Joseph Smith & a LITERAL 3500 Year Old Abraham Autograph

[_Starbuck]

Starbuck

I'll check to see if I have a copy somewhere.

I appreciate that very much.

Unfortunately my backup CD is unreadable. I did see that there is free software for bbn development.

[_ClarkGoble]

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?

Now that sounds like software I would LOVE to have! Is it available? How do I go about getting it?

Most any good math program like Maple or Mathematica should be able to do this already. Bayesian systems are pretty simple mathematically. There's lots more complicated stuff that often provides better results. These days nearly everyone is moving to various types of neural nets.

[_ClarkGoble]

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?

I think some apologists want a silver bullet. For theological reasons I don't think there ever will be one until such matters are pointless. But I certainly agree a constant problem in contemporary apologetics has been overhyping elements that at best are part of a circumstantial argument. First chiasmus then nahom and I'm sure something else will come. Don't get me wrong I find such things interesting and at least chiasmus is helpful to understand texts. But I don't quite understand the desire to overhype them.

[_Philo Sofee]

Clark Goble

I think some apologists want a silver bullet. For theological reasons I don't think there ever will be one until such matters are pointless. But I certainly agree a constant problem in contemporary apologetics has been overhyping elements that at best are part of a circumstantial argument. First chiasmus then nahom and I'm sure something else will come. Don't get me wrong I find such things interesting and at least chiasmus is helpful to understand texts. But I don't quite understand the desire to overhype them.

Based on what little I understand and know, it is because with such an obviously enormous civilization the Nephites and Lamanites were supposed to be based on the Book of Mormon text, there really ought to be much, MUCH more that we find, yet we have truly, literally nothing in an actual world setting to verify anything. And so, anything helps, and things get blown out of proportion which takes our eyes off what matters. There is nothing in actual dirt archaeology to confirm anything in the Book of Mormon ever happened. At all. And there ought to be at least something. Our tools we have are sophisticated enough to find entire millions of people civilizations if they existed in a limited area. Ground and air radar, sonar, whatever, we ought to be able to find something and can't. That's my suspicion of why anything else is magnified, distorted and blown all out of proportion.

[_ClarkGoble]

Based on what little I understand and know, it is because with such an obviously enormous civilization the Nephites and Lamanites were supposed to be based on the Book of Mormon text, there really ought to be much, MUCH more that we find, yet we have truly, literally nothing in an actual world setting to verify anything. And so, anything helps, and things get blown out of proportion which takes our eyes off what matters.

Well I'm not sure it was this huge enormous civilization that was uniquely Nephite. Further most of the records that would have been useful to understand things were destroyed by the Spanish. The secondary records are so corrupted by Spanish influence that one has to assume Christological like parallels are more a Catholic influence.

Beyond that it's not clear what we should expect to find - don't get me wrong I'd love something that would be strong evidence. But I'm not necessarily expecting it. The data is just much more fragmentary than what we have of the ANE.

I can think of things that would be dramatic but not necessarily really indicative of much. So if, for instance horses were found (even though I don't think there were any) that'd be pretty interesting. But honestly it wouldn't really be strong evidence for the text. So what you'd need to find are some unambiguous texts to honestly indicate much. Anything short of that really doesn't establish much. As the old critic joke goes, where's the "Welcome to Zarahemla sign?"

[_Shulem]

Apologists only have ever dealt with possibility (following Hugh Nibley’s lead, for the most part), but the more weighty and significant probability is what is needed, since most anything is merely possible, but not most anything is probable. Probable is of much more important weight to getting us to what reality is.

The apologists are busy describing various interpretations of so-called parallels to attempt to justify Joseph Smith's silly translations with real Egyptology. Feeble attempts have been made to try and justify Joseph Smith's error in identifying rough personages of Facsimile No. 3 -- wherein two of the women in Facsimile No. 3 are supposedly men dressed up like women -- absolute ridiculous apologetics, for sure, and Hugh Nibey championed that nonesense.

There is no possible chance that the goddesses Isis and Maat that are labeled and portrayed in Facsimile No. 3, are really men dressing up for an Egyptian freak show as suggested by Hugh Nibley. Absolutely zero probability! Mormon apologetics is an absolute failure and all they have left is the hope and possibility that somehow these women really are men like Joseph Smith said. Take zerinus for example. He has faith that the women in Facsimile No. 3 are really men. He's hoping that the Egyptian religion is just kinkly, a mumbled up shook up mess that can't tell the difference between a man and a woman.

Mormons apologetics is so screwed up that it can't tell the difference between a penis and a vagina. I'm being serious.

[_Shulem]

The new Joseph Smith Papers project also holds a tantalizing clue as to how we are to understand the description “the writings of Abraham with his own hand upon papyrus.” Under the entry for 14 December, 1835 Monday, after a description of Joseph Smith showing the Egyptian records to “a number of brethren from New York,” there is a line that Joseph Smith wrote – “To day I received a letter form [sic] Elder Orson Hyde from his own hand” but it has a line all the way through it. Notice the language. A letter “From his own hand” similar to what he described of Abraham’s record, “written by his own hand.” It’s not understood to be a later copy of a copy but written by Abraham himself, just as Orson Hyde’s letter was “written from his own hand.” This strike through phrase is not found in J.S. History vol. 2 (1834-1837), p. 332.

All of the evidence and the very words out of the mouth of Joseph Smith testify that the very papyrus had by the church was the very papyrus had by Abraham and was penned by his very own hand. The papyrus was an original document -- NOT a copy. It was the original document preserved by the hand of the Almighty God and given to the the Mormons as a gift from God.

Thus, the very papyrus had by the church bore the fingerprints of Abraham and the very sweat and oil from his skin was transferred into the papyrus to mingle with the message which ONLY Joseph Smith could translate.

People, we see clearly just how Joseph Smith has translated. He was utterly clueless of the goddesses of Egypt and couldn't recognize an Egyptian vagina if it jumped off the papyrus and bit him on the nose.

So much for the translations of the Mormon prophet!

[_Themis]

I can think of things that would be dramatic but not necessarily really indicative of much. So if, for instance horses were found (even though I don't think there were any) that'd be pretty interesting. But honestly it wouldn't really be strong evidence for the text. So what you'd need to find are some unambiguous texts to honestly indicate much. Anything short of that really doesn't establish much. As the old critic joke goes, where's the "Welcome to Zarahemla sign?"

Finding horse would get rid of one of the many problems that the Book of Mormon has. It won't provide positive evidence for the Book of Mormon being a story of a real people, but it would remove some negative evidence which would be good start. It would show the Book of Mormon as being more plausible then where it is right now being very implausible.

[_ClarkGoble]

There is no possible chance that the goddesses Isis and Maat that are labeled and portrayed in Facsimile No. 3, are really men dressing up for an Egyptian freak show as suggested by Hugh Nibley. Absolutely zero probability! .

Earnest question since I'm relatively ignorant here. But why? There are accounts of that happening during the resurgence of the Isis cult under Nero. I recognize that has no bearing on Abraham but you seem to be making a broader point about how this might be viewed in late antiquity from what I can tell.

[_ClarkGoble]

Finding horse would get rid of one of the many problems that the Book of Mormon has. It won't provide positive evidence for the Book of Mormon being a story of a real people, but it would remove some negative evidence which would be good start. It would show the Book of Mormon as being more plausible then where it is right now being very implausible.

Yup. That's basically what I was saying. As positive evidence it doesn't amount to much. At best it addresses the much weaker plausibility argument or circumstantial arguments.