tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post2582231591375459844..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: New Video on a Few Evidences of Antiquity in the Book of Abraham: Kudos to Pearl of Great Price CentralJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-51506621960435977182019-12-16T12:49:41.671-06:002019-12-16T12:49:41.671-06:00Paul Bunyan and John Henry almost certainly were b...Paul Bunyan and John Henry almost certainly were based on real people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23043298308931630792019-12-16T05:57:46.683-06:002019-12-16T05:57:46.683-06:00Only one of the many Abrahams need not exist for t...Only one of the many Abrahams need not exist for the anon to be correct in stating Abraham never existed. Jeff and Blake only assert that <i><b>an</b></i> Abraham existed, leaving open that many of the various evolutions of Abraham are only legends that draw upon real items in their cultures.<br /><br />Seems like anon, Jeff, and Blake all agree those cultures existed and their Abrahams were mere "legends" drawing upon things in their very real cultures. Just as Jeff, Blake, and anon all almost certainly exist, their supposed disagreement is just an legend and never existed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-45414697968402983542019-12-16T05:44:15.339-06:002019-12-16T05:44:15.339-06:00Jeff's 6:06 just proved it is just as easy to ...Jeff's 6:06 just proved it is just as easy to address an anon as a non-anon. Kindaof proves Blake wrong actually.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15205681813770239492019-12-16T00:28:08.330-06:002019-12-16T00:28:08.330-06:00Jeff you don't have the luxury of maybe in the...Jeff you don't have the luxury of maybe in the question of whether or not Abraham existed. Mormons proclaim that he did, and they proclaim they have the details, as anachronistic and stupid as they sound. You are not allowed by your faith to even listen for one moment to the many voices of the historians who will tell the more sensible story that he's probably a conglomeration of characters from ancient folklore. So while you squelch the voice of the jerk anons here and admit that voices are in fact varied on the existence of Abraham, what you should be doing is stating that NO! Abraham did exist no questions asked! The weirdest book with the weirdest origin in all of Mormonism says so! No other voices should be entertained at all. Get in line, Jeff. Stop letting facts get in the way of your misguided faith. Don't you remember that from apologist school? Oh, that's right--you didn't go to school for any of this. It's your hobby and your bully pulpit. Nothing more. Nobody's convinced, pal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85087112543406905082019-12-15T18:06:58.222-06:002019-12-15T18:06:58.222-06:00Blake Ostler's points are entirely reasonable....Blake Ostler's points are entirely reasonable. Random anonymous comments are allowed, but don't carry as much weight as those who come from someone with at least an identifiable profile or persona of some kind, and ideally a real name that can establish who the person. Blake is also absolutely right about the foolishness of a blanket assertion that Abraham did not exist. That is not based on sound scholarship. The extensive legends of Abraham in multiple cultures where oral history has been treasured for millennia certainly raise the possibility that they draw upon something historical, though we don't have contemporaneous evidence for that lone figure and it is true that the accounts that have survived show evidence of multiple, sometimes conflicting sources have been relied upon to give us the Biblical account of Abraham. Such evolution and confusion in the records should not be surprising. But it doesn't establish that an ancient Abraham did not exist. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-16846405326687938722019-12-15T17:43:28.475-06:002019-12-15T17:43:28.475-06:00The comment from Anon @10:57 was deleted for its u...The comment from Anon @10:57 was deleted for its use of profanity. Extra demerits for being idiotic and hateful. The inability to disagree with an iota of civility, charity, or logic is truly unfortunate. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-182054275757700202019-12-14T05:50:18.045-06:002019-12-14T05:50:18.045-06:00One wonders who is the bigger ignoramus with more ...One wonders who is the bigger ignoramus with more hatred and invective. The one that does not consider "Abraham to be a person who actually existed" or the one that says Abraham is "'almost' certainly" based a real person. Hhuummm . . . <br /><br />I think the one that thinks a qualifier of "almost" has some magically property here is more full of it and the one that never denied that this whole topic is inane is less full of it.<br /><br />Everyone, me included, is obviously delusional, thinking anyone here cares what the other thinks. I vote that Randy is less delusional.<br /> <br />-NotRandyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-38167341865248102842019-12-14T01:33:01.268-06:002019-12-14T01:33:01.268-06:00Be quiet Rocky.Be quiet Rocky.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86694852710653445202019-12-13T21:47:01.886-06:002019-12-13T21:47:01.886-06:00I assume Annon wasn't around at the time of Ab...I assume Annon wasn't around at the time of Abraham. Therefore he (making an assumption) at best doesn't really know if Abraham existed or not. He certainly has the right to believe what he wants, but he doesn't really know. Pretending he does know is a fallacious assumption on his part.Rocky Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04980833870144812664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-78607153283093345462019-12-13T16:54:08.874-06:002019-12-13T16:54:08.874-06:00Anonymous - I had to chuckle a bit at myself becau...Anonymous - I had to chuckle a bit at myself because your point that only "Blake" is shown here does indeed lack the information necessary to give what I am asking from you. I usually use my full name "Blake Ostler"; but for some reason this Atom feed only posts Blake. I apologize for my lack of candor -- though unintentional I assure you.<br /><br />Here is why having your full name is important. First, it gives me an opportunity to search your name to see if you have published anything or have some academic background that would show that you are not just some Mormon-hater (as you are) that makes hateful comments. It also allows me to hold you accountable for irresponsible comments -- like those you have made here. The assertion that "Abraham never existed" is the kind of statement only an ignoramus would make. Whether Abraham existed is a matter of considerable debate; not a foregone conclusion. It allows me to place your comments in context to see if here is some reason to believe that you know what you are talking about or whether you just lack the education and understanding necessary to know that you are being irresponsible. It also allows me to hold you responsible for the invective and hatred demonstrated in you comment about Mormons and to know if you are a different anonymous altogether from the prior irresponsible anonymous.Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042652787154610375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-21646480671437555372019-12-13T15:21:22.288-06:002019-12-13T15:21:22.288-06:00The most amazing comment I have read is Anonymous&...The most amazing comment I have read is Anonymous's 10:57 comment -- who amazingly and hilariously does not get that his or her hateful post demonstrates abundantly that Anonymous is guilty of each of the charges that he/she has against Mormons. Anonymous must not have a mirror in his or her house because if they did, I am sure that the irony would finally dawn.Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042652787154610375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2009375185798949622019-12-12T07:23:38.893-06:002019-12-12T07:23:38.893-06:00Anon 10:57 - Yeah, in general Mormons are full of ...Anon 10:57 - Yeah, in general Mormons are full of themselves, sincerely believing they are the only ones that are sincere, concluding they are a special subset of humanity who experienced a transcendental feeling peace and love as they mentally matured around the age of 14, and then coming to the bizarre deduction that this feeling means the BoM is not inspired fiction, launching a lifetime of arguing with non-Mormons and Mormons alike with snide comments and strawman attacks while insisting they do not argue. Apparently they are confused enough about the way they think one can sell books to them to help them sort it out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-64576676512761727872019-12-11T22:57:22.479-06:002019-12-11T22:57:22.479-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-89106212932682580112019-12-11T19:32:00.498-06:002019-12-11T19:32:00.498-06:00“Telling me your first name (and I doubt that is r...“Telling me your first name (and I doubt that is really your name at all proving that even your existence is in doubt) does nothing to place you in context.”<br /><br />Says the poster going by the name “Blake.”<br /><br />Are you saying Blake is your last name? A nickname? How is your posting any different?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-71700496160749338652019-12-11T13:39:52.453-06:002019-12-11T13:39:52.453-06:00Anonymous some people just do not get it. Telling ...Anonymous some people just do not get it. Telling me your first name (and I doubt that is really your name at all proving that even your existence is in doubt) does nothing to place you in context. Second, I allow that the Abraham lore is based on a mythos but these myths don't just exist in a vacuum. They endure in a civilation where remembered lore is a an art form and the basis for origin stories. I am just sure that you thought I was asserting that Abraham certainly existed. You apparently chose to ignore the "almost" in my statement. However, the one thing we can say is that the assertion made by some anonymous wonk that on this blog site that "Abraham did not exist" is asserting way too much with way too much certainty. That was my point.Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042652787154610375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-29280778152049495122019-12-11T12:46:20.141-06:002019-12-11T12:46:20.141-06:00Jeff - Thanks for explaining it to Blake, there re...Jeff - Thanks for explaining it to Blake, there really is no certainty as he claims and reasonable people can conclude that it is not radical to lump Abraham in with folklore. -NotRandyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-84266646399878966342019-12-11T09:02:27.766-06:002019-12-11T09:02:27.766-06:00The claims that Abraham didn't exist seem to b...The claims that Abraham didn't exist seem to be largely based on lack of archaeological data from the era of the Patriarchs, where precious little written history from the era exists. Then recent arguments that accounts of Abraham show later elements are used to further undermine the potential existence of Abraham, but the stories as they are passed on and rewritten can easily pick up anachronistic elements without being based solely on fiction and fabricated folk myths. William Dever explains the situation more clearly at https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/archeology-hebrew-bible/. He explains that it's possible for an Abraham-like figure to have existed, but we don't have compelling evidence from that era that he did. That's different than saying we have compelling proof that no such person existed. <br /><br />Jon Levenson's book on Abraham, as I recall (has been a few years since I read it) leaves the door open that such a person could have existed, even if his story has since been embellished. He recognizes we don't have solid evidence of his existence. But that's not the same as solid evidence of non-existence. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-62985243684790698392019-12-11T08:45:04.172-06:002019-12-11T08:45:04.172-06:00Is that the same Blake behind the curtain that qui...Is that the same Blake behind the curtain that quibbled with Dan Vogel that he can not really know things? Because this one appears to know Abraham existed. Though this Blake appears to be just talking past Randy "certainly the mythos is based on a real historical person" pretty much describes folklore in general. Just compare the historicity sections of Wikipedia for King Arthur and Abraham.<br /><br />-NotRandyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-68302317423528017742019-12-10T23:02:17.992-06:002019-12-10T23:02:17.992-06:00Oh, okay "Blake." I'm "Randy.&q...Oh, okay "Blake." I'm "Randy." What the heck difference does it possibly make? You gonna contact my stake leadership and have em come knock on my door? How exactly will I be held accountable for sharing the fact that Abraham did not exist? Are you threatening me? What do you got? Does it actually matter to your Mormon faith that Abraham existed as a person rather than a composite folk hero? Have you ever once been asked about that belief in an interview?<br />I'm going to go ahead and ignore the rest of your incoherent rambling until you answer each of these questions, tough guy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-14299165247462176112019-12-10T14:42:44.237-06:002019-12-10T14:42:44.237-06:00I beleive that the council of heaven view was rath...I beleive that the council of heaven view was rather unknown in JS's day --at least as it is now presented in biblical studies. The BofA indeed hits that nail on the head. Having said that, I think that the BofA is a representative of a text like the Apocrypha of Abraham that dates to the same time period as the papyri themsevles and which had the same parallels regarding the council of gods but also includes the pre-existent vision of pre-mortal souls, human sacrifice, the vision of creation and new details regarding Tarah's idol worship. That seems to be a better fit and frankly I have not seen a good explanation for these correspondences on such recondite and unique parallels except the non-explanatory view that anyone with an Old Testament and some knowledge of Abraham in the 19th century would come up with. It is just that is is clear beyond cavill that no one else did.<br /><br />And come out from behind the curtain Anonymous and let us know who you are so that we can hold you accountable for your biblical minimalism and radical statements that Abraham never existed. Almost certainly the mythos is based on a real historical person.Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042652787154610375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-83731280717381887122019-12-07T13:30:50.803-06:002019-12-07T13:30:50.803-06:00Oops — that should be “... any aspect at all of Jo...Oops — that should be “... any aspect at all of Joseph's use of a 19th-century source that differs slightly from that source....”<br /><br />—OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-38876045481388213122019-12-07T12:17:10.127-06:002019-12-07T12:17:10.127-06:00Jeff writes that the council of the gods still str...Jeff writes that <i>the council of the gods still strikes me as impressive and not something Joseph would have picked up from his local library or itinerant preachers</i>.<br /><br />How so? The idea of a plurality of gods is right there in the word <i>Elohim</i>, and the idea that they would occasionally meet together is right there in the story of Job. All Joseph had to add was the idea that they would meet together in order to direct the creation. That's not much of a stretch.<br /><br />We can see a more general problem with Jeff's apologetics in his claim that this was <i>not something Joseph would have picked up from his local library or itinerant preachers.</i><br /><br />There's a ludicrous assumption being made here, namely, that the only way writers use sources is to plop them into their work more or less as found. But of course that's not the way it works. Writers do not necessarily just repeat specific words or phrases like "council of the gods," nor even specific ideas like henotheism. They take the ideas they find and reshape them, remix them, and expand upon them according to their own creative theological imagination. Surely Joseph had imagination in abundance, and, in the case of his midrashic expansion of the Priestly creation account in Abraham 4, there's absolutely no reason to think he was not creatively expanding on the ideas he was encountering in the Bible, in his work with Seixas, etc. There's nothing all that notable about Joseph's work in this regard; people have been doing this sort of thing for thousands of years.<br /><br />Why does Jeff make this rather obviously wrong assumption? Because it allows him to say that if there's <i>any aspect at all</i> of Joseph's use of a 19th-century source, then the passage in question could not have been written in the 19th century. <br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79130079449767120172019-12-07T10:47:23.751-06:002019-12-07T10:47:23.751-06:00I just read Stephen Smoot's "Council, Cha...I just read Stephen Smoot's "Council, Chaos, and Creation in the Book of Abraham," which basically just rehashes some ideas one would encounter in the first week of a Bible as Literature class. For anyone not supernaturally committed to the antiquity of the Book of Abraham, the obvious takeaway from the article would be that the Priestly writers of Genesis got their creation account from the Babylonians, and Joseph Smith got his from Genesis (perhaps with a little help from Job etc.).<br /><br />Of course, if one already believes the Book of Abraham to be ancient, all kinds of nonsense can ensue, which I think is why Smoot repeats his disclaimer that "this is not to say that the Book of Abraham and the Enuma Elish are drawing directly on each other but rather to note the common presence of this motif in ancient Near Eastern creation mythology." I'm sure a lot of Smoot's professional colleagues would chuckle at the suggestion of the Enuma Elish drawing on something called the Book of Abraham. Better simply to say that, well, the ideas of a divine counsel and a watery chaos had a "common presence."<br /><br />Problem is, those ideas were also commonly present in 19th-century America, because they're so prominent in the Bible.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15623707539184423412019-12-07T09:12:25.354-06:002019-12-07T09:12:25.354-06:00Anon 2:34 - And how humanity focused its violent n...Anon 2:34 - And how humanity focused its violent nature on the Abrahamic tradition. I think I prefer your conclusion that is the fault of human folklore, not divinity. Otherwise, I would have to sarcastically say way to go God. Alternatively, I could wonder that if Abram would have patiently waited for Isaac instead producing Ishmael, God would have rewarded him with a tropical paradise like Nephi (meso-America) instead of giving him nomadic pastoral land surrounded by desert.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67803081844554955712019-12-07T08:57:43.245-06:002019-12-07T08:57:43.245-06:00The Wright family took lessons from nature (birds)...The Wright family took lessons from nature (birds) to solve problems of flight (wing warping). Today, man made airplanes do not work just like birds. Lets hope that is true as we develop artificial intelligence as well. Otherwise we will have to engineer the worst parts of ourselves into AI.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseveranceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com