Friendly Fire from BYU: Opening Old Book of Abraham Wounds Without the First Aid

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, the narrator said:

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

My point, again, is that the only reason apologists now are proposing the BofA to be a translation of a pseudepigraphic texts is because they want to maintain a claim of it being a translation of an ancient text. That is it.

I don't really care who this imaginary pseudepigraphic author was supposed to be.

Actually, the pseudepigraphic thing is a scholarly option.  It does not push anything like authenticity for the BofA as coming from a real Abraham.  Indeed, it throws cold water on it, much the same way EModE throws cold water on Joseph Smith as being anything more than a ventriloquist for the BofM text.  How does that help an apologetic agenda?

5 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Also, there is nothing in the BofA that was not part of Joseph Smith's cultural contexts. The cosmology, theology, and narratives were all present in various theologies, sciences, and commentaries contemporary to Joseph Smith. Sure, some of them might parallel ancient ideas, but if they parallel ideas contemporary to Joseph Smith (or IMO better parallel them), then pointing to the ancient parallels as evidence of their antiquity is pretty weak.

So you admit that there are "ancient parallels," even if you dismiss them as "weak" and irrelevant?  Is that progress?  

5 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Whether the content on the papyri be generic or unique or even funerary texts at all, the point is that again the silliness of God going to great lengths to preserve pseudepigrapha supposedly attached, encoded, or recycled by some  unrelated Egyptian ritual text.

But that is just the point:  Those texts, the BD and Book of Breathings, are unrelated.  As Kevin Barney has shown, they are adaptable, and we can see that from other syncretic uses of them in ancient times, but they are not part of the actual BofA.  How clever of God to arrange to have a Jewish scribe deposit the actual BofA papyrus (which we no longer have) in a tomb so that it could be discovered much later -- in the same way the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic texts from Chenoboskian have been found in our own era, and with powerfully influential results.

5 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I agree. Though at least with the golden plates one could argue from the Book-of-Mormon-took-place-in-Mesoamerica approach that Moroni out of fear of being killed (or whatever reason) traveled thousands of miles before burying them near his dying home, that God protected that small spot from danger (perhaps slipping it away at times from potential thieves), and waiting for the right person to come around at the right time to be led to it, and that contrary to Joseph's own grande self-understanding of his place in the grande cosmic narrative, he was actually just one of many who could have been called to that purpose, him just being the right person at the right time. ......................................

Richard Bushman took the self-referential words at 2 Ne 3:15-16 as virtually "postmodern," which hardly indicates that just anyone could come along and lay claim to that "place in the grande cosmic narrative."

5 minutes ago, the narrator said:

That is odd claim. It has 250 or so words in it.

Not sure you actually mean to say this, but, if so, then please tell me which words in D&C 7 can be used by a secular scholar to indicate that it is based on an authentic ancient document.

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Yes. These are the questions that people need to be asking. Too often these debates begin with certain assumptions about what scripture is before questioning if those assumptions are correct. James Faulconer has a excellent discussion of this here. (I think the free sample has most of his chapter in it.)

Nah. It just means that divine communication and scripture are far more complicated than many want to naively believe.

I definitely agree with your last comment. I agree with the other one as well although I think that goes both ways. 

25 minutes ago, the narrator said:

My point, again, is that the only reason apologists now are proposing the BofA to be a translation of a pseudepigraphic texts is because they want to maintain a claim of it being a translation of an ancient text. That is it.

I don't think that's the only reason and the tie to a 1st century text is actually pretty old. Rather it's just them thinking there's a connection between the papyri and the Book of Abraham. Which isn't that surprising a view given that Joseph and others held that view. Now it may be wrong but I don't think it's hard to understand. The other reason is just that so much of the Book of Abraham lines up with pseudepigrapha from the Ptolemaic and Roman periods that were unknown at the time of Joseph Smith. 

Now some note the pseudepigrapha connection but think there is no pseudepigrapha text because pseudepigrapha is made up. So the thesis is that all the lost texts at the end of the exile that were lost included legends of Abraham. The pseudepigraphic authors then used those legends to write their texts for often political or theological reasons. That is they postulate a more extensive now lost J/E source about Abraham. 

I bring this up simply to note that an apologist could easily have the Book of Abraham being an authentic ancient text without involving 1st century pseudepigrapha. The real concern is with the papyri at hand which is, I think, the real desire for the missing papyri. There are of course other alternatives than the catalyst theory or the missing papyri theory but they tend to not get as much attention.

17 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Please explain your logic of how it not being ancient prevents it from being scripture.

The usual concern is that scripture to be valid scripture has to be true in a reasonably strong sense. I think everyone allows for errors. And I think everyone on the basis of Nephi's comments allows for a fair bit of corruption in the Bible. But the assumption that extended fictional narrative can be scripture (as opposed to short parables or allegories) is a bridge too far to most people. Clearly it's not for others. However the implication is always, if it's fiction how can we trust it? 

Not to go off on a tangent on this point. But it constantly surprises me that this argument gets dismissed. I get people disagreeing with it but it seems a straightforward argument.

25 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Whether the content on the papyri be generic or unique or even funerary texts at all, the point is that again the silliness of God going to great lengths to preserve pseudepigrapha supposedly attached, encoded, or recycled by some  unrelated Egyptian ritual text.

Why is that sillier than requiring props when a straightforward revelation like D&C 7 would do?  Or send an angel from a non-existent group pretending to be a character from a fictional narrative?

There may be weaknesses in the attempt to take seriously the origins of both the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, but there's weaknesses in the alternatives too.

Edited March 29, 2019 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There were no Jewish Egyptians.  The large Jewish community in Egypt, as with other foreign communities, was very separate and usually endogamous (the Jews of the Elephantine military colony did marry some Egyptian women).  Any pseudepigraphic creations normally involved tradents who took already extant legends and combined and edited them into a coherent story.  Many of the tropes and formulas are shared among these stories.  They are certainly not reflective of 19th century ideas.

I confess I'm kind of skeptical of this. As you note the Elephantine texts suggest something different during the exile and in the Ptolemaic period. We know back in Jerusalem many Jews were not only not endogamous but were doing what they could to assimilate to Greek values. (To the point that some historians talk about attempts to reverse circumcision) If they were doing that in Jerusalem, I'd expect it to be going on in Egypt too. I think part of the problem is that Jews that were endogamous liked to portray everyone like that. Much like the Old Testament likes to portray a clear line between Jews going to paganism and devout Jews while the archaeological record suggests things were much more complicated.

We know Jewish and Gnostic influences on paganism - especially magic texts. I can completely see syncretic Jews who influenced Egyptians and Egyptians influencing Jews, much like we see with Hellenism. (Say with Philo)

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I'm kind of skeptical of this. As you note the Elephantine texts suggest something different during the exile and in the Ptolemaic period. We know back in Jerusalem many Jews were not only not endogamous but were doing what they could to assimilate to Greek values. (To the point that some historians talk about attempts to reverse circumcision) If they were doing that in Jerusalem, I'd expect it to be going on in Egypt too. I think part of the problem is that Jews that were endogamous liked to portray everyone like that. Much like the Old Testament likes to portray a clear line between Jews going to paganism and devout Jews while the archaeological record suggests things were much more complicated.

We know Jewish and Gnostic influences on paganism - especially magic texts. I can completely see syncretic Jews who influenced Egyptians and Egyptians influencing Jews, much like we see with Hellenism. (Say with Philo)

You are correct, Clark.  Thanks for the reality check.  Hellenizing Jews (including Philo) were very powerful and influential.  Other groups of Jews would have been very clannish and anti-Hellenistic.  So it was a mixed bag, with some Jews even caught up in magical practices.

[Balinaka]

This is an interesting discussion and I thought I would weigh in.  I was one who totally lost faith in the BoA, BoM, the Church, and ultimately God because of issues like this, and spent ten years as an agnostic as a result.  But  I ultimately resolved these issues by realizing it's not important how the translations (BoM and  BoA) were done, just that they were done.  They may not have been perfect, nor were they weren't expected to be, but were done to the best of Joseph's ability at the time.

Once I realized God doesn't do anything for us that we can do ourselves, I began to see things in a whole new light.  For instance, God could have built the ark for Noah or saved him and his family in some miraculous way, but he let Noah spend 120 years building building it himself.  Why?  Because Noah had the ability.  He could have handed the lighted stones to the Brother of Jared or gave him the plans to build a generator, battery, and LED lighting; but he allowed him to use his intellect to figure something out.  Why?  Because he had the ability.  God only stepped in and did that which was beyond the Brother of Jared's ability to do himself.  The Brother of Jared probably came up with the worst way possible to light the barges, but it didn't matter.  It was the best he could do with the knowledge he had and that's all God needs to work a miracle.

So how does this relate to translation?

When we translate something today I assume there are 5 basic steps involved: (Please correct me if my assumptions are off)

Step 1:  Know the source and target languages fluently.

Step 2:  Read or hear a phrase from the source language.

Step 3:  Interpret the meaning.

Step 4:  Figure out the best way to convey that meaning in the target language.

Step 5:  Output the result.

Sometimes an exact interpretation might not be possible so they try and get as close as they can, and might even use words from other languages.  Thus,  "Put your shoulder to the wheel" becomes "Stick your hand out the sleeve" in Dutch.

Getting back to the pattern which God seems to have set, I strongly believe God only took care of Steps 1 - 3, and Joseph was totally responsible for  steps 4 and 5.   Moroni could have handed Joseph a complete printer's manuscript with perfect grammar, punctuation, and diction; but that's not the precedent that's been set.  Joseph may have come up with the worst way possible to convey Mormon and Moroni's meaning in English but it didn't matter.  It was the best he could do at that particular time and that's all God expected.  God could work his miracle from there.  It was good enough for the Holy Spirit to convert earnest seekers such as Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Willard Richards, and anyone else.   I firmly believe that any revisions Joseph made were done without God's input, and were only done as Joseph gained a greater understanding of the BoM and the English language.  Why?  Because that fits the pattern.

Did Joseph believe one character in the Egyptian alphabet  translated to multiple lines of English text?  Maybe.  Does it matter?  Not really because steps 1 - 3 were God's responsibility.   Joseph was only responsible for figuring out how to convert what God gave him into English.  Limited as it was it was good enough.

[Bede]

On 3/29/2019 at 12:04 AM, Wade Englund said:

You strike me as a very bright person, and so I figure your breath-taking comment was off-the-cuff and didn't entail much thought.

Cheezus, Wade. That was uncalled for. You come in here, guns-a-blazin' not even knowing who you are talking to. 

[the narrator]

On 3/29/2019 at 3:44 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

How does that help an apologetic agenda?

I don't think positing a 1st century pseudepigraphic author helps an apologetic agenda. I think it's a waste of time. However, I think it's become an agenda by apologists who want to demand that the BofA be a translation of an ancient text.

On 3/29/2019 at 3:44 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

So you admit that there are "ancient parallels," even if you dismiss them as "weak" and irrelevant?  Is that progress?

I've always acknowledged ancient parallels could be made. I just now think that they can be better explained by 19th century parallels.

On 3/29/2019 at 3:44 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

How clever of God to arrange to have a Jewish scribe deposit the actual BofA papyrus (which we no longer have) in a tomb so that it could be discovered much later -- in the same way the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic texts from Chenoboskian have been found in our own era, and with powerfully influential results.

Again, it's not just the supposed and unnecessary divine preservation. It's the whole unnecessary effort to get them into Kirtland, Ohio, in just the precise era.

On 3/29/2019 at 3:44 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Richard Bushman took the self-referential words at 2 Ne 3:15-16 as virtually "postmodern," which hardly indicates that just anyone could come along and lay claim to that "place in the grande cosmic narrative."

Geez, Bob. Beating straw men doesn't help productive discussion. I said "the right person to come around at the right time" and "just one of many who could have been called to that purpose."

On 3/29/2019 at 3:44 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

then please tell me which words in D&C 7 can be used by a secular scholar to indicate that it is based on an authentic ancient document.

I didn't say any of them indicate it is based on an authentic ancient document. However, the identification of John as an author, the self-identification of John as beloved, John supposedly making explicit the tradition that John was given immortality, etc are all words that a secular scholar could use to discredit it's claim of ancient authenticity. I guess someone could argue, like with the BofA, that the writing on parchment is pseudepigrapha similar to the biblical epistles of John, but then we end up with the same problem.

 

 

[the narrator]

On 3/29/2019 at 3:45 PM, clarkgoble said:

There may be weaknesses in the attempt to take seriously the origins of both the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, but there's weaknesses in the alternatives too.

I completely agree. I'm not saying that the weaker narratives are impossible, just that they are so implausible that if one wishes to defend the divinity of the BofA there are much more reasonable and responsible ways to do so.

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I don't think positing a 1st century pseudepigraphic author helps an apologetic agenda. I think it's a waste of time. However, I think it's become an agenda by apologists who want to demand that the BofA be a translation of an ancient text.

Then we agree that, from the scholarly POV, it does not help the so-called "apologetic agenda."  It simply accepts the data provided by the papyri and the BofA itself.  It does not bridge the gap to the 19th century.  That is called honesty.

22 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I've always acknowledged ancient parallels could be made. I just now think that they can be better explained by 19th century parallels.

I keep hoping that someone will make that formal case, Vogel perhaps.  Thus far it is an empty assertion with no substantive backing.

22 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Again, it's not just the supposed and unnecessary divine preservation. It's the whole unnecessary effort to get them into Kirtland, Ohio, in just the precise era.

So the instances of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Chenoboskian are pure accidence, while Kirtland is a hoax.  Heavily judgmental, but reasonably conceivable.

22 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Geez, Bob. Beating straw men doesn't help productive discussion. I said "the right person to come around at the right time" and "just one of many who could have been called to that purpose."

I must have misread you, Loyd.  Or perhaps your comments weren't pointed enough.  I don't play strawman games.

22 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I didn't say any of them indicate it is based on an authentic ancient document. However, the identification of John as an author, the self-identification of John as beloved, John supposedly making explicit the tradition that John was given immortality, etc are all words that a secular scholar could use to discredit it's claim of ancient authenticity. I guess someone could argue, like with the BofA, that the writing on parchment is pseudepigrapha similar to the biblical epistles of John, but then we end up with the same problem.

So, we end up with no substantive support for D&C 7, which is what I suggested is the bottom line.  For a scholar there is no comparison.

[Wade Englund]

3 hours ago, Bede said:

Cheezus, Wade. That was uncalled for. You come in here, guns-a-blazin' not even knowing who you are talking to. 

I am trying to think of a non-gun-blazing way to say that you have leaped to several false conclusions. Clark and I had a number of interaction, particularly on the BoA, back when I was active in apologetics over half a decade ago. 

But, I appreciate the ironic remark. It gave me a chuckle.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Wade Englund]

7 hours ago, Balinaka said:

This is an interesting discussion and I thought I would weigh in.  I was one who totally lost faith in the BoA, BoM, the Church, and ultimately God because of issues like this, and spent ten years as an agnostic as a result.  But  I ultimately resolved these issues by realizing it's not important how the translations (BoM and  BoA) were done, just that they were done.  They may not have been perfect, nor were they weren't expected to be, but were done to the best of Joseph's ability at the time.

Once I realized God doesn't do anything for us that we can do ourselves, I began to see things in a whole new light.  For instance, God could have built the ark for Noah or saved him and his family in some miraculous way, but he let Noah spend 120 years building building it himself.  Why?  Because Noah had the ability.  He could have handed the lighted stones to the Brother of Jared or gave him the plans to build a generator, battery, and LED lighting; but he allowed him to use his intellect to figure something out.  Why?  Because he had the ability.  God only stepped in and did that which was beyond the Brother of Jared's ability to do himself.  The Brother of Jared probably came up with the worst way possible to light the barges, but it didn't matter.  It was the best he could do with the knowledge he had and that's all God needs to work a miracle.

So how does this relate to translation?

When we translate something today I assume there are 5 basic steps involved: (Please correct me if my assumptions are off)

Step 1:  Know the source and target languages fluently.

Step 2:  Read or hear a phrase from the source language.

Step 3:  Interpret the meaning.

Step 4:  Figure out the best way to convey that meaning in the target language.

Step 5:  Output the result.

Sometimes an exact interpretation might not be possible so they try and get as close as they can, and might even use words from other languages.  Thus,  "Put your shoulder to the wheel" becomes "Stick your hand out the sleeve" in Dutch.

Getting back to the pattern which God seems to have set, I strongly believe God only took care of Steps 1 - 3, and Joseph was totally responsible for  steps 4 and 5.   Moroni could have handed Joseph a complete printer's manuscript with perfect grammar, punctuation, and diction; but that's not the precedent that's been set.  Joseph may have come up with the worst way possible to convey Mormon and Moroni's meaning in English but it didn't matter.  It was the best he could do at that particular time and that's all God expected.  God could work his miracle from there.  It was good enough for the Holy Spirit to convert earnest seekers such as Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Willard Richards, and anyone else.   I firmly believe that any revisions Joseph made were done without God's input, and were only done as Joseph gained a greater understanding of the BoM and the English language.  Why?  Because that fits the pattern.

Did Joseph believe one character in the Egyptian alphabet  translated to multiple lines of English text?  Maybe.  Does it matter?  Not really because steps 1 - 3 were God's responsibility.   Joseph was only responsible for figuring out how to convert what God gave him into English.  Limited as it was it was good enough.

Well said....although having once experienced the gift of tongues, I believe it is also possible that God may have been involved in step 4,  and this by His painting the  translation onto Joseph's cognitive canvas using the linguistic and conceptual pallet of Joseph's  19th century and biblical-familiar mind.  

If so, it wouldn't matter either because, as you wisely noted, it isn't how things were translated, but that the edifying words were translated.  And, as Moroni said, " And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire."  (Morm. 8:17)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bede]

2 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

I am trying to think of a non-gun-blazing way to say that you have leaped to several false conclusions. Clark and I had a number of interaction, particularly on the BoA, back when I was active in apologetics over half a decade ago. 

But, I appreciate the ironic remark. It gave me a chuckle.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

But you said "you strike me as a very bright person" which would indicate that you do not know him.

[Wade Englund]

14 minutes ago, Bede said:

But you said "you strike me as a very bright person" which would indicate that you do not know him.

Yes, I did say that.

No, it doesn't necessarily  indicate what you mistakenly assumed.

I used the verb "strike" to mean "cause someone to have a feeling or idea about something"  (see HERE) Note that the  "cause" is non-specific in terms of duration or extent of familiarity or otherwise.

.To be charitable, though, I will figure that your playfully confrontational and relatively substance-less posts to me have much to do with this being the  1st of April.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

[stemelbow]

On 3/29/2019 at 3:27 PM, the narrator said:

My point is that the imaginary person has made no claims at all

Well shoot, I thought that was my point.  AH well, at least we can agree on it.  

On 3/29/2019 at 3:27 PM, the narrator said:

I think it's quite reasonable. Please explain your logic of how it not being ancient prevents it from being scripture.

I wouldn't say it prevents it from being scripture.  But I think there may be a problem in how the church typically thinks of scripture, if it is not ancient.  That is the Church takes the position that the story in it, at least, is ancient--that it describes what Abraham really thought/said/wrote.  My issue here though is if Joseph said he translated Abraham's writings and it came out as the BoA, and yet it wasn't Abraham's writings, then it appears JOseph didn't know what was happening.  Yet, he spoke as if he knew what was happening.  It's as if God tricked him in creating the BoA scripture, making him think he was doing that which he was not doing.  

On 3/29/2019 at 3:27 PM, the narrator said:

Yes. These are the questions that people need to be asking. Too often these debates begin with certain assumptions about what scripture is before questioning if those assumptions are correct. James Faulconer has a excellent discussion of this here. (I think the free sample has most of his chapter in it.)

THanks.  I remember Faulconer from a while ago.  I agree..  It's owrth considering.  

On 3/29/2019 at 3:27 PM, the narrator said:

Nah. It just means that divine communication and scripture are far more complicated than many want to naively believe.

Perhaps so much so that there's very little difference between what we call scripture and all other writings and inspire, many of which we often just term novels.  

[Wade Englund]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Perhaps so much so that there's very little difference between what we call scripture and all other writings and inspire, many of which we often just term novels.  

Absent the Holy Spirit, I can see how it would appear that way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, Bede said:

Cheezus, Wade. That was uncalled for. You come in here, guns-a-blazin' not even knowing who you are talking to. 

Just to be clear, I don't consider myself an expert in any of these things. I just try to ask good questions and look up answers. But I always feel myself the poser listening to people much more versed than myself. I always say there's no shortage to what you can learn if you don't mind being thought of as an idiot.

 

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Absent the Holy Spirit, I can see how it would appear that way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

With the Spirit, it can be that way.  

[the narrator]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Then we agree that, from the scholarly POV, it does not help the so-called "apologetic agenda."

Since I never said it helped any apologetic agenda, I am confused as to why you keep beating that strawman.

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It simply accepts the data provided by the papyri and the BofA itself.  It does not bridge the gap to the 19th century.  That is called honesty.

Wrong. The "BofA itself" is a 19th century english text. The apologetic positing of a 1st century pseudepigraphic author is trying to bridge Joseph's claims about the origin of the 19th century english text and it's relation to the papyri.

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

Again, it's not just the supposed and unnecessary divine preservation. It's the whole unnecessary effort to get them into Kirtland, Ohio, in just the precise era.

So the instances of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Chenoboskian are pure accidence, while Kirtland is a hoax.  Heavily judgmental, but reasonably conceivable.

Is someone claiming that the DSS and NH Library were not just divinely preserved by God and through multiple intercessions by God brought across the Atlantic to a small rural community to be divinely translated by a relatively unknown American mystic?

No.

Also, I never said anything was a hoax. Stop fighting with straw men.

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I must have misread you, Loyd.  Or perhaps your comments weren't pointed enough.  I don't play strawman games.

Not sure how much pointed I can be than "right person at right time." That's pretty much the opposite of "just anyone." Perhaps your repeated turns to attacking a straw man rather than engaging what I'm actually saying is the result of apologists' tendencies to see everything as attacks in order to make sense of their own identities. Kind of like the Batman needing the Joker to justify his own existence. Just speculating here.

 

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, we end up with no substantive support for D&C 7, which is what I suggested is the bottom line.  For a scholar there is no comparison.

If you are saying that there is no substantive reason to believe that D&C 7 is a translation of an ancient text but plenty of substantive reasons to believe it is not, then we are in agreement.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Since I never said it helped any apologetic agenda, I am confused as to why you keep beating that strawman.

Wrong. The "BofA itself" is a 19th century english text. The apologetic positing of a 1st century pseudepigraphic author is trying to bridge Joseph's claims about the origin of the 19th century english text and it's relation to the papyri.

I was going to suggest that you seem to see everything through the lens of apologetics, but I see that you have wrongly suggested it immediately below as my failure. I have not been trying to place a strawman in your path, Loyd.  Indeed, for the third time, I am simply in agreement with secular scholarship that there is no way to bridge any supposed gap between a Plolemaic period pseudepigraphon and the 19th century.  I had thought that you would agree that there is no rational way to bridge that gap.  Instead you are weaponizing it.  Oh well.  

8 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Is someone claiming that the DSS and NH Library were not just divinely preserved by God and through multiple intercessions by God brought across the Atlantic to a small rural community to be divinely translated by a relatively unknown American mystic?

No.

Geography isn't germane to the point which some people (non-LDS people) make in suggesting the working of divine providence in such discoveries.  To the scholar, it makes no difference whether it is some country bumpkin named Joe Smith, or an bedouin boy named Muhammed edh-Dhib who makes a discovery.  The only germane question is whether the claimed discovery is authentic.  Those caught up in apologetics and polemics miss that point.

8 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Also, I never said anything was a hoax. Stop fighting with straw men.

I called the notion (which I did not attribute to you) "reasonably conceivable."  I was having a discussion with you, Loyd, not throwing grenades.

8 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Not sure how much pointed I can be than "right person at right time." That's pretty much the opposite of "just anyone." Perhaps your repeated turns to attacking a straw man rather than engaging what I'm actually saying is the result of apologists' tendencies to see everything as attacks in order to make sense of their own identities. Kind of like the Batman needing the Joker to justify his own existence. Just speculating here.

Tu quoque, Loyd.  I was simply asking for clarification, not surrender.

8 minutes ago, the narrator said:

If you are saying that there is no substantive reason to believe that D&C 7 is a translation of an ancient text but plenty of substantive reasons to believe it is not, then we are in agreement.

Glad you finally understood me here, even though you continue to miss the point above (which is essentially the same point).

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It's as if God tricked him in creating the BoA scripture, making him think he was doing that which he was not doing.

Or using Joseph's own limited understanding and pre-conceived notions, God inspired Joseph to incorporate important theological ideas into a past narrative.

16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Perhaps so much so that there's very little difference between what we call scripture and all other writings and inspire, many of which we often just term novels.

IMO, the notion that there is some platonic core to scripture makes little sense. (Though, as a Wittgensteinian, positing any metaphysical reality makes little sense to me.) The difference between scripture and mere novels, IMO, is hardly little though. The difference is between the loyalty, authority, and importance that a community (or maybe individual) grants a text (or other medium). Think about the ideal canonization process. Ultimately what makes something scripture is an unanimous declaration by the body of the Church that something is scripture. Sure, they may think it scripture because they think it has some core scriptureness to it, but in the end it's the community declaring that it authoritative and important (and thus due loyalty) that makes it so.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Or using Joseph's own limited understanding and pre-conceived notions, God inspired Joseph to incorporate important theological ideas into a past narrative.

That certainly seems to add a few unneeded assumptions itself.  

"well it doesn't appear it's an ancient text"

"well, maybe it doesn't have to be ancient to be inspired"

"ok.  But didn't Joseph think it ancient as if God was telling him/inspiring him to tell an ancient story?"

"Not necessarily God was using Joseph's own limited understanding and yet inspiring him to tell a story that never really happened in past but since Joseph knew about Abraham and stuff, he needed to use that to incorporate important theological ideas..."  

Or whatever.  I mean the explanations just get more and more complicated and perpahs some might say convoluted as we go.  It really puts an interesting spin on the long held tradition of the text was translated from an ancient source by the gift and power of God.  

10 minutes ago, the narrator said:

IMO, the notion that there is some platonic core to scripture makes little sense. (Though, as a Wittgensteinian, positing any metaphysical reality makes little sense to me.) The difference between scripture and mere novels, IMO, is hardly little though. The difference is between the loyalty, authority, and importance that a community (or maybe individual) grants a text (or other medium). Think about the ideal canonization process. Ultimately what makes something scripture is an unanimous declaration by the body of the Church that something is scripture. Sure, they may think it scripture because they think it has some core scriptureness to it, but in the end it's the community declaring that it authoritative and important (and thus due loyalty) that makes it so.

I like the but in your jib, or whatever the saying is.  I'm feeling on board with this.  It really means something when you realize certain stories phrases, or passages from various novels seem to have as much an impact and provide as much meaning as the stories, and phrases from various scriptures have on people.  

[the narrator]

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Or whatever.  I mean the explanations just get more and more complicated and perpahs some might say convoluted as we go.  It really puts an interesting spin on the long held tradition of the text was translated from an ancient source by the gift and power of God

I like to think of it at as things getting more simple as we strip away assumptions and demands that are becoming less tenable. This happens with asl sorts of things. How many people out there think that mortal life on earth for all plants and animals began just over 6000 years ago or that the earth was completely covered in water 4000 (or whatever) years ago? Some maybe say that abandoning those claims has made things more complicated, but I think abandoning and reunderstanding what Genesis is doing is actually simplifying things.

[the narrator]

57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

To the scholar, it makes no difference whether it is some country bumpkin named Joe Smith, or an bedouin boy named Muhammed edh-Dhib who makes a discovery.  The only germane question is whether the claimed discovery is authentic.

But we (or at least I) have not been discussing mere scholarship. My critique here has been and remains a critique of apologetic claims concerning the BofA being a translation of 1st century pseudepigrapha.

[stemelbow]

41 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I like to think of it at as things getting more simple as we strip away assumptions and demands that are becoming less tenable. This happens with asl sorts of things. How many people out there think that mortal life on earth for all plants and animals began just over 6000 years ago or that the earth was completely covered in water 4000 (or whatever) years ago? Some maybe say that abandoning those claims has made things more complicated, but I think abandoning and reunderstanding what Genesis is doing is actually simplifying things.

Alright I"m agreeing with this.  But I can't emphasize enough that going this route with the BoA knocks it down a notch or two from where the Church wants scripture to be.  Well it knocks all of scripture down a notch or two.  Hey, I find that healthy, but I can't kid myself into thinking that it isn't arguing against the Church, nor the story that Joseph Smith started.  

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Alright I"m agreeing with this.  But I can't emphasize enough that going this route with the BoA knocks it down a notch or two from where the Church wants scripture to be.  Well it knocks all of scripture down a notch or two.  Hey, I find that healthy, but I can't kid myself into thinking that it isn't arguing against the Church, nor the story that Joseph Smith started.  

IMO, the reasons why the Church wants scripture to be a particular thing is to assert or maintain the authority of top ecclesiastical leaders. To recognize the complexity and ambiguous nature of scripture is to simultaneously recognize the same for The Brethren, and I don't think they want that--especially Pres. Nelson who is going far beyond his predecessors in claiming privileged and unambiguous divine authority. Along with that, my general thesis right now is that Mormon scriptural apologetics (that is, apologetics demanding and defending the ancient history of texts, particularly the BofM) primarily exists as a way to defend ecclesiastical authority where charismatic authority is lacking. (In short: if the BofM is ancient, then Pres. Nelson is a prophet of God and you must obey him.) This is a whole other tangent though.