Missing Papyrus Theory

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

don't think that's indicative of much.

It is frustrating though when the error is there in an argument for long length, but not addressed. For those not familiar with the field like me, it is impossible to judge what the impact that has on various arguments. 
 

There are more people who know enough math to check the formula for themselves than who know anything more than superficial about Egypt. I suspect for many it creates doubt about Gee’s accuracy in his other work. Hopefully he will address it soon. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

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.

 

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

Have the regrets been in writing? Can you provide a link?

Edited to add: Never mind. I now see that the answer is no. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours 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.

Brian has in effect taken up with strident and longtime critics of the Church while not only disavowing but expressing contempt for the work of scholars in the Church with whom he once worked in partnership. He has been cavalier about apologetics, almost as though writing in defense of the Church were per se something to be ashamed of. 
 

Under the circumstances, I think it understandable to have questions about his current attitude toward the Church. I guess rongo’s great sin, in your view, is to give expression to such questions. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour 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?

Sorry to horn in here, and I am not speaking in any way for Gee, whom I do not communicate with.  However, it seems to me that Gee is not obligated in any way to respond, unless he wants to and sees a valid reason to do so.  In fact, quite often silence speaks volumes in such instances.  Most people take a non-response as indicative of whatever conclusion they already had reached on the controversy.

Meantime, there are plenty of other avenues to be pursued in this issue, as I am sure you realize.  Since that is so, it would be well if we could adhere to standard scholarship in those various inquiries.

[stemelbow]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

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".

Thank you, webbles, good point.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

What "falsehoods?"

Smac, I have told you time and again, that I did not give the items you linked 1 minute review.  Yet you kept saying i did.  I had looked into it before your post.  It is false to say I only gave it 1 minute of consideration.  

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

On what basis?  It appears to me, there is no reason to.  It appears to me, all that I've already looked into suggests, Gee made an unfounded conclusion.  

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

"If" being the operative word there.

Come again?

"Come up empty?"  What does that mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

There is nothing to support Gee's claim.  

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thank you, webbles, good point.

Smac, I have told you time and again, that I did not give the items you linked 1 minute review.  Yet you kept saying i did.  I had looked into it before your post.  It is false to say I only gave it 1 minute of consideration.  

On what basis?  It appears to me, there is no reason to.  It appears to me, all that I've already looked into suggests, Gee made an unfounded conclusion.  

There is nothing to support Gee's claim.  

“My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with facts.”

For as dogmatic and closed-minded as Latter-day Saints supposedly are, many of their critics strike me as much worse. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with facts.”

For as dogmatic and closed-minded as Latter-day Saints supposedly are, many of their critics strike me as much worse. 

That's pretty silly, scott.  I"ve been asking repeatedly to have my mind changed.  My question has not been addressed, other than by Robert and his response didn't seem to pass muster, as I see it.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

seems to me that Gee is not obligated in any way to respond, unless he wants to and sees a valid reason to do so.  In fact, quite often silence speaks volumes in such instances.  Most people take a non-response as indicative of whatever conclusion they already had reached on the controversy.

For me, it now leaves me in a state of wondering if the error in the formula means there are more errors in his work I am not learned enough to doublecheck.  So it has significantly altered my own view of his work from believing I could use his arguments and recommend them to now feeling I can only do so with adding cautions.  

I greatly admire his willingness to work in such a hotly contested topic that has made him a target for some nasty stuff imo, also where being wrong may have more implications than usual academic arguments given how some believers seem to react in black and white ways and can’t adjust if something they believe turns out not to be accurate, one thing inaccurate means everything is wrong in their reaction...which is an unrealistic response, but pointing that out won’t convince most unfortunately if it has upset them. 

[Robert F. Smith]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

For me, it now leaves me in a state of wondering if the error in the formula means there are more errors in his work I am not learned enough to doublecheck.  So it has significantly altered my own view of his work from believing I could use his arguments and recommend them to now feeling I can only do so with adding cautions.  

I greatly admire his willingness to work in such a hotly contested topic that has made him a target for some nasty stuff imo, also where being wrong may have more implications than usual academic arguments given how some believers seem to react in black and white ways and can’t adjust if something they believe turns out not to be accurate, one thing inaccurate means everything is wrong in their reaction...which is an unrealistic response, but pointing that out won’t convince most unfortunately if it has upset them. 

Yes, and the math is something I don't choose to engage.  Just not my field.  Those types of technical debates are not, however, the only issue.  There are plenty of other avenues of inquiry.  The actual content of the BofA and the nature of the explanations for the illustrations are particularly important.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The actual content of the BofA and the nature of the explanations for the illustrations are particularly important.

You may be familiar enough with the topic to judge accuracy of such, I am not unfortunately.  I would have to invest a great deal of time and study before I would feel comfortable drawing any conclusion.  I currently don’t have the ability to invest that effort...have plenty of time, it is energy and ability to concentrate. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Calm

[CA Steve]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

It is frustrating though when the error is there in an argument for long length, but not addressed. For those not familiar with the field like me, it is impossible to judge what the impact that has on various arguments. 
 

There are more people who know enough math to check the formula for themselves than who know anything more than superficial about Egypt. I suspect for many it creates doubt about Gee’s accuracy in his other work. Hopefully he will address it soon.

Hi Calm,

While I admittedly do not understand the math either, it is simple enough that any advanced high school or basic college level math student can check it. The fact Gee has not responded is evidence, in my mind, that he knows he made an error when he criticized Smith and Cook on their math. This is just too simple of a math application. Cook's ( a physicist) response clearly lays out his work and his objections to Gee's response. Gee, on the other hand has not published the math behind how he arrived at his own lengths or what math he used to find fault with what Cook and Smith used. That is a glaring sign and may be part of why Hauglid is critical of what Gee has published.

I highly recommend reading Cook's 10 page rebuttal to Gee Formulas and Facts: A Response to John Gee 2010. A response that Gee has had the opportunity to answer for over 10 years now.

One does not need to be able to use the Hoffman formula to understand how it works or even duplicate it. If you have Excel it is fairly simple to do a similar type of measurement. Take a roll of rough construction paper or something similar  and cut a notch (representing the lacuna in the papyri) in the top on one side of the roll. Roll out the paper and take measurements from  outside end between first few successive notched made from the cut you made. Take those measurements and list them vertically on a blank Excel spread sheet. Highlight all the measurements and darg them down using the 'cross" until you hit a negative number. Add up all the positive numbers and you will get a length that is close to the over length of your original roll. This is what the Hoffman formula is doing. It is taking the length differences between the missing sections on one side of the papyri that reduce in each successive winding (winding being the distance it takes to do one complete turn of the roll - a distance that reduces with each turn of the roll) that JS had and using them to figure out what the maximum length could of been for that roll.

This isn't a problem with people getting different answers to an equation from the same data set. The problem is, as Cook points out, is Dr Gee inability to understand how that formula was applied by Cook and Smith and Dr. Gee's failing to publish how he came to his conclusions. From Cook's rebuttal.

Quote

Gee wrongly declares that “Cook and Smith use the thickness of the papyri (which they did not measure but only estimated) as an indication of the change in diameter to calculate the difference between the lengths of successive windings in the scroll.” On the contrary, we did not use or estimate the material thickness of the papyri in any manner in our calculations. We plainly stated that physical thickness cannot be used to estimate missing length due to the many additional unknowns involved, such as Gee’s “air-gap size.” Gee has stated our method exactly backwards; we did not use thickness to calculate winding differences, rather we used the winding differences to calculate T.

As you point out, Dr. Gee's accuracy on his own calculations is called into question when he makes this kind of error. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by CA Steve

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

While I admittedly do not understand the math either, it is simple enough that any advanced high school or basic college level math student can check it. The fact Gee has not responded is evidence, in my mind, that he knows he made an error when he criticized Smith and Cook on their math. This is just too simple of a math application. Cook's ( a physicist) response clearly lays out his work and his objections to Gee's response. Gee, on the other hand has not published the math behind how he arrived at his own lengths or what math he used to find fault with what Cook and Smith used. That is a glaring sign and may be part of why Hauglid is critical of what Gee has published.

I highly recommend reading Cook's 10 page rebuttal to Gee Formulas and Facts: A Response to John Gee 2010. A response that Gee has had the opportunity to answer for over 10 years now.

Yes, I did all that. I thought I made it clear. It is a relatively simple formula as is the reasoning behind it and iirc (it's been awhile and I m going from memory), I simply substituted what Gee identified as equivalent and demonstrated to myself that Cook's explanation of the error was accurate.  I then went and looked for a response to the Cook critique and couldn't find one.  I am hoping one comes out and reserving judgment on that until it does.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Calm

[Fair Dinkum]

On 4/29/2020 at 4:24 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I gave excellent examples in the paper you were afraid to read.

#1 You are again mischaracterizing my response to your Book of Abraham treatise ( I'm seeing a pattern here).  I never stated ever that I was afraid of reading your paper. I merely groaned at its length at 80+ pages to explain the 5 pages that make up the Book of Abraham itself. and #2  Could you whittle it down a little to maybe a specific page number where I might find these claimed examples of Joseph's prophetic abilities?

[Fair Dinkum]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Interesting that the one book we know Smith had in his possession and know for fact that he borrow heavily from to write some of his other works is surprisingly missing for the long list of proof books FAIR lists.  Adam Clark's Bible Commentary.  Its an interesting omission on their part don't you think?

Edited April 30, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That's pretty silly, scott.  I"ve been asking repeatedly to have my mind changed.  My question has not been addressed, other than by Robert and his response didn't seem to pass muster, as I see it.  

How about you take the opportunity to change Smac’s mind, if you can? He asked you “what falsehoods.” You didn’t respond, from what I can see. 
 

If the work Smac linked to is deficient in your view, go ahead and make your case as to why instead of blithely dismissing it after two minutes. You gotta admit, the optics of that aren’t very good. 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

FD,

Have critics done a comparison between Clarke and the Book of Abraham?  We don't usually do their work for them.  Haven't seen any questions sent to us comparing the two yet, which is generally how our content gets generated.

Otherwise there is this:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_is_the_Adam_Clarke_Commentary_and_what_do_critics_of_Mormonism_claim_about_it_as_it_regards_the_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible%3F

added:  iirc the Clarke Commentary has something about being thrown in the furnace.  Sounds similar to Shadrach, et al.  No need to appeal to Clarke as a source when there is the Bible handy imo.  If there was something more specific, please point it out, I am curious.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Calm

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about you take the opportunity to change Smac’s mind, if you can? He asked you “what falsehoods.” You didn’t respond, from what I can see. 
 

If the work Smac linked to is deficient in your view, go ahead and make your case as to why instead of blithely dismissing it after two seconds. You gotta admit, the optics of that aren’t very good. 

I don't think you paid attention to the conversation. 

I pointed out, I had already read and considered the link he offered, before he offered it.  I quoted in context each of the references Gee uses and pointed out how they do not support his claim.  

I don't have any interest to change Smac's mind. 

I asked him if he could account for Gee's claim. He refuses to provide any reason to support Gee's claim.  

I already pointed out the falsehood.  

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Interesting that the one book we know Smith had in his possession and know for fact that he borrow heavily from to write some of his other works is surprisingly missing for the long list of proof books FAIR lists.  Adam Clark's Bible Commentary.  Its an interesting omission on their part don't you think?

Not so, unFair Dinkum.  FairMormon discusses Adam Clarke's commentary at https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_is_the_Adam_Clarke_Commentary_and_what_do_critics_of_Mormonism_claim_about_it_as_it_regards_the_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible%3F

This has been widely discussed by both Mormons and anti-Mormons for several years now.  But decades earlier the Rev Wesley Walters listed it among sources known to be available to Joseph Smith (and Sidney Rigdon).  The notion also appears in David Persuitte's Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormonism, 2nd ed. (2000), and probably in his 1st ed.  This is not a new idea, and well-informed researchers (who are not afraid to read substantive material) have known that fact for many years.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

You may be familiar enough with the topic to judge accuracy of such, I am not unfortunately.  I would have to invest a great deal of time and study before I would feel comfortable drawing any conclusion.  I currently don’t have the ability to invest that effort...have plenty of time, it is energy and ability to concentrate. 

As Mark would say, that investment is beside the point anyhow.  Having an intellectual testimony is not near as valuable as a testimony by the Holy Spirit.

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not so, unFair Dinkum.  FairMormon discusses Adam Clarke's commentary at https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_is_the_Adam_Clarke_Commentary_and_what_do_critics_of_Mormonism_claim_about_it_as_it_regards_the_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible%3F

This has been widely discussed by both Mormons and anti-Mormons for several years now.  But decades earlier the Rev Wesley Walters listed it among sources known to be available to Joseph Smith (and Sidney Rigdon).  The notion also appears in David Persuitte's Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormonism, 2nd ed. (2000), and probably in his 1st ed.  This is not a new idea, and well-informed researchers (who are not afraid to read substantive material) have known that fact for many years.

I wonder if Fair Dinkum gets his read of the Church via places like Ex Mormon Reddit, which are not exactly bastions of civility and fair-minded reasoning and evidence.

For example, regarding the issue of the "discovery" of Adam Clarke's commentary by Dr. Wayment and his research assistant, Hayley Wilson (now Lemmon), the latter wrote a brief article while at BYU regarding the influence of Adam Clarke's bible commentary on Joseph Smith and the translation of the Book of Mormon.  

Posting under "Promiscuous_Spirit16," she started a Reddit AMA in which she openly brags about being "free" after getting her diploma from BYU.  She talks about "TSCC" ("The So-Called Church," a term reeking of contempt), about getting together with other former members to "celebrate our freedom!", and worse:

Quote

level 1

Swollyghost

 

45 points·1 year ago

Oh myo %&^ she's on exmo!?! *&$%^# I loved that paper! It nuked my tbm step dad's shelf even though im sure he will deny it to the bitter end. THANK YOU!

level 2

promiscuous_spirit16

 

62 points·1 year ago

Haha awww thanks! While we didn't write it to destroy TBMs' testimonies its important information that should be accessible to everyone. It's TSCCs fault for building the narrative that it has and creating the need for "shelves" to begin with.

I am saddened at watching the public gloating and glee exhibited by people who exploit the goodwill of the Church, and the Widow's Mite, to fund their educations, only to turn around and spit on the group providing that education.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I am saddened at watching the public gloating and glee exhibited by people who exploit the goodwill of the Church, and the Widow's Mite, to fund their educations, only to turn around and spit on the group providing that education.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's kind of a two way street don't you think?  Are you saddened by the Church keeping all the tithing money by someone who no longer believes in the Church?  Both exchanges of money were done in good faith at the time the money was allocated.  

I certainly paid thousands more to the Church than I ever received from any subsidy to my college education. I think that is probably true with most who have since left the Church.  Your emotional comment to try to vilify others you disagree with is really a shameful way to present your arguments.

[OGHoosier]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

That's kind of a two way street don't you think?  Are you saddened by the Church keeping all the tithing money by someone who no longer believes in the Church?  Both exchanges of money were done in good faith at the time the money was allocated.  

I certainly paid thousands more to the Church than I ever received from any subsidy to my college education. I think that is probably true with most who have since left the Church.  Your emotional comment to try to vilify others you disagree with is really a shameful way to present your arguments.

Questioning the emotional balance of an information source is not vilification. 

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

I am saddened at watching the public gloating and glee exhibited by people who exploit the goodwill of the Church, and the Widow's Mite, to fund their educations, only to turn around and spit on the group providing that education.

That's kind of a two way street don't you think?  

No.  I have not witnessed members of the Church publicly gloating and gleeful at having exploited and abused the goodwill of others in order to get gain, only to thereafter turn around and spit on those others.

Quote

Are you saddened by the Church keeping all the tithing money by someone who no longer believes in the Church?  

No.  The tithes were voluntarily given.  The donations didn't have strings attached.

Quote

Both exchanges of money were done in good faith at the time the money was allocated.  

It seems not. 

Quote

I certainly paid thousands more to the Church than I ever received from any subsidy to my college education.

Tithes are not a quid pro quo.  

Quote

I think that is probably true with most who have since left the Church.  Your emotional comment to try to vilify others you disagree with is really a shameful way to present your arguments.

I think it's contemptible to enroll (or stay enrolled) at BYU enjoy the benefits of the substantial goodwill of its patron organization, while privately despising its patron organization, and then after graduation turn around and publicly express contempt, ridicule, even hatred for the school and that is patron organization.

You are defending and justifying this behavior?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 1, 2020 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Both exchanges of money were done in good faith at the time the money was allocated.  

It sounded like she was a nonbeliever at least some of the time she was a student at BYU.  This is, imo, a very different situation than someone who was a believer while a student, left BYU and then whether shortly thereafter or years later became a disbeliever and abusive towards the Church or BYU.  The second situation I would agree was done in good faith at the time the money was allocated.

There is difficulty in changing schools midway through one's studies and more so when close to the end.  But people do it all the time for other reasons than change of religious beliefs, so I don't think changing so as not to take unfair advantage of the reason tithing is used to support the Church Education system should be seen as traumatic as some present it and therefore it is morally appropriate to hide one's change of belief simply to continue to get the monetary benefits given to believers.

I don't have an issue with those who become disbelievers, but stay respectful to the Church and its members and who are grateful and positive towards BYU finishing up their schooling if done with a significant majority of it.  It is those who go to the schools with their tuition being heavily subsidized by the Church while degrading it privately that I find problematic as I would a Saint attending another school on a scholarship while trashing it privately.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Questioning the emotional balance of an information source is not vilification. 

Depends on how it is done and why.

Added:  kind of off topic imo to whether or not the analysis of Adam Clarke's work is relevant (so far I am thinking not in regards to the BofA given the Bible was available), but we go off topic all the time, so who am I to complain.   

Edited May 1, 2020 by Calm