.

[hauslern]

An examination of how hands were drawn in Egyptian art might make scholars relook at the claim that the figure on the couch in facsimile 1 was praying. Compare the length of the fingers in the bottom hand with that of the upper hand/wing above.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FAV ... xzNFI/edit

[Moksha]

...

[Lem]

Certainly, this is a tall order for a critic to consider, since critics are not motivated to find an explanation that includes vindication of the Prophet Joseph’s claims. While many critics claim to be only interested in the truth, many are not open-minded to the possibility that the Prophet’s claims could be valid. They believe they have eliminated that possibility.

Eye roll for the personal nonsense, but marginally okay.

But the nature of science, as well as the claims that science makes for itself, is that it is forever changing, and forever correcting itself. For believers, to believe that future science will emerge to support a current religious belief is simply the belief in the process of science that science describes for itself. It is not a claim with absolute certainty that science will necessarily bear out the claims of the Prophet Joseph, but it does at the very least happen to be a statement of faith about the fact that science itself will progress toward future truth, whatever that may be, but with a hope that things will play out to vindicate the prophet in time.

Even bigger eyeroll, but if you are describing yourself, okay.

Critics, on the other hand, who claim that current science is sufficient, and that future science will never show anything different than what it shows now, and that current science is sufficient to debunk the claims of the prophet, have an over-confidence in the current state of science, and a over-confidence that a possibility that they reject could never come back to bite them. But the history of science itself bears out that science overturns itself regularly.

And here we come to a screeching halt. I have never met an adult, lds 'critic' or otherwise, who believes "future science will never show anything different than it shows now." This is just tribal nonsense to ascribe this thought process to your religion's 'critics.'

Therefore, a believing attitude in Joseph Smith’s claims, or at the very least, humility about the possibility of his claims (even if there isn’t belief involved) are the only good stances to take.

Nope. Not true at all. If that's your position, great. State it as such, or maybe add a testimony section to your paper, but ascribing nonsense to critics that no adult reasonably believes results in a sufficient argument that "a believing attitude" or even "humility about ..." possibilities are "the only good stances."

[Shulem]

An examination of how hands were drawn in Egyptian art might make scholars relook at the claim that the figure on the couch in facsimile 1 was praying. Compare the length of the fingers in the bottom hand with that of the upper hand/wing above.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FAV ... xzNFI/edit

hauslern,

Thanks for posting that down in my thread in the Archives where and I answered your question there. I also corrected your link in my reply.

Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

[Shulem]

Certainly, this is a tall order for a critic to consider, since critics are not motivated to find an explanation that includes vindication of the Prophet Joseph’s claims. While many critics claim to be only interested in the truth, many are not open-minded to the possibility that the Prophet’s claims could be valid. They believe they have eliminated that possibility.

Eye roll for the personal nonsense, but marginally okay.

Neither are Protestants motivated to vindicate the pope and Christians aren't motivated to vindicate the Ayatollah! Billions of Christians and Muslims have eliminated Mormonism and the poison Mormons peddle.

But the nature of science, as well as the claims that science makes for itself, is that it is forever changing, and forever correcting itself. For believers, to believe that future science will emerge to support a current religious belief is simply the belief in the process of science that science describes for itself. It is not a claim with absolute certainty that science will necessarily bear out the claims of the Prophet Joseph, but it does at the very least happen to be a statement of faith about the fact that science itself will progress toward future truth, whatever that may be, but with a hope that things will play out to vindicate the prophet in time.

Even bigger eyeroll, but if you are describing yourself, okay.

Science, religion, and Egyptologists, will never, ever, vindicate Smith for putting a white man's head atop the body of a black man in Facsimile No. 1. It's scientifically proven that a black head belongs on a black body and a white head belongs on a white body. But Smith was too stupid to realize what was actually going on in the vignette. His interpretation of the characters in the vignettes was just as stupid as his interpretation of the hieroglyphic writing in the vignettes.

Critics, on the other hand, who claim that current science is sufficient, and that future science will never show anything different than what it shows now, and that current science is sufficient to debunk the claims of the prophet, have an over-confidence in the current state of science, and a over-confidence that a possibility that they reject could never come back to bite them. But the history of science itself bears out that science overturns itself regularly.

And here we come to a screeching halt. I have never met an adult, lds 'critic' or otherwise, who believes "future science will never show anything different than it shows now." This is just tribal nonsense to ascribe this thought process to your religion's 'critics.'

I bet my very life on the following:

Future science will NEVER justify a white man's head atop the body of a black man as shown in Facsimile No. 1.

Joseph Smith's white supremacy has no place in today's society.

[Lem]

And here we come to a screeching halt. I have never met an adult, lds 'critic' or otherwise, who believes "future science will never show anything different than it shows now." This is just tribal nonsense to ascribe this thought process to your religion's 'critics.'

I bet my very life on the following:

Future science will NEVER justify a white man's head atop the body of a black man as shown in Facsimile No. 1.

Joseph Smith's white supremacy has no place in today's society.

okay, I willingly concede to you in this particular instance. Much like no future scientific finding will ever conclude that gravity exists only in the minds of humans, no scientific finding will EVER "justify a white man's head atop the body of a black man as shown in Facsimile No. 1."

[Shulem]

okay, I willingly concede to you in this particular instance. Much like no future scientific finding will ever conclude that gravity exists only in the minds of humans, no scientific finding will EVER "justify a white man's head atop the body of a black man as shown in Facsimile No. 1."

It's a slam dunk and the Church will be forced to either correct the head or remove the Facsimile from their canon. It's worse than a nude Indian bowing down before a white man! It's worse than a slave wrapped in chains and being beaten by his master. It's worse than a Confederate flag atop the dome of a southern state capitol. It's worse than denying blacks the priesthood and condemning them to a lower kingdom as servants forever!

Either the Mormons correct it or they will face untold consequences against their brand and racist religion. I have to wonder if our Ed1 is also a racist? Are you a white supremist, Ed1? Do you support Smith's racists views of keeping blacks in slavery and placing a white man's head atop the body of poor black Anubis?

[Ed1]

.

[Ed1]

.

[IHAQ]

Ed, is this board your peer review? Or will you (have you) sent it out into the wider (non lds) realms of egyptology for feedback?