The Unclean Deacon Posted May 19, 2022 Author Share Posted May 19, 2022 (edited) On 5/17/2022 at 3:20 AM, Tweed1944 said: Royal Skouse has a different perspective on the facsimiles https://humanities.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/royal-skousen-J2019.pdf * The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralinearly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the accompanying transcription – and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other portions of this part of the text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book Just as some of you pointed out how Abraham 1:12 and 14 might have been inserted after the fact and how many of you are claiming it still works, RFM & Reel this week had Dan Vogel on and made the problem even bigger. They addressed the point I quoted above and demonstrated using the original documents how Skousen can't possibly be right. They showed that the documents favor heavily having Abraham 1:12, &14 added at the very time the translation manuscript is page is being written rather than an afterthought assertion. Link removed It simply isn't good. This is a deep problem that takes one willing to try to understand the all the points being made, with each point deeply hurting any room for faith. It is to the point that at least to me, one would simply have to dismiss the facts and believe in spite of them to make the Book of Abraham Translation work. The Missing Scroll Theory and Catalyst Theory have too many holes to plug and some of them have no rational answer. Reel last night also noted multiple places in the BOA text seem to relate to the facsimile(s) in a way that it would be entirely strange that somehow these two things aren't related by yet their similarities are there such as Abraham 1:13 which clearly "appears represented" by the facsimile. And another . Even as Skousen suggests part of 14 or maybe all of it is a later addition (Vogel shows this can't be) the verse itself imposes a connection to the facsimile. Quote Abraham 1:14 That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics. How does Joseph know "which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics" unless either he is making it up or God has told him the unknown meanings of how his "Catalyst revelation" is both connected to the facsimiles and that figures are called by the Chaldeans "Rahleenos" meaning "hieroglyphics". That makes no sense outside of that. This isn't getting better. It seems clear their are three options after their past two episodes. 1.) Joseph is a fraud and made it up. 2.) God Deceived Joseph entirely giving him false meanings and connecting the translation to the papyri fragments we have imposing Joseph look like a fraud and being the one carrying out the deception 3.) Something similar to Ed Goble's theory which requires these fragments and facsimiles to mean something entirely different and Joseph had the super secret decoder ring (revelation) to locate the cryptic message that was entirely different than the fragments appear to mean. But that idea requires so much extra stuff that we must discard logic and rational thinking to such a degree at the same time the Missing Scroll Theory and Catalyst Theory after these two episodes require one to discard logic and rational thinking entirely. And Calm - dismissing Reel over the Holland BOM while cutting breaks to Prophets Seers and Revelators who have erred over and ever seems like a double standard. It seems unfair to not consider their points and the data they clearly lay out. Apologists will need to come up with new answers. Pretending old answers work when they don't while dismissing the data that shows such is not a solution or an actual defense. Edited May 19, 2022 by Nemesis We do not allow advertising and will not be giving traffic. Link to comment
The Unclean Deacon Posted May 19, 2022 Author Share Posted May 19, 2022 17 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Heaven knows I don’t think anything’s been proven. Life is about probabilities and tentative conclusions, not proofs. yes but you two things squash that. One is sometimes the needed structure of a idea has so many instances where one must believe the less rational thing that a thing becomes absurd. EX: On my way to school i saw bigfoot, was abducted by an alien, rode on a flying pig" ect... and now it becomes not just unlikely but our brains determine overly impossible. Two is that the hole is so demonstrable that it can't be overcome "I wasn't at school today, meanwhile you are clearly visible on the schools camera footage for that day" Choosing to believe when the evidence is stacked against you is irrational. How is anyone to have to be worthy of discussion when their starting assumption is all that matters and no matter what evidence comes forward they simply will always continue in their belief" - That is exactly how crazy works. Link to comment
The Unclean Deacon Posted May 19, 2022 Author Share Posted May 19, 2022 On 5/18/2022 at 12:29 AM, DonBradley said: As Kevin has mentioned, I've presented and (with JSPP historian Mark Ashurst-McGee) published documenting that the text Joseph Smith derived from the Kinderhook plates was derived via matching a single character on the Kinderhook plates matching a single character in the GAEL that had substantially the same text as its assigned definition. This, as Mark and I have argued, shows Joseph Smith translating from the Kinderhook plates by way of comparing them with the GAEL. The most obvious implication of this is that Joseph translated from the Kinderhook plates via a very ordinary process of character matching, rather than by a revelatory process. This implication appears not to have much interested most critics. Another implication, which Mark and I noted on page 517 of our chapter, has interested critics much more. This is that if Joseph Smith used the GAEL to help him decipher the Kinderhook plates character, then he appears to have given the GAEL some credence. In advance of the Mormonism Live podcast on the Kinderhook plates the other day, Bill Reel messaged me asking if I thought this undermined certain Book of Abraham apologetics, originated by Hugh Nibley half a century ago, that the GAEL was produced independent of Joseph by his scribes, who did it to show that they could compete with Joseph in his translation work. (Later tweaks on this explanation have the scribes producing the GAEL by reverse-engineering it from the Book of Abraham text.) Bill was hoping I would appear to be interviewed on the show, which I was disinclined to. But I did watch the show, in which he argued that Joseph's use of the GAEL to translate from the Kinderhook plates refuted all apologetic explanations of the relationship of the Book of Abraham to the papyrus and the GAEL: 1) the idea that Joseph's scribes produced the GAEL apart from Joseph himself, 2) the idea that the GAEL was reverse-engineered from the already-revealed Book of Abraham text, 3) the idea that the part of the scroll containing the Book of Abraham is now missing, and 4) the idea that the papyrus served, not as a vehicle for the ancient Egyptian text of the Book of Abraham, but as a catalyst prompting Joseph to receive the Book of Abraham by revelation. Bill challenged me to come on the show and comment on all of this. Despite having not having planned or prepared to do so, I was willing to call in. I agreed with them only regarding idea #1 above--that Joseph Smith's scribes produced the GAEL apart from Joseph himself. As Mark and I noted in our chapter, "Many, if not most, Mormon scholars have been skeptical about Smith's involvement in the production of the curious Egyptian Alphabet documents. ... However, Smith's autonomous use of the Egyptian Alphabet book...in the translation of the Kinderhook plates thus calls for a reconsideration of Smith's relationship with this and the other Egyptian study documents." Regarding ideas #2-#4, I listened to Bill's arguments but remained noncommittal since I had not yet had time to give them full consideration. Having now had time to think these arguments through systematically, I've concluded they are each fallacious. I'm trying to decide if I want to post my responses to them to the Web or deliver them via podcast. Don Be sure you account for their follow up episode which makes things worse. Link to comment
jkwilliams Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 5 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said: yes but you two things squash that. One is sometimes the needed structure of a idea has so many instances where one must believe the less rational thing that a thing becomes absurd. EX: On my way to school i saw bigfoot, was abducted by an alien, rode on a flying pig" ect... and now it becomes not just unlikely but our brains determine overly impossible. Two is that the hole is so demonstrable that it can't be overcome "I wasn't at school today, meanwhile you are clearly visible on the schools camera footage for that day" Choosing to believe when the evidence is stacked against you is irrational. How is anyone to have to be worthy of discussion when their starting assumption is all that matters and no matter what evidence comes forward they simply will always continue in their belief" - That is exactly how crazy works. Absolutely. Obviously I think the evidence for the Book of Abraham suggests very strongly that it came from the mind of Joseph Smith. Can one prove that? I don’t think so. Link to comment
webbles Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 22 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said: Just as some of you pointed out how Abraham 1:12 and 14 might have been inserted after the fact and how many of you are claiming it still works, RFM & Reel this week had Dan Vogel on and made the problem even bigger. They addressed the point I quoted above and demonstrated using the original documents how Skousen can't possibly be right. They showed that the documents favor heavily having Abraham 1:12, &14 added at the very time the translation manuscript is page is being written rather than an afterthought assertion. We don't now if we have the actual "translation manuscript". It is just as likely that the documents we have are more similar to the BoM printer's manuscript. So saying that 1:12&14 were added inline with the manuscripts that we have doesn't tell us whether it was part of the translation or later added. For me, the more I learn about the BoA, the more questions I get for all sides. We have so little information that it is impossible to say whether the BoA is a fraud or not. I see it more of a Rorschach test. If you want to believe the BoA, then you'll find the evidence for it. If you want to disbelieve the BoA, then you'll find the evidence for it. 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Ryan Dahle Posted May 19, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted May 19, 2022 2 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said: yes but you two things squash that. One is sometimes the needed structure of a idea has so many instances where one must believe the less rational thing that a thing becomes absurd. EX: On my way to school i saw bigfoot, was abducted by an alien, rode on a flying pig" ect... and now it becomes not just unlikely but our brains determine overly impossible. Two is that the hole is so demonstrable that it can't be overcome "I wasn't at school today, meanwhile you are clearly visible on the schools camera footage for that day" Choosing to believe when the evidence is stacked against you is irrational. How is anyone to have to be worthy of discussion when their starting assumption is all that matters and no matter what evidence comes forward they simply will always continue in their belief" - That is exactly how crazy works. I think the problem, though, is that the totality of the evidence on both sides is exceedingly complex and convoluted. As with the Isis issue discussed previously, at first it may look very much like the evidence is stacked one way. But that can flip flop very quickly. Isis at one moment can seem like she has nothing to do with Pharaoh and the next it seems like all roads are leading to a very strong ancient equivalence of those ideas. Same thing with Osiris. At first it looks like Osiris has nothing to do with Abraham (FAC 3, FIG 1). But then we have statements like this from non-Latter-day Saint scholars: "Abraham must be a Jewish substitute for the pagan god Osiris" (K. Grobel, “…Whose name was Neves,” New Testament Studies 10 (1964): 380). We could go on an on with further examples. The reason I place little stock in claims that believing Latter-day Saints are simply "irrational" on this issue is because over and over again I have found that the other side has a hard time recognizing and explaining away positive evidence. Unfortunately, the reason Latter-day Saint scholars with relevant training in these areas are often characterized as being "willfully blind" by their ideological opponents is because, by and large, the strengths of the LDS arguments (as well as the weaknesses of the opponents' arguments) are being ignored, perhaps even willfully so. For instance, I have seen @Robert F. Smith present his findings on the Book of Abraham multiple times on this board. Guess how many critics (for lack of a better word) have stepped up to the plate to take down his assertions? I'm still waiting. I'll probably be waiting forever, just like I have been on a host of other issues. I guess I must just be crazy, though, for not seeing how the evidence is just so overwhelmingly stacked against my worldview. I must be just like all those people who believe in bigfoot and alien abductions. Silly, gullible, me. 5 Link to comment
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted May 19, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted May 19, 2022 (edited) One other aspect of the Kirtland Papers in relation to its relationship to the Book of Abraham and "translation" should not be ignored. Quoting Schryver's FAIR presentation: Quote I confess that my original thesis was consistent with Professor Hugh Nibley’s idea that the Alphabet and Grammar represent the product of an effort on the part of its authors to “reverse engineer” the Egyptian scrolls by using the pre-existing English text of the Book of Abraham as a “primer.” Slide#: 98 (Replicating Champollion’s approach to the Rosetta Stone?) In other words, they had in their hands what they believed was an English translation of at least a portion of the scrolls they had purchased, and therefore they logically concluded that they could replicate Champollion’s approach to the Rosetta Stone. You’ll recall that Champollion used the Greek text on the Rosetta Stone as a primer to decipher the corresponding hieroglyphic Egyptian text. I surmised that William Phelps, Joseph Smith, and Oliver Cowdery set out to do something similar with the previously received Book of Abraham text. Slide#: 99 (The Alphabet and Grammar not only dependent on the Book of Abraham.) However, as my studies of the Alphabet and Grammar materials progressed, I discovered evidence that effectively disproved such a notion. I discovered that several of the explanations in the Alphabet and Grammar documents were dependent not on text from the Book of Abraham … Slide#: 100 (The Alphabet and Grammar also dependent on other revelations.) … but rather on very recognizable passages from others of Joseph Smith’s prior revelations, most prominently sections 76 and 88 of the Doctrine & Covenants. We could spend an hour discussing nothing but the dependencies on material not found in the Book of Abraham, but we will focus on just one of the impressive examples. After a bit he observes: Quote Thus we see, in the explanations given to four successive characters from the Alphabet and Grammar, very particular references to specific passages from those two giants of Joseph Smith’s previously received revelations—sections 76 and 88. Right in order, this so-called Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language is making reference to the Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial kingdoms, followed immediately by the kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory! Slide#: 108 (Many other references to passages from others of Joseph Smith’s previously received revelations.) I went on to identify several additional references that are clearly dependent on other passages from the Doctrine and Covenants. I confess I was rather befuddled by this finding, and it took me several days of contemplation before I began to appreciate its import and implications. Slide#: 109 (To the extent the Alphabet and Grammar is partially dependent on texts that have no relationship to the Egyptian papyri, then it cannot have been intended as a tool to decipher those papyri.) First of all, I came to see that my initial hypothesis could not be true. To the extent this lexicon was built partially on texts that have no relationship to the Egyptian papyri; texts that were written not in Egyptian at all, but in English, then the Alphabet and Grammar simply could not have been intended as a tool to decipher the papyri. Indeed, the more I considered the evidence in this new light, the more I came to believe that these men were not focused on translating the Egyptian papyri at all! One of the keys to this conclusion was my discovery that, of the 69 characters to which explanations were assigned, most of them are not even Egyptian and do not appear on the papyri! Slide#: 110 (Many, if not most of the A&G characters are not Egyptian; they do not come from the Egyptian papyri.”) Let me repeat: Most of the characters explained in the Egyptian alphabet documents are not Egyptian, and do not appear on the Egyptian papyri in question. Slide#: 111 (“The characters that are Egyptian and which can be found on the papyri appear to have been selected arbitrarily.”) A few of the characters are Egyptian and can be found on the papyri, but not in any one place, and not in any order, and not with any discernible relationships. They appear to have been selected arbitrarily. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2010 This sort of thing does not magically go away in light of Don Bradley's and Mark Ashurst McGee's research showing that the interpretation of a single boat shaped character was cited in relation to the Kinderhook plates. Rather, that Nauvoo use of the Kirtland papers becomes even odder. Kuhn observed that “consciously or not, the decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus and to use it in a particular way always carries an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.” (Kuhn, Structure, 59) The things that Schryver pointed out are not the kinds of things I would expect to find, based on the assuption that that the GAEL represents Book of Abraham translation working papers. Nor would I expect anyone to look to the GAEL for the boat-shaped character in relation to the Kinderhook plates. It's odd, but what does it mean? Then we have Tim Barker pointing out at FAIR that the published Facsimile 2 has from the start offered blunt evidence that Joseph Smith openly stated that he did not translate the Hor Book of Breathings characters. I notice that those who have hung their convictions on the notion that because the Hor Book of Breathings does not match the Book of Abraham, we have game over set and match, nothing to see hear folks, nothing more to say, nothing more to ask, let's fold up the tent of Mormonism and all go home, have not been particularly talkative on that presentation. One thing that boat character and its use does not do is explain away Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham. It's odd. But it is not the answer to everything. Robert S. Smith's essay raises huge questions for those like Bill Reel, who think they've explained the Book of Abraham. There is another good essay in Historicity and the Latter-day Saints on the Book of Abraham against the ancient setting: https://rsc.byu.edu/historicity-latter-day-saint-scriptures/historical-plausibility-historicity-book-abraham-case-study And then there are the kinds of things in Tradition about the Early Life of Abraham volume in which the Book of Abraham is comparable to ancient texts unknown to anyone in the world when the Book of Abraham was produced. And the interesting pre-existence reports in the Apocalypse of Abraham is followed up by the elaborate comparison with Moses 1. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2010-Jeffrey-Bradshaw.pdf So there are mysteries. And some things that are clear. Kuhn also points out that paradigm choice involves deciding "Which problems are more significant to have solved?" If my question is "there any evidence that Joseph Smith was less than perfect?" then the way to answer that question is to search for imperfections. And, necessarily to assume without question that the investigator is perfectly, infallibly capable both of finding and interpreting other people's imperfections. Imperfections in Joseph Smith, are not hard to find. Particularly when he declared, "I never claimed to be perfect." If my question is, "Is there any evidence that Joseph Smith ever recieved real inspiration?" then any decisive information comes from evidence that the Book of Abraham and others of his revelations transcends their 19th century contexts. That sort of thing is also very easy to find. And that leaves each individual to decide, "Which matters most?" Matthew 7:2 reminds us that "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited May 19, 2022 by Kevin Christensen 8 Link to comment
Calm Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said: And Calm - dismissing Reel over the Holland BOM while cutting breaks to Prophets Seers and Revelators who have erred over and ever seems like a double standard. I am not completely dismissing him, but urging much caution of his research and conclusions based on how poorly his methods have been in the past. Why should we assume his methods have improved when he still allows his significant errors that destroy his whole premise to stand uncorrected for years even though he has been given the correct info before? He is also the one who has judged Elder Holland, not I. I am using Reel’s standard to judge Reel. Quote It seems unfair to not consider their points and the data they clearly lay out. I don’t have the interest or knowledge to do so in a thorough and decent manner. Why should I waste everyone’s time by throwing up poor quality work? I know my limits and don’t pretend to be an expert in something I am not. I wish more people did the same. Edited May 19, 2022 by Calm 4 Link to comment
Ryan Dahle Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 22 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: Then we have Tim Barker pointing out at FAIR that the published Facsimile 2 has from the start offered blunt evidence that Joseph Smith openly stated that he did not translate the Hor Book of Breathings characters. I notice that those who have hung their convictions on the notion that because the Hor Book of Breathings does not match the Book of Abraham, we have game over set and match, nothing to see hear folks, nothing more to say, nothing more to ask, let's fold up the tent of Mormonism and all go home, have not been particularly talkative on that presentation. Well, and then there is this problem for their translation theory: There are lots of lines of evidence that work together to cast significant doubt on the supposition (and it is a supposition) that Joseph thought the text of the Book of Abraham corresponded to these characters. 4 Link to comment
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted May 19, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted May 19, 2022 5 hours ago, Tweed1944 said: HOw do you explain the false restoration of figure 3 in Fac 2. The sketch of fac 2 shows parts were missing and in the printing parts were added from other papyri. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/copy-of-hypocephalus-between-circa-july-1835-and-circa-march-1842/1#historical-intro What was inserted there seems to come from JS papyri https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-87zHvKQxp8XKlhrkl_xaDCsESUbc5VapxQ3Q9Dge0E/edit bottom right hand corner. In other examples there is a man on a boat with a scarab (insect) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYqfTAwR2xVx0gKruLt_ylbU9hBz4EZ7pqSh0uUm8lg/edit We know that the originals of Fac 1 & 2 were damaged, so it is no surprise to find Reuben Hedlock restoring missing portions for publication. Since he was not an Egyptologist, we can hardly expect those restorations to match modern museum restorations. What should interest us primarily is whether Joseph correctly interpreted any of the words and images of those illustrations (facsimiles). It is very difficult to explain how Joseph managed to get so much of that explanatory material correct. Certainly the anti-Joseph Smith critics have completely failed to address that problem. 5 Link to comment
Teancum Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 On 5/16/2022 at 6:04 PM, Fether said: There are a handful of ways Joseph smith may or may not have translated the plates / book of Abraham / Kinderhook. it seems RFM is suggesting that JSjr only used one of the many theorized methods and they are saying the method Joseph used the “translate” the kinderhook plates was the same way he translated all the other books. From whatI understand, the method of translation shifted over time. Doctrine and Covenants 8 suggests there was some attempt at reading what was on the plates and translate in a more traditional fashion. And that contradicts the accounts about the stone in the hat. On 5/16/2022 at 6:04 PM, Fether said: I think there is a lot of evidence for the catalyst theory. What are the evidences? Really this is a new theory because it seems pretty clear JS did not translate anything from the papyri. And why would he need the papyri for a catalyst? The Book of Moses is allegedly a revelation is it not? If the BoA was a revelation why the need for papyri? On 5/16/2022 at 6:04 PM, Fether said: Other accounts suggest a seer stone and a hat. Some times the plates were present while other times it was not. As I noted. On 5/16/2022 at 6:04 PM, Fether said: Kinderhook points to some sort of translation process that includes the traditional translating he know today. I don’t know what methods JSjr used and did not use, but never once had I ever thought he only used one single method. It here seems to be a lot of evidence that the mode of “translation” changed over time. Can you provide this evidence? Link to comment
Teancum Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 On 5/17/2022 at 7:20 AM, Tweed1944 said: Royal Skouse has a different perspective on the facsimiles https://humanities.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/royal-skousen-J2019.pdf * The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralinearly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the accompanying transcription – and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other portions of this part of the text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book So JS said he translated it and the KEP seems to indicate some sort of translation attempt. But Skouses knows it was a revelation and JS was mistaken? Oh my.😏 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 On 5/18/2022 at 12:29 AM, DonBradley said: As Kevin has mentioned, I've presented and (with JSPP historian Mark Ashurst-McGee) published documenting that the text Joseph Smith derived from the Kinderhook plates was derived via matching a single character on the Kinderhook plates matching a single character in the GAEL that had substantially the same text as its assigned definition. This, as Mark and I have argued, shows Joseph Smith translating from the Kinderhook plates by way of comparing them with the GAEL. The most obvious implication of this is that Joseph translated from the Kinderhook plates via a very ordinary process of character matching, rather than by a revelatory process. This implication appears not to have much interested most critics. Another implication, which Mark and I noted on page 517 of our chapter, has interested critics much more. This is that if Joseph Smith used the GAEL to help him decipher the Kinderhook plates character, then he appears to have given the GAEL some credence................ ............he argued that Joseph's use of the GAEL to translate from the Kinderhook plates refuted all apologetic explanations of the relationship of the Book of Abraham to the papyrus and the GAEL: 1) the idea that Joseph's scribes produced the GAEL apart from Joseph himself, 2) the idea that the GAEL was reverse-engineered from the already-revealed Book of Abraham text, 3) the idea that the part of the scroll containing the Book of Abraham is now missing, and 4) the idea that the papyrus served, not as a vehicle for the ancient Egyptian text of the Book of Abraham, but as a catalyst prompting Joseph to receive the Book of Abraham by revelation. Bill challenged me to come on the show and comment on all of this. Despite having not having planned or prepared to do so, I was willing to call in. I agreed with them only regarding idea #1 above--that Joseph Smith's scribes produced the GAEL apart from Joseph himself. As Mark and I noted in our chapter, "Many, if not most, Mormon scholars have been skeptical about Smith's involvement in the production of the curious Egyptian Alphabet documents. ... However, Smith's autonomous use of the Egyptian Alphabet book...in the translation of the Kinderhook plates thus calls for a reconsideration of Smith's relationship with this and the other Egyptian study documents." Regarding ideas #2-#4, I listened to Bill's arguments but remained noncommittal since I had not yet had time to give them full consideration. Having now had time to think these arguments through systematically, I've concluded they are each fallacious.................... I agree, Don. At the same time, I have no problem with a very human Joseph Smith attempting to use the GAEL to interpret the Kinderhook Plates. Joseph had certainly become acquainted during his School of the Prophets with the phenomenon of professional language grammars being used by those learning and translating languages, and his effort to use something his compatriots constructed to do the same with unknown languages seems almost bucolic. In the event, he failed, and he undoubtedly knew he failed. 2 Link to comment
Rivers Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 4 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Absolutely. Obviously I think the evidence for the Book of Abraham suggests very strongly that it came from the mind of Joseph Smith. Can one prove that? I don’t think so. It did come from Joseph Smith’s mind. But how did it get into his mind? 2 Link to comment
jkwilliams Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 3 minutes ago, Rivers said: It did come from Joseph Smith’s mind. But how did it get into his mind? Yup. Catalyst theory is functionally equivalent to “he made it up.” Link to comment
jkwilliams Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 21 minutes ago, Teancum said: So JS said he translated it and the KEP seems to indicate some sort of translation attempt. But Skouses knows it was a revelation and JS was mistaken? Oh my.😏 It seems a lot of Book of Abraham apologetics is a kind of reverse Occam’s Razor: the more complex and tenuous explanation is usually the correct one. 1 Link to comment
Nemesis Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 Just like we don’t allow links to Mormon stories. We are not allowing links to this pod cast. If people want to look it up on their own that’s fine. But we will not be boosting anyones traffic through our site. Nemesis Link to comment
smac97 Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 35 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Yup. Catalyst theory is functionally equivalent to “he made it up.” What was he catalyzing if he was just making it up? Thanks, -Smac 1 Link to comment
Ryan Dahle Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It seems a lot of Book of Abraham apologetics is a kind of reverse Occam’s Razor: the more complex and tenuous explanation is usually the correct one. It's funny how Occam's Razor cuts both ways, though. In can't think of a way to justify the "he just made it all up" approach without relying on an exceedingly unlikely series of coincidences (he just got lucky over and over and over) or some equally farfetched notion of Joseph clandestinely accessing and synthesizing a large corpus of ancient materials that were either patently inaccessible or unlikely for him to possess in the 1830s. The absurdity of either scenario (or even various iterations of both) seems lost on the apologists for the other side. Occom's Razor isn't a very useful heuristic when one side of the debate simply isn't interested in accounting for large portions of the available and relevant data. 3 Link to comment
Teancum Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 (edited) On 5/17/2022 at 1:39 PM, mfbukowski said: This is simple stuff- as a new convert I never heard of the "catalyst theory" but it was apparent to me that the message was from the Lord and it didn't matter if Joseph THOUGHT he was doing a literal translation That is because it the catalyst theory is a new innovation because its clear JS did not translate. So the apologists need a new apologetic magic trick. Edited May 19, 2022 by Teancum Link to comment
The Unclean Deacon Posted May 19, 2022 Author Share Posted May 19, 2022 1 hour ago, Calm said: I am not completely dismissing him, but urging much caution of his research and conclusions based on how poorly his methods have been in the past. Do you do the same with LDS Prophets? Link to comment
Teancum Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 On 5/17/2022 at 2:03 PM, smac97 said: Nothing but ad hominem. Sort of like your comments dissing Bill Reel on this thread.😏 -1 Link to comment
jkwilliams Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: It's funny how Occam's Razor cuts both ways, though. In can't think of a way to justify the "he just made it all up" approach without relying on an exceedingly unlikely series of coincidences (he just got lucky over and over and over) or some equally farfetched notion of Joseph clandestinely accessing and synthesizing a large corpus of ancient materials that were either patently inaccessible or unlikely for him to possess in the 1830s. The absurdity of either scenario (or even various iterations of both) seems lost on the apologists for the other side. Occom's Razor isn't a very useful heuristic when one side of the debate simply isn't interested in accounting for large portions of the available and relevant data. I’ve been down the rabbit hole of Book of Abraham evidence in the past, and I don’t really see the point of rehashing it. You can take that as you will. I don’t mind being called an intellectual coward for simply not wishing to go through the tedium again. Edited May 19, 2022 by jkwilliams 1 Link to comment
jkwilliams Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 32 minutes ago, smac97 said: What was he catalyzing if he was just making it up? Thanks, -Smac The text was the catalyst for his thoughts, nicht wahr? The dispute is over where the thoughts came from, and that is not something one can determine through any kind of evidence. Link to comment
jkwilliams Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 (edited) I’m sure I’ll offend a lot of people here, but here’s an analogy. Person A tells me they have discovered an ancient Armenian book of religious incantations. Me: Let’s see it. [Person A hands it to me.] Hmmm. This looks like a damaged menu from PF Chang’s. PA: No, it’s totally not. Here’s a list of 25 parallels between the document and ancient Armenian writings. Me: OK, but how do you get past it looking exactly like part of a PF Chang’s menu? PA: Well, it’s completely different. For example, the label where we expect it to say “Kung Pao Shrimp” is illegible and therefore may be something entirely different. And besides, we’ve filled in some of the damaged parts with things that sort of maybe look like they could be related to Armenian script. Me: I know a guy who works at PF Chang’s. Let’s have him look at it. PF Chang’s employee: Yeah, that’s a PF Chang’s menu. PA; It figures. He’s so biased he won’t even look at the evidence. Besides, maybe PF Chang’s repurposed the document and adapted it through millennia of retransmission Me: But it’s a freaking PF Chang’s menu. PA: Clearly you lack the intellectual rigor to be able to discuss this in a scholarly way. Or maybe you’re just afraid to engage the scholarship. Moral of the analogy: there has to be a damn good reason for saying a PF Chang’s menu is not really a PF Chang’s menu. Edited May 19, 2022 by jkwilliams 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts