Fair'S New Book Of Abraham Dvd, Part Deux

[livy111us]

Looks like they actually have a trailer for the video on Youtube now:

[volgadon]

That guy with the shaved head lowers the tone of the whole thing...

[wenglund]

I am pleased to see that the video isn't just scholastically oriented, but is also intended to promote faith--since that is what the BoA is intended for to begin with.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[boblloyd91]

I'll have to check it out, looks good!

[cinepro]

I'm assuming they'll have captions to tell the names of the interviewees in the final video, but they should also be included in the trailer as well.

[Damien the Leper]

I have read the BoA several times and I really don't get much from it other than what it says on paper. I can't quote anything from it. I only know that Chapter 4 deals with a pantheon that I'm not really familiar with. I took an institute class on the PGP once and the BoA confused me.

[diglot]

I like that David Bokovoy (sp?) guy who appears in the 1:40 mark in the video above. I have watched him in another video talking about the presence of deutero-Isaiah in the BoM and he always seems eager and passionate in what he argues and believes.

[volgadon]

I like that David Bokovoy (sp?) guy who appears in the 1:40 mark in the video above. I have watched him in another video talking about the presence of deutero-Isaiah in the BoM and he always seems eager and passionate in what he argues and believes.

That is the guy I'm teasing. Very knowledgable, humble and fun.

[Xander]

I received my copy yesterday and skimmed through it as I didn't have time to watch it all.

It is precisely as I expected, which is a collection of all the failed apologetics wrapped in video format.

It was essentially bouncing back and forth between testimonies of the only three Egyptologists in Church (and the world) who think the Book of Abraham is anything of value. (Rhodes, Gee and Mulhstein).

They essentially skimmed over ever point that undermined their thesis. For example, they never actually quote the Book of Abraham in areas where they assert that it is supported in ancient texts. They merely assert it and we're supposed to just take their word for iit. They resurrected all sorts of failed apologetics, such as the 40ft length of the scroll, along with Nibley's unreliable account of a scroll stretching out through several rooms. The level of misinformation that was being dished out by credentialed scholars was not just disturbing, but also nauseating. But I was particularly disappointed in Michael Ash, because he had always struck me as one of the more reasonable fellows in the apologetic lot. He asserted on at least two occasions that Joseph Smith got "hits" on things that were very very unlikely for Joseph Smith to have known about and then he said it was "impossible based on odds." Really? It was impossible or very unlikely that he read books which he owned? Of course he doesn't specify which parallels he has in mind so it is impossible to figure out what exactly he is talking about. He just asserts that these parallels exist and that the critics (while grinning) "have problems" dealing with the text. This is a popular apologetic straw man that is nothing short of deceptive. Critics have dealt with every single thing these guys have thrown at us.

Then Kerry goes on in another segment to use the so called discovery of Olishem as proof that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Let me be perfectly clear. No scholar outside Brigham Young believed this inscription reads Olishem or translates as Olishem. A honest approach to this issue would at the very least share information that undermines the assertion, but again, they're not interested in any of that. They're only interested in throwing the apologetic kitchen sink at their audience, refusing to address or acknowledge any established problems with their assertions. For example, even the apologist Dave Stewart has issues with the apologetic attempt to twist Ulisim to mean Olishem and then to relocate it with a wave of the hand: http://www.cumorah.c...rch&story_id=38

There is so, so much wrong with this DVD, but I'll probably sift through it and write up a review at some future point. Right now I have too much on my plate. I'll just provide the opening statements by the expert apologists:

There is simply an incredible wealth of ancient Egyptian and other NE historical documents that substantiate what JS said. He simply could not have guessed correctly so many times. He was actually translating from an ancient text and he was a prophet of God. - Michael Rhodes

In places where I've had questions about whether Joseph Smith got something right (long pause) and I've done my homework...he's never been wrong. - John Gee

Amazingly dishonest. John Gee knows very well Joseph Smith got virtually everything wrong in his translation of the facsimiles. But he glosses over that with dismissive comments about how Egyptology is still changing. He is careful to word his statement above so he can later wriggle his way out of it when called on it. He can say, "well what I said was that he never got anything wrong in the areas where I questioned whether he got something right." So Gee can later say he always acknowledged Joseph Smith got things wrong as well. But this is just ambiguous enough to deceive his audience into thinking Joseph Smith got everything right and nothing wrong. Amazingly deceptive. You'd think this think was produced by some political party or something.

As much as he and Rhodes keep referring to these numerous examples of Joseph Smith getting remarkable hits, you'd think they'd actually provide several examples with evidence, references, citations, etc. Instead, all we got was assertions of silly paraallels between some of his stuff and genuine Hebrew, which overlapped in some creative way with some other Egyptian words. What they don't share with their readers is the fact that at this point in his life, Joseph Smith had a working knowledge of Hebrew, so it should hardly be any surprise that he used legitimate Hebrew or at the very least, Hebrew souding words, and that some of these words overlap in some way with the "Ancient world." Good grief!

There's enough evidence from Egyptology and traditions about Abraham that tie into what Joseph Smith just couldn'y possibly have known, yet hit right on target. - Michael Rhodes

Examples?

Ancient sources verify that Abraham was almost sacrificed that he was saved by God that he intervened that he prayed for salvation and all these things, uh very very unlikely that Joseph Smith could have known about them. To get so many of them right just seems impossible on odds alone. - Michael Ash

Oh really Mike? Is it really, really "unlikely" that Joseph Smith would have read Bible Commentaries which he purchased and stored in his library for the "School of the Prophets"? Is it really "impossible"?? I've already dealt with numerous examples of these so called parallels existing in books we know Joseph Smith owned. The works of Josephus is a popular example, and apologists used to fall back on the "prove he read that" argument until the critics pointed out to them that Oliver Cowdery actually cited Josephus in the Church published Times and Seasons. The attempted sacrifice of Abraham is mentioned in numerous ancient works, sure. Rhodes keeps saying "that's not in the Bible." But what they don't tell you is that it was in other books Joseph Smith most likely read.

The text is uh (grinning) a more difficult target for the critics, because there is some very interesting evidences that support the text. What JS could have known about what couldn't he have known about. There were writings floating around in the country that talked a little bit about Abraham or talked about some of the things that we find in the BoA but what is the liklihood that Joseph Smith could have known these and collected all the right pieces from libraries or archaic sources.. - Michael Ash

Name me one thing in this video that hasn't already been addressed by critics, Mike.

And then of course the usual gossip stories about how people leave the Church over minor issues that turned out to be evidence for Joseph Smith as a prophet. Yes, Kerry Muhlstein had the audacity to assert this without providing ANY support for it. And then he goes on to call those who leave the faith fools for doing so. So don't pretend you guys didn't draw blood first with the critics. I'd rather be a fool than dishonest, and one thing is most certain about this video, and that is these guys are totally dishonest. Or at the very least, the editor is since it is clear these interviews were constantly being snipped and clipped together. I've already proved beyond any reasonable doubt that John Gee was a dishonest person who would lie about a source if he thought he could get away with it. But I never felt that way about Rhodes or Ash.

Bokovoy's piece was a rather innocuous commentary about parallels with the divine council. Nothing we haven't heard before. There really isn't much to argue with there except to point out that Smith's knowledge of the divine council corresponded to his Hebrew learning at the time. He even admitted that he learned of the plural nature of elohim from learned Jews, and then he immediately incorporated that doctrine into his upcoming Book of Abraham. But it contradicts his previous "inspired" translation of the Book of Moses.

What did surprise me is that after spending 98% of the time trying to prove the BoA true via evidences (which mostly consisted of bald assertions we were supposed to just take on the authority of the usual suspects in the Church) the video takes an occasional twist by telling the audience that ultimately you can know it is true by praying about it. Gee, you'd think that if they really had much faith in that method then they would have just said this at the beginning and then left it at that.

I know for a certainty that God doesn't need people to lie in order to prove something he did is true. Therefore, God had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham.

No attempt to deal with the KEP of course, which is (grinning) something the apologists obviously have a hard time dealing with. By ignoring the KEP it becomes much easier for Gee and Rhodes to make the ludicrous assertion that the existing papyri had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham translation. For them, the original source must have been burned up or lost at some point because obviously what exists now doesn't support the Prophet's claims. How convenient! None of the dozen or so historical references pointing to the extant portions are dealt with. At least Brian Hauglid has the integrity to publish these in his recent book. None of these examples can be said to be referring to some missing papyri. None. No attempt to acknowledge the problems with Gee's pathetic 40ft scroll theory.

Again, this video does everything apologists frequently complain about with anti-Mormon productions. Just go back and read FAIR reviews of things like, Luke Wilson's video on the book of Abraham. The biggest gripe was that none of the apologetic responses were dealt with and that no acknowledgment was given to credentialed opinions to the contrary. Well, pot meet kettle.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Ares

[Ares]

Kevin,

I highlighted some phrases and words that your post would be better off without. Please be less combative - it does not help dialogue in the least.

[wenglund]

Kevin,

I, for one, appreciate your cartoon-ish review even given the plethora of unwitting irony and hyper defensiveness. The way you, with all your self-assumed knowledge and expertise and credibility, invariably mopped the floor with that apologetic DVD, didn't disappoint. I am just glad you got around to delivering that blast of hot air from mount doom. The wait was killing me.

Now, if you would like to change tack for once and produce something even hinting at fair and reasonable and scholarly review, perhaps you might get the same in return.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

Ares, if what I say is true, then all of the highlighted comments are justified and appropriate. FAIR contributors should be interested in whether or not what I say is true. I don't have time for dialogue right now, but I do intend to address this later in a more detailed manner. I raised issues that I know have already been addressed on this forum so anyone really interested can do a search for the things I mentioned.

I can appreciate a FAIR forum not being very tolerant of a review that accuses a FAIR production of deception. But it is what it is, and there really is no other way of saying it that would do justice to the truth.

These same apologists have been accusing critics of deception left and right for as long as they've been online, so I don't see how anyone can complain when the facts show the opposite is true.

I'm interested in seeing Mike justify his claim above. I'm not interested in wade's schoolyard tactics of "I know you are but what am I?" My review was fair and spot on. Just because it calls people out for deception doesn't mean it isn't fair. If they are guilty as charged, then my claim is justified. After all, isn't this the standard judgment on all things critical of the LDS faith. Muhlstein characterized all critics in this video with a very broad brush, claiming they all present falsehoods and misrepresentations, etc. He said they are fools for leaving when the things that lead them to leave turn out to work in favor of Joseph Smith. Did he provide any examples? Nope. He knew he didn't need to either, because he is a "Brother" in the fold, who is simply regurgitating the standard Church approved mantra about apostates. We're all fools who put our faith in the reasoning of men and didn't have enough faith to "wait and see." He pretends that time has passed and all the criticisms have been rendered moot.

But this was to be expected from the BYU lot. Mike's comments surprised me the most. The fact is the "text" has been dealt with by critics in far more detail than apologists are willing to admit. All the apologists have done is scrub the "Ancient world" for any possible word phrase or place that could in some creative way, appear to be a "parallel" with something Joseph Smith wrote in Hebrew. When they're done, they think they've done everyone a service by "dealing with the text." Nonsense. they engaged in a predetermined apologetic agenda and engaged in parallelomania. I point this out all the time to apologists so it is frustrating to see them continue with this nonsense even still. For Mike to use the sacrifice of Abraham as evidence that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet, is just unbelievable. I thought you guys abandoned that one? I haven't seen you use it in quite some time, ever since it was shown to be something known to Joseph Smith via Bible commentaries. Where has Mike been the past decade? And why is John Gee claiming Joseph Smith got everything right? Why are they using the discredited "testimony" about the scroll stretching through the mansion house, as if that hadn't been abandoned years ago? Because they know their audience won't have any familiarity with these correctives? That seems to be the case. The few tid-bits he supposedly got right are easily explainable without the benefit of divine revelation. Olishem turned out to not be Olishem at all, except in the minds of a couple of creative LDS scholars. The stuff they mention has been addressed on numerous occasions on the forums. To disagree with us is one thing, but to pretend we haven't dealt with the text because we must be afraid to do so, is just flat out dishonest, Period. These guys know better. They know we have addressed these things, and that we have also refuted them. But it is such a great apologetic tool when speaking to the lesser informed, they don't want to let got of it.

[Ares]

Keep posting personal remarks and insults about individuals (which do not help your argument) and see how long your current incarnation will last on this board. Its not like you have a history of good behavior here.

You will note I have highlighted text of pro-lds apologists and asked them to behave better also. I am an equal opportunity moderator.

Strike two for arguing with the moderators by the way.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Got my copy this morning. I'm of two minds about it.

On the one hand:

I've paid just enough attention to the Book of Abraham controversies that nothing on the DVD was "new" to me, and insofar as it was designed as a response to critics as well as members (as stated in the intro), I was somewhat underwhelmed. It is certainly not an exhaustive treatment of the subject, by any means (though nor does it claim to be). There are many times when the contributers refer to "debates" which they do not flesh out.

Perhaps it's my unfamiliarity with the material which allows me no grounds for major criticism; the two bits I had the most personal aversion to were actually really rather minor and nitpicky, and very tangential to the main points raised. (And I've very much appreciated Muhlstein, Ash, and Rhodes' writings, so I hope they won't take this as criticism of their persons if they happen to read here.)

Specifically, in the "bonus features" I was distressed at Muhlstein's characterization that things learned from our "finite minds" are less valuable than things learned "infallibly" from God, and that those who leave over historical evidence (or lack thereof) are "foolish". As far as I can understand it, there is no such learning except that which is limited by finitude of some sort, and I think it's very dangerous to start leaning on the "infallibility" crutch because it risks closing off any revelation which overturns what we previously understood to be "true". I like the discussion of faith in Alma much better: it's a hope of something unseen, a hope strong enough to act on for the time being, until we gain greater light. Not infallible; merely the best we can do with what we have at the moment.

I'm also somewhat frustrated by the common rhetorical stance (by no means isolated to this commentary) from which we define other religions as "pagan" (Mike Ash does it here), since the word in common Christian parlance has such a deeply negative connotation (and yet isn't even found in the bible).

The reason is that I think we do a rather grave disservice to other religions when we dismiss them by positing an enormous gap between us and them - Nibley was good about trying to break this wall down by focusing on the diffusionist aspect of the Gospel, parts of which can be found in all cultures (I think books such as Hamlet's Mill or Eliade's work are required reading for anyone who conceives of religion in different areas of the world as being clearly separable and distinct from each other. Rather, they read to me as all permutations of the same basic ritual story based not on psychological archetypes but rather cultural diffusion.)

With this perspective, it becomes far less shocking when, say, Canaanite or Egyptian religion is found to be far more closely related to that of the Hebrews than was previously thought by those who wanted to stress the absolute originality of their particular branch of the family. Of course all the "primitive myths" are all jumbled together - they're all drawing from a common well, which becomes obscured as time moves on. As Nibley was constantly pointing out, the obsessive concern of the comparative mythologists over exactly who was borrowing from whom is largely an academic exercise in spinning around in circles.

On the other hand:

If the DVD is seen as a faith-affirming introduction to the issues, I think it's really quite decent. I don't think Xander is being fair in characterizing the arguments and those propounding them as "dishonest" - I think they are far more accurately described as differences in opinion over the relative weight of various evidences. (I'll probably be taken to task for this, but I haven't yet been convinced that the "missing papyrus" theory has been definitively dealt with by the critics; that the documents might have been destroyed in the fire might be "convenient" for insecure apologists has nothing to do with the truth of whether the event actually happened or not.)

And there are really very few references to "critics" - mostly this was about trying to sum up for a faithful audience which is unfamiliar with the debate some of the issues and apologetic stuff out there. Notice the emphasis on "some" there. It's less than two hours long; there's no way it could possibly address everything. I think the presenters make it clear that there is still work to be done, and they imply that there is still discussion about all these issues. Xander is free to characterize the "wait and see" attitude as a mark against the production which testifies of its irredeemable bias; personally, I think everyone is biased, so it's hardly a surprise to find it in this type of thing. If one believes in a particular aspect of Joseph's revelations but is troubled and questioning about others, one is perfectly justified in the "wait and see" attitude; there is simply no system that has all the answers, so one would be doing the same regardless of which philosophy or religion one chooses to exercise faith in.

To be fair, I've long been somewhat puzzled by both the apologetic use of Hebrew as a "hit" for Joseph (when it was obvious that he had taken lessons), as well as the critical appraisal of his use of it in his revelations (since why shouldn't he use Hebrew words and concepts in his translations just like he used the word "adieu" in the Book of Mormon?) It's about getting the point across. If he learned the word eloheim from his teacher, why not use the term when trying to explain some of the concepts in the upcoming Book of Abraham? Why do the differing accounts of "God" versus "Gods" in Moses and Abraham have to be contradictions in "Joseph's" evolving theology rather than contradictions in the texts he was translating through inspiration (remembering that whoever the author of Moses was, they'd be writing in a time when extreme Monotheism was sweeping through the land, whereas the earlier Abraham was addressing an audience which would have no problem with a plurality of deities.)? Receiving a text through revelation doesn't mean that everything within the text is infallible.

In a similar vein, even if Joseph knew of the basic story of the Sacrifice of Abraham, etc from a book he owned, that doesn't disprove his revelatory translation of the earlier papyrus containing the same essential story; it might just mean that the story was apparently correct in both accounts, and important enough that it needed emphasis. The parallels neither prove nor disprove anything - though personally I find them rather interesting at the very least.

(I often hear from critics that Nibley was trying to "prove" Mormon scriptures through rampant parallelomania, but I think this is a deep misreading of his work; he states constantly that he is merely providing a space within which the scriptures Joseph revealed can be seen as plausible. I'd be curious to read a critical review of One Eternal Round, which I thought was a great book.)

So anyway. It was a basically decent DVD. Nothing spectacular, but not half bad. The best part, by far, was Bokovoy on the Divine Council. Love that guy, love that topic.

[Edit: Stephen Smoot's review is quite accurate.]

Edited October 15, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[diglot]

I like the discussion of faith in Alma much better: it's a hope of something unseen, a hope strong enough to act on for the time being, until we gain greater light.

Can you give me a reference to where it says this in Alma. I am just curious because that is basically what I understand faith to be.

Thanks in advance

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Sure thing - it's in Alma 32:21, and is highlighted by the subsequent metaphor of the Tree of the Light of Wisdom planted in one's heart. The same idea/wording is, I believe, expressed in Paul (or Peter - I'm kinda blanking on exactly where right now).

Edited October 15, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[diglot]

Sure thing - it's in Alma 32:21, and is highlighted by the subsequent metaphor of the Tree of the Light of Wisdom planted in one's heart. The same idea/wording is, I believe, expressed in Paul (or Peter - I'm kinda blanking on exactly where right now).

That verse reminds me of Hebrews 11.1 (which wasn't written by Peter nor Paul; not that it really matters though)

[Chris Smith]

If the DVD is seen as a faith-affirming introduction to the issues, I think it's relatively decent. I don't think Xander is being fair in characterizing the arguments and those propounding them as "dishonest" - I think they are far more accurately described as differences in opinion over the relative weight of various evidences.

I don't think they're being dishonest either, but they certainly are blatantly ignoring or minimizing everything that contradicts their thesis. I'm sure their motives are good and they think they're doing the right thing, but you have to think about how this looks to someone who doesn't accept the presuppositional method. "Presuppositional" scholarship sounds a lot like bad scholarship to someone steeped in the methodological norms of secular science.

(I'll probably be taken to task for this, but I haven't yet been convinced that the "missing papyrus" theory has been definitively dealt with by the critics; that the documents might have been destroyed in the fire might be "convenient" for insecure apologists has nothing to do with the truth of whether the event actually happened or not.)

If you'd like, I can email you my rebuttal to the missing papyrus theory, published in the JWHA Journal earlier this year. "Definitiveness" is of course an elusive standard, but I'd be surprised if someone were to read my paper with an open mind and come away thinking it's still a plausible theory.

In a similar vein, even if Joseph knew of the basic story of the Sacrifice of Abraham, etc from a book he owned, that doesn't disprove his revelatory translation of the earlier papyrus containing the same essential story; it might just mean that the story was apparently correct in both accounts, and important enough that it needed emphasis. The parallels neither prove nor disprove anything - though personally I find them rather interesting at the very least.

I haven't looked into this extensively, but I've never seen a good ancient source about the "sacrifice of Abraham". Generally the ancient traditions cited as parallels involve an attempt by Nimrod to throw Abraham into a fiery furnace. This tradition has more in common with the Book of Daniel than the Book of Abraham.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Chris Smith

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

If you'd like, I can email you my rebuttal to the missing papyrus theory, published in the JWHA Journal earlier this year.

Sure, I'd be happy to take a look. Email's in my profile.

Edit: No it's not! jeremy.orbe.smith at gmail.

Edited October 15, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[jskains]

I hear terms like "unreliable" on the 40 foot scroll, etc. but other than a desperate desire by critics to win this fight, is there actual proof the scrolls were not that long? And if there is no proof, how is that failed apologetics?

It looks like the term "failed" is used inappropriatly.

JMS

[Mortal Man]

I hear terms like "unreliable" on the 40 foot scroll, etc. but other than a desperate desire by critics to win this fight, is there actual proof the scrolls were not that long?

Yes

[jskains]

Yes

Sorry, but I found that article biased and very weak. It also requires forced assumptions. How about people who actually saw the intact scrolls?

JMS

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Chris, mind if I post the link to your article here? I remain on the fence (due, apparently, to closed-mindedness on my part ), but it's an interesting piece that should be read and considered by others.

Edited October 15, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[William Schryver]

Christopher Smith:

If you'd like, I can email you my rebuttal to the missing papyrus theory, published in the JWHA Journal earlier this year. "Definitiveness" is of course an elusive standard, but I'd be surprised if someone were to read my paper with an open mind and come away thinking it's still a plausible theory.

Oh, my! You and Andrew never cease to astound me with your smug certainty.

Let's just say that, notwithstanding the best efforts of your cohorts to prevent it, a forthcoming article will "definitively" demonstrate, using precision measurements of the extant fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri, and confirmed by comparison with a surviving contemporary scroll of known dimensions, that the original scroll of Hor was a little less than 500 cm (15.8 ft.) long, of which (as you know) only 68 cm has survived.

[Senator]

Christopher Smith:

Oh, my! You and Andrew never cease to astound me with your smug certainty.

You've got to be kidding!!

POT or KETTLE

You can choose one or the other, but not the color.