The Kep, Etc., Etc.

[Xander]

More than five years ago Pacman made a similar remark that sparked this thread started by me.

It seemed to be all for nothing then, just as it would be a waste of time now. Five years passes and he is still misrepresenting the matter. When asked what amount of evidence would convince him that the Book of Abraham wasn't what the Church claims it is, Pacman responded "no amount of evidence."

So what is really the point of trying to have a discussion with someone who is not really interested in the evidence, let alone changing his mind? These threads appear to be started for other reasons then. Probably for the purpose of misrepresenting the critical argument in a silly way, making it sound like the critics are a bunch of idiots for even thinking the Book of Abraham couldn't be true, or that Joseph Smith relied on extant papyrus fragments, etc.

Mortal Man asks for clarification as to what it is Pacman is asking, and Pacman's only response is to tell him to learn English! So I cannot imagine why any critic waste their time in Pacman's thread.

[Mortal Man]

All the people who believe what this fellow says is accurate have to do to retain belief, is to say... The Egyptians borrowed the flood concept, adapted it to their own culture and over time the facts changed from a flood to a storm god.

It's simply just inserting a premise that is based on an argument from historic silence, but it isn't a defense that is without merit. Simply a defense without any proof.

I think I understand what you're saying Mudcat. I'm saying that the argument is without merit because it's simply not possible to readapt an icon that your contemporaries are already familiar with. A Jewish redactor in Egypt circa 200 BC claiming that the green man on the throne is Abraham teaching astronomy

would be like me claiming that this is Joseph Smith teaching jumping jacks.

On the other hand, two millenia from now, a prophet translating for a secular audience with no knowledge of Christian history might just be able to pass of such an interpretation.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Mortal Man]

More than five years ago Pacman made a similar remark that sparked this thread started by me.

It seemed to be all for nothing then, just as it would be a waste of time now. Five years passes and he is still misrepresenting the matter. When asked what amount of evidence would convince him that the Book of Abraham wasn't what the Church claims it is, Pacman responded "no amount of evidence."

So what is really the point of trying to have a discussion with someone who is not really interested in the evidence, let alone changing his mind? These threads appear to be started for other reasons then. Probably for the purpose of misrepresenting the critical argument in a silly way, making it sound like the critics are a bunch of idiots for even thinking the Book of Abraham couldn't be true, or that Joseph Smith relied on extant papyrus fragments, etc.

Mortal Man asks for clarification as to what it is Pacman is asking, and Pacman's only response is to tell him to learn English! So I cannot imagine why any critic waste their time in Pacman's thread.

Indeed, it is a waste of time.

So for you critics out there - starting with the BoA - what is it?

If you cannot read and understand basic English, then I’m afraid you’re beyond my help.

Because this is my thread, and I’ll cry if I want to. Now go away, and stop trolling.

Don't worry PacMan, you are now on my ignore list. I suggest that in the future you refrain from inviting critics into your threads, since you are clearly unable to handle their responses without extreme rudeness.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

So Joseph’s translation method were, by today’s standards, wrong?

Hi PacMan,

I think it goes without saying that is translation methodology isn't anything like what qualified people in the field of Egyptian hieroglyphics and that sort of thing actually utilize. "Wrong" is a bit of a value judgment. If our expectation of a translation of something, is to be able to understand what that something would communicate to the people of the culture that originally wrote it, then I think it would certainly be a bad translation. "Wrong" if you will.

Meaning…he was wrong in his attribution of the papyri to the Book of Abraham text? Meaning?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. If one can play a bit loose with the definition of "translation", which seems to be the approach and one also ties mystical claims to that translation. Then a person could assert nearly anything.

However, if we hold to a normal understanding of "translation" and assume mystical claims and scholarly claims should yield similar results. Then the issue is quite problematic, I would think.

The critical criticism that Joseph was a fraud only holds water if we assign the same definitions to the terms of “translation” as Joseph did, which can’t be done. Even based on the facts as the critics have believed, we have a translation that Joseph thought/hoped/promulgated to be from the papyri. Thus, one could argue the process was flubbed. Considering Joseph's fluidity with the term "translation," there's very little with which to actually impugn his integrity - assuming that it's actually important.

I am no student of the topic and can't speak with any authority on this. Something that I think would relevant information to shed light on the matter would be to know what Joseph Smith claimed the BoA to be and what he has said about the translation of it.

edit add - I also think statements of other Prophets of the CoJCoLDS would be relevant, as well, come to think of it. Dunno, if I'll ever get around to studying that.. but if someone has a good link. Post it or PM me one.

Bold mine. Could you clarify that PM? I am not certain as to what you are saying there.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited July 30, 2011 by Mudcat

[Nomad]

I think this is one of the most enlightening things I have seen recently on this topic: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

[Kenngo1969]

I think this is one of the most enlightening things I have seen recently on this topic: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

You don't understand, Nomad! Will's nothing but a hack!

[Nomad]

You don't understand, Nomad! Will's nothing but a hack!

I've heard much worse said about him than that. From what I've heard said, he makes Richard Pryor look like Fred Rogers. His bad behavior always seems to happen out of my sight, though. I only get to hear the reports about it afterwards, and then when I go looking for it, I can't seem to find what people were talking about. It's a very strange thing. But I have no reason to doubt he is as bad as he is made out to be. After all, why would those pleasant exmormons lie about such a thing?

At any rate, if someone is interested in the topic of the KEP, I don't see how one can fail to take into consideration what Schryver presented at the FAIR conference last year. It's the most substantive thing I've seen on the topic in my five years or so of paying attention to the BoA debates.

[Minos]

The thread will be closed very quickly if this turns into a debate about people instead of the KEP.

[volgadon]

I think I understand what you're saying Mudcat. I'm saying that the argument is without merit because it's simply not possible to readapt an icon that your contemporaries are already familiar with. A Jewish redactor in Egypt circa 200 BC claiming that the green man on the throne is Abraham teaching astronomy

would be like me claiming that this is Joseph Smith teaching jumping jacks.

On the other hand, two millenia from now, a prophet translating for a secular audience with no knowledge of Christian history might just be able to pass of such an interpretation.

This guy was pretty famous too,

Didn't seem to stop anyone from identifying him as Joseph.

[cinepro]

Done. I still don’t get their point. And the reason is because the ultimate conclusion doesn’t derive from the evidence they’ve presented.

PacMan

PacMan, while threads such as this (and the previous one linked to by "xander") show that your interest in this issue is probably more recreational than anything, which is fine, but I would like to offer this observation.

In the last 8 years, I've known or had firsthand knowledge of dozens of people who had serious faith-crises in the Church. And almost without exception, the women had polygamy as the "root" of their crisis, and the men had issues with the Book of Abraham.

So if you fancy yourself as one who would be an apologist, or ever have any hope of bridging the gap for people who are losing or who have lost their testimony, your attitude in this thread would suggest you just don't have the imagination (or empathy?) to do so on this topic.

As a contrast, several years ago I attended a presentation by a noted LDS scholar who spoke on the life of Joseph Smith. In the follow up Q&A, someone asked his opinion about the Book of Abraham, and this scholar's first reaction was that it can be "a very troubling issue", and discussed some of the contradictions and stumbling blocks he could see. Ultimately, he affirmed his faith in Joseph, but didn't diminish the issue. My opinion of the man went way up; he had maintained his faith in Joseph Smith, but was also able to acknowledge the things he saw as being difficult (without selling Joseph down the river).

If you hope to alienate those who have issues with the Book of Abraham with smugness, by all means continue to feign ignorance. But if you truly want to understand the issue (and maybe even help those who are struggling on the topic), you could try listening to the critics who have responded to your invitation.

Edited July 31, 2011 by cinepro

[Xander]

Will I be permitted to demonstrate why Mr. Schryver's arguments are wrong?

I just want to know before I waste time posting refutations, only to see the whole thing disappear. I know this forum doesn't tolerate much criticisms of FAIR conference presentations, and I notice that one of my posts has already been nuked for simply reminding Nomad that responses to Schryver have been presented, and that he was involved in the day to day debate that took place over the course of many months. During that time Nomad's replies amounted to nothing more than gushing over Will's awesomeness.

To say he isn't convinced by the counter-arguments is fine, but to say no responses have ever been attempted is just silly. This gives the false impression that Schryver's argument is beyond refutation. That his claim to have refuted all the critics, have been shown to be true since we're all unable to respond. In reality, his presentation was dismantled as quickly as it appeared. Will and "Nomad" are the only two people I know of who are absolutely unwilling to address criticisms of Will's misrepresentation of the KEP documents. To his credit, wade is the only Schryver defender I know of who actually makes the attempt.

At any rate, if someone is interested in the topic of the KEP, I don't see how one can fail to take into consideration what Schryver presented at the FAIR conference last year. It's the most substantive thing I've seen on the topic in my five years or so of paying attention to the BoA debates.

It has been considered. That is why some of the most educated LDS scholars on the subject reject Schryver's argument (i.e. Brown, Bradley) and the rest have no intention of defending it (including Schryver himself).

[Xander]

PacMan, while threads such as this (and the previous one linked to by "xander") show that your interest in this issue is probably more recreational than anything, which is fine, but I would like to offer this observation.

In the last 8 years, I've known or had firsthand knowledge of dozens of people who had serious faith-crises in the Church. And almost without exception, the women had polygamy as the "root" of their crisis, and the men had issues with the Book of Abraham.

So if you fancy yourself as one who would be an apologist, or ever have any hope of bridging the gap for people who are losing or who have lost their testimony, your attitude in this thread would suggest you just don't have the imagination (or empathy?) to do so on this topic.

As a contrast, several years ago I attended a presentation by a noted LDS scholar who spoke on the life of Joseph Smith. In the follow up Q&A, someone asked his opinion about the Book of Abraham, and this scholar's first reaction was that it can be "a very troubling issue", and discussed some of the contradictions and stumbling blocks he could see. Ultimately, he affirmed his faith in Joseph, but didn't diminish the issue. My opinion of the man went way up; he had maintained his faith in Joseph Smith, but was also able to acknowledge the things he saw as being difficult (without selling Joseph down the river).

If you hope to alienate those who have issues with the Book of Abraham with smugness, by all means continue to feign ignorance. But if you truly want to understand the issue (and maybe even help those who are struggling on the topic), you could try listening to the critics who have responded to your invitation.

Well put cinepro.

[PacMan]

Kevin,

More than five years ago Pacman made a similar remark that sparked this thread started by me.

Actually, not at all if I recall. Here, I am not challenging the factual assertions. Rather, I am assuming arguendo for purposes of challenging the ultimate conclusion. If you can't see the difference, then that's your problem. In any event, I am not particularly interested in arguing a collateral matter - as much fun as it would be.

When asked what amount of evidence would convince him that the Book of Abraham wasn't what the Church claims it is, Pacman responded "no amount of evidence."

Two problems: #1- CFR. #2- what is it that the Church claims it is? Don’t play fast and loose, particularly where your poor crafting is an illegitimate representation of what I actually think. #3- If you are indexing conversations from 5 years back (albeit poorly), you really need to get a hobby.

So what is really the point of trying to have a discussion with someone who is not really interested in the evidence, let alone changing his mind?

Keep that sword sharp, but watch out for those strawmen. They’re dangerously fierce.

Probably for the purpose of misrepresenting the critical argument in a silly way, making it sound like the critics are a bunch of idiots for even thinking the Book of Abraham couldn't be true, or that Joseph Smith relied on extant papyrus fragments, etc.

If that’s what you surmise, then you really need to go back and get your reading comprehension checked. The purpose, as stated, is actually really simple. Your smoke and mirrors obfuscation aint going to work here.

Mortal Man asks for clarification as to what it is Pacman is asking, and Pacman's only response is to tell him to learn English! So I cannot imagine why any critic waste their time in Pacman's thread.

Which makes your ironic appearance and attempted derailment here so laughably entertaining!

MM,

Don't worry PacMan, you are now on my ignore list. I suggest that in the future you refrain from inviting critics into your threads, since you are clearly unable to handle their responses without extreme rudeness.

Did you get a boo-boo?

Mud,

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. If one can play a bit loose with the definition of "translation", which seems to be the approach and one also ties mystical claims to that translation. Then a person could assert nearly anything.

However, if we hold to a normal understanding of "translation" and assume mystical claims and scholarly claims should yield similar results. Then the issue is quite problematic, I would think.

This actually gets to my point quite well. Within Joseph’s paradigm, the term “translation” is actually much more fluid than it is for us. Thus, even as far as the critics may be correct on their analysis of the papyri and its relatedness to the BoA (or lack thereof), their analysis fails to undermine Joseph as a hack. Based on the concept of “translation,” as used by Joseph, the connection between the two need only exist – even if thin.

PacMan

[PacMan]

cinepro,

So if you fancy yourself as one who would be an apologist, or ever have any hope of bridging the gap for people who are losing or who have lost their testimony, your attitude in this thread would suggest you just don't have the imagination (or empathy?) to do so on this topic.

I am sure you would agree that the serious issues surrounding the church have a variety of levels of discussions. I’m not suggesting one is more important than the other, but rather that there are a variety of ways of getting to the end – whatever that might be. A fundamental problem that I have had with critical arguments in general, is that the end or conclusion often does not meet their evidence. For lack of a better analogy, the critics often lose the forest for the trees.

My premise is not that there are not troubling instances in church history, but rather that the troubling nature of that history has more to do with our own subjective benchmarks about what is right and wrong. Polygamy (and any question of morality) is an excellent example. While people find it repulsive, the only real authority they have on the matter is their own inklings and opinions – a poor standard for truth, indeed.

As such, this thread is meant to nail down the “so what?” What I treat with smugness is the fanaticism of some posters to derail the thread and answer what they believe the question should be, rather than simply address the issue in its simplicity. The fact that no one (but madcat) has attempted to explain why the end-result of it all matters, is not only an illustration of the egotism, entitlement, or obsessive proclivity for control of some, but an inherent inability to make a lick of sense why their factual allegations – if true at all – actually matter.

In other words, rather than complaining about the process, just get to the substance: If things are as you understand them to be then what bearing does that have on Joseph Smith, and the church at large? Why? Connect the dots.

PacMan

P.S. As a further edit, I wanted to mention one other illustration. I have a roommate from college who is now no longer affiliated with the church. In explaining why, he referenced a number of issues he had with, what I term as, cultural mormonism. He came to the conclusion that these beliefs were false, and that the church was therefore false. As we talked about it, I noted that his "beliefs" at the time were inaccurate reflections of the teachings of the church. He acknowledged that this was true, but that those were the things that started the slide.

The point is not that I am unsympathetic. We have all sorts of real responses to, even nonsense. I think of the story of a family tradition of cutting the ends off the turkey for thanksgiving. When a member of the family decided it was wasteful and cooked the turkey full, he was criticized for adulterating the secret family recipe. Although, upon asking the great-grandmother why her mother baked the turkey so, her answer was simple: because a full-turkey wouldn't fit in the oven back then.

In that case, people can inculcate tradition, etc., regardless of its veracity. I am not discounting that. Likewise, it can be difficult to let it go (or grab hold of). But the question I've presented is, why does it matter substantively? I want to know - regardless of the factual allegation - if the turkey with the chopped ends actually tastes any better than if cooked full.

Edited July 31, 2011 by PacMan

[wenglund]

Another frustration of the critics is their never-ending experience of having their positions misstated.

If you are speaking about my post, I would be pleased were you to point out the alleged misstatements.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 1, 2011 by wenglund

[Mudcat]

Mud,

This actually gets to my point quite well. Within Joseph’s paradigm, the term “translation” is actually much more fluid than it is for us. Thus, even as far as the critics may be correct on their analysis of the papyri and its relatedness to the BoA (or lack thereof), their analysis fails to undermine Joseph as a hack. Based on the concept of “translation,” as used by Joseph, the connection between the two need only exist – even if thin.

PacMan

PacMan,

I agree that this seems to me to be the best LDS defense afforded. It's a sticky wicket IMO, as I see it.

Assuming an LDS posture who held to that idea, I would proffer the following.

Proposition: Joseph Smith is a Prophet, the CoJCoLDS is true. Concluding that all Church authorized publications, statements and so forth, which would include the BoA are true also.

This statement is either true or false. But it is an unfalsifiable statement by objective means. The appeal for veracity are internal claims for verification through mystical experiences.

Taking a side, for the moment with those LDS who would be agreeable to that.

Assumption 1: A person is given a testimony that, Joseph Smith is a Prophet, the CoJCoLDS is true and all Church authorized publications, statements and so forth, which would include that the BoA is true also.

Assumption 2: A person accepts such mystical experience is a true fact.

Premise: The papyri translated by normal objective means have little or nothing to do with BoA.

Conclusion: The BoA is true and has little of nothing to the papyri

That seems to be it.

IMO, the argument should stop there and move on to the viability of human experience, but it doesn't. A person so compelled would actually want to mount a logical defense of sorts.

Ergo, perhaps it was a mnemonic device, a restored document from a distorted text, gremlins distorted the text after it was translated, and so forth. If a person is accepts A1 and A2 any logical premise is acceptable.

The sticky wicket IMO, is that an individual who follows such a line, would have to agree that mystical data should supersede objective data. Given that, objective data is only valuable if it confirms mystical data and at best, it is simply corroborating evidence.. perhaps even circumstantial.

By such reasoning, an LDS who holds to this thinking about the BoA and also thinks global flood is false is internally inconsistent.

Same could be said for claims for the BoA and for evolution, a 7,000 year old human populous and so forth.

PacMan the weakness of such a defense it not that it is nonviable, it is that by assuming such a posture on has to devoid themselves of the notion of "objective" altogether.

Regards,

Mudcat

[PacMan]

Mudcat,

Assumption 1: A person is given a testimony that, Joseph Smith is a Prophet, the CoJCoLDS is true and all Church authorized publications, statements and so forth, which would include that the BoA is true also.

Assumption 2: A person accepts such mystical experience is a true fact.

Premise: The papyri translated by normal objective means have little or nothing to do with BoA.

Conclusion: The BoA is true and has little of nothing to the papyri

That seems to be it.

Yeah. Now, I’m not so interested in indentifying the unprovable negative. I’m curious as to what the critical conclusions actually conclude. What really becomes important isn’t Joseph Smith, the papyri, or the BoA, but the standard or benchmark of veracity that the critic brings into the equation. For example, if the critic adopts a normative theory of infallibility, the result will likely be very different than someone like me that sees Joseph Smith as an imperfect human.

Thus, for those that will not be named to conclude that Joseph was XYZ, that necessitates a rather presumptuous understanding/standard/benchmark that necessarily does or does not make Joseph anything less than he said he was.

The sticky wicket IMO, is that an individual who follows such a line, would have to agree that mystical data should supersede objective data. Given that, objective data is only valuable if it confirms mystical data and at best, it is simply corroborating evidence.. perhaps even circumstantial.

…

PacMan the weakness of such a defense it not that it is nonviable, it is that by assuming such a posture on has to devoid themselves of the notion of "objective" altogether.

I think you’ve misunderstood. My point is not that you can’t prove my belief wrong (although true). My point is that the critics have failed to show where they got their standard of veracity by which to measure objective data. This is why the critical argument doesn’t make sense – because as of now, it seems that critics have constructed strawmen that may not look a lick like truth, but are constructed to fit the data as they would like it.

In other words, the critical weight of truth is meaningless and illusory if the balance is broken. Problem thus far, is that we don’t even know if a balance even exists.

PacMan

Edited August 1, 2011 by PacMan

[Robert F. Smith]

Because Osiris iconography predates Abraham. A couple of years ago they dug up a tomb, dating to 2000 BC, with a life-size stele of Osiris-on-his-seat virtually identical to Fig.1 on Facsimile 3. It was on the Fox News web page. (I wish I would have saved the picture.) Abraham may have laid his very own eyes upon this carving of Osiris. He certainly would not have identified it as himself. Everyone in Egypt, from Abraham to Hor, recognized this ubiquitous image of Osiris. A Ptolemaic priest trying to pass it off as Abraham would be like me telling you this is Groucho Marx, with his buddies: Larry, Moe and Curly.

Hoping to puncture your rigid belief that only Osiris could sit on that throne, I provided a vignette similar to Fac 3 in which Canaanite Anat sits on the throne wearing the Osirian crown as she receives her worshippers, while in a register above, her sister Astarte (Qudshu) stands on a lion between Egyptian Min and Canaanite Reshef. Yet you failed to comment on it, or on the implication familiar to Egyptologists that the gods in and out of ancient Egypt were seen as different forms of one's own gods. Within standard Egyptology, as Nibley and others have repeatedly pointed out, others can sit on that throne -- adopting the trappings of Osiris -- the further implication of Osirification being of prime import in that context.

Your calling attention to the ubiquity of Osirian iconography (including a stele with Osiris on his throne) is beside the point, as is the notion that Abraham likely saw such images. What is of interest are widespread syncretic tendencies, since the Book of Abraham obviously participates fully in that tradition.

Mortal Man said:

I reject any notion that "untrained eyes" should leave BoA studies (or any other studies for that matter) to the "experts" (presumably at FARMS). This is nothing more than an apologetic smokescreen designed to frighten the curious back into their cave. There is nothing too difficult about this subject for any reasonable person to understand. Yes, you need to learn some basic Egyptological facts, but you don't need to "master the associated disciplines" to "register correct conclusions". That's like Catholic priests forbidding the commoners from reading the Bible.

Applying apologetic and polemic smokescreens is probably not the best way to clarify what the Book of Abraham represents. Nor is it the case that a guy without training in surgery should be doing surgery. Even in the case of imposters, some of them at least bother to inform themselves well in their chosen discipline. That is the kind of intellectual seriousness I'd like to see among those entering this discussion/dialogue.

I am less concerned with who is trained than with the problem of lack of training of some of those pontificating on Egyptian language and culture in the context of Jewish transmission of supposed Abrahamic texts. A serious effort to become well-informed would not hurt this discussion or debate. Especially for us mortal men.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Mudcat]

I think you’ve misunderstood. My point is not that you can’t prove my belief wrong (although true).

PacMan,

My apologies if I have misunderstood you. However, I think there is some validity to what I have said. It seems the claims or mystical verification associated by LDS with BoM and so forth are also supportive of the BoA, at least informally by the CoJCoLDS.

From a July 1988 "Ensign" article

In the final analysis, however, the proof of the truth of the book of Abraham does not come by human means. As with all aspects of the restored gospel, “by the power of the Holy Ghost [we] may know the truth of all things.” (Moro. 10:5.) I have studied the book of Abraham, and the truth of it has been made known to me in a way I can’t deny. I know that anyone who earnestly wants to know if the book of Abraham is true can also receive this same witness and knowledge from God.

Bold mine. This seems to be it. It doesn't really matter what humans say about the BoA.

My point is that the critics have failed to show where they got their standard of veracity by which to measure objective data. This is why the critical argument doesn’t make sense – because as of now, it seems that critics have constructed strawmen that may not look a lick like truth, but are constructed to fit the data as they would like it.

In other words, the critical weight of truth is meaningless and illusory if the balance is broken. Problem thus far, is that we don’t even know if a balance even exists.

Bold mine. Hold off just a moment here and think about it a bit.

Your critics don't have any mystical conceptions of the BoA's veracity. It's fair to say they don't factor such conceptions into an equation for veracity, nor do I think they should. Or if they do factor such in, then the lack of such mystical verification is a strike against the BoA's veracity.

Your critics are assuming that JS thought the writings of Abraham were discovered and purchased by the Church.

Your critics are also assuming that claims like the CoJCoLDS have made regarding such.. to the effect of, "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)" would be considered truth claims by the CoJCoLDS.

Granted, given the posited "Ensign" article the CoJCoLDS measures truth by mystical value, in all cases regarding the CoJCoLDS it seems IMO, rather than by objective means.

Certainly you may be correct. There may be a bit of a strawman of sorts, but I think the failing lies on both sides of the issue, rather than one side in specific.

A person without a testimony of the veracity of the BoA, is likely to find little truth in the facts that surround it.

Before you cordon off all the critics on the matter. I would ask you this PacMan.

If you had no spiritual verification that the BoA was true, then in light of the available evidence, what evidence would you find so compelling to its truth, that you feel your critics are misplaced in their criticism?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[PacMan]

Mud,

Please understand that I am not disagreeing, as much I am focusing the target of discussion. What a believer uses as justification for his belief is a different question from what the critic uses to justify his. I'm focused on the latter.

Even so, I will still answer your question because it interestingly begs the question of what standard or benchmark I would adopt in forming such a conclusion. In establishing the best objective standard I can based on the info I have (meaning my standard is inherently flawed) I would see Joseph as a bit of a chest thumper - over confident, charismatic leader that was fiercely loyal but also fiercely demanding that the loyalty be returned. I would also believe that his story doesn't paint a picture of frauds, but disillusioned hopefulists. Within that standard, I would conclude that the evidence surrounding the BoA holds very curious similarities to the Book of Enoch and other texts found in the 20th century. But because I have already disassociated the possibility of a prophetic call, I can only conclude that Joseph and his associates guessed some things right based on principles of theology that have been around a long time, and that the evidence surrounding the BoA isn't sufficient to make me believe that it is actually true.

But that is different entirely from affirmatively concluding it is false, which the critics (generally) do. The problem is that the critics confuse the lack of evidence of veracity - as they see it - as evidence of falsity. Not only is such a conclusion based on a poor analysis, but intellectually dishonest. And as you can note the disdain in a number of responses, no one has yet been able to substantiate their affirmative claim of falsity - as opposed to simply attack the claim of truthfulness.

Lastly, the only way someone can believe that the BoA is not true is therefore by suggesting that the supporting claims of veracity (of apologists) are actually dispositive to truth, with those being false. Indeed, if Gee were 100% wrong in his deductions but God said the BoA was actually a true record of Abraham, Kevin and the like would ultimately look rather silly. Thus, the only 2 intellectually honest positions are 1) that one cannot conlcude the BoA to be true (as opposed to being false), or 2) concluding that it is false either due to apathy, fatigue, or some arbitrary subjective reason, whiled being open and honest that the analysis is subjective and or arbitrary.

PacMan