The Book of Abraham Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith

[MG 2.0]

I don't have anything else to contribute.

* * *

Regards,
MG

As if you ever did.

If you read the old discussion linked to earlier I think you might change your mind. Your mean and inconsiderate comment is based on ignorance of the facts me thinks.

But don't let that get in your way of making baseless accusations.

It hasn't before, if I remember correctly. Or I may be mixing you up with one of a number of other posters I could refer to.

It all starts running together.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

Is a religious/writer, say a rabbi, lying when they are engaging in scriptural exegesis/midrash/storytelling?

If you read the linked discussion I posted earlier...in contextual completeness...you will readily pick up on the fact that I don't believe Joseph was lying.

Apply all the statements Smith and his associates made about Book of Abraham translation and see how it's utterly impossible to excuse Smith's claims of literally translating hieroglyphic characters written on papyri into the English language! Smith also revealed the age of the papyrus/mummies by REVELATION and we know he was wrong. But Joseph Smith was talking out of his ass! His revelations were fake and chock full of lies.

When does MG ever quote Joseph Smith's claims in context of what Smith was actually doing?

WHAT'S THE KING'S NAME, MG?

You're dishonest just like Joseph Smith was. I have to assume you too would scrape out Anubis' nose to cover your tracks and create a false story you knew was not true. You have zero credibility, MG.

[Shulem]

By not playing games I mean I'm done with you on Book of Abraham.

Oh come on, you don't really mean that!



You know as well as I that you would lie for Joe had you lived in his time and were doing his bidding. Suppose you were Smith's artist who was commissioned to fabricate the lead plates for facsimile production rather than Hedlock. Imagine you, MG, in Nauvoo working at the Times and Seasons printing press and also a registered Mason who undoubtably knew about the dog-headed Egyptian Anubis depicted in Masonic artwork. Then, after having carefully crafting a faithful reproduction of the vignette of Abraham sitting atop Pharaoh's throne you are instructed to hack out the snout of Fig. 6 even though you faithfully copied what was on the papyrus.

Would you have complied with Smith's order to hack out the snout, MG? Of course you would because you're a liar and would do anything to cover for the prophet. But, you like Hedlock, might feel a bit perturbed in doing so and would have left jackal teeth etched into the lead as a memory to the poor fellow's demise. Do you love dogs too, MG? Surely you would feel amiss to mutilate a dog's face?

Am I right, MG? You would have followed the prophet and by toeing the line you would have hacked out the snout because you would do anything to protect the prophet and that includes: LYING!

MG, you're toast. Burnt toast!

[bbbbbbb]

By not playing games I mean I'm done with you on Book of Abraham.

Oh come on, you don't really mean that!



You know as well as I that you would lie for Joe had you lived in his time and were doing his bidding. Suppose you were Smith's artist who was commissioned to fabricate the lead plates for facsimile production rather than Hedlock. Imagine you, MG, in Nauvoo working at the Times and Seasons printing press and also a registered Mason who undoubtably knew about the dog-headed Egyptian Anubis depicted in Masonic artwork. Then, after having carefully crafting a faithful reproduction of the vignette of Abraham sitting atop Pharaoh's throne you are instructed to hack out the snout of Fig. 6 even though you faithfully copied what was on the papyrus.

Would you have complied with Smith's order to hack out the snout, MG? Of course you would because you're a liar and would do anything to cover for the prophet. But, you like Hedlock, might feel a bit perturbed in doing so and would have left jackal teeth etched into the lead as a memory to the poor fellow's demise. Do you love dogs too, MG? Surely you would feel amiss to mutilate a dog's face?

Am I right, MG? You would have followed the prophet and by toeing the line you would have hacked out the snout because you would do anything to protect the prophet and that includes: LYING!

MG, you're toast. Burnt toast!

As someone has rightly observed, there is no toast quite like burnt toast. I'll drink a toast to that.

[sock puppet]

Where would one begin? There is so much about the Book of Abraham that does not match what the Brighamites claim it to be.

Much of it is covered here: http://www.sicketnon.com/2018/12/04-boo ... tland.html

Sorry, sock.

I've perused the SicK et non article above and find it rather piss-poor and it fails to attack the Book of Abraham in a manner that would cause a typical believer to speechlessly drop their jaw. I, as a former Book of Abraham apologist, would have found it relatively easy to fend off this critical presentation that lacks a targeted knock out punch.

At the end of the article the critic asks the believer six questions that are designed to get the believer to lose faith:

Questions:

4a-Why does the Church deny the obvious, that the GAEL/Kirtland Egyptian Papers inextricably tie the Book of Abraham to the 1967-found Sensen Papyrus (other than the fact that Egyptologist can now, as a result of Champollion having found the Rosetta Stone and thus the 'key' to translating ancient Egyptian writings into English)?

4b-Why don't the Egyptian characters on the Sensen Papyrus translate into the Book of Abraham, as Joseph Smith claimed and the LDS church yet claims?

4c-Why did God have Joseph Smith buy the mummies and 'translate' the papyrus found in the sarcophaguses if God was inspiring the story of Abraham, while Joseph Smith thought he was 'translating' the Egyptian characters on the papyrus?

4d-Why did God not have Joseph Smith "restore" Facsimiles 1 and 2 correctly?

4e-Why did God not have Joseph Smith, through translation or mere inspiration, get the Explanations correct?

4f-Why did Joseph Smith use the GAEL/Kirtland Egyptian Papers to try in May 1843 to "translate" the Kinderhook Plates (which decades later were revealed to be phony plants)?

But why ask why?

How much better and more powerful (says Yoda) it is to state facts and insert them into the mind of the believer without asking any questions. You want to know a secret? I rarely use the word "WHY" when making my critical arguments against the Book of Abraham! Rather, I state the facts and then answer what may be construed as questions and allow that to sink in and poison the mind of the faithful in order to achieve the desired effect.

I am the greatest Book of Abraham critic on the planet. I am a faith killer!

Oh, great Book of Abraham critic! I am humbled and tremble by being in your presence. The approach taken of asking questions in that blog apparently is one exemplified as, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

In my own experience when trying legal cases to a jury, the jurors resist being told by lawyers what they should do before they have heard the evidence and come to that same conclusion on their own. Only after they see the light on their own is it persuasive to then vocalize that conclusion. You can bludgeon them with a club, but you cannot make them agree with you. Show them the way, and they will follow--tell them where to go, and they'll usually do the opposite.

[Shulem]

Oh, great Book of Abraham critic! I am humbled and tremble by being in your presence.

Thank you!

[Moksha]

MG does not tie the idea of "midrash or riff" as being the result of intentionally lying and dismissing the Holy Spirit. There is no way in hell MG is ever going to confess that Joseph was lying!

I think conceding that the Book of Abraham was BS is tantamount to admitting that Joseph Smith made the whole translation business up as a way to bamboozle his followers.

Dan Vogel would consider this a pious fraud because the end result was better than no one understanding the papyri at all, and it added to the world's Sci-Fi and Fantasy collection at that time.

[Shulem]

The approach taken of asking questions in that blog apparently is one exemplified as, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

In my own experience when trying legal cases to a jury, the jurors resist being told by lawyers what they should do before they have heard the evidence and come to that same conclusion on their own. Only after they see the light on their own is it persuasive to then vocalize that conclusion. You can bludgeon them with a club, but you cannot make them agree with you. Show them the way, and they will follow--tell them where to go, and they'll usually do the opposite.

Fair enough. I would love to see MG answer each of the six (6) questions you posed above with 1-3 paragraph explanations.

Do you think our Book of Mormon horse will drink?

[Shulem]

MG does not tie the idea of "midrash or riff" as being the result of intentionally lying and dismissing the Holy Spirit. There is no way in hell MG is ever going to confess that Joseph was lying!

I think conceding that the Book of Abraham was BS is tantamount to admitting that Joseph Smith made the whole translation business up as a way to bamboozle his followers.

It's a step in the right direction but far from a confession that Smith knowingly was telling lies. MG's excuses are couched in apologetics that rejects the Missing Roll Theory and grants the possibility of the Catalyst Theory and yet discards relative statements made by the prophet and his assistants that tell how Smith literally translated the papyri that was physically penned by the patriarchs Abraham & Joseph.

We see how Mormons are a divided people and disagree and contradict each other with Book of Abraham theories as well as Book of Mormon geography theories. Mormons used to be so proud about being a united people who claimed to be on the same page of music believing the same things. But it's really a divided church led by prophets who are spiritually brain dead (close minded) and are like walking corpses living out their fantasies of self-delusion.

[Moksha]

I think conceding that the Book of Abraham was BS is tantamount to admitting that Joseph Smith made the whole translation business up as a way to bamboozle his followers.

It's a step in the right direction but far from a confession that Smith knowingly was telling lies. MG's excuses are couched in apologetics that rejects the Missing Roll Theory and grants the possibility of the Catalyst Theory and yet discards relative statements made by the prophet and his assistants that tell how Smith literally translated the papyri that was physically penned by the patriarchs Abraham & Joseph.

Yes, but it also signals that MG realizes that those apologetic lies have been debunked and that some new outrageous excuse is needed, such as a serialization of a fictional story to gain readership for the Times and Seasons. Even outrageous excuses are sufficient as long as a snoring membership buys into it.