The Book Of Abraham: An End To The Apologetic War (Pt. 1)

[Tacenda]

We absolutely do have something to tie the BoA to the papyrus. This is as it should be. If the Abraham record were part of the same scroll with the Horos Book of Breathing we should absolutely expect to find ties to that text. I would expect nothing less than to find such connections considering that no one on his own would or could have known where on the conjoined scroll the Book of Breathing ended and the Book of Abraham began. A scroll the diameter of the Horos scroll could allow up to a little over 7 meters (~23 feet) of scroll. No Book of Breathing I have ever seen extended much over the length of 2 meters (6 feet; the longest I have seen, being the Ker^casher Papyrus, was just over 7 feet and the Horos text wouldn't be much more than 5 feet with eyewitness accounts claiming "a long scroll" and that it, when unrolled, "extented [sic] through two rooms of the Mansion House").

Is this all you have Mormon Mason? Did you watch the video that Alvino just posted. I'm more disillusioned now than ever. How many nails have to be put in the coffin on this subject. The church changed the heading for a reason. What do you say to the actual fascimile that JS translated that Kerry skips over? That's where it's at, he got it wrong. Are apologists just "resting on their laurels"? Does integrity mean anything?

[wenglund]

I have to agree that these two statements are quite different and do mean a lot... when just looking at these statements alone (not taking into consideration the inclusion of the facsimiles in the current edition of the scriptures).

The first one explicitly states that the Book of Abraham text in the PoGP is a translation from Egyptian papyri that contained the writing of Abraham. Period. Anyone disagree?

The second one, when argued in the strictest sense, can completely separate the papyri from the BoA text in the PoGP. They are two separate sentences. And the second one simply refers to an event that occured before the translation. It's irrelevant. It speaks of zero connection between the two events.

The introduction might as well be:

“The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after eating a western omelet prepared by the hands of Emma.”

It means about the same thing (strictly when looking at the introductions ALONE). Of course we would then be talking about when the Western Omelet was first developed, if it was known in Kirtland at the time, and reading extensive papers from the MI about how ancient translators often partook of the "ovum of Gallus gallus domesticus" before translating texts.

But we do have the facsimiles, so we do have something to tie the BoA to the papyri. But... if you got rid of the facsimiles, you could leave the new intro untouched and technically it would still be accurate.

Most any statement or alteration of a statement is vulnerable to much read in-between the lines and reading into what is no longer there. Sometimes there is more reading between the lines than reading what is on the lines. This could be problematic.

For example, after reviewing my posts here, it is not uncommon for me to removed phrases and changing wordings, not because I no longer believe in what was said in the removed portions. I do. Rather, it was because I didn't want the words and phrases to become a stumbling block to the reader remaining focused on and correctly grasping the main thrust of my comments. Were people to interpret the edits as suggesting a change in belief, they would have been be incorrect.

Was the change in the introduction for similar reasons as the changes in my posts? I don't know for certain. It is quite possible that it was, and also quite possible that it wasn't. I have no way of knowing since I wasn't involved in the editorial decision-making.

However, to minimize the risk of being wrong, I have found it more advantageous to not concern myself so much with what isn't written (i.e. between the lines or no longer there), but content myself far more with what is still written.

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 8, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Is this all you have Mormon Mason? Did you watch the video that Alvino just posted. I'm more disillusioned now than ever. How many nails have to be put in the coffin on this subject. The church changed the heading for a reason. What do you say to the actual fascimile that JS translated that Kerry skips over? That's where it's at, he got it wrong. Are apologists just "resting on their laurels"? Does integrity mean anything?

A rudderless ship, or one without a captain, is more easily tossed to and fro by every wind and doctrine and criticism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Does integrity mean anything?

Does this really help the conversation? Do you really think that there are that many LDS scholars and apologists out there that are so concerned with winning that they are willing to compromise their personal integrity, ie. commit sin by deceiving etc.?

[Tacenda]

Does this really help the conversation? Do you really think that there are that many LDS scholars and apologists out there that are so concerned with winning that they are willing to compromise their personal integrity, ie. commit sin by deceiving etc.?

I see where they need to hold onto the BoA being tied into the papyri. But the church apparently see a possibility that JS translated by inspiration, they're not worried it's going to make the church tumble down. I can go my merry way and believe this too, I just need the apologists to come to grips in order to keep trusting their defenses for the church in the past and future. I thought this thread was whether to put an end to the apologetic war on the BoA, how have I not contributed to the conversation?

[gtaggart]

I see where they need to hold onto the BoA being tied into the papyri. But the church apparently see a possibility that JS translated by inspiration, they're not worried it's going to make the church tumble down. I can go my merry way and believe this too, I just need the apologists to come to grips in order to keep trusting their defenses for the church in the past and future. I thought this thread was whether to put an end to the apologetic war on the BoA, how have I not contributed to the conversation?

Whether the apologetic war is over is debatable. David Bokovoy is no slouch, and he has proposed an interesting solution. That said, while the war still rages and because of the video you posted, may I offer Kerry Muhlestein in his own words--a much more complete discussion than in his videos. Is his explanation slam dunk? No, the critics have their comebacks, but that's not to say they are correct. At the very least, this is contested territory. Certainly, a video that critiques a video that is clearly a summary of some of Kerry's views, is not a game changer by any stretch. If the makers of the video had been interested in fairness and a fuller and more truthful discussion of Kerry's claims, they would have put the video in the larger context of his work and then offered up their critique. They didn't do that, which leaves me wondering why.

[Tacenda]

Whether the apologetic war is over is debatable. David Bokovoy is no slouch, and he has proposed an interesting solution. That said, while the war still rages and because of the video you posted, may I offer Kerry Muhlestein in his own words--a much more complete discussion than in his videos. Is his explanation slam dunk? No, the critics have their comebacks, but that's not to say they are correct. At the very least, this is contested territory. Certainly, a video that critiques a video that is clearly a summary of some of Kerry's views, is not a game changer by any stretch. If the makers of the video had been interested in fairness and a fuller and more truthful discussion of Kerry's claims, they would have put the video in the larger context of his work and then offered up their critique. They didn't do that, which leaves me wondering why.

First, I didn't post the video. I wasn't aware of the rebuttal until it was posted here by Alvino. So I'm coming at this as being taken aback. I saw this rebuttal as being choppy and not in the larger context also. But still pretty damning also. Maybe there is an answer, but the cards seem to be stacked against it, more than anything. Maybe Kerry will come back with something? I think he's speaking in a conference this weekend, I should try to make it, since I live so close.

[Calm]

how have I not contributed to the conversation?

By attacking someone's integrity.

[Tacenda]

By attacking someone's integrity.

Didn't realize that, once again.

You have been removed from the thread again.

[JDave]

I see where they need to hold onto the BoA being tied into the papyri. But the church apparently see a possibility that JS translated by inspiration, they're not worried it's going to make the church tumble down. I can go my merry way and believe this too, I just need the apologists to come to grips in order to keep trusting their defenses for the church in the past and future. I thought this thread was whether to put an end to the apologetic war on the BoA, how have I not contributed to the conversation?

It's rarely that simple. There are times when evidence becomes incontrovertible and everybody agrees that, indeed, man can fly. But before that time it is truly unknown what the correct answer is. There was probably pretty damning evidence that man would never be able to fly. And whether you feel you are in the right position or not, and regardless of how patently obvious the situation seems to you, it is just fine for other people to think differently and still do so with integrity. Reminds me of a humorous exchange between some guy and a 'thought cop'.

Guy: "I guess I was letting my thoughts wander all over the avenue of consideration."

Cop: "Uh huh, you almost collided with established dogma back at those presumptions."

...

Guy: "I'll get back into the flow of normal thought, officer."

Cop: "Uh huh, you go straight to your inevitable conclusion: it's foregone, you can't miss it."

[gtaggart]

First, I didn't post the video. I wasn't aware of the rebuttal until it was posted here by Alvino. So I'm coming at this as being taken aback. I saw this rebuttal as being choppy and not in the larger context also. But still pretty damning also. Maybe there is an answer, but the cards seem to be stacked against it, more than anything. Maybe Kerry will come back with something? I think he's speaking in a conference this weekend, I should try to make it, since I live so close.

Maybe there is an answer? I provided you a link to a fuller discussion of Kerry's views. Try starting there, and if he's speaking somewhere, by all means attend. By the way, I didn't claim you posted the video.

[JDave]

Maybe there is an answer? I provided you a link to a fuller discussion of Kerry's views. Try starting there, and if he's speaking somewhere, by all means attend. By the way, I didn't claim you posted the video.

You didn't call it out really, but you did say "in the video you posted". Probably an error you didn't notice.

[gtaggart]

You didn't call it out really, but you did say "in the video you posted". Probably an error you didn't notice.

My bad. You're correct. I knew he didn't post the video.

[MormonMason]

Is this all you have Mormon Mason? Did you watch the video that Alvino just posted. I'm more disillusioned now than ever. How many nails have to be put in the coffin on this subject. The church changed the heading for a reason. What do you say to the actual fascimile that JS translated that Kerry skips over? That's where it's at, he got it wrong. Are apologists just "resting on their laurels"? Does integrity mean anything?

Since you have been ejected from the thread, you likely won't read this but I'll post it anyway and shoot you over a message containing it.

I just started watching the video. Muhlestein is quite correct that the fragments were mounted under glass and that there was a separate portion of the roll identified as containing the Book of Abraham and as being a long roll. At just over 1:16 into the video the first very serious mistake was made by the maker of the "response" video. It states that Joseph Smith translated Facsimile 1. He did no such thing. There is only one partially extant column of text on the original vignette and Joseph Smith did not translate that. All he did was to offer an explanation of the elements of the vignette, based upon the storyline of the Book of Abraham, but no actual translation.

For the record, the partially extant column actually has a whole word there at the end. It is a word that has to do with offering and/or being fit for sacrifice. That is a word that fits the content of the Book of Abraham rather than a Book of Breathing funerary vignette. Muhlestein also is correct that the text surrounding the vignette has nothing to do with the vignette itself. The text surrounding the vignette speaks of "splendid burial" and the vignette is neither of burial nor embalming for burial. The man is very much alive, is fully clothed and accessorized, and appears to be in a struggle since the feet are not on the lion couch, the priest figure stands between the lion couch and the legs of the man, and both hands of the man are elevated to the face in a rather strange angle to indicate resuscitation as Egyptologists would now claim for this vignette since they were embarrassed by their former claim that it is and only could be an embalmment vignette!

The proper position for resuscitation is hand at side (sign of inaction in sleep/death) with one hand, palm to face and elbow elevated (sign of rising from sleep and/or sorrow for death), indicating waking from sleep and rising from inaction, and nude (not clothed or wrapped)--unless the person is mummiform. Egyptologists know this but only those like Ritner, with an axe to grind, will not admit that there is something really odd with this vignette if it solely portrays a so-called, "standard" funerary theme and, yet, still has nothing to do with the surrounding hieroglyphic text.

Do you really expect that an Egyptologist with an axe to grind will agree in all particulars with Joseph Smith? Really??? Want to know a professional Egyptologist's professional thoughts regarding Joseph Smith and the papyrus? One such that can be found can be found in a book by John A. Wilson. Here is what he had to say about the matter after discussing the Joseph Smith Papyri:

A valid counterargument for the faithful would be that we Egyptologists can claim no inspiration. We can only scrape the surface meaning. If Joseph Smith was a prophet, he was an instrument of divine authority, so that he might find the deepest meaning. Although our work deals with fact, we must respect faith. As the Protestant world survived the Higher Criticism of the Bible three generations ago, the Mormons will survive this criticism.

(John A. Wilson, Thousands of Years: An Archaeologist's Search for Ancient Egypt [New York: Scribner's Sons, 1972], 177)

You, on the other hand, do have a choice. You can survive this criticism with us or can remain "more disillusioned than ever." And, call into question my integrity? OK...

I may have more to say as I watch the rest of the video but if the video is of the same quality as the first part I just reviewed, I am not sure I want to waste the time to see what I already expect is the case. To be continued...maybe...

Edited March 8, 2013 by MormonMason

[T-Shirt]

Just found the following video on youtube. Wanted to share.

This video is hard to watch. Not for what it has to say, but because it is dripping with condescension and childish mockery. It is full of logical fallacies and the most glaring issue, for me, is at the end when he attacks Dr Muhlestein's integrity, portraying himself as a faithful Mormon, when he is, actually, a critic who has left the Church. The whole video is full of hypocrisy, as he attacks Dr. Muhlestein for, allegedly, doing what he is clearly doing himself.

[Alvino]

Whether the apologetic war is over is debatable. David Bokovoy is no slouch, and he has proposed an interesting solution. That said, while the war still rages and because of the video you posted, may I offer Kerry Muhlestein in his own words--a much more complete discussion than in his videos.

You did notice the video I posted quotes from this same source you link to here, right?

Is his explanation slam dunk? No, the critics have their comebacks, but that's not to say they are correct. At the very least, this is contested territory.

What do you mean 'at the very least'? Do you guys have non-LDS professional Egyptologists agreeing with JS's interpretation of the papyri we have? If "at the very least" this is contested territory (between LDS believers and those outside the Church, no surprise there), then you guys have failed to show JS's interpretation plausible - a tie, and I don't think it is actually one, is not a win.

Certainly, a video that critiques a video that is clearly a summary of some of Kerry's views, is not a game changer by any stretch. If the makers of the video had been interested in fairness and a fuller and more truthful discussion of Kerry's claims, they would have put the video in the larger context of his work and then offered up their critique. They didn't do that, which leaves me wondering why.

The video actually does quote from your own source and shows how Kerry contradicts himself. Want to address that?

Edited March 8, 2013 by Alvino

[gtaggart]

You did notice the video I posted quotes from this same source you link to here, right?

What do you mean 'at the very least'? Do you guys have non-LDS professional Egyptologists agreeing with JS's interpretation of the papyri we have? If "at the very least" this is contested territory (between LDS believers and those outside the Church, no surprise there), then you guys have failed to show JS's interpretation plausible - a tie, and I don't think it is actually one, is not a win.

The video actually does quote from your own source and shows how Kerry contradicts himself. Want to address that?

Got a mouse in your pocket?

And no, the video is a waste of time. I gathered that in the first 3 minutes as the logical fallacies marched by.

[MormonMason]

Well, I decided to watch some more. Here are some comments...

At 1:39-1:43, the video itself essentially states what I have already said above, that the vignette is part and parcel of the Book of Abraham, and also the Horos Book of Breathing. I have stated that both texts were on the same roll, which, I believe, partially accounts for all of the extant evidence thus far. But, Muhlestein--again, I repeat this and cannot emphasize this enough--was absolutely correct that the hieroglyphic text surrounding the vignette has nothing to do with the vignette itself. The video essentially claims, on the other hand, that they do have to do with one another. Once again, the surrounding hieroglyphic text speaks of burial and the vignette does NOT represent either burial or embalming. Thus the textual content surrounding the vignette has nothing to do with the vignette itself.

The video continues with the same blather repeated ad nauseam by the critics regarding the so-called "working document" used in making the Book of Abraham. Well, again, if the Book of Abraham and the Horos Book of Breathing were on the same papyrus scroll, or even if we go with a full catalyst theory, this sort of thing would still be expected. Yes, folks, the characters from the scroll would show up in papers from the Kirtland Period. The interesting thing is, although the video seems not to want to discuss these, that there are all sorts of anomalies with the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Some examples are as follows.

1. All of the Book of Abraham manuscripts are copies of others now no longer extant,
   
2. Two differing methodologies are attempted in aligning characters to the English text, the first approach discarded and then the whole thing abandoned,
   
3. One manuscript takes a couple characters from the hieroglyphic text preceding Book of Breathing and then jumps to the Breathing text, skipping all characters in between,
   
4. Two of the manuscripts omit the first four verses whereas one of them of the same date has them,
   
5. Characters are written over the separation line in a few places,
   
6. There is not exact agreement in all places with the alignment of Egyptian characters with text, and,
   
7. Characters from elsewhere in the papyri are placed out of order in places where there now are gaps.
   

"Working papers"? What about the rest? If these were part of some sort of Grammar made as a prerequisite for the Book of Abraham, why does Joseph Smith propose trying to make an Egyptian Grammar later on if he already did it? They may have been some sort of "working papers" for something but the Book of Abraham is surely not dependent upon these. If this was the actual process used in bringing forth the Book of Abraham, why on earth did they abandon the project? Why do we not have more papers with Egyptian characters from the papyri that complete the rest of the Book of Abraham? Questions the videographer never asks of the evidence...

I am 3:17 into the video and it still is droning on and on about how characters from the Book of Breathing match up with characters written in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers (again, to be expected from someone who could not read Egyptian on their own and could not tell the difference between a Book of Breathing text and a following, Book of Abraham text presumably on the same, long scroll)...

At 3:58 the videographer begins talking about the arms that look like they "were drawn in by a little kid, or someone, in the 19th Century." Yes, and it turns out that Joseph Smith got that reconstruction right, if Lanny D. Bell, a non-Mormon Egyptologist, is any sort of authority after having looked at the evidence on the matter of the hands.

One of them is undisputedly a hand, which means that an arm is up. But, look at the photo of the papyrus fragment and note the angle of the hand. There has to have been an arm there. Now, look closely at the other hand. It is at the same angle as the one below it. The finger strokes are drawn similarly. Both have thumb strokes. It is a second hand and there had to be an arm somewhere attached to that. The hands are at the wrong angle for a resuscitation scene. Even with the undisputed hand the angle is wrong. The elbow would not be elevated with that angle like it should be were the hand positioned palm to face.

So, I think that Muhlestein is correct that it looks like a struggle. I can see that, too. The fact that the guy isn't even completely on the lion couch, with a priest figure in between the man's legs and the lion couch, with both hands up in a position that is outside of Egyptian canon for resuscitation scenes, and the fact that the man is fully alive and neither rising from sleep/death nor dead, and that a word having to do with sacrifice can be found in the extant portion of the extant column, adds evidence and weight to such an interpretation, in my view.

More in a bit...

Edited March 8, 2013 by MormonMason

[mfbukowski]

From what I have seen, there is only one "side of this debate" that has used the "breathlessly eager 'game changer' rhetoric." I, for one, have never uttered the phrase "game changer" in relation to any thesis I have proposed about the origins of the Book of Abraham.

Great! One point for our side!

[MormonMason]

At 4:22, the same, tired-out, Parkinson-Larson reconstruction, now shown to be erroneous on several counts by Lanny D. Bell, non-Mormon Egyptologist, is shown to the viewer. It is high time to update, isn't it? But, this reconstruction is too useful to the critics so it is likely that they will never discard it so long as it is useful to them. In my last post the reader can see the Bell reconstruction which he made based upon his interpretation of the evidence.

In addition, the "Anubis" figure also represents mortal priests in various vignettes in various other papyri. Such is the case in the Ker^casher Book of Breathing Papyrus. So, why couldn't this have been a priest as Joseph Smith claimed, a claim that Muhlestein repeats? There is nothing on or around the extant vignette to suggest otherwise. Even in the Ker^casher Book of Breathing a priest is mislabled Inp(w) (Anubis). Egyptologists, such as Faulkner, identify the Anubis figure as a priest propping the mummy up during a purification ritual before the wife of the deceased. Yet, the draughtsman of the vignette (possibly out of force of habit) mislabeled the figure as Anubis.

Either way, the video is not all that damning here. The Anubis figure still could be a priest performing some function.

To continue...

Edited March 8, 2013 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

At 4:50, we have the videographer announce, "Hey, looky here!" At 4:51-5:00 several examples of lion couch scenes are shown, NONE of which are like the one in the vignette that became Facsimile 1. Notice the position of the hand and arms there? One arm at side, one arm with elbow up, palm to face. Yes, these images are all of the resuscitation of Osiris.

Notice that NONE of them have the feature of the priest standing BETWEEN the figure on the lion couch and the lion couch and that none of them have both hands up at the wrong angle. Even if we accept just the undisputed hand in the vignette that became Facsimile 1, it still is at the wrong angle for your basic, commonplace, resuscitation funerary scene.

More in a bit. I have to take a break from the inanity before continuing...

Edited March 8, 2013 by MormonMason

[Alvino]

And no, the video is a waste of time. I gathered that in the first 3 minutes as the logical fallacies marched by.

Would you at least mention where logical fallacies are committed?

[MormonMason]

Would you at least mention where logical fallacies are committed?

Almost from the very beginning of the response to Muhlestein. Muhlestein is absolutely correct about the portion being identified as the Book of Abraham being a roll separated from the Horos Book of Breathing. Eyewitness accounts, including hostile, show that the Book of Breathing was mounted under glass and that a long roll identified as containing the writings of Abraham was being displayed by Joseph Smith's mother for 25 cents a person while much of the portion identified as the Book of Breathing was mounted under glass.

The video also maintains that Joseph Smith translated the vignette that became Facsimile 1 when he did no such thing. All that he did do was to offer explanations regarding elements of the vignette, a vignette that itself is out of the ordinary. If we assume that the first vignette is nothing but a funerary vignette, then there are those would say that Joseph Smith was wrong. However, the first vignette has elements that don't make a whole lot of sense from a funerary perspective but that make perfect sense from a Book of Abraham perspective.

The video also shows pictures of funerary art depicting the resuscitation of Osiris that display something very different from that in Facsimile 1 and yet seems to maintain that they are somehow proof of Joseph Smith's blunders.

The video shows examples from embalming scenes and then tries to show how the first vignette that became Facsimile 1 is like them because an Anubis figure can be seen on it, claiming that the figure is Anubis and only Anubis (when it is a fact that priests also wore Anubis masks and are so depicted in funerary papyri as elsewhere), claiming that Joseph Smith's description of the figure as a priest is wrong.

The list could go on but the problems and leaps of logic are many, and that is less than just in the first third of the video....

Edited March 8, 2013 by MormonMason

[Alvino]

Since you have been ejected from the thread, you likely won't read this but I'll post it anyway and shoot you over a message containing it.

I just started watching the video. Muhlestein is quite correct that the fragments were mounted under glass and that there was a separate portion of the roll identified as containing the Book of Abraham and as being a long roll.

Identified by who? Not by non-LDS Egyptologists.

At just over 1:16 into the video the first very serious mistake was made by the maker of the "response" video. It states that Joseph Smith translated Facsimile 1. He did no such thing. There is only one partially extant column of text on the original vignette and Joseph Smith did not translate that. All he did was to offer an explanation of the elements of the vignette, based upon the storyline of the Book of Abraham, but no actual translation.

You do admit JS got these wrong anyways, is that correct? Plus, to say JS didn't translate Facsimile 1 would imply that everything in the facsimile exists in the text, but that isn't correct. For example, the explanations for figures 11 and 12 are not in the BoA text.

Muhlestein also is correct that the text surrounding the vignette has nothing to do with the vignette itself. The text surrounding the vignette speaks of "splendid burial" and the vignette is neither of burial nor embalming for burial. The man is very much alive,

What's more plausible, that the text surrounding it had nothing to do with the vignette or that it does?

I also wanted to ask you, MM. What is more common, to have a jackal-headed figure with two birds and a person who is not strugling in a lion couch having something to do with Abraham, or the same figure not having something to do with Abraham? How many good examples do we have of such a scene where the person standing has a jackal head in a lion couch scene and how many good examples do we have of a lion scene with a bald priest at the side?

As I see it, if one is to go with the evidence available, one should go with what one actually has many good examples from.

is fully clothed and accessorized,

Why should this be important? I ask because I'm not an Egyptologist nor do I think you are one, so.. It seems this fact doesn't bother Egyptologists much.

and appears to be in a struggle since the feet are not on the lion couch,

There are several examples of similar Egyptian scenes where the feet ae not on the lion couch.

the priest figure stands between the lion couch and the legs of the man,

see the video carefully, MM.

and both hands of the man are elevated to the face in a rather strange angle to indicate resuscitation as Egyptologists would now claim for this vignette since they were embarrassed by their former claim that it is and only could be an embalmment vignette! The proper position for resuscitation is hand at side (sign of inaction in sleep/death) with one hand, palm to face and elbow elevated (sign of rising from sleep and/or sorrow for death), indicating waking from sleep and rising from inaction, and nude (not clothed or wrapped)--unless the person is mummiform.

Could you really blame an unbeliever if they don't find this compelling at all? What's more plausible, the vignette is drawn a bit differently from other ones (for example, raised hand not as close to the face as in other similar scenes) or radically different from other ones?

Egyptologists know this but only those like Ritner, with an axe to grind, will not admit that there is something really odd with this vignette if it solely portrays a so-called, "standard" funerary theme and, yet, still has nothing to do with the surrounding hieroglyphic text.

What non-LDS Egyptologist agrees that the surrounding text has nothing to do with the pictured scene?

Do you really expect that an Egyptologist with an axe to grind will agree in all particulars with Joseph Smith? Really??? Want to know a professional Egyptologist's professional thoughts regarding Joseph Smith and the papyrus? One such that can be found can be found in a book by John A. Wilson. Here is what he had to say about the matter after discussing the Joseph Smith Papyri:

No one could disagree that it is possible that JS did get a much deeper meaning out of the material he had, yet, as far as Egyptology goes, he is far off from accurate. As Wilson says there, they deal with 'fact' and the 'facts' don't score in favor of JS.

[Alvino]

Given your response here, MM, I have to ask you if you know what a logical fallacy is. Do you know what logic is?

If the guy in the video gets facts wrong or makes bad cases for a position, that doesn't mean he committed logical fallacies. LFs are rules of inference, not rules about what facts about Egyptology are correct or not.

Almost from the very beginning of the response to Muhlestein. Muhlestein is absolutely correct about the portion being identified as the Book of Abraham being a roll separated from the Horos Book of Breathing. Eyewitness accounts, including hostile, show that the Book of Breathing was mounted under glass and that a long roll identified as containing the writings of Abraham was being displayed by Joseph Smith's mother for 25 cents a person while much of the portion identified as the Book of Breathing was mounted under glass.

I'll address this better later on (I'm on a hurry) but just know that even if one ignores relevant data that doesn't mean one committed a logical fallacy.

The video also maintains that Joseph Smith translated the vignette that became Facsimile 1 when he did no such thing. All that he did do was to offer explanations regarding elements of the vignette, a vignette that itself is out of the ordinary. If we assume that the first vignette is nothing but a funerary vignette, then there are those would say that Joseph Smith was wrong. However, the first vignette has elements that don't make a whole lot of sense from a funerary perspective but that make perfect sense from a Book of Abraham perspective.

Because having Abraham in such a scene makes perfect sense for non-LDS Egyptologists, right?

The video also shows pictures of funerary art depicting the resuscitation of Osiris that display something very different from that in Facsimile 1 and yet seems to maintain that they are somehow proof of Joseph Smith's blunders.

The video shows examples from embalming scenes and then tries to show how the first vignette that became Facsimile 1 is like them because an Anubis figure can be seen on it, claiming that the figure is Anubis and only Anubis (when it is a fact that priests also wore Anubis masks and are so depicted in funerary papyri as elsewhere), claiming that Joseph Smith's description of the figure as a priest is wrong.

The list could go on but the problems and leaps of logic are many, and that is less than just in the first third of the video....

You seem to think that the fact that there are more plausible explanations means you are committing a logical fallacy. That's incorrect.

With regards to the Egyptology, get some non-LDS Egyptologists to agree with you and you'll have a bit more credibility. I'm not making a blind appeal to authority but if you say things are relevant to the interpretation of the text when the consensus among professionals is that it isn't, then I won't believe you.

You also mentioned how Ritner might be biased. Do you realize saying this approach undermines your own credibility? Why should one believe an LDS believe who has an invested interest in showing the BoA legitimate? Do you have more credibility as a non-Egyptologist believer than a credentialed Egyptologists who doesn't believe? Please stop this kind of approach. It's silly and annoying to those of us who care about content.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Alvino