Chicago Fire of 1871

[_Brackite]

Hi KA,

I have never visited Chicago before. If I ever get to visit Chicago within my lifetime, I would very much like to go visit the Sky-deck observation deck on nearly the top of the Sears Tower (Now Recently called the Willis Tower).

[Rikiti]

.

[_Brackite]

...

There are also accounts of the scrolls being unrolled, filling up the floor and going down the hallway of the house. The little that we have are simply fragments.

...

New Book of Abraham Thread on MAD:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8646

[_Pahoran]

It amazes me that people think the recovered papyri were not the source for the Book of Abraham. The papyri contains Facsimile 1. It just defies logic and reason.

The recovered papyri do not contain Facs. 2 and 3. Thus, it amazes me that people think the recovered papyri must be the source for the Book of Abraham. It just defies logic and reason.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Dr. Shades]

The recovered papyri do not contain Facs. 2 and 3. Thus, it amazes me that people think the recovered papyri must be the source for the Book of Abraham. It just defies logic and reason.

But we nevertheless know that Joseph was 100% mistaken in his interpretations of those papyrii, too, recovered or otherwise.

How does your comment salvage Joseph Smith in any way?

[_Pahoran]

The recovered papyri do not contain Facs. 2 and 3. Thus, it amazes me that people think the recovered papyri must be the source for the Book of Abraham. It just defies logic and reason.

But we nevertheless know that Joseph was 100% mistaken in his interpretations of those papyrii, too, recovered or otherwise.

Actually we don't know that. Let me give you just one little example.

In each of Facs. 1 and 2 we see the same group of four canopic figures. These are representations of the four sons of Horus, and each is said to preside over one of the cardinal directions. Joseph described them as representing "the earth in its four quarters."

Which is correct.

How did he know that? Why would anyone look at those four figures and come to the conclusion that they represent the four directions, without actually knowing something about them? It isn't as if they are grouped around a segmented circle with a big arrow at the top, or anything like that.

A popular anti-Mormon trick is to claim that Joseph misidentified them by giving them the wrong names. After all, he didn't call any of them "Duamutef," did he?

Well no, he didn't. And in fact he didn't give them names at all.

Joseph identified each of them as an "idolatrous god" of something or other. Now nobody is going to call a statue of Apollo "the idolatrous god of Apollo." If they use that formulation at all, they will call him "the idolatrous god of the sun." I don't know what Libnah, Korash etc. mean, but I do know that Joseph wasn't offering those epithets as their names.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Polygamy-Porter]

The recovered papyri do not contain Facs. 2 and 3. Thus, it amazes me that people think the recovered papyri must be the source for the Book of Abraham. It just defies logic and reason.

But we nevertheless know that Joseph was 100% mistaken in his interpretations of those papyrii, too, recovered or otherwise.

Actually we don't know that.

"We" as in those whose membership requires them to view the Book of Abraham work as divinely translated scripture?

Or We as in the world, or the few non members who who have an interest in the papyrus and origins of the Book of Abraham?

[_Pahoran]

But we nevertheless know that Joseph was 100% mistaken in his interpretations of those papyrii, too, recovered or otherwise.

Actually we don't know that.

"We" as in those whose membership requires them to view the Book of Abraham work as divinely translated scripture?

Or We as in the world, or the few non members who who have an interest in the papyrus and origins of the Book of Abraham?

Perhaps you'd better ask Shades. He's the one who came up with that "we," as well as the fabulous figure of "100% mistaken."

You see, "we," whoever "we" might be, do not "know that Joseph was 100% mistaken in his interpretations of those papyrii" because it isn't possible to "know" something that is provably false.

It is possible to mistakenly believe it; it is possible to choose to propagate it. But it is not possible to "know" it.

Therefore, regardless of the makeup of that "we" group, it does not exist.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Kevin Graham]

Actually we don't know that. Let me give you just one little example.

Well, WE know it. And Mormon Egyptologist Stephen Thompson refuted your little apologetic chestnut about the "four corners" 15 years ago:

It has been repeatedly claimed that Figure 6 in Facsimile 2, which is a depiction of the four sons of Horus (also found as Figures 5-8 in Facsimile 1) "could indeed `represent this earth in its four quarters' in the ancient world, as the explanation to the facsimile in the Book of Abraham says." As far as ancient Egypt was concerned, there is no evidence currently available to support this claim. There is only one context in which the sons of Horus are associated with the cardinal directions, i.e., the "earth in its four quarters." They were sent out, in the form of birds, as heralds of the king's coronation. In this setting, Duamutef (Facs. 1, Fig. 6) went to the East, Qebehsenuef (Facs. 1, Fig. 5) to the West, Amset (Facs. 1, Fig. 8) to the South, and Hapi (Facs. 1, Fig. 7) to the North. I must emphasize that it is only in this context, and in the form of birds, that these gods were associated with the cardinal points. In a funerary context no such relationship is evident. Furthermore, the fact that these gods were sent to the four quarters of the earth does not mean that the Egyptians equated them with these directions. There is no evidence that they did so.

But being overly generous, let's go ahead and say Smith got this right. What do we do with the plethora of misses? Such as his ludicrous interpretation of Rev 1:6, which he used to argue God the Father has a Father! Or just stick the other examples from the facsimiles, where Anubis becomes a slave simply because he is black, and men are dressed in drag. If you're an apologist, you dismiss them, downplay them, and if at all possible, make sure none of the other members ever know about them. If you're a critical thinker who places intellectual integrity above emotional necessity, you have to accept the fact that Joseph Smith could in no way shape or form be considered a true prophet of God.

[_Brackite]

...

There are also accounts of the scrolls being unrolled, filling up the floor and going down the hallway of the house. The little that we have are simply fragments.

...

New Book of Abraham Thread on MAD:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8646

I decided to Post the Quote from California Kid, From that Thread here.
Here is the Quote, and Part of that Post, From that Thread:

California Kid has Posted on this subject a while ago, on this Message Board here. Here is most of his Post, on this subject:

It's worse still. Nibley published two different versions of the same reminiscence:

"President Smith (as Elder Nibley recollected with his remarkable memory) recalled with tears the familiar sight of 'Uncle Joseph' kneeling on the floor of the front room with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him, weighted down by rocks and books, as with intense concentration he would study a line of characters, jotting down his impressions in a little notebook as he went." --Hugh W. Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price," Improvement Era (March 1968): 17–18

"We are told that they were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House." - Hugh W. Nibley, "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri - Translations and Interpretations - Phase One," Dialogue 3:2 (Summer 1968): 99-105

In the latter case he doesn't even identify his source, and he just sort of throws it out there randomly. Given Nibley's laziness about citations and the frequency with which he worked from his somewhat faulty memory, it seems altogeter probable that the Preston Nibley account gradually became amplified in his mind as it took on greater significance in terms of being able to answer certain critics' arguments.

Link: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3023

I am able to conclude that Joseph Smith got a basically right the interpretation for Figure 6 in Facsimile #2. However, Joseph Smith got the interpretations wrong for nearly all of the Figures in Facsimile #1, he got the interpretations wrong for most of the Figures in Facsimile #2, and he got the interpretations wrong for all of the Figures in Facsimile #3. And Kevin mentioned Revelation Chapter one, verse six here. Joseph Smith got the interpretation for Revelation Chapter one, verse six totally wrong.

Here is Joseph Smith's Preposterous interpretation for Revelation Chapter one, verse six:

Our text says "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above, for Paul says God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private.

John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It reads just so in the Revelation. Hence, the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible. It stands beyond the power of controversy. A wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.

...

If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

Link: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/ser ... sermon.htm





Here is the Passage of Revelation Chapter one, verse six, From more accurate Versions (Translations) of the Bible:

Revelation 1:6: (New King James Version):

6 and has made us kings[a] and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 1:6: (New International Version):

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Revelation 1:6 (New American Standard Bible):

6 and He has made us to be a (A)kingdom, (B)priests to (C)His God and Father--(D)to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

We do have the actual Papyrus that was used in the 'translation' of the Book of Abraham: