Book Of Abraham - What Are You Talking About?

[PacMan]

Xander,

Hehehe…

(1) I’m not disputing the evidence that is problematic for Mormon apologetics. But to say there’s no reasonable basis?? Do you know what evidence and proof really are? For example, look at the Joseph F. Smith account. That’s evidence, and it’s pretty good. He remembers seeing the roll extending a significant length in the Nauvoo House. Pretty good evidence that there's missing stuff, eh?

(2) And let’s cut the crap on Ritner. Ritner’s little cameo in the IRR video is rather laughable. I mean the man didn’t even know when Champollion had cracked the phonetic nature of Egyptian. He made some deal about how that knowledge hadn’t made it over the pond by the time Joseph Smith took the stake in the 1830s-40s, but that’s a load. Young had already known the language was phonetic, and that was in Jefferson’s copy of the Encyclopedia Americana (I think it was). To say nothing of Champollion, which was well pulblicized by the time Joseph was in Nauvoo with the papyri.

(3) Now, I’m not suggesting that a good number of theories aren’t problematic. But you’re ability to coagulate them into one conflated sum is rather astonishing.

(4) “We know beyond all reasonable doubt that the Hor papyrus was the source Joseph Smith used to produce the Book of Abraham.”

This is basura. To come to this conclusion, you have to assume that you have already proven that the reverse engineering theory has no basis – which you can’t do. There’s evidence that goes both ways.

(5) But perhaps your weakest strength is anachronistically assuming you know what Joseph Smith meant by “translation.” You don’t. Joseph would call a revelation that had some common textual source in common, existent or not, a translation. His term was so loose and fluid, that the “somewhere out there” theory actually makes sense in Joseph’s own terminology. The fact that a genuine source exists – or existed – is all that Joseph needed for a “translation” to occur. But he didn’t need it in front of him to produce a translation.

(6) “…and I'm usually dragged into this debate…”

Oh, please. Cut out the self-victimization.

PacMan

Edited May 6, 2012 by PacMan

[wenglund]

Didn't that just pump up your testimony and make you feel good about not falling away over this issue?

Yes, as was intended. Too bad Selek has it wrong again.

This is absolute nonsense, especially your emphasis. CFR! The critics have shown that there is no reasonable basis for asserting the Book of Abraham came from "missing" papyri because virtually all the historic evidence points to extant portions of the Joseph Smith papyri collection. I proved this in earlier threads last year. The only reason to submit missing papyri as the source is ad hoc apologetics. Apologists have been dancing around all evidence to the contrary constantly looking for some rational basis for presuming a missing papyrus as the source. But relying on "well, isn't it possible?" isn't a strong argument. It is possible the moon is made of cheese, but it probably isn't, and there is no good reason to believe it is. Apologists like these begin with the theological premise that the Church is true, all evidence to the contrary must be ignored, avoided or dismissed while you go blathering about how this is really a respectable position to take because... "well, isn't it possible?" The problem most critics have with the dogmatic assertions by apologists is that they're never willing to accept anything that goes against the Church's claims, no matter how obvious.This makes them irrational. It isn't irrational to follow the evidence where it leads, which is really the only thing the "critics" are guilty of. And with the Book of Abraham, the apologists' willingness to pump out one falsehood after another is just more reason to believe they're apologetic case is intellectually bankrupt and that theirs is an agenda of disinformation. For example, why do they keep spreading these falsehoods about a "long" roll, which can only come about from a conscious effort to misrepresent the evidence? Talk about your "tragedy of errors." It is enough that someone could write a book strictly about the history of failed Book of Abraham apologetics.

Every time you point out something to them that shows beyond all reasonable doubt that Joseph Smith was wrong, they come up with this "well isn't it possible" nonsense and then have the audacity to flip it around as if we're the ones being "dogmatic" and unreasonable. Our arguments are convincing without benefit of dogmatism. Their arguments are ridiculously unconvincing to anyone who isn't desperately trying to save their testimony. No one outside the apologetic community would ever see it their way. The critics are on firm ground while the apologists are just grasping for anything they can, hoping something will eventually stick. It is like a slow moving train wreck that is just too difficult not to pay attention to it.

You want to mock us as pseudo-scholars, but the fact is the entire depts of Egyptology at Brown University and the U of Chicago, think Maxwell Institute apologetics on this subject is downright laughable pseudo-scholarship. Robert Ritner's (The world's authority on the subject and Gee's professor who disowned him because he was more interested in apologetics than scholarship) latest tome provides a blistering critique of decades of FARMS apologetics on this subject.

But the funniest thing about Selek's misrepresentation on this subject is that he wants to claim only the "critics" maintain this position about the Hor papyrus, when in fact it was the position held by BYU scholars before and after the payri were rediscovered. That is, until it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the extant papyri couldn't have been a legitimate source of Mormon scripture. That was the point when suddenly the source for the BoA had to be missing. Nibley took the matter into his own hands and starting spinning it, even admitting that he wouldn't produce a translation of the papyri because it would do more harm than good. The idea has always been to keep the members in the dark, make them trust untrustworthy apologists acting as experts, and then attack the whistleblowers as evil "dogmatic" anti-Mormons, as if we're the ones with an "agenda"!

Yes, it does. We know beyond all reasonable doubt that the Hor papyrus was the source Joseph Smith used to produce the Book of Abraham. For crying out loud the Church has been publishing the BoA with cuts from the same papyrus for years. The BoA scripture even refers explicitly to this text as its source.

And to some minds, that is all that matters. What is highly probable means nothing when the integrity of your Church is on the line.

Exposing the truth that has been hidden (i.e. the KEP) or misrepresented by the apologists for decades (and it is still happening with FAIR's latest DVD)? That's a pretty respectable agenda I would think, but I wouldn't call it ideological. You're the ones who are trying to salvage a religion. We're just interested in the truth.

More well poisoning of course. The fact is I don't have a problem with any Mormon who tells me they accept the Book of Abraham as inspired scripture, while relying on some kind of catalyst theory. You can't argue with someone like that and I've never been interested in deconverting Mormons. I am interested in seeing that newcomers get more information so they can make an informed decision and I'm usually dragged into this debate because it is well known that it played a huge role in my apostasy. And so people are generally bringing me up as an example to learn from. You know, the stupid apostate who let lies and misrepresentations destroy his faith. The once proud lion who was scared by a mouse, etc etc. I've heard it all.

Well, the only lies and deceptions I heard during that time came from those who were trying to keep me in the Church at all costs. That's a fact, and the fact that this isn't something that can be debated on this forum is evidence that what I say is true. If you guys thought for a second that you had a good case that we were the ones lying and deceiving, you'd jump all over the opportunity to expose us via debate. But most of you already know that the Book of Abraham controversy proves the opposite, and so it is too dangerous to really delve into, if for no other reason, the fact that your "experts" have proven themselves completely unreliable as agents of truth.

For the benefit of anyone who may not be aware, when reading Kevin's posts, particularly when the subject touches on the Book of Abraham, it should be understood that he has become so important in his own mind, along with Brent Metcalfe and Robert Ritner, that he no longer has need of God. Kevin has created his own gods, which he worships with extreme devotion and unwavering dogmatism. So, don't expect a reasoned or pleasant discussion. Simply prepare yourself for a deluge of closed and narrow-minded preaching and a whole lot of unwarranted victory dancing--which can be quite entertaining to watch if you are into so-called reality shows like Jersey City and anything with Paris Hilton in it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I expect to see them published before the end of the year.

Please notify us here when they are published. I can't wait.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

When I first learned about the Book of Abraham, I really took the time to understand the arguments made by both sides. Once I did that I didn't see any good ones on the apologetic side. If you are aware of some good apologetic arguments, please explain.

I started out just as you did, and was very open to arguments from both side. However, I came to a somewhat different conclusion from you--while I consider some of the argument of the critics to be reasonable, I am more persuaded by certain apologetic arguments, though, unlike Kevin, I believe the scholarly debate is far from definitively settled, leaving each respectfully to their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

...both sides, in addition to getting mean, have said very goofy things. The Götterdämmerung fought between Xander's camp and Schryver's camp has gotten so vituperative on these boards that it's incredibly dangerous and inevitably painful to try to salvage anything useful amidst the nuclear bombs being launched from both sides....

I own a lot of responsibility for this, and it is one of my biggest apologetic regrets.

On the bright side, I have had some very civil and productive discussion with certain critics, which I hope have been as informative to them and others as it was for me. There is also an open thread on the topic that has been edifying and for the most part has escaped the repelling rancor typical of this topic. My wish is for it to continue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Minos]

The minute one poster gets mean we need quick reports so we can remove the culprit before it spreads. Otherwise the thread gets shut down.