Joseph Smith & a LITERAL 3500 Year Old Abraham Autograph

[Guest]

You really are ignorant. Do you realize just how silly and foolish you are?

The document was suppressed by the LDS church (kept hidden) and later exposed to the world through the Tanners. The document is in the LDS church archives.

It is genuine.

Sorry, not convinced.

You'll be convinced once I destroy your testimony.

Go ask your bishop. Better yet, go ask your stake president. I'll bet they are just as ignorant as you are.

[_Shulem]

Sorry, not convinced.

You will be. Now that I have you exactly where I want.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/valuable-discovery-circa-early-july-1835/1

[_Shulem]

LOL! Try again.

LOL, I just did. Your snappy judgments of the document being fraudulent and dubious were 100% wrong.

It just goes to show how ignorant you are on this topic. Little wonder you don't want to discuss the Explanations of the Facsimiles!

[_Shulem]

So you reject this because we don't have the original but you accept the Book of Mormon?

LOL indeed.

He has the original now. It's easy to string a novice along. I feel kinda guilty, though, like I'm beating up a kid.

I promise you, he will lose his testimony. The clock is ticking. The charges have been set. The dirty deed has been done.

[_Fence Sitter]

So a few pages back we have Z making this assertion about the Haven account.

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?

Then a page or two later Z makes this unsubstantiated attack on Egyptologist in general:

There is no “evidence” that “disproves” the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. The fact that today’s Egyptologists think the facsimiles mean something different from what Joseph Smith believed they meant, does not make him wrong and the Egyptologists right. It means that he knew something that the Egyptologists don’t

Then Z turns around after attacking the very basis of the missing scroll theory (the Haven account and LDS Egyptologist like Gee) and argues for the missing scroll theory here.

The text of the Book of Abraham does not appear to have survived the fire that destroyed much of the manuscript.

So which is it Z, is the Haven account reliable & Jon Gee training as an Egyptologist acceptable or can we reject any notion of the missing scroll theory because

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.

and

The fact that today’s Egyptologists think the facsimiles mean something different from what Joseph Smith believed they meant, does not make him wrong and the Egyptologists right. It means that he knew something that the Egyptologists don’t.

My prediction is Z says something to the effect that witnesses and Egyptologists are only reliable when they agree with Joseph Smith.

Oh and I love the fact Z is disputing the provenance of original documents in the possession of and published by the LDS church itself, showing once again how uninformed he is on this issue, an ignorance he seems unwilling to take the time to rectify by actually reading something.

[_Shulem]

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 trust you now find it's indeed reliable information since it's in agreement with what the faithful saints were saying all along, to include Joseph Smith himself.

By the way, can you supply references to support your knowledge that there were false or made up stories abounding in the newspapers about what Mormons were saying regarding their mummies and papyrus? I want to examine your "made up stories" that fit the description in question. Or are you just blowing smoke and making stuff up out of thin air? If so, I caught you in a lie.

Thanks in advance.

[_grindael]

Here are the full color pictures from the book "A Valuable Discovery" found at the Joseph Smith Papers Website...

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... uly-1835/1



TANNERS, SHULEM, VINDICATED, ZERINUS LOOKING STUPID ONCE AGAIN....



I suppose next it will be the Joseph Smith Papers that will be called a "dubious website". Man this guy will do anything to deny the truth and prop up his phony narrative about Joseph Smith.

[_Maksutov]

[_zerinus]

Sorry, not convinced.

You will be. Now that I have you exactly where I want.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/valuable-discovery-circa-early-july-1835/1

Thank you, that is a better source. But where does it say anything in there about the identity of the mummies, or their ages etc? I didn't see any. All it does is that it copies a bunch of hieroglyphics from the papyri, apparently written underneath some male and female figures, with a brief note on the identity of the figures, not the actual mummies themselves. The ages that it talks about appears to be the ages of the figures on the papyri, rather than the mummies. But let us assume that it does refer to the actual mummies, what conclusion do you draw form that? How does that bit of information invalidate the Book of Abraham?

[Guest]

Delete