Book of Abraham and the KEP

[Lamanite]

go to the conference over Las Vegas....

- SlackTime

I assume by "conference" you are referring to the Palms buffet and a workout in the dungeon that Steuss calls a gym.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[SlackTime]

I assume by "conference" you are referring to the Palms buffet and a workout in the dungeon that Steuss calls a gym.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Only if that is where the FAIR Auction is being held - SlackTime

[wenglund]

So I guess I will wait for the presentation....

I don't think you will be disappointed. Save me a seat--preferrably on the isle.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scottie]

I don't think anyone has said that this one presentation solves every question regarding the Book of Abraham. I think Will has specifically said that this is directed at the KEP papers. What has made you think otherwise?

- SlackTime

Pahoran said: If Will is right, he hasn't just changed the game; he's left the Church's critics completely on the wrong field, trying to play with the wrong equipment. My preliminary impression is that this is a watershed moment in Book of Abraham apologetics. We will be able to tell our grandchildren that we remember when the critics thought that the Book of Abraham was a soft target for their anti-Mormon arguments; and that we were there when all that changed.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Pahoran said: If Will is right, he hasn't just changed the game; he's left the Church's critics completely on the wrong field, trying to play with the wrong equipment. My preliminary impression is that this is a watershed moment in Book of Abraham apologetics. We will be able to tell our grandchildren that we remember when the critics thought that the Book of Abraham was a soft target for their anti-Mormon arguments; and that we were there when all that changed.

You will need to take this up with Pahoran then. However, it does not appear that Pahoran is claiming that all of Will's work over turns all of the critics arguments against the BoM. I am pretty sure that Pahoran has the KEP in mind when he is talking about this and not the general BoA. I could be wrong.

[Scottie]

You will need to take this up with Pahoran then. However, it does not appear that Pahoran is claiming that all of Will's work over turns all of the critics arguments against the BoM. I am pretty sure that Pahoran has the KEP in mind when he is talking about this and not the general BoA. I could be wrong.

It doesn't seem to read that way, but perhaps you are right.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It doesn't seem to read that way, but perhaps you are right.

I can see why you understand Pahorans comments to mean what they do. Perhaps we can get him to clarify what he means.

[wenglund]

It doesn't seem to read that way, but perhaps you are right.

Had he used universal terminology like "all" or "every", then you may have a point. Since he didn't (except in regards to the playing field), then one may reasonably assume he was speaking generally as a rule, thus implying possible exceptions. There is, after all, still the matter of the Facsimilies and their interpretations--though Will's presentation may shed a little light on that matter as well.

Stay tuned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Had he used universal terminology like "all" or "every", then you may have a point. Since he didn't (except in regards to the playing field), then one may reasonably assume he was speaking generally as a rule, thus implying possible exceptions. There is, after all, still the matter of the Facsimilies and their interpretations--though Will's presentation may shed a little light on that matter as well.

Stay tuned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ok that is interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[cinepro]

This is my understanding of the issue.

There are certain papers that have text from the Book of Abraham, and in the left margin are Egyptian characters taken from the papyri. The assumption is that the egyptian characters are arranged in such a way that they are somehow correlated to the text.

Here's a picture of one of the papers:

The question would be what this is supposed to mean for the translation of the Book of Abraham.

If the papers were prepared by Joseph Smith, or under Joseph Smith's direction, then these papers could be making the claim that the text on the page is a translation or otherwise correlated to the corresponding character in the margin. This would be an important claim, because to the degree that the Egyptian can be translated, it would allow us to confirm or disconfirm Joseph's translation. It would also stack against the argument that the papyri were a "catalyst" and Joseph wasn't actually trying to render an English interpretation of the Egyptian that was written.

If the papers were not prepared by Joseph Smith or under Joseph Smith's direction or influence, then the person preparing them would have no idea which Egyptian characters were correlated with any text; if there was supposed to be a correlation, it would be a random (and apparently wrong) guess. But the fact that this person guessed wrong would have no bearing on Joseph Smith's claims.

It would be as if Joseph Smith had taken the characters in Anthon Transcript and placed them alongside a selection of text from the Book of Mormon. The obvious assumption would be that the characters had something to do with the text. But if someone else tried to match the characters to the text, their success would have nothing to do with the overall claims of Joseph Smith.

Although it should be noted that if the Egyptian did happen to match up to the Book of Abraham text, that would be pretty cool.

[wenglund]

This is my understanding of the issue.

There are certain papers that have text from the Book of Abraham, and in the left margin are Egyptian characters taken from the papyri. The assumption is that the egyptian characters are arranged in such a way that they are somehow correlated to the text.

Here's a picture of one of the papers:

The question would be what this is supposed to mean for the translation of the Book of Abraham.

If the papers were prepared by Joseph Smith, or under Joseph Smith's direction, then these papers could be making the claim that the text on the page is a translation or otherwise correlated to the corresponding character in the margin. This would be an important claim, because to the degree that the Egyptian can be translated, it would allow us to confirm or disconfirm Joseph's translation. It would also stack against the argument that the papyri were a "catalyst" and Joseph wasn't actually trying to render an English interpretation of the Egyptian that was written.

If the papers were not prepared by Joseph Smith or under Joseph Smith's direction or influence, then the person preparing them would have no idea which Egyptian characters were correlated with any text; if there was supposed to be a correlation, it would be a random (and apparently wrong) guess. But the fact that this person guessed wrong would have no bearing on Joseph Smith's claims.

It would be as if Joseph Smith had taken the characters in Anthon Transcript and placed them alongside a selection of text from the Book of Mormon. The obvious assumption would be that the characters had something to do with the text. But if someone else tried to match the characters to the text, their success would have nothing to do with the overall claims of Joseph Smith.

Although it should be noted that if the Egyptian did happen to match up to the Book of Abraham text, that would be pretty cool.

Prepare, as I did, to have at least two of your fundamental presuppositions/premises seriously questioned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nomad]

Prepare, as I did, to have at least two of your fundamental presuppositions/premises seriously questioned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Exactly right.

In fact, this whole thing is turning out to be a fascinating illustration of how preconceptions can prove to be such a dominant influence on the ability of a person to view something. It might be fascinating for someone to take the time to assemble all the message board posts from the past several days and study how they illustrate that phenomenon.

[Doctor Steuss]

I assume by "conference" you are referring to the Palms buffet and a workout in the dungeon that Steuss calls a gym.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Silly Lamanite, it is affectionately called the "Prison Yard," not the "Dungeon."

(This thread-jack is brough to you by Merck Pharmaceuticals. Merck; committed to making a difference.)

[wenglund]

Exactly right.

In fact, this whole thing is turning out to be a fascinating illustration of how preconceptions can prove to be such a dominant influence on the ability of a person to view something. It might be fascinating for someone to take the time to assemble all the message board posts from the past several days and study how they illustrate that phenomenon.

As indicated, I am somewhat guilty of this myself in terms of the KEP--and this even after entering the BoA fray genuinely with a mind open to letting the evidence lead me whereever it may.

To me, the problem isn't so much with confirmation bias per se (since some measure of confirmation bias is vital to pragmatic living), but with insurmountable confirmation bias--i.e. holding fast to the bias in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary.

From my brief experience, both critics and apologists alike, for the most part, have been acting in good faith, and made reasonable arguments either way. And, I don't know that we each can be faulted or chastized for that. It is just that in some respects we may have been reasonably wrong.

However, the true test of character and intellectual honesty isn't in never making mistakes, but in whether we willingly admit when we are wrong and are willing to move on after adjusting our respective paradigms, rather than ego-istically closing our minds and going into self-limiting denial, evasion, and rationalizations.

From what I am seeing in certain quarters, the latter is sadly already under way--ironically, by some who may have been the loudest in decrying confirmation bias among the saints.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-