Proofs of the Book of Abraham?

[A Random Catholic]

The LDS church has not released complete photocopies of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. This includes the Alphabet & Grammar and the BoA manuscripts.

Is this certain?

[William the Conqueror]

From my vantagepoint, things aren't looking to good for you, though I do look forward to your vetted "reasoning."

Still, you have such luminary fans as the self-described "William the Conqueror" to cheer in your corner. And, it will be interesting to see how the results of this test also reflect on his boastful slurs towards me. Should be interesting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks Wade,

As Bill Hamblin would say, I wait 'with baited breath' for Dan's response.

[A Random Catholic]

As Bill Hamblin would say, I wait 'with baited breath' for Dan's response.

Didja know it's actually bated breath? As in, "abated..."

Unless you've been eating bait again, chum...

[William the Conqueror]

As Bill Hamblin would say, I wait 'with baited breath' for Dan's response.

Didja know it's actually bated breath? As in, "abated..."

Unless you've been eating bait again, chum...

Well, you are right. Actually I've been eating chum.

[SOMIB]

The LDS church has not released complete photocopies of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. This includes the Alphabet & Grammar and the BoA manuscripts.

Is this certain?

I am reasonably certain but not quite to the degree that I believe that the sun rises every day. However, as far as I know, it and the other statements in my post are correct.

[A Random Catholic]

Thanks. I've heard that elsewhere, of course, but one hears so much on these boards... I wonder if anyone contends that this is not true?

[Paul Osborne]

The LDS church has not released complete photocopies of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.  This includes the Alphabet & Grammar and the BoA manuscripts.

Is this certain?

Well if they have been completely published I have not seen them. There is probably more stuff in the vault then we already know about.

Paul O

[Dan Vogel]

William the Conqueror,

Well Dan, I see you and the caged and toothless lion (from my former post to you) are at it again. And again I interrupt the conversation with my insertion. If what you say is true, that Wade leans to positivism, then how can he believe in the Book of Mormon? As it is there is no 'hard or direct evidence' nor 'empirical evidence' to prove its validity. No archealogical evidence, no historical evidence from Amerindian culture, none at all. In that case I would classify William Hamblin as the opposite, for he would reason inductively (as you put it). His favorite quote is: 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. However when he is challenged his usual response is: 'You just don't get it'. At least that is what he said to Dr. James White in their 1998 debate on Psalms 82 and John 10. In fact if he gets real frustrated he calls it a 'Mastercard moment'. I suggest he start using American Express for relief.

I think that Wade needs to answer this question, but my guess is that he holds a double standard, one for apologists and another for critics, which you have also detected in Hamblin

[Scott Gordon]

Fact not speculation: There was no revival, no large numbers joining the churches, in Palmyra in 1820. The revival of 1824-25 matches JS

[Dale]

Hi,

At http://www.angelmessage.org/care by RLDS apologist Robert R. Bobbitt addressing former RLDS historian Richard Howard concerns about the First Vision. I bought the brochure through Price Publishing Company for a dollar. http://www.restorationbookstore.org Liahona Research publishes a series of tracts the best ones are the First Vision Ones & the one entitled Witnessing:What Must I Do To Have Eternal Life. In the Angelmessage bookstore Robert Bobbitt contributed to a $5.50 RLDS apologetics book entitled On Behalf Of Christs Restored Gospel that outdoes most Evangelical & LDS apologetics. I feel FAIR ought to do a similar several cheap volume responses in essay form to popular anti-Mormon concerns.

Perhaps Joseph Smith Jr. exxagerated for effect about multitudes joining the Brent churches do to whatever the event was. I doubt Joseph Smith Jr. intended to myself.

To get back to the Book of Abraham topic I think FARMs needs to get a case out on how they view the EAG was used as technical as New Approaches hit the Book of Mormon. Surely those guys could muster a set of essays on the Book of Abraham. One ought to defend Hugh Nibley as his credibility has suffered in my eyes due to criticisms I read about his scholarship.

I suggest Signature books take a break from looking at the Book of Mormon & do a set of essays on LDS scholars defenses of the Book of Abraham. I would buy the volume. Perhaps it would inspire some specifics answers from LDS scholars in a review of books atleast.

Sincerely,

Dale

[wenglund]

William the Conqueror,

Well Dan, I see you and the caged and toothless lion (from my former post to you) are at it again. And again I interrupt the conversation with my insertion. If what you say is true, that Wade leans to positivism, then how can he believe in the Book of Mormon? As it is there is no 'hard or direct evidence' nor 'empirical evidence' to prove its validity. No archealogical evidence, no historical evidence from Amerindian culture, none at all. In that case I would classify William Hamblin as the opposite, for he would reason inductively (as you put it). His favorite quote is: 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. However when he is challenged his usual response is: 'You just don't get it'. At least that is what he said to Dr. James White in their 1998 debate on Psalms 82 and John 10. In fact if he gets real frustrated he calls it a 'Mastercard moment'. I suggest he start using American Express for relief.

I think that Wade needs to answer this question, but my guess is that he holds a double standard, one for apologists and another for critics, which you have also detected in Hamblin

[wenglund]

I think that Wade needs to answer this question, but my guess is that he holds a double standard, one for apologists and another for critics, which you have also detected in Hamblin

[wenglund]

I think my exchange with Wade on the thread

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

The point I

[wenglund]

Wade,

The point I

[wenglund]

I will be curious to learn what proportion of your anthology consists of hard or direct evidence of BoA origins (such as, Joseph said such and such about the translation...; or, there is this piece of empiriacl evidence for such and such) as opposed to layers built upon layers of hypothetical possibilities-i.e. ad hoc hypotheses (such as, Joseph could have known such and such, and thus he could be the author of such and such passages; or, such and such words have phonemic similarities, and thus Joseph could have "invented" them--or, as some would more emphatically say, "Joseph invented them"). ;-)

I don

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

What I am doing is showing that your point is demonstrably wrong--not only because it lacks any basis in what I have said, and is contradicted by my own actions, but also because I, as the ultimate authority on what I think and believe, have emphatically contradicted it.

I can

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

Certainly, I lay no claim to great writing. But as bad as my writing may be, you seem to be the only one who has consistently had problems accurately interpreting what I have said--or, more clearly stated, you seem to be the only one who has consistently claimed I have said and believed things that I haven't, while adamently refusing to accept my clarifications and corrections. Were others to have had similar problems, and to the degree that you have, then I would be more inclined to accept at least some of the blame.

I have no idea if I am the only person having trouble with your ability to express your thoughts clearly. I think Brent has made a similar observation. But I try to be charitable, because we all have trouble in this area, some more and some less. I am more than willing to accept clarification, if it

[wenglund]

Wade,

What I am doing is showing that your point is demonstrably wrong--not only because it lacks any basis in what I have said, and is contradicted by my own actions, but also because I, as the ultimate authority on what I think and believe, have emphatically contradicted it.

I can

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

I

[wenglund]

Even though there are not a few misleading comments in Vogel's last two post (and some that are very tempting to address), I am going to remain true to my commitment, and not re-embroil myself in that mess, or interact any longer with him (at least not until has demonstrated, to my satisfaction, a strong willingness to listen, learn, and understand).

However, there may be some value to others in looking at inductive reasoning to see: what it is; how it works (logically or fallaciously); when it is usually used, whether it may, at times, trump deductive reasoning or other types of evidence; whether it is logically sound and valid basis upon which to rest other conclusions, and/or whether it is rationally persuasive; and then whether Vogel's reasoning on the First Vision qualifies as induction (fallacious or otherwise) or not.

What is induction:

Induction is using observations to draw likely or probable inferences. It is

[wenglund]

Here is Vogel

[Dale]

Hi,

Whatever the religious event was it seems to me that the 1838 account refers to two seperate events. I doubt Joseph Jr. lied or made up details myself. Perhaps he thought the event was a revival when it was not. Joseph Smith Jr. not having a diary with exact dates & having a written outline he told the restoration story as any human would with conflicting dates & details. Details would differ depending on how well he had his thoughts figured out before he wrote the first version of the First Vision down on paper. Imagine dictating a testimony to someone based on hastily remembered on the spot flawed memories of event back in 1820.

I look at the 1832 account & it might just be an account Joseph Smith Jr. himself saw as deficient in certain details. So each time he reflected in writing upon his earlier experience he tried to correct the 1832 account. The 1838 account could have been probably corrected a bit more it's not a perfect account. If Joseph Smith Jr. saw the 1832 account as seriously flawed the 1838 & not the 1832 account should be viewed as being better. Did Joseph Smith Jr. find the 1832 account as flawed & in need of correction? That Joseph Smith Jr. didn't rely on it is suggested to me by the fact he felt the need to write new accounts every time.

Joseph Smith Jr. may have exagerated for effect when he stated "great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties."(Joseph Smith-History 1:5. It's also possible Joseph Smith Jr. mixed up events & assumed the later religious excitement started in 1820. I also think he could have made a mistake when he said that the "unusual excitement" had "soon became general among all the sects in that region of country.(vs.5) What if he had said later that would allow for my thinking that he could have been describing mixed events one about conversions in 1820 & ones that occured in 1824. In verse 7 he thinks about the event when he thought he was 15. I think in the 1838 account that Joseph merges descriptions of the 1820 excitement with his oppinions on the later conversions he saw. But he makes a mistake in that he to "'this time of great excitement"(vs. as that seemingly tied all of the conversions that occured to his 15th year. But that's a misinterpretations as to what he said because he said the excitements started among Methodists & spread elsewhere. So he refers to many conversions over these exitements just not one revivals conversions as I used to think.

Sincerely,

Dale

[wenglund]

Let

[wenglund]

Let