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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

Post by _cksalmon »

William Schryver wrote:
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.


So: "There is a lively and growing debate amongst LDS defenders of Book of Abraham about Joseph Smith's explanations of the facsimiles."

It sounded much more impressive in the context of your original paragraph. Meh.
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

William Schryver wrote: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.


America, Americas, either way, it's bunk. Besides 'ancient america' (as Joseph Smith referred to it) most likely referred to what we know as north, central, and south america. But that's not the point anyways. The important point, which you somehow seem to miss, is that Joseph Smith thought the Book of Mormon people were the orignal inhabitants of ancient america. Not JUST descendants, but the first inhabitants.


In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.


Why do you keep dodging here will? Can you just not get yourself to admit that Joseph Smith was wrong about this?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

William Schryver wrote: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.


That's a hoot! I have one apologist calling me a mealy-mouthed, post-modernist pudding head, and I have another one calling me a raging fundamentalist. Schryver, you haven't a clue where I am coming from, and you shouldn't pretend that you do. When I was still a member of the LDS Church, I did not insist on "flawed fundamentalist conclusions." I was willing to accept the Book of Mormon as scripture without insisting on its historicity. I took interest in the approach of Ben McGuire. Very few would have called me a fundamentalist then, even those who disagreed with me vehemently, and I certainly have not become one now.

Calling you out for deliberately misleading language does not reveal me as a fundamentalist. Your dishonest rhetoric is not evidence of your harmless, nuanced thinking.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

Chap wrote: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.


What does it say about Will that the only way he can pretend he has held his own in this backwater is to ignore the fact that he has made such a poor showing? If you can't be troubled actually to participate, Will, then by all means leave. The fact that you have to resort to deception and pretend that you have hidden aces up your sleeves only suggests that you don't have the goods. As I said before, reclaim your dignity and join Paul O. If there is a feasible position on the Book of Abraham for believers, he's the one cultivating it.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

I was willing to accept the Book of Mormon as scripture without insisting on its historicity. I took interest in the approach of Ben McGuire. Very few would have called me a fundamentalist then, even those who disagreed with me vehemently, and I certainly have not become one now.


Isn't that how you and I hooked up? You were Hyrum Page correct? I was posting at FAIR about accepting the Book of Mormon without accepting its historicity and you were the only sympathetic poster in the discussions.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

dartagnan wrote:The more incomprehensible and mysterious you can make Egyptian, the better for the Book of Abraham.


The Mormon God of the gaps. He needs apologists to locate these gaps in which to make a comfy new home.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

dartagnan wrote:Isn't that how you and I hooked up? You were Hyrum Page correct? I was posting at FAIR about accepting the Book of Mormon without accepting its historicity and you were the only sympathetic poster in the discussions.


That's precisely correct, dartagnan. I was a frustrated liberal Mormon who was repeatedly slammed for advocating such things as the non-historical take on the Book of Mormon, and other such things. Oh, I was such a little fundie creep, wasn't I? Hilarious that Will would attempt that. All it shows is that he hasn't clue where I am coming from.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

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

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Anyone who just read Droopy's recent remark in the other thread has got to read this timeless piece, where he and Schryver prove once again they are two gaffe machines gone wild. I recalled Droopy's claim from two years ago that all the historical evidence supports a missing papyri theory. After making this claim, he ran over to MAD using a different name, begging the apologists over there to help him find these so called evidences. We dismantled every silly piece of evidence that essentially proved the opposite of what he assumed. A year later he ignores the refutation and repeats the same drivel. And now another year later he is doing the same thing. Some people refuse to learn.

Also in this thread, Will offers his usual dishonest when he says there is a "lively debate" about Joseph Smith's interpretations in academia, but that we are just too ignorant about it because we don't read "Egyptological journals." When Trevor pressed him to produce an example, Will hits reverse and says he never said that.

Priceless.
_solomarineris
_Emeritus
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:51 am

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

Post by _solomarineris »

Droopy wrote:Aside from the very technical details surrounding the simultaneous dictation theory of Book of Abraham origins, its perhaps time to take another look at what may be the far more parsimonious and, one might be tempted to say, obvious explanation for our present difficulties determining from what source the Book of Abraham sprang. All italics will be mine.

Let's start with W. W. Phelps, Joseph's scribe, from a letter dated July 19-20, 1835:

"The last of June, four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them. As no one could translate these writings, they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were and said they, the "rolls of papyrus," contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh's court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham.


Dr. James R. Clark of Brigham Young University writes:

Between October 1 and December 31, 1835, there are fifteen individual entries in Joseph Smith's journal referring to the papyri, the mummies, and/or the records. Six of these entries call the papyri "Egyptian records." Six additional entries refer to the collection as "ancient records" or "records of antiquity." In another entry he calls them simply "the papyrus." Only in one entry does Joseph Smith refer to them as "sacred records." The important point here seems to be that while in July, 1835, Joseph Smith referred to one roll as containing "the writings of Abraham" and "another the writings of Joseph of Egypt," in subsequent references during the three month period when he was working most intensively with them he spoke of the papyri simply as "Egyptian records" or "ancient records." These numerous entries should at least raise a caution against any assumption that the entire collection of papyri that Joseph Smith had was exclusively the record of Abraham and Joseph. The fact that these two documents were considered most important by the Prophet may have led to that faulty assumption.


How many "rolls" (leaving aside the "other ancient Egyptian writings) were there? Only two, those dealing with Abraham and Joseph? A non-LDS newspaper, gives us a clue, from an article that appeared in the March 27, 1835, edition of the Painesville Telegraph:

There was found with this person [mummy no. 1] a roll or book, having a little resemblance to birch bark; language unknown. Some linguists however say they can decipher 13-36, in what they term an epitaph; ink black and red; many female figures.

[Mummy] No. 2 ... found with roll as [mummy] No. 1, filled with hieroglyphics, rudely executed.

[Mummy] No. 3 ... had a roll of writing as No. 1 & 2....


And further, what happened to the book of multiple leaves and another book found in the arms of one of the mummies, as mentioned by the Cleveland Whig in March of 1825?:

There was found deposited in the arms of the old man referred to above, a book of ancient form and construction, which, to us, was by far the most interesting part of the exhibition. Its leaves were of bark, in length some 10 or 12 inches, and 3 or 4 in width. The ends are somewhat decayed, but at the centre the leaves are in a state of perfect preservation. It is the writing of no ordinary penman, probably of the old man near whose heart it was deposited at the embalming. The characters are the Egyptian hieroglyphics; but of what is discourses none can tell....There is also another book, more decayed, and much less neatly written - its character and import involved in like mystery.


All the more delicate fragments that were mounted on glass panes appear to be only a small remnant of the original corpus. For example, we have the testimony of Charlotte Haven, a non-LDS visitor to the city of Nauvoo in 1843:

Then she [Mrs. Smith] turned to a long table, set her candlestick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was 'the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit," and she read several minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like passages from the Old Testament - and it might have been for anything we knew - but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who - the serpent, I mean - was standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear.


In 1906, President Joseph F. Smith, while visiting Nauvoo, told Preston Nibley of a childhood experience in which he observed "Uncle Joseph" working on a copious quantity of papyrus roll, which "when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.

Other significant variations in the nature of the original documents and the fragments left to us could be multiplied, but the eyewitness accounts of both the quantity and nature of the texts would seem to pose significant difficulties for critics presently laboring intensively over fine details of the KEP. A substantial quantity of the original corpus is missing, and this, and only this, has provided the critics, especially the most disparate of them, the opening they needed for the construction of novel and highly technical theories of Book of Mormon translation. These efforts, however, are ultimately of little weight, since none of the text critical evidence thus far provided, though providing plausible explanations, are of the inferential or empirical weight necessary to come to any conclusions that could be said to be imbued with any clear degree of certitude.

The critics have a serious problem: a really large body of missing data over against their speculative theoretical reconstructions of possible historical phenomena that were not, at the time, clearly and carefully recorded. LDS would like those missing rolls and "books", while critics would prefer the eyewitness references to them had never been written.

The plot thickens...


Was this you on RFM?
Sounds sooo ye, read it;
hey,
you left because the book of abraham. first off regarding this question even if it was false how did the Book of Mormon come about. there is no good explanation. 2nd off, you never had a testimony of the Book of Mormon. 3rd the book of abraham was bought by the church from michael chandler in 1834. he not only didn't receive all the papary, but we don't even have it all today. its a matter if he is a prophet or not. if you have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, than you need not question the book of abraham. i have many articles if you give me your email i will email them over.
anyone who doubts needs to do a massave study on the dead sea scrolls. it state in there about 2 messiahs who will come one who will be the redeemer of the world and the other will be the restorer of all things. i can't believe this many people leave the church. wow. i know there is a lot of gay drama in utah, luckily im from california, i hate a lot of Mormons for real. i hate most missionaries out here, very fake and hypocritical. however, because people do things, say things, or offend people does not make something true or not true. if you want to say joseph made all that up, got 11 witnesses to take it to the grave with them. (study the witnesses none denied their testimony, i have a 7 page report on the witnesses that is amazing and how well established and loved they were in teh community. many people stated they believed them in all things but not witnissing the Book of Mormon. they stated all 3 witnesses were honest hard working men. how did he get martin harris to forfit 151 acres of land. how did he get people to move all over the place. how did he get people to give them wives, how did he and others convert over 6000 in 3 years in england, how did his prophecies come true (you will argue some didn't, yea you could argue that), how did the Book of Mormon come about, how do you explain non members describing the experience outside the kirtland temple when it was dedicated with angels out side, how do you explain people saying they saw moroni, im speachless, im not geting spiritual more anaylitical. be smart about this


on a mission right now for the LDS church
http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/ ... b_recovery
_Pokatator
_Emeritus
Posts: 1417
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:38 pm

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

Post by _Pokatator »

Kevin Graham wrote:Anyone who just read Droopy's recent remark in the other thread has got to read this timeless piece, where he and Schryver prove once again they are two gaffe machines gone wild. I recalled Droopy's claim from two years ago that all the historical evidence supports a missing papyri theory. After making this claim, he ran over to MAD using a different name, begging the apologists over there to help him find these so called evidences. We dismantled every silly piece of evidence that essentially proved the opposite of what he assumed. A year later he ignores the refutation and repeats the same drivel. And now another year later he is doing the same thing. Some people refuse to learn.

Also in this thread, Will offers his usual dishonest when he says there is a "lively debate" about Joseph Smith's interpretations in academia, but that we are just too ignorant about it because we don't read "Egyptological journals." When Trevor pressed him to produce an example, Will hits reverse and says he never said that.

Priceless.


I remember it all well, priceless indeed.

Droopy and Willy operate under the motto of:

You can't insult me, I'm too ignorant.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.
bcspace
Post Reply