Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

[_spotlight]

As long as someone accepts the truth claims of the LDS church their abilities to think clearly are nil. That's because a false epistemology is established at conversion and until one leaves the religion it remains in place doing harm like a rootkit to a PC.

[_Shulem]

I want to take this opportunity to refer readers to another thread entitled:

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=35135

[_Shulem]

They didn't have to, because they were repurposing all of the symbols in the document, including little pictures above the hand, etc.

Not according to the testimonies of Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt (and others). They were direct translations from Egyptian to English -- revealing the actual language on the papyrus itself. All testimony and statements attest that Joseph Smith was literally translating the Egyptian language into English and that the actual Book of Abraham was upon the papyrus. Moreover, the Explanations of the Facsimiles were literal translations -- true and correct -- Egyptian into English.

Joseph Smith HC 2:348-350 wrote:

"From New York he [Mr. Chandler] took his collection on to Philadelphia and obtained the certificate of the learned and from thence came on too Kirtland, as before related in July. Thus I have given a brief history of the manner in which the writings of the Fathers, Abraham, and Joseph have been preserved and how I came into possession of the same – a CORRECT TRANSLATION of which I shall give in its proper place"

Orson Pratt 43 years later, accounts for the papyrus wrote:

"Mr. Chandler had also obtained from learned men the best TRANSLATION HE could've SOME FEW CHARACTERS which however, was not a translation, but more in the shape of ideas with regard to it, their acquaintance with the language not being sufficient to ENABLE THEM TO TRANSLATE IT LITERALLY. After some conversation with the Prophet Joseph, Mr. Chandler presented to him the ancient characters, asking him if he could TRANSLATE THEM.

The prophet took them and repaired to his room and inquired of the Lord concerning them. The Lord told him they were sacred records, containing the inspired writings of Abraham when he was in Egypt, and also those of Joseph, while he was in Egypt; and they had been deposited with these mummies, which had been exhumed. And he also inquired of the Lord concerning some few characters which Mr. Chandler, gave him by way of a test, to see if he could translate them. The prophet Joseph TRANSLATED THESE CHARACTERS and returned them, with the translation to Mr. Chandler; and who, in comparing it with the translation of the same few characters by learned men, that he had before obtained, found the two to agree."

Etc.

[_Shulem]

Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

1. "a correct translation of which I shall give"

2. "translate it literally"

3. "translate them"

4. "translated these characters"

When it comes to the ancient Egyptian language -- Joe Smith didn't know jack crap what he was doing, nor did his sidekick the holy ghost. Mormon apologists are liars, all of them. Dishonest to the core. They deserve Joseph Smith. They deserve to roll around with him in the garbage he produced.

[_Themis]

As long as someone accepts the truth claims of the LDS church their abilities to think clearly are nil. That's because a false epistemology is established at conversion and until one leaves the religion it remains in place doing harm like a rootkit to a PC.

I wouldn't say nil. Our beliefs can influence how clearly we think on issues related to those beliefs, but obviously lots of people, when confronted with new evidence, can alter their beliefs to fit the evidence. There are lots of factors to look at why some cannot alter their beliefs to fit the evidence. Tribal beliefs are some of the hardest to shake. Especially the ones the tribe tells us are the most important. Emotional factors are some of the worst at influencing our thinking, which is why many meetings and mechanisms found in religion are meant to create emotional attachments to the tribes beliefs. The main emotional mechanism in religion is the spiritual experience. That's not meant to say spiritual experiences are nothing more then emotions, but they almost always accompanying them and act as the glue to the interpretation you are influenced by your tribe to get.

[_spotlight]

I wouldn't say nil. Our beliefs can influence how clearly we think on issues related to those beliefs, but obviously lots of people, when confronted with new evidence, can alter their beliefs to fit the evidence. There are lots of factors to look at why some cannot alter their beliefs to fit the evidence. Tribal beliefs are some of the hardest to shake. Especially the ones the tribe tells us are the most important. Emotional factors are some of the worst at influencing our thinking, which is why many meetings and mechanisms found in religion are meant to create emotional attachments to the tribes beliefs. The main emotional mechanism in religion is the spiritual experience. That's not meant to say spiritual experiences are nothing more then emotions, but they almost always accompanying them and act as the glue to the interpretation you are influenced by your tribe to get.

When one accepts the truth claims of the LDS church they accept that the way to truth is through the Holy Ghost that leads to all truth and by which all truth can be known. Either this is correct or it isn't correct. There are no shades of grey in this foundational principle.

So while something that is not a threat to their beliefs might appear to be something about which they think clearly the reasoning behind why they are comfortable with it is entirely different from someone else who accepts the same without this foundation implanted by the religion.

When someone confronts scientific facts that are not in agreement with their churches truth claims they go into apologetic mode and either alter what the church really teaches or actually taught without realizing that they have steadied the ark which is what we see at sites like FAIR or they imagine that somehow the science is wrong, it will change when more is discovered or there are other valid interpretations, etc.

We also see that while LDS abhor mixing the philosophies of men with religion they are more than happy to mingle them with science to the degree necessary not to address the implications of scientific facts or knowledge.

So by not thinking clearly I mean simply the mistake of starting with the conclusion and bending evidence to fit with that conclusion rather than starting with the evidence and fitting the most reasonable conclusion to the evidence without protecting any sacred cows with special pleading. Also by thinking clearly I refer to freedom from the need to apply a particular interpretation at all. No interpretations are a threat if we are thinking clearly as we are willing to go wherever the evidence leads us.

[_Shulem]

So by not thinking clearly I mean simply the mistake of starting with the conclusion and bending evidence to fit with that conclusion rather than starting with the evidence and fitting the most reasonable conclusion to the evidence without protecting any sacred cows with special pleading. Also by thinking clearly I refer to freedom from the need to apply a particular interpretation at all. No interpretations are a threat if we are thinking clearly as we are willing to go wherever the evidence leads us.

The Mormon answer to everything is starting with the conclusion that the church is true no matter what. Everything must fall in line with supporting the conclusion -- that the church is true. If it seems that the evidence doesn't support the conclusion then the evidence is not fully understood or faulty. The Mormon way is to make the evidence support the conclusion. The conclusion is the conclusion and there can be no other conclusion. Damn the evidence.

[_Philo Sofee]

They didn't have to, because they were repurposing all of the symbols in the document, including little pictures above the hand, etc.

Not according to the testimonies of Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt (and others). They were direct translations from Egyptian to English -- revealing the actual language on the papyrus itself. All testimony and statements attest that Joseph Smith was literally translating the Egyptian language into English and that the actual Book of Abraham was upon the papyrus. Moreover, the Explanations of the Facsimiles were literal translations -- true and correct -- Egyptian into English.

Joseph Smith HC 2:348-350 wrote:

"From New York he [Mr. Chandler] took his collection on to Philadelphia and obtained the certificate of the learned and from thence came on too Kirtland, as before related in July. Thus I have given a brief history of the manner in which the writings of the Fathers, Abraham, and Joseph have been preserved and how I came into possession of the same – a CORRECT TRANSLATION of which I shall give in its proper place"

Orson Pratt 43 years later, accounts for the papyrus wrote:

"Mr. Chandler had also obtained from learned men the best TRANSLATION HE could've SOME FEW CHARACTERS which however, was not a translation, but more in the shape of ideas with regard to it, their acquaintance with the language not being sufficient to ENABLE THEM TO TRANSLATE IT LITERALLY. After some conversation with the Prophet Joseph, Mr. Chandler presented to him the ancient characters, asking him if he could TRANSLATE THEM.

The prophet took them and repaired to his room and inquired of the Lord concerning them. The Lord told him they were sacred records, containing the inspired writings of Abraham when he was in Egypt, and also those of Joseph, while he was in Egypt; and they had been deposited with these mummies, which had been exhumed. And he also inquired of the Lord concerning some few characters which Mr. Chandler, gave him by way of a test, to see if he could translate them. The prophet Joseph TRANSLATED THESE CHARACTERS and returned them, with the translation to Mr. Chandler; and who, in comparing it with the translation of the same few characters by learned men, that he had before obtained, found the two to agree."

Etc.

I would like very, very, very, very much that exact reference to that Orson Pratt quote I need that for my book thank you.

[_Shulem]

I would like very, very, very, very much that exact reference to that Orson Pratt quote I need that for my book thank you.

JD 20:64-65

http://scriptures.BYU.edu/jod/jodhtml.php?vol=20&disc=09

http://jod.mrm.org/20/62

[_Themis]

When one accepts the truth claims of the LDS church they accept that the way to truth is through the Holy Ghost that leads to all truth and by which all truth can be known. Either this is correct or it isn't correct. There are no shades of grey in this foundational principle.

Oh there's lots of shades of grey in there. At least in the area of what is the holy Ghost, how does it communicate, how would one know it is communicating, and what is it communicating. The church doesn't give very good answers to this, other then if it agrees with the church, then you can believe it is from the holy Ghost, but if it disagrees with the church, you know it is not from the Holy Ghost. Is that clear thinking from the church?

So while something that is not a threat to their beliefs might appear to be something about which they think clearly the reasoning behind why they are comfortable with it is entirely different from someone else who accepts the same without this foundation implanted by the religion.

The reasoning is the same. I have said many times, on any issue where things like religion, politics, ideology have no position, you find almost universal agreement. They are the things that influence us not to think as clearly as we would without them.

When someone confronts scientific facts that are not in agreement with their churches truth claims they go into apologetic mode and either alter what the church really teaches or actually taught without realizing that they have steadied the ark which is what we see at sites like FAIR or they imagine that somehow the science is wrong, it will change when more is discovered or there are other valid interpretations, etc.

Yes a members of the church, like most religious groups, will take many different positions from rejecting all of the facts to accepting them all and changing their view. My parents still believe in a young earth and global flood, but I gave that one up as a teenager and accepted the earth as billions of years old and no global flood while still believing the church was true. Much later I came across facts about the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc and I was able to accept them as well.

We also see that while LDS abhor mixing the philosophies of men with religion they are more than happy to mingle them with science to the degree necessary not to address the implications of scientific facts or knowledge.

Most members, including leaders, do.

So by not thinking clearly I mean simply the mistake of starting with the conclusion and bending evidence to fit with that conclusion rather than starting with the evidence and fitting the most reasonable conclusion to the evidence without protecting any sacred cows with special pleading. Also by thinking clearly I refer to freedom from the need to apply a particular interpretation at all. No interpretations are a threat if we are thinking clearly as we are willing to go wherever the evidence leads us.

In so many issues, you, me, and everyone else comes into it with the conclusion in hand. If you were a believing member you came into the Book of Abraham issues with a conclusion in hand. The difference is not all members are as influenced to not think clearly about facts they are seeing. Even agnostics and atheist have many areas they come with the conclusion in hand, although probably much less then theist's. There are many factors that make people think less clearly, but they don't affect everyone equally. In many cases people initially reject the facts, but over time come to accept they are correct. How many former believers do you know that practiced apologia for years before finally recognizing they were wrong? Every apologist you engage with could be on that road.