The Book Of Abraham

[Sethbag]

Even granting, for the sake of argument, the plausibility of your hypothetical scenerio, it doesn't support, and may even undermine your proposition--which had to do with producing twelve additional pages of scripture over nearly a decade, rather than satisfying Chandler's simple and general request in the moment.

The initial statements on the origin and contents of the papyri helped satisfy the on-the-spot requirement for support of Joseph Smith's bona fides, and the subsequent "translation" into the 12 pages of text satisfies Joseph's desire to work his Abraham stuff from the masonic legends and other sources into Mormon theology. Where exactly is the problem with this? Do you think his compatriots would have been satisfied with a mere initial recognition of the contents of the papyrus, and never expect anything to come from it, at all, despite the fact that they pooled money together and purchased the papyrus, so they'd be available to JS to translate? I don't understand what your objection is.

I am not questioning why it took so long to publish the 12 or so pages of the Book of Abraham. Rather, I am questioning your proposition--particularly in light of so little having taking so long.

So little? Joseph had to work in the idea of all those varous expansions into all the various degrees just to get 12 pages out of so little papyrus. Plus, it could be that the 12 pages were sufficient for Joseph to introduce the beliefs he wished to incorporate into Mormon theology. What more do you suppose he should have written? And as for the time it took, as I previously mentioned, Joseph was a pretty busy guy during those seven years. I'm willing to cut him this particular slack.

Agreed. However, I wasn't questioning the possible spiritual need for further revelation, but rather your proposition that further revelation was motivated by the intent to supposedly build Joseph's prophetic bona fides.

The need to support Joseph's bona fides appeared when the papyrus showed up, and nobody could read the characters except the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. The identification, and eventual production of the BoA, fleshed out that support, and the content itself served as the vehicle for Joseph to introduce the teachings of the BoA. What exactly is your criticism of this theory?

I don';t think you correctly understand question #3, and that possibly for good reason. So, let me clarify. According to what Joseph has said, himself, as well as what he published as scripture, prophetic bona fides are not a function of the volume of scriptures one produces, but rather they come by way of our asking God and through our acting upon the scriptures. In other words, according to Joseph's own beliefs, he isn't the one who establishes his own prophetic bona fides, but God.

Ok, so Michael Chandler has just pulled out the papyrus, and a half a dozen prominent Mormons and Joseph Smith go in to see them, and these Mormons get all excited and bubbly at the idea that, out of all the world, they just happen to have the one guy with a chance in Heaven of understanding what they mean. So they all turn to Joseph, expectantly, and ask him if he's able to interpret the characters. How does what you've said get Joseph out of the jam? By contrast, take my scenario, and then ask yourself how my scenario gets Joseph out of the jam. This is what I'm talking about with respect to the support of Joseph's prophet bona fides.

So, in the context of this scenario, please explain your criticism of my argument.

It doesn't matter if he or any other professed prophet produces a library full of scriptures or no scriptures at all. Their prophetic bona fides are not determined by scriptural production...

You might think differently if you believed Joseph capable of translating ancient languages, and were standing there in the room when all eyes turned to him expectantly.

In short, your proposition conflicts with how Joseph and his followers evidently believed and practiced. For that reason, it doesn't make sense.

It is understandable that this may not have occurred to you since you have evidently chosen a different means for determining Joseph's prophetic bona fides--a means that puts faith in man instead of God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You seem to think my little theory only concerns abstract concepts or doctrines, or pure theology, when in fact my theory is attempting to explain the specific scenario that unfolded because Michael Chandler showed up with the papyri and the mummies. That's it.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Sethbag

[Xander]

What it all boils down to for me was Joseph Smith's claimed ability to translate ancient documents. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that he had no such ability. This is a fundamental truth claim of the LDS Church, for without it there would be no Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham.

All else is just apologetic fluff, and as Katherine stated, it is mostly absurd. It rests strictly on Nibley's appeal to parallelomania, and in the most persuasive instances it turns out that much of these parallels were available in early 19th century literature. Of course, those who already begin with the presupposition that the Church is true, will always try to find ways to explain away the evidence via confirmation bias. Hence, the internal struggle between faith and reason. This is why it is important to keep new, prospective converts, as ignorant as possible when it comes to these things. As William Schryver once told me, if he didn't already begin with the belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet, he said the evidence would most likely have led him to believe that the Book of Abraham was just a clumsy effort by a fraud. Likewise, most reasonable people approaching this subject from the outside would conclude the same.

So my main problem is this. I can't think of a single person, or even imagine how a single person with substantial knowledge of the controversies surrounding the BoA, including the evidence against it, could ever conclude that it was a genuinely translated scripture from ancient text. Unlike the Book of Mormon plates, we have the source for the Book of Abraham, and we now know how to translate Egyptian characters. It turns out that Joseph Smith was wrong. Not even close.

Should this matter?

Well, it depends on what you're trying to get out of it. If you're interested in absolute truth, then it should matter. But if you're only interested in reinforcing your faith, then maybe you'll just set this on the back-burner and keep exposing your troubled mind with apologetic material. I did the latter for years, until eventually, reason won the battle over faith.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Xander

[wenglund]

The initial statements on the origin and contents of the papyri helped satisfy the on-the-spot requirement for support of Joseph Smith's bona fides, and the subsequent "translation" into the 12 pages of text satisfies Joseph's desire to work his Abraham stuff from the masonic legends and other sources into Mormon theology. Where exactly is the problem with this?

Nothing you just said speaks to the motive of building prophetic bona fides. That is what I was questioning.

Do you think his compatriots would have been satisfied with a mere initial recognition of the contents of the papyrus, and never expect anything to come from it, at all, despite the fact that they pooled money together and purchased the papyrus, so they'd be available to JS to translate? I don't understand what your objection is.

Again, none of this speaks to your proposition that this all was motivated to build up prophetic bona fides. That is what I am objecting to. Do you now understand my objection?

So little? Joseph had to work in the idea of all those varous expansions into all the various degrees just to get 12 pages out of so little papyrus. Plus, it could be that the 12 pages were sufficient for Joseph to introduce the beliefs he wished to incorporate into Mormon theology. What more do you suppose he should have written? And as for the time it took, as I previously mentioned, Joseph was a pretty busy guy during those seven years. I'm willing to cut him this particular slack.

Again, none of this speaks to my specific objection to the motive you ascribed to Joseph.

The need to support Joseph's bona fides appeared when the papyrus showed up, and nobody could read the characters except the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.

You are begging the question. What evidence do you have that Joseph needed to support his prophetic bona fides when the papyrus appeared--regardless of who could or could not translate them? If he had chosen not to, it would have made no difference to his prophetic calling. That he chose to do so doesn't mean he did so in order to build his prophetic bona fides. My objection to your "build up prophetic bona fides" proposition is that it conflicts with what Joseph and his scribes said, themselves, as to why he did what he did. So, in order for your mind-reading proposition to bear sway over first-hand evidence, your proposition not only has to make sense (I don't believe it does), but it has to be more compelling, evidence wise, than the first-hand statements (I don't see it coming anywhere close, though that may just be me).

The identification, and eventual production of the BoA, fleshed out that support, and the content itself served as the vehicle for Joseph to introduce the teachings of the BoA. What exactly is your criticism of this theory?

What I am criticizing is your "prophetic bona fides" proposition. I am questioning your conjectured motives behind what was done.

Ok, so Michael Chandler has just pulled out the papyrus, and a half a dozen prominent Mormons and Joseph Smith go in to see them, and these Mormons get all excited and bubbly at the idea that, out of all the world, they just happen to have the one guy with a chance in Heaven of understanding what they mean. So they all turn to Joseph, expectantly, and ask him if he's able to interpret the characters. How does what you've said get Joseph out of the jam?

By contrast, take my scenario, and then ask yourself how my scenario gets Joseph out of the jam. This is what I'm talking about with respect to the support of Joseph's prophet bona fides.

You are here talking and asking about methods, not motives. I am objecting to your proposed motive. What makes you assume that Joseph was under obligation to translate anything or everything brought to him for translation? And, why are you assuming that the motive in doing so was to build prophetic bona fides, rather than, as he and others attest, because he and they believed he could?

You might think differently if you believed Joseph capable of translating ancient languages, and were standing there in the room when all eyes turned to him expectantly.

You seem to think my little theory only concerns abstract concepts or doctrines, or pure theology, when in fact my theory is attempting to explain the specific scenario that unfolded because Michael Chandler showed up with the papyri and the mummies. That's it.

No. What I think is that in order to best explain Joseph's motives, or to reasonably propose what his motives may have been, you need to do so in a way that makes sense to his mind and the evident way he thought and believed, and not in terms of how you currently think. You have done the latter, and that is the problem I have with your proposition. What you suggest doesn't fit with Joseph's stated beliefs and his evident way of thinking. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest he was motivated to produce the Book of Abraham, or even to briefly translate the papyri for Chandler, so as to "build up his prophetic bona fides," and much to suggest otherwise.

However, as always, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

I have never questioned that the BOA is from God

Never?

I'm of the opinion that everthing that we are presented with in life should be met with a question.

[Xander]

Motives are irrelevant to the fact that the evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents as claimed.

Demanding that the critics explain his motives is just a side-show that is designed to take focus off these facts. Because, after all, we know that anything we say about his motives is going to result in another tangent that will take on a life of its own and energize those who revere Joseph Smith.

For me it doesn't matter if Joseph Smith was intentionally deceptive or self-delusional. What matters is that the evidence proves he wasn't someone who could translate ancient documents. Which tells me he probably wasn't a Prophet, Seer and Revelator. It is really that simple.

[wenglund]

Anyone schooled in scholasticism and who has a modicum of experience with critical thought would know that motives are often a key element of consideration when analyzing and formulating a coherent theory for certain human behaviors--including the production of scripture. At least Sethbag understands this.

One would also know that it is also reasonable for others to directly critique the motives stated by the theorists.

This is how reasoned discourse works.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 5, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

To clarify (for the benefit of those who may not correctly understand), in the case of the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith never claimed that he, personally, could translate the papyri. Rather, he attributed the "translation" to the gift and power of God. He spoke in terms of it being "revealed" to him.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

I'm of the opinion that everthing that we are presented with in life should be met with a question.

Really? Sometimes the questions have been answered by previous questions and when something is right it is right.

[Xander]

Anyone schooled in scholasticism and who has a modicum of experience with critical thought would know that motives are often a key element of consideration when analyzing and formulating a coherent theory for certain human behaviors--including the production of scripture. At least Sethbag understands this.

His "behavior" isn't the issue. We're talking about empirical claims that can be verified or falsified based on the available evidence. Anyone with a modicum of experience with critical thought would know that empirical claims can be verified without delving into one's psychology. I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp. If someone tells you that 2+2 = 22, would you believe them? Maybe you would, but the fact is your belief is irrelevant to the fact that this person is demonstrably wrong. Now it could be that the person misspoke, intending to say 2 x 11 = 22, but this still doesn't change the fact that the initial claim is false. Now claiming 2+2 =22, based on revelation from God makes it much worse because now that person has ruined his credibility as not only a mathematician, but also as a medium by which the divine transmits information.

Again, the issue is what Joseph Smith claimed to be able to do. Whether he thought he was really doing it is irrelevant to this. What was going on in his mind at the time is irrelevant. Whether Joseph Smith could properly do what he claimed is something we can deduce using the available evidence.Trying to turn this into a psychological issue is just a weak attempt to prolong the logical conclusion which is that Joseph Smith could not do what he said.

The evidence shows quite conclusively that Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents. All the available evidence points to this. From his botched attempt to translate Egyptian characters to his attempt to translate fraudulent Kinderhook plates. From his refusal to retranslate the 116 pages, to his conflation of Egyptian with Masonic symbols. Saying he translated by the power of God doesn't change the fact that he claimed to produce a legitimate translation from one language to another. Saying it was "revealed" to him by God doesn't change the point. Of course he said it was revealed to him. No critic ever claimed he thought he was doing this stuff based on his own academic understanding of Egyptian; that's because Joseph Smith never made this claim. But he did claim to translate them properly, which means he claimed to be able to convey what the text originally said, into English. In the context of language documents, this is the only thing the word "translate" can mean. Since we now know he could do no such thing, the only logical conclusion is that he wasn't able to do what he said. Whether this means he was a fraud in everything else he said is something people can judge for themselves, but it is still beside the point. In my experience, the only people who continue to rationalize this stuff away are those who have already wedded themselves and a good portion of their lives to this notion that Joseph Smith was a righteous Prophet who'd never deceive anyone intentionally. So there is really no point in even trying to have this kind of discussion and I've never had any interest in it.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Xander

[selek1]

So there is really no point in even trying to have this kind of discussion and I've never had any interest in it.

Interestingly, that's never stopped you from posting- at length- about things you've "never had any interest in".

In point of fact, your statement "The evidence shows quite conclusively that Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents." is every bit as much a subjective statement of faith as are the rationale's offered by believers.

Your conclusions and interpretations are no less biased, nor any less agenda-driven than the interpretations offered by the faithful.

In reality, people of good faith and integrity, (people who practice intellectual due-diligence) have and do arrive at different conclusions than you.

But instead of acknowledging that such people can honestly reach a conclusion different than your own, you slander their character and strive to paint them as dupes, as villains, and as charlatans.

Your statement:

In my experience, the only people who continue to rationalize this stuff away are those who have already wedded themselves and a good portion of their lives to this notion that Joseph Smith was a righteous Prophet who'd never deceive anyone intentionally.

is a bigoted and blanket dismissal and amounts to nothing more than deliberate well poisoning and a logical fallacy (specifically, of the "No True Scotsman" variety).

Rather than addressing the reasoning or arguments behind their conclusions, you dismiss them out of hand, question their integrity, and denigrate them.

Instead of demonstrating why your reasoning is correct and theirs is not, you accuse them of willful myopia and a deliberate refusal to acknowledge what you believe is self-evident.

Instead of presenting facts to support your argument, you offer fell innuendo and shady excuses about others.

None of these are the behaviors of a reasoning and dispassionate scholar in search of truth- but all are readily found in the arsenal of the zealot, the demagogue, and the unprincipled rhetorician.

All the available evidence points to this.

A more accurate and intellectually honest statement would be that your interpretation of the evidence points in that particular direction.

People of character and integrity can and do disagree with your conclusions.

It does you and your positions no credit to dismiss such people out of hand.

Edited January 6, 2012 by selek1

[Xander]

Interestingly, that's never stopped you from posting- at length- about things you've never had any interest in.

If I discuss anything at length, then I'm most likely interested in the topic. What kind of comment is this?

I have no interest in a meaningless squabble about what Joseph Smith was thinking. This kind of discussion would go nowhere rather quickly. The critics would take one of two positions saying he was either self-delusional or he was a conscious fraud. Believers will object. This kind of derailment is intended to take focus off the elephant in the room, which is what I tried to stay focused on: Joseph Smith's inability to translate ancient documents, whether by the Power of God or whatever.

[Deborah]

I have no interest in a meaningless squabble about what Joseph Smith was thinking.

And yet you make this assertion "The evidence shows quite conclusively that Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents" while also stating "Whether he thought he was really doing it is irrelevant to this. What was going on in his mind at the time is irrelevant" and then you make an assumption about what he was doing based on the "available evidence" which by any standard is pretty flimsy and subject to interpretation. What Joseph Smith was thinking is very relevant in this case.

[selek1]

If I discuss anything at length, then I'm most likely interested in the topic.

Which gives the lie to your statement that you "never had any interest".

Your inability to stay away from the topic amply demonstrates that your indifference is feigned (at best).

This kind of derailment is intended to take focus off the elephant in the room, which is what I tried to stay focused on: Joseph Smith's inability to translate ancient documents, whether by the Power of God or whatever.

And yet that "elephant in the room" exists solely in the margins between those who accept your interpretation of the evidence and those who do not., Edited January 6, 2012 by selek1

[TAO]

His "behavior" isn't the issue. We're talking about empirical claims that can be verified or falsified based on the available evidence. Anyone with a modicum of experience with critical thought would know that empirical claims can be verified without delving into one's psychology. I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp. If someone tells you that 2+2 = 22, would you believe them? Maybe you would, but the fact is your belief is irrelevant to the fact that this person is demonstrably wrong. Now it could be that the person misspoke, intending to say 2 x 11 = 22, but this still doesn't change the fact that the initial claim is false. Now claiming 2+2 =22, based on revelation from God makes it much worse because now that person has ruined his credibility as not only a mathematician, but also as a medium by which the divine transmits information.

Nonetheless, do we know the details about how the translation process works? No. That's why it isn't as simple as an empirical statement (there are many interpretations of the process that you have to verify). In addition, using math (a priori knowledge) isn't a valid comparison becuase math is correct via definition, where this is something to do with procedure. You would have to compare it to something that also had to do with procedure.

In addition, psychology is an important part in claims, especially in claims where there are multiple possible options. For example, a man walks in the store with a black mask over his head. Empirical Induction would lead us to guess that the man is a robber. But let us look at the man's next actions. He walks around like a casual shopper, putting things in a basket. He doesn't act like he is nervous. He doesn't make sudden movements. In this case, analyzing the man's actions produces a psychology that is incompatible with the actions of a robber. He isn't running directly to the cash register, and he isn't holding a gun. Because of that, it would be incorrect to assume he is a robber right of the bat - despite that he is whering a black mask.

Again, the issue is what Joseph Smith claimed to be able to do.

No, the issue is what he actually did. What he claimed to do does not matter. What matters are all the possibilities, both supporting and denying, that could have happened. That means 'he's a fraud' could be one possibility. But also, 'he translated indirectly off a papyrus that no longer exists' is a possibilty. And so could many other things. But you have to consider all of the possibilities which is what you aren't doing right now.

Whether he thought he was really doing it is irrelevant to this. What was going on in his mind at the time is irrelevant. Whether Joseph Smith could properly do what he claimed is something we can deduce using the available evidence.

Incorrect, psychology matters. An action that is imcompatible with psychological attitude is just as empircally wrong as one that disagrees with physical facts. Again, I point to the 'robber' I talked about above.

Trying to turn this into a psychological issue is just a weak attempt to prolong the logical conclusion which is that Joseph Smith could not do what he said.

Equally, ignoring the psychological counterevidence is just a weak attempt to prolong the logical conclusion that Joseph Smith didn't act like a fraud, and it is also ignoring the fact that we don't know how the translation process actually worked in terms of where the writing was got from and other details.

I'll ignore the rest since it's just a resummation. In any case, you need to look at the psychological issues as welll, because they matter more, in a sense than the physical ones. If a 'fraud' wasn't intended, that means that the techniques and details about the translation process are all the more important, and more study needs to go into that, rather than arguing about something nobody will ever agree upon.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

Edited January 6, 2012 by TAO

[wenglund]

His "behavior" isn't the issue.

Yes it is--at least the issue being discussed by Sethbag and me.

We're talking about empirical claims that can be verified or falsified based on the available evidence.

No, we (Sethbag and I) aren't. Rather, we (Sethbag and me) are talking about Sethbag's theory behind the existence of the Book of Abraham. If you wish to join our conversation, feel free to catch up and discuss what we are discussing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 6, 2012 by wenglund

[altersteve]

Motives are irrelevant to the fact that the evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents as claimed.

Well, Joseph Smith never claimed to have the ability to translate ancient documents, so that doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Mariner]

Well, Joseph Smith never claimed to have the ability to translate ancient documents, so that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Joseph Smith did claim to have the ability to translate ancient documents. Here is but one example.

" I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 5, p. 372

(Joseph Smith is referring here to his "translation" of the Kinderhook Plates.)

Edited January 7, 2012 by Mariner

[Kevin Christensen]

Joseph Smith did claim to have the ability to translate ancient documents. Here is but one example.

(Joseph Smith is referring here to his "translation" of the Kinderhook Plates.)

To be completely accurate, it is not Joseph Smith, but the edited result based the account of William Clayton, one of several different reports.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries_related_to_Mormonism/Joseph_Smith_and_the_Kinderhook_Plates

It would be better to refer to Joseph Smith's translations of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, the JST, the Book of Abraham and facsimilees, D&C 7 and part of 93, and of course, his study of Hebrew.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Loran Blood]

What it all boils down to for me was Joseph Smith's claimed ability to translate ancient documents. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that he had no such ability. This is a fundamental truth claim of the LDS Church, for without it there would be no Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham.

This is a clever equivocation on the use of the term "translate." It is not a fundamental truth claim of the Church that Joseph Smith could "translate ancient documents." It is a fundamental truth claim that Joseph Smith could translate some ancient documents through the gift and power of God when it was the Lord's will that he do so. He claimed, and the Church claims for him, no other ability regarding ancient documents. In any case, as we very clearly do not have the original documents from which the actual text of the BofA was rendered, the entire point is essentially moot.

All else is just apologetic fluff...

And then there's all the critic's text-critical fluff, but...never mind.

It rests strictly on Nibley's appeal to parallelomania, and in the most persuasive instances it turns out that much of these parallels were available in early 19th century literature.

1. That they were available demonstrates nothing in particular unless the all important secular naturalistic assumptions necessary to the belief that the availability of certain materials establishes, a priori, a causal connection, are already set in place.

2. Argument by assertion won't be enough. The clear parallels in question are so numerous and varied that any claim that most of them were available needs to Joseph Smith needs to be demonstrated evidentially. But again the secular/humanistic pre-assumptions rise to greet us before the argument begins. The fact of the matter is that the paralells seen between the BofA and numerous ancient Abraham texts and traditions, Pseudopigraphic texts, Midrashic traditions, Josephus etc., being that they are, in point of fact, parallels, leads us to no automatic generalization as to their origins in 19th century lifting by Joseph Smith by materials within his immediate environment. The crux of all this is that all of the texts in question are related to each other in concept, motif, and symbol, and hence parallel ("Having comparable parts, analogous aspects, or readily recognized similarities"), which tells us nothing (without direct empirical or factual documentation) regarding the lines of causation running from one particular text to another. The concepts and ideas present in the BofA are concepts and ideas present in the ancient Near East within a apocalyptic/cosmological tradition ranging from ancient Egypt across the entire Near Eastern cultural landscape. What has been clearly shown is that the BofA is related closely to a large and disparate body of similar concepts, ideas, motifs, and patterns of understanding relative to the nature of the universe and human existence known to have existed in the ancient world but largely invisible in the Bible as we have it but which became available again only, in most cases, well after Joseph's day (and a number of things not until the mid-20th century).

In other words, if the BofA, Josephus, the ancient Abraham texts that only became available after Joseph's passing from the scene, 1 and 2 Enoch etc., and numerous other textual witnesses, all show parallels with each other, then there is no particular reason to assume that those parallels exist for any other reason than that all the documents in question arose in the same fundamental sociocultural and religious milieu. There is no reason, a priori, to think that all these textual witnesses except the BofA are all authentic ancient witness to the same strains of tradition and teaching, on no other grounds than the manner in which Joseph said he derived them and the existence of materials such as the KEP that are logically of virtually no use in the reconstruction of the BofA's provenance. Why not include the BofA as another witness to the body of parallels already existing among the already extent ancient literature?

Only, indeed, an a priori assumption that prophets qua prophets cannot exist, and that a concept such as direct revelation from God to those prophets is not a part of the phenomenal universe (and cannot be) can explain a really virulent resistance to the BofA as what the Church claims it to be. The entire text-critical aspect of the debate, as interesting as it may be in its own way, is a footnote to the very existence of those parallels and the fact that they are, indeed, parallels and form a united whole with a large body of other textual witnesses unknown to Joseph (or, in the case of some actually existing texts, to English speaking/reading scholars in Joseph's day).

The immediate leap to the claim that the BofA must be a 19th century production on the basis of little else than that it was "produced" in the 19th century, is an artifact of the perceptual biases inherent the naturalistic critique at the outset (as with the BofM).

Of course, those who already begin with the presupposition that the Church is true, will always try to find ways to explain away the evidence via confirmation bias.

This is a circular argument, that assumes both the existence of a hypothetical "presupposition" and the existence of "confirmation bias" (which appears to me to be present in abundance in the critic's arguments) in lieu of any demonstration that these are crucial to the defense of the BofA. Indeed, the idea that faithful LDS "presuppose" the truth of the Church's claims here neatly circumvent the entire phenomenon of revelation and the witness of the Spirit, which is actually the core of the direct, internal knowledge of the truth of the BofA as both the word of God and an authentic ancient text, and is that which establishes such authenticity for the Saint.

Hence, the internal struggle between faith and reason.

This is, of course, the classic secular humanist myth regarding the struggle between rationalism (not reason, per se) and the life of the soul. No such internal struggle exists for the spiritually mature Latter day Saint. Indeed, the gospel is the sine qua non of the ever expanding, ever developing and ultimately perfect synthesis of both.

This is why it is important to keep new, prospective converts, as ignorant as possible when it comes to these things. As William Schryver once told me, if he didn't already begin with the belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet, he said the evidence would most likely have led him to believe that the Book of Abraham was just a clumsy effort by a fraud. Likewise, most reasonable people approaching this subject from the outside would conclude the same.

Graham, of course, has no idea what most people would make of the BofA at all. All he knows is what he, himself, and a small coterie of like-minded critics would and have concluded.

So my main problem is this. I can't think of a single person, or even imagine how a single person with substantial knowledge of the controversies surrounding the BoA, including the evidence against it, could ever conclude that it was a genuinely translated scripture from ancient text.

Which is nothing more than a claim regarding your own subjective, internal thought world, and of little use to any actual critical argument regarding the BofA

Unlike the Book of Mormon plates, we have the source for the Book of Abraham,

As the day has not yet come when it is remotely arguable that this has been demonstrated with any degree of inferential certainly, this would appear to be, to paraphrase what Kevin said above, only true for "those who already begin with the presupposition that the Church is not true" and who will "always try to find ways to explain away the evidence via confirmation bias." All of this, in other words, is hypothesis, theoretical modeling, and bias masquerading as intellectual certainty.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Loran Blood

[mbh26]

However, some of our very most precious doctrines come from the Pearl of great Price--some of the doctrines that have always had the feeling of deep, spiritual truth to me (ie: the preexistence), and so I accept it as a revelation.

Is it possible that the prophet came up with these truths, but was entirely mistaken in thinking that he was translating an ancient record? Why couldn't he just write his own book on what God had revealed to him to be true? Why go through all this stuff about translating an ancient record? Even since I was five years old we were carefully taught in Church to distinguish that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon, he translated it. It seems that teaching was misinformed at best, purposely deceptive at worst.

[Loran Blood]

Is it possible that the prophet came up with these truths, but was entirely mistaken in thinking that he was translating an ancient record? Why couldn't he just write his own book on what God had revealed to him to be true? Why go through all this stuff about translating an ancient record?

Because the things that are narrated in the BofA and in the BofM, actually happened. Those are the core truth claims of the restored Church. That is what the Church has always taught. They are real history. They are the gospel in application throughout various dispensations and periods among various peoples. The gospel is not an academic theoretical modeling exercise; it is application, life, history, historical memory, and the cycles righteousness and decay experienced by individuals and peoples from time immemorial. The scriptures are the spiritual memory of mankind, a history behind "secular" history recorded by prophets since the beginning.

The restoration of ancient texts containing lost spiritual knowledge is far better, in my view, than theoretical theological treatises, for several reasons, but a critical one being that this provides the Saints of the latter days with a sense of unity and continuity with many and diverse Saints of former days and former dispensations. It is the restoration of our own history as Saints in the Lord's true church over ages of time with cultural/sociological differences stripped away and the core challenges and tasks of Saints in all ages and the perennially struggle with evil made clear as a universal theme and motif.

Historicity, in my view, is just as important as theology, because theology without historicity has been denuded of its application in history and in a historical context to the probationary experience of mankind. The Nephite pride cycle is not a sociological theory. It is not political philosophy. It is also not a fictional story, allegory, of fable of idealized concepts expressing idealized, conceptual relationships. The rise and decline of Nephite civilization, the nature of Lamanite civilization, and other sociocultural patterns outlined in the BofM actually happened. They are the memory of civilizations lost to the lessons of history that Santayana warned we forget at our own peril. In the BofM, however, the critique is far deeper than what any secular critique could offer. Here we have the spiritual roots and dynamics behind the social, cultural, and political conditions openly revealed and clarified.

They actually happened. They are lessons and warnings for us today. They will happen again if those lessons are not learned and applied. This is not theory, it is history, but history with its spiritual roots exposed.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Xander]

Tao,

Nonetheless, do we know the details about how the translation process works? No.

Irrelevant.

That's why it isn't as simple as an empirical statement (there are many interpretations of the process that you have to verify).

The process is irrelevant. You can say it is relevant until you're blue in the face, but no one here has explained how it is relevant to the facts I mentioned. Whatever was going on in Joseph Smith's head, nothing changes the fact that he could not translate ancient texts. Period. It is that simple.

In addition, using math (a priori knowledge) isn't a valid comparison becuase math is correct via definition, where this is something to do with procedure. You would have to compare it to something that also had to do with procedure.

Nonsense. The results can be confirmed either way because we know what these Egyptian symbols meant to the Egyptians. Likewise, Joseph Smith's proposed translation can now be falsified or verified. It has been roundly falsified by those in the know. No Egyptologist anywhere in the world, outside the few apologists in the Church, would ever say Joseph Smith's translations were in any sense accurate. In most cases he was so far off that it is just laughable. For instance, his claim that Anubis was a "slave," which probably had something to do with the fact that he was black.

In addition, psychology is an important part in claims

Psychology is irrelevant. No expert in any science is going to say someone's scientific claims cannot be verified until we examine this person's mind, motives, intentions, the "process" by which he arrived to his conclusion, etc. For example, no astronomer is going to take anyone serious if he says God told him people live on the sun. These claims will be rejected out of hand because we know enough about science to know this is impossible. So you can examine this person's mind until the cows come home, but nothing changes the fact that his claims are to be rejected based on the evidence. Nothing will change the fact that this person cannot be trusted as a credible source of information.

especially in claims where there are multiple possible options. For example, a man walks in the store with a black mask over his head. Empirical Induction would lead us to guess that the man is a robber. But let us look at the man's next actions. He walks around like a casual shopper, putting things in a basket. He doesn't act like he is nervous. He doesn't make sudden movements. In this case, analyzing the man's actions produces a psychology that is incompatible with the actions of a robber. He isn't running directly to the cash register, and he isn't holding a gun. Because of that, it would be incorrect to assume he is a robber right of the bat - despite that he is whering a black mask.

You're going back to an examination of behavior instead of a sound analysis of what he claimed to have done. Your example doesn't apply to what we're talking about.

No, the issue is what he actually did. What he claimed to do does not matter.

This is nonsensical. We only know what he did because of what he claimed to have done. Just looking at the Book of Abraham tells us nothing about what he did unless he tell us what he did. He tells us that he provided a translation of the Egyptian papyrus.

By way of analogy, let's say my wife and kids come home and see a dog house in the backyard. Will they know what I "did" to produce it? No, not unless I tell them. Maybe I bought it, maybe I borrowed it, maybe I stole it, maybe I built it or maybe I did nothing at all and some mysterious person threw it over our fence.

I tell my family that I built it myself.

But it turns out that there is a receipt in my wallet for a new Dog House purchased from Walmart, completely assembled. The Dog House has a price sticker still on it for the amount shown on the receipt. There is video footage of me buying the Dog House at Walmart the day it appeared in our yard. From every angle, the evidence disagrees with what I claimed to have done. I said I built it, but I in fact purchased it. Now if there were apologists for Kevin Graham as there are apologists for Joseph Smith, their reasoning would go like yours.

To your way of thinking, I cannot be a liar so what I said I did is irrelevant to you since it is only one possibility. We're never allowed to conclude anything definitively if it doesn't conform to our presuppositions. So according to your thinking, we should ignore what I said about what I did, and focus on the plethora of endless "possibilities" about what I could have done. Why? Because your presuppositions don't allow for the possibility that I'm a liar. This is the epitome of apologetic thinking.

Likewise, no psychologist on the planet is going to dent the irrefutable fact that I didn't do what I said I did.

What matters are all the possibilities, both supporting and denying, that could have happened.

No, what matters are probabilities. There is no reason to think Joseph Smith did anything other than what he said. What he said was simple and to the point. He claimed to have translated the ancient papyrus -which he erroneously believed was in the hand of Abraham- into English, producing a legitimate translation of the Egyptian characters resulting in a book written by Abraham. That's what he claimed. There is no reason to explore theoretical "possibilities." The only reason to even engage in this kind of thinking is strictly apologetic, which isn't about getting to the truth. It is about supporting a predetermined truth by any means possible.

That means 'he's a fraud' could be one possibility. But also, 'he translated indirectly off a papyrus that no longer exists' is a possibilty.

It is highly improbable, as I demonstrated in the Missing Papyrus thread. There is no reason to believe the source for the Book of Abraham was anything other than the extant Book of Breathings. All the evidence points directly at this text as the source.

And so could many other things. But you have to consider all of the possibilities which is what you aren't doing right now.

Should I also consider the unlikely possibility that the sun has been colonized by humans? You see, you can't just say it is a possibility, therefore we have to consider it. You first have to explain why we should consider it. To me it seems like a waste of time unless you can provide a good reason for it. There is no explanatory power with these apologetic bunny trails talking about every technical "possibility" the mind can imagine. All they do is raise more questions than they answer, when in fact the critical model explains everything perfectly well. All the evidence fits nicely. There is no need to entertain wild hypothetical "possibilities" just because they are technically possible. That isn't how scholarship works. That's strictly apologetics.

[Xander]

selek,

Which gives the lie to your statement that you "never had any interest".

How does this even make sense? I said I wasn't interested in discussing Joseph Smith's motives. I've never once discussed "at length" his motives.

Your inability to stay away from the topic amply demonstrates that your indifference is feigned (at best).

The topic of this thread is the Book of Abraham. You should focus on what's being discussed before accusing others of lying.

Everything I have said about Joseph Smith's psychology is that it is irrelevant and that we should focus on the elephant in the room instead of apologetic red herrings such as this. How in the world do you interpret this as evidence that I want to talk about this? The simple fact of the matter is Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Breathings, producing a valid translation of the Book of Abraham. We know his translation was no translation at all. He wasn't able to do what he claimed. Therefore, there is no reason to believe he could do what he said. This is basic logic whether you like it or not.

And yet that "elephant in the room" exists solely in the margins between those who accept your interpretation of the evidence and those who do not

This is just apologetic subterfuge. I'm not relying on "interpretation." I'm relying on a logical induction of the abailable evidence. There is simply no compelling reason to believe any of the various apologetic theories used to dismiss the critical argument. The evidence clearly suggests that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from the Book of Breathings text, which Egyptologists tell us has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham.

I see you went back and edited your previous post and loaded it up with the usual well-poisoning tripe:

In point of fact, your statement "The evidence shows quite conclusively that Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents." is every bit as much a subjective statement of faith as are the rationale's offered by believers.

Pure nonsense. My argument relies strictly on the evidence and nothing more. The apologetic arguments rely on a need to come up with faith-promoting "possibilities." That's it. The apologetic position already presumes to know the truth, and it is only interested in finding ways to support these presuppositions with whatever tools necessary. Evidence when possible, but often rhetoric because the evidence usually doesn't support it.

Your conclusions and interpretations are no less biased, nor any less agenda-driven than the interpretations offered by the faithful.

Again, this is pure nonsense. If the Book of Abraham is false, your world collapses. If it is true, then I get to repent and go back to the Church, live happily ever after in the celestial kingdom with my family, etc. In short, you need the Book of Abraham to be true much more than I need it to be false. In fact. I don't need it to be false at all. It just is. My testimony is grounded in evidence, not through some sense of awareness or feelings that have been interpreted as a mysterious communication with the divine. And I was just as much an apologist as you are now when I came to this realization and I was quite upset about it. So saying I am biased is pure nonsense. It is just one of those things some defenders like to say to bring everyone else down on their level of irrational thinking. This isn't a matter of bias, it is a matter of evidence. I'm following the evidence where it leads. Some people follow their testimonies and put contrary evidence on the back-burner until they 1) come across some faith-promoting apologetic that meets their satisfaction or 2) they forget about it altogether. Personally, I have more respect for the folks who just adopt the catalyst theory and leave it at that.

In reality, people of good faith and integrity, (people who practice intellectual due-diligence) have and do arrive at different conclusions than you.

The only people who have arrived at these conclusions are those who began withe the theological conclusions that the Church is true, that Joseph Smith had to have been a true Prophet, etc. You won't find a single person investigating the Church, someone who listens to the best of BoA apologetics along with the full critical argument, joining the Church. I've never seen it happen. I've never heard of it happening. I'm confident this will never be put to the test because missionaries refuse to deal with investigators who are at the same time engaged in "anti-Mormon" reading. It is as if they already know they have no chance winning a fair debate over the issues.

But instead of acknowledging that such people can honestly reach a conclusion different than your own, you slander their character and strive to paint them as dupes, as villains, and as charlatans.

Nonsense. I don't do this at all. In fact, I am good friends with a number of LDS believers who accept the BoA as sacred scripture. Brian Hauglid and Don Bradley come to mind, but there are several others. And to say I have slandered people is in fact slander; in an attempt to poison the well no doubt. That's all you're trying to do here. I've slandered no one. Ever. If I criticize anyone in BoA apologetics, it is because the evidence weighs heavily against them and they deserve it. That's not slander. Slander is stating things that are false. If you want to challenge my criticisms of anyone defending Joseph Smith's claimed abilities, then please do so.

is a bigoted and blanket dismissal and amounts to nothing more than deliberate well poisoning and a logical fallacy (specifically, of the "No True Scotsman" variety).

Calling every critic who dares challenge your "group think" mentality, a "bigot" is nothing short of well-poisoning. It means you are incapable of true debate, and lose by default. If you think what I said is false, then prove it. Every adamant defender I have ever come across is someone who began with these presuppositions and has wedded himself to the Mormon way of life to such an extent that the idea that the Church is false never really enters the mind. It is why William Schryver was honest enough to tell me that if he didn't already begin with that theological conviction, then he doesn't think he could ever be persuaded that Joseph Smith could properly translate these texts. Why? Because that is how strong the evidence is, and it takes a strong theological conviction to feed the confirmation bias necessary to see it any other way.

Rather than addressing the reasoning or arguments behind their conclusions, you dismiss them out of hand, question their integrity, and denigrate them.

First of all, who are "they"? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? It doesn't appear so. If you want to have a debate as to whether or not some apologists deserve my criticism, then I'd be more than happy to have that debate with you because I am that confident that the evidence is on my side. All you have are the usual tactics, trying to scare people away from me by coloring me as a "bigot" who doesn't tolerate different views. That's pure nonsense. Just ask Don Bradley or George Miller how many times I've chastized them for believing the Church is true. There are a dozen other Mormons on the other forum who will tell you the same thing. I really don't care if people believe this stuff. I just happen to care when people try to hoodwink me and my friends, often dragging my name and my arguments through the mud.

Instead of demonstrating why your reasoning is correct and theirs is not, you accuse them of willful myopia and a deliberate refusal to acknowledge what you believe is self-evident.

If any of this were true, then I highly doubt I would have been invited by Nemesis to participate on this forum again. As it is, I've been thanked by numerous scholars for my ability to stick to the evidence and lay out my argument in clear terms in all of my threads. So forgive me if I dismiss your caricature as misinformed rhetoric.

Instead of presenting facts to support your argument, you offer fell innuendo and shady excuses about others.

Ditto above. You have no idea what you're talking about. I've done none of these things. Why don't you start backing up this nonsense with evidence instead of hurling accusations?

None of these are the behaviors of a reasoning and dispassionate scholar in search of truth- but all are readily found in the arsenal of the zealot, the demagogue, and the unprincipled rhetorician.

I agree, however it isn't I who fits snuggly into this mold you have created for yourself. There are, however a number of defenders who fit this mold perfectly. I don't rely on rhetoric to drive my arguments. I rely on evidence. All you have done thus far is provide rhetoric. You've provided not a single piece of evidence to back up any of the ludicrous things you've just said.

A more accurate and intellectually honest statement would be that your interpretation of the evidence points in that particular direction.

Not it wouldn't. The evidence is what it is. I'm willing to put my argument to the test any day. If you and the Church had half the confidence in your apologetic theories as you like to lead on, then you'd have no problem setting up investigators with someone like me who would outline for them the critical argument, before or after listening to the Missionaries. But people like you, and the Church as an institution, discourages any such activity. You're all about waving people away from these things. To even have them exposed to this knowledge is a big problem for the missionaries. We both know that no rational thinking person would ever look at the evidence from an outsider's perspective and then conclude that Joseph Smith could really translate Egyptian. If he couldn't translate Egyptian, then there is no reaosn to believe he could translate Reformed Egyptian.

[Xander]

Well, Joseph Smith never claimed to have the ability to translate ancient documents, so that doesn't make a lot of sense.

This is false.

[Xander]

To be completely accurate, it is not Joseph Smith, but the edited result based the account of William Clayton, one of several different reports.

http://en.fairmormon...nderhook_Plates

It would be better to refer to Joseph Smith's translations of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, the JST, the Book of Abraham and facsimilees, D&C 7 and part of 93, and of course, his study of Hebrew.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin, I think you need to get up to date on this issue. Don Bradley's research on this subject pretty much establishes the fact that Joseph Smith consulted his Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language when trying to translate at least a portion of the Kinderhook plates. Besides, there is every reason to believe Clayton's account is trustworthy.