DiscussMormonism.com

wenglund wrote:Great, at least we are now on the same page. However, re-doing the scholarly research of Dr. Peterson, particularly in the course of an informal discussion online, is highly unfeasible as you soon found out with your Google search. If you can't take his word for it, I am okay with that, though I can. My intent here isn't to convert, but to provide room for faith for those so inclined.

Exactly, Wade, if you had just admitted that this is your objective, rather than the honest objective search for truth, this whole conversation would have been a lot shorter.

If Mormon apologists had a complete, airtight argument for any of their arguments, they would present it. They don't. So they present fragments of arguments that are good enough for the faithful. The answers, they say, are always elsewhere, in this paper or that book that isn't commonly available and may or may not support their contention. In the cases I have seen, they do not.

For example, you pointed to a fragment of an argument presented by Peterson. I opened a thread to explore that argument in more detail. While no one has contributed to that thread yet, I did find that this has been explored in more detail on this very board, and the contentions that Peterson were making in his article found very little support and much evidence to the contrary. No matter. Peterson's articles aren't meant for that sort of in depth investigation. They are meant to present a thin case to those who want to believe, like you. To those who want actual evidence, like myself, none is to be found.

This paper tries to make the case that Elkenah was actually "the Canaanite God El." Which is a an odd case to make for following false Gods, since Israel adapted El as their God too.

http://bycommonconsent.files.wordpress. ... ite-el.pdf

wenglund wrote:

Mortal Man wrote: The bulk of chapter 1 derives from the Bible, Josephus, and Joseph's interpretation the opening vignette.

Like with Buffalo, as I raise specific parts of the Abraham story, feel free to point out where in the Bible and Josephus they may be found. Once you do so, we can then look at the feasibility that those were the sources from whence the Book of Abraham was derived.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Could you be more specific? Your links talk of general themes. Is there anything specific you'd like to point out that Joseph couldn't possibly have known through his studies?

Buffalo wrote:Could you be more specific? Your links talk of general themes. Is there anything specific you'd like to point out that Joseph couldn't possibly have known through his studies?

I've always found the "couldn't have known" argument to be one of the weakest. Logically it is putting the burden on the apologist to prove the negative.

wenglund wrote:
In short, those who are theorizing a specific source still have the burden of "proof" for their theory,

You offer no actual proof - only theories. Proof is your burden since you are trying to convince people to have faith that Joseph Smith is a true prophet delivering the book of Abraham as a true revelation or scripture.

wenglund wrote:My intent here isn't to convert, but to provide room for faith for those so inclined.

If one must have faith to believe in The book of Abraham and therefore Joseph Smith as a prophet, how would that faith possibly enhance truthfullness and integrity? Truth is either there or it's not. One doesn't need faith to believe in truth - one needs integrity of character. Perhaps that's why I do not accept Mormonism anymore and you do. Once I established my standards of integrity in relation to truth I did not need faith to convince me of a lie.

Perhaps rather than providing room for faith you may want to explore the ideas of providing room for integrity, analyzing integrity of character and see how that measures up to lack of proof compared to the errors in the Book of Abraham from a prophet of God. How that compares to Smith's all-out lies and deceptions within Mormonism - and consider why people are not 'so inclined' to exercise faith in this matter.

What you are actually asking is that I compromise my standard of integrity and replace it with faith. After learning the truth about Mormonism I made my choice, passed that test, and will continue to resist such efforts by yourself and others to lead me back down a garden path of what-if's because you haven't the integrity, courage of character or intelligence to discern a lie based on history and blatant lack of proof combined with creative story telling.

What would happen to your world if you didn’t use faith to uphold your belief?
How can your belief of Smith being a prophet revealing the Book of Abraham maintain without faith?

Schryver appears to have left the discussion. Just want to point out that lurkers have noticed.

Mortal Man wrote:

Will Schryver wrote:Whether the explanations Joseph Smith gave for the facsimiles are a simple case of iconotropy, or valid translations of the meaning intended by their original author(s) remains unanswered, but I am inclined to believe that it was the Egyptians who were originally guilty of the iconotropy, in which case Joseph Smith was merely restoring the original meaning of the iconography in question.

Osiris iconography predates Abraham.

Egyptian iconotropy is a well-known fact. Here's just one example. Sumerian judgment scene iconography dates back to at least 2350 B.C.:



This particular scene is a excellent example of how the Egyptians took something from Abraham's homeland and adapted it within the context of their own religious rites. Or, perhaps, both the Sumerians and the Egyptians were referencing iconography that goes back centuries before either civilization rose. This is what Schryver is talking about. In this context, it isn't hard to see how reasonable it is to propose that Joseph Smith was restoring the earliest understanding of these images.

At least it isn't hard for those not invested in their own apostasy from Mormonism.

Nomad wrote:Egyptian iconotropy is a well-known fact. Here's just one example. Sumerian judgment scene iconography dates back to at least 2350 B.C.:

So MM is right then that "Osiris iconography predates Abraham".

This particular scene is a excellent example of how the Egyptians took something from Abraham's homeland and adapted it within the context of their own religious rites. Or, perhaps, both the Sumerians and the Egyptians were referencing iconography that goes back centuries before either civilization rose. This is what Schryver is talking about. In this context, it isn't hard to see how reasonable it is to propose that Joseph Smith was restoring the earliest understanding of these images.

Civilizations have been borrowing from earlier generations and other groups long before even Adam was supposed to be around. The facsimiles translate into a coherent story. It is unlikely that you could take some earlier understandings and get a coherent story, nor does that support what Joseph has said about it.

At least it isn't hard for those not invested in their own apostasy from Mormonism.

I have to laugh when apologists like Will like to say apostates are the ones invested. It's not hard to see who is really deluding themselves. At least many apostates were willing to change cherished beliefs based on the evidence.

wenglund wrote:He wasn't making that "point," I was. And, while some of the sited texts may have been available to Joseph, the question is still open as to whether he read or used them, and whether they were the source from whence the Book of Abraham was derived.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If they existed in Joseph time, then how do you show that Joseph could not have gained any information from either reading those sources or getting the information from others who may have. It doesn't mean he did, just that we cannot eliminate that possibility.

wenglund wrote:

Dad of a Mormon wrote: What you need to demonstrate, Wade, is that the Book of Abraham has material that he could not have known about but that accurately reflects what we know about Abraham through other historical sources. If you will check the thread, I acknowledged that one of the arguments made by Dan Peterson would be compelling if it can be demonstrated that the premises are true. So I challenged you or anyone else to support the premise, specifically that the gods mentioned are known to be gods of the ancient world and that this information could not have been known by Joseph Smith at the time.

Great, at least we are now on the same page. However, re-doing the scholarly research of Dr. Peterson, particularly in the course of an informal discussion online, is highly unfeasible as you soon found out with your Google search. If you can't take his word for it, I am okay with that, though I can. My intent here isn't to convert, but to provide room for faith for those so inclined.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think it wise not to take anyone's word for it on these kinds of issues. This really represents a problem for those who want to believe certain things taking the word of those who also share the same beliefs. Healthy skepticism here is a good thing. MM has also brought up some good points about these other Gods. You still need to provide sources for these assretions.

I like your use of the sound bite from Fair/Farms in providing room for faith. You need to realize that you are not attempting to provide room for faith in the LDS church, but in people like DCP.

At this point we are all still waiting for you to provide evidence of some of your or other people like DCP assertions, since that is what you said you were hoping to provide in this thread.