Intellectual Bankruptcy of Book of Abraham apologetics

[_Kevin Graham]

Out of curiosity, why do you think that the KEPA manuscripts are so well punctuated when earlier dictation manuscripts of Smith revelations were not?

A simple matter of who the scribes are. Oliver Cowdery was the scribe involved in the Book of Mormon translation. He was not an experienced scribe, he was hired for the job becase he was someone Smith could trust, not because he was a great scribe. When Smith decided to offer a translation of the Book of Abraham, he learned from his mistakes and decided to hire multiple scribes, those who had the required skills.

Will's punctuation argument is idiotic. He likes to highlight the Phelps portion of Ms2, and thinks this somehow proves a copy, when all it manifests is Phelps' particular style of using semicolons.

Here is page one of the Ms2 manuscript. The darker portion above is Phelps, the rest Parrish.



Oh, and pay no attention to the title at the top of the page. Will's expertise is psycho-history assures us what the title really meant to say is "A Copy of the Translation of the Book of Abraham..."

I do note that there seems to have been a progression from less punctuated to more, and so the KEPA would represent the other extreme. I am not particularly persuaded by this line of argument, but it is something to deal with, and I was curious what you, or maybe Celestial Kingdom, thought of it.

Ms1a and Ms1b were dictated simultaneously. Parrish then produces Ms2 by copying the text from Ms1b. So Ms2 is mostly copied. The fact that it has hardly any errors, s evidence that it is a copy and not a dictated text. Why does Parrish' Ms1b contain so many errors (almost identical to the errors in Ms1a), and yet Parrish's Ms2 has hardly any? The answer is simple. The former was a dictated text and the latter a copy, a cleaner step towards the printers copy.

Ms1a and Ms1b begin with Abr 1:4, so Ms2 begins with the Phelps contribution which involves Abr 1:3, derived from the EAG. Then from Abr 1:4 we see a very smooth product in Parrsh's handwriting.

Keep in mind that Ms2 ends at Abraham 2:18, and that is precisely where the first publication of the Book of Abraham ended, six years later. This flies in the face of Will and Gee's silly clam that the Book of Abraham in its entirety was already produced by 1835. They assert this as fact, because they need it to be fact. These guys do this ALL THE TIME, and they resent it when we prove they are being less than honest.

The evidence undermines their argument. We know they are full of crap because in 1842 Joseph Smth said he had to work on the rest of the translation, in order to produce the next installment.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi Kishkumen,

Hauglid has asserted that Manuscript 3 is well-punctuated, but seemed to concede that Manuscript 2 is not. Contrast this with Ashment's assertion that both manuscripts are "sparsely punctuated". That should give you an idea of the subjectivity that can be involved in these kinds of judgments. My own take is that there are a lot of punctuation marks in MS 3, but most of them are commas, and many are unnecessary. Thus it would be an overstatement to say that the manuscript is "well" punctuated. It contains a sizable number of punctuation marks, but they are not carefully placed or thought-out.

If I'm not mistaken, Brian in his original FAIR presentation stated that MS 2 contains four of the five prima facie marks of an orally-dictated manuscript. I am thus a little surprised that he is going to take the view that that manuscript is a visual copy. But I guess that he feels compelled to that view by other considerations.

Best,

-Chris

EDIT: I should note that Kevin's MS 1a and MS 1b are what I am calling MS 2 and 3, respectively. I am using the folder numbers, while Kevin is using Brent's (disputed) renumbering.

[_Kishkumen]

Kevin and Chris,

Thanks much for explaining that for me. It makes little sense to me why one should expect different scribes over a course of many years to punctuate or fail to punctuate in the same way. I am not sure why Hauglid thought that this argument added anything to his hypothesis. He assumes that the presence of more punctuation must mean the document was copied, a conclusion that hardly seems warranted.

Thanks again,

Kishkumen

[_Paul Osborne]

I understand your position, Kevin, and I don’t judge you at all. You’ve had an interesting ride in the world of Mormonism and it fell apart when it couldn’t be proven true in light of evidence that seem to prove it false. I don’t blame you because you are simply working within the light and knowledge you understand. From what I’ve seen you are trying to be honest, thorough, and upfront about the whole thing. That in itself is commendable.

As for me, I still abide in the testimony of the restoration but am not happy with the modern LDS apologetics and how the leaders of the Church have thrown them into the fire with no apostolic miraculous help of any kind. But I don’t like to criticize the leaders even thought they deserve a little. One can get in big trouble when they start badmouthing the leaders - but I will boldy say that they are not perfect and need to improve. I would like to see some courage and let them step forward and defend these matters like prophets in front of the host that go against Israel.

You know I cling to the catalyst theory and really believe Joseph Smith was working within supernatural means that needs better clarification than the usual song and dance we get from BYU teachers. The BYU teachers need to be taught! Maybe angels can come down and teach them.

Hang in there Kevin, try not to be bitter about Mormonism. The Book of Abraham/KEP is not being properly represented by apostolic power in the last days. The apostles are too afraid to touch it and have handed the ball off to mere unqualified school teachers such as John Gee and Nibley. It’s a shame that the leaders have not stepped up to the plate and allow themselves to be courageous prophets, even if it means being mocked, ridiculed, and put to death like prophets of old. They are playing safe and letting others take the fall because they aren’t willing to step forward and take the stand. I would like to call the prophets to take the stand and answer for these things instead of unqualified school teachers who have had more than enough time to figure out the riddle. May President Monson come forward and give us an inspired address on the workings of the KEP. Let the prophet speak and all Israel will listen together!

Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

Another matter that concerns me: I fear we are spending too much time and energy debating empty topics such as the length of the so-called missing roll. It's like trying to find the hole/whole in a donut. This is exactly what conventional thinking LDS apologists want to happen. It’s diverting attention away from the real issues regarding the extant papyrus which was held in the hands of the prophet Joseph Smith. Who gives a damn how long the roll was? It doesn’t matter. A missing roll doesn’t discredit the existing roll any more than the missing portions of the Book of Mormon discredit the existing volume we now have! So, don’t let LDS apologists sucker any more valuable time in debating the length of the roll.

The inseparable connection between Joseph Smith and the KEP is the important issue that should be debated. The doctrines, scriptures, and policies of the Church will not have it any other way. It is the apologists that want to break with the doctrine of the Church and thus separate the prophet from his work and discredit the First Presidency and his scribes. The apologists have become the culprits and not the critics!

Paul O

[_Pokatator]

Another matter that concerns me: I fear we are spending too much time and energy debating empty topics such as the length of the so-called missing roll. It's like trying to find the hole/whole in a donut. This is exactly what conventional thinking LDS apologists want to happen. It’s diverting attention away from the real issues regarding the extant papyrus which was held in the hands of the prophet Joseph Smith. Who gives a damn how long the roll was? It doesn’t matter. A missing roll doesn’t discredit the existing roll any more than the missing portions of the Book of Mormon discredit the existing volume we now have! So, don’t let LDS apologists sucker any more valuable time in debating the length of the roll.

The inseparable connection between Joseph Smith and the KEP is the important issue that should be debated. The doctrines, scriptures, and policies of the Church will not have it any other way. It is the apologists that want to break with the doctrine of the Church and thus separate the prophet from his work and discredit the First Presidency and his scribes. The apologists have become the culprits and not the critics!

Paul O

Excellent post, Paul. Your thoughts are pretty much where my feeble little Book of Abraham mind has been going...that is let's deal with what we have and not in what we don't have.

Thanks for stating it.

[_truth dancer]

Can we vote Paul O to be the next prophet?



Seriously Paul, back when I was still hoping to remain a believer I wondered if some of the apologists were not those described in scripture as modern day Pharisees, you know the ones who think they are wise?

It seems to me that they are the ones proclaiming a different truth, ignoring the teachings of Joseph Smith, putting their "wisdom" above the prophets.

I don't blame them because it is not easy to accept the "story", still, most certainly many of the apologists do not appear as followers of Joseph Smith, let alone disciples of Jesus.

I think the leaders of the LDS church don't interfere because they don't have the answers. They are either not asking God, or God is not answering, either way, it seems they support and encourage, even possibly finance and enable some apologists hoping they will at least keep questioning members from falling away. In truth I think most apologetic tactics are hurting more than helping.

At this point it seems to me the apologists are the ones bringing forth new light and knowledge, (smile) not the prophets of god who claim to be in communion with Jesus Christ. Sort of makes the need for a prophet on the Earth sort of inconsequential doesn't it? Why have one if he is not conversing with Christ? Or not receiving any revelation? Or just passing the buck to various teachers at BYU?

As I have said, it would take exactly one minute to put this whole mess to bed...

Prophet: How did the Book of Abraham come to be?

Jesus: Joseph used the papyri as a catalyst, or, there is a code within the Egyptian language that Joseph Smith figured out, or, an angel placed a document Abraham had written onto the scroll, or the energy of Ra seeped into the mummy and then diffused into the scroll altering the writing on the papyri while Joseph Smith translated it, but then it changed back, (OK, maybe not this one), or something.

Simple as that!

Paul, it is so great to have you back!!!


~td~

[_JohnStuartMill]

Kevin, I'm annoyed that I have to do this, but I'm going to pester you in your favorite threads until you respond to my posts in the Celestial forum.

[_Kevin Graham]

It is OK JSM, as I said before, I'll eventually get back to that stuff when I'm back in that phase, and once I have access to the material I left in Brasil. So we're looking at July at the earliest. It has been forever since I have been back to that thread. Right now I'm drowning myself in the KEP/Book of Abraham material, which leaves little interest for anything else at the moment. If I start talking on that subject again, without being "into it" at the moment, I'd probably fail to express my views well, leaving my enemies on the subject more fodder to complain about.

I think I'm also a tad reluctant to get into it because I'm afraid it will lead to more squabbling and because I just saw your photo in the other thread and you remind me of one of my best friends. You and your psychological advantages!

But if you need some kind of "fix" until then, I'll go ahead and say uncle, you rule, I suck, etc. Or whatever it is you need to hear.

[_Kevin Graham]

Thanks Paul, I guess I would be remiss not to include you in that group of learned LDS apologists who agree with the dictation argument.

I've asked Will if he can produce any critics who have been persuaded by his argument. I suspect there are none. This illustrates the persuasive power of the fomer and the weakness of the latter.