Boa - Catalyst And Missing Papyrus Theories Both Deeply Flawed

[DBMormon]

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.

which is why my participation here in this thread and in general is diminished.  I have moved into a place where I realize good answers are not available in critical portions of the narrative.  I choose to believe (have faith) in spite of the weaknesses of the narrative.  Others can't live in that space so they build their fortifications differently.  My fortification next to theirs makes them uncomfortable and rather then provide a good answer they require me to provide no objection, as anything else removes portions of their foundation as they have built it.

Edited November 19, 2014 by DBMormon

[pogi]

Forgive me, but why are some of you even entertaining either theory?

 

Becasue some of us (me), don't know what you are talking about and don't understand your theory.  What does interpretting something non-Abrahamic Abrahamically even mean?  To me, that just sounds like the catalyst theory (Using non-abrahamic writtings to come up with Abrahamic writtings.)

[DBMormon]

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 appreciate your argument as well as your ability to not join the negativity and personal attacks and am grateful for your charity.  I see the catalyst theory as workable but we have to shift many of our assumptions.  As we lay out this theory it has many holes that must be discarded.  It simply doesn't hold up as is.  I have yet to check out the theory espoused by one poster here but will look at it shortly.

 

Scholars like Brian Hauglid and David Bokovoy also see the same holes and won't accept a bad theory simply because it is all we have

[DBMormon]

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.

So anyone who sees the argument as weak and full of holes must not be studying the issue enough? Who does know the issue enough?  Kerry Muhlstein?  John Gee?  FairMormon?

 

Would their bias keep them from admitting holes in their theories?  One could argue I am about as balanced as your going to find?  You can debate that but it means you likely have listened to much of my work.

[DBMormon]

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.

your just not informed enough on the issue?  

[DBMormon]

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.

if the gold plates for the BOM actually exist and actually were not taken back by the angel and scholars translated them and they had nothing to do with the BOM, we would still find a way to make it work right?  That my friend is what I won't do.  I won't invent mental gymnastics to make something work.  I simply will admit it is severely flawed and look you in the eye and say "I still choose to believe"  

Edited November 19, 2014 by DBMormon

[DragonLancer]

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.

 

Sorry.  typo.  Not photographically.  Pictographically.

[DBMormon]

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.

 

There is a big difference between "can not be definitvely proven" (which means it has no major holes but simply can not be verified) and saying it is flawed and simply doesn't work well with the information we have.  You seem simply unwilling to say that you see valid concerns with the theories.  Is that true.  You see these theories as fitting flawlessly and simply not defintively proven?

Edited November 19, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

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.

I would be interested in an interview if your willing, email me again off site if you are.

[DBMormon]

Wrong facsimile.

you haven't read enough again..... ughh

[DBMormon]

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.?

He posted his thoughts in a thread on another discussion board which I posted already.  His points are in the OP, all you have to do if you feel they are wrong is present a valid reasonable argument against them.  It is easy to say an argument is not viable but to then explain why it is so is a little more work.  He has done the work showing why the two theories do not work, If someone wants to present a counter argument then please by all means (beside DragonSlayer who I have addressed)

[BCSpace]

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?

 

 

 

I realize it's late in the thread to be responding directly to the OP, but I have another hypothesis.

 

The ancient Egyptians are well known for covering up history such as the current ruler trying to eliminate all references to the previous ruler etc.

 

The defeat of the Egyptian religion by Abraham's being rescued from sacrifice is embarrassing to the rulers and priests of the day.  Perhaps news of such went far and wide. So they modified the meaning of what's depicted in the facsimiles and wrapped in their extant religion which is why today's Egyptologists translate a different meaning than what we see in the BoA. And then of course older scrolls are going to be translated the same way unless a key of some sort is found; not as big as a Rosetta Stone because I don't think the language would have been changed wholesale, just the story itself.

 

This working hypothesis allows both the theories of missing scroll and catalyst or some combination of the two to still work and is more of a grand unifying type of hypothesis expressing a reasonable explanation founded in a real and actual archeological premise as to why all this difficulty.

[DragonLancer]

Becasue some of us (me), don't know what you are talking about and don't understand your theory.  What does interpretting something non-Abrahamic Abrahamically even mean?  To me, that just sounds like the catalyst theory (Using non-abrahamic writtings to come up with Abrahamic writtings.)

 

It means that ancient people assigned meaning to something when that something didn't mean it to begin with.  And that is not catalyst.  That is adaptation/iconotropy.

[DBMormon]

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

Let me get this right, you are saying that my claiming to "lead with faith" is a crock?  

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2014/11/jeff-burton-for-those-who-wonder/

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2014/11/798/

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2014/10/premium-grace-and-its-changing-power/

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2014/10/fiona-terryl-givens-crucible-of-doubt/

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2014/07/elder-oaks-the-sisters-power-and-authority/

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2014/06/vickey-pahnke-taylor-goodness-matters/

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2014/06/jim-mcconkie-reflections-of-church-and-family/

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2014/05/kevin-christensen-discerning-true-prophets/

 

Those are 9 of my 122 episodes.  I may in some of them ask us as a church culture or institution to do better, but not one episode portrays the church as false or that people should leave.  I get a couple emails a week (I have hundreds in my email folder that I have received over the past 3 years) from people who have stated that my podcast is one of the main reasons they have held on and continue to have faith.  So please CFR for my leading with faith being a crock please.  If one won't follow what they see as a failed argument they have no faith?  please explain as I am pretty sure I have helped in more ways than many here who attack me personally.

Edited November 19, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

 

 

 

I realize it's late in the thread to be responding directly to the OP, but I have another hypothesis.

 

The ancient Egyptians are well known for covering up history such as the current ruler trying to eliminate all references to the previous ruler etc.

 

The defeat of the Egyptian religion by Abraham's being rescued from sacrifice is embarrassing to the rulers and priests of the day.  Perhaps news of such went far and wide. So they modified the meaning of what's depicted in the facsimiles and wrapped in their extant religion which is why today's Egyptologists translate a different meaning than what we see in the BoA. And then of course older scrolls are going to be translated the same way unless a key of some sort is found; not as big as a Rosetta Stone because I don't think the language would have been changed wholesale, just the story itself.

 

This working hypothesis allows both the theories of missing scroll and catalyst or some combination of the two to still work and is more of a grand unifying type of hypothesis expressing a reasonable explanation founded in a real and actual archeological premise as to why all this difficulty.

 

I find that more appealing than the missing papyrus.  

[pogi]

It means that ancient people assigned meaning to something when that something didn't mean it to begin with.  And that is not catalyst.  That is adaptation/iconotropy.

 

You mean, like this?:

 

... So they modified the meaning of what's depicted in the facsimiles and wrapped in their extant religion which is why today's Egyptologists translate a different meaning than what we see in the BoA.

 

Just trying to understand.

[JLHPROF]

I find that more appealing than the missing papyrus.  

 

I'm glad I don't need an explanation for the source of the Book of Abraham any more than I need one for the D&C or Book of Mormon.  It really doesn't matter where they came from.  It only matters whether they teach truth and gospel.

 

In fact, this board makes me realize I have much more faith than I thought...polygamy, BOA, Adam-God, teenage wives.  Not a hint of bother about any of it.  It surprises me a bit.

Edited November 19, 2014 by JLHPROF

[DragonLancer]

You mean, like this?:

 

 

Just trying to understand.

 

Let me give you an example.  The Swastika started out as a religious symbol.  In the 20th century it appropriated a meaning of tyranny and genocide.  In the 19th century it didn't mean that.  So now, everyone associates it with the evils of Nazi-ism.  Now it has a different meaning.

 

A similar thing is, some Egyptian priest taking such and such Egyptian symbol and giving it a different meaning than it started out with.

 

It is no different than in our culture, how we use "variables" in computer programming and algebra.  The meaning of X depends on context.  The context is given through a mapping of this or that to X.  But if X is just X, it is just an abstraction that has no meaning until I give it one.

[DragonLancer]

The KEP is the mapping that gives abstractions a context for their meaning.

[Pahoran]

Let me get this straight.

Are you sure you really want to?

 

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:

Does it?

This is news to me.

I'm unaware of the Church having any theories. The two theories under discussion are put forward by believing Latter-day Saints, but I have yet to see them promulgated by "the Church."

They don't "explain" the Book of Abraham.

If not, then they are no less successful than any anti-Mormon "theories."

They explain how someone could still believe the Book of Abraham is "true" in 2014.

And they don't exhaust the possibilities for that, either.

Regards,

Pahoran

[volgadon]

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.

 

 

Very close, but let me make it harder. The text was interpreted "Abrahamically," that is, related to Abraham, but the words were meant to be read as they were written, and were not considered to contain the narrative of the Book of Abraham. If we consider the purpose of the "Book of Breathings" and the role it would have in an apocalypse/ascension text, then that, IMHO, is where your theory falls short.

[SmileyMcGee]

This Baffles me! how do you not get it????!!! You can't or shouldn't say that theory A is bad without saying that theory B is better and for these reasons. You can't just poke holes in theory A, what do you have that is better?

Yes you can just poke holes. You don't have to propose another theory. I feel like you're smarter than this...

[SmileyMcGee]

if my theory doesn't work, then show me why and show me what is a better one to believe in

and I've never been to Geneva thank you very much

Can you explain why a person has to propose a "better" theory?

[Duncan]

Can you explain why a person has to propose a "better" theory?

 

yes, I can explain it

 

it's like they-DB Mormon is saying, although now it seems he ripped off someone else's research, 'I don't know what is true but I do know that you don't/can't know either'-I am saying that's silly. People can poke holes all they want but show us how intelligent they really are by making better sense of the evidence

 

Can you tell me why we should accept his or this case someone else's critiques? why shouldn't DB Mormon tell us what is true?

Edited November 19, 2014 by Duncan

[DBMormon]

yes, I can explain it

 

it's like they-DB Mormon is saying, although now it seems he ripped off someone else's research, 'I don't know what is true but I do know that you don't/can't know either'-I am saying that's silly. People can poke holes all they want but show us how intelligent they really are by making better sense of the evidence

So if a man is killed and the police have two suspects.... the defense, public, police or anyone can not prove those two did not do it without providing the real murderer?    that seems asinine.