Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 2959
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Kishkumen »

K Graham wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 1:00 pm
Dan's book was Ok as a synopsis for newcomers, but didn't really get into the meaty details that we've seen play out in epic debates over the years. But yes, it is curious how more and more people tend to jump onto this issue. I think it is because how significant it truly is and the implications that flow from the critics being right. I mean, if Joseph Smith couldn't translate ancient documents then really, in what sense is the Church "true." In some ways, that was the whole premise for the Church's existence.

For many decades critics rejected Mormonism because the Book of Mormon had anachronisms, and apologists could always fall back on the fact that we didn't have the gold plates that could verify or falsify the translation. Well, with the Book or Abraham we have the original document. And compared to the "divine translation" it pretty much proves Joseph Smith was a con. The only way to maintain belief is to force yourself into a drastic paradigm shift, which isn't something most believers are prepared to do.
The whole idea of a church being true is ridiculous in the first place, and that is because “true” in this case never meant “factually correct.” Obviously. Somehow this was forgotten, however. By everyone. So, the idea of a church being “true” is silly, as is the idea of proving it “untrue.” Nevertheless, I don’t begrudge anyone the journey of figuring this all out to their own satisfaction. If one has a mistaken concept of truth, and then deconstructs it, one is probably better off in some respects.
“Academia’s continual campaign to disregard or neglect the classics is a sign of spiritual decay, moral decline and a deep intellectual narrowness running amok in American culture.” ~ Cornel West
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 2959
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Kishkumen »

Shulem wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 3:37 pm
Do it. We will pin a medal on your chest.

Bear in mind that you will find much of the material rather dry and somewhat monotonous but wade through it anyway and get the facts. There are sections and whole chapters that are very fascinating and you'll be really glad to read those. The overall idea expressed in the book is that Smith couldn't translate Egyptian and all of his linguistic work with the Egyptian language is an absolute fraud. Smith devised a house of cards built within the fantasy of his own mind. The whole story of the Book of Abraham including the text about Egyptus discovering the land under water and the Abrahamic sacrifice on the lion bed was made up just like the things Smith said about Facsimile No. 3 and when comparing those Explanations with the actual content of Facsimile No. 3 we can we sure that Smith was making everything up.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. ;) :lol:
“Academia’s continual campaign to disregard or neglect the classics is a sign of spiritual decay, moral decline and a deep intellectual narrowness running amok in American culture.” ~ Cornel West
Fence Sitter
Deacon
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:02 am

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Fence Sitter »

As long as BYU is willing to pay Egyptologist, the missing scroll theory will not go away.
Dr Exiled
Savior (resurrected state)
Posts: 973
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:40 pm

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Dr Exiled »

Kishkumen wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 5:55 pm
K Graham wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 1:00 pm
Dan's book was Ok as a synopsis for newcomers, but didn't really get into the meaty details that we've seen play out in epic debates over the years. But yes, it is curious how more and more people tend to jump onto this issue. I think it is because how significant it truly is and the implications that flow from the critics being right. I mean, if Joseph Smith couldn't translate ancient documents then really, in what sense is the Church "true." In some ways, that was the whole premise for the Church's existence.

For many decades critics rejected Mormonism because the Book of Mormon had anachronisms, and apologists could always fall back on the fact that we didn't have the gold plates that could verify or falsify the translation. Well, with the Book or Abraham we have the original document. And compared to the "divine translation" it pretty much proves Joseph Smith was a con. The only way to maintain belief is to force yourself into a drastic paradigm shift, which isn't something most believers are prepared to do.
The whole idea of a church being true is ridiculous in the first place, and that is because “true” in this case never meant “factually correct.” Obviously. Somehow this was forgotten, however. By everyone. So, the idea of a church being “true” is silly, as is the idea of proving it “untrue.” Nevertheless, I don’t begrudge anyone the journey of figuring this all out to their own satisfaction. If one has a mistaken concept of truth, and then deconstructs it, one is probably better off in some respects.
I don't think Joseph Smith subscribed to your definition of truth. https://oneclimbs.com/2015/01/16/joseph-smith-truth/ He was quite literal, claiming he actually saw angels and was given authority by peter, james and john, etc. D&C 1:30 comes to mind where Joseph Smith has God proclaim the church as the one and only. He thought the church he created was true. However, discovering what it really is saves a lot of time and money.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 3001
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Philo Sofee »

K Graham wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 2:53 pm
Found it...

The Gael/Papyri Relationship
YOU ROCK!
I remember Miller! He was powerful. Ah the good memories....lol....is he still alive and kickin?
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 3001
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Philo Sofee »

Kishkumen wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 5:58 pm
Shulem wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 3:37 pm
Do it. We will pin a medal on your chest.

Bear in mind that you will find much of the material rather dry and somewhat monotonous but wade through it anyway and get the facts. There are sections and whole chapters that are very fascinating and you'll be really glad to read those. The overall idea expressed in the book is that Smith couldn't translate Egyptian and all of his linguistic work with the Egyptian language is an absolute fraud. Smith devised a house of cards built within the fantasy of his own mind. The whole story of the Book of Abraham including the text about Egyptus discovering the land under water and the Abrahamic sacrifice on the lion bed was made up just like the things Smith said about Facsimile No. 3 and when comparing those Explanations with the actual content of Facsimile No. 3 we can we sure that Smith was making everything up.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. ;) :lol:
:lol:
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 3001
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Philo Sofee »

K Graham wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 2:53 pm
Found it...

The Gael/Papyri Relationship
Ha! Looks like you also man handled Hamblin good and proper as well. Oh the intimidation tactics used without offering anything substantial. The essence of apologetics. Hamblin was counting more on mere bluff and authoritah than actual exploring the relationships of the materials. It was junk apologetics like this that had me so confused. And poor Wade. OMG... I hope he's doing ok these days. Thanks again for that link, it is very useful!
malkie
Bishop
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by malkie »

Chap wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 5:04 pm
Shulem wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 3:37 pm



... when comparing those Explanations with the actual content of Facsimile No. 3 we can we sure that Smith was making everything up.
That's basically why people home in on the Book of Abraham. There is no credible way that the book and its associated paratexts can have come into being without a pretty deliberate attempt to make stuff up. And that is the thirteenth striker of the clock for a very well-known if not widely accepted religion whose whole basis is the credibility of Joseph Smith.

It's not usual for a religion to take a punch to the gut like that. Even more fascinating is the fact that when that happens to a religion, it can apparently continue for many years with no major defection on the part of its followers.
A week or so ago I had a brief exchange of information with a lady on Facebook about the Book of Abraham.

When I pointed out that the consensus of opinion among professional Egyptologists is that the Book of Abraham is not a translation of the scrolls, she replied that she would trust Joseph Smith before taking the word of a professional Egyptologist.

I'm not sure that there is any help for someone who thinks that way.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 4571
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Oh, man. Lololol. The memories of lurking. This is great:

Image

Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah!

- Doc
1. Speech is aggression.
2. Every utterance has a winner or a loser.
3. Curiosity is feigned.
4. Lying is performative.
5. Stupidity is power.
Chap
God
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Chap »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 6:18 pm
Kishkumen wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 5:55 pm


The whole idea of a church being true is ridiculous in the first place, and that is because “true” in this case never meant “factually correct.” Obviously. Somehow this was forgotten, however. By everyone. So, the idea of a church being “true” is silly, as is the idea of proving it “untrue.” Nevertheless, I don’t begrudge anyone the journey of figuring this all out to their own satisfaction. If one has a mistaken concept of truth, and then deconstructs it, one is probably better off in some respects.
I don't think Joseph Smith subscribed to your definition of truth. https://oneclimbs.com/2015/01/16/joseph-smith-truth/ He was quite literal, claiming he actually saw angels and was given authority by peter, james and john, etc. D&C 1:30 comes to mind where Joseph Smith has God proclaim the church as the one and only. He thought the church he created was true. However, discovering what it really is saves a lot of time and money.
About that bit in bold - sorry, Kishkumen? Joseph Smith and his successors never meant that their followers should accept their statement as being factually correct?

So if I had turned up in Nauvoo and said stuff like "Look, it doesn't seem to me that there is any evidence that those Nephites and Lamanites actually existed anywhere in the Americas", the worthy inhabitants would have shaken their heads with a pitying smile, and said "My dear man! Didn't they teach you anything at that expensive school and university in the old country? Are you really that simple minded? Real religion isn't about that kind of thing at all. Let us explain what "truth" actually means in a religious context ..."
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Post Reply