Book of Abraham Apologetics

[Olavarria]

There once was a pauper who visited a starving college student, he unfolded his pouch and showed the student a transparent, shiny, little stone. He told the student that it was a diamond.

The student asked him were he got the diamond and the pauper told him that he found it in a green shoe box with a Nike swoosh , in his grandma's trailer, under her bed. He also said there were many more diamonds inside the box. The student wanted this beautiful rock so badly;and he wanted it mounted on a ring to propose to his girlfriend. The pauper left the diamond with the student in exchange for $1,000 dollars. The student mounted it on a gold ring and gave it to his fianc

[Doug the Hutt]

heya Pedro,

Random thoughts..please don't take any of this too seriously --

1. the so-called "pauper" was nothing but a two-bit-thief who stole the diamond from his own grandmother. Call Protective Services! That's more than theft -- it's abuse of the elderly!

2. the Nike box should have also contained some fuzzy dice.

3. why would a woman with a boxfull of diamonds be living in a trailer? Why do I also think she ate canned dog food made with class-D meat?

4. $1000 is pretty cheap for a diamond. Mustn't have been very big, or clear, or colorless, or must have had many inclusions...

5. I think the pauper & granny were driving to a Rod Meldrum experience...

6. darn Angolans!

7. How did the starving-college-student-turned-burglar and his n00b-burglar-fiance

[Rob Bowman]

Pedro,

But then....

The chemist's wife was showing off her new diamond ring to all of her friends at the country club. One of them asked if she was sure the diamond was real. The wife was outraged. "If my hubby says it's a diamond, then I believe him." A few days later, though, she began to wonder if her friend might have been right. She took the ring to three jewelers, none of whom knew her or her husband. All three jewelers agreed that the stone was not a real diamond, even though to the untrained eye it looked like one. Now the woman had a problem. Should she believe her husband, whom she loved, and whom she had never doubted before, or should she believe these experts? Yes, her husband was a renowned chemist, but not a jeweler. Maybe he just wanted to believe that it was a diamond so much that he had convinced himself that it was, just as she had.

Reluctantly, she confronted her husband with the analyses of the three professional jewelers. The chemist, a thoughtful man indeed, offered several possible explanations. (1) The study of diamonds is not an exact science, and differences of opinion are inevitable. (2) His analysis only claimed to show that it was possible that the stone was a diamond, not to prove to the satisfaction of skeptics that it was. (3) Perhaps sometime after he examined the stone and gave it to her as a gift, someone stole that stone and substituted the stone in the ring now in her possession. (4) In describing the stone as a "diamond," he might have meant only that the stone reminded him of a diamond -- that the stone acted, as it were, as a catalyst to bring to mind the idea of a diamond. (5) The term diamond has several meanings; in addition to its use for a stone of a particular chemical composition, it can refer to a rhombus-shaped object, a red lozenge-shaped geometric shape, a playing card displaying one or more such shapes, the infield or whole playing field of a baseball game, or idiomatically something of exceptional qualities but lacking polish or refinement ("diamond in the rough").

The chemist went on to assure his wife that it really didn't matter how he did his analysis or what the relationship of the stone in her ring was to the Angolan diamond mine from which it was thought to have come. What mattered was that he loved her and that she needed to trust him no matter what. The ring really played a very small part in their life together. Had he not given her many other gifts that she never questioned? Did she not have other pieces of jewelry that he had given her?

The woman was relieved. She didn't know which of her husband's explanations was the best, but as he himself had said, it didn't matter. When she saw her country-club friend again, she confidently stated that the whole matter had been cleared up. She also made a mental note to herself never to listen to the opinions of those know-nothing women at the country club and to take anything said by expert jewelers with a heavy dose of salt.

"And now you know...the rest of the story."

[Pahoran]

Pedro,

But then....

The chemist's wife was showing off her new diamond ring to all of her friends at the country club. One of them asked if she was sure the diamond was real. The wife was outraged. "If my hubby says it's a diamond, then I believe him." A few days later, though, she began to wonder if her friend might have been right. She took the ring to three jewelers, none of whom knew her or her husband. All three jewelers agreed that the stone was not a real diamond, even though to the untrained eye it looked like one. Now the woman had a problem. Should she believe her husband, whom she loved, and whom she had never doubted before, or should she believe these experts? Yes, her husband was a renowned chemist, but not a jeweler. Maybe he just wanted to believe that it was a diamond so much that he had convinced himself that it was, just as she had.

Reluctantly, she confronted her husband with the analyses of the three professional jewelers. The chemist, a thoughtful man indeed, offered several possible explanations. (1) The study of diamonds is not an exact science, and differences of opinion are inevitable. (2) His analysis only claimed to show that it was possible that the stone was a diamond, not to prove to the satisfaction of skeptics that it was. (3) Perhaps sometime after he examined the stone and gave it to her as a gift, someone stole that stone and substituted the stone in the ring now in her possession. (4) In describing the stone as a "diamond," he might have meant only that the stone reminded him of a diamond -- that the stone acted, as it were, as a catalyst to bring to mind the idea of a diamond. (5) The term diamond has several meanings; in addition to its use for a stone of a particular chemical composition, it can refer to a rhombus-shaped object, a red lozenge-shaped geometric shape, a playing card displaying one or more such shapes, the infield or whole playing field of a baseball game, or idiomatically something of exceptional qualities but lacking polish or refinement ("diamond in the rough").

The chemist went on to assure his wife that it really didn't matter how he did his analysis or what the relationship of the stone in her ring was to the Angolan diamond mine from which it was thought to have come. What mattered was that he loved her and that she needed to trust him no matter what. The ring really played a very small part in their life together. Had he not given her many other gifts that she never questioned? Did she not have other pieces of jewelry that he had given her?

The woman was relieved. She didn't know which of her husband's explanations was the best, but as he himself had said, it didn't matter. When she saw her country-club friend again, she confidently stated that the whole matter had been cleared up. She also made a mental note to herself never to listen to the opinions of those know-nothing women at the country club and to take anything said by expert jewelers with a heavy dose of salt.

"And now you know...the rest of the story."

Thank you Rob, for demonstrating the limitations of any analogy.

The fact is that, when it comes to the Book of Abraham, the debunkers have never made the slightest effort to apply any "diamond test" to it. Their argument starts and ends with assumptions about its provenance; "proving" that Joseph Smith claimed to derive the text of the Book of Abraham from J.S. Papyri XI and X is the hill they are determined to die on. If that argument fails, they've got nothing left to fall back upon.

Furthermore, let's be clear on one thing: whatever "the rest of the story" might be, we will never get it from anti-Mormons. Least of all from an anti-Mormon propaganda mill that daily tries to deceive people into thinking it is some kind of impartial, scholarly "Institute for Religious Research," when in fact it is nothing of the sort.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If that argument fails, they've got nothing left to fall back upon.

Regards,

Pahoran

I did not think that it was a sucsessful argument in the first place. But you are right non the less.

[Vance]

Pedro,

But then....

The chemist's wife was showing off her new diamond ring to all of her friends at the country club. One of them asked if she was sure the diamond was real. The wife was outraged. "If my hubby says it's a diamond, then I believe him." A few days later, though, she began to wonder if her friend might have been right. She took the ring to three jewelers who had never seen a real diamond before, none of whom knew her or her husband. All three jewelers agreed that the stone was not a real diamond, even though to the untrained eye it looked like onedidn't come from the green shoe box with a Nike swoosh because the small Angolan flag was too small to hold any diamonds. Now the woman had a problem. Should she believe her husband, whom she loved, and whom she had never doubted before, or should she believe these so called experts? Yes, her husband was a renowned chemist who had seen several diamonds before, but not a jeweler.

There, now it is more accurate.

[cinepro]

There once was a pauper who visited a starving college student, he unfolded his pouch and showed the student a transparent, shiny, little stone. He told the student that it was a diamond....

I'm way confused.

I'm pretty sure the "diamond" is supposed to be the "Book of Abraham"? Or is it the papyrus? In the story (and real life), there are highly reliable, empirical tests to determine claims about the composition of a stone. What is the analogous test for the Book of Abraham?

The story of the Book of Abraham involves several supernatural elements which are pretty important to determining the validity of the Church's claims. Why doesn't the "parable" also employ supernatural elements regarding the history and composition of the stone?

For example, if the pauper claimed it was a diamond and subsequent testing showed that it was a CZ and then the pauper claimed that it had once been a diamond, but through an act of God it was subsequently transformed into a CZ (through faith), would we be justified in being skeptical?

[Pahoran]

I'm way confused.

I'm pretty sure the "diamond" is supposed to be the "Book of Abraham"? Or is it the papyrus? In the story (and real life), there are highly reliable, empirical tests to determine claims about the composition of a stone. What is the analogous test for the Book of Abraham?

The story of the Book of Abraham involves several supernatural elements which are pretty important to determining the validity of the Church's claims. Why doesn't the "parable" also employ supernatural elements regarding the history and composition of the stone?

For example, if the pauper claimed it was a diamond and subsequent testing showed that it was a CZ and then the pauper claimed that it had once been a diamond, but through an act of God it was subsequently transformed into a CZ (through faith), would we be justified in being skeptical?

I agree that one of us is confused.

How on earth is this in any way analogous to anything at all relating to the Book of Abraham?

Regards,

Pahoran

[jmordecai]

Thank you Rob, for demonstrating the limitations of any analogy.

The fact is that, when it comes to the Book of Abraham, the debunkers have never made the slightest effort to apply any "diamond test" to it. Their argument starts and ends with assumptions about its provenance; "proving" that Joseph Smith claimed to derive the text of the Book of Abraham from J.S. Papyri XI and X is the hill they are determined to die on. If that argument fails, they've got nothing left to fall back upon.

Furthermore, let's be clear on one thing: whatever "the rest of the story" might be, we will never get it from anti-Mormons. Least of all from an anti-Mormon propaganda mill that daily tries to deceive people into thinking it is some kind of impartial, scholarly "Institute for Religious Research," when in fact it is nothing of the sort.

Regards,

Pahoran

Skeptics don't need to die on XI and X. Papyri I, the source of Facsimile 1, is sufficient for that.

[Pahoran]

Skeptics don't need to die on XI and X. Papyri I, the source of Facsimile 1, is sufficient for that.

Sufficient for what? Providing a place for the skeptics to die?

Let's not be too bloodthirsty here.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sufficient for what? Providing a place for the skeptics to die?

Let's not be too bloodthirsty here.

Regards,

Pahoran

Ha, bravo.

[cinepro]

I agree that one of us is confused.

Honestly, if someone could explain how the analogy applies to Book of Abraham apologetics, I would be very interested.

[Mansquatch]

Honestly, if someone could explain how the analogy applies to Book of Abraham apologetics, I would be very interested.

Loosely

[Pahoran]

Honestly, if someone could explain how the analogy applies to Book of Abraham apologetics, I would be very interested.

Okay.

Here we have the Book of Abraham. Over there is a bunch of people chanting in unison that the Book of Abraham must be junk because the few remaining scraps of Joseph Smith's collection of papyri don't have anything to do with Abraham. Those of us who read the Book of Abraham find it to be anything but junk. The cats' chorus of naysayers have never read the Book of Abraham, don't actually know anything about it, so they don't have anything at all to say about it; they are fixated on the papyri, which are a peripheral issue at best.

IOW, we are convinced that the book is a diamond, while they are quibbling about whether or not it came out of a green shoe box. They're not contradicting us; they're actually talking about something quite different and scarcely related.

Does that seem clearer now?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mudcat]

Here we have the Book of Abraham. Over there is a bunch of people chanting in unison that the Book of Abraham must be junk because the few remaining scraps of Joseph Smith's collection of papyri don't have anything to do with Abraham.

I think that is the nutshell of the critical view.

Those of us who read the Book of Abraham find it to be anything but junk. The cats' chorus of naysayers have never read the Book of Abraham, don't actually know anything about it, so they don't have anything at all to say about it; they are fixated on the papyri, which are a peripheral issue at best.

The papyri are the only physical evidence, peripheral or no. That is all the physical evidence there is... as far as I know.

Essentially, your reasons for the validity of the BoA aren't based upon physical evidence... If I am reading you correctly.

I never have gotten into the BoA discussions across my time here. Though I have read it.

I suppose my rationale is this.

If Joseph Smith was a Prophet, then it makes sense.

If Joseph Smith was not a Prophet, then the BoA is likely the most valid reason to accept the fact that he was not, simply because it's tied to physical evidence that has been offered, that also doesn't match what was said.

Despite my general aversion to BoA threads, I don't think criticism against it is unwarranted.

I would ask you, if all that was given to you was the physical evidence of the BoA that has been offered, would you find such evidence worthy of belief?

Regards,

Mudcat

[jmordecai]

Pahoran

Over there is a bunch of people chanting in unison that the Book of Abraham must be junk because the few remaining scraps of Joseph Smith's collection of papyri don't have anything to do with Abraham.

Facsimile 1 doesn't "have anything to do with Abraham".

Facsimile 2 doesn't "have anything to do with Abraham".

Facsimile 3 doesn't "have anything to do with Abraham".

The criticism of the BoA doesn't rest on the Papyri alone.

[volgadon]

Nor does Serapis have anything to do with Joseph, yet that did not prevent people from associating them together.

[Olavarria]

"Facsimile 1 doesn't "have anything to do with Abraham".

Facsimile 2 doesn't have anything to do with Abraham.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

"Altering members

[Vance]

Vance,

"Altering members

[cinepro]

Oh, ok.

Here, let's make that paragraph more accurate.

The chemist's wife was showing off her new diamond ring to all of her friends at the country club. One of them asked if she was sure the diamond was real. The wife was outraged. "If my hubby says it's a diamond, then I believe him." A few days later, though, she began to wonder if her friend might have been right. She took the ring to three jewelers who had never seen a real diamond before, none of whom knew her or her husband. All three jewelers agreed that the stone didn't come from the green shoe box with a Nike swoosh because the small Angolan flag was too small to hold any diamonds. Now the woman had a problem. Should she believe her husband, whom she loved, and whom she had never doubted before, or should she believe these so called experts? Yes, her husband was a renowned chemist who had seen several diamonds before, but not a jeweler.

Bowman,

Do you feel better now?

Why would the wife take the ring to jewelers who had never seen a diamond before?

If this is the kind of story that must be created as an analogy, then the situation with the Book of Abraham is worse than I thought.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Do you feel better now?

This isn't about my feelings. It's about civil discourse according to the guidelines.

Ask any non-LDS scholar who studies Old Testament history and literature, ancient Egyptology, or any plausibly related field of scholarship, whether they consider it plausible that the Book of Abraham is an authentic ancient text written by the patriarch Abraham. Even stipulating that the text of the BOA might have been written on a part of the JSP that is no longer extant, the answer will be no.

I realize that a certain contingent of LDS apologists thinks that if they can mount a case for the hypothetical possibility that the BOA might have been written on the lost portions of the JSP they have demolished the case against its authenticity. However, that is simply not the reality.

I'm sorry that I cannot elaborate at the moment, but I assure you that I take this subject very seriously.

[Pahoran]

Vance,

You wrote:

This isn't about my feelings. It's about civil discourse according to the guidelines.

Ask any non-LDS scholar who studies Old Testament history and literature, ancient Egyptology, or any plausibly related field of scholarship, whether they consider it plausible that the Book of Abraham is an authentic ancient text written by the patriarch Abraham. Even stipulating that the text of the BOA might have been written on a part of the JSP that is no longer extant, the answer will be no.

I realize that a certain contingent of LDS apologists thinks that if they can mount a case for the hypothetical possibility that the BOA might have been written on the lost portions of the JSP they have demolished the case against its authenticity. However, that is simply not the reality.

I'm sorry that I cannot elaborate at the moment, but I assure you that I take this subject very seriously.

I'll go you one better, Rob.

Let's ask any non-LDS scholar who studies Old Testament history and literature, ancient Egyptology, or any plausibly related field of scholarship, to read the Book of Abraham without reference to any discussions about its provenance.

Any, as in any at all.

Because as you and I both know, Rob, non-LDS scholars are going to be prejudiced against it by any suggestion that a modern prophet claimed to translate it by revelation, aren't they?

And that any such discussions are going to completely side-track them from any consideration of the contents of the text, aren't they?

So we'll make it a "blind test." We'll take away the facsimiles, the footnotes, the headings that mention Joseph Smith, and distinctive names (like Kolob.) Then we'll ask them to read the text as a text, on its merits, with no external references to anything.

Then: having undertaken a "blind test," let us ask them a much more modest question: does this text bear any resemblance to authentically ancient extrabiblical traditions about Abraham?

We won't ask them anything deliberately prejudicial like "whether they consider it plausible that the Book of Abraham is an authentic ancient text written by the patriarch Abraham." Because most of them don't believe that Abraham actually existed, and if he did, that he was literate. The only ones likely to believe it are the Bible-a-bible types who would regard any suggestion that such a writing could even exist outside the Bible as "Blasphemy!"

How about that test, Rob?

Regards,

Pahoran

[jmordecai]

"Facsimile 1 doesn't "have anything to do with Abraham".

Facsimile 2 doesn't have anything to do with Abraham.

The Magical Papyri reflect Greco-Roman influence in Egypt, and are not evidence of Abrahamic influence two millennium prior.

Otherwise, are you arguing that Abraham did not author the original Book of Abraham text?

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

Why any scholar would want or be willing to consider the authenticity of an allegedly ancient document without knowing anything about its provenance is beyond me. But you cannot even offer a "contents-only" test, since you feel the need to stipulate that the facsimiles would be removed as well as distinctive names like Kolob. So what kind of objective test would that be?

Let me speak for myself. I don't consider the idea of Abraham writing something not found in the Bible "blasphemous." So that's a straw-man criticism as far as I am concerned. Obviously, I believe that Abraham was a real person, and I have no reason to assume he was illiterate. Nor do I consider the idea of a prophet translating an ancient scripture impossible. I don't approach the Book of Abraham with such a priori objections.

Now, I am familiar with some of the literature that LDS scholars have been producing arguing for the authenticity of the Book of Abraham on the basis of alleged internal evidence that it contains extrabiblical traditions about Abraham or information about ancient Egyptian religion of which Joseph Smith could not have had any natural knowledge. I don't find this argument persuasive for several reasons. It is going to take me considerable time to work up a thorough analysis and response to this rather large and technical body of LDS apologetic literature on the Book of Abraham, but that is a project I have already started. I will also state for the record that I am willing to consider and reconsider the evidence as I work through the arguments in detail. As best I can, I will try to keep an open mind. But what I have seen so far does not impress me as good evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. That's where I am on the subject at the present time.

I'll go you one better, Rob.

Let's ask any non-LDS scholar who studies Old Testament history and literature, ancient Egyptology, or any plausibly related field of scholarship, to read the Book of Abraham without reference to any discussions about its provenance.

Any, as in any at all.

Because as you and I both know, Rob, non-LDS scholars are going to be prejudiced against it by any suggestion that a modern prophet claimed to translate it by revelation, aren't they?

And that any such discussions are going to completely side-track them from any consideration of the contents of the text, aren't they?

So we'll make it a "blind test." We'll take away the facsimiles, the footnotes, the headings that mention Joseph Smith, and distinctive names (like Kolob.) Then we'll ask them to read the text as a text, on its merits, with no external references to anything.

Then: having undertaken a "blind test," let us ask them a much more modest question: does this text bear any resemblance to authentically ancient extrabiblical traditions about Abraham?

We won't ask them anything deliberately prejudicial like "whether they consider it plausible that the Book of Abraham is an authentic ancient text written by the patriarch Abraham." Because most of them don't believe that Abraham actually existed, and if he did, that he was literate. The only ones likely to believe it are the Bible-a-bible types who would regard any suggestion that such a writing could even exist outside the Bible as "Blasphemy!"

How about that test, Rob?

Regards,

Pahoran