Comments on: Refuting the “Book of Abraham” http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/2009/07/refuting-the-%e2%80%9cbook-of-abraham%e2%80%9d/ Upholding and Defending the Christian Faith Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:32:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: matt http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/2009/07/refuting-the-%e2%80%9cbook-of-abraham%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-31 matt Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:48:23 +0000 http://philfernandes.com/?p=374#comment-31 thanks for the note. I have a couple of responses. 1. As for the destruction of the books, a fellow apologist mentioned this to me and while i do not believe the LDS church is handing out copies of the book, it is strange that Mormon "elders" are not even aware of this debate. I have talked with several of them on the issue and they are not even aware of it. I find this strange, because "elders" are aware of even the more secretive LDS doctrines (adam-God doctrine, eternal progression, baptism of the dead, etc.) it is for these reasons I deemed it likely that the LDS church would desire to limit the the books circulation. Whether or not the limitation of circulation is true of not, how does this detract from the veracity of the rest of the post? Joeseph smith made a claim, the claim was refuted. If true, how the LDS church dealt with it is of little consequence. Whether it is prompted or hidden, what about the claim itself? It would be intellectually irresponsible to disregard my argument because of such a trite problem. 2. If the church is claiming that they only have 15% of the source material I can work with that. Though it that has not been their claim through the years. But fine, so, suppose we have 15%, alright, translate that 15% and see if it is actually the book of Abraham or what people who actually know hieroglyphics say it is. Or generally prove me wrong and provide a member of the LDS church who has a gift (as boasted by your prophet) and can translate a dead language. So, either compare the 15% with what is already known, or produce someone who has that gift. Unless either of these are accomplished, my primary criticism still stands (and it is a lot for me to concede the LDS church only has 15%, but even with such a concession I still have a solid case.) 3. Last i checked the LDS had 7 of the facsimiles on display (i dont have my sources on me to verify, but I beleive there was around 7.) if this is no longer the case, then this is new. So, if the LDS church is claiming only to have facsimilie 1, this is a relatively new affirmation. 4. In no way, was any aspect of my argumentation refuted or even criticized. All that was criticized was ancillary issues. I will be happy to concede the LDS church not does not destroy copies (though i would still wonder why zero of the LDS members i have talked to know of it) and concede there is only 15% within their pocession. But how does either of those concession take away, refute, or even diminish my claims or argumentation? Produce evidence to refute evidence. for love and peace, Matthew J thanks for the note.

I have a couple of responses.

1. As for the destruction of the books, a fellow apologist mentioned this to me and while i do not believe the LDS church is handing out copies of the book, it is strange that Mormon “elders” are not even aware of this debate. I have talked with several of them on the issue and they are not even aware of it. I find this strange, because “elders” are aware of even the more secretive LDS doctrines (adam-God doctrine, eternal progression, baptism of the dead, etc.) it is for these reasons I deemed it likely that the LDS church would desire to limit the the books circulation.
Whether or not the limitation of circulation is true of not, how does this detract from the veracity of the rest of the post? Joeseph smith made a claim, the claim was refuted. If true, how the LDS church dealt with it is of little consequence. Whether it is prompted or hidden, what about the claim itself? It would be intellectually irresponsible to disregard my argument because of such a trite problem.

2. If the church is claiming that they only have 15% of the source material I can work with that. Though it that has not been their claim through the years. But fine, so, suppose we have 15%, alright, translate that 15% and see if it is actually the book of Abraham or what people who actually know hieroglyphics say it is. Or generally prove me wrong and provide a member of the LDS church who has a gift (as boasted by your prophet) and can translate a dead language. So, either compare the 15% with what is already known, or produce someone who has that gift. Unless either of these are accomplished, my primary criticism still stands (and it is a lot for me to concede the LDS church only has 15%, but even with such a concession I still have a solid case.)

3. Last i checked the LDS had 7 of the facsimiles on display (i dont have my sources on me to verify, but I beleive there was around 7.) if this is no longer the case, then this is new. So, if the LDS church is claiming only to have facsimilie 1, this is a relatively new affirmation.

4. In no way, was any aspect of my argumentation refuted or even criticized. All that was criticized was ancillary issues. I will be happy to concede the LDS church not does not destroy copies (though i would still wonder why zero of the LDS members i have talked to know of it) and concede there is only 15% within their pocession. But how does either of those concession take away, refute, or even diminish my claims or argumentation? Produce evidence to refute evidence.

for love and peace, Matthew J

]]> By: Gabe Ginorio http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/2009/07/refuting-the-%e2%80%9cbook-of-abraham%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Gabe Ginorio Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:45:51 +0000 http://philfernandes.com/?p=374#comment-30 Thanks for your honest and polite (non-trolling) reply. I'll let the author know you've commented and get his feedback. Thanks for your honest and polite (non-trolling) reply. I’ll let the author know you’ve commented and get his feedback.

]]> By: Megan http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/2009/07/refuting-the-%e2%80%9cbook-of-abraham%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Megan Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:07:55 +0000 http://philfernandes.com/?p=374#comment-29 This is certainly one of the more complicated issues out there, and I don’t claim to have more than a preliminary understanding of all the intricacies involved. From my research though, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not claim to have all the Egyptian source material for the Book of Abraham in their possession and do not acknowledge that it has been found by anyone else. Critics claim the source material has been found, and then compare the documents that they believe Joseph Smith translated from to what Egyptologists would render it as. It seems to me the debate breaks down at the fundamental stage of “Do we have the source material available for scrutiny?” and unless either side can reach an agreement on this there’s really no forum for meaningful debate. As FAIR (a prominent LDS apologetics group) states: Critics often don't tell people that we are missing at least 85% of the scrolls that Joseph Smith had. We don't have papyrus with the Book of Abraham on it (except Facsimile #1) and have never claimed to. As for other issues raised by this post that are more verifiable, I would direct the reader to the following link: http://www.amazon.com/His-Own-Hand-Upon-Papyrus/dp/0962096326/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259786737&sr=8-1 Clearly, Larson's book is readily available, a fact which casts doubt on the veracity of the rest of this post. As for the Church of Latter-Day Saints purchasing and destroying all copies of this book, it seems to me this is a most baseless and malacious allegation, and one quite unlikely to be true given that a core belief of Latter-Day Saint theology is freedom of religion (Cf the the 11th article of faith, from the Articles of Faith, http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/11#11) This is certainly one of the more complicated issues out there, and I don’t claim to have more than a preliminary understanding of all the intricacies involved. From my research though, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not claim to have all the Egyptian source material for the Book of Abraham in their possession and do not acknowledge that it has been found by anyone else. Critics claim the source material has been found, and then compare the documents that they believe Joseph Smith translated from to what Egyptologists would render it as. It seems to me the debate breaks down at the fundamental stage of “Do we have the source material available for scrutiny?” and unless either side can reach an agreement on this there’s really no forum for meaningful debate. As FAIR (a prominent LDS apologetics group) states: Critics often don’t tell people that we are missing at least 85% of the scrolls that Joseph Smith had. We don’t have papyrus with the Book of Abraham on it (except Facsimile #1) and have never claimed to.
As for other issues raised by this post that are more verifiable, I would direct the reader to the following link:

http://www.amazon.com/His-Own-Hand-Upon-Papyrus/dp/0962096326/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259786737&sr=8-1

Clearly, Larson’s book is readily available, a fact which casts doubt on the veracity of the rest of this post.

As for the Church of Latter-Day Saints purchasing and destroying all copies of this book, it seems to me this is a most baseless and malacious allegation, and one quite unlikely to be true given that a core belief of Latter-Day Saint theology is freedom of religion (Cf the the 11th article of faith, from the Articles of Faith, http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/11#11)

]]>