Joseph Smith & a LITERAL 3500 Year Old Abraham Autograph

[_Philo Sofee]

The Mormon way is no way to have an honest logical discussion about things. When words don't mean what they really mean and feelings Trump logic, there is no way to have a logic based discussion.

And amazingly enough, so very many of them appear to me to be unable, if not outright unwilling, to grasp this...

[_Philo Sofee]

Chap

Nicely put. When the apologists think that there really is some objective evidence is in favour of the Book of Mormon, they make a big, big noise about it, like it was really a game changer. Films, websites, articles, the lot.

But once it is punctured (and so far it always seems to be) ... they suddenly don't need anything so vulgar as evidence any more. Their burning in the bosom is infinitely superior.

However, in that case why bother with any evidence, ever? And why come here to argue, when you just KNOW?

A very good point. If the Spirit is so sure a guide, why doesn't God simply send it all over the world already?! It literally makes no sense. The claims of the leaders make no sense. God apparently doesn't think it is all so important a thing to do as guide the world. He loved it so much he gave his only begotten son, and then went hiking through the universe or something.

[_zerinus]

Well then what are you doing here for? Lol! You don't want to converse, you want to preach. You make claims you can't defend and you expect us to all swoon?! Lol! You don't even read what I write, yet judge it crap? Lol! You a funny child.

Like I said, cut the crap, not interested.

[_Lemmie]

The Mormon way is no way to have an honest logical discussion about things. When words don't mean what they really mean and feelings Trump logic, there is no way to have a logic based discussion.

And amazingly enough, so very many of them appear to me to be unable, if not outright unwilling, to grasp this...

I think subconsciously some realize it but then they have to quickly take a different approach before it bubbles up to their conscious level of thought and causes cognitive distress. That's when the name-calling starts for those who can't discuss anything with confidence. I don't think it's a universal trait but it does seem to show up here a lot.

[_Starbuck]

Well I read the document and I think it lays a solid foundation to show that Joseph literally thought the ink on the papyrus was from Abrahams own quill? and that it was around 4000 years old.

Apologetics appear to be putting words into the dear leaders mouth if they claim anything else.

I did notice a few grammatical issues and I had to use a dictionary more than once.

. He never once mythologized or spiritualized anything away from the Bible in his revised translation of it that can be find.
And I think there was an I are in there somwehere.

[_Philo Sofee]

Well then what are you doing here for? Lol! You don't want to converse, you want to preach. You make claims you can't defend and you expect us to all swoon?! Lol! You don't even read what I write, yet judge it crap? Lol! You a funny child.

Like I said, cut the crap, not interested.

Child, I am trying to get you to cut the crap and contribute something meaningful. Apparently you were never taught how to do that since all you appear to have done is attend Sunday school instead of a real school. Shall we give you lessons to learn from, or would you rather continue playing in your sandbox? When you begin acting and discussing like an adult, I shall stop addressing you as child. It seems like a fair deal to me.

[_Philo Sofee]

Starbuck

I did notice a few grammatical issues and I had to use a dictionary more than once.

Ah...... using a dictionary is a GOOD thing. We need to enrich our language instead of agreeing with the dumbing down that has been occurring since FDR. One of the singular most important and fascinating references I have purchased is Peter E. Meltzer, "The Thinker's Thesaurus." Get it.....use it.....enjoy it! It is a pure delight! I bought the expanded 3rd edition and it never fails to entertain and teach.

[_Philo Sofee]

Well I read the document and I think it lays a solid foundation to show that Joseph literally thought the ink on the papyrus was from Abrahams own quill? and that it was around 4000 years old.

Apologetics appear to be putting words into the dear leaders mouth if they claim anything else.

I did notice a few grammatical issues and I had to use a dictionary more than once.

. He never once mythologized or spiritualized anything away from the Bible in his revised translation of it that can be find.
And I think there was an I are in there somwehere.

THANK YOU! Got it corrected.

[_grindael]

Like I said, cut the crap, not interested.

Obviously, he is, because he keeps making these inane comments. His whole logic is "I know you are but what am I". Just childish games.

Shades, you need to open a new Forum Section called Outer Dumbass, and banish all of these kinds of stupid comments to there. I really wanted to read about the Book of Abraham, but there was so much BS from color-boy that I gave up trying to search through pages and pages of stupidity. I mean, here are the first three pages of his comments and there is ZERO that is of any substance at all. Not one addresses the OP. This is simply trolling.

My testimony is grounded in the Book of Mormon, not in "a cult led by a man". The Book of Mormon is the word of God. It is a book of scripture, revealed from heaven, no doubts about it.
Wrong! If that is what you want to believe, go ahead, I can’t stop you. But I can inform you that you are dead wrong!
I am in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God’s only true Church on earth, restored in the last days for the gathering of his elect for the last time.
It is true, and the word of God, just as the Book of Mormon is. I am speaking of the English text. The same Spirit that bears witness to me that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are the words of God, also bears witness to me that the Book of Abraham is the word of God. The egyptological issues surrounding it do not concern me.
Dumb comment.
Another Dumb comment.
No I didn’t.
Oh no, not you again!
Nitpicking, still dumb comment. In informal conversation “the” can be omitted, if the context implies it. In the revelation in which the name of the Church was revealed we find the following:
D&C 115:
3 And also unto my faithful servants who are of the high council of my church in Zion, for thus it shall be called, and unto all the elders and people of my Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, scattered abroad in all the world;
4 For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
As you can see, the definitive article in the first instance is omitted. It is not sacrosanct.
Rubbish, nonsense. The KJV quotes comprise about 7% of the Book of Mormon. And they are not identical; there are variations. If the Book of Mormon was a fraud, why would Joseph Smith want to expose himself to that kind of criticism by merely copying lengthy passage from the KJV—when he could have just omitted them, and nobody would have noticed anything?
I think that I am smarter than them. LOL! I quoted you what God had said, not what man has said.
I had figured.
Oh yes you have. You have fallen for the lies of the devil against Mormonism.
You are talking rubbish, nonsense. The Book of Mormon is the word of God, just as the Book of Abraham is the word of God.
Then you need to listen to the following devotional address given by Elder Tad R. Callister at BYU some months ago called: “The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?”:
Since I and the rest of the Church, including General Authorities, believe that the D&C is the word of God—and you don’t—that issue will not arise.
See my previous post.
I am not in individual people's minds, that is true; but as a general observation, that is a true statement—otherwise they wouldn’t be Mormons.
You should know better than that. We determine the truth of revelation by the testimony of the Holy Ghost, not by some other means.
Already answered.
Religion is a matter of faith, not of "science". If you have invented a god for yourself called "scientific certainty," you are welcome to it; but it is a false god. It is nothing more than an idol. There is a real God, however, who can only be known by faith; and who can reveal "truths" that science cannot reveal.
If that is how you want to see it, you have that choice. There is nothing more that can be said. We part ways. But we will meet again someday, at a place called the "judgement bar," when you will know with "certainty" that is better than "scientific" that there was a real God whom you missed---with regrettable consequences.
Except that there are certain "facts" that cannot be known or discovered by "science," or for that matter by "Egyptology". They can only be known by faith, and by a revelation from God.
You and your "Egyptology" are not as omniscient as they thing they are. They may have discovered some truth, but not all truth. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," is a well-known proverb. They have discovered some knowledge, and they think the know everything. I don't think that they do.
No you don't. The "Egyptology" that you rely on so much is not as foolproof as you think it is. There is a better way of discovering truth that never goes wrong. "Egyptology" doesn't even come close.
I trust that what Joseph Smith taught was true. If your "Egyptology" says that it isn't, then I mistrust your "Egyptology" rather than Joseph Smith. I don't believe that your "Egyptology" has advanced enough to be able to solve every mystery therein.
You are talking nonsense. You know a little bit, and you think you know everything. "Science" proves nothing of the kind. There are many truths that cannot be known by "science," but by the revelations of God.You can knock your head against that wall forever; but it won't alter that fact.
Amounts to the same thing. I know without a doubt that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, and that it is true. The same applies to the Book of Abraham, no difference.
You are wasting time. Nothing more to add. Have a nice day.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat on every thread. It all needs to go to the Dumbass Forum.

[_Starbuck]

About eight years ago I developed software that allowed Byesian Belief Networks to be created and calculated. I fully understand how probabilities from prior and observable data can be computed. I have never really understood how soft observations ie human behavior, could be fully determined.

What approach are you going to use to address this issue?