Will Schryver: Kneel before Zod

[_charity]

Somehow I missed this one. Good heavens, charity. Those of us who have "lost our faith" in the Book of Mormon did not do so because we had the "old idea" it was false. On the contrary, we ripped and twisted information to fit it in to our a priori acceptance of the Book of Mormon as true, not false. When that became untenable because the evidence wouldn't support our belief, we adjusted our belief accordingly to account for all the evidence.

Why is that so hard to accept?

But runtu, you don't (none of do) have all the evidence. ( I bolded that in your statement.) With regards to "proof" about the Book of Mormon, we are in infantile stage of development. We don't have all the evidence yet. It is premature to think we know everything there is to know about mesoAmericn archeology or anthropology, or DNA, etc.

[_Chap]

I'm getting there, runtu. Patience please. That takes some study, and some quiet time. I am not ignoring this. I just want to take time to assimmilate. Or accomodate.

I almost want to feel sorry for people like this, but they bring it on themselves. Charity and Coggins both insisted there were overwhelming evidences in favor of the Book of Abraham. But it seems clear they were just assuming this to be true since that is what the party line is always singing about. They are committed to that line without ever testing it to see if it holds water. So when they get called to the carpet and asked to provide a reference, the best they can do is cut and paste something from a FARMS article.

But that is the extent of their "study."

The burden is then placed upon the critic to actually do what the apologist was too lazy to do: critically examine the claim. What usually happens is that the original claim has all the wind knocked out of its sails. So while the big name scholar gets away with making unsubstantiated claims in a venue where no critical feedback exists, it is the job of the poor apologist to clean up the mess and figure out ways to explain how this still somehow counts as "overwhelming" evidence in the debate forum.

Sad.

D'A: Why don't we take it the Runtu way? Let's politely invite her to read Runtu's critique and look at the original article, and then hear what she has to say? Who knows, she may even conclude that Runtu has it about right on this point. This lady is not a Juliann.

Of course if she does agree on the whole with Runtu about the implausibility of the attempt to identify Olishem, she will tell us that her belief in the Book of Abraham is ultimately faith-based, so her basic opinion is unchanged. But that will not matter, since the object is not to make Charity drop belief in the Book of Abraham (if that ever happens, it will not be because of what happens on a board like this), but to convince the third parties who read threads of this kind and who are in doubt or as yet undecided.

Surely?

[_dartagnan]

Because we are always required to to the work they should have done.

If Runtu had not take the time out to engage in real research, the coggins/charity duo would have been pointing to this as compelling evidence until some other critic did.

It is laziness as it is to just cut and paste arguments from others without any understanding. But to expect everyone else to verify the veracity of the argument is just... sigh... it gets tiresome after a while.

We see this all the flippin time. They throw out wild theories and then we're supposed to takeit for granted that these are valid until we go do the work in validating or invalidating them.

For example.

Apologist: In support of the historicity of the Book of Abraham, tere were ancient traditions about Abraham being sacrificed. It is found in book XYZ which was unavailable to Smith.

Critic: Was it availabel to Joseph Smith from other works?

Apologist: You closed-minded apostate. Even if there were other books that had it there is no reason to believe Joseph Smith read them.

Critic: (after researching) Well it is actually found in book ABC.

Apologist: Was it available to Smith?

Critic: (after researching) Actually yes.

Apologist: Joseph Sith didn't own it though.

Critic: (after researching) Actually it turns out he did own it.

Apologist: Yea? Well prove to me that he actually read it!

[_Who Knows]

Kevin & Will - What's really at stake here anymore?

As I understand it, from the apologetic perspective, the reason for asserting that the KEP were merely scribal copies, and not part of the translation process - was the following:

- Distance Joseph Smith from the association between the text of the Book of Abraham, and the book of breathings - since the KEP demonstrates a clear connection between the two.
- Doing the above, allows the apologist to assert that it is not known where Joseph Smith 'translated' the Book of Abraham from - in effect, positing a 'missing scroll' theory.
- Alternatively, allow for the 'catalyst' theory - there is no real connection between the Book of Abraham and the book of breathings - and it was simply a means for receiving inspiration/revelation in the form of the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith's scribes only thought Joseph Smith was 'translating' the characters from the book of breathings, because that's what he had in his possession. Thus, the scribes kind of tried to 'work backwards', and match up text to the BoB characters.

Whether or not ms2 & ms3 turn out to be copies or translation working papers, hasn't Joseph Smith's involvement in the KEP been clearly demonstrated? I think, Will, that you have even conceded this? For instance, your theory on Abr. 1:12 would require involvement from Joseph Smith.

Hasn't it clearly been demonstrated (again - whether ms2 & ms3 turn out to be copies or working papers) that Joseph Smith pulled the Book of Abraham from the BoB (at least in his mind)?

[_Who Knows]

Those who choose eternal life must necessarily do so on the basis of evidence that cannot be empirically established.

You've just summed up my biggest problem with 'god' or religion in general. What a strange and wacky belief. One that makes absolutely no sense. One that is the reason we have thousands of religions throughout the world. And one that, in effect, doesn't really allow anyone to 'choose' eternal life.

[_dartagnan]

As I understand it, from the apologetic perspective, the reason for asserting that the KEP were merely scribal copies, and not part of the translation process - was the following:

Distance Joseph Smith from the association between the text of the Book of Abraham, and the book of breathings - since the KEP demonstrates a clear connection between the two.

Well, here is where things are taking an unexpected twist. According to Will Schryver’s ever-shifting views, he now says that he believes the scribes and maybe Joseph Smith too, believed the breathings text was the source of the Book of Abraham. Of course there are still people like Obiwan over at MAD who criticize critics for saying this, and even making ridiculous accusations of closed-mindedness for even thinking it. I wonder how he would react to find out that Will and perhaps Hauglid as well, came around and decided to agree with what the critics already knew to be obvious.

Doing the above, allows the apologist to assert that it is not known where Joseph Smith 'translated' the Book of Abraham from - in effect, positing a 'missing scroll' theory.

Well, if I am reading Schryver correctly, he now has chosen to adopt something of a catalyst theory which pretty much gives Joseph Smith the license to literally mistranslate at will, no matter what the source turns out to be. And if this is the case, as it appears to be, then I have to wonder why he and Hauglid are even trying to prove the KEP were not translation manuscripts.

Alternatively, allow for the 'catalyst' theory - there is no real connection between the Book of Abraham and the book of breathings - and it was simply a means for receiving inspiration/revelation in the form of the Book of Abraham.

Yes, this I believe is what Will has opted for. Of course, given this premise it is no surprise to hear Will say he doesn’t know of any instance where Joseph Smith claimed to be able to actually translate Egyptian characters. It seems the slightest evidence – for which there are already tons – to suggest that he did, would pretty much destroy his catalyst theory.

Joseph Smith's scribes only thought Joseph Smith was 'translating' the characters from the book of breathings, because that's what he had in his possession. Thus, the scribes kind of tried to 'work backwards', and match up text to the BoB characters.

Yes, I suspect he would probably still hold to that theory because he needs to distance the Prophet from any literal translation of the Egyptian characters, while not necessarily needing to distance him from the papyrus. You see, these guys are also trying to claim Joseph Smith used the word “translation” in another sense entirely. So what is considered a mistranslation by Egyptologists could very well have been a valid translation for Smith. But I don’t see how he can explain the existence of the characters in the KEP without attributing them to ignorant scribes, instead of the Prophet.

Really now, this is beginning to sound like a skit from the three stooges, but I have learned never to underestimate the apologetic imagination and its ability to turn a blind eye to probability.

Whether or not ms2 & ms3 turn out to be copies or translation working papers, hasn't Joseph Smith's involvement in the KEP been clearly demonstrated? I think, Will, that you have even conceded this? For instance, your theory on Abr. 1:12 would require involvement from Joseph Smith.

Good point. He is pretty cryptic when he starts going through these transition phases, so we’ll probably have to wait for whatever it is he plans to publish.

Hasn't it clearly been demonstrated (again - whether ms2 & ms3 turn out to be copies or working papers) that Joseph Smith pulled the Book of Abraham from the BoB (at least in his mind)?

Yes. And I think Will realized over the course of a year that the more he fought against this the less people would take him seriously. So he gave in to common sense. Finally.

[_Kevin Graham]

bump