DiscussMormonism.com

In Gee's latest FR article, he closes, in part, with the following remark:

If we had the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated-- and I testify that we do not-- the critics would not believe it; and most of them could not read it anyway.

I don't know enough about the way the word "testify" is used in the LDS community to know whether it necessarily implies testimony, or whether it could be used to relate a more general, evidentiary knowledge. Maybe y'all can help answer that for me. If Gee has a testimony of the missing papyrus theory, that might help explain why he feels such a need to make the facts to fit the theory.

Another interesting thing about this remark is that it assumes that if the Book of Abraham's source were extant (which it is), its text would translate Egyptologically as the Book of Abraham (which it does not). The catalyst theory, in other words, does not even appear to be on the table for Gee. I've frequently been told by believing Mormons of the FARMS variety that "fundamentalist assumptions" are the cause of most apostasies from the church. By continuing to publish Gee's missing papyrus essays, despite the obviously poor quality of his research and reasoning, is not the FR setting its readers up for apostasy?

Best,

-Chris

CaliforniaKid wrote:In Gee's latest FR article, he closes, in part, with the following remark:

If we had the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated-- and I testify that we do not-- the critics would not believe it; and most of them could not read it anyway.

I don't know enough about the way the word "testify" is used in the LDS community to know whether it necessarily implies testimony, or whether it could be used to relate a more general, evidentiary knowledge. Maybe y'all can help answer that for me. If Gee has a testimony of the missing papyrus theory, that might help explain why he feels such a need to make the facts to fit the theory.

No, you're right, Chris: "testify" is used in precisely the same way as it would be used in a Sunday Fast & Testimony meeting. Gee is "testifying" in the spiritual sense. In other words, his "evidence" is his faith, his belief, and not anything empirical per se. I'm sure you've noticed that apologists will often bear their testimony in this way when they've stumbled into a particularly thorny arena. This is a hold-over from their experience as missionaries: whenever they encountered a tough scenarios, they were taught to bear their testimonies and to hope for the best. It really is a kind of argumentative "hail mary."

CaliforniaKid wrote:In Gee's latest FR article, he closes, in part, with the following remark:

If we had the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated-- and I testify that we do not-- the critics would not believe it; and most of them could not read it anyway.

I don't know enough about the way the word "testify" is used in the LDS community to know whether it necessarily implies testimony, or whether it could be used to relate a more general, evidentiary knowledge. Maybe y'all can help answer that for me. If Gee has a testimony of the missing papyrus theory, that might help explain why he feels such a need to make the facts to fit the theory.

Another interesting thing about this remark is that it assumes that if the Book of Abraham's source were extant (which it is), its text would translate Egyptologically as the Book of Abraham (which it does not). The catalyst theory, in other words, does not even appear to be on the table for Gee. I've frequently been told by believing Mormons of the FARMS variety that "fundamentalist assumptions" are the cause of most apostasies from the church. By continuing to publish Gee's missing papyrus essays, despite the obviously poor quality of his research and reasoning, is not the FR setting its readers up for apostasy?

Best,

-Chris

Gee simply knows his audience. In LDS culture, once someone in authority testifies of something, the debate is over. I would assume he never uses that language in his scholarly circles because I'm sure they would reply to his testimony by asking for proof.

I disagree thaqt the catalyst theory is off the table. No theories are off the table. He has essentially made the missing scroll theory bullet-proof, because there is no way to disprove it. Sure we have the sensen text which appears to logically be the Book of Abraham source to third parties. But since the sensen text doesn't translate correctly, it can't be the source. So the only logically conclusion (for LDS) is that the source is still lost, and there is no way to disprove that. However, if the missing scroll theory somehow did become indefensible, the catalyst theory would certainly be the next best theory to move to.

I have a Testimony, that the Missing Papyrus Theory, For the Book of Abraham is FALSE.

I don't "have a testimony" of anything, Brackite, but I certainly testify that you're absolutely right about that!

However, if the missing scroll theory somehow did become indefensible, the catalyst theory would certainly be the next best theory to move to.

I'm sure that most of the apologists will move to that (or maybe to the mnemonic device theory) when the missing papyrus model is decisively falsified in academic publications (which I'm quite convinced is only a matter of time). But what I'm wondering is whether by insisting so strongly on this literal-translation missing papyrus model, the FARMS writers might be reinforcing fundamentalist assumptions in their readers. Will readers who have been raised and fed on missing papyrus all their lives feel betrayed when the theory is abandoned? Will all of them be able to easily make the transition, or will some fall away? And will Gee himself swallow his pride and make the transition? Or will he just fall silent or continue his ad hominems?

CaliforniaKid wrote: Will readers who have been raised and fed on missing papyrus all their lives feel betrayed when the theory is abandoned? Will all of them be able to easily make the transition, or will some fall away? And will Gee himself swallow his pride and make the transition? Or will he just fall silent or continue his ad hominems?

Unless it comes over the GC pulpit and is printed in the Ensign, very few of the members will ever know enough to feel betrayed. And even then, it's a crapshoot about who wasn't sleeping through conference.

I testify that the word testify has multiple uses. In any case it is a witness. I don't think that testifying that an organization does not have possession of a document makes it a spiritual witness.

The Nehor wrote:I testify that the word testify has multiple uses. In any case it is a witness. I don't think that testifying that an organization does not have possession of a document makes it a spiritual witness.

I'm not so sure. There are a million other things he could have said. He could have said "And I propose we do not" or "I suggest we do not" or "I think we do not" or "It is my belief we do not" or "the evidence suggests we do not".

But testify...?

That word does have very specific, loaded meaning for LDS since it is used in a Church setting at least once a month in F&T meeting, where people state knowledge that they have based on spiritual evidence and convictions. They testify that these things are true, and when they do, the debate is over. Their belief is based on a higher form of evidence that isn't open to question.

If Gee didn't mean to invoke this meaning (and it isn't further explained elsewhere in the article), then it was an irresponsible use of the word. At the very least, the editor of the piece should have picked up on it.

The missing papyrus is easily explained and located by the writing on the Kinderhook plates... as far as they are translated correctly.

Hey CK,

Will readers who have been raised and fed on missing papyrus all their lives feel betrayed when the theory is abandoned?

Nope... few members have any remote idea that the Book of Abraham is not what it claims to be. Most LDS members have no idea that the scrolls have been found, that they do not match the true translation, or that there is an issue surrounding the topic at all.

Will all of them be able to easily make the transition, or will some fall away?

No transition necessary. For the handful of members who know there has been an issue surrounding the Book of Abraham, they have most likely put is on the proverbial shelf and will now be glad for further light and knowledge. It will confirm the prophet's divine calling and the opening of heaven.

And will Gee himself swallow his pride and make the transition? Or will he just fall silent or continue his ad hominems?

As always, difficult or uncomfortable issues just fad away in the LDS church. The brethren stop discussing the untruth, they eliminate the teachings from church manuals, and apologists end up conforming.

Think about the change in the temple rituals and ceremonies; the changes in the Book of Mormon, the past teachings of Native Americans being Lamanites, etc. etc. etc.

This is a well established pattern.

~td~