Mormon at ages 11, 15, 24 is really Joseph Smith Jr., in disguise!

[drumdude]

anielPeterson
noel
5 hours ago
noel: "Instead of going over to discussmormonism I thought i might get the opportunity to ask Dan some hard questions civilly. I am not like Shulem. I have researched the facsimile issue over and over. Gee and Kerry Muhlestein do not seem to be mentioning much about the Book of Abraham. Skousen is convinced that the facsimiles should be dropped. I can find sources online and in libraries that don't mention the church. Imagine if when facsimile 1 was pulled from the body intact and the standing figure had the jackal head and a jar instead of a knife. Here is an example someone at the University of Exeter sent me to my inquiry.
https://docs.google.com/doc...

This place will almost always be a better venue for asking serious questions than the Discuss Mormons message board is.
I don't see a clear question in the sentences above, though. Can you formulate one for me? I'll be happy to pass it on to Drs. Muhlestein and Gee and perhaps a couple of others.
noel: "Another [sic] question for the honest inquirer is why does the "slave" in facsimile have one ear. Was it Anubis (who has 2 ears). A look at the printing plate seems to show some chiseling."

Is that the question that you want me to forward to my friends?
noel: "A problem is how do you tell someone they might be wrong without an attitude of mocking."

I'm not sure that either Dr. Muhlestein or Dr. Gee would have any especially authoritative answer to that question.

[Marcus]

noel: "A problem is how do you tell someone they might be wrong without an attitude of mocking."

I'm not sure that either Dr. Muhlestein or Dr. Gee would have any especially authoritative answer to that question.

So, the two have no ability to answer without mocking? DCP's response is oh so very, very correct.

[Moksha]

noel: "A problem is how do you tell someone they might be wrong without an attitude of mocking."

I'm not sure that either Dr. Muhlestein or Dr. Gee would have any especially authoritative answer to that question.

So, the two have no ability to answer without mocking? DCP's response is oh so very, very correct.

The most academically honest position Drs. Muhlestein and Gee could take would be to concede all of Shulem's findings on the Book of Abraham.

[Shulem]

There are unquestionably parallels between Joseph Smith and Mormon: they are closely parallel figures. I would hope everyone would recognize that. What people may disagree on is just the source and meaning of the parallels.

QUESTION for Don Bradley:

When Joseph Smith dictated (translated) the story of Mormon, did he recognize the 11-15-24 parallels?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

Don,

In the 24 synchronicity post, I suggested three examples (24-24-24) that are linked to the (11-15-24) type/shadow (parallel) insomuch as the number 24 was the real-time age of Smith while translating and preparing the book for publication. I posited that Smith used his age as the number to represent three sets of tangible things:

24-24-24:

• 24 plates of pure gold

• 24 erotic dancers (girls dropped their skimpy loin cloths and made muff-merry! )

• 24 war survivors

Now, if you take into consideration these possibilities that suggest Smith (not God) was playing with the numbers, we may determine or conclude that he did in fact play with the numbers seeing that the plates and dancers occurred hundreds of years prior to Mormon's life although the 24 war survivors entailed by the last digits of the code (24-24-24) occurred during Mormon's life.

So, as you can see, you have a choice with regard to the 24-24-24 embedded within the text (moreover the first two (24-24-24) as it relates to the age of Smith & Mormon when they obtained the plates and began to translate:

1. Pure coincidence
2. God embedded it as a kind of prophecy
3. Smith embedded it to inflate his ego

Well, say something, Don. You are hiding just like the BYP is hiding.

PS. DCP -- you are a f-ing dope. A dummy. This board (Discuss Mormonism) rocks!

[Shulem]

Dear Reader,

If you believe the Book of Mormon is 19th century fiction produced by the imagination of Joseph Smith, then please allow me to assist you in selecting an answer in order to reach a conclusion concerning the 11-15-24 and 24-24-24 codes that are explained in this thread. Perhaps you don't agree with my analysis and assertion that something is definitely amiss with these numbers as they reflect back to Joseph Smith. Or maybe you see something to it but am not sure what to make of it.

Perhaps I can persuade you to consider options which you may find more palpable to your senses as you determine for yourself if there really is something going on here. You must choose!

(1) Everything Shulem has explained about the 11-15-24 and 24-24-24 codes is pure coincidence if not utter nonsense.
(2) Everything Shulem has explained about the 11-15-24 and 24-24-24 codes is spot on and he's nailed it.
(3) Some things Shulem has explained about the 11-15-24 and 24-24-24 codes are correct.

Now, let's take this game a little further and remember, YOU must choose!

(A) Numbers are nothing more than coincidence and have no bearing on Joseph Smith's own life.
(B) Familiar numbers were unintentionally placed within the stories through Joseph Smith's subconscious mind but reflect things Shulem has explained in this thread.
(C) Familiar numbers were intentionally placed within the stories through Joseph Smith's conscious making and reflect things Shulem has explained in this thread.

My answer is 2C

What is your answer?

[Shulem]

The most academically honest position Drs. Muhlestein and Gee could take would be to concede all of Shulem's findings on the Book of Abraham.

Many years ago, I worked very hard as an online apologist while living faithfully within the confines of Mormonism and even maintained an extensive website, viewable today in the archives. I specialized in Book of Abraham apologetics and pushed for the Catalyst Theory and principles of representationalism long before other Mormon apologists would seriously consider alternative ideas whereas the Missing Roll Theory was generally accepted as the only viable theory excuse to explain the Book of Abraham. I remember well the works of Hugh Nibley and when John Gee began his career as an Egyptologist.

My work in Book of Mormon apologetics was limited because I felt constrained to hold back mainly on account of being troubled by Book of Mormon geography along with other matters to include anachronisms. So, the Book of Mormon for the most part was put on a very heavy faith shelf where it could safely remain without having to think about it. I knew the Mesoamerican models were bunk and that Heartland ideas were just as bad. I also knew that Panama was not the narrow neck in which Smith developed his geography model as explained in the text. A hemispheric model was a spiritual aspect in Joseph's mind that serves to promote a Mormon macrocosm that would eventually sweep half of the globe.

Anyway, this thread (11-15-24) will prove a very difficult matter in which the apologists will stumble and fall into a trap which I have set. Folks, this little party is just getting started. Let's kick Book of Mormon apologists in the ass and send them home weeping and crying while they struggle to dream up new lies to defend their misplaced faith.

The gloves are coming off! No more Mr. nice guy. I'm not taking any crap from anyone.



So, f-u, Dan Peterson and all Book of Mormon apologists who lie and deceive in order to defend a lost cause.

[Marcus]

anielPeterson

This place will almost always be a better venue for asking serious questions than the Discuss Mormons message board is...

Lol. That is patently untrue. DCP does not answer questions. The archives here are full of substantial answers to questions that put DCP and his playground-peer-moderated Interpreter to shame.

Shulem's work is far superior. I really wonder why Noel had to put that in, is he trying to get DCP's approval?

[Rivendale]

Lol. That is patently untrue. DCP does not answer questions. The archives here are full of substantial answers to questions that put DCP and his playground-peer-moderated Interpreter to shame.

Shulem's work is far superior. I really wonder why Noel had to put that in, is he trying to get DCP's approval?

Do you really think DCP believes he dosen't answer questions? If he is going to post that remote viewing and clairvoyance is real wouldn't that cloud his judgement when interacting with critics. He presupposes another realm of existence and belittles people that scoff at it.

[drumdude]

Lol. That is patently untrue. DCP does not answer questions. The archives here are full of substantial answers to questions that put DCP and his playground-peer-moderated Interpreter to shame.

Shulem's work is far superior. I really wonder why Noel had to put that in, is he trying to get DCP's approval?

Noel doesn’t have an ounce of self awareness, from the way he comments on Dan’s blog.

[Marcus]

Lol. That is patently untrue. DCP does not answer questions. The archives here are full of substantial answers to questions that put DCP and his playground-peer-moderated Interpreter to shame.

Shulem's work is far superior. I really wonder why Noel had to put that in, is he trying to get DCP's approval?

Noel doesn’t have an ounce of self awareness, from the way he comments on Dan’s blog.

Seriously. After his comment, in the same entry he had the nerve to steal from Shulem's work with this question:

...Another question for the honest inquirer is why does the "slave" in facsimile have one ear. Was it Anubis (who has 2 ears). A look at the printing plate seems to show some chiseling....