Critics ignore the real 800 pound Book of Abraham Gorilla in the room

[_Trevor]

I understand the technique that you're referring to. Sheesh. I was hoping for a clear/concise refutation.

Just as an aside, if the missing scroll theory flies with apologists regarding the Book of Abraham, then so should Manuscript Found.

Shoe other foot theory.

I guess my receiver is as faulty as my transmitter!

[_Brackite]

In 1906, President Joseph F. Smith, while visiting Nauvoo, told Preston Nibley of a childhood experience in which he observed "Uncle Joseph" working on a copious quantity of papyrus roll, which "when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.

This Point has already been addressed, dealt with, and refuted on this Discussion Board, a while ago. The Following is from the Discussion Thread Titled, 'In Search for the Missing Papyrus', Here on MD Board, a while ago:

Hi There,
The Following is from Brent Metcalfe [who] wrote several years ago about this, on the Zion Lighthouse Board:

In the Improvement Era, Hugh informs readers that Preston Nibley had supplied the Joseph F. Smith account. Preston published his 1906 encounter with Joseph F. in the early 1940's (if memory serves), but omitted the recollection about the BoAbr papyri. According to Preston, in 1906 Joseph F. was recalling an event that occurred over six decades earlier when Smith was 5 years old, or younger. Four years later, in 1910, Hugh was born. Before Preston died (in the mid 1960's?) he related Joseph F.'s recollection to Hugh. Finally, Hugh published the reminiscence in the mid/late 1960's. Given this transmission history, scholars would be reckless to uncritically appeal to Joseph F.'s story as an unblemished depiction of the BoAbr papyri.

( Brent Metcalfe, Zion Lighthouse Message Board, 2003 )

Man, it is even worse than I thought. And that, friends, is probably the best evidence for the missing text. Feast your eyes and gasp in amazement.

It's worse still. Nibley published two different versions of the same reminiscence:

"President Smith (as Elder Nibley recollected with his remarkable memory) recalled with tears the familiar sight of 'Uncle Joseph' kneeling on the floor of the front room with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him, weighted down by rocks and books, as with intense concentration he would study a line of characters, jotting down his impressions in a little notebook as he went." --Hugh W. Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price," Improvement Era (March 1968): 17–18

"We are told that they were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House." - Hugh W. Nibley, "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri - Translations and Interpretations - Phase One," Dialogue 3:2 (Summer 1968): 99-105

In the latter case he doesn't even identify his source, and he just sort of throws it out there randomly. Given Nibley's laziness about citations and the frequency with which he worked from his somewhat faulty memory, it seems altogeter probable that the Preston Nibley account gradually became amplified in his mind as it took on greater significance in terms of being able to answer certain critics' arguments.

-Chris

Here is the Hyperlink to this whole Discussion thread: Please Click Here:

[_Jersey Girl]

Brackite,

We really need to give you the distinction of board archiver extraordinare. You always come up with what is needed!

Thanks!

Jersey Girl
:-)

[_Brackite]

Brackite,

We really need to give you the distinction of board archiver extraordinare. You always come up with what is needed!

Thanks!

Jersey Girl
:-)

You are Welcome, Jersey Girl!

[_dartagnan]

Coggins is the typical TBM.

Ignorant to the core about matters of his own faith. The critics clearly have a stronger grasp on the issues which Mormons should. Isn't that embarrassing? Most Mormons haven't the faintest clue what the Book of Abraham really is, how it came about and why.

Some of you might recall, last year coggins tried to debate me on this subject and after my first post he fled to MADB and asked for help as "Droopy." It was a hilarious exhibition of ignorance run amuck. He was ignorant and damned proud of it too. But nobody at MADB could help him then either.

All the evidence pointing to a missing roll has been either misinterpreted or exagerrated by the apologists. This has become so obvious that seasoned apologists now know better than to bring it up anymore. They know it only gives the critics an opportunity to point out how dishonest Nibley and Gee have been on this issue. This is why they are gradually tuirning their attention to a defense on the KEP. That is where the battle will be won or lost.

In any event, it doesn't matter what's missing because we already know what Joseph Smith used to create the Book of Abraham. What is droopy going to say about the KEP, that it is just a random project by a bunch of scribes who were acting independent of Joseph Smith? What an idiotic argument.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Coggins is the typical TBM.

TBM but not ATBM, more like HTBM.

I just don't get it. Why do these supposed TBMs not TOTALLY ACTIVE?

[_truth dancer]

My impression was that the missing scroll theory was basically dead. I think most apologists are going with the "catalyst", or "mnemonic" theory these days no?

But now that I think about it, has Gee moved on from this?

~dancer~

[_Chap]

In another thread I likened Book of Abraham apologists like Schryver to the Iraqi information minister in the weeks when Saddam's forces were collapsing on every side as the allies drove towards Baghdad. He was optimistic, and indeed quite menacing in his threats of major counter-blows, right up the the last moment. In a way, you couldn't help admiring him.

But to keep on fighting a battle already decisively lost, like the one about the Joseph F. Smith 'evidence' of his recollections of what he saw as a little kid of five or less, as recollected six decades later and then retailed by Nibley, with variations, over half a century after that ... the Iraqi analogy is just not heroically crazy enough. We need something of a whole different order of magnitude:



The is second Lt. Onoda, who continued to fight WWII right up to 1974

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroo_Onoda

Eventually Onoda surrendered when they flew in his former commanding officer, who gave him a direct order.

No doubt we shall eventually hear something from the Brethren to the effect that we no longer need take seriously the scriptural status of the Book of Abraham (not proclaimed formally until 1880, when it was added to the canon). At that point, Droopy can come out of the jungle with his head held high, having 'endured to the end'.

[Edited once for typo]

[_solomarineris]

The critics have a serious problem: a really large body of missing data over against their speculative theoretical reconstructions of possible historical phenomena that were not, at the time, clearly and carefully recorded. LDS would like those missing rolls and "books", while critics would prefer the eyewitness references to them had never been written.
The plot thickens...

The serious problem Book of Abraham fantasy faces will never be resolved, because it was fabricated. Wasn't it Brigham Young who saw a secret room under the hill cumorah, full of swords, helmets,chariots,breast plates?
Ufo & NDE & Spagetti Monster God researchers have much better chance to prove their points.
Book of Abraham is a bunk. A proven one that is.
Why do you always assume critics are bad news? Do you know how many of us have active LDS families?
"The Plot" you're talking about was concocted by one man only. It is so admirable that you choose to ignore evidence which is so plain to see.
I can understand 6 languages, (speak 4 fluently), I'm by no means a linguist. If you compare what Joseph Smith produced from Papyrus and what Papyrus says,
I am sure your 800 pound gorilla will smell the rotten banana and will not eat it.

I do admire people like you who is willing to play the role of "Village Idiot" and entertain rest of us.
Thank you.

[_William Schryver]

My impression was that the missing scroll theory was basically dead. I think most apologists are going with the "catalyst", or "mnemonic" theory these days no?

But now that I think about it, has Gee moved on from this?

~dancer~

Not at all. Indeed, Professor Gee is persuaded that evidence in the extant fragments can inform us quite reliably of the total length of the scroll of Hor. And, after employing his equation to the evidence, he is currently arguing for a scroll length several times that of the extant fragments.