I love Shulem, and I think he does a lot of great things, but his tone has long been provocative and sensational. The idea that some of the most caustic and dramatic posters here are calling RI and me out for being troublemakers is pretty funny. Oh well.drumdude wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 3:44 pmI get the impression Res and Kish are writing for a wider audience than just us critics. They’re also writing to faithful Mormons. We all should be, since this forum is public. In Kish’s case he even gets emails directly from DCP which I’m sure say things like “everyone in your forum hates Joseph Smith and they’re all coming from a place of irrational hatred.” So he writes with that in mind I’m sure.
I can understand Kish and Res perhaps wanting to ensure that the forum doesn’t descend into Mormon bashing without any facts to back up the bashing. But I think in general the posters here do a pretty good job of discussing in a reasonable manner. Most of us have been hurt by Mormonism, and DCP/the church would love nothing more than for us to just disappear and never mention Mormonism online again. But if everyone stayed silent, others wouldn’t have community while they’re making their way out.
Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.
- Kishkumen
- God
- Posts: 9329
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
- Location: Cassius University
- Contact:
Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
-
- God
- Posts: 3456
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm
Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.
Puzzle,Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 1:00 amThanks for asking. You are correct about what destroys the historicity argument for the Book of Abraham. The label that you or I or Marcus or Skousen or McGuire choose to describe what Smith did changes nothing. It's the facts that counts, not the labels. Getting tied up in knots over the label "repurpose" simply distracts from the facts that show the material on the scrolls is not what Smith claimed it was.drumdude wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 12:29 am
I’m struggling to understand Res here as well. Joseph linked the papyrus to the book and undoing that link destroys the historicity argument. Unless someone knows of any instance in recorded human history where someone produced an authentic ancient text out of thin air with the help of God, I think we are safe to say it’s not historical without some actual mechanism for it to be.
Should LDS apologists lose their minds and claim that Joseph Smith repurposed a fictional story on non-existent plates, use of the word would not change the overwhelming evidence against historicity one iota.
With such strong evidence on the critic's side, spending effort splitting hairs over a label that changes nothing is a waste of time.
From my reading of this thread I see all participants agree on the following. The LDS book of Abraham is not to be found in the Papyri. Joseph Smith did not translate. Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating. The book is a product of Joseph Smiths imagination and was not written by Abraham or any other ancient person.
Everybody is in exact agreement over every substantial aspect of the question yet it is a fight to the death or some such thing.
Cabin fever?
boredom?
-
- God
- Posts: 6780
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm
Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.
huckelberry wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 4:38 pm...Puzzle,
From my reading of this thread I see all participants agree on the following. The LDS book of Abraham is not to be found in the Papyri. Joseph Smith did not translate. Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating. The book is a product of Joseph Smiths imagination and was not written by Abraham or any other ancient person.
Everybody is in exact agreement over every substantial aspect of the question yet it is a fight to the death or some such thing.

Because, even though there is "such strong evidence on the critic's side," and many have weighed and moved on, and even the originator of the discussion of term has decided to stop, *someone is persisting in "splitting hairs over a label that changes nothing" even though it is "a waste of time."Cabin fever?
boredom?
* it is someone's internal challenge at work.
- Kishkumen
- God
- Posts: 9329
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
- Location: Cassius University
- Contact:
Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.
Maybe. I don't see the big deal. I am not going to think less of Shulem or anyone else over it. I just disagree with their approach. It is a free speech board, and I have no problem using my freedom to draw attention to points of disagreement.huckelberry wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 4:38 pmPuzzle,
From my reading of this thread I see all participants agree on the following. The LDS book of Abraham is not to be found in the Papyri. Joseph Smith did not translate. Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating. The book is a product of Joseph Smiths imagination and was not written by Abraham or any other ancient person.
Everybody is in exact agreement over every substantial aspect of the question yet it is a fight to the death or some such thing.
Cabin fever?
boredom?
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
-
- God
- Posts: 6780
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm
Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.
I wanted to come back to your very astute comment, H, because I think you have captured the essence of some apologetic attempts.huckelberry wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 4:38 pm...From my reading of this thread I see all participants agree on the following. The LDS book of Abraham is not to be found in the Papyri. Joseph Smith did not translate. Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating. The book is a product of Joseph Smiths imagination and was not written by Abraham or any other ancient person.
Everybody is in exact agreement over every substantial aspect of the question....
You have presented a very straightforward, common sense reading of the situation, which I have no doubt apologists are very well aware of. But, in order to preserve aspects of their beliefs, some apologists are focusing on this:
"Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating."
And are trying to redefine history into something like this:
...Joseph Smith didn't actually present his activity as translating, even though he used the word, and although some of his followers may have thought of it as translating, it really wasn't. It was "________", and therefore it doesn't matter that the actual translation of the papyrus doesn't match...
It's extraordinarily convoluted, in my opinion, and I'm sure we haven't seen the last variation on this excuse theme.
-
- God
- Posts: 7255
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am
Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.
The word gaslighting gets overused when speaking about the church, but this particular apologetic is pure gaslighting.Marcus wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 5:22 pmI wanted to come back to your very astute comment, H, because I think you have captured the essence of some apologetic attempts.huckelberry wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 4:38 pm...From my reading of this thread I see all participants agree on the following. The LDS book of Abraham is not to be found in the Papyri. Joseph Smith did not translate. Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating. The book is a product of Joseph Smiths imagination and was not written by Abraham or any other ancient person.
Everybody is in exact agreement over every substantial aspect of the question....
You have presented a very straightforward, common sense reading of the situation, which I have no doubt apologists are very well aware of. But, in order to preserve aspects of their beliefs, some apologists are focusing on this:
"Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating."
And are trying to redefine history into something like this:
...Joseph Smith didn't actually present his activity as translating, even though he used the word, and although some of his followers may have thought of it as translating, it really wasn't. It was "________", and therefore it doesn't matter that the actual translation of the papyrus doesn't match...
It's extraordinarily convoluted, in my opinion, and I'm sure we haven't seen the last variation on this excuse theme.
Paul gets upset about it but it’s worth getting upset over. This is the smoking gun of Mormonism, in my opinion.
- Kishkumen
- God
- Posts: 9329
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
- Location: Cassius University
- Contact:
Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.
This does not do justice to what is actually happening in either apologetics or Mormon Studies scholarship. What seems like a mere excuse to some is a real interest in trying to figure out what was going on and what its significance might have been. I think a lot of critics have shallow answers to interesting problems, but these inadequate answers do the heavy lifting for dismissing Mormonism as stupid or bad, at least in their view. I recall an old friend who used to have interesting discussions online about Mormonism and even wrote some thought-provoking material about it. One day we ran into each other at a party, and I asked him about something. He curtly replied, "All this stuff gets a lot easier once you realize it's just BS."Marcus wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 5:22 pmYou have presented a very straightforward, common sense reading of the situation, which I have no doubt apologists are very well aware of. But, in order to preserve aspects of their beliefs, some apologists are focusing on this:
"Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating."
And are trying to redefine history into something like this:
...Joseph Smith didn't actually present his activity as translating, even though he used the word, and although some of his followers may have thought of it as translating, it really wasn't. It was "________", and therefore it doesn't matter that the actual translation of the papyrus doesn't match...
It's extraordinarily convoluted, in my opinion, and I'm sure we haven't seen the last variation on this excuse theme.
I can accept that some people genuinely think that and feel that way. That is their prerogative. It is also demonstrably wrong. I don't care that people don't believe in what Smith was doing. I just have no use for reductive, stupid, and simple answers to complex problems.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
-
- God
- Posts: 7255
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am
Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.
Are you thinking of anything specific in mind you can point to that shows they’re arguing in good faith rather than simply backed into a corner? I find it hard to believe they would be arguing for any of this if the papyrus wasn’t available for examination.
-
- God
- Posts: 3456
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm
Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.
Marcus, I can see this concern. I find myself thinking the word repurposed is a bit of a trap for the apologist. It undermines the sense of legitimacy of the book and Joseph Smiths authority claims. It may be useful wording for someone concerned with historically tracing how Smith's thinking was developing at a certain time but that is not an apologist aim.Marcus wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 5:22 pmI wanted to come back to your very astute comment, H, because I think you have captured the essence of some apologetic attempts.huckelberry wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 4:38 pm...From my reading of this thread I see all participants agree on the following. The LDS book of Abraham is not to be found in the Papyri. Joseph Smith did not translate. Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating. The book is a product of Joseph Smiths imagination and was not written by Abraham or any other ancient person.
Everybody is in exact agreement over every substantial aspect of the question....
You have presented a very straightforward, common sense reading of the situation, which I have no doubt apologists are very well aware of. But, in order to preserve aspects of their beliefs, some apologists are focusing on this:
"Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating."
And are trying to redefine history into something like this:
...Joseph Smith didn't actually present his activity as translating, even though he used the word, and although some of his followers may have thought of it as translating, it really wasn't. It was "________", and therefore it doesn't matter that the actual translation of the papyrus doesn't match...
It's extraordinarily convoluted, in my opinion, and I'm sure we haven't seen the last variation on this excuse theme.
For an apologist to manage the switch turnings this highly critical word into a support of Joseph Smith authority and legitimacy of the book of Abraham strikes me a quite a circus trick. I cannot be sure it would not be tried. I doubt it can work. But then if people need an apologetic bad enough perhaps anything, even this will work for them.
- Res Ipsa
- God
- Posts: 10636
- Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
- Location: Playing Rabbits
Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.
I can't speak for the Good Reverend, but I don't think I write to faithful Mormons. I doubt a faithful Mormon would be interested in anything that I have to say. I don't have any sort of goal of agenda of persuading faithful LDS folk to abandon the COJCOLDS, although I'm always happy to share my views of the church with anyone who asks.drumdude wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 3:44 pmI get the impression Res and Kish are writing for a wider audience than just us critics. They’re also writing to faithful Mormons. We all should be, since this forum is public. In Kish’s case he even gets emails directly from DCP which I’m sure say things like “everyone in your forum hates Joseph Smith and they’re all coming from a place of irrational hatred.” So he writes with that in mind I’m sure.
I can understand Kish and Res perhaps wanting to ensure that the forum doesn’t descend into Mormon bashing without any facts to back up the bashing. But I think in general the posters here do a pretty good job of discussing in a reasonable manner. Most of us have been hurt by Mormonism, and DCP/the church would love nothing more than for us to just disappear and never mention Mormonism online again. But if everyone stayed silent, others wouldn’t have community while they’re making their way out.
I'm interested in forming and presenting arguments. So, I'll often comment when I see one that I think is well-constructed or persuasive and I'll often comment when I see one that I think is self-defeating or atrocious. In either case, my bias is in favor of arguments that cast some light on the subject, as opposed to obscure understanding. I think straight-up Mormon bashing is a bad look for a forum that presents itself as being welcome to all, but that's not really in my control.
I'm not advocating that anyone stay silent. Just the opposite: folks should talk about the things that are important to them. I'm not claiming that my stance toward Mormonism is the correct one or better than anyone else's. But it is mine and I do talk about it. It's perfectly understandable that people who have been hurt by Moronism feel angry. And it's perfectly understandable that some people feel it's important for them to actively try to discredit the church or deconvert others. They get to do that here. By the same token, I think it's important to be grounded in facts, and so I will react to arguments that aren't.
I'm not the slightest bit interested in what DCP or the church would like me to do. I don't cede to them any role in deciding how I choose to live my life or what I post on a message board.
I agree with your point on community for people who are questioning or transitioning out of Mormonism. I think the process can be very disturbing and disorienting, and lots of people in that process can benefit from a supportive community. But I also think this is not an example of that community. There is a reflexive hostility by too many folks toward newcomers that they suspect are TBMs that isn't compatible with providing support of questioning or transitioning members. I don't intend that to be a knock on this forum -- it represents itself as a forum for open discussion, which is somewhat counter to the notion of a forum structured to provide support.
he/him
we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
— Alison Luterman
we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
— Alison Luterman