son of Ishmael wrote:
Not my point. He produced the Book of Moses through "pure revelation" without catalyst. Now apologist say that the papyri was the catalyst that he needed to have the Book of Abraham reveled to him. If he had the book of Moses reveled to him why didn't God just reveal the Book of Abraham to him?
I am at a loss to understand why Joseph Smith's use of Adamic words and phrases BEFORE the papyrus arrived in Kirtland is not GREAT evidence that Joseph Smith had already received the Book of Abraham, which cites in its text that Abraham had the Book of Remembrance, written in the language of Adam. Seems like a slam dunk to me.
But then, (heavy sigh) seems everyone who has donned the robes of a false priesthood, (academia) has taken oaths to marginalize everything a naked man (having no academic robe) might do and say, so as not to build up any renown, giving me no foil to score points against.
Then there is my explanation of why Joseph pretended to translate the papyrus and how he was setting up a test that would kick in 144 years in the future, and why he was despondent unto death knowing he had failed to establish Zion and the people needed to be MANAGED (given strong delusion as the prophecy said God would send) to endure closer to the end times so that the spark of Zion could ignite before the utter ruin of the Gentiles (that they all might be damned for not receiving Zion). Oh boy. Sounds like a game changer apologetic to me. But that is just me and (heavy sigh) oh well. Let's call this the first official apologetic of Zion. Yeah, Alright.