Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _sock puppet »

CaliforniaKid wrote:To be persuasive, I think the catalyst theory would have to operate under a different God-concept. Rather than God deliberately intervening in history to give Joseph revelation, this would have to be Joseph striving to commune with inner divine light. In other words, human-initiated experience of the divine rather than divine-initiated "revelation" of some literal truth.

I'm thinking of something along the lines of the Emersonian poet:

Jesus Christ belonged to the true race of prophets. He saw with open eye the mystery of the soul. Drawn by its severe harmony, ravished with its beauty, he lived in it, and had his being there. Alone in all history, he estimated the greatness of man. One man was true to what is in you and me. He saw that God incarnates himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his world. He said, in this jubilee of sublime emotion, `I am divine. Through me, God acts; through me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; or, see thee, when thou also thinkest as I now think.' But what a distortion did his doctrine and memory suffer in the same, in the next, and the following ages! There is no doctrine of the Reason which will bear to be taught by the Understanding. The understanding caught this high chant from the poet's lips, and said, in the next age, `This was Jehovah come down out of heaven. I will kill you, if you say he was a man.' The idioms of his language, and the figures of his rhetoric, have usurped the place of his truth; and churches are not built on his principles, but on his tropes. Christianity became a Mythus, as the poetic teaching of Greece and of Egypt, before. He spoke of miracles; for he felt that man's life was a miracle, and all that man doth, and he knew that this daily miracle shines, as the character ascends. But the word Miracle, as pronounced by Christian churches, gives a false impression; it is Monster. It is not one with the blowing clover and the falling rain.


In Joseph Smith's case, the "mythus" would be the historical Book of Abraham. And it would be not something invented by his followers after his death, but something he himself believed.

Peace,

-Chris

Looking inside oneself for the story is called writing fiction, whether looking for the nobler aspects of humanity or not.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Thank you, Kevin, for that graphical analysis. Well done!

It's MUCH easier, at least for me, to see all that in visual form instead of having to recreate it mentally from text alone.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_Mortal Man
_Emeritus
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:44 am

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _Mortal Man »

Thanks for posting these excellent images Kevin.

Kevin Graham wrote:For the most part, the lacuna was there in 1835, with the exception of characters 1-2.

Character 13 was also present on the papyrus in 1835 and bears a strong resemblance to Parrish's character.

Image

Ed Ashment kindly verified that the red-box restorations (from our paper) are Egyptologically correct and that the character beginning the second line is transliterated as Wsir.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _sock puppet »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Aristotle Smith wrote:I have a theoretical question for you. Suppose the church gave you an offer you couldn't refuse to defend the Book of Abraham. They give you reassurances that you would only have to privately deliver a paper to LDS Inc., that your name would be kept confidential, and that they wouldn't expect you to personally defend the Book of Abraham after the paper. Once you are done with the paper, you can wash your hands of the whole thing. Now, for whatever reason you decide to take up the church on that offer. How or what would you do to defend the Book of Abraham, what's the best case the apologists can possibly make?

I'm just trying to see what's left for apologists to actually work with. It seems that Joseph Smith slammed the door shut to so many explanations that a believer could use to wiggle out of Book of Abraham problems, defending the Book of Mormon seems to be a cake walk compared to defending the Book of Abraham.



Maybe Pres. Monson could receive new revelation that the Book of Abraham is not canonical scripture?

Yeah, like maybe Pres. Monson could have raised a staff, the Red Sea parted, and Hosni Mubarak just walked to safety.
_kairos
_Emeritus
Posts: 1917
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _kairos »

does kevin's work actually contain the smoking gun blowing away the "missing papyrus" theory?

i thk so- gee et al say the papyrus containing the Book of Abraham is missing BUT the egyptian characters in the GAEL papers ,ie character plus "translation" , actually come from a papyrus that EXISTS so the "missing " papyrus theory is bullS***.

is this why the apologists are trying desperately to distance the papers with the characters and "translation" paragraphs from the translation process of Joseph Smith?

sorry if everyone else has already figured this out!

thanx!

k
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _Runtu »

John Gee deceptive? Say it isn't so!
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _sock puppet »

kairos wrote:does kevin's work actually contain the smoking gun blowing away the "missing papyrus" theory?

i thk so- gee et al say the papyrus containing the Book of Abraham is missing BUT the egyptian characters in the GAEL papers ,ie character plus "translation" , actually come from a papyrus that EXISTS so the "missing " papyrus theory is bullS***.

is this why the apologists are trying desperately to distance the papers with the characters and "translation" paragraphs from the translation process of Joseph Smith?

sorry if everyone else has already figured this out!

thanx!

k

Hey, k,

There are so many points that the mopologists need to establish to salvage JSJr's claims re the BoAbr, and the critics only need to win on one.

The mopologists need to distant JSJr from those characters in the left hand margins of Ms2 being placed there and then establish that there was no indication from JSJr to the scribes that caused them to add them to those margins. Those are just a couple of dozens of points that mopologists must win, each and every one, for the salvage effort to prevail.

The sequencing of those characters in the margins of Ms2 matching the sequencing of those characters on the papyrus is just one insurmountable problem for the mopologists. Gee has tried to divert the attention of onlookers, much like pointing out the passing ice cream truck to divert attention away from a traffic accident fatality laying on the highway before the ambulance arrives.
_Aristotle Smith
_Emeritus
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _Aristotle Smith »

Runtu wrote:John Gee deceptive? Say it isn't so!


It isn't so!

Did that help?
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _Runtu »

Aristotle Smith wrote:
Runtu wrote:John Gee deceptive? Say it isn't so!


It isn't so!

Did that help?


Maybe if I repeat it a bunch of times.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _Runtu »

Aristotle Smith wrote:
Runtu wrote:John Gee deceptive? Say it isn't so!


It isn't so!

Did that help?


Maybe if I repeat it a bunch of times.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
Post Reply