Most Frequent Book of Abraham Assertion

[_Analytics]

On the MDD board, somebody claimed the following:

For almost half a century, critics have asserted that Joseph Smith believed that the Book of Abraham was a translation of an Egyptian text commonly called the “Book of Breathings.” This two-minute-long video presentation explains the basic elements of the argument: Abraham Manuscripts Explanation

This is probably the assertion most frequently made by Mormon critics. It is the underlying assumption of much of what the critic writes in the post I linked above. But the assertion is without merit, as I demonstrated in my 2010 presentation entitled The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers (links below for those interested).

Why is the argument false? Because the Abraham Manuscripts that contain characters from the Book of Breathings in the left column were produced AFTER the original translation of the Book of Abraham. They are not the “original translation manuscripts” of the Book of Abraham.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/560 ... ntroversy/

Two questions. First, is this a fair representation of the critics standard argument? At best, it's a bizzare way to phrase it. Critics claim that is what Joseph himself believed? Really?

Second, does the order in which the Abraham Manuscripts and the Book of Abraham "translation" were produced have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not the Book of Abraham is a purported/believed/failed/fraudulent translation of the Egyptian text known as the Book of Breathings?

[_Doctor Scratch]

This is just part of the Mopologists' attempts to explain away the KEP. The critics' main argument, all along, has simply been that the Book of Abraham is not an accurate translation of the papyri. That's it, really. Will, Maklelan and others are trying very hard to build a case in favor of some mysterious "Q Document," but their theories have been blown to pieces again and again.

[_bcspace]

That's it, really. Will, Maklelan and others are trying very hard to build a case in favor of some mysterious "Q Document," but their theories have been blown to pieces again and again.

I don't know about that, but my own defense is virtually unassailable and remains looming on the horizon if indeed you guys are able to get past the other ones. The problem is that critics typically ignore other plausible possibilities and still can't account for the missing papyri.

[_Darth J]

That's it, really. Will, Maklelan and others are trying very hard to build a case in favor of some mysterious "Q Document," but their theories have been blown to pieces again and again.

I don't know about that, but my own defense is virtually unassailable and remains looming on the horizon if indeed you guys are able to get past the other ones. The problem is that critics typically ignore other plausible possibilities and still can't account for the missing papyri.

bcspace---

The missing papyrus theory is based on the concession that the papyri that have been found do not translate into the Book of Abraham.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the missing papyri theory has been proven.

Without resorting to circular reasoning, please explain a factual basis from which anyone could reasonably infer that the Book of Abraham would have been on these missing papyri book-ended by pagan Egyptian funerary texts.

Also, without resorting to circular reasoning, please explain a factual basis for why anyone should find it plausible that the ancient Egyptians took an illustrated story of Abraham teaching Mormonism to a negro Pharaoh and used the same drawings and the same written characters to turn this ancient gospel record into a pagan funerary text.

[_Darth J]

I don't know about that, but my own defense is virtually unassailable and remains looming on the horizon if indeed you guys are able to get past the other ones.

That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

The reason why your "defenses" have been and always will be "unassailable" is that you consistently rely on naked, ad hoc assertions. You have never made a prima facie case for the plausibility of a single one of your various "theories" about how LDS mythology can be reconciled with objective reality.

[_bcspace]

The missing papyrus theory is based on the concession that the papyri that have been found do not translate into the Book of Abraham.

I don't see why that has to be the case, especially in the case of the facsimile or in light of the possibility that an analog of the Book of Abraham translation could be something like the JST.

That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

My point exactly. The critics ultimately have no proof against. It's like trying to prove or disprove the existence of God in the atheist sense. Neither can be done.

[_Darth J]

The missing papyrus theory is based on the concession that the papyri that have been found do not translate into the Book of Abraham.

I don't see why that has to be the case, especially in the case of the facsimile or in light of the possibility that an analog of the Book of Abraham translation could be something like the JST.

If the existing papyri are accurately translated as the Book of Abraham, then there is no necessity to talk about missing papyri. The missing papyri theory is superfluous at that point.

That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

My point exactly. The critics ultimately have no proof against. It's like trying to prove or disprove the existence of God in the atheist sense. Neither can be done.

Atheists---which do not include me---do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to believe in God. On that basis, it is perfectly logical and reasonable to reject a belief in God. Failure of proof is a valid basis to reject any proposition.

"Critics" do not need proof against the Book of Abraham. There is no reason to believe, as asserted by the LDS Church, that the papyri obtained by Joseph Smith from a traveling showman were accurately translated as the Book of Abraham. The Church is making the claim, so the Church has the burden of proof.

Endlessly pulling unsubstantiated, ad hoc "possibilities" out of thin air does not make the case for why someone should believe a given proposition. When you are ready to explain a factual basis as to why anyone should believe that the Book of Abraham is what the LDS Church claims it is, feel free to do so.

And by the way, you have no proof against the possibility that Brigham Young was Joseph Smith's homosexual lover.

[_Cardinal Biggles]

And by the way, you have no proof against the possibility that Brigham Young was Joseph Smith's homosexual lover.

Hm... Brigham is said to have called out Joseph's name from his bed...

[_CaliforniaKid]

Two questions. First, is this a fair representation of the critics standard argument? At best, it's a bizzare way to phrase it. Critics claim that is what Joseph himself believed? Really?

To say it's what Joseph "claimed" would be a less loaded term. But yes, many of us would say he "believed" it, as well.

Second, does the order in which the Abraham Manuscripts and the Book of Abraham "translation" were produced have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not the Book of Abraham is a purported/believed/failed/fraudulent translation of the Egyptian text known as the Book of Breathings?

Well, the argument the apologists want to make is that the English translation was produced first, by direct inspiration, and then the (mis-)matching of the Egyptian characters to English text was a speculative mistake made later as part of an effort to reverse-engineer the Egyptian language. This still leaves a lot of questions for apologists to answer, such as how a prophet could possibly make such a grievous mistake, and how one could possibly derive the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar from the Book of Abraham without some additional input from inspiration. But these difficulties are easier for the apologists to live with than if the direction of dependence was the other way around. In that case, the EAG has to be recognized as an inspired document, and the matching of the characters to the English text has to have been part of the revelatory process. Basically this whole line of argument is an attempt at damage control.

And a misguided one, at that. I described here the logic of William's direction-of-dependence argument, and some reasons I find that argument problematic. Another problem with the argument was notedhere. And completely apart from the problems with Will's own analysis is his failure to deal with the substantive arguments for the opposite direction of dependence, which I and others have made in published papers and around the Internet.

[_jon]

bcspace, I have a theory that facsimilie number 2 is actually an ancient version of a Sears catalogue. It displays items that are available for purchase and their corresponding price. Now I know that modern translation techniques don't support my theory but there is a chance that they are all wrong and I am right.

It has the same unassailable possibility as your theory and Joseph Smith's theory, about the meaning of facsimilie 2.