I Have 6 Questions....

[Dr T]

Sir,

Some things are hard to understand, I am not all knowing. That particular topic is not hard for me to understand but I have difficulty understanding contradiction. You are hard to understand sometimes and I have to ask for clarification. Sorry if you don't like being questioned for accuracy. Do you not believe that "prophets" sometimes talk of their own opinions? If so, then it seems to me that you are putting a heck of a lot of faith in a man which you are continually telling me not to do. That is a contradiction sir. Is that hard for you to understand, Raymond?

[prisonchaplain]

My thread has been Hijacked!

Not to break up the fun...but back to the Book of Abraham....

Josh B)

No, I don't believe RAY wrote the book of Abraham . . .

[JoshuaFKon]

No, I don't believe RAY wrote the book of Abraham . . .

I must have missed something...(or maybe Ray is getting to me...) who said anything about Ray writing the Book of Abraham?

oh, and Ray, you are comming back to answer my question right?

Josh B)

[Ray]

Ok,

Papyrus Joseph Smith XI (also know as "Small Sensen")

It was from the Egptian characters on the right hand side of this "Small Sensen" papyrus that Joseph Smith claimed to derive the translated text of the Book of Abraham.

The right edge of this papyrus was once commected to the left edge of the "Facsimile No. 1"

A translation shows it to be the opening portion of a first-century A.D. Book of Breathings

How do you explain that?

Josh B)

Are you asking me to explain WHY the papyrus that Joseph Smith claimed to have translated was once included in a first-century A.D. collection of writings known as "The Book of Breathings", or HOW it came to be given to Joseph???

I'm not really sure if that's what you're asking, but I'm willing to answer those questions.

I don't know the WHY of why that papyrus was once in the "Book of Breathings".

I simply know that the Book of Abraham is a record of what actually happened.

One can guess the papyrus was passed on to others, after Abraham wrote it originally, and once it was in the "Book of Breathings", and then later it once was with Joseph.

And btw, if that wasn't what you were asking, please feel free to be more specific. :)

[JoshuaFKon]

I don't think you quite understand....

Joseph Smith Has a old piece of paper,...."this is the Book of Abraham" he says. eventaully everyone can learn to translate Egyptian, and they look at the same piece of paper

And....it translates differently. very differently.

I'm not saying the Book of Abraham was with the Book of Breathings, I'm saying the Book of Abraham is the Book of Breathings. There is no "Book of Abraham"

Also the "Book of Breathings" is not a "collection of writings" it is a pagan "spell" that let's Egpytians "breathe" in the after-life.

Josh B)

[prisonchaplain]

I must have missed something...(or maybe Ray is getting to me...) who said anything about Ray writing the Book of Abraham? Josh B)

We were talking about what books Ray might have written, and you suggested that we get back to talking about the Book of Abraham. So, I put 2 + 2 together, and figured you were suggesting that Ray might have written the Book of Abraham, since that was OUR topic. I then indicated my impression that, no, he had not done so.

Simple, right?

[JoshuaFKon]

Sorry prisonchaplain, My bad, I must have missed that part somehow...

Josh B)

[Ray]

I don't think you quite understand....

Joseph Smith has <you mean had, right? You're not saying he still lhas it now, are you?> a old piece of paper,...."this is the Book of Abraham" he says. <I will agree he still says it> eventually everyone can learn to translate Egyptian, and they look at the same piece of paper

And....it translates differently. very differently.

I'm not saying the Book of Abraham was with the Book of Breathings, I'm saying the Book of Abraham is the Book of Breathings. There is no "Book of Abraham"

Josh B)

Okay, I think you are saying:

#1. Joseph Smith claimed the "Book of Abraham" was a translation of the papyrus that was preserved and passed down from first-century A.D. which is now known as the "Book of Breathings"

#2. Some other people have now translated the papyrus Joseph once had, that same old papyrus, and they have translated it differently than the writings which are now known as the "Book of Abraham"

And I think you are asking:

HOW or WHY don't they both agree, and HOW do we know WHAT is true???

If that's not what you're asking, and it's not what you're saying, please feel free to be more specific.

I'll now proceed to give you my thoughts about what I think you had in mind.

First, let's back up a little and compare the writings themselves, shall we?

I'd like to see how they are different.

Pick one place to start, show both of the writings, and then show how ONE is the truth.

Okay? :)

And btw, please try to show how is this different than comparing what is taught from the Bible.

There are HUNDREDS of religions that preach what is true, and they are all using the Bible.

And each version of the Bible is a little different from the others.

Are you thinking of something like this???

Also the "Book of Breathings" is not a "collection of writings" it is a pagan "spell" that let's Egyptians "breathe" in the after-life.

FYI, I know the Egyptians knew about a life after this life, and I also know their knowledge was corrupted, but I also know they were once taught by Abraham in Egypt, and he had true knowledge of the gospel.

[JoshuaFKon]

Okay, I think you are saying:

#1. Joseph Smith claimed the "Book of Abraham" was a translation of the papyrus that was preserved and passed down from first-century A.D. which is now known as the "Book of Breathings"

Pretty much yes

#2. Some other people have now translated the papyrus Joseph once had, that same old papyrus, and they have translated it differently than the writings which are now known as the "Book of Abraham"

Yes, that's what I'm saying

And I think you are asking:

HOW or WHY don't they both agree, and HOW do we know WHAT is true???

again yes.

I'd like to see how they are different. Pick one place to start, show both of the writings,

And btw, please show how is this different than comparing what is taught from the Bible.

Ok....It will take me I while to get all that info...I'll post again when I have it.

There are HUNDREDS of religions that preach what is true, and they are all using the Bible.

And each version is a little different from the others.

Are you thinking of something like this???

not quite....hold you, you'll see

Josh B)

[JoshuaFKon]

Hi Ray,

I wish I could show you the Egyptian Characters, But I don’t have my scanner with me…If you would like to see them I would be happy to post them on Sunday.

I also would like to point out that this translation is not disputed by Mormons. Everyone agrees this is what the scroll says.

Correct Translation of Egyptian Characters: “The, This”

Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham Translation:

11. Now, this priest had offered upon this altar three virgins at one time, who were the daughters of Onitah, one of the royal descent directly from the loins of Ham. These virgins were offered up because of their virtue; they would not bow down to worship gods of wood or of stone, therefore they were killed upon this altar,

Correct Translation of Egyptian Characters:

“pool”

Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham Translation:

And it was done after the manner of the Egyptians.

12. And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

I could give you more, But I think you get the idea, It’s not even close.

As for how it differs from the Bible, Listen to late Apostle Bruce R. McConkie who once said, the Book of Abraham:

“…contains priceless information about the gospel, pre-existence, the nature of Deity, the creation, and priesthood – information which is not otherwise available in any other revelation now extant.”

I could give you specific examples if you want.

Also, if you'll refer to page 8 of this thread, I have posted the Fascimile No. 1

Josh B)

[Ray]

Yes, I'd like to see is the text itself from the "Book of Breathings".

I'm not going to simply believe someone who suggests the idea that some text translated as "pool" by one person, or group of people, Joseph Smith translated as something other than "pool" without seeing that text for myself and understanding what it REALLY is saying, because for all I know, ALL OF YOU could be wrong.

At this moment I have a simple testimony from God assuring me that what is written in the Book of Abraham is true... or in other words, that what is written did really happen and what's written was written by Abraham.

And as I said, I heard that from God, Himself.

And btw, instead of trying to reproduce the complete texts on this website, it would be fine with me if you would simply reference a specific source where I can find the information... preferable a source that is on the web with "helps" to interpret the evidence.

Thank you. :)

[JoshuaFKon]

ok...hold on I'll try and find a website....

Josh

Here you go Ray,

http://www.irr.org/mit/pjs11.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abrah...ph_Smith_papyri

Let me know if you need more....

Josh B)

[Ray]

From page 8...

Question #1

Please look at a copy of facsimile No.1

This is from the re-discovered papyrus.

Now look at what Egyptologists say it should look like.

Now a look at Facsimile No. 1 from the Book of Abraham.

Notice where it differs from what Egyptologists say it should look like?

Strange huh?

What was the Mormon response? Was the book removed from the cannon? No.

My question is Why not?

Thanks in advance for your help,

God bless,

Josh

Okay, let me get this straight.

Some Egyptologists thought the rediscovered papyrus should like what they thought it should look like, they found a papyrus that didn't look like what they were expecting to find, and you're wondering why the Church still publishes Joseph Smith's translation of the papyrus as the Book of Abraham in light of the fact that the papyrus they found didn't look like what those Egyptologists thought it should look like?

Is that right?

First of all, how do they know it's the same papyrus???

And if the "rediscovered" papyrus doesn't look like what those Egyptologists thought it should look like, why do they think the papyrus they "rediscovered" was the same one Joseph translated?

Oh. Here's a thought: maybe they didn't "rediscover" the right one?

If it's not what they were expecting to find, maybe it's NOT the one they were expecting?

That's it! I'm a genius! You can bow. I will stand. Where's my prize?

[Princess3dward]

Hey!

I AM BACK!

People were talking to me a couple hundred pages back and I wasn't here to defend myself!

SORRY!

I didn't read it all because I am too lazy for something like that,

so I read all the short answers.

I agree with Ray.

No one can have all of the facts unless it is from God,

and YOU Josh, don't know which is from God,

and since every answer we give you is wrong,

and every time you pray you have that thought in the back of your mind that we can't be right,

than I suggest that you either start taking what we say to heart,

or giving up, because God isn't going to answer anything for you that you arn't ready to hear!

[JoshuaFKon]

Well Ray,

"It was clear that Smith had once owned these papyri because the back of the papyrus fragments were pasted down to paper with "drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area." There was also an affidavit from Emma Smith that these papyri had been in the possession of Joseph Smith."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abrah...papyrus_scrolls

No one (incuding the Mormons) debate that these papyrus belonged to Joseph Smith.

Josh B)

[Ray]

ok...hold on I'll try and find a website....

Josh

Here you go Ray,

http://www.irr.org/mit/pjs11.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abrah...ph_Smith_papyri

Let me know if you need more....

Josh B)

Thanks Josh. I'll look into this... even more than I have already.

I still think Hugh Nibley knew some truth about this, and I really liked reading his book :)

Well Ray,

"It was clear that Smith had once owned these papyri because the back of the papyrus fragments were pasted down to paper with "drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area." There was also an affidavit from Emma Smith that these papyri had been in the possession of Joseph Smith."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abrah...papyrus_scrolls

No one (incuding the Mormons) debate that these papyrus belonged to Joseph Smith.

Josh B)

I wasn't saying they didn't belong to him either, but they don't look like they were the right ones. :)

[JoshuaFKon]

I will read Nibley's Book as soon as I can,

However, you realize that the scroll you don't believe was the correct scroll was actually "attached" to Facsimlely No.1?

Also I will address the "Missing Red and Black Scroll" Theory, which I think is pretty close to what you're saying.

The red and black scroll theory bascially says that Joseph Smith had more than the Two Scrolls...the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph.

The “Missing Black and Red Scroll” Theory

This, I believe was the fist attempt to prove, (and perhaps an acknowledgment) that the Book of Abraham could not have come from the re-discovered scrolls.

This theory says that we are not looking at the correct scrolls,

Dr. Nibley created this theory in his article, “Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham,” He said:

“…The fact is that the manuscripts at present in the possession of the church represent only a fraction of the Joseph Smith papyri. As President Joseph F. Smith stood in the front doorway of the Nauvoo House with some of the brethren in 1906, the tears streamed down his face as he told how he remembered ‘as if it were yesterday,’ his ‘Uncle Joseph,’ down on his knees on the floor with Egyptian Manuscripts spread out all around him, peering at the strange writings and jotting things down in a little green notebook with the stub of a pencil. When one consider that the eleven fragments now in our possession can easily be spread out on the top of small desk, without the straining of the knees, back, and dignity, it would seem that what is missing is much more than what we have.”

So was born the “Missing Black and Red Scroll” theory

But there are problems with this theory.

Two pages later, in the History of the Church, at the end of the same entry in which “Joseph Smith’s” description was given, a footnote by B.H. Roberts points out that the wording for the entire entry was not actually Joseph Smith’s, it had only been written to appear so. Instead, the article had been adapted from a letter written by Oliver Cowdery published in the Messenger and Advocate. Cowdery, in turn, had developed his wording from a published placard provided by Michael Chandler. The placard quoted remarks made by persons in Philadelphia who were describing the appearance of the papyrus collection as a whole, and not any specific scroll that Joseph Smith would later identify as the Book of Abraham.

Also, even is we discount there is no reason to believe there were more than two rolls of papyrus, It is clear that all the Church ever possessed were “Two rolls of papyrus” (i.e. “The writings of Abraham and Joseph”

How is this clear? Let’s look at some comments of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery concerning the papyri:

“On the 3d of July, Michael H. Chandler cam to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian Mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and deices. (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 235, emphasis added.)

And,

“Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus…and with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation…and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another, the writings of Joseph of Egypt…(Ibid., p. 236, emphasis added.)

Before inferring that by the use of the words “two or more rolls of papyrus” Smith meant there were other rolls, we should carefully examine Oliver Cowdery’s statements as they appeared (with Joseph Smith’s direction and approval) in the Messenger and Advocate:

“Upon the subject of the Egyptian records, or rather the writings of Abraham and Joseph, I may say a few words. This record is beautiful written on papyrus with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation. (Cowdery, op. cit., emphasis added.)

And also,

“On opening the coffins he discovered that in connection with two of the bodies, were something rolled up with the same kind of linen, saturated with the same bitumen, which when examined probed to be two rolls of papyrus, previously mentioned. I may add that two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c. were found with other of the mummies [b/] . (Ibid, emphasis added)

Cowdery proves that there were two, and only two, “rolls of papyrus,” which he believed, because of Joseph Smith’s identification of them, were “the writings of Abraham and Joseph, “though there were also a few fragments “similar to the astronomical representation” [i.e. Facsimile No. 2] With the papyri. –“By his own hand upon papyru”s p. 133

If I had my scanner I think I could prove that at least the Book of Joseph is not really a "Book of Joseph"

[Princess3dward]

Whooo... I wish I had an attention span for that!

Why would "Mormons" waste their time "debating"?

You like arguing WAY too much!

I am in such bliss, I can't even stay ticked. lol.

:D:D:D:D:D

I am going now!

Have a wonderful night everyone!

[Ray]

Whooo... I wish I had an attention span for that!

Why would "Mormons" waste their time "debating"?

You like arguing WAY too much!

I am in such bliss, I can't even stay ticked. lol.

:D:D:D:D:D

I am going now!

Have a wonderful night everyone!

Heh, you too, Desire'. You are tooooooo easy to love. :)

And btw, Josh, before I say good night, I'll pray you'll seek knowledge from God. :)

[Brother Dorsey]

(6) And how do you explain that the Book of Abraham does not read as Joseph Smith claimed it did? He never finished!

Prehaps he never finished....but its not even close.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions though...

God bless!

Josh

Gee Josh....you were a little hard on the girl....maybe shouldn't ask questions that you believe you already have an answer for. You are digging for people to go to your website to read nothing but your opinion as well as that of your other brothers in anit-Mormondom. Why are you waisting so much time and energy with this misrepresentation of yourself and these ridiclous questions? Don't you get it? Don't you see...you will NEVER convert a member of the true church of Christ....they have tasted of the truth and CANNOT deny it....give it up and go do the Devils work with the Catholics....they might listen to you...but I doubt it!

Oh and here's 6 questions for you...the self professed Christin with answers.....

1) How come Christians don't have any Temples? Christ worshipped in a Temple, He went there to teach often and he even refers to the Temple as a house of God....And you can read about Temples all through the Bible....so, why don't Christians have Temples?

2) If Christians believe the Bible to be the word of God, literally...then where are your Prophets...God always had prophets to lead and guide his people....why don't Christians have a Prophet?

3) Which one of the Christian churches should I go to to learn about Christ and His Gospel...there are so many? I have looked into some and they all teach something that I think is right but then they all have alot of differences...which one is the right Christian church...the one Jesus himself set up?

4) What's the difference between a Christian and a Baptist? Or a Lutheran? Or Pentacostal? Presbyterian? Methodist? Calvinist? Evangelical?

5) If a person never hears the word of God...(I'm taking those who have been sheltered away from the Bible or denied the Bible such as in China), or never knows of or is taught of Christ....what happens to that person when he dies? Does he go to hell? Don't the Christian believe you have to be Baptised or you go to hell?

6) And finally...what does "Saved" mean? I hear Christians say that all the time...even mass murderers on death row...does that me their sins are forgiven and they get to go to heaven with say an honest hardworking man who gave all he could to his fellow man?...do they reap the same reword?....cause if that's the case then I will go out and sin as much as I can (cause less face it, it's fun) and near the end of my life somewhere I'll get "Saved"!

Please answer these questions to the best of your ability....I will be waiting for your reply....oh and please don't answer any of these questions with a question...your direct Christian answer will suffice...thanks!

And one more thing...please quote Biblical scripture to support your answers

[JoshuaFKon]

Gee Josh....you were a little hard on the girl....maybe shouldn't ask questions that you believe you already have an answer for.

Me hard on her?! the person who wouldn't even read my post?

You are digging for people to go to your website to read nothing but your opinion as well as that of your other brothers in anit-Mormondom.

don't go to my site, I don't care....

Why are you waisting so much time and energy with this misrepresentation of yourself and these ridiclous questions?

You may think my questions are "ridiclous" that is your opinion, but how am I "misrepresenting" myself?

Don't you get it? Don't you see...you will NEVER convert a member of the true church of Christ....they have tasted of the truth and CANNOT deny it....give it up and go do the Devils work with the Catholics....they might listen to you...but I doubt it!

I will talk to Catholics later...I wonder if they are more reasonable....?

Oh and here's 6 questions for you...the self professed Christin with answers.....

Answered them on the Christian Beliefs thread...but I like that "Christian with answers" maybe I'll change my user name......

God bless,

Josh B)

[Outshined]

You are digging for people to go to your website to read nothing but your opinion as well as that of your other brothers in anti-Mormondom.

Well, I had my doubts until I saw his web site. Definitely anti-Mormon in tone and spirit. It's all about "disproving" the LDS Church, not finding any "answers."

[JoshuaFKon]

Well, I had my doubts until I saw his web site. Definitely anti-Mormon in tone and spirit. It's all about "disproving" the LDS Church, not finding any "answers."

Well first of all thank you for going to my site,

Secondly, I'm sorry you believe my site is Anti-Mormon,

I am not trying to be completely objective in my site, however I try to be polite and I have many links to the best pro-mormon sites.

I have of course put the burden of proof on Mormonism, I am not trying to prove it is true, because I am not a mormon.

I posted what I thought were the six biggest problems that I saw with Mormonsim, and then I asked for answers.

Does this make my questions less valid?

Why don't you answer them?'

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

THANK YOU BROTHER DORSEY FOR DEFENDING ME! :D:D:D

IT MADE ME SOO HAPPY!

Gee Josh....you were a little hard on the girl....maybe shouldn't ask questions that you believe you already have an answer for.

Me hard on her?! the person who wouldn't even read my post?

I'm a teenage girl who's faith is being attacked by someone who thinks he knows it all! And you suggest that you can't be too hard on me? That says a little for your personality...

I will talk to Catholics later...I wonder if they are more reasonable....?

I was chatholic.

They are either going to ignore you as well...

Or you will realize that they have no clue what they are talking about...

I was asking my chatholic sister a few questions about her religion, to see if she was AWARE of that she believed, and she shrugged it off, just because she doesn't like mormons.

tsk tsk.

Well, whatever. You can think what you want about me,

just because I don't have the attention span for your posts.

Maybe I will try and sit through it later (although I don't have my glasses..)

Oh well.

I still don't dislike you.

You just don't listen is all!

Well, I had my doubts until I saw his web site. Definitely anti-Mormon in tone and spirit. It's all about "disproving" the LDS Church, not finding any "answers."

Well first of all thank you for going to my site,

Secondly, I'm sorry you believe my site is Anti-Mormon,

I am not trying to be completely objective in my site, however I try to be polite and I have many links to the best pro-mormon sites.

Does that mean you have www.mormon.org and www.lds.org on your sites?

[Outshined]

I'm sorry you believe my site is Anti-Mormon

That's because it is. I'm just stating facts.

Why don't you answer them?

I've seen people answering you quite well, and watched you dance around the answers because they don't fit your agenda. You don't want any "answers"; your mind was made up before you came here.

It's hard to avoid the fact that EricM's post on the first page contained links that answer every one of "your" questions. http://www.fairlds.org/apol

Read the links on my site for your answers. There's more than enough there to satisfy you. B)