Conflict of Justice CES Letter Fail (Book of Abraham apologetic site)

[_Shulem]

Calling Kerry, calling Kerry! Hello Kerry.

Have you seen this LDS apologetic website defending the Book of Abraham?

Did Joseph Smith Incorrectly Fill In Missing Parts Of Facsimile 1?

The dude has several sections regarding the Book of Abraham and viciously attacks the CES letter as if Satan himself wrote it. I ain't kidding. Put your atheist crap down and take a look at this vomit oozing out of the mouth of a Mormon fanatic.

[_Maksutov]

Dude's a pretentious loon. See below.
............

When you look into Letter to a CES Director, you find disturbing propaganda tactics straight out of 19th century Communism.

Just about every paragraph in CES Letter is dedicated to finding a contradiction in Mormon belief. That’s basically what CES Letter is all about. In the very first sentence, we see that the Book of Mormon claims to be ancient scripture yet “1769 King James” errors are present. How could it be ancient scripture then?

Law of Identity

One assumption of science is that natural laws are universally the same wherever you go. If a principle is the same no matter what circumstances it is in, that is a universal truth. Karl Marx and Engels built the Communist ideology on the study of social motion through dialectic:

“Dialectical philosophers claim that contradictions exist in reality and that the most appropriate way to understand the movement of that reality is to study the development of those contradictions… they have to be expunged in order to arrive at the truth.”
...............

Any criticism of Mormonism is clearly Communism. What an incoherent putz.

[_Shulem]

Big Lie Tactic – Most anti-Mormons say that the Book of Abraham is the “smoking gun” that disproves Mormonism. But that is just because they assume that the recovered papyri fragments are the source for the Book of Abraham. It is a big lie that compounds as we delve into further investigation and leads to other lies. This is why CES Letter frames the discussion where the small fragment is definitely what Joseph Smith claimed to use–not a different scroll or different part of that scroll.

So, this loony-ass apologist alludes that LDS critics (anti-Mormons) are of the same class as Nazis. What a loon! The pure workings of a Mormon cultist. What a nut.

[_Philo Sofee]

Calling Kerry, calling Kerry! Hello Kerry.

Have you seen this LDS apologetic website defending the Book of Abraham?

Did Joseph Smith Incorrectly Fill In Missing Parts Of Facsimile 1?

The dude has several sections regarding the Book of Abraham and viciously attacks the CES letter as if Satan himself wrote it. I ain't kidding. Put your atheist crap down and take a look at this vomit oozing out of the mouth of a Mormon fanatic.

Oh Good! I have more fun to have........ thanks for the heads up.

[_Shulem]

And maybe Joseph Smith was guessing himself. How was he supposed to know what missing parts looked like? He was only giving the scene’s meaning and the Abrahamic context. That doesn’t necessarily mean he knew how the missing parts should look like.

There is no "maybe" about it. Joseph Smith was guessing his guesses as he translated and interpreted all three of the Facsimiles, you dumb ass! How was he supposed to know what the missing parts looked like? What kind of jackass question is that coming from someone who is supposed to be sustaining a prophet, SEER, and revelator? Don't you know that seers are supposed to SEE and that's how he would know what the missing parts were supposed to look like? Hello! What do you mean he was "only giving" the scene's meaning? You mean he wasn't really translating Egyptian just giving his meanings the meanings he wanted to give while he pretended to read Egyptian as he did with his Explanations in Facsimile No. 3.

You're a jackass!

[_Shulem]

What difference did it make if the priest on the side wore a jackal mask or not? Discrepancies would only matter if they were substantially different. In fact, as we shall see, Joseph Smith’s fill-ins turns out to be more accurate than CES Letter‘s “modern Egyptology.”

Joseph Smith's fill-ins accurate?

Due to the damaged Hypocephalus Joseph Smith added upside down hieroglyphic characters compliments of his craftsman, Reuben Hedlock in Facsimile No. 2.

Joseph Smith put a white man's head atop the body of a black man in Facsimile No. 1 and you call that accurate Egyptology? Joseph Smith was so stupid he couldn't tell the difference between a black man and a white man!

You are a jackass!

[_Symmachus]

When you look into Letter to a CES Director, you find disturbing propaganda tactics straight out of 19th century Communism.

Just about every paragraph in CES Letter is dedicated to finding a contradiction in Mormon belief. That’s basically what CES Letter is all about. In the very first sentence, we see that the Book of Mormon claims to be ancient scripture yet “1769 King James” errors are present. How could it be ancient scripture then?

Law of Identity

One assumption of science is that natural laws are universally the same wherever you go. If a principle is the same no matter what circumstances it is in, that is a universal truth. Karl Marx and Engels built the Communist ideology on the study of social motion through dialectic:

“Dialectical philosophers claim that contradictions exist in reality and that the most appropriate way to understand the movement of that reality is to study the development of those contradictions… they have to be expunged in order to arrive at the truth.”

Oh my god this is hilarious. Are you sure this isn't satire?

[_Dr Exiled]

Does anyone know if this is the same teancum that posts over at MD&D?

[_Stem]

They [anti-Mormons]frame the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham as a “model” that has no evidence for it

and

I think it would be detrimental to Mormonism if undeniable evidence were found

That was a cute read. I like this part where he identifies himself as a "anti-Mormon". Perhaps with defenders like this...

Oh...and I guess I wanted to point out this too:

Most anti-Mormons say that the Book of Abraham is the “smoking gun” that disproves Mormonism. But that is just because they assume that the recovered papyri fragments are the source for the Book of Abraham. It is a big lie that compounds as we delve into further investigation and leads to other lies. This is why CES Letter frames the discussion where the small fragment is definitely what Joseph Smith claimed to use–not a different scroll or different part of that scroll.

"most" huh? Ok. They assume the recovered papyri fragments are the source? I'm pretty sure those who don't think the Book of Abraham is scripture or ancient don't really think the papyri are the source of the Book of Abraham at all. What he means to say is he think the source of the Book of Abraham is in the lost papyri and those who argue that Joseph and others seemed to think the source was found in the extant portions are wrong because he disagrees. Therefore they are liars.

I'm saying, cute stuff.

[_Shulem]

This fruitcake apologist advocates the missing papyrus theory. He's using deceptive tactics and methods to advance his ideas and yet totally disregards the historical evidences and claims of the founders of the Book of Abraham.

I'd love to shove the Facsimile down his throat just like I did to poor sorry zerinus who has since fled the board. That coward choked on the Facsimile No. 3 and his testimony days are numbered.

I keep saying it folks, Facsimile No. 3 is the silver bullet in which to build the case against Joseph Smith. Hang everything else on it. The apologists can't defend the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 and look you straight in the eyes with an honest face.

Just recently I have made things worse for Facsimile No. 3 in showing that there probably was a jackal head removed from the woodcut which shows that Joseph Smith was pulling a fast one.

I've been pondering the idea about creating a new presentation against the Book of Abraham using the formula and information that I know will utterly destroy the credibility of the Book of Abraham and force the apologists to retreat. I just don't know if I want to bother with it all. I know Mormon Think would publish such a work. But do I do it? The whole thing gets old after a while but from what I've seen no one has yet put out a winning presentation with a killer punch.