intra-mo catalyst/literal Book of Abraham fight on the other board

[_Sethbag]

I checked out MDD to see if anything interesting was going on, and caught this interesting thread.

Our favorite poster jskains posted the following:

Has anyone tried or even considered creating a completed replica scroll translating the Book of Abraham to the smallest Egyptian representation possible to see what such a thing would look like and how long it would be?

Two posts later our other favorite poster mfbukowski says:

That would be a silly thing to do since it was "translated" by inspiration.
It wasn't on the scroll in a literal way. Nibley showed that- everyone knows that.
Well not everyone I guess.

This is pretty funny so far. It gets even funnier though. MFB gets called to task for his post by none other than Will Schryver. I think it's interesting that MFB had already passed through some event horizon where he now takes something like the catalyst theory as a done deal. I wonder how may other mopologists have completely given up on the Book of Abraham having been represented physically on the papyrus?

It's actually good to see that not all the mopologists agree with this. Crazy as Will's own theories about the Book of Abraham are, at least he recognizes that Joseph Smith and the church have stated far too often that the Book of Abraham was in fact written down in the papyri, somehow, to just give up on that.

I'm curious how that thread is going to pan out over time.

[_Scottie]

Not only does everyone know that, but it's unfathomable that anyone might have a problem with that explanation.

[_Some Schmo]

So essentially, it's a thread that goes something like:

"My BS!"

"No, mine!"

[_just me]

I didn't know it was unusual for members to actually believe what the scriptures claim about the Book of Abraham.

*blink*

[_Sethbag]

Someone more clever than I has given this phenomenon a name, where some mopologist takes on a criticism, comes up with his or her own explanation which they think addresses the criticism but which also shifts the claims of the church to a more defensible position, and then retroactively declares that the Mormons have always believed this way. Anyone think of the better term for this?

I do think it's interesting that MFB acts as if Mormons have known for at least 30-40 years now that the Book of Abraham wasn't really written down on the papyrus. Everyone knows that! Oh yeah? How about the Quorum of the Twelve? How about the First Presidency? Do they know that? Funny how the intro to the Book of Abraham still claims that it's the translation of the story of Abraham, written down, by his own hand, upon the papyrus. Hasn't the church ever read Nibley? Or MFB's interpretation of Nibley?

[_Yahoo Bot]

Someone more clever than I has given this phenomenon a name, where some mopologist takes on a criticism, comes up with his or her own explanation which they think addresses the criticism but which also shifts the claims of the church to a more defensible position, and then retroactively declares that the Mormons have always believed this way. Anyone think of the better term for this?

I do think it's interesting that MFB acts as if Mormons have known for at least 30-40 years now that the Book of Abraham wasn't really written down on the papyrus. Everyone knows that! Oh yeah? How about the Quorum of the Twelve? How about the First Presidency? Do they know that? Funny how the intro to the Book of Abraham still claims that it's the translation of the story of Abraham, written down, by his own hand, upon the papyrus. Hasn't the church ever read Nibley? Or MFB's interpretation of Nibley?

There is no doubt that there is are a lot of things wrong with Mormon apologia. Many of the apologists haven't read their scriptures, their history or even lack faith. (My example of the latter types are those that originated the LGT as a way to explain away the absence of horses and steel.) Mormonism encourages this because every man is considered a prophet, priest and king in his own time and can weigh forth on matters of the Spirit.

But, unlike you who have become faithless and have descended to the depths of the pit by posting anonymously your rants against a major Christian faith, many of us believe the eternal truths of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham and of Joseph Smith for reasons that have now eluded you.

And, I ask, why waste your time here? Trying to get your conscience assuaged by like-minded anonymous hypocrites?

[_Sethbag]

I'm only barely anonymous at all, really. And I'm so anonymous that I actually have met at least two faithful members from the board in person, one of whom was Dan Peterson. I've contributed to the Mormon Expression podcast and introduced myself by my real name, and mentioned these podcasts on this board. In fact it would take any competent investigator maybe 15 minutes to figure out who I am.

Not that any of that matters, by the way. I could be 100% iron-clad, totally under-the-radar anonymous and it wouldn't change the truth or falsehood of anything I say here.

I appreciate your introspection about some of the shortcomings of mopologetics. I am confused by your reply to that, which is essentially to say "yes we have our shortcomings, but you are an anonymous lamer who abandoned your faith and descended to the depths of the pit and cannot understand anymore why we faithful Mormons believe what we believe". What kind of response is that?

[_Darth J]

Someday, Odin will send the Valkyries to bring Yahoo Bot to Valhalla as a reward for his faithfulness in battle.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Someday, Odin will send the Valkyries to bring Yahoo Bot to Valhalla as a reward for his faithfulness in battle.

I will go out swinging with my name and face known to my opponents. Most here cannot do that.

[_Buffalo]

Someday, Odin will send the Valkyries to bring Yahoo Bot to Valhalla as a reward for his faithfulness in battle.

I will go out swinging with my name and face known to my opponents. Most here cannot do that.

Your Quixotic obsession with making your in real life name known is hilarious.