“While critics of the Church often challenge the authenticity of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, they attach more importance to it than Church members do themselves” – John Gee, 2009 FAIR Conference
| Subject: | FAIR dirty laundry |
| Date: | Aug 15, 2009 |
| Author: | Simon in Oz |
| Note>: | FAIR is the apologetic arm of the Mormon Church. It attempts to refute critics of Mormonism. |
| I think it is wonderful that the highlights of the
FAIR conference are reaching the Church News. Now even more Mormons can see
and smell the apologetic dirty laundry. Here are some links to some top shelf apologetics defending LDS scripture. Book of Mormon http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/57752/Paleontologist-defends-the-Book-of-Mormon.html This article nicely demonstrates how spot on the Smithsonian letter was before Mormon apologists and politicians intimidated them into not mailing it out to gullible Mormons anymore. "Brother Miller said ancient evidences of iron and steel are rare, since they rust. However, such evidence of steel manufacture among Jaredites and Nephites may yet be found, he said." Wow. Book of Abraham http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/57738/The-Book-of-Abraham-The-larger-issue.html This article is as close to an admission that the Book of Abraham is doomed as we are likely to get. It's basically Gee saying how tired he is of the apologetics and then bearing his testimony. |
| Subject: | Re: FAIR dirty laundry |
| Date: | Aug 16 07:44 |
| Author: | MichaelM |
| The attempts to use the BoM [Book of Mormon] as a scientific record
does nothing but harm. It continues to perpetuate myths that need to end. It
disgraces the real history of living people. There is no reason or excuse to believe in the apologetic attempts to defend a work of fiction as being real. The Book of Mormon is of no scientific value. Period. |
| Subject: | "You don't need to answer every objection. In fact just ignore most of them because..." |
| Date: | Aug 16 11:04 |
| Author: | Primus |
| even though you can't prove it true, it is true and
God will answer your questions when your dead." Who can argue with that? |
| Subject: | Re: FAIR dirty laundry |
| Date: | Aug 16 11:22 |
| Author: | No Moniker |
| "He said that is not to say Church members can or
should forego the Book of Abraham, "but simply to give an idea of its
relative importance. It is more important than some things and much less
important than others." "...Don't worry about those little flicks of history." (GBH) From MormonThink.com: One thing that makes establishing the validity of the Book of Abraham so important is the doctrine that the Book of Abraham supports. The Book of Abraham supports the concept of polygamy as Abraham took another wife as directed by the Lord. Perhaps what's even more significant is that God actually instructs Abraham to lie about it. God tells Abraham that he must lie to the Egyptians and tell them that his wife is really his sister so they wouldn't take her from him (Abraham 2:22-25). This is the only scriptural reference that we know of where God instructs someone to lie. This is important because Joseph lied to his congregations and to the public about his involvement in polygamy. If God would instruct Abraham to lie about his wives then it seems plausible that God could tell Joseph to lie about his wives as well. It is also interesting to note that the story of Abraham in the Bible does not mention that the Lord told him to lie but gives the impression that it was Abraham's idea. The Book of Abraham also introduced the first and only scriptural basis for denying the priesthood to Blacks, the Church's official position until 1978. It described Pharaoh and the Egyptians as descendents of Ham and Canaan (the progenitors of the Negro race), and under the curse of Canaan and disqualified from the priesthood (Abraham 1:21-22, 26-27). The plurality of gods is also a doctrine that is supported by the Book of Abraham. When the book of Genesis had been corrected by the Prophet the first time in 1830, the text he produced retained the Bible's (and Moses') emphasis that there is only one God. Joseph's 1842 translation of portions of the Book of Abraham, however, distinctly taught the plurality of gods -- a concept of deity Joseph had started teaching a few years earlier, but one which many Saints neither understood nor appreciated. Critic's Point: If it wasn't for the Book of Abraham it is possible that two of the most controversial and objectionable doctrines of the LDS church (polygamy and denying the priesthood to blacks) would not have happened or have been as prominent as they were. It's also interesting to note that eventually the LDS church abandoned both of these doctrines, which were at one point taught as eternal principles. http://www.mormonthink.com/boaweb.htm#doctrine |
| Subject: | One comment here..... |
| Date: | Aug 17 15:15 |
| Author: | Randy J. |
| >Critic's Point: If it wasn't for the Book of
Abraham it is possible that two of the most controversial and objectionable
doctrines of the LDS church (polygamy and denying the priesthood to blacks)
would not have happened or have been as prominent as they were. Actually, Joseph Smith had espoused his views on Negroes, and had secretly begun teaching and practicing polygamy, long before he published his BoA [Book of Abraham] in 1842. He published the BoA in part to serve as his "scriptural proof-text" for those items. |
| Subject: | The most damning aspect of the BOA which Gee always sidesteps |
| Date: | Aug 16 12:17 |
| Author: | anon |
| The following quote from Mr. Gees presentation creates
a huge problem with Mormonism and apologetics. "The Document of Breathings made by Isis is not the Book of Abraham, and most Latter-day Saints have never claimed it was," he said. "Can we agree on that issue and move on? Your are correct Mr. Gee, but here is is the biggest flaw in your statement. If the Book of Breathings is not the Book of Abraham, why does the LDS church continue to mislead members by printing it in the Pearl of Great Price with JS's phony translation of the facsimiles? |
| Subject: | This is where the BoApologists get really silly..... |
| Date: | Aug 17 15:24 |
| Author: | Randy J. |
| >If the Book of Breathings is not the Book of
Abraham, why does the LDS church continue to mislead members by printing it
in the Pearl of Great Price with JS's phony translation of the facsimiles? Yep. On the one hand, the Mopologists say that the BoB [Book of Breathings] ain't the BoA, which is of course true; but on the other hand, they still vigorously argue that Joseph Smith's "interpretations" of the facsimiles are correct. Well DUH, if Facsimile No. 1 is really a common BoB funerary vignette, then it obviously ain't a depiction of wicked Egyptian priest about to slay Abraham. The larger issue here, which Gee doesn't address, is the overall question of Joseph Smith's self-proclaimed ability to translate ancient documents by the gift and power of God. It is *Joseph Smith's* statements and beliefs about the papyrus which are the most important issue---*not* how modern Mormons think of the BoA, or how much or how little it's used in church today. If the facsimiles have nothing to do with the BoA, and are in fact common Egyptian funerary documents, then Joseph Smith is a fraud. This ain't rocket surgery. |
| Subject: | Gee's admission is stunning. |
| Date: | Aug 16 18:38 |
| Author: | ramanujam |
| John Gee is essentially admitting they've lost the factual, objective argument, so they need to reframe the question in terms of faith and testimony of Jesus Christ. |
| Subject: | Re: Gee's admission is stunning. |
| Date: | Aug 16 18:59 |
| Author: | asdfjkl |
| ramanujam wrote: > John Gee is essentially admitting they've lost the factual, objective argument, so they need to reframe the question in terms of faith and testimony of Jesus Christ. Yep! Exactly! So what is the point of Mormon apologetics again? I shouldn't complain. It was Mormon apologists that led to my disillusionment, and will probably be the biggest cause of others to move away from Mormonism. Carry on. People will eventually realize that when there is no sane and rational response, that believing just because an invisible ghost told you it is true is not a good argument. |
| Subject: | Can you imagine the Vatican saying that one of the books of the Bible |
| Date: | Aug 16 19:18 |
| Author: | lulu |
| is not essential to Catholicism? Then why was the BofA cannonized? |
| Subject: | Re: FAIR dirty laundry |
| Date: | Aug 16 19:52 |
| Author: | Not Wife #19 |
| Where to begin? Three red flags shoot up immediately.
Gee seems to think he speaks for the entire church membership when he says,
"They (critics) attach more importance to it [Book of Abraham] than Church members do
themselves...", "This is what we as Latter-day Saints care about." and "What
they attack is simply not important to Latter-day Saints." Even as a TBM
[Mormon], I
would have resented an apologist who had the audacity to represent himself
as my voice. Secondly, losing sight of the "larger issue" in Gee's world is a lot like asking Dorothy to keep her eyes on the Wizard of Oz, and to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." All of Gee's larger issues (with one exception) are those that cannot be substantiated and aren't data driven. His exception, the historicity of the BoM... Well, what can I say? Does he REALLY want us to go there? He also describes BoA as a "complex" issue. It's a common funeral text, not the "hand" of Abraham. How complex is that? I will give him credit for saying that truth is not served by a bad argument. Duh. No kidding. Is that his lame attempt at admitting error (or to use his words "no claims to perfection")? Does he help his case by citing that only one percent of general conference topics have been on the BoA? Which side is he arguing here? I'm confused. OK. Now it gets funny. He says that the best and brightest "unwittingly" (they don't SOUND that bright!) argue in FAVOR of the BoA. he. he. References please. Where are these incompetent smart people? Huh? And, when he says that critics don't deal with the issues but use a bait and switch, well, that would be the kettle calling the pot black...mmm...except that only the kettle is black. Enough. These kinds of arguments (I use the term loosely.) are the very reason I'm out of TSCC [this so called church]. |
| Subject: | So an entire book of scripture - a Pearl of Great Price - is of no importance to members? |
| Date: | Aug 16 21:22 |
| Author: | Mårv Fråndsæn |
| FAIR just gets better all the time. Go ahead and discount an entire book of scripture, some of it from the hand of Abraham himself, supposedly - oh no, its nothing, blah blah. AS IF! Incredible! It does show how much they know they are losing though. |
| Subject: | The very fact that is is published in the Church News is interesting |
| Date: | Aug 16 21:56 |
| Author: | Whiskey Tango |
| That the church feels it important to inform the general members of these issues shows that they are aware of the damage done. Previously they would never have made the public aware of the issue. |
| Subject: | Seems like the leadership is "inoculating" the members . . . |
| Date: | Aug 16 23:07 |
| Author: | robertb |
| against the issues. Because the church has printed something about it, the members can rest easy that the issue is dealt with. |
| Subject: | IS this guy for real? 5 of the 6 things he wants them to defend are impossible to prove, or |
| Date: | Aug 16 22:22 |
| Author: | OzPoof |
| disprove. The last, that the BoM is true, is easily disproved, which is why these Apologists always fall back on their testimony. They have no comeback for facts. He makes the extraordinary statement, "The Document of Breathings made by Isis is not the Book of Abraham, and most Latter-day Saints have never claimed it was" What!?!?! The assumption that both are the same is central to the claim that Smith translated the papyrus, assuming of course that you don't go into the mind twisting rationalisations where anything goes - 'aliens gave the translation to Smith' would be acceptable as an explanation to these people. Most TBMs actually DO claim the papyrus is the BoA, even SMITH DID! Sheesh He claims the ex-mormons don't address the issues in the BoA the members care about. Wouldn't the fact that the entire book is a fraud be up there in the care factor? His last two statements, "Third, how the Book of Abraham was translated is unimportant. The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham." And fourth, regardless of how the Book of Abraham was translated, it is a remarkable document that tells us more about Abraham's day than Joseph Smith could have known." tacitly accept that there was an actual translation, which he has previously stated is not what most Mormons believe! Which is it? He then states that it doesn't matter that the papyrus and Smith's writings don't match, how he came upon the BoA, or whether the book is a fraud, none of these concerns are big deals. Wow! This fruitcake calls himself an Egyptologist? Imagine writing a thesis with that complete lack of logic and reason. Insanity! |
| Subject: | "...and most Latter-day Saints have never claimed it was" |
| Date: | Aug 17 07:33 |
| Author: | 3X |
| Ah - so now the _membership_ is deciding doctrinal
issues? In a pseudo-religion devoted to Obedience, Obedience, and Obedience? Yea - that computes ... |
| Subject: | With racism out of fashion, and plurality of gods, it is safe to discard the BoA |
| Date: | Aug 17 06:15 |
| Author: | confused |
| I doubt seriously his 1% claim though. Reading old
church books like Way to Perfection, Doctrines of Salvation, and a host of
other pre-1978 books and articles rely heavily upon the BoA for rational,
justification and theological authority. Now that the church is pulling away from the plurality of gods and some topics of pre-mortal existence, it is pretty much the last use for the BoA. Ditching false scripture is the right thing to do, but to claim that it is because nobody uses it anyway is wrong. The critics (intelligent members) are right to challenge it- it has been proven false for over a hundred years. Consistently. |
| Subject: | Actually, one more point |
| Date: | Aug 17 06:20 |
| Author: | confused |
| >Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?" he
asked. "It isn't. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel
of Christ." Maintaining the divine authority of the Book of Abraham is every bit as vital to the doctrines and theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today as it was in the days of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and their successors. As the late Apostle Bruce R. McConkie (one of the Church's most prolific scriptural spokesmen) so succinctly stated, the Book of Abraham: . . . contains priceless information about the gospel, pre-existence, the nature of Deity, the creation, and priesthood -- information which is not otherwise available in any other revelation now extant. Mormon Doctrine pg.564 |
| Subject: | Preparing the way for the demise of the Book of Mormon ... |
| Date: | Aug 17 07:42 |
| Author: | BartBurk |
| It seems to me they are laying the foundation for saying the Book of Mormon does not need to be accepted as historical for it to be inspired scripture. They will do the same thing to the Book of Mormon they are doing now to the Book of Abraham. |
| Subject: | It is mind boggling |
| Date: | Aug 17 08:50 |
| Author: | Koo Koo for Kaukaubeam |
| "The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored
gospel of Christ." HUH? Many aspects of the temple ceremony are touched upon in the BoA. If since the BoA is not central to the restored gospel of Christ, then why have the temples??? |
| Subject: | Re: It is mind boggling |
| Date: | Aug 17 09:07 |
| Author: | BartBurk |
| I am hearing Gee's arguments repeated by several Mormons defending Mormonism on other sites. Polygamy, Heavenly Father previously being a man like us, even our becoming gods are all being presented on these web sites as "non-essential" doctrines. If you look at points listed as essential by Gee, only belief in the Book of Mormon would be considered strange by non-Mormons. Gee even fails to cite the unique priesthood authority of the Mormons as an essential. If the Mormons concede their priesthood authority is not essential, what exactly makes Mormonism valuable? Gee is simply obfuscating. |
| Subject: | That's funny; they can find Roman iron artifacts in Britain. |
| Date: | Aug 17 09:03 |
| Author: | anon |
| They don't seem to have any trouble discovering proof
that the Romans lived in and ruled Britain for over four hundred years. They have the ubiquitous Roman short sword in museum displays, as well as daggers, hair implements, chariot pieces, etc., etc. But they can't find ONE tiny bit of evidence of metallurgy in America prior to its conquest by Europeans, beginning in the era of the Vikings? Really? Not even when the claim has been made that MILLIONS died in a battle on the Hill Cumorah? Lack of evidence is evidence of lack, for want of a better way of putting it. |
| Subject: | The Bureau of Plausible Deniability and Circular Reasoning does not speak for LDS, Inc. |
| Date: | Aug 17 09:59 |
| Author: | Uncle Mo |
| It's pretty clever how the Big Brethren have
unofficially offloaded their accountability to this group of clowns. Of
course, if they weren't clowns, it wouldn't work as they intend. However, when they make statements like this: > "Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?" he asked. "It isn't. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ." I would anticipate a pay cut since this does not meet the minimum standards of obfuscation. However, I submit that it doesn't much matter what they say, because functionally that's not their role. Their sole purpose is to keep the pressure off the Big Brethren so they don't have to make any statements that could be challenged. |
| Subject: | Re: The Bureau of Plausible Deniability and Circular Reasoning does not speak for LDS, Inc. |
| Date: | Aug 17 10:06 |
| Author: | 3X |
| FAIR provides the same function that dummy corporate
shells provided Enron: a place to park bad debt ... Enron stock anyone? |
| Subject: | It sounds as if Gee has lost whatever faith/testimony he had in the BofA. nt |
| Subject: | Why do they have a paleontologist refuting the archaeology? |
| Date: | Aug 17 17:57 |
| Author: | Richard the Bad |
| Don't they know that there is a difference? Or couldn't they find an archaeologist willing to make such completely ignorant and stupid statements? Not to mention the fact that he was unsuccessful in refuting anything. |
| Subject: | Re: Why do they have a paleontologist refuting the archaeology? |
| Date: | Aug 17 18:03 |
| Author: | MichaelM |
| And a paleontologist refuting the Smithsonian issues,
while employed by BYU and not the Smithsonian. Here's one that is not as well known. Before Thomas S. Ferguson, before the meso-american studies through BYU, there was Albert B. Reagan. He was not LDS. He was employed by BYU for the last three years of his life. His life work had been in the department of Indian Affairs, as an ethnologist on the U.S. Government payroll. Why doesn't FAIR address his published works? |
| Subject: | Brother Miller is as full of crap as a Xmas goose . . . |
| Date: | Aug 17 18:04 |
| Author: | Schweizerkind |
| To quote this mastermind: "All it takes to produce
steel is to take iron, and with enough heat provided to that iron in the
presence of charcoal, you can produce steel," Brother Miller said. He added
that the technology should have been available to the Jaredites, who
immigrated to the western hemisphere from the old world." Hello, bro, if the Jaredites had existed, it would have been during the bronze age, not the iron age. And if steel manufacture is such a piece of cake, why was Briggy's iron mission to Iron County, UT, such a fiasco--even though some of the "missionaries" had worked in British steel mills. This-tool-could-only-be-from-BYU-ly yrs, |
| Subject: | Re: FAIR dirty laundry |
| Date: | Aug 17 20:12 |
| Author: | Tom Donofrio |
| I looked up "lame" in the dictionary and these articles were given as examples. |
| Subject: | The Skeptic James Randi on the Book of Abraham |
| Date: | Aug 18 11:48 |
| Author: | Obi Wan Kanobi |
| James Randi used to be a magician and now has
dedicated his life to detecting false claims. On his website: http://www.randi.org/jr/113001.html His states regarding Nibley's rationalizations for the BofA: The spirit of extreme charity must be invoked to accept such rationalizations, and the mind must be emptied of all logic to do so. There is no question of it: Joseph Smith was totally incapable of translating the Egyptian language. He needed a mysterious discovery to produce the Book of Abraham, and he invented a totally fanciful translation of some common papyrus scraps to perpetrate his deception. Now that it has been uncovered, those scientists who will not ever throw out the theory have turned to throwing out the facts. It is rationalization in a very obvious and infantile form. But in my opinion, it is far outdone by some modern parapsychologists. |
| Subject: | Thanks for posting that link, it is very cool. . . |
| Date: | Aug 18 12:36 |
| Author: | hasitaname? |
| I remember seeing James Randi on TV when I was pretty young, probably 10 or 11. He was debunking some so-called psychics and people who claimed to move things with their minds. Watching a skeptic at work, using evidence and experiments to get to the truth, was fascinating for me and probably contributed to my later questioning of mormonism. |
| Subject: | Gosh Gee my favorite Mormon book is the BoA, pls don’t discount it as not essential to my salvation |
| Date: | Aug 18 12:07 |
| Author: | Emma'sFlamingSword |
| I was just thinking of all the wonderful truths that
we learn from it. We are taught the actual history of Egypt for gawd’s sake!
I am sure that all modern Egyptians would love to know their REAL history! It claims that the grand-daughter of Noah was Egyptus. And that while Egypt was under water after the flood she named the land after her, hence, its name Egypt. 23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden; 24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land. 25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. There are sooooo many historical and logical problems with this claim that a woman named Egyptus discovered Egypt and settled her cursed black sons there. FIRST of all, all of this is supposedly going around 2400 BC, right during the building of the Great Pyramids. And there is no evidence that one single Egyptian was killed in this global flood. SECOND, the etymology of the word Egypt is not Chaldean. Egypt is a Greek word and it originated hundreds and hundreds of years later. THIRD, the government of Egypt was not established by the son of Ham and Egyptus. This is almost as crazy as saying aliens built the pyramids!!!! We know the rulers at this time. There was no break in the line of rulers which started over with the son of Ham. To uneducated frontier folk of the 19th century these unfounded myths may have sounded legitimate but with the tiniest amount of science, history, and frontal cortex usage we know that it is pure bunk. |
| Subject: | Apologizing for Mormon Apologists |
| Date: | Aug 18, 2009 |
| Author: | Cr@ig P@xton |
| This past week, the apologetic arm of the Mormon
Church, (FAIR) Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, met at
its annual conference to present its latest apologetic arguments to defend
the Mormon Church. The highlights, (I use that term lightly), of the
conference were published by Deseret News in the most recent “Church News”.
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/57738/The-Book-of-Abraham-The-larger-issue.html I feel bad for FAIR, having to defend an institution that hobbles its defenders with one uncompromisable premise. That no matter what the facts, no matter what the reality, no matter what the circumstances…there can be only one answer to all difficult questions…the Mormon Church is true. In other words, Mormon apologists must start with the answer fixed and immovable and work backwards from that premise BEFORE the question is even asked. They cannot use standard methods usually utilized in truth discovery, such as rigorous examination, questioning, testing and scrutiny to come to a conclusion. No, they must begin all arguments with their conclusion first (that the church, no matter the argument, no matter how absurd the logic used, no matter how painful the mental gymnastics applied ... IS TRUE). The Church requires one uncompromisable rule, start with the desired conclusion (the church is true) and work backwards. The problem with starting any search for truth using the straight jacket approach employed by Mormon apologists is that it requires them to come up with all kinds of bizarre, unbelievable explanations to defend beliefs that if subjected to any other standard method of examination would simply come to the conclusion that the belief is false…or simply put, Mormonism is not what it claims to be. Take for example the apologetic augments John Gee used at the recent FAIR conference to apologize for the Book of Abraham. “While critics of the Church often challenge the authenticity of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, they attach more importance to it than Church members do themselves” – John Gee, 2009 FAIR Conference REALLY???? Critics attach more importance to it then Church members?????? WTF??? Sorry John, you’re selling, but I’m not buying. The bogus Book of Abraham is one of four “canonized” books of Mormon scripture. Last time I checked…it wasn’t the critic’s that canonized the Book of Abraham…it was the members of the Mormon Church. The mere fact that the church has made the decision to distant itself from the controversy surrounding the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, by attaching less importance to it…IS the direct cause of Mormon critic’s who have shined the bright light of truth on the bogus Book of Abraham…and it is that truth that has caused the Mormon Church to diminish the importance of the Book of Abraham out of necessity in the hope that by doing so the fraud will not be discovered by the general church membership. But hey John….knowing that you are bailing water from a ship that is taking on water faster than you can bail…you then turn to your standard uncompromisable premise. "The book of Abraham is true," said Brother Gee, author of A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, at the end of his presentation. "I think it can be defended. I think it should be defended. But it's not the be-all-and-end-all of either apologetics or research or the scriptures." There it is…you didn’t disappoint us…the Book of Abraham is true…a total dismissal of reality and its true despite not being what it claims to be….a translation of the writings of Abraham, by his own hand. BUT WAIT do I detect a sign of doubt??? You "THINK" it can be defended? Are you not sure it can be defended…are you growing tired of the fight in defending the undefendable? But knowing that the Book of Abraham is beyond salvaging…and knowing that the Book of Abraham IS one of the many pieces of the Jig Saw that confirms that Joseph Smith was a complete fraud and charlatan…you then pivot your augment. You say, "We cannot afford to lose sight of the big picture," And what, do tell is that Big Picture? Oh yeah…the answer to the question that was given before the question was even asked…that the church is true no matter what. So are we done yet? Oh no…we’re only beginning… Never one to fail…you then offer this gem. "Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?" he asked. "It isn't. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ." REALLY??? Can the Book of Abraham be a complete and utter fraud and Mormonism still be all it claims to be??? I DON’T THINK SO… But rather than explore this gapping question you simply choose to continue: "First, the arguments about the Book of Abraham have become so complex that even the best and brightest of critics end up arguing unwittingly in favor of the LDS position. ”The Document of Breathings made by Isis is not the Book of Abraham, and most Latter-day Saints have never claimed it was," he said. "Can we agree on that issue and move on? I understand why Mormon apologists want to move on from this embarrassingly impossible to win argument…and of course latter day saints haven’t claimed that the Breathings of Isis were the source of the Book of Abraham for to do so would be to admit defeat…so can we agree on THAT issue and move on? Yeah sure, just as soon as Mormon apologetics admit that the Book of Abraham is a fraud…your getting close to doing so…but come on just come clean and admit it. "Second, the critics do not deal with the issues arising from the Book of Abraham that Latter-day Saints care about. In that sense, their approach is legerdemain and bait-and-switch". Are you suggesting that the Mormon faithful don’t really care if the Book of Abraham is what it claims to be? Umm I rather doubt that… "Third, how the Book of Abraham was translated is unimportant. The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham". Of Course, YOU would say that Joseph’s translation process is unimportant…lol…because a real translation confirms that Joseph’s version was completely bogus. This is why Mormon apologists have had to come up with the bizarre notion that Joseph merely used the papyri to “channel” God’s revelation…because the Book of Abraham is nowhere close to a translation of the Egyptian characters found on the papyri. But clearly the record shows that Joseph wanted his associated to think he could translate…(to perpetrate his fraud) why else would he go to such lengths to write long verses from single Egyptian characters that we now know were not even close to what Joseph said they were. "And fourth, regardless of how the Book of Abraham was translated, it is a remarkable document that tells us more about Abraham's day than Joseph Smith could have known." There you go again dismissing the translation process…lol…But I do agree with you that it is a remarkable document that makes some of the most bizarre claims in all of Mormondom. i.e., Kolob, loaning its light to our own sun which is just…totally false and just plain bizarre. Or the claim that one day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh….LOL it’s just plain silly gibberish Joseph made up because he thought others would think this was Egyptian talk. So YES it is a remarkable document…ah if one is truly interested in seeking truth rather than defending a fraud. In defense of John Gee and FAIR, I have sympathy for them; they are bailing water from a ship that is taking on water faster than they can remove it. They have allowed their collective brains to be bent in so many loops and knots that they can no longer think critically. And with the availability of the internet…information is now accessible that had long been held from church membership. FAIR is at a great disadvantage because it is literally crippled by the agenda restrains placed on it by the Mormon church…and if one of the members of FAIR were to dare come to a conclusion contrary to the “authorized pre-conceived answer”…they would quickly be excommunicated, cast off and dismissed (like we are) as wicked, pathetic, misguided tools of the mythical Satan. |
| Subject: | Re: Apologizing for Mormon Apologists |
| Date: | Aug 18 17:05 |
| Author: | Ron |
| LOL. These guys are so pathetic, they're arguments are so stupid that its easy to refute them just from a few paragraphs about them in the paper without even having to hear they're talks or read them. |
| Subject: | The F.A.I.R. apologist team wins! |
| Date: | Aug 18 18:02 |
| Author: | Awake in Tucson |
| When intellectual gymnastics becomes an Olympic event that is! |
| Subject: | There aren't enough smoke nor mirrors to hide the truth any longer. |
| Date: | Aug 18 18:27 |
| Author: | Tiphanie |
| Gee fails to logically back up his fraudulent arguments. Like you said, all he does is talk in circles that go no where. |
| Subject: | Re: Apologizing for Mormon Apologists |
| Date: | Aug 18 19:12 |
| Author: | lurky-loo |
| ”The Document of Breathings made by Isis is not the
Book of Abraham, and most Latter-day Saints have never claimed it was," But Joseph Smith was one of the "few" Latter-day Saints who did. Hmmm, what other demonstrably false claims might he have made? |
| Subject: | Re: Apologizing for Mormon Apologists |
| Date: | Aug 18 20:22 |
| Author: | kairos |
| i think gee is in need of some serious
psychotherapy-perhaps a note will come out later that he has been hauled off
to a mental asylum (maybe the COB [church office building]) mumbling "the book of abraham is true, it's
true i tell you ,it's true"; and that he was not speaking for the church or
for FAIR. poor man!!! great insights craig! |
| Subject: | Mopologists have a complexity complex. |
| Date: | Aug 18 20:54 |
| Author: | Baura |
| Cr@ig P@xton wrote: (quoting Gee) > "First, the arguments about the Book of Abraham have become so complex that even the best and brightest of critics end up arguing unwittingly in favor of the LDS position." The reason that the arguments have gotten "complex" is that it is so clear what is going on that apologists have to pull stuff out of thin air, stuff that is contradicted by the evidence, and somehow make it sound plausible. When critics refute this they tack on another absurdity to overcome the refutation. The argument is simple. JS thought the sen-sen papyrus was the BOA. He claimed he translated it into the BOA. It isn't, he didn't. He was a fraud. It's to avoid the clear-cut strength of this argument that things had to get "complex." Oh, have you heard? The sen-sen papyrus was a mnemonic device attached to an oral tradition stretching back to Abraham. It has a hidden meaning (that no scholar has yet demonstrated) which leads to the BOA. That's the kind of insanity that they've floated to keep the fraud alive. It's not the critics that are making it complex. The simple truth is clear and overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. It's the tortuous explanations that apologists invent that causes things to get complex. |
| Subject: | Re: Mopologists have a complexity complex. - Agreed! I say they are apostates! They have taken |
| Date: | Aug 18 21:00 |
| Author: | SusieQ#1 |
| what the LDS Church claims as it's "plain and simple truths" and turned them into a convoluted mess, confusing the issues, making it sound like Satan has them in his grasp, hook, line and sinker. Ya, that's the ticket. :-) |
| Subject: | What Gee cares about most... |
| Date: | Aug 18 22:35 |
| Author: | Simon in Oz |
| is his salary, his status at BYU, and all the
admiration (uninformed) that comes along with it from most people around
him. There is not the slightest possibility that Gee would risk any of that. I was warned by Area Leaders that I would become a "hollow shell of a man" if I left the church. BYU breeds them. |
| Subject: | If a mormon apologist left the church, what would his resume look like? (nt) |
| Subject: | Re: If a mormon apologist left the church, what would his resume look like? (nt) |
| Date: | Aug 18 23:07 |
| Author: | Bobby |
| Something like THIS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gee |
| Subject: | Actually, Bobby, if John Gee left the church..... |
| Date: | Aug 19 10:10 |
| Author: | Randy J. |
| ...and admitted that the BoA was a fraud, he'd probably want all of his publications in defense of the BoA expunged from his resume. Note that the majority of his publications *are* defenses of the BoA, and were published in apologetic media, rather than scholarly ones. If all of his apologetics were removed from his list of publications, it would be very thin. |
| Subject: | I loved the wiki link and found it hilarious that Ritner... |
| Date: | Aug 19 13:07 |
| Author: | btc |
| ...resigned as chair of Gee's dissertation committee. I'd say the evidence is "trending very nicely" in favor of the BoA.....someday being dropped from the Standard Works. |
| Subject: | Undoubtedly Gee also has visions of GA-hood |
| Date: | Aug 19 09:50 |
| Author: | Koo Koo for Kaukaubeam |
| dancing in his head. Just imagine how he thinks the Brethern will reward him for his so called defense of the faith. |
| Subject: | Agreed...but no way... |
| Date: | Aug 19 10:06 |
| Author: | dwindler |
| these guys never get called to GA rock star status. They've taken too many bullets for TSCC, and are damaged goods. |
| Subject: | I dunno... |
| Date: | Aug 19 11:36 |
| Author: | Koo Koo for Kaukaubeam |
| He has completely surrendered his integrity to MorgCorp - and that is the type of behavior The Brethern want to see in their future higher up leaders. |
| Subject: | The Morg was hard pressed to find someone to fill..... |
| Date: | Aug 18 23:54 |
| Author: | Shummy |
| Hugh Nibley's intellectual shoes, but lo and behold,
they've done it.....they've found a midget. Oh, and nice work Cr@ig. For a small guy, you have huge intellectual shoes. |
| Subject: | One correction to your analogy. |
| Date: | Aug 19 11:17 |
| Author: | Other Than |
| The ship mopologists are on isn't taking on water,
it's already at the bottom of the sea and they're still bailing while
drowning. It takes a cog dis of epic proportions to hang onto the BofA in any meaningful way as a translation of ancient text. If any of the mopologists actually stopped defending the indefensible for a moment, they might realize just how far underwater they really are. |
| Subject: | Re: Apologizing for Mormon Apologists - They have not figured out yet that making simple things |
| Date: | Aug 19 13:10 |
| Author: | SusieQ#1 |
| complicated won't fix the problem. It's an old trick: complicate the issue so it sounds like you are smart! Mormonism is not about making it complicated, with long explanations that resemble 1000 words on how to comb a gnats eyebrow! |
| Subject: | Good work Craig. |
| Date: | Aug 19 19:32 |
| Author: | Don Bagley |
| I love it when a smart man does his homework. You made
sense of the nonsense. By "complicated" the apologists mean that the waters
have been muddied. Most modern Mormons will not try to defend the fictional Book of Abraham, but that doesn't matter--it was Joe Smith's baby. For the intellect, raw and unpaid, Mormonism is over. |
For additional reading, here is an excellent reference on Mormon Apologetics: 441 A Summary of Mormon Apologetics
|
Recovery from Mormonism - The Mormon Church www.exmormon.org |