about Kevin and George's argument with Wade on the EA/GAEL

[_Fence Sitter]

I really think the apologists have done a smashing job here. I mean, here we are, discussing KEP/GAEL/WTF relationships when the real issue should be that the fact that Joseph couldn't translate a single word of Egyptian. Now that's how you do misdirection.

Precisely. Misdirection has been the goal ever since the papyri resurfaced in the sixties. The facsimiles are really all you need to know.

Maybe it is not so much a misdirection as it is a retreat. There no longer seems to be any way to defend it as a translation. Now the only defense left is that it is inspired. To do that it has to predate the KEP or at a minimum have nothing to do with the KEP. If you can separate it from any physical evidence then it becomes a revealed text.

[_Sethbag]

Yeah, or perhaps he was just glad that he/they seemed to have gotten away with it (the Book of Mormon), and it seemed best not to draw too much attention to it or something.

I think it's highly likely that a guy like Joseph Smith can compartmentalize extremely well. I mean, if we accept a "pious fraud" kind of explanation for the Book of Abraham, where Joseph has read "Antiquities of Freemasonry" and whatever other previous works discussed Abraham's travels in Egypt, and he has these Egyptian documents with characters on them, and his imagination runs wild, he might actually have thought the records must have to do with Abraham. That's the "believer" compartment. But he was still making crap up. That's the "charlatan" compartment. That both could be in full operation in Joseph's life is something hard for us non-charlatans to comprehend. But if that's the way it was, then I think it behooves us to understand it better.

I'm really liking the pious fraud theory more and more as time goes on. I think it explains the things Joseph did and said that seem genuine and sincere, while at the same time he's out screwing around behind Emma's back, lying to all and sundry, getting peoples' money, inventing new scripture in the name of the Lord, etc.

[_Buffalo]

Maybe it is not so much a misdirection as it is a retreat. There no longer seems to be any way to defend it as a translation. Now the only defense left is that it is inspired. To do that it has to predate the KEP or at a minimum have nothing to do with the KEP. If you can separate it from any physical evidence then it becomes a revealed text.

I suppose in the Church of FAIR that makes sense. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, the Book of Abraham was translated from Egyptian papyrus.

[_Fence Sitter]

I suppose in the Church of FAIR that makes sense. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, the Book of Abraham was translated from Egyptian papyrus.

True but today's Fair scholarship is tomorrow's correlated material. Just look at the 'head in the hat' thing. 65 years ago it was blasphemy, now it is a shrug of the shoulders. I really think that not many will leave the Church if, over time, it moves away from the Book of Abraham as a translation of actual documents as that is normally interpreted. Having a public discussion about it like what is going on will help that transition. I mean look at how the Church views the word 'translation' when it comes to Joseph Smith. Besides if you disassociate the Book of Abraham from the KEP you can say he, and/or his misguided scribes, were trying a secular translation of the papyri and failed and still keep the Book of Abraham inspired. It does not have to be plausible, it just has to be possible.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I suppose in the Church of FAIR that makes sense. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, the Book of Abraham was translated from Egyptian papyrus.

True but today's Fair scholarship is tomorrow's correlated material. Just look at the 'head in the hat' thing. 65 years ago it was blasphemy, now it is a shrug of the shoulders. I really think that not many will leave the Church if, over time, it moves away from the Book of Abraham as a translation of actual documents as that is normally interpreted. Having a public discussion about it like what is going on will help that transition. I mean look at how the Church views the word 'translation' when it comes to Joseph Smith. Besides if you disassociate the Book of Abraham from the KEP you can say he, and/or his misguided scribes, were trying a secular translation of the papyri and failed and still keep the Book of Abraham inspired. It does not have to be plausible, it just has to be possible.

I've yet to see "head in the hat" thing be widely known or accepted among the average church-goer. For them it's still literal translation and Urim and Thummim. The average Mormon is too busy with church assignments to even care about this stuff.

[_harmony]

The average Mormon is too busy with church assignments to even care about this stuff.

This is the absolute truth.

[_Fence Sitter]

I've yet to see "head in the hat" thing be widely known or accepted among the average church-goer. For them it's still literal translation and Urim and Thummim.

I have had several conversations with friends and family over the last few years where I have mentioned it. The reaction I am getting is mostly a shrug of the shoulders from those that did not know. Those that did, like my 82 year old mother did not have a clear understaning of how the hat was used. I think that LDS people are more open to uncomfortable aspects of Mormon history now then they were 60 years ago and I think this is partially a result of LDS apologetics. I also think those who are aware of 'the head in the hat" translation process, may still hold on to a U&T being used in some way, especially if you consider the U&T as a description of an item(s) being used to translate rather than a unique item. In other words the original U&T (breastplate and glasses found in the box with the Book of Mormon) and was returned to Moroni after the lost 116 pages and Joseph Smith Jr's old peep stones then became a U&T inside his hat.

The average Mormon is too busy with church assignments to even care about this stuff.

I agree but I think that is changing as Mormonism becomes more widely known in the outside world. It will be interesting to see how much more exposure stuff like this gets if Romney gets the presidential nomination.

[_Infymus]

I've yet to see "head in the hat" thing be widely known or accepted among the average church-goer. For them it's still literal translation and Urim and Thummim. The average Mormon is too busy with church assignments to even care about this stuff.

And you have the apologists like Peterson smugly stating that it is the average church-goer's fault for not knowing these things.

Someone should do a curriculum breakdown someday. From the core that comes out of the COB, down to the fringes. Kinda like start with the chapel Mormon and go down to Internet Mormon in the knowledge area.

Busy busy busy. The cult keeps the members busy. Too busy to stop, pause and wonder about such nonsense.

[_Fence Sitter]

And you have the apologists like Peterson smugly stating that it is the average church-goer's fault for not knowing these things.

Someone should do a curriculum breakdown someday. From the core that comes out of the COB, down to the fringes. Kinda like start with the chapel Mormon and go down to Internet Mormon in the knowledge area.

Busy busy busy. The cult keeps the members busy. Too busy to stop, pause and wonder about such nonsense.

While I know apologist that will make that claim, I have seen Dan say that the church needs to do a better job teaching its members its own history. Wasn't he the one that took a lot of heat for writing an article or making a presentation about the "face in hat" process?

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

While I know apologist that will make that claim, I have seen Dan say that the church needs to do a better job teaching its members its own history.

This would be much easier to believe if P weren't ON the curriculum committee.