Banned from MAD

[_dartagnan]

Again, yes, I know.

I couldn't resist. I saw a thread dedicated to the Book of Abraham, and Dan Peterson uncharacteristically engaged the discussion.

I offered some criticisms of his 1994 Ensign article, he called me out and said he migt get back with me, but within 6 minutes I was banned. My posts are still there under the name Almax. My last post was cut in half... I was editing it as the banned me. But I assume all posts will be deleted soon. I can post them here if anyone is interested.

But you guys are going to die laughing at what Obiwan said about the LDS apologetic approach to the Book of Abraham:

"We're not in this for fantasy sake, we embrase the truth alone."


ROFL!!!!

[_dartagnan]

This is an interesting article Dr. Peterson. I hope you don’t mind a few criticisms.

The book begins with Abraham “in the land of Ur, of Chaldea.” (Abr. 1:20.) It is obvious that this “Chaldea” was a place under strong Egyptian influence. It was there that Abraham’s own fathers turned aside from worship of the true God to the service of “the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.” Apart from a passing reference in Joshua 24:2, the Bible does not tell of the idolatry of Abraham’s ancestors. However, their worship of false gods and Abraham’s faithfulness in worshipping the true God, as well as his attempts to convert his family, are common themes of many very old Jewish and Christian stories.

It is true that the Bible doesn’t mention this detail. But it was knowledge available to anyone who had access to Bible commentaries in the day:

“Abraham himself also, most agree, was bred up in the same idolatry… [Abraham’s Father] was an idolater, living in a country from whence, as many think, idolatry first came.” (Symon Patrick, et. al., A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old Testament, 1809, on Joshua 24:2).

Were you aware of this at the time you wrote this article?

Elsewhere you said (emphasis mine):

Ancient texts sustain the book of Abraham account that there was indeed an attempt on Abraham’s life (Abraham depicted it in facsimile 1)… The book of Abraham tells of an attempt by idolatrous priests to sacrifice the young Abraham. (Abr. 1:7–20; facsimile 1.) Although the Bible says nothing of such an episode, postbiblical literature repeatedly mentions Abraham’s miraculous deliverance from an attempt to kill him.

In saying “Abraham depicted” this sacrifice in the Facsimile, you seem to be saying this accurately illustrates the manner in which Abraham was understood to have been sacrificed.

But the tradition depicts Abraham being burned by fire, not stabbed with a knife. Your failure to indicate this dramatic difference leads readers to believe the evidence for a connection is much stronger than it really is. Not only that, but the sacrifice tradition was common knowledge to anyone who wanted to read about it in the 19th century. For example:

“this tradition of the Jews says Abraham was cast in the fire for refusing to worship idols, and out of which he was delivered” (Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments London, 1811, on Daniel 3:6. )

“If we may credit the tradition ... Abraham was cast into such a fire by this idolatrous people, because he would not worship their idols” (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible Commentary and Critical Notes, New York, 1832, on Daniel 3:6).

In short, you inform your audience where this information doesn’t appear, but you neglect to inform your readers where it had already appeared. Is this because you were unaware of this? It should go without saying that these neglected details weigh significantly in determining the merit of your overall presentation. Surely, evidence that wasn’t available to Joseph Smith would carry far more weight than evidence that was available to him.

Much ado is also made about the fact that Abraham studied astronomy. However, you do not inform your readers that Joseph Smith was aware of the works of Josephus which mention this detail. His brother Hyrum owned a copy of Josephus and Oliver Cowdery referred to it on several occasions in Church publications during the time the Book of Abraham was being translated. But Josephus was hardly the only source he had access to:

According to Adam Clarke, “Those who dwelt in Ur were either priests or astronomers,” and then we have Butler’s observations:

“Astrology is an holy, and most excellent Science .…It is asserted by good Authority, That much of this Learning came out of Paradise, and that our Father Adam after the Fall did communicate the same unto his Son Seth, out of his Memoirs of the state of Innocency: and that Seth made impressions of the same in certain permanent pillars, which were able to withstand both Fire and Water; and that hence Enoch had it, and Noah, and from him Shem, and so it came to Abraham, who increased the knowledg[e] by Divine helps; and taught the Chaldeans, and the Egyptians the principal Rudiments of what they knew herein” (John Butler, Astrology, A Sacred Science [London: N.p.,1680, “Preface”]

And finally, you said:

Recently a reference has been found in a third-century A.D. Egyptian papyrus which associates the name of Abraham with a lion-couch scene like that in facsimile 1

This of course, relies strictly on John Gee’s mangled apologetic understanding of what this papyrus really indicates. Edward Ashment has since made mincemeat of this argument, telling the audience all the contradictory details that Gee didn’t disclose, such as the fact that the figure on the couch was actually a woman and that Abraham was an expected name to appear on such documents because it began with “abra.” The full refutation can be found here: http://www.irr.org/MIT/ashment1.html

[_dartagnan]

I would like to know what in the world you find so "unconvincing" about the Missing Roll theory?

Sure, there are probably some fragments that are missing, but most, if not all evidence seems to point to the Book of Abraham source being related to an extant papyri: the Sensen text.

Why would anyone with half a brain think that the scroll found in the above museum just "has" to be the same one he translated from? Cause one of the facsimilees were there, with some writing on it? Doesn't mean a thing.

Did you type this with a straight face?

It doesn’t mean a thing?

How about the fact that the Book of Abraham itself (Abr 1:12) makes explicit reference to the facsimile. It says this facsimile is found at the “commencement” of this record. This logically suggests that what follows after the facsimile will be the text used to translate the Book of Abraham. How could it not be? It seems the critics, at least in this case, really are concerned with what the text itself says, even more so than the apologists.

Of course there are many other evidences that point to this papyrus as the source, but I wonder how apologists can dismiss this evidence as “doesn’t mean a thing.”

[_dartagnan]

It is considerably MORE than just a "few fragments". Entire scrolls are missing. Read my revised post.

You are of course, relying strictly on John Gee apologetic theories, based on his interpretation of historical citations. Nobody outside LDS apologetics really believes there was “considerably more”, and certainly not “entire scrolls.”

If you know anything about ancient documents, you know that there tends to be "more" than just one copy of the same PICTURE (i.e. vignette).

So what are you suggesting?

Please tell me why such an important "scripture" since that is the anti claim is even found in a museum?

You’re not dealing with any of the evidence that points to the extant papyrus as the source. You’re diverting and expecting me to resolve your own speculations. The fact is the Book of Abraham was never considered scripture until the Prophet had long since passed away. You have no evidence whatsoever, that the Prophet kept the original source for himself. It was passed on after he died.

Do you really think Joseph would have been so careless with the "actual" scroll that contained the revelations?

What you call careless, history calls fact. Again, there is no evidence to support your wild theory that he retained and hid the source. If he did, then where is it? There is no historical evidence or indication that it was separated from the rest and taken anywhere. This is just ad hoc conjecture on your part.

There is little "evidence", your projecting. There is MUCH MORE internal and external evidence that it's not the scroll the revelation came from, why do you insist otherwise?

Because you are merely making bald assertions. This is simply not true. You have virtually zero evidence that the source for the Book of Abraham is something other than what the Book of Abraham (Abr 1:12) clearly says. Until you deal with what we do know from the evidence, your wild speculations deserve little attention. Resolve the barriers and pot holes first, and then build your runway.

We're not in this for fantasy sake, we embrase the truth alone.

And you wonder why some LDS have problems with the LDS apologetic approach? Fantasy land pretty much sums up your position. The evidence is substantial against your position yet you dismiss it with a wave of yor hand, all the while trying to throw out speculation as if it represented something definitive.

[_Zoidberg]

Yep. they've deleted them all.

On a sidenote, they've also deleted the Nephi threads.

[_dartagnan]

Yea, I expected that, which is why I saved them. The last two posts above were in response to Obiwan, not DCP.

DCP never offered a response other than to note he recognized who I was.

To say the least, DCP's article is apologetic phooey, and I am surprised he actually tried using it to strengthen a struggling member. Every time knowledgable people try to engage DCP on this issue he defers everyone to Gee. I was surprised to see him engage here. But this kind of Ensign stuff is counter productive, because thinking individuals like mmn will find out just how disingenuous his methods really are.

[_Jason Bourne]

Again, yes, I know.

I couldn't resist. I saw a thread dedicated to the Book of Abraham, and Dan Peterson uncharacteristically engaged the discussion.

I offered some criticisms of his 1994 Ensign article, he called me out and said he migt get back with me, but within 6 minutes I was banned. My posts are still there under the name Almax. My last post was cut in half... I was editing it as the banned me. But I assume all posts will be deleted soon. I can post them here if anyone is interested.

But you guys are going to die laughing at what Obiwan said about the LDS apologetic approach to the Book of Abraham:

"We're not in this for fantasy sake, we embrase the truth alone."


ROFL!!!!

I think you have the record.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Dart, I thought you were Almax! I also knew the minute Peterson called you out that you'd be banned again. I didn't realize they'd delete your posts, though.

*Sigh*. It was fun while it lasted, no?

KA

[_dartagnan]

I also got a kick out of Obiwan's method which relied strictly on conjecture and speculation. This is because Coggins has recently assured us that it is only the anti-Mormon position that is based strictly in speculation, and zero evidence.

[_Who Knows]

Dart - you're ruining the apologetic claim that critcs are too afraid to deal with the text of the Book of Abraham. How dare you.