Lost Book Of Abraham: Anti-mormon Video

[Ron Beron]

Noggin:

Smith tutored extensively under the guidance of Alexander Neibaur in 1841.

Kerry:

I have seen this claim before. I have never yet learned where you get the evidence. Call for references.....and since you say extensively, I suppose that means your references had better be good......

Hi Kerry,

My wife is a direct descendent of A. Neibaur and it has been 'understood' that he did tutor JS in Hebrew as well as fix his broken tooth which was broken by the mobs. I have a copy of his journal and his son's, Hyrum, as well. Hopefully, I can give you some direct source evidences later.

I don't think there's any dispute that Neibaur taught Joseph Hebrew. What is questioned is (1) the undemonstrated existence of Neibaur's vast library of Kabbalistic stuff, (2) his unattested teaching of it to Joseph, and (3) Joseph's supernatural working of it into The Book of Abraham years before he met Neibaur.

Regards,

Pahoran

Thanks for the clarification. In the 100 or so posts here I got a bit lost. In regards to A. Neibaur it is understood that he was a Christian long before his conversion to Mormonism. I found nothing in his journal that talks of kabbalism or even anything close to it.

[MiniDriver]

First off, learn how to spell. You use "their" when you should use "there", "arnt" is spelled "aren't" etc. The overuse of the clickable smilies presents your posts as cartoonish. I cannot take you seriously for content as it is, but the overuse of cartoon smilies pushed me over the top to respond to you. I am going to uncheck the "enable emoticons" box in my profile to see if that will help.

WOW. Cranky much? I know you retracted further down, but...I think...you used to be nicer. I miss that Noggin. Maybe we should be re-introduced: here is a little play I like to call, "We'll Have No Emoticons Here".

Mini: Hi, I'm Mini.

Noggin:

Mini: Uh. Was it something I said...?

Noggin: No. It was your gratuitous usage of emoticons, which in addition to detracting from the seriousness of this introduction, are also giving me a raging headache.

Mini: Oh god. I'm really sorry.

Noggin: There you go again.

Mini: How about...

Noggin: No thanks. I don't like flowers.

Mini: Well, how about this then?

Noggin: How about you double check your spelling?

Mini: But this is a conversation.

Noggin: Everyone, here's my impression of emoticon-using Mini:

Mini: I thought we could still be in spite of emoticons?

Noggin: Can't you just go away and stop hyjacking an otherwise fairly emoticon-free thread?

Mini: Uh, okay. Bye.

Noggin:

Noggin: Anyone else want to abuse the emoticon feature?

Noggin:

Love always,

Mini

Post Script: I got this message when I initially tried to post: You have posted a message with more emoticons that this board allows. Please reduce the number of emoticons you've added to the message. I've had to remove several emoticons in order for this post to stand. Noggin, touche.

[Dale]

My spelling is horrible.

[MiniDriver]

My spelling is horrible.

You're DOOMED. Noggin will GET YOU! Here's a play I wrote with that same title:

Dale:

Noggin:

Dale:

Mini:

Noggin:

Dale, Mini:

Noggin:

Noggin:

Noggin:

The End.

Mini

P.S: Noggin--

[Brackite]

Hi Her Amun,

You wrote:

Given the evidence, if their is no way of knowing whether they were added after the translation, how do you know they where added before? I know my description may not have been adequate. I recommend you see pictures of what I am actually talking about. John Gee prepared a booklet called"A guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri". I tried to find some pictures online but I failed. Try to find what Im talking about, you might see my point. If I have time I might try to scan something, if I have time.

I donâ??t know absolutely for sure that the characters were added before the translation, but I believe that most of the evidence does point to the conclusion that they were added before translation. Here is a link to a discussion Thread that took place here on FAIR several months ago that basically discusses about this. http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=15210

I recommend that you read some of it.

Take care!

P.S. Here is a link to another FAIR Discussion Thread that you may enjoy reading: http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=16946&hl=

[Olavarria]

Hi Her Amun,

You wrote:

Given the evidence, if their is no way of knowing whether they were added after the translation, how do you know they where added before? I know my description may not have been adequate. I recommend you see pictures of what I am actually talking about. John Gee prepared a booklet called"A guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri". I tried to find some pictures online but I failed. Try to find what Im talking about, you might see my point. If I have time I might try to scan something, if I have time.

I donâ??t know absolutely for sure that the characters were added before the translation, but I believe that most of the evidence does point to the conclusion that they were added before translation. Here is a link to a discussion Thread that took place here on FAIR several months ago that basically discusses about this. http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=15210

I recommend that you read some of it.

Take care!

P.S. Here is a link to another FAIR Discussion Thread that you may enjoy reading: http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=16946&hl=

gracias Brackite, ill be sure to check it out

[Baurak Ale]

Hermetically Sealed

[Scott Gordon]

The thing that stuck with me from that video been some time since I have seen it so I am only going on my unreliable memory. Is the fact that they contacted Farms to be interviewed and to defend the Church's position but they did not respond, they did that part of the narration while standing infront of BYU Farms Offices I recall. Does Farms have anything to say about this, I dunno?

I know that someone in Church Public Affairs gave them a copy of John Gee's book. I thought it strange that they didn't respond to at least some of what was written in the book. They pretended like they had never seen it. I also know of at least one person who was with FAIR at the time being aproached by the filmmakers. All the FAIR member wanted was to be able to approve of the final cut of his interview to be sure he wasn't taken out of context. The film makers wouldn't agree.

This "they wouldn't respond" theme goes all through anti Mormonism. Walter Martin used it a lot. The idea is to try to give your point of view more support, create doubt, or to cast your opponant in a negative light. It is a not-too-subtle method of poisoning the well.

Scott

[Dale]

I assumed they thought Ritner dealt with John Gee's book.

[Pahoran]

The thing that stuck with me from that video been some time since I have seen it so I am only going on my unreliable memory. Is the fact that they contacted Farms to be interviewed and to defend the Church's position but they did not respond, they did that part of the narration while standing infront of BYU Farms Offices I recall. Does Farms have anything to say about this, I dunno?

Well there's the thing. Have you ever seen The God Makers? Almost as responsible and accurate as "The Lost Book of Abraham," it includes little snippets of interviews with Latter-day Saints. In no case was any Latter-day Saint allowed to present a connected argument; rather, little sound-bites were taken out and interspersed with anti-Mormon commentary. The anti's were able to (1) suppress any LDS arguments they chose, (2) hack up the ones they didn't suppress, and (3) directly attack the mangled results; no Latter-day Saint was allowed to respond, of course. Placing LDS statements in the editorial control of unscrupulous manipulators and spin-doctors merely gives them a specious claim to respectability and ought never to be done.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Olavarria]

I remember watching an A&E documentary on AUB/FLDS polygamy. Their was this part of the video where some woman said "Why wont Gordon B. Hickly do something about this?" Then they show a picture of the Prophet and say, "we contacted church offfices in Salt Lake City Utah, but the had no comment."

If I were a non-mormon,ignorant about mormonism I would be led to think "Hey, you see, they got cought red handed. They reaally do secretly support polygamy." Forget the Conference Reports in which he actually spoke out and disconnected himself and the church from present-day polygamists.

Innuendo=the anti-mormon's most powerful tool.

And that is what the LBoA video is all about. You get a couple of reputable egyptologists, have them repeat what every knows(the BoD is not the BoA), and then you let the innuendo stir and boil, ie "Joseph thought the BoD was BoA". All with the use of the holy 1 character=a paragraph theory.

[Noggin]

I apologize to those who read this. (all two of you) I cannot get the quotes to appear.

Klaus Baer, one of the first to provide the church with an independent translation of the found 1966 papyri? His translation turned out nothing along the lines of the book of abraham context.

Pahoran responded: Yes, and? Who ever said that it did?

I guess that is what I am missing. Joseph claimed to have papyri in his posession that were written by Abraham's own hand. Mr. Baer and others translated this papyri and it turned out to be nothing at all what Smith claimed it was.

Now. I understand that several here have said that the papyri Smith used are not the ones he translated. I understand that others may want to claim that some scribe copied a copy of Abraham's writings (which we supposedly do not have).

I disagree when you say Mr. Baer said the book would be vindicated based on what the English says, not the Egyptian.

Pahoran wrote: Tough luck. It's what he said.

sigh. and I still disagree.

I mean, from what the "real" english translation shows, is nothing but damning.

Pahoran wrote: Actually, according to Baer, it is simply not relevant to Joseph's prophetic claims.

okay.

You should ask yourself why Joseph Smith failed to translate the papyri into what Klaus Baer et al, uh post rosetta stone era, did? And you should also ask yourself why indeed the english "translation" does contain such poignant jewish textural overtone and concepts. I commend you for observing this. There is a ready and obvious reason.

Pahoran wrote: I.e. you are about to pull out a standard polemical dodge.

not so.

Besides, Mr. Baer was being kind. It is a mental pretzel game to think that a serious non LDS scholar would actually suggest that the incorrectly translated book of abraham would be "vindicated" (what does that mean, proven true???) by what the english translation says. It's convenient that Mr. Baer is dead so he cannot explain what he meant.

Pahoran wrote: No, but if you claim that he didn't really mean what he said, then perhaps you'd like to parse his actual statement and say what he did mean.

Just think about what you are implying. If I was a non Mormon egyptologist scholar, why would I say that a false translation of some egyptian funerary texts would vindicate the false translation? That's nonsense. I admit that I was speculating as to why Mr. Baer might say something like that. i.e... To be kind to his LDS audience.

As for Nissim Wernick, the Jewish Rabbi... his text was published in 1968. The rabbi connects many kabbalistic concepts of pre existence, concept of a pre birth soul, supreme intelligence, among other things.. in sum:

"Comparisons, therefore, can be made; parallels do exist between the BofA and Jewish literature, with regards to pre-mortal existence. Similar to the BofA there is a pre-earth state of man, these souls are different, but have the potential of becoming eqaul. These souls are consulted and take part in the affairs of heaven. This analysis affords a fuller understanding of some areas of correspondence between Judaism, its beliefs and concepts, and those of the BofA. Man is here to be proved, and if man is successful

while on earth, then the Lord will accept the souls back to their eternal abode where they will "have glory added upon their heads forever and ever."

Nachmonides states that "one day according to the Lord is equal to one thousand years." The "Genesis Rabbah" uses much the same language when it has God saying: "One of my days is equal to one thousand years" "In conclusion, both the BofA and Jewish literature are in agreement that the creation did not occur in 7 days as is reckoned, but rather in seven thousand years

It goes on and on. And you know, these parallels are to be completely expected and I will tell you why in a second. I do not believe that the honorable rabbi knew as we do know now that Joseph Smith was a student of the Kabbalah and other esoteric occultic features of the day.

Pahoran asks: Who are "we" and how do "we know" this?

We= people who study Mormon history and see the evidence that places Smith as one keenly interested in and a student of these types of things. Treasure digging, magic scrolls and parchments and daggers, faculties of abrac, jupiter talismans. I'll save you some typing... as I understand that you believe this to be largely poppycock invented smudge to the prophet's character. I respect that.

Smith tutored extensively under the guidance of Alexander Neibaur in 1841. We should take note that the 19th century was replete with a keen interest in Kabbalah and how its origins reflected upon Christian roots. see a very intriguing article:

Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 27, No. 3, Fall 1994, pp. 117-194

Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection source: http://www.gnosis.org/jskabb1.htm

In the spring of 1841 there apparently arrived in Nauvoo an extraordinary library of Kabbalistic writings belonging to a European Jew and convert to Mormonism who evidently new Kabbalah and its principal written works. This man, Alexander Neibaur, would soon become the prophet's friend and companion (see page three of this article, about half way down)

The God of Joseph Smith is a daring revival of the God of some of the Kabbalists and Gnostics, prophetic sages who, like Smith himself, asserted that they had returned to the true religion. . . . Either there was a more direct Kabbalistic influence upon Smith than we know, or, far more likely, his genius reinvented Kabbalah in the effort necessary to restore archaic Judaism

It is now no secret that the theosophy of Joseph Smith gets a jump start from Kabbalistic roots.

Pahoran responded: IOW, you uncritically accept this discredited and unsupported polemical claim because it supports your biases. Neibaur taught Joseph Hebrew; why on earth should he teach him Kabbalah? Where is Neibaur's alleged "extraordinary library of Kabbalistic writings?" Which of Joseph's contemporaries ever reports seeing it? What evidence is there that it ever existed?

Yep. After reading a variety of different sources from both pro and con sides of Mormonism that verify the information, I side with reason that says Smith was involved, deeply in these things.

Pahoran responds:

BTW, there is no "theosophy" in any of Joseph's writings. Do you just throw these words around because they sound impressive, or is there more to it than that?

Nor, in fact, is there any "gnostic" influence. LDS scripture is about as un-gnostic as it is possible to get. If you disagree, then please tell us: where in all of Joseph's thought is the evil nature of matter? Where the complex angelic hierarchies? Where the notion of an inferior and evil creator-god? How about a radical distinction between Jesus the man and Christ the deity?

Oh please, Pahoran. Get a clue. Have you not studied gnosticism? LDS doctrine is heavily steeped in it.

1. Monadic divinity: the Monad was the highest God which created the lesser gods

2. A lesser deity (created by the highest deity) known as the Demiurge had a role in the creation of the material world.. (adam = Michael, let us go down... anyone?)

3. The introduction by emanation of further divine beings, which are nevertheless identifiable as aspects of the God from which they proceeded; the progressive emanations are often conceived metaphorically as a gradual and progressive distancing from the ultimate source, which brings about an instability in the fabric of the divine nature (pre existence, here is matter unorganized, anyone? need for a savior to bring balance back to fallen man, etc)

4. The subsequent identification of the Fall of Man as an occurrence with its ultimate foundations within divinity itself, rather than as occurring either entirely or indeed partially through human agency

I mean, it goes on and on. Try a google search. There are many parallels to Joseph Smith's unique approach and rather abrupt departure from mainstream early 19th century theology.

And there is no theosophy in Smith's writings? Please. Let me define it for you, Pahoran.

theosophy

â??noun 1. any of various forms of philosophical or religious thought based on a mystical insight into the divine nature.

Even the Masonic connection to Smith is steeped in hermetic-kabbalistic tradition. And knowing that Smith tutored under the guide of Neibaur, and was himself a 33rd degree Free Mason makes the connection quite clear. It is a fact that:

Smith and his family had a variety of interactions with non-orthodox Western religious traditions generally termed "occult... Magical rituals, Kabbalah, Hermes Trismegistos, Rosicrucians, Seer's stones, divining rods, Masonic lore, and astrology

(same source)

[Pahoran]

Hello Noggin, I thought we'd lost you.

I apologize to those who read this. (all two of you) I cannot get the quotes to appear.

That's not actually your fault. It has something to do with the new format; it won't process the quotes in a post if there are more than a certain number. I'll try to rationalise them and possibly break my repy in two.

Klaus Baer, one of the first to provide the church with an independent translation of the found 1966 papyri? His translation turned out nothing along the lines of the book of abraham context.

Yes, and? Who ever said that it did?

I guess that is what I am missing. Joseph claimed to have papyri in his posession that were written by Abraham's own hand. Mr. Baer and others translated this papyri and it turned out to be nothing at all what Smith claimed it was.

Well now, you appear to be assuming something. Joseph didn't claim that--at least, there is no record of him having so claimed. Rather, the formula "by his own hand," so gleefully milked for all it is worth by the critics, is simply part of the title of The Book of Abraham.

Now. I understand that several here have said that the papyri Smith used are not the ones he translated. I understand that others may want to claim that some scribe copied a copy of Abraham's writings (which we supposedly do not have).

There are three sure things in this life: death, taxes, and Joseph had more papyri than are now available.

I disagree when you say Mr. Baer said the book would be vindicated based on what the English says, not the Egyptian.

Tough luck. It's what he said.

sigh. and I still disagree.

Well, you're allowed to disagree with his view; everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that was what he said.

But hey--what would he know? Not having the advantage of an anti-Mormon agenda to clear up his thinking for him, he was bound to make mistakes, right?

Besides, Mr. Baer was being kind. It is a mental pretzel game to think that a serious non LDS scholar would actually suggest that the incorrectly translated book of abraham would be "vindicated" (what does that mean, proven true???) by what the english translation says. It's convenient that Mr. Baer is dead so he cannot explain what he meant.

No, but if you claim that he didn't really mean what he said, then perhaps you'd like to parse his actual statement and say what he did mean.

Just think about what you are implying. If I was a non Mormon egyptologist scholar, why would I say that a false translation of some egyptian funerary texts would vindicate the false translation? That's nonsense. I admit that I was speculating as to why Mr. Baer might say something like that. i.e... To be kind to his LDS audience.

Don't be so lazy, Noggin. Instead of trying to second-guess him, find his statement and parse it for us. His statement does not mean what you are trying to pretend that it means in order to dismiss it.

Who are "we" and how do "we know" this?

We= people who study Mormon history and see the evidence that places Smith as one keenly interested in and a student of these types of things. Treasure digging, magic scrolls and parchments and daggers, faculties of abrac, jupiter talismans. I'll save you some typing... as I understand that you believe this to be largely poppycock invented smudge to the prophet's character. I respect that.

Excuse me, but you don't get to use the scatter-gun approach and then beg off defending it. Quick summary:

- No reputable historian now holds that Joseph actually owned a Jupiter talisman, or tries to draw any conclusions therefrom.

- The "faculty of abrac" statement attributed to Lucy Smith (actually ghosted for her) actually refers to what the family were not doing.

- While there was one occasion when Joseph was involved in the popular (and not at all "esoteric") treasure-digging craze of his time, the stories dug up by later anti-Mormon affidavit-hunters are heavily exaggerated, and no sensible person takes them without a large pinch of salt.

Smith tutored extensively under the guidance of Alexander Neibaur in 1841. We should take note that the 19th century was replete with a keen interest in Kabbalah and how its origins reflected upon Christian roots. see a very intriguing article:

Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 27, No. 3, Fall 1994, pp. 117-194

Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection source: http://www.gnosis.org/jskabb1.htm

In the spring of 1841 there apparently arrived in Nauvoo an extraordinary library of Kabbalistic writings belonging to a European Jew and convert to Mormonism who evidently new Kabbalah and its principal written works. This man, Alexander Neibaur, would soon become the prophet's friend and companion (see page three of this article, about half way down)

The God of Joseph Smith is a daring revival of the God of some of the Kabbalists and Gnostics, prophetic sages who, like Smith himself, asserted that they had returned to the true religion. . . . Either there was a more direct Kabbalistic influence upon Smith than we know, or, far more likely, his genius reinvented Kabbalah in the effort necessary to restore archaic Judaism

It is now no secret that the theosophy of Joseph Smith gets a jump start from Kabbalistic roots.

IOW, you uncritically accept this discredited and unsupported polemical claim because it supports your biases. Neibaur taught Joseph Hebrew; why on earth should he teach him Kabbalah? Where is Neibaur's alleged "extraordinary library of Kabbalistic writings?" Which of Joseph's contemporaries ever reports seeing it? What evidence is there that it ever existed?

Yep. After reading a variety of different sources from both pro and con sides of Mormonism that verify the information, I side with reason that says Smith was involved, deeply in these things.

You are ducking the question, as you do. Where is the evidence?

BTW, there is no "theosophy" in any of Joseph's writings. Do you just throw these words around because they sound impressive, or is there more to it than that?

Nor, in fact, is there any "gnostic" influence. LDS scripture is about as un-gnostic as it is possible to get. If you disagree, then please tell us: where in all of Joseph's thought is the evil nature of matter? Where the complex angelic hierarchies? Where the notion of an inferior and evil creator-god? How about a radical distinction between Jesus the man and Christ the deity?

Oh please, Pahoran. Get a clue. Have you not studied gnosticism? LDS doctrine is heavily steeped in it.

1. Monadic divinity: the Monad was the highest God which created the lesser gods

2. A lesser deity (created by the highest deity) known as the Demiurge had a role in the creation of the material world.. <Snip temple allusions, which people of good character do not stoop to. Do not do this again. This is NOT a request.>

3. The introduction by emanation of further divine beings, which are nevertheless identifiable as aspects of the God from which they proceeded; the progressive emanations are often conceived metaphorically as a gradual and progressive distancing from the ultimate source, which brings about an instability in the fabric of the divine nature (pre existence, here is matter unorganized, anyone? need for a savior to bring balance back to fallen man, etc)

4. The subsequent identification of the Fall of Man as an occurrence with its ultimate foundations within divinity itself, rather than as occurring either entirely or indeed partially through human agency

None of which are either unique or essential to gnosticism. You have simply cherry-picked a few points that just happen to coincide with earliest Christian thought.

The most basic and identifying characteristic of gnosticism was the notion of the evil nature of matter. The "demiurge" was an evil deity that was to be shunned. Is Jesus evil in LDS thought?

Or perhaps not?

I mean, it goes on and on. Try a google search. There are many parallels to Joseph Smith's unique approach and rather abrupt departure from mainstream early 19th century theology.

And there is no theosophy in Smith's writings? Please. Let me define it for you, Pahoran.

theosophy

â??noun 1. any of various forms of philosophical or religious thought based on a mystical insight into the divine nature.

That's right. And there is none of it in Mormonism.

End of part one.

Regards,

Pahoran

[e=mc2]

EnemyAce:

Thanks for the clarification. In the 100 or so posts here I got a bit lost. In regards to A. Neibaur it is understood that he was a Christian long before his conversion to Mormonism. I found nothing in his journal that talks of kabbalism or even anything close to it.

Kerry:

Now THIS is *seriously* significant!!! Is there any way I can persuade yo to come over to my blog and have a conversation with me about this? I am understanding the relationship of Joseph with Niebaur as Pahoran has said, he taught the prophet HEBREW, but where is the Kabbalistic influence? This has been assumed to come under the rubric of learning Hebrew as well, but as Pahoran has noted time and again here, this is a mere assumption. If you have his journals and they show Nothing about Kabbalah, this is serious primary source material and evidence........

Best,

Kerry

[Noggin]

Pahoran wrote:

Well now, you appear to be assuming something. Joseph didn't claim that--at least, there is no record of him having so claimed. Rather, the formula "by his own hand," so gleefully milked for all it is worth by the critics, is simply part of the title of The Book of Abraham.

"written by his own hand" is not part of a book title. That is a jagged little pill for me to swallow. I'll need you to pour me a tall one for assistance please. Okay, Joseph Smith wrote the preface to the book of Abraham and published it in the millenial star or Times and Seasons (I forget which one). He used this book to justify the hotly disputed (among his own flock) need for priesthood authority, polygamy and plurality of gods. There are two comma seperators used descriptively to show Abraham wrote the work. From the actual alledged Book of Abraham title page:

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM

TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH

A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.â??The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

Not only does Smith claim that the book was written by Abraham but Smith holds Father Abraham referencing his writings found on the very scrolls in verse

Abraham supposedly speaking: vs 12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me [Abraham], that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

vs 14 Abraham supposedly speaking: That you may have an understanding of these gods, I [Abraham] have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics.

Now. "Rahleenos" or any of Joseph Smith's made up egyptian words are no where to be found on the very facsimiles that Smith has Father Abraham refer us to. Pahoran, we can see the images, we can translate them post rosetta stone and the egyptian wording Smith claims to have translated is not remotely close.

Smith has Father Abraham also state:

Abraham 1:31....[talk about planets etc] have I kept even unto this day, and I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me.

Thus we see that Abraham himself is supposed to be stating that he himself is writing that record. This justifies the claim that Joseph Smith made of having papyri of which contain an actual autograph of Father Abraham.

Hence the wording of the description at the beginning of the book of Abraham: "written by [Father Abraham's] own hand, on papyrus".

Pahoran wrote:

None of which are either unique or essential to gnosticism. You have simply cherry-picked a few points that just happen to coincide with earliest Christian thought.

Not cherry picked at all, Pahoran, that was taken from the very first search on google. I am no gnostic expert. I googled "gnosticism" and clicked on one of the first 3 hits, cut and pasted from the link and in all of about a minute had enough source material to post a refute to your claim that Mormonism has no gnostic roots.

theosophy

â??noun 1. any of various forms of philosophical or religious thought based on a mystical insight into the divine nature.

Pahoran responded:

That's right. And there is none of it [theosophy] in Mormonism.

Pardon? There is no religious mormon thought based on mystical insight of the divine? Pahoran, go read Joseph Smith's King Follet Discourse and get back to me. It is laced with layers of theosophy. Or else I have made my own special definition up. There is nothing mystical about Mormonism? Maybe we see the definition of "mystical" differently...

Mysticism:

1. involving or characterized by esoteric, otherworldly, or symbolic practices or content, as certain religious ceremonies and art; spiritually significant; ethereal.

2. of the nature of or pertaining to mysteries known only to the initiated

Hm. I say. Unlocking religious mysteries unknown to the common lay person, I got warned by you or a moderator in my last post for mentioning a sacred topic so I guess you'll have to kind of guess what I mean by that (hint it has to do with sacred mormon buildings, btw, you guys get a kick out of censoring my kind don't you-- 'sall right, I can respect the rules). Mysticism also suggests acheiving higher states of consciousness (Nephi's dream anyone?) Mystical, to me, denotes interference with our world into another realm of beingness, suggests transcending common time and space through meditative concerted and focused effort (prayer).

Noggin

[Dale]

Margaret Barker a non-LDS Bible scholar has confirned that El & Yahweh were merged as a single being through people that expunged it from the Old Testament.

No polygamy in the Book of Abraham as far as I can tell.

I see the priesthood of believers only priesthood as an idea of Luther. Margaret Barker's research has also confirmed more than Jesus & Melchizedek held the Melchizedek priesthood in Old Testament times.

By his own hand as it's been explained to me means written by the authority of. So to make that claim the text can make that claim & somebody else can be a copy-ist of the text. I have seen several LDs scholars reply to this issue.

If Joseph Smith mistakenly believed his translation was a translation instead of a revelation would God correct him? (D.&C. 9:7-9) I just figure the Lord if the one character means a paragraph was Joseph's method that was the Lord's way of hinting the text did not fit with the papyrus. So the only issue to me is was some revelation from God involved or not? It is not to me whether Joseph Smith's mixed revelation, and speculation in his reputed translation.

D.&C.9:7-9 does not prevent Joseph Smith from making up Egyptian words that he mistakenly labeled translation. The only thing the Lord said if the person was producing an eccentric translation by way of correction would be a feeling of "stupor of thought." Of course the ancient Egyptians could have had strange words unknown to scholars, but either way the strange words do not bother me.

[Olavarria]

Noggin noggin noggin

Funny, the first edition read "A Translation of Some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs[sic] of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus."(TS, March 1, 1842) Ya, Abraham wrote the text of the BoA. Just like Matheww wrote the text of Mathew, though the original has not survived.

How many times do I have to tell you. The original heading by Joseph smith says:"A Translation of Some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs[sic] of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus."(TS, March 1, 1842) emphasis added.

[Noggin]

Noggin noggin noggin

Funny, the first edition read "A Translation of Some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs[sic] of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus."(TS, March 1, 1842) Ya, Abraham wrote the text of the BoA. Just like Matheww wrote the text of Mathew, though the original has not survived.

You know. Just take me out back and shoot me. Matthew wrote Matthew around 80+- CE. His script is gone. I follow you there.

Are you saying that the Chicago Egyptian papyri that were discovered in 1967 are an egyptian scribe's accounting of Abraham's travels in Egypt and that perhaps said accounting was handed down to him (the scribe) in the language that Abraham used? And are you saying that this Egyptian scribe took what Abraham wrote and put it into an egyptian script? And the scribe did it in 1st person as though he was Father Abraham?

This is where you just might have to shoot me because I don't get it....

So then why does what the egyptian scribe wrote not end up translating as Father Abraham's autobiographical sketch? Why does it end up being a breathing permit instead? And why did Joseph Smith lead people to believe that he had accurately translated these funerary breathing permits into english.

1. we are missing the scrolls that really do translate correctly into what Joseph Smith claims is the Book of Abraham

2. the funerary script served as revelation triggers

what else is there, I am a bit rusty. Both of the above possibilities have been debunked. (enough in my mind anyway).

Noggin

[Olavarria]

Are you saying that the Chicago Egyptian papyri that were discovered in 1967 are an egyptian scribe's accounting of Abraham's travels in Egypt and that perhaps said accounting was handed down to him (the scribe) in the language that Abraham used?

Nope, it is the BoD.

And are you saying that this Egyptian scribe took what Abraham wrote and put it into an egyptian script? And the scribe did it in 1st person as though he was Father Abraham?

Nope.

I have alaways ben consistant in my assertion that I dont know the Prophet's modus operandi. Is the BoA the translation of a missing papyri? Dunno. Is the BoA a "translation" of a loosly related text ala the BoMoses? Dunno. Is the BoA recieved by "pure revelation" ala The Testimony of John in the D&C? Dunno. Maybe it is a combination of all three.

The Anti's however claim to know Joseph's modus operandi via the 1 character=a paragraph theory. The assert that Joseph was bright enough, through a study of hebrew, to guess egyptian wrote right to left but was so ignorant as to assume that 5,6 consecutive characters equal a book. Their basis, the KEP. That doesnt seem very honest to me.

[PacMan]

noggin,

The Anti's however claim to know Joseph's modus operandi via the 1 character=a paragraph theory. The assert that Joseph was bright enough, through a study of hebrew, to guess egyptian wrote right to left but was so ignorant as to assume that 5,6 consecutive characters equal a book. Their basis, the KEP. That doesnt seem very honest to me.

And the amazing part about it, is the evidence proves everything to the contrary! This dull, boring, anti-mormon drone has long since put serious "researchers/scholars/critics/whatevers" to sleep. There is nothing except the guilt by association, which FYI goes against what the KEP itself reveals. Oliver made it clear that they thought the Egyptian was like Hebrew--what, except that Hebrew's phonetic?. Manuscript 7 (I think it was), guess what? Character for character, line for line...it's even!! None of this 1 character=100 words, nonsense. And that's to say that Joseph knew nothing of the phonetics of Egyptian, which in itself is more amazing than the notion that God himself visited Joseph (I am up to my eyeballs in research, and find this particular point fascinating--Ritner is WRONG!! 100% WRONG!!! He spoke ignorantly in the BoA film, and is 100% wrong on his summary of Egyptology of the 1800's). The associaion between the simple graphemes and hundreds of words of text is weak and circumstantial. Considering all other available evidence, it's not only improbable, but very near implausible that the association between the characters in the manuscript and the text is as direct as the counter-mo's would have us believe.

As such, I invite critics to undertake the evidence before forcing their position via false and hasty assumptions.

PacMan

[Olavarria]

Oliver made it clear that they thought the Egyptian was like Hebrew--what, except that Hebrew's phonetic?. Manuscript 7 (I think it was), guess what? Character for character, line for line...it's even!! None of this 1 character=100 words, nonsense. And that's to say that Joseph knew nothing of the phonetics of Egyptian, which in itself is more amazing than the notion that God himself visited Joseph (I am up to my eyeballs in research, and find this particular point fascinating--Ritner is WRONG!! 100% WRONG!!! He spoke ignorantly in the BoA film, and is 100% wrong on his summary of Egyptology of the 1800's).

Please elaborate broder

[Noggin]

noggin,

The Anti's however claim to know Joseph's modus operandi via the 1 character=a paragraph theory. The assert that Joseph was bright enough, through a study of hebrew, to guess egyptian wrote right to left but was so ignorant as to assume that 5,6 consecutive characters equal a book. Their basis, the KEP. That doesnt seem very honest to me.

For the record, that appears to be my (Noggin's) quote, the way Pacman laid it out. It wasn't.

Pacman wrote:

guess what? Character for character, line for line...it's even!! None of this 1 character=100 words, nonsense. And that's to say that Joseph knew nothing of the phonetics of Egyptian, which in itself is more amazing than the notion that God himself visited Joseph

Hello Pacman-

You appear to have really delved into this, as Her_Amun has too. Maybe I can learn a few things from you two. I try to keep an open mind about my former faith.

I need a clarification from you. You indicate that character for egyptian character, line for line "it's even" but I have to ask you, it's even with what? What do you mean by "it"? The english translation that Joseph Smith produced?

Noggin