Shulem wrote: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.
The jury is out? What jury are you referencing? I have to think the only jury you could possibly reference is that of LDS apologists and faithful members of the church. The rest of the world (normal people) are already on board with the translations of Facsimile No. 3 to include LDS Egptologists. Everyone is in agreement that the writing in Facsimile No. 3 has been correctly translated by modern Egyptology.
So, the only jury is Smith's faithful -- those who refuses to come to terms with reality. Is that where your mentalgymnastics has taken you, into a world of denial and fantasy?
I think so.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cylon wrote: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.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
mentalgymnast wrote: 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.
mentalgymnast wrote: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
mentalgymnast wrote: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
mentalgymnast wrote: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
The heat in the kitchen was too much for mentalgymnast who elected to avoid answering the questions to his questions. I'm not going to let him get away with it. No, I'm not going to let him run off without shining the spotlight right where I want it. Therefore, I will answer the questions for him and represent what I feel is his conclusion based on the evidence presented and his reaction and behavior to the evidence:
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"?
[X] Yes [ ] No
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?
[X] Yes [ ] No
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"?
Shulem wrote:Therefore, I will answer the questions for him and represent what I feel is his conclusion[s]...
Again, Shulem, I appreciate the fact that you felt in necessary to start a new thread to tackle the original question I asked in another thread. I've already stated/shared what my feelings/inclinations are in regards to the Book of Abraham at this point and as I continue to weigh the information available on the balance scale.
Thank you for answering...vicariously...in the affirmative to the questions you asked of me. I don't know that I have any major quibble with answering these with a "yes". I"'m good with that.
Thanksgiving came during the progression of this thread and I've been otherwise occupied with my time.
I appreciated your willingness to help us understand more of the background/history to the statement I was referring to initially. I am not opposed to those that would conclude that Joseph Smith may have either made this statement and/or approved of it.
Shulem wrote:Therefore, I will answer the questions for him and represent what I feel is his conclusion[s]...
Again, Shulem, I appreciate the fact that you felt in necessary to start a new thread to tackle the original question I asked in another thread. I've already stated/shared what my feelings/inclinations are in regards to the Book of Abraham at this point and as I continue to weigh the information available on the balance scale.
Unfortunately you balance scale is not working, which is why you avoid even thinking about nuanced/catalyst theories. I suspect this explains why you haven't been able to give detailed views on how they work.
Themis wrote:Unfortunately you balance scale is not working, which is why you avoid even thinking about nuanced/catalyst theories. I suspect this explains why you haven't been able to give detailed views on how they work.
I don't have "detailed views" on many things. Shulem's answers to the question I posed in another thread and he wanted to answer in a new thread have been worth the read and I've appreciated him taking the time to answer.
So Themis, maybe I could ask for your thoughts in regards to this section in Jeff Lindsay's essay on the Book of Abraham:
Themis wrote:Unfortunately you balance scale is not working, which is why you avoid even thinking about nuanced/catalyst theories. I suspect this explains why you haven't been able to give detailed views on how they work.
I don't have "detailed views" on many things. Shulem's answers to the question I posed in another thread and he wanted to answer in a new thread have been worth the read and I've appreciated him taking the time to answer.
So Themis, maybe I could ask for your thoughts in regards to this section in Jeff Lindsay's essay on the Book of Abraham:
Most of these connections are not really connections. Gee also is trying to support the missing papyri theory. Your nuanced/catalyst theory is all about accepting the papyri has nothing to do with Abraham. You certainly don't have a detailed understanding of Book of Abraham issues, which is a good indicator of not wanting to know what is true. How many years have you been on these kind of forums?
Themis wrote:Unfortunately you balance scale is not working, which is why you avoid even thinking about nuanced/catalyst theories. I suspect this explains why you haven't been able to give detailed views on how they work.
I don't have "detailed views" on many things. Shulem's answers to the question I posed in another thread and he wanted to answer in a new thread have been worth the read and I've appreciated him taking the time to answer.
So Themis, maybe I could ask for your thoughts in regards to this section in Jeff Lindsay's essay on the Book of Abraham:
He brings up some interesting Egyptian connections with Abrahamic literature and how that might correlate with Joseph's translation.
Regards, MG
So what do I think about the real source of the Book of Abraham? I personally feel that Joseph had a scroll (in red and black) which really contained writings about Abraham. That scroll is not the Book of Breathings, but was probably part of the collection that A. Combs sold, which ultimately may have perished in the 1871 Chicago Fire. There are still questions I can't answer, but I certainly see no reason to reject Joseph Smith because of the Book of Breathings. To those who insist that no legitimate translation of the Book of Breathings could possibly result in the Book of Abraham, I agree! - Jeff Lindsay
So basically he can emphatically state the known scrolls DOES NOT contain the writings of Abraham and must be on some missing scrolls. That’s pretty convenient. Almost like an angel taking back the gold plates.
