How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

[_Darth J]

Yeah, but besides the fact that the Egyptians are notorious for covering up embarrassing history (and thus the meaning of the facsimilie could have been changed), there are also things like this to cast doubt upon the anti Mopologetic speculative assumptions:

.......

The fact that you don't know this bit of common knowledge about the ancient Egyptians gives one pause regarding the notion that you can speak intelligently on the subject. It's so common that even the made for public consumption articles and TV shows mention it:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/missing-tombs-pharaohs.html

Further proof left to the student.

Yes. That's why we don't see more Egyptian papyri documenting Egypt being conquered by circus clowns riding dinosaurs. The ancient Egyptians were embarrassed by this part of their history, so they covered it up.

See generally: argument from ignorance; argument by assertion

Incidentally, how do we know that the ancient Egyptians would sometimes erase things from their records? Oh, that's right: because there is independent, verifiable evidence that those events actually happened. That means this is the part where bcspace provides some relevance to his assertion by indicating the independent, verifiable evidence of the historicity of the Book of Abraham that is not entirely self-referential to LDS Mormonism.

Thanks in advance for doing so, bcspace.

[_Darth J]

Is anything Joseph Smith taught (which implies that he "received" it first) a bad thing today? Is it actively causing a bad influence today?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in9Qdzxc1HM

[_Darth J]

Is anything Joseph Smith taught (which implies that he "received" it first) a bad thing today? Is it actively causing a bad influence today?...

How many families have broken up because some of their members cease to believe that Joe's frontier tall tales are not historical fact, like he claimed, and the family members who still believe his pastiche religious mythos put loyalty to same before loyalty to family?

Or maybe we could ask Carolyn Jessop if the things Joseph Smith taught are causing a bad influence today.

[_Fence Sitter]

Yes. That's why we don't see more Egyptian papyri documenting Egypt being conquered by circus clowns riding dinosaurs. The ancient Egyptians were embarrassed by this part of their history, so they covered it up.

See generally: argument from ignorance; argument by assertion

Incidentally, how do we know that the ancient Egyptians would sometimes erase things from their records? Oh, that's right: because there is independent, verifiable evidence that those events actually happened. That means this is the part where bcspace provides some relevance to his assertion by indicating the independent, verifiable evidence of the historicity of the Book of Abraham that is not entirely self-referential to LDS Mormonism.

Thanks in advance for doing so, bcspace.

When it comes to the Book of Abraham, apologetic arguments are a Ponzi scheme of missing documents.

1. Writings of Abraham & Joseph
2. Egyptians writings which changed the words of Abraham
3. Missing potions of the Hor and Ta-Sheritt-Min scrolls
4. Missing portions of Facsimile #1
5. Missing MS0 (original transcription of Book of Abraham)

Why is it that in every case the missing documents are assumed to support the authenticity of the Book of Abraham and in every case the extant documents do not?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Gee also argues that we're missing about 3/4 of the Book of Abraham text Joseph Smith translated, and others have argued that we're missing a translation of the Record of Joseph as well. Admittedly, things go missing—the number of historical documents we have is undoubtedly dwarfed by the number we don't. But the number of documents in the history of the Book of Abraham's transmission that are supposed to have disappeared without a trace is a bit excessive, to say the least.

[_Shulem]

Gee also argues that we're missing about 3/4 of the Book of Abraham text Joseph Smith translated, and others have argued that we're missing a translation of the Record of Joseph as well. Admittedly, things go missing—the number of historical documents we have is undoubtedly dwarfed by the number we don't. But the number of documents in the history of the Book of Abraham's transmission that are supposed to have disappeared without a trace is a bit excessive, to say the least.

And how much of the hieroglyphic writing which Joseph Smith translated is missing from the Facsimile No. 3?

THE ANSWER: None.

And how much of that ancient writing in Facsimile No. 3 was translated correctly?

THE ANSWER: None.

And what does that tell us about Joseph Smith's translation of his so-called Book of Abraham?

THE ANSWER: Bunch of BS

Paul O

[_Uncle Ed]

Is anything Joseph Smith taught (which implies that he "received" it first) a bad thing today? Is it actively causing a bad influence today?...

How many families have broken up because some of their members cease to believe that Joe's frontier tall tales are not historical fact, like he claimed, and the family members who still believe his pastiche religious mythos put loyalty to same before loyalty to family?

Or maybe we could ask Carolyn Jessop if the things Joseph Smith taught are causing a bad influence today.

Don't you think that Joseph Smith would object to all of that? He would accuse Mormons of misapplying his doctrine, and he would be right.

If you are going to fault the LDS faith because of the screwups in it then the same applies to every other institution of man. We need to allow some charity toward human weakness. The doctrines of the Abrahamic religions are almost entirely good, at least well-intended. But they are manmade doctrines, many of them less than facile today thousands of years after their advent. Mormonism, the mainstream version at least, has been morphing away from the harmful applications or even from certain beliefs. It is becoming a better religion. Christianity has been improving itself for hundreds of years. Islam is behind, but also improving. These latest extremism events are the death throes of a dying fundamentalism.

Are you willing to allow "growing pains" or not to religion?...

[_SteelHead]

Drek.

[_SteelHead]

Society is becoming more humane, more aware and accepting of our differences and more willing to embrace difference.

This leaves the dogmatic, barbarous doctrines and policies of churches exposed for what they are - inhumane and embarrassing. If the LDS church was becoming better due to the guidance of god, it would be ahead of the curve, not behind.

[_DarkHelmet]

The doctrines of the Abrahamic religions are almost entirely good, at least well-intended.

By "doctrines" do you mean the stuff that is in the Old Testament? And when you say "entirely good" are you including the stuff that by today's standards would be classified as rape, murder, and genocide?