Facsimile 3

[_Tobin]

IF you believe God has revealed to you that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, my argument surely rests on solid ground.

How so? You already stated that being a prophet you will still be fallible. Do you believe God told you the Book of Abraham was inspired, or is it just because you believe God said Joseph was a prophet?

As I've also said, the purpose of the prophets and scripture is to get one to seek and speak with God and learn the truth for themselves. For me, the Book of Abraham helps with that purpose, so yes - I believe it was inspired (as is all scripture that truly represents God). I really don't care if anyone else believes or disbelieves the Book of Abraham was inspired. What I find more valuable is the Mormon concept of a God that really speaks with us and reveals the truth to us. The Book of Abraham gives an account of this God. That is what is important and all that Mormonism is and should be about.

[_Themis]

As I've also said, the purpose of the prophets and scripture is to get one to seek and speak with God and learn the truth for themselves.

The question I asked was do you think God told you personally the Book of Abraham is inspired or are you making that conclusion based on thinking God told you Joseph was a prophet?

For me, the Book of Abraham helps with that purpose, so yes - I believe it was inspired (as is all scripture that truly represents God). I really don't care if anyone else believes or disbelieves the Book of Abraham was inspired. What I find more valuable is the Mormon concept of a God that really speaks with us and reveals the truth to us. The Book of Abraham gives an account of this God. That is what is important and all that Mormonism is and should be about.

I loved the Book of Abraham as a believer.

[_dblagent007]

This is the key to understand Tobin's point of view. His argument rests on his sure knowledge that the Book of Abraham is a true representation of Abraham's writings. However, he also knows that Joseph Smith's interpretation of the Egyptian hieroglyphics was incorrect and the papyri has nothing to do with Abraham even though Joseph Smith thought it did. Tobin's solution is to simply conclude that Joseph Smith must have been acting as a fallible man when he made these mistakes. Most ordinary observers would simply conclude that it is all made up, but Tobin's sure knowledge that the Book of Abraham is true prevents that.

While this is an amazing feat of mental gymnastics, it has been somewhat painful for me to watch. It reminds me too much of the mental contortions I went through when I was unwilling to consider the possibility that the church might not be true.

Again, dblagent007, you don't believe Joseph Smith because of his claims about the Book of Abraham, the Book of Mormon, seeing God, and so on - you believe Joseph Smith because God tells you to. IF you believe God has revealed to you that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, my argument surely rests on solid ground. IF you do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and a fraud, then what does it matter what I say?!? Anything Joseph Smith would claim in that case would be false, so there is no plausible way he could have "translated" the Book of Abraham.

For me the question is whether Joseph Smith was a prophet of god. I've looked at a lot of the evidence and concluded that it is highly unlikely he was.

For you, the question is not whether Joseph Smith was a prophet of God; you already have a sure knowledge that he was. The question for you is how to make sense of evidence that would seemingly indicate Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. All you are doing is making the evidence fit your conclusion ... using highly improbable theories to do so.

I hope it works out for you. It didn't work out so well for me. The beginning step is to actually acknowledge that there is even a sliver of a chance that the church might not be true. Don't do that. Always hold tight to your conclusion no matter how much contrary evidence you encounter. Not doing this was my biggest mistake.

[_Chap]

...

I loved the Book of Abraham as a believer.

I am sure you did.

Experience shows that a believer can love almost any text that he learns to reverence as part of the religion that he is brought up in. But I can tell you that to a non-believer is just looks like an unconvincing attempt by a 19th century person to produce a fake 'ancient text' based in part on the Bible.

If your parents believed in the worship of Superman, you'd have probably regarded Marvel Comics with love and reverence. Me, I was lucky, and got the King James Bible, which is at least a fairly good attempt to render genuinely ancient texts into English of a particularly rich and vigorous type.

But I deserve no credit for that choice, and nor I suppose did those who simply transmitted to me the religion they were brought up in. And you deserve no blame because you were dealt different cards.

[_Equality]

I really don't care if anyone else believes or disbelieves the Book of Abraham was inspired.

It seems that you do care, at least to the extent that you think such lack of belief renders one's arguments invalid. For example, earlier in this thread, you made the following comments:

As I've said Themis, you don't have a point. You don't believe in religion, God or that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

Your motives aren't genuine.

You do not share religious people's views, aren't willing to entertain their positions, and so your statements are of no value.

You do care about a person's disbelief in the Book of Abraham, and you use that lack of belief to make the fallacious argument that such lack of belief invalidates the non-believer's arguments, which you say "are of no value."

[_Nortinski]

Even as a Mormon I wondered why the Prophet had never translated the Joseph papyri that was recovered in the 1960's. Is it because it has NOTHING to do with Joseph who was sold into Egypt?

Yup.

The Book of Abraham is the single best evidence that Joe Smith was a fraud. There is not a SINGLE non-Mormon Egyptologist in the entire world who has claimed that Joseph's "translation" was correct. Not one.

How do more members not see this and say, "Hmmmmm...?"

[_Tobin]

I really don't care if anyone else believes or disbelieves the Book of Abraham was inspired.

It seems that you do care, at least to the extent that you think such lack of belief renders one's arguments invalid. For example, earlier in this thread, you made the following comments:

As I've said Themis, you don't have a point. You don't believe in religion, God or that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

Your motives aren't genuine.

You do not share religious people's views, aren't willing to entertain their positions, and so your statements are of no value.

You do care about a person's disbelief in the Book of Abraham, and you use that lack of belief to make the fallacious argument that such lack of belief invalidates the non-believer's arguments, which you say "are of no value."

Actually, that is quite inaccurate. I'm under no illusions that any discussion here will change anyone's mind. If you don't believe in God and Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, you still won't believe in God and he was a prophet of God if I provide a plausible view of how he "translated" the Book of Abraham. In fact, the only reason those that don't believe in Mormonism are interested in the Book of Abraham is because they wish to use it to "prove" to those that are Mormon that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, so motives are highly important in a discussion like that.

[_Themis]

Actually, that is quite inaccurate. I'm under no illusions that any discussion here will change anyone's mind. If you don't believe in God and Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, you still won't believe in God and he was a prophet of God if I provide a plausible view of how he "translated" the Book of Abraham. In fact, the only reason those that don't believe in Mormonism are interested in the Book of Abraham is because they wish to use it to "prove" to those that are Mormon that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, so motives are highly important in a discussion like that.

I love how you say Equality is wrong and then go on to prove his point. If there was a plausible theory on the Book of Abraham being inspired? In fact you admit that there is not a plausible theory for the Book of Abraham(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible), and then go on with proving Equality's point by creating a fallacious argument saying we wouldn't believe if you could show what you admit you can't. How can you know that we wouldn't. My whole family is active, so I may have many reasons you don't to want to believe. It wasn't lack of evidence that changed my mind.

[_Tobin]

Actually, that is quite inaccurate. I'm under no illusions that any discussion here will change anyone's mind. If you don't believe in God and Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, you still won't believe in God and he was a prophet of God if I provide a plausible view of how he "translated" the Book of Abraham. In fact, the only reason those that don't believe in Mormonism are interested in the Book of Abraham is because they wish to use it to "prove" to those that are Mormon that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, so motives are highly important in a discussion like that.

I love how you say Equality is wrong and then go on to prove his point. If there was a plausible theory on the Book of Abraham being inspired? In fact you admit that there is not a plausible theory for the Book of Abraham(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible), and then go on with proving Equality's point by creating a fallacious argument saying we wouldn't believe if you could show what you admit you can't. How can you know that we wouldn't. My whole family is active, so I may have many reasons you don't to want to believe. It wasn't lack of evidence that changed my mind.

I have offered a plausible view, you have rejected it because 1) You do not believe in God and 2) You do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Exactly as I asserted above that you would. I would love to hear an alternative plausible theory given the facts about the papyri. In what way could the Book of Abraham be inspired if it is not contained in the papyri? I would be fascinated to hear your alternative.

[_Drifting]

I have offered a plausible view, you have rejected it because 1) You do not believe in God and 2) You do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Exactly as I asserted above that you would. I would love to hear an alternative plausible theory given the facts about the papyri. In what way could the Book of Abraham be inspired if it is not contained in the papyri? I would be fascinated to hear your alternative.

Why does the Church (led by the Prophet) reject your plausible view:
A, it doesn't believe in God or B, it doesn't believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet?