Gnat Straining and the Apologist

[_Drifting]

This is still opinion based on no evidence. Sure it's not hard to see that Joseph didn't understand Egyptian. He was making it up. What we don't see is any evidence that Joseph claimed he didn't know Egyptian, and the numbers thing in the facsimile is not Joseph stating he doesn't understand them. It also doesn't show Joseph thought at any time the papyri was not the source of the Book of Abraham which is something you did state.

There is strong evidence that Joseph totally believed the source of the Book of Abraham was the papyri....

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)

LDS Scriptural canon

[_Tobin]

This is still opinion based on no evidence. Sure it's not hard to see that Joseph didn't understand Egyptian. He was making it up. What we don't see is any evidence that Joseph claimed he didn't know Egyptian, and the numbers thing in the facsimile is not Joseph stating he doesn't understand them. It also doesn't show Joseph thought at any time the papyri was not the source of the Book of Abraham which is something you did state.

Again, an opinion shared by Ashment and Nibley.

Ashment states, "...the prophet cannot be held responsible for establishing a relationship between the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham when he may not have been sure about it himself." (p. 44)

All you are doing is dismissing my view because it reflects Ashments and Nibleys view of Joseph Smith's subsequent statements and actions. You state it is just their opinion. Well guess what, so is your position. It is just your opinion. The strawman you have often setup here is that Joseph Smith could read Egyptian Hierography, was aiming at scholaist accuracy, and was emphatic that the papyri being the source to the Book of Abraham. Clearly that something that neither Ashment or Nibley concluded more than 20 years ago when reviewing the whole of the matter.

I'll just quote Ashment's summary
"Moreover, it seems that scholastic accuracy was not one of the prophet's goals, while one of his overriding concerns was an 'urgency' to disseminate important ideas, even before the obvious grammar and spelling errors had been corrected. Indeed, to him the processes of translation had very limited relationships to manuscripts and dictionary meanings. They [had] much to do with the basic ideas and doctrinal relevance to a modern world. Those who are trying to destroy his reputation by criticizing him about details concerning which he was not especially anxious are in effect erecting a straw man and then knocking it down. It is his message, not his method which concerned the prophet. If he is to be judged, therefore, it should not be for his methodology; it is the value if his work which should be determined." (p. 44)

Your view is that because Joseph Smith was initially mistaken about the papyri, so he couldn't have been a prophet. Even if his view changed over time. You believe that Mormons must maintain the position that Joseph Smith could read Egyptian Hierogrpahy even when Ashment and Nibley disputed this view over 20 years ago. You believe that subsequent statements and actions by Joseph Smith are inconsequential to his overall understanding of the papyri. All of your forced positions are erroneous and disingenuous. It simply ignores Joseph Smith's human nature, that he would learn things over time, and could be mistaken and corrected over time by the Lord. I believe he was because of his subsequent statements and actions. You disagree. I don't care. That is JUST YOUR OPINION.

[_Samantabhadra]

Tobin, how do you (or how does Ashment/Nibley) account for the fact that the KEP/EAG contains the exact characters on the papyrus, in order, with a paragraph-long explanation next to each that corresponds word for word with the text of the Book of Abraham?

Also, I do not have library access to back issues of Sunstone. If you don't mind typing the whole thing out and uploading it to scribd.com or something, that's great. Otherwise, I don't think it's fair to reference an article that no one can read.

[_Tobin]

Tobin, how do you (or how does Ashment/Nibley) account for the fact that the KEP/EAG contains the exact characters on the papyrus, in order, with a paragraph-long explanation next to each that corresponds word for word with the text of the Book of Abraham?

All of that is just attempts to understand where the revealed text of the Book of Abraham came from by various authors (Phelps, Parrish, Cowdery, and so on). I think it is a mistaken view to conclude that these are translations of the Egyptian Hierography (and I think they are worthless - as did Nibley). All inidications are that none of the people involved possessed any idea what the Egyptian Hierography actually said at all.

Also, I do not have library access to back issues of Sunstone. If you don't mind typing the whole thing out and uploading it to scribd.com or something, that's great. Otherwise, I don't think it's fair to reference an article that no one can read.

I'll see what I can do. I'm trying to access a download of a pdf of this issue of Sunstone that is available on-line and that would save me a lot of typing.

[_Samantabhadra]

All of that is just attempts to understand where the revealed text of the Book of Abraham came from by various authors (Phelps, Parrish, Cowdery, and so on).

Interesting. I was under the impression that the first-hand accounts maintain Joseph wrote the KEP as he dictated the Book of Abraham. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Or am I mistaken?

All inidications are that none of the people involved possessed any idea what the Egyptian Hierography actually said at all.

I think everybody is in agreement about this.

I'll see what I can do. I'm trying to access a download of a pdf of this issue of Sunstone that is available on-line and that would save me a lot of typing.

Many thanks!

[_sleepyhead]

Well, the fact God interacted with Joseph Smith means God isn't done talking to us as many Christians maintain. It also means the Bible isn't the last set of stories about God we are likely to read about. What Mormonism adds to Christianity is worthwhile too. It helps us understand why we exist, why God shows an interest in us, why God is benevolent, and so on. I think those are valuable things.

Hello Tobin,

I believe in in trying express my ideas in the language of the individual I'm communicating with. With that logic in mind my posts with you will be presented with the assumption that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture.

It isn't necesarily the Christian position that God is done talking to us. It is there position that the canon is closed to new scripture. If you go into a Christian bookstore you'll see many modern books. None of these new books will ever be considered scripture but Christians are free to buy and read them. They also believe in a personal relationship with God/Jesus.
In the Book of Mormon if you read Lehi's dream and the later interpretation it teaches to grab hold of the rod of iron. There was a mist that appeared and it caused some people to let go of the rod and they were lost. The rod is identified as the word of God which for Lehi would be the writings of Moses plus perhaps a few of the prophets. In your opinion what was this mist which would cause some people to let go of the rod? I would think it would me new scripture which didn't conform to these earlier writings.
You said Mormonism adds to Christianity but do these added things conform to Genesis through Deuteronomy? If they don't then it is a part of the mist.

Hello drifting,
I'm not a part of the LDS church heirarchy so I don't care if tobias is a tbm or not. He is aparently doing some thinking for himself which I believe is a good thing. If he, at least in the temporary sense wants to believe he is a tbm I don't see why you are making an issue of it, nor why you want to drag me into it. If he wants to claim he's a tbm I'm willing to believe him.

[_Themis]

All you are doing is dismissing my view because it reflects Ashments and Nibleys view of Joseph Smith's subsequent statements and actions.

I am dismissing it due to no evidence for and lots against. Remember your postion is that later on didn't think the papyri as the source of the Book of Abraham. You have yet to provide any evidence for this opinion.

The strawman you have often setup here is that Joseph Smith could read Egyptian Hierography, was aiming at scholaist accuracy, and was emphatic that the papyri being the source to the Book of Abraham.

Not really. Joesph did claim to, but my position is he was making it up. Even if we go with an old position of mine that he could not understand it except through revelation it doesn't work. You still have to many problems. It's the dumb and dumber things again.

Your view is that because Joseph Smith was initially mistaken about the papyri, so he couldn't have been a prophet.

No my view was not Joseph being mistaken but making it up. As a tbm it would have been Joseph is getting his information from God. You on the other hand have Joseph being an idiot and God being an even nigger idiot.

Even if his view changed over time.

I am open to this, but you have to provide something we call evidence.

That is JUST YOUR OPINION.

Opinion based on evidence, although some of the opinions you say I have are incorrect and strawmen.

[_Tobin]

All of that is just attempts to understand where the revealed text of the Book of Abraham came from by various authors (Phelps, Parrish, Cowdery, and so on).

Interesting. I was under the impression that the first-hand accounts maintain Joseph wrote the KEP as he dictated the Book of Abraham. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Or am I mistaken?

There are various documents that are part of the KEP with a number of authors of those documents. There is no general agreement about the order of the manuscripts, but the Church History Library has various numbered documents of varying authorship. Many were written by Phelps in fact and Joseph Smith was only involved in a few of them. Joseph Smith clearly speculated about the Egyptian alphabet and grammar (as did others). I don't find these documents useful and completely uninformed (and as you pointed out most people agree about that).

[_Tobin]

Well, the fact God interacted with Joseph Smith means God isn't done talking to us as many Christians maintain. It also means the Bible isn't the last set of stories about God we are likely to read about. What Mormonism adds to Christianity is worthwhile too. It helps us understand why we exist, why God shows an interest in us, why God is benevolent, and so on. I think those are valuable things.

Hello Tobin,

I believe in in trying express my ideas in the language of the individual I'm communicating with. With that logic in mind my posts with you will be presented with the assumption that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture.

It isn't necesarily the Christian position that God is done talking to us. It is there position that the canon is closed to new scripture. If you go into a Christian bookstore you'll see many modern books. None of these new books will ever be considered scripture but Christians are free to buy and read them. They also believe in a personal relationship with God/Jesus.
In the Book of Mormon if you read Lehi's dream and the later interpretation it teaches to grab hold of the rod of iron. There was a mist that appeared and it caused some people to let go of the rod and they were lost. The rod is identified as the word of God which for Lehi would be the writings of Moses plus perhaps a few of the prophets. In your opinion what was this mist which would cause some people to let go of the rod? I would think it would me new scripture which didn't conform to these earlier writings.
You said Mormonism adds to Christianity but do these added things conform to Genesis through Deuteronomy? If they don't then it is a part of the mist.

Hello drifting,
I'm not a part of the LDS church heirarchy so I don't care if tobias is a tbm or not. He is aparently doing some thinking for himself which I believe is a good thing. If he, at least in the temporary sense wants to believe he is a tbm I don't see why you are making an issue of it, nor why you want to drag me into it. If he wants to claim he's a tbm I'm willing to believe him.

Hi sleepyhead,

I don't think scripture needs to conform to Genesis through Deuteronomy. I certain don't think the rest of the Bible does, so I don't understand why that should be the bar. I think scripture simply needs to be the true account of people's experiences with God.

As far as Mormonism, you are welcome to believe whatever you want about it. I find it to be valuable and only engage in it because I believe God has told me to do so. If God has told you not to, then do what God tells you.

And the reason I'm not answering Drifting is because he already knows the answer to his question and I don't feel like playing with him.