Gee's Latest Book of Abraham Piece

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Gee's Latest Book of Abraham Piece

Post by _Trevor »

cksalmon wrote:Scratch: Your take on this essentially mirrors my own: (1) So, you want to get involved with original research on the Joseph Smith papyri? Better think long and hard about it; it might not be worth it; (2) If you ever wish to have access to the papyri, you must distance yourself from interested "anti-Mormons" and Egyptologists who have "cooperated" with interested "anti-Mormons." Otherwise, no dice.


Which shows essentially that the LDS Church treats its past in a very proprietary fashion. While certainly not unprecedented, it is unfortunate for scholars. Frankly, I hope the LDS Church comes up with someone better than Gee to hand this project off to. From what I have seen so far, he hasn't done a very good job. He's not a bad guy. He's a highly intelligent guy. But, he has clearly botched the handling of this issue. It doesn't take an Egyptologist to see that.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_CaliforniaKid
_Emeritus
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am

Post by _CaliforniaKid »

Chap wrote:And the joke is that we shall soon see this incident cited as another version of the let-out tactic 'the scribes did it'.


Courtesy of Will Schryver, we already have.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Gee's Latest Book of Abraham Piece

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Trevor wrote:
cksalmon wrote:Scratch: Your take on this essentially mirrors my own: (1) So, you want to get involved with original research on the Joseph Smith papyri? Better think long and hard about it; it might not be worth it; (2) If you ever wish to have access to the papyri, you must distance yourself from interested "anti-Mormons" and Egyptologists who have "cooperated" with interested "anti-Mormons." Otherwise, no dice.


Which shows essentially that the LDS Church treats its past in a very proprietary fashion. While certainly not unprecedented, it is unfortunate for scholars. Frankly, I hope the LDS Church comes up with someone better than Gee to hand this project off to. From what I have seen so far, he hasn't done a very good job. He's not a bad guy. He's a highly intelligent guy. But, he has clearly botched the handling of this issue. It doesn't take an Egyptologist to see that.


Yes; I suppose the next logical step is to do as Charity once suggested---namely, to burn the papyri so that the "antis" cannot use them against the Church.
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Gee's Latest Book of Abraham Piece

Post by _cinepro »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Trevor wrote:
Yes; I suppose the next logical step is to do as Charity once suggested---namely, to burn the papyri so that the "antis" cannot use them against the Church.


God already tried that in 1871. Are you suggesting someone else might need to finish the job?
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Gee's Latest Book of Abraham Piece

Post by _Trevor »

cinepro wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
Yes; I suppose the next logical step is to do as Charity once suggested---namely, to burn the papyri so that the "antis" cannot use them against the Church.


God already tried that in 1871. Are you suggesting someone else might need to finish the job?


Just to correct the quoting. I didn't write that.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Gee's Latest Book of Abraham Piece

Post by _Mister Scratch »

cinepro wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
Trevor wrote:
Yes; I suppose the next logical step is to do as Charity once suggested---namely, to burn the papyri so that the "antis" cannot use them against the Church.


God already tried that in 1871. Are you suggesting someone else might need to finish the job?


This is what many a TBM has seemed to suggest. As for me personally.... No. I vote that the Church open up the archives fully (including GAs' personal stuff). No jumping through any hoops, or approval by "dozens" of committees, or whatever else. Full transparency, that's what I advise.
_William Schryver
_Emeritus
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:58 pm

Post by _William Schryver »

CK:

Not all the papyri were cut up. The remainder of the Hor Book of Breathings, in fact, remained a roll. I believe I worked out that it would have been about 3-5 feet long, even after the first part was cut off. I think that that would satisfy Ms. Haven's "long roll" requirement.

And exactly how did you “work out” this conjectured length?

I'm also sick to death of arguing with Will, who is making the same old claims I thought we'd put to rest ages ago.

What “old claims” did I make, Chris? Or have you simply assumed that I was saying something I wasn’t?

Did you, by the way, actually listen to/read all of Sam Brown’s paper? Sam makes a very convincing and documented argument for the extent to which Phelps was the primary driving force behind the EAG (or GAEL, or whatever acronym you prefer).

As far as the claims you assert were “put to rest ages ago,” I would argue that the debate has just barely begun. Here we are on the verge of having both sides of the argument make the first truly substantive installments in the debate, and you are acting like the contest was decided “ages ago”?

The fact is that you know a little of what Metcalfe/Wright/Ashment/et al. are going to argue in their upcoming book. But you know next to nothing about what Hauglid/Gee have been doing in the past few years. You have come to take almost for granted the key premise that KEPA #2 and #3 are what Metcalfe has long argued: simultaneous transcripts of Joseph Smith’s original oral translation/dictation of the Book of Abraham.

If so, you’re in for a few surprises.

And despite the various errors that Nibley admittedly made in his original The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers – a frequent target of your haughty derision – most of his conclusions were absolutely correct, and I am convinced that he will be vindicated to a great extent as time goes on – especially in terms of his sense that Phelps was the primary catalyst behind the “project” represented by much of what we now call the KEP.

In any case, as I have always maintained, the best thing to ever happen to Book of Abraham apologetics will be to have high-quality images of the KEP available to a wide audience. Until then, don’t feel too bad if few people “in the know” take seriously your confident pronouncements about what claims have been “put to rest ages ago.”
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

William Schryver wrote:In any case, as I have always maintained, the best thing to ever happen to Book of Abraham apologetics will be to have high-quality images of the KEP available to a wide audience.


If that were actually true, then why hasn't the church itself made them available yet?
"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
_CaliforniaKid
_Emeritus
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am

Post by _CaliforniaKid »

William Schryver wrote:And exactly how did you “work out” this conjectured length?


The two remaining columns plus facsimile 3. I used the figures provided in Rhodes' text.

Did you, by the way, actually listen to/read all of Sam Brown’s paper? Sam makes a very convincing and documented argument for the extent to which Phelps was the primary driving force behind the EAG (or GAEL, or whatever acronym you prefer).


Phelps may have provided much or most of the enthusiasm. But Joseph Smith provided the inspiration. Lucy Mack Smith's preliminary manuscript suggests that Joseph Smith sent Cowdery to Anthon because he was thinking about creating an alphabet for use in the translation of the Book of Mormon. Even before the papyri showed up, Phelps was serving as Smith's scribe in creating an Adamic alphabet. The Papyri were a convenient focal point for their linguistic work. You claimed on the other board that Phelps kept the Grammar in his possession. That's not correct. Smith's diary records Phelps coming to the office to pick the Grammar up in order to use it in composing a letter. We have a record that suggests that Mother Lucy showed the Grammar to Nauvoo visitors. And the Grammar was used by Joseph Smith in another context, as well, that I am not at liberty to disclose until a friend publishes on the subject. Joseph Smith also contemplated preparing the Grammar for publication in 1842. You also repeated Nibley's claim that Joseph Smith let his scribes go their own way. As I showed in a recent thread, Nibley's argument doesn't even make sense. And finally, you argued that the Book of Abraham was originally much longer than it is now. I sent you a copy of my paper, which should have ended that argument once and for all!

The fact is that you know a little of what Metcalfe/Wright/Ashment/et al. are going to argue in their upcoming book.


If you think I'm relying on Brent for my conclusions, you're wrong. I've done my own work, and drawn my own conclusions.

-Chris
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

CaliforniaKid wrote:Not all the papyri were cut up. The remainder of the Hor Book of Breathings, in fact, remained a roll. I believe I worked out that it would have been about 3-5 feet long, even after the first part was cut off. I think that that would satisfy Ms. Haven's "long roll" requirement.


Makes sense. Afterall, we don't have fac. 3. So fac. 1 and part of the text was mounted to glass - which has survived - and this represents part of what the Book of Abraham came from. The rest of the Book of Abraham comes from the sections that are missing - the rest of the text through fac. 3. I can see that.

But we do know that the Book of Abraham came from fac. 1 and the text after it. And we know how Joseph Smith 'translated' the papyri (based on the KEP and Joseph Smith's 'translation' of the characters in fac. 3). In other words - the egyptian characters don't translate to Joseph Smith's meaning - so i'm not sure why any apologist would hold out hope that a 'missing scroll' would all of a sudden show a match between the egyptian character and Joseph Smith's 'translated' english text.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Post Reply