DiscussMormonism.com

I have been reading The Story of the Book of Abraham: Mummies, Manuscripts, and Mormonism, by H. Donl Peterson. Peterson's posthumously published book is an important contribution to the study of the history of the Book of Abraham. Nevertheless, it has its flaws. In one notable example on page 212, it adds to the confusion surrounding a statement made by Gustavus Seyffarth, reported in the 1859 St. Louis Museum catalog. Says Peterson,

212The 1859 catalog of the St. Louis Museum quotes Seyffarth as saying, "The papyrus roll is not a record, but an invocation to the Deity Osiris . . . and a picture of the attendant spirits, intro ducing the dead to the Judge, Osiris." 16 Dr. Seyffarth may have been looking at two fragments now known as IIIA, Court of Osiris (on the throne), or perhaps Facsimile 3 in the Book of Abraham, or some other fragment presently unknown.

If Peterson's name were "Tanner", and he were an anti-Mormon writer, the use of ellipses would earn him a scathing review in the pages of FROB. Even moreso, since the information he has omitted provides crucial context and disallows the obfuscation in which he engages in the following sentence.

Here is the full entry from the Museum Catalog:

“These mummies were obtained in the catacombs of Egypt, sixty feet below the surface of the earth, for the Antiquarian Society of Paris, forwarded to New York, and there purchased, in the year 1835, by Joe Smith, the Mormon Prophet, on account of the writings found in the chest of one of them, and which he pretended to translate, as stating them to belong to the family of the Pharoahs’ – but, according to Prof. Seyffarth, the papyrus roll is not a record, but an invocation to the Deity Osirus, in which occurs the name of the person, (Horus,) and a picture of the attendant spirits, introducing the dead to the Judge, Osirus [sic]. The body of one is that of a female, about forty – the other, that of a boy, about fourteen. They were kept by the Prophet’s mother until her death, when the heirs sold them, and shortly after, were purchased for the Museum.”

I have bolded the portion that is omitted by Dr. Peterson's ellipses. It informs us that the document Professor Seyffarth viewed contained the name of the deceased, Horus, and so cannot have been the "two fragments now known as IIIA, Court of Osiris (on the throne)," as Dr. Peterson suggests. (Those two fragments are in the possession of the Church anyway, and so would not have been part of the now-destroyed St. Louis Museum collection.) Rather, it must have been the vignette known among Mormons as Facsimile 3. In other words, Dr. Peterson suggests that the roll Seyffarth says was "not a record, but an invocation to the Deity Osirus" might have been the Book of Dead roll rather than the Book of Breathings roll (from which Joseph Smith claimed to have translated Abraham's record). If he were correct, then the Seyffarth statement would afford no evidence against the Missing Papyrus Theory (MPT). Unfortunately for the MPT, he is patently incorrect, as the missing portion of the Seyffarth quote informs us.

Despite my objection to his treatment of this quotation, I bear Dr. Peterson no ill will, and sincerely hope that he is resting well in a blissful paradise. My condolences to the family.

-CK

CaliforniaKid wrote:If Peterson's name were "Tanner", and he were an anti-Mormon writer, the use of ellipses would earn him a scathing review in the pages of FROB.

Very possibly.

Of course, he would probably have been taken to task on it even if his name were Peterson -- no relation, by the way -- and he were a pro-Mormon writer. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but we've given many negative reviews to books written by believing Latter-day Saints. You do us an injustice to insinuate otherwise.

See my reply at MADB.

CaliforniaKid wrote:See my reply at MADB.

Some of us can't. And some of us won't. And some of us wouldn't even if we could.

Please post it here.

Oh great.

This is bads news in more ways than one. Not only does this add another ornament of duplicity to the tree of Book of Abraham apologetics, but it also means we get to be the bad guys for bringing it up.

Great legwork CK.

I hope they're gentle with you over there; I'm sure they think you're just out to destroy reputations and piss on graves.

harmony wrote:

CaliforniaKid wrote:See my reply at MADB.

Some of us can't. And some of us won't. And some of us wouldn't even if we could.

Please post it here.

Sorry; it just seemed strange to have two identical threads on separate boards. Here it is:

I didn't insinuate that all the FARMS reviews of pro-Mormon books are positive. What I insinuated is that FARMS writers have a different standard for pro-Mormon books than for books written by critics.
I stand by my insinuation.

Whatever.

Do you, or don't you, stand by your specific insinuation that the FARMS Review would have been indifferent to the use of ellipses to omit important historical information in Donl Peterson's book, had we reviewed it?

Dr. Gee did review it, and he made no mention of the use of ellipses to omit important historical information. Perhaps he wouldn't have been indifferent to it if it had been brought to his attention, but unlike his review of Larson's book, he doesn't seem to have gone looking for such errors.

Ah. I forgot that, among the hundreds of books we've reviewed, we reviewed that one eleven years ago. Oh well. I guess the secret's out: I'm fallible.

In any event, it's very possible that Professor Gee had not noticed the problem to which you point. He has, as you are probably aware, been rather rough on other books that he's reviewed by believers about the Book of Abraham. Contrary to claims by certain critics, we don't endorse bad books simply because they support Mormonism.

Incidentally, I like gtaggart's post on the equivalent thread over at the better board.

Gregory Taggart posted this on the other board:

Maybe a more charitable reviewer would have noticed that Peterson source for the Seyffarth quote was Stanley Kimball's Winter 1983 Dialogue article, "New Light on Old Egyptian: Mormon Mummies 1848-71," page 74. And guess what: the elipises are in Kimball's article. No wonder Peterson made the suggestion he did.

Now, maybe the FARMS Review could have taken him to task for not going to the original source or for less than perfect scholarship, but intentional obfuscation? I don't think so.

I wouldn't stand so close to that insinuation if I were you Chris. Makes you look less than you are.

Indeed, Gregory. It seems you are correct: it was Stanley Kimball, not H. Donl Peterson, who originated this little bit of obfuscation. Thank you for the correction; I must admit that this omission struck me as very uncharacteristic of Dr. Peterson's work.

That it came from Kimball's pen, of course, does not make it any less grievous an error. I hope it's evident from my original post that my intent was not to attack Peterson's character, but rather to correct an error.

-CK