Facsimile 3, figures 2, 4, and 5

[e=mc2]

You respectfully ask where this specific question has been discussed before? Rommelator has already given you links. Here is mine, which you already have been given. I would like to know specifically wherein my research is wrong.

http://www.backyardprofessor.com/files/joseph-smith-as-egyptologist.pdf

Expose you say:

But for Egyptologists merely reading what characters say, when they have spent their entire career and used all their faculties to study a language and culture, with all the context and understanding of what these documents were, but it is highly unlikely in this specific context they are incorrect about what the specific characters say.

I will again ask you to show where the research in this link is wrong, and unEgyptological.....

http://www.backyardprofessor.com/files/joseph-smith-as-egyptologist.pdf

[Honorentheos]

Expose you say:

But for Egyptologists merely reading what characters say, when they have spent their entire career and used all their faculties to study a language and culture, with all the context and understanding of what these documents were, but it is highly unlikely in this specific context they are incorrect about what the specific characters say.

I will again ask you to show where the research in this link is wrong, and unEgyptological.....

http://www.backyardprofessor.com/files/joseph-smith-as-egyptologist.pdf

Hi, Kerry

I think that the first serious, "egyptologically" questionable jump in your logic is in the justification for JS identifying a mortal Abraham as Osiris. There is a certain logic to your overall theme that is interesting internally, but the use of the term "mortal" is a stretch don't you think? Your quote from Baer can be read first, then I would add the following, below.

The stand-in of Osiris=Hor, as described by Lanny Bell on page 23 in footnote 21 in his paper on the JS facsimile 1 Lanny Bell states that this is a representation of Osiris of the deceased person who is being described in the Book of Breathings. I think it is a very large stretch of the imagination to suggest that either a historic Abraham (the existance of whom in itself is in no way an uncontroversial topic ) or JS is merely providing a very shorthand answer to his understanding of Egyptian religious symbolism and applying it to the life of Abraham. The biggest issue I think you leave unaddressed is to show it is acceptible for Osiris to appear in the place of a living, mortal person instead of the resurrected Osiris=resurrected Abraham. You make this point yourself repeatedly, but fail to point out the obvious - in all cases Osiris is an archetype of the resurrection of the individual for whom the papyri are being made. So to suggest that this archetype is justification for the identification of Osiris as Abraham without applying the archetypal context seems to fall short of establishing your main point conclusively. Which again, as I read it, was that JS was justified in identifying Osiris as Abraham in the various vignettes without making any real connection himself to the death, resurrection, and afterlife journey of Abraham which should be the case if he was borrowing from egyptian understanding.

Further, in Bell footnote 20 of the same page he provides links as well as abbreviated information regarding Facsimile 3 and the figure of Anubis/spiked headed slave. Where do the remainder of the figures fit into your explanation of the overall vignette? or explaining how this relates to JS's direct interpretation of Fac. 2 where he seems to give his understading of Egyptian religion in more direct terms? The general feel of your theory is that JS was "rifting" off of the vignettes rather than actually interpreting them or providing any real understanding of the historic egyptian religion.

Overall, it is a lot of mental gymnastics to get to a point one can feel comfortable with the argument when a much simpler one is available. I admire the internal logic of your paper, but disagree with the amount of effort that was required to yield the conclusions. The entire piece about Isis,Ma'at is another example of overly complex argumentation where a simpler one exists and seems to beg a proper application of Occam's razor to parse it down to something more digestible. But each to the feast of their own fancy I suppose.

[Areabird]

How exactly did Joseph translate the text? Did he use seer stones? Did he pray about it and receive revelations? If it was one of these answers, then why did he need to create a translation key?

Someone stated that the BOA was revelation. The Book of Mormon was revelation, too, but it wasn't really translated, right? Joseph used the seer stones to see the words and then he repeated them to his scribe. In that method, there really wasn't much room for error since the word wouldn't disappear until the scribe had repeated it back to Joseph (at least I think that is how it went). Did Joseph use a similar method with BOA?

[MichaelW]

Expose, let me point out the obvious one more time. No one here cares if Joseph "translated" the wall paper and thought pattern in the wallpaper were actually chinese "characters".

The BOA is revelation, period. Joseph may have thought it was a "translation" and perhaps in some sense it was. But you just are not getting it that no one here cares, because we believe it is a true revelation.

OK? That's simple and direct, and I suppose you will ignore it as you do all my posts.

Expose, having spent as much time reading FARMS and various boards as you have, I can't imagine how you don't already understand what mfbukowski is talking about. To those who don't believe in the LDS faith, there are mountains of evidence that Joseph Smith was not a prophet in any sense of the word, and he had some extraordinarily "unprophetic" motives driving his conduct. To many of those who have testimonies, for better or worse, all of that evidence is explained away, and for all future inconsistencies that arise or doctrines that change, explanations will be found, one way or another. They'll be as laughable to you and I as the others, but the faithful will be no less convinced.

Why don't you put this to rest, and go on with your life? I can't imagine beating this dead horse does you any good.

[krose]

Let's say that I, as a Christian and for a Christian audience, create the following images in 2009:

Now, imagine that 4000 years in the future, Christianity is no longer well understood and English is mostly unknown. Scholars come up with an accurate translation but someone like Joseph Smith translates the words above the images in the following manner:

Would you argue that this translator got the translation completely wrong and should be dismissed as a fraud? Why or why not?

Let's see if I'm following you correctly.

The reason we can see a connection with the images and their mistaken labels in your example, is because we know that the original audience (your hypothetical Christians of 4000 years prior) would have been familiar with metaphors that linked these ideas together, such as the Church as the "bride of Christ." These links would become obvious to future scholars once they translated the Bible.

So for the figures in the facsimiles to be equivalent to your images, it would have to have been generally understood by the original audience of ancient Egyptians that, for example, Maat was a metaphor for the prince (either one specific prince or all princes). And the reason scholars are not aware of these metaphorical links is that they have not yet uncovered a source inscription that describes these metaphors.

Is that about right?

[Expose]

Ya know guys, Ritner translating certain names as Maat, Isis and Osiris-Hor is nothing like someone advocating Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever its called now. Ritner is correct and denying it makes us look silly. Remember, there are two ways of looking at this:

1)Say Joseph was wrong and argue for Catalyst and/or an Expanionist theory of translation.

2)Say Joseph was correct for reasons we don't know; "Shulem=X=Osiris-Hor".

Remember, a translatable text doesn't tell us everything about a religion. We also have to deal with what people actually said, thought and did. For example, a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness and an Evangelical can all write down: "The Father and the Son are One." But what each person means by that is totally different.

Thank you. You are absolutely right, in my personal experience, that trying to impeach scholarly research generally, or attacking information that is very well-known in scientific communities makes the religious believers attacking them look silly. This has happened innumerable times throughout history, and as Iâ??ve stated before was true for me personally. I didnâ??t lose my testimony completely until Iâ??d read a lot of FARMS stuff. I appreciate you sharing the ways you look at this issue.

Expose, let me point out the obvious one more time. No one here cares if Joseph "translated" the wall paper and thought pattern in the wallpaper were actually chinese "characters".

The BOA is revelation, period. Joseph may have thought it was a "translation" and perhaps in some sense it was. But you just are not getting it that no one here cares, because we believe it is a true revelation.

OK? That's simple and direct, and I suppose you will ignore it as you do all my posts.

Emphasis added.

As to the first part I bolded, you are incorrect, a lot of people here care about that. I, for one, think it does matter if JS was actually doing what he said and thought he was doing, because I think it was deceitful and his translation power was/still is used as evidence of his prophetic calling. I understand that to you there is no distinction, or perhaps the distinction doesnâ??t matter, between saying one thing is received by revelation and another thing is translated by the gift and power of God, but to me there is. The church paid $2,400 for the mummies and papyri, and if they were not what JS said then to me that is evidence he was either a fraud or delusional, but in any event not actually receiving knowledge from God as he claimed.

If you really don't care if JS translated wallpaper and said it was chinese characters then what wouldn't you accept?

Let me ask you a hypothetical question, if I may, to test your statement. Suppose Pres. Monson found an old article from El Universal (a Spanish language newspaper) and spent time doing what he called a translation of it, and described translating the words that were actually on the document. Pres. Monson said the newspaper article, published a few years ago, was actually written by Noah, and that the text of the translation was about Noah, and that the translation included a picture that originally appeared alongside the article (the picture was of a stormy sea) and Pres. Monson translated it as being a depiction that Noah included in his work, describing a storm he was in while in the ark. So Pres. Monson publishes his translation, which Spanish language scholars all swear never mentions a word about Noah, but is an article and picture describing the worst storm to hit the Mexican coast in years. Keep in mind Pres. Monson has maintained all along that this was a translation of a certain document, that he was translating the words on that document, and that the text of the document he was translating refer to the stormy sea picture that is included alongside it.

Would any of this bother you? Would it bother you when scholars place the document in a different context than that claimed by the prophet, and when the text of the article itself, according to the scholars, bears no resemblance to the prophetâ??s translation of it? How would you explain the connection between the picture of the stormy sea? You see where Iâ??m going with this Iâ??m sure, but Iâ??ve never understood how people could believe the â??translation really only meant revelationâ? idea because the facsimiles are connected to the text in the book of abraham, and to the papyrus itself.

Iâ??ve responded to a lot of your posts before on many occasions.

Expose, having spent as much time reading FARMS and various boards as you have, I can't imagine how you don't already understand what mfbukowski is talking about. To those who don't believe in the LDS faith, there are mountains of evidence that Joseph Smith was not a prophet in any sense of the word, and he had some extraordinarily "unprophetic" motives driving his conduct. To many of those who have testimonies, for better or worse, all of that evidence is explained away, and for all future inconsistencies that arise or doctrines that change, explanations will be found, one way or another. They'll be as laughable to you and I as the others, but the faithful will be no less convinced.

Why don't you put this to rest, and go on with your life? I can't imagine beating this dead horse does you any good.

Iâ??m making sure Iâ??ve heard both sides before I jump ship. I think deep down there is a small part that wants to somehow justify staying in the church after Iâ??ve learned all this, although I donâ??t think it will happen. Considering that the explanations really do keep getting more and more laughable, I donâ??t see how I could possibly stay in the church. I am going to put this to rest and go on with my life, but I think I owe it to myself to at least be really really sure Iâ??m fully informed before doing so, even if I donâ??t think Iâ??d hear anything life-changing.

[Olavarria]

I didnâ??t lose my testimony completely until Iâ??d read a lot of FARMS stuff.

I've heard others say this before. But I've never understood it. How is this so? Just curious.

[MichaelW]

Iâ??m making sure Iâ??ve heard both sides before I jump ship. I think deep down there is a small part that wants to somehow justify staying in the church after Iâ??ve learned all this, although I donâ??t think it will happen. Considering that the explanations really do keep getting more and more laughable, I donâ??t see how I could possibly stay in the church. I am going to put this to rest and go on with my life, but I think I owe it to myself to at least be really really sure Iâ??m fully informed before doing so, even if I donâ??t think Iâ??d hear anything life-changing.

That does make good sense. Where does Facsimile 3 rest among the myriad inconsistencies and troubling aspects to LDS dogma and history, in your mind? If the Book of Abraham can be conclusively determined to be a product of Joseph Smith's mind (or the product of the minds of those around him), is that enough for you to walk away? Or are you engaging in a broader survey, weighing the good with the bad, etc... in deciding what to do?

And this thread may be hijacked if you respond to this question, so if you're interested in discussing this with me, please PM me. I'm interested in knowing your thoughts on this.

[mfbukowski]

Let me ask you a hypothetical question, if I may, to test your statement. Suppose Pres. Monson found an old article from El Universal (a Spanish language newspaper) and spent time doing what he called a translation of it, and described translating the words that were actually on the document. Pres. Monson said the newspaper article, published a few years ago, was actually written by Noah, and that the text of the translation was about Noah, and that the translation included a picture that originally appeared alongside the article (the picture was of a stormy sea) and Pres. Monson translated it as being a depiction that Noah included in his work, describing a storm he was in while in the ark. So Pres. Monson publishes his translation, which Spanish language scholars all swear never mentions a word about Noah, but is an article and picture describing the worst storm to hit the Mexican coast in years. Keep in mind Pres. Monson has maintained all along that this was a translation of a certain document, that he was translating the words on that document, and that the text of the document he was translating refer to the stormy sea picture that is included alongside it.

The analogy is totally false, because the context is not even remotely close to what happened.

Modern Spanish is a language which is well understood and the cultural difference between spanish and English is minimal.

Ancient Egyptian is not easily deciphered even today, and requires in some cases the opinion of multiple experts to get it "right", and the cultural divide between ancient Egyptian and modern English is a vast chasm. There is practically nothing we understand the same today as the ancient egyptians did except maybe the best way to plant wheat or some farming analogies. Have you ever actually translated something? Have you ever studied the New Testament in Greek where it says that the "word tented in flesh"? What the heck is that supposed to mean from a modern English perspective? How does a word make a tent out of skin and live in it?

And Egyptian is even more remote than ancient Greek culturally. Hieroglyphics are not "letters" and the writing system is completely different, and hieroglypics are inherently ambiguous.

Besides that, Egyptian was only beginning to be translated at all, and Spanish is one of the top major languages of the modern world, and is incredibly easily translated.

Further, president Monson, whom I know is an inspired prophet, has never produced a volume of scripture in his life which he has alleged was "translated". Joseph with the Book of Mormon set a precedent for the pattern his prophetic gift was to take. Unlike the BOA, we have no artifacts from the BOM whatsoever. And also with President Monson, we have no direct revelations which were not "translations" as Joseph produced in the what became the D&C. President Monson is not Joseph Smith, and does not have an analogous "track record" of producing volume upon volume of revelations which many regard as scripture.

Furthermore, photographs of storms are not drawings of symbolic figures. Those drawings are of specific individuals who carry with them an entire mythology. That is huge.

So because modern Spanish is nothing like ancient Egyptian, and because modern Spanish is not written in hieroglyphics which are inherently ambiguous, and because life today is nothing like it was in ancient times, so the process of translation is entirely different and because the two cultural contexts have nothing to do with eachother, and because you are comparing a prolific producer of revelations which did not require any translation whatsoever to someone who has never produced a volume of revelation, and lastly because photographs of storms are not drawings of symbolic figures which carry their own meanings, I think your analogy... well, it doesn't do it for me.

[Expose]

I've heard others say this [about testimony loss becoming complete upon reading FARMS, etc.] before. But I've never understood it. How is this so? Just curious.

Their explanations are ridiculous individually, and collectively they are completely and utterly absurd. So, so many things, any one of which might not be a testimony killer if it was the only one, but there are just SO many. For example, two cumorahs theory, horses=tapirs, goats=?, swine=?, translation=revelation not from text, BoA wasn't at all what JS said, chariots=something without wheels being dragged by something not actually a horse, swords that rusted but weren't metal, Lord referred to windows in Jaredite barge/submarines that would let in light but would be dashed to pieces=wood, etc. Pretty much any explanation of the Jaredites is going to have to be ridiculous just because the story is so, um, impossible. But despite flocks and herds, honey-bees, elephants, and fish being transported almost a year in barges on the open sea, it is the explanation of anachronisms that make no sense in the context scriptures was even more powerful evidence.

Apologists try really, really hard. I think they have an impossible task, that is, to make the church's truth claims plausible. Take people on this very thread, who have resorted to questioning the translation of clearly legible Egyptian by the worldâ??s best Egyptologists, it is simply absurd the lengths some people will go to, they will believe anything. In a few circumstances apologists have few options but to just start making things up to explain problems, even if they defy logic and a knowledge of the text and the words of prophets interpreting it, like the two cumorahs theory. Anyone who really understands the problems and has looked to FARMS or FAIR to help solve them has realized how inadequate they are. Some circumstances they basically have nothing that could solve the problem, like the jaredite's transparent windows, and so they throw out an explanation that doesn't even solve the problem even if you bought it, like saying it could have been a wood covering - unless there is some kind of magical see-through wood, that doesn't even address the problem.

It honestly would have hurt my testimony less if they had just said "We have no explanation for this." But when the church is officially silent, and these quasi-official but always deniable groups come up with dozens upon dozens of really far-out, ridiculous explanations, or explanations that show they either don't understand the issue or are just trying to fool people into thinking there are two sides to something simple, it really exposes the weakness of their argument and detracts from any credibility they would have on other points that aren't so ridiculous. The church either needs to shut up completely about this or be a lot more open and give official statements for problems. Having groups like FARMS and FAIR give unofficial explanations that can be abandoned at any time just served to show me that the prophet really isn't receiving revelation.

I simply canâ??t take people seriously who see no problem giving new meaning to any word that troubles them. Examples, translation, horse, swine, window, etc. These were not ambiguous terms and taken in context with all the information available there is one, and only one, reasonable conclusion in my opinion.

That does make good sense. Where does Facsimile 3 rest among the myriad inconsistencies and troubling aspects to LDS dogma and history, in your mind? If the Book of Abraham can be conclusively determined to be a product of Joseph Smith's mind (or the product of the minds of those around him), is that enough for you to walk away? Or are you engaging in a broader survey, weighing the good with the bad, etc... in deciding what to do?

And this thread may be hijacked if you respond to this question, so if you're interested in discussing this with me, please PM me. I'm interested in knowing your thoughts on this.

Among the myriad of inconsistencies and troubling aspects I have to say the BoA as a whole is number one. Polyandry caused me to look deeper, but the BoA is what really killed my testimony, I spent about a week studying BoA alone and it just kept getting worse. It really is the one thing that is completely solid, bullet-proof evidence that JS was not a prophet. He lied over and over. He made so much stuff up that caused so much heartache. Among the BoA discussion, I think that all three facsimiles offer different aspects of the same thing, but facsimile 3 is the only place I can find where JS actually identified in the scripture itself a translation of specific characters. I also think the connection between the text of BoA, the facsimiles, and papyrus blows away the translation=revelation nonsense. I think if it had been the BoA problems alone I might have found some way to stay a believer in the rest of the church, but Iâ??m not sure, that is pretty iffy. Once I figured it out on this point I started to actually look critically at everything else and nothing has stood up.

Of course, I couldnâ??t let it stop there, Iâ??ve had to retrace my testimony back through all the things I â??knewâ? before. The BoM discussion has been another big step, realizing all the problems with it and how deep they run. Hat trick, reformed egyptian, BoM teachings contradicting D&C teachings, etc. Temples being a blatant plagiarism of 19th century American masonry, that was a testimony killer as well. Crazy, insane statements from prophets taught as doctrine have made me realize how flawed the churchâ??s structure is where the doctrine changes 180 degrees from one generation to the next. I guarantee some day gay marriage will be okay in the church, maybe even in the temple, and once again extremely clear doctrine will become a â??practiceâ? that is mitigated. It was no less ridiculous to think back in BYâ??s era to think there would be black GAs.

I think the church will, if it hasnâ??t already, start hemorrhaging a lot of members and converts are going to drop way, way down because of the information on the internet, especially in North America. I canâ??t imagine many people will be joining a church in the future without googling it, and I have a hard time seeing how a convert could join after doing that. I had it happen to me on my mission with some of my investigators and new members but the internet wasnâ??t as common then.

[mfbukowski]

Apologists try really, really hard. I think they have an impossible task, that is, to make the church's truth claims plausible. Take people on this very thread, who have resorted to questioning the translation of clearly legible Egyptian by the world’s best Egyptologists, it is simply absurd the lengths some people will go to, they will believe anything.

Except, apparantly, you.

[Anijen]

Expose~ I didnt lose my testimony completely until Id read a lot of FARMS stuff.

Yeah I hear ya. I changed my major from Psychology to Communications because there was just way to many theories between Piajet, Skinner, Jung etc too much info really cheapened the subject and I lost all confidence. Plus all them guys were so total psycho dweebs, I mean, really how could I have any faith in such a soft science? I think if someone spends a lifetime learning a skill and educating them selves way beyond a bachelor degree is overkill and is just too much knowledge and lets face it they start to lose brain cells and end up having no clue.

Yeah again the more I read FARMs and FAIR the more I lose respect for these guys like Peterson, Hamblin, Tvedtnes, Hauglid and Gee. I mean really they must have paid good money for their terrible educations. What a waste of life huh?

Thanks for helping me see the wasted brain matter in those papers.

Anijen ~ would you like fries with that?

[MAsh]

Anyone who really understands the problems and has looked to FARMS or FAIR to help solve them has realized how inadequate they are.

In other words, those who see value in LDS apologetic arguments are not really understanding the problems (or, by extension, lying about understanding the problems). Too bad we can all be as intelligent and honest with ourselves as you seem to be.

[Pahoran]

I didnâ??t lose my testimony completely until Iâ??d read a lot of FARMS stuff.

I've heard others say this before. But I've never understood it. How is this so? Just curious.

It isn't so. It is, in fact, a standard anti-Mormon clich

[Pahoran]

Their explanations are ridiculous individually, and collectively they are completely and utterly absurd. So, so many things, any one of which might not be a testimony killer if it was the only one, but there are just SO many. For example, two cumorahs theory,

Because, of course, every place name in the world is unique. There is only one London. There is only one Rome. There is only one Paris.

Right?

And the Book of Mormon itself specifically identifies the New York drumlin as the one and only Cumorah; right?

It is a standard anti-Mormon canard that the LGM is a frightened retreat in the face of irresistible scientific evidence. This makes good propaganda, but it's completely false. The LGM, of which the misnamed "two cumorahs[sic] theory" is a part, is in fact derived from a close and careful reading of the Book of Mormon text.

horses=tapirs, goats=?, swine=?,

Because, of course, migrant populations never ever give familiar names to unfamiliar animals; and I mean, never. For example, if an Englishman said he went hunting in Norway and shot an Elk, he couldn't possibly be referring to Alces alces, could he? He simply must have shot a Cervus canadensis. And when I saw buffalo in the Philippines a few months ago, they couldn't possibly have been Bubalus bubalis; they simply must have been Bison bison, right?

As with animals, so with plants; every English-speaking population everywhere uses the word "corn" to refer to exactly the same crop; right?

translation=revelation not from text,

That's right; that's just a fantasy invented by apologists. Because when Joseph Smith produced Doctrine and Covenants Sections 7 and 77 and the Book of Moses, he told everyone that he did so by standard scholarly means, having first obtained the original autographic documents.

Well, didn't he?

BoA wasn't at all what JS said,

Call for references, please. Which FARMS or FAIR apologist has argued that the Book of Abraham is not an authentic record of Abraham?

chariots=something without wheels being dragged by something not actually a horse, swords that rusted but weren't metal, Lord referred to windows in Jaredite barge/submarines that would let in light but would be dashed to pieces=wood, etc.

Call for references, please. Which FARMS or FAIR apologist has argued that the windows the Lord told the Brother of Jared he could not have were made of wood?

Pretty much any explanation of the Jaredites is going to have to be ridiculous just because the story is so, um, impossible. But despite flocks and herds, honey-bees, elephants, and fish being transported almost a year in barges on the open sea, it is the explanation of anachronisms that make no sense in the context scriptures was even more powerful evidence.

And yet the elephants are not mentioned until the Jaredites have been in the New World for hundreds of years, and the honeybees and fish tanks are not mentioned in connection with the ocean crossing, or anywhere after it. If Ether is really so very ridiculous on its own, why must polemicists tryo so "really, really hard" to make it seem more ridiculous than it really is?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Expose]

Pahoran, as usual, your remarks carry an offensive tone, which is not only uncalled for, but diminishes any respect I might have for your ideas. Why the mods on this board havenâ??t taken care of this already, I donâ??t understand.

[regarding my previous statement that FARMS and FAIR actually accelerated the loss of my testimony]

It isn't so. It is, in fact, a standard anti-Mormon clich

[krose]

Yeah I hear ya. I changed my major from Psychology to Communications... etc.

Anijen -

Did you put my name in front of the quote because you thought it was my contribution, or is there another reason that I'm not getting?

Either way, it was a comment from "Expose" that you responded to, not me. I'd rather not take credit for someone else's remarks. I get enough flak for my own.

Thanks.

[mateo]

What FARMS and FAIR did to accelerate the loss of my testimony was that it validated many of the claims that I had assumed were just anti-Mormon rubbish. Things like JS marrying other men's wives, his treasure seeking activities, the seer stone found when digging a well. As a TBM when I heard these things I really just assumed that they were anti-Mormon lies made up out of whole cloth. I remember reading a FARMS article that discussed JS wives and plural marriages etc., I was somewhat shocked. I no longer could just sweep it under the rug as anti-Mormon lies but had to deal with it as an issue. For me the answers to those difficult questions just never added up to me. I know it makes sense to some but it just never did for me. So in that way FARMS and FAIR contributed to my loss of testimony.

I have gone back and looked at all of my post- starting as a TBM on the old ZLMB board, to asking sincere questions when I first arrived here on the FAIR board, to now being somewhat of a critic and a New Order Mormon in my eyes, and an apostate in many other people's eyes. To say that FARMS and FAIR cannot contribute to people's loss of testimony is as silly as saying that those same organizations have not helped to strengthen other people's testimonies.

[Rommelator]

Expose:

I'm not sure what Book of Mormon you are reading, but mine says this:

"And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces; neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire."

So, what exactly is the problem here? The Book of Mormon doesn't say that the Jaredite barges had windows. In fact it says the opposite. It says they couldn't have windows, regardless of what type of window. And where does the text demand that the Lord be speaking of glass windows? You seem to be reading an awful lot into the text. Nowhere do these verses necessitate glass windows. To suggest that they must be talking about glass windows, and any other suggestion is just the ramblings of desperate Mormon apologists, seems awful presentist to me.

But the whole thing is stupid anyway since the text says that there were no windows.

In the end, all of this reminds me of a quaint old quote from a quaint old guy:

"The normal way of dealing with the Book of Mormon "scientifically" has been first to attribute to the Book of Mormon something it did not say, and then to refute the claim by scientific statements that have not been proven."

Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 214.

[Rommelator]

"Claiming my honest experience is some sort of â??anti-mormonâ? conspiracy or identification code is insulting. "

Kind of like how it is insulting to suggest that "anyone who really understands the problems and has looked to FARMS or FAIR to help solve them has realized how inadequate they are."

Now THAT is insulting. Not only have you blatantly insulted the intelligence of many Latter-day Saints, but you have done so in a smug, conceited, presumptuous, triumphalist, arrogant manner.

Hey Expose, here is a crazy idea. Maybe the reasons we Mormons find credit in FARMS and FAIR is because we genuinely believe that they offer satisfactory answers to the allegations of critics like you. Ever thought of that? Ever sit back for a second and, instead of mocking and insulting us because of how obviously inferior we are to you intellectually because we give FARMS and FAIR credibility, think to yourself that maybe Mormons believe in all this stuff is not because we are brainwashed or stupid or burring our heads in the sand but because we genuinely believe it?

[Rommelator]

" As a TBM when I heard these things I really just assumed that they were anti-Mormon lies made up out of whole cloth. I remember reading a FARMS article that discussed JS wives and plural marriages etc., I was somewhat shocked."

Uh huh, and this is FARMS's fault how?

Seems to me like the problem doesn't lie with FARMS, but with you and the assumptions you brought along with you into this.

"To say that FARMS and FAIR cannot contribute to people's loss of testimony is as silly as saying that those same organizations have not helped to strengthen other people's testimonies. "

Well then call me silly, because I don't believe so. It seems to me like it has nothing to do with FARMS and everything to do with the assumptions you brought with you. Allow me to put on my Fawn Brodie hat here for a minute and suggest that because you assumed that this information was false, when you read it from FARMS that somehow seemed to validate what those anti-Mormons were saying and thus you lost your testimony.

I say that because I find it odd that someone would come away with less of a testimony after reading some material that attempted to defend the legitimacy of Joseph Smith's claims.

But far be it from me to employ such Brodiesque tactics. No, such is only appropriate with the masters of Mormon mind-reading at places like MDB. I stand in awe at the super-psychological prowess of those sleuths, who, after reading only a few posts of mine, were able to determine my deepest thoughts and cognitions concerning my testimony in Mormonism. Needless to say I was quite surprised to discover that I really don't have a testimony in Mormonism, but that I was dealing with my deeply ingrained cognitive dissonance by engaging in apologetics. You see, it had nothing to do with the fact that I genuinely believe in the claims of Joseph Smith and as such feel it my duty to do my best to correct falsehoods and, in some cases downright malicious, lies about the Prophet. That is what I had always thought. But, it turns out, I was wrong to a marked degree.

But I digress. Allow me to recede back into the deepest recesses of my cognitive dissonance. After all, according to the ever erudite Expose, I really don't understand any of these issues because I allow FARMS credibility and thus am not in a position to speak on these matters.

Rommelator out.

[Anijen]

Anijen -

Did you put my name in front of the quote because you thought it was my contribution, or is there another reason that I'm not getting?

Either way, it was a comment from "Expose" that you responded to, not me. I'd rather not take credit for someone else's remarks. I get enough flak for my own.

Thanks.

oops. I apologize I saw your name on a post and did attribute it, again I'm sorry. My remarks were obviously sarcasm to Expose post. I will edit my post to show his name instead.

Anijen

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Pahoran, as usual, your remarks carry an offensive tone, which is not only uncalled for, but diminishes any respect I might have for your ideas.

And you are so not guilty of any of this yourself? Meet the mirror Expose.

[mateo]

" As a TBM when I heard these things I really just assumed that they were anti-Mormon lies made up out of whole cloth. I remember reading a FARMS article that discussed JS wives and plural marriages etc., I was somewhat shocked."

Uh huh, and this is FARMS's fault how?

Seems to me like the problem doesn't lie with FARMS, but with you and the assumptions you brought along with you into this.

I don't recall trying lay fault onto anyone. And certainly I brought assumptions to the table with me. I've never known anyone who doesn't. What I am trying to express is that because I could trust FARMS and FAIR as a source (as opposed to what I consider anti-Mormon sources) that it forced me to deal with issues I had previously just brushed aside assuming they were complete lies. When I read the responses to these questions by FARMS and FAIR I personally did not find them compelling. Now, while this contributed to my loss of testimony, it was only part of the reasons that I no longer believe.

"To say that FARMS and FAIR cannot contribute to people's loss of testimony is as silly as saying that those same organizations have not helped to strengthen other people's testimonies. "

Well then call me silly, because I don't believe so. It seems to me like it has nothing to do with FARMS and everything to do with the assumptions you brought with you. Allow me to put on my Fawn Brodie hat here for a minute and suggest that because you assumed that this information was false, when you read it from FARMS that somehow seemed to validate what those anti-Mormons were saying and thus you lost your testimony.

I say that because I find it odd that someone would come away with less of a testimony after reading some material that attempted to defend the legitimacy of Joseph Smith's claims.

I'm not sure why so many assume that reasonable people cannot come up with reasonably different perspectives. I know I am guilty as many others of doing the same thing. For me, I found FARMS attempts to "defend the legitimacy of Joseph Smith's claims" not very compelling. I'm sure my life experiences and the assumptions that I have played a role in that decision. Much the same way that your life experiences and assumptions played a role in how you view the same material. I will make the assumption that your beliefs about the gospel are well thought out and sincere. I know mine are as well.

[Rommelator]

Mateo -

I am not doubting your sincerity. I was just kind of venting last night when I posted those remarks because of the comments of another poster, who shall remain nameless. I know that two reasonable, smart and honest people can come away with two different conclusions after looking at the same thing. I'm not doubting that you sincerely have an un-belief, I suppose, in Mormonism. I'm fine with that, as I believe that everyone has the right to exercise their agency.

Anyways, disregard my ramblings. I wish you all the best!