Joseph Smith & a LITERAL 3500 Year Old Abraham Autograph

[Guest]

All of them are simply going to say yes. You do know that right? That dodges the bullet.

It's necessary in order to objectively examine the evidence and come to the most logical conclusion without allowing religious faith (bias) to get in the way.

Take aim and fire. Now, look out for the bullet!

I agree entirely, which I why I went to such efforts to document the evidence for the claim that they had a 3500 year old autograph. I was rather overwhelmed with how MUCH there is to that effect, which makes it all the more ironic that apologists are attempting everything they can to distance Joseph Smith from the claim, because, as rational folk, they now grasp that Egyptology has destroyed the reality of it, and that doesn't make Joseph Smith look good at all......

[_Shulem]

I just fixed it for you...... and Clark, and everyone else.......

Much better! Thanks.

PS. I'm going to check out the new Planet of the Apes movie in a little while. It's playing at the theatre here in Dallas.

[_Philo Sofee]

I just fixed it for you...... and Clark, and everyone else.......

Much better! Thanks.

PS. I'm going to check out the new Planet of the Apes movie in a little while. It's playing at the theatre here in Dallas.

Let me know if its worth watching, otherwise, I'm gonna just go to the zoo....lol!

[_Shulem]

I agree entirely, which I why I went to such efforts to document the evidence for the claim that they had a 3500 year old autograph. I was rather overwhelmed with how MUCH there is to that effect, which makes it all the more ironic that apologists are attempting everything they can to distance Joseph Smith from the claim, because, as rational folk, they now grasp that Egyptology has destroyed the reality of it, and that doesn't make Joseph Smith look good at all......

Right, and it's important to remember that there really are two categories we are dealing with:

1. Joseph Smith's CLAIM
2. Joseph Smith's BELIEF

These are not the same. One can make a claim and not believe it -- thus they are a liar. Or, one can make a claim and believe it is true whether it's actually true or not.

So, you see, it's important to set things in proper order.

[_Shulem]

And what makes you so sure you have got it right, and everybody else who may disagree with you has got it wrong? Who is to say that they have not got it right, and you have not got it wrong?

Perhaps he believes his impressions of the Holy Ghost are ultimately leading him to truth and a correct view of what the scriptures really teach. Maybe he believes God has called him to the work and endowed him with his Spirit. Perhaps he knows in his heart and mind that it is you, zerinus, that have been deceived. Perhaps his faith is stronger then yours?

[_Shulem]

The first thing I note is the discomfort of apologists when they see Joseph Smith actually saying “There, that is the signature of Abraham.” Joseph Smith really probably did tell a visitor that, which we will examine. The reasons why apologists are so uncomfortable with Joseph Smith believing and saying this will be discussed later. There are definitely reasons because of our own hindsight into reality today. A hindsight Joseph Smith was not privy to, even under “inspiration.” Because of this he made some incredibly fascinating, if not faulty statements, as did many of his early followers and fellow scribes.

Oh, Joseph said it alright. He said all kinds of stuff about the papyrus and mummies. His own mother testified of that! The statements made by Joseph Smith's mother lend credibility to other witnesses who testified on the same lines. It's not that hard to piece together and the apologists have a hard time looking at what this does for the big picture.

Yes, indeed, it's a proven fact that Joseph Smith claimed there were patriarchal signatures on the very papyrus in which he framed and wanted hung up in the temple.

[_Shulem]

Which is harder for an apologist to accept and why?

1. "There, that is the signature of Abraham."
2. "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

[_Shulem]

His literalness enhanced his reputation as a prophet, when he asked to pay for the papyri, he had to deliver, and he did. The actual physical writing and record of Abraham was claimed, Abraham whom the Mormons had ties with through the priesthood, had almost literally come home! It helped their testimonies, as God brought the papyri and literally connected them with Abraham. The Prophet believed he had the autograph of that venerable priesthood holding patriarch. And the saints were enthralled about it all as per Woodruff, Pratt, Adams, and others.

Joseph Smith was into literalism and when he wasn't he pointed out the difference by saying things were SYMBOLIC. Having the papyrus of Joseph and Abraham were like feathers in his cap to increase his own power over the church. Paying ($$$) for the Egyptian artifacts would further the commitment of church members in sustaining the miraculous powers of Joseph Smith in translating the dead Egyptian language into modern English.

Cult leader Joseph Smith was luring his followers to believe anything and everything he said.

[_zerinus]

What do you think I have wrong? If you can point something specific, I can try to provide a specific explanation.

I was speaking in general terms. I don’t know what your particular theological persuasion is, and it is largely immaterial. Whatever it is, there will be other Christians of other theological bent who will disagree with yours, and who are equally convinced that theirs is biblical and yours is not. Who is to decide? The Bible obviously can’t be the deciding factor, because they all think that their theology is biblical, and they all disagree among themselves. So who gets to decide? Why should I accept your theology in preference to somebody else’s?

[_zerinus]

Indeed, and by making an open minded concession one is then able to gather the facts, analyze them, and make an intelligent determination. The problem with the LDS argument is they start out with the idea that the church is true no matter what and this kind of thinking will hinder their ability in fully perceiving the data because of preconceived ideas and biases. Something like that, anyway. I think you get the idea.

That is not where I start. I start with the assurance that the Book of Mormon is true because God tells me so, therefore Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and the Church he established is true.