Joseph Smith Vindicated: PART I

[kramd1]

Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection

by Lance S. Owens

check this one , worth the read.

[chewbiewan]

No. Sorry.

[dfwsunking]

My favorite part of the "Book of Abraham" per the Joseph Smith translation is Description 7 on Fascimile. It's the Egyptian Diety Min, the god of fertility and that thing sticking out where his legs and torso meet is an erection.

According to Joseph Smith this is "God sitting upon his throne". With his thousands of wives needed to pop out 100 billion spirit children, I guess it makes sense...

BWAHAHAHA!

[dfwsunking]

Sorry, I was laughing so hard, I meant to say fascimile #2.

[hawklanzs]

Joseph Smith is a FUCKING FRAUD. You believe in a book just because its 'beautilfully written in ink' beautiful this beautiful that. FUCK OFF.The only book thats of divine interference is THE BIBLE. Joseph is in HELL now and you are gonna follow him.

[TrueSaintsLDS]

Hugh Nibley is an very good example of an egyptologist. His words pierced other egyptologists to the very core. Did Nibley ever debate?  I would have enjoyed hearing him denounce other IRR groups that believe they have it right.

[rasonoaks]

Ask youself why are their so many similar figures in egyptian history, and why do they all have Jackyl heads. This is the only one that doesn't, please.

[HiveRadical]

You've looked through all of Egyptian history?

Do you know anything about the Desheret?

[rasonoaks220]

Why didn't joseph just use a rock in the hat to translate these documents

[HiveRadical]

The problem with your view, you assume to know the reasons things were done.

If God just wanted a book given to the world why would he bother going through a person?

And you didn't answer any of my questions.

[rasonoaks220]

If God just wanted a book given to the world why would he bother going through a person?

Good Question! You could also ask why would god flood the earth when he could just as easily killed everyone. but I digress

so sometimes God uses actual plates, sometimes rocks, sometimes divine revalation, sometimes actual egyption language, and sometimes even fake plates made by some farmers.

God is very odd. I do not understand his ways. Is God less logical than you or me?

[HiveRadical]

God is more logical than you or I. My pointing out the questioning of the method demonstrates the fact that you have an overly simplified view of the probable whys and wherefores that are under girding the ways and means instituted by God.

[FC275]

Joe Smith vindicated? exactly how?

he obviously didn't know Egyptian, "reformed" or otherwise

there is no way that his Egyptian alphabet & grammar would stand close scrutiny by Egyptologists or grammarians

you can check that out on the internet, then see Champollion's work or go to your local library & check out a book on Egyptian heroglyphics

regrettably, something that Joe Smith did not have access to

[HiveRadical]

The Egyptologists views of the hypocephali have been demonstrated to not match up with ancient Egyptian's understandings of them, so the fact that Joseph's views of them don't match up with Egyptologists isn't the grand travesty you imagine. And there's more details to this whole thing that render this point a great deal more involved than your simplistic 'Joseph clearly didn't know Egyptian!' Try actually watching my vids before commenting.

[FC275]

ok, show us the research, links, data

don't make this up, as Joe Smith did

have you presented at any major conference or lecture, published in a peer-reviewed journal or is it mimeographed & available for $10.99?

BTW, FAIR, FARMS & Sunstone don't count

I find it kind of funny that only you could decipher this while those dumb Egyptologists went on tangents, almost like Daniel Jackson in "Stargate", cool

does your hypothesis on Egyptian hypocephali have anything to do with aliens or Atlantis?

[RxJohnTNT]

what are you talking about

use  plain English

[Outlaw1257]

HiveRadical:

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but there was something that I wanted to tell you.

I sometimes receive PM's from people who want to know if there are any "Faith Promoting" LDS Y/T vids where "anti's" are not censored.

I refer people to your vids.

Even though you and I disagree on just about everything related to LDS, I strongly applaud you for allowing open discussions; you do demonstrate an element of class when dealing with dissenters.

[HiveRadical]

Thank you. I appreciate your acknowledgment of that.

[Outlaw1257]

So, Hugh Fibbley was impressed by an esteemed graduate of a diploma mill.....

"The University of Reformed Flea Market"??

thus "vindicating" Joseph Smith??

Wow!!! I'm Impressed!!

quack!! quack!! quack!!!

[HiveRadical]

Being a diploma mill 'graduate' does not mean someone is stupid, just dishonest. Thus being impressed by someone who's intelligent, if you don't yet know they are dishonest, is nothing shameful or really avoidable.

[Outlaw1257]

I agree, Hive!!

I never said that being a graduate fron Flea Market University was an indication of stupidity.

Mark Hoffman was dishonest, not stupid.

Yet, given the debacle of Hoffman, I would think that LDS would ve more vigillant in investigating someone before being impressed by them.

[HiveRadical]

Hoffman was a friggen genius, and the Tanners are some incredibly bright people. Many dissenters are very bright and capable people.

Nibley once noted that we in the Church trend toward laziness on these things and that, if it wasn't for the opposition of critics, we would likely remain so.

[Outlaw1257]

Hive:

LDS is not alone in that respect.

Within LDS or any other religion where people are taught to follow blindly and unquestioningly, you have a fertile breeding ground for intellectual laziness.

Although I disagree with you on many things, I do credit you with putting forth ideas and hypothosies that spark thought and debate.

[HiveRadical]

"And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light."

Luke 16:8

[HiveRadical]

That said--

58 To prepare the weak for those things which are coming on the earth, and for the Lord's errand in the day when the weak shall confound the wise, and the little one become a strong nation, and two shall put their tens of thousands to flight.

59 And by the weak things of the earth the Lord shall thrash the nations by the power of his Spirit.

But if they forget why they are given weaknesses (to become strong) then

[HiveRadical]

they will falter. The Saints should glory in God's help, but they should not seek to remain weak or to not work or not think all they can merely because God is on their side.

[HiveRadical]

Mr(or Ms.)storia person(persons?)

Your responses are more entertaining with your new YouTube account. Is that standard procedure with you? Claim to leave someone alone, delete your account, then come back latter? Or is this some cruel joke played by your enemies playing off your constant insistence in our last exchange that I wasn't worth your time only to come back time after time after time to respond to me?

[storia22]

- Furthermore, at the time of the translation, he did not claim a doctorate. He learned the ancient language from his stay in Egypt (of all things) from under Zakaria Goneim (keeper of the antiquities at the Necropolis of Saqqara).

[storia22]

- Nibley endorsed Nelson's work in a letter dated October 1, 1968 by saying "admirable work." Additionally, Nibley claimed that Nelson's study was "a conscientious and courageous piece of work....a usable and reliable translation of the available papyri" (BYU Studies, Spring 1968, Pg 247).

[HiveRadical]

I've responded to this on another thread connected to another one of my videos

[storia22]

- Another fact is that another Mormon scholar (John Tvedtnes) was very impressed with Nelson's knowledge by saying "has no doctorate, "although he maintained that his "competence in both Egyptian and Semitic languages is unquestioned." -- letter dated (Ibid., pg 70)

[HiveRadical]

see my response to this copy and pasted response on one of my other vids.

This is another interesting practice you've picked up. I went from not being worth your time (something you reminded me each time you spent more time responding to me) to all the sudden being worth copy and pasting responses to me all over my vid threads.

This is getting quite enthralling!

[storia22]

For the FACTUAL RECORD, here is the truth about DEE JAY NELSON:

- He did purchase his diploma from a degree mill (like you purchased your knowledge from a brain washing institution). This fact does not take away the sure knowledge the Nelson whew substantially more than Nibley knew about Egyptology.

[storia22]

For the record, the man he was citing as 'helping Nibley' translate the Papyri was Dee Jay Nelson. The man faked his credentials through a degree Mill that was shut down. He touted himself as the "World's Leading Authority on Egyptology." Google his name for more revelations as to his fraud.

Would you like to Comment?

[storia22]

HIVE, the same weak argument can me used by myself to state that Clayton (JS's Scribe) wrote down JS words (and therefore any second hand source is good evidence). Furthermore, as you so graciously stated, this "doesn't make it an unfaithful projection of your writing" (quoted from HIVE above).

Hive, you pick and choose and pick and choose but never really learn something. Learning might mean that you would have to change your thoughts or ideas (oh no).

[HiveRadical]

So what are you saying? That copying word for word an original account is the same thing as writing down hearsay without proper attribution as to the source?

[hypnotstcollector]

i have a number of early 19th C authors and history shows the name of church went thru a number of changes in its early yrs. not all readily available now, but 'Church of Christ' was used prior to 'lds'. at one point,prior to 1838 i have seen 'Mormonites' as a self reference term. (not as church name,self ref).I would point out, that primary prediction of JS & reason for lds name, NEVER came to pass. (ALL CHST' know it will, Joe said the end is 'now')

[HiveRadical]

"Church of Christ" is simply a shortened version of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

[storia22]

HIVE on my hinny, a response to your VID II

HiveRadical (3 days ago) Show Hide Marked as spam

(Reply)

-Demonstrate conclusively that Zelph accounts are made up.

-"by his own hand" was something that would have been literally copied as the original was copied, just because your words "I wrote this with my own hand" are on a facsimile of your actual work doesn't make it an unfaithful projection of your writing.

- that last point is also irrelevant.

[HiveRadical]

Joseph Smith pointed out that, while intended as derogatory and not being the actual name of members of the kingdom, it is not a bad name to have. He essentially said he's happy to have the title of being a 'Mormon' for the word means "More Good."

[kolobkrunch]

you read crap from Nibleys book

and then want to fault me for not demonstrating

in the wake of Joe smith claiming to derive the BOA from the papyri, about like claiming to derive the old testament from a totem pole

HAHAHA AHHAAH I am laughing in your face

You MORmONS need to get a grasp on what PROOF is!

[HiveRadical]

I'll have a vid up shortly responding to you.

[kolobkrunch]

the burden is on you

explain why Joe drew a human head on the anubus

BUSTED!

[kolobkrunch]

that was not a defense of anything

it was far more nonsense

picking on meaningless details as if they are critical while avoiding larger pertinent factors

you will only fool MORmONs that way

it is a prime example of how inept Nibley and you really are

just another effort to muddy the waters in the MORmON attempt to defend the indefensible antics of con man Joe Smith

[HiveRadical]

Classic post-rational response. You make general claims without actually rebutting any specific point NOR demonstrating or supporting your claims.

Demonstrate something, don't merely claim it.

Show us WHY it's "nonsense" How it's "not a defense of anything" Show us WHAT is "meaningless detail" and then be ready to defend your assertions.

In the apt street colloquial-

BRING IT!

[kolobkrunch]

the burden is actually on you

I never made the initial fantastic/ asinine claims

Nibley's mindless warblings about the condition of any documents is MEANING LESS

However I do like the part where he concedes that JOE Smith may have wanted to fool some critics about what he was deriving from the papyri

the fact is that modern academics are fully capable with Egytian and Joe's "translation" is not even 1 percent correct

[HiveRadical]

Type this "Questions About the Book of Abraham:

Clumsy Fraud or Sacred Scripture?" and "Jeff Lindsay" into a reliable search engine for a more exhaustive look at this issue.

[veracities]

These mummies & papyri were kept by JS`s mother until her death, when the heirs sold them in the first instance to the St Louis Museum. Page 45 of their 1859 catalogue clearly itemises the job lot as funerary text.

[HiveRadical]

And how exacting in their classifications could they have gotten back in 1859. Breathings texts would hardly be looked at until you get into the 1900's, and even then by very few Egyptologists. There was clearly funerary texts dominating the collection, but that doesn't mean they'd translated it all before classifying it in their catalog.

[veracities]

Scholarship is the painstaking analysis of facts and empirical data to formulate a logical and credible theory. Apologists like Nibley and his ilk are constrained by their mormon beliefs to start with a required theory and then look for ways to justify it. This is exactly what he has done here.

[HiveRadical]

Every investigation starts with a presupposition of what you are going to look for, what you expect to find, there's not a single scientific or scholarly work that doesn't have some idea as to what it's looking for, some filter to help them find the kind of evidence they seek. Again I'd recommend the last episode of "The Day the Universe Changed" here on YouTube. There you have a secular historian, James Burke, pointing this reality out.

[veracities]

Exactly, thats how scolarship should work but thats not Nibleys job. Thats why he did his `U` turn. He was clearly on a mission to conjure up possible ways to discredit the real evidence & bolster the crumbling BOA. What he came up with were a series of unsupported assertions, tailored to support his preferred conclusion.

[HiveRadical]

His point is valid. The description of the papyrus doesn't match with the attributes of the snsn text. YET they match with the other papyrus.

[veracities]

Another example of a `tailor made` mormon theory is the LIMITED GEOGRAPHY THEORY although it doesn`t really qualify as a proper theory since it is not based on any facts or empirical data. It was born out of desperation & the need to invent ANY explanation for the total lack of BOM archaeology in the area where the LDS Church & its prophets always said it was.

[HiveRadical]

It is based on facts and empirical data. How can you say it isn't? People looked at maps and looked at the Book of Mormon accounts all those pieces of evidence are facts and empirical data. Simply because you can't prove a theory doesn't mean it's not based on facts. If that's what a theory is then "Dark Matter" is not a "theory" because there are no direct facts or empirical data for it, it's all (as with the LGT) implicitly derived.

[veracities]

Stop blustering, you and I both know there are no maps or evidence of any kind to support the LGT. Thomas Ferguson spent 25yrs and a great deal of money trying to find it. He was a devout mormon & began his quest full of confidence but ended up after all those years completely disillusioned with JS & mormonism.

[HiveRadical]

Thomas Ferfuson was an overassuming eccentric who made determinations, conclusions and studies in fields far beyond his expertise or understanding. His naivety is one of the most significant factors behind his eventual disillusionment NOT the merits of the faith.

[HiveRadical]

Egyptian, they would have just said, "this doesn't match your physical description, it's in bad repair compared to these other ones you have and it has no red rubrics anywhere on it.

[HiveRadical]

risk describing something in such contrary terms to the actual state of the thing? He gave the description back then, if he'd given that description then pointed to the snsn text and said "this is where I pulled the test for the BoA from" then it would be a clear indicator of fraud and the person would not even have to know how to read

[HiveRadical]

I mean if you know that you don't know what you are doing then there would be no reason to discriminate, to differentiate or set apart any particular source claim. Again look at the contrast between neatness and orderliness and the mere fact that the snsn was clearly in bad repair at the time Joseph had it (huge chunk missing) Why would Joseph

[HiveRadical]

A good read on the subject brought up by veracities is available from the maxwell institute at byu in an article by Nibley titled "Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham." Googling it should get you there.

[veracities]

Your favourite "amateur" Egyptologist Dr Nibley, writing in the BYUS Spring `68 P249 states "It has long been known that the characters interpreted by JS in his Alphabet & Grammar are treated by him as supercryptograms, & now it is apparent that the source is the small sensen(funerary) text. Need I say more!

[HiveRadical]

Yes you do.

The snsn text being the source of that found in the Alphabet & Grammar does not then make it the source of the Book of Abraham text.

[veracities]

Regarding the Alphabet & Grammar, Dr Nibley went on to say "The symbols are arranged here, the interpretation goes along here & this interpretation turns out to be `The book of Abraham`. Here is the little sensen text, which was expanded in translation to the whole BOA."

[HiveRadical]

Nibley, like any scholar, had moments when theories and perceptions were wrong. Nibley addresses this in the article I've already referenced in this thread "Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham."

[veracities]

Nibley,like any scholar, had moments when his theories and perceptions were right. You really shouldn`t just cherry pick the bits that suit your argument.

[HiveRadical]

That is what you are doing.

[veracities]

This was Nibley`s first response to the new(back then) papyrus evidence. He gives a commendable, if uncharacteristically honest, interpretation of the facts. Later, when he realised the disastrous effect this would have on the BOA & Mormonism in general, he decided to don his apologist mantle & concoct something more palatable for the faithful.

[HiveRadical]

No. Because he cites, as I point out in these vids, what was logically wrong with his previous conclusion. He discovers an explanation that is more in line with the evidence. It's you who refuses to acknowledge that Joseph claimed there to be red rubrics on the papyrus from which he pulled the Book of Abraham.

[ticklemypickles]

-"More in line with the evidence"- WHAT EVIDENCE! Another lost papyrus? If it`s lost, you don`t have it. If you don`t have it, it`s not evidence. Speculation about it`s existence does not constitute evidence. You have plenty of evidence, pity it`s not to your liking. Your problem is it shows the BOA to be a hoax.

[HiveRadical]

The evidence, as shown in this vid, as to the description given by Joseph Smith of the specific Papyri from which he pulled the Book of Abraham. So when I referenced the evidence I was referencing Joseph's explanation that indicates that there were more papyri than are presently found.

[ticklemypickles]

So where can I find this quote by JS where he says he translated the BOA exclusively from this missing papyrus with the red writing.

[HiveRadical]

The papyrus from which the BoA was taken is described, as mentioned in this vid, in the History of the Church.

[ticklemypickles]

We know there were other papyri and one with red writing! That was not my question. My question was "Where can I find this quote by JS where he says he translated the BOA exclusively from this missing papyrus with the red writing.

[HiveRadical]

I told you. In the History of the Church.

[veracities]

The quote you asked about ("beautifully written...red ink...etc.") is not attributable to Joseph Smith. It was written by Oliver Cowdery for an article in the `Messenger and Advocate` which was in turn taken from a placard used by Michael Chandler to describe his travelling exhibit as a whole.

[ticklemypickles]

Thanks veracities, nice to get a straight answer

[HiveRadical]

Looking at the foot note it is written by Oliver Cowdery and is in the Church History. That doesn't inherently undermine the validity of the point.

[HiveRadical]

There is no reason for Joseph to have lied about such even if, as you believe, he faked it, because a great number of the papyrus that we have contain such red glyphs, the snsn does not. Neither does it match up with the quality ascribed to the BoA papyri.

[HiveRadical]

Clearly if Joseph knew he was faking it there would be no reason to try and direct people one way or another with regard to the specific papyri he was pulling from for the Book of Abraham.

[veracities]

That`s where Nibley`s "supercryptogram" theory comes in. It was his explanation of how JS could have expanded one hieroglyph to 177 English words irrespective of the true meaning in Egyptian.

[HiveRadical]

Read Nibley's other views and theories, not merely one he presented in '68.

[storia22]

Look HIVE, You are so unethical and illogical. You should most likely become a teacher of grammar school. Your logic and intelligence has not been seen since Joseph Smith. Only illogical persons like Smith could produce such BS,

With tender care,

May you have plenty of fertilizer

Storia 22

[HiveRadical]

This coming from a person who deletes his youtube account right after debating me. Supports a fraud to fight someone he tries to paint as a fraud? (fighting fraud with fraud??? what's logical about that?)

You provide plenty of organic material, so it's a suiting wish/offer.

[truthferrret]

Strange that a record allegedly written by Abraham containing the most important revelations that God ever gave to man should be disguised to look just like standard Egyptian funerary text & interred with the priest, Horus, for whom it was written, with the clear intention that it should remain hidden for all eternity. Can`t see it myself.

[HiveRadical]

See the second part. Note again that the snsn text WASN'T the text from which the Book of Abraham was pulled seeing as it doesn't match the description given by Joseph.

[truthferrret]

Looked at second part but found your reasoning contrived. FACT-you have the papyri from which JS copied the facsimilies used in the BOA. FACT-you have JS`s original translation manuscripts which list the individual hieroglyphics clearly taken from the same papyri, each with it`s own translation. All funerary text & nothing more. This clearly shows these papyri were used for the translation.

[HiveRadical]

One of the papyri with one of the facsimiles, a papyri that DOESN'T match with Joseph's description of the papyri he was pulling the text from.

That second point is not so. Those manuscripts showing an attempt to tie individual hieroglyphics to words from the BoA fits in with the fact that others tried their hand at matching and translating. Those instances are not done in Joseph's hand and match the account of men trying their hand at something they knew nothing about.

[veracities]

NOT IN JOSEPH`S HANDWRITING? - come now - surely you know that JS "seldom put pen to paper", thats what he had scribes for!

[HiveRadical]

Precisely. That doesn't mean you can willy-nilly claim some writing found as sanctioned or a verbatim account of him or his doings.

[veracities]

No but you willy-nilly discounted the document on such a flimsy pretext, just to suit your purpose, when you knew very well JS wrote little himself. This "alphabet & grammar" has been in the LDS archives since JS wrote it and shows clearly the hieroglyphs from the sensen text with his translation. Up to 177 words from a single character.

[HiveRadical]

It is not "clearly" "his translation."

I defy you to prove it.

[veracities]

It is just as clearly his translation as is the BOM, unfortunately you find it an inconvenience. You must learn that you can`t just sweep inconvenient facts under the carpet if they are in conflict with your preferred view of "history".

[HiveRadical]

1:52 - 2:48

Look at it. Others trying to match up the translation with text on one of the papyri. Prove that the writing, the writing where there's 177 words to a character, is that of Joseph's.

[veracities]

These are authentic documents from LDS Church archives dating from when JS wrote the BOA, what better provenance could there be. I have no reason to doubt your church, their word is proof enough for me. So the onus is on you to provide the proof, as the one with the outlandish claims. You certainly have a very selective belief system. You readily swallow one man`s unsubstantiated claims of gold plates,angels & visions, but reject authentic documents.

[HiveRadical]

I fully accept the documents. What I don't readily swallow is just any mans view of who wrote what on them.

You cannot prove that the characters, among them the one to one hundred and seventy seven words in the Book of Abraham, and their correlating English text were Joseph's attempts at translation, their existence squares with jealous, soon

[HiveRadical]

to be disaffected, brethren in the Church at the time. It takes as much, if not more, a leap of faith on your end to interpret the authentic documents the way you do as it takes for today's conspiracy theorists to believe the government has, and is currently running concentration camps throughout th US.

[HiveRadical]

You readily swallow a few men's unsubstantiable claims as to who did or didn't write something on papyrus almost two hundred years ago and readily swallow that someone has the capacity to extrapolate, without error, the source and intent of scribblings made as far back DESPITE the fact that it conflicts one account of what happened and has NO account to support that view, merely the written text, nothing adjoining it to tell who carried it out, or why.

[HiveRadical]

It also gets me when people will say what you have "I found your reasoning contrived" That's wonderful that you will share your conclusion, will you also demonstrate HOW my reasoning is contrived? I've demonstrated that your facts and

[HiveRadical]

adjoining conclusions are NOT what you think they are I HAVE pointed out the specific areas in your reasoning that are erroneous, I would ask you to do the same RATHER than merely stating your personal, as yet unsupported, opinion and view of it. DEMONSTRATE the evidences of inadequacy RATHER than merely asserting such.

[HiveRadical]

Your second "FACT" is addressed specifically in this video from 1:52 - 2:48

[vintageyellow71]

Great video chief. Keep it up for all those people out there who think they're so smart about us and our faith.

[veracities]

Or if you`re a follower of Joseph Smith - if it looks like an apple, tastes like an apple, but Joseph says it`s a banana, then I`m sure you`d be doing a video showing the incontrovertible evidence that proves beyond doubt that it is indeed a banana!

[HiveRadical]

This falls more in line with the concept of a sweet onion. Your angle is trying to say that because it is sweet and doesn't make you cry it CAN'T be an onion. whilst the genetics and appearance of it, regardless it's variance from your past experiences with onions, it is still AN ONION.

[veracities]

These papyri date from the time of Christ, 2000yrs too late for Abraham. They don`t mention Abraham & when properly translated, have nothing in common with the "book of Abraham". Never heard of Occam`s Razor - If they look like examples of late Egyptian funerary text,if the illustrations show the embalmer at work & if the hieroglyphics translate as a standard breathing permit ...

[HiveRadical]

The date of the papyrus found is not relevant because the statement by Abraham that it was written by his own hand would have been copied by anyone duplicating and transmitting it faithfully. When you make a photocopy of you writting "I personally wrote this on this paper" it doesn't much matter that the copy says the same words that you wrote. You see the age of the Papyrus is not relevant to their claims of the BoA being a true account.

[saxmanmatt]

Good work hive! You, like I, have realized the true and amazing work of the Book of Abraham! Its work is so amazing that it is impossible to replicate such a document that has and always will remain consistent. Even the recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls give support to the Book of Abraham.