DiscussMormonism.com

Are the issues surrounding the validity of the Book of Abraham simple? Or, are the issues surrounding the validity of the Book of Abraham a complicated matter that requires a lot of study and a small amount of expertise? Somewhere in between?

Simple. Joseph made it up. Or wrote what God inspired him to write. Whatever it was, it wasn't a translation of the scroll.

harmony wrote:Simple. Joseph made it up. Or wrote what God inspired him to write. Whatever it was, it wasn't a translation of the scroll.

In your opinion, is the demonstration of your assertion a simple matter, or is a certain amount of study and expertise needed to understand the issues sufficiently to make a determination one way or another?

In my opinion, the fraudulent nature of the Book of Abraham is easily demonstrated. I have seen many apologists for the church suggest otherwise.

EDITED to correct my poor grammar and spelling. Sheesh!

It's simple. But of course, the job of the apologists is to make it as complex as possible. In other words - to find ways to believe in the Book of Abraham is complex.

Some similar type examples:

Is 9/11 simple, or complex?
Was the moon landing simple, or complex?
Is the loch ness monster simple, or complex?
Are alien abductions simple, or complex?

Each of the above are, likewise, simple in my mind. But believers in the conspiracy theories can make it as complex as they need it to be (in order to rationalize belief in them).

Who Knows wrote:It's simple. But of course, the job of the apologists is to make it as complex as possible. In other words - to find ways to believe in the Book of Abraham is complex.

Some similar type examples:

Is 9/11 simple, or complex?
Was the moon landing simple, or complex?
Is the loch ness monster simple, or complex?
Are alien abductions simple, or complex?

Each of the above are, likewise, simple in my mind. But believers in the conspiracy theories can make it as complex as they need it to be (in order to rationalize belief in them).

What about 9/11 or the moon landing puts those events in the same catagory as the lochness monster or alien abductions?

Who Knows wrote:It's simple. But of course, the job of the apologists is to make it as complex as possible. In other words - to find ways to believe in the Book of Abraham is complex.

Yep, this is the Chewbacca Defenseat its best. The simple answer is that in the places where we have a surviving facsimile and Joseph's "translation" of said facsimile, the translation is bogus. The papyrus in question come from the wrong time and place and have no relation to the story of Abraham. But folks like Will Schryver will tell us that our understanding is really shallow. Why? Because we haven't bought the Chewbacca Defense.

Who Knows wrote:It's simple. But of course, the job of the apologists is to make it as complex as possible. In other words - to find ways to believe in the Book of Abraham is complex.

I have to say this is so true. When I was starting to have doubts I started reading apologetic material and it would get so complex that I had a hard time following it. For a while I thought that maybe I was just not smart enough and if these really smart believed it maybe I should to. I then started reading a book though called "Why People Believe Weird Things" and I see that many people that are much smarter than I am believe in sorts of weird things.

harmony wrote:What about 9/11 or the moon landing puts those events in the same catagory as the lochness monster or alien abductions?

The same kind of nutjobs who believe in Loch Ness and alien abductions say that 9/11 was a vast government conspiracy and that the moon landing was faked.

harmony wrote:What about 9/11 or the moon landing puts those events in the same catagory as the lochness monster or alien abductions?

My point - was that there are simple explanations for all of those things. Alternatively, you can develop some complex theory, if you really want to believe it (government did 9/11, moon landing was faked, there really is a lochness 'monster', aliens really have abducted people). The believers in those things will suggest that they are 'complex' (I say they need the issue to be complex). The skeptics will say they're 'simple'.

Who Knows wrote:

harmony wrote:What about 9/11 or the moon landing puts those events in the same catagory as the lochness monster or alien abductions?

My point - was that there are simple explanations for all of those things.

But what do you do if you are compelled to believe in a proposition, and the simple answer is incongruent with that belief? Unless you can find some way to accept disbelief, the only alternative is to go beyond the simple answer and try to find any way possible to reconcile the "evidence" with the "belief". Hence, we have missing scrolls, Book of Mormon "others", limited floods, and pre-Adamites.

I can't even begin to imagine what new and wonderful things await us in the world of apologetics.