DiscussMormonism.com

Gentlemen,

As you are aware, I have been focusing on Dan Vogel's book in my Sunday Live podcasts for the last several weeks. I have spent many years reading Paul Osborne's materials and interacting with him here for quite some time after we both stopped being apologists for the Book of Abraham.

Sunday night I am about to engage in Paul's materials on a serious basis and share his many insights, challenges, and themes concerning the Book of Abraham.

It has just dawned on me that on Sunday night, I feel like proclaiming that you RFM, you Paul, and you Dan and myself might form a team, as it were, up in the Celestial where I will formally invite any and all Mormon apologists in the world to come and participate in a scholarly, though friendly discussion concerning Joseph Smith's translation of the papyri, the Egyptian papers, the Book of Abraham, and the facsimiles. The apologists are welcome to include anyone on their team they desire to have, even up to and including the many variegated and interested historians who would wish to participate in a discussion with us. We four shall take the side that Joseph Smith simply did not translate Egyptian accurately (without calling him names or mocking him or his religion), and therefore could not be a prophet. We could allow the apologists to bring on FAIR or other apologetic folks such as Pearl of Great Price Central as backups if that was desired. We would be allowed to have whomever we needed, if we needed others for consultation.

I for one, believe the time for honest introspection, straight discussion of the issues, and challenges to ALL our biases need to be openly and honestly assessed, be acknowledged, and move forward into the realm of assessing the evidences both pro and con on any and all issues with the papyri. I am not sure we could actually make this a reality, but I am going to formally get the ball rolling toward that end. Would you all agree to at least let me name you as on a team (not that you have to participate in the actual writing of the and during the discussions). I type very fast, and would be more than happy to do the typing, if we wanted to have a consulting situation first, then the appearing publicly of a stance on whatever issue is under discussion. That being said, any and all, of course, would be entirely free and entirely encouraged to post what you would like to towards the discussion in your own words, but of course!

I am just musing for the moment as I have yet finished another GIGANTIC flippin thread of Paul's (44 whopping pages man!!!) on the Book of Abraham topics. Paul has several threads scattered about throughout the message boards and several key links to his own site as well. That is what got me to thinking. Just who would I most like to sit next to in a discussion on this topic? Well no question Paul Osborne. And then no question Dan Vogel, and no question at all Radio Free Mormon. Many others come to mind as well actually!

Rather than having message board wars, why not have a genial discussion in the Celestial area with all sides. I am not at all certain apologists would be comfortable, and I have no other suggestions about where we might be able to have the discussion with both sides. But I do believe I am going to present a sincere formal invite to all Mormon apologists to this kind of discussion and I feel I would like to name you three at the very least of who might comprise a team.

That's what's on my mind after having read well over 700 pages of Paul's materials this week, and reading Dan Vogel's book multiple times this last month, and listening to Bill Reel and RFM's podcasts on this subject and John Dehlin's and RFM's interview with Robert RItner (and commenting on all this here and there in my various podcasts this last several month on Sunday nights). I have no idea how we could pull this off in a favorable manner for fairness and yet honest scholarly assessment of all the evidences but perhaps if we all start seriously working toward this kind of goal, some Mormons would come up to it and wish to participate. I would like to give the apologists/church leaders first crack at it however, since they are the ones who have studied this issue moreso than any others in Mormonism.

Please do feel free to let me know your thoughts, concerns, if any, etc.

I remain congenially yours,
The Backyard Professor

Philo,

That was a very well written post. Your idea has great potential. It offers an opportunity in which both sides of the argument can face off in a contest in a safe place having a genuine spirit of goodwill and honest perspective. The Celestial Forum is a place on this board where only the best of feelings should exist. It's a place where one actually wants to help make their opponent feel comfortable and appreciated even when they disagree. In the Celestial Forum everyone must be on their very best behavior and set aside their ego and express themselves in a spirit of goodwill and kindness. Making the opponent feel bad is not what the Celestial Forum is about!

The apologists are in a position where they really can't go much further. The bar has been set by critical arguments against the Book of Abraham and have reached new heights. If I may be so bold, I'm the ultimate bar in which the apologists must overcome. I feel like the sun rests on my right hand and the moon on my left. Yes, Vogel also has extensive knowledge on the subject and especially the historical records. RFM is analytical and logical. The Backyard Professor, our beloved Kerry, is exciting and well versed on the subject.

Those are my thoughts tonight. The Church is going to have to figure out how to move forward and transition itself into a position in which to maintain faith in the Book of Abraham in light of all the controversy. They have to come to a unity of faith and decide how to justify the Book of Abraham in light of everything we know about it. These are urgent times for the apologists because they are divided in their different theories. The Book of Abraham is on life support and the plug is being pulled. It has become a terrible liability for the Church.

Shulem

If you want to convince apologists to engage, it might be a good idea to steel man the argument that the book is genuine. Lay out what you think are their best and most convincing arguments, so that they know you appreciate and understand what they have written on the topic.

Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson did this a few years ago in their debate and it worked well towards avoiding the stereotypical straw manning that is a hallmark of religious debates.

Interesting idea, Philo. Are you envisioning a thread in Celestial in which participation is limited to the two teams?

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:55 am

Interesting idea, Philo. Are you envisioning a thread in Celestial in which participation is limited to the two teams?

Would teams be given the option of wearing or not wearing bulletproof vests?

This debate sounds fun. I hope you can find apologists game enough to try this. What if you had a person like Smac, from that other board, who had an idiosyncratic style that caused him to argue phrases rather than ideas?

... it might be a good idea to steelman the argument that the book is genuine.

Kerry bringing a plate of cookies should be sufficient, along with a pledge of civility and respect.

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:09 am

If you want to convince apologists to engage, it might be a good idea to steel man the argument that the book is genuine. Lay out what you think are their best and most convincing arguments, so that they know you appreciate and understand what they have written on the topic.

Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson did this a few years ago in their debate and it worked well towards avoiding the stereotypical straw manning that is a hallmark of religious debates.

Yes, an adroit concept and excellent point! Your advice will be heeded here, thank you for suggesting such. I really am to the point that all the rancor can be let go of, lets just have a series of discussions (hundreds if desired) and show where we can actually go in our understanding and appreciation, and where we can't. All the bitter and fight just doesn't have to be here anymore. I want clarity not a scoring of points in order to appear to be superior in intellect. It isn't about any one individual anymore, there is a larger context of clarity that ought to be far more valued. This is how I am going to approach it on Mormon Stories.

Shulem wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 30, 2022 4:55 am

Philo,

That was a very well written post. Your idea has great potential. It offers an opportunity in which both sides of the argument can face off in a contest in a safe place having a genuine spirit of goodwill and honest perspective. The Celestial Forum is a place on this board where only the best of feelings should exist. It's a place where one actually wants to help make their opponent feel comfortable and appreciated even when they disagree. In the Celestial Forum everyone must be on their very best behavior and set aside their ego and express themselves in a spirit of goodwill and kindness. Making the opponent feel bad is not what the Celestial Forum is about!

The apologists are in a position where they really can't go much further. The bar has been set by critical arguments against the Book of Abraham and have reached new heights. If I may be so bold, I'm the ultimate bar in which the apologists must overcome. I feel like the sun rests on my right hand and the moon on my left. Yes, Vogel also has extensive knowledge on the subject and especially the historical records. RFM is analytical and logical. The Backyard Professor, our beloved Kerry, is exciting and well versed on the subject.

Those are my thoughts tonight. The Church is going to have to figure out how to move forward and transition itself into a position in which to maintain faith in the Book of Abraham in light of all the controversy. They have to come to a unity of faith and decide how to justify the Book of Abraham in light of everything we know about it. These are urgent times for the apologists because they are divided in their different theories. The Book of Abraham is on life support and the plug is being pulled. It has become a terrible liability for the Church.

Shulem

Yes, I am proposing the Celestial Forum for that reason among others. I want clarity, not argument. I want to actually understand the full implications of what we have in front of us means, not a confusion and plethora of all kinds of conjectures, guesses, and confusion. This is how I am going to approach it on Mormon Stories too. I want clarity. I think the complexity and difficulty has been over played and is more unreal than real. It's going to take more than an individual here and one there in order to bring about clarity, assuming that is actually valued and wanted by all sides. I am not so sure, so I am mildly hesitant to bring it up tomorrow night, but I am leaning more on the side of at least broaching the subject as an invitation and see if it has value to anyone out there in the audience. We shall see.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:55 am

Interesting idea, Philo. Are you envisioning a thread in Celestial in which participation is limited to the two teams?

Oh. A good question. I hadn't really thought about it to tell the truth. Is that possible to have it set up that way? That would insure no derails and interruptions, for sure.

Moksha wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:32 am

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:55 am

Interesting idea, Philo. Are you envisioning a thread in Celestial in which participation is limited to the two teams?

Would teams be given the option of wearing or not wearing bulletproof vests?

This debate sounds fun. I hope you can find apologists game enough to try this. What if you had a person like Smac, from that other board, who had an idiosyncratic style that caused him to argue phrases rather than ideas?

... it might be a good idea to steelman the argument that the book is genuine.

Kerry bringing a plate of cookies should be sufficient, along with a pledge of civility and respect.

Yes bullet proof vests are allowed...

I am not sure how to do a moderator in a message board debate forum. Actually a discussion forum, I am not even wanting to debate technically, just lay everything out with its full implications and meanings.

And I would be a cookie monster making sure everyone gets the kind of cookie they love to eat, and civility and respect actually has come of age. It is time. I mean, for real, civility and respect and good will (and even a get together for a genuine friend appreciation barbeque with all parties from all sides) needs to become our operating procedure. I know its tough to do, everyone loves to get a point up on others and then Lord it over them, I am as guilty as any of doing that, and I confess it really is fun, however. The confusion, the lack of comprehensive understanding just does not need to continue. I realize actual total agreement won't happen, but that's not the goal here. It would be nice if all sides come to realize this. No more ad hominems, red herrings, and strawmen. Lets get it all out in the open with full disclosure and resources and implications spelled out.

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 30, 2022 1:42 pm

I am not sure how to do a moderator in a message board debate forum. Actually a discussion forum, I am not even wanting to debate technically, just lay everything out with its full implications and meanings.

Exactly!

This call for discussion is about coming together to meet minds and to clarify. It's NOT a debate. It's not about one-upmanship or making points. It's not about making the other side look bad. It's not about judging others.

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 30, 2022 1:42 pm

No more ad hominems, red herrings, and strawmen. Lets get it all out in the open with full disclosure and resources and implications spelled out.

Again, exactly!

It's time to transcend and meet our full potential as souls who only want to understand and love the truth for what truth is. Everyone, so it seems, has their own truth, but we do have ways and means to evaluate so-called truths to see if they stand up to scrutiny and ensure they are valid for everyone and not just for a select few. Universal truth is what we are after!