Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Rivendale
High Priest
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:21 pm

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Rivendale »

Moksha wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 9:34 pm
Precedence for the Catalyst Theory was set in November 1935 in the football game between Ohio State and Notre Dame, when Irish halfback Bill Shakespeare found receiver Wayne Millner for a 19-yard, game-winning touchdown. It was the birth of the Hail Mary pass.

Mormon precedence for this Catalyst Theory took place in December 1980, when Brigham Young University quarterback Jim McMahon threw a 41-yard touchdown pass to tight end Clay Brown to defeat Southern Methodist University in the 1980 Holiday Bowl. BYU was able to pull out a 46-45 victory when four minutes before BYU had been down by 20 points. They threw caution to the wind and hurled wild catalyst theories across the field.

Forget the playbook of the clunky apologists and turn to Cosmo the Cougar for an explanation that defies logic and questioning!
But you digress. Jim McMahon desecrated the origination of said Hail Mary by declaring the best thing about Provo was seeing it in his rearview mirror. But that is semantics.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4531
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Shulem »

dan vogel wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 11:24 pm
You did fine Bill. As I mentioned, Part 1 of the Alphabets deal with Katumin and the Egyptian royal family, which expands on the Katumin passage in the Valuable Discovery notebooks. These notebooks copy characters from the lost Amenhotep papyrus fragments. In these notebooks you will find the boat-like character. It doesn't matter what it is in Egyptian, but what Joseph Smith perceived it as. He didn't know what he was looking at and couldn't distinguish similar characters with different meanings. The character in question is 1.11.

I'm with you on that, Dan. All that really matters is what Smith thought. And that's what we are trying to figure out. Earlier I posited that Ritner translated "lord" (neb) in Facsimile No. 3 Fig. 1, and yet it's a rather abstract interpretation based on the garbled hieroglyphs rather than a straightforward concrete reading we might get from another source. Do note that the "mouth" is clearly in the inscription for Fig. 2, and that is very, very prominent. Also note that Smith associated the so-called boat glyph (I cringe to say that) with Ho e oop hah which had everything to do with "King Pharaoh" and kingly things which designate the person standing behind the throne in Facsimile No. 3. There above is the Egyptian hieroglyph for a "mouth". Ed Goble had the audacity to equate it (mouth) with a royal Cartouche in his desperate attempt to turn Isis into a king.

It could be that Smith had his eye on the characters of Fig 2 of Facsimile No. 3 and associated it (mouth) with things having to do with a KING.

Image
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 3082
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Moksha »

Image
"What are items you might see on a miniature
golf course
for $500?"
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Don Bradley
Nursery
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 2:41 am

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Don Bradley »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 3:59 pm
I’m calling on Don Bradley to come to this thread, and lay out an apologetic. Don, this is your moment, your chance to reconcile what is in reality a silver bullet with regard to Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims and ‘translations’. This is the place where people will engage you earnestly, and help you refine your approach to these particular issues.

- Doc
Hey Doc!

Thanks for the invitation.

I'll clarify what I said on the podcast. I'm not working to construct an apologetic for the Book of Abraham. I'm working to figure out Joseph Smith's engagement with the Egyptian papyri in his possession, including by what processes the various documents (the Book of Abraham manuscripts, the "Valuable Discovery," the Egyptian Counting document, the EA documents, and the GAEL) were produced, relate to one another, when and in what order they were produced, and how their contents were derived. That is a long-term project that will require a lot more analysis of the sources. Naturally, findings from that research would have implications for apologetic-critical debate and may favor or disfavor various arguments put forth by both critics and apologists. However, my own goal is not to produce apologetics on the subject but scholarship.

Cheers,

Don
Don Bradley
Nursery
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 2:41 am

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Don Bradley »

dan vogel wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 11:24 pm
The character in question is 1.11.
Thanks for clarifying that, Dan. I was forgetting whether that character was actually one from the papyrus or not.

Because I hadn't expected to participate in the show I didn't do any preparation like re-immersing in the material beforehand.

Don
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4531
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Shulem »

I will try and get Bradley's article read today or certainly this weekend. Obviously, I'm behind and need to catch up.

I'd like to posit more thoughts on the "mouth" hieroglyph as a possible association with the neb character as expressed by Bill Reel. Recall early on that Cowdery gave definitive descriptions for vignettes in Joseph's roll in 1835 while in Kirtland and published revelatory statements in the Messenger and Advocate. Those include the god-head—three, yet in one, the serpent represented as walking, and Enoch's Pillar. This serves to show that Joseph Smith was providing brother Cowdery information about the vignettes early on and we get those distinct interpretations directly from Joseph's roll. We can also rightly suppose that the same kind of discussion occurred about Abraham's roll and the vignettes that flanked the Book of Abraham story: Facsimiles 1 & 3. If Smith and Cowdery were talking about some of the finer points of the vignettes in Joseph's roll then why not Abraham's roll as well? It makes perfect sense! Cowdery pretty much tips his hand that discussions about the vignettes in BOTH rolls had already taken place:

Oliver Cowdery wrote:I might continue my communication to a great length upon the different figures and characters represented upon the two rolls, but I have no doubt my subject has already become sufficiently prolix for your patience: I will therefore soon cease for the present.

In addition, Cowdery also made some distinct statements about the vignette for the Nefer-ir-nebu Book of the Dead Judgement Scene and characters therein. So, it's entirely reasonable that Smith, early on, identified Abraham on the altar in Facsimile No. 1 being sacrificed at the point of a knife. In addition, on the same roll, Smith identified King Pharaoh standing behind seated Abraham on the throne. That makes perfect sense! Given all the information given by Cowdery in the Messenger and Advocate it stands to reason that basic descriptions were also given for the vignettes in Abraham's roll. And with that, Smith would have identified the black character as an Egyptian slave and so this interpretation was given many years before Nauvoo and the final translations and publication. Poor Anubis must have been identified as a slave in 1835! But that's another story as you well know. What I stress here in this post is that the "mouth" character in the hieroglyphs above Fig. 2 of Facsimile No. 3 may well have been interpreted as a royal symbol having to do with the king of Egypt. That's really the best candidate for linking the character to the Kinderhook plate. Wouldn't you say?

Do you see my point?
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 3001
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Philo Sofee »

Don Bradley wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 8:47 am
dan vogel wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 11:24 pm
The character in question is 1.11.
Thanks for clarifying that, Dan. I was forgetting whether that character was actually one from the papyrus or not.

Because I hadn't expected to participate in the show I didn't do any preparation like re-immersing in the material beforehand.

Don
You did very well Don! It was a terrific appearance by phone, it made the program! If there is anything I can do to help out and study with you let me know. I think up to this point, if it can be looked at as a basis and anchor point the chronology that Vogel has presented is seriously helpful! I have benefitted from it enormously.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 3001
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Philo Sofee »

Shulem wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 11:16 am
I will try and get Bradley's article read today or certainly this weekend. Obviously, I'm behind and need to catch up.

I'd like to posit more thoughts on the "mouth" hieroglyph as a possible association with the neb character as expressed by Bill Reel. Recall early on that Cowdery gave definitive descriptions for vignettes in Joseph's roll in 1835 while in Kirtland and published revelatory statements in the Messenger and Advocate. Those include the god-head—three, yet in one, the serpent represented as walking, and Enoch's Pillar. This serves to show that Joseph Smith was providing brother Cowdery information about the vignettes early on and we get those distinct interpretations directly from Joseph's roll. We can also rightly suppose that the same kind of discussion occurred about Abraham's roll and the vignettes that flanked the Book of Abraham story: Facsimiles 1 & 3. If Smith and Cowdery were talking about some of the finer points of the vignettes in Joseph's roll then why not Abraham's roll as well? It makes perfect sense! Cowdery pretty much tips his hand that discussions about the vignettes in BOTH rolls had already taken place:

Oliver Cowdery wrote:I might continue my communication to a great length upon the different figures and characters represented upon the two rolls, but I have no doubt my subject has already become sufficiently prolix for your patience: I will therefore soon cease for the present.

In addition, Cowdery also made some distinct statements about the vignette for the Nefer-ir-nebu Book of the Dead Judgement Scene and characters therein. So, it's entirely reasonable that Smith, early on, identified Abraham on the altar in Facsimile No. 1 being sacrificed at the point of a knife. In addition, on the same roll, Smith identified King Pharaoh standing behind seated Abraham on the throne. That makes perfect sense! Given all the information given by Cowdery in the Messenger and Advocate it stands to reason that basic descriptions were also given for the vignettes in Abraham's roll. And with that, Smith would have identified the black character as an Egyptian slave and so this interpretation was given many years before Nauvoo and the final translations and publication. Poor Anubis must have been identified as a slave in 1835! But that's another story as you well know. What I stress here in this post is that the "mouth" character in the hieroglyphs above Fig. 2 of Facsimile No. 3 may well have been interpreted as a royal symbol having to do with the king of Egypt. That's really the best candidate for linking the character to the Kinderhook plate. Wouldn't you say?

Do you see my point?
that is definitely worth persuing Shulem. In conjunction with the royalty symbol, Kerry Muhlestein, from an apologetic view has admitted Smith believed the mummies were royalty. In that respect Muhlestein may actually be helpful to us here. I shall also be persuiing this.
User avatar
MormonDiscussionInc
Nursery
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 7:23 pm

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by MormonDiscussionInc »

It seems as though 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. 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 requires that While Joseph 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 mistaken about 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.

As far as I can tell, Both of these theories would require absurd amounts of pretzel twisting and mental gymnastics to continue to uphold them. And The remaining theory by Ed Goble is completely untestable hence it is even worse than the "Missing scroll theory" and like that theory is indiscernible from a fraud. And with the mountains and mountains of other sticky issues in favor of the critics conclusion (Mormonism isn't true and sure as hell isn't what it claims), we are left unable to go any further. Mormonism is a dead branch, from a dead tree, in a dead forest.
Mormon Discussion Inc is a non-profit that seeks to help others deconstruct unhealthy systems and reconstruct their lives One Episode At a Time MormonDiscussionPodcast.org
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4531
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Shulem »

dan vogel wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 11:24 pm
You did fine Bill. As I mentioned, Part 1 of the Alphabets deal with Katumin and the Egyptian royal family, which expands on the Katumin passage in the Valuable Discovery notebooks. These notebooks copy characters from the lost Amenhotep papyrus fragments. In these notebooks you will find the boat-like character. It doesn't matter what it is in Egyptian, but what Joseph Smith perceived it as. He didn't know what he was looking at and couldn't distinguish similar characters with different meanings. The character in question is 1.11.

Image

Again, if anyone is interested, I refer back to the hieroglyphic "mouth" which is the 5th character within the inscription that is supposed to designate the name of King Pharaoh in Facsimile No. 3:

Image


Smith's Egyptian Alphabet Explanation for (Kah-tou-mun, Kah=tou​=​mun, Kah-tou=mun) seems to use that particular character to designate the royal line of the house of Katumin. Vogel is very familiar with all this and it's character No. 7 on his chart which correlates with the listing of the characters in Smith's Egyptian Alphabet. That designates the name of the royal family in the female line.

Again, poor Ed Goble wanted to turn the "mouth" into a royal Cartouche in order to legitimize the inscription as a royal name for a king but I explained how that is simply impossible. A royal name is always enclosed by the Cartouche itself.
Post Reply