You have asked this question in slightly varying forms many times and the answer has not changed. The translation cannot be put to the test in this case because the original scrolls from which the translation was taken are missing. The descriptions given of them simply cannot be made to conform to anything now in hand.

You'll get an answer like the one from edndori. They truly do not know of the reality of the book of Abraham, and they're happy to continue not doing so.

I’d say that first of all, the source of the Book of Abraham has been missing for 125 years or more, so it’s kind of hard to claim that he mistranslated it. What she’s actually talking about are the repurposed Egyptian documents that were altered for use as illustrations, as Jews in the centuries just before Christ’s birth were so wont to do. Personally, I thank God we have those papyri, as they are the only extant documents from which Joseph translated. What’s amazing is that by every conceivable standard, he got the translation absolutely correct on every demonstrable count! So I guess the bottom line of what I’d say to her is to express my condolences. I find it extremely unfortunate that she’s so hooked on her 19th century Egyptology that she hasn’t bothered to join us in the 20th, let alone the 21st. :-/

There is no explanation in favour of what Joseph Smith and other claimed about the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph when one looks at the evidence available. Even all the LDS scholars recognise this and create a story to explain the unexplainable - for example - that he didn't actually do what he said he was doing, he only thought he was doing that - and the 'revelation' was recieved in a way he was unaware of - totally unrelated to the various papyrus he has in his posession. Smith did NOT translate - all seem to argree on this - some leave the critique of Smiths claims here - other say if he did not translate he must have recieved the Book of Abraham by revelation by some other method - these are the critics that accept him as a prophet. If Joseph Smith did not 'translate' as he claims then the 'test fails'. . . . Note the red text on the image of the papyrus - whilst this is not the best image (I could probably have found better one's but this was the first one I came across in my digital documents) there are a number of papyri fragments that have been rediscovered and have red writing on them. I have a complete digital photo-print of all the papyri fragments still in existance and you can clearly see red text.

John Gee does a very extensive study and reconstructs ALL of the papyrus Joseph Smith had in his possession - even the ones we don't have today! In all the documents there are enough 'parts' of the texts to separate them into different documents and he has gone further to estimate the length of them as well. None of them was a Book of Abraham or Book of Joseph - they were all unrelated. And why don't people see the red writing in the documents? Or match the descriptions of the documents to the actual papyrus? . It is so plain to see what people like Cowdery was talking about when you do this. And the LDS scholars theory of today is that Joseph didn't even use a 'record' to translate from. How can something be so clear and yet people are so blind to it? . I believe even Nibley concluded that Joseph Smith didn't use a record to translate from. And John Gee refers to this theory in his book ‘A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri’ in his chart listing all the possible theories that have been expressed. There are a number of charts in his book and one - shows a reconstruction and estimated length of all the scrolls in Smiths possession although it is a shame he does not include his calculations just his results. . When I was talking about the red writing on the documents - I *know* people saw it just like I have - although they were looking at the original papyrus and I was looking at an image of the original - but there *is* red writing on some of the fragments that have been 'rediscovered'. . I have also included an image of the 'red text' on part of a papyri fragment to show that we can confirm witness accounts with the actual documents that we have today. Also if you look up those witness accounts (included below) - especially Oliver Cowdrey’s along with others - you will find descriptions of images from the Book of Joseph - one such image was said to be Lucifer as a serpent on legs (remember the 'on your belly you shall go' phrase from Genesis) whispering into the ear of eve. . By the way here is a review of John Gee's book that I found very helpful to see what it contained: . http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/leadme.htm . Pages 12-13 mentioned in the review are the image included in my response. . John Gee doesn't say much about his own theories in the book, but there is a lot of useful background information and as I stated, the estimated length of the papyri but not calculations to check how he came up with the sizes. . By the way here are the descriptions and some study on them and the papyrus: Including some research from ‘By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri’ by Charles M. Larson: . Joseph Smith apparently never produced any "translation" material for the "Book of Joseph" (as he did with his Book of Abraham), [2] but fortunately we do have Oliver Cowdery's observations on the scroll that the Prophet identified as the Book of Joseph. Cowdery, longtime associate of Joseph Smith and one of the principle scribes involved with the papyri, gave an excellent description of this scroll in a letter that appeared in a Mormon publication of the day. He writes: . The language in which this record is written is very comprehensive, and many of the hieroglyphics exceedingly striking. The evidence is apparent upon the face that they were written by persons acquainted with the history of creation, the fall of man, and more or less the correct ideas or notions of Deity. . The representation of the god-head -- three, yet in one, is curiously drawn to give simply, though impressively, the writer's views of that exalted personage.* The serpent, represented as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to walk, standing in front of, and near a female figure, is to me, one of the greatest representations I have ever seen upon paper, or a writing substance; and must go so far towards convincing the rational mind of the correctness and divine authority of the holy scriptures ... as to carry away, with one mighty sweep, the whole atheistical fabric ... Enoch's Pillar, as mentioned in Josephus, is upon the same roll ... The inner end of the same roll, (Joseph's record,) presents a representation of the judgment: At one view you behold the Savior seated upon his throne, crowned, and holding the sceptres of righteousness and power; before him are assembled the twelve tribes of Israel and all the kingdoms of the world; while Michael the Archangel holds the keys to the bottomless pit in which Satan has been chained . . . (From a letter of Oliver Cowdery to William Frye, dated December 25, 1835, and published in the Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate of the same month.) . A comparison of Cowdery's descriptions with scenes found on the recovered fragments of the Book of the Dead for Ta-shert-Min appears on the following pages. In addition, an important section of this scroll which is now missing, but which would surely have been included in the last part (inner end) of the Book of the Dead, is the scene from Chapter 125, where the deceased is led into the presence of Osiris (compare photo and examination of Papyrus Joseph Smith IIIA and IIIB on pp. 70,71; see also the color foldout on p. 34, which shows a large section of the Book of Joseph scroll). Cowdery's description of "the Savior seated upon his throne, crowned, and holding the scepters of righteousness and power," along with the other details he mentions associated with this scene, correspond very well to the major elements found in numerous similar scenes depicting the Court of Osiris. . It is quite apparent from the evidence Cowdery left us that he was indeed describing a typical scene from the Egyptian Book of the Dead rather than a story penned by the patriarch Joseph, as he had been led to believe. Still, Cowdery's interpretation should not be considered unusual for the period, as he was dealing with then indecipherable manuscripts of undetermined origin and date (there being no true understanding of Egyptian mythology or funerary texts available during Joseph Smith's lifetime). Cowdery's impressions are merely common-sense speculations by a person with no expertise regarding the esoteric subject matter at hand. Joseph's scribe could easily have been describing almost any Book of the Dead scroll. Joseph Smith's papyri collection included at least one other Book of the Dead manuscript (that of Amon-Re Neferirnub)[3] and possibly still another (according to notes made in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar material). But he was most likely referring to one that had been made for Ta-shert-Min. The picture of the ''serpent with legs standing near a female figure,'' for example, that had so impressed Cowdery, had been copied from Papyrus Joseph Smith V into the pages of a small notebook (included among the Grammar material) bearing the handwritten title "Valuable Discovery of hidden records that have been obtained from the ancient burying place of the Egyptians," followed by the signature of Joseph Smith, Jr.[4] . Also significant is the presence of rubrics on the Ta-shert-Min scroll. Again, it is Cowdery who identifies this feature for us in the article previously cited: . Upon the subject of the Egyptian records, or rather the writings of Abraham and Joseph, I may say a few words. This record is beautifully written on papyrus with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation. (emphasis added) Cowdery's understanding that two of these "records" were the "writings of Abraham and Joseph" must be attributed to the fact that Joseph Smith identified them as such, since the Mormon leader never felt it was necessary to correct Cowdery's published descriptions. However, it should also be noted that some of the key phrases in Cowdery's description were derived from the published placard Michael Chandler used to help promote his traveling mummy exhibition. According to a statement by several prominent Philadelphia doctors who had viewed Chandler's exhibit, the placard read in part: . The features of some of these Mummies are in perfect expression. The papyrus, covered with black or red ink, or paint, in excellent preservation, are very interesting.5 (emphasis added) . It can be seen, then, that Cowdery's reference to "a small part red" does not mean to say that throughout the entire collection of papyri there was uniformly scattered a small number of rubrics, but rather, that of the two rolls, just one had this feature of writing in red. Regarding this collection, which did include some papyri with black and red writing, he believed one roll to contain the writings of Abraham, and a different roll the writings of Joseph. The crucial point is that of these two rolls, there was only one with black and red writing.* Since the "Book of Breathings for the priest Hor" (the scroll identified by Joseph Smith as "writings of Abraham") does not contain rubrics, the scroll identified by Smith as the "writings of Joseph" should. And, indeed, it does. The "Book of the Dead for Ta-shert-Min," which matches so perfectly Cowdery's detailed description of the Book of Joseph is the only text among the recovered papyri that has these rubrics.* (The rubrics are clearly visible in the color foldout picture of the Book of Joseph scroll on p. 34.) . Chapter Eight - The Book of Joseph? . 2 William E. Berrett, op. cit., p. 106, 107. . 3 Wilson in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, p. 68. . 4 As appears in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar, Modern Microfilm Co., 1966; and in The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers, compiled by H. Michael Marquardt, 1981, p. 109. 6 Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1979), p. 97. . The "Missing Black and Red Scroll" Theory . It is not surprising that the idea of a "missing scroll" -- one that had not yet been recovered by the Church -- would eventually be proposed as the true source of the Book of Abraham. For, if the goal was to rule out the Sensen papyrus, there would have to be an alternative Egyptian scroll from which the Book of Abraham was produced. However, making a case for a missing scroll would require reasons solid enough to counteract the convincing evidence that the ''Sensen'' papyrus was once attached to the Facsimile No. 1 fragment. It was clear that some sort of documentation to support the claim of a different scroll would be very helpful. . The documentation for this theory of a different source scroll appeared to exist in the History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 348: . The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is beautifully written upon papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation. . This statement appears to be in the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith himself, and therefore it was considered conclusive. The poor Sensen papyrus was surely not "beautifully written," was not in "perfect preservation," and showed no traces of "red ink or paint." So, it was quickly pointed out, this must mean that the original scroll for the Book of Abraham was still missing. . In his article, "Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham," written at the time his book The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment was in preparation, Nibley had this to say: . ... The fact is that the manuscripts at present in the possession of the church represent only a fraction of the Joseph Smith papyri. As President Joseph F. Smith stood in the front doorway of the Nauvoo House with some of the brethren in 1906, the tears streamed down his face as he told how he remembered 'as if it were yesterday,' his 'Uncle Joseph,' down on his knees on the floor with Egyptian Manuscripts spread out all around him, peering at the strange writings and jotting things down in a little green notebook with the stub of a pencil. When one considers that the eleven fragments now in our possession can easily be spread out on the top of a small desk, without the straining of the knees, back, and dignity, it would seem that what is missing is much more than what we have. . Thus, the "Missing Black and Red Scroll" theory was born, its announcement being made in Hugh Nibley's 1975 book, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment. [27] Unfortunately, this new theory was a bit premature. Two pages later, in the History of the Church, at the end of the same entry in which "Joseph Smith's" description was given, a footnote by B. H. Roberts points out that the wording for the entire entry was not actually Joseph Smith's, it had only been written to appear so. Instead, the article had been adapted from a letter written by Oliver Cowdery published in the Messenger and Advocate. Cowdery, in turn, had developed his wording from a published placard provided by Michael Chandler. The placard quoted remarks made by persons in Philadelphia who were describing the appearance of the papyrus collection as a whole, and not any specific scroll that Joseph Smith would later identify as the Book of Abraham. (For more on this point, refer back to chapter 8, The Book of Joseph?, pp. 81-85.) . Moreover, through contemporary accounts it is very clear that the only papyri the LDS Church has ever possessed are the "two rolls of papyrus" (i.e. "the writings of Abraham and Joseph"), and "two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c." . Hugh Nibley's ideas have been examined; now consider the statements of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery concerning the papyri: . On the 3d of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices. (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 235, emphasis added.) . And, . Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus ... and with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation ... and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another, the writings of Joseph of Egypt . . . (Ibid., p. 236, emphasis added.) . Before inferring that by the use of the words "two or more rolls of papyrus" Smith meant there were other rolls, we should carefully examine Oliver Cowdery's statements as they appeared (with Joseph Smith's direction and approval) in the Messenger and Advocate: . Upon the subject of the Egyptian records, or rather the writings of Abraham and Joseph, I may say a few words. This record is beautifully written on papyrus with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation. (Cowdery, op. cit., emphasis added.) . Cowdery, thus, understands that all -- not just a portion -- of "the Egyptian records" are "the writings of Abraham and Joseph," which he then refers to as "this record." . But there is more. When giving an account of Chandler's receiving the mummies in New York (evidently supplied by Chandler) Cowdery goes on to say, . On opening the coffins he discovered that in connection with two of the bodies, were something rolled up with the same kind of linen, saturated with the same bitumen, which, when examined proved to be two rolls of papyrus, previously mentioned. I may add that two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c. were found with others of the mummies. (Ibid, emphasis added) . Then in a postscript to the letter, he adds, . You will understand from the foregoing, that eleven mummies were taken from the catacomb, at the time of which I have been speaking, and nothing definite having been said as to their disposal, I may, with propriety add a few words. Seven of the said eleven were purchased by gentlemen for private museums, previous to Mr. Chandler's visit to this place, with a small quantity of papyrus, similar, (as he says) to the astronomical representation contained with the present two rolls, of which I previously spoke, and the remaining four by gentlemen resident here [in Kirtland] (Ibid, emphasis added). . Cowdery proves that there were two, and only two, "rolls of papyrus," which he believed, because of Joseph Smith's identification of them, were "the writings of Abraham and Joseph," though there were also a few fragments "similar to the astronomical representation" [i.e. Facsimile No. 2] with the papyri. Together these make up what are referred to as "two or more rolls of papyrus." Portions of the only two reasonably complete rolls they had have been recovered: Hor's Book of Breathings and the Book of the Dead for Ta-shert-Min. . Despite the evidence that contradicts it, the "missing black and red scroll" theory has been widely popularized and heavily circulated by well-meaning Latter-day Saints. As recently as the July 1988 issue of the Ensign (p. 51), Michael D. Rhodes was still suggesting it, and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published in 1992, similarly implies that the papyri recovered in 1967 did not include the Egyptian source document from which Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham. However, a growing number of scholars, unable to accept the questionable advantage of such unreliable documentation as Nibley presents, have reluctantly felt compelled to abandon this theory. . The "Mistaken Identity" Theory . Meanwhile, some scholars and researchers within the Church were working on a completely different approach to the problem. They were seeking to show that -- despite the many explicit remarks by Smith and his contemporaries to the contrary -- a papyrus text in the hands of the Prophet would not have been essential for the production of any "translation.'' In other words, the Book of Abraham came to Joseph Smith through revelation alone. . As early as 1969, a Brigham Young University professor named James R. Harris felt he had uncovered, purely by accident, evidence to support such a view while reading the Improvement Era. In the second article in a series on the Three Witnesses, a chance quotation was given from a blessing believed to have been recorded by Oliver Cowdery on December 18, 1833. It read: . ... we sought for the right of the fathers, and the authority of the holy priesthood, and the power to administer in the same; for we desired to be followers of righteousness and the possessors of greater knowledge ... . This was remarkably similar to the second verse found in the Book of Abraham: . ... I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge... . That these remarkable parallel phrases from the Book of Abraham occurred in such brief passages in Cowdery's blessing was enough to convince Harris that one had most certainly been the basis for the other. Since Cowdery's comments were supposedly recorded at least a year and a half before the papyri collection came into Joseph Smith's hands[28] (and before any translation could be made from them), and since Prof. Harris apparently did not wish to consider the possibility that the Book of Abraham text was derived from a contemporary source, he believed this could only suggest that, . The near identical wording of these passages would indicate that some of the text of the Book of Abraham was revealed and recorded before the Abraham papyri came into the possession of Joseph Smith. (BYU Studies, Autumn 1969, p. 127) . According to Harris, then, Oliver Cowdery had borrowed his phrases from the Book of Abraham -- which must have been available to him well before the papyri were available to Joseph! (The blessing was not actually recorded by Oliver Cowdery with the similar wording until the fall of 1835, after the purchase of the papyri.) . At any rate, the point had been made that if part of the Book of Abraham had been written before the papyri appeared, then that portion did not need the papyri. It would have been received through revelation instead of "translation." And if one portion of the text was not dependent upon papyrus, perhaps the rest of it was not either. . This is how a young LDS writer named Kirk Holand Vestal saw it. Following Harris' lead, he wrote a paper (Approaching the Book of Abraham, unpublished) in 1980 in which he proposed the idea that Joseph Smith had first seen the original scroll containing the record of Abraham in a vision. This was theorized to have occurred as much as two years prior to receiving the papyri from Chandler. Later, when the pagan Book of Breathings was unrolled, it bore such a striking resemblance to what the Prophet had seen in his vision, that, as Vestal put it: . It comes as little surprise that Joseph Smith may have indeed thought that what the papyri contained were the original Egyptian texts of the Book of Abraham ... The striking similarity of the scenes in both documents would have led Joseph Smith to naturally assume that what he had in his hands in July 1835 was in fact the very original manuscript of the Book of Abraham. . The next logical step in this "mistaken identity" theory, of course is to conclude that Joseph Smith continued to receive the text for the Book of Abraham through revelation, even though he may have actually believed (mistakenly) he was "translating from the papyrus." . Few Latter-day Saints seem willing to allow that Joseph Smith could have made such a silly mistake (or that God would have allowed his error to remain uncorrected). However, if one accepts the "mistaken identity" theory it does provide a solution to the major problem of relating the papyri to the text and facsimiles of the Book of Abraham. The solution is simply the assertion that the two are totally unrelated. This probably proved reassuring to some people. . Understandably, few people can accept the idea that the Book of Abraham text was written down prior to 1835. For one thing, there is a conspicuous lack of reference to Joseph Smith receiving the "writings of Abraham" by vision, revelation or any other means, prior to his obtaining the papyri. Another is Joseph Smith's own references to sitting down with the papyri and laboring at the translation. . Nevertheless, the idea of Joseph Smith having received his text by revelation alone was too appealing and practical a suggestion to ignore. The July 1988 Ensign article mentioned above provides this as an alternate theory. . The "Catalyst" Theory . By appealing to revelation, then, most of the papyrus fragments could be set aside. But if any of the Egyptian material simply had to be linked to the Book of Abraham, it would have to be those bearing the drawings associated with the facsimiles. Someone still needed to explain why Joseph Smith would have claimed that Egyptian burial scenes were in some way associated with the patriarch Abraham. . In a little booklet titled, What Mormonism Isn't -- A Response to the Research of Jerald and Sandra Tanner, LDS writer Ian Barber made an interesting suggestion regarding the Book of the Dead and Book of Breathings illustrations used by Smith. He held that these scenes were correctly identified by modern Egyptologists in the context in which they appeared (that is, they were funerary documents), but went on to say, "there is absolutely no reason to preclude their existence in different contexts and at different times, certainly extending back to 2000 B. C."[29] . Barber strongly endorsed Hugh Nibley's long-standing comparisons between the Book of Abraham material and Egyptian mythology, apocryphal writings, and the like (see the "Any Egyptian Connection" theory), and he offered as his opinion that, . Joseph Smith did not believe that he possessed Abraham's original writings, but rather reproductions that had been altered and perhaps placed in an entirely new context. The story that the Egyptologists ... have given us describes this new context and not necessarily Abraham's world view some 4000 years ago ... . While sounding much like the reasoning used in the "Hidden Meaning" theory, it is also the prelude to something new. The earlier "Hidden Meaning" theory was used primarily to support the concept of a translation; while this new approach, which can be termed the "Catalyst" theory, supports the revelation concept. As Barber explains, . In my opinion the facsimiles and Egyptian material served as revelatory aids for the Prophet to prepare him intellectually and spiritually for the direct revelation of the Book of Abraham text. . The "Catalyst" theory also seems to have the blessing of Hugh Nibley and the 1992Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Nibley comments in his book, Abraham in Egypt (1981), that Smith, "had already demonstrated at great length his power to translate ancient records with or without possession of the original text."[30] And the Encyclopedia of Mormonism offers the vague hypothesis that in studying his papyri, Joseph Smith, "sought revelation from the Lord concerning them and received in the process the book of Abraham."[31] The papyri illustrations, in particular, it suggests, are somehow supposed to have served as a connecting link between the prophet's postulated Book of Abraham revelations and the Egyptian papyri. This disingenuous theory allows the Encyclopedia of Mormonism to conclude that, . it was principally divine revelation rather than his [Joseph Smith's] knowledge of languages that produced the English text of the book of Abraham. His precise methodology remains unknown.[32] . However, the"Catalyst" theory is fatally flawed in requiring us to believe that God would associate His sacred truth with a document consisting of prayers to pagan Egyptian gods, and ripe with occultism. As was noted earlier in connection with the "Any Egyptian Connection" theory (pp. 119,120), it is inconceivable, given God's holy character as revealed throughout the Bible, that He would associate Himself or His truth in any way with such pagan occultic documents. . Since the articles in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism were written by a committee of Brigham Young University professors working under the supervision of the University's broad of trustees and Elders Neal A. Maxwell and Dalin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (The Ensign, March 1992, p. 79), its articles on the Book of Abraham are probably as close as one can get to an official LDS Church view of the Book of Abraham. . Of course, all of this is about as far as one can get from Joseph Smith's own words as he described his experience in July 1835: . ... with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. -- a more full account of which will appear in its place as I proceed to examine or unfold them (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236). . Chapter Eleven - The Intellectual Approaches . 11 See the article "Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham," by Dr. Hugh Nibley (undated) as published in They Lie in Wait to Deceive, by Robert and Rosemary Brown, pp. 236-245. . 27 This theory is also described in the article by Nibley referenced in note no. 11, above. . 28 Harris' theory was contested by Larry C. Porter, who felt that there was evidence to indicate that the blessing referred to was not actually written down in the Patriarchal Blessing Book until September, 1835, as mentioned in Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, p. 99. . 29 All of Barber's quotes in this section are from the work referenced. . 30 Dr. Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 1981, p. 4. . 31 Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: MacMillan, 1992), Vol. 1, s.v. 'Book of Abraham -- Origins of the Book of Abraham,' p. 134. . 32 Ibid. . This is another of Nibley's theories: . The "Nobody Really Understands Egyptian Anyway" Theory . If the first five approaches mentioned in this chapter can be referred to as "translation" theories, and the last two as "revelation" theories, then perhaps this last approach should be called a "desperation" theory. Far-fetched as it seems, this final theory has been proposed by Dr. Hugh Nibley, who apparently is its only serious proponent. . There is more to it but that sets the picture.