Boa - Catalyst And Missing Papyrus Theories Both Deeply Flawed

[HappyJackWagon]

Yes. The question is still hanging. How do we explain the BoA origins in a reasonable way? DB finds the current theories to be lacking. Is there anything better, or is that it?

 

Another question might be, "why doesn't church leadership seek, receive, and then provide the answer?"

 

 

In fact, there is scarcely any qualitative difference between doing that and doing what an avowed, garden-variety detractor would do. Yet DBMormon insists that he "leads with faith," whatever that means.

 

It seems Scott Lloyd has a personal vendetta against DBMormon. Scott, why do you find it necessary to attack at every opportunity. Are you feeling defensive? Seriously, why the regular attacks? I don't understand. Is it because he's suggested Deseret News has a bias? Nevermind, for get this line of questioning. It takes us away from the topic...again.

 

Are there any better theories?

[canard78]

In fact, there is scarcely any qualitative difference between doing that and doing what an avowed, garden-variety detractor would do. Yet DBMormon insists that he "leads with faith," whatever that means.

I've followed DBMormon long enough to feel confident in his sincerity. To lump him in with "garden variety detractors" is a pretty cheap shot.

DB is asking for ways of reconciling an issue that, for many who doubt, is a big one. A well-constructed response might help him represent the faith-facing perspective to the audience of his podcast.

But if you'd rather throw mud, go ahead.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In fact, there is scarcely any qualitative difference between doing that and doing what an avowed, garden-variety detractor would do. Yet DBMormon insists that he "leads with faith," whatever that means.

Yeah, I know he claims that, but just from this thread alone, I say that is a total crock.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm at a loss at how badly you can miss the point.

What a canard.

 

Sorry couldn't resist.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Scott Lloyd]

While I don't agree with DB's approach in all aspects, I don't think it is fair to attack or at least allude to an attack on his motives. I believe he is sincere and is just looking for answers.

I've said nothing about motives. Approach is what I'm talking about.

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems Scott Lloyd has a personal vendetta against DBMormon. Scott, why do you find it necessary to attack at every opportunity. Are you feeling defensive? Seriously, why the regular attacks? I don't understand. Is it because he's suggested Deseret News has a bias? Nevermind, for get this line of questioning. It takes us away from the topic...again.

 

In compliance with your request, then, I won't respond -- so long as you and others don't assume that, as suggested elsewhere on this thread, silence means concession.

[canard78]

I've said nothing about motives. Approach is what I'm talking about.

You really love your weasel words don't you?

To DBMormon, I don't think you're going to get much sense out of this lot. They either want to avoid giving an answer or are actively trying to antagonise to get the thread closed because they simply don't have an answer.

[Scott Lloyd]

You really love your weasel words don't you?

 

There were no weasel words in my post. I said I was referring to approach, and that's what I meant.

 

To DBMormon, I don't think you're going to get much sense out of this lot. They either want to avoid giving an answer or are actively trying to antagonise to get the thread closed because they simply don't have an answer.

 

 

And thus we have an illustration of the false notion I just alluded to: Declining or refusing to engage supposedly equates to concession.

 

Well, from here out, I guess I'll "spend time ignoring" (as you've put it) this thread.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

At the risk of going round in circles, I'm pointing out that you're applying a standard to DB that you don't apply to church leaders. When the 2013 race essay came out they disavowed the old theories for why the ban happened but provided a "we don't know" as to why it did happen. Elder Oaks said "I couldn't identify with any of the explanations that were given" but hasn't replaced the explanations with a new one. Is that ok or not?

So if DB says, in reference to the BoA origin, "I couldn't identify with any of the explanations that were given" without giving a new explanation he's doing no more or less than the church leaders have done on the subject of the race ban.

 

 

you're assuming that I or anyone else agrees with DBMormon's critiques of course. If you want to talk about race stuff, maybe the answer or theory is God hasn't said why but some people insist on looking beyond the mark, I hope I am not among them

 

I don't necessarily see the race ban and BOA on the same level, they are different. 

[cinepro]

no one is saying you aren't allowed to question a theory but tell us what is a better theory. In law this happens all the time, alternative theories of a crime. Prosecution says it's person A and the defence says no it's someone else

The defense doesn't need to say "no, it's someone else." They just have to make a good argument that it wasn't the person they're defending. The job of finding evidence for an alternate theory falls on those who are investigating and prosecuting the case. 

 

Sure, it's probably really nice to have the defense figure out what really happened in the course of defending their client, but that's not logically necessary for their client to be judged innocent. 

Edited November 17, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

The defense doesn't need to say "no, it's someone else." They just have to make a good argument that it wasn't the person they're defending. The job of finding evidence for an alternate theory falls on those who are investigating and prosecuting the case. 

 

Sure, it's probably really nice to have the defense figure out what really happened in the course of defending their client, but that's not logically necessary for their client to be judged innocent. 

What is being defended here?

[cinepro]

What is being defended here?

 

The discussion is about whether or not someone needs to present an alternate theory if they choose not to believe in an existing theory (or theories).   Duncan introduced the idea of a legal "defender" to illustrate the principle, and I was just pointing out that it doesn't hold. 

 

The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim (in the context of this thread, that would be anyone arguing for the "catalyst" or "missing papyrus" theories), and if they don't convince someone, that person isn't logically obligated to provide another alternative.

[Scott Lloyd]

The discussion is about whether or not someone needs to present an alternate theory if they choose not to believe in an existing theory (or theories).   Duncan introduced the idea of a legal "defender" to illustrate the principle, and I was just pointing out that it doesn't hold. 

 

The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim (in the context of this thread, that would be anyone arguing for the "catalyst" or "missing papyrus" theories), and if they don't convince someone, that person isn't logically obligated to provide another alternative.

On the contrary, I would posit that the burden of proof falls on those who mount attacks on theories or explanations that support the sacred scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Moreover, as I've been vociferously told in the last little while, it presumably is not in DBMormon's motive to attack that scripture. I'm told he "leads with faith." I assume that means (maybe I'm wrong) that he accepts the divine authenticity of the Book of Abraham. If that is the case, it is reasonable to ask, as Duncan has done, what theory or explanation he would propose in place of those he disparages.

 

With that said, I think I will now make good on my determination to ignore this thread, saying only that both the catalyst and the missing manuscript theories seem plausible to me and I don't find the attacks on them in the OP to be persuasive.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Brian 2.0]

...If that is the case, it is reasonable to ask, as Duncan has done, what theory or explanation he would propose in place of those he disparages.

 

And it's reasonable to answer with "I don't know what theory, if any, we should use, but let's stop using this one because it has a lot of problems."

[Scott Lloyd]

And it's reasonable to answer with "I don't know what theory, if any, we should use, but let's stop using this one because it has a lot of problems."

And it's reasonable to respond that, from the standpoint of believers, we don't purport to definitively prove through physical evidence the authenticity of divine scripture. It is sufficient to the moment to keep the question open so that a seeker may feel at liberty to take the question to God in prayer. So long as attacks do not compellingly refute the theories that have been advanced (and they don't, notwithstanding the certitude in the content cribbed from the New Order Mormons website and copied in the OP) they need not nor should not be discarded.

[pogi]

On the contrary, I would posit that the burden of proof falls on those who mount attacks on theories or explanations that support the sacred scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

I guess you have some work to do on reconciling both theories then if you refuse to question either.

[mfbukowski]

I guess you have some work to do on reconciling both theories then if you refuse to question either.

Huh?

 

Why would he have to reconcile both theories??  And why is he required to do so if he does NOT question them?  I do not understand this sentence at all

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess you have some work to do on reconciling both theories then if you refuse to question either.

How so?

 

I don't have to reconcile them unless they are apparently contradictory. It's not clear to me that they are? Can you explain?

 

And suppose I embraced one and rejected the other: Why would I then have to reconcile them? Please explain.

[Scott Lloyd]

Huh?

 

Why would he have to reconcile both theories??  And why is he required to do so if he does NOT question them?  I do not understand this sentence at all

Thank you.

 

I just said pretty much the same thing.

[pogi]

Scott, perhaps I misunderstood this statement:

 

On the contrary, I would posit that the burden of proof falls on those who mount attacks on theories or explanations that support the sacred scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

To me, it sounded like you are saying that any and all theories which attempt to validate scripture should not be questioned, which I disagree with.  Perhaps that was bad reading comprehension on my part.

 

I don't have to reconcile them unless they are apparently contradictory. It's not clear to me that they are? Can you explain?

 

They are contradictory in that theory 1 posits that it was a direct translation but we do not have the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated.  Theory 2 posits that it was not a direct translation.  They cannot both be true.

 

And why is he required to do so if he does NOT question them? 

 

If it is argued that it is wrong to question both theories and claim ignorance, then I would argue that it is just as ignorant and wrong to question neither.  Why do we need a theory to believe it?  Some people are comfortable enough in their spiritual security to tolerate logical voids.  If they feel like neither explanation makes sense to them and they still believe, who are we to attack them or their methods?

Edited November 18, 2014 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, perhaps I misunderstood this statement:

 

 

To me, it sounded like you are saying that any and all theories which attempt to validate scripture should not be questioned, which I disagree with.  Perhaps that was bad reading comprehension on my part.

 

 

That's not what I said. I said those who would attack or question said theories bear the burden of proof. That's quite different from saying they should not question the theories at alll.

 

They are contradictory in that theory 1 posits that it was a direct translation but we do not have the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated.  Theory 2 posits that it was not a direct translation.  They cannot both be true.

 

 

Of course they can.

 

The presence of the writings of Abraham would not preclude the manuscript being a catalyst for Joseph Smith to receive direct revelation, just as the plates were a catalyst for Joseph to receive direct revelation regarding the content of the Book of Mormon, even without him having to refer directly to writing on the plates. And, of course, if Joseph did receive direct revelation as a catalyst, that would not preclude there having been authentic writings from Abraham among the Egyptian paypyri, writings that have since been lost.

 

I don't have to reconcile the two theories; both could be true at the same time.

 

If it is argued that it is wrong to question both theories and claim ignorance, then I would argue that it is just as ignorant and wrong to question neither. 

 

 

I didn't say it was wrong to question the theories; I said those who do bear the burden of proof. See above.

 

Why do we need a theory to believe it?  Some people are comfortable enough in their spiritual security to tolerate logical voids.  If they feel like neither explanation makes sense to them and they still believe, who are we to attack them?

 

As I've already said, if enemies of the Church claim they have disproven the sacred scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ, it is useful to be able to rebut their attacks, even as we don't claim to be able to definitively prove the authenticity of scripture through physical evidence. As I said, it serves to keep the question so sincere seekers can feel at liberty to take the matter to God in prayer.

 

If some believers don't care what the enemies of the Church say, then fine. Not everybody is like that, though. And those who investigate the Church need a reasonable assurance that they can exercise faith about what they are being taught.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Mars]

I'm not an academic.  I'm a regular dude trying to make sure he's not bonkers by critical thinking.  As such, I don't feel the need to give an alternative when refusing (too harsh a word, but I can't think of anything better at the moment) to ascribe to a certain idea or set of ideas because I don't find it or them compelling.  Sometimes I just think "I don't accept this but I don't have a better answer right now."

 

I do think it's possible that folks use a beg-the-question approach to make a potshot or criticism against the Gospel.  I don't think that's what DBMormon did here, but I have seen that done elsewhere around here and especially in politics.  One of those "Imagine what my political opponent thinks OF YOU!!!" kinda deals.

[pogi]

The presence of the writings of Abraham would not preclude the manuscript being a catalyst for Joseph Smith to receive direct revelation, just as the plates were a catalyst for Joseph to receive direct revelation regarding the content of the Book of Mormon, even without him having to refer directly to writing on the plates. And, of course, if Joseph did receive direct revelation as a catalyst, that would not preclude there having been authentic writings from Abraham among the Egyptian paypyri, writings that have since been lost.

 

I don't have to reconcile the two theories; both could be true at the same time.

 

If that works for you, great, but direct translation vs. inspiration from non-Abrahamic writings are two contradictory ideas in my mind.   

 

I didn't say it was wrong to question the theories; I said those who do bear the burden of proof. See above.

 

You have suggested along with Duncan that it is wrong to question or discredit both theories without suggesting a new one.  

 

As I've already said, if enemies of the Church claim they have disproven the sacred scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ, it is useful to be able to rebut their attacks, even as we don't claim to be able to definitively prove the authenticity of scripture through physical evidence. As I said, it serves to keep the question so sincere seekers can feel at liberty to take the matter to God in prayer.

 

If some believers don't care what the enemies of the Church say, then fine. Not everybody is like that, though. And those who investigate the Church need a reasonable assurance that they can exercise faith about what they are being taught.

 

Investigators don't need a reasonable explanation regarding all aspects of Mormonism, they have enough reason to pray and believe without explaining every last little detail.  We should be confident enough in what we have to not feel the need to vehemently defend theories that may or may not even be true.  

 

I believe that conversion works much much better when we are on the spiritual offensive of eternal truths, rather than on the argumentative defensive of unproven theories. 

Edited November 18, 2014 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................................  

I did not write the above but found it to the point on the issues so please know my word choice may have been different.

So with that  how do you guys make this work?  What do you do to reconcile the BOA as authentic translated/transmitted scripture?

 

So, Bill, if you didn't write it, did you get it from TruthSeeker at the Mormondiscussions web site in his DropBox?  https://www.dropbox.com/s/tz1iy4q7w39wvor/The%20Book%20of%20Abraham%20Criticisms%20Defenses%20and%20Implications.pdf .  I recall that he presented his arguments from that same piece back in 2013 right here on this board, and I gave it a critique at that time.  My primary problem with his work is that he didn't bother to take scholarship on the matter into serious consideration, and so presented a quite naive and very one-sided set of arguments.  You have repeated the gist of his case herewith, and did not even bother to cite your source.  That doesn't bode well for throwing light on the issue.  Or do you think your approach is O.K.?

[canard78]

So, Bill, if you didn't write it, did you get it from TruthSeeker at the Mormondiscussions web site in his DropBox? https://www.dropbox.com/s/tz1iy4q7w39wvor/The%20Book%20of%20Abraham%20Criticisms%20Defenses%20and%20Implications.pdf . I recall that he presented his arguments from that same piece back in 2013 right here on this board, and I gave it a critique at that time. My primary problem with his work is that he didn't bother to take scholarship on the matter into serious consideration, and so presented a quite naive and very one-sided set of arguments. You have repeated the gist of his case herewith, and did not even bother to cite your source. That doesn't bode well for throwing light on the issue. Or do you think your approach is O.K.?

The exact wording is copied from a thread on the NOM board. DB linked to it earlier. The context is that DB had asked people with concerns to summarise their key issues so he could gather and source faith promoting responses which would then probably summarise in a future faith-promoting podcast.

Do you have a link you could share to your analysis of Truthseekers document?