DiscussMormonism.com

Admittedly, I am fairly new to the whole Book of Abraham issue, but there are a couple of things about the way this is unfolding that appears to me to be fundamentally problematic.

First, and most importantly, is the use of the Book of Abraham, related Mormon documents (like the KEP), and the JSP to prove that Joseph Smith was a "false prophet." I have a real problem with this enterprise. What is it about being a true prophet that requires someone to translate an unknown language in the same way a scholar might translate a dead language? In other words, what is the definition of "prophet" that is being used and how does the Book of Abraham get us any closer to proving whether Joseph Smith was such a person or not?

The second problem I have is with this missing papyrus fragment business. This discussion seems to have sprung from the critics linking of the JSP with the current translation and noting that, contra Nibley, there was no missing piece upon which the actual Egyptian text of Abraham was written. The JSP, belonging to a certain family of documents, was about just as long as one would expect. The apologists have shot back with evidence from contemporary testimony of a long scroll, and Gee has brought in the Hoffmann formula to add support for the notion that the scroll was originally quite long.

The simple problem here, as I see it, is that missing papyrus is not evidence for the Book of Abraham, but evidence against a certain line of critical attack. Until the missing fragment, should such a thing exist, appear, we have no way of confirming that the Book of Abraham that Smith "translated" was actually written upon it. In other words, a supposed missing papyrus fragment does not mean that Smith's Book of Abraham ever existed in antiquity.

I agree with Paul O., who has spent much, much more time with this than I have. The issue of scroll length is essentially, if unintentionally, a red herring. Arguments in favor of the long scroll amount to a rebuttal of a particular argument precluding the possibility of the Book of Abraham's existence. Why waste any further time on it? What does it repay? There is much more interesting stuff concerning the Book of Abraham to be discussed.

When looking at a particular claim, especially an extraordinary one, I always ask the question, "why should I think that this is the case?" Or, "what evidence or arguments would lead me to take this claim seriously?" With the Book of Mormon, the absence of any verification that the plates observed by the witnesses were actually ancient, or any of the related Nephite artifacts, weighs heavily against a non-believer like myself taking its antiquity all that seriously.

In the case of the Book of Abraham, the JSP could have provided a solid reason to take the antiquity of the supposed text behind that "translation" seriously, but to date there is little evidence to link the Book of Abraham to the JSP in such a way that would support the antiquity of the former. Indeed, most of the evidence apparently points to quite the opposite conclusion. So far, I have not seen much from the apologist scholars of Mormondom that would reverse that impression. A long scroll does not do it. The notion that the KEPA were copied instead of dictated does not do it either.

All the apologists appear to be doing is attempting to take away what appear to the critics to be smoking guns against the antiquity of the Book of Abraham, or Joseph Smith's credibility as a person who could translate ancient Egyptian to English by the power of God in a manner that renders results identical to correct translation by non-miraculous means. Go ahead and take away the smoking guns and we are still not left with anything in the way of compelling evidence to suppose that the Book of Abraham is a translation of an authentic ancient text.

Kishkumen wrote:First, and most importantly, is the use of the Book of Abraham, related Mormon documents (like the KEP), and the JSP to prove that Joseph Smith was a "false prophet." I have a real problem with this enterprise. What is it about being a true prophet that requires someone to translate an unknown language in the same way a scholar might translate a dead language? In other words, what is the definition of "prophet" that is being used and how does the Book of Abraham get us any closer to proving whether Joseph Smith was such a person or not?

From a critical standpoint, I think the definition of prophet that is being used is the one given to Joseph Smith by himself. Joseph Smith claimed that the papyri contained a record of Abraham and Joseph of Egypt and that Joseph Smith could translate that record. Critics want to show that the papyri do not contain a record of Abraham and that Joseph Smith did not translate them.

Some have redefined "prophet" so that the papyri are secondary to Joseph Smith receiving the contents of the Book of Abraham by revelation. In other words, the contents of the papyri do not matter; disregard his statements to the contrary. Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham by revelation period. I think this is where most believers land eventually.

The simple problem here, as I see it, is that missing papyrus is not evidence for the Book of Abraham, but evidence against a certain line of critical attack. Until the missing fragment, should such a thing exist, appear, we have no way of confirming that the Book of Abraham that Smith "translated" was actually written upon it. In other words, a supposed missing papyrus fragment does not mean that Smith's Book of Abraham ever existed in antiquity.

That is the point. Apologists want to move this debate from the falsifiable - i.e., we have the papyrus, let's check it and see if it matches Joseph Smith's translation - to the unfalsifiable - i.e., we don't have the papyrus so we have to take everything on faith. Given the current state of things, I think the apologists would love to get the debate to that point, much less actually prove that the Book of Abraham is a legitimate translation.

All the apologists appear to be doing is attempting to take away what appear to the critics to be smoking guns against the antiquity of the Book of Abraham, or Joseph Smith's credibility as a person who could translate ancient Egyptian to English by the power of God in a manner that renders results identical to correct translation by non-miraculous means. Go ahead and take away the smoking guns and we are still not left with anything in the way of compelling evidence to suppose that the Book of Abraham is a translation of an authentic ancient text.

If you take away those smoking guns, it reduces the cog dis of believers so that they can rely on the Holy Ghost feelings again. It is too much for most believers to rely on the Holy Ghost in the face of certain knowledge that Joseph Smith claimed he could translate Egyptian, but in fact could not (and did not).

dblagent007 wrote:

"Some have redefined "prophet" so that the papyri are secondary to Joseph Smith receiving the contents of the Book of Abraham by revelation. In other words, the contents of the papyri do not matter; disregard his statements to the contrary. Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham by revelation period. I think this is where most believers land eventually."


I think 90 percent of active believers won't investigate or go near the issue due to fear and also that the warm and fuzzy feeling will leave when they start to read about it.

dblagent007 wrote:From a critical standpoint, I think the definition of prophet that is being used is the one given to Joseph Smith by himself. Joseph Smith claimed that the papyri contained a record of Abraham and Joseph of Egypt and that Joseph Smith could translate that record. Critics want to show that the papyri do not contain a record of Abraham and that Joseph Smith did not translate them.

Some have redefined "prophet" so that the papyri are secondary to Joseph Smith receiving the contents of the Book of Abraham by revelation. In other words, the contents of the papyri do not matter; disregard his statements to the contrary. Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham by revelation period. I think this is where most believers land eventually.

Yes, Joseph Smith used his "translations" as evidence of his evolving sense of his calling. I have no problem, however, with the idea that Joseph Smith could have composed scripture he believed to exist in an ancient source. There is plenty of pseudepigrapha in the Bible that people accept as scripture. Joseph Smith's productions as 19th century pseudepigrapha are little less valid than, and probably superior to, Biblical ones to those who truly accept his calling as prophet. I am not one of these folks, but I see it as a valid perspective, and, in fact, superior in its sense and consistency to the current Book of Abraham apologetic.

dblagent007 wrote:If you take away those smoking guns, it reduces the cog dis of believers so that they can rely on the Holy Ghost feelings again. It is too much for most believers to rely on the Holy Ghost in the face of certain knowledge that Joseph Smith claimed he could translate Egyptian, but in fact could not (and did not).

I look forward hopefully to a time when Mormon scholars are more interested in what Smith actually was doing and not wasting their time in search of unfalsifiable hypotheses. What Joseph did is far more interesting than the shibboleths of past misinterpretations of his achievements.

What is it about being a true prophet that requires someone to translate an unknown language in the same way a scholar might translate a dead language?

What is it about being a false prophet that requires someone to be honest when claiming to receive literal translations of ancient documents via revelation?

In other words, what is the definition of "prophet" that is being used and how does the Book of Abraham get us any closer to proving whether Joseph Smith was such a person or not?

The LDSers are the ones who keep calling him a prophet, so let them use whatever definition they want. As far as I am concerned, the guy is a fraud. I don't think I use the "false prophet" terminology. He was a fraud, not because he wasn't really talking with God, but because he made claims about himself that were patently false. He claimed the ability to translate ancient documents. We now know he couldn't. Whatever position you want to take on the KEP, the fact remains that he tried translating several symbols and offered literal translations that weren't even close to accurate.

Many LDS like to twist the subject and start talking about how Joseph Smith translation was by revelation, unlike how scholars today translate, therefore we can't really test the product for accuracy the same way we test modern translations. This is just a nonsensical apologetic gambit favored by idiots like Will Schryver because they have nowhere else to go with it. He recently said that Joseph Smith never really needed the plates to begin with. I kid you not!

Think this through. If the plates were "largely unnecessary" as Schryver asserted, then why the hell did the so-called ancient Nephites exert so much time and effert, suffering pain and death, to get the damn things in his hands? And why did Joseph and his friends risk life and limb to find, protect and hide them if they were "largely unnecessary"?

This is just a desperate contingency plan for when their precious missing papyrus argument falls through the floor. Too bad none of them have truly thought it through.

By far, the most telling statement by any apologist is this:

"________________________,"

Which was uttered by William Schryver as a response to my question, "Is there any evidence that, if true, would lead you to believe that the Book of Abraham is fraudulent?"

Kevin Graham wrote:What is it about being a false prophet that requires someone to be honest when claiming to receive literal translations of ancient documents via revelation?

Nothing?

Kevin Graham wrote:LDSers are the ones who keep calling him a prophet, so let them use whatever definition they want. As far as I am concerned, the guy is a fraud. I don't think I use the "false prophet" terminology. He was a fraud, not because he wasn't really talking with God, but because he made claims about himself that were patently false. He claimed the ability to translate ancient documents. We now know he couldn't. Whatever position you want to take on the KEP, the fact remains that he tried translating several symbols and offered literal translations that weren't even close to accurate.

You'll have no argument from me, but I remain puzzled as to why it is that LDS apologists cling to such problematic arguments, when there are fairly reasonable and respectable alternatives. Sure, there will always be problems, but the more I look at it, the more the current line of Book of Abraham apologetics looks completely untenable. I am really puzzled why people keep sinking more effort into what looks like a losing line of argument. At least Paul O. doesn't commit himself to these intellectually dubious propositions, no matter how misguided we may think he is.

Kevin Graham wrote:This is just a desperate contingency plan for when their precious missing papyrus argument falls through the floor. Too bad none of them have truly thought it through.

My suggestion: they should skip all of the preliminaries and embrace the inevitable. I don't foresee anything saving the notion that the Book of Abraham is actually an ancient text.

By far, the most telling statement by any apologist is this:

"________________________,"

Which was uttered by William Schryver as a response to my question, "Is there any evidence that, if true, would lead you to believe that the Book of Abraham is fraudulent?"

Oh that's nothing. Will's second in command over at MADB (Pacman)once was asked, "How much evidence would be necessary to convince you the Book of Abraham isn't what the Church claims?" And this dimbulb had the audacity to be honest. He said, "No amount of evidence!" would convince him.

Then when it was pointed out how ridiculously irrational his statement was, he went back and removed it. But it was a very telling moment. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is, these guys will never change their minds because they think all negative evidence is a product of Satan, forwarded by Satan's soldiers, the anti-Mormons. It isn't a battle of critical thinking for them, it is rather a spiritual battle. A battle they can't afford to lose.

I find it offensive that so many people can defend something that they know is not true.

You'll have no argument from me, but I remain puzzled as to why it is that LDS apologists cling to such problematic arguments, when there are fairly reasonable and respectable alternatives.

I'm not sure you appreciate just what kind of corner they've painted themselves into. They do it out of necessity. It is sad to see it, and I almost feel sorry for them. They need the source for the Book of Abraham to me missing or destroyed. It has to be. For them it is God's way of keeping people faithful, otherwise if they were available then they woudl prove the Church true, and nobody would need faith (just saying that makes me want to throw up, but that is exactly how Mormons think, and I should know).

Sure, there will always be problems, but the more I look at it, the more the current line of Book of Abraham apologetics looks completely untenable.

Oh, it used to be even dumber when Nibley and Gee started with their deceptive apologetics. One oculd literally write an entire book on the history of Book of Abraham apologetics. Talk about a "tragedy of errors." It has to be the most intellectually bankrupt enterprise there is.

I am really puzzled why people keep sinking more effort into what looks like a losing line of argument. At least Paul O. doesn't commit himself to these intellectually dubious propositions, no matter how misguided we may think he is.

Well I respect Paul's position, and if every Mormon would adopt his attitude and stop inventing and then touting the Book of Abraham "evidences" as some kind of proof that "anti-Mormons" are stupid and/or lying, then they'd probably never hear a peep out of me. But I am constantly having to explain why I fell away from the faith, and few people truly appreciate just what kind of damning evidence the KEP presents against the Church's truth claims.

My suggestion: they should skip all of the preliminaries and embrace the inevitable. I don't foresee anything saving the notion that the Book of Abraham is actually an ancient text.

All they are trying to do is minimize the impact this will have for future prospective converts. They always have to have something as an explanation, whether it is stupid or not. As long as they have something, talented Mormons can always find ways to present it in a way that sounds "plausible" (a favored term for apologists). They then persuade rational thinkers along their way of thinking, by cornering them in a room with a couple of missionaries and pressuring them to "pray" about it while everyone else in the room is teary-eyed. I've seen it happen too many times to underestimate its effectivness.

It is the same way with the ridiculous "explanation" about polygamy. Oh how many times my companion and I told doubting investigators that it was a response to a dangerously decreasing male population in the Church, due to so many fatal persecutions they had suffered. We were told to tell people this, and you know what, it freakin worked! Suddenly polygamy sounded like a noble cause. Of course it isn't based on real history, it is just a creative apologetic used to divert tragic losses in coverts. The end justifies the means. The irony is that these same people will, with a straight face, talk until they are blue in the face about how the "anti-Mormons" are the ones with no integrity, and will lie at the drop of a hat.

Schryver and Hauglid are engaged in another apologetic fabrication using, not scholarship, but creativity. They decorated it with the support of other credentialed apologists,a nd they use a gullible audience at FAIR to propagate it.