Book of Abraham Scroll Length

[_Stormy Waters]

I thought Schryver and Gee were going to be publishing a paper on this scroll-length issue. Did it ever come out? If not, has anyone heard when it will be coming out?

Peterson says there will be one in next issue of the Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture by John Gee

[_Kishkumen]

I thought Schryver and Gee were going to be publishing a paper on this scroll-length issue. Did it ever come out? If not, has anyone heard when it will be coming out?

Gee has recently published his piece. Daniel announced it on his blog.

http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/2012/05/mormon-texts-by-numbers.html

[_DarkHelmet]

I thought Schryver and Gee were going to be publishing a paper on this scroll-length issue. Did it ever come out? If not, has anyone heard when it will be coming out?

The whole argument of the scroll length in defending the Book of Abraham is like talking about how much toilet paper is on your roll in the bathroom. I'm serious about that. Not trying to be funny at all. The scroll length is a dead issue as far as defending Book of Abraham truth claims. It's a distraction put out by the dishonest apologists, a bottomless rabbit hole, a red-dead fish, and a complete waste of time.

Just look at the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 and you get the feeling that scroll length really doesn't matter. It just gives the faithful something to cling to while they avoid the real issues.

Paul O

Scroll length matters because if the apologists can claim we are missing part of the scrolls, they can say the explanations of Facsimile 3 don't match because the explanations are actually referring to a different facsimile on one of the lost parts of the scroll. Joseph Smith accidentally put the explanations on the wrong facsimile. Probably because the typesetter screwed it up. If only we had the missing scrolls we could see the accurate explanations.

[_Kishkumen]

Scroll length matters because if the apologists can claim we are missing part of the scrolls, they can say the explanations of Facsimile 3 don't match because the explanations are actually referring to a different facsimile on one of the lost parts of the scroll. Joseph Smith accidentally put the explanations on the wrong facsimile. Probably because the typesetter screwed it up. If only we had the missing scrolls we could see the accurate explanations.

The meme of the missing text continues to be central to the Mormon story. There is always a text that has all the answers. Unfortunately we don't have it, but fortunately a kind soul has stepped forward to tell you what was on it and why it is important to you.

[_Shulem]

I thought Schryver and Gee were going to be publishing a paper on this scroll-length issue. Did it ever come out? If not, has anyone heard when it will be coming out?

Peterson says there will be one in next issue of the Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture by John Gee

Sure, toss a few oats to the gullible Mormon crowd to eat.

How about the mighty school teacher write about something really important, i.e., Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 and explain how those are utterly incorrect. Then, he can have it peer reviewed!

Paul O

[_Shulem]

Scroll length matters because if the apologists can claim we are missing part of the scrolls, they can say the explanations of Facsimile 3 don't match because the explanations are actually referring to a different facsimile on one of the lost parts of the scroll. Joseph Smith accidentally put the explanations on the wrong facsimile. Probably because the typesetter screwed it up. If only we had the missing scrolls we could see the accurate explanations.

OK. Everything about everything regarding the Mormon Book of Abraham saga was a total absolute screw up. Who on God's green earth would want to joint that kind of church? Save your money and enjoy your wine.



Paul O

[_Shulem]

The meme of the missing text continues to be central to the Mormon story. There is always a text that has all the answers. Unfortunately we don't have it, but fortunately a kind soul has stepped forward to tell you what was on it and why it is important to you.

We still have Facsimile No. 2 and its Explanations. Details in the those Explanations clearly point to the individual sections. There is no getting out of that one. Joseph Smith is on the hook.

Paul O

[_Tobin]

To all Mormon apologists, please stop this non-sense. The Facsimiles are embarrassing and just plain wrong. The missing papyrus theory is embarrassing. Sit back and think for just a minute about these Egyptian papyrus.

1) The remaining fragments are NOT old enough to have ever been written by Abraham. Nibley's concept of the copyist being the hand of Abraham is ludicrous since Joseph Smith could have plainly stated that.
2) And even if you buy the whole copyist/missing papyrus theory, why on Earth would the Egyptians (pagans) preserve Abraham's teachings? They would have no use for them at all.

When you consider that, there is only one possible conclusion you can reach. The papyrus have NOTHING to do with the Book of Abraham.

[_Shulem]

The papyrus have NOTHING to do with the Book of Abraham.

Or you could say that the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the papyrus.

There isn't so much as a single scrap of credible evidence to show that Joseph Smith had a genuine Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyrus. On the other hand, all evidence shows that the papyrus he had has nothing to do with Abraham. Yet, the apologists keep on hanging on taking air from a long straw. It's amazing how they can hang on so long and deny the facts. It's a credit to how well the church brainwashes its people and makes them think the warm feelings they get when they think about religion is the Holy Ghost saying Mormonism is true. Even smart people like John gee and DCP have been fooled by the claims that the Spirit says their church is true in light of how the Book of Abraham has been fully exposed as a fraud -- a hoax. But, they have paychecks to collect and commitments to keep.

So sad.

Paul O

[_Dr. Shades]

Here is another cool fact. I don't chase other people's religion to claim them a fraud.

Back around 2003 or so, didn't you tell us on the Zion's Lighthouse Message Board that you wanted to write a book exposing Scientology?