Boa - Catalyst And Missing Papyrus Theories Both Deeply Flawed

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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,

 

I don't view people who challenge bad theories to be "enemies of the church." It's unfortunate that some do. By challenging the bad we create an opportunity to find a better theory and therefore greater truth. That's the hope. Labeling people as "enemies" for trying to find a better answer is ad hominem and misguided.

[Mars]

I don't view people who challenge bad theories to be "enemies of the church." It's unfortunate that some do. By challenging the bad we create an opportunity to find a better theory and therefore greater truth. That's the hope. Labeling people as "enemies" for trying to find a better answer is ad hominem and misguided.

 

It's tough to figure out who is really struggling and being sincere, and who is masquerading as a struggling Mormon in order to incite doubt or sow discord.  Some folks tend to see everyone as a wolf in sheep's clothing, and it is indeed unfortunate when they're wrong about a doubter's motivations, but nothing sucks worse than opening your heart to empathize and identify with someone's struggles, just to find they're being deliberately deceitful to get you to doubt the way they 'doubt.'

 

Critics are a mixed bag.  So are apologists.  It sucks, but it's life.

[Grudunza]

"Perhaps a believer never does more disservice to religion than to support the truth with bad arguments. The listener spots the obvious errors, becomes impatient, often “throws out the baby with the bath,” and turns away, even from true religion." - Dr. Henry Eyring

DB's particular angle is helping people through faith crises or transitions, while remaining faithful and connected to the church. So I imagine he's looking for good answers for things like BoA issues, and not just settling for *answers* that sound faith-promoting but may not hold water, which as Dr. Eyring describes, can be a disservice to the religion.

I'm content to say that I accept the BoA on faith for now, but I'm open to whatever the truth happens to be. Some contemporaries like David Whitmer suggested that Joseph was inspired for some things but not for others, or inspired by different influences at different times. I feel the BoA is inspired, regardless, but perhaps with a different definition of "inspired."

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

drums12 provides some useful perspectives, including mine, at post #14 in this thread.

 

I look forward to whatever Bill will provide in the way of a podcast, even though I think that he has been far to gullible in his approach thus far, in this thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't view people who challenge bad theories to be "enemies of the church." It's unfortunate that some do. By challenging the bad we create an opportunity to find a better theory and therefore greater truth. That's the hope. Labeling people as "enemies" for trying to find a better answer is ad hominem and misguided.

You've rather blatantly taken my post out of context.

 

I wasn't talking about people who merely challenge bad theories. I was talking about people whose intent is to falsify the authenticity of the Church's divine scriptures. I did so by way of explaining to someone why it is important to be able to rebut their attacks.

 

And no, it is neither "ad hominem" nor "misguided" to identify people who try to disprove the Church's fundamental scripture as enemies of the Church. Someone who wants to destroy the underpinnings of a thing could hardly be viewed as other than an enemy of that thing.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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

 

 

And in this I do believe you have misunderstood or mischaracterized the catalyst theory, which is not getting "inspiration form non-Abrahamic writings." Rather, it is suggesting that the papyri were a catalyst that caused Joseph to direct his mind toward receiving direct revelation from God that was not dependent upon any physical document or object that was before him. Joseph demonstrated his ability to do this under the gift and power of God with, for example, the revelation in Doctrine and Covenants Section 7, which is a revealed translation from the writings of the Apostle John. That translation was revealed to Joseph Smith without the aid of any document that he had in his possession.

 

I'm saying that, under the catalyst theory, the revelation would have come to the prophet regardless of whether there was any writing from Abraham among the papyri. Therefore, there is no contradiction that I am bound to reconcile between the catalyst theory and the lost manuscript theory. Both might be valid at the same time. Joseph might have received the translation by direct revelation, even while there was an authentic writing from Abraham among the documents he possessed.

 

I don't know how to explain this any more clearly to you.

 

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

 

What I have said is that it is reasonable to ask someone who is ostensibly a believer if he has anything better to offer after he has trashed two prominent theories.

 

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.

 

 

I never said otherwise. But it is helpful to some to be able to rebut bad arguments from critics and antagonists. This helps keep the question open so they can feel free to exercise their faith and go to God in prayer. That is the benefit of defending the faith. Would you deny this benefit to others who find it helpful?  

 

 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.

 

We can feel confident while at the same time advancing and supporting solid and plausible theories in defense of the faith. When plausibility is established, and when antagonistic attacks are rebutted, it is reassuring to those who are trying to strengthen their faith. Again, would you deny them that support? Who are you that you feel you have the right to do so?

 

 

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.

 

I think they go hand-in-hand, as I have explained above, in that they keep the playing field level despite the attacks from the Church's antagonists.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Mystery Meat]

"Perhaps a believer never does more disservice to religion than to support the truth with bad arguments. The listener spots the obvious errors, becomes impatient, often “throws out the baby with the bath,” and turns away, even from true religion." - Dr. Henry Eyring

DB's particular angle is helping people through faith crises or transitions, while remaining faithful and connected to the church. So I imagine he's looking for good answers for things like BoA issues, and not just settling for *answers* that sound faith-promoting but may not hold water, which as Dr. Eyring describes, can be a disservice to the religion.

I'm content to say that I accept the BoA on faith for now, but I'm open to whatever the truth happens to be. Some contemporaries like David Whitmer suggested that Joseph was inspired for some things but not for others, or inspired by different influences at different times. I feel the BoA is inspired, regardless, but perhaps with a different definition of "inspired."

 

Very good quote, and I agree with you on other points. I just don't think a catalyst theory (among others), constitutes a bad argument. I think we have good answers. I don't claim to KNOW, nor do I agree with those who have been criticizing DB for not providing other theories, but I don't think that means because DB doesn't think the answer holds water that I must agree with him. I also reject outright that a belief in a catalyst theory means I am engaged in mental gymnastics as a rule.

Edited November 18, 2014 by lvjd66

[Scott Lloyd]

drums12 provides some useful perspectives, including mine, at post #14 in this thread.

 

I look forward to whatever Bill will provide in the way of a podcast, even though I think that he has been far to gullible in his approach thus far, in this thread.

I sometimes wonder when he puts up thread like this whether he has bothered to familiarize himself with arguments to the contrary that are out there on the Internet, including the material on FairMormon Answers.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.?

Robert, I think it would be helpful at this point if you could link us to your critique, assuming it is not already covered in the links that drums12 provided earlier.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Very good quote, and I agree with you on other points. I just don't think a catalyst theory (among others), constitutes a bad argument. I think we have good answers. I don't claim to KNOW, nor do I agree with those who have been criticizing DB for not providing other theories, but I don't think that means because DB doesn't think the answer holds water that I must agree with him. I also reject outright that a belief in a catalyst theory means I am engaged in mental gymnastics as a rule.

I agree that his pronouncing them as "deeply flawed" -- or quoting someone else as doing so -- does not bind us to accept his or his source's dismissal of them.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

And in this I do believe you have misunderstood or mischaracterized the catalyst theory, which is not getting "inspiration form non-Abrahamic writings." Rather, it is suggesting that the papyri were a catalyst that caused Joseph to direct his mind toward receiving direct revelation from God that was not dependent upon any physical document or object that was before him. Joseph demonstrated his ability to do this under the gift and power of God with, for example, the revelation in Doctrine and Covenants Section 7, which is a revealed translation from the writings of the Apostle John. That translation was revealed to Joseph Smith without the aid of any document that he had in his possession.

That is essentially how the Book of Mormon was translated. The witness evidence suggests he did not use or refer to the plates in translation.

[cinepro]

And in this I do believe you have misunderstood or mischaracterized the catalyst theory, which is not getting "inspiration form non-Abrahamic writings." Rather, it is suggesting that the papyri were a catalyst that caused Joseph to direct his mind toward receiving direct revelation from God that was not dependent upon any physical document or object that was before him. Joseph demonstrated his ability to do this under the gift and power of God with, for example, the revelation in Doctrine and Covenants Section 7, which is a revealed translation from the writings of the Apostle John. That translation was revealed to Joseph Smith without the aid of any document that he had in his possession.

 

I'm saying that, under the catalyst theory, the revelation would have come to the prophet regardless of whether there was any writing from Abraham among the papyri. Therefore, there is no contradiction that I am bound to reconcile between the catalyst theory and the lost manuscript theory. Both might be valid at the same time. Joseph might have received the translation by direct revelation, even while there was an authentic writing from Abraham among the documents he possessed.

 

If the "missing papyrus" theory is correct, then the "catalyst" theory isn't needed.  The only reason we would need a "catalyst" theory is if the "missing papyrus" theory is incorrect.

 

As with so many other things, the Church (and apologists and other defenders) take the approach that "belief" or "faith" in the Book of Abraham is the paramount concern.  What you use to prop up that belief is irrelevant.  If someone firmly believed in the Book of Abraham, but their belief was based on the theory that Abraham appeared to Joseph Smith and dictated it in spirit form, no one would care, because they still believed.

 

It's the same thing with Book of Mormon geography.  There are two contradictory theories, both promoted by faithful members of the Church.  And the Church just flat out doesn't care.  As long as you believe in the BoM, it doesn't matter.  You can spend your time and money on books, tours, cruises and symposiums that teach a 100% incorrect Book of Mormon geography, but as long as you believe, it's okay.  And it would literally take 30 seconds of revelation and time in General Conference to totally clear this up. 

 

And in all this, the burden of proof still rests on the person (or Church) making the claim.  The LDS Church claims that the writings known as "The Book of Abraham" is a record of the Biblical prophet Abraham, translated by Joseph Smith from the Egyptian papyri. 

 

Now, you can say that the claim (and subsequent belief) is based on faith, and others should believe it on faith alone.  That's fine.  But what has happened is that people believe it on faith, and then want to try and support their faith by explaining apparently contradictory information.  So the different theories have been created to try and explain how I should have faith that Joseph Smith identified and translated the Book of Abraham from the papyri when it appears to everyone without faith (and even some with faith) that the papyri have absolutely nothing to do with Abraham.

 

That's how people get mixed up about "the burden of proof".  Because they don't see that they are making an actual claim about something.  They just see that they have faith, and that they've made a theory (or theories) part of their faith. And so when someone doesn't believe their theory, it's like they're questioning or attacking their faith.  Because if the theory isn't true, then that contradictory information still has to be dealt with.

 

Because while faith might be strong, for many people it isn't strong enough to overcome the fact that this is about as wrong as you can get.

Edited November 18, 2014 by cinepro

[Mars]

I feel dumb for asking, but I'm gonna do it anyway:

 

Has there been any effort to discover whether or not Joseph Smith's translations of the facsimilies are a representation of how Abraham attempted to teach the Egyptians using their own symbolism?  I've read bits and pieces about how ideas and religion cross pollinated between Egypt and Jewry, so maybe this has already been covered...?

 

(I totally hear how this sounds through a critic's ears, so don't bother pointing out how this is mental gymnastics, moving the goal posts, a stretch, etc...)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I feel dumb for asking, but I'm gonna do it anyway:

 

Has there been any effort to discover whether or not Joseph Smith's translations of the facsimilies are a representation of how Abraham attempted to teach the Egyptians using their own symbolism?  I've read bits and pieces about how ideas and religion cross pollinated between Egypt and Jewry, so maybe this has already been covered...?

 

(I totally hear how this sounds through a critic's ears, so don't bother pointing out how this is mental gymnastics, moving the goal posts, a stretch, etc...)

As I recall the biggest issue is that modern science doesn't even think Abraham was a real person. So this would just be a red herring.

 

It is something I have thought about. I think there have been some articles written to some extent about this very thing. I think there is just a lack of evicence, were you could even take a look at this view. IOW there is no standard that exist to even look at first.

[Mars]

Yeah, I suppose...

[stemelbow]

If the "missing papyrus" theory is correct, then the "catalyst" theory isn't needed.  The only reason we would need a "catalyst" theory is if the "missing papyrus" theory is incorrect.

We're missing the plates from which Joseph did not translate. meaning while he had the plates in his possession he did not use them or consult them as he did his translation of the Book of Mormon.

If the BoA translation and the BoM translation were the same or similar then I don't know that we can quickly throw out Scott's reasoning.

Edited November 18, 2014 by stemelbow

[cinepro]

Not if they expect people to accept their conclusions.

If someone is going to insist that the Book of Abraham can't be an inspired translation, then they need to do one of two things: either (1) show that an inspired translation has certain key characteristics that the BoA lacks, or (2) prove that it's something else that precludes it being an inspired translation.

Saying "It isn't, so there" doesn't work. We need a better explanation.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Let me get this straight.

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Church that is led by God through his Prophet, and proclaims to the world that The Book of Abraham is "a translation of some ancient records", currently has two theories about where this book came from:

 

1. Maybe God revealed it to Joseph Smith while he thought he was translating some ancient Egyptian scrolls.

2. Maybe Joseph actually did translate it from other ancient scrolls that are different than the ones we have, because the ones we have (including the actual pictures we have published, along with Joseph Smith's direct translation, in our canonized scriptures) are totally not it.

 

And now you are saying that people who see those theories and think "hmmm..I'm not buying it"  have to come up with a better explanation?  How about any explanation, because neither of those theories actually "explain" anything.   Those theories are simply guesses on how the Book of Abraham could be true in light of the fact that the existing papyri and facsimiles have nothing to do with Abraham or the text of the Book of Abraham. 

 

They don't "explain" the Book of Abraham.  They explain how someone could still believe the Book of Abraham is "true" in 2014.

Edited November 18, 2014 by cinepro

[cinepro]

We're missing the plates from which Joseph did not translate. meaning while he had the plates in his possession he did not use them or consult them as he did his translation of the Book of Mormon.

If the BoA translation and the BoM translation were the same or similar then I don't know that we can quickly throw out Scott's reasoning.

 

If all of the papyri had been lost, and the facsimiles and their attendant translations had never been published, then you might have a point.  It would be like The Book of Mormon.  We'd simply have "The Book of Abraham," and we'd all read it and wonder "Where did this come from?"   And we'd all assume that Joseph was able to translate the papryi and that the papryi really were the writings of Abraham, by his own hand.

 

Or, to put it another way, it would only be similar if the gold plates were still around, and subsequent analysis showed the gold plates to be the writings of an early group of vikings who had populated the area in 1000 AD , and they were written in old dutch, and some of the pictures from the plates that showed viking women making pottery were reproduced in our scriptures with Joseph's explanation that it showed Lamanite men making metal shields for battle. 

 

Of course, then we would have the exact same "catalyst" and "missing plates" theories and we'd have the same essay and this same conversation.  Then it would be similar.

[cinepro]

As I recall the biggest issue is that modern science doesn't even think Abraham was a real person. So this would just be a red herring.

 

It is something I have thought about. I think there have been some articles written to some extent about this very thing. I think there is just a lack of evicence, were you could even take a look at this view. IOW there is no standard that exist to even look at first.

 

No one on this board will live long enough to see that idea ever considered in LDS circles. 

[Scott Lloyd]

If the "missing papyrus" theory is correct, then the "catalyst" theory isn't needed.  The only reason we would need a "catalyst" theory is if the "missing papyrus" theory is incorrect.

 

True. But since neither theory can be definitively proven at this point, it is helpful to have both, as each in its own way establishes plausibility for the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, and, as I have shown, one does not contradict the other.

 

As with so many other things, the Church (and apologists and other defenders) take the approach that "belief" or "faith" in the Book of Abraham is the paramount concern.  What you use to prop up that belief is irrelevant. 

 

Not irrelevant. In the final analysis it eventually has to be based on a spiritual witness.

 

If someone firmly believed in the Book of Abraham, but their belief was based on the theory that Abraham appeared to Joseph Smith and dictated it in spirit form, no one would care, because they still believed.

 

You lost me here. I agree with those who say bad arguments do more harm than good. I just don't hold with the position that the catalyst theory and the missing manuscript theory are bad arguments.

 

 

It's the same thing with Book of Mormon geography.  There are two contradictory theories, both promoted by faithful members of the Church.  And the Church just flat out doesn't care.  As long as you believe in the BoM, it doesn't matter.  You can spend your time and money on books, tours, cruises and symposiums that teach a 100% incorrect Book of Mormon geography, but as long as you believe, it's okay.  And it would literally take 30 seconds of revelation and time in General Conference to totally clear this up. 

 

See my comment above regarding bad arguments.

 

And in all this, the burden of proof still rests on the person (or Church) making the claim.  The LDS Church claims that the writings known as "The Book of Abraham" is a record of the Biblical prophet Abraham, translated by Joseph Smith from the Egyptian papyri. 

 

 

Again, the Church has never claimed to be able to prove this definitively through physical evidence. It purports to teach people sacred truths as taught in scripture and revelation and then invites people to seek and obtain their own divine witness. Thus, the Church's only "burden" in this respect is to maintain plausibility, to leave open the possibility that what the Church teaches might be true. Once that is accomplished, it is up to the individual himself to obtain his own personal divine revelation. The antagonist, on the other hand, must absolutely shut the door on any truth claims of the Church in order to preclude the seeker from obtaining that witness. The antagonist, therefore, bears the more onerous burden.

 

Now, you can say that the claim (and subsequent belief) is based on faith, and others should believe it on faith alone.  That's fine.  But what has happened is that people believe it on faith, and then want to try and support their faith by explaining apparently contradictory information. 

 

 

 

No. They want to defend against the attacks of the critics by presenting plausible (not contradictory) explanations that leave the matter open so the seeker is still free to obtain a divine witness.

 

So the different theories have been created to try and explain how I should have faith that Joseph Smith identified and translated the Book of Abraham from the papyri when it appears to everyone without faith (and even some with faith) that the papyri have absolutely nothing to do with Abraham.

 

 

If it appears that way to some, it is likely because they haven't studied or considered the matter carefully enough. So long as it cannot be shown that the existing papyri are intact, no one can conclude definitively that the "the papyri have absolutely nothing to do with Abraham."

 

That's how people get mixed up about "the burden of proof".  Because they don't see that they are making an actual claim about something.  They just see that they have faith, and that they've made a theory (or theories) part of their faith. And so when someone doesn't believe their theory, it's like they're questioning or attacking their faith.  Because if the theory isn't true, then that contradictory information still has to be dealt with.

 

 

See above about plausibility, "proof" and burden.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

If all of the papyri had been lost, and the facsimiles and their attendant translations had never been published, then you might have a point.  It would be like The Book of Mormon.  We'd simply have "The Book of Abraham," and we'd all read it and wonder "Where did this come from?"   And we'd all assume that Joseph was able to translate the papryi and that the papryi really were the writings of Abraham, by his own hand.

 

Or, to put it another way, it would only be similar if the gold plates were still around, and subsequent analysis showed the gold plates to be the writings of an early group of vikings who had populated the area in 1000 AD , and they were written in old dutch, and some of the pictures from the plates that showed viking women making pottery were reproduced in our scriptures with Joseph's explanation that it showed Lamanite men making metal shields for battle. 

 

Of course, then we would have the exact same "catalyst" and "missing plates" theories and we'd have the same essay and this same conversation.  Then it would be similar.

We don't need all those variables to match to think it to be similar at all. Perhaps the translation by the power of God was the same in both cases. We simply would not know at this point, but it doesn't hurt to think it. Perhaps there is missing enough papyri to be what is the BoA, and perhaps that missing was in JS' possession even though he did not refer to it or use it during the actual translation. Seems like a one for one fit for what happened with the Book of Mormon.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

Because while faith might be strong, for many people it isn't strong enough to overcome the fact that this is about as wrong as you can get.

To the closed-minded, perhaps.

 

But see here.

[pogi]

I'm saying that, under the catalyst theory, the revelation would have come to the prophet regardless of whether there was any writing from Abraham among the papyri. Therefore, there is no contradiction that I am bound to reconcile between the catalyst theory and the lost manuscript theory. Both might be valid at the same time. Joseph might have received the translation by direct revelation, even while there was an authentic writing from Abraham among the documents he possessed.

 

I don't think I have mischaracterized the theory.  I believe the above is a necessary explenation to reconcile the two theories.  Is it a possibility, sure, but it is not found in the assumption of the theory.

 

"This theory assumes that the Book of Abraham was not on the papyri; he received the text by revelation, with the papyri acting as a catalyst."  See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri

 

What I have said is that it is reasonable to ask someone who is ostensibly a believer if he has anything better to offer after he has trashed two prominent theories.

 

"Ostensibly", really?  Why do you leave room for doubt?  This is what turns me off about your approach.  You do realize how much time and effort he puts into advansing the causes of faith right?  Though his approach may be different from yours, I have no reason to believe he is less faithful.

 

This is what you said:

 

In fact, there is scarcely any qualitative difference between doing that [questioning both theories without offering a substitute] and doing what an avowed, garden-variety detractor would do. Yet DBMormon insists that he "leads with faith," whatever that means.

 

This just is not fair.  If you find holes in his logic, engage him, but you have no basis to raise doubt about his faith by using the words "ostensibly" and comparing him to an "avowed, garden-variety detractor" and hinting at the unbelievability that he is "leading with faith".

Let me explain to you, and all those who require a logical explenation for anything before he will believe, what "leading with faith" means.  It means that he believes, and acts on those beliefs, in the absense of man made theories and speculations.  He follows the spirit.  It means that one can progress one step at a time as dictated by the spirit without requiring the whole map and topography layed out for them before they will take a step.  It means that one can seek for explenations and answers without requiring them.

Edited November 19, 2014 by pogi

[cinepro]

To the closed-minded, perhaps.

 

But see here.

 

Wrong facsimile.

[DragonLancer]

If the "missing papyrus" theory is correct, then the "catalyst" theory isn't needed.  The only reason we would need a "catalyst" theory is if the "missing papyrus" theory is incorrect.

 

There is a third option.  A third option is that in the minds of the ancients, the existing papyri in the hands of the Church, while being non-Abrahamic, were interpreted Abrahamically.  Why would anyone opt for catalyst over this?  I have to ask you all these questions seriously:

 

(1) Why in the world would you prefer the catalyst over an option of real translation activity that can be demonstrated with the existing papyri and the existing KEP evidence?

(2) Why in the world would you prefer to invent papyri that there was never evidence for, when translation activity is already clear from the existing papyri?

 

The core principle enabling this is already widely accepted among many researchers:  iconotropy/adaptation (following Barney, Hamblin, etc.).

 

My only contribution is to say, not just the facsimiles, but also the characters in the "text" when treated individually and photographically, precisely as they are interpreted in the KEP.

 

Respectfully, I ask any reasonable person here, why is a theory like mine not a superior one in several respects? 

(1) it doesn't create things that are not there, that there never was evidence for.

(2) It accounts for physical evidence that is there.

(3) It uses widely accepted principles as its core principles.

 

Why would you not opt for something that has explaining power that other theories lack?  Why would you not embrace all the evidence (EVEN the evidence for translations the CRITICS point out) when a faithful theory accounts for the translation activity?  Forgive me, but why are some of you even entertaining either theory?  I may be puffing here but I seriously do believe my theory has merits others imply do not have.  I believe mine solves problems that others cannot.