Is Fair Trying To Offload The Book Of Abraham?

[USU78]

That's your choice. The problem you have is lack of motivation to do such. Hence your hypothesis is flawed. I generally do not assign malicious intent without reasonable motivation.

Your conclusions, IMHO, are a bit on the lazy side, lacking useful review and a good reason to come to such a conclusion.

Heaven forbid someone read an article and come to a concern then voice their concern in the interest of possibly correcting it... For shame.

Well . . . now that we've defined our terms . . . lazy vs. disingenuous . . . perhaps we can begin again:

Can you provide a principled argument based upon what the author/writer actually said/wrote for the proposition that you put forth in your OP?

[longview]

I was curious about FAIR's position on the Book of Abraham and came across John Gee's recent talk on the Book of Abraham. As you know, I am concerned that people are requiring permission from Science to be faithful.

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-book-of-abraham-i-presume

As I read this transcript, it appears he is trying to make a case that we can just drop the Book of Abraham and admits he doesn't even believe in it.

Is this the new apologetic course? Eject the Book of Abraham cause it takes a lot of effort to defend it? Will the Church also be convinced to denounce and toss it aside? Will the new scriptures drop the Pearl of Great Price.

I have read the FAIR link and I know that you are acting as agent provocateur and totally misrepresenting his talk. Mr. Gee outlined three theories and laid the case for the second:

So let’s start with the relationship of the Book of Abraham to the Joseph Smith Papyri. There are three different points of view here. One, that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from the papyri that we have. Almost no one really believes this. But to hear the critics tell it this is the official position of thechurch.It’snot.Nordo most members of the church subscribe to this so far as I can tell. So, it’s a strawman. The second one is "that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyri that we do not currently have and this is the position that most accords with the historical evidence. And the third one is that Joseph Smith received the Bo

[happy]

I have read the FAIR link and I know that you are acting as agent provocateur and totally misrepresenting his talk. Mr. Gee outlined three theories and laid the case for the second:

Mind reading must be cool. Can you demonstrate motive?

[happy]

Well . . . now that we've defined our terms . . . lazy vs. disingenuous . . . perhaps we can begin again:

Can you provide a principled argument based upon what the author/writer actually said/wrote for the proposition that you put forth in your OP?

I already explained it. Apparently Gee is so masterfully worshiped that he is beyond touch. I respectfully withdraw my blasphemous and horrible question. Please, I beg humble forgiveness. Blessed be Gee and the FAIR institution.

[CASteinman]

Mind reading must be cool. Can you demonstrate motive?

Three different people have said you are misrepresenting the very basis of your question. A CFR is outstanding. You are spending time misdirecting and not responding directly to the issues raised.

Edited to retract CFR

Edited August 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[USU78]

I already explained it. Apparently Gee is so masterfully worshiped that he is beyond touch. I respectfully withdraw my blasphemous and horrible question. Please, I beg humble forgiveness. Blessed be Gee and the FAIR institution.

Thank you for your withdrawal of your disingenuous and insupportable proposition.

[CASteinman]

I already explained it. Apparently Gee is so masterfully worshiped that he is beyond touch. I respectfully withdraw my blasphemous and horrible question. Please, I beg humble forgiveness. Blessed be Gee and the FAIR institution.

There is still the matter of the CFR. Are you going to provide a reference for your statement that he does not believe in it? Or are you now refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements?

Edited to remove CFR.

Edited August 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[happy]

There is still the matter of the CFR. Are you going to provide a reference for your statement that he does not believe in it? Or are you now refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements?

*Sigh* No statement was made. Only questions asked. Too bad you don't understand the difference. I'm ignoring your improperly used CFR as it is inapplicable to the question posed.

That is as dumb as saying "Did Obama really say he was a Muslin?" then demanding a CFR. A CFR would only be appropriate if I claimed Gee actually DID say it and stood my ground. Why you are attacking me in this manner is questionable. You are seeking enemies where there are none.

Also, I am going to break this to you softly. I know a few Anti-LDS who are asking the same question, so it will be interesting to see how you respond to them.

[CASteinman]

*Sigh* No statement was made. Only questions asked. Too bad you don't understand the difference. I'm ignoring your improperly used CFR as it is inapplicable to the question posed.

This is a statement:

"As I read this transcript, it appears he is trying to make a case that we can just drop the Book of Abraham and admits he doesn't even believe in it."

There is no question mark there. This is not a question.

CFR that he "admits he doesn't even believe in it".

That is now the fourth or fifth time.

And it is DIRECTLY applicable to the question posed because it is part of the FOUNDATION setting for the basis of the question.

Multiple people have told you that you have misrepresented this deal.

The CFR stands.

Edited to Remove CFR.

Edited August 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[happy]

The CFR stands.

Good for you. The question was withdrawn and your silliness is ignored.

[CASteinman]

A CFR would only be appropriate if I claimed Gee actually DID say it and stood my ground.

Well.. that is what you did.

Why you are attacking me in this manner is questionable. You are seeking enemies where there are none.

You have taken a hugely irresponsible path and position. When I merely said that you misrepresented him and wanted to know why you would do that, you launched into a defense of your perspective.

Multiple people have told you that you were misrepresenting things.

If you are not, then show how you did not misrepresent this views on this. Show that he has admitted he does not believe in the Book of Abraham.

As for anti-LDS ... it would not come as a surprise for them to misrepresent. But you are not anti-LDS are you?

[CASteinman]

Good for you. The question was withdrawn and your silliness is ignored.

But the statement you made remains. This is not about the question. It is about your statement.

CFR.

Edited to remove CFR

Edited August 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[mfbukowski]

I actually linked to the whole article in the original post. Why do people get so defensive around here? It's like you aren't allowed to question someone on some special list. Can I get that list so I know who I can and who I can not dare question?

Just as long as you know that I am at the top, that is all you need to worship my wonderfulness.

Just in case someone thought I was serious, I shall add some symbolism:

[happy]

But the statement you made remains. This is not about the question. It is about your statement.

CFR.

Seventh time now.

And your counting means what exactly? Do you feel if you will keep asking, something exciting will happen? If it gets to 10, does my question suddenly become a statement?

This is really a strange path you are taking. If I was defending the position that "yes, Gee is abandoning the Book of Abraham", I'd get it. But I have never nor am I continuing to make that claim, so whatever spectical you are making here seems more for attention?

[Walden]

I find it funny that apologists seem at each other's throats over the symantics of a debate regarding the Book of Abraham. For me, this shows just how divisive that text can be, especially when one is trying to defend it.

You can go back and forth about the symantics of the argument all day long, but I think that anyone who is neutral on the subject would agree "happy" stated that it "appears" that FAIR is distancing itself from the Book of Abraham, and then presented Gee's statement, which is the basis for "happy's" interpretation of his argument. He did not state that this is FAIRs stance, only that he interpreted the statement by Gee to be a precursor to future beliefs regarding the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham. I mean, it's not like the church has never backtracked on one of it's longheld beliefs or traditions.

The venom with which apologists turn on one another with regard to the Book of Abraham makes me wonder about the communal LDS belief in the Book of Abraham.

I have read both sides of the argument, and I have to say that it takes some large leaps in logic, common sense and rational thought to squeeze the Book of Abraham into the narrow confines that apologetic scholars have arrived at to prove that the book is true. I generally lean towards the premises set forth by Occams Razor, and the arguments of the apologists with regard to the Book of Abraham....there are so many assumptions and conjections that have to be entered into the argument for the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, that they dwarf the alternate and utterly simpler explanation that the book is not what the church has reported it to be.

[CASteinman]

And your counting means what exactly? Do you feel if you will keep asking, something exciting will happen? If it gets to 10, does my question suddenly become a statement?

More misdirection. The CFR is still active and it even meets all of your criteria of validity.

This is really a strange path you are taking. If I was defending the position that "yes, Gee is abandoning the Book of Abraham", I'd get it. But I have never nor am I continuing to make that claim, so whatever spectical you are making here seems more for attention?

I did not ask you about his abandoning it. I am asking you for a reference to your claim that he admits he does not believe in the Book of Abraham.

Eight time now.

Edited to remove CFR

Edited August 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[happy]

I find it funny that apologists seem at each other's throats over the symantics of a debate regarding the Book of Abraham. For me, this shows just how divisive that text can be, especially when one is trying to defend it.

You can go back and forth about the symantics of the argument all day long, but I think that anyone who is neutral on the subject would agree "happy" stated that it "appears" that FAIR is distancing itself from the Book of Abraham, and then presented Gee's statement, which is the basis for "happy's" interpretation of his argument. He did not state that this is FAIRs stance, only that he interpreted the statement by Gee to be a precursor to future beliefs regarding the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham. I mean, it's not like the church has never backtracked on one of it's longheld beliefs or traditions.

The venom with which apologists turn on one another with regard to the Book of Abraham makes me wonder about the communal LDS belief in the Book of Abraham.

I have read both sides of the argument, and I have to say that it takes some large leaps in logic, common sense and rational thought to squeeze the Book of Abraham into the narrow confines that apologetic scholars have arrived at to prove that the book is true. I generally lean towards the premises set forth by Occams Razor, and the arguments of the apologists with regard to the Book of Abraham....there are so many assumptions and conjections that have to be entered into the argument for the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, that they dwarf the alternate and utterly simpler explanation that the book is not what the church has reported it to be.

What it shows is people seem to enjoy the fight than actually genuinely helping each other out. Some apologists are more in it for the hunt.

[mfbukowski]

So now we have to go back to the thread on Book of Mormon Fiction and change the titles?

Oh gosh- been there, done that.

[Walden]

CASteinman, I think that the quote that happy is referring to (and the CFR you keep begging for) is this statement by Gee: "So, if we lost the Book of Abraham, we would still have the fullness of the gospel: faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and endurance to the end, since these are contained in the Book of Mormon. We would also have the priesthood authority including the keys such as the sealing power. But we might note that the sealing power was not given until after the Book of Abraham that we have was revealed. And the temple endowment was not given to church members until after the publication of the Book of Abraham.

It will probably come as a surprise to many that I do not have a testimony of the Book of Abraham. That is, I have never received a spiritual confirmation of the truth of the Book of Abraham. I do not need one."

happy's paraphrasing may have been clumsy, but I don't think that it was maliscious, as you seem to imply.

Simply stated, Gee (prominent LDS scholar) doesn't have a testimony of the Book of Abraham, even after studying it is intently as he has, and argues that even without it, the LDS faith contains the fulness of the gospel.

"happy" simply, if awkwardly, tries to create a discussion centered on this staement, and ponders if these sentiments are a precursor to the church extracting itself from the truth claims that it has held in the past with regard to the Book of Abraham, whose historical validity as interpreted by mainstream LDS is tenuous, at the very best.

I swear, the Book of Abraham is the gift to the critics that just keeps on giving, as evidenced by even the apologists who appear to turn on one another whenever the book is questioned.

[Tacenda]

Do we study the BoA much in Sunday school? I only ask because I go back and forth between primary and relief society callings and may have missed it along the way.

[CASteinman]

Do we study the BoA much in Sunday school? I only ask because I go back and forth between primary and relief society callings and may have missed it along the way.

Sometimes. It is part of the cycle of classes. We do not study it every year.

Abraham is probably the only book of Scripture that I believe without any reservation at all. I believe it so fully that all the anti-Mormon mumbo jumbo about it does not even register for a moment with me.

It would not matter if they time traveled, got the original scroll, showed all kinds of stuff about it, got a signed confession from Joseph Smith that it was bogus and said "see.. its fake". The argument would simply not phase me one iota. It is the only book of scripture that has that resonance with me.

Edited August 21, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

CASteinman, I think that the quote that happy is referring to (and the CFR you keep begging for) is this statement by Gee: "So, if we lost the Book of Abraham, we would still have the fullness of the gospel: faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and endurance to the end, since these are contained in the Book of Mormon. We would also have the priesthood authority including the keys such as the sealing power. But we might note that the sealing power was not given until after the Book of Abraham that we have was revealed. And the temple endowment was not given to church members until after the publication of the Book of Abraham.

It will probably come as a surprise to many that I do not have a testimony of the Book of Abraham. That is, I have never received a spiritual confirmation of the truth of the Book of Abraham. I do not need one."

Can't be so. That quote does not say that he does not believe it. It does not even appear to say that he does not believe it -- because of the last few words.

happy's paraphrasing may have been clumsy, but I don't think that it was maliscious, as you seem to imply.

It never occurred to me that they were malicious.. and I never implied it. But his response to challenges were utterly awful and insulting.

Simply stated, Gee (prominent LDS scholar) doesn't have a testimony of the Book of Abraham, even after studying it is intently as he has, and argues that even without it, the LDS faith contains the fulness of the gospel.

I also do not have that kind of testimony about it. But I believe it more fully and completely than any other work -- even the Book of Mormon, about which I do have a spiritual testimony.

"happy" simply, if awkwardly, tries to create a discussion centered on this staement, and ponders if these sentiments are a precursor to the church extracting itself from the truth claims that it has held in the past with regard to the Book of Abraham, whose historical validity as interpreted by mainstream LDS is tenuous, at the very best.

Well, that's a whole separate issue... that would also be in dispute. FAIR publishes all kinds of things that are not the opinion of FAIR. It seems to me to be very wrong to misquote a passage from a single document and then ascribe a motive to FAIR out of that whole process.

The whole thing seems entirely wrong.

I swear, the Book of Abraham is the gift to the critics that just keeps on giving, as evidenced by even the apologists who appear to turn on one another whenever the book is questioned.

Maybe... but I don't know of any examples.

Edited August 21, 2012 by CASteinman

[altersteve]

I love the Book of Abraham. Like Gee, I don't need a spiritual confirmation of its truth, because I so strongly believe it contains the words of God.

[ANACO]

Gee never said he didn't have a testimony of the Book of Abraham - "testimony" as he defined it as being a spiritual confirmation of the Book of Abraham. But he believes in it based on his testimony of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. That's how many members in the Church believe - because all things cannot be understood at once.

It's a gift of the Spirit: See D&C 46:14.

[Walden]

Sometimes. It is part of the cycle of classes. We do not study it every year.

Abraham is probably the only book of Scripture that I believe without any reservation at all. I believe it so fully that all the anti-Mormon mumbo jumbo about it does not even register for a moment with me.

It would not matter if they time traveled, got the original scroll, showed all kinds of stuff about it, got a signed confession from Joseph Smith that it was bogus and said "see.. its fake". The argument would simply not phase me one iota. It is the only book of scripture that has that resonance with me.

So, if the book were disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt (through time travel even), and Joseph Smith admitted that he made the whole thing up, and the book proven to be a complete phony, you would still believe it to be authentic?

How is one supposed to argue with that line of logic and/or complete lack of critical thinking?

I mean, isn't it like saying that all those stories about Santa Claus make me feel good inside, they inspire me to be charitable and giving, and they even give my life a sense of purpose, so therefore, Santa Claus must be true?

Edited August 21, 2012 by Walden