James 1:5

[TrespassersW]

Benji:

What is so complex about this issue? Either he translated ot or he didn't. This is only one of many issues with Mormonism that I find painfully obvious.

My understanding is that his "translation" of the facsimilie that has been verified as accurate is not correct in any way. In fact, it has absoutely NOTHING to do with Abraham or even Judaism for that matter. This is clearly not a person who is trustworthy.

Have you ever compared what Joseph said about the facsimiles to what modern Egyptologists are saying about them? To say that his explanations are not accurate in any way is simply false. His explanation of some of the particulars hits so close to what is understood today that it defies coincidence. And yet, I've never read a criticism on this issue that tried to explain (or even acknowledge) this. Your blanket dismissal gives me reason to question just how familiar you are with the issue at all.

Here is one that definitely falls into my definition of painfully obvious. Have you ever wondered why all mormon scripture was written in King James English even though it was published in 19th century America? That just doesn't add up (unless someone wanted their writings to sound like the Bible).

Why wouldn't Joseph render scripture into a scriptural format that was familiar to him? Why shouldn't he? This argument never even made any sense to me. Whether one believes that the translation and revelations were dictated by God Himself or if the choice of words was Joseph's, I don't see how "King James English" affects things either way.

Mark Twain called the BOM "chlorophorm in print"

You're right. The fact that a humorist made a joke about the Book of Mormon is not the strongest argument against it. The Book of Mormon is an extremely sophisticated and complex story. It contains some absolutely beautiful poetry and staggeringly profound theology. Shrugging it off as being "boring" is a peculiar claim. One that tells more about you, I think, than about the Book of Mormon.

Other issues for me include the ever changing doctrine that seems to conveniently coincide with the politics of the day (i.e. polygamy and Blacks holding the priesthood).

Should a church not change with changing times? Why not? I think it's odd that so many people find such changes scandalous when a fundamental tenet of Mormonism is the need for continuing revelation.

I have never been convinced by the "credible witnesses" who claim to have participated with JS.

Wasn't the point. The point was that it's just as silly to hang everything on that one tidbit as it is to hang everything on the Book of Abraham. Neither is sufficient, in itself, to settle the question.

My objection to your original post remains. History is a difficult subject that often requires a lot of interpolation and speculation. There are many, many records about the early LDS movement and many of them contradict each other. Those who wrote about it (on both sides of the table) were emotionally charged and saw things through an almost palpable filter of bias. And yet, you claim that understanding what really happened 170 years ago is as simple as understanding that water is wet. I can only reply "No. It isn't." It only seems simple to those who have dismissed it too lightly.

[Benji]

Have you ever compared what Joseph said about the facsimiles to what modern Egyptologists are saying about them? To say that his explanations are not accurate in any way is simply false. His explanation of some of the particulars hits so close to what is understood today that it defies coincidence. And yet, I've never read a criticism on this issue that tried to explain (or even acknowledge) this. Your blanket dismissal gives me reason to question just how familiar you are with the issue at all.

Yes I have compared what Joseph said about the facsimiles to what modern Egyptologists are saying about them. Here is one Egyptologist's response:

Dr. Ritner's conclusion is that the "Book of Abraham" text presented by Joseph Smith could not possibly be more incorrect or more out of place when compared to the real translation of the Book of Breathings Papyri. Not a single word or idea presented by Joseph Smith even remotely corresponds with the actual translation of the Book of Breathings papyri." If you are unaware, the Book of Breathings is what the papyri actually are and the LDS church has verified one of the facsimilies.

Benji

[TrespassersW]

I asked about the facsimiles. You responded about the text. The debates surrounding these two topics have very different dynamics.

[Benji]

I asked about the facsimiles. You responded about the text. The debates surrounding these two topics have very different dynamics.

The originals of the facsimilies are the only thing that has been verified by the LDS church. The original "text" has never been recovered. But Ritner examined the papyrus verified by the LDS church and concluded they had nothing to do with Abraham.

Benji

[TrespassersW]

Benji:

But Ritner examined the papyrus verified by the LDS church and concluded they had nothing to do with Abraham.

Good for him. But that doesn't really address what I was asking. I understand your proclivity for summary judgments, but that is insufficient here. What I said was "His explanation of some of the particulars hits so close to what is understood today that it defies coincidence." Citing Ritner's dismissal doesn't really address that.

All of this continues to be irrelevant to my point, though.

If all of this is as obvious knowing that the sky is blue, why then do you need to turn to an Egyptologist for answers about this? Is Ritner the only Egyptologist to have examined the facsimiles? Do all Egyptologists who have commented on the topic agree unanimously with him? You won't turn to God about this issue, but you'll turn to an Egyptologist?

Let me give you a quick for example to show what I'm talking about here.

I'm currently reading a book called The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Bart Ehrman. In it, he presents and defends his thesis that scripture was deliberately altered by scribes to more clearly support their theology. So far, he seems to be doing a pretty good job in presenting the evidence. But, if he had started his book saying "This is as obvious as the fact that the sky is blue. So painfully obvious, in fact, that it really doesn't bear further inquiry." If he had said that, I would have immediately put the book down. That isn't scholarship, it's arrogance. It's a statement that's not only silly, but counterproductive, and flies in the face of honest inquiry.

[Benji]

Is Ritner the only Egyptologist to have examined the facsimiles? Do all Egyptologists who have commented on the topic agree unanimously with him?

Ritner is one of many Egyptologists who have examined the facsimilies and every one I am aware of all agree that they have nothing to do with Abraham. Here are a few more in addition to Ritner:

In 1912, Reverend Franklin S. Spalding sent copies of the three Facsimiles from the Book of Abraham to some of the world's leading scholars of Egyptology. All eight of the scholars that responded were unanimous in their condemnation of Joseph's translations as being incorrect. For example, Dr. Arthur Mace, Assistant Curator for the Department of Egyptian Art of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York explained:

"The Book of Abraham, it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication. Cuts 1 and 3 are inaccurate copies of well known scenes on funeral papyri, and cut 2 is a copy of one of the magical discs which in the late Egyptian period were placed under the heads of mummies. There were about forty of these latter known in museums and they are all very similar in character. Joseph Smith's interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end. Egyptian characters can now be read almost as easily as Greek, and five minutes' study in an Egyptian gallery of any museum should be enough to convince any educated man of the clumsiness of the imposture." (F.S. Spalding, Joseph Smith Jr., As a Translator, 1912, p. 27)

Dr. A. H. Sayce from Oxford, England concurred:

"It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith's impudent fraud. The fac simile from the Book of Abraham No. 2 is an ordinary hypocephalus, but the hieroglyphics upon it have been copied so ignorantly that hardly one of them is correct. I need scarcely say that Kolob, &c., are unknown to the Egyptian language. Smith has turned the goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham." (Ibid., p. 23)

Dr. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote:

"They are copies of Egyptian subjects of which I have seen dozens of examples. They are centuries later than Abraham. The attempts to guess a meaning for them in the professed explanations are too absurd to be noticed. It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations." (Ibid., p. 24)

Dr. James H. Breasted of the Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago, declared:

"It will be seen, then, that if Joseph Smith could read ancient Egyptian writing, his ability to do so had no connection with the decipherment of hieroglyphics by European scholars

[flameburns623]

Have you ever wondered why all mormon scripture was written in King James English even though it was published in 19th century America? That just doesn't add up (unless someone wanted their writings to sound like the Bible). I have heard the argument from Mormons that it is a "holier language" which is of course absurd. Beyond that, it is so obviously a botched job of King James English.

Benji: this COULD have been JS's motive for using 'KJV' language. I would submit however that one could reframe Smith's motives differently if one presupposes some measure of trust in Smith as a Prophet of God.

I have made this argument before. Neither Mormons nor non-LDS seem to understand it but I will make the effort once again. Tarsitano and Toon have written a number of books on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. Their focus is on preserving the 1662 BCP in one of it's authentic versions. Toon and Tarsitano also seek to preserve the use of the King James Version of the Bible. At least one of their arguments is that the use of contemporary English in worship and devotional Bible reading has profoundly undermined the sense of awe and reverence contemporary English-speaking people have for Scripture and even for God Himself. Which in turn has led to a decline in the reading of Scripture, a decline in orthodoxy, a decline in interest in religion. They point to the period of the 1950's and 1960's as the watershed period where the move for contemporary English in both worship and in Bible translations really caught fire and argue that it was only since that period that Bible literacy and devotion have really declined. They argue that it is the excessive familiarity of contemporary worship which has fed this: the 'God is my Good Buddy' attitude may seem liberating initially to one who has had difficulty relating to God as Almighty Sovereign of the Universe. But in the end, an excessive familiarity with holy things causes one to lose a sense of what the word 'holiness' truly means.

The fact is that a 'liturgical language' has long been a part of the tradition of worship, and this has been so for a purpose. The King James Bible was NOT written in the 'common language' of people of it's time--it was formal, stilted, and loaded with expressions which set it apart from how everyday people spoke. As one example: the pronouns "Thee", "Thou" etcetera had actually all but fallen into utter disuse at the time the KJV came forth. It was reserved for four purposes: in formal addresses to the Royal Court; in romantic poetry; the occasional use as an epithetic address by one of superior rank to an inferior; and, oddly, in prayer to God. The last became customary for theological reasons. The setting apart of these pronouns as a way of formally addressing the Divine was, first, a way of affirming God's oneness ("Thee" and "Thou" are singular pronouns). But also: the tradition of using these pronouns in romantic literature identified them as an appropriate way of affirming our love for God. And, of course, the use of these pronouns at Court gave them a patina of nobility.

Even before the translation of Scripture in to English, however, the Bible has long been set apart by it's language. The Vulgate Bible of Jerome was written in a form of Latin derived from and understandable to the common Latin-speaking reader of his time. But it was NOT written in gutter Latin and it was heavily influenced by the Greek language from which Jerome derived his translation. It sounded little like Classical Latin. The Septuagint was likewise readable by Greek Jews of the Diaspora--but they would not have confused the Septuagint with wither the common Greek spoken every day in the marketplace, nor even with the Greek of either Homerian classics or of everyday epistles between Greek-speaking acquaintances. The New Testament is written in Koine, or 'common' Greek to be certain: but it is a very peculiar sort of common Greek, heavily influenced by Hebraisms and with words actually coined by Paul in order to capture the essence of the ideas he is expounding.

The point is that in any era of the Christian age, the language of Scripture has always been somewhat 'separate' from both the everyday language of the streets--and even from other sorts of more formal written language. We express religious ideas most effectively, and in a way which best confirms our sense of reverence towards Scripture and towards God, when we express those ideas in 'liturgical' language. In English this has come to be equated with 'Tudor' or 'Elisabethan' English. Smith's decision to use this style of writing, therefore, does not appear to me to be entirely dissonant with the spiritual needs of the average English-speaking person of his time. His use of 'KJV language' is not of itself an obstacle to accepting his translation, speaking for myself on this matter.

Anyone interested can explore Toon and Tarsitano's thoughts on this in the following book:

Neither Archaic Nor Obsolete: The Language of Common Prayer and Public Worship; Peter Toon and Louis R. Tarsitano, The Prayer Book Society of the USA, Philadelphia PA, 2003.

Hope this helps!

[rameumptom]

Have you ever compared what Joseph said about the facsimiles to what modern Egyptologists are saying about them? To say that his explanations are not accurate in any way is simply false. His explanation of some of the particulars hits so close to what is understood today that it defies coincidence. And yet, I've never read a criticism on this issue that tried to explain (or even acknowledge) this. Your blanket dismissal gives me reason to question just how familiar you are with the issue at all.

Yes I have compared what Joseph said about the facsimiles to what modern Egyptologists are saying about them. Here is one Egyptologist's response:

Dr. Ritner's conclusion is that the "Book of Abraham" text presented by Joseph Smith could not possibly be more incorrect or more out of place when compared to the real translation of the Book of Breathings Papyri. Not a single word or idea presented by Joseph Smith even remotely corresponds with the actual translation of the Book of Breathings papyri." If you are unaware, the Book of Breathings is what the papyri actually are and the LDS church has verified one of the facsimilies.

Benji

Ritner is a poor person to use. He's a devout Evangelical who hates Mormons. John Gee successfully had Ritner removed from his PhD board, because of Ritner's stance against Mormonism. You may as well ask an educated Pharisee why he thinks Jesus is a false Messiah.

It is a cop out to decide which things to take to God and which things we shouldn't, when there are obviously issues that support and don't support Mormonism. Yes, the BoA fragments we have are from the Book of the Dead. Yes, Joseph Smith related ancient issues concerning Abraham that he couldn't have known. So, shouldn't this be an issue to take to God with an open mind????? We are all in agreement that the sky is blue. The evidence is overwhelmingly so.

Otherwise, Benji, could I ask why you are still a Christian? Obviously you are, since you put stock in James 1:5-6. What evidence is there that Jesus actually resurrected, did miracles, or take upon himself all our sins? How do we really know that the early Christians didn't steal his body away, or that he was only considered a Teacher of Righteousness by the early Christians, only to be made a Messiah by Paul and Luke decades later? That is what some Biblical experts today claim, and with some good evidence, I might add.

If we look at Matthew 24, we see Jesus telling the apostles that he would return for his 2nd Coming in that generation. Gee, I guess we missed that one! Or is it that Jesus gave an incorrect prophecy? If so, does that suddenly mean we must reject Him as Messiah and Savior? I mean, that should be one of the "no brainers" that doesn't require asking wisdom of God, isn't it?

Where is your consistency? There are as many issues on Jesus that go pro/con as there is on Joseph Smith.

A deep study of the things brought forth by Joseph Smith shows amazing exactness with recent scientific study. To use one or two questionable things to dismiss the hundreds of "dead on" items, is to show a lack of really wanting to know the truth.

[Benji]

Ritner is a poor person to use. He's a devout Evangelical who hates Mormons.

Ritner is one of many Egyptologists who feel the same way. I cited several more besides him.

Yes, the BoA fragments we have are from the Book of the Dead. Yes, Joseph Smith related ancient issues concerning Abraham that he couldn't have known.

Why would a prophet of God deliberately deceive people in this way? If he was divinely called to translate ancient books, he should have no problems doing so.

Benji

[rameumptom]

Ritner is a poor person to use. He's a devout Evangelical who hates Mormons.

Ritner is one of many Egyptologists who feel the same way. I cited several more besides him.

Yes, the BoA fragments we have are from the Book of the Dead. Yes, Joseph Smith related ancient issues concerning Abraham that he couldn't have known.

Why would a prophet of God deliberately deceive people in this way? If he was divinely called to translate ancient books, he should have no problems doing so.

Benji

Why must it be that Joseph deceived anyone? He truly believed what he had were writings from Abraham and Joseph of old. Whether he had additional fragments we now don't have, or the current fragments were used as a catalyst to receive revelation, or whatever, is immaterial. The real issue is: is the Book of Abraham translation (not the papyri) an ancient record?

Joseph's "translation" of the Bible was not a translation, either. No ancient Biblical manuscript has the additions that one finds in the Book of Moses, on Melchizedek, Enoch, or the prophesies of Joseph of old. Clearly, studying the Bible became a catalyst for the additional info we now have in the JST.

Are there unanswered issues concerning the BoA? Of course there are. But they are on both sides of the issue. We cannot easily explain the papyri. But I haven't seen Ritner nor any of the other critics deal with topical issues of the BoA outside of the papyri. It isn't as easy as they claim, in other words. They have only tried dealing with a portion of the problem, not the entire issue. Paul Osborne or Kerry Shirts could give you lots of good info concerning the BoA, that strongly suggests that the translation is ancient, even if the papyri were not the original source.

BTW, Jesus taught in parables to deceive the people, didn't he? And there were prophets in the OT that lied for the Lord. Micah was brought before the king to tell him what to expect in battle, only to have him initially lie/deceive the king.

Another prophet lied to a prophet about going to his house for dinner. The disobedient prophet was killed by a lion, because he allowed himself to be deceived by another prophet.

Clearly, you don't know your Bible very well.

[Benji]

The real issue is: is the Book of Abraham translation (not the papyri) an ancient record?

The LDS church has verified a portion of the papyri (the one known as facsimilie No. 1 in the BOA) as the one used by Joseph Smith. This is what the Egyptologists studied and they concluded it has nothing to do with Abraham. Therefore, Joseph Smith's description of this document is not what he said it was. even if Joseph truly believed he was correct in his interpretation, the facts show he was not and that casts serious doubt on his supposed prophetic ability.

Benji

[will2believe]

This is what the Egyptologists studied and they concluded it has nothing to do with Abraham. Therefore, Joseph Smith's description of this document is not what he said it was.

To phrase it in such cut-and-dried terms is to ignore the scads of published apologetic material regarding Facsimile 1. Whether you find such works convincing or not, you have to admit that your assessment is little simplistic.

[Benji]

To phrase it in such cut-and-dried terms is to ignore the scads of published apologetic material regarding Facsimile 1. Whether you find such works convincing or not, you have to admit that your assessment is little simplistic.

The issue itself is quite simple and requires a simple answer. The LDS church verified that facsimilie and it does not mean what Joseph said it did. What more does one need?

Benji

[will2believe]

To phrase it in such cut-and-dried terms is to ignore the scads of published apologetic material regarding Facsimile 1. Whether you find such works convincing or not, you have to admit that your assessment is little simplistic.

The issue itself is quite simple and requires a simple answer. The LDS church verified that facsimilie and it does not mean what Joseph said it did. What more does one need?

Benji

All issues are simple if you ignore the details and the opposing views. What pro-LDS works regarding Facsimile 1 have you read?

[TrespassersW]

Benji:

Ritner is one of many Egyptologists who have examined the facsimilies and every one I am aware of all agree that they have nothing to do with Abraham.

Did I say they have anything to do with Abraham? You keep arguing against a statement that I've never made. Let me repeat (again) my statement, this time with emphasis: "[Joseph's] explanation of some of the particulars hits so close to what is understood today that it defies coincidence."

See, here's my dilemma: Anyone who is truly familiar with the ongoing debate about the Book of Abraham facsimiles should have immediately recognized at least some of the purported "hits" I'm referring to. They may disagree with their significance, but they should at least be familiar with the claims. Your responses have consistently missed the mark here. You've done nothing to indicate that you have any idea what I'm referring to. Worse, you've done yourself a grave disservice by dragging Spalding into your argument. While I have to admit that Spalding is at least a step up from Mark Twain, he isn't really that much of a step up. I've already explained that I think the evidence favors the critics here, which means that I already essentially agree with at least some of what Spalding was attempting to say. But his presentation was so hopelessly flawed that I couldn't stop rolling my eyes the whole time I was reading. I suppose I could concede that a century ago it was at least a step in the right direction, but to be citing it today is a bit silly.

Here's a piece of advice: Put down Spalding and pick up Ashment, Thompson, Nibley, and Gee. Elevate the caliber of your research. Hopefully when you compare the presentations, you'll see why Spalding was just not that convincing.

Another piece of advice: Avoid making claims such as "it is painfully obvious" or comparing knowledge of historical events and personalities to knowledge that water is wet. You lose credibility when you do so.

Good luck with your studies.

[Platypus Man]

Have you ever compared what Joseph said about the facsimiles to what modern Egyptologists are saying about them? To say that his explanations are not accurate in any way is simply false. His explanation of some of the particulars hits so close to what is understood today that it defies coincidence. And yet, I've never read a criticism on this issue that tried to explain (or even acknowledge) this. Your blanket dismissal gives me reason to question just how familiar you are with the issue at all.

I'm not familiar with other languages, but, are Bibles in other languages written differently than the common modern language? Like the KJV is written different that our common modern English language.

Is the Book of Mormon translated into modern languages or do they translate it in the "Biblical" language of the culture?

I ask this, because it puts the translation process into context.

[TrespassersW]

Platypus Man:

Is the Book of Mormon translated into modern languages or do they translate it in the "Biblical" language of the culture?

I would assume that translators render the Bible, Book of Mormon, or any other book into whatever form of the language they feel is most appropriate. I suspect that Joseph Smith did the same thing.

[Benji]

Let me repeat (again) my statement, this time with emphasis: "[Joseph's] explanation of some of the particulars hits so close to what is understood today that it defies coincidence."

Show me evidence that this is true from a non-LDS scholar.

Here's a piece of advice: Put down Spalding and pick up Ashment, Thompson, Nibley, and Gee. Elevate the caliber of your research. Hopefully when you compare the presentations, you'll see why Spalding was just not that convincing.

Of course the LDS scholars you mentioned are going to have something favorable to say about the BOA. Is their scholarship peer reviewed? Nothing I have ever read by LDS scholars has been peer reviewed which is extremely important in the academic world. No credibility is given to scholarship or research that is not peer reviewed. I challenge you to find even ONE non-LDS scholar who agrees with a mormon scholar.

Another piece of advice: Avoid making claims such as "it is painfully obvious" or comparing knowledge of historical events and personalities to knowledge that water is wet. You lose credibility when you do so.

I maintain that the NUMEROUS problems with mormon history/scripture/doctrine do make it painfully obvious that there is no need to ask for wisdom about something so full of holes. And I am not alone. Many people on this board clearly feel the same way. Even people not on this board feel that way. Again, find me even ONE non-LDS scholar that will agree with the claims of LDS scholars with regard to the Book of Abraham issue.

Benji

[will2believe]

Of course the LDS scholars you mentioned are going to have something favorable to say about the BOA. Is their scholarship peer reviewed? Nothing I have ever read by LDS scholars has been peer reviewed which is extremely important in the academic world. No credibility is given to scholarship or research that is not peer reviewed. I challenge you to find even ONE non-LDS scholar who agrees with a mormon scholar.

Benji, you know what they say about assumptions. On what basis do you assume the following?

- That all of the scholars mentioned by TrespassersW are on the LDS side of the fence.

- That no LDS scholars publish peer-reviewed works.

- That scholarly works on religiously polarized issues are expected to be peer-reviewed across religious boundaries. How many non-Christians can you name who accept the claims of the New Testament?

[Benji]

Benji, you know what they say about assumptions. On what basis do you assume the following?

- That all of the scholars mentioned by TrespassersW are on the LDS side of the fence.

Will2believe, actually all 4 of the scholars TrespassersW mentioned are LDS.

- That no LDS scholars publish peer-reviewed works.

I said that no LDS scholars I had ever read were peer reviewed by non-LDS scholars.

- That scholarly works on religiously polarized issues are expected to be peer-reviewed across religious boundaries. How many non-Christians can you name who accept the claims of the New Testament?

I know of many non-Christians who accept that Jesus was a real person. They may not accept his divinity but it is pretty much unanimous that he lived 2000 years ago. In fact, there are numerous evidences for the historical reality of many things recorded in the Bible. This is not the case with the BOA or the BOM for that matter.

Benji

[TrespassersW]

Benji:

Show me evidence that this is true from a non-LDS scholar

Ah. I see. So, your methodology is that everything that an LDS scholar says is unreliable and can therefore be discarded without even being read. Well, no wonder it seems so "painfully obvious". With a methodology like that, things must seem very simple indeed.

Good luck with that.

Of course the LDS scholars you mentioned are going to have something favorable to say about the BOA.

Ashment is not an LDS scholar. Nor is Thomas. I was not recommending that you go and read a bunch of puff-pieces about why the LDS church is so right. I was recommending that you drop the polemic stuff and read actual scholarship on both sides of the issue. Your reluctance to do so is very telling. Yes, your claim that it is all "painfully obvious" is becoming clearer and clearer.

Nothing I have ever read by LDS scholars has been peer reviewed

That's believable. You've yet to convince me that you've read anything from an LDS scholar. Period. You certainly aren't familiar with their arguments.

[rameumptom]

Let me repeat (again) my statement, this time with emphasis: "[Joseph's] explanation of some of the particulars hits so close to what is understood today that it defies coincidence."

Show me evidence that this is true from a non-LDS scholar.

Here's a piece of advice: Put down Spalding and pick up Ashment, Thompson, Nibley, and Gee. Elevate the caliber of your research. Hopefully when you compare the presentations, you'll see why Spalding was just not that convincing.

Of course the LDS scholars you mentioned are going to have something favorable to say about the BOA. Is their scholarship peer reviewed? Nothing I have ever read by LDS scholars has been peer reviewed which is extremely important in the academic world. No credibility is given to scholarship or research that is not peer reviewed. I challenge you to find even ONE non-LDS scholar who agrees with a mormon scholar.

Another piece of advice: Avoid making claims such as "it is painfully obvious" or comparing knowledge of historical events and personalities to knowledge that water is wet. You lose credibility when you do so.

I maintain that the NUMEROUS problems with mormon history/scripture/doctrine do make it painfully obvious that there is no need to ask for wisdom about something so full of holes. And I am not alone. Many people on this board clearly feel the same way. Even people not on this board feel that way. Again, find me even ONE non-LDS scholar that will agree with the claims of LDS scholars with regard to the Book of Abraham issue.

Benji

The problem with your claim is that no non-LDS scholars have been interested in looking beyond the papyri itself. The few that have glanced, have been anti-Mormons, like Ritner, and they've only given it a casual look.

Just because LDS scholars have written it does not mean it is poor scholarship. Much of it IS peer reviewed, and is open for non-LDS scholars to look over and comment, if they would do so.

You will note that virtually all of the anti-Mormon attacks are focused on the papyri themselves, and do not discuss any other issues that have been discussed concerning the BoA. Why? I can only guess it is because they are afraid to enter the lion's den of evidence FOR the BoA.

In fact, I dare you to look at the evidences given for the BoA, and to give us your own thoughts on how Joseph could have been as accurate as he was. Of course, I don't expect you will do it, because you are the average anti-Mormon troll with a chip on your shoulder and nothing of value to add except to repeat the pablum of the ages.

[Benji]

In fact, I dare you to look at the evidences given for the BoA, and to give us your own thoughts on how Joseph could have been as accurate as he was. Of course, I don't expect you will do it, because you are the average anti-Mormon troll with a chip on your shoulder and nothing of value to add except to repeat the pablum of the ages.

In what ways was he accurate?

Benji

[rameumptom]

Benji wrote:

I know of many non-Christians who accept that Jesus was a real person. They may not accept his divinity but it is pretty much unanimous that he lived 2000 years ago. In fact, there are numerous evidences for the historical reality of many things recorded in the Bible. This is not the case with the BOA or the BOM for that matter.

Benji

Once again you make a statement that is fraudulent. There IS a case for both the BoA and BoM. The Book of Abraham, for example, discusses the sacrifice of Abraham. Guess what? We find it in ancient non-Biblical Abrahamic lore. There are many items discovered that are exact on like this.

As for the BoM, we have historical people too. Zedekiah and Jeremiah are mentioned. Now does that mean any people traveled to America? No. But just because people believe Jesus was historical does not make the miracles and resurrection true, either.

Place names unknown in Joseph's day are being found today, like NHM. Complex societal traditions and issues in the BoM are being found to be dead on with what we find in ancient Mesoamerican society. There ARE numerous evidences for the historical reality of many things recorded in the Book of Mormon. You just choose to ignore them. That makes you a troll.

[Zakuska]

Ram,

Don't forget Margaret Barker (methodist Minister) and Lehis Tree of Life found in 600 BC Babylonian Texts.