DiscussMormonism.com

After all, it is the past. That was then, this is now. LDS life makes many feel good, provides a security against the cold, harsh world.

What does it matter that

• There's ample corroborative proof for Biblical places and events, both in ancillary writings and archaeological remnants, but none for the BoM--reading it makes me feel good.
• JSJr was hailed into court in 1826 to face charges of glass looking for hire (chicanery)
• JSJr tried to join the Methodist church in 1828, but beginning with the 1835 redraft of the 1820 First Vision, claimed that he'd been told by god in 1820 that none of the religions existing as of 1820 had the truth, and beginning with the 1839 redraft of the 1820 FV, claimed god had told him then (back in 1820) to join none of the existing religions
• In 1829 JSJr tried unsuccessfully to get royalties from a book house publishing the Book of Mormon
• In 1830, started his own religion (LDS)
• In the early 1830s, JSJr had sexual relations with Fanny Alger which he attempted to keep secret from his wife, Emma
• JSJr took many 'polygamous wives' behind Emma's back, including a 14 year old when he was in his mid-30s and including 'marrying' surreptitiously two sisters one afternoon--but there is little evidence that this practice was to raise up a righteous seed, as delineated in the Book of Mormon as the only reason god might instruct other than monogamy and sexual relations only in a monogamous marriage
• Despite claims he was 'translating' ancient Egyptian papyrus upon which Abraham had himself penned his story and the KEP inextricably tying the BoAbr English text to the 1967 found papyrus with the included alphabet and grammar attempts, the characters on the papyrus do not linguistically translate into the BoAbr English text
• Numerous factual discrepancies exist in and undercut the BoAbr Facsimiles and their Explanations being what LDS claims they are?

The LDS Church claims it has authority from god, a chain that runs directly through JSJr. It claims that Peter's church, a remnant of which is the Roman Catholic Church, started out with such authority but then lost it--necessitating that the church be restored, and that is what the LDS Church ostensibly is today--the one and only church on earth with authority from god to perform saving ordinances.

Do these historical facts matter? Or are they simply inconvenient truths, and all that matters is that LDS happens to be the church and society in which one might find himself, and family and friends?

For me, they have mattered and dispelled my LDS belief (and participation). For me, history matters, particularly in regards to an organization making such audacious claims of sole authority from god.

I am interested in hearing from believers why these facts don't matter.

sock puppet wrote:After all, it is the past. That was then, this is now. LDS life makes many feel good, provides a security against the cold, harsh world.

What does it matter that

• There's ample corroborative proof for Biblical places and events, both in ancillary writings and archaeological remnants, but none for the BoM--reading it makes me feel good.
• JSJr was hailed into court in 1826 to face charges of glass looking for hire (chicanery)
• JSJr tried to join the Methodist church in 1828, but beginning with the 1835 redraft of the 1820 First Vision, claimed that he'd been told by god in 1820 that none of the religions existing as of 1820 had the truth, and beginning with the 1839 redraft of the 1820 FV, claimed god had told him then (back in 1820) to join none of the existing religions
• In 1829 JSJr tried unsuccessfully to get royalties from a book house publishing the Book of Mormon
• In 1830, started his own religion (LDS)
• In the early 1830s, JSJr had sexual relations with Fanny Alger which he attempted to keep secret from his wife, Emma
• JSJr took many 'polygamous wives' behind Emma's back, including a 14 year old when he was in his mid-30s and including 'marrying' surreptitiously two sisters one afternoon--but there is little evidence that this practice was to raise up a righteous seed, as delineated in the Book of Mormon as the only reason god might instruct other than monogamy and sexual relations only in a monogamous marriage
• Despite claims he was 'translating' ancient Egyptian papyrus upon which Abraham had himself penned his story and the KEP inextricably tying the BoAbr English text to the 1967 found papyrus with the included alphabet and grammar attempts, the characters on the papyrus do not linguistically translate into the BoAbr English text
• Numerous factual discrepancies exist in and undercut the BoAbr Facsimiles and their Explanations being what LDS claims they are?

The LDS Church claims it has authority from god, a chain that runs directly through JSJr. It claims that Peter's church, a remnant of which is the Roman Catholic Church, started out with such authority but then lost it--necessitating that the church be restored, and that is what the LDS Church ostensibly is today--the one and only church on earth with authority from god to perform saving ordinances.

Do these historical facts matter? Or are they simply inconvenient truths, and all that matters is that LDS happens to be the church and society in which one might find himself, and family and friends?

For me, they have mattered and dispelled my LDS belief (and participation). For me, history matters, particularly in regards to an organization making such audacious claims of sole authority from god.

I am interested in hearing from believers why these facts don't matter.

Well, no, they don't matter if you accept a kind of religious epistemology.

sock puppet wrote:For me, they have mattered and dispelled my LDS belief (and participation). For me, history matters, particularly in regards to an organization making such audacious claims of sole authority from god.

I am interested in hearing from believers why these facts don't matter.

I'm not a believer, but I'd like to chime in here. To me, the historical criticisms themselves don't mean the church isn't true. The church isn't not true because Joseph Smith had sex with all those women, or because the Book of Abraham isn't what you get when you translate the papyrus Abraham supposedly wrote on by his own hand.

To me, the church isn't true because God never appeared to Joseph, never charged Joseph with "restoring" his church on Earth, never inspired him with the power to translate words written in Hebrew but represented on leaves of beaten gold using reformed Egyptian characters, which words represented the history of ancient Jews who migrated to the Americas, etc.

The church isn't true because its founding was entirely human-directed and human-performed, and was done with no more "authority" than that of human beings exercising their 1st Amendment rights to make up their own religion and believe in it.

All the historical things are not, themselves, the disqualifiers. They are evidence which backs up the assertions I made previously.

So the question in my mind is: is God acting through Joseph Smith as Prophet consistent with Joseph's sexual shenanigans? I believe it is not.

Is the Book of Abraham reality more consistent with A) Joseph Smith inventing tales of Godly authorization and power, or B) God preserving the words penned by Abraham so we could benefit from them in our day? I believe the evidence leans strongly (as in, way past the point of falling over) toward A).

If a man claims that an angel appeared to him and delivered up records inscribed on beaten-gold leaves in an ancient tongue, but then produces a "translation" of those records which appears to be of strictly modern origin, or which claims to represent ancient people but it looks like these people never existed, may I reasonably take this as evidence that the man was making things up?

It is my personal judgment that the historical record overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that Joseph Smith never received any divine commission from the Creator of the Universe to lead the rest of us. He almost certainly made that up. His claimed powers of translation of ancient languages were all a sham, at least if the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are taken seriously as evidence of Joseph using these powers.

The LDS church is not true because it never was true. It wasn't true the very minute it was founded in 1830, and has never been true for even a single second since then. It didn't start out true and then "fall" from being true because Joseph Smith screwed a few dozen other women and girls. It didn't start out true but become false because Joseph Smith invented the Book of Abraham, falsely claiming it came from the papyrus of Michael Chandler. It was never true to begin with. All this other stuff merely serves to support that assessment.

Sethbag wrote:

sock puppet wrote:For me, they have mattered and dispelled my LDS belief (and participation). For me, history matters, particularly in regards to an organization making such audacious claims of sole authority from god.

I am interested in hearing from believers why these facts don't matter.

I'm not a believer, but I'd like to chime in here. To me, the historical criticisms themselves don't mean the church isn't true. The church isn't not true because Joseph Smith had sex with all those women, or because the Book of Abraham isn't what you get when you translate the papyrus Abraham supposedly wrote on by his own hand.

To me, the church isn't true because God never appeared to Joseph, never charged Joseph with "restoring" his church on Earth, never inspired him with the power to translate words written in Hebrew but represented on leaves of beaten gold using reformed Egyptian characters, which words represented the history of ancient Jews who migrated to the Americas, etc.

The church isn't true because its founding was entirely human-directed and human-performed, and was done with no more "authority" than that of human beings exercising their 1st Amendment rights to make up their own religion and believe in it.

All the historical things are not, themselves, the disqualifiers. They are evidence which backs up the assertions I made previously.

So the question in my mind is: is God acting through Joseph Smith as Prophet consistent with Joseph's sexual shenanigans? I believe it is not.

Is the Book of Abraham reality more consistent with A) Joseph Smith inventing tales of Godly authorization and power, or B) God preserving the words penned by Abraham so we could benefit from them in our day? I believe the evidence leans strongly (as in, way past the point of falling over) toward A).

If a man claims that an angel appeared to him and delivered up records inscribed on beaten-gold leaves in an ancient tongue, but then produces a "translation" of those records which appears to be of strictly modern origin, or which claims to represent ancient people but it looks like these people never existed, may I reasonably take this as evidence that the man was making things up?

It is my personal judgment that the historical record overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that Joseph Smith never received any divine commission from the Creator of the Universe to lead the rest of us. He almost certainly made that up. His claimed powers of translation of ancient languages were all a sham, at least if the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are taken seriously as evidence of Joseph using these powers.

The LDS church is not true because it never was true. It wasn't true the very minute it was founded in 1830, and has never been true for even a single second since then. It didn't start out true and then "fall" from being true because Joseph Smith f****d a few dozen other women and girls. It didn't start out true but become false because Joseph Smith invented the Book of Abraham, falsely claiming it came from the papyrus of Michael Chandler. It was never true to begin with. All this other stuff merely serves to support that assessment.

Very well put.

This is exactly the way I see things, as well. When considering the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church, one need go no further than Joseph Smith's claim to have been visited personally by God (when such a god does not, and cannot, exist).

It should be self-evident that Joseph Smith's entire narrative regarding the foundations of the LDS Church is no more plausible than L. Ron Hubbard's foundational narrative for Scientology, and that there is as much evidence for Nephi as there is for Xenu the Galactic Lord.

This is why I think it matters not whether or not folks like Mitt Romney have ever really looked into the history of the Church as as discussed on another thread. People are either mature and intellectually honest enough to admit to themselves that Mormonism is another set of false claims made and embellished over the years by people who are/were naïve and/or less than honest, or they are not.

Simple as that.

sock puppet wrote:Do historical facts matter? or is LDS 'teflon' to them?

Perfect example that anti-mormon "facts" aren't the facts and especially the truth at all.
It's a perversion of it.....

What does it matter that
[list][*]There's ample corroborative proof for Biblical places and events, both in ancillary writings and archaeological remnants, but none for the BoM--reading it makes me feel good.

There are all kinds of evidences (literally THOUSANDS from all kinds of fields of study) for the Book of Mormon for those who actually study and aren't into hate mongering the Light of the world.

As both a convert and someone who's left the Church having problems with it, I'm not in the Church nor believe in the Book of Mormon simply because "it makes me feel good". I'm in it because it's literally true.

Further, your logic is flawed. While it's nice all the evidences the Bible has, the fact that the Book of Mormon was pure revelation all together over some 1,000 years of history, and the thousands of evidences that are now known to exist and just beginning to explode is the most powerful proof of all of Restoration claims. The Book of Mormon should be being proven false, yet it's being proven true. Anti-mormonism has had nothing new in a 100 years. Even the DNA argument is simply the old debunked rehashing and repackage in a new box of body typing studies.

Your "facts" are perversion, not truth.

[*]JSJr was hailed into court in 1826 to face charges of glass looking for hire (chicanery)

Ya, and like no one has ever been falsely charged before. That Bible you praise over Mormonism is FULL of such examples. In fact, it's PEOPLE LIKE YOU who falsely charge and murder innocent good men with your bigotry. Note, you said "hailed". At least you got that right, he was never convicted. He was acquitted.

Again, more perverted truth.

[*]JSJr tried to join the Methodist church in 1828, but beginning with the 1835 redraft of the 1820 First Vision, claimed that he'd been told by god in 1820 that none of the religions existing as of 1820 had the truth, and beginning with the 1839 redraft of the 1820 FV, claimed god had told him then (back in 1820) to join none of the existing religions

He never tried to "join" the Church, he simply attended.

Further, you misrepresent the facts. He was NOT told that other religions "had no truth". He was simply told that the creeds were bad, and that many were corrupt, claiming authority and power they were never given.

Again, so called facts not facts at all.

[*]In 1829 JSJr tried unsuccessfully to get royalties from a book house publishing the Book of Mormon

And....? A person can't do everything for free in life. They have to try to recoop costs somehow. Printing a book isn't free you know???

[*]In 1830, started his own religion (LDS)

And how is this some "harmful" historical fact that doesn't matter and we are "teflon" to???

[*]In the early 1830s, JSJr had sexual relations with Fanny Alger which he attempted to keep secret from his wife, Emma

And how is the "rumor mill" actually FACTS in your mind??? There is no historical FACT which makes this a truth, just speculation and rumor.

Again, your facts are not facts at all.

[*]JSJr took many 'polygamous wives' behind Emma's back, including a 14 year old when he was in his mid-30s and including 'marrying' surreptitiously two sisters one afternoon--but there is little evidence that this practice was to raise up a righteous seed, as delineated in the Book of Mormon as the only reason god might instruct other than monogamy and sexual relations only in a monogamous marriage

1. Wasn't polygamy.
2. Emma knew very well of most of his sealings. In fact, strange that this secret 14 year old served with Emma in the Relief Society leadership after all the so-called events, and the rumor mill was full blown. Yes, it was just so "secret". Your other secret marriages were not secret at all. Family members, etc. were there, on and on.
3. As far as the actual evidence and facts show, Joseph only practiced the sealing ordinance, thus. But yes, later when it concerned polygamy, it was indeed to raise up a righteous seed.
4. Joseph "may" have consumated some of his marriages, but that's a different story and issue. Men even good men, sometimes aren't perfect. Further, he was technically married to them, so, it is at most a grey area, not some big sin if he did actually "do it".

Again, more facts that aren't actually facts.

[*]Despite claims he was 'translating' ancient Egyptian papyrus upon which Abraham had himself penned his story and the KEP inextricably tying the BoAbr English text to the 1967 found papyrus with the included alphabet and grammar attempts, the characters on the papyrus do not linguistically translate into the BoAbr English text

There is not a single thing that gives "fact" that the found "fragments" are the actual Book of Abraham. In fact, there is every fact that they aren't, that they are a dime a dozen parchments that Joseph gave away, which is how they ended up being donated to a Museum, that they were simply some of his "working copies" of the Facsimiles, which are in fact a dime a dozen everywhere in Egyptian parchments.

The entire belief that the found fragments ARE the claimed Book of Abraham is entirely out of the fantasy of the anti-mormon mind, not based in "facts".

And as to the characters, further research has found that Joseph got a lot right.... Just because "common Egyptian" understanding didn't originally translate the way Joseph did, does not mean it wasn't a known Egyptian linguistic method.

Again, more facts that aren't facts at all.

[*]Numerous factual discrepancies exist in and undercut the BoAbr Facsimiles and their Explanations being what LDS claims they are?

Everything not being known is not the same thing as everything being wrong or false. Fact is, is much has been already found to be correct. Thus, Joseph clearly wasn't as wrong or made things up as anti-mormons believe.

The LDS Church claims it has authority from god, a chain that runs directly through JSJr. It claims that Peter's church, a remnant of which is the Roman Catholic Church, started out with such authority but then lost it--necessitating that the church be restored, and that is what the LDS Church ostensibly is today--the one and only church on earth with authority from god to perform saving ordinances.

Yep, that's a fact..... Hey, you got something right. But, how is it a "bad" fact to us???

Do these historical facts matter? Or are they simply inconvenient truths, and all that matters is that LDS happens to be the church and society in which one might find himself, and family and friends?

Facts do matter.... Question needs to be is are your beliefs actually facts, or are they are perversion of them. As someone who's been on all sides, including a Catholic, your facts are not facts at all, they are perversion of the fact and truth. Sure, some are facts here and there, after all, satan uses truth and fact to lie, but, plenty aren't facts, and nearly all are the perversion of fact and truth, thus not being truth at all.

For me, they have mattered and dispelled my LDS belief (and participation). For me, history matters, particularly in regards to an organization making such audacious claims of sole authority from god.

You're not the first to think that in his foolish youth or older mental degradation. But, your view is not fact nor truth.

I am interested in hearing from believers why these facts don't matter.

What matters is the actual facts, not your perversion of them. I've been an anti-mormon and anti-religion, leaving the Church in my arrogance, I see every detail how anti-mormonism perverts facts and truth.

ldsfaqs,

No need for all the excuses, denials, dodging and obfuscation. All you need to say to get your point across is that, as a faithful member, you are indeed "Teflon" when it comes to these facts.

This, of course, leaves one to wonder what other important facts in life you are "Teflon" to.

What does it matter that
•There's ample corroborative proof for Biblical places and events, both in ancillary writings and archaeological remnants, but none for the BoM--reading it makes me feel good.

The Bible is an account of man's dealings with God, the same as the Book of Mormon. No-one is going to be persuaded to believe the Bible because it was set in an area where there is clearer historical and archeological picture. The scriptures are either true accounts of man experiencing God or they are not and the historical argument is tired and absurd. I'm really surprised that critics try to use it against the Book of Mormon, when most don't believe in the Bible either.

•JSJr was hailed into court in 1826 to face charges of glass looking for hire (chicanery)

That has nothing to do with whether or not the Book of Mormon is from God.

•JSJr tried to join the Methodist church in 1828, but beginning with the 1835 redraft of the 1820 First Vision, claimed that he'd been told by god in 1820 that none of the religions existing as of 1820 had the truth, and beginning with the 1839 redraft of the 1820 FV, claimed god had told him then (back in 1820) to join none of the existing religions

Anecdotal at best. It may have been simply he attended meetings and someone took down his name. Even if the account is accurate, he displayed no interest in being a member and asked to be removed. And the final point is, so what? Joseph Smith was a human being. He was fully capable of sin and having failings.

•In 1829 JSJr tried unsuccessfully to get royalties from a book house publishing the Book of Mormon

Again, so what even if this is true? Point out where the Book of Mormon states it must be published freely and no attempt should be made to protect the contents, copyright, and so on.

•In 1830, started his own religion (LDS)

So what?

•In the early 1830s, JSJr had sexual relations with Fanny Alger which he attempted to keep secret from his wife, Emma

So what? If Joseph Smith sinned or did not sin because he was doing what God told him to do, that is not for us to judge.

•JSJr took many 'polygamous wives' behind Emma's back, including a 14 year old when he was in his mid-30s and including 'marrying' surreptitiously two sisters one afternoon--but there is little evidence that this practice was to raise up a righteous seed, as delineated in the Book of Mormon as the only reason god might instruct other than monogamy and sexual relations only in a monogamous marriage

So what? That is between Joseph Smith and God, his wife, and the women involved.

•Despite claims he was 'translating' ancient Egyptian papyrus upon which Abraham had himself penned his story and the KEP inextricably tying the BoAbr English text to the 1967 found papyrus with the included alphabet and grammar attempts, the characters on the papyrus do not linguistically translate into the BoAbr English text

Inaccurate. The Book of Abraham was an inspired text. There was no translation of the Egyptian.

•Numerous factual discrepancies exist in and undercut the BoAbr Facsimiles and their Explanations being what LDS claims they are?

The LDS (Church) is made up of men and is perfectly capable of getting some things wrong. Joseph Smith speculated about the Egyptian Facsimiles. They are clearly wrong and should be removed from the canon. This has no bearing the inspired nature of the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon.

I'll simply echo what seth said, either God tells you Mormonism is true or God does not. You are under no obligation to believe it if God does not. For me, and Mormons like me - God has revealed the truth that he truly exists. I'll never be persuaded otherwise no matter how many arguments you make. We just know better and are very content learning the truth directly from God instead (and that is how it should be).

Tobin wrote:

What does it matter that
•There's ample corroborative proof for Biblical places and events, both in ancillary writings and archaeological remnants, but none for the BoM--reading it makes me feel good.

The Bible is an account of man's dealings with God, the same as the Book of Mormon. No-one is going to be persuaded to believe the Bible because it was set in an area where there is clearer historical and archeological picture. The scriptures are either true accounts of man experiencing God or they are not and the historical argument is tired and absurd. I'm really surprised that critics try to use it against the Book of Mormon, when most don't believe in the Bible either.

You simply don't get it. There is no factual (tangible) data to prove on single story in the Book of Mormon true. While you classify this as "tired and absurd" it's simply because you've decided it doesn't matter that it's not true. If Zeplh was found in America as Joseph Smith claimed, there would be evidence... there isn't. The DNA evidence doesn't bother you, because you can find ridiculous pro-LDS articles based on convoluted "is not" data. Bottom line... if the Book of Mormon were true, there would be some tangible evidence... there isn't one single thing.

Tobin wrote:

•JSJr was hailed into court in 1826 to face charges of glass looking for hire (chicanery)

That has nothing to do with whether or not the Book of Mormon is from God.

It has everything to do with whether the Book of Mormon is from the Christian God. There never was and never will be an Urim and Thummim. There is the supposed Nephite spectacles (which were taken back) and Joseph Smith's seer stones. The seer stones Joseph Smith used to "translate" the supposed golden plates were owned by him before there ever was a convoluted vision (based on many accounts) of God seeking Joseph out to relay the message of Jesus Christ 1800 years after the fact. Occult magical seer stones placed in a hat is the foundation for the LDS doctrine. You can shelve this fact, as you shelve all the other inconsistencies in Joseph Smith's story, but you can't shelve the fact that Joseph Smith used those exact same seer stones to "see" evil treasure guardians... well, maybe you can if you need it to be true.

Tobin wrote:

•JSJr tried to join the Methodist church in 1828, but beginning with the 1835 redraft of the 1820 First Vision, claimed that he'd been told by god in 1820 that none of the religions existing as of 1820 had the truth, and beginning with the 1839 redraft of the 1820 FV, claimed god had told him then (back in 1820) to join none of the existing religions

Anecdotal at best. It may have been simply he attended meetings and someone took down his name. Even if the account is accurate, he displayed no interest in being a member and asked to be removed. And the final point is, so what? Joseph Smith was a human being. He was fully capable of sin and having failings.

What you classify as "anecdotal" ignores the fact that Joseph Smith's story claims he knew all other churches were false. What you fail to accept is that Joseph Smith was denied entrance into the Methodist church for being a practicing necromancer (using his seer stones).

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/jos ... hodist.htm

I, with Joshua McKune, a local preacher at that time, I think in June, 1828, heard on Saturday, that Joe Smith had joined the church on Wednesday afternoon, (as it was customary in those days to have circuit preaching at my father's house on week-day). We thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer, a dealer in enchantments and bleeding ghosts, in it. So on Sunday we went to father's, the place of meeting that day, and got there in season to see Smith and talked with him some time in father's shop before the meeting. Told him that his occupation, habits, and moral character were at variance with the discipline, that his name would be a disgrace to the church, that there should have been recantation, confession and at least promised reformation-. That he could that day publicly ask that his name be stricken from the class book, or stand an investigation. He chose the former, and did that very day make the request that his name be taken off the class book. (The Amboy Journal, June 11, 1879, p.1).

Tobin wrote:

•In 1829 JSJr tried unsuccessfully to get royalties from a book house publishing the Book of Mormon

Again, so what even if this is true? Point out where the Book of Mormon states it must be published freely and no attempt should be made to protect the contents, copyright, and so on.

Protecting the contents and attempting to make some quick cash don't jive... you can ignore it, which you are, but it doesn't make sense that Joseph Smith would attempt to sell the word of God for money. It doesn't make sense that Joseph Smith would attempt to sell a fictitious book, but I assume you "know" it's true so you can ignore it.

•In the early 1830s, JSJr had sexual relations with Fanny Alger which he attempted to keep secret from his wife, Emma

So what? If Joseph Smith sinned or did not sin because he was doing what God told him to do, that is not for us to judge. [/quote]
It's not about judgment, it's about circumstantial evidence. If God had selected you to convey his new doctrine, would you be able to cheat on your wife? A logical person would conclude that if you really did "know" God(s) existed because you saw and spoke to him (them?), you wouldn't sin as a normal man would. Conversely, if you were a con man and knew your religion was based on fiction, it wouldn't be a problem.

Tobin wrote:

•JSJr took many 'polygamous wives' behind Emma's back, including a 14 year old when he was in his mid-30s and including 'marrying' surreptitiously two sisters one afternoon--but there is little evidence that this practice was to raise up a righteous seed, as delineated in the Book of Mormon as the only reason god might instruct other than monogamy and sexual relations only in a monogamous marriage

So what? That is between Joseph Smith and God, his wife, and the women involved.

See answer above. "So what" is all you've got, so hold on tightly to it while you continue to ignore critical thought.

Tobin wrote:

•Despite claims he was 'translating' ancient Egyptian papyrus upon which Abraham had himself penned his story and the KEP inextricably tying the BoAbr English text to the 1967 found papyrus with the included alphabet and grammar attempts, the characters on the papyrus do not linguistically translate into the BoAbr English text

Inaccurate. The Book of Abraham was an inspired text. There was no translation of the Egyptian.

The reason you conclude the Book of Abraham was "inspired" is due the fact it's an incorrect translation. What you fail to acknowledge is that Joseph Smith claimed to "translate" the papyrus.

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).

TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH

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."

Tobin wrote:

•Numerous factual discrepancies exist in and undercut the BoAbr Facsimiles and their Explanations being what LDS claims they are?

The LDS (Church) is made up of men and is perfectly capable of getting some things wrong. Joseph Smith speculated about the Egyptian Facsimiles. They are clearly wrong and should be removed from the canon. This has no bearing the inspired nature of the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon.

God doesn't make mistakes... men do. either Joseph Smith's truth claims are true, or they are not true. To acknowledge some of Joseph Smith's truth claims are false clearly defines how you deal with the cognitive dissonance. To your credit Tobin, having the ability to acknowledge the Book of Abraham is not translated correctly is something other LDS apologists cannot do. Once the dominoes start to fall the picture becomes very clear that Joseph Smith was not telling the truth.

Tobin wrote:I'll simply echo what seth said, either God tells you Mormonism is true or God does not. You are under no obligation to believe it if God does not. For me, and Mormons like me - God has revealed the truth that he truly exists. I'll never be persuaded otherwise no matter how many arguments you make. We just know better and are very content learning the truth directly from God instead (and that is how it should be).

God doesn't tell you anything. God gave you a brain to conclude what you decide to conclude. If you actually believe God told you Mormonism was true, then it explains why you don't care about the truth. Wrap your brain around this fact Tobin... why doesn't the LDS church show one single picture of Joseph Smith with his seer stones and stove-pipe hat? If they aren't telling you what they know to be true, how can the rest of it be true? In conclusion, you place faith in magical seer stones used to see evil... good luck with that.

I would have worded the OP like this.

"Do facts matter? of is religion 'teflon' to them?

Mormonism is an easy target because of its many unusual factual claims and the immense volume of historical documents and scientific data that can be used to rebut those claims. Religions which have survived for centuries have done so by avoiding those type of claims or eliminating them from core beliefs. We can see this type of movement in the LDS Church as over time its footprint of central beliefs, much like the foot print of the Nephites, is rapidly shrinking.

I've never seen a picture of Joseph Smith with the wives he lived with in the Nauvoo mansion either. It's always the love story of Joseph and Emma. In reality she was somewhere in the middle of the order of the wives he was sealed to after the the ordinance was 'revealed'. That's weird, you wouldn't want to get sealed to your own wife first? Why wait years, meanwhile getting sealed to other women who are already married?