The Real Scoop On The Book Of Abraham

[Darren10]

Well, I don't care if you do read it. That's up to you.

Ohhhh, no, I'll read it but for now I'm brushing up with my cowardly homies who run scared and use strong armed tactics to hide physical evidence. that's what FAIR's about so far as I can tell.

I know what I believe, and if you want to know what I believe, then read it. If you don't, then don't.

But I do want to know what you believe, truly I do.

For starter's Joseph Smith's handwriting is present in the Egyptian Alphabet/Grammar sections, and the rest is done by his scribes.

Correct. Please read footnote #25 starting on page 225 on the BOAP link I provided and will reprovide here: http://www.boap.org/...tary-on-BOA.pdf. How is this running away from the truth?

Yet, in this one case, the whole Scribes-did-it theory hangs on the fact that the apologists MUST insist that Joseph Smith's scribes were monkeying around, and not writing what was dictated to them. They do this without any other reason than it is an article of faith of their ideology that they MUST divorce Joseph Smith from responsibility for the KEP at all costs.

I ask you for physical evidence of what convinces you that Joseph Smith was responsible for the KEP and you respond to a matter I already know about and have even linked you to and the rest of what you provide is mental supposition of LDS apologists. Assuming the mental state of LDS apologist like John Gee is hardly physical evidence of what Joseph Smith did.

The KEP, to them, is expendable, because if they can get rid of the KEP from the equation, they can assert there is a missing papyrus, and therefore, they can divorce the physical evidence for the translation process from the Book of Abraham itself.

Yet, as per my link, they don't do that at all. They hide nothing nor divorce nothing. Your profoundly conspiratorial nose sniffing abilities and all do not lead to a conclusion that Joseph Smith is responsible for the kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Rather than solving the problem, they evade the problem.

Oh, brother.

Rather than providing good explanations that harmonize with evidence to uphold faith, they use sophistry to insist on an implausible pile of goo to uphold faith, and expect everybody without a measure of critical thought to buy it, while those that do have a measure of critical thought apostatize over it.

:bad:

Edited February 21, 2013 by Darren10

[Brian 2.0]

If only we had the source text for the Book of Abraham, and were able to decipher it, we would be able to assess the relative accuracy of Joseph Smith's translation.

If only we had the source facsimile for the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham, and were able to decipher it, we would be able to assess the relative accuracy of Joseph Smith's translation.

oh wait... we do have that. So how many hits and misses? What's the end total?

[Darren10]

#68;

That is why John Gee used his muscle to push it through and back it, because it upholds his position of the Missing Papyrus theory.

I'm Gee, John Gee.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Darren10

[DBMormon]

I don't think it possible. Every one has biases and what we do is influenced by them.

Who decides what the top 15 issues are?

Openstories Survey

[William Schryver]

Will Schryver's cipher theory is just an extension of the missing papyrus theory dressed up in new clothes.

No, it's not. My hypotheses of the KEP have nothing to do with any "missing papyrus theory."

It's a strategy to still steer away from the idea that Joseph Smith was responsible for the KEP.

No, it's not.

That is why John Gee used his muscle to push it through and back it, because it upholds his position of the Missing Papyrus theory.

John had nothing to do with my research, the formation of my hypotheses, nor did he have anything to do with promoting it, or "push[ing] it through" -- whatever that is supposed to mean. You don't know what you're talking about.

It's somewhat plausible, but I disagree with it.

You don't know what you're disagreeing with.

And it actually has some things in common with Goble's theory inasmuch that Goble says that iconotropy was applied to the papyrus anciently the way Barney does, but applies iconotropy to the characters of the text also. That is essentially kind of a similar idea because Schryver has someone like Phelphs assigning meaning to characters in the modern day, while Goble has someone assigning meaning to characters anciently and Joseph Smith receiving revelation on those meanings assigned by the person doing the semitic adaptation.

Your garbled insinuations concerning my hypotheses are based in your apparent misunderstanding of what I have argued. Perhaps you would do well to review my presentation (linked above).

[Damien the Leper]

If only we had the source text for the Book of Abraham, and were able to decipher it, we would be able to assess the relative accuracy of Joseph Smith's translation.

That would be nice. If nothing else, I would like for the source to be provided at as a slap to the face of anti-Mormons. I know...not very Christ-like but I'm not gonna apologize. The anti camp is getting on my last nerve it seems.

[Darren10]

John had nothing to do with my research, the formation of my hypotheses, nor did he have anything to do with promoting it, or "push[ing] it through" -- whatever that is supposed to mean. You don't know what you're talking about.

You're lucky. John Gee is one ripped dude.

You don't know what you're disagreeing with.

LoL - Ditto that!!!

[Darren10]

oh wait... we do have that. So how many hits and misses? What's the end total?

Can we include vindications?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60109-the-real-scoop-on-the-book-of-abraham/page__st__40#entry1209226893

To answer you, I'd say we have 100% actual hits and perhaps (this is a totally wild guess) 98% supposed misses.

What do I win?

[wenglund]

And again, whether something is penned in Phelp's hand only proves once again that he is a scribe, since that is all it ever proved from anyone else that ever wrote from Smith, in his dictations of things from the Book of Mormon to the Doctrine and Covenants. It doesn't prove that he was mastermind of anything. And that is just yet another tactic of Scribes-did-it theory advocates to assert that Phelphs is responsible and not Smith.

Are you fallaciously assuming that since Phelps took dictation from Joseph for certain revelations, that anything written by Phelps that may have some association with Joseph, was invariably a dictation from Joseph? In other words, are you suggesting that the letters from Phelps to his wife written while living with Joseph, some of which included excerpts from Joseph, were actually dictated by Joseph? Are you saying that the hymns Phelps compiled and published for the Church (some of which he wrote), under Joseph's direction, were dictated by Joseph to Phelps. And, can you please explain why one of the Egyptian Alphabet's is in Joseph's handwriting if he was supposedly dictating to Phelps?

I could go on and on, but hopefully you start to see that just because a document was in the handwriting of Phelps, it doesn't mean that it was dictated by Joseph. Again, there is mounting evidence that much of the KEP wasn't dictated, and some of which may have been compiled before Joseph even became involved--your sweepingly and uniformed and dogmatic dismissals notwithstanding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 21, 2013 by wenglund

[DBMormon]

If you're referring to Kerry Muhlestein, why the quotes on "expert"? Were you quoting something off the website, or do you doubt his credentials?

The side that agrees with him sees what he says as credible and the side that disagrees accuses him of not knowing what he is talking about, therefore expert seems subjective

[wenglund]

The side that agrees with him sees what he says as credible and the side that disagrees accuses him of not knowing what he is talking about, therefore expert seems subjective

Are you suggesting that "expertise" is a function of whether people agree with someone or not rather than academic or professional credentials?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

There are things that Ritner has said that I disagree with, but I don't question his expertise as an Egyptologist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 21, 2013 by wenglund

[Helen47]

John, give up, its like talking to a brick wall. I have seen Weglund on the other board and he talks to critics with a condesending tone. I call it Mormonspeak. I know how you feel and your frustration they do not get it.I remember talking to a guy who had a Master in philosophy from BYU, he said it would mean the loss of his marriage and family if he accepted this material on the BOA. Funny though he did divorce his wife some years later and has remarried still involved in the LDS church. Fac 3 has enough material readable on it to show it has nothing to do with Abraham.

[Brian 2.0]

Do apologists here believe that non-LDS scholars and Egyptologists should be able to conclude based on the evidence that the facsimiles and/or text on the papyri have connection to the Book of Abraham?

[Damien the Leper]

John, give up, its like talking to a brick wall. I have seen Weglund on the other board and he talks to critics with a condesending tone. I call it Mormonspeak. I know how you feel and your frustration they do not get it.I remember talking to a guy who had a Master in philosophy from BYU, he said it would mean the loss of his marriage and family if he accepted this material on the BOA. Funny though he did divorce his wife some years later and has remarried still involved in the LDS church. Fac 3 has enough material readable on it to show it has nothing to do with Abraham.

What other board?

Wade and I haven't always gotten along and we have disagreed more times than the number years we have both been alive combined (him: 113; me: 29.5) but you learn to look past his stubbornness. I like to think of Wade as a friend now...though I'm not sure that if given the chance that I would shake his hand or kick him in both shins.

[JohnShultz]

Sorry mr. Schryver but i have not misunderstood your core assumption that phelps et al are responsible. Not Smith. I have not misunderstood your core assumption that a person in the modern era gave the characters their meaning and it was not a translation effort. I have not misunderstood you at all

[wenglund]

John, give up, its like talking to a brick wall.

I note the irony of being called a brick wall in the process of advocating for open-mindedness and acceptance of varied points of view. Who said the critics don't have a sense of humor? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JohnShultz]

Mr Englund it is not a fallacy to conclude contrary to your opinion. And your absurdities speak for themselves. Having a strong opinion makes one opinionated. Not dogmatic

[ERayR]

Sorry mr. Schryver but i have not misunderstood your core assumption that phelps et al are responsible. Not Smith. I have not misunderstood your core assumption that a person in the modern era gave the characters their meaning and it was not a translation effort. I have not misunderstood you at all

Good now that we know you understand but do not agree perhaps you can come up with some lucid arguments as to why.

[ERayR]

I note the irony of being called a brick wall in the process of advocating for open-mindedness and acceptance of varied points of view. Who said the critics don't have a sense of humor? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One is only open minded if you agree with the critics.

[wenglund]

What other board?

Wade and I haven't always gotten along and we have disagreed more times than the number years we have both been alive combined (him: 113; me: 29.5) but you learn to look past his stubbornness. I like to think of Wade as a friend now...though I'm not sure that if given the chance that I would shake his hand or kick him in both shins.

I am honored to also be considered your friend. Feel free to kick me in the shins since they are made of clay.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

Nevermind.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

I am honored to also be considered your friend. Feel free to kick me in the shins since they are made of clay.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As the board member Halconero would say ".......wut?" Are you being serious?

[wenglund]

Mr Englund it is not a fallacy to conclude contrary to your opinion.

No one has suggested that it was. May I respectfully invite you to familiarize yourself with the fallacies of composition and accident.

And your absurdities speak for themselves.

Clearly, they speak something different to me than to you. Sadly, in all your reading you don't seem to understand that they aren't absurd, in and of themselves, but rather they show your fallacious position to be absurd. Please familiarize yourself with the critical thinking process of reductio ad absurdum.

Having a strong opinion makes one opinionated. Not dogmatic.

True. However, when one goes beyond stating a strong opinion, and becomes intolerant or closed or dismissive of different points of view, and speaks as if his opinions are fact, then by definition, he is, as repeatedly demonstrated in your case, dogmatic, and not deserving of a bone.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 22, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

As the board member Halconero would say ".......wut?" Are you being serious?

Yes and no. I am seriously honored to be considered your friend, but I am not serious about my legs being made of clay.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-