Statement on the problems with the Book of Abraham

[freedomforall]

The integrity of the dialogue here is embarrassing.

Calling Me a liar, repeatedly, and invoking hell, is disgraceful, utterly sickening.

Resorting to "they're anti, quick, ban them" is childish. Is that how you inoculate your children.

Who cares about possible red ink parchments that_might_exist.

The facsimiles we have are not correct.

Abraham 1&2 came from what we DO have.

It also, is not a correct translation.

The red ink parchments are a red herring because of what we do have.

Don't hide behind "its anti material". That really is childish

Have I ever said its not a divinely inspired document? No.

I have only said he didn't translate them from that papyrus

Are you under the impression that God would have allowed Joseph Smith to write false doctrine and have it canonized? This idea is worse than even considering the BoA to be made up or not correct. Frankly, I am ashamed of all the bickering over it. Saints know that all they have to do is ask God and have the HG witness to the book's authenticity. This method would cut out all the back and forth bashing and the "I know more than you do" attitude.
For those that don't want to know truth, to ask God, to stop bashing...just know that I got a warning for less than this stuff being said here.
Like:
You are filth.
A foul spirit?
You are a disgrace?
A pathetic response?

Where is the mod now? Or is it only people not liked that get warnings? There has to be equality here, right? Aren't the rules for all members?

[freedomforall]

The integrity of the dialogue here is embarrassing.

Calling Me a liar, repeatedly, and invoking hell, is disgraceful, utterly sickening.

Lying repeatedly about us possessing the source of the Book of Abraham, despite the publicly available evidence which shows we do not, is disgraceful indeed.

Who cares about possible red ink parchments that_might_exist.

Those who care about the actual source of the Book of Abraham care about the papyrus with the red ink. It is a lie to say otherwise.

The red ink parchments are a red herring because of what we do have.

The actual source of the BoA, which is the papyrus with the red ink, is not a red herring - to insist otherwise is to lie.

I have only said he didn't translate them from that papyrus

Excellent! That is the implication of not having the papyrus with the red ink, since that is the source of the Book of Abraham, and we don't have it, therefore he didn't translate it from the papyrus we do have.

We finally agree on something.

Have you ever received a warning for calling or insinuating someone is a liar? You may want to be careful with this kind of language. A warning to one offender is justifiable for another offender is it not? This is Brian's house so consider this when conversing.

[log]

Have you ever received a warning for calling or insinuating someone is a liar? You may want to be careful with this kind of language. A warning to one offender is justifiable for another offender is it not? This is Brian's house so consider this when conversing.

When I call a man a liar, it is because I have demonstrated that he has, in fact, lied.

Hannant has repeatedly asserted throughout this thread that we have the papyrus from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham. I have shown, by published and publicly available evidence, that we do not. This evidence, establishing the characteristics of the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated and which match none of the papyrus we have, has been published and publicly available for at least 20 years. Since he has made the assertion that we have the papyrus from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham after having been shown sufficient proof that we do not have the papyrus from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham, he has lied.

[freedomforall]

Log, face it. We have THE papyrus JS translated from.

Remember - all liars go to hell.

Imagine if you were Hannant and he were you. Then how would the conversation be going? Can't ideas be considered? Seems to me the conversation is more about who knows the most than being able to accept possibilities and give each other some credit for having any knowledge about the Papyrus in the first place. Why ague so much? I know nothing about any of it, yet I believe the book of Abraham to be true. I'm happy with that, because I have the HG to witness truth to me. Know wh't I meen?

[log]

Log, face it. We have THE papyrus JS translated from.

Remember - all liars go to hell.

Imagine if you were Hannant and he were you.

If I were in Hannant's place, holding his position, having been shown the evidence that my assertion is false, I would shut up and revise my confidence in my sources downward, and do more research. If I could not gainsay the evidence, I would change my position, publicly. I have had to do so before.

That's basic honesty.

This is a realm where men's souls are at stake, and I do not take my responsibilities lightly.

[freedomforall]

Have you ever received a warning for calling or insinuating someone is a liar? You may want to be careful with this kind of language. A warning to one offender is justifiable for another offender is it not? This is Brian's house so consider this when conversing.

When I call a man a liar, it is because I have demonstrated that he has, in fact, lied.

Hannant has repeatedly asserted throughout this thread that we have the papyrus from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham. I have shown, by published and publicly available evidence, that we do not. This evidence, establishing the characteristics of the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated and which match none of the papyrus we have, has been published and publicly available for at least 20 years. Since he has made the assertion that we have the papyrus from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham after having been shown sufficient proof that we do not have the papyrus from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham, he has lied.

Then I suggest that both of you simply agree to disagree. Nothin' to it. No one has to be right, do they? Besides, there is a difference between being mistaken and being a liar. This is pretty harsh. A liar needs no high ego to do so, but someone bent on being right no matter what...may lie, like a narcissist. As we all know, a narcissist will lie, cheat and deceive in order to get their way and reasoning is nill. Just my 2 cents.

[Hyrcanus]

If I were in Hannant's place, holding his position, having been shown the evidence that my assertion is false, I would shut up and revise my confidence in my sources downward, and do more research. If I could not gainsay the evidence, I would change my position, publicly. I have had to do so before.

Watching for this behavior has always been a good proxy for whether someone is interested in an actual discussion or a shouting match.

[log]

Besides, there is a difference between being mistaken and being a liar.

Hannant has crossed that point.

Because the critics depend critically upon the false claim that we have the papyrus from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham to discredit the Book of Mormon, and, by extension, the prophethood of Joseph Smith, it is not appropriate to let that lie go unchallenged, even as often as the lie is spoken.

A liar needs no high ego to do so, but someone bent on being right no matter what...may lie, like a narcissist. As we all know, a narcissist will lie, cheat and deceive in order to get their way and reasoning is nill. Just my 2 cents.

I'm not clear on whom you are referring to - yourself, me, or Hannant?

[cayenne]

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml

Here is a good take on it.

Uh, sorry. Good try.

The problem which blows it all apart, time and time again, is that we have papyrus, with Joseph Smith's handwriting all over them.

They ARE the source.

If the best Jeff Lindsay has is 1835 statements by Oliver Cowderey, trust me, I can trump that red ink one.

And it involves 15 year old girls

Yes, 15 year olds. Joseph married a 14 year old, a 15 year old, and two 16 year olds....so what.

Anyway, you have already demonstrated you refuse to look at anything other than your theories. Your arguments are not educated, and seem to have mentally copied from various anti sights. I have personally had conversation with Sandra tanner and she can battle, cause she has done her own research instead of relying on others. Sandra has much wrong, but she has obvious knowledge she acquired herself.

I tire of you antis on here....especially those who ride off others coat tails and act all smart.

[freedomforall]

Log, face it. We have THE papyrus JS translated from.

Remember - all liars go to hell.

If I were in Hannant's place, holding his position, having been shown the evidence that my assertion is false, I would shut up and revise my confidence in my sources downward, and do more research. If I could not gainsay the evidence, I would change my position, publicly. I have had to do so before.

That's basic honesty.

This is a realm where men's souls are at stake, and I do not take my responsibilities lightly.

Have you considered that others feel the same way. It still boils down to letting someone be wrong in keeping peace. I feel it to be a responsibility to teach true doctrine, yet some people reject it. Does that make me wrong. No. It only shows that some people will not accept being wrong and want to shift the blame on someone other than themselves. Many times on this forum I have changed my position after having done some due diligence and finding out where I was in error. Then I acknowledge this so others will know I make mistakes and try to rectify them. Men are responsible for their own souls. Only until and when they see something that can improve them will they listen. We can't shove information down another's throat assuming we're going to save them against their will. God doesn't even do that. The right motive has wrong consequences in many instances.

[log]

Have you considered that others feel the same way. It still boils down to letting someone be wrong in keeping peace.

I suppose I can fail to "sustain and defend the kingdom of God" for the sake of peace.

But then I would be a covenant-breaker.

[Hannant]

Log- responsibility to do what?


Freedom....."theories"? Are you serious? These aren't theories.

THEY ARE IN HIS HANDWRITING....ALL OVER THEM.



14& 15 year olds and you say "so what?"

He was in his late 30's.

He was married to Emma.

He was telling everyone he can't even manage one wife at that time. Who was lying?

D and C 132 is July 1843. the churches own family search web site shows he married 15 times in 1842.

Of the 33 wives the church acknowledges, plenty were before 1837.

Log, you want to be careful with your all liars go to hell business.

[log]

Log- responsibility to do what?

To see that liars are challenged in the lies they lie.

[Hannant]

Log- responsibility to do what?

To see that liars are challenged in the lies they lie.

Where does that leave Joseph Smith?

[freedomforall]

Have you considered that others feel the same way. It still boils down to letting someone be wrong in keeping peace.

I suppose I can fail to "sustain and defend the kingdom of God" for the sake of peace.

But then I would be a covenant-breaker.

A covenant between you and whom? What kind of covenant? Page after page of name calling and bashing doesn't seem like a worthwhile covenant to me. Another covenant to consider is Matthew 5:9: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
It's not important to always be right. It's only correct to teach true principles and let others go from there. Even God doesn't force us into heaven against our will. We can only covenant that we will do our best to live according to God's rules, but we have to make that choice ourselves, on our own. No one else has the right to force it on us, even God. Let people be wrong...or right--because just maybe they are right and you're not. Give people a chance to feel good about what they do know. Frankly, knowing where the BoA came from doesn't make or break my salvation, rather, it is in and through Jesus Christ and His Atoning sacrifice that effects my salvation. I have faith and hope that carries me toward that goal, taught us in the Book of Mormon.

[Hannant]

Have you considered that others feel the same way. It still boils down to letting someone be wrong in keeping peace.

I suppose I can fail to "sustain and defend the kingdom of God" for the sake of peace.

But then I would be a covenant-breaker.

That would be the covenant you made to protect the church no?

Which covenant?

[log]

Log- responsibility to do what?

To see that liars are challenged in the lies they lie.

Where does that leave Joseph Smith?

Enjoying his eternal reward, with God testifying to honest seekers that he was a true prophet.

[log]

Have you considered that others feel the same way. It still boils down to letting someone be wrong in keeping peace.

I suppose I can fail to "sustain and defend the kingdom of God" for the sake of peace.

But then I would be a covenant-breaker.

A covenant between you and whom?

Has it been that long since you have attended the temple?

It's not important to always be right.

I see. You were intending the narcissistic liar label for me.

A liar needs no high ego to do so, but someone bent on being right no matter what...may lie, like a narcissist. As we all know, a narcissist will lie, cheat and deceive in order to get their way and reasoning is nill. Just my 2 cents.

[freedomforall]

Log- responsibility to do what?


Freedom....."theories"? Are you serious? These aren't theories.

THEY ARE IN HIS HANDWRITING....ALL OVER THEM.



14& 15 year olds and you say "so what?"

He was in his late 30's.

He was married to Emma.

He was telling everyone he can't even manage one wife at that time. Who was lying?

D and C 132 is July 1843. the churches own family search web site shows he married 15 times in 1842.

Of the 33 wives the church acknowledges, plenty were before 1837.

Log, you want to be careful with your all liars go to hell business.

If you're referring to me, I said nothing about theories. See how things get twisted around? I could care less about the papyrus or their source. This is my position and this is all I'm going to say on the matter.

[freedomforall]

I suppose I can fail to "sustain and defend the kingdom of God" for the sake of peace.

But then I would be a covenant-breaker.

A covenant between you and whom?

Has it been that long since you have attended the temple?

It's not important to always be right.

I see. You were intending the narcissistic liar label for me.

A liar needs no high ego to do so, but someone bent on being right no matter what...may lie, like a narcissist. As we all know, a narcissist will lie, cheat and deceive in order to get their way and reasoning is nill. Just my 2 cents.

You said it, not me. If I were to say such a thing, there would be no doubt who it is for. But I said nothing of the kind concerning you. Jumping to conclusions is not becoming of a covenant maker. I can say, and I know others will agree, that some topics merely get driven into the ground with no let up, and it makes no sense. Again, why not agree to disagree by both parties? Is there something wrong with this type of resolution?
If I am remembering correctly, they say nothing in the temple about bashing topics into oblivion. So again I ask what covenant? Your response answered nothing.

[log]

A covenant between you and whom?

Has it been that long since you have attended the temple?

It's not important to always be right.

I see. You were intending the narcissistic liar label for me.

A liar needs no high ego to do so, but someone bent on being right no matter what...may lie, like a narcissist. As we all know, a narcissist will lie, cheat and deceive in order to get their way and reasoning is nill. Just my 2 cents.

You said it, not me. If I were to say such a thing, there would be no doubt who it is for.

Then deny it, please. Please tell me I have misunderstood your intent.

[Hannant]

Sorry , I meant cayenne on the theories bit

[Hannant]

Enjoying his eternal reward, with God testifying to honest seekers that he was a true prophet.

No doubt.
But we've shown he lied about him being married to more than one woman
Abraham lied.
So how does your assertion work now?

[log]

Enjoying his eternal reward, with God testifying to honest seekers that he was a true prophet.

No doubt.
But we've shown he lied about him being married to more than one woman

Did he deny that specifically? You know, I went looking for specific verbiage to that effect and wasn't quite able to come up with it. What I did find was he said this.

A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives...I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers...

Interestingly worded, I think. If merely being sealed to a woman means she is necessarily a wife, then perhaps one can say he lied. I'm not sure he thought a woman to whom one was merely sealed is necessarily a wife.

Abraham lied.

Where?

So how does your assertion work now?

As intended.

[Hannant]

Frankly, knowing where the BoA came from doesn't make or break my salvation.

interesting.

it appears for many people, maybe 100,000 a year, it does.

the church is only 4 million strong.

the BofA seems the be the last vestige of hope people cling onto before the decide their shelf is too heavy.

it was for my wife.

I expect she will resign from the church within a week or 2.

I need more than red ink and "I have had an experience".

We know, thanks to the deception that is HeartSell (tm) that people don't buy that anymore

it appears you have nothing either, which is why you can only say you are done.

sad.

apparently we are led by prophets, and seers, and revelators.

activity rates are 20%. Everyone is leaving.

where are they?

Why are they forcing good members to rely on Lindsay and Nibley and other "Egyptian PhDs" to come up with possible explanations?

They have nothing, that's why