Joseph Smith & a LITERAL 3500 Year Old Abraham Autograph

[_zerinus]

Your problem is you don't like what they are saying because it implicates your founding prophet in ways you don't like, such as the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. You don't like those either but you have to eat them. It's LDS canon.

Not at all. Whether they were in fact royal mummies or not, in neither case Joseph Smith is “implicated” one way or another. What matters most is that reliable information doesn’t exist for it either way; therefore attempts to draw definitive conclusions about it is unwarranted.

[_Shulem]

LOL! Nonmember Charlotte Haven heard Lucy Smith read fluently from Hebrew, Egyptian, and Sanskrit on the egyptian papyri by the spirit of her son Joseph Smith, and that was just an honest misunderstanding. If that be the case, how can you trust anything that any of them ever said?

The fact that she is an EYEWITNESS giving an account is firmly established. That is testimony. You never met her and you never met mother Smith. Whatever you may think of mother Smith or what she claimed is completely immaterial to this debate because you can't testify for her. But Charlotte can.

Evidence upon evidence leads us to an obvious conclusion. Whether you can face that or not is not my problem.

[_Shulem]

I find it just as easy to believe that Joseph Smith identified one of the mummies as a king of Egypt as he did when he falsely identified Isis as a king of Egypt in Facsimile No. 3.

The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are utter rubbish.

[_zerinus]

The fact that she is an EYEWITNESS giving an account is firmly established. That is testimony. You never met her and you never met mother Smith. Whatever you may think of mother Smith or what she claimed is completely immaterial to this debate because you can't testify for her. But Charlotte can.

Evidence upon evidence leads us to an obvious conclusion. Whether you can face that or not is not my problem.

What is “material to the debate” is the reliability of the evidence, which have been pretty slender up to now”.

[_zerinus]

I find it just as easy to believe that Joseph Smith identified one of the mummies as a king of Egypt as he did when he falsely identified Isis as a king of Egypt in Facsimile No. 3.

The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are utter rubbish.

I have already said what I needed to say about the facsimiles. Nothing more to add to that.

[_Shulem]

The fact that she is an EYEWITNESS giving an account is firmly established. That is testimony. You never met her and you never met mother Smith. Whatever you may think of mother Smith or what she claimed is completely immaterial to this debate because you can't testify for her. But Charlotte can.

Evidence upon evidence leads us to an obvious conclusion. Whether you can face that or not is not my problem.

What is “material to the debate” is the reliability of the evidence, which have been pretty slender up to now”.

Actually, what is material to the debate IS the evidence and so far I'm the only one that has presented any. You've presented nothing to show that the early Mormons did not believe in the original autograph or that Joseph Smith didn't believe he had a king's mummy.

Can you present some "reliable" evidence to refute my so-called "slender" evidence?

I'm still waiting on your evidence to refute my evidence!

[_Shulem]

I find it just as easy to believe that Joseph Smith identified one of the mummies as a king of Egypt as he did when he falsely identified Isis as a king of Egypt in Facsimile No. 3.

The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are utter rubbish.

I have already said what I needed to say about the facsimiles. Nothing more to add to that.

I'm very persistent when it comes to Facsimile No. 3. I remind you that you've presented no evidence whatsoever to back up your prophet's claims to render a correct translation from Egyptian to English. Your mumbling is less intelligent than the ramblings of mother Smith speaking all kinds of tongues through Joseph's spirit.

I won't let it go. You've said nothing intelligent on the subject but are dodging the issue completely. I'll keep ramming Facsimile No. 3 until you are sick to death of it.

[_Maksutov]

"The veracity and value of the book of Abraham cannot be settled by scholarly debate concerning the book’s translation and historicity. The book’s status as scripture lies in the eternal truths it teaches and the powerful spirit it conveys. The book of Abraham imparts profound truths about the nature of God, His relationship to us as His children, and the purpose of this mortal life. The truth of the book of Abraham is ultimately found through careful study of its teachings, sincere prayer, and the confirmation of the Spirit."

https://www.LDS.org/topics/translation- ... m?lang=eng
..........

As far as I'm concerned, right here the church admits that the Book of Abraham is a fraud, but a faith-promoting fraud, what Tom Sawyer's Aunt Polly would have called "A good lie." it is an inspiring novel (to some). It teaches truths through fiction, using people who never existed and events that never happened, read from a papyrus that didn't say any such things. It really expresses the whole career and methodology of Joseph Smith like nothing else does: improvisation, fabrication, monetization.

[_Shulem]

This is supposed to be from an interview with Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith’s mother, printed in that book. Sorry, I am not buying it. And your particular quote need not be any more reliable than that.

Let's consider a source much closer to Joseph Smith. You know, how about one of his wives? That certainly sounds like a reliable source, right? Take Emma, for example. She was extremely close to Joseph Smith. She slept in the same bed with Joseph (as did other women) and was closer to him than anyone on the planet.

I trust you know she is the one that sold his papyrus and mummies. Emma knew everything about what Joseph Smith claimed regarding the curiosities and when she sold them, she wrote:

. . . .translations by Mr. Smith of the Records these Mummies were found to be the family of Pharo King of Egypt

[_Shulem]

What matters most is that reliable information doesn’t exist for it either way; therefore attempts to draw definitive conclusions about it is unwarranted.

Brother William Applebee would not agree with you, zerinus. He knew Joseph Smith personally and examined the mummies and papyrus firsthand. He was a faithful EYEWITNESS and there is nothing you can say to refute that, zerinus.

The male mummy was one of the Ancient Pharaohs of Egypt, and a Priest, as he is embalmed with his tongue extended, representing a speaker. The females were his wife and two daughters, as part of the writing has been translated, and informs us, who they were, also When writings it is, and when those mummies were embalmed, which is nearly 4,000 years ago

Please note that 4,000 years ago is the biblical era in which Abraham lived.