A few questions for Shulem

[_Shulem]

I wonder: If the Book of Abraham was some other religion's problem, would Kerry Muhlestein defend it with the same amount of charitable "wait-and-see" attitude?

Nope. He wouldn't.

[_Dr. Shades]

In that case, would someone who still posts at the Mormon Dialogue & Discussion board please start a thread with the following question?

"If the Book of Abraham was revealed by a religion other than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what would you think of it?"

[_mentalgymnast]

The facts are, we have the all the facts when it comes to the translations of Facsimile No. 3.

I suppose that's where, at least for now, I'd have to part ways with you. The fact is, I don't have all the facts...at least at this point...that I would need to make an assessment of the translations of Facsimile 3 that I would feel comfortable staking a claim on.

That you have, I do not dispute and/or challenge. And I wouldn't even try to jar/move you from the conclusions that you have made with the information that you've gathered. As far as you're concerned you have come to the truth of the matter.

For me, and for now, I'd have to say the jury is out. But as said earlier, I'm going to read some more, think some more, and educate myself above and beyond where I'm at.

I appreciate the fact you've taken your time to help educate us from your end.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Hey Shulem,

I think it ought to come as a reminder that I started this thread at your request as a result of a question I asked on another thread. You felt it better that I start a new thread in order to answer my question. I need to be clear that my interests at the time dealt with one sentence that I brought over from the JSP's to get some additional insight on.

That's it.

Although, I must say, I also appreciate the time you've spent to go above and beyond the call of duty to answer my question.

Thank you.

Also, to be clear...and there is no other place I can really say this on this board because I can't start a new thread to do so, there are going to be times from here on out where I will be at a distinct disadvantage in replying to posts on certain threads because of personal commitments I have made.

I'd like to...but I can't. But it is what it is. I'll have to take the hits.

Regards,
MG

[_Fence Sitter]

So even after all the evidence Shulem has presented on Facsimile #3 MG wants to pretend that all the facts aren't out there just because a LDS Egyptologist says so.

"Hey a smart guy LDS who agrees with me says you are wrong."

Well how about this.

Michael Rhodes, a BYU professor, trained in Egyptology at Oxford amoung other places, has published his own translation of Facsimile #3 as well as the rest of the Hor Book of Breathings here.

The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary

This is published by FARMS.

Rhodes labels the five figures as Osiris, Isis, Maat, Hor and Anubis.

"Drops Mic".

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Fence Sitter,

If you think pumpo-the-clown read Shulem's posts, much less thought about them in any way shape or form, then I have some great stock tips for an up and coming media service called 'Blockbuster'.

- Doc

[_Shulem]

Although, I must say, I also appreciate the time you've spent to go above and beyond the call of duty to answer my question.

Then a proper response would be appreciated.

Is it a direct quote from Joseph Smith? Can the dots...words...be connected directly to him?

I answered the question using church doctrine and historical recitations from those in question to the affirmative. So, I ask you, mentalgymnast, are you now convinced that Joseph Smith authored the Explanation in Mormon canon, namely: "The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time"?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

If not, should we conclude that this statement is authoritative?

Do you now believe that the statement: "The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time" is an authoritative revelation in Mormon canon?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

On the other hand, is it reasonable to conclude/hypothesize that this statement was made under, as you say, "his authority and proclaims things in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Spirit"?

Is it reasonable?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

[_Maksutov]

Your assessment of his shameful non-scholarship on the Book of Abraham is spot on. He's a wannabe philosopher who heard something about worldview apologetics one time and thinks that gives him carte blanche to continue believing whatever the hell he wants despite disconfirming evidence.

A Mormon presuppositionalist. It was inevitable.

[_Maksutov]

THE ONLY PEOPLE HAVING DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM ARE THOSE TRYING TO DEFEND IT.

Amen. Another way of putting it is that I have exactly the same difficulty understanding the Book of Abraham as I do understanding The Record of Rajah Manchou of Vorito. I easily understand that the evidence is overwhelming for both that they are obvious fraud.

Do I need to explain every little blip in the story of the Book of Abraham? No. I just need to understand that Facsimile 3 is unexplainable outside of the obvious explanation of fraud. That's the same consideration I give to Strang's work. If (hypothetically) God requires me to explain every little part of blip in the story to discount fraud, then I really need to do this for every fraudster who ever lived. I can't just privilege things that Joseph Smith produced. I have to investigate every aspect of James Strang's work, and David Koresh, and Jim Jones, and .... ad infinitum and explain that there is no possibility that they could possibly be true, even with the most convoluted "what if" Trickster-God scenarios, which is what it takes to explain the Book of Abraham.

I don't have enough time for that and, frankly, I have too much self-respect. If God really wants to reach me, he knows where to find me. (Free tip for God: if you do want to communicate with me, don't do so through stories that look like obvious fraud! <<Cough Cough Book of Abraham>>)

Excellent. Strang is way too unappreciated as an oblique light on Joseph Smith: he pulled off everything that Smith did (even got his ass killed) but there are no layers of apologetics and dedicated institutions parsing and gilding his inventions. He didn't amass the capital to ensure the perpetuation of his cult.

[_fetchface]

Excellent. Strang is way too unappreciated as an oblique light on Joseph Smith: he pulled off everything that Smith did (even got his ass killed) but there are no layers of apologetics and dedicated institutions parsing and gilding his inventions. He didn't amass the capital to ensure the perpetuation of his cult.

The fact is, all of MG's arguments apply equally well to Strang's work of fraud, as do all of the standard arguments for the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham.

I simply love when people ask me how I can discount some "miraculous" aspect of the Book of Mormon translation process and I ask them in return how they can discount that identical aspect of Strang's translation process. It's really quite fun. Of course, it is not as fun with MG, as he will earnestly reply with some extremely ridiculous form of special pleading leaving me wondering if he is seriously that bad at critical thinking or just trolling me.