Joseph Smith & a LITERAL 3500 Year Old Abraham Autograph

[_Kevin Graham]

I am not even convinced that the translations of all of the facsimiles originally published in the Times and Seasons were the works of Joseph Smith

Oh, but of course you aren't. Evidence means nothing remember? What matters is finding a convenient sliver of plausibility in the apologetic imagination. The apologists look like fumbling idiots. At first you guys said the text was legit as was the translation, until it was proven to be otherwise. Then you said we didn't have the original translation manuscripts, until it was proven to be otherwise. Then you are forced to say Joseph Smith wasn't responsible for any of it. Sounds a lot like the Trump administration.

It appears that others were allowed to attempt at translation, not just Joseph Smith

horse crap. You would have us believe that the Church published the translations of some other person not named Joseph Smith when it was Joseph Smith who in fact wrote in his journal that he was the one preparing material for the Times and Seasons. Oh, wait, you didn't know that?

[_Shulem]

I am not even convinced that the translations of all of the facsimiles originally published in the Times and Seasons were the works of Joseph Smith. It appears that others were allowed to attempt at translation, not just Joseph Smith; and their works (or guessworks) may have been published in the journal at the same time.

The Times & Seasons printed the entire works of Abraham in three separate installments being the works of Joseph Smith and commissioned by him as President of the Church. These works were later canonized by the First Presidency of the Church in 1880 and approved by the general vote of the Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. It began with Facsimile No. 1 and its Explanations, and the first section of the story of Abraham.

"Truth will prevail"
Vol. III No. 9.] CITY OF NAUVOO, ILL. MARCH, 1, 1842 [Whole No. 45
A FAC-SIMILE FROM THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM.
NO. 1.

2. It began with the second section of the story of Abraham, Facsimile No. 2 and the Explanations, and the third section of the story of Abraham.

"Truth will prevail."
Vol. III No. 10] CITY OF NAUVOO, ILL. MARCH, 15, 1842 [Whole No. 46
The Book of Abraham.

3. It began with Facsimile No. 3 and its Explanations and the fourth section of the story of Abraham.

"Truth will prevail"
Vol. III. No. 14.] CITY OF NAUVOO, ILL. MAY 16, 1842 [Whole No. 50
A FAC-SIMILE FROM THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM.
NO. 3.

[_Shulem]

horse crap. You would have us believe that the Church published the translations of some other person not named Joseph Smith when it was Joseph Smith who in fact wrote in his journal that he was the one preparing material for the Times and Seasons. Oh, wait, you didn't know that?

Apologists desperately attempt to separate the Explanations of the Facsimiles from the story which they deem as the "Text". This attempt to divorce the Explanations from the so-called "Text" is nothing but a ruse and is contrary to Smith's claims and the official church position on the matter. Joseph Smith presented the Facsimiles, Explanations, and the Story, as The Book of Abraham. It stands or falls as a single unit.

The so called "Text" (storyline) is riddled with all kinds of UnEgyptian nonsense and fictitious material. It's utter garbage. The Egyptians must be rolling in their graves.

[_zerinus]

If you guys had a valid argument to present, you wouldn’t need to shout abuse. You seem to want to ensure that your case is discredited before you start. That is okay with me.

[_Maksutov]

If you guys had a valid argument to present, you wouldn’t need to shout abuse. You seem to want to ensure that your case is discredited before you start. That is okay with me.

Valid arguments were presented and you responded with testimony, deflections, lies and evasions. But you go on lying anyway. Pretty ugly, Z. Do you really think it's Christlike?

You're a troll, Zeronus. With zero credibility here or anywhere else. You come here because we accept everybody and anybody. But you abused our open mindedness with your trolling and dishonesty, from the very beginning. Any objective reader of these threads will see your contemptible behavior. Most of us here understand that you are making a pathetic display and that you do not represent most Mormon people with your dishonesty. Anyone can claim a testimony, Z. We've seen it before, we've done it ourselves, and you're one more in a long line of misguided people who come here and try to claim victories. You've already lost. The First World is forsaking Mormonism. You will have to go to ignorant, desperate and easily manipulated people in other parts of the planet, where they have not learned about polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, the council of 50, the Danites, Mountain Meadows, the Book of Abraham and a whole host of omitted history that you so obviously can't handle. But we'll be there to inform people. Your trolling may amuse and satisfy you, but it converts no one. It's a form of internet vandalism like graffiti. It's all you're capable of.

[_schreech]

[_Shulem]

Philo (hoping you're still there),

There's an angle, which I have no doubt you've already contemplated which further demonstrates that Joseph Smith claimed his papyrus was an original autograph. Take for example the Egyptian graphic of Facsimile No. 2 Fig. 7 wherein Min's phallus cannot be simply ignored. Now, think for a moment -- considering how stupid Joseph Smith was with handling the interpretations of the vignettes as well as mechanically introducing missing hieroglyphic characters upside down, and so forth, what chance in hell do you think Smith could have known that Min was sporting an erect phallus? Seriously, I'm not kidding or trying to be funny about this, because there is no way in hell Joseph Smith knew the seated god was really an ithyphallic god sporting the oversized Egyptian phallus. I don't know what Joseph Smith thought that thing was between his legs, but you can be damn sure he wasn't thinking it was a penis. Had that been the case, it seems hard to believe that Smith would have continued to feign an Explanation that the person was Jehovah/Elohim. Then you have to consider the rest of Fig. 7 in which Smith absolutely failed to restore correctly and had he known what was really going on in that vignette he might have abandoned the whole of Facsimile No. 2.

Where am I going with this? It's simple, Abraham is NOT about to draw a picture of Jehovah sporting Min's phallus. Who in their right mind would think that Abraham is drawing a picture of the Almighty God of the Bible sitting in a throne with a giant hard on? It simply doesn't make sense. It just points to the fact that the person in the throne who is Min is really Min -- NOT Jehovah/Elohim, a rival god of the Egyptian state!

Do you get where I am going with all this, Philo? And this is just one example using Fig. 7. The whole thing from Smith's perspective was a complete disaster -- a can of worms for the future Mormon church.

PS. Zerinus, go to hell.

[_Jersey Girl]

If you guys had a valid argument to present, you wouldn’t need to shout abuse. You seem to want to ensure that your case is discredited before you start. That is okay with me.

There are 27 pages of valid arguments and evidences on this thread interspersed with childishly dismissive responses.

Guess which ones are yours?

[_Jersey Girl]

A brief overview of zerinus' responses on this thread in which he employs the argument by Ostrich fallacy.

[_zerinus]

Philo (hoping you're still there),

There's an angle, which I have no doubt you've already contemplated which further demonstrates that Joseph Smith claimed his papyrus was an original autograph. Take for example the Egyptian graphic of Facsimile No. 2 Fig. 7 wherein Min's phallus cannot be simply ignored. Now, think for a moment -- considering how stupid Joseph Smith was with handling the interpretations of the vignettes as well as mechanically introducing missing hieroglyphic characters upside down, and so forth, what chance in hell do you think Smith could have known that Min was sporting an erect phallus? Seriously, I'm not kidding or trying to be funny about this, because there is no way in hell Joseph Smith knew the seated god was really an ithyphallic god sporting the oversized Egyptian phallus. I don't know what Joseph Smith thought that thing was between his legs, but you can be damn sure he wasn't thinking it was a penis. Had that been the case, it seems hard to believe that Smith would have continued to feign an Explanation that the person was Jehovah/Elohim. Then you have to consider the rest of Fig. 7 in which Smith absolutely failed to restore correctly and had he known what was really going on in that vignette he might have abandoned the whole of Facsimile No. 2.

Where am I going with this? It's simple, Abraham is NOT about to draw a picture of Jehovah sporting Min's phallus. Who in their right mind would think that Abraham is drawing a picture of the Almighty God of the Bible sitting in a throne with a giant hard on? It simply doesn't make sense. It just points to the fact that the person in the throne who is Min is really Min -- NOT Jehovah/Elohim, a rival god of the Egyptian state!

Do you get where I am going with all this, Philo? And this is just one example using Fig. 7. The whole thing from Smith's perspective was a complete disaster -- a can of worms for the future Mormon church.

PS. Zerinus, go to hell.

You are talking utter rubbish and you know it.