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

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

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.

Fair enough, but that still entails the basic and "only germane question ... whether the claimed discovery is authentic."  That is a far more productive tack than the focus of your and Blair Van Dyke's book on Perspectives on Mormon Theology: Apologetics (Kofford, 2017).  Just my opinion, of course.

[Dan Vogel]

On 4/1/2019 at 1:35 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

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

You won't have to wait much longer. The problem is that most of the parallels to early Jewish, Christian, or Muslim traditions are so weak that even when I can show that JS's contemporaries had access to them it doesn't matter because JS could not have used them anyway. Paralleling the BoA with traditions of his being thrown into a furnace or fire is a joke. JS's contemporaries knew about these stories, but the more likely source for the BoA is Facsimile 1. JS didn't need anything more than that. Anyway, the 8th video to my series will be on nineteenth-century sources compared to ancient ones. 

[Robert F. Smith]

27 minutes ago, Dan Vogel said:

You won't have to wait much longer. The problem is that most of the parallels to early Jewish, Christian, or Muslim traditions are so weak that even when I can show that JS's contemporaries had access to them it doesn't matter because JS could not have used them anyway. Paralleling the BoA with traditions of his being thrown into a furnace or fire is a joke. JS's contemporaries knew about these stories, but the more likely source for the BoA is Facsimile 1. JS didn't need anything more than that. Anyway, the 8th video to my series will be on nineteenth-century sources compared to ancient ones. 

Well, if that is the case, Dan, then by all means demonstrate it.  You'll be doing a great service to the larger debate.

[the narrator]

40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Fair enough, but that still entails the basic and "only germane question ... whether the claimed discovery is authentic." 

To avoid further confusion, can you please provide more details on what you mean here?

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is a far more productive tack than the focus of your and Blair Van Dyke's book on Perspectives on Mormon Theology: Apologetics (Kofford, 2017).  Just my opinion, of course.

And what do you think that focus was?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, the narrator said:

To avoid further confusion, can you please provide more details on what you mean here?

In his Lehi in the Desert, Hugh Nibley had a cute little parable about someone claiming to have found a diamond in a very unlikely place, and everyone consequently talked around the subject, without addressing the central issue:  Is it a real diamond?

2 minutes ago, the narrator said:

And what do you think that focus was?

Apologetics.

[the narrator]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In his Lehi in the Desert, Hugh Nibley had a cute little parable about someone claiming to have found a diamond in a very unlikely place, and everyone consequently talked around the subject, without addressing the central issue:  Is it a real diamond?

Is someone denying that Joseph had a mummy and Egyptian papyri?

As far as my book goes, I'd love to hear your criticisms of my chapter. Saying that you wish it was a different book is a rather boring criticism.

[Wade Englund]

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

With the Spirit, it can be that way.  

It has been my experience that while I have been inspired by both novels and scriptures, I tend not to have the Spirit witness to the verity of novels, and even less where the Spirit opens my mind to greater and layers of understanding of the novels,  whereas that is commonplace during my reading of the scriptures.  

Granted, there are secular tools at my disposal that enable me to test the truth of the novels and expand my understand, but that is something quite different than the Spirit.

Has your experience with novels been different?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[the narrator]

3 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

I tend not to have the Spirit witness to the verity of novels, and even less where the Spirit opens my mind to greater and layers of understanding of the novels,  whereas that is commonplace during my reading of the scriptures.  

You should read more Dostoevsky.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, the narrator said:

Is someone denying that Joseph had a mummy and Egyptian papyri?

Nibley's parable was directed at the BofM text, and how everyone talked around it, instead of addressing it directly -- the way a questioned document examiner would look at a document to determine whether it was authentic or a fake.  I thought the comparison with the BofA text was similarly at issue, even though everyone prefers to talk around it.  A kind of avoidance response.

6 hours ago, the narrator said:

As far as my book goes, I'd love to hear your criticisms of my chapter. Saying that you wish it was a different book is a rather boring criticism.

It has been over a year since I looked at it.  I recall very much liking Brian Birch's chapter, and being very unimpressed with Van Dyke's.  I'll have to take another look at your chapter.

[Wade Englund]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

You should read more Dostoevsky.

Yes, I should, though I trust that at best it would be the rare if not merely approximate exception to the rule. 

I am surprised you didn't mention the Work and Glory series.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[the narrator]

8 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

I am surprised you didn't mention the Work and Glory series.

Does anyone have any mouth wash? I just threw up in my mouth a little.

On a side note, you seem very different from the Wade Englund I encountered in the past. What changed?

[the narrator]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nibley's parable was directed at the BofM text, and how everyone talked around it, instead of addressing it directly -- the way a questioned document examiner would look at a document to determine whether it was authentic or a fake.  I thought the comparison with the BofA text was similarly at issue, even though everyone prefers to talk around it.  A kind of avoidance response.

Well, IMO, the text of the BofA is the biggest evidence against its ancient historicity. (Same with the BofM, Moses, D&C 7.) Sure, I think certain apologetic arguments can provide various interpretive lenses and explanations to leave room for the possibility of them having an ancient basis, but I think the better and simpler explanations point to Joseph Smith being the author. (IMO, at minimum the translations have to be understood as being "based on a true story"--such as done with movies where characters are added/merged, locations changed, scenes added, timelines shifted, etc for modern audiences. For example, the film Braveheart--where we have a basic story of William Wallace as a the source but also fictional characters, different locations, blue paint, kilts, etc all added for dramatic effect, entertainment, and modern interpretation.)

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Well, IMO, the text of the BofA is the biggest evidence against its ancient historicity. (Same with the BofM, Moses, D&C 7.) Sure, I think certain apologetic arguments can provide various interpretive lenses and explanations to leave room for the possibility of them having an ancient basis, but I think the better and simpler explanations point to Joseph Smith being the author. (IMO, at minimum the translations have to be understood as being "based on a true story"--such as done with movies where characters are added/merged, locations changed, scenes added, timelines shifted, etc for modern audiences. For example, the film Braveheart--where we have a basic story of William Wallace as a the source but also fictional characters, different locations, blue paint, kilts, etc all added for dramatic effect, entertainment, and modern interpretation.)

Yes, historical fiction is very popular, and Josephus does some of that in his otherwise factual Jewish War -- putting words in the mouths of people for dramatic effect (at Masada, for example).  Mormon may even have done some of that.  I have caught Nephi using some prime ancient Near Eastern tropes or literary themes -- so extensively that they are even evidence for historicity, as well as for the book having been engraved in Egyptian language.  Matt Bowen does something similar in ferreting out numerous wordplays in the presumably original Hebrew text.

[Wade Englund]

4 hours ago, the narrator said:

Does anyone have any mouth wash? I just threw up in my mouth a little.

On a side note, you seem very different from the Wade Englund I encountered in the past. What changed?

Among other things,  I lost about 50 lbs. and some of my hair.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[edgoble123]

On 3/20/2019 at 2:28 PM, cinepro said:

Jeff Lindsay blogs a story about a doubting member who was put over the edge by the recent Hauglid presentation on the Book of Mormon, sponsored by the Maxwell Institute:

Lindsay takes exception that the traditional apologetic responses weren't included in the presentation to balance it and provide plausible believability for the theory of divine origin.

Assuming that Jensen and Hauglid didn't include these apologetic theories and evidences because they are familiar with them but find them unconvincing, do they still have a duty to give them time?  Or would that render them unfit to speak on The Book of Abraham in BYU/church circles?

https://youtu.be/ffaDfbKBxpo

I refer you to my new youtube video.

I would suggest adopting the view that Hauglid and Jensen are 100% correct about the forensic evidence.  I would suggest apologists should ALSO stick with Nibley's and Rhodes' evidences.  And I would suggest that everyone adopt a worldview that is compatible with both, and synchronize both sides of this to be a part of one compatible worldview, where we acknowledge that both are correct at the same time.  How?

In other words, Hauglid's and Jensen's findings are not incompatible with the standard apologetics at all, except for the false notion that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers were not produced by Joseph Smith.

I have promoted this view for a very long time, that Metcalfe and Vogel and other critics were right about this point, even before Hauglid and Jensen came along and solidified this fact.

Now, are Hauglid's and Jensen's theory right about Joseph Smith's not being able to translate?  No.  They are not.  They are only right in their observation that Joseph Smith is responsible.

Now it is time for everyone to realize that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers follow Nibley's and Rhode's system of correspondences, just like the Facsimiles and explanations do.

[Wade Englund]

2 hours ago, edgoble123 said:

https://youtu.be/ffaDfbKBxpo

I refer you to my new youtube video.

I would suggest adopting the view that Hauglid and Jensen are 100% correct about the forensic evidence.  I would suggest apologists should ALSO stick with Nibley's and Rhodes' evidences.  And I would suggest that everyone adopt a worldview that is compatible with both, and synchronize both sides of this to be a part of one compatible worldview, where we acknowledge that both are correct at the same time.  How?

In other words, Hauglid's and Jensen's findings are not incompatible with the standard apologetics at all, except for the false notion that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers were not produced by Joseph Smith.

I have promoted this view for a very long time, that Metcalfe and Vogel and other critics were right about this point, even before Hauglid and Jensen came along and solidified this fact.

Now, are Hauglid's and Jensen's theory right about Joseph Smith's not being able to translate?  No.  They are not.  They are only right in their observation that Joseph Smith is responsible.

Now it is time for everyone to realize that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers follow Nibley's and Rhode's system of correspondences, just like the Facsimiles and explanations do.

I just viewed your Youtube slide presentation. Several of your so-called "Facts" seem more to be opinions than facts.

For example, so-called "Fact 3" claims that apologists demonized the KEP. I don't recall any apologist who did. Do you have examples?

So-called "Fact 4"  claims that it is unquestionable that Joseph Smith was responsible for the production of the KEP., whereas, there is reasonable evidence to raise doubts who took the lead in the production, though it is undoubted that Joseph was involved at times. So, this is your opinion rather than fact.

Likewise, so-called "Fact 5" claims it is false that Joseph was not responsible for the production of the KEP. Various apologists disagree or at least raise reasonable doubt. Again, this is your opinion rather than fact.

This is important because it undermines your so-called "Solution"

In so-callled "Fact 10"  you OPINE that brutal honesty about facts and not evading facts are the first steps towards defending the Church. Others reasonably believe that having a spiritual witness and illuminated understanding of the purpose of the gospel is the first step.  So, this is also your opinion rather than fact. Besides, presenting opinions as if they are "fact" tends to defy so-called "fact 10." 

In so-called "Fact 11" you claim that Joseph Smith could translate Egyptian. Was it Joseph doing the translation, or did God reveal the translation to Joseph? This is an important distinction.

There are other issues, but this will suffice for now.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

[edgoble123]

18 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

I just viewed your Youtube slide presentation. Several of your so-called "Facts" seem more to be opinions than facts.

For example, so-called "Fact 3" claims that apologists demonized the KEP. I don't recall any apologist who did. Do you have examples?

So-called "Fact 4"  claims that it is unquestionable that Joseph Smith was responsible for the production of the KEP., whereas, there is reasonable evidence to raise doubts who took the lead in the production, though it is undoubted that Joseph was involved at times. So, this is your opinion rather than fact.

Likewise, so-called "Fact 5" claims it is false that Joseph was not responsible for the production of the KEP. Various apologists disagree or at least raise reasonable doubt. Again, this is your opinion rather than fact.

This is important because it undermines your so-called "Solution"

In so-callled "Fact 10"  you OPINE that brutal honesty about facts and not evading facts are the first steps towards defending the Church. Others reasonably believe that having a spiritual witness and illuminated understanding of the purpose of the gospel is the first step.  So, this is also your opinion rather than fact. Besides, presenting opinions as if they are "fact" tends to defy so-called "fact 10." 

In so-called "Fact 11" you claim that Joseph Smith could translate Egyptian. Was it Joseph doing the translation, or did God reveal the translation to Joseph? This is an important distinction.

There are other issues, but this will suffice for now.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Yes.  That almost all apologists are consistently blaming the KEP on Phelps instead of Joseph Smith.

It seems that Hauglid and Jensen are on good ground now to have come around to know that Joseph Smith is responsible, contrary to your opinion.  There is no longer reasonable doubt, only doubters without good reason, and more and more apologists will be going this way, as they must, when they come around to agree with the evidence.

[Wade Englund]

41 minutes ago, edgoble123 said:

Yes.  That almost all apologists are consistently blaming the KEP on Phelps instead of Joseph Smith.

They find good reason to suggest that Phelps may have been the lead, but how is that "demonizing" the KEP?

41 minutes ago, edgoble123 said:

It seems that Hauglid and Jensen are on good ground now to have come around to know that Joseph Smith is responsible, contrary to your opinion.  There is no longer reasonable doubt, only doubters without good reason, and more and more apologists will be going this way, as they must, when they come around to agree with the evidence.

You are missing the point. Regardless of trends in positions, it is not honest to call opinions facts.  It also overstates one's position, suggesting that one gets that one's position is weak and in need of artificial bolstering.  You are doing yourself a disservice. 

The same is true for summarily dismissing opposing views. It smacks of self-discrediting dogmatism and scholastic laziness

I am trying to help you out here even though I find some of your position myopic and misguided.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Edited April 4, 2019 by Wade Englund

[edgoble123]

11 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

They find good reason to suggest that Phelps may have been the lead, but how is that "demonizing" the KEP?

You are missing the point. Regardless of trends in positions, it is not honest to call opinions facts.  It also overstates one's position, suggesting that one gets that one's position is weak and in need of artificial bolstering.  You are doing yourself a disservice. 

The same is true for summarily dismissing opposing views. It smacks of self-discrediting dogmatism and scholastic laziness

I am trying to help you out here even though I find some of your position myopic and misguided.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

I am not missing any point.  Everything I have said and continue to say is extremely well-based and well-reasoned.   Just say that you disagree with me sir.  It is that simple.  There is nothing more necessary than that.  Don't throw around random words to discredit your opponents from your thesaurus like you are an oratorical Jedi or something.  I can say that in all of my interaction with you over the years, it has been more than unproductive, and I can say without reservation that there is nothing in your words that has a spirit of "helpfulness" in it.  Disagreement is simply disagreement.  And the way one views facts when the reasoning and evidence one has for it is solid is not myopia, is not misguided, and is not lazy.  Using these words is ad hominem, and is anything but helpful.  Have a good day sir, and I can't say that I would hope to see you again at any conference or anything, just like I can say for a lot of people out there that have done what they have done to me.

[Wade Englund]

4 hours ago, edgoble123 said:

I am not missing any point.   

Is that a fact?

Quote

Everything I have said and continue to say is extremely well-based and well-reasoned. 

No one has said otherwise.

Quote

Just say that you disagree with me sir.  It is that simple.  There is nothing more necessary than that.  Don't throw around random words to discredit your opponents from your thesaurus like you are an oratorical Jedi or something. 

In case you hadn't noticed, this is a discussion board, which means that there is some reasonable expectation of having a discussion. Simply stating that one disagrees doesn't amount to a discussion. But, it is evident that in your case, that is as much as you are willing and/or able to handle. So...

Good day to you as well.

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-