By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

[structurecop]

Good luck to everyone. Play nice and may the Lord bless you and keep you all.

It was fun while it lasted!

[ttribe]

It was fun while it lasted!

I believe he has a date with the MTC coming up.

[Expose]

I don't know how to get through to you. I can almost bet you would get more attention if you would knock off the shock me factor from your posts. It turns posters off to even wanting to deal with your arguments. Btw my patience is really wearing thin, have discussions or leave the board.

Nemesis

Why do you have to get through to me? What rule have I violated? I'm responding on-point to the topic of discussion, I am having a discussion about exactly the subject of the thread. Are the statements of prophets are considered a "shock me factor?" I'm not sure what your beef is with my post, other than you disagree with my conclusion. My patience is wearing this with the free-pass that believers on this board get, yet someone who is questioning is expected to live by a different set of rules. Recall an earlier thread when a poster called me a son of perdition? What happened there?

[structurecop]

I believe he has a date with the MTC coming up.

Ah, good times.

[John Larsen]

To everyone -

I am going to bow out now and let you all have fun with this thread. For various reasons, a little while ago I determined not to continue posting in the boards and I wish to continue this policy. Thus, this is my last hurrah, so to speak.

Good luck to everyone. Play nice and may the Lord bless you and keep you all.

Yes, I've noticed a clear uptick in your post frequency since making that declaration. Good luck with that!

If you create a sock puppet on your mission, I promise I wont tell.

[Ray Agostini]

To everyone -

I am going to bow out now and let you all have fun with this thread. For various reasons, a little while ago I determined not to continue posting in the boards and I wish to continue this policy. Thus, this is my last hurrah, so to speak.

Good luck to everyone. Play nice and may the Lord bless you and keep you all.

Don't be a party spoiler, Rom, but please yourself. You're almost as much fun to debate as Will.

I have an appointment with the real world too - shopping.

[structurecop]

If you create a sock puppet on your mission, I promise I wont tell.

It might be a little awkward trying to convince his companion to spend P-Day at the library so he can answer a CFR...

[ttribe]

It might be a little awkward trying to convince his companion to spend P-Day at the library so he can answer a CFR...

Are you kidding? His companions are going to be floored by his knowledge in the first place...to see him take a few swipes at some online critics would a form of entertainment for some of them! Tell you what, I could have used him more than once in TN and KY when I was serving.

[structurecop]

Yes, and considering the fact that most pseudepigraphic writings had not been found or published at the time he produced it is even more remarkable, because it does hang remarkably well with them.

Great minds, as they say. But actually, most pseudepigraphic writings were known by the 1830s. Whether they were accessible by JS is another question.

[structurecop]

Are you kidding? His companions are going to be floored by his knowledge in the first place...to see him take a few swipes at some online critics would a form of entertainment for some of them! Tell you what, I could have used him more than once in TN and KY when I was serving.

Perhaps. I suspect many would rather be playing basketball or something. A small minority would probably want to do the requisite weekly apartment cleaning...

[Pahoran]

How many variations of meaning can we ascribe to the statement "I did not have sexual relations with that woman?"

How many sincere and honest seekers after truth indulge in smearing by association, which is a dishonest polemical ploy?

How many meanings can be read twisted out of [snip two bog-standard anti-Mormon prooftexts]

How many sincere and honest seekers after truth indulge in race-baiting, which is pure demagoguery?

Or maybe it was ambiguous when Brigham Young said: [snip context-free quote mining]

What, if anything, does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

Maybe when JS said that he'd "married" his 30+ wives he just meant something else?

Maybe if you didn't love to play the dishonest game of "poisoning the well," you'd actually have some credibility when you protest your honesty and sincerity.

As I stated in a previous thread

My point is that you can't go re-defining all the words and phrases that become troublesome to your position, and that if you do, you certainly shouldn't mock those who criticize you for doing so. When translating doesn't mean translating, horses aren't horses, by his own hand doesn't mean by his own hand, etc., discussing anything with you is impossible. I'm all for understanding what words mean, but you ignore completely all the context of the statement "by his own hand." Above you said "Whether or not Joseph Smith and the other Church members assumed such is an entirely different story." Maybe its a different story to you, but to me that is the whole issue. If JS was incorrect about what the BoA was, that means he wasn't receiving revelation. Saying that JS was "assuming" anything related to the BoA is a big assumption of your own, you're injecting an element of doubt where he never implied any existed, quite to the contrary JS was very confident about EXACTLY what it was, and stated it explicitly over and over. As the supposed Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, he has a certain accountability for what he said. If you disagree with that, then we aren't going to have much to talk about because we're starting from different premises for examing truth.

At last you manage to say something that relates to the topic.

But when you take a book title that includes the phrase "By His Own Hand," and then insist that it denotes an autographic document, then it is not us who is "re-defining" anything.

Not that you care, of course.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Expose]

How many sincere and honest seekers after truth indulge in smearing by association, which is a dishonest polemical ploy?

How many sincere and honest seekers after truth indulge in race-baiting, which is pure demagoguery?

What, if anything, does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

Maybe if you didn't love to play the dishonest game of "poisoning the well," you'd actually have some credibility when you protest your honesty and sincerity.

At last you manage to say something that relates to the topic.

But when you take a book title that includes the phrase "By His Own Hand," and then insist that it denotes an autographic document, then it is not us who is "re-defining" anything.

Not that you care, of course.

Regards,

Pahoran

My point in refering to those quotes of prophets was to show that their messages were unambiguous, but people love to mitigate, ignore, or re-define them later them nonetheless. Debating the question of what 'by his own hand' means is as silly as questioning what prophets meant in those examples, it is clear what they meant, it is clear what 'by his own hand' meant. I'm trying to demonstrate the absurdity of debating and allowing the redefinition of every word that causes a problem DESPITE the original text being totally unambiguous, especially when the context of the text reaffirms its plain meaning.

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that "By His Own Hand" is part of a book title, or why that would matter.

[Pahoran]

My point in refering to those quotes of prophets was to show that their messages were unambiguous, but people love to mitigate, ignore, or re-define them later them nonetheless.

Your point was to (1) smear by association, (2) race-bait and (3) poison the well.

As you know--or would, if you listened to what LDS apologists have to say, which would necessitate you first admitting that you don't already know everything--each of those quotes is dealt with differently. They deal with unrelated topics. The only time they ever appear together is when some dishonest anti-Mormon hack is indulging in the scatter-gun method.

Debating the question of what 'by his own hand' means is as silly as questioning what prophets meant in those examples,

No it isn't, and you know it.

The title of Abraham's book was, "The Book of Abraham, Written by his own Hand, upon Papyrus." That was its title.

That title would be routinely copied by scribes onto every copy ever made. It still appears in your printed copies of the PoGP. Not even you are dense enough to imagine that that is an autographic document; although if it served your anti-Mormon agenda, I'm sure you'd find a way.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Expose]

The title of Abraham's book was, "The Book of Abraham, Written by his own Hand, upon Papyrus." That was its title.

That title would be routinely copied by scribes onto every copy ever made. It still appears in your printed copies of the PoGP.

CFR - I'm looking at my copy of the standard works and not seeing that, anywhere. Of course, as I said, I'm not sure why it would matter even if it is in the title, so maybe you could explain why this matters at the same time you tell us the source of this.

Not even you are dense enough to imagine that that is an autographic document; although if it served your anti-Mormon agenda, I'm sure you'd find a way.

Nemesis, where art thou? Surely this "Not even you are dense enough" kind of language deserves something from you, right? I'm sure I wouldn't get away with that.

[ttribe]

Nemesis, where art thou? Surely this "Not even you are dense enough" kind of language deserves something from you, right? I'm sure I wouldn't get away with that.

If you're really bothered by something, hit the "Report" button...the dramatic, public, appeal is altogether unnecessary.

[SilverKnight]

My patience is wearing this with the free-pass that believers on this board get, yet someone who is questioning is expected to live by a different set of rules. Recall an earlier thread when a poster called me a son of perdition? What happened there?

Actually you are getting quite tiresome.

This is ultimately a pro-LDS board, tilted ever-so-slightly in favor of believers. This no secret and this slight bias is agreed upon by all who post here. It is the reason why this board is still a place LDS members are (barely) comfortable in going. Otherwise the place would long have degenerated into Shade's place.

If you wish to blast all things LDS to oblivion before a giddy, slavering gaggle of fellow apostates there are many message boards happy to oblige you.

[Expose]

Actually you are getting quite tiresome.

This is ultimately a pro-LDS board, tilted ever-so-slightly in favor of believers. This no secret and this slight bias is agreed upon by all who post here. It is the reason why this board is still a place LDS members are (barely) comfortable in going. Otherwise the place would long have degenerated into Shade's place.

If you wish to blast all things LDS to oblivion before a giddy, slavering gaggle of fellow apostates there are many message boards happy to oblige you.

Official description from the board guidelines:

"The Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board is a discussion forum for apologetics (defense of the faith) related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) or Mormonism in general and related topics of interest to the LDS and Mormon communities."

If you want to engage in apologetics without hearing the arguments on the other side, then I'm sure there are plenty of places where nobody will dispute anything you say. I'm not blasting all things LDS, as I've stated many times I still like a lot of things the church teaches, I'm still an active (albeit unbelieving) member in good standing, etc. If you're going to pull this card out whenever it looks like you might be in danger of losing an argument, there is not much point in even having a forum. The whole point here is to discuss, so I'm discussing with ya'll.

[SilverKnight]

If you're going to pull this card out whenever it looks like you might be in danger of losing an argument, there is not much point in even having a forum. The whole point here is to discuss, so I'm discussing with ya'll.

This is the "card" that is pulled when a critic is bemoaning their unfair treatment, while believers get more leniency.

It has nothing to do with who is winning an argument.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Rom,

You asked "who said anything about pseudepigrapha?" Hugh Nibley certainly did, in Abraham in Egypt. When comparing the Book of Abraham to various pseudepigraphal documents from roughly the first century A.D., he makes the outlandish statement that pseudepigrapha are "called 'pseudo' only because they are not found in the biblical canon." This tickled my funny bone, to say the least. I can think of only two explanations for Nibley's statement: first, that he didn't know what "pseudepigrapha" really means, or second, that he's tacitly admitting that most of the works in the Bible are also pseudepigraphal and thus the only thing distinguishing the so-called "pseudepigrapha" from biblical forgeries is their non-canonical status. Either way, the comparison of such works to the Book of Abraham is hardly faith-promoting. It's the critics who are supposed to be arguing that the BoA is a pseudepigraphon!

As for your OP, I agree with Nibley's argument that "by his own hand" in an ancient manuscript doesn't necessarily mean it's a holograph. Heck, one of the New Testament epistles claims to be signed by Paul's own hand, but of course this claim comes to us through copies and copies of copies. We don't have the original. Nibley's argument as applied to the BoA is made problematic, though, by the fact that the phrase "by his own hand" does not seem to have been translated from the papyrus itself. The header of the earliest manuscript that includes the phrase reads, "Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the Catacombs of Egypt". Obviously this header is not a literal rendering of a title from the papyrus. The references to the translation and discovery of the papyri make that an impossibility. And the capitalization of "Book of Abraham" over against the lowercase rendering of "written by his own hand" is another indication that the latter is not strictly part of the document title. The capitalization distinction is even stronger in the title of the 1842 publication, where "Book of Abraham" is rendered in all caps and "written..." is again all lowercase.

Another poster brought up the use of the word "purporting" in the 1842 publication of the BoA, but on that issue see here. This is not the all-encompassing loophole it has been made out to be, and it does not render Smith's other statements on the subject null and void.

You closed the OP by stating, in effect, that even if Smith believed the papyrus was an Abraham autograph it wouldn't matter, because that was simply Smith's belief or assumption and not a revealed truth. To my mind, that is the best apologetic approach to this question. It is perhaps less satisfying, but it is far sounder and much more difficult for a critic to effectively rebut.

Best,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

By the way, Rom, I'd like to congratulate you on the way you've conducted yourself during your time here on the board. You're the most effective Book of Abraham apologist who posts here. You are too dependent on Gee and Nibley and to some degree Kerry Shirts, but I suspect you'll grow out of that and come into your own as an apologist soon enough. Good luck on your mission (if that is in fact where you're going) and thanks for posting. You will be missed.

[ttribe]

By the way, Rom, I'd like to congratulate you on the way you've conducted yourself during your time here on the board. You're the most effective Book of Abraham apologist who posts here. You are too dependent on Gee and Nibley and to some degree Kerry Shirts, but I suspect you'll grow out of that and come into your own as an apologist soon enough. Good luck on your mission (if that is in fact where you're going) and thanks for posting. You will be missed.

That was classy Chris (sincerely)...I, for one, respect this.

[Ray Agostini]

Are you kidding? His companions are going to be floored by his knowledge in the first place...to see him take a few swipes at some online critics would a form of entertainment for some of them! Tell you what, I could have used him more than once in TN and KY when I was serving.

It certainly will be a welcome change, but....... I spoke to a couple of missionaries about two or three months ago, and I confess to initially "doing a B.H.Roberts". I pretended to be ignorant about the Church. I was very interested to hear their approach, and was cautious not to let on to what I knew about Mormonism, without lying. I'd say they had the average knowledge most missionaries have - little. I encouraged them to express their feelings about the Book of Mormon, and they both bore testimony that this was the most significant factor in their decision to serve a mission. When I broke the news about who I was, I think they may have felt a bit offended, but not so much the senior, as he was a humble young man. The more outgoing and expressive junior, whose knowledge seemed to way surpass his senior, took control of the conversation, telling me "all about the Book of Mormon". I can only imagine how he felt to eventually learn that I'd read it more than 20 times. I was impressed with the humility and "simple testimony" of his senior, and said so. Knowledge isn't everything. Being able to "out-debate" isn't everything. And we would do well to remember that "knowledge puffs up". Ultimately, people aren't going to look at how much you know, but how much you care, how "Christlike" you are in actions and words. Or as Paul said, in the end all that really matters is charity, and he that has charity, "it shall be well with him at the last day". So I hope Rom bears this in mind when he serves.

[Nemesis]

If you want to engage in apologetics without hearing the arguments on the other side, then I'm sure there are plenty of places where nobody will dispute anything you say.

We've heard it, you are not listening and you cannot move on when someone gives you their answer or interpretation that differs from yours. You are not having a discussion, you are preaching. Maybe one of the long time critics is willing to show you the ropes, because honestly my patience in running out. If they think your argument is so strong maybe they will save you from yourself.

Nemesis

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi Rom,

As for your OP, I agree with Nibley's argument that "by his own hand" in an ancient manuscript doesn't necessarily mean it's a holograph. Heck, one of the New Testament epistles claims to be signed by Paul's own hand, but of course this claim comes to us through copies and copies of copies. We don't have the original.

Best,

-Chris

Chris,

This is why I think it is good to have you and others around here. I know we disagree on a few things but at least you know a bad argument when you see one. That is why I mentioned the "Adieu" arguement. The one that is the op for this thread that some critics put forth are not very good. Others, I have to confess that there is not an answer readily availble and it appears that the critic has a point. What to do?? Keep on learning.

[Chris Smith]

Chris,

This is why I think it is good to have you and others around here. I know we disagree on a few things but at least you know a bad argument when you see one. That is why I mentioned the "Adieu" arguement. The one that is the op for this thread that some critics put forth are not very good. Others, I have to confess that there is not an answer readily availble and it appears that the critic has a point. What to do?? Keep on learning.

Well, to be clear, I do think that JS believed the papyrus was an Abraham autograph, and I do think that belief was reflected in the phrase "written by his own hand" in the manuscript title. But I also think that Rom's argument that this was merely a belief and not a revelation is quite defensible. I could offer a couple counterarguments, I suppose, but nothing really solid. So you're right that I think that as long as the apologists stick to this Joseph-was-merely-mistaken approach and don't venture off into misguided discussions of "purporting" and such, there's not much else for critics to say about this. It's hardly the smoking gun.

I ultimately think of myself more as a critic of bad apologetics than of the Church anyway, and I think this is a good example of that. I quite like the Church, in fact, and I think that it meets the spiritual needs of a great many people. I simply want accurate information to be available to those who are really looking for it, especially because I view fundamentalist interpretations of religion (which literalistic apologetics about "purporting" and missing papyri promote) as more harmful than helpful in the big scheme of things. I prefer that people know or at least have ready access to the knowledge that Joseph Smith viewed his papyrus as an Abraham autograph. But if they continue to view him as a prophet and the Church as true when equipped with this knowledge, that's great! Hopefully it will have contributed to a slightly more nuanced understanding of the fallibility of a prophet, if it has any effect at all.

Indeed, we ought all to keep on learning, including from each other! I know I've learned a heckuva lot from the apologists, and I think one or two of them might even have learned a few things from me. At the end of the day, that almost makes it worth the gobs and gobs of time I've invested here. ;-) I'm glad that there's at least some common ground to be had, and that we can all chat cordially about this kind of thing and still be e-friends when all is said and done. Peace,

-Chris