Kinderhook vs the Papyri

[_Shulem]

I don't think Tobin is a loony. There are some real loonies on this board, but Tobin just has some odd ideas. Tobin can be a little frustrating (sorry Tobin) in his dogmatic defense of his views, but his posts do spice things up a bit.

If nothing else, he is always polite. I can't say that for some others here. If we all agreed, there would be nothing to talk about.

Well, if you must. But Tobin's brain obviously didn't develop right. Must be a birth defect.

Carry on.

Paul O

[_Quasimodo]

I don't think Tobin is a loony. There are some real loonies on this board, but Tobin just has some odd ideas. Tobin can be a little frustrating (sorry Tobin) in his dogmatic defense of his views, but his posts do spice things up a bit.

If nothing else, he is always polite. I can't say that for some others here. If we all agreed, there would be nothing to talk about.

Well, if you must. But Tobin's brain obviously didn't develop right. Must be a birth defect.

Carry on.

Paul O

Thanks Paul, for your permission.

If you want to see loony, check out LittleNipper's thread " Bible verse by verse" where he intends to post the entire Bible. Just in case we all might have missed something.

[Guest]

Please press 1 if your question is about how Joseph Smith translated - beep - 1. Joseph Smith didn't translate by learning the language (or even knowing it). He translated by the gift and power of God.

We all know this is the claim of Joseph.

The facts are simply this. The Egyptian papyri DO NOT contain the Book of Abraham. Translating the Egyptian Hieroglyphics on them will not yield the Book of Abraham.

So far you got it right.

God revealed the ancient (and lost) record that Abraham made to Joseph Smith.

Abraham, even if he did make a record, didn't make it to Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith, admittedly, incorrectly thought that it was contained in the Egyptian papyri itself (like the records of the Nephites were contained on the Gold Plates).

The difference is that the Gold plates were supposed to contain the record while the papyri was not. Of course this brings up why would Joseph make it up. If he makes up this part why not the rest. If he is actually talking to God on a regular basis why would he even need to. He can and would ask God what they were. He next goes about translating the papyri. God would have to know he is wanting a translation of each hieroglyph and would not be "the dumber" and give him something else that he knows would cause so much problems. You know it causes problems when you give someone a story not contained on the source they are using. You continue to fail to show why it would be reasonable for God to deceive Joseph and not correct him.

How does God give him the explanations for the facsimiles? Even with all the other major problems this one is the worst for the catalyst theory. The explanations are tailor made for each part of the facsimiles.

[_Shulem]

How does God give him the explanations for the facsimiles? Even with all the other major problems this one is the worst for the catalyst theory. The explanations are tailor made for part of the facsimiles.

The story of Abraham and the Explanations of the Facsimilies were printed together in the Time & Seasons as a presentation of Joseph Smith's ability to receive revelation on all things Abraham. They are peas in the same pod -- from the same inspirational source in which Joseph claimed to tap. The Explanations of the Facsimile were in some ways even more daring than the story itself because Joseph used his translating by the gift and power of God gift in a very open and direct manner in front of everyone. We have lot's of eyewitnesses who testify that Joseph used to pick up the papyrus and read certain things to them as if he could actually read Egyptian. He was quite the actor!

Finally, I think Joseph was more proud of his Explanation of the Facsimile translations than that of the actually story that he penned. They are crowning accomplishments to his ability to read Egyptian and the same spirit that motivated him to write the story also motivated him to read the writing of the Facsimilies.

It's an open and shut case. Joseph couldn't read Egyptian and Tobin loses the argument.

Paul O

[_Themis]

We have lot's of eyewitnesses who testify that Joseph used to pick up the papyrus and read certain things to them as if he could actually read Egyptian. He was quite the actor!

The evidence sure doesn't help him. He got caught doing it with the Greek document, and then when they were robbing an Indian burial ground he couldn't resist again and gave us Zelph the white lamanite. He gave us Adam in Missouri. His whole career was making things up. Right from treasure seeking on down.

[_Spektical]

Again, if Joseph Smith was merely a copyist, God could have just appeared and handed him the manuscript instead. Joseph Smith would be completely unnecessary if that is what happened.

If you can judge the reasonableness of how God acted or didn't act in this situation, then why can't we? We think it's reasonable to expect that if God commanded Joseph to translate something, then a translation (as it is normally understood) would have taken place. Clearly nothing of the sort happened. We think it would have been reasonable for God to let Joseph know that he wasn't translating anything at all, but simply receiving pure revelation (if the Book of Abraham is 'true').

You repeatedly revert to your argument that 'If God tells you Mormonism is true, then end of story' (or something to that effect). In doing so, you ignore the fundamental impracticality to such an approach. Millions of people have claimed God told them to do X or believe Y for all of recorded history. From baking cookies for their neighbor to flying airplanes into towers. Often these messages are at direct odds with one another, so unless God is just a jerk who is messing with all of us, he can't be the source of all these communications.

Besides, for the vast majority of people, there is no such thing as just chatting God up like you'd chat up your neighbor. Rather, it's a process of prayer and then reflective interpretation of feelings (or lack thereof) or subsequent events. It isn't "God said do this" or "God confirmed the truth of that." It's "I feel impressed to do this or believe that based on X Y Z experience." Because there is always a subjective human interpretation necessary to any "spiritual" experience, such experiences cannot be relied on to determine objective truth. It's too easy for one's personal beliefs, desires, or biases to be interpreted as some manifestation from God.

The approach you champion is, for all practical purposes, wholly unworkable.

[_Tobin]

How does God give him the explanations for the facsimiles? Even with all the other major problems this one is the worst for the catalyst theory. The explanations are tailor made for each part of the facsimiles.

He didn't.

[_Tobin]

Again, if Joseph Smith was merely a copyist, God could have just appeared and handed him the manuscript instead. Joseph Smith would be completely unnecessary if that is what happened.

If you can judge the reasonableness of how God acted or didn't act in this situation, then why can't we? We think it's reasonable to expect that if God commanded Joseph to translate something, then a translation (as it is normally understood) would have taken place. Clearly nothing of the sort happened. We think it would have been reasonable for God to let Joseph know that he wasn't translating anything at all, but simply receiving pure revelation (if the Book of Abraham is 'true').

He didn't.

You repeatedly revert to your argument that 'If God tells you Mormonism is true, then end of story' (or something to that effect). In doing so, you ignore the fundamental impracticality to such an approach. Millions of people have claimed God told them to do X or believe Y for all of recorded history. From baking cookies for their neighbor to flying airplanes into towers. Often these messages are at direct odds with one another, so unless God is just a jerk who is messing with all of us, he can't be the source of all these communications.

That is the basis of Mormonism and Moroni's promise. Mormonism is a revealed religion.

Besides, for the vast majority of people, there is no such thing as just chatting God up like you'd chat up your neighbor. Rather, it's a process of prayer and then reflective interpretation of feelings (or lack thereof) or subsequent events. It isn't "God said do this" or "God confirmed the truth of that." It's "I feel impressed to do this or believe that based on X Y Z experience." Because there is always a subjective human interpretation necessary to any "spiritual" experience, such experiences cannot be relied on to determine objective truth. It's too easy for one's personal beliefs, desires, or biases to be interpreted as some manifestation from God.

I didn't say that. Joseph Smith sets the bar about this type of experience.

The approach you champion is, for all practical purposes, wholly unworkable.

Clearly that is not true.

[_Themis]

How does God give him the explanations for the facsimiles? Even with all the other major problems this one is the worst for the catalyst theory. The explanations are tailor made for each part of the facsimiles.

He didn't.

So I take it then that you think the explanations did not come from God and are made up by Joseph, and this part of the Book of Abraham in your opinion is uninspired nonsense. If I am misreading what you mean please clarify.

[_Tobin]

He didn't.

So I take it then that you think the explanations did not come from God and are made up by Joseph, and this part of the Book of Abraham in your opinion is uninspired nonsense. If I am misreading what you mean please clarify.

The facsimiles are Egyptian.