Do historical facts matter? or is LDS 'teflon' to them?

[_brade]

Not just the sales technique taught to LDS missionaries, but a problem that nags at the Moroni promise epistemology itself.

Actually, I think the language of Mormoni's promise is ambiguous about whether you'll learn the truth of religious propositions directly or associatively. However, I do think other statements of Joseph Smith clarify that what he has in mind is often something associative. For example, this:

A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon; (i.e.) those things that were presented unto your minds by the Spirit of God, will come to pass; and thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus.

What seems to be suggested here is that you might find yourself with ideas and upon seeing their later fulfillment you can know that they were true, and thus revealed. This is not direct, because some kind of reasoning is involved in getting from some putative spiritual experience to the belief of some religious proposition.

Now that I think about it It'd probably be simpler to divide the models into direct and indirect instead of direct and associative. Anyway, in the philosophical literature I've read it seems to be taken for granted that what I call the "associative" or (now) "indirect" models don't do a good job of justifying religious beliefs, and defenders of religious belief spend all their time supporting some kind of direct model.

[_Tobin]

I stated facts based on data. You claimed I ignored you, which I didn't, but understand Tobin, I do understand why you need to ignore the factual data. If you could respond with factual data, you would, but you can't.

LOL Again, you didn't respond to what I said so I'll simply state - there is nothing to talk to you about on the items above.

Read the OP Tobin... it's about facts. When you state "there is nothing to talk to you about on the items above" it's because you can't even acknowledge the facts, so you must ignore them and play this dodge-ball to imply you've made some sort of point, which you haven't.

Please show me where I did not respond to or acknowledge one of the facts stated? And when (or if you ever do)you want to get around to responding to what I said to each of those, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

You didn't cite any facts I hadn't already acknowledged.

The only facts you did acknowledge is that Joseph Smith incorrectly translated the pagan papyrus and he had sex with many women and little girls. What you then did was claim it has no significance, followed by your spoon-fed retort to make the dissonance go away. Ok, so Joseph Smith used his power to cheat on his wife and have sex with little girls... no big deal to you. When you go on to say that the Book of Abraham was an "inspired" work, it's using your opinion that opposes the fact that Joseph Smith clearly stated (more than once) that he translated the papyrus. You also didn't acknowledge there never was an Urim and Thummim and Joseph Smith's seer stones were the only tools used to translate every single word of the Book of Mormon. LDSfaqs will tell you there's 7 different translation methods, which isn't true, but if you need some KoolAid toi force it to make sense, go ahead, but it isn't the truth and you didn't acknowledge it nor reference the facts presented. You also didn't acknowledge there is not one single piece of tangible proof regarding the historicity in Joseph Smith's tall tale... zero.

Again, you are just misrepresenting things. First, your response it to characterize his polygamous relationships as pedophilia. That is just garbage. Second you state that Joseph Smith never claimed to have the U&T or use it despite many references to it in Church literature. Again, just more outright misrepresentations and lies. And your final assertion is that there is zero historicity in Joseph Smith's story. That is just a cop-out. Prove to me that there was a historical Moses and that he split the Red Sea or any large body of water. Or that there was a historical Jesus and he healed the sick and walked on water. Your call for "historical" proof of such things is nothing more than a charade.

You didn't respond to what I said. And you haven't made any case about why I should assign any significance to the statements above nor why I should care at all. You can pretend to state you have facts all you want. The question is are they are important in determining any thing. So far, I don't see why a Mormon such as myself should care at all.

I responded to everything to what you said. You failed to acknowledge/answer the factual data presented. Feel free to take a second grade tactic of "did so" in stumbling to make a point, but the facts presented were not answered by you, and that's because you can't acknowledge them... they're unimportant to you. If I failed to answer a question you asked me that doesn't consist of "so what?" in its entirety, please state it simply and I'll answer it and acknowledge any factual data you present.

Again, your responses were as I said misrepresentations or complete ignorance of the actually stated claims, or a lack of any response as the importance of the claim. For example, please tell me how by pointing out that Joseph Smith was a human being and flawed in the least makes the claim that the Book of Mormon is inspired false? Or is the Bible false because Peter sinned and was human? Or that Paul sinned and was human? Or that any of the prophets of the Bible were human? Or is it your claim that since Abraham was a polygamist that made him a fallen prophet? I don't have to go far to unveil your deceit and just how stupid your claims really are.

If you don't have answers (which you don't), then dodge the data (facts) presented. You claim I'm dodging everything and then run away... lame response.

Again, I don't have to dodge anything. I simply stated, "So what?". You haven't answered the question.

What question? Insert question here________________________________.

Why is what you stated important to a Mormon that has been told by God that the Book of Mormon is inspired and from God? I've stated this many times and you have yet to provide any adequate answer other than people don't speak to God, which you backed off of and then said they do because the Bible is true and you are a Christian. So apparently, you do believe people have spoken with God in the Bible and those people weren't crazy, so I'm fascinated to understand why they weren't crazy and people that speak to God now are?!?

What question? The data you didn't feel the need to respond to? Is "So what" a question, or the only response you can muster to appease your cognitive dissonance?

It isn't cognitive dissonance when you acknowledge something and state it is unimportant. You might say the 'sky is blue', but if I don't see any correlation with the matter at hand - I DO NOT CARE that the 'sky is blue'. Understand?!? So again I'll ask, 'SO WHAT?'

Wow... you've been drinking the LDS KoolAid for so long this makes sense to you. You may not care, but to the OP this is exactly the point... you don't care that what you believe isn't true... it's "unimportant" to you, which is why you fail to acknowledge the facts, because they don't tell you what you need them to tell you.

Again, point out where I haven't responded to the "facts" or where you have answered my questions about them or established in any way why the are important at all. Here I've explained the question, yet just a moment before you couldn't comprehend the question. I now have an additional question. What is wrong with you?

You believe God spoke to you... I get that. I also get the capacity for the human brain to be brainwashed, and I don't believe you even acknowledge this possibility. If you had the capacity for critical thought, you'd answer the factual data with something more than "is not" and flee.

And you would make the same claim about all those that God spoke with in the scriptures. As I said, you don't really believe in the Bible or that man has ever spoken with God. That is the point.

You're really ignorant. I believe in God Tobin, so you're wrong. I don't believe God spoke to you, nor sent you a "message" in some burning in the bosom form. You were told beforehand what you would feel, so when you felt it, you believed it. You are brainwashed Tobin, but brainwashed people don't know they're brainwashed. Would you have felt this "burning" if wasn't told to you in advance? You'll never know, just as you won't know how you'd think if you didn't hear "I know the church is true" thousands of times.

How do you know? Are you me? Do you read minds? Are you God? I find it absurd that on one hand you believe people talk to God, yet on the other you deny that people (or myself) today can speak with God. You are one mixed up and inconsistent fellow.

Don't tell me what I do or don't believe Tobin. I am a Christian and do believe in the Bible. Your ignorance of the facts that disprove your arguments leaves you with nothing but the "I'm rubber and you're glue" retort because it's all you have. If you wish to respond to the facts, then please do. Something like this:

I acknowledge the Book of Abraham is an incorrect translation by Joseph Smith of the papyrus and that he specifically stated it was a translation, but (insert a coherent response here).

I acknowledge there isn't only single piece of tangible evidence to prove on single story in the Book of Mormon true, but (insert a coherent response here).

I acknowledge that Joseph Smith used his power to have sex with many women and young girls, but (insert a coherent response here).

I acknowledge Joseph Smith used his seer stones to see evil treasure guardians before the Book of Mormon and those exact same seer stones were used to translate the golden plates, but (insert a coherent response here).

To the OP, you are covered in teflon and have nothing but ignorance of the facts to keep the fragile glue that keeps logic from entering the truth claims of Joseph Smith intact. It's called cognitive dissonance Tobin... forcing the round peg in the square hole because you actually believe God spoke to you. Enjoy your ignorant bliss, but quit pretending you're making any sense whatsoever by failing to address points presented based on factual data.

Funny. You are all over the place with these statements.

And again you acknowledge no factual data with anything more than rhetoric.

Again, same challenge. Show where I have not responded to or acknowledged the facts. Otherwise, you are full of it.

You deny people, including myself, can speak with God - yet now you believe people can speak with God.

I didn't know you could only read at a second grade level... I never said nor implied the above, but the exact opposite.

Oh really?!? You believe in the Bible. Did God speak to man or are you instead stating it never happened. Clearly, you don't understand what you believe and you accuse me of not being able to read. That's just funny.

You say not to judge you, but I was just following your own statements on the matter.

Ok, because you have trouble comprehending, I didn't say anything about judging me, it had to do with how LDS people ignore factual data.

Actually, you did.

Then you judge me stating I'm covered in teflon because 'I'm ignorant of the facts' - facts that I've acknowledged by the way.

You're easily amused if you laugh at you're own ignorance. You didn't acknowledge anything, but take the same tired tactic of the internet Mormon apologist by spinning in circles so often you're opponent just tires of conversing you. In a nutshell, you're ignorant and have not acknowledged any factual data.

Just more of the same tired charge. Again, show me where I haven't responded to each fact.

LOL You have yet to explain why I, a believing Mormon (or any Mormon for that matter) should assign any significance to any thing you've stated nor why we should view them as anything other than grossly distorted representations or completely unimportant.

You'd have to acknowledge the facts in order to understand what you claim is or isn't significant. You believe in magical occult seer stones placed in a hat, which were previously used to "see" evil treasure guardians for hire. There never was an "Urim and Thummim" Tobin, but if you wish to prove me wrong bring your data, because I'll mop the floor with it.

You keep making that "there wasn't U&T" assertion. Too funny. Clearly, you don't know the Mormon claims or understand them very well.

[_thews]

Just more of the same tired charge. Again, show me where I haven't responded to each fact.

You're not worth the effort Tobin. I've already pointed out (at least twice) and provided data to thwart your supposed "answers" to that data. In a nutshell, you're really the worst kind of internet LDS apologist, as you feel chasing rabbit holes is a good tactic, rather than just have an honest conversation. Now you want me to point out what you didn't respond to? How about you just clear the air and respond for the first time?

You said the book of Abraham was an "inspired" work by Joseph Smith. I pointed out (with linked references which you have no concept of) that Joseph Smith said he "translated" the papyrus and it was by Abraham's own hand. Along with that, let me give you some more data on facimile 3 of what Joseph Smith said it meant (which is totally wrong) :

http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm

Fig. 1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.
Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.
Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.

So, are you going to chase your rabbit hole yet again and claim this was "inspired" work that he supposedly got wrong? Or, are you going to admit that Joseph Smith claimed he was "translating" the papyrus and did so unsuccessfully which is the truth?

LOL You have yet to explain why I, a believing Mormon (or any Mormon for that matter) should assign any significance to any thing you've stated nor why we should view them as anything other than grossly distorted representations or completely unimportant.

You'd have to acknowledge the facts in order to understand what you claim is or isn't significant. You believe in magical occult seer stones placed in a hat, which were previously used to "see" evil treasure guardians for hire. There never was an "Urim and Thummim" Tobin, but if you wish to prove me wrong bring your data, because I'll mop the floor with it.

You keep making that "there wasn't U&T" assertion. Too funny. Clearly, you don't know the Mormon claims or understand them very well.

The first use of "Urim and Thummim" wasn't until 3 years after the Book of Mormon was published. The Nephite spectacles were taken back (according to D&C 10), so tell me Tobin, exactly when did the "Urim and Thummim" come into the picture and what happened to them? What did they look like? Are they in fact Joseph Smith's seer stones? I'll give you a hint... the correct answer is yes, they are Joseph Smith's seer stones.

To the OP, you are the definitive example of how the truth (based on fact) is teflon... it just doesn't matter, as long as you've got more rabbit holes to dive into to to pretend they really don't matter.

[_Tobin]

Just more of the same tired charge. Again, show me where I haven't responded to each fact.

You're not worth the effort Tobin. I've already pointed out (at least twice) and provided data to thwart your supposed "answers" to that data. In a nutshell, you're really the worst kind of internet LDS apologist, as you feel chasing rabbit holes is a good tactic, rather than just have an honest conversation. Now you want me to point out what you didn't respond to? How about you just clear the air and respond for the first time?

As I thought, your claims are just garbage then. You know I responded and you can not answer my question about why they matter at all.

You said the book of Abraham was an "inspired" work by Joseph Smith. I pointed out (with linked references which you have no concept of) that Joseph Smith said he "translated" the papyrus and it was by Abraham's own hand. Along with that, let me give you some more data on facimile 3 of what Joseph Smith said it meant (which is totally wrong) :

http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm

Fig. 1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.
Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.
Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.

So, are you going to chase your rabbit hole yet again and claim this was "inspired" work that he supposedly got wrong? Or, are you going to admit that Joseph Smith claimed he was "translating" the papyrus and did so unsuccessfully which is the truth?

As I've stated many times on here and I've acknowledged, Joseph Smith was initially mistaken in his comments about the papyrus. That is understandable because he couldn't read them and the Lord had to reveal the Book of Abraham. Your belief he "translated" the papyrus is simply ludicrous. He couldn't read Egyptian Hieroglyphics at all. So of course what God revealed of the Book of Abraham to him had to be "inspired". Also, your claim falls apart because it is based solely on that ridiculous assertion and so you assert his speculations about the Egyptian Hieroglyphics (you know, the stuff he couldn't read at all) invalidates the Book of Abraham. It does not since the Book of Abraham was an inspired text and so it was not translated from the papyrus.

You'd have to acknowledge the facts in order to understand what you claim is or isn't significant. You believe in magical occult seer stones placed in a hat, which were previously used to "see" evil treasure guardians for hire. There never was an "Urim and Thummim" Tobin, but if you wish to prove me wrong bring your data, because I'll mop the floor with it.

You keep making that "there wasn't U&T" assertion. Too funny. Clearly, you don't know the Mormon claims or understand them very well.

The first use of "Urim and Thummim" wasn't until 3 years after the Book of Mormon was published. The Nephite spectacles were taken back (according to D&C 10), so tell me Tobin, exactly when did the "Urim and Thummim" come into the picture and what happened to them? What did they look like? Are they in fact Joseph Smith's seer stones? I'll give you a hint... the correct answer is yes, they are Joseph Smith's seer stones.

Really?!? So your claim is there was no U&T because Joseph Smith didn't get around to writing his history till a few years later?!? That is ridiculous. Joseph Smith claims he had them and describes them repeatedly. You know that and so your view is patently sillly. You also know that I've repeatedly cited to you from the HC where Joseph Smith said he received them with the plates, that they were taken when the 116 pages were lost and RETURNED. I'll note you have made this same mistake again here!!! And of course the Lord eventually took them back. He took the plates back too. You are just playing fast and loose with the claims and making bizarre and ridiculous charges that completely ignore what Joseph Smith said (you know, the guy that actually received the Book of Mormon) because he wrote his history a few years later?!? Wow.

Here is the quote from the HC for your reference:

http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/HTMLHistory/v1c3history.html

p.21

In the meantime, while Martin Harris was gone with the writings, I went to visit my father's family at Manchester. I continued there for a short season, and then returned to my place in Pennsylvania. Immediately after my return home, I was walking out a little distance, when, behold, the former heavenly messenger appeared and handed to me the Urim and Thummim again--for it had been taken from me in consequence of my having wearied the Lord in asking for the privilege of letting Martin Harris take the writings, which he lost by transgression--and I inquired of the Lord through it, and obtained the following:

[_moksha]

Do historical facts matter? or is LDS 'Teflon' to them?

Whenever we rework something it shows that we persevere. Think how many times Edison had to make and remake the light bulb before he got it right.

[_thews]

Just more of the same tired charge. Again, show me where I haven't responded to each fact.

You're not worth the effort Tobin. I've already pointed out (at least twice) and provided data to thwart your supposed "answers" to that data. In a nutshell, you're really the worst kind of internet LDS apologist, as you feel chasing rabbit holes is a good tactic, rather than just have an honest conversation. Now you want me to point out what you didn't respond to? How about you just clear the air and respond for the first time?

As I thought, your claims are just garbage then. You know I responded and you can not answer my question about why they matter at all.

You keep "responding" claiming you've addressed the topic (which you didn't), and your question that "why they matter at all" is the crux of this OP. To you, facts don't matter. You can have 10 references from multiple sources to define what actually happened, yet you grasp at distortion that isn't backed by anything to make your argument. Again, to you the truth doesn't matter.

You said the book of Abraham was an "inspired" work by Joseph Smith. I pointed out (with linked references which you have no concept of) that Joseph Smith said he "translated" the papyrus and it was by Abraham's own hand. Along with that, let me give you some more data on facimile 3 of what Joseph Smith said it meant (which is totally wrong) :

http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm

Fig. 1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.
Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.
Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.

So, are you going to chase your rabbit hole yet again and claim this was "inspired" work that he supposedly got wrong? Or, are you going to admit that Joseph Smith claimed he was "translating" the papyrus and did so unsuccessfully which is the truth?

As I've stated many times on here and I've acknowledged, Joseph Smith was initially mistaken in his comments about the papyrus.

This is the part you aren't backing up. What makes you think Joseph Smith was "initially mistaken" and then changed his claim wasn't translating the papyrus, but it was only "inspired" work. This doesn't make any sense and isn't backed up with anything but your opinion. Do you have any reference whatsoever to imply Joseph Smith used a pagan document as inspiration? I've already quoted Joseph Smith stating twice he was "translating" the papyrus "by Abraham's own hand." Do the facts side with you on your opinion, or are you discounting facts because they don't agree with your opinion?

That is understandable because he couldn't read them and the Lord had to reveal the Book of Abraham.

What is "understandable" about using a pagan document you claim you're translating, being totally wrong, but somehow it was the Lord's work? You simply aren't making sense, but pounding the square peg in the round hole in an attempt to find a way to make what doesn't make sense logical to you. Is the above response logical and based on fact, or is it illogical and based on no facts whatsoever?

Your belief he "translated" the papyrus is simply ludicrous.

It's not my "belief" Tobin, it's what Joseph Smith said.

Again, as you failed to acknowledge this the first time:

http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm

"... with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commence the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. - a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236).

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM

TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH

A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. - The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

The only thing "ludicrous" about your last statement is that it directly contradicts Joseph Smith's own words. Were these words supposedly said before he was "mistaken" as you assert? Do you have any critical thinking skills?

He couldn't read Egyptian Hieroglyphics at all.

On this we agree, but Joseph Smith also claimed he could translate ancient languages and built a reputation on it. How, when you also consider the Greek Psalter and Kinderhook plates where he made the same incorrect claims, do you come to the conclusion he wasn't a liar?

So of course what God revealed of the Book of Abraham to him had to be "inspired".

This may be the only way it can make sense to you, but the facts don't support your opinion, which isn't based on fact. To the OP, you are teflon in this instance, as you can't provide one single fact to support your claim, yet you must discount many facts in order to reject the null hypothesis that Joseph Smith was not telling the truth.

Also, your claim falls apart because it is based solely on that ridiculous assertion and so you assert his speculations about the Egyptian Hieroglyphics (you know, the stuff he couldn't read at all) invalidates the Book of Abraham. It does not since the Book of Abraham was an inspired text and so it was not translated from the papyrus.

You just keep stating the same tired opinion based on nothing and using "ridiculous" and "ludicrous" to imply your argument carries any weight, which it doesn't as you haven't made one point in favor of your "inspired" assertion. You are wrong, as what Joseph Smith claimed was a "translation" of the papyrus, and the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar was concocted to back up Joseph Smith's claim.

You'd have to acknowledge the facts in order to understand what you claim is or isn't significant. You believe in magical occult seer stones placed in a hat, which were previously used to "see" evil treasure guardians for hire. There never was an "Urim and Thummim" Tobin, but if you wish to prove me wrong bring your data, because I'll mop the floor with it.

You keep making that "there wasn't U&T" assertion. Too funny. Clearly, you don't know the Mormon claims or understand them very well.

The first use of "Urim and Thummim" wasn't until 3 years after the Book of Mormon was published. The Nephite spectacles were taken back (according to D&C 10), so tell me Tobin, exactly when did the "Urim and Thummim" come into the picture and what happened to them? What did they look like? Are they in fact Joseph Smith's seer stones? I'll give you a hint... the correct answer is yes, they are Joseph Smith's seer stones.

Really?!? So your claim is there was no U&T because Joseph Smith didn't get around to writing his history till a few years later?!? That is ridiculous.

Again we have the "ridiculous" claim to ignore the facts. It is a fact that the first use of "Urim and Thummim" was not first used until 1833, three years after the Book of Mormon was published, and was not included in the Book of Commandments. From your link:

http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/HTMLHis ... story.html

13. The term Urim and Thummim, while used in this revelation and in the ms text does not appear in early publications of the revelation, nor does it seem to have been used in any contemporary document of the principals. No early ms of this revelation survives apparently. In the 1833 Book of Commandments, verse one read "Now, behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many writings, which you had power to translate, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them. . . ." Thus, the words "by the means of the Urim and Thummim" in verse one were not part of this verse in the Book of Commandments; nor was section 17, which also makes use of the term Urim and Thummim, printed in the Book of Commandments. Both section 17 and verse one of section 10, as we now have them, first appeared in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Lyndon Cook writes:

While the retroactive placement of the term in section 10 has led to some speculation relative to the Prophet's having the instrument in his possession, a preponderance of evidence confirms the Prophet's own testimony: "With the records was found a curious instrument, which the ancients called 'Urim and Thummim,' which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate" (History of the Church, 4:537 [Wentworth letter]). The problem here seems to be one of terminology, not whether or not the Prophet had possession of an ancient artifact. Until some time after the translation of the Book of Mormon, the sacred instruments may have been referred to as "Interpreters," or "spectacles." It is possible that Joseph Smith's inspired translation of the Bible played some part in designating the translating instrument "Urim and Thummim." The earliest use of the term Urim and Thummim in Mormon literature is in the Evening and Morning Star (January 1833). An article on the Book of Mormon, undoubtedly authored by W. W. Phelps, stated, "It was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles--(known, perhaps in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)." [RJS, 17]

In a nutshell Tobin, your assertion that he "didn't get around to writing his history till a few years later" is wrong, because when it was first written the term "Urim and Thummim" was not used.

Joseph Smith claims he had them and describes them repeatedly. You know that and so your view is patently sillly. You also know that I've repeatedly cited to you from the HC where Joseph Smith said he received them with the plates, that they were taken when the 116 pages were lost and RETURNED. I'll note you have made this same mistake again here!!! And of course the Lord eventually took them back. He took the plates back too. You are just playing fast and loose with the claims and making bizarre and ridiculous charges that completely ignore what Joseph Smith said (you know, the guy that actually received the Book of Mormon) because he wrote his history a few years later?!? Wow.

You know what's "silly" "ridiculous" and "ludicrous" combined, your ability to ignore these facts:

From Emma Smith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Smith

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."

Martin Harris:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

Martin Harris recounted that Joseph could find lost objects with the second, white stone:

I was at the house of his father in Manchester, two miles south of Palmyra village, and was picking my teeth with a pin while sitting on the bars. The pin caught in my teeth and dropped from my fingers into shavings and straw. I jumped from the bars and looked for it. Joseph and Northrop Sweet also did the same. We could not find it. I then took Joseph on surprise, and said to him--I said, "Take your stone." I had never seen it, and did not know that he had it with him. He had it in his pocket. He took it and placed it in his hat--the old white hat--and placed his face in his hat. I watched him closely to see that he did not look to one side; he reached out his hand beyond me on the right, and moved a little stick and there I saw the pin, which he picked up and gave to me. I know he did not look out of the hat until after he had picked up the pin.

http://www.mrm.org/translation

"By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say 'written;' and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used" (CHC 1:29).

David Whitmer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seer_stone ... _Saints%29

David Whitmer said when Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he "put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."

So Tobin, you have three of the most credible witnesses all stating the exact same thing, which was the Book of Mormon was translated using a seer stone placed in a hat... that's what happened. Calling them "urim and Thummim" after the fact isn't going to change what they were, and they were owned by Joseph Smith and used to see evil treasure guardians for hire before the whole Book of Mormon story.

When Hyrum Smith used the words "Urim and Thummim" in 1843, was he talking about seer stones, or some glasses?
http://restorationbookstore.org/article ... s/hsfp.htm

The following statement was sworn to before John T. Caine, a notary public, in Salt Lake City, Feb. 16,1874....

"On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the 'brick store,' on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, 'If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.' Joseph smiled and remarked, 'You do not know Emma as well as I do.' Hyrum repeated his opinion and further remarked, 'The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin,' or words to their effect Joseph then said, 'Well, I will write the revelation and we will see.' He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.

So Tobin, according to Mormon history, the so-called "Urim and Thummim" were in the possession of Joseph Smith in in 1843. The LDS church still has Joseph Smith's white and brown seer stones, so if the "Urim and Thummim" were not seer stones, what happened to them?

[_EAllusion]

That has nothing to do with whether or not the Book of Mormon is from God.

Assuming the point, you don't see how having a prior history of engaging in cons might weigh on the probability of the utterly fantastic Book of Mormon origin story, infused both with folklore and con narratives of its time period, happening to be true? That escapes you?

Do you understand how Uri Gheller being a talented magician might say something about the probability of whether he can actually bend spoons with telepathic powers? How do you think that works? Do you seriously not see how the same applies in the former case?

[_Tobin]

You keep "responding" claiming you've addressed the topic (which you didn't), and your question that "why they matter at all" is the crux of this OP. To you, facts don't matter. You can have 10 references from multiple sources to define what actually happened, yet you grasp at distortion that isn't backed by anything to make your argument. Again, to you the truth doesn't matter.

The truth about what?!? All the OP was doing was pointing out that 'Joseph Smith was a human being' and has NO relevance to anything. For example, Joseph Smith formed a Church. So what?!? Joseph Smith was a polygamist. So what? I have repeatedly asked you about relevance and you have not once been able to answer it.

This is the part you aren't backing up. What makes you think Joseph Smith was "initially mistaken" and then changed his claim wasn't translating the papyrus, but it was only "inspired" work. This doesn't make any sense and isn't backed up with anything but your opinion. Do you have any reference whatsoever to imply Joseph Smith used a pagan document as inspiration? I've already quoted Joseph Smith stating twice he was "translating" the papyrus "by Abraham's own hand." Do the facts side with you on your opinion, or are you discounting facts because they don't agree with your opinion?

The Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, not by Joseph Smith knowing the language. Your assertion that he could read and translate the papyrus and knew Egyptian Hieroglyphics is what is inconsistent here. The Lord did not give the papyrus to Joseph Smith and told him to translate it, so Joseph Smith had to figure it out for himself. And his initial speculations and guesses about it were wrong. Oh well, Joseph Smith was a human being after all.

What is "understandable" about using a pagan document you claim you're translating, being totally wrong, but somehow it was the Lord's work? You simply aren't making sense, but pounding the square peg in the round hole in an attempt to find a way to make what doesn't make sense logical to you. Is the above response logical and based on fact, or is it illogical and based on no facts whatsoever?

Joseph Smith didn't know initially that it was a pagan document. Nobody on the planet alive at the time knew what they were. It was merely the impetus for him to ask the Lord and receive the inspired writings of Abraham instead. Was that really that hard to understand?

Your belief he "translated" the papyrus is simply ludicrous.

It's not my "belief" Tobin, it's what Joseph Smith said.

Again, as you failed to acknowledge this the first time:

http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm

"... with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commence the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. - a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236).

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM

TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH

A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. - The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

The only thing "ludicrous" about your last statement is that it directly contradicts Joseph Smith's own words. Were these words supposedly said before he was "mistaken" as you assert? Do you have any critical thinking skills?

Really?!? Do you really believe Joseph Smith could read and write Egyptian Hieroglyphics? Who taught him the language? When did the learn it? It is just a silly assertion you are making. Joseph Smith did not know reformed Egyptian when he revealed the Book of Mormon and he did not know Egyptian Hieroglyphics either. Your "understanding" of what Joseph Smith means by translation is severely broken. The Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon are revealed and inspired texts.

He couldn't read Egyptian Hieroglyphics at all.

On this we agree, but Joseph Smith also claimed he could translate ancient languages and built a reputation on it. How, when you also consider the Greek Psalter and Kinderhook plates where he made the same incorrect claims, do you come to the conclusion he wasn't a liar?

If you agree, then why do you keep making the same stupid assertion?!? Joseph Smith revealed texts by the gift and power of God. He did not know the languages.

So of course what God revealed of the Book of Abraham to him had to be "inspired".

This may be the only way it can make sense to you, but the facts don't support your opinion, which isn't based on fact. To the OP, you are teflon in this instance, as you can't provide one single fact to support your claim, yet you must discount many facts in order to reject the null hypothesis that Joseph Smith was not telling the truth.

What are you talking about? The facts show the papyrus does not contain the Book of Abraham and the reason it does not is precisely because the Book of Abraham is a revealed text of the original writings of Abraham. The facts actually back up EXACTLY what I stated. They certainly don't support any of your assertions.

Also, your claim falls apart because it is based solely on that ridiculous assertion and so you assert his speculations about the Egyptian Hieroglyphics (you know, the stuff he couldn't read at all) invalidates the Book of Abraham. It does not since the Book of Abraham was an inspired text and so it was not translated from the papyrus.

You just keep stating the same tired opinion based on nothing and using "ridiculous" and "ludicrous" to imply your argument carries any weight, which it doesn't as you haven't made one point in favor of your "inspired" assertion. You are wrong, as what Joseph Smith claimed was a "translation" of the papyrus, and the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar was concocted to back up Joseph Smith's claim.

I'm not the person stating Joseph Smith translated the papyrus using his knowledge of Egyptian Hieroglyphics. I'm actually being very consistent and stating Joseph Smith did not know the language at all. You are the only one being inconsistent by stating he knew the language and then denying he knew the language. Your position is EXACTLY as I described it - ABSURD.

....

The rest of your assertion about the U&T is just utter non-sense. It isn't worth commenting on. The quote from the HC is clear and was written by Joseph Smith and reviewed by him. Your claim that there was no U&T because it wasn't mentioned earlier is silly. The histories and commentaries weren't written till later in Joseph Smith's OWN life. Joseph Smith most likely didn't realize the U&T seerstones where actually called the U&T at that earlier time and he referred to them as seerstones. CLEARLY, the HC clarifies this later, but you ignore everything Joseph Smith said about the matter later in his OWN life and in his OWN words. That is the problem with your nutty theory. The fact is simply Joseph Smith directly contradicts you himself.

[_Tobin]

That has nothing to do with whether or not the Book of Mormon is from God.

Assuming the point, you don't see how having a prior history of engaging in cons might weigh on the probability of the utterly fantastic Book of Mormon origin story, infused both with folklore and con narratives of its time period, happening to be true? That escapes you?

Do you understand how Uri Gheller being a talented magician might say something about the probability of whether he can actually bend spoons with telepathic powers? How do you think that works? Do you seriously not see how the same applies in the former case?

I'd be the last person to tell you to believe Joseph Smith based solely on what he claimed. Of course it could very much be a con. Making claims is cheap and easy. Unless God backs Joseph Smith up in his claim (ie God tells you it is true), then you shouldn't believe it. And I do not believe in the whole feelings position that many Mormons take. Just because I ate something that disagreed with my digestion does not make the Book of Mormon true. God either manifests that it is true or God does not. And that is the purpose of the Book of Mormon too, to get people to actually speak with God and do what God asks instead of what they "feel" is best.

[_Albion]

But it is based on what Joseph Smith "taught" else you wouldn't be a Mormon. If it wasn't based on what Smith said much of what you believe as a Mormon would not be "known" to you....temple rituals, for instance, which have no foundation in scripture. Or are you saying you would have thought, been inspired, to ask God about them on your own?