Runtu wrote:And that's saying something. The guy mocks Ceeboo for asking a few questions about the COB and then comes up with this tripe?
Listen, as Kevin Graham already pointed out, all one needs to do is look at the facsimiles and their interpretations and it is essentially all over. What more evidence do you need that Joseph Smith had not the slightest clue what he was doing in translating Egyptian?
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:Listen, as Kevin Graham already pointed out, all one needs to do is look at the facsimiles and their interpretations and it is essentially all over. What more evidence do you need that Joseph Smith had not the slightest clue what he was doing in translating Egyptian?
I know that. The facsimiles show conclusively that Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian. Game over.
The only option, apparently, is to pretend the canonized facsimiles are useless.
Runtu wrote:I know that. The facsimiles show conclusively that Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian. Game over.
The only option, apparently, is to pretend the canonized facsimiles are useless.
The only feasible course is to abandon the completely insupportable notion that these scriptures are actually ancient. I can guarantee you that the best evidence actually points in the other direction and will continue to. The argument for antiquity is lost; the apologists just haven't gotten or read the memo.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:The only feasible course is to abandon the completely insupportable notion that these scriptures are actually ancient. I can guarantee you that the best evidence actually points in the other direction and will continue to. The argument for antiquity is lost; the apologists just haven't gotten or read the memo.
The problem is that the church has painted itself into a corner here. If Joseph Smith couldn't translate Egyptian, why assume he could translate Reformed Egyptian?
Runtu wrote:The problem is that the church has painted itself into a corner here. If Joseph Smith couldn't translate Egyptian, why assume he could translate Reformed Egyptian?
Well, exactly. But I think it is even more obvious in some ways that the Book of Mormon is a fiction. I know that there are intelligent LDS scholars who buy into the arguments for antiquity, but I have a hard time imagining how they do. One might just as well believe in the existence of Lord Xenu as the historicity of Moroni.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:Well, exactly. But I think it is even more obvious in some ways that the Book of Mormon is a fiction. I know that there are intelligent LDS scholars who buy into the arguments for antiquity, but I have a hard time imagining how they do. One might just as well believe in the existence of Lord Xenu as the historicity of Moroni.
I would bet money that there are apologists for Lord Xenu.
Kishkumen wrote:I guess the thing that makes little sense about the claim that the Book of Abraham is not particularly concerning to the apologists is the fact that they have, in my opinion, acquitted themselves poorly to the point of looking kind of desperate in their attempts to address the problems.
They aren't personally concerned about it, but it is an issue which is very concerning to struggling members.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
sock puppet wrote:If a Mormon is not bothered by these questions why woud he or she bother researching them and coming up with answers? why would he or she become an apologist?
Because some good members struggle with them even if apologists themselves do not.
So you think that these are issues that trouble the mopologist?
Trouble is too strong a word, I think.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Kishkumen wrote:Well, exactly. But I think it is even more obvious in some ways that the Book of Mormon is a fiction. I know that there are intelligent LDS scholars who buy into the arguments for antiquity, but I have a hard time imagining how they do. One might just as well believe in the existence of Lord Xenu as the historicity of Moroni.
I would bet money that there are apologists for Lord Xenu.
I was going to wear an "Ex-Mormons for Xenu" t-shirt to the Book of Mormon Musical, but was too lazy to go to all the trouble to make it ...
"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. ... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I." - Joseph Smith, 1844