Church Announces BofA To Be Removed From Canon

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The joke might have been a bit more believable had my title been something like: "Church to consider removing Fac#2 from the BofA".

I do wonder if anyone has noticed in my OP where I obviously gave away that it was an April Fools joke?

I believe they did, but they are using it now for a full on board discussion, haha. It was a good one CA, you had me for moment!

Edited April 2, 2019 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

Egyptological scholars know plenty enough to draw conclusions and they have drawn them.  The only people on the fence about this topic are the apologists who don't want to reconcile the actual evidence with reconstructing their views about what Joseph was doing and how he was either intentionally misleading people with his interpretations, or perhaps just delusional about his abilities to understand Egyptian, or a combination of the two.  Find me a non-Mormon Egyptian scholar who agrees with your comment that "we don't know enough about their exact origins to draw any firm conclusions." 

This is wishful apologetic thinking, .......................................

People claim all kinds of things that are proven to be false.  ...................... no correlation with facts about history or reality.  This is the history of superstition and religious dogma all wrapped up together with folk magic and myths about all kinds of stuff.  So what if Joseph thought the papyri contained the writings of Abraham.  It clearly didn't as these writings had nothing to do with Abraham and has no magic or theological significance in any real sense. 

............................................ But an accurate Egyptological translation of the documents shows that what Joseph produced has no connection to the papyrus documents other than to show that Joseph thought he was translating something, but clearly was mistaken.  Speculating that there might have been some connection 2 millennia prior to when the texts were written is not supported by any actual evidence.   

The standard Egyptological evidence has been cited repeatedly, and it favors the claims of Joseph Smith.  What part of it do you not understand?  You make blanket statements, but you cannot back them up with any substantive facts.  You are directly engaged in blind, wishful polemic thinking.

[RevTestament]

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So answer my question about the two revelation examples mentioned please because they both are crafted in the same voice of I the Lord that you're claiming is the way to determine whether something is direct revelation or not.  What about the Articles of the Church by Cowdery and what about the 1886 revelation to John Taylor.  I gave you those links for a reason because those examples are relevant to my question.  

I am not in the mood to start answering your questions about every possible revelation ever given. That is far beyond the scope of relevance.

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Second question, what evidence do you have that the Lectures on faith were just "opinion".  Did Joseph ever state they were opinion?  Remember that Joseph canonized them, not once, but twice during his lifetime in 1835 and 1844.  Do you have any evidence to support the idea that Joseph considered the Lectures to be "opinion"?  

I didn't say he did. I said I do. 

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So your evidence doesn't exist and is purely conjecture and wishful thinking.  You have zero evidence to connect the papyrus with Abraham and no scholars that can support your thesis.  As for one culture borrowing from another, I never said that doesn't happen.  Of course it does, it happens all the time throughout history and is part of the human enterprise.  That doesn't give you evidence that what is on the papyrus fragments has a connection to a person named Abraham.  You have to have evidence to support your speculation.  Otherwise you're doing the same thing as the ancient aliens shows on TV do. 

I didn't say I had any evidence to make a hard connection. I am merely stating it is completely plausible and not outside the common realm of cultures to borrow ideas from others. 

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its probably important to state that many of the things you call Joseph's "opinions" were also received in the same revelatory voice language that you consider "direct revelation from the Lord".  You must have some mechanism for distinguishing between these revelations and opinions that you haven't explained.  

I don't consider myself a "non-believer" although we clearly have differences in our beliefs.  

Why would an Egyptologist even attempt to do what you're asserting?  Should scholars start attempting to find connections between the writings of ancient civilizations and other unrelated disparate writings?  This is like suggesting that scholars should take Mark Twain's writings and start looking for connections to the Han Dynasty in China, because some religion claims that the writings of Mark Twain were received via revelation and describe historically accurate events of ancient Chinese figures.  So we need to find scholars who are experts on the Han Dynasty to evaluate the veracity of these religious claims.  Good luck...

 

 

49 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Hopefully I'm not taking your comment to Rev, totally out of context here. But want to say... good analogy or comparison. Never looked at it quite like it before. 

Mark Twain didn't write in a vacuum. I'm sure there are connections to European civilization, although one of his main thrusts was creating an independent American culture - even at the expense of European culture. Really, no matter how hard we may try we are far from isolated bastions of theology and ideologies. Next time you look at your watch or phone for the time, try remembering that you borrowed your very notions of time - the 60 seconds in a minute, and 60 minutes in an hour, and 24 hours in a day from the Sumerians who lived some 6000 years ago. Various gods got passed from culture to culture with new names, etc. It is just the way it is. Trying to argue that is impossible or that Egyptologists shouldn't consider that is going to put you in the funny farm....  

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Mark Twain didn't write in a vacuum. I'm sure there are connections to European civilization, although one of his main thrusts was creating an independent American culture - even at the expense of European culture. Really, no matter how hard we may try we are far from isolated bastions of theology and ideologies. Next time you look at your watch or phone for the time, try remembering that you borrowed your very notions of time - the 60 seconds in a minute, and 60 minutes in an hour, and 24 hours in a day from the Sumerians who lived some 6000 years ago. Various gods got passed from culture to culture with new names, etc. It is just the way it is. Trying to argue that is impossible or that Egyptologists shouldn't consider that is going to put you in the funny farm....  

What is the relevance of what you're saying with respect to the Egyptian funerary texts having something to do with a historical Abraham?  

When did the first human decide to clean their teeth with some kind of instrument?  If the BoA papyrus fragments talk about someone cleaning their teeth and you can find an ancient text from the supposed time of a historical Abraham that also talks about humans cleaning their teeth with some kind of instrument, then bingo, you have a connection!!  Is this connection significant or relevant?  Does this connection mean that Joseph had an accurate revelation?  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The standard Egyptological evidence has been cited repeatedly, and it favors the claims of Joseph Smith.  What part of it do you not understand?  You make blanket statements, but you cannot back them up with any substantive facts.  You are directly engaged in blind, wishful polemic thinking.

Egyptology evidence doesn't support Joseph's claimed translations and the church's own essay on this topic clearly states this, but I know from other comments you've made that you think that essay statement is erroneous. 

Its ironic to me that you're calling my comments polemic, when you're the one arguing to support a religious system and I'm the one arguing to support peer reviewed science.  

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I said "They do not actually reflect LDS theology,"  instead of your version:  "does not reflect today's LDS theology," and suggesting an evolution in LDS theology.  As I point out in detail in my own treatment, that was not the case then or now.  See my “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH .

I unfortunately can't get this link to work for me, so I'm not sure exactly what your point about BoM theology might have to say about the Lectures on Faith.  I honestly can't understand how you can say that they don't reflect LDS theology.  They are some of the most robust and only canonized LDS theological discussions that we have in our history.  Whether you think they are compatible with the correct LDS theology is a subjective question.  Historically speaking they are part of LDS theology whether you accept them as such or not.  

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have (unfortunately) been witness to those discussions on this board, and have yet to read any coherent or accurate arguments against the broad positions of Gee and Muhlestein.  In fact, one attacker became nearly apoplectic over the matter, and has not been allowed back since.  He substituted emotion for scholarship.

I'm not sure who that person was or whether the actions of that one person is relevant.  I would agree that we shouldn't substitute emotion for scholarship.  I also don't think we should substitute apologetics for scholarship either.  What Gee and Muhlestein are engaged in is clearly apologetics and not Egyptological scholarship.  

[10THAmendment]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The standard Egyptological evidence has been cited repeatedly, and it favors the claims of Joseph Smith.  What part of it do you not understand?  You make blanket statements, but you cannot back them up with any substantive facts.  You are directly engaged in blind, wishful polemic thinking.

The evidence is indisputable. Jospeh Smith could not read Egyptian. Even if you used lds.org as your sole source you would know that. The essay on the BofA unequivocally states that all non-Mormon and most Mormon Egyptologists agree that what is found on the papyrus has absolutely nothing to do with what we find in the BofA. 

Where are you getting the idea that scholars accept Joseph’s “translation”?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, 10THAmendment said:

The evidence is indisputable. Jospeh Smith could not read Egyptian.

Correct.  Joseph Smith could not read Egyptian.  He needed some sort of help to do so.

1 hour ago, 10THAmendment said:

Even if you used lds.org as your sole source you would know that. The essay on the BofA unequivocally states that all non-Mormon and most Mormon Egyptologists agree that what is found on the papyrus has absolutely nothing to do with what we find in the BofA. 

Correct again.  Except for the Egyptian illustations, the papyri we currently have do not contain the BofA text.  However, that is not a controversial claim.  The debate is over whether there was a papyrus in Joseph's possession in Kirtland, Ohio, which contained the BofA text, and which he translated by some revelatory means.

1 hour ago, 10THAmendment said:

Where are you getting the idea that scholars accept Joseph’s “translation”?

Joseph's interpretations of the illustrations are so often correct that one can only conclude, based on Egyptological scholarship, that Joseph's translation of the BofA text is also correct, as I point out using standard Egyptology in my “Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 10 online Mar 21, 2019, online at https://www.scribd.com/document/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I unfortunately can't get this link to work for me, so I'm not sure exactly what your point about BoM theology might have to say about the Lectures on Faith.  I honestly can't understand how you can say that they don't reflect LDS theology.

The Lectures are certainly the theology of Sidney Rigdon.  They were dropped by the Brethren because they did not comport with their perceptions of LDS theology.  Perhaps you feel that they were wrong.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

  They are some of the most robust and only canonized LDS theological discussions that we have in our history.  Whether you think they are compatible with the correct LDS theology is a subjective question.  Historically speaking they are part of LDS theology whether you accept them as such or not.  

You are certainly correct to think that opinions about LDS theology are heavily subjective.  However, I would recommend that you begin with Sterling McMurrin's small books on the Theological and Philosophical Foundations of Mormonism, and go on from there through Blake Ostler's multi-volume treatment, and cap it off with the two latest volumes from Terryl Givens -- Feeding the Flock, and Wrestling the Angel, both from Oxford Univ. Press.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure who that person was or whether the actions of that one person is relevant.  I would agree that we shouldn't substitute emotion for scholarship.  I also don't think we should substitute apologetics for scholarship either.  What Gee and Muhlestein are engaged in is clearly apologetics and not Egyptological scholarship.  

Perhaps you could cite any publication by Gee or Muhlstein which is not based on excellent Egyptological scholarship.  Gee's recent Introduction to the Book of Abraham was quite scholarly and helpful to anyone with an interest in the subject -- whether LDS or not.  I thought that it also compared well with Hauglid's earlier work on some of the very same material.  I use both Gee and Hauglid regularly.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Egyptology evidence doesn't support Joseph's claimed translations and the church's own essay on this topic clearly states this, but I know from other comments you've made that you think that essay statement is erroneous. 

I like the LDS Essay on the Book of Abraham.  I don't know who wrote it, but it was obviously put together by a scholar(s) who understood the issues and the breadth of opinion which exists.  While I have my own views on these issues, where did you get the idea that I think that Essay erroneous?  You may have read my own brief scholarly study of the BofA.  Where did I go astray from scholarship in that piece, and where did I disagree with the LDS Church Essay?

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its ironic to me that you're calling my comments polemic, when you're the one arguing to support a religious system and I'm the one arguing to support peer reviewed science.  

I like your idea of a focus on science, but you are mistaken to think that I am supporting a religious system.  My comments are solely and only dedicated to applying good logic and scholarship to all these questions.  Apologetics and polemics should be off limits.

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I unfortunately can't get this link to work for me, so I'm not sure exactly what your point about BoM theology might have to say about the Lectures on Faith.  I honestly can't understand how you can say that they don't reflect LDS theology.

The Lectures are certainly the theology of Sidney Rigdon.  They were dropped by the Brethren because they did not comport with their perceptions of LDS theology.  Perhaps you feel that they were wrong.

LDS theology can't be cleanly defined as it is subjective and evolves over time.  The Lectures on Faith very much represented LDS theology for many members and church leaders at one point in time.  So did polygamy and racist priesthood and temple practices.  Things change, but rewriting a more recent view back onto the past isn't an accurate view of history.  

34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are certainly correct to think that opinions about LDS theology are heavily subjective.  However, I would recommend that you begin with Sterling McMurrin's small books on the Theological and Philosophical Foundations of Mormonism, and go on from there through Blake Ostler's multi-volume treatment, and cap it off with the two latest volumes from Terryl Givens -- Feeding the Flock, and Wrestling the Angel, both from Oxford Univ. Press.

I've read some of this material and will continue to do so as I find the study interesting. 

36 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps you could cite any publication by Gee or Muhlstein which is not based on excellent Egyptological scholarship.  Gee's recent Introduction to the Book of Abraham was quite scholarly and helpful to anyone with an interest in the subject -- whether LDS or not.  I thought that it also compared well with Hauglid's earlier work on some of the very same material.  I use both Gee and Hauglid regularly.

I don't consider Gee's materials to be scholarly unless they were to be published in a peer reviewed journal.  As for Hauglid's work, hasn't he recently disavowed his earlier apologetics that aligned with Gee.  Do you not see that as problematic? 

[strappinglad]

I don't know how well Nibley's " Messages of the Joseph Smith Papyrus " has held up after 50 years. Nibley himself said he refused to be held to works written more than 3 years before. 

I've said before that I struggled through that tome and came to one conclusion, translating Egyptian is no easy feat. There are several layers from Heiroglyphs to English and even after all that ,one must try to interpret the meaning of the English.  

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I like the LDS Essay on the Book of Abraham.  I don't know who wrote it, but it was obviously put together by a scholar(s) who understood the issues and the breadth of opinion which exists.  While I have my own views on these issues, where did you get the idea that I think that Essay erroneous?  You may have read my own brief scholarly study of the BofA.  Where did I go astray from scholarship in that piece, and where did I disagree with the LDS Church Essay?

Just recently in this other thread where you said this with respect to my quoting from the essay the portion of the essay that says that Mormon and non-Mormon scholars agree that the characters on the papyrus fragments do not match the translations given by Joseph. 

On 3/21/2019 at 5:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

A human was assigned to write that LDS Topics Essay, and it was probably reviewed by a couple of the Brethren (I'm supposing), the latter knowing nothing of the issues.  So somebody was tasked with the writing and he did the best he could.  Most of those reading the essay don't understand it, and they usually quote it out of context -- if they quote it at all.  It takes much more than a short essay to do the subject justice. 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71673-friendly-fire-from-byu-opening-old-book-of-abraham-wounds-without-the-first-aid/?do=findComment&comment=1209893554

36 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I like your idea of a focus on science, but you are mistaken to think that I am supporting a religious system.  My comments are solely and only dedicated to applying good logic and scholarship to all these questions.  Apologetics and polemics should be off limits.

Fair enough, but if you truly do support science on this topic, why are you supportive of two Mormon scholars who are producing works(I consider these apologetic) that aren't peer reviewed and published in academic journals.  The scientific method requires testing, validation and replication.  Not theorizing and appeals to authority because of the degree someone has.  

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

peer reviewed and published in academic journals

You may want to google " peer review corruption " and look through a half dozen of the articles. Peer review is not the be all / end all/ gold standard that many think it is. There is a lot of mutual back scratching going on. 

[CA Steve]

4 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

You may want to google " peer review corruption " and look through a half dozen of the articles. Peer review is not the be all / end all/ gold standard that many think it is. There is a lot of mutual back scratching going on. 

Were the half dozen articles you found on peer review, peer reviewed?

😉

 

As the old saying goes, peer review is the worst system we have except for all the rest.

 

 

 

[CA Steve]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe they did, but they are using it now for a full on board discussion, haha. It was a good one CA, you had me for moment!

Ahh, well I realize quite a few probably regarded it as a spoof right off the bat, but I did announce it was a April Fools joke by the way I wrote the OP. If you read the first letter of each sentence vertically, in my OP, I spelled "April Fools".

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by CA Steve

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

You may want to google " peer review corruption " and look through a half dozen of the articles. Peer review is not the be all / end all/ gold standard that many think it is. There is a lot of mutual back scratching going on. 

Whenever I bring up science on a religious message board I need remember that the anti science crowd just can’t help themselves.  

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Whenever I bring up science on a religious message board I need remember that the anti science crowd just can’t help themselves.  

It is not anti-science to hold scientists to a high standard when it comes to studies and publishing. If you believe that scientists are somehow special and not subject to all of human -kinds errors ,foibles  and fraud  and that society must not always be ready to question and correct , then it is you who are anti-science ,granting scientists " religious authority" when in reality the love of Mammon is just as strong whether one has on a lab coat or not. Questioning peer review is pro- science as long as the desire is to safeguard truth.

There is an huge percentage of articles and studies that have not been reproduced by other scientists. There are many studies with flawed data that are often quoted in other papers later.

Is it anti-science to want these flaws caught and cleaned up?   

Edited April 3, 2019 by strappinglad

[USU78]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Whenever I bring up science on a religious message board I need remember that the anti science crowd just can’t help themselves.  

I suspect you lack the nuance gene. What is your opinion?

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

It is not anti-science to hold scientists to a high standard when it comes to studies and publishing. If you believe that scientists are somehow special and not subject to all of human -kinds errors ,foibles  and fraud  and that society must not always be ready to question and correct , then it is you who are anti-science ,granting scientists " religious authority" when in reality the love of Mammon is just as strong whether one has on a lab coat or not. Questioning peer review is pro- science as long as the desire is to safeguard truth.

There is an huge percentage of articles and studies that have not been reproduced by other scientists. There are many studies with flawed data that are often quoted in other papers later.

Is it anti-science to want these flaws caught and cleaned up?   

Science is evidence based and it’s structured in a way that any flaws in the theories of today can be overturned by better theories in the future.  

I pointed out that Gee’s apologetics aren’t scientific because they don’t even attempt to enter the arena of peer review.  When I get a response that peer review isn’t a perfect process, it makes me think that you’re not a proponent of the scientific process.  It makes me think that you want to rely on appeals to authority figures like Gee, rather than the actual strength of evidence in the scholarly arena.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

I suspect you lack the nuance gene. What is your opinion?

I had no idea nuance was a gene.  Do you have any evidence to support that claim? 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Just recently in this other thread where you said this with respect to my quoting from the essay the portion of the essay that says that Mormon and non-Mormon scholars agree that the characters on the papyrus fragments do not match the translations given by Joseph. 

 

Quote

 On 3/21/2019 at 5:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

A human was assigned to write that LDS Topics Essay, and it was probably reviewed by a couple of the Brethren (I'm supposing), the latter knowing nothing of the issues.  So somebody was tasked with the writing and he did the best he could.  Most of those reading the essay don't understand it, and they usually quote it out of context -- if they quote it at all.  It takes much more than a short essay to do the subject justice. 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71673-friendly-fire-from-byu-opening-old-book-of-abraham-wounds-without-the-first-aid/?do=findComment&comment=1209893554 

 

You quote me correctly there, but note that I did not say what you suggested I said.  I have no problem with the Essay, except that it is too short to do justice to the subject matter.  Even so, it does a good job of summing up various POVs.

Quote

Fair enough, but if you truly do support science on this topic, why are you supportive of two Mormon scholars who are producing works(I consider these apologetic) that aren't peer reviewed and published in academic journals.  The scientific method requires testing, validation and replication.  Not theorizing and appeals to authority because of the degree someone has.  

Both Gee and Muhlestein regularly publish in secular peer-reviewed journals in their field (Egyptology).  Gee has even been the editor in chief of a major Egyptological journal.  Anyone who wishes may review his various books and articles in order to verify or falsify any of his claims.  Same for Muhlestein, who carries on regular excavations in Egypt.  Not sure where you get your notion of them as irresponsible yokels.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

LDS theology can't be cleanly defined as it is subjective and evolves over time.  The Lectures on Faith very much represented LDS theology for many members and church leaders at one point in time.  So did polygamy and racist priesthood and temple practices.  Things change, but rewriting a more recent view back onto the past isn't an accurate view of history.

I do not think that the Lectures ever represented LDS theology.  Even less so than racism ever represented LDS theology.  In neither case were they based on revelation, and both were opposed to the actual theology of Joseph Smith and biblical and restoration scripture.

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

I don't consider Gee's materials to be scholarly unless they were to be published in a peer reviewed journal.

Scholars judge publications based on their quality, not on some tendentious demand for peer-review.  However, I can't think of any of Gee's books or articles which are not peer-reviewed.  Perhaps you could cite one.

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

  As for Hauglid's work, hasn't he recently disavowed his earlier apologetics that aligned with Gee.  Do you not see that as problematic? 

No, of course not.  I judge Hauglid's work by its quality.  I am not interested in emotions of the moment.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, CA Steve said:

The joke might have been a bit more believable had my title been something like: "Church to consider removing Fac#2 from the BofA".

I do wonder if anyone has noticed in my OP where I obviously gave away that it was an April Fools joke?

I didn’t even have to open the thread. I had it pegged from the title. 

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You quote me correctly there, but note that I did not say what you suggested I said.  I have no problem with the Essay, except that it is too short to do justice to the subject matter.  Even so, it does a good job of summing up various POVs.

It does sound to me like you took issue specifically with the statement about scholars agreeing that the translations don't match whats on the papyrus.  Are you saying that you agree that the translations don't match, essentially admitting that Joseph didn't translate anything correctly?  Is this your understanding as well, or when you say that the essay is too short to do the subject justice are you saying that in actuality the translations do match, it just takes a lot longer of an essay to explain how they do match?  Can you clarify?  

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Both Gee and Muhlestein regularly publish in secular peer-reviewed journals in their field (Egyptology).  Gee has even been the editor in chief of a major Egyptological journal.  Anyone who wishes may review his various books and articles in order to verify or falsify any of his claims.  Same for Muhlestein, who carries on regular excavations in Egypt.  Not sure where you get your notion of them as irresponsible yokels.

But they don't publish their BoA related apologetics in peer-reviewed journals so these specific theories are not subject to the scrutiny of scholarly peer review.  I suspect that they know that their perspectives on the BoA are not of scholarly rigor and that they would never even attempt to publish them in a peer reviewed journal.  This is the game that Gee and Muhlestein are playing and it strikes me as deceptive, especially for members that trust their expertise, and I imagine this is partially why Hauglid characterized their tactics as abhorrent.