DiscussMormonism.com

Question: Apparently, most of the textual material that was in the possession of Joseph Smith in his life time is not now extant. He-who-must-not-be named (nice Lovecraftian ring to that...) and other critics (Brent Metcalf et el) would argue, as best I can make out, that this argument is flawed for at least the following reasons:

1. The KEP is adequate for a complete explanation of the translation process. The Egyptian Alphabet and Grammer are clearly, in this argument, compelling and essentially irrefutable evidence of the means by which the Book of Abraham was produced, and those means were of a purely human sort.

2. An apparent unwillingness to accept, at face value, the several documentary eyewitness accounts we have detailing a rather large quantity of text. The rejection of the documentary evidence here concerns me, because I'm not at all certain how 19th century Mormons could have foreseen the loss of the materials or the precise nature of the attacks upon the Book of Abraham in the 20th century. The missing material either did or didn't exist, buy how, in a logical or evidential way, can multiple eyewitnesses be simply dismissed as irrelevant?

I have run into a rather vicious and impenetrable attitude on the-board-that-must-not-be-named regarding these issues. My problem is that, quite frankly, rational discourse on this issue seems unlikely. I have already been torn asunder by the Brights over at the-board-that-must-not-be-named just for coming here seeking some help with the issue. This was seen as running away and cowering before the mighty cogitations of the-smart-people-who-must-not-be-named over there.

Well, here I am again, sniveling and cowering, and perhaps we could set the evidence out here in condensed form for a look.

I'm interested in just why the critics think they're positions are so certain. My present knowledge of the issue, from a strictly scholarly standpoint, is that both sides are working with a serious dearth of hard data and plausibilities exist in both camps. This doesn't change my testimony, of course, but it seems to me that humility in the face of the kind of theoretical reconstructions of history necessary in such an intellectual endeavor would be called for among the critics.

Now, I've been told many times that if the Church was ever proven to be a fraud, my world view world collapse. Hence I fear such evidence. But isn't this true on both sides? If further evidence (such as the discovery of Abraham's name in an Egyptian setting etc.) were to come forth friendly to the Book of Abraham, so friendly, indeed, that the KEP arguments looked less and less reliable, would world views not be at stake here as well?

My impression, if emotional investment is any cue, is that He-who-must-not-be-named's world view would, far from collapsing, release enough energy to give the Manhattan Project a run for its money.

Hello Droopy,

I am of the opinion that much less papyrus is now missing than Dr. Gee has hypothesized. For example, since Joseph Smith copied into his KEP notebooks a few excerpts and drawings from Books of the Dead belonging to Amenhotep and Neferirnub, Gee concludes that Joseph Smith once had the full rolls, which were subsequently destroyed in the Chicago Fire. In a paper that is in the final revision stage and will hopefully soon be submitted for publication, I and Don Bradley argue that Joseph Smith only ever had small scraps of the Amenhotep roll. This hypothesis might easily be extended to the Neferirnub roll, as well, especially since most sources seem to record Joseph having possessed only a couple rolls and some assorted fragments.

Of course, the issue ultimately is not one of whether Joseph Smith had a large quantity of papyrus. The issue is whether the source text for the Book of Abraham is presently missing. We know that it most definitely is not, because the translation manuscripts and the Alphabet and Grammar quite explicitly derive it from characters on PJS XI, the Small Sensen fragment.

It is worth adding that one of the more complete statements of my, Brent's, and others' arguments against the missing papyrus hypothesis is a mercifully short thread on this very forum:

http://tinyurl.com/2e9hrw

(EDIT: I recommend reading the specific post I linked to first, as it is something of a primer, and then going back and reading the rest of the thread. Brent Metcalfe's links are instructive, so you won't want to miss those. Happy hunting.)

-Chris

Coggins7 wrote:I'm interested in just why the critics think they're positions are so certain.

T-Shirt:
We don't "most definitely" know anything of the sort. He, and a few others, may think they know this, but it is far from definitive. It is a statement that jumps to unwarranted conclusions and, in my mind, shows shoddy and agenda driven scholarship.

Hammer:
This is just more speculation. Like we need more of that.

LOAP:
Is Chris parot-ting, or?

T-Shirt

John W

I'm just kind of spectating here, but what about Chris's statement is so damaging to his credibility? Could you explain?

This part:

Chris
We know that it most definitely is not

We don't "most definitely" know anything of the sort. He, and a few others, may think they know this, but it is far from definitive. It is a statement that jumps to unwarranted conclusions and, in my mind, shows shoddy and agenda driven scholarship.

T-Shirt

Chris Smith
All of this is quite definite enough for me.

Then you should have said that in the first place. Thank you for the admission that your use of the word, "we" was not a good choice.

But if you and the apologists want to have a sleepover at your place and swap jokes about the critics' "unwarranted conclusions", I'll provide the deviled eggs.

Does it bother you that much that my statement was accurate?

T-Shirt

T-shirt
Wow, a rank, amateur, anti-Book of Abraham apologist accusing LDS of deliberately overlooking evidence. That's nice.

T-Shirt

CaliforniaKid wrote:P.S. - Remind me again why I bother?