Currently at MADB - Will loses his mojo

[_Trevor]

Along comes Bokovy, claiming it is "sheer nonsense." Kudos to David for having the integrity to do so.

I am not blowing smoke when I say, sincerely, that this is personally a great moment for me. Kevin remembers me when I was a liberal Mormon posting in favor of a non-historical view of LDS scripture. Many of the apologists would have none of it. It was only a couple of years ago that I started seeing a couple of guys in the younger generation of apologists be tolerant of that view.

Admittedly, this is not exactly a stamp of approval for my former views, but it is still a huge thing for me to witness a faithful LDS scholar able to make this kind of statement with courage and integrity. I don't know if David sees it as a big deal, but to lots of people like me, it certainly is.

This part is especially heartening to me:

My fear, however, is that some will discount its message and connections with antiquity due to faulty apologetic arguments. Given how much the text means to me and the significant impact it has had upon my life, I hate to see that occur.

This guy is a real Mensch. He is able to see a bad apologetic for what he deems to be a good cause and call it for what it is. Too many cave in to confirmation bias and are unable to do that. Too many are fearful of the consequences, even though they see it. Kudos to David!

[_cksalmon]

I can die content now that Will has taken David Bokovoy to task over his views on the Book of Abraham. Given the choice, I'll take levelheaded, honest Bokovoy over bombastic, polemical William.

To be sure, Will Schryver is a Mopologetic wonder to behold. Those preoccupied with self-esteem could do worse than to hope to bathe in the shining light of his own self-perception.

For some reason, I even still find myself utterly befuddled by Will's arrogant condescension toward those who would dare hold his stated views up to critical scrutiny.

Will writes:

No John, you still don't "get it." But no matter. I'm actually not very interested in discussing these things with you. You are long on rhetoric and short on detailed knowledge of the issues. And, you are not susceptible to enlightenment. So, you continue to believe what you choose, and I'll continue to build my case in the manner I see fit.

I might say, "Isn't it interesting that...," but the truth is that I am much more inclined to think, "Isn't it, in a rather uninteresting way, typical that Will consistently finds himself uninterested in discussing 'these things' with anyone who finds his Book of Abraham apologetic unconvincing?"

It's like watching the self-obsessed mirror miming of the nursery-rhyme cow who believes it can actually jump the moon, just so long as no one is actually watching.

Meh.

Will Schryver will be, finally, unimportant to both apologists and critics alike. I wouldn't expect him to take notice of that salient fact, however.

cks

[_beastie]

It's like watching the self-obsessed mirror miming of the nursery-rhyme cow who believes it can actually jump the moon, just so long as no one is actually watching.

I think it's helpful to keep in mind that Will is a drama queen who is always performing for the adoring audience in his mind. I've known too many drama queens to take this one seriously.

:::cue in applause::::

[_CaliforniaKid]

Again, I said it was a summary, but to avoid confusion, I’m happy to break it down and add your additional premise:

1. You maintain that a book of Abraham appeared on a now missing segment of the scroll of Horus.

2. You maintain that the Old Testament Patriarch himself originally wrote this book of Abraham.

3. You maintain that an Egyptian Jewish editor added the book of Abraham that appears on the missing segment of Horus.

And now your additional premise that I was aware of but did not include in my summary:

4. You maintain that Joseph did not literally translate the scroll, but instead received a revelation that corresponded to a “version” of the book of Abraham largely faithful to the original, but adapted for us and our time.

I’m sorry Will, but this is really a convoluted nightmare.

I just want to join everyone else in commending David for his integrity and clarity of thought on this subject. Aside from his apparent belief that Joseph Smith had miraculous access to some ancient memes, I would be hard pressed to identify any major areas of disagreement in our views on the Book of Abraham. David and Kevin Barney are my favorite apologists, for the reason that they allow the evidence to lead them to their conclusions rather than vice versa.

[_Trevor]

I just want to join everyone else in commending David for his integrity and clarity of thought on this subject. Aside from his apparent belief that Joseph Smith had miraculous access to some ancient memes, I would be hard pressed to identify any major areas of disagreement in our views on the Book of Abraham. David and Kevin Barney are my favorite apologists, for the reason that they allow the evidence to lead them to their conclusions rather than vice versa.

Well, I think it is fairly clear where those ancient memes came from--an idiosyncratic and perceptive reading of the King James Bible. And, I don't think David would disagree, but that he would call it spiritual insight or revelation. I agree with you about David and Kevin, 100%. I hope that they represent the future of LDS scholarship and apologetics, and that we see far less of other, less congenial varieties.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Well, I think it is fairly clear where those ancient memes came from--an idiosyncratic and perceptive reading of the King James Bible.

I certainly agree with you there.

And, I don't think David would disagree, but that he would call it spiritual insight or revelation.

Yes, that's rather the impression I get, too. And I'm actually willing to grant him that Joseph Smith had "spiritual insight". I just don't believe that spiritual insight can connect one to ahistorical knowledge, whether of Mesopotamia or otherwise. In my view, genuine spiritual insight is an experience with little or no propositional cognitive content.

[_Trevor]

I just don't believe that spiritual insight can connect one to ahistorical knowledge, whether of Mesopotamia or otherwise. In my view, genuine spiritual insight is an experience with little or no propositional cognitive content.

Good point.

[_beastie]

I just don't believe that spiritual insight can connect one to ahistorical knowledge, whether of Mesopotamia or otherwise. In my view, genuine spiritual insight is an experience with little or no propositional cognitive content.

While, for some reason, the Book of Abraham controversy has never gripped me, I do find it interesting to watch this evolution of apologia, because of what it could portend for Book of Mormon apologia. I have always maintained that there is a difference between claiming the Book of Mormon is the "word of God" in some way, which would imply spiritual teachings consistent with God's will, and claiming the Book of Mormon really had ancient origins. Most believers still insist that there is no way the Book of Mormon could be "true" in some way if it were not an ancient document as Joseph Smith claimed, yet many Christian scholars believe that portions of the Bible are pseudgraphia. I also believe the RLDS have now pretty much embraced the "true but not ancient" view, or at least allowed it without negative consequence. The Book of Abraham could end up being a trial balloon, of sorts, for the LDS in terms of eventually accepting that view for the Book of Mormon, as well.

[_truth dancer]

I predict that within my lifetime, the LDS church will have released any notion that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are factual or historical.

In another twenty years or so, the young apologists will be wondering how anyone ever thought the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham were actually true stories, and there will be those who vehemently assert they never were taught as such.

Just wait!

~td~

[_Ray A]

Will's latest post to David:

I must say that I perceive a considerable tension at work in your expressed beliefs. I also perceive what appears to be a trend in terms of which forces are prevailing in this contest of cognition. Whether or not this convoluted cognitive dissonance is yet productive of nightmares I am in no position to say, but I predict that it will be—and sooner rather than later.

It seems Will believes that David has finally succumbed to the "forces of evil". What was I previously saying about David Wright?