Summaries of most trenchant criticisms

[_Tarski]

If someone visited here for the first time they would have a hard time finding critical arguments against the claims of the Mormon church since they are scattered in various past posts.


I suggest we make this thread a depository of such.
(I invited an old friend to visit this site and thought it would be nice for them to get up to speed on critical arguments.)

I know some of you have made these point elsewhere many times and might be tired of it but please muster the energy to do it once again in top form.

Experts please jump in before inferior versions of your favorite criticism are posted.

Suggestions/rules:

Give just one point per post.

Choose an item of evidence, a "proof", a point of logic or plausibility, that you feel most forcefully undermines the claims of the LDS church as they are most commonly understood.

Points or criticisms that happen to also undermine the claims of other religions are also allowed.

Do not repeat what another poster has already included unless you can substantially strengthen the point.

To make it accessible, give first an executive summary and then include details afterwords. Debunking standard apologetic defenses is also encouraged.

This is simply a list of criticisms and not a thread for long debates (defenders please get your own thread).

[_Daniel Peterson]

This would be very helpful.

[_Chap]

I think you may have chosen a format that will not serve your purpose very well. It is very unlikely that LDS posters on this board will allow a series of critical points to be posted one after another without comment, whatever you may say in the OP (note, for instance, the immediate appearance in the second post on the thread of the entire intellectual establishment of the CoJCoLDS).

I don't deny that your idea would be of use if it could be made to work, however.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Tarski:

What about threads/posts that undermine Mopologetics? There are quite a few excellent threads on the board that do that.

[_Yoda]

Well, Tarski, although I am still a member of the Church, I think that probably the biggest hot button in terms of criticism is polygamy and/or the law of plural marriage.

There have been a lot of conflicting statements regarding the necessity of it, the nature of it being an eternal law, and whether or not it is a requirement for everyone to practice it in the next life in order to achieve the highest level of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.

Ironically, the conflict begins in scriptures both written and/or translated by Joseph Smith, himself.

In The Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:23-34:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. 24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. 31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. 32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts. 33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts. 34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

Many consider verse 30 the "get out of jail free card". However, if this set of verses is read in its entirety, it is pretty clear what the true intention of this scripture is.

Contrast this to D&C 132:38 which is a complete turnabout to the condemnation of the practice:

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

Fast-forward to the Church today, which has completely abolished the practice. However, the heartache still exists among current members because plural marriage is still considered an eternal law.

[_Yoda]

I think you may have chosen a format that will not serve your purpose very well. It is very unlikely that LDS posters on this board will allow a series of critical points to be posted one after another without comment, whatever you may say in the OP (note, for instance, the immediate appearance in the second post on the thread of the entire intellectual establishment of the CoJCoLDS).

I don't deny that your idea would be of use if it could be made to work, however.

I don't see what the problem would be if the defenders can start a thread where the same rules apply.

[_bcspace]

Scattering them on a single thread still seems inefficient. Perhaps a blog or a restricted forum with a thread for each argument but where only one can post and all can view. The one allowed poster receives updated arguments from the rest of you and updates the appropriate thread.

Or what about..... ta da.....an AntiFairWiki.org? Or (less work) you could all contribute to the existing FairWiki.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sorry, Chap, for the massive and outrageous thread-jack represented by this post:

This would be very helpful.

I will not appear here again. First, I don't want to come back in any serious way to this forum, and, second, it would obviously be far too disruptive and upsetting for some.

But I was serious. It would be very helpful.

Even Scratch's hoped-for more personalized discussion-summary would have its uses.

[_sock puppet]

Facsimile 2 to the Book of Abraham

Executive Summary

The Facsimiles have been made part of LDS canon twice, at two general conferences conducted decades apart. The Facisimiles contain Egyptian characters and JSJr's specific explanations of them in English. The English explanations and the Egyptian characters are inextricably tied together (unlike the text of the Book of Abraham, but see Abr 1:12 regarding the link of the verbiage to the Facsimiles).

JSJr's 'explanations' do not match a linguistic translation of the Egyptian characters appearing in the Facsimiles. Indeed, in restoring missing parts of Facsimile 2, spots where hieroglyphic characters appeared, JSJr instead used hieratic characters from the Sensen papyri. This suggests that JSJr did not even know, "with God's divine assistance", the difference between hieroglyphics and hieratics.

This analysis debunks JSJr's credibility.

Detailed Explanation

Part I: Overview and Initial Thoughts

This post is about observations about Facsimile No. 2 (Facs2) from the Book of Abraham (BoAbr), specifically about Figure Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18, in light of the Abraham Manuscripts and the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar of the KEP (the Kirtland Egyptian Papers).

From the official LDS website for scriptures, you can see Facs2 (image) and Explanation (text) here http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_2.

The Facs2 image is a round hypocephalus (a writing put under the head of the mummy). The Facs2 image that appears on the LDS site is as "restored" by Joseph Smith. Here is a rendering of the condition it was found in the mummy before being "restored":


In the pre-restored condition, the Facs2 image contained pictographs. Nonetheless, some of the pictographs had been torn or damaged from the round Facs2 image. Here is an image of the restored Facs2 image with the pictographs highlighted in yellow. The portion encircled in purple is the portion that Joseph Smith "restored" to the Facs2 image:


On the Facs2 image, as restored, Joseph Smith has keyed numbers for different figures (portions). The portions that are pictographs are numbered:

##22/1/23 being in the center
#2 being top center
#3 being top right
#4 being top left
##6/5/7 being the bottom (which figure is upside down).

All of Figure #3, a good portion of the top of Figure #1, and the upper right corner of Figure #7 all needed to be restored by Joseph Smith adding pictographs and elements of them.

Joseph Smith provided Explanations for all of the pictographs, Figure ##22/1/23, 2, 3, 4, and 6/5/7. (In 1912, Reverend Spalding of Utah sent Facs2 and Explanation text, along with Facsimiles Nos. 1 and 3 and Explanations to eight renowned Egyptologists at different universities around the world, and all eight separately concluded that the Explanations given by Joseph Smith are not English translations of what he provided as Explanations.)

The Facs2 image also includes hieroglyphics, which are in this image highlighted in pink.


Prior to restoration, all of the non-pictograph characters that appeared on Facs2 image were hieroglyphs. There were at the time the hypocephalus was recovered from the mummy no hieratic characters on it.

There were five parts of the Facs2 image in which which Joseph Smith restored characters. They were those portions he had keyed as Figure ## 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18. Notice in this image the red circled numbering on the restored Facs2 image:


One of the parts is the ring, keyed by Joseph Smith as Figure No. 18. Before he restored the ring, it appeared as this:

All of these characters appearing in the ring prior to restoration by Smith were hieroglyphs.

Figures ## 12, 13, 14, and 15 looked like this before Joseph Smith restored any characters to them:


Notice Figure ## 12, 13, 14, and 15 as restored by Joseph Smith with the restored portion in light green in this image:


Significantly, the characters Joseph Smith restored to the Facs2 image were not hieroglyphic as were all the original characters that had survived. Rather, all the characters that Joseph Smith added were hieratic characters. That is, all the original Egyptian characters on the Facs2 image are hieroglyphs, but all the Egyptian characters added by Joseph Smith as part of his "restoring" the Facs2 image are hieratics.

Did Joseph Smith not understand the difference between Egyptian hieroglyphics and hieratics? If he knew the difference, did Joseph Smith think (or hope) that no one would notice that in a document that bore only hieroglyphic characters he was making a phony "restoration" by using only hieratic characters?

As significantly, these hieratic characters were taken by Joseph Smith from lines 2, 3 and 4 of the papyri returned to the Mormon Church in 1967. See this image and explanation (from Kevin Mathie's Examining the Book of Abraham)


Interestingly, Joseph Smith did not give Explanation for any of the Egyptian characters. Neither those original hieroglyphs that survived, nor any of the hieratic characters that he added ("restored") to the Facs2 image. Joseph Smith had given Explanation to all seven of the pictographs, but not a single Explanation to all those Egyptian characters? http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_2.

For the hieroglyphs in Figure ## 8, 9, 10 and 11, Joseph Smith indicated that these were writings that cannot be revealed unto the word at the present time. (Those in Figure # 8 are also "to be had in the Holy Temple of God." I do not recall explanations of them given in the temple. Does anyone recall being given explanations to Egyptian hieroglyphs in the temple? Since Joseph Smith's Explanation was public, wouldn't the explanations in the temple be to every temple patron?)

As to the hieroglyphs in Figure # 11, Smith also taunted "If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be". So let it be, indeed. The world has found out these "numbers" and interpreted the original, surviving hieroglyphs and the added, upside down hieratics in Figure ## 12-15, and added hieratics in Figure # 18 (the ring).

As to the hieroglyphs in Figure ##16, 17, 19, 20 and 21, we are told explanation "will be given in the own due time of the Lord." As to the hieroglyphs and hieratics in Figure ##12, 13, 14, 15 and 18, Smith also notes that explanation "will be given in the own due time of the Lord."

Of significance, Smith concludes the Explanation text to the Facs2 image by proclaiming "The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time." There Smith goes again using that pesky word "translation" that the apologists assure us six ways to Sunday does not mean the "narrow" meaning we give it today.

As Chris Smith assures us, the Explanations to the Facsimiles occurred in 1842, not 1835. However, going back to 1835, we have the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. The KEP predate the facsimile Explanations by 7 years.

The same letters from lines 2, 3 and 4 of the found papyri that were used in 1842 to "restore" Facs2 had been used seven years earlier, in 1835, either as part of a translation tool that yielded part of Abr 1-2:18 or as a reverse engineering effort at an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (or as Will Schryver would have it, an enciphering tool for the 'pure ancient language').

I suppose that apologists have argued (or will argue) that the lack of an 1842 explanation of the hieratic characters taken from the found papyri that were used in the KEP in 1835 and used to restore Facs2 image in 1842 suggests that God told Smith and scribes in 1835 to stop their attempt to create a reverse engineered Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (or as Will would have it, an enciphering tool for the 'pure ancient language'). That's it. That's why Smith and his scribes really stopped developing the KEP. It would have been a real, working cipher to the pure ancient language, if only God had let them continue. God made them stop because they had no right to give an explanation.

Indeed, the apologists will proclaim that the last sentence of the 1842 Explanation confirms that Smith and scribes had no right in 1842 (much less back in 1835) to give an explanation of those parts of the Facs2 image. As the KEP include explanations of these hieractic characters, the KEP were not themselves published--and to this very day, the Mormon Church has not published them, having no right from God yet to do so.

However, the KEP (1835) are filled with English explanations to these very hieratic characters. Despite God's best efforts, the public now has the KEP and those the-world-is-not-ready-for explanations.

Of course, the explanations Joseph Smith given to those characters in the KEP (1835) do not line up with the translations that Egyptologists today can make. What do the hieratic characters Joseph Smith added to the Facs2 image translate to mean in English? Well, according to Richard A. Parker (prof. Egyptology, Brown University, Dialog: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, p. 68)--

Figure 12: (upside down) "near" and "wrap"
Figure 13: (upside down) "which made by"
Figure 14: (upside down) "breathings"
Figure 15: (upside down) "this book"

Keep in mind, the found papyri translates into Hor's Breathing Permit.

One last comment. I find it interesting that Smith proffered Explanation to each and every one of the seven pictographs included in the Facs2 image. However, he was prevented from, with no right to give, an explanation to even one of the hieroglyphic or hieratic characters. This is a clear demarcation between pictographs and characters. Did Joseph Smith fear that some scholars, then in 1842 or someday in the future, would be able to actually translate hieroglyphics and heiratics into English? That would reveal what he perhaps knew, that he was not able to translate from ancient Egyptian writings, despite the fact he was then claiming he could. Better not to publish translations of characters that others might know the real English translations.

Part II: Upside down?

Another interesting facet to Joseph Smith's "restoration" of the Facs2 image is that the hieractic characters he borrowed from the found papyri and added at portions he labeled Figure Nos. 12, 13, 14, and 15 are "upside down", according to Richard A. Parker (prof. Egyptology, Brown University, Dialog: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, p. 68).

Upside down to what? Again, see the LDS official site to view the round hypocephalus that is the Facs2 image here http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_2.

The Joseph Smith added hieratics could be:

i-upside down to the original, surviving hieroglyphic characters in Figure Nos. 12-15 (and to pictograph 22/1/23 to their immediate right, if that is what the Egyptian text is explaining and/or to pictograph Figure No. 3 immediately above them, if that is what the Egyptian tex is explaining), or

2-upside down to the original, surviving hieroglyphic characters in Figure Nos. 12-15 (and to the adjacent pictograph Figure Nos. 6/5/7, if that is what the Egyptian text is explaining).

This is because pictograph Figure Nos. 6/5/7 is upside down in relation to the other two adjacent pictographs Figure Nos. 22/1/23 and 3 (and for that matter, in relation to pictographs Figure Nos. 2 and 4 as well). (The Facs2 image is round. Four of the five pictograph portions are "rightside up" to each other. These are pictographs Figure Nos. 22/1/23, 2, 3, and 4. However, the other pictograph, Figure Nos. 6/5/7, is "upside down" in relation to pictographs Figure Nos. 22/1/23, 2, 3, and 4.)

Regardless of the pictograph(s) to which the characters portions Figure Nos. 12-15 are upside down in relation, the hieractic characters added by Joseph Smith in characters portions Figure Nos. 12-15 are upside down in relation to the original, surviving hieroglyphs in those portions of the Facs2 image.

And so the questions, why did Joseph Smith add hieratic characters in text boxes upside down in relation to the original, surviving hieroglyphs that survived? Was it done naïvely or intentionally?

1-Joseph Smith did not know the rightside up of hieratics, and thus by accident inserted them upside down.

2-Joseph Smith did not know the rightside up of the original, surviving hieroglyphs, and thus had the Facs2 image upside down when correctly adding hieratic characters "rightside up" to Joseph Smith's perspective.

3-Joseph Smith intentionally and knowingly put the hieratics "upside down" in relation to the the original, surviving hieroglyphs in those character boxes.

Keep in mind, the Facs2 image as restored by Joseph Smith is part of LDS canonized scripture. The LDS Church is vouching that it is correct "doctrine" from God. Joseph Smith incessantly bragged during his adult life about his ability to translate writings from antiquity in ancient languages. Thus, options 1 and 2 above are very problematic and damning. Each posits that Joseph Smith got it wrong in very significant ways. If these are divinely inspired restorations, how did God get it so wrong on something important enough to be canonized?

Option 3 is problematic as well. Why would God inspire Joseph Smith to intentionally confuse the characters in the portions Figure Nos. 12-15 by "restoring characters" upside down to the original, surviving characters in this canonized facsimile? Is this a God of confusion? Did Joseph Smith do this knowing the difference between hieroglyphs and hieratic characters and their proper up/down orientation, hoping that no one would notice that the "hieroglyphs" he was restoring were nothing more than upside down hieratic characters?

Part III: "It's cosmetic"

Think of the astronomical improbability that

(a) the Facs2 image originally had both hieroglyphs and upside down hieratics, and

(b) through time, each and every upside down hieratic was lost due to degradation and damage to the papyri, but

(c) not a single hieroglyph was lost through degradation or damage to the original papyri.

That is what had to have occurred if you are to believe that Joseph Smith "restored" the actual Egyptian characters that were originally on the lost papyri.

Apologists seek to find some place questioning believers can stand in a corner of plausibility. The astronomical improbability of (a), (b) and (c) dispel that plausibility.

So what do the apologists say accounts for the fact that Joseph Smith added the wrong type of Egyptian characters to restore the Facs2 image, and inserted them upside down at that?

Apologist Michael D. Rhodes writes: “A careful examination of Facsimile 2 shows that there is a difference between most of the hieroglyphic signs and the signs on the right third of the figure on the outer edge as well as the outer portions of the sections numbered 12-15 (see the illustration below). These signs are hieratic, not hieroglyphic, and are inverted, or upside down, to the rest of the text. In fact, they are a fairly accurate copy of lines 2, 3, and 4 of the Joseph Smith Papyrus XI, which contains a portion of the Book of Breathings. Especially clear is the word snsn, in section 14, and part of the name of the mother of the owner of the papyrus, (t3y-)hby.t, repeated twice on the outer edge. An ink drawing of the hypocephalus in the Church Historian's office shows these same areas as being blank. It is likely that these portions were destroyed on the original hypocephalus and someone (the engraver, one of Joseph Smith's associates, or Joseph himself) copied the lines from the Book of Breathings papyrus for aesthetic purposes.

Michael D. Rhodes, Joseph Smith Hypocephalus Seventeen Years Later http://www.lightplanet.com/response/Bof ... jshypo.htm

Ah, aesthetic purposes, and they were added by "someone (the engraver, one of Joseph Smith's associates, or Joseph himself)" from the Book of Breather papyrus.

Step back for a moment and you'll realize that the real cosmetics being applied here are by the apologist to a rather blemished fact on the face of the Church's canonized scripture. First, create doubt that it was and distance Joseph Smith who added the hieratics, and then since the added characters cannot in any way be explained logically as fitting with the original hieroglyphs that survived, simply admit that the hieratics were not added to this piece of LDS canon to be restore it to its original condition but to make the Facs2 image look better.

It is also futile to try to create doubt that it was Joseph Smith who added wrongly added these hieratic characters into what originally had only hieroglyphic characters, and upside down at that. As Paul Osborne has pointed outhttp://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=349866#p349866--

The actual historical account of Joseph Smith makes it clear when he translated the Hypocephalus and you can definitely see that it was NOT done in 1835 but years later. Now note the following very carefully and you will see that the Explanations were birthed for the Times & Seasons, compliments of the EAG which was created first:

"At my office exhibiting the Book of Abraham in the original to Brother Reuben Hedlock, so that he might take the size of the several plates or cuts, and prepare the blocks for the Times and Seasons; and also gave instruction concerning the arrangement of the large cut, illustrating the principles of astronomy, with other writing on the general business." HC 4:543

"Recommenced translating from the Records of Abraham for the tenth number of the Times and Seasons, and was engaged at my office day and evening. . . In the afternoon continued the translation of the Book of Abraham, called at Bishop Knight's and Mr. Davis', with the recorder, and continued translating and revising" HC 4:548
* * * * *

It is also futile to try to distant the LDS Church from this. Facs2 image, as restored by Joseph Smith, is part of the LDS canon. On 10/10/1880, at General Conference, the Pearl of Great Price including the Book of Abraham and the Facsimiles (and their explanations) were added as the 4th book of LDS scripture. At the General Conference in October 1902, the PoGP after James E. Talmadge's removal of portions that were duplicates of what appears in the D&C, addition of the title "The Book of Moses" and division of the text into chapters and verses, and other editing of the 1880 version was again accepted at GC as part of LDS scripture. So 2X the LDS Church as a body approved as LDS scripture the cosmetically dolled up Facs2 image.

If any part of LDS scripture can be consigned to the trash heap as merely cosmetic and not "true", cannot all of LDS scripture? Apologist Rhodes puts all LDS scripture on a slipper slope by arguing mere "cosmetics". The problem for apologists is, that's the best they can do to try to explain this problem away. They just hope that not many LDS faithful will ever look into the Facs2 image and learn to ask the question in the first place.

[_Redefined]

http://www.mormonhandbook.com/