Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Shulem]

Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book.

Who the hell are you, Royal Skousen, to steady Joseph Smith's ark? How dare you run the prophet over with your apostate bus! Are you going to get in a time machine and go back to Nauvoo 1842 and tell Joseph Smith that his work means this and that? Royal Skousen, you're freaking nuts if you think you can steady the 1842 Mormon ark! You'd be thrown out of the church and shown the door. Let the brethren of Nauvoo call for your excommunication!

Look, the Book of Abraham in its entirety as given in 1842 was presented to the entire congregation of the Church in the Times and Seasons and later canonized in 1880 under the direction of John Taylor who helped publish the original work. There isn't a damn thing you can do to change that.

Deal with it. You're stuck with that rubbish in your scriptures, like or not.

[Moksha]

Deal with it. You're stuck with that rubbish in your scriptures, like it or not.

What if Mormons realize that parts of their scriptures are deficient as you describe? Shouldn't they be allowed to change it into something positive, or at least more believable? For instance, in the story, I would like to hear more about space travel involving Kolob and the fifteen governing planets. Maybe give Captain Moroni his own Starship.

[Shulem]

What if Mormons realize that parts of their scriptures are deficient as you describe? Shouldn't they be allowed to change it into something positive, or at least more believable? For instance, in the story, I would like to hear more about space travel involving Kolob and the fifteen governing planets. Maybe give Captain Moroni his own Starship.

You bring up an important point, Moksha. First, let it be understood that there is nothing the Mormons today can do to change history. It's already written and already has transpired. We have the Book of Abraham as published in the Times and Seasons in 1842 given under the direction of Joseph Smith who presented that work. There is nothing modern Mormons can do to change that! Sure, they can change the Book of Abraham all they want and publish it anew but that does nothing for the saints in 1842 and Joseph Smith who was the head of *that* Church and the leader of the last dispensation.

What's done is done and I love to show how Joseph Smith got it wrong and he faked, lied, and cheated in what he did.

Amen.

[yellowstone123]

Shulem you have won your case. Gee loses.

Indeed, I have won my case! The battles have been fought and the lines have been drawn. The war is over and Joseph Smith lost. The Church today has the smoldering ruins of the Book of Abraham in its possession and there is nothing it can do to revive it or save it. It's over.

The following threads in the Celestial forum serve to show there is nothing the apologists can do to further the cause of the Book of Abraham and the world will never, ever, embrace it.

Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative

“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Anubis in Facsimile No. 3 and Mormon Deception

Hey, Gee, it sucks to be you. How do you sleep at night knowing you're living a lie?

Well said Shulem.

[Shulem]

And this would mean that the meaning of the facsimiles in the context of the Book of Abraham should NOT be understood as translations of some Egyptian text but rather that they should be understood as documents produced by Joseph Smith that borrowed from earlier documents in a purely aesthetic fashion. What matters isn't the original context, or their original meaning (which has been tossed aside) but the meaning and context given to them by Joseph Smith.

You, McGuire, are a dumdum. You really are dumb. Pull your head out of your...

Smith is on record and published exactly what he said and he said exactly what he meant. And there are many eyewitnesses and testimonials who bore record of that work. Smith revealed and translated original Egyptian into English. That is what he claimed, nothing less and nothing more. The original Egyptian meaning and translation was what Joseph Smith claimed!

which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh

called by the Egyptians Oliblish

also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand

Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh

The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.

[Shulem]

And this would mean that the meaning of the facsimiles in the context of the Book of Abraham should NOT be understood as translations of some Egyptian text

Listen up, dodo, Joseph Smith meant what he said and said what he meant and here is a clear and precise example of just that:

. . . and it will not be beyond the common use of terms, to say that good is among the most important in use, and though known by various names in different languages, still its meaning is the same, and is ever in opposition to bad. We say from the Saxon, good; the Dane, god; the Goth, goda; the German, gut; the Dutch, goed; the Latin, bonus; the Greek, kalos; the Hebrew, tob; and the Egyptian, mon. Hence, with the addition of more, or the contraction, mor, we have the word Mormon; which means, literally, more good.
Yours,
JOSEPH SMITH.

So, when Smith says, "which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh" or "Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh," he means just that.

[Shulem]

which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh

called by the Egyptians Oliblish

also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand

Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh

. . . and it will not be beyond the common use of terms, to say that good is among the most important in use, and though known by various names in different languages, still its meaning is the same, and is ever in opposition to bad. We say from the Saxon, good; the Dane, god; the Goth, goda; the German, gut; the Dutch, goed; the Latin, bonus; the Greek, kalos; the Hebrew, tob; and the Egyptian, mon. Hence, with the addition of more, or the contraction, mor, we have the word Mormon; which means, literally, more good.
Yours,
JOSEPH SMITH.

So, when Smith says, "which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh" or "Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh," he means just that.

Compare with:

• which is called by the Hebrews tob
  Is called in Hebrew tob

• which is called by the Greeks kalos
  Is called in Greek kalos

• which is called by the Germans gut
  Is called in German gut

That is translation. McGuire, you're a dope. Sorry, but you are.

[Shulem]

Hilarious! ANYTHING but what Joseph Smith and the eyewitnesses said. Their revelations didn't give us truth, today's Mopologists know the truth, trust them...

But wait! You mean u don't trust McGuire? Really? But he's such a fine scholar, right?

[Shulem]

If it's a square peg and a round hole, then round that peg, but pretend it is still that original and true square shape, and mash er in the hole boys...

How many nails does it take to seal up the Book of Abraham in its coffin?

[hauslern]

Ben is giving me a headache He latest contribution on the MAD board

"1: In their original context, I don't think that there was anything to do with Abraham on the papyri. I think that we could speculate endlessly about why Joseph Smith connected the papyri to Abraham - but, once he did so, he repurposed the material and images to a new purpose."

Does anyone make sense of this?

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75 ... /#comments