DiscussMormonism.com

Alphus and Omegus wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 02, 2023 3:48 am

It matters more here because this is indisputable evidence that Smith got basic facts wrong. All the smokescreens about missing scrolls or witnessed plates don't work here. The canonized text itself is irredeemably and obviously incorrect in ways that are essential to its story and to Smith's claims about himself as a translator.

If Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon had been adopted as scripture by some religious tradition, its apologists would be stuck arguing the possibility of reaching the moon while being blasted out of a big cannon using gun cotton as the propellant. They would dismiss modern aeronautics as being too speculative. They would benefit from a Conestoga wagonload of Dr. Gees.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:36 pm

Alphus and Omegus wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 02, 2023 3:48 am

It matters more here because this is indisputable evidence that Smith got basic facts wrong. All the smokescreens about missing scrolls or witnessed plates don't work here. The canonized text itself is irredeemably and obviously incorrect in ways that are essential to its story and to Smith's claims about himself as a translator.

I guess it is “devastating” inasmuch as he fails to write ancient history in a manner that is almost identical to the failures of other mythographers. The problem here is the view that one should expect LDS scripture to be different from other Judeo-Christian mythologies. It is primarily a problem because people buy into the overhyped claims of the authors and teachers of such material.

There is no question that it’s devastating because Mormon revelation about the historical beginnings of ancient Egypt is wrong. If Smith was a prophet or a seer who could really see the past, he would have given us the real deal which coincides with what modern Egyptology tells us today and would have elucidated or explained how the errors of the Bible were stories based on myth. Thus, the difference between a true prophet and a false prophet is that the false ones perpetuate false histories and glorify the myths. And with that said, there doesn’t seem to be true prophets because that idea is all based on myth as well! Go figure!

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:37 pm

Abram did not exist. Immediately you are in the real of myth. And, oops!, myth isn’t history.

Right, Abram did not exist and Joseph Smith couldn’t read or translate Egyptian in the slightest degree. He was a false prophet, just as false as the mythical prophets of scripture. I think the translation of the Book of Abraham bears this out for everyone to see.

Shulem wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 02, 2023 6:10 pm

There is no question that it’s devastating because Mormon revelation about the historical beginnings of ancient Egypt is wrong. If Smith was a prophet or a seer who could really see the past, he would have given us the real deal which coincides with what modern Egyptology tells us today and would have elucidated or explained how the errors of the Bible were stories based on myth. Thus, the difference between a true prophet and a false prophet is that the false ones perpetuate false histories and glorify the myths. And with that said, there doesn’t seem to be true prophets because that idea is all based on myth as well! Go figure!

So, in other words, you will judge Joseph Smith's performance with standards no one lived up to or could live up to. By standards that did not exist in his time. You define what you think a true prophet is according to your own views today, and then you declare Joseph Smith did not live up to your standard.

Um, yeah . . . OK.

I mean, you go for it, of course, and I am sure that you will be applauded for this by many.

Right, Abram did not exist and Joseph Smith couldn’t read or translate Egyptian in the slightest degree. He was a false prophet, just as false as the mythical prophets of scripture. I think the translation of the Book of Abraham bears this out for everyone to see.

Yeah, prophets are made up. Human beings make up lots of things. You are free not to believe in the things other people make up.

Shrug.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 02, 2023 6:21 pm

Shulem wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 02, 2023 6:10 pm

There is no question that it’s devastating because Mormon revelation about the historical beginnings of ancient Egypt is wrong. If Smith was a prophet or a seer who could really see the past, he would have given us the real deal which coincides with what modern Egyptology tells us today and would have elucidated or explained how the errors of the Bible were stories based on myth. Thus, the difference between a true prophet and a false prophet is that the false ones perpetuate false histories and glorify the myths. And with that said, there doesn’t seem to be true prophets because that idea is all based on myth as well! Go figure!

So, in other words, you will judge Joseph Smith's performance with standards no one lived up to or could live up to. By standards that did not exist in his time. You define what you think a true prophet is according to your own views today, and then you declare Joseph Smith did not live up to your standard.

Um, yeah . . . OK.

I mean, you go for it, of course, and I am sure that you will be applauded for this by many.

Right, I judge Joseph Smith as a false prophet and one who could not translate Egyptian or tell how that nation came into existence. I wouldn’t give Joseph Smith a single red cent or any credit for being an honest man. I don’t have much regard for Mormonism or any other religion for that matter. I don’t need religion. Smith failed to measure up to the standards I expect from someone who understands Egyptian history and things associated with it. I want everyone on this board to know that. I want you to know that too. Do not believe Joseph Smith. He didn’t know what he was talking about and was a liar.

There.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 02, 2023 6:21 pm

Yeah, prophets are made up. Human beings make up lots of things. You are free not to believe in the things other people make up.

Shrug.

Same goes for you. You are free to believe or disbelieve.

Shulem wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 02, 2023 6:38 pm

Same goes for you. You are free to believe or disbelieve.

I know I am. But thanks. In any case, I prefer understanding what was going on with Joseph Smith as a man of his times to reiterating that he does not live up to the standards of modern historical science when he writes myths about the Ancient Near East.

Shulem wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 02, 2023 6:37 pm

Right, I judge Joseph Smith as a false prophet and one who could not translate Egyptian or tell how that nation came into existence. I wouldn’t give Joseph Smith a single red cent or any credit for being an honest man. I don’t have much regard for Mormonism or any other religion for that matter. I don’t need religion. Smith failed to measure up to the standards I expect from someone who understands Egyptian history and things associated with it. I want everyone on this board to know that. I want you to know that too. Do not believe Joseph Smith. He didn’t know what he was talking about and was a liar.

There.

All of this tells me a lot more about you than it does Joseph Smith. But carry on.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 02, 2023 6:50 pm

All of this tells me a lot more about you than it does Joseph Smith. But carry on.

I would prefer if you focus on the numbers because math is math and it either adds up or it does not.

I am counting the numbers, Kish.

2400 BC vs. 3000 BC

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 02, 2023 6:49 pm

Shulem wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 02, 2023 6:38 pm

Same goes for you. You are free to believe or disbelieve.

I know I am. But thanks. In any case, I prefer understanding what was going on with Joseph Smith as a man of his times to reiterating that he does not live up to the standards of modern historical science when he writes myths about the Ancient Near East.

That of course is all interesting and important. But the validity of the Book of Abraham published by the Church today as a genuine and historical record is what counts in this thread and that is what concerns me. All I want are the facts whereby a correct judgement can be made. If the Church will disavow the book as historical and genuine then nothing more need be said.

I think u get that.

Shulem wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 02, 2023 8:33 pm

I would prefer if you focus on the numbers because math is math and it either adds up or it does not.

I am counting the numbers, Kish.

2400 BC vs. 3000 BC

Yeah, Hebrew mythology was also pegged to historical dates. That does not make it history.