Jump to content

Missing Papyrus Theory


Recommended Posts

I know the topic of the Book of Abraham had probably been done to death on this board.  But I am just curious as to the state of the missing papyrus theory at this time.  Has it been completely debunked yet?  Or is it still a viable hypothesis.  

Personally I’m fine with the catalyst theory but I’m still open to the other option if there’s still any good reason to accept it.  

 

Link to post
23 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I know the topic of the Book of Abraham had probably been done to death on this board.  But I am just curious as to the state of the missing papyrus theory at this time.  Has it been completely debunked yet?  Or is it still a viable hypothesis.  

Personally I’m fine with the catalyst theory but I’m still open to the other option if there’s still any good reason to accept it.  

 

While I'm certain that you will find some adherents of the Missing Papyrus Theory on this board, the only viable explanation for the production of the Book of Abraham that holds any credibility, in my opinion, is the catalyst theory.  All other theories have been so thoroughly pulled to pieces that they no longer hold any for anyone who has studied the apologetic explanations. (again in my opinion)

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that Joseph cribbed the ideas that were available within his milieu.  For me the BoA doesn't need to be divine to be considered scripture.

Edited by Fair Dinkum
Link to post
28 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

For me the BoA doesn't need to be divine to be considered scripture.

Something can be scripture and not divine? Interesting.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I know the topic of the Book of Abraham had probably been done to death on this board.  But I am just curious as to the state of the missing papyrus theory at this time.  Has it been completely debunked yet?  Or is it still a viable hypothesis.  

Personally I’m fine with the catalyst theory but I’m still open to the other option if there’s still any good reason to accept it.  

 

 

43 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

While I'm certain that you will find some adherents of the Missing Papyrus Theory on this board, the only viable explanation for the production of the Book of Abraham that holds any credibility, in my opinion, is the catalyst theory.  All other theories have been so thoroughly pulled to pieces that they no longer hold any for anyone who has studied the apologetic explanations. (again in my opinion)

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that Joseph cribbed the ideas that were available within his milieu.  For me the BoA doesn't need to be divine to be considered scripture.

In 100 words or less, can either of you explain why you think the missing papyrus theory has no credibility? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Something can be scripture and not divine? Interesting.

Of course it can.  Hinduism has Gita and 4 Vedas, Christians have the Bible, Muslims have Koran and Sikhs have Guru Granth Sahib, and Buddhists have 3 Pitikäs.

Link to post
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

In 100 words or less, can either of you explain why you think the missing papyrus theory has no credibility? 

Sure, I can do it in 3 letters KEP

  • Like 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Sure, I can do it in 3 letters KEP

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. 
 

Perhaps I should add one word to my question: Can you explain intelligibly why you think the theory has no credibility? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. 
 

Perhaps I should add one word to my question: Can you explain intelligibly why you think the theory has no credibility? 

Bro Lloyd, you are familiar with the KEP correct?  Much of the KEP is in Joseph's own handwriting.  The rest is in the handwriting of his closest scribes.  On one half of the page is a Egyptian symbol and the other is it's supposed translation.  Abraham Chapter 1 is found within the supposed translations found in the KEP.  No need for any longer or missing papyri roll, its right there, both within the KEP and the Papyri owned by the church.  Nothing is missing.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-abraham-manuscript-circa-july-circa-november-1835-c-abraham-11-218/3

Edited by Fair Dinkum
  • Like 1
Link to post
41 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Bro Lloyd, you are familiar with the KEP correct?  Much of the KEP is in Joseph's own handwriting.  The rest is in the handwriting of his closest scribes.  On one half of the page is a Egyptian symbol and the other is it's supposed translation.  Abraham Chapter 1 is found within the supposed translations found in the KEP.  No need for any longer or missing papyri roll, its right there, both within the KEP and the Papyri owned by the church.  Nothing is missing.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-abraham-manuscript-circa-july-circa-november-1835-c-abraham-11-218/3

From your link:

“As discussed in the general introduction to the Book of Abraham manuscripts on this website, JS and his scribes 

Oliver Cowdery, William W. Phelps, Frederick G. Williams, and 

Warren Parrish spent considerable time in the second half of 1835 engaged in two separate yet related endeavors: the translation of the Book of Abraham, which yielded several Abraham manuscripts; and a language-study effort that produced a number of Egyptian alphabet and grammar manuscripts. Both types of manuscripts exhibit connections to the papyri in JS’s possession and, according to the historical record, both projects occurred roughly concurrently. However, there is presently not enough information to definitively ascertain how these two projects are related to each other or to the revelatory process.”

(Boldface emphasis mine)

So I take it, then, that the answer to my question, “Canyou explain intelligibly why you think the theory has no credibility?“ is no. 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Rivers said:

I know the topic of the Book of Abraham had probably been done to death on this board.  But I am just curious as to the state of the missing papyrus theory at this time.  Has it been completely debunked yet?  Or is it still a viable hypothesis.  

Personally I’m fine with the catalyst theory but I’m still open to the other option if there’s still any good reason to accept it.  

 

Completely debunked. There is a reason Hauglid called Gee’s work here abhorrent. From a different thread I wrote:

Based on the most reliable early witness statements we know what was on the papyri. There were two scrolls, one allegedly from Joseph and one from Abraham. Based on witness descriptions we know that the breathing permit for Hor was the one that allegedly contained Abraham’s writings. Based on the fragments we have Gee and others postulated an absurd length of missing papyrus from this scroll as the source of the book of Abraham. Klaus Baer estimates 59 cm missing, Cook and Smith have independently estimated 56 cm using a different method. The text of the book of Abraham needs about 10 times this amount of space. Gee has stated (without showing his work or math) that more than 12 meters was missing. This is just not supportable. There is no missing papyrus sufficient to explain the book of Abraham. The missing papyrus theory is dead. 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72277-terryl-givens-interview-of-dr-kerry-muhlestein/?do=findComment&comment=1209933129

There are several follow up posts in the thread. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, Rivers said:

Something can be scripture and not divine? Interesting.

i'm the opposite🥰

Link to post
20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Completely debunked. There is a reason Hauglid called Gee’s work here abhorrent. From a different thread I wrote:

Based on the most reliable early witness statements we know what was on the papyri. There were two scrolls, one allegedly from Joseph and one from Abraham. Based on witness descriptions we know that the breathing permit for Hor was the one that allegedly contained Abraham’s writings. Based on the fragments we have Gee and others postulated an absurd length of missing papyrus from this scroll as the source of the book of Abraham. Klaus Baer estimates 59 cm missing, Cook and Smith have independently estimated 56 cm using a different method. The text of the book of Abraham needs about 10 times this amount of space. Gee has stated (without showing his work or math) that more than 12 meters was missing. This is just not supportable. There is no missing papyrus sufficient to explain the book of Abraham. The missing papyrus theory is dead. 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72277-terryl-givens-interview-of-dr-kerry-muhlestein/?do=findComment&comment=1209933129

There are several follow up posts in the thread. 

That was a nice discussion last September, but one needs to be aware that we do not yet have Hauglid's full presentation of why he attacks Egyptologist Gee in such an unscholarly fashion as "abhorrent."  It would be much better if Hauglid, whose specialty is Arabic, not Egyptology, could explain in dispassionate terms where Gee has gone wrong.  The scholarly world is filled with divergent views on all kinds of things, but there is no call for emotional name-calling.

Since we lack most of the papyri which were available in Kirtland in 1835, we don't actually have any sort of certainty that "the missing papyrus theory is dead," or if it is even necessary.  Gee himself does a fair job of presenting the basic facts in his Introduction to the Book of Abraham (BYU Religious Studies Center/Deseret Book, 2017).  Perhaps you could review it for us.

  • Like 4
Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not true.  Very little of KEP is in Joseph's hand (some on only one manuscript, and his signature on another).  Nearly all of it is in the hand of several scribes, and we even know the approximate dates when they were produced.  We also know that the cipher-key work of one of those scribes, William W. Phelps, had already begun before the arrival of the mummies and papyri in Kirtland (he discusses it with his wife by letter already May 27, 1835).  So the non-causal correlation of Egyptian and non-Egyptian signs on some documents which contain some early duplicate parts of the BofA English text provides no more than Phelps' cipher-key work.  He and the other scribes went down a blind alley if they thought that was any sort of key to translating Egyptian.  There are far more productive methods of assessing Joseph's translation ability.

For example, see this short video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WTwQml8MaE

The video you pointed to does not address any of the physical evidence against the Book of Abraham.  It is a talk about interpretation of the writing itself, most of which is highly subjective.  I think the questions that arise about the Book of Abraham is the actual physical evidence rather than faith based evidence.  This video addresses the physical evidence, which I think the question was about.

 

 

Edited by california boy
  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That was a nice discussion last September, but one needs to be aware that we do not yet have Hauglid's full presentation of why he attacks Egyptologist Gee in such an unscholarly fashion as "abhorrent."  It would be much better if Hauglid, whose specialty is Arabic, not Egyptology, could explain in dispassionate terms where Gee has gone wrong.  The scholarly world is filled with divergent views on all kinds of things, but there is no call for emotional name-calling.

Since we lack most of the papyri which were available in Kirtland in 1835, we don't actually have any sort of certainty that "the missing papyrus theory is dead," or if it is even necessary.  Gee himself does a fair job of presenting the basic facts in his Introduction to the Book of Abraham (BYU Religious Studies Center/Deseret Book, 2017).  Perhaps you could review it for us.

This one on Amazon seems pretty spot on for other work from Gee that I have reviewed:

Quote

For a MUCH better introduction to the Book of Abraham, get the church published Joseph Smith Papers https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Papers-Revelations-Translations/dp/1629724807. It is much better. John Gee has perpetuated confusions and misconceptions surrounding the Book of Abraham that make it harder to understand and cloud the landscape for the honest seeker of truth. He is SO convinced that there was a longer scroll and that we do not have the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated. He is SO convinced that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with the Alphabet and Grammar, that he ignores the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

I would ask Dr. Gee:
- Why were Facsimile #1 and #3 labeled as "From the Book of Abraham" if they really weren't?
- Why do characters from the Papyri that we have show up sequentially in three different translation manuscripts, from three different scribes, with the column headers of "character", and "translation"?
- Joseph Smith said that the other scroll was the Book of Joseph. Was the Book of Joseph also appended to the second scroll?
- Who are these unnamed and unsourced "mormon and non-mormon" eye witnesses who saw a "long scroll"? From my research into your other writings, every source you have, saw the scrolls AFTER they had been cut up and put into picture frames. None of your sources were involved in the purchase or translation. Why do you NOT mention that David Whitmer and W.W. Phelps said they purchased but 2 scrolls and some scattered papyri?
- If Joseph Smith had nothing to do with the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, why would he consult it at all?
- If Joseph Smith had nothing to do with the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, why is there an Egyptian Alphabet in Joseph Smith's own handwriting?
- If Joseph Smith had nothing to do with the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, why are they mentioned in his journals, multiple times?
- If W.W. Phelps wrote the Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet, why do other scribes handwriting also show up there?
- What evidence do you possibly have that the Egyptian Documents were in W.W. Phelps possession? This is incredibly puzzling to me how you even got to this conclusion.
- If the Alphabet and Grammar were a reverse translation of the Book of Abraham, why do they deal only sparsely with the Book of Abraham?
- How do you respond to Egyptologist Robert Ritner's charges of plagiarism?
- How do you respond to Mormon and Non-Mormon scholars who charge you with atrocious scholarship (i.e. Brian Hauglid, Brent Metcalfe, Robert Ritner, among others)?
- Do you know of ANY other LDS Egyptologists that concur with your conclusions besides Kerry Muhlestein? You wouldn't get it from reading this book, but your views are HIGHLY controversial, even within the church. Why do you gloss over any controversy and present your views as verified fact?
- Why did you fail to address anachronisms in your text (i.e., the words 'potiphar', 'chaldeans', Egyptian human sacrifice, etc.)?

Do not read this book. What you find in this book are half truths, mingled with the philosophies of Dr. Gee.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

The video you pointed to does not address any of the physical evidence against the Book of Abraham.  It is a talk about interpretation of the writing itself, most of which is highly subjective.  I think the questions that arise about the Book of Abraham is the actual physical evidence rather than faith based evidence.  This video addresses the physical evidence, which I think the question was about.

 

 

This is a great video that cuts through the obfuscation of Gee and Muhlestein quite nicely. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. 
 

Perhaps I should add one word to my question: Can you explain intelligibly why you think the theory has no credibility? 

The Book of Abraham text itself (Abraham 1:12-14) refers to Facsimile 1 which appears at the beginning of the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll which we have. Furthermore, Abraham 1:12 states that Facsimile 1 appears “at the commencement of this record” which is consistent with the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll being the source of the Book of Abraham since Facsimile 1 appears at the beginning of that scroll.

 

All three of the 1835 manuscripts of the Book of Abraham are made up of Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin and a translation of them into the Book of Abraham on the right. All of these Egyptian characters in the manuscripts are taken from the Breathing Permit of Hor in the order they appear on the papyrus, indicating that the Breathing Permit of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll has been translated and there is no disagreement that it has nothing to do with the Smith’s translation of Book of Abraham but is instead a common Egyptian funerary text from the first or second century BC.

 

The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll we have has a missing portion but we know the Book of Abraham could not have appeared there because it is 13 times too small to contain the Book of Abraham,

 

The Missing Papyrus Theory fails to account for the incorrectly translated and incorrectly restored facsimiles.

 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64547-boa-catalyst-and-missing-papyrus-theories-both-deeply-flawed/

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tz1iy4q7w39wvor/The Book of Abraham Criticisms Defenses and Implications.pdf

Link to post
5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This one on Amazon seems pretty spot on for other work from Gee that I have reviewed:

That Joseph Smith Papers volume is very helpful.  We can agree on that.  I also like Hauglid's Textual History of the BofA (BYU Maxwell Institute, 2010).

What I don't understand is the need for angry denunciations in that Amazon review, based almost exclusively on false premises -- listed in repetitive, polemic fashion -- rather than calmly trying to throw light on the issues.  The great Egyptologist John A. Wilson reviewed an earlier generation of similar anti-Mormon polemic as “a lot of indignant snorts” inimical to good scholarship (Wilson, Thousands of Years, 176).

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The Book of Abraham text itself (Abraham 1:12-14) refers to Facsimile 1 which appears at the beginning of the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll which we have. Furthermore, Abraham 1:12 states that Facsimile 1 appears “at the commencement of this record” which is consistent with the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll being the source of the Book of Abraham since Facsimile 1 appears at the beginning of that scroll.

I have mentioned many times before on this board that it might be helpful to read closely, in scholarly fashion.  What one finds in doing that is that your basic claims here are false and misleading.  The BofA English text clearly refers to a Chaldean representation at the outset, along with the names of Chaldean gods, such as Elkenah and Libnah.  That is what we should expect from the original Vorlage, which we no longer have.  Instead, the Graeco-Roman period Jewish tradent or redactor has substituted an Egyptian illustration from the Book of Breathings (a miniature Book of the Dead).  The text is referencing some sacrifices taking place in North Syria, in the vicinity of Abe's homeland.  During Abe's lifetime (Middle Bronze Age/Egyptian Middle Kingdom), Egypt actually had a lot of influence in that area, and the notion that they and Chaldeans should be conducting human sacrifice there should not be controversial.

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

All three of the 1835 manuscripts of the Book of Abraham are made up of Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin and a translation of them into the Book of Abraham on the right. All of these Egyptian characters in the manuscripts are taken from the Breathing Permit of Hor in the order they appear on the papyrus, indicating that the Breathing Permit of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll has been translated and there is no disagreement that it has nothing to do with the Smith’s translation of Book of Abraham but is instead a common Egyptian funerary text from the first or second century BC.

No scholar ever assumes that a one to one relationship between some symbols and an English text opposite mean a causal relationship.  That is always a fallacy.  This is especially true given Phelps' stated cipher interests which preceded the arrival of papyri in Kirtland.  Sure, he and his fellow scribes may have had the belief that this might be a way of finding a translation key to the papyri, but the large amount of text associated with a single symbol seems absurd to the casual observer.  However, dismissing the Breathing text as "a common Egyptian funerary text" is also incorrect.  That text, and other such texts in the Book of the Dead tradition (Pyramid and Coffin texts), are liturgical in nature, and used by the living in their temple worship.  They take copies with them when they go to the other side as well.  Just as Christians believe that the Resurrection of Jesus is the way to their own resurrection, so the Egyptians believed that the dying-and-rising god Osiris likewise guides the way for resurrection of the righteous.  Egyptologists refer to this as Osirification.  Thus, the owner of the Breathing Permit of Hor is the Osiris-Hor.  He plans to rise just like Osiris.

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll we have has a missing portion but we know the Book of Abraham could not have appeared there because it is 13 times too small to contain the Book of Abraham,

The Missing Papyrus Theory fails to account for the incorrectly translated and incorrectly restored facsimiles.

Actually, the illustration explanations are surprisingly accurate.  Have you ever bothered to take stock of them?  I have.  Not only are they explained accurately, but actual translation of the Egyptian characters are provided, some of which match the words in other Abrahamic pseudepigrapha.  It is true that the anti-Mormon polemicists don't agree, but I don't know even one of them who has bothered to review the facts.  Too easy to just dismiss them and have done with it.  Apriori.

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Yeh, way back in 2014.  That was Bill Reel's post wasn't it?  Just looking through it, I have to agree with the summation of Drums12:  "I believe Kevin Barney's Semitic Adaptation theory is the most plausible of apologetic arguments.  Also, it seems to me that critics primarily focus on the production of the BofA, not its content."  And of course Bill admitted that this was true.

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tz1iy4q7w39wvor/The Book of Abraham Criticisms Defenses and Implications.pdf

My reply to Bill on that very piece was as follows:

Quote

So, Bill, if you didn't write it, did you get it from TruthSeeker at the Mormondiscussions web site in his DropBox?  https://www.dropbox.com/s/tz1iy4q7w39wvor/The%20Book%20of%20Abraham%20Criticisms%20Defenses%20and%20Implications.pdf .  I recall that he presented his arguments from that same piece back in 2013 right here on this board, and I gave it a critique at that time.  My primary problem with his work is that he didn't bother to take scholarship on the matter into serious consideration, and so presented a quite naive and very one-sided set of arguments.  You have repeated the gist of his case herewith, and did not even bother to cite your source.  That doesn't bode well for throwing light on the issue.  Or do you think your approach is O.K.?

Canard78 then said:  "The exact wording is copied from a thread on the NOM board. DB linked to it earlier. The context is that DB had asked people with concerns to summarise their key issues so he could gather and source faith promoting responses which would then probably summarise in a future faith-promoting podcast."

  • Like 4
Link to post
8 hours ago, california boy said:

The video you pointed to does not address any of the physical evidence against the Book of Abraham.  It is a talk about interpretation of the writing itself, most of which is highly subjective.  I think the questions that arise about the Book of Abraham is the actual physical evidence rather than faith based evidence.  This video addresses the physical evidence, which I think the question was about....................................

A nice video from MormonThink, as anti-Mormon videos go.  Too bad they are uninterested in scholarship.  While it is true that the very short video I cited does not take a lot of time to view, and does not include an extensive discussion, I deliberately chose not to be too demanding.  Some people on this board have short interest spans, and cannot sit through long videos or read complex books.

Rather than the MormonThink video, however, if one really wants to know the nature and content of the actual papyri, he could take a look at John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (FARMS, 2000).  It's been available for twenty years.

More even-handed presentations on the papyri and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are available.  I'll cite a couple here, in case you are interested:

Pearl of Great Price Central, “What Egyptian Papyri Did Joseph Smith Possess?” Book of Abraham Insight #37, Jan 28, 2020, online at https://www.pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/what-egyptian-papyri-did-joseph-smith-possess/ .

Pearl of Great Price Central, “The ‘Kirtland Egyptian Papers’ and the Book of Abraham,” Book of Abraham Insight #38, Jan 29, 2020, online at https://www.pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/the-kirtland-egyptian-papers-and-the-book-of-abraham/ .

By the way, I have nothing to do with these items.

Link to post

What is Hauglid's orientation vis a vis the Church? I remember his FAIR Conference talk sometime around 2008-ish. I ask because of his choice of words.

Quote

For the record, I no longer hold the views that have been quoted from my 2010 book in these videos. I have moved on from my days as an

“outrageous” apologist. In fact, I’m no longer interested or involved in apologetics in any way. I wholeheartedly agree with Dan’s [Dan Vogel’s] excellent assessment of the Abraham/Egyptian documents in these videos.3

I now reject a missing Abraham manuscript.

I agree that two of the Abraham manuscripts were simultaneously dictated.

I agree that the Egyptian papers were used to produce the BoA.

I agree that only Abr. 1:1-2:18 were produced in 1835 and that Abr. 2:19-5:21 were produced in Nauvoo.

And on and on.

I no longer agree with Gee or Mulhestein. I find their apologetic “scholarship” on the BoA abhorrent. One can find that I’ve changed my mind in my recent and forthcoming publications. The most recent JSP Revelations and Translation vol. 4, The Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts (now on the shelves) is much more open to Dan’s thinking on the origin of the Book of Abraham. My friend Brent Metcalfe can attest to my transformative journey.

Not that losing interest "in any way" for apologetics signals a loss of faith (many believing people aren't interested in it), but choosing to refer to oneself as "outrageous" (he was very mild and even-keeled in the heart of his "outrageous" period, so I'm not sure what he wants to convey by tagging himself as outrageous. Is this a dog whistle?) stands out. 

Pointing to Brent Metcalfe to testify about his "transformative journey" also seems to couch in terms of exit story. But not conclusively, so I'm not sure. I know he was a bishop at the time he gave his FAIR Conference talk. He was also working with Will Schryver until he abruptly wasn't and didn't want any contact any more (which may have been because of Schryver's baggage). 

Is there any more information that would shed light on whether Hauglid no longer believes LDS truth claims? He hasn't gone Bokovoy on us, has he? 

I'm just curious for my own knowledge. 

Edited by rongo
Link to post

I hate the quote feature, by the way. Flip of the coin whether your whole thing, quote and commentary, will be in a quote box or not, and it's impossible to edit afterwards. And I've started making sure that the "close quote" has the brackets and the slash along with quote, so it isn't that. 

Would not recommend. Would not buy again. One star out of five.  ;) 

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...