Tobin wrote:If the story of Abraham is true, this is the only set of facts that could possibly make sense and be consistent with what we know about his other translations and understanding of the texts involved.
This is where you're losing me. Why do you think the story of Abraham (as described in the Book of Abraham) is true? Why do you think it's based on revelation at all? Why would God allow his own prophet to be so utterly clueless as to the mode and method of revelation itself, which is the primary thing that makes one a prophet in the first place. If a prophet cannot be relied upon to know when or how he is getting a revelation from God, then of what use is he?
Tobin wrote:If the story of Abraham is true, this is the only set of facts that could possibly make sense and be consistent with what we know about his other translations and understanding of the texts involved.
This is where you're losing me. Why do you think the story of Abraham (as described in the Book of Abraham) is true? Why do you think it's based on revelation at all? Why would God allow his own prophet to be so utterly clueless as to the mode and method of revelation itself, which is the primary thing that makes one a prophet in the first place. If a prophet cannot be relied upon to know when or how he is getting a revelation from God, then of what use is he?
Not only that. God would have to continue with the charade with all subsequent Prophets because they are still promoting this...
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. (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Tobin wrote:If the story of Abraham is true, this is the only set of facts that could possibly make sense and be consistent with what we know about his other translations and understanding of the texts involved.
This is where you're losing me. Why do you think the story of Abraham (as described in the Book of Abraham) is true? Why do you think it's based on revelation at all? Why would God allow his own prophet to be so utterly clueless as to the mode and method of revelation itself, which is the primary thing that makes one a prophet in the first place. If a prophet cannot be relied upon to know when or how he is getting a revelation from God, then of what use is he?
Again, you don't believe Joseph Smith because of the books he supposedly translated or did not translate. The simple fact is he did not know ancient languages and could not have known ancient languages like these because the expertise did not exist. If he were able to produce any books from an ancient language, it would only be by the power of God. And the only way to know that he did indeed do that is to receive a witness to that fact yourself. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe he could do it all because he demonstrably had no expertise in any of these languages.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote: Again, you don't believe Joseph Smith because of the books he supposedly translated or did not translate. The simple fact is he did not know ancient languages and could not have known ancient languages like these because the expertise did not exist. If he were able to produce any books from an ancient language, it would only be by the power of God. And the only way to know that he did indeed do that is to receive a witness to that fact yourself. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe he could do it all because he demonstrably had no expertise in any of these languages.
I have seen you make this point many times and I understand it. You have convinced me why you believe certain things. However in a discussion with people who reject your personal witness as objective evidence it serves no purpose in the discussion. Since all your claims seem to boil down to explaining your personal spiritual experience, there seems little point in a discussion. I understand that your explanation is the only one you can find that fits both your witness and the facts as you know them, but unless you can provide objective evidence to support your explanation, it holds no value for anyone beyond yourself in a discussion such as this.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Tobin wrote:Again, you don't believe Joseph Smith because of the books he supposedly translated or did not translate. The simple fact is he did not know ancient languages and could not have known ancient languages like these because the expertise did not exist. If he were able to produce any books from an ancient language, it would only be by the power of God. And the only way to know that he did indeed do that is to receive a witness to that fact yourself. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe he could do it all because he demonstrably had no expertise in any of these languages.
I have seen you make this point many times and I understand it. You have convinced me why you believe certain things. However in a discussion with people who reject your personal witness as objective evidence it serves no purpose in the discussion. Since all your claims seem to boil down to explaining your personal spiritual experience, there seems little point in a discussion. I understand that your explanation is the only one you can find that fits both your witness and the facts as you know them, but unless you can provide objective evidence to support your explanation, it holds no value for anyone beyond yourself in a discussion such as this.
Correction. It holds no value to you. To Mormons, that have that witness, it is perfectly plausible.
And I don't disagree that Mormons that spend time with apologetics are wasting their time. There is little to no proof that Mormonism is true outside of a personal witness that it is true. I think Mormons should explain their position; why they believe it is plausible; and if people wish to believe them, then they need to go get that experience for themselves.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote:Again, you don't believe Joseph Smith because of the books he supposedly translated or did not translate. The simple fact is he did not know ancient languages and could not have known ancient languages like these because the expertise did not exist. If he were able to produce any books from an ancient language, it would only be by the power of God. And the only way to know that he did indeed do that is to receive a witness to that fact yourself. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe he could do it all because he demonstrably had no expertise in any of these languages.
This still ignores all the problems. Joseph claimed to be able to translate ancient language. He got caught trying it with a Greek document. I tend to think Joseph was smart guy, but we have to treat him as very dumb to make the catalyst theory work. He declares the papyri written by Abraham an even identifies Abraham's signature. Is God really going to give him this information, and if not why would he just make it up. He attached text to specific hieroglyphs. How does he know how much text to give each, and in reality he gave way more then you could really come up with. He identifies particular parts of each facsimile. Did he just stupidly make this up or was God the dumb one. Maybe your personal witness does not mean what you think it means.
Tobin wrote:Again, you don't believe Joseph Smith because of the books he supposedly translated or did not translate. The simple fact is he did not know ancient languages and could not have known ancient languages like these because the expertise did not exist. If he were able to produce any books from an ancient language, it would only be by the power of God. And the only way to know that he did indeed do that is to receive a witness to that fact yourself. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe he could do it all because he demonstrably had no expertise in any of these languages.
This still ignores all the problems. Joseph claimed to be able to translate ancient language. He got caught trying it with a Greek document. I tend to think Joseph was smart guy, but we have to treat him as very dumb to make the catalyst theory work. He declares the papyri written by Abraham an even identifies Abraham's signature. Is God really going to give him this information, and if not why would he just make it up. He attached text to specific hieroglyphs. How does he know how much text to give each, and in reality he gave way more then you could really come up with. He identifies particular parts of each facsimile. Did he just stupidly make this up or was God the dumb one. Maybe your personal witness does not mean what you think it means.
As I've explained to you many times Themis, the only problems you see are in your head. And you continually make the same mistake of being unable to disconnect the conjecture, which Joseph Smith was famously capable of getting wrong, from the inspired work he did. For some reason, you assume Joseph Smith modus operandi suddenly switched from where he didn't understand reformed Egyptian to where he suddenly can read and understand Egyptian Hieroglyphics and you have no reason to do so. It was simply not how Joseph Smith translated anything. He could only translate by the power of God and so attributing any understanding of the actual material to Joseph Smith is fatally flawed.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote: For some reason, you assume Joseph Smith modus operandi suddenly switched from where he didn't understand reformed Egyptian to where he suddenly can read and understand Egyptian Hieroglyphics and you have no reason to do so.
How can you read all my posts on this subject and get what I said so horribly wrong. The evidence shows Joseph got it wrong, and made it up. If Joseph could suddenly read and understand hieroglyphics then we wouldn't have the Book of Abraham today. He wouldn't have attached text to hieroglyphs that don't translate into an Abraham story. I am bringing up the problems with the catalyst theory on why Joseph was attaching text to hieroglyphs and the facsimiles if God was not giving it to him. The catalyst theory should have just produced the Book of Abraham like the BofMoses and not been attached to the papyri in such specific ways. Why would God be so stupid to have Joseph attach text to specific parts of the facsimiles and hieroglyphs if Joseph was stupidly doing it. I just don't think Joseph or God is that stupid. You seem to think they are to protect a interpretation of your experience.
It was simply not how Joseph Smith translated anything. He could only translate by the power of God and so attributing any understanding of the actual material to Joseph Smith is fatally flawed.
This does not deal with the problems here. Where did Joseph get the idea about the papyri in the first place. Where did he get the idea to attach text to specific hieroglyphs. Where did he get the idea of Abraham's signature. Where did he get the ideas and claims about the Greek document he was shown.
Tobin wrote:Correction. It holds no value to you. To Mormons, that have that witness, it is perfectly plausible.
And I don't disagree that Mormons that spend time with apologetics are wasting their time. There is little to no proof that Mormonism is true outside of a personal witness that it is true. I think Mormons should explain their position; why they believe it is plausible; and if people wish to believe them, then they need to go get that experience for themselves.
You have the same type of issue with the majority of LDS believers that you do with the critics. With the LDS believers you differ with most of them on the issue of whether Joseph Smith could translate or not but you agree with them that the Book of Abraham is scripture. With the critics you disagree with them that the Book of Abraham is scripture but agree with them that J.S. could not translate. In BOTH cases a personal witness is useless to prove a point, the believer has his own witness that says you are wrong and the critic does not trust/believe such a witness.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Tobin wrote:Correction. It holds no value to you. To Mormons, that have that witness, it is perfectly plausible. And I don't disagree that Mormons that spend time with apologetics are wasting their time. There is little to no proof that Mormonism is true outside of a personal witness that it is true. I think Mormons should explain their position; why they believe it is plausible; and if people wish to believe them, then they need to go get that experience for themselves.
You have the same type of issue with the majority of LDS believers that you do with the critics. With the LDS believers you differ with most of them on the issue of whether Joseph Smith could translate or not but you agree with them that the Book of Abraham is scripture. With the critics you disagree with them that the Book of Abraham is scripture but agree with them that J.S. could not translate. In BOTH cases a personal witness is useless to prove a point, the believer has his own witness that says you are wrong and the critic does not trust/believe such a witness.
Well, as the OP highlights, this is not something I alone believe. So I don't think your point is well considered.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
