Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret

[_Robert F Smith]

Perhaps you'd like to suggest a balanced and fair appraisal of the archeological issues, or any of the scientific issues which might be brought to bear on the questions of the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham. Are you able to make a sincere effort to evaluate such questions, Themis?

I am willing to look at all the evidence available. I brought up one with the facsimiles.

Or are you only here to do name-calliing and to invoke chaos?

Perhaps you could point to where I call you names. I seem to remember getting on you for doing that instead of presenting his position and attempting to show why you think it is wrong.

You said "It is a poor apologetic, and childish," instead of dealing with substantive issues.
Ferguson has already been well reviewed, something anyone using his name ought to be well aware of. http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=1&id=531 .
My whole purpose in responding to the false claims made on this thread about Ferguson was to set the record straight on those specific items. However, if you want to evaluate Ferguson for yourself, by all means read Larson's book and then read the reviews, both pro and con. You will find that my comments on Ferguson are fair and balanced.

As to the Book of Abraham facsimiles, perhaps you could refresh my memory as to what you said.

[_Themis]

You said "It is a poor apologetic, and childish," instead of dealing with substantive issues.
Ferguson has already been well reviewed, something anyone using his name ought to be well aware of. http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=1&id=531 .
My whole purpose in responding to the false claims made on this thread about Ferguson was to set the record straight on those specific items. However, if you want to evaluate Ferguson for yourself, by all means read Larson's book and then read the reviews, both pro and con. You will find that my comments on Ferguson are fair and balanced.

Unfortunately at the start you only called him names, which is why I first commented on it.

As to the Book of Abraham facsimiles, perhaps you could refresh my memory as to what you said.

I didn't get into any details, but was only bringing up something that is one of the best pieces if evidence against the Book of Abraham. You could also include the papyri we now have as well as KEP. It's so bad that the apologetic community is so divided on it. Many have abandoned it for a catalyst theory, and more are going this route, if they can't handle the realization of what it means to LDS truth claims.

[_Robert F Smith]

You said "It is a poor apologetic, and childish," instead of dealing with substantive issues.
Ferguson has already been well reviewed, something anyone using his name ought to be well aware of. http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=1&id=531 .
My whole purpose in responding to the false claims made on this thread about Ferguson was to set the record straight on those specific items. However, if you want to evaluate Ferguson for yourself, by all means read Larson's book and then read the reviews, both pro and con. You will find that my comments on Ferguson are fair and balanced.

Unfortunately at the start you only called him names, which is why I first commented on it.

Here is what I first said, Themis:

Robert F Smith » Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:32 pm

Mittens wrote:
http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/thom ... guson.html

Thomas Stuart Ferguson was the big deal in the 1970s when I first investigated Mormonism

Robert F Smith replied:
I'll take your word for it that Ferguson was hot when you investigated, but why would you cite a false statement right at the outset of the piece from the so-called "Mormon Handbook"? It says:
Thomas Stuart Ferguson founded the New World Archaeological Foundation (NWAF), which was financed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to perform archaeological research for Book of Mormon evidences

Ferguson, a San Francisco lawyer with no training or experience in archeology was indeed among the founders of the secular NWAF (New World Archeological Foundation) and he did raise money from the LDS Church to finance it. However, it was most emphatically not founded "to perform archaeological research for Book of Mormon evidences." The archeologists running the projects were nearly all non-Mormons and they did excellent work and published very useful reports. These reports had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, which was not even considered in such excavations. Indeed, the LDS Church only provided funds on the written understanding that no Book of Mormon research would take place at NWAF. I assume that this was because the Brethren thought that any such motivation might result in a "poisoning of the wells." Better to have completely secular research and conclusions. The wisdom of this notion has been proven over time.

The statements of Tom Ferguson cited in that inaccurate "Mormon Handbook" are the statements of a yokel who had no conception of what archeology might entail. If, on the other hand, you read the calm and professional statements of John Sorenson, an archeologist who knew Ferguson and accompanied him to Mexico back in the early 1950s, you get a completely different perspective.

Perhaps you could show where I made a false or misleading statement here.

Robert F Smith said:
As to the Book of Abraham facsimiles, perhaps you could refresh my memory as to what you said.

You replied:
I didn't get into any details, but was only bringing up something that is one of the best pieces if evidence against the Book of Abraham. You could also include the papyri we now have as well as KEP. It's so bad that the apologetic community is so divided on it. Many have abandoned it for a catalyst theory, and more are going this route, if they can't handle the realization of what it means to LDS truth claims.

Just as I thought. You are unwilling to point to any specific problems, and carefully ignore the remarkable identifications made by Joseph Smith which match standard Egyptology.

[_SteelHead]

What is the ratio of correct to gibberish in the facsimiles? 1:50......? Am I supposed to be impressed, that Joseph Smith got one thing right, while getting everything else wrong?

[_Themis]

Perhaps you could show where I made a false or misleading statement here.

I never said you did. I only got on you for calling him names without backing it up with evidence. Yokel come to mind.

Just as I thought. You are unwilling to point to any specific problems, and carefully ignore the remarkable identifications made by Joseph Smith which match standard Egyptology.

I am more then willing, I only commented how bad the Book of Abraham is for LDS truth claims. I must have missed where you give any specifics.

Now as to the facsimiles, Joseph got almost everything wrong. Where I come from getting almost everything wrong means getting an F. Two of the facsimiles contain hieroglyphs as well. Fac #1 is interesting in that the areas Egyptoloists said were wrong before the papyri was rediscovered was exactly where the section of the papyri was missing. Add to that another missing section is a good match for this missing section, and we have good evidence that the missing section of the papyri was missing when Joseph Smith had them. Probably torn while trying to remove them from there casing. When I look at the papyri for fac #1 the area that egyptologists say would be a bird, I can't help but see the tip of it's wing. It doesn't fit the other hand which has all fingers the same length except the thumb. This only scratches the surface of problems.

[_Robert F Smith]

Perhaps you could show where I made a false or misleading statement here.

I never said you did. I only got on you for calling him names without backing it up with evidence. Yokel come to mind.

Yokel is as yokel does, and I see that you made no effort to read the review of the Larson book on Tom Ferguson. Your defense of his country-bumpkin approach to archeology should be an embarrassment.

Just as I thought. You are unwilling to point to any specific problems, and carefully ignore the remarkable identifications made by Joseph Smith which match standard Egyptology.

I am more then willing, I only commented how bad the Book of Abraham is for LDS truth claims. I must have missed where you give any specifics.

Now as to the facsimiles, Joseph got almost everything wrong. Where I come from getting almost everything wrong means getting an F. Two of the facsimiles contain hieroglyphs as well. Fac #1 is interesting in that the areas Egyptoloists said were wrong before the papyri was rediscovered was exactly where the section of the papyri was missing. Add to that another missing section is a good match for this missing section, and we have good evidence that the missing section of the papyri was missing when Joseph Smith had them. Probably torn while trying to remove them from there casing. When I look at the papyri for fac #1 the area that egyptologists say would be a bird, I can't help but see the tip of it's wing. It doesn't fit the other hand which has all fingers the same length except the thumb. This only scratches the surface of problems.

You might start with http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_1, which puts the lie to the nonsense about the thumb and a number of other false statements which anti-Mormons regularly parrot.

Back in 1975, for example, I sent a detailed analysis of Fac 2 to a number of anti-Mormons in which I noted the many tight agreements between what Joseph identified and standard Egyptology. It was greeted with a powerful silence, and that has been the case ever since: Anti-Mormons make a point of ignoring the facts in such matters, substituting bluster for actual discussion.

[_Robert F Smith]

What is the ratio of correct to gibberish in the facsimiles? 1:50......? Am I supposed to be impressed, that Joseph Smith got one thing right, while getting everything else wrong?

You ought to get together with Themis on this. He gives a grade of "F" to Joseph and likewise claims that he got nearly everything wrong. I'd like to know on what scholarly basis you guys make such specious claims.

I'd also like to know why you feel that a thread on the Book of Mormon is automatically converted to a thread on the Book of Abraham just when the going gets tough for you.

[_SteelHead]

Going gets tough for us? You've still to produce any strong markers for the Book of Mormon. All you have done is bluster. As to the Book of Abraham.... Seriously? There is no scholarship that supports the LDS version.

[_Fence Sitter]

Back in 1975, for example, I sent a detailed analysis of Fac 2 to a number of anti-Mormons in which I noted the many tight agreements between what Joseph identified and standard Egyptology. It was greeted with a powerful silence, and that has been the case ever since: Anti-Mormons make a point of ignoring the facts in such matters, substituting bluster for actual discussion.

Robert,

Would you mind posting this detailed analysis?

[_Themis]

Yokel is as yokel does, and I see that you made no effort to read the review of the Larson book on Tom Ferguson. Your defense of his country-bumpkin approach to archeology should be an embarrassment.

The only thing that is embarrassing is your name calling, and I never said I was defending Tom. Only calling you out. You might want to consider name calling is hurting your credibility.