Is Fair Trying To Offload The Book Of Abraham?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

I'd like to know who these "apologists" are who are "at each other's throats." You cannot be referring to happy, who by no stretch of the imagination is an "apologist." At the same time, who would revel with glee and delight at such a spectacle as you describe?

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.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us what "neutral" third-party observer would agree with happy on this matter. I don't even think that the two anti-Mormons I met at FAIR would agree with happy's interpretation.

By the way, the word is "semantics."

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.

Again, which "apologists" have turned on one another with venom?

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.

Perhaps you could summarize for us some of the premises which you accept based on the use of Occam's razor which demonstrate that the Book of Abraham "is not what the church has reported it to be." I'd be very interested in those points, since I too have read both sides of the debate and consider that Occam's razor delivers a very different conclusion from that reached by you.

[Hestia]

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 The question was withdrawn and your silliness is ignored.

Board rules require you to provide the reference when you make statements based on other sources.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

At least you and happy are on the same page in misrepresenting a crucial part of Gee's lecture. Perhaps a result of cognitive dissonance?

"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.

What are some of the main points which make the BofA's "historical validity . . . 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.

Who are these nameless "apologists" you keep citing?

[mfbukowski]

Everyone here seems to be looking into the thought processes of Bro. Gee. Maybe it would be better to let him talk for himself and not read too much into his written work minus the vocal intonations and stresses.

[Robert F. Smith]

from John Gee transcript:

It will probably come as a surprise to many that I do not have a testimony of the Book of Abraham.

Wow, that's interesting coming from the person known as the leading LDS apologist on the subject.

That is a classical case of text abuse, i.e., deliberately taking a sentence out of context in order to make it mean the opposite of that intended by the writer or speaker.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

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.o...raham-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.

Even disregarding its spiritual value, the BOA is an important key to understanding the symbolism of the endowment, and is internal strong evidence that the ordinances are about the savior from beginning to end.

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

Often militant atheists will make similar statements about religious beliefs in general, or of specific beliefs such as the Resurrection of Jesus or of the Holy status of the Bible, mocking them by comparison with the fairy faith of children or of belief in old Saint Nick. Ridicule is a substitute for rational argument and exhibits a "complete lack of critical thinking."

Surely you have a firmer basis than this for your rejection of the Book of Abraham.

[Robert F. Smith]

my goodness you people are ruthless or extremely overly sensitive to someone expressing an opinion or both.

Gee spends whatever unnecessary amount of time covering theories (not sure if they are his theories or not) of the Book of Abraham, yet all one need read is the final paragraphs. He admits he does not have a testimony of the BOA says he does need one. He also suggests that we would do just fine without the BOA.

The doing fine w/out the Book could be construed as a veiled and preliminary effort to distance oneself from the Book.

A lack of testimony could be interpreted as non-belief. And givien that Gee's position is we would be ok with it, that tends to suggest nonbelief.

All of which reminds me of George Orwell's concept of newspeak and doublethink. Make any claim often enough and with enough self-assurance and it soon becomes true, even though it is the direct opposite of reality.

[mfbukowski]

Now you semi concede Happy's point and offer your own opinion on the matter. Thank You.

Ah yes, the fatal "semi concede".

Whatever that is supposed to mean.

[volgadon]

Ah yes, the fatal "semi concede".

Whatever that is supposed to mean.

The semi concede is the bast-rd son of the semicolon.

Edited August 22, 2012 by volgadon

[mfbukowski]

The semi concede is the bast-rd son of the semicolon.

That poor guy- he must have terrible constant stomach cramps with a semicolon!