Missing Papyrus Theory

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Have fun in your efforts, then.

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

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

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

It used to be when someone answered a question by linking a whole paper, that was frowned upon around here.  I've read the paper you linked a few times, previously.  I know what it says.  That's why when you linked it, it took me a minute to respond.  I was very familiar.   It is quite possible to answer with a "I don't know" instead of sending people down silly paths while playing games with cryptic unhelpful clues.  

Thanks, I suppose I should take your non-response as a "I don't know".  

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It used to be when someone answered a question by linking a whole paper, that was frowned upon around here. 

That's for CFRs, I believe.

You understand I don't work for you, right?  That I am not obligated to do research and investigation when you snap your fingers?

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've read the paper you linked a few times, previously.  I know what it says.  That's why when you linked it, it took me a minute to respond.  I was very familiar.   It is quite possible to answer with a "I don't know" instead of sending people down silly paths while playing games with cryptic unhelpful clues.  

Thanks, I suppose I should take your non-response as a "I don't know".  

Or you could take it as a "You have a question?  Great!  Figure out the answer for yourself.  Perhaps spend more than 1-3 minutes on the matter.  You may also want to read responses from other posters."

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

Thanks Robert for stepping in a trying to answer.  Let us consider:

William S. West:

Quote

The Mormons have four mummies, and a quantity of records, written on papyrus, in Egyptian hieroglyphics, which were brought from the catacombs near Thebes, in Egypt. They say that the mummies were Egyptian, but the records are those of Abraham and Joseph, and contain important information respecting the creation, the fall of man, the deluge, the patriarchs, the book of Mormon, the lost tribe, the gathering, the end of the world, the judgment, &c. &c. This is as near as I can recollect; if there is an error I hope some of the Mormons will point it out, and I will recall it. These records were torn by being taken from the roll of embalming salve which contained them, and some parts entirely lost; but Smith is to translate the whole by divine inspiration, and that which is lost, like Nebuchadnezzar's dream, can be interpreted as well as that which is preserved; and a larger volume than the Bible will be required to contain them. For further account of these mummies and records, see Mormon Advocate, of December, 1835.


 

---

 

 

{ 6 }

It is possible that a record written by Abraham, and another by Joseph, containing the most important revelation that god ever gave to man, should be entirely lost by the tenacious Israelites, and preserved by the unbelieving Egyptians, and by them embalmed and deposited in the catacombs with an Egyptian priest, there to lay in oblivion for may ages, and finally obtained by Antonio Lebolo and brought to Kirtland, Ohio, and bought by the Mormons, that Joseph Smith, the money-digger, might add them to his fictitious bible, and blasphemous revelations!! I venture to say no, it is not possible. It is more likely that the records are those of the Egyptians; and who is so slothful and vile as to sit in submissive silence while these wicked impostors are so active in filling the world with false bibles, false revelations, false pretensions, false doctrine and fanaticism. I answer no one, who is possessed of one grain of common sense, two grains of understanding, and three drops of philanthropic blood. Let it no longer be said, that the Mormons are incapable of doing any harm; let them alone and they will destroy themselves, &c., for a knowledge of their proceeding unfolds many cunning plans to accomplish deep designs. "A stitch in time saves nine." And had they been properly exposed when they commenced operations, they never would have troubled the good people of Ohio: but the Smith family were so worthless, and so full of pretensions which had all come to naught, that they were beneath public notice, and no excitement prevailed: but it was not know that Sidney Rigdon was at the bottom of it, which evidently was the case. See Mormonism Unveiled, page 278, 290, inclusive.

I don't see anything here, describing which distinguished papyrus had the story of Abraham on it.  Do you?  

Josiah Quincy:

Quote

They were preserved under glass and handled with great respect. "That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful," said the prophet. "This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the creation, from which Moses composed the first book of Genesis." The parchment last referred to showed a rude drawing of a man and woman, and a serpent walking upon a pair of legs. I ventured to doubt the propriety of providing the reptile in question with this unusual means of locomotion.

It appears Quincy has contradicted Gee's conclusion of the papyrus with Abraham's story was found on a long scroll not on a piece mounted, and put under glass.  

Henry Caswall:

Quote

From this he drew forth a number of glazed slides, like picture                                 OR,  THREE  DAYS  AT  NAUVOO.                             23 frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics. These had been unrolled from four mummies, which the prophet had purchased at a cost of twenty-four hundred dollars. By some inexplicable mode, as the storekeeper informed me, Mr. Smith had discovered that these sheets contained the writings of Abraham, written with his own hand while in Egypt. Pointing to the figure of a man lying on a table, he said, "That is the picture of Abraham on the point of being sacrificed. That man standing by him with a drawn knife is an idolatrous priest of the Egyptians. Abraham prayed to God, who immediately unloosed his bands, and delivered him." Turning to another of the drawers, and pointing to a hieroglyphic representation, one of the Mormons said, "Mr. Smith informs us that this picture is an emblem of redemption. Do you see those four little figures? Well, those are the four quarters of the earth. And do you see that big dog looking at the four figures? That is the old Devil desiring to devour the four quarters of the earth. Look at this person keeping back the big dog. That is Christ keeping the devil from devouring the four quarters of the earth. Look down this way. This figure near the side is Jacob, and those are his two wives. Now do you see those steps?" "What," I replied, "do you mean those stripes across the dress of one of Jacob's wives?" "Yes," he said, "that is Jacob's ladder." "That," I remarked, "is indeed curious."

This too seems to contradict Gee's conclusion--the Abraham portion was found on the sheets, not the roll.  And, I can't see how any of this really shows anything near eyewitnesses.

Charlotte Haven:

Quote

From there we called on Joseph's mother, passing the site of the Nauvoo House, a spacious hotel, the first floor only laid. It is like the Temple in being erected on the tithe system, and when finished will surpass in splendor any hotel in the State. Here Joseph and his heirs for generations are to have apartments free of expense, and they think the crowned heads of Europe will rusticate beneath its roof. Madame Smith's residence is a log house very near her son's. She opened the door and received us cordially. She is a motherly kind of woman of about sixty years. She receives a little pittance by exhibiting The Mummies to strangers. When we asked to see them, she lit a candle and conducted us up a short, narrow stairway to a low, dark room under the roof. On one side were standing half a dozen mummies, to whom she introduced us, King Onitus and his royal household, -- one she did not know. Then she took up what seemed to be a club wrapped in a dark cloth, and said "This is the leg of Pharaoh's daughter, the one that saved Moses." Repressing a smile, I looked from the mummies to

 

 

---

 

624                       A Girl's Letters from Nauvoo.                       [Dec.

 

 

the old lady. but could detect nothing but earnestness and sincerity on her countenance. Then she turned to a long table, set her candle-stick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was "the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit," and she read seven minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like passages from the Old Testament -- and it might have been for anything we knew -- but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who -- the serpent, I mean -- was standing on the tip of his tail, with which his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear. I said, "But serpents don't have legs."

So, first, I don't see any indication of eyewitness--"an old lady" said to Charlotte...But with that, I grant, this is the closest thing supporting Gee's view.  But it is one witness who wasn't an eyewitness.  He claimed there were multiple eyewitnesses.  He doesn't have one, suggesting the long was is what contained Abraham's writings.  Odd that the old lady was able to read the long roll into English--perhaps making this pretty suspicious.  

In conclusion it doesn't appear at all that Gee has evidence the multiple Mormon and Non-Mormon 19th century people were eyewitnesses to the claim that Joseph translated Abraham's story from the long roll of papyrus.  He seems to be completely stretching his guesswork and claiming it as fact, all because he says so.  Perhaps this is the type of stuff Hauglid had in mind.   

[stemelbow]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's for CFRs, I believe.

You understand I don't work for you, right?  That I am not obligated to do research and investigation when you snap your fingers?

I asked a question.  If you don't have an answer, just say so.  No need to get all snippy.  

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or you could take it as a "You have a question?  Great!  Figure out the answer for yourself.  Perhaps spend more than 1-3 minutes on the matter.  You may also want to read responses from other posters."

Thanks,

-Smac

I've spent hours.  You keep repeating falsehoods.  I've already explained this to you.  I looked into it long before I asked you the question.  As it is, it seems apparent, Gee's claim is really specious on this point.  If so, that really says something.  There are no 19th century eyewitness accounts as he claims.  All of his references attempting to make that case, come up empty.  

[smac97]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

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.

Your post is a pastiche of unsubantiated, because-I-say-so assertions.  I do not find it persuasive.

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

So the matter is settled?  When SeekingUnderstanding speaks, the thinking has been done?

I think . . . not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've spent hours.  You keep repeating falsehoods. 

What "falsehoods?"

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As it is, it seems apparent, Gee's claim is really specious on this point. 

I invite you to give this some further thought and study.

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If so, that really says something. 

"If" being the operative word there.

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There are no 19th century eyewitness accounts as he claims. 

Come again?

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

All of his references attempting to make that case, come up empty.  

"Come up empty?"  What does that mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Charlotte Haven:

 

So, first, I don't see any indication of eyewitness--"an old lady" said to Charlotte...But with that, I grant, this is the closest thing supporting Gee's view.  But it is one witness who wasn't an eyewitness.  He claimed there were multiple eyewitnesses.  He doesn't have one, suggesting the long was is what contained Abraham's writings.  Odd that the old lady was able to read the long roll into English--perhaps making this pretty suspicious.  

In conclusion it doesn't appear at all that Gee has evidence the multiple Mormon and Non-Mormon 19th century people were eyewitnesses to the claim that Joseph translated Abraham's story from the long roll of papyrus.  He seems to be completely stretching his guesswork and claiming it as fact, all because he says so.  Perhaps this is the type of stuff Hauglid had in mind.   

It looks like the old lady in that quote is Lucy Smith.  All the preceding statements are talking about Lucy Smith and then there is a subsequent statement where she talks about "her son Joseph".

[CA Steve]

14 hours 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).

Publicly questioning someone's testimony  because they crossed a scholarly line, is crossing that same line and worse. Hauglid attacked Gee's work, you attacked Hauglid personal faith status and without any actual evidence regarding his faith. This seems out of character for you, at least to me, but I am not going to publicly speculate about your testimony because of it.

 

14 hours ago, rongo said:

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?

I am not defending Hauglid's use of the term and I think Hauglid himself has expressed regrets about that post.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

think Hauglid himself has expressed regrets about that post.

I would like to see this is possible as I keep seeing the “abhorrent” repeated. 

[CA Steve]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I would like to see this is possible as I keep seeing the “abhorrent” repeated. 

Consider my remark as hearsay. I cannot remember where I read about his regret and will retract it if it is an issue to anyone.

Of course the negative remark keep being repeated. Given the fallout over the recent BoA JSPP publication between Dr. Gee and the editors of the JSPP, people are going to bring that up as part of that conversation. And, Dr Hauglid has definitely radically changed his views on how the BoA was produced in the last ten years, but to question his testimony simply because he no longer supports the missing scroll theory is not what I expected out of Rongo.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So the matter is settled?  When SeekingUnderstanding speaks, the thinking has been done?

Nope, but evidence doesn’t matter to a flat earther. Just like evidence doesn’t matter to those who advocate for the missing papyrus. In the words of Muhlestein, “And so I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham ... is true, therefore, any evidence I find I will try and fit into that paradigm. I don’t feel that I need to defend that paradigm, I feel that I want to understand the evidence that I find within that paradigm because to me it’s a given that it’s true.”

For Muhlestein and Gee, true means it was in the papyrus apparently. That’s what makes their “scholarship” abhorrent. That’s what makes the discussion pointless. 

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Consider my remark as hearsay. I cannot remember where I read about his regret and will retract it if it is an issue to anyone.

Of course the negative remark keep being repeated. Given the fallout over the recent BoA JSPP publication between Dr. Gee and the editors of the JSPP, people are going to bring that up as part of that conversation. And, Dr Hauglid has definitely radically changed his views on how the BoA was produced in the last ten years, but to question his testimony simply because he no longer supports the missing scroll theory is not what I expected out of Rongo.

Not a CFR, because I think you or someone else would have pointed to it already if it existed, but I would also love to see where Hauglid expressed his regret. No need to retract; you were just saying what you had the impression of having read. 

I guess I don't see the concern over me wondering aloud about his orientation to the Church. I admittedly don't know, and he hasn't said, but it isn't just the "abhorrent" comment. It's also the scare quotes around "scholarship," which not even Ritner has done. And, going out of his way to promote "my good friends" Brent Metcalfe and Dan Vogel was an intentional move. Both of whom, by the way, are much more gracious and diplomatic in addressing theories, arguments, and people they disagree with than Hauglid. The whole thing is really bizarre. In a way, I don't blame him for going radio silent about it and not wanting to talk about it, but I think it's telling that he hasn't done any apologizing. There is palpable hatred for Gee from him that goes beyond simply seeing the evidence differently and shifting his view.

At the risk of further upsetting you, I wonder if this stems from his embarrassment and regret at being featured prominently in the Gospel Topics Essay because he now believes the opposite of his past views. Hypothetically, if he were to request that references to him be removed from the footnotes, would the Church comply? It would be an ugly situation, and a PR disaster for the Church. I guess the fact that he hasn't done this, and that he still teaches at BYU and is being called on to edit and write BoA-themed books for the Church goes against my gut feeling that something is wrong with him concerning the Church. So, there's that, too. 

Again, I don't question (in my mind) his testimony because he no longer believes in the missing scroll theory. Heck, I think most believers familiar with the issues rely on it less and less these days. It's his behavior and what he's said that lead me to do that. And even though I disagree with how he handled it, I wouldn't even dream of calling him "abhorrent," and everything that implies, or scare-quoting him. The real question for me is: why did he deliberately choose to do that? Especially given how he used to be? Only he can definitively answer that, but in the absence of that, can't we wonder? Especially given the attention he himself has called to this whole thing through his actions and subsequent radio silence. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

So the matter is settled?  When SeekingUnderstanding speaks, the thinking has been done?

Nope, but evidence doesn’t matter to a flat earther.

Says the guy who isn't presenting any evidence.  Just assertions and taunts.

Quote

Just like evidence doesn’t matter to those who advocate for the missing papyrus.

Oh, the irony.

The evidence strongly indicates that we are missing substantial amounts of the papyri held by Joseph Smith.

Quote

In the words of Muhlestein, “And so I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham ... is true, therefore, any evidence I find I will try and fit into that paradigm. I don’t feel that I need to defend that paradigm, I feel that I want to understand the evidence that I find within that paradigm because to me it’s a given that it’s true.”

And your starting point is that the Book of Abraham is not true.  Very few of us come to a disputed issue with a blank slate.  We all have presuppositions in place.  Muhlestein is just being upfront about his.  Are you?

Quote

For Muhlestein and Gee, true means it was in the papyrus apparently. 

Muhlestein and Gee include revelation in their epistemological outlook.  That's their presupposition.

You apparently do not include revelation in your epistemological outlook.  That's your presupposition.

Muhlestein and Gee have spent years and years examining the evidence.  And getting the training necessary to do so meaningfully.  And publishing their findings and assessments to the world.

Meanwhile, you toss out casual taunts and ignorant assertions on a message board while hiding behind a pseudonym.

All things considered, I find their efforts more competent, credible, and probative than . . . whatever it is you are doing.

Quote

That’s what makes their “scholarship” abhorrent. That’s what makes the discussion pointless. 

Muhlestein and Gee are not just relying on their presupposition that revelation was involved.  They are addressing the evidence.  A lot.

Where is your scholarly analysis of such things?

Your remarks remind me of this observation by Theodore Roosevelt:

Quote

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.  The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

I'm also reminded here of the back-and-forth discussion many years ago between Paul Owen, an evangelical scholar, and John Weldon.  Owen, with another evangelical academic, Carl Mosser, had previously written a very blunt assessment of how evangelicals were responding to the claims of the LDS Church and scholarship being generated by LDS writings in support of those claims: Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?   Here are the five main conclusions Mosser and Owen reached in their paper:

Quote

The first is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages." Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided in to four categories: traditional, neo-orthodox, liberal and cultural. We are referring to the largest and most influential of the four categories-traditional Mormon scholars.
...
The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.
...
A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writing.
...
Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not.
...
Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.

Subsequent to the publication of this paper, an evangelical critic of the LDS Church, John Weldon, wrote a response to it, and Paul Owen then wrote a response to Mr. Weldon.  Although both parties were on the "same side" (both are evangelicals, both are critical of the claims of the LDS Church), they had substantially different ideas as to the merits of LDS scholarship.  I am sort of seeing this same divergence of opinion here.

For example, Mr. Owen wrote this:

Quote

I note at the beginning of appendix 1 that Mr. Weldon writes: "The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) publishes literature in defense of Mormonism, especially the Book of Mormon ." This statement is a factual error, not in terms of what is stated, but what goes conspicuously unstated. As Carl Mosser and I have extensively documented, FARMS does far more than simply defend the Book of Mormon: They are actively engaged in "Ancient Research." They are not FMS; they are FARMS. Why is this important? Because, by ignoring FARMS involvement in the wider field of academic historical research, Mr. Weldon hides from his readers (most of whom probably have little exposure to FARMS) the fact that many of the scholars associated with this organization are respected experts in fields directly pertinent to LDS apologetic claims; fields such as Second Temple Judaism, Ancient Near Eastern literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Egyptology. By contrast, no researcher currently involved in apologetic responses to LDS scholarship has any acknowledged expertise in such areas. THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY, NO MATTER HOW LONG WE HIDE OUR HEADS IN THE SAND. How on earth can our pastors, most of whom have at best a M.Div. level seminary training, be expected to give their flocks substantive replies to the FARMS literature which is increasingly being used in LDS proselytizing activities? How can our laypeople successfully convince their Mormon friends of the superior plausibility of the truth claims of orthodox Christianity when our researchers in the apologetics community have no better arguments to offer than: FARMS scholarship is obviously wrong, because we already know Mormonism is a false religion? Put yourself in the Mormon's shoes. Would you find that to be a convincing argument?

That's pretty much how I feel when I come across unsubstantiated assertions and insults like those you have been posting.

And here:

Quote

The heart of the problem is Mr. Weldon's refusal to seriously engage LDS scholarship; and this comes to the surface again under the heading Needless Concerns . Brother Weldon tells us: "But at another level, the alleged new evidence for Mormonism isn't impressive--and it never will be when it comes to defending the truth claims of Mormonism." The intellectual narrow-mindedness displayed here is astounding. Of course, such evidence will fail to convince Brother Weldon; but it sure does seem impressive to folks in the LDS Church! In case Brother Weldon has forgotten, THEY are the ones that we Christians are supposed to be talking to. THEY are the ones who need to be shown why FARMS scholarship does not establish the historical and theological truth claims of the Mormon religion. And they are sure as shootin' going to find FARMS scholarship a lot more "impressive" than the frighteningly lame argument: "In a similar fashion, Mormonism is so clearly false on doctrinal grounds, one need not worry their scholarship could ever prove much of anything." My goodness, does Brother Weldon realize how utterly pathetic that must sound to a Mormon's ears? Does he care?!

LDS scholarship is addressing all sorts of substantive issues.  Nahom.  Writing on metal plates.  Etymological issues ("Alma" as an ancient Semitic male name, Mulek, Nephi, etc.).  Hebraisms.  Chiasmus.  The descriptions of ancient olive cultivation in Jacob 5.  Royal Skousen's critical text project.  The Joseph Smith Papyri.  And on and on and on.

So you'll understand why I find your unsubstantiated and conclusory say-so to be neither impressive nor persuasive.  Nor is your casual slandering the extensive efforts by Muhlestein and Gee.  They are like the man who is "actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause."

Meanwhile, who are you, that I should give credence to your mere say-so?  What research have you done?  What publications have you had published?  What efforts have you made?  Are you anything other than just another hiding-behind-a-pseudonym "man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better"?

Unadorned assertions taunts from critics and cranks like you are a dime a dozen.  

-Smac

Edited April 30, 2020 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Says the guy who isn't presenting any evidence.  Just assertions and taunts.

Right. The earliest and most contemporaneous witnesses of the scrolls aren’t evidence. Third party translation of the papyrus isn’t evidence. Winding lengths aren’t evidence. No offense but you sound exactly like a flat earther. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And your starting point is that the Book of Abraham is not true.  Very few of us come to a disputed issue with a blank slate.  We all have presuppositions in place.  Muhlestein is just being upfront about his.  Are you?

No. My starting point was the Book of Abraham was true. Starting points are irrelevant however. The only scholarship worth anything is open to the truth and open to being wrong. If you aren’t willing to change your mind, you aren’t doing scholarship. Muhlestein makes it clear, that all evidence will be interpreted in light of his preexisting conclusion. That isn’t scholarship. It’s not science. It’s exactly like a flat earther or a proponent of any number of conspiracies. 
 

Of course it’s important to be aware of your starting position. You should look skeptically at all evidence that seems to support this position because as humans we are all subject to confirmation bias. Muhlestein advocates a different approach however. It doesn’t matter what the evidence is, the starting point is correct. You don’t see a problem with this?

Edited April 30, 2020 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Says the guy who isn't presenting any evidence.  Just assertions and taunts.

Right. The earliest and most contemporaneous witnesses of the scrolls aren’t evidence.

Of course witness accounts are evidence.  We can discuss things like the competency and probative weight of such evidence, but you can't say that they aren't evidence at all.  That's just reeks of special pleading.

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Third party translation of the papyrus isn’t evidence.

Where have I suggested this?  Where has Gee or Muhlestein?

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Winding lengths aren’t evidence.

By this you are referring to estimates of windings lengths based on a complex mathematical formula that yields erratic or inconclusive results when applied on scrolls of known length, and the application of which formula relies on a series of mutually dependent presumptions?

As Gee notes: 

Quote

Applying the formulas to the Joseph Smith Papyri presumes the following logic:

• I. If the long roll mentioned by the witnesses (b) is the interior part of one of the mounted portions of the scroll (a),
• II. and if a method accurately calculates the missing interior portion of the scroll,
• III. and if that method is applied equally to all the remaining scrolls of the Joseph Smith Papyri,
• IV. then it might be able to tell us which was the long roll (b) and potentially which was the other scroll (c).

Conditions I–III must be met in order to reach conclusion IV.

Although both formulas have been applied to the fragmented scroll of Horos, neither has previously been applied to an actual intact scroll to confirm the accuracy of predicted length, thus failing to fulfill condition II and invalidating conclusion IV.   This has been a war of theories fought on a field lacking empirical facts.

Well?

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No offense but you sound exactly like a flat earther. 

Yet another substance-less taunt.

This is you addressing the evidence, is it?

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Where have I suggested this? 

I don’t know. Maybe it was when you said I presented no evidence? 

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

And your starting point is that the Book of Abraham is not true.  Very few of us come to a disputed issue with a blank slate.  We all have presuppositions in place.  Muhlestein is just being upfront about his.  Are you?

No. My starting point was the Book of Abraham was true.

And yet you vilify Muhlestein for having that starting point.  Why?

Quote

Starting points are irrelevant however.

Then why on earth did you bring up Muhlestein's?  Are starting points only relevant when you are looking for a drive-by potshot at someone who isn't even here?

Quote

The only scholarship worth anything is open to the truth and open to being wrong.

Yes.  And?

Are you suggesting that Muhlestein is not open to that?  

Quote

If you aren’t willing to change your mind, you aren’t doing scholarship. Muhlestein makes it clear, that all evidence will be interpreted in light of his preexisting conclusion. That isn’t scholarship. It’s not science. It’s exactly like a flat earther or a proponent of any number of conspiracies.d

Strawman.  You are imposing your assumptions and mindreading onto Muhlestein, then faulting him because on those assumptions.

Quote

Of course it’s important to be aware of your starting position. You should look skeptically at all evidence that seems to support this position because as humans we are all subject to confirmation bias.

I concede that "confirmation bias" ("the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or strengthens one's prior personal beliefs") can and does exist, and that it can have an undue influence on a person's outlook.  This is why I appreciate the approach promulgated in the Restored Gospel.  Continued study, prayer, and appropriate conduct (in other words, both "talking the talk" and "walking the walk" vis–à–vis the teachings of the Gospel) result in a continuous testing of what we believe and why, and also results in a sharpened, clarified, lean 'n mean testimony.  My testimony today of the Restored Gospel is much different than it was 10-20 years ago because I have studied a lot during the intervening years.  So I think a confirmation bias, which may be extant early on in a person's journey of faith, does not hold up long as compared to continued study and effort.

Nevertheless, I don't understand your statement.  It's not self-evidently correct.

Quote

Muhlestein advocates a different approach however. It doesn’t matter what the evidence is, the starting point is correct. You don’t see a problem with this?

I think you are substantially mischaracterizing what "Muhlestein advocates."

I gotta admit, it bugs me a bit when a person like you comes along and declares super-duper allegiance to "truth," and then presumes to declare or imply that anyone who dares disagree with you, or who arrives at different conclusions than yours about a controversial and complex topic, does not share that allegiance.  To disagree with you is to disagree with "truth."  To disagree with you is to be a "flat-earther."  To disagree with you is to be a pseudo-scholarly hack.

I think reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

-Smac

Edited April 30, 2020 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

By this you are referring to estimates of windings lengths based on a complex mathematical formula that yields erratic or inconclusive results when applied on scrolls of known length, and the application of which formula relies on a series of mutually dependent presumptions?

Nope. That was just Gee’s inept attempt to use the data. Smith responded to this. Gee has been silent for many years now...

Edited April 30, 2020 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Strawman.  You are imposing your assumptions and mindreading onto Muhlestein, then faulting him because on those assumptions.

Read what he said. He said he interprets all evidence in light of his starting point. The starting point is correct. It doesn’t matter what the evidence is. Those are his words not mine:

“And so I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham ... is true, therefore, any evidence I find I will try and fit into that paradigm. I don’t feel that I need to defend that paradigm, I feel that I want to understand the evidence that I find within that paradigm because to me it’s a given that it’s true“

It’s a given that it’s true. What does that mean to you? This is the opposite of trying to eliminate confirmation bias. (Sorry for the bold. On my phone)

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Nope.

Yep.

Golly!  Argument is fun when evidence and reasoning are thrown out the window in favor of trading conclusory assertions!

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That was just Gee’s inept attempt to use the data. Smith responded to this.

Right.  And Smith agrees with you.  So he's on the side of "truth."

And you disagree with Gee, which makes him a liar and a hack.  To disagree with you is to disagree with truth.

Got it.

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Gee has been silent for many years now...

I don't think that's indicative of much.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

Josiah Quincy:

It appears Quincy has contradicted Gee's conclusion of the papyrus with Abraham's story was found on a long scroll not on a piece mounted, and put under glass.

I take it that a long roll can be cut up and some pieces mounted under glass.  So, yes, single pieces under glass don't make Gee's case unless those pieces are from a long roll.  Good point.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Henry Caswall:

This too seems to contradict Gee's conclusion--the Abraham portion was found on the sheets, not the roll.  And, I can't see how any of this really shows anything near eyewitnesses.

So you are saying that Henry Caswall was not an eyewitness?  After all, his description of some papyri under glass is to items from a long Book of the Dead roll, and his comments appear to be first person eyewitness.  The conclusion certainly supports Gee's statement that there had been a long roll with the account of Abe on it.  Indeed, we have actual examples of BD rolls which also have other documents on the same long roll.  The fact that someone has cut them up and put some under glass does not deny that in any way.  A Snsn roll would be short, while a BD roll would be long.  Why would Hauglid or anyone else get upset about that?

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Charlotte Haven:

So, first, I don't see any indication of eyewitness--"an old lady" said to Charlotte...But with that, I grant, this is the closest thing supporting Gee's view.  But it is one witness who wasn't an eyewitness.  He claimed there were multiple eyewitnesses.  He doesn't have one, suggesting the long was is what contained Abraham's writings.  ........................

Perhaps I don't understand what you are claiming, but the account reads like a first-person eyewitness account, and it does say what Gee claims.  It doesn't say "an old lady," bur rather "the old lady," namely Mother Smith.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

In conclusion it doesn't appear at all that Gee has evidence the multiple Mormon and Non-Mormon 19th century people were eyewitnesses to the claim that Joseph translated Abraham's story from the long roll of papyrus.  He seems to be completely stretching his guesswork and claiming it as fact, all because he says so.  Perhaps this is the type of stuff Hauglid had in mind.   

So, even if we exclude Jerusha, it appears that Gee has marshaled at least two eyewitness accounts in support of his claim, and I appreciate your laying it out for me.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.

Golly!  Argument is fun when evidence and reasoning are thrown out the window in favor of trading conclusory assertions!

Right.  And Smith agrees with you.  So he's on the side of "truth."

And you disagree with Gee, which makes him a liar and a hack.  To disagree with you is to disagree with truth.

Got it.

I don't think that's indicative of much.

Thanks,

-Smac

I assume you’ve read the paper? 
 

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/V45N03_122.pdf

 

where is the response?

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Read what he said. He said he interprets all evidence in light of his starting point. The starting point is correct. It doesn’t matter what the evidence is. Those are his words not mine:

“And so I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham ... is true, therefore, any evidence I find I will try and fit into that paradigm. I don’t feel that I need to defend that paradigm, I feel that I want to understand the evidence that I find within that paradigm because to me it’s a given that it’s true“

It’s a given that it’s true. What does that mean to you?

What I said before.  It's a "given."  It's a starting point.  

In the law, there is a concept called praesumptio iuris tantum, or a "rebuttable presumption."  See here:

Quote

Both in common law and in civil law, a rebuttable presumption (in Latin, praesumptio iuris tantum) is an assumption made by a court, one that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise. For example, a defendant in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proved guilty. A rebuttable presumption is often associated with prima facie evidence.

Without really realizing it, I think this is how I have been proceeding for the last twenty+ years while discussing and studying the Church in adversarial settings (like this board).  As a child I did the basics (go to church, say your prayers, read the scriptures).  I started to feel what I understood to be promptings from the Spirit.  Then I went into the Army, and had more experiences, both in life and with the Spirit.  Then I served a mission and had more life experiences and spiritual experiences.  Then I came home and had a singular spiritual experience that, for me, "sealed the deal."  It created, for me, a presumption that the Church is what it claims to be, that its truth claims are substantively legitimate. 

However, this is a rebuttable presumption.  I still go to church, and say prayers, and read scriptures.  I also serve in the attend the temple.  I also have a wonderful wife who has her own testimony that strengthens my own.  But I also participate in discussions about my faith in adversarial settings, such as this board, because I need a constant reminder that my "presumption" about the Church is still formative, still "rebuttable."  As Hugh Nibley once said:  “We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes.”  So I'm willing to listen to what the critics have to say, as this keeps me "on my toes."  I have also found some real value in deploying my training and experience as an attorney in terms of considering and weighing arguments and evidences as to the Church's history, doctrines, practices, etc.  But at the end of the day, all of this still seems to boil down to an exercise in faith.  

Again, I am bugged by people like you who presume to have an exclusive interest in pursuing the truth, and in declaring/implying that people who disagree with you do not share that interest.  That just seems pretty darn arrogant.

I'm reminded of this portion of Inherit the Wind:

Quote

Drummond: Do you ever think about things that you DO think about?! Isn't it possible that it could have been twenty-five hours,there's no way to measure it,no way to tell, could it have been twenty five hours?
Brady: It's possible.
Drummond: Then you interpret that the first day, as recorded in the book of Genesis, could have been a day of indeterminate length?
Brady : I mean to state,that it is not necessarily a twenty-four hour day.
Drummond: It could have been thirty hours,could have been a week,could have been a month, could have been a year,could have been a hundred years,or it could have been ten million years.
Co-prosecution council: I protest! This is not only irrelevant,immaterial,it is......illegal.I demand to know the purpose of Mr Drummond's examination,what's he trying to do?
Brady: I'll tell you what he's trying to do,he wants to destroy everybody's belief in the bible,and in God.
Drummond: That's not true and you know it.The Bible is a book,it's a good book,but it is not the only book.
Brady: It is the revealed word of the almighty God,spake to the man who wrote the Bible.
Drummond: How do you know that God didn't spake to Charles Darwin?
Brady: I know,because God tells me to oppose the evil teachings of that man.
Drummond: Oh,God speaks to you?
Brady: Yes!
Drummond: He tells you what is right and wrong?
Brady: Yes!
Drummond: And you act accordingly?
Brady: Yes!
Drummond: So you, Matthew Harrison Brady, through oratory or legislature or whatever, you pass on God's orders to the rest of the world!  Well, meet the prophet from Nebraska! Is that the way of things?  God tells Brady what is good? To be against Brady,is to be against God.
Brady: No!  Each man is a free agent.
Drummond : Then what is Bertram Cates doing in a Hillsboro jail? Supposing Mr Cates had the influence and the lung power to railroad through the state legislature,a law saying that only Darwin could be taught in the schools?
Brady: Ridiculous, ridiculous! There is only one great truth in the world.
Drummond : The Gospel, the Gospel according to Brady.  God speaks to Brady and Brady tells the world! Brady, Brady, Brady almighty!
Brady: The Lord...The Lord is my strength.
Drummond: Suppose that a lesser human being, suppose a Cates or a Darwin had the audacity to think that God might whisper to him, that an un-Brady thought might still be holy,must a man go to prison,because he differs with the self appointed prophet? Extend the testaments!  Let us have a book of Brady! We shall hex the Pentateuch and slip you in neatly between Numbers and Deuteronomy!

Again, I think that reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

Maybe one day you will allow for the possibility that people like John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and myself can have an un-SeekingUnderstanding thought about these things, while also remaining as devoted to the pursuit of truth as you are.

Maybe one day you can consider the chance that disagreement with you is not tantamount to being a "flat earther."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I assume you’ve read the paper? 

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/V45N03_122.pdf

where is the response?

I don't think he has written a response.

Thanks,

-Smac