DiscussMormonism.com

I received my copy yesterday and skimmed through it as I didn't have time to watch it all.

It is precisely as I expected, which is a collection of all the failed apologetics wrapped in video format.

It was essentially bouncing back and forth between testimonies of the only three Egyptologists in Church (and the world) who think the Book of Abraham is anything of value. (Rhodes, Gee and Mulhstein).

They essentially skimmed over ever point that undermined their thesis. For example, they never actually quote the Book of Abraham in areas where they assert that it is supported in ancient texts. They merely assert it and we're supposed to just take their word for iit. They resurrected all sorts of failed apologetics, such as the 40ft length of the scroll, along with Nibley's unreliable account of a scroll stretching out through several rooms. The level of misinformation that was being dished out by credentialed scholars was not just disturbing, but also nauseating. But I was particularly disappointed in Michael Ash, because he had always struck me as one of the more reasonable fellows in the apologetic lot. He asserted on at least two occasions that Joseph Smith got "hits" on things that were very very unlikely for Joseph Smith to have known about and then he said it was "impossible based on odds." Really? It was impossible or very unlikely that he read books which he owned? Of course he doesn't specify which parallels he has in mind so it is impossible to figure out what exactly he is talking about. He just asserts that these parallels exist and that the critics (while grinning) "have problems" dealing with the text. This is a popular apologetic straw man that is nothing short of deceptive. Critics have dealt with every single thing these guys have thrown at us.

Then Kerry goes on in another segment to use the so called discovery of Olishem as proof that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Let me be perfectly clear. No scholar outside Brigham Young believed this inscription reads Olishem or translates as Olishem. A honest approach to this issue would at the very least share information that undermines the assertion, but again, they're not interested in any of that. They're only interested in throwing the apologetic kitchen sink at their audience, refusing to address or acknowledge any established problems with their assertions. For example, even the apologist Dave Stewart has issues with the apologetic attempt to twist Ulisim to mean Olishem and then to relocate it with a wave of the hand: http://www.cumorah.c...rch&story_id=38

There is so, so much wrong with this DVD, but I'll probably sift through it and write up a review at some future point. Right now I have too much on my plate. I'll just provide the opening statements by the expert apologists:

There is simply an incredible wealth of ancient Egyptian and other NE historical documents that substantiate what Joseph Smith said. He simply could not have guessed correctly so many times. He was actually translating from an ancient text and he was a prophet of God. - Michael Rhodes

In places where I've had questions about whether Joseph Smith got something right (long pause) and I've done my homework...he's never been wrong. - John Gee

Amazingly dishonest. John Gee knows very well Joseph Smith got virtually everything wrong in his translation of the facsimiles. But he glosses over that with dismissive comments about how Egyptology is still changing. He is careful to word his statement above so he can later wriggle his way out of it when called on it. He can say, "well what I said was that he never got anything wrong in the areas where I questioned whether he got something right." So Gee can later say he always acknowledged Joseph Smith got things wrong as well. But this is just ambiguous enough to deceive his audience into thinking Joseph Smith got everything right and nothing wrong. Amazingly deceptive. You'd think this think was produced by some political party or something.


As much as he and Rhodes keep referring to these numerous examples of Joseph Smith getting remarkable hits, you'd think they'd actually provide several examples with evidence, references, citations, etc. Instead, all we got was assertions of silly paraallels between some of his stuff and genuine Hebrew, which overlapped in some creative way with some other Egyptian words. What they don't share with their readers is the fact that at this point in his life, Joseph Smith had a working knowledge of Hebrew, so it should hardly be any surprise that he used legitimate Hebrew or at the very least, Hebrew souding words, and that some of these words overlap in some way with the "Ancient world." Good grief!

There's enough evidence from Egyptology and traditions about Abraham that tie into what Joseph Smith just couldn'y possibly have known, yet hit right on target. - Michael Rhodes

Examples?

Ancient sources verify that Abraham was almost sacrificed that he was saved by God that he intervened that he prayed for salvation and all these things, uh very very unlikely that Joseph Smith could have known about them. To get so many of them right just seems impossible on odds alone. - Michael Ash

Oh really Mike? Is it really, really "unlikely" that Joseph Smith would have read Bible Commentaries which he purchased and stored in his library for the "School of the Prophets"? Is it really "impossible"?? I've already dealt with numerous examples of these so called parallels existing in books we know Joseph Smith owned. The works of Josephus is a popular example, and apologists used to fall back on the "prove he read that" argument until the critics pointed out to them that Oliver Cowdery actually cited Josephus in the Church published Times and Seasons. The attempted sacrifice of Abraham is mentioned in numerous ancient works, sure. Rhodes keeps saying "that's not in the Bible." But what they don't tell you is that it was in other books Joseph Smith most likely read.

The text is uh (grinning) a more difficult target for the critics, because there is some very interesting evidences that support the text. What Joseph Smith could have known about what couldn't he have known about. There were writings floating around in the country that talked a little bit about Abraham or talked about some of the things that we find in the Book of Abraham but what is the liklihood that Joseph Smith could have known these and collected all the right pieces from libraries or archaic sources.. - Michael Ash

Name me one thing in this video that hasn't already been addressed by critics, Mike.

And then of course the usual gossip stories about how people leave the Church over minor issues that turned out to be evidence for Joseph Smith as a prophet. Yes, Kerry Muhlstein had the audacity to assert this without providing ANY support for it. And then he goes on to call those who leave the faith fools for doing so. So don't pretend you guys didn't draw blood first with the critics. I'd rather be a fool than dishonest, and one thing is most certain about this video, and that is these guys are totally dishonest. Or at the very least, the editor is since it is clear these interviews were constantly being snipped and clipped together. I've already proved beyond any reasonable doubt that John Gee was a dishonest person who would lie about a source if he thought he could get away with it. But I never felt that way about Rhodes or Ash.

Bokovoy's piece was a rather innocuous commentary about parallels with the divine council. Nothing we haven't heard before. There really isn't much to argue with there except to point out that Smith's knowledge of the divine council corresponded to his Hebrew learning at the time. He even admitted that he learned of the plural nature of elohim from learned Jews, and then he immediately incorporated that doctrine into his upcoming Book of Abraham. But it contradicts his previous "inspired" translation of the Book of Moses.

What did surprise me is that after spending 98% of the time trying to prove the Book of Abraham true via evidences (which mostly consisted of bald assertions we were supposed to just take on the authority of the usual suspects in the Church) the video takes an occasional twist by telling the audience that ultimately you can know it is true by praying about it. Gee, you'd think that if they really had much faith in that method then they would have just said this at the beginning and then left it at that.

I know for a certainty that God doesn't need people to lie in order to prove something he did is true. Therefore, God had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham.

No attempt to deal with the KEP of course, which is (grinning) something the apologists obviously have a hard time dealing with. By ignoring the KEP it becomes much easier for Gee and Rhodes to make the ludicrous assertion that the existing papyri had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham translation. For them, the original source must have been burned up or lost at some point because obviously what exists now doesn't support the Prophet's claims. How convenient! None of the dozen or so historical references pointing to the extant portions are dealt with. At least Brian Hauglid has the integrity to publish these in his recent book. None of these examples can be said to be referring to some missing papyri. None. No attempt to acknowledge the problems with Gee's pathetic 40ft scroll theory.

Again, this video does everything apologists frequently complain about with anti-Mormon productions. Just go back and read FAIR reviews of things like, Luke Wilson's video on the book of Abraham. The biggest gripe was that none of the apologetic responses were dealt with and that no acknowledgment was given to credentialed opinions to the contrary. Well, pot meet kettle.

You mean ... Will's complete, faith-promoting explanation of the KEP as an attempt by god's men, but without god, to reverse engineer a cipher for decoding ancient texts, the 2010 FAIR game changer is ... already deep sixed, with FAIR preferring instead to ignore the problematic KEP altogether? How can that be? Will was their darling in the summer of 2010, and Will/Nomad have repeatedly insisted the cipher theory is yet viable for publication. Something doesn't add up at FAIR. Or, as Will/Nomad might be heard to say, "It's not FAIR."

Yer no longer credible on this or any other topic relating to Mormon doctrine. Get down on the deck and and flop like a fish.

Yahoo Bot wrote:Yer no longer credible on this or any other topic relating to Mormon doctrine. Get down on the deck and and flop like a fish.

Interesting that you choose not to contribute anything to the thread except your signature ad hom. What is about Kevin's posts that you find makes you so insecure?

Yahoo Bot wrote:Yer no longer credible on this or any other topic relating to Mormon doctrine. Get down on the deck and and flop like a fish.

I'm more credible than you and your pathetic scholars will ever be. For the simple reason that I have never lied, nor has anyone shown that I have lied about a single thing on anything related to Mormonism. By contrast, I've shown indisputable proof that John Gee is a shameless liar.

With my arguments, I win minds on both sides, whereas these guys can't even retain the minds of their own flock.

You have no defense for their deceptions, counselor?

sock puppet wrote:You mean ... Will's complete, faith-promoting explanation of the KEP as an attempt by god's men, but without god, to reverse engineer a cipher for decoding ancient texts, the 2010 FAIR game changer is ... already deep sixed, with FAIR preferring instead to ignore the problematic KEP altogether? How can that be? Will was their darling in the summer of 2010, and Will/Nomad have repeatedly insisted the cipher theory is yet viable for publication. Something doesn't add up at FAIR. Or, as Will/Nomad might be heard to say, "It's not FAIR."

A couple weeks ago Will said over at MAD that he was asked to be interviewed for the video, but refused because he said he wouldn't have had enough time to explain it all.

I know, it sounds like a pathetic attempt by an increasingly irrelevant apologist to salvage whatever relevancy he thinks he still has.

The fact is this video doesn't really "explain" much of anything, so Will's argument doesn't make sense. It is essentially a typical Church video with people bearing their testimony and making unsubstantiated claims while misrepresenting the critics in the most dishonest way. They don't back up anything they say with reference or even direct citations of the Book of Abraham. They just assert, and expect the audience to eat it up like loyal Church believers should. That's right up Will's alley! Assert plenty, back up nothing. There is no reason he couldn't have born his testimony about his game changer that supposedly refuted 40+ years of critical arguments. You'd think that if FAIR still had faith in this nonsense, they'd be anxious to at least mention it. There is no reason why Will would have to be present in the video for it to be mentioned.

Thanks for sharing Kevin. I'll have to check out the DVD sometime. Too bad we can't get the church Egyptologists in the same room with non-LDS Egyptologists and have them duke it out with a neutral moderator.

LDS truthseeker wrote:Thanks for sharing Kevin. I'll have to check out the DVD sometime. Too bad we can't get the church Egyptologists in the same room with non-LDS Egyptologists and have them duke it out with a neutral moderator.

They know this would be academic suicide. Debates tend to get plenty of attention and go on resumes. They choose to stick together in their own lecture format where they are safe from criticism and loyalists in their religion, dying for apologetic answers to this troubling issue, finance their deceptions. It is the perfect gig. Why go outside their safety zone and address valid criticisms? And the Church should be condemned for giving these guys a venue to spread their deceptive mantra. John Gee refuses to engage his critics because he thinks he is so far above them. But the fact is John Gee is a proven liar on more than a few occasions. He has no credibility with anyone. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt in the past, but the examples of dishonesty pile up and can be explained no other way. His FAIR presentation of 2010 which he didn't even have the courage to present, is just his latest example. (He had Wilbur do it, who subsequently admitted Gee's arguments were nonsense).

Thank you very much for this review, Kevin. You just saved me the purchase price.

As an aside--and this isn't sarcasm--if you were to write a book on any subject, I would buy it and read it.

These BoAbr apologists that obviously know the real score, but continue to mislead fellow Mormons into thinking 'all is well' must have a bizarre mentality.

1-They know the BoAbr to be a piece of JSJr fabrication unrelated to the papyri texts in ancient Egyptian, despite JSJr's claims to the contrary and the damning tie-in that the KEP makes

2-They continue to claim to their fellow Mormons that the BoAbr presents no problems to the LDS truth claims, or in Droopy's tired refrain, 'nothing to see here. move along... .'

I'm left scratching my head. John Dehlin is conducting a survey to gather data about what about Mormonism caused or continues apostasy. Some Schmoe indicated quite clearly that the white-washing of Mormon history by the church is a key problem, and I suppose the GAs already know that is a major problem for many apostates given that BKP last April GC told the members about that history, leave it alone. Yet FAIR, and these apologists, by this DVD continue by applying another coat of white wash.

With so many GAs having been to law school I am quite surprised the LDS church continues the white-wash tactic. One of the first tactics taught in law school for advocacy is to address with the court and jury the problem facts of your side of the case, and explain why they should yet rule for your side to prevail, before your opponent points out your problem facts in a very damning way. It innoculates the judge and jury against what the opponent will have to say about your problem facts, and it helps you maintain credibility in their eyes. The LDS church would be well-advised, even by the lawyers in their GA ranks, to take that very tactic.

But what we have here is more white-wash, in the vain hope that the viewers of that DVD will not look any further but just take these three Mormon 'scholars' words for it. Obviously the LDS church is continuing to hemmorage members over the BoAbr issue, or there would be no reason for a DVD to be issued on that topic. The approach however is one of continued denial. I think this can best be summed up as the tactic of keeping your head in the sand--even after your butt has begun taking a kicking.

I am impressed once again by Bokovoy, given Kevin's description of what Bokovoy had to say on the DVD and by what Bokovoy did not go on to say. Gee and clowns, well, that's another story.

The continuance of the white-wash tactic, on the heels of BKP's admonition to members to leave the topic of early Mormon history alone, suggests that the LDS church is more interested in keeping the ranks of members that will never take a look at that history than the church is about being honest with its members and respecting them.