Will Schryver: Kneel before Zod
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:55 am
Rolls out the red carpet...
Will I couldn't resist. Your comments at MAD got under my skin somehow, so here are my comments:
Will, don’t you think this statement is a bit disingenuous since you had previously written to me (emphasis mine):
“…if I were an outsider looking in at all of this, I find it difficult to believe that I could be persuaded that the production of the Book of Abraham was anything other than a clumsy imposture perpetrated by Joseph Smith upon his followers. But, of course, I’m not. I came into the discussion already possessing a conviction that the Book of Abraham was divinely-inspired scripture. “
What you did here was admit, however unwittingly, that your perspective is biased to the bone and is determined through the lens of a preexisting theological conviction. But when you post at MAD you make it seem like you are an objective researcher whose analysis is supposed to carry some weight. Your analysis and conclusion are both theologically driven.
I often see you referring to your personal “examination” and “estimation” as if you’re in a position to give a meaningful analysis. I know you have been privy to some nice photos of the KEP, but you still can’t get around the bias factor. You’re far more biased than any critic could ever hope to become. Apologists need the KEP to be divorced from the Book of Abraham more than the critics need it to be related. The fact that you can see the texts up close and personal, doesn’t change the fact that you have an established record of claiming to see things that simply aren’t there.
I think what you do when you approach this apologetically, is you think to yourself: “What evidence would there need to be in order to distance the KEP from the Book of Abraham?” And then after you make a list of possibilities you begin to “see” them in the KEP. A perfect example of this was explained on my forum back in July, where you literally fabricated things that simply weren’t true: http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=312 It pissed me off so I wrote up a response on my forum called “Will blowing smoke.”
I think what proves you're more biased is that the critic is generally someone who is sharing something he or she has already learned; something already known (i.e. Joseph Smith screwed the pooch on facsimile 3). By contrast, the apologist is someoen who is always trying to resolve problems presented by what appears obvious to most people. They are in a neverending state of evasive maneuvers, and creating new theories to explain away what appears obvious to the entire non-testimony bearing world. The first step is to make the situation as complicated as possible, and then go from there. For example, when it turns out Smith couldn't translate something properly, rely on hyperbole and say something like "No two Egyptologists agree either." Or maybe you can dig up an early 19th century dictionary and say maybe Joseph Smith meant "translate" in a way that allowed him to get it completely wrong. You have to understand that these kinds of apologetic theories, however impressive they might be among your cohorts, strikes the rest of the world as desperate and ad hoc.
Now what did BishopRic say that was so horrible? He said:
This is an axiom we already know.
You responded indignantly:
What the hell kind of response is that? Again, recall your previous admission that it would be extremely difficult for testimony-free observers to believe the apologetic line. It pretty much requires a testimony first, in order for anyone to be impressed with these wild apologetic theories. It also requires that you complicate the living hell out of a simple matter in order to start justifying wild theories that fly in the face of common sense.
Joseph Smith claimed he could translate Egyptian. It turns out he couldn’t. You can argue over the who, what, where and when about the KEP if you want, but his goofs on facsimile 3 are beyond dispute, and leave zero doubt he was incapable of translating ancient texts. What the hell is so complicated about that? For people without a testimony, there is no need to make it complicate. For those with a testimony, it becomes complicated out of necessity. Why? Because the simple answer is unacceptable. Facts and reason can never overthrow a testimony.
Come on Will, this is a diversion. It remains a fact that nobody in 19th century colonial America could translate Egyptian and verify Joseph Smith’s claims. Joseph Smith took full advantage of that fact.
The better question would be, why wouldn’t you think that? And we already know why. Because if you have a testimony, that is all the reason you need. All the facts that come later don’t have to corroborate the presupposition because all one needs to do is employ the paradigm shift, whereby the undermining facts are reinterpreted and filtered through the premise. This is bass ackwards logic, but it pretty much sums up the way apologists want believers to think.
This is what I don’t get. You ask for these references as if you seriously mean to suggest they would make a difference to you. We know they won’t. You know they won’t. So what’s the point in asking? I already demonstrated that Dan Peterson’s Ensign article called upon a couple of such “evidences” that he felt were impressive, but were easily accessible facts in Joseph Smith’s day. How many of these “parallels” must we knock down before you give up this gambit?
For example, in 1994 Dan Peterson relied on the ignorance of his readers and said,
From this we understand that “ancient texts sustain” the fact that an attempt was made on Abraham’s life. Dan even goes so far as to say, “Abraham depicted it in facsimile 1.”
This is flat out duplicitous for two reasons.
1) Dan makes it sound like the “depicition” in facsimile 1 is “sustained” by ancient texts. This is patently untrue because teh real tradition has Abraham being burned by fire, not stabbed by knife. So in reality there is absolutely nothing in the "ancient texts" to "sustain" the depicition found in the Book of Abraham.
2) Dan neglects to tell his readers that this tradition was already alive and well in early 19th century America.
By the time he was publishing the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith had been actively involved in the creation of the “school of the prophets,” which required a library. He sought out the best books, which naturally included commentaries, lexicons, etc.
Come on Will. As if we don’t already know the “talking points” for the apologetic position?
Uninformedness? Did you ever think of getting a job with Hallmark?
Before you start declaring victory, it should be noted that the critic who was capable of responding was immediately banned, and this same apologetic chestnut of yours was dealt with by Chris Smith back in June: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208197779
Except on that occasion, it was you who took off without responding.
Will I couldn't resist. Your comments at MAD got under my skin somehow, so here are my comments:
As to the so-called "controversy" surrounding the circumstances of its production, I would venture to say that I've looked into the details at least as fully and carefully as anyone ever has. I have come to regard the Book of Abraham as essentially divorced from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, rather than a derivative from them. I think the Book of Abraham derives from an entirely different process than the one at work with the production of the KEP.
Will, don’t you think this statement is a bit disingenuous since you had previously written to me (emphasis mine):
“…if I were an outsider looking in at all of this, I find it difficult to believe that I could be persuaded that the production of the Book of Abraham was anything other than a clumsy imposture perpetrated by Joseph Smith upon his followers. But, of course, I’m not. I came into the discussion already possessing a conviction that the Book of Abraham was divinely-inspired scripture. “
What you did here was admit, however unwittingly, that your perspective is biased to the bone and is determined through the lens of a preexisting theological conviction. But when you post at MAD you make it seem like you are an objective researcher whose analysis is supposed to carry some weight. Your analysis and conclusion are both theologically driven.
I often see you referring to your personal “examination” and “estimation” as if you’re in a position to give a meaningful analysis. I know you have been privy to some nice photos of the KEP, but you still can’t get around the bias factor. You’re far more biased than any critic could ever hope to become. Apologists need the KEP to be divorced from the Book of Abraham more than the critics need it to be related. The fact that you can see the texts up close and personal, doesn’t change the fact that you have an established record of claiming to see things that simply aren’t there.
I think what you do when you approach this apologetically, is you think to yourself: “What evidence would there need to be in order to distance the KEP from the Book of Abraham?” And then after you make a list of possibilities you begin to “see” them in the KEP. A perfect example of this was explained on my forum back in July, where you literally fabricated things that simply weren’t true: http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=312 It pissed me off so I wrote up a response on my forum called “Will blowing smoke.”
I think what proves you're more biased is that the critic is generally someone who is sharing something he or she has already learned; something already known (i.e. Joseph Smith screwed the pooch on facsimile 3). By contrast, the apologist is someoen who is always trying to resolve problems presented by what appears obvious to most people. They are in a neverending state of evasive maneuvers, and creating new theories to explain away what appears obvious to the entire non-testimony bearing world. The first step is to make the situation as complicated as possible, and then go from there. For example, when it turns out Smith couldn't translate something properly, rely on hyperbole and say something like "No two Egyptologists agree either." Or maybe you can dig up an early 19th century dictionary and say maybe Joseph Smith meant "translate" in a way that allowed him to get it completely wrong. You have to understand that these kinds of apologetic theories, however impressive they might be among your cohorts, strikes the rest of the world as desperate and ad hoc.
Now what did BishopRic say that was so horrible? He said:
It seems that in an effort to rationalize and attempt to refute the strong evidence against Joseph's claims, scholars go to great lengths to find alternative possibilities to what is quite simple.
This is an axiom we already know.
You responded indignantly:
It is nowhere near as simple as you seem to believe while reclining in the comfort of your apparent ignorance.
What the hell kind of response is that? Again, recall your previous admission that it would be extremely difficult for testimony-free observers to believe the apologetic line. It pretty much requires a testimony first, in order for anyone to be impressed with these wild apologetic theories. It also requires that you complicate the living hell out of a simple matter in order to start justifying wild theories that fly in the face of common sense.
Joseph Smith claimed he could translate Egyptian. It turns out he couldn’t. You can argue over the who, what, where and when about the KEP if you want, but his goofs on facsimile 3 are beyond dispute, and leave zero doubt he was incapable of translating ancient texts. What the hell is so complicated about that? For people without a testimony, there is no need to make it complicate. For those with a testimony, it becomes complicated out of necessity. Why? Because the simple answer is unacceptable. Facts and reason can never overthrow a testimony.
Egyptian hieroglyphs had been deciphered over a decade before Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham. Enlighten yourself here.
Come on Will, this is a diversion. It remains a fact that nobody in 19th century colonial America could translate Egyptian and verify Joseph Smith’s claims. Joseph Smith took full advantage of that fact.
When what was found? The papyrus scroll that was the origin of the Book of Abraham? Really? Why do you think that?
The better question would be, why wouldn’t you think that? And we already know why. Because if you have a testimony, that is all the reason you need. All the facts that come later don’t have to corroborate the presupposition because all one needs to do is employ the paradigm shift, whereby the undermining facts are reinterpreted and filtered through the premise. This is bass ackwards logic, but it pretty much sums up the way apologists want believers to think.
Really? Perhaps you could demonstrate the extent of Joseph Smith’s access to ancient Mesopotamian ascent literature, ancient pseudepigraphic Abraham literature, the concepts of preexistent souls, a divine council, and a spiritual creation that preceded the physical creation. We’ll wait here with bated breath.
This is what I don’t get. You ask for these references as if you seriously mean to suggest they would make a difference to you. We know they won’t. You know they won’t. So what’s the point in asking? I already demonstrated that Dan Peterson’s Ensign article called upon a couple of such “evidences” that he felt were impressive, but were easily accessible facts in Joseph Smith’s day. How many of these “parallels” must we knock down before you give up this gambit?
For example, in 1994 Dan Peterson relied on the ignorance of his readers and said,
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.
From this we understand that “ancient texts sustain” the fact that an attempt was made on Abraham’s life. Dan even goes so far as to say, “Abraham depicted it in facsimile 1.”
This is flat out duplicitous for two reasons.
1) Dan makes it sound like the “depicition” in facsimile 1 is “sustained” by ancient texts. This is patently untrue because teh real tradition has Abraham being burned by fire, not stabbed by knife. So in reality there is absolutely nothing in the "ancient texts" to "sustain" the depicition found in the Book of Abraham.
2) Dan neglects to tell his readers that this tradition was already alive and well in early 19th century America.
After you’ve demonstrated the extent of Joseph Smith’s time-traveling library, then perhaps you can give us an example of what you consider to be “fluff.”
By the time he was publishing the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith had been actively involved in the creation of the “school of the prophets,” which required a library. He sought out the best books, which naturally included commentaries, lexicons, etc.
I don’t think you have the remotest clue of “the issues”. You’re parroting the talking points you’ve learned by rote in the graduate school of apostasy.
Come on Will. As if we don’t already know the “talking points” for the apologetic position?
The exmo comes into a thread and, from the illusory comfort of his smug ignorance of the topic, starts throwing out condescending sneers left and right, and then when it gets reflected right back in his face, he feigns tenderness, takes his ball, and goes home… I hardly ever sneer at or dismiss the ignorant fools unless they come into a thread and, with a magisterial wave of their pompous hand, secure in the fog of their own uninformedness
Uninformedness? Did you ever think of getting a job with Hallmark?
just to help steer things back to substantive discussion, I will invite you to respond to my post here. No one among the critics bothered to respond to it at all, and yet it is an argument that is inextricably linked to the critical claim that the KEPA manuscripts are the "original translation" documents of the Book of Abraham.
Before you start declaring victory, it should be noted that the critic who was capable of responding was immediately banned, and this same apologetic chestnut of yours was dealt with by Chris Smith back in June: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208197779
Except on that occasion, it was you who took off without responding.