BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3?? WEBSITE

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Shulem, please include an up-to-date vote tally and your comments regarding the outcome.

[_Shulem]

Shulem, please include an up-to-date vote tally and your comments regarding the outcome.

Current votes ( I hope I didn't miss anyone)

10 Shulem
8-9 Fence Sitter
8-9 Themis
8.9 deacon blues
8-9 Philo Sofee
8-9 Sanctorian
3 abinadi_fire
9 Symmachus
3 The Dude
10 Jesse Pinkman
10 DonBradley
8-9 tana
10 Jersey Girl
10+ Doctor CamNC4Me
10 Tator
5 Res Ipsa

My only comments about the voting outcome thus far is that I'm disappointed that more people haven't voted. Dr. Scratch - zilch. Shades -- nothing. You'd think people could at least look at the lead plate available on the church website and make an educated guess based on their own intelligent reasoning. It's not like this thing hasn't been publicized heavily on this board. I've been practically screaming at the top of my lungs and still, board members are either lazy, sheepish, or just don't give a damn.

What do I have to do? Get a stick out and start poking people? Jesus.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Shulem, please include an up-to-date vote tally and your comments regarding the outcome.

Current votes ( I hope I didn't miss anyone)

10 Shulem
8-9 Fence Sitter
8-9 Themis
8.9 deacon blues
8-9 Philo Sofee
8-9 Sanctorian
3 abinadi_fire
9 Symmachus
3 The Dude
10 Jesse Pinkman
10 DonBradley
8-9 tana
10 Jersey Girl
10+ Doctor CamNC4Me
10 Tator
5 Res Ipsa

My only comments about the voting outcome thus far is that I'm disappointed that more people haven't voted. Dr. Scratch - zilch. Shades -- nothing. You'd think people could at least look at the lead plate available on the church website and make an educated guess based on their own intelligent reasoning. It's not like this thing hasn't been publicized heavily on this board. I've been practically screaming at the top of my lungs and still, board members are either lazy, sheepish, or just don't give a damn.

What do I have to do? Get a stick out and start poking people? Jesus.

LOL

I am intrigued by the high voting scores by folks who are knowledgeable about various religious studies.

Don Bradley and Philo both voted on the high side. I think this should be good confirmation to you that you’re on the right track.

[_Shulem]

I am intrigued by the high voting scores by folks who are knowledgeable about various religious studies.

Don Bradley and Philo both voted on the high side. I think this should be good confirmation to you that you’re on the right track.

The ONLY thing that could have been scraped and removed from the original lead carving would have been a jackal snout being faithfully copied from the papyrus and transposed into the lead plate by Hedlock himself. I think my theory about Joseph Smith coming along and having the snout removed is right on track with exactly what happened. I challenge anyone else to come up with a better theory once it's realized by all parties that a snout was original to the carving.

Both the critics and the apologists can tender their own theories but I think mine is spot on. All of this is terrible news for the church and the member apologists who defend it. It's bad news too for the leaders because its more evidence on the existing mountain of evidence that proves the Book of Abraham is a fraud. It will make it that much more difficult for them to bear testimony that they know the Book of Abraham is the word of God.

I have to think that it won't be too long and the Facsimiles will be removed from LDS canon.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

I am intrigued by the high voting scores by folks who are knowledgeable about various religious studies.

Don Bradley and Philo both voted on the high side. I think this should be good confirmation to you that you’re on the right track.

The ONLY thing that could have been scraped and removed from the original lead carving would have been a jackal snout being faithfully copied from the papyrus and transposed into the lead plate by Hedlock himself. I think my theory about Joseph Smith coming along and having the snout removed is right on track with exactly what happened. I challenge anyone else to come up with a better theory once it's realized by all parties that a snout was original to the carving.

Both the critics and the apologists can tender their own theories but I think mine is spot on. All of this is terrible news for the church and the member apologists who defend it. It's bad news too for the leaders because its more evidence on the existing mountain of evidence that proves the Book of Abraham is a fraud. It will make it that much more difficult for them to bear testimony that they know the Book of Abraham is the word of God.

I have to think that it won't be too long and the Facsimiles will be removed from LDS canon.

What is really sad, is that if the Facsimiles are removed, it will likely be presented that they were never an official part of LDS canon to begin with.

[_Shulem]

What is really sad, is that if the Facsimiles are removed, it will likely be presented that they were never an official part of LDS canon to begin with.

The member apologists will attempt to present that but the actual leadership wouldn't dare. They will just remove it and let the chips fall where they will. At most they will contend that the story of the Book of Abraham is what really counts and the Facsimiles require further explanation which will be given in the own due time of the Lord.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Hey, Paul, I just noticed Nightlion’s quote in your signature! Really? I had no idea he felt that way.

That says a lot. Nightlion is probably one of the biggest Joseph Smith advocates here.

[Guest]

Weird things can happen, where apparently strong evidence falls apart. But when I look at the Facsimile 3 printing plate where Paul has pointed to the anomalous marks around the Olimlah figure's face, I don't have any real question that there was originally a snout and then this was chiseled away.

It's slightly less certain that this was removed under Joseph Smith's direction--that's harder to know. But it is difficult to imagine that someone would have presumed to change the printing plates, which were based on woodcuts done under Joseph Smith's direction, without Joseph's supervision. So I see a very high probability that Joseph directed that the snout be removed. And be that as it may, there is every appearance that there had been a snout.

This is not, for me a question of apologetics vs. criticism; it's a question of data. These data may have implications for apologetic-critical debates, but data are not in themselves inherently either apologetic or critical. We ought to be willing to let the chips of data fall where they may and then do our best to figure out what they mean.

I love what a substantive contribution Paul has made to Book of Abraham scholarship here, and I'll be fascinated to see how it changes the larger discussion.

Bravo! More! More!

Don

[_Shulem]

Bravo! More! More!

Don

Thank you so much for your kind words and reasonable position in just wanting to know the truth whether it helps the apologists or the critics. It's the truth that matters! And yes, I agree, there is an obvious jackal snout impression etched in the lead work in front of so-called Olimlah's face whom Joseph Smith interpreted as being a slave rather than a god. Not only is the name "Olimlah" unEgyptian but the person depicted therein is most certainly NOT a slave. Joseph Smith got it wrong on all accounts.

I've demonstrated in other threads how Joseph Smith assumed responsibility for the Facsimile construction and publication. He supervised and approved all the work, he said so himself. Smith was the editor of the Times and Seasons and worked closely with members of his staff in getting the Book of Abraham to publication. The Facsimiles were his babies. He used Hedlock's craftsmanship to form the plates and engrave his interpretation of what he wanted on them from the papyri at hand. There is no question about that. I've never heard anyone say otherwise.

[_DonBradley]

Paul,

Thanks for your reply.

You make a great case for Joseph Smith having overseen the removal of the snout on the printing plate, and I don't doubt that that's correct. The point I was trying to make is just that the removal of the snout and who decided to remove the snout are distinct--if highly inter-related--questions--i.e., Joseph Smith's supervision of the removal of the snout is an additional point above and beyond the fact that the snout was removed. But I see vanishingly little question that Joseph Smith ordered the removal of the snout.

You should publish on this. And when you do, you should lay out a full case both for the removal of the snout and for Joseph Smith's supervision of that process.

Don