Facsimile 3

[_Philo Sofee]

Joseph sees the papyrus, and as a fallible man incorrectly says that they purport to claim the writings of Abraham. As a fallible man, he incorrectly thinks it is very important that the church gets a hold of these manuscripts, so he takes out the church's checkbook and purchases the mummies and the papyri. As a fallible man, he made up b.s. about the facsimiles and published it for the church in the Times and Seasons. As a fallible man, he sat down and endeavored to translate what was written on the papyri. At that point, God entered the picture and revealed to him a translation of something Abraham had actually written. But as a fallible man, Joseph Smith didn't know he was translating a lost document and thought he was translating the document in front of him.

There are a few things to bear in mind here. Joseph Smith had translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God and was quite confident (too confident) in "his" abilities. The Book of Abraham translation was unnecessary and not commanded of the Lord. I believe this debacle stems from Joseph Smith, in his pride, taking this on because of what he had done and thought this wouldn't be a problem. After all, aren't all ancient texts written by ancient prophets?!?

Two problems that immediately arise from this are:
1) As we know, Joseph Smith had no knoweldge about Egyptian papyri, the Egyptian Hieroglpyhics, or their history. He simply can not ascertain (nor can anyone from the period), what the Egyptian papyri really are and contain.
2) The Egyptians were pagans and had no interest in preserving or keeping an account of Abraham and no papyri would contain writings of Abraham from that period. They would write about their own myths and stories.

So, in stumbles Joseph Smith, with a mind full of false concepts and delusions and he immediately goes to work on these Egyptian papyri. The Lord reveals the "true" original writings of Abraham, uncorrupted with the Egyptian myths and stories. Joseph Smith, in his arrogance and ignorant pride, immediately assumes what is revealed is what is actually contained on these papyri. His subsequent statements (which are mistakes) clearly indicate this thinking when he says the papyri were written by the hand of Abraham (not a chance, the papyri are not old enough) and contain the writings of Abraham and Joseph (again, not a chance, they are Egyptian). And the icing on the cake is his attempts at annotating the facsmilies (which are also Egyptian) with silly and incorrect references.

Now, I believe this is a much more accurate view of what happened.

Is that basically right? If so, do you think the church should remove the facsimiles with their false translations from the Book of Abraham? The introduction to the Book of Abraham quotes Joseph Smith as saying it is, "a Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt."

Do you think that should be changed in the Book of Abraham to the following? "A translation by the power of God of some ancient Records that have long been destroyed and which we've never seen, and are totally unrelated to the ancient records that fell into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt."

I absolutely think the facsimiles should be removed from the canon. They are incorrect. And the caption above the Book of Abraham should also be understood with the proper view as being a purely revealed text. It is not a correct translation of the papyri and should not be represented that way.

I am also realistic and do not believe the Church is likely to do this at any time in the near future. However, I believe it will eventually.

Now, I do not buy the view that Joseph Smith *always* thought that he was translating from the Egyptain papyri. Even though many of his initial (and incorrect) statements indicate he may have thought this, that does not mean he was not eventually corrected. Both Ed Ashment and Hugh Nibley came to this conclusion as well.

Ed Ashment, in his article in "Sunstone" magazine, called "The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham" (Sunstone, Dec. 1979, pg. 44) states

...the prophet may not have felt that he had translated the Book of Abraham from any of the Joseph Smith Papyri.

And Hugh Nibley agreed with this view in his response to Ed Ashment, "Sunstone, vol. iv (1979), 49-51."

Dude your apologetic is make up to try and get rid of difficulties and your made up version does not conform to what Joseph Smith said, nor Wilford Woodruff. NONE of this will wash with either side, Mormons or critics. Your traveling a middle road is all make believe with no basis in fact, but pure ribald speculation. You honestly can't see this?

[_Tobin]

Dude your apologetic is make up to try and get rid of difficulties and your amde up version does not conform to what Joseph Smith said, nor Wilford Woodruff.

As I've said Philo, I'm interested in the truth, not simply believing the views of Joseph Smith or Wilford Woodruff simply because of who they were. Last I checked, they were human and as fallible as anyone else. All Mormons should be interested in the truth in fact, and that comes from questioning what people state about the Church, its history, and the gospel and coming to an understanding of what is really going on.

[_Cylon]

No, Mormons believe Joseph Smith because they get a burning in their bosom when they ask if he's a prophet of God, and they interpret that to be an answer from the Holy Ghost. No one I know in real life has ever claimed that God actually spoke to them, and very few of the prophets and apostles have, either. Bully for you that God thinks you're special enough to speak to personally, but claiming that is the basis for most Mormons' testimonies is bullcrap and you know it.

As I've said Cylon, this is a necessary step. Otherwise, it is literally impossible to maintain a belief in Mormonism. As I've said, the claims are preposterous. Anyone who reads Joseph Smith's claims, the Book of Mormon clains, the Bible's claims and so on should immediately realize this.

I agree with you that the claims are preposterous. I just disagree with your assertion that most Mormons have spoken with God. The fact that so many of us believed the claims anyway is a testament to the power of the human brain to justify nonsense.

[_Tobin]

I agree with you that the claims are preposterous. I just disagree with your assertion that most Mormons have spoken with God. The fact that so many of us believed the claims anyway is a testament to the power of the human brain to justify nonsense.

Oh, come on. You know they feel that way. You can't deny that; otherwise, they wouldn't be Mormon. Now, you and I agree that isn't a good reason to believe what they do, but there it is.

[_Philo Sofee]

Dude your apologetic is make up to try and get rid of difficulties and your amde up version does not conform to what Joseph Smith said, nor Wilford Woodruff.

As I've said Philo, I'm interested in the truth, not simply believing the views of Joseph Smith or Wilford Woodruff simply because of who they were. Last I checked, they were human and as fallible as anyone else. All Mormons should be interested in the truth in fact, and that comes from questioning what people state about the Church, its history, and the gospel and coming to an understanding of what is really going on.

The problem with this is, how can we ever even believe anything they said then, since, obviously they were prideful, ignorant, etc. If it is left up to us to decide when truth is being spouted and when it is human pride, the subjectivity of it all completely destroys any story you might come up with. If you cannot use the sources themselves as a basis, then its all made up. See the problem with your approach? You are equating your speculating with the truth. It just doesn't work that way.

[_Tobin]

The problem with this is, how can we ever even believe anything they said then, since, obviously they were prideful, ignorant, etc. If it is left up to us to decide when truth is being spouted and when it is human pride, the subjectivity of it all completely destroys any story you might come up with. If you cannot use the sources themselves as a basis, then its all made up. See the problem with your approach? You are equating your speculating with the truth. It just doesn't work that way.

There is no reason to believe Joseph Smith based on his claims at all. That isn't why anyone should believe him. You should believe Joseph Smith because God tells you to (in some substantial way). Otherwise, I would recommend you assume he's a fraud, because his claims are ludicrous (as are any other religious claims).

[_Chap]

I agree with you that the claims are preposterous. I just disagree with your assertion that most Mormons have spoken with God. The fact that so many of us believed the claims anyway is a testament to the power of the human brain to justify nonsense.

Oh, come on. You know they feel that way. You can't deny that; otherwise, they wouldn't be Mormon. Now, you and I agree that isn't a good reason to believe what they do, but there it is.

So .. Tobin is asserting that all those Mormons have actually spoken with the Panda? Like, had a conversation with him, the way Tobin claims he did?

And Tobin does NOT just mean they felt a 'burning in the bosom'?

This gets stranger and stranger.

[_Philo Sofee]

The problem with this is, how can we ever even believe anything they said then, since, obviously they were prideful, ignorant, etc. If it is left up to us to decide when truth is being spouted and when it is human pride, the subjectivity of it all completely destroys any story you might come up with. If you cannot use the sources themselves as a basis, then its all made up. See the problem with your approach? You are equating your speculating with the truth. It just doesn't work that way.

There is no reason to believe Joseph Smith based on his claims at all. That isn't why anyone should believe him. You should believe Joseph Smith because God tells you to (in some substantial way). Otherwise, I would recommend you assume he's a fraud, because his claims are ludicrous (as are any other religious claims).

The real basis of knowledge in the world is through reasoning and analyzing. The very best method so far developed and it has a serious track record is the scientific method. That eliminates going to God as a premise because we can only deal with the material world, hence God is not a good option to use, as that just adds to the hypotheses. Occam's razor says take the simplest route with the least convolutions and epispasms (or something like that ) The simplest hypothesis IS to take Joseph Smith's word on it, and THEN reason it out to see the probability of it being right. God is simply a redundant extra step.

[_Cylon]

Oh, come on. You know they feel that way. You can't deny that; otherwise, they wouldn't be Mormon. Now, you and I agree that isn't a good reason to believe what they do, but there it is.

So .. Tobin is asserting that all those Mormons have actually spoken with the Panda? Like, had a conversation with him, the way Tobin claims he did?

And Tobin does NOT just mean they felt a 'burning in the bosom'?

This gets stranger and stranger.

No, he's saying that they believe the burning in the bosom is God talking to them, but they are wrong. At least, that's how I read it. If that's right, it's something I can agree with.

[_Chap]

Oh, come on. You know they feel that way. You can't deny that; otherwise, they wouldn't be Mormon. Now, you and I agree that isn't a good reason to believe what they do, but there it is.

So .. Tobin is asserting that all those Mormons have actually spoken with the Panda? Like, had a conversation with him, the way Tobin claims he did?

And Tobin does NOT just mean they felt a 'burning in the bosom'?

This gets stranger and stranger.

No, he's saying that they believe the burning in the bosom is God talking to them, but they are wrong. At least, that's how I read it. If that's right, it's something I can agree with.

OK. So:

1. Mormons falsely believe they have spoken with the Panda. In fact all they have had is a sensation of heat or whatever inside their chest cavity, and they have not spoken with the Panda at all.

2. Talking with the Panda is the only thing that can justify belief in Mormonism, since without the authority of the Panda affirming it, Mormonism must be dismissed as prima facie highly implausible and without supporting evidence.

3. So actually Mormons have no basis whatsoever for believing Mormonism to be true - unlike Tobin, to whom the Panda has directly stated that Mormonism is true, despite its apparent high degree of implausibility.