DiscussMormonism.com

It was suggested we read this https://byustudies.BYU.edu/journal/61-4/

Hales
Egyptologists tell us Joseph Smith didn’t restore the missing fragments of Fac. 1. Instead, he repurposed them to correspond to the revelation of the Book of Abraham that he had received (just as he had received other revelations).
If the original Egyptian scribe of fac. 1 drew something different that Joseph Smith’s restoration, then we would not expect the Book of Abraham to be written anywhere on that papyri. Likewise, Joseph Smith’s dealings with the other facsimiles would be repurposing, rather than restoring their original meanings (this is obvious with fac. 3 as well).
The critics can say that Joseph Smith thought he was translating fac. 1 and he was wrong. Victory for the critics, but not much of a victory. The Book of Abraham remains a revelation.
If you care to read the BYU Studies issue, you will find other helpful explanatory information."

That reads like someone is just making up a nonsense excuse. Do we believe the church or do we believe Hales? Does Hales speak for the church and the Lord as a set apart prophet, seer, and revelator?

- Doc

Another Mormon apologist joins the catalyst theory camp.
Must suck to be a BYU Egyptologist.

Hales is woefully wrong, and I am preparing responses to that BYU edition on the Book of Abraham.

I responded:

"So he repurposed Anubis in fac 3 to look like a slave by cutting his ear off. So he repurposed the standing figure in fAc1 by giving him a human head and putting a knife in his hand (should be a jar). So Anubis without the correct head. Amazing apologetics.

So revelation of the content of the Book of Abraham and repurposing the interpretations of the facsimiles.”

hauslern wrote: ↑

Wed May 03, 2023 11:25 pm

I responded:

"So he repurposed Anubis in fac 3 to look like a slave by cutting his ear off. So he repurposed the standing figure in fAc1 by giving him a human head and putting a knife in his hand (should be a jar). So Anubis without the correct head. Amazing apologetics.

So revelation of the content of the Book of Abraham and repurposing the interpretations of the facsimiles.”

I'm not sure whether there was originally two ears but there was at least one which remains to this day. The snout was hacked off after the fact. The headcloth/headdress was also smoothed out leaving a distorted head with an eye of a jackal. Any excuse or idea of "repurposing" the divine art of Egyptian deities for the purpose of pushing Smith's silly Mormon religion is an abomination. That is not what honest people do. This is not what people of integrity do. That kind of work has no value in a society that believes in doing what's right.

The Mormons stand rebuked.

Fortunately we have Brian Hales here on the forum to defend his work from criticism.

Bueller? Bueller?

drumdude wrote: ↑

Wed May 03, 2023 11:34 pm

Fortunately we have Brian Hales here on the forum to defend his work from criticism.

Bueller? Bueller?

I often wonder about the drive by posts. If that really was Brian why do that? Just to see the carnage?

Rivendale wrote: ↑

Thu May 04, 2023 1:04 am

drumdude wrote: ↑

Wed May 03, 2023 11:34 pm

Fortunately we have Brian Hales here on the forum to defend his work from criticism.

Bueller? Bueller?

I often wonder about the drive by posts. If that really was Brian why do that? Just to see the carnage?

They’re cowards. They literally can’t regulate their fight or flight reflex, so they just run away.

- Doc

Hales obviously doesn't have much confidence in his apologetic works, otherwise he would be here explaining his reasoning to us. Come here and defend them Bro. Hales. The truth will come out and perhaps souls will be saved from error. You have a duty as a priesthood holder to righteously show us where we are mistaken.