Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Shulem]

Skousen wants the Facsimiles to go away because he knows they are nothing more than a liability for his personal testimony of the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith. He would be fine if they simply disappeared into oblivion and the Church disavowed them and reclassified them as advertisements to introduce and present the Book of Abraham. In other words, the Facsimiles were simply works done by Church artist Reuben Hedlock who presented them as a means to get attention for the Church. And Hedlock cut off the nose of Anubis without Smith's permission! Blame the artist!

How does that sound, Skousen? McGuire, where are you -- you chicken! Buck-buck-buck...

Now, let's get rid of chapter one of the Book of Abraham because everyone knows that Egypt was not founded AFTER the flood and everyone knows that Egypt is older than the fiction made up in chapter one. Isn't that right, Skousen? Don't you dare lie and say otherwise.

Do I hear pages ripping? Do I hear the sound of tearing paper? Hey, Skousen, grab that page by your thumb and index finger and rip it out because you know it's utter BS.

Calling BYP, come in BYP...

[Shulem]

Shulem!

[Kishkumen]

You guys are talking in circles. Smith most definitely repurposed the papyri. In antiquity the papyri had one purpose. He put them to another purpose. What gets you guys worked up is that he did not explain to others that this is what he was doing. That is because he called what he did translating. I really don’t care what anyone believes or does not believe about any of that. You are free to surmise that his process is evidence of dishonesty or fraud. You can also believe that whatever his process was should be understood as part of the act of translation. In either case, Smith objectively did repurpose the ancient papyri by modifying them and reinterpreting them in an idiosyncratic way.

[Shulem]

You guys are talking in circles. Smith most definitely repurposed the papyri. In antiquity the papyri had one purpose. He put them to another purpose. What gets you guys worked up is that he did not explain to others that this is what he was doing. That is because he called what he did translating. I really don’t care what anyone believes or does not believe about any of that. You are free to surmise that his process is evidence of dishonesty or fraud. You can also believe that whatever his process was should be understood as part of the act of translation. In either case, Smith objectively did repurpose the ancient papyri by modifying them and reinterpreting them in an idiosyncratic way.

OKAY, have it your way, Kish. You can have the last word. Frankly, I don't give a damn.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You guys are talking in circles. Smith most definitely repurposed the papyri. In antiquity the papyri had one purpose. He put them to another purpose. What gets you guys worked up is that he did not explain to others that this is what he was doing. That is because he called what he did translating. I really don’t care what anyone believes or does not believe about any of that. You are free to surmise that his process is evidence of dishonesty or fraud. You can also believe that whatever his process was should be understood as part of the act of translation. In either case, Smith objectively did repurpose the ancient papyri by modifying them and reinterpreting them in an idiosyncratic way.

What con man explains his con to his victims? If one wants to believe Smith really believed his own nonsense then so be it. I would suggest most people who are privy to this affair, rightfully so, see through and are disgusted by it.

- Doc

[Kishkumen]

I know, Shulem. I didn’t expect you to give a damn. You are a critic, not an apologist or academic scholar. For you the point is to reveal Smith as a bad person.

[Shulem]

I know, Shulem. I didn’t expect you to give a damn. You are a critic, not an apologist or academic scholar. For you the point is to reveal Smith as a bad person.

Fair enough!

I am the best Book of Abraham critic on the planet.

Yeah baby!

[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.

Compared to an actual eyewitness who shook hands with the prophet Joseph Smith:

• Today I paid Br. Joseph a visit . . . .

• saw the rolls of papyrus, and the writings thereon . . . .

• some of the writing of ancient Abraham and of Joseph . . . .

• They give a description of some of the scenes of ancient Egypt . . .

• There are likewise representations of an Altar erected, with a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar . . . .

• A Celestial globe, with the planet Kolob or first creation of the supreme Being . . . .

• Abraham also in the Court of Pharaoh sitting upon the King’s throne . . . .

• There is also a vivid description given on the Papyrus, of the creation, far more accurately and minutely, than the account given in the Bible . . . .

So, who do believe best represents Joseph Smith's personal testimony of the papyri?

[ ] Skousen
[X] Appleby

[Kishkumen]

What con man explains his con to his victims? If one wants to believe Smith really believed his own nonsense then so be it. I would suggest most people who are privy to this affair, rightfully so, see through and are disgusted by it.

- Doc

Yes, if we assume that Smith is a con man, then not explaining the “translation” process would easily fit into the con man paradigm. I agree that those things work together nicely to reaffirm our views. That is not the only way to interpret the evidence, but it is the way that will be most welcome here. Ben McGuire’s views are understandably not so attractive in these parts.

[Kishkumen]

So, who do believe best represents Joseph Smith's personal testimony of the papyri?

[ ] Skousen
[X] Appleby

I agree 100%. Skousen is dead wrong.