[Moderated Thread] Discussion on Mormonism

[rcronk]

FYI - we have discussed some of the DNA issues over on the commentary thread (especially regarding a paper by Michael F. Whiting) because some other people were involved with the discussion. Perhaps we should stay out of the commentary thread and make our comments in here instead? I think this thread setup is a good experiment that we can learn a lot from.

Apologetics is (according to Merriam Webster) "systematic argumentative discourse in defense". I think it's healthy for two sides of an argument to be present for an argument and for assertions and studies not to go unchallenged.

You are resorting to personal attacks by saying that my belief (and some have suggested that Mr. Whiting's belief also) isn't allowing me (or him) to look at this objectively. I could assert the same thing against you but I have chosen not to.

I have given you specific problems with the DNA assertions you have brought forth and you are not considering any of the items Mr. Whiting has brought up - not even one - and they are valid from what I can tell.

What you did do is create two straw men from his hypotheses and knock them down and then say he didn't address another problem on the introduction page of the Book of Mormon when he did address it. You had nothing to say about the rest of his paper? Did he not explain how bad the science you are depending upon is:

The first point that should be clarified is that those persons who state that DNA evidence falsifies the authenticity of the Book of Mormon are not themselves performing genetic research to test this claim. This conclusion is not coming from the scientists studying human population genetics. It is not the result of a formal scientific investigation specifically designed to test the authenticity of the Book of Mormon by means of genetic evidence, nor has it been published in any reputable scientific journal open to scientific peer review. Rather, it has come from outside persons who have interpreted the conclusions of an array of population genetic studies and forced the applicability of these results onto the Book of Mormon. The studies cited by these critics were never formulated by their original authors as a specific test of the veracity of the Book of Mormon. To my knowledge there is no reputable researcher who is specifically attempting to test the authenticity of the Book of Mormon with DNA evidence.

Good science does not consist of someone dreaming up a pet theory and then quilting together pieces of evidence to support it from as many disparate sources as possible while conveniently ignoring pieces of evidence that may undercut the theory. Good science consists of formulating specific hypotheses that can be directly tested from a particular data source. The problem is that, unlike a good NSF research proposal, the Book of Mormon does not explicitly provide a list of null and alternative hypotheses for scientific testing. [This is with regard to DNA testing.]

Is he wrong? If so, how? I'll pass your concerns on to him so he can reply to them directly.

 

[RandFan]

Thanks rcronk,

I agree this should be here.

Who exactly wrote the introduction page (I've searched around and not been able to find the author(s) of it.)? Is the statement that the lamanites are the "principal ancestors of the American Indians" supposed to be a statement based on the human knowledge of that time (1981) to help people get a general idea of where the Lamanites lived and where they are now or is it asserted as divine revelation?

Again, you have a problem.

Ostensibly:

• The BOM is the word of god.
• God wanted the BOM brought forth to enlighten.
• God speaks to the leaders of the Mormon Church.
• The Mormon Church was behind the introduction page.
• As an aside, the Mormon Church does not take decision making lightly. I find it silly to suggest that some anonymous person typed up something and sent it off to the publishers without any vetting of the Church leadership.

How do you reconcile those premises? Was god not paying attention? Did god not care? Did god allow this to happen to test people's faith?

I'll leave the dark skinned discussion to one of your future "racial" items you suggested will be coming up soon. I'm also going to add a post in the moderated thread that points to this thread for discussion since we've included others in the conversation.

That's fine however I don't think we can simply skip over the fact that a prophet of god told a known falsehood (known to God). It brings up the same questions. What value is a living prophet of God if God won't clue him into such important questions?

Mormons know that Coke is bad but they don't know that Native Americans are not the descendants of Lamanites? Has the Church moved to educate Mormons? I've asked my family and none of them know this. Was an announcement made in the Ensign or General conference that these held views are wrong?

 

[rcronk]

P.S. I'm going to write to the office of the First Presidency to see if I can get an official statement about that part of the introduction page - who wrote it, what claims are being made about its origin (revelation, human knowledge of the time, etc.), and if the church plans on changing or removing it if it turns out to have been mistaken human knowledge. I'll post my response. I've received responses from them before and they've been helpful.

 

[RandFan]

Rcronk, let's stik to this thread for our responses on this issue.

First of all, Mr. Whiting is asserting that it can't be proven or disproved through DNA evidence for the reasons he has given in his paper. Therefore, we don't know for sure whether the statement is true or false by means of DNA testing. Again, if you have a problem with his assertion, let me know and I'll forward it to him and he can reply to you directly. Let's continue the discussion on the moderated thread, where I've posted a reply just now.

I don't know how many times I can repeat myself rcronk,

You are missing the point. By a mile. Please read Mr. Whiting's words.

If we grant that the global colonization hypothesis is the correct lineage history emerging from the Book of Mormon, this hypothesis predicts that the modern-day descendants of the Lamanite lineage should contain the Middle Eastern genetic signature. Since current population genetics suggests that Native Americans (presumed by some to be the direct genetic descendants of the Lamanites) have an Asian genetic signature, the above hypothesis is indeed incorrect.

The problem is that the Global Colonization Hypothesis is the default basis of the Church or at the least it hasn't been formaly denied. This is a real problem rcronk for the reasons I cited.

 

[rcronk]

He states in his paper:

The local [not global] colonization hypothesis is more limited in scope, includes many more complicating factors from a genetic perspective, is much more difficult to investigate by way of DNA evidence, and, in my view and that of Book of Mormon scholars, is a more accurate interpretation of the Lamanite lineage history.

You state that "the Global Colonization Hypothesis is the default basis of the Church or at the least it hasn't been formaly denied." Do you have a source for that stance? If the church's silence on that stance is your proof, I suggest you write them and ask them to find out. You can't tell me that since I have never denied that I think yellow clowns dance on the north pole that I must believe it and it must be my official stance.

Please provide any official church statement that suggests that the Lamanites went to the American Continent in a vacuum and didn't mix with anyone else and didn't have any of the genetic problems outlined in Mr. Whiting's paper. I haven't ever seen anyone claim this, but this is what would be required for DNA testing to be valid, according to Mr. Whiting.

P.S. I have typed up a letter to the Office of the First Presidency asking about who wrote the introduction, what process it went through, whether it is considered revelation or just man's knowledge as of 1981, etc. I will post the reply when I get it back.

 

[RandFan]

Please provide any official church statement that suggests that the Lamanites went to the American Continent in a vacuum and didn't mix with anyone else and didn't have any of the genetic problems outlined in Mr. Whiting's paper.

Please explain the meaning of the introductory page to the BOM?

You can't tell me that since I have never denied that I think yellow clowns dance on the north pole that I must believe it and it must be my official stance.

Does anyone think that you believe that yellow clowns dance on the North Pole?

I find you sincere rcronk but it is really hard for me to take this seriously. Are you honestly saying that there is no controversy as to what the members believe?

Why did Spencer W. Kimball say what he did about Navajo children? Doesn't that indicate, strongly, a position of belief among members? My anecdotal evidence demonstrates that this is likely true.

Why have so many Mormons left the church because they had believed that introduction to the BOM meant what it appeared to say.

 

[rcronk]

Never mind about the yellow clowns - I misunderstood what you were saying. I apologize for the misunderstanding and wasted text.

OK - I think I get what you're saying now. I think you're saying that because the introduction page to the Book of Mormon says that the Lamanites "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians" that the church is saying that there were no people here before Lehi got here, that the DNA didn't mix with current or subsequent inhabitants after Lehi arrived and that there were no founder effects, etc.

What does the word "principal" mean in the context of the introduction page? Is it different than what it might mean in the context of DNA testing? Does it mean that most of the DNA of current Native Americans comes from Lehi? Does it mean that the majority of the Native Americans living today could trace some part of their ancestry back to Lehi and it doesn't have to do with DNA markers that might have been replaced by DNA from others that his descendants mixed with? If you figure 20 years per generation, that's 130 generations - someone could be a descendant of Lehi and only have a very small amount of his DNA. I don't know - perhaps Mr. Whiting could answer that.

As I stated earlier, out of curiosity, I'm writing to the church to see if I can get their official position on that statement - was it considered revelation or was it human knowledge as of 1981, what validation it went through, etc. just so we have another data point and so we don't have to assume on those things any more.

The Book of Mormon itself (which doesn't include the introduction page) says that it could contain errors of men in it and talks about those would could get all caught up on unimportant errors that don't deal with the important subject matter of it being a testament of Christ. Or it could be that it is still a true statement and that those who are quoting DNA evidence are making some huge assumptions. Again, I would have to defer to Mr. Whiting - I'm a software engineer, not a DNA expert.

As for Spencer W. Kimball - I'm not sure why he'd say that in 1960. It might have just been his own opinion. I really don't know and it would be difficult to ask him at this point. Let's not derail the discussion at hand though.

 

[RandFan]

OK - I think I get what you're saying now. I think you're saying that because the introduction page to the Book of Mormon says that the Lamanites "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians" that the church is saying that there were no people here before Lehi got here, that the DNA didn't mix with current or subsequent inhabitants after Lehi arrived and that there were no founder effects, etc.

Close, but not quite.

• The Church receives modern revelation through god.
• God is omniscient.
• The truth is important to god.
• Why wouldn't god make clear that Native Americans are not descendants of Laman and Lemuel?

What does the word "principal" mean in the context of the introduction page?

More importantly, why would there be any controversy at all?

Is it different than what it might mean in the context of DNA testing? Does it mean that most of the DNA of current Native Americans comes from Lehi? Does it mean that the majority of the Native Americans living today could trace some part of their ancestry back to Lehi and it doesn't have to do with DNA markers that might have been replaced by DNA from others that his descendants mixed with? If you figure 20 years per generation, that's 130 generations - someone could be a descendant of Lehi and only have a very small amount of his DNA. I don't know - perhaps Mr. Whiting could answer that.

To be fair to Mr. Whiting and to be intellectually honest, he doesn't say that acceptance of the first Global Colonization Hypothesis would prove that the BOM is false only that it would falsify the hypothesis.

That said, there really is no reasonable way around it. You get to a point of splitting hairs that don't make a compelling case. Like I said, if you present the facts to a non-Mormon it is extremely unlikely that they would accept the apologetics.

As I stated earlier, out of curiosity, I'm writing to the church to see if I can get their official position on that statement - was it considered revelation or was it human knowledge as of 1981, what validation it went through, etc. just so we have another data point and so we don't have to assume on those things any more.

Please feel free to do anything you feel necessary. I don't see the point though.

The Book of Mormon itself (which doesn't include the introduction page) says that it could contain errors of men in it and talks about those would could get all caught up on unimportant errors that don't deal with the important subject matter of it being a testament of Christ. Or it could be that it is still a true statement and that those who are quoting DNA evidence are making some huge assumptions. Again, I would have to defer to Mr. Whiting - I'm a software engineer, not a DNA expert.

As for Spencer W. Kimball - I'm not sure why he'd say that in 1960. It might have just been his own opinion. I really don't know and it would be difficult to ask him at this point. Let's not derail the discussion at hand though.

I won't push the matter any further. I think ample has been said. Please feel free to revisit the issue as much you feel it appropriate.

I'll post my next point later.

Thanks

 

[rcronk]

I think we understand each other on item 2. I get where you're coming from and I'm still going to send the letter to find out more about the introduction. I still don't agree with the ad hominem attacks on any Mormon looking at this - being discredited and unable to be objective. On to item 3.

 

[RandFan]

I think we understand each other on item 2. I get where you're coming from and I'm still going to send the letter to find out more about the introduction. I still don't agree with the ad hominem attacks on any Mormon looking at this - being discredited and unable to be objective. On to item 3.

I don't understand the point about ad hominem attacks. If I've done this I will gladly apologize. Please clarify?

 

[rcronk]

The ad hominem attacks are of this nature: "if you present the facts to a non-Mormon it is extremely unlikely that they would accept the apologetics." I got the following from that statement - perhaps I'm reading too much into it: because I disagree with you and because I am a Mormon, the only reason I am disagreeing with you is that I'm biased and just won't accept facts - if I were not a Mormon, I'd "get it" and agree with you because I wouldn't have such bias. Could it be that I have a different point of view that is valid and we just don't completely understand each other yet?

As I thought about your assertions last night, I thought about a couple more:

You're also assuming:

* that the DNA evidence proves absolutely that the word "principal" in the introduction to the Book of Mormon is a mistake.
* that God doesn't allow people, even prophets or other people who are in charge of writing an introduction page to the Book of Mormon, to make mistakes.
* that bringing people to a knowledge of Christ and His teachings and motivating them to follow His teachings and come unto Him is equally important to stating that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the Native Americans.

All prophets from the Old and New testaments and in this dispensation were imperfect men trying to follow what God has told them - this is well documented. Moses felt he couldn't be a prophet because he was slow in speech. Joseph Smith made mistakes several times. The brother of Jared from the Book of Mormon was corrected for making mistakes also. They were not perfect and therefore they all made mistakes and God allowed it - forcing them to never make a mistake would go against free will.

Nobody has ever claimed that prophets were perfect except those who point out their mistakes as being proof that they are not really prophets of God.

At this point, I am not convinced one way or the other that the word "principal" in the introduction is right or wrong, but either way, I don't demand perfection from anyone but God and I know that He allows all of us to make mistakes.

If the science is bad and the word "principal" is correct, fine. If the word is incorrect, fine - I'm not going to throw away everything else because of one unimportant mistake made by some unknown person in 1981.

 

[RandFan]

The ad hominem attacks are of this nature: "if you present the facts to a non-Mormon it is extremely unlikely that they would accept the apologetics."

There is some controversy as to what constitutes ad hominem. It's quite possible that my statement meet such a standard.

You could argue that I'm poisoning the well. Perhaps a case for special pleading could be made. I will accept the charge. I'm sorry.

I'm curious, if we did conduct an experiment and non-Mormons were shown not likely to accept the apologetics and Mormon's were, would that have any effect on your belief?

Let me say that wasn't that you are wrong because you are Mormon. I'm saying that a person who has a bias for any particular theology, philosophy or ideology is less likely to look at the evidence in a critical light.

* that the DNA evidence proves absolutely that the word "principal" in the introduction to the Book of Mormon is a mistake.

No, that is a non sequitur. You are putting the premises and inference out of order.

We must first decide what is meant by "principal" before we ever consider the DNA evidence.

* that God doesn't allow people, even prophets or other people who are in charge of writing an introduction page to the Book of Mormon, to make mistakes.

Well, you would have to make a counter argument that God does allow people to make mistakes when it comes to significantly important things. I think that is a valid point of contention.

* that bringing people to a knowledge of Christ and His teachings and motivating them to follow His teachings and come unto Him is equally important to stating that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the Native Americans.

I think this was the "old wine in new bottles" point. Why use a profoundly flawed medium to spread so important of a message?

All prophets from the Old and New testaments and in this dispensation were imperfect men trying to follow what God has told them - this is well documented.

I'm sorry but I've got to protest. You are assuming that (a) there is a god and (b) he talks to anyone.

I don't accept either premise.

Moses felt he couldn't be a prophet because he was slow in speech. Joseph Smith made mistakes several times. The brother of Jared from the Book of Mormon was corrected for making mistakes also. They were not perfect and therefore they all made mistakes and God allowed it - forcing them to never make a mistake would go against free will.

Let's assume that there is a god and that he talks to prophets.

I accept the argument that he can't force them never to make a mistake. Is it impossible for him to contact the prophet and inform the prophet of the mistake?

At this point, I am not convinced one way or the other that the word "principal" in the introduction is right or wrong, but either way, I don't demand perfection from anyone but God and I know that He allows all of us to make mistakes.

Is it possible for you to understand why I have a problem with that reasoning? It sounds convenient to me. You say god talks to prophets why didn't god at some point correct the mistake?

If the science is bad and the word "principal" is correct, fine. If the word is incorrect, fine - I'm not going to throw away everything else because of one unimportant mistake made by some unknown person in 1981.

Here we will have to disagree. I think it is important.

Leaving that aside, what would change your mind?

 

[rcronk]

Thanks for the apology. Yes, we could take a poll of Mormons and non-Mormons and find out which side of the fence they fall on with this and I would assume we'd find a correlation that was belief-based. That's a valid point to watch out for, but to apply that general poll to a specific person is like pulling over a black man and assuming that he's a criminal because of the percentage of prisoners who are black in that area - I think it's an association fallacy.

Agreed, the meaning of the word "principal" is important to consider before anything else.

By the way, instead of writing the Office of the First Presidency, I have talked to the Church History Museum and they have given me an email address where I can send my questions about the introduction page and they will assign a researcher to these questions and they said it might take a couple of weeks for them to reply. When I get a reply I'll post it.

Yes, God does correct prophets when they've made mistakes, based on what's written (assuming there is a God, etc.). We'll have to find out who wrote the introduction and what process it went through to get printed with the Book of Mormon to see if it was prophetic or if it was just someone trying to help the unfamiliar reader to fit the Book of Mormon into the world that they are familiar with, based on 1981 human knowledge.

Again, how important that detail is compared to salvation through Christ is subjective. Mistakes exist when humans are involved, period. When the mistakes are minor, I don't think I would expect a correction. There have been human introduced errors in the Book of Mormon during printing and formatting, etc. that weren't corrected by God and there were other, more significant errors that were corrected by God (assuming God exists, etc.). Again, I think we'll have to find out who wrote the introduction and what verification process it went through before we make any more assumptions about it.

I don't consider one word possibly being wrong in an introduction page that's not even part of the book itself as indicating that it is "a profoundly flawed medium". Perhaps you're talking about other flaws, but that's outside the scope of item 2.

I accept that you don't believe god (or God ) exists and that he (or He) talks to men - I get it. We can assume things for the sake of argument for the purpose of understanding each other better though.

I guess we can disagree about a mistake in the introduction being a big deal or not. Taken in perspective, I don't think it's a big deal. You think it is. It really has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon itself and mistakes happen (assuming it is a mistake in the first place).

What would change my mind about how important it is? Let me think out loud for a minute about it. If you're asking a different question, sorry.

You assert that there's an error in the introduction and that it is important, therefore God should have corrected it through His prophets, however He didn't and therefore God doesn't exist and/or the prophets are false.

Let's be honest and look at the possible sources for each of us claiming that it is or is not important:

I could be thinking it's not important because:
- It could be a correct statement based on the meaning of "principal"
- Assuming it was a mistake, it is not part of the Book of Mormon - the Book of Mormon itself makes no such claims
- We don't know what process it went through to get into the book. I assume it went through the first presidency and it may have either been correct or not a big enough mistake for them to be inspired to give it the boot.
- Finding out that a prophet didn't correct a mistake may challenge my beliefs about God and prophets - so bias could lead me to decrease its importance. This could very well be true, but again, that would depend upon me thinking it really was important enough to change and thinking that it was a mistake in the first place. Perhaps the answer from the Church History Museum will help clear some of this up.

You could think it's important because:
- It conflicts with DNA studies and shows that something went wrong here, either God doesn't exist, Mormon prophets are not inspired, etc.
- It could support the decision you made to leave the church and so it gets bumped up through that bias, similarly to my own possible bias

I accept that the importance for each of us could be affected by some bias on one or both sides. I think we honestly have to accept that as a possibility.

Perhaps if you explained (taking into consideration the reasons I have given as to why it doesn't seem important to me) why you think it's so important, maybe that would help move this forward. Of course, I may be answering the wrong question.

If we're getting stuck here (I think I detect some stickiness here), we could move on to item 3 instead.

 

[RandFan]

I accept that the importance for each of us could be affected by some bias on one or both sides. I think we honestly have to accept that as a possibility.

Perhaps if you explained (taking into consideration the reasons I have given as to why it doesn't seem important to me) why you think it's so important, maybe that would help move this forward. Of course, I may be answering the wrong question.

If we're getting stuck here (I think I detect some stickiness here), we could move on to item 3 instead.

Good post. Thanks. I suspect we are very close to moving on.

Let me just touch on why this is important to me.

• I grew up believing that Native Americans (the vast majority) were of the lineage of Abraham.
• This is what I, and others I knew, taught as missionaries.
• The Church never moved to correct this idea (AFAIK).
• Instead of making it clear that Native Americans were not necessarily of the lineage of Abraham the Church released an introduction page that did not change this perception.
• Church leaders (prophets) routinely made comments that supported the perception (see Spencer W. Kimball).
• Truth seems to be a significant aspect of Mormonism.
• This Church wide misconception seems to be counter to the truth.

What else isn't true?

 

[rcronk]

Got it. Fair enough. Assuming the DNA evidence conflicts with the word "principal" in the introduction, I get your point. I agree that truth is truth and all truth should be rooted out and rigorously discovered. I do admit that this particular truth in and of itself doesn't seem like an important personal salvation breaker to me, but it's a truth nonetheless. I hope the answers I get from the church history museum (library?) help shed some light on this. I asked not only for the author of the introduction but the history of it and the process it went through to be OK'd for inclusion with the BofM. I also pointed out my interest specifically in the Native Americans portion.Item 2 feels good - shall we move on?

 

[RandFan]

Item #3, Book of Abraham.

The Book of Abraham is a scriptural text for some denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement. According to Joseph Smith, Jr., the movement's founder, the text is a partial translation of the words of Abraham, in his own hand, written on a set of Egyptian papyri purchased by the religion in 1835 from a traveling mummy show, although subsequent examination of those papyri has called that claim into question.
The work was originally published in the Latter Day Saint movement newspaper Times and Seasons together with facsimiles of vignettes from the papyrus, with Smith's interpretations. Later, it was republished as part of the Pearl of Great Price, which has been included in the canon of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as one of its four scriptural works.

According to Smith, the papyri recounts the story of Abraham's early life as well as a vision he received concerning the creation of the world. The book is a source of some distinctive and controversial Latter-day Saint doctrines such as the exaltation of humanity, the plurality of gods, priesthood, pre-mortal existence, and other inhabited worlds in the cosmos. Some denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement, such as the Community of Christ, do not consider the book to be scripture.
For many years the original papyri were considered lost. In 1966 eleven fragments of the papyri were found in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Examination of these fragments by both Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that these fragments contain funerary texts, dating to about the first century BC, that describe events in the afterlife of deceased Egyptians.

Long story short:

• Joseph Smith obtains ancient Egyptian papyri.
• The Egyptian language at that time is not decipherable.
• Joseph ostensibly translates and publishes the translation.
• The papyri is lost.
• The Rosetta stone is found and the Egyptian language is deciphered.
• The papyri is found.
• Mormon and non-Mormon scholars agree that the papyri does not say what Joseph Smith claimed.

You can find a very good analysis here of some of the apologetics and why they fail to justify Joseph Smith's claims.

 

[rcronk]

On the second to last item, you say "The papyri is found", referring to the fragments spoken of in your quote above. I'd like to add some detail to that by saying that about 13% of the papyri was found. (John Gee, "The Ancient Owners of the Joseph Smith Papyri" and "The Disciple As Witness: Essays on Latter-Day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson", edited by Richard Lloyd Anderson, Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges)

It is correct that the papyri that was found did not contain the book of Abraham but funerary texts - which is expected. However, since about 87% of the papyri was not found, the book of Abraham could have come from this missing 87%.

 

[RandFan]

On the second to last item, you say "The papyri is found", referring to the fragments spoken of in your quote above. I'd like to add some detail to that by saying that about 13% of the papyri was found. (John Gee, "The Ancient Owners of the Joseph Smith Papyri" and "The Disciple As Witness: Essays on Latter-Day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson", edited by Richard Lloyd Anderson, Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges)

It is correct that the papyri that was found did not contain the book of Abraham but funerary texts - which is expected. However, since about 87% of the papyri was not found, the book of Abraham could have come from this missing 87%.

AIU, the papyri found, it turns out, is a common text known as the Book of the Dead. Quite a few copies have been found. To date not a single papyri has been found that contains anything remotely similar to the Book of Abraham.

So Smith happened to find a text that conveniently has no contemporary. Nothing in which to coorborate it and the only thing that could be found remaining of the papyri is the common portion.

Why did the papyri containing a story of Abraham exist at all? Is there any basis to believe that Egyptians kept these important stories of Abraham when the Israelites didn't? Is there any reason to embalm a copy of the book of the dead and stories of Abraham with a dead Egyptian? The burial of mumies was very precise. Why include a text that had nothing to whatsoever to do with the Egyptian concept of the next life with the Book of the Dead? Why was a text that was very contemptous of Egyptian theology included in the ritual of Egyptian burial?

Why did Abraham use facimilies? Why did Abraham draw facimilies that look remarkably like Egyptian facimilies?

More damning, the facsimiles from the Book of Abraham do not depict what Joseph Smith Claimed. No scholars to date accept Smith's translation. The apologetics that try, in vain, to answer the criticisms are not taken seriously by any non-Mormon scholar. None agree with smith.

On the contrary there is much evidence that the apologetics are simply wrong.

The following is a great video of the controversy that is very in depth.

 

[rcronk]

You're kind of moving the goalposts a little. You explicitly stated that item 3 was:

• Joseph Smith obtains ancient Egyptian papyri.
• The Egyptian language at that time is not decipherable.
• Joseph ostensibly translates and publishes the translation.
• The papyri is lost.
• The Rosetta stone is found and the Egyptian language is deciphered.
• The papyri is found.
• Mormon and non-Mormon scholars agree that the papyri does not say what Joseph Smith claimed.

I refuted that claim. You ignored my refutation and went on to bring up a bunch of other items. I'm willing to go through each one, but I ask that you not ignore my responses and bring up several other items like this in the future.

This document should address most of your questions, if not, let me know: http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Abraham_papyri_%28long%29

From that link, "In this vignette, Joseph identified the figure lying on the lion couch as Abraham. Egyptologists, however, identify the figure as Osiris. Based on an early Judaic adaptation of Facsimile 1, Joseph got it exactly right." - go read the document if you want to know more.

Regarding the Kirtland Egyptian Papers: http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers

"The Prophet described the papyrus he used in translation in these words: "The record … found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation." (History of the Church, 2:348.) The Book of Breathings papyrus has no writing in red ink and is in an extremely poor state of preservation." - Link This implies that the text of the Book of Abraham came from a different scroll.

Here's a paper discussing the video you posted in detail: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LBOA.pdf

Another thing that's bugging me is that you and others have knocked www.fairlds.org as being biased and have many times rejected it because it would obviously be biased, but then you post video and other evidence from anti-Mormon sources and never mention any possibility of bias in them. I see a double standard here and this relates to the ad hominem attack I mentioned earlier.

BTW: I know Gary Webb - who appears in the video. We've been acquaintances for several years and we've talked about his leaving the church and he never mentioned the book of Abraham but did mention other things that were unrelated. It's a small world.

 

[RandFan]

You're kind of moving the goalposts a little. You explicitly stated that item 3 was:

• Joseph Smith obtains ancient Egyptian papyri.
• The Egyptian language at that time is not decipherable.
• Joseph ostensibly translates and publishes the translation.
• The papyri is lost.
• The Rosetta stone is found and the Egyptian language is deciphered.
• The papyri is found.
• Mormon and non-Mormon scholars agree that the papyri does not say what Joseph Smith claimed.

I refuted that claim.

Refuted what "claim"? There are multiple claims and you have refuted nothing.

You ignored my refutation and went on to bring up a bunch of other items. I'm willing to go through each one, but I ask that you not ignore my responses and bring up several other items like this in the future.

This is not being fair rcronk, I made multiple claims and all you did was make an assertion that that the relevant portion of papyri was lost. I then demonstrated why that was an unreasonable claim.

This document should address most of your questions, if not, let me know: http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)

I'm not going to argue via link. I gave you specific points. Please respond to them.

From that link, "In this vignette, Joseph identified the figure lying on the lion couch as Abraham. Egyptologists, however, identify the figure as Osiris. Based on an early Judaic adaptation of Facsimile 1, Joseph got it exactly right." - go read the document if you want to know more.

You simply assert that "Joseph got it exactly right". What is your basis for saying so?

I'm not going to do your work for you.

Regarding the Kirtland Egyptian Papers: http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers

"The Prophet described the papyrus he used in translation in these words: "The record … found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation." (History of the Church, 2:348.) The Book of Breathings papyrus has no writing in red ink and is in an extremely poor state of preservation." - Link This implies that the text of the Book of Abraham came from a different scroll.

All well and good but the notes of Joseph's scribes put the markings from the scrolls directly next to translated text. This does not resolve the issue.

Here's a paper discussing the video you posted in detail: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LBOA.pdf

The video was posted to support my points and NOT to be my argument. Please deal with my points.

Another thing that's bugging me is that you and others have knocked www.fairlds.org as being biased and have many times rejected it because it would obviously be biased, but then you post video and other evidence from anti-Mormon sources and never mention any possibility of bias in them. I see a double standard here and this relates to the ad hominem attack I mentioned earlier.

The video was provided to support my points. If you want to post links to support your points I don't mind at all.

Please address the points made?