"don't embarrass yourself by asking about metallurgy..."

[_Shulem]

Chap, sure there is. What Joseph Smith was shown was the origin story - which was written down by Abraham (including depictions). However, the Egyptians had no reason to preserve that story as it was (nor the depictions). That is the mistake Joseph Smith made and what he did not realize.

TOBIN is trying to tell you what Joseph Smith was shown? Where is the Mighty Builder when you need him: "You don't know that, Nobody knows for sure, You weren't there".

Let me tell you what was SHOWN to Joseph Smith and declared to be revelation as a whole. Read the Times & Seasons. That is what was givin to the church by the authority of the First Presidency through the direction of the holy priesthood. It's not for apostates like Tobin to tell Joseph Smith what he was shown when clearly Joseph Smith showed what he was shown.

Tobin may now stick his head back in the sand where it belongs. What a dope.

Paul O

[_Tobin]

Could you go over that again more slowly? Here are some questions that might help clarify what you mean:
1. Do you think that any parts of the present Book of Abraham represent revelation from the LDS deity?
2. If yes to (1), which parts are revelation, and which not?
3. If yes to 1, how do you, Tobin, decide which parts are which?
4. Are you saying that the Egyptians completely failed to transmit any part of the Book of Abraham?
I am quite confused as to what your position could possibly be, even on the methodological basis of maximum charity.

Obviously.
It isn't revelation. It is an origin story and depictions written by Abraham. They were adapted (changed) by the Egyptians to reflect their stories and mythos. The Egyptians were pagans and had no reason to maintain Abraham's account nor his depictions. If any part of the original survived in the copy, it would be virtually unrecognizable from the original other than perhaps some major themes like the altar in the depiction.
The mistake apologists and Joseph Smith made is they believe a number of false premises here:
1) Joseph Smith had an ability to read or understand Egyptian. He did not and whatever he could discern from the papyrus had to be shown him by God.
2) That the papyrus was written by Abraham or was a true copy of what Abraham had written and depicted. That is complete non-sense and there is no reason the pagan Egyptians would do so.
3) That the Lord had a duty to inform Joseph Smith about what he was looking at. That is also false. The Lord didn't give the papyrus to Joseph Smith and Joseph Smith needed to ask the questions and drive the translation. Being human and making understandable, but poor assumptions, is part of our nature and what Joseph Smith is guilty of here.
4) Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and therefore perfect. Hardly. He often thought a lot of himself and his abilities to translate and identify places. The Lord was often chastising him for his pride and arrogance. Also, many of his practices were uninspried (such as looking at seer stones). The Lord used Joseph Smith despite those failings to achieve his purposes.

[_Chap]

Tobin's position is a neat variation on Tertullian:

Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.
— (De Carne Christi V, 4)

"The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsuitable.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."

It's this kind of thing that makes Mormonism such an interesting phenomenon.

(PS: I still think it isn't true, though).

I don't agree. He is not saying that it is the absurdity that makes it true. He is saying that it is the revelation of its truth that makes it true. Those are two very different things.

Maybe I should have been more explicit: I certainly don't think Tobin is playing the same game as Tertullian. But I do think that his "God deliberately made it incredible, so you would have to ask him if it is true" tactic could reasonably be described as an adaptation of the previous tactic.

In both cases the total implausibility is an essential element in the movement towards belief. For Tertullian, belief follows directly from implausibility. For Tobin, the implausibility leads you to belief after passing through a further stage.

[_Chap]

DELETED. I may try again later. I still do not understand what Tobin is claiming in his Book of Abraham post.

Can anybody else help?

[_Kishkumen]

Maybe I should have been more explicit: I certainly don't think Tobin is playing the same game as Tertullian. But I do think that his "God deliberately made it incredible, so you would have to ask him if it is true" tactic could reasonably be described as an adaptation of the previous tactic.

In both cases the total implausibility is an essential element in the movement towards belief. For Tertullian, belief follows directly from implausibility. For Tobin, the implausibility leads you to belief after passing through a further stage.

I see where you are going. I should say that if your representation of Tobin's statement is accurate, then I don't completely agree with Tobin's statement. I rather think that it is the case that, at least in the first instance, religious claims need to have an air of plausibility, otherwise why ask God about them in the first place? The air of plausibility has to be connected to the unverifiable stretch in such a way as to prompt the inquiry in the first place.

[_Tobin]

I see where you are going. I should say that if your representation of Tobin's statement is accurate, then I don't completely agree with Tobin's statement. I rather think that it is the case that, at least in the first instance, religious claims need to have an air of plausibility, otherwise why ask God about them in the first place? The air of plausibility has to be connected to the unverifiable stretch in such a way as to prompt the inquiry in the first place.

The "air of plausibility" is there is no good reason that God has ceased to speak with us. My view of Mormonism is to kick start people into having those conversations. I really don't care what people determine about Mormonism as a result of that either. I, myself, don't believe many major themes taught by modern Mormonism like men can become God or Gods and so on. That isn't the Lord's intent either I believe, but instead for us to speak directly with him.

[_Kishkumen]

The "air of plausibility" is there is no good reason that God has ceased to speak with us. My view of Mormonism is to kick start people into having those conversations. I really don't care what people determine about Mormonism as a result of that either. I, myself, don't believe many major themes taught by modern Mormonism like men can become God or Gods and so on. That isn't the Lord's intent either I believe, but instead for us to speak directly with him.

I see what you are saying. Certainly that was our beginning point with investigators as missionaries. The Question. Wouldn't God speak through prophets today? Answer: Yes.

My take on the whole apotheosis thing is that it should be read more as spiritual enlightenment. Obviously that is not exactly how Smith et al. saw it, but I really don't get into the who divine building franchise model wherein I go off somewhere to open up a new client kingdom of Elohim's intergalactic colonization empire.

[_Shulem]

DELETED. I may try again later. I still do not understand what Tobin is claiming in his Book of Abraham post.

Can anybody else help?

Sorry to say but he is as confused and distorted as they can possibly get. Joseph Smith would not have tolerated him but would have excommunicated him on the spot for his speaking out against the prophet/priesthood authority and the revelations of the church.

Paul O

[_Chap]

Could you go over that again more slowly? Here are some questions that might help clarify what you mean:
1. Do you think that any parts of the present Book of Abraham represent revelation from the LDS deity?
2. If yes to (1), which parts are revelation, and which not?
3. If yes to 1, how do you, Tobin, decide which parts are which?
4. Are you saying that the Egyptians completely failed to transmit any part of the Book of Abraham?
I am quite confused as to what your position could possibly be, even on the methodological basis of maximum charity.

Obviously.
It isn't revelation. It is an origin story and depictions written by Abraham. They were adapted (changed) by the Egyptians to reflect their stories and mythos. The Egyptians were pagans and had no reason to maintain Abraham's account nor his depictions. If any part of the original survived in the copy, it would be virtually unrecognizable from the original other than perhaps some major themes like the altar in the depiction.
The mistake apologists and Joseph Smith made is they believe a number of false premises here:
1) Joseph Smith had an ability to read or understand Egyptian. He did not and whatever he could discern from the papyrus had to be shown him by God.
2) That the papyrus was written by Abraham or was a true copy of what Abraham had written and depicted. That is complete non-sense and there is no reason the pagan Egyptians would do so.
3) That the Lord had a duty to inform Joseph Smith about what he was looking at. That is also false. The Lord didn't give the papyrus to Joseph Smith and Joseph Smith needed to ask the questions and drive the translation. Being human and making understandable, but poor assumptions, is part of our nature and what Joseph Smith is guilty of here.
4) Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and therefore perfect. Hardly. He often thought a lot of himself and his abilities to translate and identify places. The Lord was often chastising him for his pride and arrogance. Also, many of his practices were uninspried (such as looking at seer stones). The Lord used Joseph Smith despite those failings to achieve his purposes.

Here is my attempt to get further in understanding Tobin's position. I think I need specific answers to these questions:

1. Which parts, if any, of the Book of Abraham as presently canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, contain the "origin story and depictions written by Abraham"? If there are parts of the present canonized Book of Abraham that are not from Abraham, where do those parts come from?

2. How were those parts, if any, which contain the "origin story and depictions written by Abraham" transmitted to Joseph Smith - by revelation from God? If not, how?

3. What is the role of the papyrus in the transmission to Joseph Smith of the "origin story and depictions written by Abraham"? Was it necessary to that transmission taking place, and if so how?

[_Kishkumen]

Chap, those are interesting questions. I would say that the act of coming up with a culturally significant story in connection with the recovery of some ancient artifact is itself an ancient tradition. I don't think there is any connection between what Joseph Smith produced and the history of an Abraham who lived in the second millennium BCE.