Boa - Catalyst And Missing Papyrus Theories Both Deeply Flawed

[DBMormon]

If we are just focusing on production then I think David Bokovoy's book, which I highly recommend,  deals with this very issue in his chapter on the Book of Abraham.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Authoring-Testament-Genesis%C2%96-Deuteronomy-David-Bokovoy/dp/1589585887/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415984069&sr=8-1&keywords=authoring+the+old+testament

 

 

David points out that the due to "...Book of Abraham's textual dependency on late Judean sources that came into being over a millennium after the time of Abraham, making it impossible to directly connect the book of scripture with the ancient Patriarch".  Authoring the Old Testament by David Bokovoy pg 165

 

So, according to David, whether or not you favor the catalyst or missing scroll theories, Abraham did not write what was on the Joseph Smith papyri. 

 

I also agree that David's view (One I think Brian Hauglid has similar approach to) is the closest thing we have to a valid working perspective.  I have read his book and even interviewed him for my podcast (twice) but this also brings in other questions which I wrote then deleted as I don't want to give people here a reason to sidetrack.... lets stay focused on the OP and who can offer a reconciled view.  I feel like no one really wants to tackle that but would rather push me down other side streets.

[stemelbow]

Then take a position of standing with one of these and reconcile its flaws with a reasonable argument.  I would enjoy seeing one made.

I lean towards a catalyst theory myself.

you argue, or someone you quoted argued:

"It contradicts Smith’s own statements that the papyri were written by in the “handwriting of Abraham,” “by his own hand” and “sign[ed by] the patriarch Abraham.”"

Brian said, "The words JS was "translating" were originally written by the hand of Abraham. JS may have incorrectly assumed that the papryi were that original."

I agree. Smith might have misunderstood himself. No big deal for me.

"It contradicts all of the evidence stated above that Smith’s source of the Book of Abraham was the Breathing Permit of Hor."

I don't know that there's a good case to be made that Joseph realized from whence the words he was receiving were coming from. I don't know that it's the best case to say Joseph thought it was coming from the Breathing Permit to begin with.

"If true, the Catalyst theory would mean that Smith’s translations and restorations of the facsimiles were revelation from God, and thus we must conclude that God was directing Smith to incorrectly translate and restore the facsimiles."

I would not argue that the translations must be correct. If Joseph made assumptions regarding the translations, if he felt inspired to give us the info for the facsimiles then so be it.

"There are numerous anachronisms throughout the Book of Abraham, including “Chaldea,” “Pharoah,” “Egyptus,” etc. If true, the Catalyst theory would mean that God directed Smith to include anachronisms in the Book of Abraham and to falsely attribute them to Abraham."

I say welcome to scripture, which includes the Book of Mormon and Bible.

[cinepro]

Nothing, it is so much fun to rip apart what you believe and offer you nothing in return.

 

The catalyst theory is fine for me. I see no compelling reason to disbelieve it.

 

Sorry Duncan and Mola, that's not how it works.  The scope of truth about anything is not limited to the existing theories. 

 

In the case of a faith-based belief like the Book of Abraham, it is perfectly valid for believers and non-believers alike to state that they do not subscribe to the existing theories without needing to offer a different (let alone better) theory in return.

[stemelbow]

Sorry Duncan and Mola, that's not how it works.  The scope of truth about anything is not limited to the existing theories. 

 

In the case of a faith-based belief like the Book of Abraham, it is perfectly valid for believers and non-believers alike to state that they do not subscribe to the existing theories without needing to offer a different (let alone better) theory in return.

It may be that God's ways are such that we will not be able to figure them out at all. There may never be a non-problematic argument. So, with the arguments before us, where do we go?

Edited November 14, 2014 by stemelbow

[Brian 2.0]

.... lets stay focused on the OP and who can offer a reconciled view.  I feel like no one really wants to tackle that but would rather push me down other side streets.

In the case of a faith-based belief like the Book of Abraham, it is perfectly valid for believers and non-believers alike to state that they do not subscribe to the existing theories without needing to offer a different (let alone better) theory in return.

 

DB, I think cinepro's answer is where this thread will end up.  If you're looking for some grand unifying theory on the productions of the BoA without any holes or questions that the lead to more questions... you're not going to find it.   There's probably a good reason that the lds.org essay on the matter pretty much presents all the theories as possibilities and don't claim one.  In the end... all the explanations are "side streets" as your say... Bits and pieces here and there from various theories that when taken as a whole leave people with some room for belief.

[JLHPROF]

And as long as man tries to find mortal proof for the origin of scripture, the adversary will be sure and make it impossible.

 

The Bible is full of errors and misinterpretations.  The Book of Mormon has no source material available.  The D&C was given direct from heaven and so has no proof of accuracy.  And the Book of Abraham is not a direct translation of the papyri.

 

Yep, Satan sure does like it when we question the authenticity of God's word.

Fortunately I know by the spirit they are all true, regardless of whether we can track the source.

I don't care if Joseph made it up off the top of his head, was given it by a passing monk, or saw it in the sky one day - the end result is holy scripture.

 

Those who try to prove God's existence, scripture, the correctness of true gospel, or any other thing designed for faith will always fail.  It's designed that way.  You cannot prove or disprove religion with scientific or historical methods and you won't in this life.

Edited November 14, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Mystery Meat]

Do you have faith in a flying spaghetti monster?  could you?  or would there at least need to be valid room for faith in something to have faith in it.  I choose not to have faith in something as historically true if to my mind it is obviously not historically true.  Not saying I am there with the BOA but just combating your perception that we can choose to have faith in anything.

 

Using the flying spaghetti monster though is a terrible way for to try and make your point. I get what you are trying to say. But even IF (and I am not conceding the point) the BOA was an incorrect translation of a scroll already in our possession, why is it so unreasonable to have faith that the Lord still inspired a factually and historically accurate account that we now possess? Is that any harder to believe than the Book of Moses? Is it any harder to believe than the Son of God was born of a virgin woman? I could think of countless things that are more improbable in the realm of faith. The BOA is one of the easier ones in my opinion. And if a person chooses not to have faith, it is just that, a choice.

 

Plain and simple.

[DBMormon]

DB, I think cinepro's answer is where this thread will end up.  If you're looking for some grand unifying theory on the productions of the BoA without any holes or questions that the lead to more questions... you're not going to find it.   There's probably a good reason that the lds.org essay on the matter pretty much presents all the theories as possibilities and don't claim one.  In the end... all the explanations are "side streets" as your say... Bits and pieces here and there from various theories that when taken as a whole leave people with some room for belief.

But offering 10 severely flawed theories is no more an answer than choosing one.  Just as CES letter uses the list as a method, so does the Church and apologists

 

Just listing a bunch of possible theories with each being severely flawed is essentially the same as saying, we have no theory as each has their problems.  

[Brian 2.0]

You cannot prove or disprove religion with scientific or historical methods and you won't in this life.

 

But you can make a case for or against certain specific religious or historical claims.  And it's fun!  Why you gotta poop on our party? 

[Brian 2.0]

But offering 10 severely flawed theories is no more an answer than choosing one.  Just as CES letter uses the list as a method, so does the Church and apologists

 

Just listing a bunch of possible theories with each being severely flawed is essentially the same as saying, we have no theory as each has their problems.  

 

I don't disagree with you on this point.

[DBMormon]

lvjd66,

I have been taught that real faith is based in that which is true.  If my logic, intelligence, ponder, study, conscience, and gut indicate that something simply doesn't fit and prayer gives me no answer of historicity, and I value the goal to seek truth and to not follow nonsense simply because it makes one happier or free to skip reality then some will choose to follow that rationale thinking.  Non of the theories work and yet we still throw them out as life preservers.... except they don't float. 

[drums12]

I've recently corresponded with Ed Goble on his work regarding everything BofA related.  Interesting stuff.

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/

[Mystery Meat]

DB, I think cinepro's answer is where this thread will end up.  If you're looking for some grand unifying theory on the productions of the BoA without any holes or questions that the lead to more questions... you're not going to find it.   There's probably a good reason that the lds.org essay on the matter pretty much presents all the theories as possibilities and don't claim one.  In the end... all the explanations are "side streets" as your say... Bits and pieces here and there from various theories that when taken as a whole leave people with some room for belief.

 

This. We have to faith. It really is that simple. God wants it to be that way. If you have to find a 100% logical explanation for everything before you can practice faith...well I would suggest that is not faith.

[DBMormon]

Many here always doubt my motives.  I have faith and I am in the Church for good.  My issue is the frustration I have at the mental gymnastics and unreasonableness many take in defending their faith.  I wish we could get to the place we don't feel the need to defend our beliefs with severely flawed reasoning and simply said "we don't have a good answer for that, but I personally still choose to believe."  That is what we are doing anyway. Just stop trying to get people to jump through hoops.  Just say "This faith is like every other religion, in that some of its history won't make sense, some of its Doctrine when deeply thought out are not as smoothly connected as we thought, and many of its assumptions may turn out incorrect, but also like all faiths, belief is a choice and the choice is yours"  I for one am in and that in spite of those flaws, I love being Mormon

Edited November 14, 2014 by DBMormon

[Brian 2.0]

The least flawed theory in my mind is that the papyri have nothing at all to do with the Abraham and that JS incorrectly assumed that the thoughts in his head were the contents of the papyri.

 

From there you have to decide if those thoughts in his head and the resulting words of the BoA originated in JS head due to his interest and study on the matter or if they originated with God. 

[Mystery Meat]

lvjd66,

I have been taught that real faith is based in that which is true.  If my logic, intelligence, ponder, study, conscience, and gut indicate that something simply doesn't fit and prayer gives me no answer of historicity, and I value the goal to seek truth and to not follow nonsense simply because it makes one happier or free to skip reality then some will choose to follow that rationale thinking.  Non of the theories work and yet we still throw them out as life preservers.... except they don't float. 

 

My faith is that the BOA is the word of God. I believe that it is TRUE. My faith in its divine source and holiness is not dependent on how it came to be (whether by direct translation or some other method. It simply doesn't matter. The how is completely, totally and utterly insignificant).

 

I am sure this sounds offensive, I don't mean it as such because I have been there before, but to me I think what you are saying is that you are uncomfortable not having all the answers before you exercise faith. But if we did there would be no need for faith. And there is a need for faith. Even faith in the "flying spaghetti monsters" of Mormon doctrine.

[Mystery Meat]

Many here always doubt my motives.  I have faith and I am in the Church for good.  My issue is the frustration I have at the mental gymnastics and unreasonableness many take in defending their faith.  I wish we could get to the place we don't feel the need to defend our beliefs with severely flawed reasoning and simply said "we don't have a good answer for that, but I personally still choose to believe."  That is what we are doing anyway. Just stop trying to get people to jump through hoops.  Just say "This faith is like every other religion, in that some of its history won't make sense, some of its Doctrine when deeply thought out are not as smoothly connected as we thought, and many of its assumptions may turn out incorrect, but also like all faiths, belief is a choice and the choice is yours"  I for one am in and that in spite of those flaws, I love being Mormon

 

But see you are equating mental gymnastics with faith. I do not see how or where I have performed any such gymnastics. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

My faith is that the BOA is the word of God. I believe that it is TRUE. My faith in its divine source and holiness is not dependent on how it came to be (whether by direct translation or some other method. It simply doesn't matter. The how is completely, totally and utterly insignificant).

 

I am sure this sounds offensive, I don't mean it as such because I have been there before, but to me I think what you are saying is that you are uncomfortable not having all the answers before you exercise faith. But if we did there would be no need for faith. And there is a need for faith. 

 

The problem is not that we have to exercise faith. We exercise faith in matters where evidence is lacking all the time. Its not that we have to have all the answers. We rarely do. What trips me up is we have the fascimiles and they don't match up. We almost certainly have the source text for the book of Abraham and it doesn't match up. Joseph Smith believed he was literally translating. If he was wrong about that what else is he wrong about?

 

I guess I don't know how I feel about a God that doesn't just make things ambiguous (by say taking back the plates after the book of mormon was translated), but purposefully lays down road blocks to faith by letting the Joseph's understanding of Egyptian be so far from modern scholarship. 

[DBMormon]

My faith is that the BOA is the word of God. I believe that it is TRUE. My faith in its divine source and holiness is not dependent on how it came to be (whether by direct translation or some other method. It simply doesn't matter. The how is completely, totally and utterly insignificant).

 

I am sure this sounds offensive, I don't mean it as such because I have been there before, but to me I think what you are saying is that you are uncomfortable not having all the answers before you exercise faith. But if we did there would be no need for faith. And there is a need for faith. Even faith in the "flying spaghetti monsters" of Mormon doctrine.

Actually I am quite comfortable not having the answers.  I am uncomfortable with people in the midst of not having answers still throwing flawed answers out like they resolve the problem....that approach is the problem.  We have to stop acting as if Mormonism fits cleanly and hence nothing is up for debate.  Mormonism in some ways is a mess and faith is clearly a choice and nothing is an absolutely known generally... we each hope in the gospel and we know less than many of us assume.

[Mystery Meat]

Many here always doubt my motives.  I have faith and I am in the Church for good.  My issue is the frustration I have at the mental gymnastics and unreasonableness many take in defending their faith.  I wish we could get to the place we don't feel the need to defend our beliefs with severely flawed reasoning and simply said "we don't have a good answer for that, but I personally still choose to believe."  That is what we are doing anyway. Just stop trying to get people to jump through hoops.  Just say "This faith is like every other religion, in that some of its history won't make sense, some of its Doctrine when deeply thought out are not as smoothly connected as we thought, and many of its assumptions may turn out incorrect, but also like all faiths, belief is a choice and the choice is yours"  I for one am in and that in spite of those flaws, I love being Mormon

 

DB, if I may add one more thing here. I have been on this board for coming up on two years now, and I think you, unfairly at times, like to play the role of victim. From my perspective you have a lot of pet issues (gross vs. net, BOA, April 6, etc.), and you are particularly defensive when someone has a different way or method of examining the issue than you do. My initial response was basically, "I don't know the hows and whys but I have faith the BOA is the word of God." You didn't like that and, quite offensively I might add, equated my faith (basically calling it blind faith) to a belief in a flying spaghetti monster. That is going to result in some push back when you are as condescending as you sometimes are to other people's perspective. You are smart guy and your experiences and testimony make you a valuable member of the Church...just like the rest of us. But your attitude about other peoples views and perspectives gives off an impression that its your way or nothing, and if others don't have a problem with the issues you do than for one reason or another they are misguided, wrong, or worse. I believe the BOA to be the word of God, but you seem dead set on not letting me have that faith. Again, just because you can't or wont have that same faith based on the evidence doesn't mean that I can't and that my faith is ill placed and fruitless. 

 

No offense was intended by this post. I like you and I have defended you on this board in the past. Just some thoughts for what they are worth.

Edited November 14, 2014 by lvjd66

[Mystery Meat]

Actually I am quite comfortable not having the answers.  I am uncomfortable with people in the midst of not having answers still throwing flawed answers out like they resolve the problem....that approach is the problem.  We have to stop acting as if Mormonism fits cleanly and hence nothing is up for debate.  Mormonism in some ways is a mess and faith is clearly a choice and nothing is an absolutely known generally... we each hope in the gospel and we know less than many of us assume.

 

Which is what I have been saying throughout this thread if you go back and read my posts. I have faith because I don't know. But that doesn't mean my faith is blind. I do believe (again please note my word choice) that there are people who do KNOW. Just because you and I don't, doesn't mean there aren't others who do. It is not up for me and you to decide who knows and who doesn't. Sometimes we have to take them at their word and not let it bother us.

[stemelbow]

Actually I am quite comfortable not having the answers.  I am uncomfortable with people in the midst of not having answers still throwing flawed answers out like they resolve the problem....that approach is the problem.  We have to stop acting as if Mormonism fits cleanly and hence nothing is up for debate.  Mormonism in some ways is a mess and faith is clearly a choice and nothing is an absolutely known generally... we each hope in the gospel and we know less than many of us assume.

I don't know what you expect. We have partial data and people want to draw their conclusions, or provide theories of what might have been. it's always going to be as long as we see through a dark glass.

You don't want people to explore and offer ideas to consider? You want LDS people to keep their traps shut until there's agreed upon explanations for each issue the faith raises? Seems unreasonable to me.

Edited November 14, 2014 by stemelbow

[Mystery Meat]

The problem is not that we have to exercise faith. We exercise faith in matters where evidence is lacking all the time. Its not that we have to have all the answers. We rarely do. What trips me up is we have the fascimiles and they don't match up. We almost certainly have the source text for the book of Abraham and it doesn't match up. Joseph Smith believed he was literally translating. If he was wrong about that what else is he wrong about?

 

I guess I don't know how I feel about a God that doesn't just make things ambiguous (by say taking back the plates after the book of mormon was translated), but purposefully lays down road blocks to faith by letting the Joseph's understanding of Egyptian be so far from modern scholarship. 

 

I don't know. How's that for an answer?

 

Also, for the record, I do believe in a God who purposefully makes it hard to have faith. So...yeah.

[DBMormon]

But see you are equating mental gymnastics with faith. I do not see how or where I have performed any such gymnastics. 

Joseph said he was translating the papyri.  He was sure he was.  He translated the facsimiles and then we claim hew wasn't translating the papyri and God must have given him an alternative translation of the papyri and yet you say there are no mental gymnastics in your faith.

 

We say Joseph married a an older teen (Fanny Alger) and those around him thought it was an affair and it occurred before sealing keys were given and it produced no righteous seed and we rationally explain it away but use no mental gymnastics in doing so.

 

We declared blacks as less valiant and said it was Doctrine and now it isn't and somehow that is just explained simply and clear cut.

 

God said stop practicing polygamy in 1890 and we continued but that is explained simply as God didn't mean to do it right away but rather allowed us to continue.

 

Then entire essay on the BOA is mental gymnastics.

 

To us in the moment it may seem like reasonable intellectual explanations.... but it is hard to see the forest from the trees.  In reality all religions have and depend on some mental gymnastics. (again don't misquote me, I am a believer and a faithful member)

[Mystery Meat]

Joseph said he was translating the papyri.  He was sure he was.  He translated the facsimiles and then we claim hew wasn't translating the papyri and God must have given him an alternative translation of the papyri and yet you say there are no mental gymnastics in your faith.

 

We say Joseph married a an older teen (Fanny Alger) and those around him thought it was an affair and it occurred before sealing keys were given and it produced no righteous seed and we rationally explain it away but use no mental gymnastics in doing so.

 

We declared blacks as less valiant and said it was Doctrine and now it isn't and somehow that is just explained simply and clear cut.

 

God said stop practicing polygamy in 1890 and we continued but that is explained simply as God didn't mean to do it right away but rather allowed us to continue.

 

Then entire essay on the BOA is mental gymnastics.

 

To us in the moment it may seem like reasonable intellectual explanations.... but it is hard to see the forest from the trees.  In reality all religions have and depend on some mental gymnastics. (again don't misquote me, I am a believer and a faithful member)

 

***Exasperated Sigh***

 

So what answer can I give you that will make you happy? Because you clearly don't like that I have faith that the BOA is the word of God. I am not sure why, but you clearly don't.