Facsimile 3

[_Analytics]

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....

Interesting point of view. It reminds me of the "God of the Gaps". Just as God explains the gaps that science hasn't completely figured out, God revealed the parts of the Book of Abraham that haven't been proven false.

In any case, thanks for sharing your views.

[_Themis]

So, in stumbles Joseph Smith, with a mind full of false concepts and delusions and he immediately goes to work on these Egyptian papyri.

So another words Joseph has to be either really dumb or lying. Since the evidence is clear Joseph is not dumb, he is lying. I think that one is obvious.

The Lord reveals the "true" original writings of Abraham, uncorrupted with the Egyptian myths and stories.

And now we have God being dumber. It really is not reasonable for God to give Joseph a story that is not what Joseph asked for, and not let him know what is going on.

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).

See above about being dumb or lying.

And the icing on the cake is his attempts at annotating the facsmilies (which are also Egyptian) with silly and incorrect references.

Your problem here is that his explanations are as much a part of his claimed translation/revelation from God as the rest of the Book of Abraham is. You really can't separate them out.

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

What is accurate is Paul's assessment of your ignorance of Book of Abraham issues.

[_Equality]

Tobin argues that God could not or would not correct Joseph Smith on his completely false assertions about the papyri, the facsimiles, and his own ability to translate Egyptian. God did this because if God were to correct Joseph Smith and set the record straight, that would make Joseph Smith a "sock puppet." At the same time, Tobin argues that the text of the Book of Abraham really was written by Abraham thousands of years ago (but not on the papyri in Joseph Smith's possession) and that God, while allowing Joseph Smith to lie to the world, revealed to him the ancient writings of Abraham.

So, wouldn't that make Joseph Smith God's "sock puppet" with respect to the text of the Book of Abraham? If God could give to Joseph Smith the ancient words of Abraham, why couldn't he correct the stuff that Smith got completely wrong? And if God doesn't correct Joseph Smith's mistakes in the facsimiles, how can one trust what is in the text? Maybe that's filled with Joseph's own "arrogant" musings and personal opinions mingled in there with God's inspiration. If God made sure the text that Joseph produced was pristine, an accurate rendition of Abraham's ancient writings, then God was clearly willing and able to prevent Joseph Smith from introducing his own thoughts into the text. So why wouldn't God do the same with respect to the facsimiles? You can't have it both ways: either God controls the translation process to prevent error from creeping in, or he doesn't. You can't have God acting one way with respect to the facsimiles and another with respect to the text, unless you are just making things up as you go. Oh, wait, that's exactly what's going on.

The whole argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But what's remarkable is this: it's the best the apologists have got on the Book of Abraham. How pathetic is that?

[_Hellmut]

Nibley said it best.

I refuse to be held responsible for anything I wrote more than three years ago. For heaven's sake I hope we are moving forward here!

Of course, anybody is entitled to change their mind or to develop their ideas but that still means that ought to include the insight that we have been wrong.

[_Hellmut]

Joseph Smith couldn't read Egyptian Hieroglyphics. The annotations on the Facsimiles are wrong. The Book of Abraham, if true, has to be a purely inspired and a revealed text by God. It has nothing to do with the Egyptian papyri. And Joseph Smith's statements and annotations should be viewed as completely idiotic and wrong.

The problem is that Joseph Smith power claims rest on his divine gift as a translator.

[_Chap]

...

..... You can't have God acting one way with respect to the facsimiles and another with respect to the text, unless you are just making things up as you go. Oh, wait, that's exactly what's going on.

....

That is very uncharitable.

Tobin talked with the Panda. Of course the Panda did not want Tobin to be his sock puppet, so he left Tobin to work out the details. The arguments we see in Tobin's posts are therefore heavily conditioned by Tobin's "false concepts and delusions", not forgetting his "arrogance and ignorant pride". That is only to be expected, as Tobin has pointed out to us on several occasions.

[Guest]

Tobin argues that God could not or would not correct Joseph Smith on his completely false assertions about the papyri, the facsimiles, and his own ability to translate Egyptian. God did this because if God were to correct Joseph Smith and set the record straight, that would make Joseph Smith a "sock puppet." At the same time, Tobin argues that the text of the Book of Abraham really was written by Abraham thousands of years ago (but not on the papyri in Joseph Smith's possession) and that God, while allowing Joseph Smith to lie to the world, revealed to him the ancient writings of Abraham.

So, wouldn't that make Joseph Smith God's "sock puppet" with respect to the text of the Book of Abraham? If God could give to Joseph Smith the ancient words of Abraham, why couldn't he correct the stuff that Smith got completely wrong? And if God doesn't correct Joseph Smith's mistakes in the facsimiles, how can one trust what is in the text? Maybe that's filled with Joseph's own "arrogant" musings and personal opinions mingled in there with God's inspiration. If God made sure the text that Joseph produced was pristine, an accurate rendition of Abraham's ancient writings, then God was clearly willing and able to prevent Joseph Smith from introducing his own thoughts into the text. So why wouldn't God do the same with respect to the facsimiles? You can't have it both ways: either God controls the translation process to prevent error from creeping in, or he doesn't. You can't have God acting one way with respect to the facsimiles and another with respect to the text, unless you are just making things up as you go. Oh, wait, that's exactly what's going on.

The whole argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But what's remarkable is this: it's the best the apologists have got on the Book of Abraham. How pathetic is that?

That is NOT what I'm saying at all Equality. I'm stating that Joseph Smith's mistaken statements and attempts are understandable given his lack of knowledge and the fact he was a fallible human being and NOT God's sock puppet. His attempts to change the facsimile depictions (and later statements), for example indicate that the Lord corrected Joseph Smith's view.

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
Quote: "...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."

[_Chap]

I'm stating that Joseph Smith's mistaken statements and attempts are understandable given his lack of knowledge and that fact he was human and NOT a God's sock puppet.

And I'm stating that Tobin's mistaken statements and attempts are understandable given his lack of knowledge and that fact he is human and NOT a Panda's sock puppet.

That seems quite reasonable and fair, doesn't it?

[_Tobin]

Joseph Smith couldn't read Egyptian Hieroglyphics. The annotations on the Facsimiles are wrong. The Book of Abraham, if true, has to be a purely inspired and a revealed text by God. It has nothing to do with the Egyptian papyri. And Joseph Smith's statements and annotations should be viewed as completely idiotic and wrong.

The problem is that Joseph Smith power claims rest on his divine gift as a translator.

That isn't true. Joseph Smith's claims should never be judged valid based on his claims alone. In fact, I would point out, they are preposterous. His claims can only be viewed as valid IF God reveals that Joseph Smith was his prophet in a convincing way to you (as promised in the Book of Mormon by Moroni for example). Without that, there is NO reason to believe Joseph Smith saw God or that anything he claims is anything but a hoax and a fraud.

[_Themis]

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
Quote: "...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."

Talk about BS. This is apologetics at it's best. Just assert the opposite of what the evidence tells us and provide none to support this BS assertion.