Joseph Smith & a LITERAL 3500 Year Old Abraham Autograph

[_Maksutov]

I accept the translation that Joseph Smith made of it (as far as he intended to make it) to be correct. There is nothing more to add to that. If you disagree with that translation, then I think you are wrong and he is right. I think Joseph Smith knew something that you don't know. What else is there left for me to say about that?

That's the weakest apologetic argument I've ever run across. You really are a lightweight that cuts and runs. But not so fast! I'm not going to let you get away with it. You have not provided any evidence to show that Joseph Smith was in anyway harmonious with anything that has to do with modern Egyptology and science. Not a single thing. All you do is say that Smith knew something that modern Egyptology doesn't and therefore his conclusions are correct regardless of how ridiculous Smith's translation become. Turning a girl into a boy! That's Joseph Smith's Egyptology! How do you arrive at that? What could Joseph Smith possibly know that would strip the vagina of a girl and put a penis on her? Where is the logic in this? There is none! Everything Joseph Smith did to Facsimile No. 3 is a mumbled up mixed up mess and totally wrong. There is nothing in all of ancient Egypt that could excuse this kind of nonsense.

We haven't even begin to discuss Facsimile No. 2. I want to rip you a new one, zerinus, and I will. I'll take the Explanations of Facsimile No. 2 and the blatant errors and blunders Joseph Smith made regarding his restoration of the damaged Hypocephallus and ram them down your childish throat.

No, you won't. He's swallowed so much shite already, he's full. He's got to vomit it up before he can let anything in, and it's a waiting game to see if that ever happens before he dies.

But you can provide us with the lessons he's not willing to learn, because there are dozens of lurkers out there who aren't afraid to read and think. So please, teach us.

[_zerinus]

Bullet #1, Bang!

October 17th, 1840 an article testified of the prophet's contemplation of possible royal connections with the mummies. A reporter for the Quincy Whig newspaper toured the Egyptian exhibit and personally interviewed President Smith. We learn that the Mormons asserted that the mummies were royal ― perhaps as far back as Moses himself. . . .

Thank you. I consider none of that to be reliable first-hand information. There was a lot of prejudice against Joseph Smith and the Church in those days, and false or made up stories of that description abound. I downloaded a copy of Jay M. Todd’s book on to my PC, and after a quick search found the following (emphasis added):

“Madame Smith's residence is a log house very near her son's. She opened the door and received us cordially. She is a motherly kind of woman of about sixty years. She receives a little pittance by exhibiting The Mummies to strangers. When we asked to see them, she lit a candle and conducted us up a short, [narrow] stairway to a low, dark room under the roof. On one side were standing half a dozen mummies, to whom she introduced us, King Onitus and his royal household,—one she did not know. Then she took up what seemed to be a club wrapped in a dark cloth, and said "This is the leg of Pharaoh's daughter, the one that saved Moses." Repressing a smile, I looked from the mummies to the old lady, but could detect nothing but earnestness and sincerity on her countenance. Then she turned to a long table, set her candle-stick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was "the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit," and she read several minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like passages from the Old Testament—and it might have been for anything we knew—but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who—the serpent, I mean—was standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear. I said, "But serpents don't have legs."”

This is supposed to be from an interview with Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith’s mother, printed in that book. Sorry, I am not buying it. And your particular quote need not be any more reliable than that.

[_schreech]

[_Shulem]

Bullet #1, Bang!

October 17th, 1840 an article testified of the prophet's contemplation of possible royal connections with the mummies. A reporter for the Quincy Whig newspaper toured the Egyptian exhibit and personally interviewed President Smith. We learn that the Mormons asserted that the mummies were royal ― perhaps as far back as Moses himself. . . .

Thank you. I consider none of that to be reliable first-hand information. There was a lot of prejudice against Joseph Smith and the Church in those days, and false or made up stories of that description abound.

You unjustly consider the newspaper article to be unreliable first-hand information, but the early Mormons and Joseph Smith did not. Where are the refutations from the Latter Day Saint church and it's President stating that the Quincy Whig was misreporting a personal interview with the Mormon prophet?

You're making it up, zerinus. You have no cause to slam the Quincy Whig or its reporter. You just don't happen to like what Joseph Smith said so you slam the Whig which made a first-hand report of what Smith actually said about the ancient Egyptian relics.

That was a cheap shot.

[_zerinus]

You unjustly consider the newspaper article to be unreliable first-hand information, but the early Mormons and Joseph Smith did not. Where are the refutations from the Latter Day Saint church and it's President stating that the Quincy Whig was misreporting a personal interview with the Mormon prophet?

We do know for a fact that a lot of misreporting was going on. See D&C 123 to see how the Church viewed it at the time.

[_Shulem]

“Madame Smith's residence is a log house very near her son's. She opened the door and received us cordially. She is a motherly kind of woman of about sixty years. She receives a little pittance by exhibiting The Mummies to strangers. When we asked to see them, she lit a candle and conducted us up a short, [narrow] stairway to a low, dark room under the roof. On one side were standing half a dozen mummies, to whom she introduced us, King Onitus and his royal household,—one she did not know. Then she took up what seemed to be a club wrapped in a dark cloth, and said "This is the leg of Pharaoh's daughter, the one that saved Moses." Repressing a smile, I looked from the mummies to the old lady, but could detect nothing but earnestness and sincerity on her countenance. Then she turned to a long table, set her candle-stick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was "the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit," and she read several minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like passages from the Old Testament—and it might have been for anything we knew—but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who—the serpent, I mean—was standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear. I said, "But serpents don't have legs."”

This is supposed to be from an interview with Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith’s mother, printed in that book. Sorry, I am not buying it. And your particular quote need not be any more reliable than that.

Nonmember Charlotte Haven had the opportunity to see the Egyptian antiquities firsthand with the prophet's mother. Charlotte retells this experience in a letter she wrote to her own mother in 1843. Judging from the contents of the whole letter we may determine that to the best of her knowledge Charlotte gave an honest and accurate account. It was for the most part a courteous report of her visit to Nauvoo.

Once again, zerinus, you slam another person who is simply making an honest and fair report of what they witnessed. You deny the evidence and refuse to see reason.

[_Fence Sitter]

Nonmember Charlotte Haven had the opportunity to see the Egyptian antiquities firsthand with the prophet's mother. Charlotte retells this experience in a letter she wrote to her own mother in 1843. Judging from the contents of the whole letter we may determine that to the best of her knowledge Charlotte gave an honest and accurate account. It was for the most part a courteous report of her visit to Nauvoo.

Once again, zerinus, you slam another person who is simply making an honest and fair report of what they witnessed. You deny the evidence and refuse to see reason.

Shulem,

I am fine with the rejection of the Haven account. I mean it isn't like it is critical to the defense of the Book of Abraham in any way now is it?




I wonder how long it will take Z to figure out he just threw the missing scroll theory under the bus.

[_Shulem]

You unjustly consider the newspaper article to be unreliable first-hand information, but the early Mormons and Joseph Smith did not. Where are the refutations from the Latter Day Saint church and it's President stating that the Quincy Whig was misreporting a personal interview with the Mormon prophet?

We do know for a fact that a lot of misreporting was going on. See D&C 123 to see how the Church viewed it at the time.

I agree with you, there were a lot of false reports against the Mormons and some were unfriendly. But the ones you just slammed are not at all unfriendly against the Mormons. They were simply reporting what they heard and saw as any honest citizen would want to do.

Your problem is you don't like what they are saying because it implicates your founding prophet in ways you don't like, such as the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. You don't like those either but you have to eat them. It's LDS canon.

[_zerinus]

Nonmember Charlotte Haven had the opportunity to see the Egyptian antiquities firsthand with the prophet's mother. Charlotte retells this experience in a letter she wrote to her own mother in 1843. Judging from the contents of the whole letter we may determine that to the best of her knowledge Charlotte gave an honest and accurate account. It was for the most part a courteous report of her visit to Nauvoo.

LOL! Nonmember Charlotte Haven heard Lucy Smith read fluently from Hebrew, Egyptian, and Sanskrit on the egyptian papyri by the spirit of her son Joseph Smith, and that was just an honest misunderstanding. If that be the case, how can you trust anything that any of them ever said?

[_Maksutov]

In my own defense, years ago an apologist offered to teach me the Book of Mormon. Having already worked my way through various websites and discussions, and books among them Rough Stone Rolling, I took him up on his offer.

I'll admit that the material was foreign to me, and yes, the chapters were a dry read for me, and yet I read through every chapter summary he supplied me and read those chapters because I wanted to expand my knowledge about Mormonism and do justice to the religion that I had been previously known to attack pretty darn viciously (due to anger) online though there is no evidence of that on this particular board.

Sadly, we didn't finish our joint project due to in real life. However, the point is both his willingness to teach and my own willingness to learn from someone in a position that was diametrically opposed to everything I felt I stood for as a Christian and pulled no punches in my long ago criticisms.

On this thread you have the opportunity to learn what evidences have led to the apostasy of former apologists and why. You have an opportunity to learn, to increase your knowledge base and develop new insight.

My apologist teacher is on this thread. And, you are blowing your moment by acting like an impertinent child who stubbornly refuses to learn.

What are you so afraid of?

Thanks for trying, Jersey.