If Joseph SmYth had been a true prophet, he would have told his followers that they could save a ton of money on their car insurance by switching to GEICO!!
Finally, your "meat" does the very thing that is dishonest. It takes modern 21st century understanding of Egyptian history and tries to synergize it with anything Smith used in his religion. (i.e both talk of afterlife, gods, souls, etc). Where thus you will of course find parallels. They both have humans, both have life and death. These are not particularly observant proofs. They are parallels in the fact it was already known these were RELIGIOUS TEXTS! Religion talks of life, death, afterlife
You really need to understand the situations better than you do. This video is rather old and it's clear that you didn't read the comment section before commenting yourself. I continue addressing these issues in more recent videos. To avoid rehashing things I recommend forestalling judgment until you know more than you presently do.
It is scientifically irrefutable. this one man's presentation is backed up by hundreds of other men and women. Seeing as how one can read them clearly from the actual writings that were made by the Egyptians. And as you try to debunk the Egyptologist, you USE HIS RESEARCH to try to explain how Smith was correct. Even though your explanations in this video of yours is so messed up. The original papyrus HAS the "devil's tail" that you say isn't there. So you're totally off there. Overall your done
Dr Ritner comes from an academic legacy at Chicago rich in it's own faux pas and blunders. A majority of the purchases made by the founder of it's Egyptology department--Prof James H. Breasted (the 'father' of Egyptology in the US) were frauds that the museum has
quietly been replacing over the years (it would be kind of embarrassing to yank most of your collection all at the same time--especially when you're suppose to be THE place for studying Egyptology in the Western Hemisphere)
Disagreements among Egyptologists are far from uncommon.
Again. Let's see a compilation of all the actual items they are citing. Let's have them demonstrate their conclusive assertions. And while were at it let each detail their area of specialties within Egyptology. cuz no one man, or even one department of a university, can have the corner on a civilization spanning millenia AND millenia removed from the present.
If you watch the entire video of the Book of Abraham. We see the testimony of a half dozen professors from well accredited Universities like Brown and Harvard, that speak to the known facts about what the facsimlies are, as well as Hebrew professors in Israel. These men all specialize in Egyptology. So not just "one man" as you would like the boast.
The "one man" I put forward is the "one man" who's any where near close, in terms of expertise, to a near adequate analysis of the kinds of text in question. Even in his case he does not specialize in breathings texts.
Egyptian studies cover such a large swath that when you look at what's known relative to what was present when those things were actually made there's a massive gap.
I think when you say "qualified", you mean someone that has what, like more than 30 years in the study and profession of Egyptology?
The men on the Book of Abraham video were by no means unqualified in the field. All that were scholars in the field had above average knowledge, experience and credentials in the field of Egyptology.
I truly suggest re-watching the Book of Abraham video at: irr. org/mit
No. When I say "qualified" I mean expert in the particular niche in Egyptology. Egyptian Civilization spanned a good couple millenia. English didn't even exist two thousand years ago. What I'm saying is that the man who comes closest to the era and type of writtings surrounding the JSP is not even an 'expert' on the particular genre they fall into.
Joseph Smith went to Charles Anthon for support of his scrolls. And Charles Anthon admittedly had very little experience with Egyptology. Yet the men in this video have dedicated their entire lives to the study (which now is not difficult to obtain knowledge as it was in 1840).
These men in this video, have more knowlegde than any and ALL people combined had in America about Egyptology at Joseph's time.
"These men in this video, have more knowlegde than any and ALL people combined had in America about Egyptology at Joseph's time."
Which isn't saying much. I mean really. The civilization covers MILLENIA! Even if you had a 100 people dedicate 30 years of each of their lives to studying it do you really think they'd be able to pull out much information you would be willing to hang your salvation on?
When you talk about expertise in Egyptology, these people featured in this video teach with decades of education in the study of Egyptology at prestigious universities who have not only a reputation of accuracy but a career in the field to uphold.
The people (most) have no religious bias, and if you read their profiles, they are not leaning toward one religion or another. Their goal is to fully understand and teach Egyptology.
"What I'm saying is that the man who comes closest to the era and type of writtings surrounding the JSP is not even an 'expert' on the particular genre they fall into. "
What is also interesting, is that if you look up these burial rights, you will see not only the facsimilies that this man produced, but 100's of scrolls just like it in collections all over the world that are of the same burial rights. The writting is on the page.
The fact that there exist masses of breathings texts and funerary text doesn't prove the assertion that the snsn facsimile as given by Joseph is wrong. Again we're addressing massive swaths of history.
I was wondering. I hear these claims of producing 100's of scrolls just like this. Why not compile photos of these 100's and have them all together so we can look at them together?
Please see my other vids on this subject. They will hopefully help you understand the real positions and claims so that you're not tilting at windmills and strawmen.
"Joseph Justified" suffers from the same problems as many LDS responses. The citations & "experts in field" are coming from the same mindset - that Joseph Smith is without doubt a prophet. You need to look beyond to resources outside the LDS Church. This is not authoritative; I would not trust an archeologist or an egyptologist from BYU; they sacrafice sound science for doctrine. Look at the ExposeRomney site on the Internet. An article addresses the pre-conceptions of LDS members.
The citations often are pulled from utterly detatched historians and archeologists.
By your definition no human can give anything authoritative (a point on which I'd agree in terms of history and science) because EVERYONE has subjectivity at their core. We find what we're looking for. To think that plagues a secular humanist less than
a prophessor who happens to be an LDS adherent is naive. It's the human condition. But it's not your preconceptions that invalidate your arguments, it's counter arguments of sufficient stature and potency. I need to do something addressing this erroneous core belief that simply because something is coming from a subjectively influenced source means it can't
be authoritative or true. LDS members in general may suffer from a great many pre-conceptions, but that itself does not dismantel any argument that may be put forward by a member of our faith.
It does dismantel and argument if faith is contradicted by facts. That's how we are taught to recognize truth and the real aspects of God. I would hope the citations are detached, thus they will be independent.
Consider this, when the Catholiv Church wanted to have the Shroud of Turin evalauated and tested, it did not look only to it's own people, it sent clipping out to multiple independent labs for carbon dating. It wasn't as old as many people in the church hoped, but al least it was honest and used sound independent science. The LDS Church knows if iy uses any outside experts their religions arguments with respects to things like this are shown to be weak and often fraudulent.
Finally, why don't we put this to a real test. I live in Wash DC and have the Smithsonian down the block. And this weekend I will be in London, with an Ex-Mormon friend of mine. Would you like me to stop by the British Museum, which is considered the best museum in the world for antiquities. They even have the real Rosetta Stone on display, you know the one that Joseph Smith didn't know about, which enables us to read Egyptian. I'll ask the curator what he/she thinks.
The papyrus on which the facsimile No 1 is found is NOT the papyrus that the Book of Abraham was pulled from. Joseph Smith never claimed it and, in fact, there's significant evidence to demonstrate that he pulled the text from a papyrus not presently known to anyone.
Why do so many preach AGAINST others beliefs rather then FOR there own? If they believe there church to be true. Why would they come here and bash? I, being LDS, believe that a faith in Jesus Christ is a good thing. So I won't bash others for having that same belief as me.
Also I've found a few astute atheists that realized that they could attack the LDS faith, and in so doing have evangelicals embrace the very methodologies that, if applied across the board, would destroy their beliefs also. In that case there seems to be a subversive, but economical, motive. Try and give the appearance of smashing one faith while getting other faiths to expose themselves to the same poisonous fundamental assumptions.
I would love it if we could get the youtube's internal records as to what my actions were and were not so I could demonstrate that I never NEVER stopped comment on ANY of my video threads.
All I know is that for a while, I got a posting Message stating that the "Reply to comments" had been disabled. Obviously, for whatever reason, that was temporary, because I was able to post comments later that day!!
What probably happened was youtube's weekly maintenance where comments are disabled for some or all videos. Youtube usually does maintenance on friday nights.
Outlaw, for one screaming about your own rational and reasoned outlook you sure are presumptuous when you make comments like "all you could do was shut it down."
It rather demonstrates your willingness to come to the conclusions you want. You are no less tied to your dogmas than I am. You just refuse to confess such.
By the way. I've posted a brief follow up to this video that contains some interesting additional information from other papyrus sources. A papyrus source that ties pictoral elements found in facsimilie I to the very name of Abraham.
Another thing is that the papyri are not even old enough to be "written by his own hand." The Book of Breathings is exactly what you'd expect to find with some egyptian mummies.
"The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."
Sounds pretty clear to me. This very papyrus was written by the hand of the patriarch abraham.
If that wasn't the case, there would be no need to have the little part of "written by his own hand." If JS and LDS Inc didn't want people to think that the papyrus was the orignal manuscript, it wouldn't say the phrase, "written by his own hand."
If you are copying, with fidelity, the writtings of another individual, you would include such statements in your copy. It's just being juvenile to incist that a reproduction of a written work omit such if it's seeking to be a faithful copy.
I don't know how much more simple this needs to get.
JS buys some papyri. He claims to divinely translate them. One would expect that this translation should match up with the papyri. Instead, he doesn't get a single character correct.
JS makes an Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet. If he's a prophet, it should be correct. Problem is that it's all gibberish.
Competence, to anyone who HAS SUCH, is not demonstrated by presenting a mere certificate. It is found in the soundness of one's statements and the integrity of their logical constructs. If what I've demonstrated is false then you should be able to do more than throw a few names at me. The only time those names and titles will amount to a hill of beans is when you get them to openly agree with the likes of the statement I put in bold type in the dna vid
If education were just a piece of paper with letters on it you might have a point.
I'm fortunate enough to know that knowledge and logic is independent of accreditation boards and tuition receipts. Not to say they don't have their place and not to bash any who receives a degree.
But when you think the paper is the education and the proof of logic, then you've officially lost the knowledge of what it is to "get an education."
What never ceases to amaze me is when uneducated pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific pontifficators such as you have to cry foul and disparage those of us who have persued our degrees.
You seek to marginalize Richard Parker, who has a Ph.D, yet, whereas I have asked you to state your educational credentials, and you have steadfastly refused to do so, choosing instead to challeng my credentials, which I have supplied.
I do not seek to marginalize Parker's Ph.D. I seek simply to place his conversance in context. Relative to you and me he knows a great deal, BUT IN THE ULTIMATE QUESTION AT HAND HIS RELATIVE KNOWLEDGE IS A MOOT POINT. It's not how much more he knows than you or I RATHER it's how much he knows of the specifics that are at the center of this.
You are lying when you claim that you are not seeking to marginalize Robert Parker's level of education. Furthermore, you refuse to state your own credentials & qualifications.
Why?? Because you have none. You also have no credibility.
Hive's trying to bluff with a pair of 2's!! First, Hive is a liar when he attempts to convince you that only one man has rejected The Pappyrii as being anything more that The Book of Breathings.
The Pappayrus has been studied by experts, and roundly discredited.
Ask ANY linguistic expert. Find just ONE o/s of LDS about a language called "Reformed Egyptian".
Cognitive dissonance is something as likely to be held by those skeptical of our faith as it is among those still in the faith.
Look up <i>Strange Bedfellows or Future Enemies</i> for an intelligent look at the conflicts between the anti-cult and the counter cult, as well as between the rationalists and post-rationalists.
Let's see, you attacked Aaronshaf2006 for putting the video on youtube, you attacked Egyptologist Richard Parker, saying it is just "one man's extrapolation", making slanted comments like "he has studied SOME aspects of Egyptian history..."
The "one man's extrapolation" is correct. If by 'attack' you mean 'giving points of argument' then YES I am attacking. It IS true that it was JUST his extrapolation. And since he isn't omniscient in Egytian history he IS limited in his knowledge.
I know how people react to cognitive dissonance. I just wrote an article on my blog about the 6 ways people deal with cognitive dissonance. You got past number 1, selective exposure, so that is a bigger step than most people make. However, the church has always taught that the Book of Abraham was a direct translation.
You can't sat that the Book of Brethings has anything at all to do with the Book of Abraham, so you are still stuck in number 3- Selective perception and number 4- Attack the credibility of the conflicting information.
You follow the steps of cognitive dissonance. Your limited portrayal of information in your video (ala the gun used by Joseph) And the implied mass abortions make for a, albeit unsupported, means of impeaching the source.
I never said I didn't follow the steps of cognitive dissonance. Of course I follow the steps of cognitive dissonance, and you should be willing to admit it too.
Not necessarily. The text on the papyrus is clearly not the text of the Book of Abraham. Something that the critics will not point out is that the breathing texts, all of them, have a great deal in common with the apocryphal relations of Abraham--all of which, BTW, were not available to the Western world until several decades AFTER Joseph's death (i.e. Apocalypse of Abraham)
They are the text of apostate breathing rights. But look at what they are most similar to in theme and message. They line up quite amazingly with apocryphal Abrahamic texts--the apocalypse of Abraham the testament of Abraham. The whole of the breathing texts is centered around resurrection and a deified second life where being "Justified" is key.
A critic must be willing to use a logical paradigm consistently, otherwise they are--by definition--illogical. And while their illogical nature may not change the point they've made it DOES demonstrate the added fallout that can come from a blanket application of their logic.
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here. Do you have some examples?
Are you talking about the young earth creationists that criticize mormonism? They and other christians criticize mormonism based on a double standard.
For example, they'll bash mormonism over the head with DNA, but neglect that fact that the same DNA shows humans to be around a lot longer than 6000 years and that the flood did not happen.
Another problem with apologetics is that if LDS Inc was the one true church with a prophet that literally speaks on behalf of God, then the increasing knowledge of mankind would be vindicating JS.
The problem is that just the opposite has happened.
I'm really not aware of many prophecies made by LDS leaders that have come true. In fact, not many prophecies have really been made at all since JS and BY.
On the other hand there's numerous prophecies made by JS that simply didn't come to pass. There's even a few of these in the D&C.
Just so that any others viewing this can know. I will respond to the PM in the form of a video, when I get the time. I still have a vid in production as a follow up to the DNA issues. But these points you've sent me look to be easy enough to cover in like manner to what I recently did with Byron. I just need to find time to do it.
Well, as more and more evidence comes to light, maintaining a belief in mormonism becomes less rational.
Apologists come up with explanations that are possible, but not probable. All these explanations taken together with their low probabilities and you get an abuse of the word "possible."
The crux of my argument is in assuming that one can be rational and logical without being a hard empiricist. If you reject that then you would either have to claim soley empiricism OR conceed that faith and rational thought can go together, with faith providing defense, but not proof, for the context in which the faith resides.
It's still not a red herring. Because if your world strictly precludes any thing beyond the empirically observed then it's irrelevant to have a debate as to the veracity or falseness of Joseph's claims--because they are openly tied to extra-empirical evidences.
1 doesn't seem likely, but I suppose it's not impossible.
2 also is possible
3 has an issue with it. Clearly there is the claim that in some way, at some point, by some meaning of the word, something was translated from some of the Papyrus. Some of this could be seen as potentially tying into #1. This also has some merit if you look at the term 'translating' in a less than the rather linear perception we often have of such.
I guess I'm still not really understanding what your position is then. You see problems with all 3 possibilities, no?
At least you seem to be more intellectually honest than other mormon apologists I've seen. Other mormon apologists come up with these hypotheses, but ignore the problems with them.
I don't see any clear "this is what was meant" or "this is the way it happened." The problem I have with the critics claims is that their position demands strictness in definitions and setup that are not at all inherent in what has been said or claimed.
The problem with apologetics is that words can mean whatever we want them to mean and anything is possible.
Early LDS leaders stuck their necks out and made a lot of literal claims that have now been proven to be false or that LDS Inc has decided it should forget about.
It's just this simple. If the literalistic claims that LDS Inc makes are not true, then it is not true.
...this differentiation on what is meant by a 'translation' is given significantly more leeway with the openly accounted Book of Mormon translation circumstances, with their distinctness in terms of proxcimity and mortal vs. divine access to the actual records.
This cling to hard empiricism needs to be across the board. None of this application of completely seperate and contradictory paradigms between what you believe and the standards you apply to what others believe.
You see you can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm not here to argue with someone that cannot see any faith as reasonable or rational. That would just be silly.
One can't cling to measurements that damns all faiths and then go and claim a faith themself and be justified in the eyes of logic.
I guess we need to define 'faith' and delusion. Delusion is a belief PROVEN to be false. Faith is a belief that hasn't necessarily proven to be false or true.
No. It's not a fallacy. It's not a red herring. It's a demonstration of the context and measuring sticks used in discerning the truth. If hard empiricism is the measuring stick then it's silly for the singling out of Mormonism, for the whole of the faith based world conflicts with such a standard of measurement.
I agree with you somewhat. Mormonism isn't the only faith that has problems with science. But not many religions have as many problems with science and empirical evidence as mormonism.
Yes. Portions (the facsimilies) were transmitted via the Book of Breathings. Thus that portion of the Book of Abraham (certain aspects of the facsimiles being translated by Joseph) was 'translated' from the Book of Breathings. But none of this precludes the derivation of the BoA text from some other source, portion of the source, or means, beyond the present papyri/snsn text/breathings text.
At the beginning of the handwritten manuscript, Joseph Smith asserted that it was a "Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the catacombs of Egypt." The introduction to the Book of Abraham still maintains that it was "Translated From The Papyrus, By Joseph Smith" (BoA Intro). If the Book of Abraham is not an actual translation of the papyrus, then it is obvious that the introduction to it that appears in the PoGP is a complete misrepresentation.
Joseph Smith not only claimed that he translated it from the papyrus, but according to the History of the Church, vol.2, p. 351, he affirmed that it was "a correct translation."
So we're supposed to believe that abraham used a pagan egyptian funeral document to encode his super dooper secret writings and that JS used his magical decoder ring to show what the text REALLY means and not what it literally means?
The capacity of denial of the human mind is almost infinite.
No. The proposition is that the funerary traditions represented in the many egyptian accounts were themselves derived from Abraham's original writtings. Thus the images get moved down while the story surrounding them was changed to whatever the Egyptians felt to change it to. You need to realize that Joseph never claimed the papyrus was the source of the text of The Book of Abraham.
Sorry, the egyptian pagan religion predates abraham.
"Joseph never claimed the papyrus was the source of the text of The Book of Abraham."
Are you for real?
"A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." See History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348—351.
"A TRANSLATION OF SOME ANCIENT RECORDS, THAT HAVE FALLEN INTO OUR HANDS FROM THE CATECOMBS OF EGYPT, <b>PURPORTING TO BE</b> THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM WHILE HE WAS IN EGYPT, CALLED <i>THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM, WRITTEN BY HIS OWN HAND, UPON PAPYRUS</i>."-Times & Seasons, Vol. III. p. 704.
So what are you trying to say by putting "Purporting to be" in bold print? Are you admitting that the papyri are NOT the writings of abraham, while he was in egypt, written by his own hand?
It doesn't say that the Book of Abraham was translated from the text found in the presently available manuscript. The presence of the snsn characters on the Book of Abraham manuscript doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that someone wrote them there. You take that convenient "—" in place of "purporting to be" and try and paint it as if that proves that it was claimed to be a dirrect translation source for the text that presently constitutes the Book of Abraham.
Ok, now you're ignoring the fact that Abr 1:12 says "I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record." This is fac. 1. Fac. 1 is in the papyri.
Furthermore, those characters match the order on the BoA manuscript.
Why march around a city if it's not the marching that will actually bring it down? Why hold up your hands to cause the sun to remain in the same place in the sky during battle when it's not actually the holding up of the hands that's causing the sun to stand still.
I sure hope Mr. fubecabr is consistant in his application of hard empiricism. If he at all holds to the Bible as a Holy book then he has some serious hypocrisy on his hands.
I corrected myself, if you'll look in the comments. The tail is present in both. But as I've stated previously, that one side comment being incorrect doesn't phase my general argument. Because it was not a part of my refutation, simply an incorrect observation I gave in passing.
So, let me get this straight, if I rip out some pages from the BoM and half a page of LDS artwork, and give it to someone, that person cannot definitively say that those pages are from the BoM or are LDS artwork?
Could I then take those pages from the BoM and "translate" them into portuguese and claim that they're the sacred writings of Genghis Khan when those pages and artwork have nothing to do with Genghis Khan? Wouldn't that prove my Genghis Khan cult to be a fraud?
You don't understand the word ad-lib or extrapolation either.
Dr. Parker is not ad-libbing because we see this facsimile in other places. This is the Book of the Dead and is very common. You don't have to just look at the facsimile to know that. You can look at the text as well to see that.
The Book of the Dead IS a religious text!!!!! It's a pagan religious text.
He sees scenes that he tries to tie into the facsimile. I've yet to see an actual find that matches up with the extrapolation made in the absent pieces of the papyrus.
Can you point me to it? If he wasn't extrapolating, and the facsimile, just as he portrays it, is in other places, then someone should be able to produce it.
The questionable parts in fac. 1 are the exact same parts missing from the papyri. No two representations of the NYC skyline look the same.
Say you have a postcard of the NYC skyline, but pieces of it are ripped out, but it's still obviously the NYC skyline. There's enough photographic evidence in the photo to determine that beyond a reaonsable doubt. The postcard even says so.
Is it adlibbing to say that the empire state building and the statue of liberty are in the ripped portions?
Well, using your sense of rationelle, you have replaced Eht empire State Building with The eiffel Tower, and now you want to argue that it is correct!!
It isn't just one man saying the BoA is a fraud! Quite lying for the Lord. Even Hugh Nibley says it's not a translation.
You don't know anything about languages. If I gave you a spanish dictionary, but everything was intentionally and deliberately wrong, nothing you'd hear in spanish would make any sense whatsoever.
There may be others that dispute it. But the others I see either have not extensively studied snsn (breathing) texts OR they are the academic successors of the only one to have begun a study of any depth into such.
To treat their opinions like they are nigh any real certainty or proven staying power is to be very disengenuous and distort the realities of their studies and capacities.
So while anything can go--I'd need the foundational shifts needed for such variances to be far more supported than they presently are for any such condition, classifying Joseph as a 'fraud.'
Before more definatively answering your question I need you to answer the following--do you believe everyone and everything in the Bible has the possibility of being a fraud? Not merely an aspect or a majority--can everyone or anyone and everything or anything mentioned in the Bible be a fraud?
For anyone with an understanding of the degree to which our underlying assumptions effect the available possible realities I have to say that most anything is possible if you simply change foundational assumptions. Even the 'constants' of the universe can change if underlying assumptions or conditions are varied.
HiveRadical, you are seriously misrepresenting the case when you try and claim that only one Egyptologist disputes Joseph Smith's supposed translation. Let me ask you a blunt question; do you consider it possible that Joseph Smith was a fraud? Not that he definitely was; I just want you to demonstrate an open enough mind to admit to the possibility. We can proceed from there.
If anyone wants to know what is the truth...then just pray...why let a human who makes mistakes tell you what is truth when you can ask of God who has promised to answer with truth if you listen and have an open mind.
James 1: 5-6
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
Hey I never said to pray and ask if Mormonism was true...thats great that you have had your prayers answered...So have I.
Mormons believe that other faiths have good and truth in them and that many wonderful people in those faiths will find peace in the next life.
Im happy for anybody who finds faith in Christ,
God is vary just, and if someone is trying their best to serve him with all their heart, then he's not gonna send someone strait to Satan cause they are a differant religeon.
Hive- God gives us so much rich information when it comes to the Bible. Cities, archeology, and geography. When it comes to the Book of Mormon, God gives us nothing. Hey, maybe God just likes the Bible more. Sad that He goes to the trouble to give us that much info, and you guys accept it in a water downed fashion.
When did God give most of that information? Most believing Christians, the vast bulk, have lived in a time and place where they had no more access to Biblical confirming archeology than present LDS members have for the Book of Mormon. Were they wrong to be faithfull Christians before such things as the Hitite Civilization was archeologically confirmed?
Lets see where BoM Archeology is two millenia from 1820.
i have been a member of the latter day saint church for over 20 years i have really good book that would great if you read it its called The Greatest Quest By Blanine and Brenton Yorgason its about 5 students that are looking for the Only true church on the face of the earth though deep Serch and study though the holy bible and they find the Only true church in the end
all of the Evidences of the only True church is in the bible
Anthon's being impressed or not is irrelevant. A good perspective can be found if you'll search the word SHIELD and "42 QUESTIONS" and find question 20. There it has some very well laid out reasons for why we have the varying accounts and what they likely would mean.
Thanks for the reference. All it does is accuse Anthon of being a liar. So your still left with the same problem. No one reliable can see anything of substance in those "caracters." We have them today, it is pure jiberish.
Go to lds dot org. On the right click prepare a lesson.Choose image libraries on the left.Scroll down to BYU religious archive.Choose Book of Mormon.Then documents. Image # 2 and 14 should do.
That is not even 1% of the original text. We don't own them so therefore cannot confirm there authenticity. No "educated, unbiased study" by someone with a PHD in Reformed Egyptian has translated those.
The logic of man is not the logic of GOD. He WILL give a confirmation of the truthfulness of the BofM. We just have to humbly ask, with sincerity, throwing aside our own prejudices, so that he can trust endowing upon us an answer.
This is what Martin Harris showed to Dr. Anthon. Look at your comments. You say there is not anything there you can make a comment on, but you also believe Anthon thought it was expertly translated by Joseph. You cannnot have it both ways. Anthon never certified it as anything but a hoax.
That is what he "supposedly" showed him. It is owned by the RLDS. Therefore it has only been speculated, not proven, to be what was shown to Anthon. BTW none of the original scrolls even exist of the BIBLE, therefore you are only taking other peoples word for it, so how is that you appearing to be a "prove it with something tangent" sort of guy could believe in such a Sacred Book?
Igazzini, is playing this unneeded battle for all it's worth. The fact that that portion doesn't have any claiming to have found it's equivilant of the rosetta stone is irrelevant. swaths of egyptian were collectively just as much of a mystery to a great many scholars till keys, like the rosetta stone, came to light.
Don't play Igazzini's game. He's just trying to demonstrate errors in your thinking that don't either prove or disprove the whole.
The site I referred you to was one of the main LDS websites. If they did not feel it was accurate, it would not be there. The tone of your reply indicates you think it is a joke as well. Only an easily duped fool such as Martin Harris could fall for this. Even Harris' wife would not have fallen for this.
Those characters in the Anthon manuscript look no less legit than a great many other language samples that are offered up by archeologists and linguists alike as bonafide languages.
The main point of the "caracters" presented to Anthon is they are random drawings. To say Anthon "certified" them is ridiculous. Only an idiot would do so.(And then the problem is an idiot's testimony does you no good.) Anthon himself was insulted his name was falsely used to do so.
Anthon was not that impressed, its in your own History of the Church by Brigham Roberts. Realize Mormons are "anti-Christian". so if a Christian defends their stance, you go on auto pilot and start screaming anti-mormon.
If I am anti-Christian then you are an Athiest and anti-God because you believe in a being who no longer speaks (through prophets like he did in the BIBLE.). You authority begins and ends with the Bible. Without it you would be nothing, lost forever. I love the scriptures but even more I know that God and my Savior live and have continued once again to make there will known through Prophets of these latter days.
Your God speaks of cities never known, and never will be. That is because he is pure fiction. You love a certified fairy tale. You love an Egyptian funeral book. Sometimes it is much easier to believe a lie.
You have a grand amount of faith in something that you cannot know without claiming omniscience.
Those cities stand a fairer chance of being uncovered, in the present empiricist paradigms, than a belief in a resurected God incarnate. I believe both. That doesn't make me any more crazy or less rational than yourself, if you believe in Christ. Christ spat in dust stirred it up and stuck it on eyes to cure blindness. Can you repeat that? And you talk of "certified fairy tales"
Yes our faith does require much Faith indeed. I do not deny that and pretend to answer every claim. I do not mean to come off that way :)
Stories of Prophets in the Bible (e.g. Elijah, Noah, Moses and the parting of the Red Sea etc...) seem to be unbelievable. They require much Faith, for much of what they did simply cannot be proven. Christ simply put is my personal and beloved Savior through who's Grace I will be redeemed. Prove that!
platinumcar- do you believe you will be redeemed by Satan's spirit brother? Do you see yourself becoming as great as God himself one day? If so that requires the faith of Lucifer you see in Isaiah 14:14.
Thanks Hive Radical, we need more like you to flood the airways of youtube with truth! There is a lot of flies to swat out there, we need more sticky paper to keep them busy with the Truth!!
If Joseph SmYth had been a true prophet, he would have told his followers that they could save a ton of money on their car insurance by switching to GEICO!!
It's so easy, even a Lamanite could do it!!
Outlaw1257 2 years ago
Finally, your "meat" does the very thing that is dishonest. It takes modern 21st century understanding of Egyptian history and tries to synergize it with anything Smith used in his religion. (i.e both talk of afterlife, gods, souls, etc). Where thus you will of course find parallels. They both have humans, both have life and death. These are not particularly observant proofs. They are parallels in the fact it was already known these were RELIGIOUS TEXTS! Religion talks of life, death, afterlife
osirica 3 years ago
You really need to understand the situations better than you do. This video is rather old and it's clear that you didn't read the comment section before commenting yourself. I continue addressing these issues in more recent videos. To avoid rehashing things I recommend forestalling judgment until you know more than you presently do.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
It is scientifically irrefutable. this one man's presentation is backed up by hundreds of other men and women. Seeing as how one can read them clearly from the actual writings that were made by the Egyptians. And as you try to debunk the Egyptologist, you USE HIS RESEARCH to try to explain how Smith was correct. Even though your explanations in this video of yours is so messed up. The original papyrus HAS the "devil's tail" that you say isn't there. So you're totally off there. Overall your done
osirica 3 years ago
If you'd read the comments here you'd see that I concede that I was incorrect on the tail.
And no, that man's explanation isn't backed up by hundreds of other men and women in it's key points and it's underlying assumptions.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Is this ANYTHING which shows that the papyri have anything to do with the BOA. Dr Ritner, a former supervisor of Dr Gee takes the same view as Parker
aussieguy55 4 years ago
Dr Ritner comes from an academic legacy at Chicago rich in it's own faux pas and blunders. A majority of the purchases made by the founder of it's Egyptology department--Prof James H. Breasted (the 'father' of Egyptology in the US) were frauds that the museum has
HiveRadical 3 years ago
quietly been replacing over the years (it would be kind of embarrassing to yank most of your collection all at the same time--especially when you're suppose to be THE place for studying Egyptology in the Western Hemisphere)
Disagreements among Egyptologists are far from uncommon.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Again. Let's see a compilation of all the actual items they are citing. Let's have them demonstrate their conclusive assertions. And while were at it let each detail their area of specialties within Egyptology. cuz no one man, or even one department of a university, can have the corner on a civilization spanning millenia AND millenia removed from the present.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
"one man" ?
If you watch the entire video of the Book of Abraham. We see the testimony of a half dozen professors from well accredited Universities like Brown and Harvard, that speak to the known facts about what the facsimlies are, as well as Hebrew professors in Israel. These men all specialize in Egyptology. So not just "one man" as you would like the boast.
slu2com 4 years ago
The "one man" I put forward is the "one man" who's any where near close, in terms of expertise, to a near adequate analysis of the kinds of text in question. Even in his case he does not specialize in breathings texts.
Egyptian studies cover such a large swath that when you look at what's known relative to what was present when those things were actually made there's a massive gap.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I think when you say "qualified", you mean someone that has what, like more than 30 years in the study and profession of Egyptology?
The men on the Book of Abraham video were by no means unqualified in the field. All that were scholars in the field had above average knowledge, experience and credentials in the field of Egyptology.
I truly suggest re-watching the Book of Abraham video at: irr. org/mit
slu2com 4 years ago
No. When I say "qualified" I mean expert in the particular niche in Egyptology. Egyptian Civilization spanned a good couple millenia. English didn't even exist two thousand years ago. What I'm saying is that the man who comes closest to the era and type of writtings surrounding the JSP is not even an 'expert' on the particular genre they fall into.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Joseph Smith went to Charles Anthon for support of his scrolls. And Charles Anthon admittedly had very little experience with Egyptology. Yet the men in this video have dedicated their entire lives to the study (which now is not difficult to obtain knowledge as it was in 1840).
These men in this video, have more knowlegde than any and ALL people combined had in America about Egyptology at Joseph's time.
slu2com 4 years ago
"These men in this video, have more knowlegde than any and ALL people combined had in America about Egyptology at Joseph's time."
Which isn't saying much. I mean really. The civilization covers MILLENIA! Even if you had a 100 people dedicate 30 years of each of their lives to studying it do you really think they'd be able to pull out much information you would be willing to hang your salvation on?
HiveRadical 4 years ago
When you talk about expertise in Egyptology, these people featured in this video teach with decades of education in the study of Egyptology at prestigious universities who have not only a reputation of accuracy but a career in the field to uphold.
The people (most) have no religious bias, and if you read their profiles, they are not leaning toward one religion or another. Their goal is to fully understand and teach Egyptology.
slu2com 4 years ago
They have no pro-religious bias. No one is free from the forces of bias because subjectivity forms the core of any human's perception of reality.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
"What I'm saying is that the man who comes closest to the era and type of writtings surrounding the JSP is not even an 'expert' on the particular genre they fall into. "
What is also interesting, is that if you look up these burial rights, you will see not only the facsimilies that this man produced, but 100's of scrolls just like it in collections all over the world that are of the same burial rights. The writting is on the page.
slu2com 4 years ago
The fact that there exist masses of breathings texts and funerary text doesn't prove the assertion that the snsn facsimile as given by Joseph is wrong. Again we're addressing massive swaths of history.
I was wondering. I hear these claims of producing 100's of scrolls just like this. Why not compile photos of these 100's and have them all together so we can look at them together?
HiveRadical 4 years ago
22belhaven
Please see my other vids on this subject. They will hopefully help you understand the real positions and claims so that you're not tilting at windmills and strawmen.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
"Joseph Justified" suffers from the same problems as many LDS responses. The citations & "experts in field" are coming from the same mindset - that Joseph Smith is without doubt a prophet. You need to look beyond to resources outside the LDS Church. This is not authoritative; I would not trust an archeologist or an egyptologist from BYU; they sacrafice sound science for doctrine. Look at the ExposeRomney site on the Internet. An article addresses the pre-conceptions of LDS members.
22belhaven 4 years ago
The citations often are pulled from utterly detatched historians and archeologists.
By your definition no human can give anything authoritative (a point on which I'd agree in terms of history and science) because EVERYONE has subjectivity at their core. We find what we're looking for. To think that plagues a secular humanist less than
HiveRadical 4 years ago
a prophessor who happens to be an LDS adherent is naive. It's the human condition. But it's not your preconceptions that invalidate your arguments, it's counter arguments of sufficient stature and potency. I need to do something addressing this erroneous core belief that simply because something is coming from a subjectively influenced source means it can't
HiveRadical 4 years ago
be authoritative or true. LDS members in general may suffer from a great many pre-conceptions, but that itself does not dismantel any argument that may be put forward by a member of our faith.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
It does dismantel and argument if faith is contradicted by facts. That's how we are taught to recognize truth and the real aspects of God. I would hope the citations are detached, thus they will be independent.
22belhaven 4 years ago
Consider this, when the Catholiv Church wanted to have the Shroud of Turin evalauated and tested, it did not look only to it's own people, it sent clipping out to multiple independent labs for carbon dating. It wasn't as old as many people in the church hoped, but al least it was honest and used sound independent science. The LDS Church knows if iy uses any outside experts their religions arguments with respects to things like this are shown to be weak and often fraudulent.
22belhaven 4 years ago
Finally, why don't we put this to a real test. I live in Wash DC and have the Smithsonian down the block. And this weekend I will be in London, with an Ex-Mormon friend of mine. Would you like me to stop by the British Museum, which is considered the best museum in the world for antiquities. They even have the real Rosetta Stone on display, you know the one that Joseph Smith didn't know about, which enables us to read Egyptian. I'll ask the curator what he/she thinks.
22belhaven 4 years ago
You seem to be missing the actual argument.
The papyrus on which the facsimile No 1 is found is NOT the papyrus that the Book of Abraham was pulled from. Joseph Smith never claimed it and, in fact, there's significant evidence to demonstrate that he pulled the text from a papyrus not presently known to anyone.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Why do so many preach AGAINST others beliefs rather then FOR there own? If they believe there church to be true. Why would they come here and bash? I, being LDS, believe that a faith in Jesus Christ is a good thing. So I won't bash others for having that same belief as me.
saxmanmatt 4 years ago
It's easy to trash a specific belief set. To give a viable alternative is not at as easy.
Once when looking at a site I believe authored by Ed Decker there was a statement on it that essentially said it didn't bash any other belief.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Also I've found a few astute atheists that realized that they could attack the LDS faith, and in so doing have evangelicals embrace the very methodologies that, if applied across the board, would destroy their beliefs also. In that case there seems to be a subversive, but economical, motive. Try and give the appearance of smashing one faith while getting other faiths to expose themselves to the same poisonous fundamental assumptions.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
nice videos. keep up the good work.
ChristopherMillz 4 years ago
"know than better than anyone"??? I don't recall ever saying that.
<b>TRUINE?</b>
Again it's telling yer gett'n stir crazy having blocked dialog and messages to your site.
as long as your troll/spam sessions are unique I'll let you keep going.
We need a new term for spaming of this sort. How does 'sprolling' sound? traming sounds like you're utilizing public transit systems.
Keep on sprolling.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I would like to invite you to see my video. I think you would like it.
maggielaneink 4 years ago
Sorry, didn't care much for it.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Well, I hope I didn't say anything to offend you. What was it you didn't like?
malory55 4 years ago
I would love it if we could get the youtube's internal records as to what my actions were and were not so I could demonstrate that I never NEVER stopped comment on ANY of my video threads.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Okay, Hive!!
All I know is that for a while, I got a posting Message stating that the "Reply to comments" had been disabled. Obviously, for whatever reason, that was temporary, because I was able to post comments later that day!!
Outlaw1257 4 years ago
What probably happened was youtube's weekly maintenance where comments are disabled for some or all videos. Youtube usually does maintenance on friday nights.
fubecabr 4 years ago
Outlaw, for one screaming about your own rational and reasoned outlook you sure are presumptuous when you make comments like "all you could do was shut it down."
It rather demonstrates your willingness to come to the conclusions you want. You are no less tied to your dogmas than I am. You just refuse to confess such.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Well, Hive??
I see your Jelly Beaniology thread has been disabled for additional comments.
Your "scientific" presentation was such total garbage that all you could do was shut it down.
Very pathetic, Hive??
Outlaw1257 4 years ago
If it's shut down it was not my doing.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
By the way. I've posted a brief follow up to this video that contains some interesting additional information from other papyrus sources. A papyrus source that ties pictoral elements found in facsimilie I to the very name of Abraham.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
A source that is not recognized by any credible source outside of LDS.
The Papyrus was a text of Pagan funerial rites, and you know it; so does Smithsonian & NGS; all you can doo is parrot the LDS Shillsters.
Outlaw1257 4 years ago
Another thing is that the papyri are not even old enough to be "written by his own hand." The Book of Breathings is exactly what you'd expect to find with some egyptian mummies.
fubecabr 4 years ago
Now, Fube;
There you go trying to distort the situation with such trivial issues as facts!!
Facts, in this case, and in every other case involving LDS are of no importance.
What IS important are all those wonderful, warm, fuzzy feelings that burn in my bosom.
Outlaw1257 4 years ago
"by his own hand" never meant that the copy they had was written by the hand of Abraham.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
"The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."
Sounds pretty clear to me. This very papyrus was written by the hand of the patriarch abraham.
If that wasn't the case, there would be no need to have the little part of "written by his own hand." If JS and LDS Inc didn't want people to think that the papyrus was the orignal manuscript, it wouldn't say the phrase, "written by his own hand."
fubecabr 4 years ago
If you are copying, with fidelity, the writtings of another individual, you would include such statements in your copy. It's just being juvenile to incist that a reproduction of a written work omit such if it's seeking to be a faithful copy.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Hive;
Those who lack proper education are the same ones who seek to undernind it!!
You have no credentials, you have no credibility. You have nothing more that inept opinions and jelly beans.
Outlaw1257 4 years ago
I'll have a bit more hard evidence in a few.
We'll see you explain away what I'm about to post.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Let me guess, you're going to give some parallels like the paralellomaniac Nibley.
fubecabr 4 years ago
And let me guess. You'd say that the evolutionists and scientists have been immune from their own form of paralellomania in the course of their work?
HiveRadical 4 years ago
They haven't admitted the BOA is not accurate. They've admitted that the snsn text, the papyrus text, does not line up with the BOA text.
And I don't differ with them in this.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I don't know how much more simple this needs to get.
JS buys some papyri. He claims to divinely translate them. One would expect that this translation should match up with the papyri. Instead, he doesn't get a single character correct.
JS makes an Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet. If he's a prophet, it should be correct. Problem is that it's all gibberish.
fubecabr 4 years ago
HiveRadical;
On one vid, we saw you playing with your HellyBeans, and ramblings of pseudo-science.
Now, once again, I challenge you to state your academic or research qualifications, or credentials.
Why should anyone consider you have more credibility than those you seek to challenge??
Why do you refuse to demonstrate ANY level of competence or credibility??
Outlaw1257 4 years ago
Competence, to anyone who HAS SUCH, is not demonstrated by presenting a mere certificate. It is found in the soundness of one's statements and the integrity of their logical constructs. If what I've demonstrated is false then you should be able to do more than throw a few names at me. The only time those names and titles will amount to a hill of beans is when you get them to openly agree with the likes of the statement I put in bold type in the dna vid
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Hive:
The people I have mentioned have a whole lot more going for them than you do.
You have no appreciation for their expertise because you have no education yourself.
I can see your insecurity at work here. The fact is that ALL you are capable of doing is parroting Flimmsey Lindsay, and counting jellyBeans.
You have no credentials, and you have no credibility, and anyone can easily see that.
Outlaw1257 4 years ago
If education were just a piece of paper with letters on it you might have a point.
I'm fortunate enough to know that knowledge and logic is independent of accreditation boards and tuition receipts. Not to say they don't have their place and not to bash any who receives a degree.
But when you think the paper is the education and the proof of logic, then you've officially lost the knowledge of what it is to "get an education."
HiveRadical 4 years ago
HiveRadical;
What never ceases to amaze me is when uneducated pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific pontifficators such as you have to cry foul and disparage those of us who have persued our degrees.
You seek to marginalize Richard Parker, who has a Ph.D, yet, whereas I have asked you to state your educational credentials, and you have steadfastly refused to do so, choosing instead to challeng my credentials, which I have supplied.
You are a scammer, Hive!!
Outlaw1257 4 years ago
I do not seek to marginalize Parker's Ph.D. I seek simply to place his conversance in context. Relative to you and me he knows a great deal, BUT IN THE ULTIMATE QUESTION AT HAND HIS RELATIVE KNOWLEDGE IS A MOOT POINT. It's not how much more he knows than you or I RATHER it's how much he knows of the specifics that are at the center of this.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
You are lying when you claim that you are not seeking to marginalize Robert Parker's level of education. Furthermore, you refuse to state your own credentials & qualifications.
Why?? Because you have none. You also have no credibility.
Outlaw1257 4 years ago
Good Mormon Brothers and Sisters!!
You've Waited!! You've Prayed!! You've Tithed!!
Now, It's Here!!
Call now & order HiveRadical's
"Reformed egyptians For Dummies"
Call Now! We'll send you a rock, a hat, a bag of Holy LDS JellyBeans, and as a special gift, we'll include a free CD entitled;
"Reformed Street Gang Graffitti For Dummies!!
Outlaw1257 4 years ago
Hive's trying to bluff with a pair of 2's!! First, Hive is a liar when he attempts to convince you that only one man has rejected The Pappyrii as being anything more that The Book of Breathings.
The Pappayrus has been studied by experts, and roundly discredited.
Ask ANY linguistic expert. Find just ONE o/s of LDS about a language called "Reformed Egyptian".
Outlaw1257 4 years ago
Cognitive dissonance is something as likely to be held by those skeptical of our faith as it is among those still in the faith.
Look up <i>Strange Bedfellows or Future Enemies</i> for an intelligent look at the conflicts between the anti-cult and the counter cult, as well as between the rationalists and post-rationalists.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
LOL- Attack the source how original!
SkepticalMormon 4 years ago
What 'source' am I attacking?
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Let's see, you attacked Aaronshaf2006 for putting the video on youtube, you attacked Egyptologist Richard Parker, saying it is just "one man's extrapolation", making slanted comments like "he has studied SOME aspects of Egyptian history..."
SkepticalMormon 4 years ago
The "one man's extrapolation" is correct. If by 'attack' you mean 'giving points of argument' then YES I am attacking. It IS true that it was JUST his extrapolation. And since he isn't omniscient in Egytian history he IS limited in his knowledge.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I know how people react to cognitive dissonance. I just wrote an article on my blog about the 6 ways people deal with cognitive dissonance. You got past number 1, selective exposure, so that is a bigger step than most people make. However, the church has always taught that the Book of Abraham was a direct translation.
SkepticalMormon 4 years ago
It's irrelevant what many may have taught, what is important is what was claimed and what they meant in their claims. Your views are unduly narrow.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
You can't sat that the Book of Brethings has anything at all to do with the Book of Abraham, so you are still stuck in number 3- Selective perception and number 4- Attack the credibility of the conflicting information.
SkepticalMormon 4 years ago
*Correction attack the credibility of the SOURCE of the conflicting information
SkepticalMormon 4 years ago
You follow the steps of cognitive dissonance. Your limited portrayal of information in your video (ala the gun used by Joseph) And the implied mass abortions make for a, albeit unsupported, means of impeaching the source.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I never said I didn't follow the steps of cognitive dissonance. Of course I follow the steps of cognitive dissonance, and you should be willing to admit it too.
SkepticalMormon 4 years ago
You are presently following them. That's what I was saying. Not that you DID but that you ARE (presently).
HiveRadical 4 years ago
O.K. no argument there, I am glad we can agree on something. ;)
SkepticalMormon 4 years ago
I never said it has nothing to do with the Book of Abraham.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
What about the translation of the text? should it not translate the same as written by Joseph Smith?
rd1999 4 years ago
Not necessarily. The text on the papyrus is clearly not the text of the Book of Abraham. Something that the critics will not point out is that the breathing texts, all of them, have a great deal in common with the apocryphal relations of Abraham--all of which, BTW, were not available to the Western world until several decades AFTER Joseph's death (i.e. Apocalypse of Abraham)
HiveRadical 4 years ago
You Mormon's will stop at nothing. What a bald faced liar you are, Hive!! "Proffering the view given by ONE MAN??? Bullsh*t!!
The pappyrus were examined by Egyptologists, and they are a text of Pagan Breathing Rights, and nothing more.
Outlaw1257 4 years ago
They are the text of apostate breathing rights. But look at what they are most similar to in theme and message. They line up quite amazingly with apocryphal Abrahamic texts--the apocalypse of Abraham the testament of Abraham. The whole of the breathing texts is centered around resurrection and a deified second life where being "Justified" is key.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Co tell that to The Smithsonian, and The National Geographic Society. They could use a good laugh!!
Outlaw1257 4 years ago
"rites" not "rights"
HiveRadical 4 years ago
An example
ed claims that 2+2=11
joe disagrees, insisting that 2+2=4
ed points out that he uses a base three numerical system-thusly he's correct.
ed is later shown to accept 2+2=4 as correct at times.
It's not a fallacy to point out that ed is willing to switch between paradigms.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
That's not really a specific example. That's more of an analogy.
fubecabr 4 years ago
I never said it was a "specific" example.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Do you agree with my example?
fubecabr 4 years ago
A critic must be willing to use a logical paradigm consistently, otherwise they are--by definition--illogical. And while their illogical nature may not change the point they've made it DOES demonstrate the added fallout that can come from a blanket application of their logic.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here. Do you have some examples?
Are you talking about the young earth creationists that criticize mormonism? They and other christians criticize mormonism based on a double standard.
For example, they'll bash mormonism over the head with DNA, but neglect that fact that the same DNA shows humans to be around a lot longer than 6000 years and that the flood did not happen.
fubecabr 4 years ago
Another problem with apologetics is that if LDS Inc was the one true church with a prophet that literally speaks on behalf of God, then the increasing knowledge of mankind would be vindicating JS.
The problem is that just the opposite has happened.
fubecabr 4 years ago
I'd recommend a cd series "Time Vindicates the Prophets" (it's also in book form under the title "The World and the Prophets).
Your claim that "just the opposite has happened" is simply not the case.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I'm really not aware of many prophecies made by LDS leaders that have come true. In fact, not many prophecies have really been made at all since JS and BY.
On the other hand there's numerous prophecies made by JS that simply didn't come to pass. There's even a few of these in the D&C.
fubecabr 4 years ago
I can point out stuff by Jesus Christ that hasn't "come to pass" that doesn't mean it wont.
What distinct prophecies did Smith make that haven't come to pass in your view?
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I'll PM you on this since 500ch doesn't suffice.
fubecabr 4 years ago
Just so that any others viewing this can know. I will respond to the PM in the form of a video, when I get the time. I still have a vid in production as a follow up to the DNA issues. But these points you've sent me look to be easy enough to cover in like manner to what I recently did with Byron. I just need to find time to do it.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I think I might do my own video too. Well, gotta go to bed. Have a good night!
fubecabr 4 years ago
Thus every claim of yours to a fallacy has been shown to rest on your own erroneous assumptions as to what my argument actually consists of.
Evidence, as used by apologetics, is not to prove faith claims. Rather it is to maintain a rational environment in which faith can continue.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Well, as more and more evidence comes to light, maintaining a belief in mormonism becomes less rational.
Apologists come up with explanations that are possible, but not probable. All these explanations taken together with their low probabilities and you get an abuse of the word "possible."
fubecabr 4 years ago
So in other words, if you give a generous 10% probability to all the apologist rationalizations being true, then 0.1^100 = nearly zero.
fubecabr 4 years ago
The crux of my argument is in assuming that one can be rational and logical without being a hard empiricist. If you reject that then you would either have to claim soley empiricism OR conceed that faith and rational thought can go together, with faith providing defense, but not proof, for the context in which the faith resides.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
It's still not a red herring. Because if your world strictly precludes any thing beyond the empirically observed then it's irrelevant to have a debate as to the veracity or falseness of Joseph's claims--because they are openly tied to extra-empirical evidences.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I don't want to create a straw man here, so correct me if I'm wrong.
You see 3 possibilities:
1. Abraham wrote the BoA in a code to protect it to make it appear like the Book of Breathings
2. There's another papyri that also has fac. 1 in it that is the REAL Book of Abraham.
3. JS didn't really translate, but revealed the BoA. That the papyri gave the inspiration for revelation.
fubecabr 4 years ago
1 doesn't seem likely, but I suppose it's not impossible.
2 also is possible
3 has an issue with it. Clearly there is the claim that in some way, at some point, by some meaning of the word, something was translated from some of the Papyrus. Some of this could be seen as potentially tying into #1. This also has some merit if you look at the term 'translating' in a less than the rather linear perception we often have of such.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I guess I'm still not really understanding what your position is then. You see problems with all 3 possibilities, no?
At least you seem to be more intellectually honest than other mormon apologists I've seen. Other mormon apologists come up with these hypotheses, but ignore the problems with them.
fubecabr 4 years ago
I don't see any clear "this is what was meant" or "this is the way it happened." The problem I have with the critics claims is that their position demands strictness in definitions and setup that are not at all inherent in what has been said or claimed.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
The problem with apologetics is that words can mean whatever we want them to mean and anything is possible.
Early LDS leaders stuck their necks out and made a lot of literal claims that have now been proven to be false or that LDS Inc has decided it should forget about.
It's just this simple. If the literalistic claims that LDS Inc makes are not true, then it is not true.
fubecabr 4 years ago
...this differentiation on what is meant by a 'translation' is given significantly more leeway with the openly accounted Book of Mormon translation circumstances, with their distinctness in terms of proxcimity and mortal vs. divine access to the actual records.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
This cling to hard empiricism needs to be across the board. None of this application of completely seperate and contradictory paradigms between what you believe and the standards you apply to what others believe.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
You see you can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm not here to argue with someone that cannot see any faith as reasonable or rational. That would just be silly.
One can't cling to measurements that damns all faiths and then go and claim a faith themself and be justified in the eyes of logic.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I guess we need to define 'faith' and delusion. Delusion is a belief PROVEN to be false. Faith is a belief that hasn't necessarily proven to be false or true.
fubecabr 4 years ago
Nothing's been proven false in my foundational beliefs.
"Proof" is something that would also be entertaining to see you define--seeing as it's as subjective as the discerning intelligence in question is.
In short--there's not a single human alive that doesn't have subjective moorings at it's base.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
No. It's not a fallacy. It's not a red herring. It's a demonstration of the context and measuring sticks used in discerning the truth. If hard empiricism is the measuring stick then it's silly for the singling out of Mormonism, for the whole of the faith based world conflicts with such a standard of measurement.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I agree with you somewhat. Mormonism isn't the only faith that has problems with science. But not many religions have as many problems with science and empirical evidence as mormonism.
fubecabr 4 years ago
or logic?
Name me a single faith that doesn't have, at some point in it, issues with science.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
The BoA text IS NOT the Book of Breathings. The Papyri IS the Book of Breathings.
fubecabr 4 years ago
Yes. Portions (the facsimilies) were transmitted via the Book of Breathings. Thus that portion of the Book of Abraham (certain aspects of the facsimiles being translated by Joseph) was 'translated' from the Book of Breathings. But none of this precludes the derivation of the BoA text from some other source, portion of the source, or means, beyond the present papyri/snsn text/breathings text.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
At the beginning of the handwritten manuscript, Joseph Smith asserted that it was a "Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the catacombs of Egypt." The introduction to the Book of Abraham still maintains that it was "Translated From The Papyrus, By Joseph Smith" (BoA Intro). If the Book of Abraham is not an actual translation of the papyrus, then it is obvious that the introduction to it that appears in the PoGP is a complete misrepresentation.
fubecabr 4 years ago
Joseph Smith not only claimed that he translated it from the papyrus, but according to the History of the Church, vol.2, p. 351, he affirmed that it was "a correct translation."
fubecabr 4 years ago
abraham talks about a record in Abr 1:12 with fac. 1 in it. It follows that the JS Papyri is this record.
fubecabr 4 years ago
So we're supposed to believe that abraham used a pagan egyptian funeral document to encode his super dooper secret writings and that JS used his magical decoder ring to show what the text REALLY means and not what it literally means?
The capacity of denial of the human mind is almost infinite.
fubecabr 4 years ago
No. The proposition is that the funerary traditions represented in the many egyptian accounts were themselves derived from Abraham's original writtings. Thus the images get moved down while the story surrounding them was changed to whatever the Egyptians felt to change it to. You need to realize that Joseph never claimed the papyrus was the source of the text of The Book of Abraham.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Sorry, the egyptian pagan religion predates abraham.
"Joseph never claimed the papyrus was the source of the text of The Book of Abraham."
Are you for real?
"A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." See History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348—351.
fubecabr 4 years ago
"A TRANSLATION OF SOME ANCIENT RECORDS, THAT HAVE FALLEN INTO OUR HANDS FROM THE CATECOMBS OF EGYPT, <b>PURPORTING TO BE</b> THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM WHILE HE WAS IN EGYPT, CALLED <i>THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM, WRITTEN BY HIS OWN HAND, UPON PAPYRUS</i>."-Times & Seasons, Vol. III. p. 704.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
So what are you trying to say by putting "Purporting to be" in bold print? Are you admitting that the papyri are NOT the writings of abraham, while he was in egypt, written by his own hand?
fubecabr 4 years ago
It doesn't say that the Book of Abraham was translated from the text found in the presently available manuscript. The presence of the snsn characters on the Book of Abraham manuscript doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that someone wrote them there. You take that convenient "—" in place of "purporting to be" and try and paint it as if that proves that it was claimed to be a dirrect translation source for the text that presently constitutes the Book of Abraham.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Ok, now you're ignoring the fact that Abr 1:12 says "I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record." This is fac. 1. Fac. 1 is in the papyri.
Furthermore, those characters match the order on the BoA manuscript.
How does it feel to defend the indefensible?
fubecabr 4 years ago
The breathings texts do not predate Abraham. And that would be all that would be relevant.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I didn't say the Book of Breathings predated abraham. I said the Egyptian pagan religion predated Abraham.
fubecabr 4 years ago
Which is irrelevant to the point at hand since interpolations happened all the time in Egyptian religious practice, mythology and dogma.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
"Joseph never claimed the papyrus was the source of the text of The Book of Abraham."
Even if this was true, it's untenable that the papyri were not the source of the BoA. Why spend thousands of dollars (millions now) to buy them then?
Why are the hieroglyphs from the papyri in order on the margins of the manuscripts that became the published BoA?
fubecabr 4 years ago
Why march around a city if it's not the marching that will actually bring it down? Why hold up your hands to cause the sun to remain in the same place in the sky during battle when it's not actually the holding up of the hands that's causing the sun to stand still.
I sure hope Mr. fubecabr is consistant in his application of hard empiricism. If he at all holds to the Bible as a Holy book then he has some serious hypocrisy on his hands.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
So in other words, because one myth is similar in some ways to another, they're both true?
You're dancing around the issue that whatever the BoA is, it's not a translation. It's not even old enough to be "written by his own hand."
The "Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet" shows he had no understanding of Egyptian.
Another problem is the existance of hieroglyphs from the papyri in the margins of the "translation" manuscripts.
fubecabr 4 years ago
I see that you try to grasp at straws by making that comment about the tail. Not every one of these facsimiles are exactly the same.
It's kinda like depictions of the bald eagle and uncle sam. They don't all look exactly the same, but they all mean the same thing.
fubecabr 4 years ago
I corrected myself, if you'll look in the comments. The tail is present in both. But as I've stated previously, that one side comment being incorrect doesn't phase my general argument. Because it was not a part of my refutation, simply an incorrect observation I gave in passing.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
So, let me get this straight, if I rip out some pages from the BoM and half a page of LDS artwork, and give it to someone, that person cannot definitively say that those pages are from the BoM or are LDS artwork?
fubecabr 4 years ago
Could I then take those pages from the BoM and "translate" them into portuguese and claim that they're the sacred writings of Genghis Khan when those pages and artwork have nothing to do with Genghis Khan? Wouldn't that prove my Genghis Khan cult to be a fraud?
fubecabr 4 years ago
You don't understand the word ad-lib or extrapolation either.
Dr. Parker is not ad-libbing because we see this facsimile in other places. This is the Book of the Dead and is very common. You don't have to just look at the facsimile to know that. You can look at the text as well to see that.
The Book of the Dead IS a religious text!!!!! It's a pagan religious text.
fubecabr 4 years ago
He sees scenes that he tries to tie into the facsimile. I've yet to see an actual find that matches up with the extrapolation made in the absent pieces of the papyrus.
Can you point me to it? If he wasn't extrapolating, and the facsimile, just as he portrays it, is in other places, then someone should be able to produce it.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
The questionable parts in fac. 1 are the exact same parts missing from the papyri. No two representations of the NYC skyline look the same.
Say you have a postcard of the NYC skyline, but pieces of it are ripped out, but it's still obviously the NYC skyline. There's enough photographic evidence in the photo to determine that beyond a reaonsable doubt. The postcard even says so.
Is it adlibbing to say that the empire state building and the statue of liberty are in the ripped portions?
fubecabr 4 years ago
Well, using your sense of rationelle, you have replaced Eht empire State Building with The eiffel Tower, and now you want to argue that it is correct!!
Outlaw1257 4 years ago
It isn't just one man saying the BoA is a fraud! Quite lying for the Lord. Even Hugh Nibley says it's not a translation.
You don't know anything about languages. If I gave you a spanish dictionary, but everything was intentionally and deliberately wrong, nothing you'd hear in spanish would make any sense whatsoever.
Egyptian hieroglyphs are no different.
fubecabr 4 years ago
As for 'misrepresenting' the case.
There may be others that dispute it. But the others I see either have not extensively studied snsn (breathing) texts OR they are the academic successors of the only one to have begun a study of any depth into such.
To treat their opinions like they are nigh any real certainty or proven staying power is to be very disengenuous and distort the realities of their studies and capacities.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
So while anything can go--I'd need the foundational shifts needed for such variances to be far more supported than they presently are for any such condition, classifying Joseph as a 'fraud.'
Before more definatively answering your question I need you to answer the following--do you believe everyone and everything in the Bible has the possibility of being a fraud? Not merely an aspect or a majority--can everyone or anyone and everything or anything mentioned in the Bible be a fraud?
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Tikal Ruler A,
For anyone with an understanding of the degree to which our underlying assumptions effect the available possible realities I have to say that most anything is possible if you simply change foundational assumptions. Even the 'constants' of the universe can change if underlying assumptions or conditions are varied.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
HiveRadical, you are seriously misrepresenting the case when you try and claim that only one Egyptologist disputes Joseph Smith's supposed translation. Let me ask you a blunt question; do you consider it possible that Joseph Smith was a fraud? Not that he definitely was; I just want you to demonstrate an open enough mind to admit to the possibility. We can proceed from there.
JasawChan 4 years ago
If anyone wants to know what is the truth...then just pray...why let a human who makes mistakes tell you what is truth when you can ask of God who has promised to answer with truth if you listen and have an open mind.
James 1: 5-6
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
1Nephi 4 years ago
1Nephi- I have asked God to give me wisdom on these matters. No wavering, ... Mormonism is wrong.
lgazzini 4 years ago
Hey I never said to pray and ask if Mormonism was true...thats great that you have had your prayers answered...So have I.
Mormons believe that other faiths have good and truth in them and that many wonderful people in those faiths will find peace in the next life.
Im happy for anybody who finds faith in Christ,
God is vary just, and if someone is trying their best to serve him with all their heart, then he's not gonna send someone strait to Satan cause they are a differant religeon.
1Nephi 4 years ago
1Nephi- do you believe these other people will end up serving you in the Celestial kingdom?
lgazzini 4 years ago
There are more aspects to the promise then simply asking without wavering.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Hive- God gives us so much rich information when it comes to the Bible. Cities, archeology, and geography. When it comes to the Book of Mormon, God gives us nothing. Hey, maybe God just likes the Bible more. Sad that He goes to the trouble to give us that much info, and you guys accept it in a water downed fashion.
lgazzini 4 years ago
When did God give most of that information? Most believing Christians, the vast bulk, have lived in a time and place where they had no more access to Biblical confirming archeology than present LDS members have for the Book of Mormon. Were they wrong to be faithfull Christians before such things as the Hitite Civilization was archeologically confirmed?
Lets see where BoM Archeology is two millenia from 1820.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
i have been a member of the latter day saint church for over 20 years i have really good book that would great if you read it its called The Greatest Quest By Blanine and Brenton Yorgason its about 5 students that are looking for the Only true church on the face of the earth though deep Serch and study though the holy bible and they find the Only true church in the end
all of the Evidences of the only True church is in the bible
Guai4life 4 years ago
Anthon's being impressed or not is irrelevant. A good perspective can be found if you'll search the word SHIELD and "42 QUESTIONS" and find question 20. There it has some very well laid out reasons for why we have the varying accounts and what they likely would mean.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Thanks for the reference. All it does is accuse Anthon of being a liar. So your still left with the same problem. No one reliable can see anything of substance in those "caracters." We have them today, it is pure jiberish.
lgazzini 4 years ago
We don't have the exact ones today. If so who has them and where? That's what I thought.
platinumcar 4 years ago
Go to lds dot org. On the right click prepare a lesson.Choose image libraries on the left.Scroll down to BYU religious archive.Choose Book of Mormon.Then documents. Image # 2 and 14 should do.
lgazzini 4 years ago
That is not even 1% of the original text. We don't own them so therefore cannot confirm there authenticity. No "educated, unbiased study" by someone with a PHD in Reformed Egyptian has translated those.
The logic of man is not the logic of GOD. He WILL give a confirmation of the truthfulness of the BofM. We just have to humbly ask, with sincerity, throwing aside our own prejudices, so that he can trust endowing upon us an answer.
He has answered me. I know it is true.
platinumcar 4 years ago
This is what Martin Harris showed to Dr. Anthon. Look at your comments. You say there is not anything there you can make a comment on, but you also believe Anthon thought it was expertly translated by Joseph. You cannnot have it both ways. Anthon never certified it as anything but a hoax.
lgazzini 4 years ago
That is what he "supposedly" showed him. It is owned by the RLDS. Therefore it has only been speculated, not proven, to be what was shown to Anthon. BTW none of the original scrolls even exist of the BIBLE, therefore you are only taking other peoples word for it, so how is that you appearing to be a "prove it with something tangent" sort of guy could believe in such a Sacred Book?
platinumcar 4 years ago
plat-car.
Igazzini, is playing this unneeded battle for all it's worth. The fact that that portion doesn't have any claiming to have found it's equivilant of the rosetta stone is irrelevant. swaths of egyptian were collectively just as much of a mystery to a great many scholars till keys, like the rosetta stone, came to light.
Don't play Igazzini's game. He's just trying to demonstrate errors in your thinking that don't either prove or disprove the whole.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
The site I referred you to was one of the main LDS websites. If they did not feel it was accurate, it would not be there. The tone of your reply indicates you think it is a joke as well. Only an easily duped fool such as Martin Harris could fall for this. Even Harris' wife would not have fallen for this.
lgazzini 4 years ago
Those characters in the Anthon manuscript look no less legit than a great many other language samples that are offered up by archeologists and linguists alike as bonafide languages.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
The main point of the "caracters" presented to Anthon is they are random drawings. To say Anthon "certified" them is ridiculous. Only an idiot would do so.(And then the problem is an idiot's testimony does you no good.) Anthon himself was insulted his name was falsely used to do so.
lgazzini 4 years ago
Anthon was not that impressed, its in your own History of the Church by Brigham Roberts. Realize Mormons are "anti-Christian". so if a Christian defends their stance, you go on auto pilot and start screaming anti-mormon.
lgazzini 4 years ago
If I am anti-Christian then you are an Athiest and anti-God because you believe in a being who no longer speaks (through prophets like he did in the BIBLE.). You authority begins and ends with the Bible. Without it you would be nothing, lost forever. I love the scriptures but even more I know that God and my Savior live and have continued once again to make there will known through Prophets of these latter days.
platinumcar 4 years ago
Your God speaks of cities never known, and never will be. That is because he is pure fiction. You love a certified fairy tale. You love an Egyptian funeral book. Sometimes it is much easier to believe a lie.
lgazzini 4 years ago
Oh man you're hilarious... :) Thanks for the good laugh.
platinumcar 4 years ago
You have a grand amount of faith in something that you cannot know without claiming omniscience.
Those cities stand a fairer chance of being uncovered, in the present empiricist paradigms, than a belief in a resurected God incarnate. I believe both. That doesn't make me any more crazy or less rational than yourself, if you believe in Christ. Christ spat in dust stirred it up and stuck it on eyes to cure blindness. Can you repeat that? And you talk of "certified fairy tales"
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Yes our faith does require much Faith indeed. I do not deny that and pretend to answer every claim. I do not mean to come off that way :)
Stories of Prophets in the Bible (e.g. Elijah, Noah, Moses and the parting of the Red Sea etc...) seem to be unbelievable. They require much Faith, for much of what they did simply cannot be proven. Christ simply put is my personal and beloved Savior through who's Grace I will be redeemed. Prove that!
platinumcar 4 years ago
platinumcar- do you believe you will be redeemed by Satan's spirit brother? Do you see yourself becoming as great as God himself one day? If so that requires the faith of Lucifer you see in Isaiah 14:14.
lgazzini 4 years ago
Thanks Hive Radical, we need more like you to flood the airways of youtube with truth! There is a lot of flies to swat out there, we need more sticky paper to keep them busy with the Truth!!
dirkhunter 4 years ago