Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Kishkumen]

I think you're conflating a description of what Joseph Smith did with what he was thinking when he did it. Suppose I found an artifact from an ancient Native civilization, thought I understood it's purpose, used it in a way consistent with that purpose, but was simply mistaken. I still gave the artifact a different purpose from its original purpose, which is squarely within the definition of repurpose.

It's common to describe the Cannanites as repurposing Egyptian hieroglyphics to serve as an alphabet. But no one pretends to know what any person involved in that process was thinking.

Whether he understood what he was doing or not, Smith adapted the contents of the scrolls for use in a purpose (telling the story found in the Book of Abraham) that was different from its former purpose (funerary text). Again, nothing in the definition of the word itself includes the requirement that Smith subjectively understood what he was actually doing.

Precisely. So well put.

[Kishkumen]

I’d be interested in reading what you think is actually going on with the papyri with regard to Joseph Smith’s activities in a new thread, if you’re willing of course.

- Doc

I am sorry, Doc. I have not been ignoring you, but I have visiting family and this is not the sort of thing I can hash out in between other obligations in a couple of minutes. I would be happy to share my thoughts, such as they are at this point, in a different thread soon.

[drumdude]

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.

They are definitely arguing to support their conviction that the LDS Church is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. You won't catch them arguing against that position. If you are interested in showing the opposite, then that conflict will make you upset. You think it is false; they think it is true. At the same time, both sides bring up interesting stuff. I have seen it with my own eyes, so I know that is the case. Most of the time we don't pay much mind to what apologists do because we disagree with their objectives. They cannot answer our questions to our satisfaction. But that does not mean that none of them do interesting things that might help shed more light on the history.

There is no question that the available papyri conflicted with LDS expectations and sent people scrambling for some kind of apologetic that would work. At the same time, I think it is much better to have them, if we want to understand what Smith was actually doing. Those who stop at "lying" and "made it up" because that is all they really want to know will never answer the more interesting questions. We should not necessarily blame them for being satisfied with simplistic answers, however. They were happy with simple answers when they chose the LDS Church, and so they don't need that much more to leave it. And that is the objective. Stay or leave based on simple metrics and simple answers.

Not easy answers. Not comfortable answers. But also not answers that lead to better understanding.

I often wonder what would come out of a similar effort to support another widely discredited historical or scientific theory. Imagine a paper like Interpreter focused on the historicity of Atlantis. Or the idea that aliens built the pyramids.

Could some interesting work come out of such an endeavor? Some uncomfortable facts that challenge our understanding of reality? If Mormonism is false, then you would expect similar results from any intense prolonged examination of any widely doubted conspiracy theory.

[Kishkumen]

I often wonder what would come out of a similar effort to support another widely discredited historical or scientific theory. Imagine a paper like Interpreter focused on the historicity of Atlantis. Or the idea that aliens built the pyramids.

Could some interesting work come out of such an endeavor? If Mormonism is false, then you would expect similar results from any intense prolonged examination of any widely doubted conspiracy theory.

Of course it could. Good work can come out of examining what is going on with QAnon, and it does. So, if your question is whether by interesting work I mean work that compels people to believe in Mormonism, then you can rest assured that this is not what I mean.

[Kishkumen]

When I wrote a paper on the Book of Abraham in 1977, the catalyst theory was already on the table.

Is this available anywhere?

[Res Ipsa]

I think you're conflating a description of what Joseph Smith did with what he was thinking when he did it. Suppose I found an artifact from an ancient Native civilization, thought I understood it's purpose, used it in a way consistent with that purpose, but was simply mistaken. I still gave the artifact a different purpose from its original purpose, which is squarely within the definition of repurpose.

It's common to describe the Cannanites as repurposing Egyptian hieroglyphics to serve as an alphabet. But no one pretends to know what any person involved in that process was thinking.

Whether he understood what he was doing or not, Smith adapted the contents of the scrolls for use in a purpose (telling the story found in the Book of Abraham) that was different from its former purpose (funerary text). Again, nothing in the definition of the word itself includes the requirement that Smith subjectively understood what he was actually doing.

Precisely. So well put.

When I was looking at usage, I found a book with contributions by a number of authors that addressed the repurposing of aspects of the Egyptian civilization by later civilizations. Sadly, only the introduction was available online. The editor made a point that I had never thought of before. When most people talk about history, they talk about the ideas, art, buildings, etc. and how they functioned in that civilization at that time. If one thinks of history as a timeline, it's like getting a series of cross sections perpendicular to the timeline that don't connect with each other.

But the civilizations are connected with each other through repurposing -- taking elements of the earlier civilization and giving them a new purpose. Paying attention that process turns the discrete snapshots into a film, revealing connections that help explain why things developed the way they did.

It was an aha! moment for me and persuaded me that the term was literally appropriate for an important concept.

That is one of the reasons I enjoy hanging out here. I learn stuff.

[Kishkumen]

When I was looking at usage, I found a book with contributions by a number of authors that addressed the repurposing of aspects of the Egyptian civilization by later civilizations. Sadly, only the introduction was available online. The editor made a point that I had never thought of before. When most people talk about history, they talk about the ideas, art, buildings, etc. and how they functioned in that civilization at that time. If one thinks of history as a timeline, it's like getting a series of cross sections perpendicular to the timeline that don't connect with each other.

But the civilizations are connected with each other through repurposing -- taking elements of the earlier civilization and giving them a new purpose. Paying attention that process turns the discrete snapshots into a film, revealing connections that help explain why things developed the way they did.

It was an aha! moment for me and persuaded me that the term was literally appropriate for an important concept.

That is one of the reasons I enjoy hanging out here. I learn stuff.

I would be interested in knowing the biblio information on that book. Looks like something I would really enjoy sinking my teeth into. From your summary it looks very amenable to my perspective. At the same time, I would probably learn a lot from it.

[drumdude]

I often wonder what would come out of a similar effort to support another widely discredited historical or scientific theory. Imagine a paper like Interpreter focused on the historicity of Atlantis. Or the idea that aliens built the pyramids.

Could some interesting work come out of such an endeavor? If Mormonism is false, then you would expect similar results from any intense prolonged examination of any widely doubted conspiracy theory.

Of course it could. Good work can come out of examining what is going on with QAnon, and it does. So, if your question is whether by interesting work I mean work that compels people to believe in Mormonism, then you can rest assured that this is not what I mean.

Compel is a high bar, let’s set it slightly lower. What about work that causes people to doubt that QAnon is a conspiracy theory? Tucker Carlson “just asking questions” for example.

There is a lot of effort being put into casting doubt on the results of the 2020 election. It doesn’t compel people to believe the election was rigged, but it causes many people to question.

I think Mormon apologetics is attempting to utilize the same tactics, for the same goals. You could call that cynical, but I don’t see a real difference there.

[Kishkumen]

Compel is a high bar, let’s set it slightly lower. What about work that causes people to doubt that QAnon is a conspiracy theory? Tucker Carlson “just asking questions” for example.

There is a lot of effort being put into casting doubt on the results of the 2020 election. It doesn’t compel people to believe the election was rigged, but it causes many people to question.

I think Mormon apologetics is attempting to utilize the same tactics, for the same goals. You could call that cynical, but I don’t see a real difference there.

Good scholarship is usually interested in what makes phenomena like QAnon happen in the first place. What is this stuff? How does it work? What are its causes? What can we know about the particulars of this case? Are there other, similar phenomena? How are they related? How are they different?

I don't think this kind of effort has much of anything to do with affirming these things or disproving them. It is about understanding a human phenomenon.

[Res Ipsa]

When I wrote a paper on the Book of Abraham in 1977, the catalyst theory was already on the table.

Is this available anywhere?

Not that I know of. I didn't keep a copy. It basically traced the history of criticisms of the Book of Abraham, beginning with someone whose name I forget sending copies of the facsimiles to Egyptologists for interpretation, the discovery of the scrolls at the Met, and the actual translations by Nibley, among others. Then it discussed the then-current apologetic theories: missing scroll, hidden meaning, and catalyst.

We did a two part presentation in class over two days. The first day ended with the evidence that the Book of Abraham was not a translation of the scrolls. This was shocking news to the entire class. Several students were in tears. The next day we patched things up with apologetics and bore our testimonies. (It was BYU, after all).

All of this was news to me. I spent hours in the special collections department doing the research. I really wanted to believe, but doing the paper and presentation was the start of my road out.