CaliforniaKid's interesting thread on the Book of Abraham facsimiles

[_Trinity]

I sure miss the good ol' days when I was a believer. I marvelled and celebrated the fact that God chose to communicate through plain and simple truths. That the Gospel resonated with common sense.

Now I am being asked to pull my brain through my nose, bake it in a 325 degree oven for 15 minutes, allow it to cool and then glaze and temper it by means of a magnetic urim and thummim before being able to understand God's will and word.

No thank you.

[_bcspace]

The crossdressing explanation is so far out there that I don't even know where to begin refuting it.

Obfuscation.

But in any case, my thread is about the translation of the characters over people's heads, not about the ways the apologists reinterpret the vignette to fit Joseph Smith's explanation.

Perhaps the reason why you are not interested in the article is because it presents quite a bit of (nonLDS) scholarly evidence that simply looking at the names of the characters over their heads is not the way to interpret who is actually being represented below. Of course that would ruin your argument. But since you made a claim about how the facsimile should be translated, it is incombent on you to address the evidence to the contrary.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Joseph Smith: These characters say "Shulem." I know so by the inpiration of God.
Critic: No, those characters say "Osiris-Hor." So much for the inspiration of God.
BCSpace: Aha, but Egyptian men were metrosexual and liked to wear women's clothing!
Critic: Dude, even if that's true, it has nothing to do with the translation of these characters.
BCSpace: Aha, but Egyptian characters actually don't matter in the interpretation of vignettes like this one!
Critic: Dude, we're not talking about the vignette. We're talking about the translation of the characters.
BCSpace: Aha, I see you know the church is true, and are trying to obfuscate it away! The inspiration of God is vindicated!
Critic: Whatever, man. I'll see you later.

[_bcspace]

Joseph Smith: These characters say "Shulem." I know so by the inpiration of God.
Critic: No, those characters say "Osiris-Hor." So much for the inspiration of God.
BCSpace: Aha, but Egyptian men were metrosexual and liked to wear women's clothing!
Critic: Dude, even if that's true, it has nothing to do with the translation of these characters.
BCSpace: Aha, but Egyptian characters actually don't matter in the interpretation of vignettes like this one!
Critic: Dude, we're not talking about the vignette. We're talking about the translation of the characters.
BCSpace: Aha, I see you know the church is true, and are trying to obfuscate it away! The inspiration of God is vindicated!
Critic: Whatever, man. I'll see you later.

Untill recently, I thought CaliforniaKid to be somewhat of a scholar. Now notice how he avoids addressing the scholarly evidence against his claims with invective and engages in yellow journalism to mischaracterize the information presented in the link. I'm beginning to think that FLR is contagious.

Call me when CaliforniaKid develops a scholarly response to the evidence in question.

[_Great Cthulhu]

Untill recently, I thought CaliforniaKid to be somewhat of a scholar. Now notice how he avoids addressing the scholarly evidence against his claims with invective and engages in yellow journalism to mischaracterize the information presented in the link. I'm beginning to think that FLR is contagious.

Call me when CaliforniaKid develops a scholarly response to the evidence in question.

Joseph Smith couldn't convert egyptian text into english text (also known as "translation"). Can you deal with that BCSpace? You appear to be playing stupid.

[_bcspace]

Untill recently, I thought CaliforniaKid to be somewhat of a scholar. Now notice how he avoids addressing the scholarly evidence against his claims with invective and engages in yellow journalism to mischaracterize the information presented in the link. I'm beginning to think that FLR is contagious.

Call me when CaliforniaKid develops a scholarly response to the evidence in question.

Joseph Smith couldn't convert egyptian text into english text (also known as "translation"). Can you deal with that BCSpace?

Have you anything to counter to the evidence given against CaliforniaKid's hypothesis?

You appear to be playing stupid.

Invective makes you appear to be a dilletante.

[_Who Knows]

Perhaps the reason why you are not interested in the article is because it presents quite a bit of (nonLDS) scholarly evidence that simply looking at the names of the characters over their heads is not the way to interpret who is actually being represented below. Of course that would ruin your argument. But since you made a claim about how the facsimile should be translated, it is incombent on you to address the evidence to the contrary.

I don't believe you have presented evidence to the contrary (that the translation of the egyptian characters by Joseph Smith wasn't wrong).

You've presented evidence that perhaps it's possible that the women could be men, and those men could be the people Joseph Smith said they were.

Anything's possible in the 6 degrees game.

[_The Dude]

Joseph Smith couldn't convert egyptian text into english text (also known as "translation"). Can you deal with that BCSpace?

Have you anything to counter to the evidence given against CaliforniaKid's hypothesis?

Did someone say "obfuscation"? CaliforniaKid's evidence shows that Joseph Smith couldn't convert egyptian text into english text, a fact that even David Bokovoy admits. Not only do you not admit the same, but you act like you don't even see the evidence in front of your face. That is playing stupid.

Cthulhu didn't say you are stupid -- that would be invective. I actually don't have an opinion on your level of intelligence.

[_beastie]

What a thread. It is archetypical not only due to the fact that True Believers will find ways to continue to believe no matter what objective evidence contradicts that belief, as well as the fact that the belief is entirely based on spiritual testimonies alone, but it demonstrates the condescending attitude the same True Believers adopt towards critics. Some believer even claimed that this shows how critics keep "raising the bar" because they don't even want to give Joseph Smith credit for knowing the alien words were names. No matter that the names were laughably wrong, and only a True Believing LDS would find anything substantive in any of these given rationalizations, it is the critics who are ridiculous and hypocritical in their standards.

My word. You can't make this stuff up. Well, I guess you could make it up but you wouldn't expect anyone to take it seriously, it would be too outrageous a parody - and yet it's LDS apologetics reality.

[_Fortigurn]

...simply looking at the names of the characters over their heads is not the way to interpret who is actually being represented below.

Oh my. That's signature worthy material. We shouldn't pay any attention to the identification given in the text itself, even when the names are actually spelled out? Amazing. And yes, I read the article. And no, it doesn't justify this sentence of yours. It's full of logical fallacies.