Have the Mopologists Begun to Acquiesce on the Book of Abraham?

[Gadianton]

Thank you for this important, scholarly update, Dr. Scratch.

What to make of the apologists gravitating towards the "Catalyst Theory?" otherwise known as "The theory of total desperation?"

I'm struck as they move from insisting on scholarly means of production to reluctantly accepting witchcraft and black magic. How many times have we heard the apologists complain that critics overplay the occult side of the Smith family?

What do remote viewers, psychics, and mediums do? You get them a remnant of the person's clothes or a few hair clippings and the magician concentrates on the object, which brings the full vision of an event or a person's consciousness to the magician. And no matter how important the desired vision is, there's no way around it.

Tiphareth again at once; the Priest, moreover, wears a leopard-skin, and the spots suggest the Sun. Also, Sol is Lord of Leo: so there you are! pink leopards are exactly what you have a right to expect! Until you have practiced this method, all day and every day, for quite a long while, you cannot tell how amazingly your mnemonic power increases by virtue thereof. But be careful always to range the new ideas as they come along in their right order of importance.

The mnemonic method of Tvedness is fundamentally deep witchcraft as Crowley observes. And let's not forget that Massimo Introvigne who has defended the apologists in the past against science and logic, as he is pro-postmodernism, found striking similarities between Smith and Crowley and claims Crowley was fascinated with Joseph Smith. If only Crowley knew about the mnemonic / catalyst theory!

One wonders how far the apologists will take this and if they will incorporate any of these practices for themselves beyond the water witching most have admitted guilt to. For instance, a mnemonic can build a chain of insight to grant the seeing eye, but it can also act as a proxy by which to bring trouble to an enemy. At what point do they turn straight to voodoo? In light of these developments, I strongly recommend to Dr. Scratch not to drop his handkerchief on the floor when passing through Provo Utah.

[Doctor Scratch]

Indeed, Dr. Robbers. Indeed. This “acquiescence” is not only on matters pertaining to the Book of Abraham, but also on the issue of “magic.” Oh, sure, when pressed they will say, “That’s not a term that scholars use!!” (Lol: as if they would know!) and yet what do we have here? We have Smoot, Gee, etc. publicly advocating for a “translation” process that really can only be described as “magic.” They are even suggesting that Joseph Smith used his seer stone!

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I wonder if these Mopologists were pressured into taking this stance on the Book of Abraham? It sure seems a little strange that they would all acquiesce at the same time.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were called down to the COB prior to publishing this.

[Philo Sofee]

I wonder if these Mopologists were pressured into taking this stance on the Book of Abraham? It sure seems a little strange that they would all acquiesce at the same time.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were called down to the COB prior to publishing this.

I believe that Mike of LDS Discussions with John Dehlin on their 3rd Book of Abraham podcast together with Nemo the Mormon (a fantastically insightful podcast!!! Episode 1710 of Mormon Stories) put his finger on the pulse of the problem with the catalyst theory. Once you go to revelation as an untestable proposition you are indistinguishable from fraud. It can never be proven nor disproved, hence in limbo, which, of course, the leaders would be delighted in with their myopic understanding of how much further society has advanced than they ever will. This will truly be the last straw of defense. They have no choice whatever, since all of their 8 - 9 previous theories and guesswork has utterly failed to carry the day.

[hauslern]

One of the chapters deals with the idea of human sacrifice

https://byustudies.BYU.edu/article/human-sacrifice/

Was the figure in facsimile 1 really holding a knife?

I asked an Egyptologist at Exeter University in the UK their opinion of the papyri for facsimile 1 given back to the church. They responded with a picture of Anubis holding a jar over the figure on the couch.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P1l ... HNVYg/edit

Klaus Baer in Dialogue 1968 said there were no fibers in the glue near where the hand was outstretched.So this what Smith was looking at.

Also Robert Ritner has commented on the theory of human sacrifice in Egypt:

"More to the point, however, while Muhlestein notes capital punishment for political rebellion and crimes against individuals and the state, including theft of temple property or resources, there is no parallel to the Book of Abraham’s intended “martyrdom” for refusing to worship the images of Egyptian gods. That would happen under Roman prosecution of Christians, but personal worship (or its refusal) was not a basic concern of the ancient Egyptian state. The LDS citation of Muhlestein’s work does not support the narrative of the Book of Abraham. "

So folks it is an embalming scene?

[Physics Guy]

The catalyst theory ought to work up to a point, but it substantially weakens the already tenuous link between the modern text of Mormon Scripture and its supposed ancient source. If Smith merely channelled Abraham's text, rather than accurately translating it from an ancient scroll that had survived physically into modern times, then the claim that the text came from Abraham, rather than simply from Smith, rests on nothing at all, any more, besides Smith's naked word.

How far does this retreat have to go? Does the Book of Mormon have to go next?

As far as I can see it should still be logically tenable to say that the Book of Abraham was channelled rather than translated, and had nothing to do with the hieroglyphic text on any surviving papyrus, but to maintain nonetheless that the Book of Mormon was really translated from ancient glyphs on gold plates. The stone-in-the-hat process by which Smith dictated the Book of Mormon is already a lot more like channelling than translating, however. Even if the gold plates were real, we would only have Smith's bare word for the claim that his dictated English text was a translation of them.

How much does this even matter for Mormonism? If it matters a lot, why does it matter?

I don't see how any scholarship can threaten the belief on faith that the English texts provided by Joseph Smith are divine revelations. As I understand it, though, Mormonism has never allowed that its main scriptures and doctrines and practices were new revelations to Smith in the modern day, but has instead always insisted that they are restorations of ancient scriptures, doctrines, and ordinances. As Kishkumen recently got me, restoring ancient texts that had been lost was a natural part of Smith's general restoration claim. The claim that Mormonism is God's one true church might be as tenable as any other religious claim, but the claim that the Restoration really is a restoration really seems to be getting shakier.

A lot of Mormon doctrine and practice certainly seems modern to outsiders. It might have been copied from Swedenborg or Freemasonry or other modern sources, but a lot of things are hard to swallow as really going back to Jesus, let alone any legendary patriarchs. Nonetheless Mormonism seems to insist that most if not all of its seemingly original elements are restorations of ancient norms. The claim that these things are all restored ancient things, rather than new modern things, is an additional meta-claim alongside the basic assertion that these distinctive Mormon things are all true and from God.

Why does Mormonism care so much about this extra meta-claim of restoration? Why not just let the scriptures and the doctrines and the ordinances all be new revelations granted to modern prophets?

The only theory I can form is that Mormonism has always been too insecure about its actual content to let it simply stand on its own merits, the way Islam freely acknowledges that the Quran simply came to Muhammad but expects that if you simply read the text in Arabic you will become convinced that it came from God. Mormonism seems to feel a need to prop itself up with ancient provenance.

What if Mormonism is driven to abandon that prop? Could Mormonism ride the slippery slope all the way down and push catalyst theories to their ultimate logical conclusion? Could Mormonism ultimately recast all its original claims to ancient origin as mere metaphors? Could Mormons decide that claiming that this text was from Abraham, and that one was from a historical Nephi, were really just ways of saying, to the culturally insecure American settlers of the 19th century, that these new texts were true and important?

Would the result be a leaner Mormonism that was stronger than ever, confidently proclaiming its unique religious vision as a modern revelation through a line of modern prophets that continues still? Or will Mormonism stripped of its ancient pretensions only collapse?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ay, yo! What am I, chopped liver?



Speakin’ of which, you got any chopped liver?

- Doc

PG, you do an admirable job at mopologetics-apologetics, but perhaps the doctrines and revelations found in the PoGP would’ve been better suited for D&C. It’s clear Joseph Smith screwed up, and as Gad stated moving to PoGP to a catalyst theory (or “inspiration” as the Mopologists are describing it now) is just witchcraft at this point. The PoGP is, in fact, the silver bullet needed to kill the werewolf.

[Shulem]

The PoGP is, in fact, the silver bullet needed to kill the werewolf.

I'm laying out the argument for 3000 BC vs. 2300 BC up in the Celestial forum which completely kills the Catalyst Theory because no matter how you slice it the fact remains: Egypt was unified in 3000 BC many hundreds of years before biblical dating of Noah's ark and Ham's progeny settling into Smith's imagined Egypt.

This kills the Catalyst Theory, death on the spot! The numbers are the final say! Thanks to good ole math! And I'll keep ramming it down Gee's throat until he chokes and barfs up the Book of Abraham. And the Church can kiss my ass!

Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative

[malkie]

One of the chapters deals with the idea of human sacrifice

https://byustudies.BYU.edu/article/human-sacrifice/

Was the figure in facsimile 1 really holding a knife?

I asked an Egyptologist at Exeter University in the UK their opinion of the papyri for facsimile 1 given back to the church. They responded with a picture of Anubis holding a jar over the figure on the couch.

...
So folks it is an embalming scene?

It looks to me that the idolatrous priest may have been waterboarding Abraham to force him to reveal his astronomy secrets.

ETA: After his death, the priest converted to Mormonism in the Spirit World. He was resurrected in the 20th C, and his ancient memories were restored so that he could help the CIA with persuasion techniques. Later he was called as Bishop of a ward in Washington state.
Just plain history.

[Nimrod]

Indeed, Dr. Robbers. Indeed. This “acquiescence” is not only on matters pertaining to the Book of Abraham, but also on the issue of “magic.” Oh, sure, when pressed they will say, “That’s not a term that scholars use!!” (Lol: as if they would know!) and yet what do we have here? We have Smoot, Gee, etc. publicly advocating for a “translation” process that really can only be described as “magic.” They are even suggesting that Joseph Smith used his seer stone!

Given how many supernatural notions permeate most religions, including Mormonism, why do they chafe at 'magic'? What does it say about the sincerity of the beliefs of Mormon officials over the decades since Joseph Smith that they have wanted the translation of the Book of Mormon from the gold plates to look like it was a studious effort of Joseph Smith from the plates rather than his face stuck in the crown of a hat looking at his favorite peep stone?