Statement on the problems with the Book of Abraham

[log]

If the sore - your theory - is bleeding, perhaps you better get it cleaned of its infection - the false foundation upon which it is predicated - and bandaged. Nothing compels you to respond.

It isn't enough for two theories to co-exist and have people disagree and leave it at that.

Indeed, it is not.

D&C 93
24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

This is a rather significant point. Since your entire thesis is predicated upon the claim that we have the papyrus from which Joseph translated the Book of Abraham, while we have solid historical evidence, coupled with eye-witness accounts, which completely falsifies that claim, your thesis is falsified from the outset.

Of what apologetic use is a falsified theory?

[DragonSlayer]

Indeed, it is not.

Of what use is lack of charity toward your brother whom you choose to bludgeon with your uncharitable words, and in the arrogance of your moment of being able to win, and the haughtiness of your soul, decide that you are going to conquer and show him a thing or two? Think for a moment about you, as typological of the Roman Soldier whipping the Savior with stripes. Who was the person in that moment who really could win if he wanted to? Go ahead and think you are the god of your little game, and then I hope you have a great time taking the sacrament in the morning and thinking back about how you acted in this moment.

[log]

Indeed, it is not.

Of what use is lack of charity toward your brother whom you choose to bludgeon with your uncharitable words, and in the arrogance of your moment of being able to win, and the haughtiness of your soul, decide that you are going to conquer and show him a thing or two? Think for a moment about you, as typological of the Roman Soldier whipping the Savior with stripes. Who was the person in that moment who really could win if he wanted to? Go ahead and think you are the god of your little game, and then I hope you have a great time taking the sacrament in the morning and thinking back about how you acted in this moment.

If you can debunk the eyewitness testimony and historical evidence concerning the details about the papyrus which was the actual source of the Book of Abraham, then you should do so. I feel no pangs of conscience for having shown your thesis is, on the available evidence, false from the outset.

Why do you suppose, therefore, that I should?

And I think it highly implausible that you did not already know about this stuff; after all, I'm a simple dillettante, whereas you claim to have done a lot of research.

D&C 93
24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

[log]

Do I sin when I tell a dedicated flat-earther that the earth is not, in fact, flat, and give the demonstration known to the Greeks to establish that fact?

A curious question. One I have never pondered before.

[Hannant]

Log you crack me up.
We have the papyrus, and you are dribbling on about witnesses and evidence.
I'm reading a page from the book 1984, Orwellian Newspeak at its finest.
You must work for the church

[log]

Well, until you and yours somehow account for the historical evidence and the eyewitness accounts about the papyrus from which the BoA was actually translated, I'm not terribly concerned about your opinion.

[Hannant]

I'm guessing you've not read the prophecies of Oliver Cowdery and the other books and angels that these witnesses also swore to after they left the church

[log]

Utterly irrelevant.

You know, I might consider joining the Flat Earth society if they were to make any real progress in coming up with a comprehensive paradigm which accounts for all the empirical data on hand. One could reasonably combine flat-earth theory with geocentrism. Now, it complicates the math significantly, and violates Okham's Razor - but that's simply a heuristic and not a real law of logic or rationality. How would they account for satellite data, one wonders...

[inquirringmind]

and violates Okham's Razor - but that's simply a heuristic and not a real law of logic or rationality.

That's interesting.

I always felt that but didn't know how to express it (and "heuristic" wasn't part of my vocabulary.)

Thank you.

How would they account for satellite data, one wonders...

They could say most of the satellite data is faked, like some believe our trips to the moon were.

[inquirringmind]

I'm guessing you've not read the prophecies of Oliver Cowdery and the other books and angels that these witnesses also swore to after they left the church

I believe he's talking about the hostile witnesses who supposedly (according to his sources) said they saw red ink on the papyrus.

I'd like to see you address that issue (and if you've already done so, please provide me with a link.)

Thank you.

[Hannant]

Why would I care about the red ink?

We have the papyrus he worked on.

I'm confused. What document was the red ink on?

We have 3 facsimiles he translated and some text he translated.

We have the facsimiles, do we have the papyrus the text came from? Is that what the red ink was said to be on?

[inquirringmind]

We have the facsimiles, do we have the papyrus the text came from? Is that what the red ink was said to be on?

Yes!

That, and his basic theological presuppositions, are why he questions whether you have the papyrus the text came from.

Log, could you give Hannant a link to your sources?

And Hannant, could you look at them?

Then maybe if you both keep posting those of us who are reading along (without having made up our minds, or being committed to a particular set of presuppositions) will be able to get something valuable from this thread.

Thank you.

[DragonSlayer]

If you can debunk the eyewitness testimony and historical evidence concerning the details about the papyrus which was the actual source of the Book of Abraham, then you should do so. I feel no pangs of conscience for having shown your thesis is, on the available evidence, false from the outset.

Why do you suppose, therefore, that I should?

And I think it highly implausible that you did not already know about this stuff; after all, I'm a simple dillettante, whereas you claim to have done a lot of research.

I owe you nothing. What I battles I choose to fight and engage in are done on my terms, not yours.

[log]

We have the facsimiles, do we have the papyrus the text came from? Is that what the red ink was said to be on?

Yes!

That, and his basic theological presuppositions, are why he questions whether you have the papyrus the text came from.

Log, could you give Hannant a link to your sources?

Already posted. Hannant apparently didn't read it, because homeboy started for some reason he never mentioned talking about Oliver Cowdery and some other irrelevant stuff.

[log]

I owe you nothing. What I battles I choose to fight and engage in are done on my terms, not yours.

No, you owe me nothing. The debt you owe is to intellectual honesty. I hope your terms include that.

[Bgood]

(-|

[log]

So much presumption in so few words. The position Morris takes is not even wrong.

Wait - is it truly possible y'all are holding positions that have been publicly refuted for over 20 years???

[DragonSlayer]

The debt you owe is to intellectual honesty. I hope your terms include that.

Let me try to give you a clue why I am not responding to you. You detract from the Spirit because of your insisting on winning. You are not interested in learning. You are not interested in my point of view. You are only interested in being right. Go ahead. Be right. Go ahead and win. If you think you have won, go ahead and be full of yourself. If I can't talk to you with the Spirit, I won't talk.

". . . he opened not his mouth: . . . as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."(Isaiah 53:7)

"And the Spirit shall be given unto you by the prayer of faith; and if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach." (D&C 42:27)

"And he answered him to never a word" (Matthew 27:14)

[log]

The debt you owe is to intellectual honesty. I hope your terms include that.

Let me try to give you a clue why I am not responding to you. You detract from the Spirit because of your insisting on winning. You are not interested in learning.

I am interested in learning truth.

D&C 93
24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

I am not interested in learning error.

You are not interested in my point of view.

I am interested in your point of view - specifically, how you handle the fact that we don't have the papyrus from which the BoA was translated. Truth, after all, is what we're after here, and not error.

D&C 50
17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.

19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

24 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

25 And again, verily I say unto you, and I say it that you may know the truth, that you may chase darkness from among you.

"And the Spirit shall be given unto you by the prayer of faith; and if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach." (D&C 42:27)

Does one who has the Spirit teach error?

You are only interested in being right. Go ahead. Be right. Go ahead and win. If you think you have won, go ahead and be full of yourself.

3 Nephi 14
1 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he turned again to the multitude, and did open his mouth unto them again, saying: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother: Let me pull the mote out of thine eye—and behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Luke 6
46 ¶And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:

48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

[DragonSlayer]

Log, as for me, this conversation is over.

[log]

Log, as for me, this conversation is over.

As I noted before, nothing compels you to respond. However, I fail to see the probative value in a falsified theory, and I see harm arising from teaching error.

[Hannant]

Well log, it appears they also have the original text document AS WELL AS the facsimiles.

And here they are.
http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/book ... apers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and no surprise, they are just wrong again.

Time to go log

[log]

Well log, it appears they also have the original text document AS WELL AS the facsimiles.

And here they are.
http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/book ... apers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and no surprise, they are just wrong again.

Time to go log

I don't see the papyrus roll with the red ink, son, neither the other vignettes mentioned by the witnesses - and, wouldn't you know it, they don't even refer to the witness accounts!

We have multiple, independent eyewitness accounts which describe the correct scroll, as well as additional vignettes. We have nothing like them. Nobody who claims we have the original papyrus scroll from which the Book of Abraham was translated is telling the truth.

Revelation 21:8
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

[Hannant]

What a pathetic response.

Mate, your red ink is a joke.

Go stick it with the hill full of plates and swords and moroni protecting it.

Myths, irrelevant.

Here is fact.

That is the source of the text.
They are the facsimilies.

THEY HAVE JOSEPH SMITHS HANDWRITING all over them.

They are the original documents.

Here's truth. You cant explain that Joseph Smith got it very, very wrong, and you are making a very poor attempt to distract from the issue.

And that is, 1, Joseph smith did not translate the book of Abraham, the best we can hope for is "catalyst"- which itself has a huge amount of problems and doesn't hold.

2, The translation of the facsimiles is nonsensical

[log]

What a pathetic response.

That is the source of the text.

@-) @-) @-)
Except for that pesky, and well-known, eye-witness testimony concerning the characteristics of the source of the Book of Abraham, I'm sure we'd all think so. As it is, we know your (and their) claim is stupefyingly incorrect.

You're wrong, and demonstrably so: your purported "source" does not match the witnesses' description. That's the end of the debate.

The translation of the facsimiles is nonsensical

Well, other experts disagree.

Here's truth. You cant explain that Joseph Smith got it very, very wrong, and you are making a very poor attempt to distract from the issue.

@-) @-) @-)

How interesting - since we don't have the source of the BoA (this remains fact despite your incessant bare denials to the contrary), nobody can show that Joseph got it wrong or right. Whether Joseph got it wrong or right is exactly the point at issue. Therefore, the critics you have chosen to place your trust in have deceived you.

And you, despite the fact that you are aware now that they have not presented everything about this issue, yet cling to your position despite the public evidence which contradicts it and cannot be gainsaid.

Honestly, I don't know what else to say about your position, which is analogous to insisting 2 + 2 = 5, even after it has been demonstrated, using marbles, that 2 + 2 = 4.

Remember: all liars shall partake of the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death.