Zub Zool oan and Abraham 1:2b?????3

[_Paul Osborne]

I don't appreciate that tone at all, Paul, and I'll not participate on this board if this comment isn't removed by you or someone else.

edited by harmony

Paul O

[_Kevin Graham]

Hey Dan, I won't have time to respond until later, but do you think maybe we should move this discussion to the celestial forum?

Not sure if you're familiar with how this board is set up, but the three levels correspond to what is and isn't tolerated.

Paul, put a muzzle on it and save it for telestial. I don't want anyone running off Dan.

[_maklelan]

Hey Dan, I won't have time to respond until later, but do you think maybe we should move this discussion to the celestial forum?

Not sure if you're familiar with how this board is set up, but the three levels correspond to what is and isn't tolerated.

Paul, put a muzzle on it and save it for telestial. I don't want anyone running off Dan.

Happily. Give me a couple days to consolidate my thoughts and I'll repost my points in the other forum.

[_Paul Osborne]

Why is Dan such a wussy? God, Ok then. I'll go.

Jesus.

Paul O

[_maklelan]

I appreciate it.

[_beastie]

Right now I'm only interested in which text is dependent on which.

Ok. It seems that many other defenders of the faith have quite a bit more invested in this issue.

So you're saying that uninformed impulses are the best gauge of truth?

Of course not. I have no idea how you twisted my words to mean such. I am saying that believers who are sincerely troubled by the Book of Abraham issue aren't going to find much comfort in Will's theory.

But this presumes to know what my perspective was in the first place (as well as what it should be).

I apologize for over-generalizing, but the hyperbole that preceded and followed Will's theory seem to indicate a loss of perspective, in my view. By all the hullabaloo, you'd think the "real" papryi were found and were an exact match.

Guess how many people were interested in my master's thesis and how long they've studied the relevant primary texts? Fewer people, and they've studied it for decades longer than anyone here has studied the KEP. This project is a step toward the mainstream for me, so save your sermonizing.

I'm sure your master thesis generates respectful interest. I'm less sure that the majority of LDS believers have even heard of the KEP.

Why are you so bothered by this?

Who said I'm bothered by it?

[_beastie]

No, we haven’t. We understand precisely what is at stake.

I find this a fascinating comment.

What, precisely, is at stake in this issue?

[_Trevor]

No, we haven’t. We understand precisely what is at stake.

I find this a fascinating comment.

What, precisely, is at stake in this issue?

I'm interested in this too. Other than arguing that the KEP do not show the world exactly how far from translating Egyptian in the conventional sense that Joseph was, and thus leaving the Book of Abraham slightly more open to criticism on the grounds that the translation process was bizarre, I see little to gain apologetically speaking from this argument. I see something there of fairly minor historical significance, but little else. Still, the historical significance, however minor, would still be more substantial than the apologetic significance.

I suppose it is nice to be able to redraw the pall of mystery over Joseph Smith's revelatory process. Perhaps the messiness of revelation as represented in the KEP would be too much for the practical minds of modern LDS folk. Much better to say that these documents are nothing much more than a relatively insignificant side project that soaked up five months of Joseph Smith's time but got little or nowhere. In this light they are a sort of shoulder-shrugging, whaddaya-know curiosity for most people to pass over, excepting a few very dedicated scholars and historians.

[_maklelan]

Of course not. I have no idea how you twisted my words to mean such. I am saying that believers who are sincerely troubled by the Book of Abraham issue aren't going to find much comfort in Will's theory.

Would you rather Will's theory twisted the facts to make people with little understanding of the history of the church more comfortable? Can you imagine how much more you'd be getting on his case?

I apologize for over-generalizing, but the hyperbole that preceded and followed Will's theory seem to indicate a loss of perspective, in my view. By all the hullabaloo, you'd think the "real" papryi were found and were an exact match.

I'm new to this discussion, so I don't know about any hullabaloo, but given the way people on this board are responding to my analysis, it's obviously a big deal to some people.

I'm sure your master thesis generates respectful interest. I'm less sure that the majority of LDS believers have even heard of the KEP.

It generates interest in the relevant fields, just as KEP scholarship does. Your criticism seems to be the result of little more than a desire to antagonize.

Who said I'm bothered by it?

You seem rather animated by the notion that someone would want to produce this kind of scholarship. Either you just want to antagonize or something deeper is bothering you.

[_Trevor]

You seem rather animated by the notion that someone would want to produce this kind of scholarship. Either you just want to antagonize or something deeper is bothering you.

This scholarship comes at the long end of a history of criticism of Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham and the various apologetic responses. That the apologetic has been reduced to trying to divorce the translation process from the KEP is actually the result of criticism. Now, it is fine to say that your interest is primarily scholarly, but to suggest that the history of the problem as batted around by critics and apologists was dominated by issues largely unrelated to matters of faith is inaccurate and misleading.

What beastie observes is worth taking note of. Taken in the context of the entire discussion, the current focus looks very much like an apologetic retreat or diversion. It is not that the question is not of some historical interest, because it is. It is that it is clearly situated as the latest apologetic response, while its value as an apologetic is extremely narrow, if not negligible.

From where I sit, it looks like the catalyst theory is prevailing, that there is no serious attempt to defend the notion that Joseph could translate Egyptian, and thus the missing scroll theory, which I saw as practically indefensible, is really beside the point.

In short, one either accepts the Book of Abraham as scripture on faith and spiritual witness, or one does not. But there is little doubt that the papyri, the KEP, and the rest, provide the Book of Abraham precious little in the way of a tangible connection with antiquity. Now, in the history of LDS apologetics, that realization is no small event.