AlexanderX

Oh I have. I have dealt with all the parallels to 19th century works. Works that spoke of Abraham tradition myths about him being sacrificed. All the things that Joseph Smith was exposed to, is reflected quite well in the Book of Abraham. What form is that? Chiasmus? The same form that we find in the rest of Joseph Smith's writings and "revelations." I have, more than you apparently. You have not shown any ancient literary form to begin with. You're expecting me to address something you haven't presented. All you present is assertion. In the meantime, the overwhelming evidence suggests strongly that Joseph Smith believed the Sen Sen papyrus was the source for the Book of Abraham. Yet modern Egyptologists translate it as having absolutely nothing to do with Smith's creative story. No, it is you who is dealing with a side show, and you know it. If I tell my Hebrew professor that I found some ancient manuscripts containing the diary of Moses, and he translates it for me and says it is actually a note written by a Jewish scribe to his mother around 400 AD, then it would be absurd for me to keep telling him that we should analyze "the content" to see if there is any "ancient literary form" that might suggest it really is from the time of Moses. This is how desperate the apologetic position has become. It lives on the lines of interpretation and ambiguity, that way they can always say it is just one interpretation against another's. It really expects the rest of the world to perform the same mental gymnastics, just because they're willing to do so. You don't know what you're talking about. I know the Book of Abraham backwards and forwards. I don't merely read it and pray for warm fuzzy feelings to confirm that it is from God. Follwo the alanogy above. I already know for a fact that Joseph Smith was making it all up and he was pretending to translate an ancient document when he could not. This is a logical deduction of teh facts. So to entertain your non-specific claim of ancient literary form is just a red herring intended to avoid the elephant. Content is important, and the content pretty much proves he was simply regurgitating more 19th century lore from books that he owned.

I am willing to discuss, but I'm not willing to be dragged by the nose down a fantastical apologetic scenario that doesn't bode with the facts. It just amazes me that it doesn't really matter to some LDS if Joseph Smith couldn't translate ancient documents. It is just fascinating. People are willing deny anything to maintain a belief. You say it is ok to present data without attacks, but clearly for some Mormons here, the data itself is considered an attack.

Nonsense. Joseph Smith made it perfectly clear he was translating the characters from the plates. He even made a copy of some of them so his "translation" could be verified. But he still used the Bible to do it. Smith's intention was to restore lost material from the originals. Whatever he thought he was doing with the Bible, there can be no doubt he was conveying a strong message that he was making literal translations of the Egyptian papyri. To say he didn't need the plates to produce the Book of Mormon, kinda begs the question: Why then in the heck did Mormoni go through all the trouble to preserve and then bury them so Smith could find them? This doesn't save Smith at all because Smith made it clear he was translating the characters. The first thing he did when he saw the papyri was to point out that it referred to Abraham and Joseph. He even provided a literal translation of Egyptian characters in the facsimile preceding the BoA text. Utterly amazing. Huh? God didn't "use" the text for anything. Joseph Smith claimed to be translating Egyptian characters into English because at the time there was nobody who could validate his claims. Now there are. Smith fails the test miserably. We know Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents. Period. The content doesn't help him either. And that is by design. The apologists have fumbled the ball in trying to explain how Joseph Smith could have mistranslated it so badly, so they are focusing on whatever else they can. This is such nonsense. The Book of Abraham is filled with new doctrine that Smith had found in a book written by Thomas Dick. The book referred to spiritual intelligences that existed eternally, the throen of God was at the ecnter of teh Universe, etc. The parallels were just too overwhelming to ignore, and we know for a fact that Smith owned this book. It was published just a few years prior to the purchase of the Egyptian payri. Deal with the elephant in the room and tsop trying to foist a silly burden onto me. Why do his literal translations of literal egyptian characters bear no resemblance to anything related to Abraham? Oh, more feelings to outweigh the facts, huh?

But they haven't. When you base it all on emotion, there is plenty reason to "doubt" it. Testimonies are not based on information. They are not educated decisions. They are decisions based on emotional highs that are induced by missionaries.

The question is, why would God give conflicting answers using the exact same emotional means, to two different groups of people?

True, but I wanted to believe. I still do. I was trying to believe for my entire 20 year membership. But I also think it would be cool if Santa Claus was real. It cannot be argued that I was looking for reasons not to. Hell, I spent a good portion of my life working for apologetic efforts like FAIR. I think there are still a few articles up on their website that I authored years ago.

There is no reasonable reason to believe he did. Why is it that God and Jesus never appear to anyone else? Is it really likely that Joseph's faith was that much stronger than the millions who have followed him? Of course, but it is all nonsense. I had convinced myself as well as anyone possibly could, that the Church was true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet, when I first prayed about it. I knew for certainty that God was going to reward my faithfulness with an answer of some sort. Faith unwaivering, not a drop of doubt, that was me. I prayed all night and eventually fell asleep. After receiving no answer, I assumed I was spiritually dirty in some way - because Mormons told me that would be the only way I wouldn't receive an answer - and then went into depression for a few months. And I tried to get myself out of it by joining the Church anyway. I was assured by everyone in the Church that this was the right thing to do, because, after all, the Church was true. A year later, on my mission I met many guys who were in the same position that I was in. They never really received a hard definitive answer, but they were raised in the Church and they felt the pressures of having a testimony the way everyone else appeared to have. Instead, they just had faith that someday in the future God would reward their blind faithfulness with an answer that is undeniable. I would say 99% of all the "answers" that are talked about are easily explained as the placebo effect. Humans can induce feelings if they really want something to be true, and many people want the Church to be true, in spite of the evidence. For those unfamiliar with teh placebo effect... And example would be like this. People who are given water pills, yet believe they contain aspirin, will often find themselves headache free within minutes. Mormonism works in the same way. It gets people to want the Church to be true,, by telling fairy-talesque stories about preexistence, families forever, sense of being special and unique, becoming a God, being the one and only special Church that is true, etc.

That is a convenient rationalization for Mormons who are left to wonder why nobody else follows their method and conclusion. But in any event, this is not what missionaries tell prospective converts. They assure them that they will get an answer. They never tell them that they have to be worthy of it. Instead they tell them it is about faith. This is just more apologetic nonsense that doesn't add up. People receive "good feelings" of negation that are identical those good feelings of confirmation. It all boils down to the fact that people will believe what they want to believe. This is an established fact. People who really want the Church to be true, will induce good feelings and convince themselves of it, depite the data to the contrary.

But most people who ask God this get the negative response. So either God is lying or the method is flawed.

No argument from me on that. God wasn't responsible for either. LDS Christians do. Yea, I know. And it is a testimony based on feelings, not information. As HiJolly said, "information" takes the back seat in the LDS method of conversion. But investigators are not told this ahead of time. They are not told upfront that they are going to be expected to make a life-changing decision based on minimal information and maximal emotion. For example, the failure to tell black investigators about the priesthood ban, is dishonest and immoral. Or the fact that Spencer Kimball stood up in conference and told stories about modern indians becoming whiter in their skin tone, because they were becoming affiliated with the Church. This isn't anti-Mormon propaganda. It is recorded on the Church website for crying out loud. Are we supposed to listen to what the leaders say or aren't we? We know now that indians don't become whiter because of the gospel. We know this. In fact the latest apologetic maneuvering says the Book of Mormon ("white and delightsome")wasn't even referring to skin color; it was referring to a spiritual purity, or whatever. If you think it doesn't matter to the investigators, and you really believe the spirit makes all the difference, then you should have nothing to fear in telling them the truth. But missionaries don't tell them because they know this will delay their efforts.

That is circular reasoning. Joseph Smith is responsible for D&C, not God. We know enough today about human psychology to know feelings are not reliable. they cloud judgment, they don't enhance it. No member has a testimony in that sense. They have a conviction and belief. A testimony to "know" something is true requires that it be true to begin with. People who leave the faith come to a knowledge that the Church isn't true. And they are the ones basing their conclusions on something more reliable than feelings. Most Christians today feast on his words, yet feel just as strongly that the LDS Church isn't true.

In other words, facts and information mean nothing. Rely on feelings. This isn't how the rational human mind was designed to process and accept belief in anything. Is it any wonder the Church is having a hard time keeping its members? Emotion is temporary, and active members remain active so long as they can keep riding that emotional high. Routine testimony meetings were designed to keep that emotion at the forefront. But emotion blinds, it doesn't enlighten. And most people end up researching things for themselves. Rational minds need this.

Unfortunately you are at a disavantage, since I am not in a controlled environment starring at a couple of 19 year old Elders. I am free to roam libraries and get all the information I need to make an educated decision. If all investigators did this, the Church would have to rely on membership births to continue the growth of the Church.

Chiamsus is getting less and less attention today, as it seems clear Joseph Smith used the same technique in his other writings. Did you know chiasmus exists in the Doctrine and Covenants? I don't see how this can be used as evidence for the Book of Mormon.

I'm glad you agree. Most apologists reject that premise. Well, all evidence seems to indicate that two of the manuscripts were the original translation manuscripts for the Book of Abraham. No, that's not their argument. The KEP illustrate an English translation that corresponds to Egyptian characters taken from the extant papyri. The problem for the Church is that it suggests strongly that Joseph Smith believed this papyrus was the source for the Book of Abraham. The reason it is problematic is because No, you're confused with the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, which was actually used to translate Abraham 1:1-3, because there was a lacunae at the begining of the papyrus. Joseph Smith divined the missing characters and proceeded to translate a story about Abraham. The problem is modern Egyptologists have translated this text and it has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham. Not even close. Metcalfe has been more scholarsly than say, John Gee, who had deceived many with his arguments published in his "Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri." Calling everything youd on't like "anti" is really a lazy way of addressing data. Brian Hauglid is the latest LDS scholar to take up the gauntlet. So far I'm not impressed with him. That's not true. There is nothing to suggest this. All the evidence suggests strongly that the KEP include the original translation manuscripts that are in the handwriting of Joseph Smith's hired scribes,Williams, Phelps and Parrish. No, nothing will ever be decided in the apologetic camp. The more it can be considered an unsolvable mystery, the better it is.

I don't underestimate the power of truth. What's truth anyway? Saying "I know the Church is true" ad nauseum? People want to be shown why it is true. Simply saying so does nothing to convince, anymore than antis have power in saying its false. The responsible thing here to do is to investigate. And investigation requires reading both sides, not just one.

The internet is killing the Church. The "every member a missionary" idea was witty and had meaning twenty years ago, but the fact is most Mormons aren't prepared to share factual information that means anything to a critical investigator, beyond sharing their testimony.

Incidentally, I just posted a comment on another thread that was closed. My post was deleted and someone said it was due to breaking this rule: Are you serious? All I did was state an opinion. I certainly didn't post "Anti-LDS propaganda." What kind of "discussions" can we expect to ensue here if everyone is expected to agree with the premise that everything the LDS Church says, is true? Is this forum only for two types of people, Mormon, and those wanting to be converted by Mormons? Some clarification would be appreciated.

I was interested in discussing the Book of Abraham controversy and noticed there was only one previous discussion. But it had been shut down, apparently because false accusations were thrown at Brent Metcalfe. Anyway, I was just wondering how many LDS were familiar with the KEP and its impact on the current controversy.

Post deleted1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is contrary to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do not post anything that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.