Source
r/exmormon‱
ColonelAngus24601

The most infuriating part of the BoA article in the Ensign: the straw man

Wikipedia on the "straw man" logical fallacy:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition."

Kerry "The Mule" Muhlestein tells us that the problem that we all have with the BoA is that there wasn't evidence of human sacrifice in Egypt. Tell me, is that the issue any of you had with it? No. The issue we have is that the "translation" doesn't match that document AT ALL. As in 0%!

So, this nonexistent concern becomes his straw man which he proceeds to knock down by detailing his research which showed that "the Egyptians often did engage in human sacrifice." Not sure what "often" means, but I really don't care. The prevalence of human sacrifice in Egypt isn't my concern with the BoA.

He finishes his straw man demolition with a bit of heart-sell:

Sadly, before we had come to understand that our earlier position on human sacrifice was wrong, some members of the Church began to question their testimonies over this very issue. They trusted in something they thought they knew from the academic process more than the spiritual witness they had received by revelation from the Holy Ghost that the Pearl of Great Price was scripture. By the time the academic process caught up to revelation, some had left the Church.

So there you have it heathens. You left the church because of an incorrect understanding of the prevalence of human sacrifice in Egypt. So sad đŸ˜„

Edit: formatting. I know how to do quotes on Reddit now 😊

Posted Dec 26, 2018, 5:01 PM UTC · edited

34072
frednecksburgdelightfully damned‱

Excellent point, and I agree, the whole article is a combination of a strawman argument and gaslighting.

​

Anyone that wants a very well put together overview (with some very relevant details) of just about all the issues with the Book of Abraham should listen to the most recent two episodes (episodes 49 and 50) of the radio free mormon podcast:

​

https://radiofreemormon.org/

​

​

90
mithermage‱

I especially like the last few minutes where they talk about the anachronism of an Egyptian priest being in Ur....to mess with Abraham. That one is an amazing bit of info IHO.

24
fireproofundies‱

They forgot to mention “Egyptus”, one of the surest signs we’re dealing with an amateur

7
SansabinaIronic Priesthood holder‱

and if anyone needs a quick primer on the history of, and why the Book of Abraham is the biggest smokiest gun in Mormonism, check out Jeremy's excellent "Problems with the Book of Abraham"

https://cesletter.org/pdf/book-of-abraham-issues.pdf

8
rth1027‱

The song at the end of part one was fantastic

​

King tut - that funky tut.

3
[deleted]‱

[deleted]

-2†
[deleted]‱

[removed]

12
mormonimous‱

This. 1000x this!

3
[deleted]‱

[deleted]

0
Stuboysrevenge(wish that damn dog had caught him!)‱

Bad bot.

Sometimes the cliche fits.

0†
PayLayFailSCMC SIGINT Analyst‱

Sometimes the cliche fits.

It doesn't. "This" is conversational detritus. "This" was properly implemented via the upvote button.

22
WhoaBlackBetty_bbl‱

The whole "Human Sacrifice" thing didn't show up on my radar.

What did load up my shelf was Joseph doing the whole seagull thing from the Little Mermaid.

"This means this and That means that!" "Oh that, that's a Snarfblat!"

We have the pictures and his "translations" right there. It's in the text. Answer me that Mr. Muhlestein. I never even thought about Human Sacrifice.

I also love how he links to his own other Ensign article to provide the veneer of "scholarly".

75
zMerovingian‱

“The seagull thing from the Little Mermaid” is a great way to describe it!

33
HolyBonerOfMinBy His Own Hand‱

Ya, I'm taking this.

6
AllByMyZelphI dig burial mounds‱

The Ensign citing the Ensign. Now that's meta.

24
spenStan's little helper‱

Seems legit, Stan Lee comics always contain loads of references to other issues. Except the Marvel universe in all it's iterations is more consistent then the clusterfuck of Mormon theology.

9
ColonelAngus24601OP‱

😂

8
Archimedes_Redux‱

Two scholarly and peer reviewed sources!

5
HolyBonerOfMinBy His Own Hand‱

Here, I made this for you:

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/a9uapo/when_joe_finds_egyptian_stuff/?utm_source=reddit-android

7
suresignofthenailGot Zelph?‱

I agree, what a ridiculous article. Sadly, I’m sure it was written so that TBMs will “know” that there are “some issues” with the BOA, but those have been resolved.

36
mormonimous‱

Reshelved.

18
ColonelAngus24601OP‱

😂

3
PaulFThumpkins‱

That little "By the time the academic process caught up to revelation" thing at the end is pretty sneaky too. It implies a consistent process of science and history validating Mormon leaders' statements and Mormon scripture when the reality is anything but. Might as well claim that people's issue with the Kinderhook Plates was that they didn't know something ancient could be shaped like a bell, and say that science had "caught up" to revelation once somebody finds a Hopi pitcher with a similar shape or whatever.

9
mormonimous‱

Us: Our problem with Koolaid is it has too much sugar. KM: Some people have a problem with Koolaid because they are unaware that the company that produces it has health coverage for a few percent of its top employees and officers. Us: đŸ˜¶

28
KoolAidRefuser‱

Why not just refuse?

3
spenStan's little helper‱

Except it's Flavor Aid and it's poisoned.

2
KoolAidRefuser‱

It was always that cheap knock-off.

2
aLittleQueerTruly, you have a dizzying intellect.‱

Lol! Riiight.

Because obviously nobody would have a problem with the fact that JS misidentified every character and drawing on those manuscripts so completely, and his 'understanding' of Egyptian was so flawed that he labelled Isis as "King Pharaoh"...

Nothing to see here, folks...

28
trickygringoAsk Google and ye shall receive.‱

In his time the Rosetta Stone had not yet been cracked. Today you can translate the facsimiles on your smart phone.

2
aLittleQueerTruly, you have a dizzying intellect.‱

True. But...do we really need an academic translation to know the difference between a drawing of a man and a drawing of a woman? Particularly when both are pictured side-by-side? ("Why is Pharaoh so much curvier than the other dudes?")

Also, afaik, FAIR is talking about modern mormons, not Joe's day.

1
trickygringoAsk Google and ye shall receive.‱

Well actually, due to inbreeding Akhenaten had a pretty feminine physique.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24426101/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/why-male-pharaoh-had-feminine-physique/

But generally speaking, yes it was pretty obvious, even if not in Akhenaten's case. Him next to his wife isn't quite so obvious.

2
aLittleQueerTruly, you have a dizzying intellect.‱

That. Is. Fascinating. (no /s intended)

ETA: the researcher suspects "familial gynecomastia", which would imply he wasn't the only one. Very interesting.

1
Word2daWiseToo bad we didn't meet earlier. I was really hot when I was 14.‱

We should have a Straw Man (type of) sticky thread that points out the way apologists shift the arguments to non-relevant topics or points. This happens in several ways.

These are just the few I've heard:

"You must not have had a real testimony" (attacks the person who learned they were lied to rather than addressing the conflicts in church history).

"What about King David?" (We aren't comparing King David to JS, we are discussing what JS did and whether that would have seemed like a Man of God had we been given the truth).

"Speaking as a man, not a prophet" (this is also off-topic, because it does not address the traditional descriptions the church has of prophets).

"It was common to marry that young back then!" (No, it was not, but the point to this discussion is whether we were told the truth, whether Emma was told, and how the hell many 14-year-olds could be widows).

Now that the stupid "Saints" book is out, we need a neutral-sounding sticky thread that has some key points that address apologetics, and does it in a bullet point form so people won't get overloaded on text.

In court, apologetics and straw-man comments would often be objected to for not responding to the direct question.

21
ColonelAngus24601OP‱

This is a great idea. Maybe broaden it to include all of the logical fallacies. You could take any particularly crappy apologetic argument and dissect it.

10
aLittleQueerTruly, you have a dizzying intellect.‱

A Logical Fallacies sticky...love this idea!

There are so many examples, though, we'd almost need a separate thread for every type of fallacy...lol :-/

2
Word2daWiseToo bad we didn't meet earlier. I was really hot when I was 14.‱

How about a main index thread with links (and bullet-sized examples)? The other threads can go into more details.

One thing I'd hope we could prevent is turning everything into a bashing session. When I first looked at this sub, I had been very TBM, and my shelf had cracked terribly. I wanted information, and I needed it to be objective and factual (the essay on Wife Swapping and Molestation in Kirtland and Nauvoo had me in tears). However, the swearing, ranting, and other emotional things here scared me away at that time. I'd have benefitted from some matter-of-fact information that pointed out the fallacies, the dodginess, and the real facts. I later came back when my shelf had fully collapsed but the kinder, gentler site I'd turned to (after trying to read things here) went dark. That site saved my sanity.

The "Saints" book opens the door for us to provide straightforward information for people who, like me way back then, come here to figure out what in the heck is going on.

There's a point at which many TBMs who learn the facts are extremely fragile. They don't want their world to crash down, and they want to believe the church is still the "good" thing they were told it is. When people in that state read some of the language and anger here, their initial reaction can be that it's "anti-Mormon," which, for some people, is used as a confirmation tool to support the narrative about persecution.

Those are just my thoughts on it - this is the most widely read site for people who want to learn the truth. I hope we can take advantage of that and offer a sticky that is neutrally framed information to help the increasing numbers who drop by here to learn things.

3
aLittleQueerTruly, you have a dizzying intellect.‱

So many excellent points you make here. (You're on fire today, Word!)

2
Word2daWiseToo bad we didn't meet earlier. I was really hot when I was 14.‱

Uh...thanks?

3
Lin_Belcher‱

Not only is he using the straw man fallacy, he is undermining the credibility and authority of egyptologist experts. Then he builds up tscc as the only credible source and authority to believe in.

This makes determining credible sources incredibly confusing and frustrating for those seeking truth. Members often default to following tscc because they believe the leadership is honest and wouldn't lead them astray. They also believe that if the leadership did lead them astray, god would intervene and save them from unrighteous leadership. Since that hasn't happened yet, the church must still be true....

18
aLittleQueerTruly, you have a dizzying intellect.‱

he is undermining the credibility and authority of egyptologist experts. Then he builds up tscc as the only credible source and authority to believe in.

True to mormon form. In fact, this is one of the exact claims that HOaks made in his recent conference talk...to summarize: that no 'worldly' authority can be trusted, and that the Q15 are the only trustworthy 'authority' on any given subject.

)Ironically, in the very same talk he made statements about human biology which are verifiably false. So much for his so-called authority, lol.)

3
Three-eyed_seagull‱

What is even more ridiculous is the fact that most TBM's will read this article and agree with it, see no problem here, church is true, tender mercies, ect..

17
DystopianFutureGuyThe flaming sword made me do it!‱

Terry "The Mule" Muhlestein tells us that the problem that we all have with the BoA is that there wasn't evidence of human sacrifice in Egypt. Tell me, is that the issue any of you had with it? No. The issue we have is that the "translation" doesn't match that document AT ALL. As in 0%!

Thank you. I was going to make this exact same post later today, but you said it even better and more thoroughly than I would have. Great post, OP.

13
kevinrex‱

My problem with the book of Abraham: I was taught that all scripture is literal. So, when the canonized book (including the preface, which, unlike other canonized shit, actually was canonized along with the BofA itself), says "by his own hand upon papyrus", well, shit, I think it means Abraham wrote it "by his own hand upon papyrus". !!!

Nope. He didn't.

12
TokensForSaleYou can buy anything in this world for money even useless tokens‱

“I still have a few questions about the book of Abraham for which I have not yet found an academically satisfying answer, based on the current state of Egyptology. But I am not concerned about this.”

What he means to say is he is choosing to ignore the facts. The BoA is one of the biggest jokes in Mormonism and anyone that has spent even the most superficial amount of time looking into the facts will soon be forced into acknowledging the hoax or engaging in some serious cognitive dissonance.

11
AmosAgnostic‱

My personal take on BoA,

You don't need to prove it was mistranslated.

Its own content, prima fascia, falsifies it.

It says that the earth was repopulated by the eight people who survived Noah's food. Nuf said about that.

It says Egypt was discovered shortly after the flood by "Egyptus", who repopulated the land and founded Egypt. Oh, and she was a descendant of Ham, black. By implication, this is saying Egyptus' descendants repopulated the rest of wiped-out Africa, from Egypt southward.

So that's a double whammy. First, the history and founding of Egypt is known, and it's not that.

Second, it is known that humans migrated out of Africa, not into Africa. Sub-Saharan Africans were mostly genetically isolated from peoples who migrated out. And, Sub-Saharan Africans predate the flood and have been there the whole time (well, same as Egypt).

It says there was a "curse" of Ham, nuf said about that.

The extant book itself is stupid. Even if we didn't know where it came from, never heard of Joseph Smith or papyrii, there's enough in the book to falsify it.

10
sacrifarce‱

I thought his point was that all Egyptologists knew that there was no human sacrifice in Egypt and they were wrong. Therefore, Egyptologists don’t know everything, so you can’t trust them when they say they know the BOA is mistranslated. There is just something that’s missing that they don’t know yet. Mormons have special knowledge from revelation that allows us to bypass the normal methods of finding truth and get the right answers even when the scientists or experts don’t understand it.

It’s still bad logic, but I didn’t read it as the straw man everyone else is claiming.

BTW—even though Muhlstein wrote his dissertation on human sacrifice in Egypt, there is still not good evidence of it. He calls it sanctioned killing and in a state where theology and government overlap, it’s hard to say what’s done in the name of religion and what’s done for the sake of law and order in the state. It’s still not sacrifice in the sense that most understand it—to appease or gain favor from a god.

9
SideburnHereticThe further one goes, the less one knows. --Laozi‱

So there you have it heathens. You left the church because of an incorrect understanding of the prevalence of human sacrifice in Egypt. So sad đŸ˜„

So glad I left in order to sin.

9
mindofmateoHold the (s) because I am an aint | youtu.be/anEMXOyCCqc‱

By the time the academic process caught up to revelation

This is beyond stupid.

9
ColonelAngus24601OP‱

Right, like wtf does that mean?

5
gvsurf‱

Thanks for your post. It helps diffuse the utter frustration I feel.

8
supagirl277from on high‱

God I hate this so much. There's no winning with these people

8
djhoen‱

FYI, his name is Kerry (not Terry). Good post though!

7
2oothDK‱

Thanks Jerry!

11
BrutalScrewdriver‱

His name is Scary Kerry bitch!

8
Kinderhookersandblow‱

Haha parks and Rec!

3
2oothDK‱

Yes!

3
ColonelAngus24601OP‱

Good catch, fixed it 🙏

3
Gold__star☆ for you‱

This recent thread talked about another apologist's method of lying

https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/a95mvm/the_methodological_flaw_in_mesoamerican/

7
houston_oilers‱

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/facsimile-printing-plates-circa-23-february-16-may-1842/3

And then a discussion surrounding the missing Anubis head (a slave? really?):

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=47835

6