DiscussMormonism.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDej54MBCPY&t=20s

Much more in depth in this 2nd part response to Gee's very newest defense, wherein he leads us into rabbit holes, where I catch him by the tail and tear it off and throw it to the birds. Gee's argument is toast. And I did it with aplomb, fun, fancy, and facts.... come and enjoy it!

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 11, 2023 3:39 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDej54MBCPY&t=20s

Much more in depth in this 2nd part response to Gee's very newest defense, wherein he leads us into rabbit holes, where I catch him by the tail and tear it off and throw it to the birds. Gee's argument is toast. And I did it with aplomb, fun, fancy, and facts.... come and enjoy it!

Awesome, Philo!

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 11, 2023 1:11 pm

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 11, 2023 3:39 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDej54MBCPY&t=20s

Much more in depth in this 2nd part response to Gee's very newest defense, wherein he leads us into rabbit holes, where I catch him by the tail and tear it off and throw it to the birds. Gee's argument is toast. And I did it with aplomb, fun, fancy, and facts.... come and enjoy it!

Awesome, Philo!

Thanks Kish, I appreciate it!

I enjoyed that podcast quite a bit in spite of the long goodbye at the end.

The only thing that disappointed me was you left off the grand reference which Joseph Smith made in the Times and Seasons in 1842 when he bragged about knowing the age of the papyri found within the bosoms of the mummies. I point you back to that little thread in the Celestial Forum when you specifically asked me about references and I referred you to the King's name thread.

Shulem where is your J.S. revelation from Jesus on the 3500 year old papyri?

I kept waiting in your podcast for the citation from the very lips of Joseph himself but it didn't happen. Anyway, the ultimate reference and statement Joseph Smith ever made is summed up in this post here:

Age of the Papyrus

It just doesn't get any better than that and John Gee can't touch it with a ten-foot pole. The fact that Smith dated the mummies and the papyri to the times of the Patriarchs is all we really need to know about what Joseph Smith meant by the "written by his own hand." John Gee is flat out lying.

You're a liar, John Gee!

Shulem wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 11, 2023 2:28 pm

I enjoyed that podcast quite a bit in spite of the long goodbye at the end.

The only thing that disappointed me was you left off the grand reference which Joseph Smith made in the Times and Seasons in 1842 when he bragged about knowing the age of the papyri found within the bosoms of the mummies. I point you back to that little thread in the Celestial Forum when you specifically asked me about references and I referred you to the King's name thread.

Shulem where is your J.S. revelation from Jesus on the 3500 year old papyri?

I kept waiting in your podcast for the citation from the very lips of Joseph himself but it didn't happen. Anyway, the ultimate reference and statement Joseph Smith ever made is summed up in this post here:

Age of the Papyrus

It just doesn't get any better than that and John Gee can't touch it with a ten-foot pole. The fact that Smith dated the mummies and the papyri to the times of the Patriarchs is all we really need to know about what Joseph Smith meant by the "written by his own hand." John Gee is flat out lying.

You're a liar, John Gee!

What was wrong with the long good bye? Ya sourpuss - Lol! Everyone else enjoyed it. We all love to yammer together every now and then. And yes that specific reference is invaluable for Joseph dating the age of the papyri, thank you for re-bringing it to my attention.

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 11, 2023 2:41 pm

What was wrong with the long good bye? Ya sourpuss - Lol! Everyone else enjoyed it. We all love to yammer together every now and then.

Nothing was wrong with it this morning as I watched the podcast in bed on my phone. Long goodbyes can be fun and people do love them. But for me, when I'm up and on the go my attention deficit kicks in and I get antsy. But that's just me so no worries. It was all good fun!

Goodbye!



Goodbye!



etc

Philo,

I like how you used physical descriptions to demonstrate how the expression "written by his own hand" employs an actual human hand and living fingers to produce the genuine writing that is presented to those alive who read or hear the message. An autograph is produced by the very person who pens it! Sadly, Hugh Nibley was unwilling to wrap his head around that concept and John Gee is too dumb to realize it for what it is. I was blown away how Gee used Saint Paul's letters as a comparison to what he thinks Abraham meant when introducing the papyrus as an autograph that was made by his own hand -- penmanship which was later said to not be quite as good or neat as his great grandson, Joseph. But Gee refuses to accept the idea that Abraham's own sweat and skin cells were buried within the very fibers of the papyri. But that is exactly what Joseph Smith meant with the phrase, "Written by his own hand."

But Gee wants to liken it to letters of Saint Paul being delivered to the saints abroad and how we read them today in mass produced copies of bibles. But that is not what Paul meant when he sent letters that were certified by his own hand. Those letters were written to the members of the Church in his day and he certified that they were written by himself with his own hand. And that is exactly how they received those letters. They were genuine autographs from the apostle Paul! What part of that does John Gee don't understand? Hello, John Gee, knock, knock, anyone home? You dodo!

The written by his own hand is directly connected to the very material in which the message was written. In the case of the apostle Paul, it's the paper media used to write his letter which was written by his own hand. Examples in the Book of Mormon help us understand exactly what Joseph Smith was thinking when it comes to writing with the hand:

Nephi wrote:I make it with mine own hand . . . upon plates which I have made with mine own hands”

Chemish wrote:Now I, Chemish, write what few things I write, in the same book with my brother; for behold, I saw the last which he wrote, that he wrote it with his own hand

Giddianhi wrote:Therefore I have written this epistle, sealing it with mine own hand

Mormon wrote:And behold, I do make the record on plates which I have made with mine own hands

Didn’t Mormon transcribe material others claimed they wrote with their own hands? Or is that not the case? I am interested in this hand business, having studied it for other reasons before, but I have not taken this approach to it.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 11, 2023 4:46 pm

Didn’t Mormon transcribe material others claimed they wrote with their own hands? Or is that not the case? I am interested in this hand business, having studied it for other reasons before, but I have not taken this approach to it.

I trust you saw my previous post. And with it, I'll add this which is from a website in my signature.

Copyright for Book of Mormon, 11 June 1829 wrote:


“The Book of Mormon; an account written by the hand of Mormon upon plates taken from the plates of Nephi”

If Mormon transcribes something written by the hand of someone else earlier, and yet he includes their testimony to have written it by their own hand much earlier, then doesn’t it stand to reason that all this language really stands as is a testimony that the statement at one time came from the claimed author and not that the artifact is an autograph?