DiscussMormonism.com

Unfortunately, for the Church, the Kirtland Egyptians Papers have ever remained a liability and a source of frustration for Church scholars in having to justify or explain away the obvious controversies that surround and permeate the work. Those papers have really proven a hindrance in supporting anything Smith and his comrades ever said about how they made and produced the Book of Abraham. Apologists today would just as well wish that Willard Richards had dumped the whole collection in a river while making the western trek to Utah. Would to God the Spirit had moved Richards to dump them and forget about the whole thing! That would have made things much easier for the Mormons later on.

Blame Richards for not having the Spirit of discernment and for not dumping the trash!

Dan,

I'm happy to say that I just ordered your new book via Amazon Prime!

I look forward to digesting this work and will treasure my copy.

Thanks,

Shulem

Got my copy in the mail this week. Looking forward to the education.

Currently reading it. Looks like it mirrors his videos on the same subject but with a little more detail. Definitely worth the $10 I paid. Great scholarship is worth the small price.

Dan Petersen has started a response to Vogel with a discussion of what is proof or evidence
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... three.html

Note a Sandra Day O'Tanner 'I m not as enthusiastic about witness testimony as you are. Research has show just how absolutely unreliable it can be. Day Tanner starts off comments with "

hauslern wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:33 pm

Dan Petersen has started a response to Vogel with a discussion of what is proof or evidence
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... three.html

Note a Sandra Day O'Tanner 'I m not as enthusiastic about witness testimony as you are. Research has show just how absolutely unreliable it can be. Day Tanner starts off comments with "

Note that in that entry, Peterson defines a portion of a children's textbook posted for homework on a school district site as a "legal website devoted to the topic." more details here:
viewtopic.php?p=16194#p16194

Also, note that the second objective for the children's textbook he quotes from is to learn that "eyewitness accounts have limitations."

Apparently, the kids get it.

Lindsay has also started a reply to Vogel here.

https://mormanity.blogspot.com/2021/03/ ... -book.html

Evidently Lindsay expects that Smith and Co. were up to date on Champollion work and rejects Vogel's assertions that they were not.

Lindsay wrote:At the core of many modern attacks on the Book of Abraham is the notion that a handful of Egyptian characters in the margins of some Book of Abraham manuscripts written by Joseph's scribes represent the translation work of Joseph Smith. If so, then Joseph apparently thought that a single character could represent complex story details that require as many as 200+ English words to translate. This would seem to require Joseph to have been ignorant of Champollion's famous translation of the Rosetta Stone, where Egyptian symbols (hieroglyphs and demotic script) were not mysteriously linked to large blocks of Greek text, but were found to have a much more reasonable relationship.

This is exactly what Smith and his scribes thought and it is so clear in the GAEL that is what they were doing, not to mentions contemporary statements about how many volumes the translation would fill once it was done.

Lindsay is a twit -- a Mormon whore boy who sells himself for naught.

He's a garbage truck hauling garbage.

UP yours Lindsay, you little twit.

Fence Sitter wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 18, 2021 12:48 am

Lindsay has also started a reply to Vogel here.

https://mormanity.blogspot.com/2021/03/ ... -book.html

Evidently Lindsay expects that Smith and Co. were up to date on Champollion work and rejects Vogel's assertions that they were not.

Lindsay wrote:At the core of many modern attacks on the Book of Abraham is the notion that a handful of Egyptian characters in the margins of some Book of Abraham manuscripts written by Joseph's scribes represent the translation work of Joseph Smith. If so, then Joseph apparently thought that a single character could represent complex story details that require as many as 200+ English words to translate. This would seem to require Joseph to have been ignorant of Champollion's famous translation of the Rosetta Stone, where Egyptian symbols (hieroglyphs and demotic script) were not mysteriously linked to large blocks of Greek text, but were found to have a much more reasonable relationship.

This is exactly what Smith and his scribes thought and it is so clear in the GAEL that is what they were doing, not to mentions contemporary statements about how many volumes the translation would fill once it was done.

Ugh. What a waste of time. It pains me to read Lindsay's dreck.

Just purchased the book...looking forward to reading it with with great anticipation.