Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OGHoosier

  1. The discussion of paradigms and the definition of evidence is no "resort." It's an establishment of first principles. Your stance on the matter, on the other hand, indicates that you have chosen to accept the paradigm of evidence adopted by the critics. Did you consider the counterarguments when you did so? Are you justified in ignoring them now? You certainly have not engaged with them here. Even your examples illustrate the flaws with a simplistic view of "evidence", and why different types of evidence matter. If you were trying to persuade a flat-earther, you would show them a picture
  2. Except that Jenkins asked for a specific type of evidence. Pottery, inscriptions, etc. We don't have that specific type of evidence, obviously, so if that's the style of evidence you demand, then so be it. Hamblin's point is that that's not the only thing that counts as evidence, that there are other types of evidence that we do have which are more reasonable to expect, and that you need to have a discussion about what counts as evidence before weighing evidence.
  3. If something akin to Nahom was found in the New World than the challenge would be successfully answered. I wouldn't complain. But I freely acknowledge that such an outcome is highly improbable, and that defangs your objection. The overall point is that, even if the Nephites existed, such a find would be highly improbable. Therefore, the failure to meet that challenge can't constitute evidence against the Nephites because, again, it demands that which would be improbable even if the tested theory were true. The whole crux of the Jenkins v. Hamblin debate is that you need to have a firm und
  4. However the challenge is meaningless because it asks for that which would be improbable even if the tested theory is true.
  5. I think Sheshonq would probably be really upset if her hydrocephalus was restored. Thankfully, given the doctrine concerning the Resurrection, we can be confident that will not happen. Autocorrect strikes again I see. More seriously though: your point is?
  6. That comes down to differences in interpretation and perspective between individuals, imo. As does this whole thing, really.
  7. If I remember correctly, he wasn't Professor Gee's teacher in the sense that Gee received special tutelage, but he was on the advisory board for Gee's degree at the University of Chicago until Gee asked for him to be removed. The university removed Ritner and Gee went on to get the degree. The reason for Gee's appeal and Ritner's removal has never emerged.
  8. Papers published in Interpreter are peer-reviewed, I believe the same holds for the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. The peer reviewers are generally members of the Church, which prompts some to consider it invalid peer review at times. If I may digress (and reveal a degree of my defensiveness in so doing), I personally don't think that's a valid critique as, outside the Mormon Studies world, there's not a requirement for absolute ideological diversity in peer reviews - if it were so, every Biology department would have to have a Discovery Institute peer reviewer on speed dial. Furtherm
  9. The sources I gave to bluebell in my post are commentaries on that question.
  10. Book of Mormon videos are basically the distilled-for-popular-consumption version of the papers available on the Book of Mormon Central archive. Those feature more detail, scholarly attribution, etc. As you might expect, scholars outside the whole Mormon Studies debates don't take notice.
  11. We have. @Robert F. Smith and @gav have pointed out that Ritner's reconstruction of Facsimile 1 is likely wrong. But beyond that, we've stepped beyond the minutiae and lampooned the central pillar beneath Egyptological attacks on the Book of Abraham: that the presence of the Book of the Dead surrounding Facsimile 1 is a defeater for the Book of Abraham's divine provenance.
  12. You need to stop abusing Terryl Givens to try to make your points. Givens was talking about the facsimiles, not all of Joseph's scripture.
  13. Hold onto your butts, folks. In my opinion, there is evidence for Book of Mormon historicity. I wouldn't say proof: proof is in fact not to be expected, per Dallin H. Oaks. That said, if God chooses to grant it, I won't complain. A great one-stop shop for Church scholarship on the Book of Mormon is Book of Mormon Central. Their archives have papers and research on all sorts of things Book of Mormon, from apologetics to theology. There's also a difference, as Ben McGuire mentions, between historicity and verisimilitude. One of my favorite parts about the Book of Mormon is the onomast
  14. John would likely have an extremely eclectic form of English which could account for multiple authors issue, along the lines of JarMan's comment. Then again, I've always thought that a connection between the Nephites and the Petrine church via the Three Nephites was almost guaranteed. My thoughts on Mormon's teachings on faith, hope, and charity was that he was exposed to the teachings of Paul by way of the Three Nephites bringing over a "greatest hits" list. Seems like a little deus ex machina, but we're a religion. Deus ex machina is the point. Edit: On the flip side, now I'm ima
  15. Indeed. Even the higher canons of critical scholarship, like deutero-Isaiah, have their critics (see Avraham Gileadi for one). The dance of scholars will continue until the end of time.
  16. This thread strays awfully close to politics, but nevertheless I'll jump in. I decline your challenge because I agree. The Book of Mormon does not support "unregulated capitalism" as you put it (though I would also scoff at the idea that "unfettered capitalism" exists anywhere in the world in our days). Indeed, the scriptures seem to endorse an all-things-in-common model, though only when conducted under the auspices of the Holy Priesthood. In context, however, 50 years ago when all those talks were being given, the face of socialism was its most successful spin-off, Marxism-Leninis
  17. Again, not sure I understand. The traditional options are as follows: 1) Given that Egyptian vignette drawings don't always have to stick by the text that references them, the facsimiles could have been drawn to accompany the Book of Abraham text elsewhere on the papyri. This is the missing-papyrus or missing-scroll theory. 2) Joseph never had a Book of Abraham papyrus in his hands, he translated it like the papyrus of John from D&C 7. The facsimiles from the Joseph Smith Papyri were representative of/similar to/perhaps derived from the vignettes on the Book of Abraham original t
  18. I'm on board with this. Case in point: my family and I visited Florence, Italy, last year, and my dad and I took a tour of the Palazzo Vecchio, kind of the capital building of Renaissance Florence. They have a statue of David holding the severed head of Goliath outside. The tour guide told us that the meaning of the statue, as described by the city's commentators, changed every time the city changed hands. Florence went back and forth between republican rule and the Medicis, so when the Medicis were in power the statue was said to symbolize the Medicis triumphing against the maddened rep
  19. I don't think I understand the question. Nobody has said that the Book of the Dead is the Book of Abraham. All Egyptologists, in the Church and out of it, are in agreement on that. The argument as I understand it is: did the Book of Abraham text come from another part of the papyri? Or did Joseph just receive it by revelation, independent of the papyri connection? How do the facsimiles fit in? Were they simply repurposed for Joseph's translation or were they connected with the Book of Abraham urtext? Nobody that I know of is denying that Facsimile 1, say, is surrounded by the
  20. Seems legit. Real helpful, I know. And like we've been talking about in the Ritner thread, symbols have meaning in the eye of the beholder. But this seems like a valid interpretation.
  21. The stench of a decomposing thread, long dead. I don't find it that offensive actually. Good thoughts to be had.
  22. To some, it is acceptable. My hangup with the historicity is that Joseph said he talked with these people as angels. I believe that Joseph wasn't lying; perhaps God sent angels named Moroni and etc. to give him instructions and they were responsible for helping with the creation? It's a possibility, I suppose, though I do not personally adhere to it. That being said, I can't speak for what God is capable of doing/not doing, so I don't usually place limits on Him in my personal evaluations. I suppose that's a built-in bug/feature in me: I don't assume that I know what God would consider to be r
  23. Well, what was the point of the papyri in the first place? What is the point of any symbol? Does any symbol represent reality in anything stronger than an arbitrary sense? Who gets to define the meaning of a symbol? These are questions that bear on how we interpret the case of the Joseph Smith papyri. What was the point of the papyri? Symbolic instructions regarding return to the presence of Deity within the Egyptian religious system. Is the only acceptable "translation" a direct rendering of what the Egyptians thought? Why do they deserve to have a monopoly on meaning? The ancients did
  24. Mine could be wrong too. If I recall correctly, his discussion of Book of Mormon bricolage in The Pearl of Greatest Price was primarily about Nephi's use of Isaiah, which represents a form of bricolage. I don't recall him talking about Joseph Smith using it. He had some remarks on bricolage, so I'm told, in the New Perspectives on Translation conference at FaithMatters. I have yet to fully watch it, so I could be wrong.
  25. If I have Terryl correctly, he thinks that Joseph used bricolage on the facsimiles and for the Book of Abraham in general. It doesn't necessarily extend to all Restoration scripture.
  • Create New...