.

[Ed1]

.

[Shulem]

Thanks for the feedback so far Paul. Noted that that is how you feel. Let's keep going!. Thanks

Yes, it's how I feel AND think. For example: I happen to think that Smith was stuck between a rock and a hard place after losing the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon which he had freshly translated from the gold plates. Imagine if you will, golden plates on a table (Book of Mormon written in Egyptian) and on that same table the 116 pages of manuscript -- the latter being exactly what's in the former. The only difference between the two is one is written in Egyptian and the other in English but they are one in the same, just different languages.

Poor Joseph, after all that work in writing translating the Book of Mormon, he lost it to Harris's wife because he pissed her off. He lost the original manuscript and it was the ONLY copy in existence whereby Smith had not yet learned the value of having a copy as he did with the GAEL. Thereafter, Smith in his frantic need to come up with an excuse was told by the "Spirit" that he could not translate again because others would erase his words in the original manuscript and scribble new words in them that Smith never wrote.

So, the Spirit told Smith not to translate again and how fortunate because not even the Spirit could remember exactly what was in the 116 pages and the Spirit knew that if Harris's wife displayed the original in front of witnesses they could compare it and disprove the second translation.

But the main point I'm making is that what was on the plates is what was on the paper. And what was on the plates was in Egyptian and what was on the paper was in English. You know that if today you take a German copy of the Book of Mormon and translate it into English, you will have the same Book of Mormon because they are one in the same. Bottom line, the plates and the paper contained the same information but in two different languages -- one being Egyptian and the other being English. It was simply a matter of translating one language into another or vice versa.

Smith claimed the exact same thing with the papyrus which was written in Egyptian by Abraham's own hand and translated into English by Joseph Smith. But this time it wasn't gold plates handed over by an angel. It was papyrus sold by a traveling salesman!

Just saying.

[Shulem]

While apologists that defend the Book of Abraham do not generally have much regard for the opinions and research of critics, it is necessary to review the work of critics to come to a proper identification of facts.

Or in other words most apologists don't care what critics have to say because testimony trumps all and no matter what, the critics are wrong. Yeah, I get that. But unlike many apologists, critics (such as myself) love to quote Joseph Smith and eyewitnesses that were associated or involved with the production of the Book of Abraham. Let's also keep in mind that "critics" means anyone that does not believe Joseph Smith really translated Egyptian from papyrus in order to come up with the Book of Abraham. Thus, apologists don't want to know what anyone else has to say unless they are believers like themselves. In other words, in general terms, critics are evil Ex-Mormons or unbelieving nonmembers of the Church and apologists don't want to hear what they have to say -- only what believers have to say.

[Shulem]

Sometimes the position of critics reflects facts that the critics have discovered in their research that cannot be ignored. Such is the case with the research of a critical, non-LDS scholar by the name of Dan Vogel, who has shown important facts about the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian language, or GAEL, which must be commented on here, since this author believes that some of his information and interpretations have merit.

I ordered Dan's book from Amazon yesterday and it was delivered to my home today!



It better be good, Dan!

[Shulem]

Nevertheless, it must be stated that the author of this current paper is a believer in the revelations of Joseph Smith, and is a believer in the historicity of the Book of Abraham, contrary to the position of Vogel. Nevertheless, this author believes that some of his information is important and must be summarized here.

If you believe in the historicity of the Book of Abraham as a timeline in keeping within the historical origins of Egypt's making, then you really are going to have a problem of what to do with all those Egyptian dynasties because there is simply no room to put them into Smith's timeline. Discovering the land was underwater after Noah's flood wherein dynastic Egypt gave rise is mathematically impossible. Do the math. I have! Smith was wrong. I'm 100% sure of that. Those are the facts.

You can't put all that Egyptian history in between Ham and Abraham. It can't be done. It's impossible and flies against proven historical facts that are set in stone -- absolutely proven. Egypt is far older than the Book of Abraham credits it to be. Egypt is far older than the Bible allows. The Bible and Joseph Smith are both wrong.

[Shulem]

Vogel shows that the GAEL essentially contains four categories of characters. The first category actually does not have to do with the Egyptian project directly where the GAEL authors were trying to translate characters from the Egyptian records. They actually relate to a separate project where the GAEL authors were trying to translate characters from the Adamic language or “pure language.” While Vogel as a critic clearly believes that the GAEL authors made them up, a believer on the other hand, such as this author, could simply say that they are from an unknown source. For convenience, the author will call these the “pure language” characters. But it is important to point out that Vogel shows that these particular characters are not necessarily related to the truly Egyptian characters that were taken from the Egyptian papyri.

Hence, Smith with the assistance of his scribes translated the following in the GAEL:

1) Adamic i.e., the so-called Pure Language of Adam
2) Egyptian hieroglyphics in standard form

So, when Ham and his lovely black wife disembarked from the ark and certain sons were settled down into the land of "Egypt" -- what language were they speaking? Was it Adamic or Egyptian? Bear in mind that the Tower of Babel and the division of tongues was a future mythic event yet to occur long after Noah's flood. And yet, in spite of this, Smith's Book of Abraham titles the first king by the name of "Pharaoh" as if this name is rooted in the original tongue.

Check the box that applies to the above, please:

[ ] Pure Language
[ ] Egyptian

[Ed1]

I ordered Dan's book from Amazon yesterday and it was delivered to my home today!



It better be good, Dan!

I predict it will be as good as his videos or better. I haven't ordered mine yet.

[Moksha]

In other words, in general terms, critics are evil Ex-Mormons or unbelieving nonmembers of the Church and apologists don't want to hear what they have to say -- only what believers have to say.

I think the term critic or anti-Mormon has been extended to include those involved with the Joseph Smith Papers Project (according to the Interpreter Journal).

[Shulem]

In other words, in general terms, critics are evil Ex-Mormons or unbelieving nonmembers of the Church and apologists don't want to hear what they have to say -- only what believers have to say.

I think the term critic or anti-Mormon has been extended to include those involved with the Joseph Smith Papers Project (according to the Interpreter Journal).

Yes, a critic or an antiMormon is anyone who doesn't agree with Daniel C. Peterson. Take for example Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of the Mormon Church who said a King's name is given in the characters above his head in Fig. 2 of Facsimile No. 3. As far as I've been able to ascertain, Peterson doesn't agree with Smith on this particular. So, Peterson is an antiMormon too.

Peterson likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

[Philo Sofee]

I think the term critic or anti-Mormon has been extended to include those involved with the Joseph Smith Papers Project (according to the Interpreter Journal).

Yes, a critic or an antiMormon is anyone who doesn't agree with Daniel C. Peterson. Take for example Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of the Mormon Church who said a King's name is given in the characters above his head in Fig. 2 of Facsimile No. 3. As far as I've been able to ascertain, Peterson doesn't agree with Smith on this particular. So, Peterson is an antiMormon too.

Peterson likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

Peterson doesn't agree with Joseph Smith, so actually you have this backwards, it is Joseph Smith who is the anti-Mormon...