The Shiftless, Lazy, Lying Smith Family

[ttribe]

I'm really interested, Juliann. You've asked me this question like 3 times now? I mean, what's the deal? I truly am interested. What is your thought processes in asking me this over and again? I answered it in #225, after you asked for the first time, "Just out of curiosity, what is it you are looking for here?" I answered:

One never knows what one might find ona board like this. So I like to stop by on occasion to see what's happening, who saying/doing what, where things are heading. I've already had the following statement made to me in another thread:

"No area of study [i.e., the occult] is forbidden, nor is the application of knowledge gained therefrom. We are judged by our actions, not our interests. . . . I am a Mormon in good standing, and while I have not yet been through the temple, that is one of my immediate goals. . . . And yes, I do practice occult rituals, embrace occult beliefs, and practice magic (I hate the "k" spelling). It should also be noted that there are other Mormon occultists who have gone through the temple. There's an entire Yahoo! message group full of them."

Now THAT is fascinating. Mormons & Occultism. Sounds like a good chapter title, no?

Did you get it that time? And what I find so interesting, is that not a single person here (among all the Temple Mormons, Online Mormons, and Chapel Mormons) has sought to say anything to this guy who's apparently an LDS in good standing that says, "I do practice occult rituals, embrace occult beliefs, and practice magic." Nor has anyone said anything about his remark, It should also be noted that there are other Mormon occultists who have gone through the temple. There's an entire Yahoo! message group full of them."

So, I suppose not much has really actually changed since the days of Joseph's money-digging, magickal parchments, occult talismans, and magick rituals in the dead of night, not to mention the palmistry and fortune-telling that was rampant among early Mormons. It seems, at least by this Saint's comment, and your responses, that all is pretty much as it was back in the day (except, of course, a good peep stone is a bit more difficult to come by now).

RA

Oh, let me guess, Richard will now try to make the case that one poster on MADB, and his cohort of friends on the Yahoo! message boards, are now indiciative of a widespread issue in Mormon culture. Ever heard of anecdotal evidence and its representativeness in terms of populations?

BTW, for the record, I think Tszuki's interpretation of BY's comment is incorrect. But, you won't consider that in your analysis, will you?

[Zakuska]

1. It's the only link I have. Most books through publishers don't have the books online for free. Sorry. That's kind of the way it works. I mean I could give you a link to my main page which has excerpt, synopsis, and reviews. But that's all. People usually give links to amazon.

2. Unfortunately, I'm really not able to just post 4-5 pages of txt at a time for ever bible verse brought up here. That's not only impossible per publishing, but not even feasible logistically. Maybe borrow or go to a library, or heck, go look it up in a Christian bookstore. Then put it back on the shelf. It's only 4 pages for that one.

R.A.

Wow... just 4 pages to twist and conort away something that should be self evident. Since the Bible is so simple to understand?!

I think you should go green Richard... stop waisting our natural resources.

[cksalmon]

Wow... just 4 pages to twist and conort away something that should be self evident. Since the Bible is so simple to understand?!

I think you should go green Richard... stop waisting our natural resources.

This doesn't even make sense, Zak. On multiple levels, it doesn't make sense. Methinks you might have dogpile without knowledge.

cks

[Pahoran]

The Greek word "pharmakos" which appears in Galatians 5:20 refers to poisoners. It was mis-translated as witchcraft in the King James Version. Since no modern-day Pagan, Neopagan or occultic activity engages in killing people by poison, the verse does not refer in any way to Wicca, other Neopagans or Occultists.

Spoken like a true witch. Sounds like you took this straight from well-known witch, Doreen Valiente.

Spoken like a true witch-hunter. In bygone days, anyone who dared to challenge the validity of the witch-hunter's methods was immediately accused of witchcraft themselves. This had the double effect of (1) poisoning the well against the challenger, and (2) intimidating him or her into silence.

What is interesting here is not the deceitful nature of the tactic, nor the bigoted zealotry that underlies it. It is the practiced ease with which Richard employs it.

1) Are there any non-partisan authorities who can support your claim that "madgjickk," or whatever your pretentious, pseudoscholarly misspelling is these days, actually defines anything at all?

"Magick" is a term popularized by one of the most renowned occult practitioners of all time: Aleister Crowley. And he defined Magick as: â??[T]he Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.â? This is the most basic, foundational, simple definition that exists. But it's a start.

So, IOW, you rail against those who practice what you are pleased to call "the occult," and then you turn around and believe what they assert.

Again, this is what the witch-hunters used to do. Should we expect a "Baphomet" to come from your keyboard soon?

The correct, non-archaic spelling is "magic." It conveys no real meaning in either spelling. I will my fingers to press the keys of my keyboard, and presto! Letters appear. Thus, I have "caused Change to occur in conformity with Will." Is that "magic," "majik," "magick," or what?

For a more relevant and detailed definition, I suggest you read Quinn's discussion of it in Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview, p. xxiii. I think he uses the Webster's Third New International Dictionary.

Speaking of the fallacy of appeal to authority: we are aware of The Mighty Quinn's magic book. Are you aware of the "large salamander-shaped hole" running through its arguments? Did you perhaps hope that its flaws would be forgotten by now?

2) Can you even attempt to show that "madgjickkle" practices of any kind were more common among Latter-day Saints than among socioeconomically similar groupings of their non-LDS contemporaries, including Bayaptiyusts? And I mean, ever?

First, are you making an appeal to popularity? Are you saying, "Oh, it doesn't matter what Joseph and the early Mormons did or what they believed because that was all just their socio-economic way of doing things"?

No, that is not what I am saying. Try to concentrate here, Rickie. You are the one trying to argue that these practices were somehow uniquely associated with "early Mormonism." If that is true, then it necessarily follows that early Latter-day Saints would have practiced such things considerably more than their otherwise similarly situated neighbours and contemporaries.

So, did they?

Have you ever bothered to even try to find out?

God would certainly not care about numbers if he were calling a new prophet and a restored church. What would God care about what the other sinners of the day were doing?

Your opinions about what God would care about do not excuse your sloppy methodology. That is a red herring, and you know it.

Second, the Bible reads now just as it read in 1830 (which is something that can't be said about the BOM, as you well know),

Another red herring; and a spiteful, back-handed one at that. Incidentally, the New Testament has over 150,000 variant readings (which is something that can't be said about the BOM, as you well know.)

Space here for the usual "attacking the Bible" canard:

which means the occult and magick was just as prohibited then as it is now -- no matter who was doing it (e.g., the Smith's or any so-called Bayaptiyusts). So, I'm not sure what your point is. Those in the occult, no matter what they call themselves, should not be involved in the occult if they are following the one true God.

And thus you prove my point: it comes down to what you, in your self-appointed arrogance, think people should do. And yet the established fact is that God has invariably used mortal intruments who did not always do what self-righteous, judgemental religionists thought they "should" do.

3) Have you made any effort to show that the biblical prooftexts you have dredged up in your witch-hunting zealotry actually contemplate any folk superstitions that Joseph or any of his contemporaries may have been familiar with?

C'mon, P, let's keep this in perspective, shall we? The folk superstitions held by the Smiths involved all kinds of things condemned in the Bible, including divination, talismans, charms, generalized occult activity collectively known as witchcraft and/or magick.

Speaking of talismans: there is no credible evidence that Joseph ever used any. Nor are there any credible scholars who claim that he did.

ROMM: I hope you corrected this in the PB. http://en.fairmormon.org/Brigham_Young_pul...merica%27s_eyes.

RA: This is a very interesting quote to me. I wish FOLK were still alive. It's earliest appearance is in 1900. And what's odd is that it is actually such a lengthy quote in complete form, that it's hard for me to believe that Folk simply made up the whole thing. I would at some point continue investigating this quote.Ya know what's kind of amusing/exiting about Mormonism, is how stuff like this has popped up again and again over the years, with Mormons crying foul and decrying such things as false, fake, and fraudulent. This happened with teh whole Justice Neely thing and Joseph's "examination" in court (or trial) as a glass-looker:

That is a shamelessly brazen red herring, and I refuse to chase it. Are you really justifying your use of a fabricated quotation based upon the claim that maybe someday it might be supported?

The "pull the wool" fabrication came with a citation to a source. The source does not contain the statement. This is a considerably different problem than a lost source that subsequently gets found. Therefore, no scholar is going to rely upon it.

Nor can I find any reason to suppose that any scholar ever has.

But this raises another issue. There are, no doubt, a great many good people in many who do not agree with Joseph's and Brigham's religious beliefs. But there are no good people anywhere who do not accept that Joseph and Brigham did genuinely believe what they preached.

And anyone who cannot accept that bare fact as their starting point has any right to pretend to enter into any sort of "dialogue" with Latter-day Saints. No such person can expect us to believe their insincere protestations of "lurve" towards us.

Oh, let me guess, Richard will now try to make the case that one poster on MADB, and his cohort of friends on the Yahoo! message boards, are now indiciative of a widespread issue in Mormon culture. Ever heard of anecdotal evidence and its representativeness in terms of populations?

BTW, for the record, I think Tszuki's interpretation of BY's comment is incorrect. But, you won't consider that in your analysis, will you?

The fact is that the reason nobody made a fuss about Tsuzuki's remarks is that he is a well-known oddity around here, and what he said is just the sort of thing he usually says. But Richard, with his established MO, will try to pretend that his view is a typical one.

It suits his agenda, you see. And that is all that matters.

Regards,

Pahoran

[rabanes]

LeSellers: I have been an active LDS (not "Mormon") for sixty years. I have never heard any other LDS call any one a "Fundie". I have never used the term myself. I do not know where you are getting this.

RA: Then, you need to pay more attention -- and you can start with people who post on this very board. This is from Tsuzuki, who posts on this board, quite a bit, it seems. Over on lds.net, in the thread "Well Today Is March 25, Did You Get Your Anti- Mormon Stuff?," he posted, "I think they're airing on fundie TV in Utah and SoCal" with regard to a certain topic.

And then we have over at Mormanity the article "The Bible versus The Book of Mormon," that begins, "Thanks to Brant Gardner for the valuable essay, "Behind the Mask, Behind the Curtain: Uncovering the Illusion" at FAIRLDS.org." In the comment section we read this gem: "Some of the things that have worked is making the evangelicals "prove" their orthodoxy can be quite hilarious. Want to make a fundie sweat? Make them take the NIV Challenge which compares the New International Version (or New Incorrect Version) with the KJV."

Now, let's take a visit over to Scholarly & Historical Information Exchange for Latter-Day Saints (SHIELDS), shall we, which is billed as "a place for those interested in accurate information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Under the mocking article, Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web, we read: "Here's a handy bit of shadow-boxing from Sharon. What a shock to find her Fundy ideology winning the day."

Same Website also has this jab: "'I found this site while looking for "Dr." Walter Martin. Sloppy HTML puts everything in the browser title bar in Internet Explorer; all scrunched up into one black blur in Netscape. (If you "view source" you will see that the text appears to be some kind of diatribe against Christian Science.) And then they want to know why I have trouble with Fundy claims about Christianity?

Now, let's just pull a random quote from here here at good old MADB (find the thread yourself): "I'd like to know how and when free agency comes into play with Fundy ways of thinking such as this." (Sput).

And now, I'm tired. There are plenty more out there, and far more negative. Go search.

LeSellers: For those who are anti mormon, "anti-mormon" is the best word. Although, I, nor anyone I know, have never used the term "anti-Momron".

RA: Attempt at humor? Funny.

LeSellers: It seems you spend a great deal of time not proving it; successfully, I must add.

RA: I've answered 2 out of 3 questions asked of me by Juliann. I am waiting, still waiting for her to answer just one of mine.

CKS: Did it? I'd be interested in reading this source.

RA: Yes, it did. Enjoy: Why We Should Love the Street Preachers: "Finally, these Street Preachers are so clownish, so over-the-top outrageous that nobody takes them seriously. Several local Christian churches in Salt Lake have apologized for the actions of the Street Preachers and claimed they do not represent a true version of Christianity.11 In fact, after viewing the photos of these pseudo-Christian preachers posted on the FAIR website, Richard Abanes, author of the book One Nation Under Gods (which is highly critical of the LDS Church) felt impressed to write a letter to Scott Gordon, the president of FAIR, apologizing for the actions of the Preachers. It seems even professional critics of the Church can readily identify how outrageous these people are and how poorly they reflect upon other Christians.

CKS: Indeed. I actually am very interested. References?

RA: This is between me and Juliann, and I have asked her a question she refuses to answer.

ttribe: BTW, for the record, I think Tszuki's interpretation of BY's comment is incorrect. But, you won't consider that in your analysis, will you?

RA: Of course I will. But I would suggest that you say something to him -- and all of you should start helping that guy, along with all of his LDS-in-good-standing-tample-Mormon-occult-practicing friends. No?

R.A.

[rabanes]

..... words......

Yes, Pahoran, whatever you say Pahoran. I've learned over the years who is listening and who is not, and to divide my time accordingly.

peace to ya, P.,

RA

[cksalmon]

CKS: Did it? I'd be interested in reading this source.

RA: Yes, it did. Enjoy: Why We Should Love the Street Preachers: "Finally, these Street Preachers are so clownish, so over-the-top outrageous that nobody takes them seriously. Several local Christian churches in Salt Lake have apologized for the actions of the Street Preachers and claimed they do not represent a true version of Christianity.11 In fact, after viewing the photos of these pseudo-Christian preachers posted on the FAIR website, Richard Abanes, author of the book One Nation Under Gods (which is highly critical of the LDS Church) felt impressed to write a letter to Scott Gordon, the president of FAIR, apologizing for the actions of the Preachers. It seems even professional critics of the Church can readily identify how outrageous these people are and how poorly they reflect upon other Christians.

Cool. Asked and very much answered.

CKS: Indeed. I actually am very interested. References?

RA: This is between me and Juliann, and I have asked her a question she refuses to answer.

I guess at this point, it's between me, you, and Juliann. So, I would say, again: "Indeed. I actually am very interested. References?"

Best.

cks

[Pahoran]

Yes, Pahoran, whatever you say Pahoran. I've learned over the years who is listening and who is not, and to divide my time accordingly.

peace to ya, P.,

RA

There's that same ol' dodge again.

And thus, you stand refuted.

Regards,

Pahoran

[rabanes]

Cool. Asked and very much answered. I guess at this point, it's between me, you, and Juliann. So, I would say, again: "Indeed. I actually am very interested. References?"

Let's see what Juliann has to say. I want to know what difference it will make if my book is indeed quoted and/or referenced by her beloved "credentialed academics from real yada yada yada."

And I'll predict that if I cite 1, she'll want 2.

If I cite 3, she'll want 5.

If I cite 10, she'll say they don't count, for ... well, whatever reason she can come up with.

Pahoran = ignore button.

RA

[Rommelator]

ROMM: I hope you corrected this in the PB. http://en.fairmormon.org/Brigham_Young_pul...merica%27s_eyes.

RA: This is a very interesting quote to me. I wish FOLK were still alive. It's earliest appearance is in 1900. And what's odd is that it is actually such a lengthy quote in complete form, that it's hard for me to believe that Folk simply made up the whole thing. I would at some point continue investigating this quote.Ya know what's kind of amusing/exiting about Mormonism, is how stuff like this has popped up again and again over the years, with Mormons crying foul and decrying such things as false, fake, and fraudulent. This happened with teh whole Justice Neely thing and Joseph's "examination" in court (or trial) as a glass-looker:

In 1961 Hugh W. Nibley, professor of history and religion at Brigham Young University, explained the seriousness of the alleged trial: "You knew its immense value as a weapon against Joseph Smith if its authenticity could be establishedâ?¦. If this court record is authentic, it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith."

Another LDS researcher, Francis W. Kirkham, recognizing the disturbing implications of the report, said: "If any evidence had been in existence that Joseph Smith had used a seer stone for fraud and deception, and especially had he made this confession in a court of law as early as 1826, or four years before the Book of Mormon was printed, and this confession was in a court record, it would have been impossible for him to have organized the restored Church...."

[Then,] in 1971 Wesley P. Walters, a Presbyterian minister and researcher of Mormon history, went to New York to look for documentation of Smith's 1826 hearing. In the damp, musty basement of the jail in Norwich, New York, Mr. Walters found the Chenango county documents for 1826. In these bundles of papers were two documents that related to Smith's 1826 hearing. Mr. Walters explains: "The discovery among the 1826 Chenango County bills of two bills from the officials who participated in the arrest and trial of Joseph Smith at South Bainbridge in 1826 now confirms this story beyond question. (see

Was Joseph Smith A Magician?

).

So, one never knows what might surface as the years go by. I am quite certain that not a single Mormon dared think that the Neely Bill would surface (or the 'cough' original Book of Abraham 'cough' parchments 'cough' nothing but Egyptian Funery texts).

But at this point, I would agree with Dan Erickson -- B.A. and B.S. degrees from Brigham Young University; an M.A. from California State University, Fullerton; and an M.B.A. from California State University, San Bernardino. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in history at Claremont Graduate University. He writes. "...perhaps fulfilling Brigham Young's reported declaration that "we shall pull the wool over the eyes of the American people and make them swallow Mormonism, polygamy and all."

So, I'll tell you what, replace that with any BY quote you'd like, then deal with the other 200,000 words in ONUG, and the mountain of evidence that stands against JS, BY, JT, and others. You might want to start with looking beyond just that single quote from the Reed Smoot Hearings, and actually read the transcript from the entire proceedings. basically, it shows that the LDS church at that point in history was pretty much being run a a cadre of liars. Sorry, it's true. Read the testimony. And then do some research about what was really going on.

R.A.

That's one might fine shotgun you got there.

1. Joseph Smith money digging.

2. Book of Abraham "problems".

3. Reed Smoot Hearings.

Care to throw anything else in there while your at it?

So, I'll tell you what, replace that with any BY quote you'd like, then deal with the other 200,000 words in ONUG

Talk about a red herring.

"Don't worry about this source that I completely misquoted and fabricated, just ignore that and look at all this other stuff I got!"

Nice.

[Rommelator]

I am quite certain that not a single Mormon dared think that the Neely Bill would surface (or the 'cough' original Book of Abraham 'cough' parchments 'cough' nothing but Egyptian Funery texts).

Cue music -

Give me a break. Give me a break. Break me off a piece of that Kit-Kar bar![/i

]End music.

Not a single Mormon "dared think" this?

Ooo....ah....oh... how sensational. How lurid! How fantastic! This is just the kind of stuff that your ignorant public needs.

Say, did you get your degree at the Fawn M. Brodie Institute of Psychology?

Yes, we Mormons sure were frightened when the Joseph Smith Papyri resurfaced. Thats why we published photos of them in the official Church magazine alongside scholarly commentary of such, right?

BTW, I love the classic dismissal of the JSP with the standard "nothing but Egyptian Funery[sic] texts".

With this haughty wave of the hand, who need ask any more questions? The whole thing has been settled.

I bet you don't have the slightest clue as to what the significance of these documents have to the Book of Abraham and just who their ancient owner was, do you?

it shows that the LDS church at that point in history was pretty much being run a a cadre of liars

Can anyone say "sweeping generalizations"?

[cksalmon]

Let's see what Juliann has to say. I want to know what difference it will make if my book is indeed quoted and/or referenced by her beloved "credentialed academics from real yada yada yada."

Hi Richard--

I'm not beholden to Juliann.

I don't care what difference it will make to her.

If "credentialed academics from real yada yada yada" are using ONUG as a textbook, I'd personally like to know. Or, if "credentialed academics from real yada yada yada" are citing it. Or, in some other way making use of it. I'd like to know.

I don't really care what Juliann has to say.

Best.

cks

[Markk]

It's been over 40 years since I've watched GA and so I have no clue who "Mr Haney" is.

Did he actually accomplish anything with all his 'work so he wouldn't have to work' approach?

With the Smiths, a heck of a lot of work was actually accomplished, not just time spent at the job, but physical, hard work as well.

And I don't see how there is anything inherently "lazy" about trying to "work smarter, not harder". After all, it made Scrooge McDuck that duck he is today (and is what my husband, the prof who teaches entrepreneurship tries to instill in his students).

Hi Cal,

Your missing my point, read my first post. I believe JS was very street smart, that he along with the help of others, some by manipulating them, started something, it took off, and then he ran with it, always getting in trouble and bailing himself out, many times with revelation.

As far as Mr Haney Goes

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Phinehas]

Phinehas:

Genesis 1:26-27

26

[Rommelator]

I believe JS was very street smart,

What? No more Professor Smith whose knowledge matches Einstein and Tolkein? Now he is only "street smarts"?

Pray tell, would those "street smarts" include, say, advanced knowledge of ancient Hebraisms?

[thesometimesaint]

Phinehas:

I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase?

[Confidential Informant]

It's all right, the big, bad evaneglical won't hurt you.

I have met you, Richard. You are neither big, nor bad. You are, however, quite slippery.

C.I.

[Markk]

What? No more Professor Smith whose knowledge matches Einstein and Tolkein? Now he is only "street smarts"?

Pray tell, would those "street smarts" include, say, advanced knowledge of ancient Hebraisms?

HI Rom,

I don't buy the "ancient Hebraisms" spin, it is always some complicated stretch of evidence that the LDS pundits throw in, if you want though we can discuss them, show me your evidence.

What I refer to as street smart is starting out with a wild imagination, taking in the topics of the day, writing a fictional story while plagiarizing the Bible.

Getting a naive hard working farmer to fund his "project", some neighbors to buy into the idea, and just running with it. It's not a very complicated idea Rom. Before you buy into things like "Hebraisms", look at it from a horse sense point of view, like why does the Isaiah text in the BOM have the same exact mistakes that the KJ translators made when it was a translation from reformed egyptian, which has no evidence of even being a real language, or why doesn't the BoM teach core LDS theology that is needed for salvation (exaltation)? The latter is a real evidence that JS rode the snowball as it accumulated LDS thought, adding to it for personal gain in both power and money.

Answer this question, if, and I say if for this question...if JS is a fraud, IF he made up his vision in the grove and the BoM, it would have to be a product of his imagination... doesn't this make sense? If Jesus was not who He said He was, then we have a very similar case, He would either be a nut or a competent fraud.

So I UNDERSTAND that you don't believe that JS was a fraud, but if he was, without any formal education, he would have to be one street smart person...correct?

Rom, just look at all the problems, inconsistencies, and issues in JS's history. His Egyptian alphabet, his claims to understand different languages, making himself general, the bank fiasco, the united order, convenient revelation to his wife that she would be destroyed if she didn't buy into him taking other wives...etc

JS must have done pretty good for himself when things were good, how much did he receive for being 'the prophet'? I don't know is their a record of this, are their accounting books? I believe living the life as a prophet, and General, and hopefully president of the United States had a better appeal to JS than digging holes and busting sod.

Again Rom, if JS was a fraud, doesn't what I believe make sense, if not why, and if he was a fraud then what does that make him in terms with the context of our discussion?

Interesting subject, take care

Mark

John 1;12

[rabanes]

I bet you don't have the slightest clue as to what the significance of these documents have to the Book of Abraham and just who their ancient owner was, do you?

Please no more fairy tales.

And scholarly replies? Let's gather up all the secular non-LDS scholars now, per Juliann's desires, and see just how many of them would say that the funerary texts aren't REALLY just funerary texts, but they're REALLY filled with hidden meanings that Joseph decoded by revelation and were accurately written as the Book of Abraham -- i.e., words, phrases, meanings that no one else can see. Yes, very scholarly.

But I won't bother digging up observations, except to quote from Beckwith, Moser, and Owen, in The New Mormon Challenge (an apparent favorite of Juliann's):

"In what must have been a heartbreaking discovery to many Mormons at the time, modern Egyptologists translation showed that the document had nothing whatsoever to do with the bilbical patriarch Abraham. . . . The agnosticism of LDS scholar kent P. Jackson is typical: 'Though the connection between the papyri and the Book of Abraham is unclear, it appears that Joseph Smith's possession of the Egyptian texts influenced his attraction to tihnkgs Egyptian and led to his bringing forth of the docuement concerning Abraham'" ("The Sacred Literature of the Latter-day Saints," p. 183).

In other words, that was a major "Ooops."

Look, I am truly sorry, but these are basic, standard, old, well-known, common, funerary texts like many others that can be found all over the world. And some still have the real pictures missing from the JS version. Like the Jackal headed Anubis, where you all have a bald Elkanah; or that nice little knife over "Abraham" instead of the real drawing which is Osiris holding his ..... phallus. (But I do like the way Smith drew in the rest of the pictures where there were missing chunks. I'm serious. I think it was very creative. They were all absurd and wrong, of course, but it worked for the early 1800s). I think the WIKI FAIR website sums it up very nicely and concisely:

Why isn't the Book of Abraham on the papyri?

We don't know. There are two prevalent theories among believing Latter-day Saints:

• "Missing papyrus" theory: The Book of Abraham was on the papyri in Joseph Smith's possession, but the portion recovered from the Metropolitan Museum doesn't include it. This is a possibility because the recovered portion is less than 13% of the total material held by Joseph. Eyewitnesses also reported that the length of the papyri in Joseph's possession was much more extensive than the fragments now held by the Church.
  
• "Revealed text" theory: The Book of Abraham was not on the papyri; he received the text by revelation, with the papyri acting as a catalyst. This is a possibility because Joseph used the word "translation" to mean several things, including the process of receiving pure revelation. (Joseph Smith's revelations call his revision of the Bible a "translation" (D&C 73:4; 76:15; 90:13; 94:10; 124:89), even though he didn't use any Hebrew of Greek manuscripts. Also, D&C 7: is a revealed translation of a lost record written by the Apostle John.)
  

So there you go, from the mouth of FAIR itself. If you want to believe either of these excuses for why Smith's papyri ended up just being common funerary texts, by all means, go for it. Seriously, go ahead. And I will wish you all the best.

RA

[rabanes]

If "credentialed academics from real yada yada yada" are using ONUG as a textbook, I'd personally like to know.

Patience CKS, they ain't going anywhere, and neither am I. I want to hear from Juliann. Indulge me. I have asked her what difference it will make (and I;ve also asked her to tell me where Moser and Owen slammed my book). She has responded to neither. So, let's just have a nice day and see what she says. I have you PM. We are cool, you and me.

RA

[ttribe]

Pahoran = ignore button.

Why? Because he scares you? The fact is, he has pointed out some serious problems in your arguments and you keep dodging; now you try to get out of it, by simply ignoring him.

[rabanes]

Why? Because he scares you?

Yes, Pahoran scares me. He scares me so very much. Hold me, Mommy.

RA

PS Seriously, you guys are actually kind of fun, and I do very much enjoy comments like that. That's partially why I visit. Because it's kind of stimulating intellectually to hear these kinds of remarks. They are, as Spock would say, "fascinating." You know, guys, I don't mean any harm. We all just have SERIOUS-DEEP disagreements on some complex issues that are near, dear, and sacred to all of us. And I would say that we'd all probably get along much better not typing on forums, but rather, just hanging out. I'll have to come to another FAIR Conference at some point.

[ttribe]

Yes, Pahoran scares me. He scares me so very much. Hold me, Mommy.

Snarky comment #2,044. Now, if he doesn't "scare" you, then answer him.

[rabanes]

Snarky comment #2,044. Now, if he doesn't "scare" you, then answer him.

Please read Post #298: "I've learned over the years who is listening and who is not, and to divide my time accordingly." You seriously think that Pahoran scares me???? Oh my gosh. Yes, and Ed Decker scares Dan Peterson.

[ttribe]

Please read Post #298: "I've learned over the years who is listening and who is not, and to divide my time accordingly." You seriously think that Pahoran scares me???? Oh my gosh.

I read your statement and it's a dodge. We too have learned who is sincere over the years and one truth is self-evident - individuals who make their living (or some portion thereof) from bashing our Church, our history, and our beliefs, are not sincere seekers of truth. Their research (both methodologically and substantively) and reporting are biased by their pursuit of sales which encourages sensationalism, omissions of pertinent opposing facts, and blindness to alternative explanations. Rare is the non-LDS researcher in this area who can overcome these biases. You, sir, are not one of those rarities.