Following Up on Yesterday's Lesson

[MorningStar]

Wait, you mean the boys had a different biological mother and the girls a different biological father? Woah! Suddenly so many things make sense!

I started watching that movie but became offended when they appeared to be making fun of the regular series.

Oh, but it's so funny. Greg is hanging out by the pool and is checking out this girl. She turns around and it's Marsha! Finally! Someone stated what viewers were thinking, "What is stopping Greg and Marsha from being attracted to each other?" Carol and Mike never thought for a second that their blended family might encounter some problems like that with older children close in age. They were too distracted by Cindy's lisp, Jan's hideous wig, and Peter's voice changing. Oh, not to mention the time they got backed into and sued by the guy. Cindy and Bobby were busy fighting while eating ice cream and didn't notice if Carol looked back or not. Then Mike saved the day when he dropped his briefcase in court, causing the man in the neckbrace to turn his head suddenly, proving he was faking his injuries. You gotta praise Cindy and Bobby for telling the truth, even if it meant their family might have to pay the faker a lot of money.

[Mortal Man]

I find it extremely hard to swallow that you can be so fundamentally ignorant of simple grammar and word-usage.

The next time you start talking of galactic-sized holes in apologetic arguments, you might wish to avail yourself of the services of an ophtometrist, preferably one who engages in carpentry on the side.

I declare for all to hear that volgadon has fully discredited me and thus accomplished his primary purpose in this thread.

I also certify that his above statement is 100% nonpolemical and employs no ad hominem attacks.

[Mortal Man]

Oh, but it's so funny. Greg is hanging out by the pool and is checking out this girl. She turns around and it's Marsha! Finally! Someone stated what viewers were thinking, "What is stopping Greg and Marsha from being attracted to each other?" Carol and Mike never thought for a second that their blended family might encounter some problems like that with older children close in age.

IIRC, Greg and Carol were attracted to each other in real life and went on at least one date together during the series. Man, I'm glad I didn't know that at the time.

They were too distracted by Cindy's lisp, Jan's hideous wig, and Peter's voice changing.

Yes, it seems that "something suddenly came up" in just about every episode.

Oh, not to mention the time they got backed into and sued by the guy. Cindy and Bobby were busy fighting while eating ice cream and didn't notice if Carol looked back or not. Then Mike saved the day when he dropped his briefcase in court, causing the man in the neckbrace to turn his head suddenly, proving he was faking his injuries. You gotta praise Cindy and Bobby for telling the truth, even if it meant their family might have to pay the faker a lot of money.

Next to Primary, I feel that The Brady Bunch taught all of the most important life lessons to my generation. They just can't make shows like that anymore without being mocking and sarcastic.

BTW, did you bust out laughing when the lamp they had lamely glued back together started leaking during dinner and all the kids just ate faster? Man, I was rolling on the floor!

[Daniel Peterson]

I declare for all to hear that volgadon has fully discredited me and thus accomplished his primary purpose in this thread.

I also certify that his above statement is 100% nonpolemical and employs no ad hominem attacks.

The simple fact is that, on this thread (and on the only other one where I've really paid any attention to you), you've manifested a consistent flair for gross misreading. That's not merely demonstrable; it's been demonstrated.

Unless, of course, your performance on this thread and the other has been intended as some sort of boring, unfunny joke. Which seems possible, but rather pointless and unlikely.

[volgadon]

I declare for all to hear that volgadon has fully discredited me and thus accomplished his primary purpose in this thread.

I also certify that his above statement is 100% nonpolemical and employs no ad hominem attacks.

What about your claim that I ignore primary source, is that chopped liver?

Any particular reason you completely ignored (yet again) the substance of my last post?

[Daniel Peterson]

Any particular reason you completely ignored (yet again) the substance of my last post?

As Heinrich Heine said, of quite a different person than MM and in quite another context, "c'est son m

[justdreamin]

Thank you, JD, for this convenient catalogue of standard anti-Mormon talking points.

Here we are treated to the fascinating spectacle of a "regular member" who has all sorts of obscure quotes at her fingertips but who is blissfully unaware of the fact that none of our ancient Scriptures -- not Genesis, not Exodus, not Jude, not Revelation, not 1 Nephi, not Moroni, nor any other -- derives from now-extant autographic sources.

(And in this case, I am doing something I almost never do: I am using terms like "none" in a mathematically precise way, and not in the ordinary conversational way. Let Mike "Broken" Reed, Alf "the Alien" O'Mega, or anyone else who wants to take me to task for "speaking in absolutes" have at it.)

You see, I really am a regular member. Like most "regular members," I do not have a handful of convenient anti-Mormon 3x5 cards ready to throw in anyone's face; instead, I do know that (1) none of our ancient Scriptures have extant autographic sources, and (2) the Church has never pointed out the unique status of the Book of Abraham in being an exception to that rule.

Something it must have done if at any time the J.S. Papyri were thought to be the autographs of Abraham.

The fact that nobody thinks they are is entirely ordinary and unremarkable.

(I use "nobody" here in the ordinary, conversational way. There are no doubt a few oddballs who, in the absence of actual information, assume that they are. But the Church does not; and neither do the critics. They just want to saddle us with that assumption to make the Book of Abraham easier to attack. Despite their affectation of confidence that the Book of Abraham is a "slam dunk," they still labour mightily to demolish a whole battalion of straw men. Which does not really show that they have much confidence in the strength of their position. At all.)

So, JD, I suggest that you look into what the Church has to say about the BofA. Our critics, who never read it, and make no effort whatsoever to understand it, cannot help you.

Regards,

Pahoran

Wow! Well formed diatribe! I almost hate to water down the alum basted delicacy with any type of reply, but...

We seem to have several things in common. We are both regular Mormons; neither of us have a convenient handful of anti-Mormon 3x5 cards ready to throw in anyone's face; and neither of us believe that we have ancient scripture that derives from now-extant autographic sources.

I concede you are better versed than I in a couple of matters, such as the catalogue of standard anti-Mormon talking points and (all sorts of) obscure quotes that I apparently have at my fingertips.

By coming to this board I was under the impression that I was asking questions of apologists (as opposed to strictly asking questions of critics,) although I enjoy an answer from any persuasion. This is not the only place I get information (I shouldn't even have to say that,) just a place that I visit at times when I have a thought or question that might be construed as critical, where I can present what I think to a group of strangers, outside my realm of acquaintance, for an opinion or two, or even the occasional smack down.

So while your post was devoid of an interesting opinion, much less any answers, it was a decently conceived smack down. Thanks for keeping things interesting.

[Deborah]

Deborah, you said this board is a good place to come with questions. I think it is a good place to come to be labeled an anti-Mormon and worse if you dare voice those questions.

No I said Fair is. This is not Fair. This is a discussion forum. Fair is where scholarly opinions can be found. This board is a place where anyone can come in with any crazy ideas and if they aren't too insulting, or don't irritate the Mods, get a hearing.

[Deborah]

Joseph Smith studied the letters and grammar of the Egyptian language, and then, with the help of the Holy Ghost, he translated the writings on the papyrus rolls. The writings Joseph Smith translated tell about the ancient prophet Abraham and are now published as the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price."

Maybe I'm missing it in the examples you gave but where does any of this contradict any of the current theories on the BOA? The writings do indeed tell about the ancient Prophet Abraham; that doesn't mean they couldn't have been copied many times for future generations as the scrolls became aged and fragile.

[Hestia]

Everyone, stop with the personal insults or this thread will have reached its demise.

[StuddleyG]

I think Fair is a good place to go. At least you get reasoned discussions on the very topics the critics are using to condemn the church, and by people who still have their testimonies. Some things you just have to table. I have found that when I find things that seem to contradict what I know spiritually, to rely on the spiritual confirmations and let the matter rest until more information is available. In this way I have had many questions eventually answered and my testimony continually strengthened with the added knowledge.

I agree. If it weren't for places like FAIR, I probably wouldn't be member of the church anymore. After learning about the actual facts of the Book of Abraham, I was devastated. Reading LDS apologetic material helped me get past what what seemed to be obvious blunders in the church. The best resource I know of for the Book of Abraham is at Jefflindsay.com. He has some very long and detailed articles about the Book of Abraham.

Richard L. Bushman explained once that the purpose of apolgetics is to gain a better undersanding about certain aspects of the church. Organizations like FAIR provide people with the scholarly and reasoned perspectives. The church itself is mainly concerned providing spiritual nourishment.

Even though gaining a testimony requires a spirtual manifestation, I think it is whole lot easier to open your heart and mind to the spirit when the burden of unanswered questions is lightened.

[mathilde]

No I said Fair is. This is not Fair. This is a discussion forum. Fair is where scholarly opinions can be found. This board is a place where anyone can come in with any crazy ideas and if they aren't too insulting, or don't irritate the Mods, get a hearing.

Yes, I understood that wrong, you did clearly say FAIR was a good place to go with questions, but for discussion and clarification of what can be read over at FAIR I assumed this board too was connected and would be the best place since some of the authors there post here.

As for the age of the scriptures, I haven't tried to suggest much other than the impression someone gets from direct, simple church-on-Sunday sources. I know there is a lot of scholarship behind every point at FAIR, but what I have been trying to say is that even to say that the book of Abraham is one of our oldest scriptures when combined with "by his own hand, on papyrus", the general impression is not an indication of papyrus recopied and rewritten by other hands for 2000 years, papyrus not even older than most of what became the Old and New Testament, papyrus that we have not even necessarily connected in content to what Joseph Smith actually translated. And so that in fact what Abraham wrote, in his own hand, would be among the oldest scripture we have, but what we have is something that was possibly rewritten and recopied for over 2000 years, which means we have to believe that this text stayed undiminished during the process and that the errors that we believe crept into the Old and New Testaments, for the New Testament even after just a few hundred years past original documents compared to the book of Abraham's 2000 years -- why then would that content be any less subject to the process of time and bad scribes, etc. as any other scripture we have?

Difference between a text, and what manuscript or papyrus that text is written on or originated from or evolved into, is clearly discussed at FAIR to be two different things. I agree with that.

[Scott Lloyd]

As for the age of the scriptures, I haven't tried to suggest much other than the impression someone gets from direct, simple church-on-Sunday sources. I know there is a lot of scholarship behind every point at FAIR, but what I have been trying to say is that even to say that the book of Abraham is one of our oldest scriptures when combined with "by his own hand, on papyrus", the general impression is not an indication of papyrus recopied and rewritten by other hands for 2000 years, papyrus not even older than most of what became the Old and New Testament, papyrus that we have not even necessarily connected in content to what Joseph Smith actually translated. And so that in fact what Abraham wrote, in his own hand, would be among the oldest scripture we have, but what we have is something that was possibly rewritten and recopied for over 2000 years, which means we have to believe that this text stayed undiminished during the process and that the errors that we believe crept into the Old and New Testaments, for the New Testament even after just a few hundred years past original documents compared to the book of Abraham's 2000 years -- why then would that content be any less subject to the process of time and bad scribes, etc. as any other scripture we have?

If one accepts that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham by revelation, it is not at all difficult to conceive that in the process, he could have corrected or did correct, also by means of revelation, any or all errors in transmission of the text that may have occurred over time. This is hardly a troublesome issue.

[Mortal Man]

The simple fact is that, on this thread (and on the only other one where I've really paid any attention to you), you've manifested a consistent flair for gross misreading. That's not merely demonstrable; it's been demonstrated.

I refuse to be held responsible for anything I wrote more than three days ago. For heaven's sake, I hope we are moving forward here. After all, the implication that one mistake and it is all over with

[Scott Lloyd]

I refuse to be held responsible for anything I wrote more than three days ago. For heaven's sake, I hope we are moving forward here. After all, the implication that one mistake and it is all over with

[cinepro]

Maybe I'm missing it in the examples you gave but where does any of this contradict any of the current theories on the BOA? The writings do indeed tell about the ancient Prophet Abraham; that doesn't mean they couldn't have been copied many times for future generations as the scrolls became aged and fragile.

I'm not familiar with the history of Egypt in that time period, so can anyone tell me who the theorized "preservers of the text" would be? Who were the Egyptian Abrahamites that would care enough to preserve his writings for 2,000 years?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not familiar with the history of Egypt in that time period, so can anyone tell me who the theorized "preservers of the text" would be? Who were the Egyptian Abrahamites that would care enough to preserve his writings for 2,000 years?

Why do you put "preservers of the text" in quotation marks? Whom are you quoting?

[Calm]

Yes, I understood that wrong, you did clearly say FAIR was a good place to go with questions, but for discussion and clarification of what can be read over at FAIR I assumed this board too was connected and would be the best place since some of the authors there post here.

If you want discussion and clarification of FAIR comments, it would probably be best to email the FAIR elist as not only a small percentage of FAIR writers post on this board, but the comments will likely be much more specific to your questions. Most responses are answered quite quickly and if it's not detailed enough for you as sometimes just links are provided for common questions, just write again asking for more details, focus on a particular detail, etc.

[cinepro]

Why do you put "preservers of the text" in quotation marks? Whom are you quoting?

It's just a description of their task.

LDS (and Christians in general) tend to date Abraham to ~2,000 BC. It's my understand that the physical papyrus has been dated closer to ~200BC. So, who was it in Egypt that cared enough about Abraham's writings transmit them through 1800 years of Egyptian history? Or are my dates off?

[volgadon]

Or the text peregrinated, or it was kept in archives, or both. We don't know. There are posibilities, but we simply don't have enough data to work with.

[Calm]

Or the text peregrinated, or it was kept in archives, or both. We don't know. There are posibilities, but we simply don't have enough data to work with.

And since they didn't have edition numbers, it would be hard to know how many times it was copied...it could have been once or hundreds of times (the life of papyri in Egypt being of remarkable length).

[William Schryver]

I'm not familiar with the history of Egypt in that time period, so can anyone tell me who the theorized "preservers of the text" would be? Who were the Egyptian Abrahamites that would care enough to preserve his writings for 2,000 years?

Of course, it would be impossible to say precisely how the text was preserved between the time of Abraham and Ptolemaic-era Egypt, which is the period when the Joseph Smith Papyri were produced. However, it makes perfect sense to me that some Egyptian scrolls containing Jewish-related texts would emerge out of Thebes circa 200 B.C. Why? Well, because there had been a significant Jewish presence in Thebes for several hundred years by the time the Greeks conquered Egypt. It is a well-known fact in Egyptological circles that there was a great deal of syncretization of Egyptian and Jewish thought and liturgical texts during that period of time.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's just a description of their task.

LDS (and Christians in general) tend to date Abraham to ~2,000 BC. It's my understand that the physical papyrus has been dated closer to ~200BC. So, who was it in Egypt that cared enough about Abraham's writings transmit them through 1800 years of Egyptian history? Or are my dates off?

If it's your own phrase, putting it in quotation marks is not just improper punctuation, it's confusing.

[Mortal Man]

I've provided you with forty-two examples of FARMS publications that cannot plausibly be characterized as primarily focused on discrediting critics and cannot plausibly be described as "gratuitously [nor even non-gratuitously] polemical."

I could supply the same number many times over again.

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this, but it took me a while to dig through all forty-two of these publications.

I am chagrined and embarrassed to report that I did not find any trace of polemics in the sources you so generously provided. This has forced me to conclude that gratuitous polemics cannot possibly be the principal purpose of FARMS; which is after all, a multifaceted and diverse organization. Henceforth, you will not be hearing from me any more talk about gratuitous polemics being the principal purpose of the global FARMS organization; at this point, the most that can be said is that some polemics may be among the many activities of FARMS authors.

This has been a real Galileo Event for me. I

[William Schryver]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this, but it took me a while to dig through all forty-two of these publications.

I am chagrined and embarrassed to report that I did not find any trace of polemics in the sources you so generously provided. This has forced me to conclude that gratuitous polemics cannot possibly be the principal purpose of FARMS; which is after all, a multifaceted and diverse organization. Henceforth, you will not be hearing from me any more talk about gratuitous polemics being the principal purpose of the global FARMS organization; at this point, the most that can be said is that some polemics may be among the many activities of FARMS authors.

This has been a real Galileo Event for me. I