from the scroll at all? I don't see this as a serious proposal.

Whatever your theory is that you promise to propose next week, it has to do the following:

1. Explain why Smith's scribes were not aware that Smith was translating from the large "missing" section of scroll, so that they could have mistakenly believed the translation related to the extant characters of the Hor manuscript.

2. Explain how, if W.W. Phelps was so clueless as to not even know what part of the scroll Smith was translating from, that Joseph Smith had enough confidence in Phelps' linguistic ability to allow Phelps to be the "boss" for creating the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (as you claim to be the case).

Edited November 26, 2011 by Cobalt-70