John Gee is a defender of lies

[_harmony]

The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ."

The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of
Abraham.

Is the church moving away from the canon?

Not that I can tell.

More importantly, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for members to assume that the Book of Abraham is uninspired.

Your answer does not match Gee's, EE. So it doesn't answer my question.

[_Paul Osborne]

I bear you my testimony in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth that the name Shulem is not contained within the characters of Facsimile No. 3 and that Joseph Smith is a liar.

Paul O

[_Enuma Elish]

I think it's probably more a reflection of our lay ministry, with Gospel Doctrine lessons proliferating non-sophisticated views as revealed truth.

So now you're blaming the local bishops and/or Gospel Doctrine teachers for the lack of substance and our unsophisticated views of revealed truth? Because we don't all have jobs that allow us to study our religion deeply enough to gain sophisticated views of revealed truth, like yourself?

Someone has to pay the tithing, so you can get paid, EE. Maybe you could try harder to not insult the hand that puts food on your table?

You know, believe it nor, Institute instructors are not paid to research, study, and/or publish, only to teach. Case in point. This semester, I teach two graduate level courses at Harvard, two undergraduate courses at MIT, and one Wednesday and Tuesday night course in Cambridge. This in addition to coordinating the early morning seminary classes for the Cambridge, MA and Nashua, NH Stakes and serving as an LDS Chaplain at Harvard.

If I was a regular college professor, want to take a guess how many classes I would be teaching at one location? It would be an insult for any of the professors I studied with for my MA and PhD to be asked to teach more than two classes per semester.

[_Paul Osborne]

In terms of the Book of Abraham, believers can and sadly do get into trouble when they insist that Joseph's work conform to their preconceived notions on what constitutes the makeup of a scriptural text. Without getting too personal, from my perspective, this is precisely what has occurred in the case of our friend, Paul O.

You mock me, David. I attest that the name Shulem is not contained in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 and if Joseph Smith was here on this board I would call him a liar to his face. I also accuse Joseph Smith for falsely claiming revelation to turn one of Egypt’s greatest gods into a mere slave, although he be black, that matters not – Joseph Smith was a fool.

I rebuke you in the name of Jesus Christ.

Paul O

[_Dwight Frye]

Don't forget to listen to Alice Cooper regularly.

Amen, brother.

My suggestion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVPFpvQWbKU&feature=fvw

[Guest]

removed

[_Themis]

I believe that there exists compelling intellectual reasons for a Latter-day Saint to accept the Book of Abraham as an inspired work, particularly in light of what we know about ancient scriptural pseudepigraphic texts from the Bible,

Inspiration of men. Men do sometimes have great inspiration. I have no doubt that similarities and connections can be made between many different cultures, religions, languages, etc. What I have not seen is anyone who can show whether they are significant and beyond chance or any of the many similarities that exist between all these groups and text, not to mention the possibility of biased views that see connections others do not(ex Nostradamus) I would love to see them.

but if we’re simply talking intellectual arguments for/against the Book of Abraham, there are just as many legitimate points that one could raise against the authenticity of the work that I could raise in support of it.

Apologists have made many points in favor of the Book of Abraham over the years, It's just to bad that their quality is so far below that of the evidence against it.

Acceptance of the work as inspired amounts to whether or not the text successfully influences our lives, drawing us closer to God. For me it does.

That's fine, but I have read texts that do a better job, and I'm not sure what you define as drawing closer to God. I would think it more important in helping one become better individuals more in touch with themselves and the universe around them.

Hence, the fact that Joseph does not appear to have understood how truly remarkable the pieces of the puzzle he was putting together proved in terms of the Book of Abraham provides further evidence for the possibility that Joseph was in fact being divinely inspired in the production.

Again I would like to see why any supposed remarkable pieces are significant in providing evidence of Divine assistance.

I agree. And speaking personally, I can find evidence for what I view as inspiration in all the world’s religions.

So can I, it's called the inspiration of men/women. Some of it's good, some bad.

Joseph Smith was certainly well-versed in the Bible and his revelations in the D&C illustrate that he could reproduce ancient literary forms in modern compositions. So, Joseph Smith could have gotten lucky. But if so, Joseph got lucky an awful lot! Especially in terms of the divine council/plurality of Gods portrayal connected with the astrological imagery in chapter 3. It's quite impressive!

How do you define what an awful lot is? Especially considering how many misses he got. I wouldn't expect revelation to contain so many misses, unless it is the inspiration of men.

I can’t speak for every believer’s approach, but I tend to see religion as evolutionary in terms of its development.

So do I. The church of the future will not look anything like it does today.

From my perspective, though unique on some levels, Israelite theology is simply an inspired subset of Northwest Semitic belief.

A lot of it is defiantly not good inspiration. Fortunately religion today has dispensed with some of it.

[_Dwight Frye]

Fun stuff!

It is, indeed! I wish I was knowledgeable enough to thoughtfully engage your post so that you don't feel you've wasted your time in typing it, but, alas....

Please know that it was read carefully and much appreciated. Thanks, David!

[_Paul Osborne]

I see no reason that joseph needed to prove himself to be a prophet by translating something that he purchased. It would have been a surefire way to be proven false if he were a conman since such material could have been checked by experts.

And that's exactly what happened!

You are correct, yet again, lord Shades. Joseph Smith was in fact a liar and when he published his revelation to the world in the Times & Seasons that the name Shulem was contained in the hieroglyphic writing of Facsimile No. 3, he was knowingly telling a lie. And yet we have Nibley and his stooge, coming here to MD to defend this. How pitiful.

Little wonder Joseph boy was tarred and feathered. He deserved it, and more.

Paul O

[_Joseph Antley]

Joseph Smith was in fact a liar and when he published his revelation to the world in the Times & Seasons that the name Shulem was contained in the hieroglyphic writing of Facsimile No. 3, he was knowingly telling a lie.

Out of curiosity, how do you know that Joseph did not really believe that he was inspired to translate a record, and thus genuinely believed that his translation was correct?