"don't embarrass yourself by asking about metallurgy..."

[_Themis]

No, what it has demonstrated is that for the populations tested (a very important distinction), the primary ancestory is Asian. The fact is a microscopic segment of population in the Americas (remember it has a population of 900million - 1 billion) were tested (demonstrating a clear bias), and not the general population of the Americas. Why? Because this science is new and not able to deal with genetic backgrounds of the population at large. For example, part of my ancestory is Native American and I wasn't tested and wouldn't have been because I appear causasian. And so this "science" does not rule out the possible ancestory of all the Native American descendants.

I have no idea how you think they would test people who are not native American. I bet they would get primarily Asian DNA if they went and tested those in china town. These studies are looking at Native Americans, so they are not going to test non-native Americans, an that includes those who only have some Native Americans ancestry. I suggest you read these studies to learn more about it.

It was new to him like everyone else and last I checked, he was a fallible human being and was not God.

None of them were doing any translating, and neither are you, so I am not sure how you know better then Joseph about what was going on.

Why don't you do what the prophets and scriptures ask instead? Speak with God yourself and get your own answers. That is the basis of true Mormonism and always has been. You never had that testimony - a personal witness of Jesus Christ -and so you were always on your way out the door, whether you knew it or not.

As usual you are making conclusions about what people have or haven't done without knowing anything about them. I wonder if you mean by personal witness of Jesus that Jesus has to appear to them. I don't know any that even claim this.

I never claimed he did translate them. That is just a misconception in modern-day Mormonism.

It's what people from Joseph down to today claim. Again I think Joseph would know better then you.

He was show an origin story by the Lord and mistakeningly thought it was a translation of the papyrus. Remember, the Lord didn't give the papyrus to Joseph Smith and he had to ask and make his own determinations about it, which were flawed.

I wonder why God would not correct Joseph before giving him an origin story since he was communicating with him about so many other things. It's also interesting that this origin story was taking years to do, and he never finished even though what we have is very short. Not to mention that he translated the facsimiles. None of the evidence fits your theory. I suppose this is why guys like Gee stick to the missing papyri he knows he will never have to worry about finding.

[_Alfredo]

What is there to understand? Your position is, unless you have evidence that there is a supreme being, you won't believe in one and that everyone that maintains there is one is also suffering a delusion.

Well, yes... That's obvious, but you've missed the critical argument against your proposed evidence. What do you think I meant by this statement:

"What must be a delusion is your conclusion that the source of your experience can be trusted to reveal itself."

If you could show we understand each other by explaining why I think I can distrust personal revelation--even if such a thing exists in whatever form--I'd be very impressed. What's the argument against personal revelation I think I'm making and why is the argument, itself, wrong?

[_Shulem]

I suppose this is why guys like Gee stick to the missing papyri he knows he will never have to worry about finding.

So true but you know the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are ever a constant reminder of official translations of Joseph Smith from an absolute known source. That has to bother Gee quite a bit as he shakes it off and simply has to conclude that Joseph was translating in a way no one on God's green earth can ever understand. The missing paprus is Gee's nightmare scenerio because it would utterly ruin his testimony if you plopped every single bit of the papyrus which Joseph used right on Gee's desk and told him to translate it.

Paul O

[_Themis]

I suppose this is why guys like Gee stick to the missing papyri he knows he will never have to worry about finding.

So true but you know the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are ever a constant reminder of official translations of Joseph Smith from an absolute known source. That has to bother Gee quite a bit as he shakes it off and simply has to conclude that Joseph was translating in a way no one on God's green earth can ever understand. The missing paprus is Gee's nightmare scenerio because it would utterly ruin his testimony if you plopped every single bit of the papyrus which Joseph used right on Gee's desk and told him to translate it.

Paul O

The facsimiles really destroy both the missing papyri and catalyst theories.

[_Shulem]

The facsimiles really destroy both the missing papyri and catalyst theories.

Yes they sure do. It proves that Joseph Smith was committing fraud in offering a direct translation based on the writing he claimed to be translating via revelation. The writing in Facsimile No. 3 is NOT missing. We see it clearly and Egyptologists know exactly what it says. But Joseph tried to fool the saints into thinking it said something entirely different. The idea of being a catalyst is out too because Joseph was acting as if he was taking Egyptian and converting into the English language. No excuse for a loose translation will work. He said the name Shulem was in the writing, but it's not there. Joseph Smith simply made it up out of thin air and lied about it. Mormons should be ashamed that they carry these lies in their scriptures. Never trust a Mormon. All they have to support their testimony is feelings and thoughts they have while praying that cause them to think their church is true. Nothing is based on fact and proof such as Facsimile No. 3. Shall a Mormon pray and ask God if the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are true? What kind of answer do they think they'd get? How silly.

Paul O

[_Tobin]

What is there to understand? Your position is, unless you have evidence that there is a supreme being, you won't believe in one and that everyone that maintains there is one is also suffering a delusion.

Well, yes... That's obvious, but you've missed the critical argument against your proposed evidence. What do you think I meant by this statement:

"What must be a delusion is your conclusion that the source of your experience can be trusted to reveal itself."

If you could show we understand each other by explaining why I think I can distrust personal revelation--even if such a thing exists in whatever form--I'd be very impressed. What's the argument against personal revelation I think I'm making and why is the argument, itself, wrong?

You have plenty of examples of personal revelation. Whole religions are based on it and the books written from it.

[_Chap]

You have plenty of examples of personal revelation. Whole religions are based on it and the books written from it.

Or. more objectively:

We have lots of examples of people who claim to have had personal revelations from an assortment of different deities.

A number of those who have founded religions and have written books as part of that process have claimed that their religions and books were based on revelation.

Some people even base repetitive posts on internet discussion boards on the claim to have had personal revelation from some deity.

And that proves .... what?

Maybe just that making such claims seems a very good way to get a lot of people to take you seriously, and give you a lot of respect and attention? (Well, it works with some people but not with others.)

[_Alfredo]

You have plenty of examples of personal revelation. Whole religions are based on it and the books written from it.

I asked you to explain what you think my argument is.

[_Alfredo]

Or. more objectively:

We have lots of examples of people who claim to have had personal revelations from an assortment of different deities.

I find it relevant to add that there are lots of people who claim to have had personal revelations from an assortment of different mystical forces, magic objects, and psychedelics.

[_Tobin]

You have plenty of examples of personal revelation. Whole religions are based on it and the books written from it.

I asked you to explain what you think my argument is.

I don't think much of it at all. You could be correct that I'm suffering from a delusion, the prophets of the scriptures were all suffering from a delusion, and the people who believe those scriptures and in their own personal witness may be all suffering a delusion as well. But, unless and until you prove there is no God and no possibility of a God, I find that possibility remote and uninteresting to the point of being completely silly.