Critics ignore the real 800 pound Book of Abraham Gorilla in the room

[_William Schryver]

Once again you people prove how single-mindedly dense you can be when sufficiently motivated by your obsession for self-justification.

Joseph Smith wrote:

I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was made known unto me; I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient Prophets that had existed on this continent.

Who Knows wrote:

"Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"

Who Knows’ claim is all-inclusive: “the Americas.” North, Central, and South.

Joseph Smith consistently expressed the opinion that “the aboriginal inhabitants of this country” (i.e. the country in which he lived and moved) were descendants of Book of Mormon people. And they probably were. I know of nothing that could disprove the notion that the various tribes of northeastern Indians descended from Book of Mormon peoples.

But Who Knows asserted that Joseph Smith claimed that the “original inhabitants of the Americas” were Book of Mormon peoples. He did NOT say that.
.
.
.
Trevor wrote:

I am still patiently waiting for the evidence you mentioned of a lively and growing academic debate concerning Joseph Smith's abilities interpreting Egyptian documents. Please post the bibliography so we can join you in acknowledging the fact that Mormon apologetics on the Book of Abraham are truly arriving in mainstream academic discourse.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I never said anything about there being “mainstream academic discourse” concerning “Joseph Smith’s abilities interpreting Egyptian documents.”

This is just another in a long string of examples that proves, when it comes to apostates: ”a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
.
.
.
OK, it was fun while it lasted. But I have to go fire up my chainsaw and slay a large pine tree ...

[_Chap]

Once again you people prove how single-mindedly dense you can be when sufficiently motivated by your obsession for self-justification.

Joseph Smith wrote:

I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was made known unto me; I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient Prophets that had existed on this continent.

Who Knows wrote:

"Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"

Who Knows’ claim is all-inclusive: “the Americas.” North, Central, and South.

Joseph Smith consistently expressed the opinion that “the aboriginal inhabitants of this country” (I.e. the country in which he lived and moved) were descendants of Book of Mormon people. And they probably were. I know of nothing that could disprove the notion that the various tribes of northeastern Indians descended from Book of Mormon peoples.

But Who Knows asserted that Joseph Smith claimed that the “original inhabitants of the Americas” were Book of Mormon peoples. He did NOT say that.

Nice to hear from Schryver again.

The substantive exhange between Who Knows and Schryver started with this:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... &start=105

If Lehi was a real man, he is almost certainly an ancestor of almost every Amerind alive today.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

Hey, if santa were a real man, blah blah blah.

So what's the point of this thread again?

- Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas, and that native americans came exclusively from them.
- This belief goes uncontested for almost 100 years, wherein a few start to teach that there may have been other people here in the americas when Book of Mormon peoples arrived (but this is never made official - the prophet of the church never recognizes this, and Joseph Smith's teaching are never rescinded).
- In 2007, the phrase 'principal ancestors' is removed from the Book of Mormon.
- The 2008 Joseph Smith manual whitewashes Joseph Smith's teachings on the subject.

So, yeah, 170 plus years later, the church is finally recognizing that Book of Mormon people weren't the main ancestors of the NAs. How soon this circulates out to the main membership will be anyone's guess.

To which Schryver responded:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... &start=105

Who Knows:

- Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas, and that native americans came exclusively from them.

No, he didn’t.

- In 2007, the phrase 'principal ancestors' is removed from the Book of Mormon.

The phrase “principal ancestors” was never in the Book of Mormon.


And you believing and making those two statements is a prime example of how poorly informed you are on this entire topic.

The whole “DNA analysis disproves the Book of Mormon” argument is the weakest critical argument formulated since the book first appeared 178 years ago. Yet that doesn’t keep fools from continuing to lean on what they consider “science” to justify their apostasy.


Anyway, I have to go now folks. It’s been fun . . .

So we have Schryver beginning by saying that if Lehi existed, then he was an ancestor of all Amerinds (which refers to all indigenous peoples of North and South America). In response Who Knows says that Joseph Smith asserted that

(a) the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas,

and

(b) that native americans came exclusively from them.

(My reformatting)

Schryver quotes (a) and denies it. We now see that his denial hinges on the fact that Who Knows puts the letter 's' after 'America', and that Schryver does not deny that Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of 'America' in the sense of the USA. (He can't do that, because Joseph Smith insisted that is the case).

Schryver does not say anything about (b). But (b) is however explicitly asserted by Joseph Smith in the Wentworth letter, when he claims that the 'Indians' he knew were 'the remnant' of the Book of Mormon people. So the Book of Mormon people are the only ancestors of the North American Indians, by Smith's direct assertion. There is just no-one else but Book of Mormon peoples in the story he tells, and certainly there was no-one in America before Book of Mormon peoples arrived: they were the original inhabitants.

So one would expect, would one not, that their DNA would look pretty Israelite, since the only people they were descended from were "principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph"?

Since Native American DNA looks utterly unlike that of anyone who might have been an 'Israelite' like the people in Nephi's party, and since Smith himself closed off any possibility that the Native Americans could have any ancestors other than Book of Mormon people, does it not seem that the DNA argument against the Book of Mormon is a pretty good one?

And yet the denial of that fact is the core of Schryver's position in the exchange with Who Knows, is it not?

[_beastie]

I'm left wondering if Will even read the citations from the Wentworth letter at all.

[Guest]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I never said anything about there being “mainstream academic discourse” concerning “Joseph Smith’s abilities interpreting Egyptian documents.”

This is just another in a long string of examples that proves, when it comes to apostates: ”a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

Let me see, you wrote:

There is actually a lively and growing debate about just how “incorrect” Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles really are. Of course, no one on this board reads Egyptological journals, so they aren’t aware of the discussion being had there concerning the way Ptolemaic-era Egyptians would have used and interpreted the classic vignettes from the Book of the Dead; therefore they aren’t even in a position to consider the implications of that debate on the questions surrounding the Joseph Smith Papyri.

So what, then, did you mean? You have had plenty of opportunity to clarify. Maybe now you'll actually do so. Are Egyptological journals not mainstream academics in your mind? Please, do tell.

Let me tell you what I think you were doing here. By strapping an actual discussion of Ptolemaic Egyptian interpretations of these vignettes in the non-LDS scholarship to the implication of a "lively and growing debate" that is more likely the lunchroom discussion at the Cougareat, you have tried to manufacture the impression of something much more substantive than the lines that John Gee is feeding you. It is Gee (I am guessing) who is interested in this non-LDS, scholarly discussion about Ptolemaic Egyptian interpretations of these vignettes, and it is he who sees this as bearing on his defense of the Book of Abraham. When he publishes his bit on this, then we will all be able to deal with the results. Until that time, try to refrain from giving epic proportions to a street comedy.

[_truth dancer]

Oh, this is not a problem at all.

Joseph Smith is not perfect, so he misinterpreted what the angel said, big deal.

Perhaps there was a language barrier; did it ever occur to you that the angel didn't know English? Or maybe Joseph Smith had a bit of confirmation bias going on from his understanding of View of the Hebrews? Or he wasn't ready to comprehend the fullness of the information he was given?

No one ever said a prophet was infallible.

Line up line, milk before meat, further light and knowledge.

;-)

On a serious note, it really does astound me how apologists state that Joseph Smith just had a "superficial" understanding of the Book of Mormon, or its story. As if apologists know more about the Book of Mormon than the angel who taught Joseph Smith. Wow!

~dancer~

[_cksalmon]

Trevor wrote:

I am still patiently waiting for the evidence you mentioned of a lively and growing academic debate concerning Joseph Smith's abilities interpreting Egyptian documents. Please post the bibliography so we can join you in acknowledging the fact that Mormon apologetics on the Book of Abraham are truly arriving in mainstream academic discourse.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I never said anything about there being “mainstream academic discourse” concerning “Joseph Smith’s abilities interpreting Egyptian documents.”

This is just another in a long string of examples that proves, when it comes to apostates: ”a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
.
.
.
OK, it was fun while it lasted. But I have to go fire up my chainsaw and slay a large pine tree ...

Schryver wrote:

There is actually a lively and growing debate about just how “incorrect” Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles really are. Of course, no one on this board reads Egyptological journals, so they aren’t aware of the discussion being had there concerning the way Ptolemaic-era Egyptians would have used and interpreted the classic vignettes from the Book of the Dead; therefore they aren’t even in a position to consider the implications of that debate on the questions surrounding the Joseph Smith Papyri.

Note how the language used here (perhaps unintentionally) subtly seems to tie the lively debate about Joseph Smith's explanations to the larger academic world: "no one on this board reads Egyptological journals, so they aren't aware of the discussion being had there..." (yes, I'm intentionally cutting off the quotation to highlight the subtle implication that the discussions in the Egyptological journals might have something specifically to do with the "lively and growing debate" to which Will initially referred. Turns out, apparently, they don't).

Continuing: "...concerning the way Ptolemaic-era Egyptians would have used and interpreted the classic vignettes from the Book of the Dead...." The discussions in the Egyptological journals, then, are not about Joseph Smith or his explanations of the facsimiles or about Book of Abraham. The discussions to which Schryver alludes are actually about Egyptological matters that are merely of apologetic interest to Book of Abraham defenders--and, again, do not constitute in any way Schryver's "lively debate."

So, in essence, Schryver finally shows up only to clarify that he "never said anything" about "a lively debate" happening beyond the insular bounds of Mormon apologia? Am I reading him incorrectly here? I take it, then, that there is no mainstream academic discourse about Joseph Smith's explanations of the facsimiles.

The "lively and growing debate" is happening among LDS defenders of Book of Abraham?

Note that he doesn't provide any references to support his claim. Nor does he defend it. He merely narrows its scope.

He doesn't have time to do more than that, I suppose.

[_Trevor]

The "lively and growing debate" is happening among LDS defenders of Book of Abraham?

Note that he doesn't provide any references to support his claim. Nor does he defend it. He merely narrows its scope.

He doesn't have time to do more than that, I suppose.

This is pretty much what I figured from the get go. He is clearly shading the truth to make the pair of deuces he has seem as though it is a royal flush. Always has been. This is what Mopologetics is all about.

[_William Schryver]

CKS:

The discussions in the Egyptological journals, then, are not about Joseph Smith or his explanations of the facsimiles or about Book of Abraham.

No kidding?

[quote[The discussions to which Schryver alludes are actually about Egyptological matters …[/quote]
Imagine that!

… that are merely of apologetic interest to Book of Abraham defenders …

As well they ought to be. I, personally, am fascinated by these things. Many of the new Egyptologists are bringing into question large swathes of what has long been considered settled understandings of the Egyptian temple liturgy. The late 19th and 20th century interpretations were so often corrupted by flawed modern assumptions and presentism that, in many cases, the meaning of entire phrases was distorted beyond understanding. I have already referenced an example that Professor Gee has identified: The so-called “Book of Breathings Made by Isis” is nothing of the sort. It is more accurately translated: “The Letter of Fellowship Made by Isis.”

Of course, Nibley – the oft-maligned one – recognized the import of the text itself as being an initiatory of sorts. But hardly anyone has even bothered to read his The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, which, in my judgment, goes far to forge an understandable link between the revised interpretations coming out of mainstream Egyptology and the kinds of meanings to which the Joseph Smith interpretations allude.

I take it, then, that there is no mainstream academic discourse about Joseph Smith's explanations of the facsimiles.

None of which I am aware. Nor do I expect that to change anytime soon.

The "lively and growing debate" is happening among LDS defenders of Book of Abraham?

The “lively and growing debate” is happening among those who take an interest in such things. I would venture to say that Robert Ritner is not among that crowd.

Note that he doesn't provide any references to support his claim.

If I get ambitious I might assemble a limited bibliography of articles I have read, but I’m not too motivated to play research assistant for people whose eyes are already closed.

Nor does he defend it.

There was never any point in defending a stance I never took.

He merely narrows its scope.

No, I didn’t. It retains the same scope it had when I first made my statement. It’s just that it took you – a nevermo – to explain it to these folks.

He doesn't have time to do more than that, I suppose.

Time is certainly a consideration. But I’m also not very motivated to engage in serious discussions here -- not the least because it is nothing but a cyber-backwater. Furthermore, I have learned that it is singularly futile to converse with the class of apostate Mormon that insists on clinging to the same flawed fundamentalist thought processes and many of the same flawed fundamentalist conclusions they held while still faithful LDS, and who insist that their view of these things is the only orthodox position available to those who remain believers in the restored gospel and its foundational canon.
.
.
.
Trevor:

He is clearly shading the truth to make the pair of deuces he has seem as though it is a royal flush. Always has been. This is what Mopologetics is all about.

Case in point.

[_Chap]

Which, being interpreted means:

"No, I cannot substantiate what I said. But I don't care what you think about me, so what does it matter?"

by the way, I stand all amazed at the idea of an LDS apologist accusing anybody, anywhere of being in a backwater of any kind.

LOL!

[_dartagnan]

The late 19th and 20th century interpretations were so often corrupted by flawed modern assumptions and presentism that, in many cases, the meaning of entire phrases was distorted beyond understanding. I have already referenced an example that Professor Gee has identified: The so-called “Book of Breathings Made by Isis” is nothing of the sort. It is more accurately translated: “The Letter of Fellowship Made by Isis.”

That's it?? That's your example of an "entire phrase" that was "distorted beyond understanding"! And you wonder why nobody takes Book of Abraham apologetics seriously. Both phrases make perfect sense, so what the hell are you talking about. Let's compare the two:

1) Book of Breathings Made by Isis
2) Letter of Fellowship Made by Isis

Yea, that sure is "entirely distorted." I mean who could possibly mistake a letter for a book? A pig for a jumbojet maybe, but two versions of a written document? The only major difference between the two phrases in found in the distinction between fellowship and breathings. And you have not demonstrated how established thsi is, nor how any Egyptologist has bothered to challenge or take issue with it.

If Gee can justify something in the papyri that references Abraham, or justify a reading remotely similar to anything from the Book of Abraham, then let us know when that happens. In the meantime, you are all just blowing more smoke with this silly nonsense about how nobody really knows Egyptian anyway. I was wondering when you guys would have to revert to that line of reasoning again. The more incomprehensible and mysterious you can make Egyptian, the better for the Book of Abraham. You think Egyptologists take Gee seriously on any of this stuff? As soon as it becomes clear he is just trying to add scholarly credibility to his theologically driven apologetics, he will be marginalized the same asa the Intelligent Design scientists have been shoved to the side and ridiculed. But he is trying to move under the radar via attendance at academic conferences and his journal publications.

Of course, Nibley – the oft-maligned one – recognized the import of the text itself as being an initiatory of sorts. But hardly anyone has even bothered to read his The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, which, in my judgment, goes far to forge an understandable link between the revised interpretations coming out of mainstream Egyptology and the kinds of meanings to which the Joseph Smith interpretations allude.

You were the one who hadn't read that apologetic piece of crapola. Remember when you first stated you had studied the "details" of the KEP before there was anything to "study"? You clearly had not read his piece on it at that time. At least Nibley knew who Smith's scribes were. You didn't.

If I get ambitious I might assemble a limited bibliography of articles I have read, but I’m not too motivated to play research assistant for people whose eyes are already closed.

We know you too well Will, to believe any of this nonsense. If you thought for even a second that you could prove us wrong on something, no matter how minor, you'd bend over backwards and do it. But we are calling your bluff again, and you're balking as usual. If you're so familiar with these journals, you should at least be able to provide a couple examples off the cuff. No need to be "motivated to play research assistant." Stop relying on hyperbole to save you from yourself. Who do your eally think you're kidding, yourself?