Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 I see no reason to pretend that he was sincere.

For your information:  I was born into the church, served a mission and still attend (only about monthly right now).  I honestly wish the BoA was true and not a failed translation; part of me very much wants it to be true; however, based on the overwhelming evidence against the BoA, IMO, it is a failed translation and not historical scripture.  That is my honest opinion -- and although that might strike a nerve with some and make them upset, that is my personal conclusion at this point.  For you to even attempt to label me as not being "sincere" is ridiculous IMO.  We can have different opinions without condemning others and attacking them personally.  

Edited March 23, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

For your information:  I was born into the church, served a mission and still attend (only about monthly right now).  I honestly wish the BoA was true and not a failed translation; part of me very much wants it to be true; however, based on the overwhelming evidence against the BoA, IMO, it is a failed translation and not historical scripture.  That is my honest opinion -- and although that might strike a nerve with some and make them upset, that is my personal conclusion at this point.  For you to even attempt to label me as not being "sincere" is ridiculous IMO.  We can have different opinions without condemning others and attacking them personally.  

I'm being completely honest here, Ougadougou. I believe you that what you have stated is what you truly think about the Book of Abraham, based on the information that you have. But, it doesn't look to me that you "very much want it to be true" based on your behavior here. In response to valid points that have been brought up (some by me), you have not engaged or treated them at all, and very predictably respond with some form of "Ritner! Robert Ritner!" and links to articles (without discussing the salient points in them. When your responses, and the articles you link to, don't deal with or treat the issues and points we raise, it gives the appearance that you are not open to what we have to say, and that you don't even read or think about it. That makes any kind of discussion pointless.

I think that you are sincere in thinking that you're right and we're not, and that we can't even pretend to begin making a coherent case in our favor, but you pretty clearly don't care at all what points we raise, and don't think they would matter, anyway. This doesn't look to me like you "very much want it to be true;" in fact, it looks exactly the opposite. 

Did you serve your mission in Burkina Faso? Just curious about your avatar name.

 

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I'm being completely honest here, Ougadougou. I believe you that what you have stated is what you truly think about the Book of Abraham, based on the information that you have. But, it doesn't look to me that you "very much want it to be true" based on your behavior here. In response to valid points that have been brought up (some by me), you have not engaged or treated them at all, and very predictably respond with some form of "Ritner! Robert Ritner!" and links to articles (without discussing the salient points in them. When your responses, and the articles you link to, don't deal with or treat the issues and points we raise, it gives the appearance that you are not open to what we have to say, and that you don't even read or think about it. That makes any kind of discussion pointless.

I think that you are sincere in thinking that you're right and we're not, and that we can't even pretend to begin making a coherent case in our favor, but you pretty clearly don't care at all what points we raise, and don't think they would matter, anyway. This doesn't look to me like you "very much want it to be true;" in fact, it looks exactly the opposite. 

Did you serve your mission in Burkina Faso? Just curious about your avatar name.

 

I have discussed/debated the BoA with many of my friends and family members...and still come to the same conclusion that I do now.  Yes, part of me wants it to all be true; however, I can't deny the overwhelming evidence against the BoA, which IMO outweighs what I want and even what the church says.  I have referenced Ritner, Packham and other Egyptologists; I have looked at some of the materials others have provided here--but it's all the same apologetics I have read/heard numerous times already.  And instead of anything being wrong with the BoA or the church's claims, apologists and others will attack those that don't believe and call it lack of faith, understanding, desire, etc.  Just like you indicated that you don't think I "don't very much want it to be true."  How do you know what I want and don't want?  If the LDS people value testimonies so much, then they need to respect testimonies that are on the other side of the spectrum.  

 

I served a mission in Europe.  

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I have discussed/debated the BoA with many of my friends and family members...and still come to the same conclusion that I do now.  Yes, part of me wants it to all be true; however, I can't deny the overwhelming evidence against the BoA, which IMO outweighs what I want and even what the church says.  I have referenced Ritner, Packham and other Egyptologists; I have looked at some of the materials others have provided here--but it's all the same apologetics I have read/heard numerous times already.  And instead of anything being wrong with the BoA or the church's claims, apologists and others will attack those that don't believe and call it lack of faith, understanding, desire, etc.  Just like you indicated that you don't think I "don't very much want it to be true."  How do you know what I want and don't want?  If the LDS people value testimonies so much, then they need to respect testimonies that are on the other side of the spectrum.  

 

I served a mission in Europe.  

Maybe it would be the last straw to some of their testimonies. As I read a lot of the apologetic answers to the BoA issues, that is what keeps coming to mind, that they can't let it be true that Joseph may have made the BoA up. It would affect too much in Mormonism, it is a vital part of the LDS canon.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

 

Is there anything in the youtube that this guy got wrong, or maybe he didn't put in enough research?

[Tacenda]

Who to believe...

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe it woud be the last straw to some of their testimonies. As I read a lot of the apologetic answers to the BoA issues, that is what keeps coming to mind, that they can't let it be true that Joseph may have made the BoA up.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.  Can't be that anyone believes it is not only divinely inspired, but pretty much it is what it says.  Nope, we are pretending only we believe that.

As patronizing as saying someone left the Church because they just wanted to sin.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Calm

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Thanks for the vote of confidence.  Can't be that anyone believes it is not only divinely inspired, but pretty much what it is what it says.  Nope, we are pretending only we believe that.

As patronizing as saying someone left the Church because they just wanted to sin.

I'm sorry, you're right. I didn't mean to be patronizing, foot in mouth right now.

ETA: Just narrowing in on what the church essay says about it, and then some on here seem to overlook it.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Tacenda

[Priscilla]

On 3/15/2017 at 1:08 PM, ksfisher said:

Do we know that the fragments that we have today are what was used?  Or was the translation limited to the portion that is now missing? 

Yes, the translation was based on materials we have today. It wasn't based on anything that's missing.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Priscilla said:

Yes, the translation was based on materials we have today. It wasn't based on anything that's missing.

Please elaborate.  Declarations such as this without explanation are not viewed as complete on this board.

Makes discussions much more interesting.

[Priscilla]

On 3/16/2017 at 7:07 PM, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Oua:

Facsimile#1 is not part of the Book of Abraham text. The Book of Abraham--yes, but not the Book of Abraham text. And neither does your quote state the Book of Abraham text came from anything extant. As the quote stated--

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus.³² Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

Where do we find anything which connects the Book of Abraham text with the extant papyri? Where is the LDS church admitting the text came from the extant papyri?

 

Is this apologetic argument still being passed around uncritically? None of the above is true. This "only fragments survived" bit is pure nonsense. We have today practically everything that has been referenced by eye witness accounts.

[Priscilla]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Please elaborate.  Declarations such as this without explanation are not viewed as complete on this board.

Makes discussions much more interesting.

All historical descriptions of the source for the Book of Abraham, are easily identified in the papyri we have today. Also, the manuscripts of the Book of Abraham, otherwise known as the Kirtland Egyptian papers, lend strong evidence to this as well. The manuscripts consist of the English translation, probably dictated, with corresponding Egyptian characters to the left of the margin. Those characters were taken from the Joseph Smith papyri in sequence from right to left.

 

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

Is there anything in the youtube that this guy got wrong, or maybe he didn't put in enough research?

At the beginning of this video, Muhlestein is blatantly lying, IMO, when talking about facsimile #1.  His words even contradict the church's essay below:

"The discovery of the papyrus fragments renewed debate about Joseph Smith’s translation. The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1."

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

Not only that, but the BoA published in 1842 had facsimile # 1 on the front page.  This is lying, denial, and cognitive dissonance being manifest in such apologetics like this video.  

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

For your information:  I was born into the church, served a mission and still attend (only about monthly right now).  I honestly wish the BoA was true and not a failed translation; part of me very much wants it to be true; however, based on the overwhelming evidence against the BoA, IMO, it is a failed translation and not historical scripture.  That is my honest opinion -- and although that might strike a nerve with some and make them upset, that is my personal conclusion at this point.  For you to even attempt to label me as not being "sincere" is ridiculous IMO.  We can have different opinions without condemning others and attacking them personally.  

I have no problem with people who reject the authenticity of the BofA, and it doesn't upset me at all.  I fully expect that, just as I do rejection of the Book of Mormon, rejection of the Bible, rejection of global warming, etc.  What I don't expect is apriorism based on a near complete lack of knowledge -- a problem which infects society at all levels and on virtually all subject-matter.  Fake facts and fake news infest nearly everything we see and hear, not just on this board.  That is a destructive and anti-intellectual mindset which prevents coherent discussion and debate on anything.  At the level of national politics, it can even become an existential threat.  I find that you exhibit that same destructive and anti-intellectual mindset.

You say you are sincere, and you rightly call for a kinder, gentler approach by others, but you then follow that with the claim that Kerry Muhlestein is "blatantly lying," and that "This is lying, denial, and cognitive dissonance being manifest in such apologetics like this video" -- referring to a MormonThink.com video which is not by Muhlestein, and which actually supports your negative position.  How did that happen?  Did you even bother to watch the whole video?  As usual, you appear to be either blasé, or unable to track the actual discussion.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Priscilla said:

All historical descriptions of the source for the Book of Abraham, are easily identified in the papyri we have today. Also, the manuscripts of the Book of Abraham, otherwise known as the Kirtland Egyptian papers, lend strong evidence to this as well. The manuscripts consist of the English translation, probably dictated, with corresponding Egyptian characters to the left of the margin. Those characters were taken from the Joseph Smith papyri in sequence from right to left.

 

Hi Priscilla.  Welcome to this board.

Since you cite him, I must say that Xander (Kevin Graham) certainly provided the most sustained and strong anti-BofA polemic which we have seen on this board.  If he hadn't lost his cool so often, that would have been his most memorable distinction.  Ouagadougou would do well to go back and examine Kevin's substantive arguments.

You have summed up in short compass that same basic polemic argument against the authenticity of the BofA.  So, would you therefore say that the BofA is a pseudepigraphon, with a text which only pretends to be a translation of the Sensen text?

Edited March 24, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

..................................  

Is there anything in the youtube that this guy got wrong, or maybe he didn't put in enough research?

This is a production from MormonThink.com, the author(s) of which is trying to be brief.  So he misses a lot, and does not do an adequate job of covering the "apologetic" positions which he discounts.  For example, he underestimates the full extent of possible documents available in Kirtland, and he is wrong about the nature of KEP, unaware that the Sensen characters were added after the English text of the BofA had already been written down.  He also fails to read carefully the reference to facsimile 1 in BofA 1:12-14, missing the fact that it is not a reference to the Sensen illustration, but to a much earlier Aramaic (Chaldean) illustration dealing with the sacrificial rites in northwest Syria.  The apparent reason for the Sensen illustrations 1 and 2 being included as facsimiles 1 and 3 is to substitute for much earlier illustrations which had been lost by Ptolemaic times -- assuming the general Jewish practice of passing on such traditional texts, and their willingness to use pagan illustrations (which could be reinterpreted to fit their own needs).

[dberrie2000]

7 hours ago, Priscilla said:

Is this apologetic argument still being passed around uncritically? None of the above is true. This "only fragments survived" bit is pure nonsense. We have today practically everything that has been referenced by eye witness accounts.

The Extent of the Joseph Smith Papyri--http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1092&index=8

"From the eyewitness historical descriptions of the papyri and the remaining physical evidence we can construct the following Egyptological description of the papyri (see fig. 3).⁴⁸ Book of the Dead of Tsemminis, daughter of Eskhons, was a long roll (estimated original dimensions were 320 x 32 cm),⁴⁹ whose damaged outside leaves were preserved under glass; remaining fragments are from JSP VII, VIII, V, VI, IV, and II (arranged in that order from right to left). The Book of the Dead chapters covered are BD 3–6, 53–54, 57, 63, 65, 67, 70, 72, 74–77, 83, 86–89, 91, 100–101, 103–6, 110, 125.⁵⁰ As a late-period copy of the Book of the Dead, it can definitely be said to be Theban, belonging to Mosher’s Style 1a and phase III.⁵¹ Fragments from the first quarter of the roll are missing.⁵² The fragments were separated from the roll and mounted on glass, probably in 1836. The roll seems to have contained a copy of Book of the Dead 125 as well as a vignette of a tree, a man, and a woman, with a snake standing on its legs with his head in the woman’s ear; this is consistent with both the extant chapters and the eyewitness descriptions. The roll and possibly some of the fragments seem to have been destroyed in the Chicago fire. This roll probably dated to the last half of the third century B.C.

Book of the Dead of Neferirtnoub was, from early accounts, apparently a roll of considerable size, of which two fragments remain as JSP IIIa–b, containing the vignette of Book of the Dead 125. Since only the two fragments remain, the rest may have perished in the Chicago fire.

Scroll of Hor (a son of Osoroeris and Taykhebit)⁵³ was a roll of some size (estimated original dimensions are 320 x 11 cm). The outer leaves, separated and mounted in Kirtland in 1836, remain as JSP I, XI, and X (in that order, from right to left). This roll contains the so-called “Book of Breathings Made by Isis” and at least one other text. The relationship of this roll to P. Louvre 3284 needs to be clarified, since most of the translations and commentaries on JSP XI–X are in fact translations and commentaries of P. Louvre 3284.⁵⁴ One difference between the two papyri is that the terminal comments from P. Louvre 3284 (= column 6) become the preliminary comments in JSP XI (= column 1), and would normally be termed “rubrics” except that red ink was not used in either case.⁵⁵ Beyond that, the relationship seems to be that JSP XI–X is an abridged copy of the same text as P. Louvre 3284 to the extent that a one-to-one correspondence exists between the columns of the text,⁵⁶ which leads us to expect that there would have been two other columns on the roll of Hor’s papyrus in addition to the vignette preserved as Facsimile 3 in the Book of Abraham. These columns would contain the abridged version of the negative confession, but no real invocations to Osiris as described by Seyffarth.⁵⁷ This argues for more than one text on the roll;⁵⁸ thus we would expect more to have remained on the roll than the two columns of text from the Book of Breathings and the vignette (Facsimile 3). Though the outer pieces ended up as JSP I, XI, and X, the remainder of the roll almost certainly was in the Wood Museum in Chicago and was thus destroyed in the fire of 1871.

The Hypocephalus of Sheshonq (original dimensions are 19 x 20 cm) is preserved only as Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham.

Parts of the Unknown Document of Amenhotep, son of Tanoub, are preserved only in a poor copy in Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Egyptian manuscript no. 6.⁵⁹ The copy is in three columns of text, but how these relate to the original papyrus is unknown. One of the columns contains Book of the Dead 45. The other columns have not been identified as any Book of the Dead or other known text. The different name is what makes it appear to be a separate document.

49. Assuming that the damaged area was a fourth of the original length of the roll. Measurements were taken from the photographs in “New Light on Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papyri,” Improvement Era (February 1968): 40–41 (also 40A–H), from the rulers shown in the photographs. This produced a calculation of 373 x 34.5 cm. The Turin papyrus of Efonkh measured 57’3″ (≈^ 1786 cm) in length; while MMA 35.9.19 measures 174.5 x 14.5″ (≈^ 453 x 37.5 cm). The chapters covered by the fragments take approximately one-fifth of the Efonkh papyrus, which would produce a length of 466 cm, a length closer to MMA 35.9.19. I have deliberately rounded down to the average size of papyri in the Ptolemaic period taken from P. W. Pestman, The New Papyrological Primer, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 4–5."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, Priscilla said:

All historical descriptions of the source for the Book of Abraham, are easily identified in the papyri we have today. Also, the manuscripts of the Book of Abraham, otherwise known as the Kirtland Egyptian papers, lend strong evidence to this as well. The manuscripts consist of the English translation, probably dictated, with corresponding Egyptian characters to the left of the margin. Those characters were taken from the Joseph Smith papyri in sequence from right to left.

 

I'm curious what is meant by strong evidence in this case.  Is there any reason to think any of Joseph's writings or translations followed this pattern?  Is there anything in the book of Mormon translation that indicates Joseph considered what was on the plates as he dictated?  The portion of the BoA you mention doesn't seem to be evidence of Joseph thinking those characters would translate to the corresponding English text, or I'm not sure how. 

Thanks in advance.

[Priscilla]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hi Priscilla.  Welcome to this board.

Since you cite him, I must say that Xander (Kevin Graham) certainly provided the most sustained and strong anti-BofA polemic which we have seen on this board.  If he hadn't lost his cool so often, that would have been his most memorable distinction.  Ouagadougou would do well to go back and examine Kevin's substantive arguments.

You have summed up in short compass that same basic polemic argument against the authenticity of the BofA.  So, would you therefore say that the BofA is a pseudepigraphon, with a text which only pretends to be a translation of the Sensen text?

Referring to Kevin's argument as "anti" ignore the fact that his he is simply following the logic that was naturally employed by Mormons before modern translations disproved the BoA. Kevin was for much of his life a faithful member and defender of the faith until he was confronted with the Book of Abraham conundrum. The view that the existing papyri would support the Book of Abraham if properly translated, was not some "anti" assumption, but was rather a popular position among Mormons. That is, until a modern translation proved the papyri had absolutely nothing to do with anything relating to Abraham. In 1968 Nibley made a comment indicating that it was already understood in Mormon circles that the source for the Book of Abraham must have been Joseph Smith Papyrus XI and I:

"Within a week of the publication of the papyri students began calling my attention, in fact, within a day or two, I think it was Witorf, called my attention to the fact that, the very definite fact that, one of the fragments seemed to supply all of the symbols for the Book of Abraham. This was the little "Sensen" scroll. Here are the symbols. The symbols are arranged here, and the interpretation goes along here and this interpretation turns out to be the Book of Abraham. Well, what about that? Here is the little "Sensen," because that name occurs frequently in it, the papyrus, in which a handful of Egyptian symbols was apparently expanded in translation to the whole Book of Abraham. This raises a lot of questions. It doesn't answer any questions, unless we're mind readers" (Speech given by Hugh Nibley, University of Utah, May 20, 1968).

"...the presence on the scene of some of the original papyri, including those used by the Prophet in preparing the text of the Book of Abraham and the Facsimiles with their commentaries, has not raised a single new question, though, as we shall see, it has solved some old ones."(Improvement Era, May, 1968, p54)


Richley Crapo:

"In December of 1967, I was able to examine the original papyri in the vaults of the BYU library and obtain one of the first released sets of photographic copies.... A more careful examination of these revealed the startling fact that one of the papyri of the Church collection, known as the Small Sen-Sen Papyrus, contained the same series of heiratic symbols, which had been copied, in the same order, into the Book of Abraham manuscript next to verses of that book! In other words, there was every indication that the collection of papyri in the hands of the Church contained the source which led to a production of the Book of Abraham. It was naturally this document which I immediately began to translate" (Book of Abraham Symposium, LDS Institute of Religion, Salt Lake City, April 3, 1970, p. 27).

James R. Clark:

"I have in my possession a photostatic copy of the manuscript of the Prophet Joseph Smith's translation of Abraham 1:1 to 2:18. This manuscript was bought by Wilford Wood in 1945 from Charles Bidamon, son of the man who married Emma after the death of the Prophet. The original of this manuscript is in the Church Historian's Office in Salt Lake City. The characters from which our present book of Abraham was translated are down the left-hand column and Joseph Smith's translation opposite, so we know approximately how much material was translated from each character" (Pearl of Great Price Conference, December 10, 1960, 1964 ed., pp. 60-61)

So when apologists today say the papyri wasn't used in the translation, then that's all well and good.  But just know this wasn't what Mormon scholars believed in the beginning. The shift in Mormon apologetics moved in that direction because of the overwhelming evidence against it.  
 

 

[Priscilla]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm curious what is meant by strong evidence in this case.  Is there any reason to think any of Joseph's writings or translations followed this pattern?  Is there anything in the book of Mormon translation that indicates Joseph considered what was on the plates as he dictated?  The portion of the BoA you mention doesn't seem to be evidence of Joseph thinking those characters would translate to the corresponding English text, or I'm not sure how. 

Thanks in advance.

Is there any reason to think Joseph's writings or translations must follow the same pattern? The translation of the Book of Mormon doesn't even stick to one pattern, so why would we expect a single pattern for all of his writings? 

When Joseph's mother was showing the mummies to tourists her presentation included elaborate details of not only explaining who these mummies were in the past, but she also showed the papyri and gave explanations as to what they meant. I wonder why anyone would think she could know these things? Maybe because her son was the famous Prophet and Translator?

[Priscilla]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The portion of the BoA you mention doesn't seem to be evidence of Joseph thinking those characters would translate to the corresponding English text, or I'm not sure how. 

 

You're not sure how the characters to the left of the margin, taken in sequence from the papyri, would suggest they were used to translate the text to the right?

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, Priscilla said:

You're not sure how the characters to the left of the margin, taken in sequence from the papyri, would suggest they were used to translate the text to the right?

I think the traditional question is what direction the causality went. Was this attempting to understand the Egyptian using the Book of Abraham or create the Book of Abraham from the characters. Critics tend to favor Joseph working from the characters even though that's completely unlike how he translated other texts like the Book of Mormon where the underlying text didn't matter.

[CA Steve]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the traditional question is what direction the causality went. Was this attempting to understand the Egyptian using the Book of Abraham or create the Book of Abraham from the characters. Critics tend to favor Joseph working from the characters even though that's completely unlike how he translated other texts like the Book of Mormon where the underlying text didn't matter.

Hi Clark,

 

How do you view the story of the Anthon transcript as told by Martin Harris? Wasn't that a similar type of translation as we see in the KEP? It would be hard for Anthon to verify a translation unless he viewed both the original and the translation.

[Ouagadougou]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have no problem with people who reject the authenticity of the BofA, and it doesn't upset me at all.  I fully expect that, just as I do rejection of the Book of Mormon, rejection of the Bible, rejection of global warming, etc.  What I don't expect is apriorism based on a near complete lack of knowledge -- a problem which infects society at all levels and on virtually all subject-matter.  Fake facts and fake news infest nearly everything we see and hear, not just on this board.  That is a destructive and anti-intellectual mindset which prevents coherent discussion and debate on anything.  At the level of national politics, it can even become an existential threat.  I find that you exhibit that same destructive and anti-intellectual mindset.

You say you are sincere, and you rightly call for a kinder, gentler approach by others, but you then follow that with the claim that Kerry Muhlestein is "blatantly lying," and that "This is lying, denial, and cognitive dissonance being manifest in such apologetics like this video" -- referring to a MormonThink.com video which is not by Muhlestein, and which actually supports your negative position.  How did that happen?  Did you even bother to watch the whole video?  As usual, you appear to be either blasé, or unable to track the actual discussion.

"Anti-intellectual mindset?"  Please expound.  Fake facts?  Please elaborate.  

Do you think Muhlestein was being honest  or forthright in his examination?  IMO, he wasn't... and it was embarrassing.  Further, I do not know where that video originated -- first time I saw it; and yes, I watched most of it.  You focus on my alleged"destructive and anti-intellectual mindset" more at times than on the discussion we are having here on the BoA.  

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Priscilla said:

You're not sure how the characters to the left of the margin, taken in sequence from the papyri, would suggest they were used to translate the text to the right?

There has been a lot written analyzing what Parrish, Phelps, Cowdery, Richards, et. al. were doing, or thought they were doing, with the KEP. Joseph Smith did not participate in this. It is clear to me, based on the evidence, that the men were trying to "study it out in their mind" and trying to derive the English text of the Book of Abraham, based on random characters. One evidence that suggests this is that the blocks of English text were written first, and the characters added as an afterthought. Critics ridicule and attack "those old fools!" thinking that hundreds of words could be derived from a little squiggle (and by extension, Joseph Smith). I agree that that is ridiculous. 

The KEP/GAEL, if you look at the papers, was quickly abandoned as a dead end. While critics want them to demonstrate "Joseph Smith's method," they actually demonstrate Joseph's associates trying to translate in a rudimentary way (very ignorantly) and understand Joseph's modus operandi. The project was quickly abandoned and they lost interest.