Mortal Man Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Thanks LOAP for posting your notes on the FAIR conference. Your summaries of the talks are most excellent.I have a few comments on John Gee's talk.Some online critics with no training in Egyptology, who don't sign their names to their posts, are interesting to deal with.Chris Smith signs his name to his posts. I don't, but Prof. Gee knows who I am.The BoA as coming from the "long roll" is wtinessed by friends and foes to the Church.Agreed.The scroll of Horus is the long scroll, it is long enough to contain one other text which is not unusual.It would have to be an incredibly short text. There is nowhere near enough space to write out the BoA in conventional Egyptian hieratic or hieroglyphics, but I suppose you could do it if use used 5th-degree JSAG symbols.So the Breathings need not be the BoA. If it is not the long scroll, then the Doc of Breathing,... It's always wise to keep the getaway car running.In many cases the argument about the BoA has become so complex that many people can't keep track of the larger picture and the implications their smaller arguments have.This is a scare tactic. BoA issues are no more complex than other apologetic issues. 1. It is not necessary to refute every statement by a critic.This is wise, because so much is irrefutable. 2. Not every point is worth defending.I most heartily agree. 3. Truth is not well served by a bad argument. We do not need to repeat or shore up bad arguments.Some of Nibley's arguments are this way, including sacrifice of Abraham argument. We apologists and scholars are certainly not inerrent.I couldn't have said it better.The BoA is not central to the Church. The first 50 years wasn;t even in the canon....The BoA is an appendage.... Of the 102,037 scriptural citations in Conference since 1932, BoA cited 731 times, less than 1%. The D&C 38x as frequently. Etc.For the critics, this may seem to be a vain superstition, but seem in not worthy of attack. What they attack is not important to LDS. This is not to say LDS can or should forgo the book, but to give an idea of relative importance. It is more important than some things, and less than others.Are any other apologists on board with this downplaying of the book's importance? Are you really willing to throw the BoA under the bus just to stick it to the critics? most critics are not trained or relatively brightWere there cheers and high-fives at this point? Critics insist we must believe the breathings doc is the BoAsighI don't know a single "critic" who says this.The term Chaldean did not mean the same in JS's day.Of course "translation" didn't either. Redefining words is a favorite apologetic strategy.1. The arguments have become so complex that critics argue the church's position: BoBreath is not the BoAThis is getting really old.2. Critics don;t deal with aspects of the BoA that LDS actually care about.And that would be...? I thought he just said that LDS didn't care about the book.3. How it was translated is unimportant.That was Brant Gardner's talk! Link to comment
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.