Evidence for the Book of Abraham

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I can appreciate the argument to try and make the passage in Abraham more than it is, but intelligences were conceived of by Joseph when he wrote section 93 of the D&C before this Abrahamic work was conceived of.  And calling those who came to earth as those who kept their first estate hardly sounds like much of an addition to the notion that there was satan who pulled away a third of the hosts of heaven, also a  notion found in the D&C pre-dating Abraham.  This is why Mormons typically don't pay a bit of attention the Abraham at all.  It's already found elsewhere.  tellin the story of creation with Gods is already presumed as well.  

Perhaps.  However, those who talk about Joseph's theological development always emphasize what was published and said by Joseph in Nauvoo, and it is nowhere more pointed than in the BofA and in the King Follett Funeral Sermon.  At the same time, you rightly suggest that most people ignore the BofA, just as they ignore the most important features of LDS theology (notably in comparison with other theologies).  Most Mormons ignore the exotic stuff, and that is understandable.  I can recall a time when I did not understand anything that Nibley said, and I wasn't sure that it mattered anyhow (I was majoring in political science at the time).  My perspective has changed, but I am not suggesting that others need to follow my path into esoteric realms.  Why?  Well, it isn't very practical, and it doesn't seem necessary in the midst of a subjective belief system -- as coherent as it may be.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I can appreciate the argument to try and make the passage in Abraham more than it is, but intelligences were conceived of by Joseph when he wrote section 93 of the D&C before this Abrahamic work was conceived of.  And calling those who came to earth as those who kept their first estate hardly sounds like much of an addition to the notion that there was satan who pulled away a third of the hosts of heaven, also a  notion found in the D&C pre-dating Abraham.  This is why Mormons typically don't pay a bit of attention the Abraham at all.  It's already found elsewhere.  tellin the story of creation with Gods is already presumed as well.  

"Intelligences" is an incredibly vague term in early Mormon thought. Even in Nauvoo it's mainly a synonym for spirit. I think you can discern a bit of a difference is use, but I'd be the first to admit it's somewhat ambiguous. The use of intelligences was already in play culturally independent of Mormonism. D&C 93 shows a fair bit of neoplatonic influence - possibly through the texts of Thomas Taylor's translations of Plato and Proclus. The idea of degrees of intelligence is a platonic idea possibly through hermetic heavenly ascents. So in that they might be a possible context for Abraham (either in a 19th or Roman era sense). 

I think the big deal in Abraham are a pre-existence that seems to go beyond typical platonic conceptions into a personal existence. Again pre-existent souls is common in both middle platonism and neoplatonism as well as Jewish and Renaissance traditions. (It's a big deal in Kabbalism for instance) However I think downplaying Abraham too much here is pretty problematic. Certainly you can find the idea of pre-existence in other sermons of Joseph, but in terms of canon it's only Abraham. The other sermons seem tied to the Abraham translations as well. Overall the translation work on Abraham, even stuff that didn't make it into the final text, seems hugely influential on Nauvoo theology.

As for Mormons paying attention, I'd disagree. Abraham 3 seems one of the more commonly quoted scriptures in Mormon thought for a variety of places. Even in political thought the idea of freedom as debated between right wing and left wing Mormons ends up hinging upon how to read Abraham 3. So I think you downplay it far too much.

Now admittedly there's a lot more esoteric stuff that most Mormons are completely ignorant of tied to the Abraham materials. The three facsimiles - particularly the hypocephalus - being the obvious example. There's a vague sense they're tied to the endowment but since we have the endowment people don't pay much attention. The 2.5 billion years for life gets quoted a bit more - mainly because of debates with "literalists" over evolution. But even there I bet the typical member is ignorant of such things.

Edited December 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think the main point is that belief is very subjective, and most people may have no real interest in evidence pro or con, because such debates are irrelevant to their lives.

I sadly think this is true. I wish people did worry more but by and large most people are ignorant of even broad elements of the scriptures and so forth. Outside of a commitment to Christ and the Church I don't think people think about it much unless they face a more existential conflict - often due to critics raising issues. I think had people spent more time worrying about such things people would be in a much better position. 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

To excise the BofA from the Mormon Canon would be to remove the most important cosmological principle of LDS theology -- the nature of Intelligences in pre-mortal life, and the First and Second Estates.  The notion that we are all co-eternal with God is an astounding rejection of normative Judeo-Christian theology, and sets us completely apart from the others.  Our heresy is complete.

Christian yes. Within Judaism there's a bit more room for this. Christianity had the problem of creation ex nihilo to deal with. So to the degree those pushing strong platonism go beyond that they tended to end up in big trouble and labeled as heretics. There was no such doctrinal limit to the unity of God and humans within Jewish or Islamic thought. Not to mention those, within the renaissance and after, who were more willing to break with traditional Christian dogma typically due to the hermetic tradition.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Should anyone expect to find anything about Abraham on the back?  It would be a curious thing for them to have glued and covered the relevant parts of the papyri so they could display the irrelevant parts.  

I wouldn't expect to find it, but it's probably an avenue worth pursuing. It's not like there's a danger to the papyri itself. I'd imagine the main concern would be transport to a location where an x-ray or other detection could be done. The Church completely understandably wants to protect the papyri as an artifact.

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, Gee is quite good at math, and I have been disappointed that he and Bill Schryver have not had more to say on this matter (pro or con).  

I think Smith's final paper showed some big problems in his math. The impression I get is that he acknowledged his mistake but was too embarrassed to write that up publicly. (I don't know mind you - just guessing) That nothing has come out from Gee since is pretty damning IMO on the matter. There's nothing wrong with making a mistake. Just admit it and move on. If he thinks Smith is still wrong then explain why.

 

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We may want to assume some of the same exigencies in biblical copying and recasting were used by the Jews in Egypt who were transmitting the BofA.

I thought you wanted a general introduction to the documents.

No, I was familiar with the documents. It's just making sense of them to understand what he was attempting to do that doesn't make a lot of sense.

[DBMormon]

Best evidence that Joseph was onto something is this.... and yet it is not enough to overcome the problems

 

[Robert F. Smith]

47 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Best evidence that Joseph was onto something is this.... and yet it is not enough to overcome the problems

 

Very interesting, Bill.

I listed some other items of even better value on pages 10-14, 17-19 of my paper, “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 9 online Feb 20, 2018, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think Smith's final paper showed some big problems in his math. The impression I get is that he acknowledged his mistake but was too embarrassed to write that up publicly. (I don't know mind you - just guessing) That nothing has come out from Gee since is pretty damning IMO on the matter. There's nothing wrong with making a mistake. Just admit it and move on. If he thinks Smith is still wrong then explain why

For others reading along who might be interested in this particular subject, there are three papers directly relating to scroll length, two by Andrew Cook and Christopher Smith and one by Dr Gee. All three of them can be read in under an hour, two if your taking you're time. 

First published in 2010 was The Original Length of the Scroll of Hor.

Dr Gee's response published in 2012 called Formulas and Faith.

And Andrew's rebuttal to Dr Gee also published in 2012 can be read in Formulas and Facts: A Response to John Gee

 

 

[CA Steve]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I assume now that Christmas is over the discussion will start up again. I can comment here or there. Feel free to quote me from here in the other thread if you prefer.

So I am now trying to catch up with you catching up today so forgive me is something gets lost in the mix. We now have two interesting threads about the Book of Abraham going and staying current with them is a bit of work. So I am probably not going to start a thread on the missing snout until these two threads die down a bit. 

 

[Vance]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The argument is you can infer the length from the windings in the papyri. John Gee had some back and forth with Andrew Cook and Christopher Smith after their work on the history of the various papyri. The main text is "The Original Length of the Scroll of Hor." At this point I think most agree John was mistaken in his calculations.

There are numerous ways to make the calculation, and the results will depend greatly upon the assumptions made. In Engineering, when the solution isn't directly determinable, it can be very useful to bound the problem.

Without much difficulty I could estimate the maximum possible length knowing only the outer circumference and the average thickness.

Lmax ≈ c^2/4πt

[Dan Vogel]

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 1:45 PM, mfbukowski said:

Oh I will when I get around to it.

Your absurd attempt to psychoanalyze a historic figure while stating that your opposition is mind reading is a blatant self contradiction.

You know he was deliberately deceptive while others who attribute him other motives are mind reading? Clear contradiction.

The entire question is irrelevant to.the value of the art produced anyway but is essential to your emotional attempt to discredit Joseph as a prophet and is just as "apologetic" for your position as they are for theirs. 

I would find it humorous except you act knowing that scholarship is irrelevant as objective evidence against spiritual beliefs while they do it perhaps out of ignorance.

It is a sly and cunning sophistry you present. 

Perhaps you should have considered the statement to which I responded:

Quote

I see no basis for the accusation of "deception" when it is clear Joseph thought they were literal translations.

 

The whole assertion that there was "deception" demands that we are able to peer into Joseph's brain and know what his motivations are.

 

No competent historian does that.

To which I said:

Quote

No, claiming that JS thought he was translating the papyrus when he was not requires mindreading, because there is nothing else to support that assertion except wishful thinking and apologetic necessity. We conclude all the time that people are trying to deceive us based on the facts not supporting the claims. That’s what JS provided us when he produced the working papers. To say that JS naively thought he was actually translating each character is to (1) read his mind, and (2) cast doubt on all his revelations. However, if you posit that he intentionally deceived to help people believe what he sincerely believed were inspired writings, then I think that is the lesser miracle.

The explanation that requires the least qualification and ad hoc speculating is preferred.

I also responded on follow up:

Quote

Both positions agree that JS claimed he translated the BOM from the Book of Breathings. That claim proved false, therefore JS deceived his followers. That does not require mindreading. Saying he believed he was translating when he really wasn’t requires mindreading because you have to know what JS thought. Denying the second position requires mindreading, but those proposing the first are under no obligation to do so. It’s merely an ad hoc escape from an unwanted conclusion. It’s apologetics, not a religious position.

There's no contradiction. The normal thing to do is assume JS was conscious that he wasn't really translating. There's no mindreading in that because no other explanation makes sense. The only reason to suggest JS thought he was translating when he wasn't is to escape an unwanted conclusion, known as an ad hoc hypothesis--not an article of faith.

It's like when some Mormons tried to escape the DNA evidence for Indian origins from Asia by explaining God changed the Lamanites' Jewish DNA when they were cursed. That is an ad hoc hypothesis. They don't get to claim a rejection of their theory is the same a rejecting their religion.

My biography of JS offered some psychological interpretations, not mindreading per se. Nevertheless, it is one thing to offer interpretations using sound psychological principles, and quite another to use far fetched explanations relying on mindreading to escape problems.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

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

It's like when some Mormons tried to escape the DNA evidence for Indian origins from Asia by explaining God changed the Lamanites' Jewish DNA when they were cursed. That is an ad hoc hypothesis. They don't get to claim a rejection of their theory is the same a rejecting their religion............................

Sounds more like a strawman, Dan.  The only worthwhile pro or con arguments based on DNA are those made by geneticists, anthropologists, or other professionals.  It isn't even true that all Amerinds derive their DNA from Asia. And what little we do know is derived mainly through testing modern Amerinds.  We have always known that most Amerinds likely came from Eurasia via Siberia and Beringia, but we also have other DNA which entered the Americas anciently, e.g., some Amazonians show DNA connections to Australian Aborigines and Pacific Islanders.  We do not have good samples across the broad range of ancient sites from ancient skeletal remains, without which we cannot establish the nature of the DNA of all ancient tribes, before they went through genetic drift, the bottleneck effect, and the founder effect, or “serial founder effects,” i.e., each successive wave of migration carrying a subset of the genetic variation held by previous groups – thus eroding diversity. 

As Simon G. Southerton said on March 10, 2005:

Quote

“In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas.  If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today.” 

 

[CA Steve]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As Simon G. Southerton said on March 10, 2005:" In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas.  If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today."

I am sure you know that statements from 15 years ago are a long time in any field, none more so than DNA. In 2013 Simon has said in response to his quote above in 2006

Quote

My comment was a reasonable observation at the time (2006) given the limitations of the mitochondrial and Y-DNA studies, but it is no longer correct. 

... Lehi and his small band colonize a restricted region of the Americas. The Book of Mormon records that  Lehi's descendants multiplied exceedingly and spread upon the face of the land. Their Middle Eastern nuclear DNA would have spread, over the last 3,000 years, throughout adjacent populations like a drop of ink in a bucket of water. At the very least their genes would have spread over many hundreds of kilometres. It would be exceedingly unlikely that their genomic DNA would go extinct and scientists exploring the genomes of Native Americans would stumble on it if it was there. But apparently the Lamanite generation, along with their genes, are nowhere to be found beyond the pages of the Book of Mormon.   

See Could Lamanite DNA Just Disappear?

Edited December 28, 2018 by CA Steve

[mfbukowski]

On 12/26/2018 at 10:44 PM, clarkgoble said:

But the question isn't predicting happiness but predicting the wider range of experience tied to such things. That's part of my objection - if we see happiness as all that matters then I guess that follows. That seems a rather limited view of the world though. I don't merely want to predict my happiness. I want to predict the wide range of phenomena I experience. After all lots of things make me happy. Often religion requires unhappiness in the short term. For Jesus I rather assume during the torture it mattered whether what he believed would happen after he died. Me too

Narrow view.

Of course I was talking about overall happiness

So you think Jesus is now more happy for his ordeal than if he had shirked his duty? Seems obvious to me.

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

Perhaps you should have considered the statement to which I responded:

To which I said:

The explanation that requires the least qualification and ad hoc speculating is preferred.

I also responded on follow up:

There's no contradiction. The normal thing to do is assume JS was conscious that he wasn't really translating. There's no mindreading in that because no other explanation makes sense. The only reason to suggest JS thought he was translating when he wasn't is to escape an unwanted conclusion, known as an ad hoc hypothesis--not an article of faith.

It's like when some Mormons tried to escape the DNA evidence for Indian origins from Asia by explaining God changed the Lamanites' Jewish DNA when they were cursed. That is an ad hoc hypothesis. They don't get to claim a rejection of their theory is the same a rejecting their religion.

My biography of JS offered some psychological interpretations, not mindreading per se. Nevertheless, it is one thing to offer interpretations using sound psychological principles, and quite another to use far fetched explanations relying on mindreading to escape problems.

"Sound psychological principles" showing that it is possible to scientifically psychoanalyze a dead person?

Oh yeah I would like to see that!

Repeating the same bad argument again and again and trying to change the argument's results is ......  let's just say "futile" to be polite.

Yes there are bad arguments made by every one Mormons included but you miss the point that all of this is your personal subjective opinion and is totally unverifiable by objective means. I have bolded those subjective statements.

 I have already quoted Wittgenstein here and now I suppose I should quote Rorty yet again although the quote is attached to every post I make.

Quote

   Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

But I suppose you do not want to discuss the philosophy.  Oh please kind sir don't throw me into that briar patch!

Oh and by the way, 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory

"There are no departments dedicated to "psychohistory" in any institution of higher learning, although some history departments have run courses in it. Psychohistory remains a controversial field of study, facing criticism in the academic community,[10][21][22][23] with critics referring to it as a pseudoscience.[24]Psychohistory uses a plurality of methodologies, and it is difficult to determine which is appropriate to use in each circumstance."

Edited December 28, 2018 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Narrow view.

Of course I was talking about overall happiness

So you think Jesus is now more happy for his ordeal than if he had shirked his duty? Seems obvious to me.

Can one be happy long term ignoring truth (in the more traditional sense)? i.e. if someone has a profound religious experience because of drugs but doesn't know about drugs nor their biological effects, should they learn about that even if it makes them doubt the nature of the religious experience? 

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I am sure you know that statements from 15 years ago are a long time in any field, none more so than DNA. In 2013 Simon has said in response to his quote above in 2006

See Could Lamanite DNA Just Disappear?

It's worth noting Southerton's assumption that the Nephites weren't a tiny group in a huge population. Much of the link is arguing against that common sense thesis since it completely undermines the lines of argument he makes on the DNA side of things. I understand why Southerton makes it - such views were characteristic of mid-20th century "literalism" characteristic of McConkie and others. However if one casts a skeptical eye at traditional interpretations as not taking their own texts seriously then that is a very weak premise. Further it requires a type of "Mormon essentialism" where mid-20th century " literalism" is the only valid Mormonism.

But I'll not go down that tangent and try to keep this thread for Abraham - mesoamerican genetics seems rather unrelated. At best the issue is relevant only because nearly all apologists assume prophets don't have infallible knowledge of the the context for their revelations. Thus Joseph and later prophets didn't know the details of Nephite immigration beyond what's on the pages of the Book of Mormon that they have to interpret the same way anyone here does. A lot of arguments depend upon prophets having special broad infallible knowledge to be prophets. Reject that premise and a lot of arguments fall apart. Not all of them of course which is why there are interesting discussions to be had.

17 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

It's like when some Mormons tried to escape the DNA evidence for Indian origins from Asia by explaining God changed the Lamanites' Jewish DNA when they were cursed. That is an ad hoc hypothesis. They don't get to claim a rejection of their theory is the same a rejecting their religion.

Given all the goofy speculations out there, I'd not want to say no one has said this. However I can honestly say I've never heard such a claim before.

19 hours ago, Vance said:

There are numerous ways to make the calculation, and the results will depend greatly upon the assumptions made. In Engineering, when the solution isn't directly determinable, it can be very useful to bound the problem.

Without much difficulty I could estimate the maximum possible length knowing only the outer circumference and the average thickness.

Lmax ≈ c^2/4πt

There are definite constraints on what one can do. I'd suggest reading the papers linked to before saying too much here.

Edited December 28, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I am sure you know that statements from 15 years ago are a long time in any field, none more so than DNA. In 2013 Simon has said in response to his quote above in 2006

Quote

My comment was a reasonable observation at the time (2006) given the limitations of the mitochondrial and Y-DNA studies, but it is no longer correct. 

... Lehi and his small band colonize a restricted region of the Americas. The Book of Mormon records that  Lehi's descendants multiplied exceedingly and spread upon the face of the land. Their Middle Eastern nuclear DNA would have spread, over the last 3,000 years, throughout adjacent populations like a drop of ink in a bucket of water. At the very least their genes would have spread over many hundreds of kilometres. It would be exceedingly unlikely that their genomic DNA would go extinct and scientists exploring the genomes of Native Americans would stumble on it if it was there. But apparently the Lamanite generation, along with their genes, are nowhere to be found beyond the pages of the Book of Mormon.  

See Could Lamanite DNA Just Disappear?

Although Southerton did back off of his previously absurd and false claim that all Anerinds had to be Lamanites (direct descendants of them), his 2013 revision still substitutes a false assumption about the extent of Lamanite genetic mixing in the Americas ("multiplied exceedingly and spread upon the face of the land").  In other words, he is still maintaining the false continental spread of Lamanites, rather than restricting them to a very small area in the New World.  That is tantamount to claiming that ancient Israel had conquered and spread throughout the ancient Near East during the pre-Exilic period.  In fact, ancient Israel was crammed into a very small area, and their gene pool was restricted to that area.

So too, in ancient America, we pretty well know which linguistic groups/tribes moved this way and that, and that has all been mapped.  Perhaps Southerton would like to tell us what sort of indications of Lamanite movement he sees, and connected with which linguistic group.  In fact most tribes remained in their home territories, just as they do today.  The exceptions to that rule are well known to anthropologists.

So, when Southerton declares this, we might have a question or two:

Quote

This demonstrates that we cannot even detect Hebrew DNA in the small admixed portion of Native American DNA.

I have a post on my blog that mentions admixture mapping. This is the technology I predicted some time ago would leave nowhere to hide.  http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/could-lamanite-dna-just-disappear.html .

He oddly expects any sampling of Amerind DNA to automatically show "Hebrew" DNA, despite the limited area in which it existed, despite the genetic drift which has so quickly changed other limited groups (Icelandic mtDNA, for example), the bottleneck effect, and the founder effects.

If we should find Hebrew DNA in people so easily, then why is that (despite the thousands of years of Jewish Diaspora, especially in Europe) I have no Hebrew DNA in me?  Are his expectations too facile?  Are his assumptions false?  I would rather depend upon ancient DNA extracted from skeletal remains in a geographic area in the New World in which I could reasonably expect to find Hebrew DNA.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Ryan Dahle]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Although Southerton did back off of his previously absurd and false claim that all Anerinds had to be Lamanites (direct descendants of them), his 2013 revision still substitutes a false assumption about the extent of Lamanite genetic mixing in the Americas ("multiplied exceedingly and spread upon the face of the land").  In other words, he is still maintaining the false continental spread of Lamanites, rather than restricting them to a very small area in the New World.

It should probably be added that the swelling Nephite/Lamanite populations were likely due, at least in part, to mixture with indigenous peoples. It especially seems that the Lamanites experienced this phenomenon. So even their reported population growth within the limited scope of their region was probably not representative of their unique DNA dispersion. But as Clark noted, this DNA discussion is really neither here nor there.  

[Vance]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

There are definite constraints on what one can do. I'd suggest reading the papers linked to before saying too much here.

Back in the 80's, I spent years working with rolls and rolls of computer generated plots.  Rolls that were no more that 2" outside diameter and nearly 1" inside diameter could easily roll out to 30 feet in length.

So, go ahead and tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

The equation I gave simply provides a rough estimate (with 10%) of the maximum possible length.   If the inside circumference is 50% of the outside circumference then reduce the length by 25%.  If the packing efficiency of the roll is less than 100%, say 50% then reduce the length by 50%.

The length you end up with depends upon the ASSUMPTIONS you make to start with.

So, all you are really doing is arguing about ASSUMPTIONS.

 

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, Vance said:

So, all you are really doing is arguing about ASSUMPTIONS.

Yes but assumptions are constrained by the evidence, which was my point. Ancient papyri does't roll up the way modern paper does. My point about reading the papers was to simply point out that the objects in question constrain the assumptions. 

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It should probably be added that the swelling Nephite/Lamanite populations were likely due, at least in part, to mixture with indigenous peoples. It especially seems that the Lamanites experienced this phenomenon. So even their reported population growth within the limited scope of their region was probably not representative of their unique DNA dispersion. But as Clark noted, this DNA discussion is really neither here nor there.  

Yup. But again the normal attack is do say that the only legitimate Mormon position is mid-20th century "literalism." So the fact that the population increases don't make any sense without assimilating into a larger body doesn't matter to these critics. It's just an other reason why Mormonism is wrong. It's the old "I'll attack the weakest argument rather than the strongest" tact. I have far more respect for those who disagree with apologists but at least engage with them and their theology rather than just dismissing it as unrepresentative of Mormon thought.

Edited December 28, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Dan Vogel]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

20 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

It's like when some Mormons tried to escape the DNA evidence for Indian origins from Asia by explaining God changed the Lamanites' Jewish DNA when they were cursed. That is an ad hoc hypothesis. They don't get to claim a rejection of their theory is the same a rejecting their religion.

Given all the goofy speculations out there, I'd not want to say no one has said this. However I can honestly say I've never heard such a claim before.

It happened right after Murphy published his DNA essay. It might be found out there in cyber space somewhere. It's just an example of an ad hoc hypothesis; there are many. They all attempt to escape troubling evidence and preserve the central thesis. They are signs that a theory is in decline.

[Vance]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes but assumptions are constrained by the evidence, which was my point. Ancient papyri does't roll up the way modern paper does. My point about reading the papers was to simply point out that the objects in question constrain the assumptions.

Assumptions are influenced by opinions about the evidence.

Quite frankly, we only know about the fragment of papyrus that is available.  We can only ASSUME the implications about the rest that no longer exists.

You can measure this and that and the other thing all you want.   But you have to assume what it all means to the no longer existent scroll.

And what if you what you assumed was off by a factor of 2?  What real difference would it make?

What if the damage to the fragment was from a second mode effect rather than a first?

So, assume the constraints on the assumptions all you want.  To me, it is all just hot air.

[Vance]

20 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

It's like when some Mormons tried to escape the DNA evidence for Indian origins from Asia by explaining God changed the Lamanites' Jewish DNA when they were cursed.

Ah, the proverbial "some Mormons".

[Dan Vogel]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Sound psychological principles" showing that it is possible to scientifically psychoanalyze a dead person?

Oh yeah I would like to see that!

Repeating the same bad argument again and again and trying to change the argument's results is ......  let's just say "futile" to be polite.

Yes there are bad arguments made by every one Mormons included but you miss the point that all of this is your personal subjective opinion and is totally unverifiable by objective means. I have bolded those subjective statements.

 I have already quoted Wittgenstein here and now I suppose I should quote Rorty yet again although the quote is attached to every post I make.

You evidently are not familiar with my work. I do not psychoanalyze Joseph Smith. Robert Anderson did. I used family systems theory, which is the sociology of the family. I used the same methods Kyle Walker has used on the Smith family, only we disagree on the interpretation of sources; his is too apologetic and dismissive of non-Mormon accounts.

 

An argument is not an opinion. An opinion has no evidence or arguments. You should learn the rules of this game. I don’t need verifiable objective evidence, that is, in the sense of requiring an out-of-the-body experience. That’s a red herring. I’ll settle for formulating the most probable or defensible interpretation.

 

If you can say there are bad arguments, then arguments are not as subjective as you think.

 

I’m not repeating a bad argument; it’s perfectly sound.

 

JS said he translated the papyrus

his translation was not verified

ergo JS only pretended he translated

 

Concluding JS only pretended to translate doesn’t require mindreading. The only way you can say that its mindreading is by calling all similar inferences mindreading. In such case, I could be accused of mindreading if I assumed you mean what you write. But that would be silly. However, if I accused you of writing things you don’t believe without giving evidence, you could rightly accuse me of mindreading.

[Dan Vogel]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds more like a strawman, Dan.  The only worthwhile pro or con arguments based on DNA are those made by geneticists, anthropologists, or other professionals.  It isn't even true that all Amerinds derive their DNA from Asia. And what little we do know is derived mainly through testing modern Amerinds.  We have always known that most Amerinds likely came from Eurasia via Siberia and Beringia, but we also have other DNA which entered the Americas anciently, e.g., some Amazonians show DNA connections to Australian Aborigines and Pacific Islanders.  We do not have good samples across the broad range of ancient sites from ancient skeletal remains, without which we cannot establish the nature of the DNA of all ancient tribes, before they went through genetic drift, the bottleneck effect, and the founder effect, or “serial founder effects,” i.e., each successive wave of migration carrying a subset of the genetic variation held by previous groups – thus eroding diversity. 

Yes, of course. Do you not follow my argument that such explanations are ad hoc and fallacious the same as the catalyst theory, at least the version Robin Jenson stated: that JS thought he was translating the Breathing Permit but actually wasn't.

[CA Steve]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's worth noting Southerton's assumption that the Nephites weren't a tiny group in a huge population. Much of the link is arguing against that common sense thesis since it completely undermines the lines of argument he makes on the DNA side of things. I understand why Southerton makes it - such views were characteristic of mid-20th century "literalism" characteristic of McConkie and others. However if one casts a skeptical eye at traditional interpretations as not taking their own texts seriously then that is a very weak premise. Further it requires a type of "Mormon essentialism" where mid-20th century " literalism" is the only valid Mormonism

 

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Although Southerton did back off of his previously absurd and false claim that all Anerinds had to be Lamanites (direct descendants of them), his 2013 revision still substitutes a false assumption about the extent of Lamanite genetic mixing in the Americas ("multiplied exceedingly and spread upon the face of the land").  In other words, he is still maintaining the false continental spread of Lamanites, rather than restricting them to a very small area in the New World.  That is tantamount to claiming that ancient Israel had conquered and spread throughout the ancient Near East during the pre-Exilic period.  In fact, ancient Israel was crammed into a very small area, and their gene pool was restricted to that area

Clark & Robert,

It is was not my intention to argue Southerton's position, DNA, or Lamanites. I was merely pointing out to Robert that his quote of Southerton no longer represented what Simon believed due to advances in DNA science. It is hard to fault a scientist for revising his beliefs based on advances in his own field.  I do find something interesting here. 

I grew up in a church whose members were taught by apostles and prophets that native Americans were all descendants. The skin of Indian placement students was noticeably lighter that that of their parents.  To this day, my 85 year old father believes the American Indians are Lamanites. We had Lamanite Polynesian dancers staying in our house when they came over from Hawaii to perform in the U.S.  Regardless of what modern science or even more "nuanced views" of the Book of Mormon tell us, it is evident that when we criticize Simon for "absurd and false" claims we are also criticizing past apostles and prophets who within our own lifetimes were making statements like this:

Quote

Most members of the Church know that the Lamanites, who consist of the Indians of all the Americas as well as the islanders of the Pacific, are a people with a special heritage.

 Quotes that are sill shown on the church's own websites.

See The Lamanites.

 

The way things are going, I suspect there may only be a couple of acres on the coast of Guatemala that may rightly be considered the "Promised Land" that Lehi was promised.

 

[Dan Vogel]

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 5:03 PM, Vance said:

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 9:21 PM, Dan Vogel said:

There are no such descriptions. Watch my 7th video.

You ignoring  them doesn't mean they don't exist. 

Quote

 

Hugh Nibley cites a personal reference to scrolls clearly different from the recovered papyri. In 1906, while visiting Nauvoo, President Joseph F. Smith related to Preston Nibley his experience as a child of seeing his Uncle Joseph in the front rooms of the Mansion House working on the Egyptian manuscripts. According to President Smith, one of the rolls of papyri "when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.

Nibley 1968,"Phase I," 101

 

There is some evidence for you.

In my video #7, I examine all seven sources Muhlestein uses to establish his long-scroll theory. They all fail. He doesn't even bother with Nibley's thirdhand story. Besides, if there were such a scroll, nothing was said to identify it with Abraham. Possibly JS unrolled the intact 3 foot end of the Hor scroll and then laid out the other fragments amounting to about 5 feet and he needed to open the door because there was too much furniture in the small rooms of the Mansion House. Who knows what really happened? The source isn't very good.