Do historical facts matter? or is LDS 'teflon' to them?

[_Drifting]

Well, Tobin, I think your response is evasive to the premise I posted. I think, too, that a good study of Hebrews and the role of the High Priest in the temples of ancient times will help you understand the status of temples post resurrection.

And I think it is highly presumptive of you to know the mind of God Albion. Might I suggest you seek him instead and learn from him.

You keep suggesting we seek him but you're way seems to have had a better result. Tell us what you were doing when God turned up in person to speak with you and then we can go and replicate that...

[_Albion]

Tobin, if you can point any presumption on my part in anything I have posted here as to the mind of God, I'll be happy to review your point. As it is, I'm just suggesting exactly what you suggested to me...go read your Bible, in this care Hebrews.

[_Tobin]

Tobin, if you can point any presumption on my part in anything I have posted here as to the mind of God, I'll be happy to review your point. As it is, I'm just suggesting exactly what you suggested to me...go read your Bible, in this care Hebrews.

And I have. You presume to know what temples and talking to God is all about - that is what I"m pointing out. I'm actually advocating going and doing it instead.

[_Drifting]

Tobin, if you can point any presumption on my part in anything I have posted here as to the mind of God, I'll be happy to review your point. As it is, I'm just suggesting exactly what you suggested to me...go read your Bible, in this care Hebrews.

And I have. You presume to know what temples and talking to God is all about - that is what I"m pointing out. I'm actually advocating going and doing it instead.

Do you go to the Temple?

[_Albion]

I'll not get into a tit for tat debate with you, Tobin. I'll let your posts, and mine, stand for themselves on who is presumptuous.

[_thews]

You keep "responding" claiming you've addressed the topic (which you didn't), and your question that "why they matter at all" is the crux of this OP. To you, facts don't matter. You can have 10 references from multiple sources to define what actually happened, yet you grasp at distortion that isn't backed by anything to make your argument. Again, to you the truth doesn't matter.

The truth about what?!? All the OP was doing was pointing out that 'Joseph Smith was a human being' and has NO relevance to anything. For example, Joseph Smith formed a Church. So what?!? Joseph Smith was a polygamist. So what? I have repeatedly asked you about relevance and you have not once been able to answer it.

If you do not have the ability to acknowledge all the evidence that proves Joseph Smith a fraud, well, that is what this thread is about. If you want to chock up all the evidence that doesn't tell you what you need it to and sum it up as "so what", that defines why your mind is teflon. It just doesn't matter that the truth doesn't side with your opinion.

This is the part you aren't backing up. What makes you think Joseph Smith was "initially mistaken" and then changed his claim wasn't translating the papyrus, but it was only "inspired" work. This doesn't make any sense and isn't backed up with anything but your opinion. Do you have any reference whatsoever to imply Joseph Smith used a pagan document as inspiration? I've already quoted Joseph Smith stating twice he was "translating" the papyrus "by Abraham's own hand." Do the facts side with you on your opinion, or are you discounting facts because they don't agree with your opinion?

The Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, not by Joseph Smith knowing the language. Your assertion that he could read and translate the papyrus and knew Egyptian Hieroglyphics is what is inconsistent here. The Lord did not give the papyrus to Joseph Smith and told him to translate it, so Joseph Smith had to figure it out for himself. And his initial speculations and guesses about it were wrong. Oh well, Joseph Smith was a human being after all.

How you can possibly come to the brilliant conclusion that I believe Joseph Smith could translate Egyptian and then call me inconsistent is absurd. You do know how to read don't you? Just so you know, I believe Joseph Smith was a liar and couldn't "translate" anything.

What is "understandable" about using a pagan document you claim you're translating, being totally wrong, but somehow it was the Lord's work? You simply aren't making sense, but pounding the square peg in the round hole in an attempt to find a way to make what doesn't make sense logical to you. Is the above response logical and based on fact, or is it illogical and based on no facts whatsoever?

Joseph Smith didn't know initially that it was a pagan document. Nobody on the planet alive at the time knew what they were. It was merely the impetus for him to ask the Lord and receive the inspired writings of Abraham instead. Was that really that hard to understand?

What the hell are you even talking about? The point, is that Joseph Smith claimed he could translate the pagan papyrus. There is nothing in the historical record sides with your "inspired" opinion. Either Joseph Smith was telling the truth, or he was lying. HE said he was "translating" the papyrus. How you can even consider he was "inspired" by a pagan document that had nothing to do with what he said it did is amazing, as you actually believe this. If you translate Huckleberry Finn into another language Tobin, it's either Huck Finn or it's not. You can't expect any rational thinking human to actually believe you can take a pagan papyrus and be "inspired" to "translate" it into something else. What you continue to fail to acknowledge is that Joseph Smith claimed he was "translating" the papyrus. Do you acknowledge this fact... what Joseph Smith actually said?

Your belief he "translated" the papyrus is simply ludicrous.

It's not my "belief" Tobin, it's what Joseph Smith said.

Again, as you failed to acknowledge this the first time:

http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm

"... with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commence the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. - a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236).

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM

TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH

[u]A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. - The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

The only thing "ludicrous" about your last statement is that it directly contradicts Joseph Smith's own words. Were these words supposedly said before he was "mistaken" as you assert? Do you have any critical thinking skills?

Really?!? Do you really believe Joseph Smith could read and write Egyptian Hieroglyphics? Who taught him the language? When did the learn it? It is just a silly assertion you are making. Joseph Smith did not know reformed Egyptian when he revealed the Book of Mormon and he did not know Egyptian Hieroglyphics either. Your "understanding" of what Joseph Smith means by translation is severely broken. The Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon are revealed and inspired texts.[/u]

He couldn't read Egyptian Hieroglyphics at all.

On this we agree, but Joseph Smith also claimed he could translate ancient languages and built a reputation on it. How, when you also consider the Greek Psalter and Kinderhook plates where he made the same incorrect claims, do you come to the conclusion he wasn't a liar?

If you agree, then why do you keep making the same stupid assertion?!? Joseph Smith revealed texts by the gift and power of God. He did not know the languages.

He did not know how to translate anything. Your claim it was by "the gift and power of God" is just what you've been told to believe... it doesn't make sense.

So of course what God revealed of the Book of Abraham to him had to be "inspired".

This may be the only way it can make sense to you, but the facts don't support your opinion, which isn't based on fact. To the OP, you are teflon in this instance, as you can't provide one single fact to support your claim, yet you must discount many facts in order to reject the null hypothesis that Joseph Smith was not telling the truth.

What are you talking about? The facts show the papyrus does not contain the Book of Abraham and the reason it does not is precisely because the Book of Abraham is a revealed text of the original writings of Abraham. The facts actually back up EXACTLY what I stated. They certainly don't support any of your assertions.

Wow... just WOW! Let's break down your point. "The facts show the papyrus does not contain the Book of Abraham."

The facts show the papyrus does not contain the Book of Abraham

On this we agree. The facts dictate the pagan papyrus Joseph Smith purchased is nothing more than what it is... a typical pagan document.

and the reason it does not is precisely because the Book of Abraham is a revealed text of the original writings of Abraham.

What? The papyrus doesn't contain the Book of Abraham, yet it does contain a "revealed text (whatever that is) that actually does contain the writings of Abraham? So one can translate Huckleberry Finn and translate it into War and Peace? Your logic isn't just absurd, it contradicts itself and is absolutely devoid of any critical thought.

The facts actually back up EXACTLY what I stated. They certainly don't support any of your assertions.

The facts dictate that Joseph Smith claimed he was "translating" the pagan papyrus and he was wrong, making him a liar. You have zero concept of the facts, and that's because you're brainwashed into believing whatever you need to in order to find some illogical path to appease your cognitive dissonance. You are a piece of work Tobin to actually believe the facts support your argument.

Also, your claim falls apart because it is based solely on that ridiculous assertion and so you assert his speculations about the Egyptian Hieroglyphics (you know, the stuff he couldn't read at all) invalidates the Book of Abraham. It does not since the Book of Abraham was an inspired text and so it was not translated from the papyrus.

You just keep stating the same tired opinion based on nothing and using "ridiculous" and "ludicrous" to imply your argument carries any weight, which it doesn't as you haven't made one point in favor of your "inspired" assertion. You are wrong, as what Joseph Smith claimed was a "translation" of the papyrus, and the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar was concocted to back up Joseph Smith's claim.

I'm not the person stating Joseph Smith translated the papyrus using his knowledge of Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

Get this Tobin... neither am I. Joseph Smith was lying when he said he was translating the papyrus, the Kinderhook plates and the Greek Psalter.

I'm actually being very consistent and stating Joseph Smith did not know the language at all.

Good, because that's the truth. How you can claim I'm stating he could makes my head explode. You do know how to read, so you come to this preposterous conclusion is mind-boggling.

You are the only one being inconsistent by stating he knew the language and then denying he knew the language. Your position is EXACTLY as I described it - ABSURD.

You're really not very bright Tobin. Either that, or you're just "inspired" to read my posts and come to this conclusion. Go back and read them again and tell me where I claimed Joseph Smith was anything but a fraud.

....

The rest of your assertion about the U&T is just utter non-sense.

You can snip all the facts and ignore them Tobin, and that's because your brainwashed mind just can't handle the truth.

It isn't worth commenting on.

It absolutely is, but if you have no response you'll use this very predictable LDS debate tactic which is to ignore the data presented.

The quote from the HC is clear and was written by Joseph Smith and reviewed by him.

You latch onto the lies the LDS church feeds you, but in order to hold onto it, must reject the truth... teflon. Tell me Tobin, is your precious distortion backed up with a date? It doesn't matter, but I'm just pointing out how you blindly believe the false data that's fed to you.

Your claim that there was no U&T because it wasn't mentioned earlier is silly. The histories and commentaries weren't written till later in Joseph Smith's OWN life. Joseph Smith most likely didn't realize the U&T seerstones where actually called the U&T at that earlier time and he referred to them as seerstones. CLEARLY, the HC clarifies this later, but you ignore everything Joseph Smith said about the matter later in his OWN life and in his OWN words. That is the problem with your nutty theory. The fact is simply Joseph Smith directly contradicts you himself.

You'd have to address the data to have any credibility, which you failed to. I feel sorry for you Tobin. You're the type that won't get it until decades pass. You can't run away from the truth. You can ignore it, for now, but your arguments are nothing short of pure ignorance and exemplify the point of this OP. Good luck Tobin... cognitive dissonance has a way of breaking down over time once you know the truth. Ignorant bliss has its price, which is ignorance of the truth.

To those lurkers out there wondering what it's like to think like a Mormon, read the thought process above. Fact becomes fiction and fiction becomes fact when it's the only possible way cognitive dissonance is appeased... sad.

[_Tobin]

To sum up, thews arguments are this:

thews: The sky is blue, Joseph Smith was a human being, a polygamist, and formed his own Church. And as a result of all these facts, Mormonism false.

reponse: why?

thews response: because they ARE facts!!!

thew: Joseph Smith must have translated the papyrus and known Egyptian Hieroglyphics to do it. But since we all know he didn't know Egyptian Hieroglyphics and the facts back that up, to no-one's surprise, Joseph Smith is a fraud because the Egyptian papyrus are pagan and don't contain the Book of Abraham.

reponse: Joseph Smith translated by the gift and power of God as was the case with the Book of Mormon and of course he couldn't read Egyptian Hieroglyphics. Since Joseph Smith received a revealed text for the Book of Abraham, he was not initially sure of true source and incorrectly thought it was the poor pagan copies contained in the Egyptian papyrus instead of the original papyrus "written by the hand of Abraham" as he stated.

thews response: * crickets *

thews: There was no U&T because it wasn't described till later in the HC written by Joseph Smith's scribes and/or himself and reviewed by him.

reponse: Joseph Smith said there was and contradicts thews theory.

thews response: I don't care what Joseph Smith claimed later. I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing lalalalala.

Anyway there we have thews arguments. I think it is bonkers. I'll let others make their own determination.