Jump to content

Missing Papyrus Theory


Recommended Posts

Just now, smac97 said:

I provided an additional one as well.

Perhaps you could do a little more research for yourself, rather than repeatedly asking me to do it for you?

And perhaps your efforts to study this matter could consist of more than two minutes using CTRL+F in a pdf file (since you posted the above only three minutes after I posted mine)?

Thanks,

-Smac

I already read it, Smac.  I know the source of the quote and have read it.  I don't see any source for his claim, other than the Jerusha quote.  But that doesn't work, obviously. 

Link to post
12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

I think he should have presented an evidence-based, reasoned argument.  Instead, he publicly maligned his professional peers with conclusory and provocative (and offensive) cheap shots.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think he's presented his research as evidence-based, reasoned argument.  That's why he points readers to it.

He did?  I have seen his post on Facebook (responding to a YouTube video posted by Dan Vogel):

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 excellent assessment of the Abraham/Egyptian documents in these videos. 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.

You said he"points readers to it {his evidence-based, reasoned argument}."  Is the above what you have in mind?  It seems so, since below you call his "argument" a "rough condemnation," which is presumably a reference to his using scare quotes for Gee's and Muhlestein's scholarship, and also calling it "abhorrent."

So the above Facebook post is your idea of an "evidence-based, reasoned argument?"

Quote

It is a rough condemnation though.  Perhaps he could have done it in a nicer way.  

Yes.

And perhaps he could have presented evidence and reasoning, rather than broad, conclusory assertions and cheap shots.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2
Link to post
9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

I provided an additional one as well.

Perhaps you could do a little more research for yourself, rather than repeatedly asking me to do it for you?

And perhaps your efforts to study this matter could consist of more than two minutes using CTRL+F in a pdf file (since you posted the above only three minutes after I posted mine)?

I already read it, Smac.  I know the source of the quote and have read it.  I don't see any source for his claim, other than the Jerusha quote.  But that doesn't work, obviously. 

There is literally a one-minute difference between my post (quoted above) and your response to it.

Again, perhaps your efforts to study this matter could consist of . . . more?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 3
Link to post
37 minutes ago, rongo said:

One of the commenters at your link pointed out just how much he's going out of his way, not just to disagree with Gee and Muhlestein, but to salt their fields, figuratively. There is more at play than academic disagreement, and even than mere hatred or distaste. It's like the quote about Lenin (I think from Trotsky): he doesn't just chop your head off, he holds it up to show everyone that it's empty. It's the sort of rage that seems to accompany personal apostasy (bitterness at what a dupe you were, and trying to make up for it by scorching the earth).

Sad. 

As was also pointed out at your link, the Gospel topics essay on the BoA relies heavily on Hauglid and much less so than Gee and Muhlestein. He has disavowed several key footnotes attributed to views he no longer agrees with. I wonder if part of his anger is that he doesn't want to be connected with that any more. 

Here's an informative blog post addressing Hauglid's "transformative journey" (it also includes a list of related blog posts, some of which are likely also illuminating, and some comments from posters, which are generally not very helpful): https://mormanity.blogspot.com/2019/03/friendly-fire-from-byu-opening-old-book.html

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is literally a one-minute difference between my post (quoted above) and your response to it.

Again, perhaps your efforts to study this matter could consist of . . . more?

Thanks,

-Smac

As I said I've already looked through it.  I"m asking a particular question of you--is there any reason to take his comment as supported?  I don't see it.  If you have something i'd like to see it.  

 

 

Link to post
21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As to the ideas Joseph was supposed to have cribbed from information available in his own time, that approach just won't wash.  Too many key points were simply unknown in his day, which should be impossible for the BofA to contain.

Such as?

Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

I saw recently that Dan Vogel did some videos on the book of abraham at least one year ago.  Has anyone taken these videos to task?

No and Vogel answers most of the historical questions regarding the missing scroll theory Dr. Gee is trying to defend.

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, rongo said:

They were from Hauglid, on Facebook. They're the same source for his "Gee's work is abhorrent" statement. The quotes around outrageous were his; I'm not sure what he meant by them. I think he was signalling that he thought his prior efforts were outrageous, but that he doesn't think like that now. 

I'd love to be wrong, but it sounds to me like Brian Hauglid might have soured on the Church. 

Hate to say it, but it’s looking that way. 
 

As for the quotation marks, if he’s using them for any reason other than to quote himself or someone else, he’s using them improperly. Quotation marks should not be used to show emphasis. A writer has other tools at his disposal for that purpose: italics, boldface and underscore

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

As I said I've already looked through it.  I"m asking a particular question of you--is there any reason to take his comment as supported?

Yes, I think there may be.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 I don't see it.  If you have something i'd like to see it.  

Good luck in your investigation and research.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
4 hours ago, rongo said:

I'd love to be wrong, but it sounds to me like Brian Hauglid might have soured on the Church.

Because questioning someone's testimony is much easier than actually finding out why they think the way they do.

I expected better of you than this remark.

Link to post
36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I think there may be.

Good luck in your investigation and research.

Thanks,

-Smac

If there is, I'd like to see it.  Can you help?  I've already done my research.  His quoted sentence doesn't work and it appeared you agreed when you suggested the young girl is not a good source to suggest "Mormon and non-Mormon eyewitnesses from the nineteenth century agree that it was a “roll of papyrus from which [Joseph Smith] translated the Book of Abraham,”"  

It seemed you were content her words remained a good source to suggest there was a roll of papyrus.  

 

 

 

Link to post
7 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Because questioning someone's testimony is much easier than actually finding out why they think the way they do.

I expected better of you than this remark.

Perhaps he could come on here and clarify. If I remember correctly, he is registered here, or has been in times past. 

Link to post
22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

Yes, I think there may be.

Good luck in your investigation and research.

If there is, I'd like to see it. 

Have fun in your efforts, then.

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Can you help? 

What is it you think I can do that you cannot?

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've already done my research. 

In the 1-3 minutes between my posts and your responses thereto?  That's "research?"

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

His quoted sentence doesn't work and it appeared you agreed when you suggested the young girl is not a good source to suggest "Mormon and non-Mormon eyewitnesses from the nineteenth century agree that it was a “roll of papyrus from which [Joseph Smith] translated the Book of Abraham,”"  

It seemed you were content her words remained a good source to suggest there was a roll of papyrus.  

You seem to be hung up on the "non-Mormon" part.  As you seem interested in that, I encourage you to explore it through further study.

Have you read anything else on this topic?  Have you emailed Dr. Gee?  Have you done any original research?

You have suggested that Dr. Gee, a fairly well-regarded scholar, was referring to one single source when he described a purported consensus amongst known "Mormon and non-Mormon {19th-century} eyewitnesses."  I think you should re-visit that idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
26 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Because questioning someone's testimony is much easier than actually finding out why they think the way they do.

I expected better of you than this remark.

I'm just sharing what it looks like to me, based on his remarks. Maybe he's lost his testimony, maybe he hasn't, but his over-the-top language stands out. Especially compared to other presentations he did (e.g., the FAIR Conference) when he didn't find this view "abhorrent." Others have also commented on presentations he did where he seemed completely out of character, based on the past (and given that he was disavowing and breaking with his past positions, and speaking about colleagues in an inflammatory way, nervousness is understandable). 

I know what he has argued (and is arguing) about the KEP and the papyri. I'm fine with him concluding that Gee & Muhlestein are wrong, but putting scare quotes around "scholarship" crosses an academic line. It seeks to cancel them as not real scholars, to pain them as pseudo- or wannabe scholars. Synonyms for abhorrent are: despicable, reprehensible, detestable, loathsome, repulsive, execrable, revolting. Can you see why it crosses an academic line to refer to scholarship and arguments you disagree with (or think misread or are wrong about the data) in these terms, when their arguments, conclusions, and use of evidence aren't even close to being despicable, reprehensible, detestable, loathsome, repulsive, execrable, revolting?

am trying to understand why he thinks this about their (clearly, in his view, wrong) arguments. Not why they are wrong (he has made that clear). But, why he finds them to be the equivalent of disgusting. Until he gets into this, all we have are his past comments. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:
Quote

As to the ideas Joseph was supposed to have cribbed from information available in his own time, that approach just won't wash.  Too many key points were simply unknown in his day, which should be impossible for the BofA to contain.

Such as?

Have you reviewed the "Book of Abraham Insights" portion of the Pearl of Great Price Central website?

FAIR's treatment is pretty good.

Thanks,

-Smac

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

I already read it, Smac.  I know the source of the quote and have read it.  I don't see any source for his claim, other than the Jerusha quote.  But that doesn't work, obviously. 

So none of the other Mormon and non-Mormon sources cited by Gee have any value?  Jerusha was the only source he mentioned?

William S. West, Josiah Quincy, Henry Caswall, Charlotte Haven, etc.  Who are these people?

  • Like 4
Link to post
17 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm just sharing what it looks like to me, based on his remarks. Maybe he's lost his testimony, maybe he hasn't, but his over-the-top language stands out. Especially compared to other presentations he did (e.g., the FAIR Conference) when he didn't find this view "abhorrent." Others have also commented on presentations he did where he seemed completely out of character, based on the past (and given that he was disavowing and breaking with his past positions, and speaking about colleagues in an inflammatory way, nervousness is understandable). 

I know what he has argued (and is arguing) about the KEP and the papyri. I'm fine with him concluding that Gee & Muhlestein are wrong, but putting scare quotes around "scholarship" crosses an academic line. It seeks to cancel them as not real scholars, to pain them as pseudo- or wannabe scholars. Synonyms for abhorrent are: despicable, reprehensible, detestable, loathsome, repulsive, execrable, revolting. Can you see why it crosses an academic line to refer to scholarship and arguments you disagree with (or think misread or are wrong about the data) in these terms, when their arguments, conclusions, and use of evidence aren't even close to being despicable, reprehensible, detestable, loathsome, repulsive, execrable, revolting?

am trying to understand why he thinks this about their (clearly, in his view, wrong) arguments. Not why they are wrong (he has made that clear). But, why he finds them to be the equivalent of disgusting. Until he gets into this, all we have are his past comments. 

Hauglid's comments were way out of line.  If he wants to make a substantive, scholarly case for his current POV, we should have no problem with that.  I hope that he publishes on this, instead of name-calling.  :pirate:

  • Like 2
Link to post
22 hours ago, smac97 said:

So I guess I am noting that we are dealing with evidence that is quite speculative (the mathematical estimates you rely on) and fragmentary and vague and of uneven probative value (the various historical accounts).

I don’t really care anymore so I won’t be responding in detail, but I will respond to this. Your whole post is just obscuring the plain and simple truth.
 

Witness statements show the book of Abraham coming from the Hor Scroll. The facsimile is on the hor scroll and refers to Hor by name. The KEP translates the Book of Abraham from the Hor scroll. 
 

The Hor scroll is a book of breathing. Scholars have read it and have estimated about 56 missing centimeters in a standard version.

 

The mathematical estimate for length is not speculative. It is definitive. That’s the way math works. If you know the winding length, you know the scroll length. Gee has basically ceded this point by his silence over the last several years. Will Schriver (who was likewise working on length) has likewise been silent. The scroll length calculation would have to be off by orders of magnitude to fit the book of Abraham. 


What is even more definitive is the fact the  scroll length from the simple math equation exactly matches how long the scroll should be if it was nothing out of the ordinary. 
 

Again for anyone with eyes to see, the missing papyrus theory is dead. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to post
40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t really care anymore and your whole post is just obscuring the plain and simple truth.
 

Witness statements show the book of Abraham coming from the Hor Scroll. The facsimile is on the hor scroll and refers to Hor by name. The KEP translates the Book of Abraham from the Hor scroll. 
 

The Hor scroll is a book of breathing. Scholars have read it and have estimated about 56 missing centimeters in a standard version.

 

The mathematical estimate for length is not speculative. It is definitive. That’s the way math works. If you know the winding length, you know the scroll length. Gee has basically ceded this point by his silence over the last several years. Will Schriver (who was likewise working on length) has likewise been silent. The scroll length calculation would have to be off by orders of magnitude to fit the book of Abraham. 


What is even more definitive, is the fact the  scroll length from the simple math equation exactly matches how long the scroll should be if it was nothing out of the ordinary. 
 

Again for anyone with eyes to see, the missing papyrus theory is dead. 

For one who doesn’t really care anymore, you certainly come across as dogmatic. 

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...