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

[_Shulem]

I'll say it again. The prophet Joseph Smith would have excommunicated TOBIN for his speaking out against the revelations of Facsimile No. 3 on a public forum. Tobin would have lost his church membership and stripped of all of his LDS blessings. Joseph Smith would not have tolerated a wolf like Tobin in the flock -- one who second guesses the prophet's work and accuses his published revelations as being false. One who says the prophet can't read Egyptian and divine the characters of Facsimile No. 3! He has brought shame to the prophet Joseph Smith and belittled his revelations which he offered to the entire world through the authority of the holy priesthood.

I think we all see what Tobin is made of. He is a fake. He is an antiMormon in sheep clothing.

Paul O

[_Mad Viking]

...God just needs to show up and tell you it is true...

Wouldn't that make things a lot easier? Why doesn't God actually do this?

[_Tobin]

...God just needs to show up and tell you it is true...

Wouldn't that make things a lot easier? Why doesn't God actually do this?

The whole Mormon concept is set up that way. It is based on preposterous claims (without virtually any physical evidence) of God, angels, and magic books. Many apologists are enamoured with the witness statements, but those are not relevant to anyone. We don't know them and have no reason to believe them. If Mormonism is true, then God has basically set the bar at showing up to demonstrate it is true - or it simply can't be true. And I believe that is God's intent - to get people to actually speak with him.

[_Kishkumen]

The whole Mormon concept is set up that way. It is based on preposterous claims (without virtually any physical evidence) of God, angels, and magic books. Many apologists are enamoured with the witness statements, but those are not relevant to anyone. We don't know them and have no reason to believe them. If Mormonism is true, then God has basically set the bar at showing up to demonstrate it is true - or it simply can't be true. And I believe that is God's intent - to get people to actually speak with him.

You certainly are one of the most interesting LDS people to show up here to date. I like your perspective.

[_Chap]

The whole Mormon concept is set up that way. It is based on preposterous claims (without virtually any physical evidence) of God, angels, and magic books. Many apologists are enamoured with the witness statements, but those are not relevant to anyone. We don't know them and have no reason to believe them. If Mormonism is true, then God has basically set the bar at showing up to demonstrate it is true - or it simply can't be true. And I believe that is God's intent - to get people to actually speak with him.

You certainly are one of the most interesting LDS people to show up here to date. I like your perspective.

Tobin's position is a neat variation on Tertullian:

Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.
— (De Carne Christi V, 4)

"The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsuitable.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."

It's this kind of thing that makes Mormonism such an interesting phenomenon.

(PS: I still think it isn't true, though).

[_Chap]

... Eventually, the Church and those that believe that will have to recognize he did not and realize the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the papyrus or the facsimiles.

Um ... the facsimiles are part of the Book of Abraham.

See http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-3?lang=eng for Facsimile 3.

In chapter 1 Abraham specifically refers to the Facsimiles:

12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

13 It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

14 That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics.

Sorry, no emergency exit in that direction.

[_Tobin]

Sorry, no emergency exit in that direction.

Chap, sure there is. What Joseph Smith was shown was the origin story - which was written down by Abraham (including depictions). However, the Egyptians had no reason to preserve that story as it was (nor the depictions). That is the mistake Joseph Smith made and what he did not realize.

[_Chap]

Sorry, no emergency exit in that direction.

Chap, sure there is. What Joseph Smith was shown was the origin story - which was written down by Abraham (including depictions). However, the Egyptians had no reason to preserve that story as it was (nor the depictions). That is the mistake Joseph Smith made and what he did not realize.

Could you go over that again more slowly? Here are some questions that might help clarify what you mean:


1. Do you think that any parts of the present Book of Abraham represent revelation from the LDS deity?

2. If yes to (1), which parts are revelation, and which not?

3. If yes to 1, how do you, Tobin, decide which parts are which?

4. Are you saying that the Egyptians completely failed to transmit any part of the Book of Abraham?

I am quite confused as to what your position could possibly be, even on the methodological basis of maximum charity.

[_Shulem]

Um ... the facsimiles are part of the Book of Abraham.

See http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-3?lang=eng for Facsimile 3.

In chapter 1 Abraham specifically refers to the Facsimiles:

Yeah, Joseph Smith sure screwed up in pretending to read and translate Egyptian. He was such a liar. He also screwed up when he took KJV Isaiah along with its errors and put them into the text of his Book of Mormon. He was such a thief.

Paul O

[_Kishkumen]

Tobin's position is a neat variation on Tertullian:

Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.
— (De Carne Christi V, 4)

"The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsuitable.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."

It's this kind of thing that makes Mormonism such an interesting phenomenon.

(PS: I still think it isn't true, though).

I don't agree. He is not saying that it is the absurdity that makes it true. He is saying that it is the revelation of its truth that makes it true. Those are two very different things.