Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
Fence Sitter
High Councilman
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:02 am

Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

Post by Fence Sitter »

hauslern wrote:
Sun Jul 30, 2023 7:47 pm
Ben is giving me a headache He latest contribution on the MAD board

"1: In their original context, I don't think that there was anything to do with Abraham on the papyri. I think that we could speculate endlessly about why Joseph Smith connected the papyri to Abraham - but, once he did so, he repurposed the material and images to a new purpose."

Does anyone make sense of this?

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75 ... /#comments
Ben is acknowledging what anyone who is not a BYU Egyptologist or fan of them, already knows or is willing to say, the papyri say nothing about Abraham and Smith didn't know how to translate any foreign language. He does not want to guess why Smith said the papyri was connected for obvious reasons. All rational explanations challenge Smiths roll as a prophetic translator as currently believed by the faithful and lead to even more uncomfortable conclusions.

Faithful scholars publicly saying this stuff represents a big move away from legacy of Hugh Nibley. I am seeing more and more of such admissions regarding Smiths actual ability to translate.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 7986
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

Post by Moksha »

Rewriting the story to take out the embarrassing parts and then pretending like the original never existed sounds both underhanded and an example of effective apologetics.

Faithful scholars publicly saying this stuff represents a big move away from legacy of Hugh Nibley.
Nibley was under the impression that what he said might actually be true. Now that apologists realize it was all made up, it is time to remove the most glaring examples of its falsity. Keep them yelling their devotion and paying tithing as long as possible. Some new dodge will come along to prop everything up.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7630
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

Post by Shulem »

Excellent comments from the BYP on his live podcast:

Today's Apologetic on the Book of Abraham
Marcus
God
Posts: 6780
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

Post by Marcus »

McGuire, at MDD board, wrote: ...Here is the challenge - your frustration is over discrepancies between the various explanations and descriptions that the LDS Church has offered over time, and what you perceive as the reality. At this stage in my life, I have no interest in discussing what frustrates you. I have no interest in defending the Church on these points - other than to point out that I think that there are reasonable explanations for the narrative that the Church presented and the way that it changed (even if I don't agree with the reasons, and even if I don't agree with the explanations or narratives). I have three interests -

1: I am interested in the way that early Mormonism produced scripture. There are a lot of facets to this - but my interested is rooted in contextualizing the claims about the production of that scripture (in this case the translations) within my post-structuralist and post-modernist worldview. To this end, I am interested, for example, in discussing how the process of translation (of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham) function in terms of communicative acts. I am interested in how the language of the texts reflects the potential for being a translation. If you have read my presentation (that I linked earlier) you would see where Skousen and I have very different views of certain aspects of the process for these texts and what the implications of those aspects are. In particular, I am interested in the difference that it makes for us to understand Joseph as a reader and not as an author of translation. This is part of the reason why I engaged this thread.

2: I am interested in the history of the narrative. That is, I am interested in how the discussion about the translation of the texts changes over time. It is fascinating to me, for example, that our dialogue in the LDS Church about translation of scripture shifts dramatically around the beginning of the 20th century with the widespread introduction of higher criticism injected into that translation process. Part of what fascinates me is how the LDS Church reverses its position in some ways about what makes a translation good or reliable. In particular, I am highly interested in the ways in which the descriptions about the translations and the texts are appropriated from other contexts and other texts - and the way that these ideas, once presented, spread and influence later discourse in the LDS Church.

3: I am interested in the purely philosophical questions about meaning and the way that we read.

So, we get to this discussion. You wanted, I think, to have a discussion about the Church's role in getting people to believe something that wasn't accurate - and how Skousen's perspective runs counter to much of what the LDS Church has taught over the past century about translation. I don't disagree with this. And at the same time it isn't of any interest to me. I would never have engaged if I had understood that issue. Don't get me wrong, I can sympathize with people who are left trying to understand how they should feel about these kinds of discrepancies. I just don't have the patience for it. I also don't have a lot of patience for people who want to insist that the Church's view on translation has been a monolithic view since the very beginning. This doesn't fit with the history that we have available to us now. Finally, it was irritating in that I recognized that there was a gap between what you were talking about and what I was talking about - and when I asked you, you suggested that I was merely being an apologist trying to reframe the issue. This wasn't my goal - it was an attempt to discover where (if anywhere) we had compatible foundations from which to discuss...
Wow. I have wondered how apologists deal with the issues. They 'have no interest in what frustrates' others. and this--this is just surreal:

"I have no interest in defending the Church on these points - other than to point out that I think that there are reasonable explanations for the narrative that the Church presented and the way that it changed (even if I don't agree with the reasons, and even if I don't agree with the explanations or narratives)."


They simply have "no interest" in defending what they don't agree with, but they still see Smith as a reader of translation, not the author. Well, except for the Book of Abraham because we have the papyrus and we know he didn't correctly "read" a translation.

Good thing we don't still have the gold plates or we might have to conclude Smith didn't accurately "read" that "translation" either!! And then of course we could handwave that issue away by simply having no interest in defending the LDS church's position.

What a way to compartmentalize.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 9329
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

Post by Kishkumen »

Doctor Steuss wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2023 10:12 pm
I really like Ben, and the way he approaches issues. I wish he would post here more.
Ditto for me.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7630
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Mormon Liars

Post by Shulem »

Apologists are now saying that the Facsimiles were appropriated and repurposed by Joseph Smith in order to assist in giving representation for the meaning of something that took place in the past.

When Smith learned about the true nature of Anubis in Facsimile No. 3 he ordered Hedlock to hack off the nose so that he could appropriate and repurpose a new meaning to the person in the vignette. It was all for the purpose of covering a lie and that is what Mormons today are doing, covering lies!

You're a liar, Skousen! You too, McGuire. Both of you are just as disgusting as Joseph Smith was. Get thee hence! Thou liars!

Anubis in Facsimile No. 3 and Mormon Deception

Image
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 9329
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

Post by Kishkumen »

I like Ben McGuire, and I don't think he should be treated like the average LDS apologist. Ben is a very thoughtful, interesting, intelligent, and scholarly guy with a testimony of Mormonism's truth. He generally does not go in for attacking and insulting critics or making fun of members who struggle with their faith. When he says he is not interested in defending the Church where it got things wrong, I believe him, and I don't think he should be on the hook to do things that he never signed up for, although I think I understand where that expectation comes from. In fact, the things he is interested in are the things I am interested in. If progress is to be made in understanding what the Book of Abraham in fact is, those are the questions that need answering, and those answers can be sought by believers and non-believers alike. The endless cycle of controversy over failed explanations and dashed expectations is understandable, but it will go absolutely nowhere in helping people understand the text itself.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7630
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

Post by Shulem »

Kishkumen wrote:
Mon Jul 31, 2023 2:54 pm
I like Ben McGuire, and I don't think he should be treated like the average LDS apologist. Ben is a very thoughtful, interesting, intelligent, and scholarly guy with a testimony of Mormonism's truth. He generally does not go in for attacking and insulting critics or making fun of members who struggle with their faith. When he says he is not interested in defending the Church where it got things wrong, I believe him, and I don't think he should be on the hook to do things that he never signed up for, although I think I understand where that expectation comes from. In fact, the things he is interested in are the things I am interested in. If progress is to be made in understanding what the Book of Abraham in fact is, those are the questions that need answering, and those answers can be sought by believers and non-believers alike. The endless cycle of controversy over failed explanations and dashed expectations is understandable, but it will go absolutely nowhere in helping people understand the text itself.

Dear Kish,

Being thoughtful, interesting, and intelligent doesn't get someone off the hook for lying. McGuire is a faithful Mormon whose interest is to see people join his church and embrace Mormon scripture and revelation. Mormon scripture also includes chapter one of the Book of Abraham which surely McGuire knows is a false narrative in *how* and *when* Egypt was founded. Do you honestly think that McGuire is stoopid enough to think that Egypt was founded by a woman who offboarded Noah's ark in 2400 BC only to wander a great distance in order to discover a new land called Egyptus Egypt?

I think McGuire is a liar. Let him come here and prove otherwise. I'll squeeze him...

:x
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 7986
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Mormon Liars

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Jul 31, 2023 2:53 pm
Apologists are now saying that the Facsimiles were appropriated and repurposed by Joseph Smith in order to assist in giving representation for the meaning of something that took place in the past.
So apologists are now claiming that chiseling out Anubis's snout is a definition of translate since it means "to alter"? This is not their fanciest lying, but until the First Presidency issues a written cease and desist it will serve as their substitute for honesty.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7630
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

Post by Shulem »

Marcus wrote:
Mon Jul 31, 2023 2:16 pm
Good thing we don't still have the gold plates or we might have to conclude Smith didn't accurately "read" that "translation" either!! And then of course we could handwave that issue away by simply having no interest in defending the LDS church's position.

Oh but we have the Broadside which the Church published in 1844 to reference the Book of Mormon reformed hieroglyphics:

Image
Post Reply