Book of Abraham Real?

[Elphaba]

In "debates such as theses" but obviously not this debate.

... still waiting for those "references" where LDS scholars and Egytologist (for example Gee, Rhodes, Tvedtnes, and Hauglid) believed differently but then got schooled by the web page designer who did research for Mark Hoffman, and then changed their minds.

I told you I was considering the best way for me to access the information. I wasn't presicent enough to create a folder for "SNOW," to include all issues, including discussions, online and off over the past five years about the BoA. These thing are just not at my fingertips.

Dale added some information about Metcalfe's upcoming book that I'm sure would present the issues I am thinking about, and I was hoping it would be coming out soon, but apparently it is not. So that's no help there.

Lastly, I am having computer access issues wherein I only have the computer during hours that are inconveniet for me, and even then the time is limited.

So you'll either have to be patient, or not. But that's the way it is, and I will keep my promise.

Perhaps this is a good time to take the plunge and put me on ignore.

Elphaba

[Snow]

The difficulty is see LDS apologists and scholars commenting on the KEP that are not familiar with Brents areas. So his scholarship is more advanced than theirs. LDS scholars are not planning a similar book themselves. Unless Brent gets out his book out its unlikely they will make much comment on more advanced issues. Brian Hauglid's research is unpublished outside of what he has shared. I do not know if he is planning a book.

Where is this advanced scholarship of Metcalfe found? His website/e-journal has next to nothing on the BoA.

What specific areas is he so specialized in? What are his credentials and bona-fides?

[Mathonihah]

I'm not sure what your point here is at it pertains to this discussion; however, I couldn't agree more with you in what you have said.

I will add, however, in such debates as these, I back up my biases with references if appropriate. Just because it is our bias, does not make our bias wrong.

Elphaba

Elphaba, I'm sorry I'm really bad at segues. Just I though you mentioned your "unbiased" view somewhere in this thread and thought I should clear the air. But I can't find it in this thread, so it could have been another thread or another person who said it. In any rate, I apologise.

I agree that being biased doesn't make someone wrong. In fact I agree with you on a lot of points:). One the whole I found this debate educational. (Didn't know who Mark Haufmann was for instance.) I think alot of people (myself included) just look on the surface and make a judgment according to our biases don't delve deeper into issues. Sometimes thats a good thing, sometimes it's a bad thing though...

[Elphaba]

Elphaba, I'm sorry I'm really bad at segues. Just I though you mentioned your "unbiased" view somewhere in this thread and thought I should clear the air. But I can't find it in this thread, so it could have been another thread or another person who said it. In any rate, I apologise.

I agree that being biased doesn't make someone wrong. In fact I agree with you on a lot of points:). One the whole I found this debate educational. (Didn't know who Mark Haufmann was for instance.) I think alot of people (myself included) just look on the surface and make a judgment according to our biases don't delve deeper into issues. Sometimes thats a good thing, sometimes it's a bad thing though...

Hi Math,

No apology necessary, I am just glad I understand where you were coming from now, as I admit, I was confused.

If the story weren't true, you would never believe it as the whole story is so bizarre. And it's only been approximately two generations ago, so it's still with us here in Salt Lake City.

In additional to the Wiki article Snow referred to, if you wanted a book about it Amazon.com has quite a few. I have read two of them:

• The Mormon Murders by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith
• Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders by Allen Dake Roberts and Linda Sillitoe

I thought the Sillitoe book was the best of the two. Others I'm sure have differing and differing favorites.

Elphaba

Amazon.com: mark hofmann murders: Books

[Snow]

Hi Math,

No apology necessary, I am just glad I understand where you were coming from now, as I admit, I was confused.

If the story weren't true, you would never believe it as the whole story is so bizarre. And it's only been approximately two generations ago, so it's still with us here in Salt Lake City.

In additional to the Wiki article Snow referred to, if you wanted a book about it Amazon.com has quite a few. I have read two of them:

• The Mormon Murders by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith
• Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders by Allen Dake Roberts and Linda Sillitoe

I thought the Sillitoe book was the best of the two. Others I'm sure have differing and differing favorites.

Elphaba

Amazon.com: mark hofmann murders: Books

Yeah - read The Mormon Murders if you want to get a highly sensationalized account that seeks to paint The Church of Jesus Christ inaccurately and in the worst possible light... in order to pump book sales, though it's not hard to imagine that the authors had other agendas as well..

[Snow]

Dale, Elphaba,

I am still interested to know where one can find the advanced scholarship of Brent Metcalf on the BoA. I can't find much of anything from him outside his work on the BoM.

Also, is his work peer reviewed (though I don't know who would be considered the peer of a web designer - Dan Vogel, Gerald and Sandra Tanner?). Also, what are his credentials that I should know about?

Elphaba,

Can you give me three or four examples of the sloppy work of the Egyptologist John Gee and where I can find it?

[moniemonie]

He hasn't published anything yet on the BoA that I'm aware of. People are aware of him on the topic, simply because he has one of the best copies of the KEP available (something most LDS scholars do not have access to). Beyond that, he's no more a scholar than anyone else. Most of us are hoping that he will actually do a scholarly work, rather than a work up of why the BoA is a fraud. That's what he has done with his "scholarly" work on the Book of Mormon, and so has received lots of well-deserved criticism.

No, his work is not peer reviewed. As it is, while FARMS is all peer reviewed, primarily from LDS peers, they are all scholars that are doing the reviewing. Jerald and Sandra Tanner are not actually trained Biblical or LDS scholars, but have been writing for many years anyway (on par with Brent). Jerald graduated from Salt Lake Trade Technical Institute in 1959, not exactly known for its in-depth Biblical or LDS research techniques. Dan Vogel has received some good reviews for some of his writings.

The reality is, there are few that would actually make good peers outside the LDS Church scholars, right now. There just are not many scholars that have taken much interest in learning anything about the LDS Church in enough depth to really be a good peer reviewer. For example, Ritner is a well-respected Egyptologist, however he hasn't spent the time to know or understand all the ins and outs of Mormon antiquities, so it's easy for him to comment on the BoA papyri, but not on other issues that make it more complicated than the simple issue he claims it to be.

There are many LDS scholars who are hoping Brent will seek to make a scholarly work, and allow them to help him peer review his book on the KEP. If he goes around them, there really isn't anyone outside the Church with the information concerning it to really review what he's working on. Unless all someone is looking for are a few people with names to pat him on the back and say, "atta boy!"

[tantara]

How do we find out? Well first we read it then after we read it we can then go and ask the real Person with the correct answer God himself. James 1: 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. James 1:6 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. This is how Joseph Smith was answered it is how President Monson is answered and it is how I get my answers and most importantly is how you get your answers. Why bother questioning those who profess to be learned when you can ask the Creator Himself he who knows ALL. Why discuss the philosophies of man…. when you have not yet asked of the Lord?

[Snow]

How do we find out? Well first we read it then after we read it we can then go and ask the real Person with the correct answer God himself. James 1: 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. James 1:6 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. This is how Joseph Smith was answered it is how President Monson is answered and it is how I get my answers and most importantly is how you get your answers. Why bother questioning those who profess to be learned when you can ask the Creator Himself he who knows ALL. Why discuss the philosophies of man…. when you have not yet asked of the Lord?

Hmmm,

Have you in fact asked God if the BoA was translated from the Joseph Smith Papyri and if in fact the translation is a true and accurate one?

[rameumptom]

Hmmm,

Have you in fact asked God if the BoA was translated from the Joseph Smith Papyri and if in fact the translation is a true and accurate one?

Irrelevant question. How many of us have prayed whether the Bible version we use is "true and accurate?" I would suggest that most versions are accurate and inaccurate, true and untrue, complete and incomplete. How can this be? It depends on the area of the Bible one wishes to discuss. Joseph Smith felt that the Songs of Solomon were uninspired. Yet, were they written by Solomon and perhaps true and accurate? The Book of Enoch was used for centuries by Jews and Christians, alike. Yet St Jerome eliminated it from the official Bible book list because he felt there wasn't sufficient provenance to ensure it's "true and accurate" place in the bible. Yet, it is quoted from 39 times in the New Testament! Obviously, Jesus, Paul, Peter and Jude all felt there was something inspired in it worthy of quoting.

The real key is to ask if God inspired Joseph to provide us the translation of the Book of Abraham that we have. It is irrelevant if the translation was from lost papyri, from the current papyri translated in a unique way, or if the papyri were just a catalyst for a revelation. If God did inspire Joseph, then it is what God wished us to have. We have been told in D&C and Book of Mormon that God works through the weak things of the earth, and through men's weaknesses. So, while the translation may not be perfect (is any translation made by the best experts perfect?), it IS inspired and accepted of God.

Moroni's challenge requires preparation to receive the spiritual answer. Studying the writing. Pondering the things of God since the days of Adam and God's goodness in answering. Then asking specifically with real intent and sincerity, with faith and hope of receiving an answer. Then awaiting the answer from the Holy Ghost.

For me, I didn't have to pray specifically about the Book of Abraham. When I investigated the Church, I did pray if Joseph Smith and his successors are true and inspired prophets of God. Having received the answer, I knew I could feel confident in the writings - that they are inspired, and accepted of God as beneficial to us and our salvation.

[Snow]

Irrelevant question.

Okay - you believe it is irrelevant whether or not the Church is correct in it's claims that the BoA was translated from the Joseph Smith Papyri and that the translation true.

I, on the other hand, think it is entirely relevant to know whether the Chruch, and Joseph Smith, are correct.

How many of us have prayed whether the Bible version we use is "true and accurate?"

All of us I hope. I think if is very important to know whether the scriptures I read, study and teach are true and correct.

For me, I didn't have to pray specifically about the Book of Abraham. When I investigated the Church, I did pray if Joseph Smith and his successors are true and inspired prophets of God. Having received the answer, I knew I could feel confident in the writings - that they are inspired, and accepted of God as beneficial to us and our salvation.

As it so happens, there are a number of teachings and beliefs of Joseph Smith and his successors that have turned out to be false or incorrect. I certainly have a testimony that the Church is true - that is true, generally, to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that God has given authority to the Church to act in his name, but that doesn't mean I accept all things in the Church as coming directly from the mouth of God. That would make me an empty vessel waiting to be filled with whatever someone else told me to believe. I, on the other hand, take personal responsibility for all I think and believe.

[Elphaba]

Dale, Elphaba,

I am still interested to know where one can find the advanced scholarship of Brent Metcalf on the BoA. I can't find much of anything from him outside his work on the BoM.

Here's the thing. I started searching and suddenly I thought to myself, what the (many inappropriate words) are you doing? This is SNOW!

If I had promised anyone else the information, I would get it. But you?

Nope.

All you would do is write "blah blah blah. . . you are wrong . . . blah blah blah . . . you have an agenda . . . blah blah blah . . . you are the anti-Christ. . . blah blah blah . . . you make me look childish because I refuse to look at another dictionary . . . blah blah blah . . . agenda . . . blah blah blah."

If Metcalfe and Hauglind do publish the book I will buy it for you. That is all I am willing to do for you.

Also, is his work peer reviewed (though I don't know who would be considered the peer of a web designer - Dan Vogel, Gerald and Sandra Tanner?). Also, what are his credentials that I should know about?

I have no idea.

Elphaba,

Can you give me three or four examples of the sloppy work of the Egyptologist John Gee and where I can find it?

Nope.

Bad Elphaba

[rameumptom]

Okay - you believe it is irrelevant whether or not the Church is correct in it's claims that the BoA was translated from the Joseph Smith Papyri and that the translation true.

I, on the other hand, think it is entirely relevant to know whether the Chruch, and Joseph Smith, are correct.

Rameumptom: Ahhhh! But there's a difference between whether something is correct and whether something is true. And then there is a difference on the level of correctness and truthfulness. If a person is sola scriptura, God-breathed, perfect Bible believer, and asks if the Book of Mormon is "true", how should God answer it? If the Book of Abraham has one grammatical error in it, is it no longer "true"? Or how about if the BoA is inspired, but taken from a sen-sen manuscript that God chose to "translate" in a different manner for the benefit of mankind? Is it still "true"?

But, if I ask if the precepts, doctrines, and teachings are correct and inspired, THEN I have a different possible answer that God can give me.

All of us I hope. I think if is very important to know whether the scriptures I read, study and teach are true and correct.

Ram: And so do I. But since our version of truth is very different from God's all-encompassing version of truth, we are left with baggage of criteria to sort through first. This, BTW, applies to the Bible, as well. Archaeologically, the walls of Jericho came down before Joshua showed up; does this mean the Bible is "untrue"? Only if one is sola scriptura-minded.

As it so happens, there are a number of teachings and beliefs of Joseph Smith and his successors that have turned out to be false or incorrect. I certainly have a testimony that the Church is true - that is true, generally, to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that God has given authority to the Church to act in his name, but that doesn't mean I accept all things in the Church as coming directly from the mouth of God. That would make me an empty vessel waiting to be filled with whatever someone else told me to believe. I, on the other hand, take personal responsibility for all I think and believe.

Ram: While I do not believe a prophet must be perfect, can you name the doctrinal teachings and beliefs wherein you believe he was wrong? Note, Joseph said many things as a man, and not all things done as a prophet. So, in his context as prophet, where did he misspeak?

I note that in your testifying, you have also hedged your testimony by establishing what it means to say "the Church is true." That has been my point on not insisting on what is "true." Because even the Church and the gospel of Christ as we have them, are not perfectly "true." They are, however, good enough to get us exalted. This isn't a sola scriptura experience for you (or me) as it would be for some traditional Christians, and some hard core Mormons, as well. And that is good.

[Snow]

Here's the thing. I started searching and suddenly I thought to myself, what the (many inappropriate words) are you doing? This is SNOW!

If I had promised anyone else the information, I would get it. But you?

Nope.

All you would do is write "blah blah blah. . . you are wrong . . . blah blah blah . . . you have an agenda . . . blah blah blah . . . you are the anti-Christ. . . blah blah blah . . . you make me look childish because I refuse to look at another dictionary . . . blah blah blah . . . agenda . . . blah blah blah."

If Metcalfe and Hauglind do publish the book I will buy it for you. That is all I am willing to do for you.

By the way - I already knew that you were not aware of any advanced scholarship from Metcalfe even though you claimed you were.

You are ideologically, not factually, driven.

I have no idea.

I didn't think so.

Nope.

Kinda goes without saying... though you originally claimed otherwise.

[Snow]

Rameumptom: Ahhhh! But there's a difference between whether something is correct and whether something is true. And then there is a difference on the level of correctness and truthfulness. If a person is sola scriptura, God-breathed, perfect Bible believer, and asks if the Book of Mormon is "true", how should God answer it? If the Book of Abraham has one grammatical error in it, is it no longer "true"? Or how about if the BoA is inspired, but taken from a sen-sen manuscript that God chose to "translate" in a different manner for the benefit of mankind? Is it still "true"?

But, if I ask if the precepts, doctrines, and teachings are correct and inspired, THEN I have a different possible answer that God can give me.

Ram: While I do not believe a prophet must be perfect, can you name the doctrinal teachings and beliefs wherein you believe he was wrong? Note, Joseph said many things as a man, and not all things done as a prophet. So, in his context as prophet, where did he misspeak?

That hardly a game I care to play. I'd post something a prophet said (for example BY's views of blacks not getting the priesthood until after the last non-black got the priesthood) that turned out to be false and you'd just claim that the prophet wasn't speaking as a prophet. Big deal. Or, I could post where the prophet claimed to be speaking prophetically (like when JS said that God told him to go to Canada to sell the copyright to the BoM) that turned out to be false and you'd simply respond that he was mistaken.

The point is that you claimed that knowing that JS and his successors were prophets you could have confidence in their writings, but since they weren't always right, for whatever reason, one cannot have confidence in all their writings and so my position is relevant - that one should ask of God, not just accept dogmatically.

I note that in your testifying, you have also hedged your testimony by establishing what it means to say "the Church is true." That has been my point on not insisting on what is "true." Because even the Church and the gospel of Christ as we have them, are not perfectly "true." They are, however, good enough to get us exalted. This isn't a sola scriptura experience for you (or me) as it would be for some traditional Christians, and some hard core Mormons, as well. And that is good.

Nope. I didn't hedge. I phrased it that way because to say that 'the Church is true' is meaningless. True what? Truly a church? Truly good? No - the point is that it teaches the truth and is authorized by God to act in his name.

I just dislike imprecise language.

[Elphaba]

By the way - I already knew that you were not aware of any advanced scholarship from Metcalfe even though you claimed you were.

You are ideologically, not factually, driven.

I didn't think so.

Kinda goes without saying... though you originally claimed otherwise

I have never been prouder of myself than at this moment.

Elphaba

[Snow]

I have never been prouder of myself than at this moment.

Elphaba

About what?

That yet again you have to get in the last word, even if you have absolutely nothing to say?

You know that I don't assert anything unless I can back it up with fact. Sure, I am sometimes tempted to make reckless assertions out of pure ideology, but ethical concerns constrain me.

[Elphaba]

About what?

That yet again you have to get in the last word, even if you have absolutely nothing to say?

You know that I don't assert anything unless I can back it up with fact. Sure, I am sometimes tempted to make reckless assertions out of pure ideology, but ethical concerns constrain me.

Pshaw.

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

I also dislike imprecise language, which is why I've discussed the problem of asking if something is "true."

The Church website's newsroom has an article on what is and isn't doctrine. Basically, singular statements are to be considered, but are not considered doctrine. Only things found in the scriptures, official declarations and pronouncements, are considered doctrine. Of course, then there's the issue of core doctrines versus auxiliary doctrine. Approaching Church Doctrine

[Snow]

Pshaw.

Elphaba

As if my previous point ("That yet again you have to get in the last word, even if you have absolutely nothing to say?") didn't make it crystal clear, thank you for driving the point home.

[Snow]

I also dislike imprecise language, which is why I've discussed the problem of asking if something is "true."

The Church website's newsroom has an article on what is and isn't doctrine. Basically, singular statements are to be considered, but are not considered doctrine. Only things found in the scriptures, official declarations and pronouncements, are considered doctrine. Of course, then there's the issue of core doctrines versus auxiliary doctrine. Approaching Church Doctrine

Yeah - okay but we aren't talking about doctrine, rather JS's and the Church's claims re the production of the BoA.

[Elphaba]

As if my previous point ("That yet again you have to get in the last word, even if you have absolutely nothing to say?") didn't make it crystal clear, thank you for driving the point home.

You're welcome.

Elphaba

[Snow]

You're welcome.

Elphaba

Since you seem intent on carrying on this discussion, I point out again:

1. You claimed that Brent Metcalfe possessed superior scholarship.

2. You claimed that Brent Metcalfe cause Mormon BoA scholars to change their minds to his way of thinking.

3. You claimed that John Gee was guilty of sloppy work.

When challenged to support your (groundless) claims, you couldn't and said that when Metcalfe published his book, then you would provide support...

... but your implied claim was never that at some point in the future those things might be true, rather that they were now true and based in fact. It goes without saying that we all know you were just making those things up and that your opinion (though I doubt you actually believe what you claimed to believe) was entirely based on Metcalfe's opposition to The Church and not based on anything else. Per usual.

[Elphaba]

Per usual.

Quod facit per alium, facit per se.

Elphaba

[Snow]

Quod facit per alium, facit per se.

Elphaba

For those of you who don't own a copy of How to Misuse Latin Phrases In A Failed Attempt To Act Superior, that simply means "That which someone does through another he does through himself."

Had you actually understood the phrase you would have know it is completely meaningless here as you, having made the claim, are responsible to support your claims - your own claims.