Terryl Givens Interview of Dr. Kerry Muhlestein

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

The tenants of that building are going to a lot of trouble to ensure that their air conditioners drain properly outside. 😃

Glenn

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually, no, the picture is not photoshopped.  It is an image of a building in Taiwan that fell over partially during an earthquake in 2018.  Here's a link to the news item that includes the above photo.

Remarkable, I would have thought much more stuff would have fallen off balconies and windows cracked at the very least.  That there is still clothing hanging off lines....

Edited September 26, 2019 by Calm

[InCognitus]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Remarkable, I would have thought much more stuff would have fallen off balconies and windows cracked at the very least.  That there is still clothing hanging off lines....

Precisely some of the reasons I thought it was fake.  Besides, I'd be moving my car if it was parked along that street!

Edited September 26, 2019 by InCognitus

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Would glyphs (images/illustrations) be more open to interpetation than hieroglyphs? 

For the hoi polloi certainly, but not for Egyptologists.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

It seems like they were trying to assess, and describe for others, where we are now.

A worthy goal.  I keep hoping that we can go deeper than that.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

  I appreciate that, as I think the vast majority of the Saints have not systematically studied the Book of Abraham, particularly as to issues arising from a 21-century Egyptological/skeptical point of view.

I suppose skepticism is O.K., but I would be more interested in hearing standard Egyptological interpretation.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

.................  But I have not really been systematic about this stuff. ..................

That's what we really need.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you going off the summary offered or what Muhlestein says himself?  I assume Smac got most things correct, but he may have missed nuances (not listened yet to see, but that is pretty typical of those summarizing in my experience, even good ones).

The fundamental mistake everyone seems to make is to differentiate the illustrations from the hieroglyphs.  Both are to be read together, as a unit.  The illustrations are merely oversized glyphs or logograms.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, longview said:

"Divination" through the facility of the Urim&Thummim (whether it be by interpreters, seer stone, or highly trained mental/spiritual discipline).  All scriptures that JS pondered and "transcribed" onto paper.  By the gift and power of God, not by personal knowledge of Egyptian script (reformed or whatever).

It matters very little to me what remaining fragments correspond to the Book of Abraham.  However, it would be awesome if another mummy was found with rolls of papyri.  Could it be the Lord used extraordinary measures to preserve the set that was found in the Lebolo/Chandler mummies?  The only way it was preserved being stashed within the cloth?  The fumes of embalming fluid drove away destructive insects?

One must constantly bear in mind that the mummies and papyri date to two thousand years after Abraham.  Whatever information may have been available on the papyri had to have been mediated the same way all Jewish literature (including the Pentateuch) was transmitted:  Jewish scribes copied, recopied, and edited the documents which came into their hands.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Precisely some of the reasons I thought it was fake.  Besides, I'd be moving my car if it was parked along that street!

I think I probably wouldn’t take the risk. It was probably blocked off as well relatively quickly. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The fundamental mistake everyone seems to make is to differentiate the illustrations from the hieroglyphs.  Both are to be read together, as a unit.  The illustrations are merely oversized glyphs or logograms.

So KM makes this mistake?

[Robert F. Smith]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

So KM makes this mistake?

He seems to, but I cannot be sure that he is not merely glossing over what he actually knows to simplify the discussion.  He does say that he realizes that Joseph gets much of the explanation right,  likely referring to the illustrations, rather than the hieroglyphs.

[blueglass]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it's interesting that you disparage Muhlestein's perspective.  He seems to be keeping all options on the table, as we are not sure which one is correct.  

So for you, having an open mind on such things is . . . bad?

Really?  What is the "issue," and what is "closed" about it?

Also, what are your thoughts about Muhlestein's 2016 article, "Assessing the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Introduction to the Historiography of their Acquisitions, Translations, and Interpretations" (particularly the "Issues of Translation" section, which addresses the GAEL)?

Thanks,

-Smac

OK. I finished reading through Muhlstein's paper.  Here are my notes which stood out to me. 

"the long roll was the source of the Book of Abraham"  "It is too early yet to tell how this evidence and argument will be received by the academic community"  ?  _ I thought this was Nibley's argument as well - the long roll which stretched from one end of the Nauvoo mansion to the other.   Has Muhlstein responded to Andrew Cook and Christopher Smith's paper?   https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V43N04_413.pdf

"As we look at the GAEL, it is clear that joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and W. W. Phelps were products of their time when it came to their knowledge of Egyptian" - meaning if we had the long roll it likely wouldn't help much?  Would it help or no? 

continuing, "producing a document (GAEL) that makes little sense, which is not surprising, considering none of the authors claimed to know or understand Egyptian".  This is confusing as I thought Joseph did claim to know reformed Egyptian with the help of seer stones.  There was a time period where he sent out Martin Harris to take characters he copies off the plates and visit scholars to compile an alphabet and grammar to help translate the book of mormon. 

This part was interesting:

"Of the 21 times I found text in the GAEL that matched text in the book of Abraham.  I found only 1 time that the corresponding characters matched, 4 times when part of the characters matched, and 16 times in which there was no match whatsoever.  This indicates that the GAEL was not used to translate the papyri, nor is there any demonstrable translation relationship between the characters in the papyri we currently have and the text of the Book of Abraham."  - what about all the characters in the facsimiles?  How should we consider the translations of all those characters, [Fac2, Fig. 11. Also. If the world can find out these "numbers", so let it be. Amen.]  or [Fac3, Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above "his" [Isis] head.]

"Gee has argued that Joseph Smith was not working on the Egyptian project during 1836."  Could someone can help me understand why this is super important?  I thought there were clear connections between the EAJS and the GAEL?

Edited September 26, 2019 by blueglass

[blueglass]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Muhlestein does seem open to the catalyst notion, even though he doesn't use the word.  However, careful analysis of the entire matter makes it clear that it is not at all a closed issue, as I point out in my “Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 10 online March 21, 2019, online at https://www.scribd.com/document/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

Maybe you could help.  What are your  thoughts on all these Qisas al anbiya connections?  To my knowledge source critics of the book of abraham have not found articles which were available to Joseph Smith to make these parallel connections with Islam.  Quran 87:17-19, "17. Though the Hereafter is better, and more lasting. 18. This is in the former scriptures. 19. The Scriptures of Abraham and Moses."  What scriptures of Abraham is Muhammad "blessed be his name" referring to? 

"So, what is to be made of these remarkable yet puzzling parallels that seem to be uniquely shared between latter-day scripture and the Islamic tradition?  Might the existence of the parallels only confirm that Joseph Smith was eclectically brilliant and resourceful enough to gain access to or had knowledge of the texts in question, and that he merely borrowed from existing sources?  As noted earlier, Joseph Smith could not have known about these parallel Islamic texts, at least so far as can be determined by scholarly means.  The relevant Qisas sources, or even their Jewish and Patristic literary counterparts, were linguistically unavailable to Smith in the mid-nineteen century.  These sources were unavailable even to the best scholars of that period."

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N04_137.pdf

Edited September 26, 2019 by blueglass

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, blueglass said:

OK. I finished reading through Muhlstein's paper.  Here are my notes which stood out to me. 

"the long roll was the source of the Book of Abraham"  "It is too early yet to tell how this evidence and argument will be received by the academic community"  ?  _ I thought this was Nibley's argument as well - the long roll which stretched from one end of the Nauvoo mansion to the other.   Has Muhlstein responded to Andrew Cook and Christopher Smith's paper?   https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V43N04_413.pdf

I'm not sure.  Gee has, though.  See here and here.

Probably the best bibliography on this issue is here (footnote 7).

6 minutes ago, blueglass said:

"As we look at the GAEL, it is clear that joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and W. W. Phelps were products of their time when it came to their knowledge of Egyptian" - meaning if we had the long roll it likely wouldn't help much?  Would it help or no? 

Would it help with what?  Would it help in determining Joseph Smith's familiarity with ancient Egyptian texts?  I'm not sure, since nobody seems to be claiming that he had any training about such things.

Would it help in ascertaining a correlation between the contents of the long roll and the BoA?  Possibly.  

It's all academic, though, sinc we don't have the long roll.

6 minutes ago, blueglass said:

continuing, "producing a document (GAEL) that makes little sense, which is not surprising, considering none of the authors claimed to know or understand Egyptian".  This is confusing as I thought Joseph did claim to know reformed Egyptian with the help of seer stones. 

Could you provide a reference as to where Joseph made this claim?

6 minutes ago, blueglass said:

There was a time period where he sent out Martin Harris to take characters he copies off the plates and visit scholars to compile an alphabet and grammar to help translate the book of mormon. 

Are you referencing the "caractors" document (the Anthon Transcript)?  If so, the characters were apparently copied by John Whitmer in 1827-1828 (see here) during the translation of the Book of Mormon.  And apparently there is some question as to whether this document was the one shown to Anthon.  Meanwhile, Joseph did not encounter the papyri until July 1835.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Remarkable, I would have thought much more stuff would have fallen off balconies and windows cracked at the very least.  That there is still clothing hanging off lines....

Climate change, is all I got to say. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

...................................

Would it help with what?  Would it help in determining Joseph Smith's familiarity with ancient Egyptian texts?  I'm not sure, since nobody seems to be claiming that he had any training about such things.

Quote

Joseph did claim to know reformed Egyptian with the help of seer stones. 

Could you provide a reference as to where Joseph made this claim?

Joseph never made such a claim.  He read the words transmitted by his seerstone.  He knew no Egyptian at all.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Are you referencing the "caractors" document (the Anthon Transcript)?  If so, the characters were apparently copied by John Whitmer in 1827-1828 (see here) during the translation of the Book of Mormon.  And apparently there is some question as to whether this document was the one shown to Anthon.  Meanwhile, Joseph did not encounter the papyri until July 1835................

The "Caractors Document" is unrelated to the Anthon Transcript, which has never been recovered.  How do we know?  Because Anthon's description doesn't match the Caractors Document.

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Joseph never made such a claim.  He read the words transmitted by his seerstone.  He knew no Egyptian at all

Hi Robert,

I think he did make such a claim, at least in  regards to Egyptian. In fact there are a few examples of him talking about his ability to speak multiple languages.

In General Joseph Smith’s Appeal to the Green Mountain Boys, December 1843 he wrote:

Quote

Were I a Chaldean I would exclaim: Keed’nauh ta-meroon le-hoam olauhayauh dey-shemayauh veh aur’kau lau gnaubadoo yabadoo ma-ar’gnau oomeen tehoat shemayauh alah. (Thus shall ye say unto them: The gods that have not made the heavens and earth, they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.)

An Egyptian: Su e-eh-ni: (What other persons are those?) A Grecian: Diabolos bassileuei: (The Devil reigns.) A Frenchman: Messieurs sans Dieu, (Gentlemen without God:) A Turk. Ain shems: (The fountain of light.) A German: sie sind unferstandig. (What consummat ignorance!) A Syrian: Zaubol. (Sacrifice!) A Spaniard: ll sabio muda conscio, il nescio no. (A wise man reflects, a fool does not.) A Samaritan: Saunau! (O Stranger!) An Italian: Oh tempa! oh diffidanza! (O the times! o the diffidence!) A Hebrew: Ahtauh ail rauey. (Thou God seest me.) A Dane: Hyad tidende! (What tidings!) A Saxon: Hwaet riht! (What right!) A Sweede: Hyad skilia: (What skill!) A Polander: Nav-yen-shoo bah pon na Jesu Christus; (Blessed be the name of Jesus Christ.) A Western Indian: She-mo-kah she-mo-keh teh ough-ne gah. (The white man, O the white man, he very uncertain.) A Roman: Procul, o procul este profani! (Be off, be off ye profane!) But as I am I will only add: when the wicked rule the people mourn.

And in the Times and Seasons, November 13, 1843, he wrote:

Quote

“Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is; [O the earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.

Of course it is all too easy to blame Phelps for this, but that ignores the fact that Joseph would have directed Phelps to write these statements and reviewed them. And then we have the GAEL which is an attempt at translating Egyptian itself and which Joseph Smith thought accurate enough to use to attempt a translation of the Kinderhook plates and considered publishing.

The Egyptian words Joseph uses above are from the GAEL. 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by CA Steve

[CA Steve]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure.  Gee has, though.  See here and here.

Andrew Cook has responded to Gee's rebuttal here.

After roundly criticizing Cook and Smith for their lack of Egyptological knowledge, it appears that it is Gee's lack of expertise in mathematics that is at issue.

From the link.

Quote

How then, did Gee manage to obtain such wildly different results from the two equivalent expressions for the same spiral formula? It’s hard to say for certain, since he doesn’t report any winding measurements or other basic information necessary to check his work

As far as I know, Gee has never responded.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Andrew Cook has responded to Gee's rebuttal here.

After roundly criticizing Cook and Smith for their lack of Egyptological knowledge, it appears that it is Gee's lack of expertise in mathematics that is at issue.

From the link.

As far as I know, Gee has never responded.

This is correct. And according to SMAC’s sources above he promised more to come in 2012. The silence is pretty deafening. Wasn’t Bill Schryver working on something too around the same time? As I recall there was a lot of talking about all the thickness measurements they took. 

Edited September 27, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Hi Robert,

I think he did make such a claim, at least in  regards to Egyptian. In fact there are a few examples of him talking about his ability to speak multiple languages.

In General Joseph Smith’s Appeal to the Green Mountain Boys, December 1843 he wrote:

And in the Times and Seasons, November 13, 1843, he wrote:

We have no reason to believe that Joseph wrote any of that, but plenty of reason to think that it was written for him.  There is no handwritten record.  He  may have indicated to his assistant what the general lines of the document should be, but nowhere in there does he claim to be able "to speak multiple languages."  What is presented is a series of citations or sayings in various languages.  In any case, we already know that use of a seerstone or interpreters does not ever confer on anyone the ability to read a language the way a scholar or native speaker does.  And Joseph never claimed that it did.

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Of course it is all too easy to blame Phelps for this, but that ignores the fact that Joseph would have directed Phelps to write these statements and reviewed them. And then we have the GAEL which is an attempt at translating Egyptian itself and which Joseph Smith thought accurate enough to use to attempt a translation of the Kinderhook plates and considered publishing.

The Egyptian words Joseph uses above are from the GAEL. 

Actually, all those words came directly from the Book of Abraham into the GAEL.  Moreover, there is no evidence that Joseph offered a translation of the Kinderhook Plates.  All we have are the statements of others placed, as per usual, in the first person in the History of the Church.  Scholars do not accept those statements as authentic.  We may as well falsely claim that the Christians on Pentecost in Acts 2 actually knew the foreign languages, rather than being enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The "Caractors Document" is unrelated to the Anthon Transcript, which has never been recovered.  How do we know?  Because Anthon's description doesn't match the Caractors Document.

Huh.  I learn something new every day!

The statements by Anthon, and the hearsay statements by Harris which he (Harris) attributed to Anthon, are an interesting evidentiary issue.  We all know what Harris said about the meeting:

Quote

“I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him.

“He then said to me, ‘Let me see that certificate.’ I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, ‘I cannot read a sealed book.’ I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.”

Who was Dr. Mitchell?  And do we have any statement from him?

In contrast, Anthon denied that he provided a written statement to Martin Harris (in an 1834 letter), and then a few years later said that he did (in 1841), and that he wrote "that the marks in the paper appeared to be merely an imitation of various alphabetical characters, and had, in my opinion, no meaning at all connected with them."  Neither of these claims jibe with Martin Harris' account, nor with his subsequent actions.  If Anthon really did tell Harris the characters were meaningless, why did Harris return home and mortgage his farm to pay for the publication of The Book of Mormon?

Moreover, taking a look at Anthon's description of what he was shown:

Quote

 The most intricate account of a characters document came from Charles Anthon, one of the scholars Martin Harris visited. Anthon reportedly described the paper shown to him as “a singular scrawl” that “consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns.” In an 1841 letter, Anthon reportedly stated that the document had “columns, like the Chinese mode of writing,” and “Greek, Hebrew, and all sorts of letters . . . intermingled with sundry delineations of half moons, stars, and other natural objects, and the whole ended in a rude representation of the Mexican zodiac.” If this description is accurate, the document Harris showed Anthon was longer and more complex than any of the surviving texts.

The "columns" comment is interesting, as I have understood that columnar writing in Egypt was overtaken by horizontal "row" writing well before Lehi's time.

The purported intermingling of Hebrew characters is also interesting, given the existence of "Palestinian hieratic."

It is also interesting that Anthon purportedly was able to attest to the accuracy of the translation of this 

Here's an image of the "Caractors" document:

So it's possible that this is not what Anthon was shown.  But could it also be that Anthon did not fairly characterize what he was shown?

Also, what are your thoughts about Jerry Grover's purported translation of this document?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 27, 2019 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

On 9/26/2019 at 11:03 AM, Tacenda said:

Climate change, is all I got to say. 

Climate change is responsible for earthquakes?  Hmmm.  Interesting.  Do you have a reference?

[smac97]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is correct. And according to SMAC’s sources above he promised more to come in 2012. The silence is pretty deafening. Wasn’t Bill Schryver working on something too around the same time? As I recall there was a lot of talking about all the thickness measurements they took. 

I agree that I would like to see Gee respond, but I'm not sure how significant these mathematical calculations are (in terms of evidence either against or for the Book of Abraham).

What are your thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

..........................

Who was Dr. Mitchell?  And do we have any statement from him?

No.  See my “Martin Harris’ Visit With Charles Anthon: Collected Documents on Short-Hand Egyptian,” FARMS Preliminary Report STF-85a (Provo: FARMS, 1985); 73pp; in BYU Library, Americana Collection, BX 8608 .A1a no.6012a  (Quarto / Floor 1–N).  Until recently, this was available online at the Maxwell Institute website, but they have now purged nearly all of their FARMS content.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

In contrast, Anthon denied that he provided a written statement to Martin Harris (in an 1834 letter), and then a few years later said that he did (in 1841), and that he wrote "that the marks in the paper appeared to be merely an imitation of various alphabetical characters, and had, in my opinion, no meaning at all connected with them."  Neither of these claims jibe with Martin Harris' account, nor with his subsequent actions.  If Anthon really did tell Harris the characters were meaningless, why did Harris return home and mortgage his farm to pay for the publication of The Book of Mormon?

Moreover, taking a look at Anthon's description of what he was shown:

The "columns" comment is interesting, as I have understood that columnar writing in Egypt was overtaken by horizontal "row" writing well before Lehi's time.

The Mark Hofmann forgery of the "original" Anthon Transcript followed the Anthon descriptions (he gave two), with a columnar display -- which is a legitimate Egyptian mode of display.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The purported intermingling of Hebrew characters is also interesting, given the existence of "Palestinian hieratic."

It is also interesting that Anthon purportedly was able to attest to the accuracy of the translation of this

Champollion was already famous in America, and Anthon had seen examples of Egyptian cursive in a Champollion Precis, so could have verified the similarities.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here's an image of the "Caractors" document:

So it's possible that this is not what Anthon was shown.  But could it also be that Anthon did not fairly characterize what he was shown?

What is very interesting about this Caractors Doc is that some of the characters repeat, and some are in groups.  The four top lines have large characters, the three bottom lines smaller.  Why?  When the repeated groups are analyzed, the top four lines form a large chiasm, while the bottom lines form another, partial chiasm.  However, the groupings in the bottom lines all begin with a hyphen or dash (in each unit of the chiasm).  These features were discovered by two separate guys, one LDS, the other RLDS, simultaneously.  One can examine those chiasms online at https://www.scribd.com/document/352354579/Chiasmus-in-Ancient-Egyptian-in-the-So-called-Anthon-Transcript .

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Also, what are your thoughts about Jerry Grover's purported translation of this document?.......

Grover is not there yet.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No.  See my “Martin Harris’ Visit With Charles Anthon: Collected Documents on Short-Hand Egyptian,” FARMS Preliminary Report STF-85a (Provo: FARMS, 1985); 73pp; in BYU Library, Americana Collection, BX 8608 .A1a no.6012a  (Quarto / Floor 1–N).  Until recently, this was available online at the Maxwell Institute website, but they have now purged nearly all of their FARMS content.

Is this "purge" a permanent thing?  Why on earth would the MI have done this?

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Mark Hofmann forgery of the "original" Anthon Transcript followed the Anthon descriptions (he gave two), with a columnar display -- which is a legitimate Egyptian mode of display.

Yes, he seemed to be hewing closely to Anthon's description.  It has the Mexican zodiac and everything.

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Champollion was already famous in America, and Anthon had seen examples of Egyptian cursive in a Champollion Precis, so could have verified the similarities.

Do we have any indication as to what the "translation" was that Harris provided to Anthon?

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What is very interesting about this Caractors Doc is that some of the characters repeat, and some are in groups.  The four top lines have large characters, the three bottom lines smaller.  Why?  When the repeated groups are analyzed, the top four lines form a large chiasm, while the bottom lines form another, partial chiasm.  However, the groupings in the bottom lines all begin with a hyphen or dash (in each unit of the chiasm).  These features were discovered by two separate guys, one LDS, the other RLDS, simultaneously.  One can examine those chiasms online at https://www.scribd.com/document/352354579/Chiasmus-in-Ancient-Egyptian-in-the-So-called-Anthon-Transcript .

Interesting stuff.  Thanks for the pointer.

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Grover is not there yet.

Have there been any other efforts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is this "purge" a permanent thing?  Why on earth would the MI have done this?

The material was/is being moved to the scholarsarchive BYU site, apparently the service moving it in June iirc really screwed up.  I have heard they are working on restoring what got lost.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/

If you have the old link saved, it might show up in the Internet Archive (wayback machine):

https://archive.org/about/

Edited September 27, 2019 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is this "purge" a permanent thing?  Why on earth would the MI have done this?

It really simplifies things (now they don't need an archive), and, yes, it is permanent.

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, he seemed to be hewing closely to Anthon's description.  It has the Mexican zodiac and everything.

Do we have any indication as to what the "translation" was that Harris provided to Anthon?

No.  Maybe Don Bradley will have a suggestion.

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

..........................Have there been any other efforts?..................

Yes, and all have been abject failures.