Kinderhook Plates Discovery damages BOA Missing Scroll and Catalyst Theories

The Unclean Deacon · May 16, 2022

Mormonism LIVE hosted by Radio Free Mormon and Bill Reel last week did a historical dive into the Kinderhook . They went through the history in depth and ended discussing a discovery by Mark Mcgee and a Don Bradley, Where they show evidence that Joseph utilized a translation of a symbol in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language to come up with the brief partial translation of the Kinderhook plates. As RFM and Bill point out though, this discovery deeply runs counter to the "Missing Scroll" Theory and "catalyst" theory. I had to sit and think about it as these issues are always complex but it helped me to think through why the Missing scroll theory was favored and what it explains. AKA the reason we have a missing scroll theory is because we want to maintain Joseph could in fact translate and did translate an ancient document he had in his possession but the document or parts of ancient documents that survived are not it because the translation we have doesn't match the documents we have. And the Catalyst Theory serves to gives us another way to make it work while agreeing with everything the critic observes (translation doesn't match the sections of papyri Joseph seems to be translating.

Bill on his Facebook page said the following and I would appreciate someone helping me see how either of these theories survive such without requiring additional loopholes or extra allowances. These theories already seem less rational then the critics perspective. Please don't attack their show or their persons as I am simply here to see if a good reconciliation exists. Mormonism already has so many issues in favor of the criitic and now it appears the Missing scroll and Catalyst theories just became less rational.

a link to Mark Mgee and Don Bradley's discovery - https://www.millennialstar.org/the-mystery-of-the-kinderhook-plates-solved/

Quote

A clear concise explanation of the new hurdle apologists must create a path over regarding the Book of Abraham based on this past episode of Mormonism Live.

The "Missing Scroll" Theory was created to suggest that Joseph Smith could in fact translate ancient languages but that we were all looking as the wrong set of writings. Had the papyri matched the story, the debate would have ended there. It is a way of having Joseph still hold up as a translator in spite of papyri that doesn't match. By Joseph Smith referring to the "neb" (Boat shaped symbol), Joseph is tipping his hand and letting us know that he imposes to his followers he in fact knows not only that said symbol equals what he says it does which is enough but he conveys that the GAEL is his work and hence all the symbols there are his "authoritative" Definitions. It would be absurd that he accepts his scribes "reverse engineering" and uses it.

The "Catalyst Theory" on the other hand admits the papyri doesn't match the translation but works around that by insinuating that the Book of Abraham is unrelated to the papyri and that as Joseph Smith is looking at the symbols collectively, God actually is giving him a different narrative via Revelation and Joseph only thinks it is these papyri. But what is apparent is that Joseph didn't impose it that way. Instead Joseph is moving symbol by symbol (symbols on the GAEL) and assigning a specific interpretation to a specific symbol. For the "catalyst theory" to work in this way it means rather than God allowing Joseph to be misunderstanding what he is doing, it is God himself that is misdirecting and misleading Joseph as he only gives Joseph short brief wording attached to each symbol and Joseph must move to the next symbol before God gives him more story. In the catalyst theory Joseph isn't translating Egyptian, he only thinks he is. But the Kinderhook episode imposes that it is God himself who hast to be informing Joseph with a specific meaning to a specific symbol or else Joseph is making it up and that God being a deceiver with no reason to do so. God doesn't have to do it this way (see book of Moses). Hence an intentional and unnecessary Deception

Edited May 17, 2022 by Nemesis
We will not be participating in driving traffic to that site. Link removed.

Fether · May 16, 2022

There are a handful of ways Joseph smith may or may not have translated the plates / book of Abraham / Kinderhook. it seems RFM is suggesting that JSjr only used one of the many theorized methods and they are saying the method Joseph used the “translate” the kinderhook plates was the same way he translated all the other books.

From whatI understand, the method of translation shifted over time. Doctrine and Covenants 8 suggests there was some attempt at reading what was on the plates and translate in a more traditional fashion. I think there is a lot of evidence for the catalyst theory. Other accounts suggest a seer stone and a hat. Some times the plates were present while other times it was not. Kinderhook points to some sort of translation process that includes the traditional translating he know today.

I don’t know what methods JSjr used and did not use, but never once had I ever thought he only used one single method. It here seems to be a lot of evidence that the mode of “translation” changed over time.

Edited May 16, 2022 by Fether

The Unclean Deacon · May 16, 2022

The trouble Feather, is JS shows us what is going on here, which is that he shows the GAEL to be "authoritative" and hence imposing that these Egyptian symbols have an individual specific meaning or idea they translate to. if Joseph can be shown to be working with these symbols individually and imposing a specific meaning for each specifically and individually such seems to run counter to the apologetic theories created to reconcile the mistranslation of the Book of Abraham. Any reconciliation would now require more loopholes and mental gymnastics. I grasp the problem and they clearly explain why it is a problem. Don Bradley called the show at the end and seemed to be at a loss for reconciling such and seemingly agreed with them when his back was against the wall. Sadly I dont think the missing scroll or catalyst feel workable once you understand their premise.

Edited May 16, 2022 by The Unclean Deacon

Fether · May 16, 2022

21 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

if Joseph can be shown to be working with these symbols individually and imposing a specific meaning for each specifically and individually such seems to run counter to the apologetic theories created to reconcile the mistranslation of the Book of Abraham.

I never watched this particular show so I am lacking in knowing what they said.

Do you think it could be possible that Joseph Smith had a menial understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphics making it impossible for him to really translate anything from the papyri so he had to use the revelation to do so (the catalyst theory). Then when the kinder hook plates came around, he used his menial skills and recognized a symbol and then declared what he felt it to be?

It makes sense that JSjr would show interest in learning Egyptian, considering his experience. This is almost certainly verified simply by the fact he purchased the papyri. but I find it unlikely that he could have reached a skilled enough point where he no longer needed revelation for the purpose of translating the book of Abraham.

I don’t quite understand how this throws any kind of wrench in the current theory. Particularly the catalyst theory.

Fether · May 16, 2022

@The Unclean Deaconjust so I understand. Are they/you suggesting that the method JSjr used to theorize what was on the kinderhook plates was the same method he used the “translate” what was on the papyri?

sunstoned · May 17, 2022

6 hours ago, Fether said:

I never watched this particular show so I am lacking in knowing what they said.

Do you think it could be possible that Joseph Smith had a menial understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphics making it impossible for him to really translate anything from the papyri so he had to use the revelation to do so (the catalyst theory). Then when the kinder hook plates came around, he used his menial skills and recognized a symbol and then declared what he felt it to be?

It makes sense that JSjr would show interest in learning Egyptian, considering his experience. This is almost certainly verified simply by the fact he purchased the papyri. but I find it unlikely that he could have reached a skilled enough point where he no longer needed revelation for the purpose of translating the book of Abraham.

I don’t quite understand how this throws any kind of wrench in the current theory. Particularly the catalyst theory.

JS said he translated the papyrus (written by the hand of Abraham) into the BoA. We have the papyrus and we have the BoA, and they don't match up. There was no translation, not even close, and none of the crazy apologetic theories are going to change that fact. Full stop, end of story.

Edited May 17, 2022 by sunstoned

Fether · May 17, 2022

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

We have the papyrus

We have one page of the papyrus

Tweed1944 · May 17, 2022

Royal Skouse has a different perspective on the facsimiles

https://humanities.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/royal-skousen-J2019.pdf

* The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralinearly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the accompanying transcription – and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other portions of this part of the text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book

Calm · May 17, 2022

Bill Reel’s scholarship and ability to analyze evidence and commitment to accuracy is not something I have much trust in due to his treatment of the Book of Mormon used by Elder Holland in conference awhile back. Reel accuses Holland of lying about the book based on his looking at stills of the conference where Reel just saw one side of the book and not the whole clip of that sequence where Holland rotated the book showing the complete, but varied wear pattern (books do not always wear evenly so that all sides look identical).

There was a mistake in Deseret News iirc one time that likely led to the confusion, but a correction was offered long before Reel made his accusation that the book belonged to the wrong person, so if he had researched it decently he would have found the correction over the ownership of the two books. Reel has been corrected multiple times that Bathsheba was not Hyrum’s wife, but his cousin’s George’s wife, a detail he would have come across if he even looked into the history superficially. It still reads as she is Hyrum’s wife on his website. Basic, basic history.

Nor has he ever corrected his misspelling of Sister Bathsheba’s name.

Considering Reel is willing to attach the label of liar to Holland for alleged similar errors (except that it is Reel who is wrong, not Holland)….like I said, I don’t trust the value of his research. He seems to get a hold of one idea and everything has to fit that idea whether it does or not.

Quote

Elder Holland claims to hold the very copy of the book of Mormon that Bethsheba, Hyrum Smith’s wife, had in her possession from which Hyrum Smith the prophets brother read to her and had turned the corner of the page down from where he read. The problem is that the copy Elder Holland holds up in his hand at General conference is distinctly different from the copy in the Church History department claimed to be the same book.
RESOURCES:

My previous posts detailing Reel’s accusations and errors are here. Iirc I did another post (the topic comes up on occasion) where I link to the stills used vs the video of Elder Holland holding the book, if anyone cares enough I can dig those up too

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71271-bill-reel-invited-to-disciplinary-council/?do=findComment&comment=1209872022

RFM I assume is better at research, but his connection with Reel leaves me less than impressed.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Calm

smac97 · May 17, 2022

15 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

Mormonism LIVE hosted by Radio Free Mormon and Bill Reel last week did a historical dive into the Kinderhook Plates. They went through the history in depth and ended discussing a discovery by Mark Mcgee and a Don Bradley,

The discovery from . . . January 2015? The one where they are characterized as stating that Joseph Smith used the GAEL to "to give his secular personal opinion of one lone symbol which was repeated several times on the plates"?

15 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

Where they show evidence that Joseph utilized a translation of a symbol in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language to come up with the brief partial translation of the Kinderhook plates.

A "secular personal opinion" about "one lone symbol which was repeated several times on the {Kinderhook} plates."

15 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

As RFM and Bill point out though, this discovery deeply runs counter to the "Missing Scroll" Theory and "catalyst" theory.

Not really. This seems quite "apples and oranges."

15 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

I had to sit and think about it as these issues are always complex but it helped me to think through why the Missing scroll theory was favored and what it explains. AKA the reason we have a missing scroll theory is because we want to maintain Joseph could in fact translate and did translate an ancient document he had in his possession but the document or parts of ancient documents that survived are not it because the translation we have doesn't match the documents we have.

Actually, I think the reason we have a missing scroll theory is because eyewitness accounts describe considerably more papyri than what we have. See, e.g., here and here:

Quote

Gee has also presented apparent eyewitness recollections about this issue:

Quote

Eyewitnesses from the Nauvoo period (1839–1844) describe “a quantity of records, written on papyrus, in Egyptian hieroglyphics,”32 including (1) some papyri “preserved under glass,”33 described as “a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics”;34 (2) “a long roll of manuscript”35 that contained the Book of Abraham;36 (3) “another roll”;37 (4) and “two or three other small pieces of papyrus with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c.”38 Only the mounted fragments ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and thence were given back to the Church of Jesus Christ. When eyewitnesses described the vignettes as being of the mounted fragments, they can be matched with the fragments from the Metropolitan Museum of Art; but when the vignettes described are on the rolls, the descriptions do not match any of the fragments from the Met. Gustavus Seyffarth’s 1856 catalog of the Wood Museum indicates that some of the papyri were there. Those papyri went to Chicago and were burned in the Great Chicago Fire in 1871. Whatever we might imagine their contents to be is only conjecture. Both Mormon and non-Mormon eyewitnesses from the nineteenth century agree that it was a “roll of papyrus from which our prophet translated the Book of Abraham,”39 meaning the “long roll of manuscript” and not one of the mounted fragments that eventually ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.40
---
32. William S. West, A Few Interesting Facts Respecting the Rise, Progress, and Pretensions of the Mormons (Warren, OH, 1837), 5, cited in Todd, Saga of the Book of Abraham, 196–97.
33. Quincy, Figures of the Past, 386.
34. Henry Caswall, The City of the Mormons; or, Three Days at Nauvoo, in 1842 (London: Rivington, 1843), 22–23.
35. Charlotte Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843, printed in “A Girl’s Letters from Nauvoo,” Overland Monthly 16/96 (December 1890): 624, as cited in Todd, Saga of the Book of Abraham, 245.
36. Jerusha W. Blanchard, “Reminiscences of the Granddaughter of Hyrum Smith,” Relief Society Magazine 9/1 (1922): 9; and Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843.
37. Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843.
38. Oliver Cowdery to William Frye, 22 December 1835, printed in the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 2 (December 1835): 234.
39. Blanchard, “Reminiscences,” 9; and Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843.
40. For the distribution of the manuscript fragments, see John Gee, “Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” in The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, ed. Stephen D. Ricks et al. (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 188–91; and John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 10–13.

...

Jeff Lindsay provides a pretty good summary of the relevant evidence re: scroll length (and number of scrolls) here.

Candidly, I think this is where invested skeptics like Bill Reel go substantially beyond the evidence, and they are not fairly or reasonably evaluating and addressing the evidence we do have.

15 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

And the Catalyst Theory serves to gives us another way to make it work while agreeing with everything the critic observes (translation doesn't match the sections of papyri Joseph seems to be translating.

I'm not sure we need to worry much about the "way" the translation process happened. We just don't know much about it.

There seems to be little value in trying to empirically prove or disprove something that happened "by the gift and power of God." Can we quantify and understand and explain and replicate the science behind the Burning Bush? The water to wine? The multiplication of the loaves and fishes? The raising of the daughter of Jairus?

15 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

Bill on his Facebook page said the following and I would appreciate someone helping me see how either of these theories survive such without requiring additional loopholes or extra allowances. These theories already seem less rational then the critics perspective. Please don't attack their show or their persons as I am simply here to see if a good reconciliation exists.

You'll need to actually lay out what Bill "said." Otherwise, your post is just an advertisement for his podcast, and I don't think those are allowed on this board.

15 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

Mormonism already has so many issues in favor of the criitic and now it appears the Missing scroll and Catalyst theories just became less rational.

Stacking the deck a lot here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 17, 2022 by smac97

jkwilliams · May 17, 2022

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The discovery from . . . January 2015? The one where they state that Joseph Smith used the GAEL to "to give his secular personal opinion of one lone symbol which was repeated several times on the plates"?

A "secular personal opinion" about "one lone symbol which was repeated several times on the {Kinderhook} plates."

Not really. This seems quite "apples and oranges."

Actually, I think the reason we have a missing scroll theory is because eyewitness accounts describe considerably more than what we have.

Candidly, I think this is where invested skeptics like Bill Reel go substantially beyond the evidence.

I'm not sure we need to worry much about the "way" the translation process happened. We just don't know much about it.

There seems to be little value in trying to empirically prove or disprove something that happened "by the gift and power of God." Can we quantify and understand and explain and replicate the science behind the Burning Bush? The water to wine? The multiplication of the loaves and fishes? The raising of the daughter of Jairus?

You'll need to actually lay out what Bill "said." Otherwise, your post is just an advertisement for his podcast, and I don't think those are allowed on this board.

Stacking the deck a lot here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Just out of curiosity, how does one distinguish between a secular translation and a nonsecular one?

smac97 · May 17, 2022

19 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

The trouble Feather, is JS shows us what is going on here, which is that he shows the GAEL to be "authoritative" and hence imposing that these Egyptian symbols have an individual specific meaning or idea they translate to.

Well, not really.

The link you provided states that what was "going on" was

Joseph Smith was "consulted to give his secular personal opinion of one lone symbol which was repeated several times on the plates," and that
the plates and the request made of him were "of so little importance to Joseph Smith that he failed to mention the incident in his own journal," and that
some folks (yourself included, it seems) have "impulsively and erroneously inferred Joseph’s “interpretation” of the Kinderhook plates as a spiritual rather than a secular event," and that
the "moral of the story" is that "there are a lot of goofy stories out there about Joseph Smith" and we should not "be so gullible to believe everything you read/hear."

Sound advice, that. This is particulary so, I think, where the basis of your questions is the online musings of Bill Reel. The guy just doesn't know very much. And what he does know he doesn't assess in a meaningful or reasonable or evenhanded way.

If you want an example of why I think so little of Bill Reel's approach to the Church, take a look at this link where I break down accusations he made against Elder Holland. Please first read Bill's accusations, then my responses to them, and then come back and tell us if you think Bill's claims reflect an accurate and reasonable perspective on the matter.

19 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

if Joseph can be shown to be working with these symbols individually and imposing a specific meaning for each specifically and individually such seems to run counter to the apologetic theories created to reconcile the mistranslation of the Book of Abraham.

Again, not really.

There are many significant and unproven assumptions built to your statement.

19 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

Any reconciliation would now require more loopholes and mental gymnastics.

Again, not really. I think you are assuming way too much about what we know and don't know about the translation process. I also think you are making significant unwarranted leaps in reasoning and argument relative to the Kinderhood Plates.

19 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

I grasp the problem and they clearly explain why it is a problem.

I can see from the number of your posts (68 at present) that you are new here. A few bits of unsolicited advice for ya:

First, we generally discourage advertising-style posts like what you have written here. You are not presenting argument and evidence. You are instead merely pointing to someone else's off-site stuff and telling us to look at it and respond to it. That won't do. You can't simply say "they clearly explain why it is a problem." You need to present argument and evidence and lay out some foundation for your conclusions, questions, etc.

Second, many of us have substantial experience with Bill Reel. We've read his materials. He has 4,300+ posts on this board (he goes by "DBMormon"). We've evaluated his arguments, evidence, reasoning, etc. While you are apparently persuaded that his assessments pertaining to the Church are informed, reasonable, and fair, I am not so persuaded. I have, instead, found his arguments to be short on evidence and reasoned analysis, and long on speculation, innuendo, nastiness, and superficial understanding of and familiarity with the Church and its doctrines, history, etc. Again, this assessment is based on past interactions with Bill and his arguments.

Third, notwithstanding my low opinion of Bill Reel's perspective on, and basic competency pertaining to, the Church, I am quite willing to evaluate arguments which you apparently find impressive. You will need to summarize and explain what it is that you think Bill Reel is saying. Provide quotes and citations that we can review. You can't simply say "Hey go watch their podcast."

19 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

Don Bradley called the show at the end and seemed to be at a loss for reconciling such and seemingly agreed with them when his back was against the wall. Sadly I dont think the missing scroll or catalyst feel workable once you understand their premise.

You'll need to lay out their premise if you want us to address it. Otherwise, your post is just shilling for their podcast.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 17, 2022 by smac97

smac97 · May 17, 2022

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Just out of curiosity, how does one distinguish between a secular translation and a nonsecular one?

"The gift and power of God" would, I think, be a key distinguishing feature.

Thanks,

-Smac

jkwilliams · May 17, 2022

Just now, smac97 said:

"The gift and power of God" would, I think, be a key distinguishing feature.

Thanks,

-Smac

Did Joseph Smith ever say he was translating otherwise? Just curious.

smac97 · May 17, 2022

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Did Joseph Smith ever say he was translating otherwise? Just curious.

Well, there sure seems to be a strong implication that he purported to translate the Kinderhook Plates in the same or a similar way to how he translated the Book of Mormon and/or the Book of Abraham. That's the insinuation I am detecting. Am I wrong?

Moreover, do we have evidence that Joseph Smith claimed inspiration ("by the gift and power of God") relative to the Kinderhook Plates? Doesn't seem like it. From FAIR:

Quote

Joseph Smith "translated" a portion of those plates, not by claiming inspiration, but by comparing characters on the plates to those on his "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" (GAEL)

However, Joseph Smith "translated" a portion of those plates, not by claiming inspiration, but by comparing characters on the plates to those on his "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" (GAEL). (The GAEL was composed in Kirtland about the time of the translation of the Book of Abraham.) Joseph found one of the most prominent characters on the plates to match a character on the second page of characters in the GAEL. Both were boat shaped. The GAEL interpretation of this boat-shaped character included everything that William Clayton said Joseph said.

Corroborating this is a letter in the New York Herald for May 30th, 1843, from someone who signed pseudonymously as "A Gentile." Research shows "A Gentile" to be a friendly non-Mormon then living in Nauvoo by the name of Sylvester Emmons.^[4] He wrote:

The plates are evidently brass, and are covered on both sides with hieroglyphics. They were brought up and shown to Joseph Smith. He compared them, in my presence, with his Egyptian Alphabet…and they are evidently the same characters. He therefore will be able to decipher them.

We know that Joseph was interested in languages. He studied Greek, Hebrew, and German in a secular manner. Therefore, we can easily believe that he attempted to translate the Kinderhook plates without assuming prophetic powers, which powers consequently remain credible.

Thanks,

-Smac

jkwilliams · May 17, 2022

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, there sure seems to be a strong implication that he purported to translate the Kinderhook Plates in the same or a similar way to how he translated the Book of Mormon and/or the Book of Abraham. That's the insinuation I am detecting. Am I wrong?

Moreover, do we have evidence that Joseph Smith claimed inspiration ("by the gift and power of God") relative to the Kinderhook Plates? Doesn't seem like it. From FAIR:

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not sure how his powers of translation remain credible. The "missing scroll" and "catalyst" theories explicitly divorce Joseph Smith from translating the extant portions of the Book of Abraham papyri, suggesting that at least some apologists don't find the translation of the facsimiles particularly credible, secular or not.

I always think back to an experiment I did quite a few years ago. I copied the text (sans facsimiles) of the Book of Abraham, without citing its origins, and emailed it to James Charlesworth, widely recognized as the foremost expert in Abrahamic lore. I asked him his opinion of its origin. He said it was clearly a late Protestant production, most likely 19th-century American. Seems about right to me.

Edited May 17, 2022 by jkwilliams

smac97 · May 17, 2022

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not sure how his powers of translation remain credible.

Perhaps in the same way the miracles in the Bible "remain credible." Empirical testing isn't really feasible, so we're left with . . . faith and the Spirit.

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The "missing scroll" and "catalyst" theories explicitly divorce Joseph Smith from translating the extant portions of the Book of Abraham papyri,

Are you sure? That seems like saying "the stone-in-the-hat narrative explicitly divorces Joseph Smith from translating the Gold Plates." When the translation process is "by the gift and power of God," we aren't really in a position to empirically prove or disprove much.

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

suggesting that at least some apologists don't find the translation of the facsimiles particularly credible, secular or not.

Which apologists do you have in mind here?

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I always think back to an experiment I did quite a few years ago. I copied the text (sans facsimiles) of the Book of Abraham, without citing its origins, and emailed it to James Charlesworth, widely recognized as the foremost expert in Abrahamic lore. I asked him his opinion of its origin. He said it was clearly a late Protestant production, most likely 19th-century American. Seems about right to me.

I'm curious as to your thoughts about Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham. See, e.g., this article at Pearl of Great Price Central: The Ancient Egyptian View of Abraham:

Quote

Some wondering about the Book of Abraham might ask how likely it would have been for the ancient Egyptians to have known anything about the biblical figure Abraham. In fact, evidence survives today indicating that stories about Abraham were known to the ancient Egyptians as early as the time of the composition of the Joseph Smith Papyri (ca. 300–30 BC).

The article goes on to provide a number of examples of "extra-biblical stories about Abraham {} in Egypt during this time," including "Eupolemus ... recount{ing} how Abraham lived in Heliopolis (On) and taught astronomy and other sciences to the Egyptian priests," "the Egyptian Jew Artapanus wrote an account of Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptian Pharaoh," a fragmentary text from Egypt about Abraham describes how the king (the word used is pharaoh) tries to sacrifice Abraham, but Abraham is delivered by an angel of the Lord," and about "Abraham later teach{ing} the members of the royal court about the true God using astronomy."

As Daniel Peterson notes:

Quote

Although the Bible attributes no special astronomical interests to Abraham, Facsimile 3 and many postbiblical texts — including both Jubilees (second century B.C.) and the Qur'an (A.D. seventh century) portray him as an astronomer. And the first-century Jewish historian Josephus quotes an earlier description of Abraham as "a man … skillful in the celestial science."

In Testament of Abraham 9–10 (first or second century), the patriarch is caught up into heaven and shown the earth and all its inhabitants; the contemporary Apocalypse of Abraham adds that he beheld "hosts of stars, and the orders they were commanded to carry out, and the elements of earth obeying them." (Compare 4:14-18.) In Abraham 3, the prophet sees an apparently geocentric (earth-centered) astronomical model including the star or planet Kolob, "set nigh unto the throne of God" (3:9).

The 10th-century Muslim scholar al-Tabari says that "the seven heavens were opened to Abraham, up to and including the throne (of God)." Facsimile 3 shows an Egyptian scene bearing the explanation, "Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king's court." Similarly, Josephus tells of Abraham's teaching astronomy in Egypt, and the fourth-century Christian historian Eusebius preserves an even earlier account specifying that Abraham taught astronomy to both Egypt's priests and Pharaoh himself.
...
It's amazing what Joseph Smith was able to pick up on the western frontier.

In the "Ancient Egyptian View of Abraham" article linked to above, it states that "evidence survives today indicating that stories about Abraham were known to the ancient Egyptians as early as the time of the composition of the Joseph Smith Papyri (ca. 300–30 BC)." The article itemizes some of these ancient sources:

Quote

In addition to the biblical text, extra-biblical stories about Abraham circulated in Egypt during this time. For example:

“During the reign of Ptolemy I, Hecateus of Abdera traveled to Thebes and learned stories about Abraham from Egyptian priests; he wrote these stories in a book called On Abraham and the Egyptians. This work is now unfortunately lost, but Clement of Alexandria, a second-century AD Egyptian Christian, quoted a short passage from it in which the worship of idols is condemned.”

“The writer Eupolemus, who lived under Egyptian rule in Palestine in the second century BC, recounts how Abraham lived in Heliopolis (On) and taught astronomy and other sciences to the Egyptian priests. In connection with Abraham, Eupolemus seems to think that the Egyptians descended from Canaan.”

“In the first century BC, the Egyptian Jew Artapanus wrote an account of Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptian Pharaoh.”

“Philo, a first-century AD Egyptian Jew, claimed that Abraham studied astronomy, the motion of the stars, meteorology, and mathematics, and used his reasoning on these subjects to understand God.”

“The Testament of Abraham describes Abraham’s tour of the next life before he dies. Scholars think that this work was written by an Egyptian Jew around the first century AD. It is notable for its reinterpretation of the Egyptian judgment scene in a Jewish fashion. This text was read liturgically the Sunday before Christmas during the Egyptian month of Khoiak.”

“[A] fragmentary text from Egypt about Abraham describes how the king (the word used is pharaoh) tries to sacrifice Abraham, but Abraham is delivered by an angel of the Lord. Abraham later teaches the members of the royal court about the true God using astronomy.”

An additional significant body of evidence for the Egyptian view of Abraham comes from a collection of texts commonly called the Greek Magical Papyri or the Theban Magical Library. This corpus of texts from the ancient Egyptian city of Thebes preserves “a variety of magical spells and formulae, hymns and rituals. The extant texts are mainly from the second century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.” Significantly, numerous biblical names and figures are used in these texts alongside native Egyptian and Greek names and figures. The name for this common ancient phenomenon is syncretism, where elements of different religions or traditions were harmonized together into a new synthetic religious paradigm. In some important ways the religion practiced by the Egyptians during the time of the Joseph Smith Papyri was a highly syncretic one.

Your position seems to be that Joseph Smith was totally fabricating things as he went along. Is that a fair characterization of your position?

And yet Joseph Smith claimed to translate a text that, in part, states that Abraham taught astronomy to Pharaoh in Egypt. This seems like a pretty specific thing to get right. Is it your position that Joseph Smith was just guessing on this point? Or that he cribbed from ancient sources to formulate the narrative? If so, what do you think those sources were?

Also, I am assuming you did not present any of this to Mr. Charlesworth. I'm curious what he would say about how an unlettered 30-year-old man living on the American frontier in 1835 fabricating a narrative about Abraham that includes elements not found in the Bible or any other sources contemporaneous with and available to Joseph Smith, but which were later found in other ancient sources long after 1835, such as:

A) Abraham having received divine training/instruction in astronomy,
B) Abraham receiving visions of the "throne {of God},"
C) Abraham being rescued by an angel from being the victim of human sacrifice, and
D) Abraham later teaching astronomy to Pharoah.

To again quote Daniel Peterson: "It's amazing what Joseph Smith was able to pick up on the western frontier."

Thanks,

-Smac

jkwilliams · May 17, 2022

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps in the same way the miracles in the Bible "remain credible." Empirical testing isn't really feasible, so we're left with . . . faith and the Spirit.

Are you sure? That seems like saying "the stone-in-the-hat narrative explicitly divorces Joseph Smith from translating the Gold Plates." When the translation process is "by the gift and power of God," we aren't really in a position to empirically prove or disprove much.

Which apologists do you have in mind here?

I'm curious as to your thoughts about Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham. See, e.g., this article at Pearl of Great Price Central: The Ancient Egyptian View of Abraham:

The article goes on to provide a number of examples of "extra-biblical stories about Abraham {} in Egypt during this time," including "Eupolemus ... recount{ing} how Abraham lived in Heliopolis (On) and taught astronomy and other sciences to the Egyptian priests," "the Egyptian Jew Artapanus wrote an account of Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptian Pharaoh," a fragmentary text from Egypt about Abraham describes how the king (the word used is pharaoh) tries to sacrifice Abraham, but Abraham is delivered by an angel of the Lord," and about "Abraham later teach{ing} the members of the royal court about the true God using astronomy."

As Daniel Peterson notes:

In the "Ancient Egyptian View of Abraham" article linked to above, it states that "evidence survives today indicating that stories about Abraham were known to the ancient Egyptians as early as the time of the composition of the Joseph Smith Papyri (ca. 300–30 BC)." The article itemizes some of these ancient sources:

Your position seems to be that Joseph Smith was totally fabricating things as he went along. Is that a fair characterization of your position?

And yet Joseph Smith claimed to translate a text that, in part, states that Abraham taught astronomy to Pharaoh in Egypt. This seems like a pretty specific thing to get right. Is it your position that Joseph Smith was just guessing on this point? Or that he cribbed from ancient sources to formulate the narrative? If so, what do you think those sources were?

Also, I am assuming you did not present any of this to Mr. Charlesworth. I'm curious what he would say about how an unlettered 30-year-old man living on the American frontier in 1835 fabricating a narrative about Abraham that includes elements not found in the Bible or any other sources contemporaneous with and available to Joseph Smith, but which were later found in other ancient sources long after 1835, such as:

A) Abraham having received divine training/instruction in astronomy,

B) Abraham receiving visions of the "throne {of God},"

C) Abraham being rescued by an angel from being the victim of human sacrifice, and

D) Abraham later teaching astronomy to Pharoah.

To again quote Daniel Peterson: "It's amazing what Joseph Smith was able to pick up on the western frontier."

Thanks,

-Smac

Apparently, that's good enough for you. Fair enough.

smac97 · May 17, 2022

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

JS said he translated the papyrus (written by the hand of Abraham) into the BoA. We have the papyrus and we have the BoA, and they don't match up.

The "{w}e have the papyrus" claim seems quite debateable. Gee has also presented apparent eyewitness recollections about this issue:

Quote

Eyewitnesses from the Nauvoo period (1839–1844) describe “a quantity of records, written on papyrus, in Egyptian hieroglyphics,”32 including (1) some papyri “preserved under glass,”33 described as “a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics”;34 (2) “a long roll of manuscript”35 that contained the Book of Abraham;36 (3) “another roll”;37 (4) and “two or three other small pieces of papyrus with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c.”38 Only the mounted fragments ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and thence were given back to the Church of Jesus Christ. When eyewitnesses described the vignettes as being of the mounted fragments, they can be matched with the fragments from the Metropolitan Museum of Art; but when the vignettes described are on the rolls, the descriptions do not match any of the fragments from the Met. Gustavus Seyffarth’s 1856 catalog of the Wood Museum indicates that some of the papyri were there. Those papyri went to Chicago and were burned in the Great Chicago Fire in 1871. Whatever we might imagine their contents to be is only conjecture. Both Mormon and non-Mormon eyewitnesses from the nineteenth century agree that it was a “roll of papyrus from which our prophet translated the Book of Abraham,”39 meaning the “long roll of manuscript” and not one of the mounted fragments that eventually ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.40
---
32. William S. West, A Few Interesting Facts Respecting the Rise, Progress, and Pretensions of the Mormons (Warren, OH, 1837), 5, cited in Todd, Saga of the Book of Abraham, 196–97.
33. Quincy, Figures of the Past, 386.
34. Henry Caswall, The City of the Mormons; or, Three Days at Nauvoo, in 1842 (London: Rivington, 1843), 22–23.
35. Charlotte Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843, printed in “A Girl’s Letters from Nauvoo,” Overland Monthly 16/96 (December 1890): 624, as cited in Todd, Saga of the Book of Abraham, 245.
36. Jerusha W. Blanchard, “Reminiscences of the Granddaughter of Hyrum Smith,” Relief Society Magazine 9/1 (1922): 9; and Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843.
37. Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843.
38. Oliver Cowdery to William Frye, 22 December 1835, printed in the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 2 (December 1835): 234.
39. Blanchard, “Reminiscences,” 9; and Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843.
40. For the distribution of the manuscript fragments, see John Gee, “Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” in The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, ed. Stephen D. Ricks et al. (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 188–91; and John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 10–13.

Again, I think this is where invested skeptics like Bill Reel {and, it appears, you} go substantially beyond the evidence, and they are not fairly or reasonably evaluating and addressing the evidence we do have.

Gee also describes the chain of custody in more detail (from pp. 5-9 of An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, see also here) (emphasis added) :

Quote

When Joseph Smith relocated to Nauvoo, he turned over the mummies and papyri to his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, to free himself from the obligation of exhibiting the papyri and to provide his widowed mother with means to support herself. She kept the mummies and papyri for the rest of her life, showing them to interested visitors for twenty-five cents a person. On May 26, 1856, less than two weeks after Lucy Mack Smith died, Emma Smith (Joseph’s widow), her second husband (Lewis C. Bidamon), and her son Joseph Smith III sold the mummies and the papyri to a man named Abel Combs.

Abel Combs split up the papyri. Some he sold to the St. Louis Museum, including at least two of the rolls and at least two of the mummies; some of the mounted fragments he kept. The St. Louis Museum sold the rolls and mummies to Colonel Wood’s Museum in Chicago. Wood’s Museum burned down in the Chicago Fire of 1871, and presumably the papyri and mummies were destroyed with it. Wood’s Museum was afterwards rebuilt and acquired other mummies. Its Egyptian collection was later sold to the Niagara Falls Museum, and the Egyptian holdings ended up in the Michael C. Carlos Museum at Emory University; its mummies all date to a different time period than that of the Joseph Smith Papyri.

The mounted fragments of papyrus passed from Abel Combs to the hands of Edward and Alice Heusser. In 1918 Alice Heusser offered the papyri to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. At the time, the museum was not interested. But in 1947 Ludlow Bull, the Metropolitan’s associate curator of the Department of Egyptian Art, purchased the papyri for the museum from Edward Heusser. Notice of the purchase and origin of the papyri was published in the museum’s acquisition list.

After a change in personnel in the Department of Egyptian Art, the museum decided that they did not want the papyri any longer. When Aziz S. Atiya, a Coptic scholar living in Utah, visited the museum in 1966, the curators asked him to see if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be interested in the papyri. On 27 November 1967, the Metropolitan Museum presented the fragments of the papyri to the Church. The Church published the papyri two months later in their official magazine, the Improvement Era; the current numbering system of the papyri derives from this publication.

To the disappointment of many, although these remaining fragments contained the illustration that served as the basis for Facsimile 1, they were not the portion of the papyri that contained the text of the Book of Abraham. In historical hindsight, however, they could not have been; the portion of papyrus identified by nineteenth-century eyewitnesses as containing the Book of Abraham seems to have gone to Wood’s Museum and was presumably burned in the Chicago Fire of 1871. There is, at present, no way of recovering it.

(Emphasis added.)

As I have previously summed up:

Quote

So Gee posits that the "chain of custody" was complicated by Abel Combs, who split up the artifacts by selling some and retaining some of the mounted fragments for himself. The fragments he kept went to the Heussers, then to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, then to the Church.

Meanwhile, Gee posits that "at least two of the rolls," including "the portion of papyrus identified by nineteenth-century eyewitnesses as containing the Book of Abraham" went from Combs to the St. Louis, which then burned down in 1871.

Working chronologically, we seem to end up with this:

Extant Fragments: Joseph Smith (1830s/1840s) ---> Lucy Mack Smith (1840s/1850s) ---> Emma Bidamon / Lewis Bidamon / Joseph Smith III (1856) ---> Abel Combs (1856 to ???) ---> Edward and Alice Heusser (before 1918 to 1947) ---> Metropolitan Museum (1947-1967) ---> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1967-Present).

Everything Other than the Extant Fragments, including Papyrus Scroll "identified by nineteenth-century eyewitnesses as containing the Book of Abraham": Joseph Smith (1830s/1840s) ---> Lucy Mack Smith (1840s/1850s) ---> Emma Bidamon / Lewis Bidamon / Joseph Smith III (1856) ---> Abel Combs (1856 to 18??) ---> St. Louis Museum (18??-1871) ---> Destroyed by fire.

There are all sorts of assumptions and unknowns here.

Did the Bidamons retain any of the papyri, or did they sell absolutely everything to Abel Combs?

Combs seemed to have possession of these materials for quite a while. Did he keep 100% of the materials together, to be passed on to the Heussers and the St. Louis Museum ?

Was the entirety of the JSP materials divided between the Heussers and the St. Louis museum? Or is it possible that some portions of the materials were lost, destroyed, sold to other parties, etc. while in the custody of Combs?

How can we possibly account for the materials sent to the St. Louis museum, which were lost in the fire? As Gee notes: "Gustavus Seyffarth’s 1856 catalog of the Wood Museum indicates that some of the papyri were there." Do you dispute this? If so, on what factual/evidentiary basis?

What about the Heussers? They held the fragments from before 1918 to 1947. Do we know with certainty that they retained 100% of the materials they received from Combs during these decades, and passed on 100% of the materials to the Metropolitan Museum? If so, what factual/evidentiary basis do you have for such a proposition?

I am reminded here of the pithy wisdom of Donald Rumsfeld:

Quote

"There are known knowns" is a phrase from a response United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave to a question at a U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) news briefing on February 12, 2002, about the lack of evidence linking the government of Iraq with the supply of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups.

Rumsfeld stated:

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.

I think we can apply some of this reasoning to the Joseph Smith Papyri.

Known Knowns: The extant fragments of the JSP have good provenance. They are "known knowns."

Known Unknowns: There are all sorts of possible "known unknowns" with the JSP. For example, we know we don't know what was lost in the 1871 fire in Chicago.

Unknown Knowns: This one is a bit tricky. It has been defined as "that which we intentionally refuse to acknowledge that we know." The Cook/Smith assessment might fall into this category, or it might not. It is, after all, a guess, not a "known."

Unknown Unknowns: This are all sorts of possible "unknowns unknowns" as well. There are things we don't know about the JSP, and we are not even aware that we do not know these things. There are also potential historical sources that are out there, but are presently undiscovered. For example, I have recently come across a reference to a possible heretofore unknown eyewitness account about the Joseph Smith Papyri. I'll provide further updates if anything comes up.

Given this state of affairs, are you sure you want to stick with the claim that the hypothesis of missing papyri has been "completely debunked"?

Are you really sure?

In legal parlance, what we got here is "genuine issues of material fact." Described here:

Quote

Genuine Issue of Material Fact

A disagreement between opposing parties on facts legally relevant to a claim. The disagreement must be "genuine" in the sense that it must be plausible (e.g., one cannot logically dispute a contract date without also alleging that a copy of a contract with that date inaccurately reflects the agreement). A genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment.

...

We have factual issues about the overall length and amount of papyri once owned by Joseph Smith.

We have factual issues about the chain of custody of these materials.

We have factual issues about which of these materials (if any) was the (purported) source of the text of the Book of Abraham.

We have factual issues about what happened to the portion(s) of the papyri that were the (purported) source of the text of the Book of Abraham. Assuming all papyri ended up with Abel Combs, what did he do with them? Were they burned up in Chicago in 1871? Or did they somehow end up with the Heussers, and later with the Metropolitan Museum (and, if so, how did that happen)?

We have factual issues about discrepancies and ambiguities regarding the length of the scrolls. How long was the "long roll?" Is the Cook/Smith guesstimate definitive? How can it possibly be so, given the chain of custody issues?

And so on.

I submit that the "missing papyrus" theory is not only not "completely debunked," it is very much alive and kicking. I'll even go so far as to say it is most plausible interpretation of the historical record.

I stand by this assessment.

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

There was no translation, not even close, and none of the crazy apologetic theories are going to change that fact. Full stop, end of story.

With respect, I disagree. I think there is substantial evidence indicating we do not "have {all of} the papyrus."

Your "full stop, end of story" attitude - in the face of substantial evidence placing these issues very much in dispute - doesn't work very well.

By way of comparison: I am presently working on a case involving a lease-to-own contract. Party A (my client) owns a commercial building that Party B wants to lease. A dispute has arisen because Party B wants to re-negotiate the terms and Party A does not. Party B has recorded a "Notice of Interest" against the property which prevents Party A from re-financing her loan. Party A hired me to get the "Notice of Interest" removed from the title. Party B is fighting us on this, with their main argument being that Party B, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Utah, is "owned" by a Native American tribe, and hence shares in the tribe's sovereign immunity, such that Party A cannot sue to remove the Notice of Interest.

There are considerable and substantive legal intricacies here, most of which I won't go into in this post. But the gist of these intricacies is that the federal courts have a long and detailed "test" to evaluate whether a corporate entity is an "arm of the tribe," and hence entitled to immunity from suit. Further, there is a long list of federal cases stating that this "arm of the tribe" test does not apply to legal entities that are incorporated under state law (such as LLCs). In other words, Party B is only entitled to immunity if it can pass the "arm of the tribe" test. And the applicable case law says that this test does not apply to incorporated-under-state-law entities, and that such entities are not entitled to sovereign immunity.

The challenge I am facing is that Party B's attorney is not addressing these points, even though they are directly relevant and go to the heart of the dispute. Instead he just keeps repeating, over and over, "sovereign immunity."

I feel the same vibe when I read statements about the BoA like "{w}e have the papyrus and we have the BoA, and they don't match up" and "{t}here was no translation, not even close" and "none of the crazy apologetic theories are going to change that fact." You are not addressing the substantive issues that seem to be very much in dispute. You are, instead, unilaterally declaring "{f}ull stop, end of story."

You will understand why a person like me, having reviewed the foregoing materials, will not be satisfied with such a perfunctory and facile and conclusory assertion. Again, I submit that the "missing papyrus" theory is not only not "completely debunked," it is very much alive and kicking. I'll even go so far as to say it is most plausible interpretation of the historical record.

Thanks,

-Smac

jkwilliams · May 17, 2022

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The "{w}e have the papyrus" claim seems quite debateable. Gee has also presented apparent eyewitness recollections about this issue:

Again, I think this is where invested skeptics like Bill Reel {and, it appears, you} go substantially beyond the evidence, and they are not fairly or reasonably evaluating and addressing the evidence we do have.

Gee also describes the chain of custody in more detail (from pp. 5-9 of An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, see also here) (emphasis added) :

(Emphasis added.)

As I have previously summed up:

I stand by this assessment.

With respect, I disagree. I think there is substantial evidence indicating we do not "have {all of} the papyrus."

Your "full stop, end of story" attitude - in the face of substantial evidence placing these issues very much in dispute - doesn't work very well.

By way of comparison: I am presently working on a case involving a lease-to-own contract. Party A (my client) owns a commercial building that Party B wants to lease. A dispute has arisen because Party B wants to re-negotiate the terms and Party A does not. Party B has recorded a "Notice of Interest" against the property which prevents Party A from re-financing her loan. Party A hired me to get the "Notice of Interest" removed from the title. Party B is fighting us on this, with their main argument being that Party B, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Utah, is "owned" by a Native American tribe, and hence shares in the tribe's sovereign immunity, such that Party A cannot sue to remove the Notice of Interest.

There are considerable and substantive legal intricacies here, most of which I won't go into in this post. But the gist of these intricacies is that the federal courts have a long and detailed "test" to evaluate whether a corporate entity is an "arm of the tribe," and hence entitled to immunity from suit. Further, there is a long list of federal cases stating that this "arm of the tribe" test does not apply to legal entities that are incorporated under state law (such as LLCs). In other words, Party B is only entitled to immunity if it can pass the "arm of the tribe" test. And the applicable case law says that this test does not apply to incorporated-under-state-law entities, and that such entities are not entitled to sovereign immunity.

The challenge I am facing is that Party B's attorney is not addressing these points, even though they are directly relevant and go to the heart of the dispute. Instead he just keeps repeating, over and over, "sovereign immunity."

I feel the same vibe when I read statements about the BoA like "{w}e have the papyrus and we have the BoA, and they don't match up" and "{t}here was no translation, not even close" and "none of the crazy apologetic theories are going to change that fact." You are not addressing the substantive issues that seem to be very much in dispute. You are, instead, unilaterally declaring "{f}ull stop, end of story."

You will understand why a person like me, having reviewed the foregoing materials, will not be satisfied with such a perfunctory and facile and conclusory assertion. Again, I submit that the "missing papyrus" theory is not only not "completely debunked," it is very much alive and kicking. I'll even go so far as to say it is most plausible interpretation of the historical record.

Thanks,

-Smac

The missing catalyst theory rests on a couple of statements about “rolls,” as well as John Gee’s extrapolation of the scroll length. Smith and Cook have done a good job laying both of those to rest. The roll described was apparently the “Book of Joseph” scroll that was never “translated.” The winding lengths on the remaining BofA fragments indicate not much missing scroll at all. Not insignificantly, Smith and Cook used the same mathematical formula Gee did, and they show where he made his errors.

But we’ve been down this path before. No reason to go over well-trod ground.

smac97 · May 17, 2022

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Apparently, that's good enough for you. Fair enough.

Actually, all of this stuff is, or ought to be, very much "downstream" from more important things. Me from last year:

Quote

There are lots of things for which "empirical evidence" (generally defined as "the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation") is in short supply, or else is subject to various challenges in terms of provenance, interpretation, application and meaning, etc.

By way of example: I have my wallet with me today. Where am I keeping it right now? On my desk? In my computer bag? In the back pocket of my pants? In the front? Right? Left? If you were to come back to this thread on March 10, 2026 and read these questions, what sort of "empirical evidence" do you think you could locate to answer them?
...
I attribute some of my current beliefs to having been raised in the Church. But I have also spent much of my adult life examining the evidence for and against the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ. I have also had many deeply spiritual experiences in relation to the doctrines of the Restored Gospel. These spiritual experiences, as well as the evidences cited by DCP and others, are some of the variables that "shape the personality preferences that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences" to lead me to my beliefs. So it's not "evidence rather than" these other things. It's "evidence in addition to and in tandem with" these other things.
...
I think the truth or falsity of the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot, and ought not, begin with and focus solely on a debate about scholarly evidence. I think that if someone is interested in The Book of Mormon, their primary focus should be seeking a spiritual witness of it. Ancillary evidences are nevertheless helpful. I like these comments by Daniel Peterson:

Quote

Of course, scholarship does not replace spiritual witness as a source of testimony. As Elder B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) of the Seventy said: “The power of the Holy Ghost … must ever be the chief source of evidence for the Book of Mormon. All other evidence is secondary. … No arrangement of evidence, however skillfully ordered; no argument, however adroitly made, can ever take its place.”

Yet scholarship has a definite place even in spiritual matters. The Lord said in an 1829 revelation through the Prophet Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery, “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost” (D&C 8:2; emphasis added). In 1832 the Lord said to the Prophet Joseph Smith, “Seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). As one writer observed: “What no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”

The truthfulness of the Restored Gospel must be predominantly and fundamentally ascertained through faith. Through studying, pondering, and prayer. Through inspiration from God. All other evidences are helpful, but secondary. Supportive, but not foundational.

Thanks,

-Smac

2BizE · May 17, 2022

One of the most painful, deeply-personal and anguishing things I have ever done, after many, many months of religious studies and personal soul-searching was finally allowing myself to admit that what I had been taught about the church all my life was not true; that I had been deceived. The BoA was truly a huge part of this anguish and deception.

For many years, LDS scholars stuck with the belief that the BoA was a literal translation from the writings from the hand of Abraham upon papyri. When it became evident, even after many years of church apologetics, that the BoA was actually common funerary text from a time nowhere close to Abraham, church scholars began to invent new theories like the missing scroll theory and the catalyst theory. These mental gymnastic theories are falling apart. When will the church finally face the hard reality?

strappinglad · May 17, 2022

If only the church had had access back then to a secure place tunneled into a granite mountain where all of the " records " could have been placed for safe keeping.

smac97 · May 17, 2022

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The missing catalyst theory rests on a couple of statements about “rolls,” as well as John Gee’s extrapolation of the scroll length.

"Missing catalyst theory?" I assume you mean "missing papyrus theory?"

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Smith and Cook have done a good job laying both of those to rest.

Smith and Cook's extrapolation is better than Gee's? Hard to say, really.

Meanwhile, you are sliding on past the "couple of statements about 'rolls.'" You are not addressing them. From Gee:

Quote

Within a month of the purchase of the papyri, William W. Phelps who at that time, among other assignments, served as scribe to Joseph Smith wrote to his wife in Missouri: “The last of June four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them.”16 Thus, at that time there were two rolls and more than one piece of other scattered papyri.

Gee references these as "two rolls and more than one piece of other scattered papyri." Do you dispute this summary?

More:

Quote

In December 1835, Oliver Cowdery, who like Phelps was Joseph’s scribe and so had worked closely with the papyri, described them as “two rolls of papyrus” filled with “characters . . . such as you find upon the coffins of mummies, hieroglyphics, &c. with many characters or letters exactly like the present, (though probably not quite so square,) form of the Hebrew without points” forming a “record . . . beautifully written on papyrus with black, and a small part, red ink or paint, in perfect preservation.”17 To this he added “that two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c. were found with others of the Mummies.”18 Cowdery thus indicated that there were several other miscellaneous pieces of papyri besides the two large rolls.
...
Jay Todd, years ago, seems to have accurately connected these descriptions with the present papyri fragments.21
...
21. See Todd, Saga of the Book of Abraham, 194.

Do you dispute any of this?

More:

Quote

By 1836, after much moving and handling,23 the papyri had suffered damage to the outer edges of the rolls (cf. figs. 1 and 2).24 A transcription of portions of the Tsemmenis roll probably done in 1835 shows squiggle marks used to indicate the edge of the papyrus, showing that portions had already come loose.25 That the papyri were beginning to break into little pieces is demonstrated by the tiny fragments patched in the wrong places in the mounted papyri.26 The backing paper is dated to the Kirtland period. Only the damaged outer portions of the rolls were mounted on paper; the remainder of the papyri, still being in relatively good condition, were left as rolls. This explains all the eyewitness reports and the remaining physical evidence. Joseph Smith’s own concern was shown when he committed the Egyptian antiquities into the hands of Joseph Coe (who had assisted in their purchase) in February 1836: “I complied with his request, and only observed that they must be managed with prudence and care especially the manuscripts.”27 It is at this time, if not earlier, that I suggest the papyri were mounted. The present Joseph Smith Papyri all come from these mounted fragments from the end of the rolls; none of the rolls has been preserved.

How do you reconcile your statement that "{w}e have the papyrus" with Gee's statement that what we have "all come from these mounted fragments from the end of the rolls; none of the rolls has been preserved" (emphasis added)?

Sign In

Kinderhook Plates Discovery damages BOA Missing Scroll and Catalyst Theories

Recommended Posts

The Unclean Deacon

Fether

The Unclean Deacon

Fether

Fether

sunstoned

Fether

Tweed1944

Calm

smac97

jkwilliams

smac97

smac97

jkwilliams

smac97

Joseph Smith "translated" a portion of those plates, not by claiming inspiration, but by comparing characters on the plates to those on his "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" (GAEL)

jkwilliams

smac97

jkwilliams

smac97

jkwilliams

smac97

2BizE

strappinglad

smac97

smac97

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse