Is the Book of Abraham a Problem? - Terryl Givens with Dr. Kerry Muhlestein

[@peter5149]

If I were a Mormon, seeing this video wouldn’t exactly inspire a lot of confidence in me

[@vikingminigerbs6379]

Short answer ..... Yes

[@RichardHolmes-ll8ii]

Short answer .... No

[@PrairieChristianOutreach]

@@RichardHolmes-ll8ii You might find Brian Hauglid’s testimony of interest. His work convincing demonstrates that the BoA is absolutely a 19th century creation. So, yes this is a problem for the church. They are testing various theories to get around this issue, but I for one am convinced that much of LDS Scripture is a fabrication. Sad but true.

[@seancovey4012]

Why are we relying on the philosophies of men? Why not go to a direct quote from the official church essay which states...... 'None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham,'

[@Hustada]

The church essay wasn’t written by a man?

[@bryjbry]

The Book of Abraham one of my favorite books of scripture. I've read it over and over and it continues to enlighten me. "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

[@al4381]

That's just from the Gospel of Matthew...

[@3thingsfishing427]

You know that's near verbatim copying from the Gospels, right?

[@outlawedmedia4336]

Mormon are misled and this comment is a good example of the church and Joseph Smith uses already known sources and then takes ownership of them.

[@richarner3856]

Thank you for your pointless anecdote

[@bryjbry]

@@richarner3856have a great Thanksgiving and Christmas Rich!

[@andyr49]

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

[@ZachBrimhall]

lol, right?

[@scottbrandon6244]

Just like the Wizard of Oz.

[@joengatia8880]

I only wandered into this discussion while looking up my Alma Mater (BYU) info. Givens asked some amazingly insightful questions but avoided pursuing the path of reason to its logical conclusion. Muhlestein conducts an astounding theater of "intellectual" gymnastics in an attempt to avoid the only logical conclusion that Joe Smith made up his translation of the papyrus. It shouldnt surprise anyone that Givens does not raise the issue of why Carbon 14 dating places the papyrus to some 1800 years after the death of Abraham (even though JS claimed Abraham scribbled on the papyrus "by his own hands"). To believe in this "inspired book of scripture" a person must approach it with a wilful suspension of common sense and reason.

[@jeremims9044]

Using carbon dating for ancient writings is not exactly the best argument to use here. This isn't some fossilized tree or anything. Let me give you an example. 300 years from now you carbon date a copy of Harry Potter that dates it to 280 years from now. Are you going to claim that Harry Potter therefore was not written in the 1990s? Scribes copied and copied and copied over again. Harry Potter was written by the hand of JK Rowling but does that mean she wrote the copy 280 years from now? There are better arguments. Please don't use this one.

[@joengatia8880]

@@jeremims9044 Your Harry Porter analogy fails because it presumes that Abraham left a lineage of scribes (lasting 1800 years) in Egypt where the papyri and mummies were stolen from in the 18th and 19th centuries (the printing press came much, much later). It is also important to read the proper translation of the hieroglyphical text (from both LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists). There is no doubt Smith had not the slightest clue but hoped the writing was in a dead language and his con would never be discovered. There are also astounding contextual mistakes in what JS claims the text says--nobody seriously believes a woman named Egyptus salvaged the land of Egypt from the sea, etc. The flaws are endless, and no amount of faith can convert a falsehood into an authentic fact

[@EquestrianAltercationsLLC]

It gives me great joy to see that the majority of people aren't buying into this hot liquid garbage.

[@ethanf.237]

Likes: 84 Dislikes: 54 Are you sure you know what "majority" means?

[@EquestrianAltercationsLLC]

@@ethanf.237 read the comments majority are negative. Comments carry much more weight than a click on a thumb. PS thanks for reminding me to thumb it down.

[@ethanf.237]

@@EquestrianAltercationsLLC "Comments carry much more weight than a click on a thumb" Not when you're trying to gauge the number of people who agree or disagree with a proposition

[@ethanf.237]

@@EquestrianAltercationsLLC Also, for the record, I too heavily disagree with Muhlestein

[@EquestrianAltercationsLLC]

@@ethanf.237 ok, well for starters, how about not nitpicking someone you agree with? And this is literally a display of our voices of disagreement are louder than those of approval.

[@cwhitener8782]

7:55 Smith "channeling..." Kind of sounds occult-like. Why would he need a pagan document to receive revelation? Channeling? Like into a spirit realm???? Who or what answered Joseph??? Did he channel with a stone in a hat to get the Book of Mormon???

[@thomasmaughan4798]

You ask many questions. Were you seriously expecting meaningful answers? Probably not.

[@darreldavis1461]

Magari M good point. It’s obviously all bs

[@jeffsmithist]

Channeling,revelating ...is that how we explain inconsistencies with the facts?

[@Hanleia1]

@jeffsmithis, yes or they just gaslight, saying whatever didn't happen that way, instead it happened this way. An example is the Book of Mormon translation process pre and posts the 2013 Gospel Topic Essays. They have used Behavioral Control, Informational Control, Thought Control, and Emotional Control to indoctrinate the members for a very long time.

[@Apbt-rv7zw]

Yes religion is and always will be a faith based organization. Just ask the Jews if they believe God through Moses parted the Red sea.

[@lawrencegottlieb6035]

Actually, we don't...the Torah has been infinitely interpreted in the Talmud and by successive generations of Talmudic scholars. Jews actually open up the Torah to interpretation, events may have symbolic, not necessarily literal meaning. Isn't the Book of Abraham supposed to be a direct translation of the word of God?

[@clarklarsen1973]

I am not an expert on the Book of Abraham translation, nor am I an expert on all the different discussions, both pro and against the Book of Abraham. But what I do know is, having read the BofA many times I find nothing in it which I consider evil or corrupt. Just as with the Book of Mormon, there is a lot about the Book of Abraham we can not detail by using only scientific means. This does not, however, mean that Latter-day Saints who believe in the BofA and BofM are anti-science or that we are somehow using, as some say, mental gymnastics, to believe in these books. It simply means our confirmation of the truths of these books comes in large part from the Holy Spirit as recorded in Moroni 10:3-5 in the Book of Mormon. I do not fault critics of the Church who are honest in their critiques of the BofA or BofM. I do not fault Egyptologists who have likewise found Joseph Smith’s translation of the BofA to be problematic. The reason being is that often, these people are use to finding evidence by what they can see, touch and read. It is like solving a puzzle for them and in most cases, there is nothing at all wrong with that. That is how physical science should be conducted. But when you don’t have all the pieces to the puzzle, using only scientific tools or scientific means to solve a problem can not fully answer all the questions. That is when the Holy Ghost can answer the questions which science can not. Jesus taught this to his disciples in John 14:26. Just because I don’t have an exact blueprint of how the earth was created, from the mountains to the oceans doesn’t mean I should abandon my belief in God. Just because I don’t know exactly how stars and planets came into being doesn’t mean I should throw away my belief in a supreme creator and instead assume everything simply came about by the laws of chance. Perhaps there are those who believe in their heart of hearts that spirituality doesn’t exist. As for me, I just believe differently, especially in a time like today, with social media, 24/7 news and an Internet flooded with opinions coming from every direction. There are so many voices saying, “I’m right and they’re wrong,” or “I have the truth and no one else does,” or “Don’t believe those people over there, believe me.” It is becoming more and more important to receive council and guidance from the one and only source of all truth, and that is the Holy Ghost; that still small voice which whispers truth to both our minds and our hearts.

[@jamescrane6583]

You dont have a problem with the racism? You dont have a problem with the nonsensical cosmology?

[@clarklarsen1973]

@@jamescrane6583 I believe in kindness. I believe in making an effort to understand people, even those whose backgrounds and viewpoints on life, death, God, happiness and peace of mind are different from my own. If I have a discussion with someone who expresses a point of view different from mine, I do not automatically label that person as "brainwashed" or "stupid." I hope to at least get an understanding of why exactly they believe the way they believe. If there's one thing I have a problem with, it is those people who love to shout from the rooftops, "Live and let live!" Or, "Nobody has the right to tell me how to live my life!" Only to discover some of those very same people attack, mock, belittle, name call and attempt to humiliate anyone living a different lifestyle or having a different type of belief than their own. I remember once having lunch in the break room at my place of work when, among my co-workers, the discussion of tattoos came up. Each person, in turn, then described the different tattoos they had on their bodies. When the time came for me to say what tattoos I had, I replied that I had no tattoos anywhere on my body. Even though I had not said a single negative word about anyone's tattoos, or tattoos in general, the response I got from my co-workers in telling them I had no tattoos was one of resentfulness and even anger. After that day, the atmosphere at my place of work became very hostile, with many of my co-workers either refusing to speak to me or they would respond to seeing me in their presence by giving me a middle finger or telling me to go away. That's one of many examples from my life I could give of those who, from my perspective, live by the motto, "You better not judge me, even if I judge the crap out of you."

[@jamescrane6583]

@@clarklarsen1973 you said you found nothing corrupt or evil in the book of abraham. I asked you about two things in the book of abraham and you didnt answer. Do you find the race iui am in the book of abraham corrupt or evil? Do you find the the false description of the universe corrupt or evil?

[@richardholmes5676]

Paul Gregersen debunked the Egyptologists by presenting proper interpretation. Google Book of Abraham pt 5 Why Egyptologists are wrong you tube.

[@inChristalone1960]

​@@clarklarsen1973I appreciate youe kindnrss. I love the lds people. Please, please prove all things as though you were a supreme court judge who had to look objectively on both sides. Time is short. The fraudulent problems of Mormonism are monumental. 😢💔

[@mamawapikiya]

100 billion buys a lot of foolishness

[@thomasmaughan4798]

At least 427 pounds of it!

[@WannabeBalanced]

Not trying to be disrespectful but his explanation kinda makes me laugh, especially because he’s obviously a pretty intelligent man. Although he’s intelligent, he’s still suffering from confirmation bias. He will never see it for what it is because he doesn’t WANT to see it, nor do the members of the church. We can make up any story to prove ourselves right. That does NOT mean you ARE right. Only that you’ve made up a pretty creative story to fit the church’s narrative.

[@jaxonwashburn2679]

Can you explain why Oxford University Press trusted him to write the definitive historiography on the Book of Abraham and Pearl of Great Price if his own confirmation bias makes him so *clearly* wrong? www.amazon.com/gp/product/0190603860

[@WannabeBalanced]

Jaxon Washburn just because one University Trusts his “opinions” doesn’t mean anything to me. BYU does the same thing. They cherry pick the information they promote and support based on their own biased opinions. It’s just human nature. The LDS church claims they have the power of discernment, which is interesting because they employed a known pedophile to direct their latest temple video. One of the most important sacred videos right? Well this man sexually abused my husband when he was young and is finally serving time in prison because his own granddaughter finally came forward with her abuse story. www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/28/arts/sundance-founder-abuse-arrest.amp.html

[@maxwellsilverhammer9233]

@@jaxonwashburn2679 Oxford is comparing cult defender's historic analysis to unbiased historical perspectives. Oxford laughs at Gary and BYU.

[@jaxonwashburn2679]

@@maxwellsilverhammer9233 Oxford literally had two LDS scholars, Terryl Givens and Brian Hauglid, write the book. I'm guessing you haven't actually read it considering how far off-base your (mis)characterization of it was.

[@maxwellsilverhammer9233]

@@jaxonwashburn2679 No so Jaxon. Oxford never had or has an LDS program of study. They may have had fringe 'scholars' who happened to be LDS, but never a specific program. Perhaps cult studies and social impacts.

[@ygoldberg1287]

If the light within you is darkness how great is that darkness!!

[@thomasmaughan4798]

Darkness is not measured in great; light exists, dark does not. It's merely the absence of light. So there can be a LOT of dark and it still isn't a thing.

[@Hanleia1]

@Y Golberg, you mean like all of the darkness of lies, contradictions, and whitewashing in this PDF starting on page 10. mormonbandwagon.com/app/uploads/2015/10/Leaving-the-Church-1-12-2016.pdf

[@Hastenforthedawm]

"Allah is the Protector of those who believe. He brings them out of the depths of darkness into the light. As for those who disbelieve, their friends are the Rebels. They bring them out from the light into the depths of darkness. Those are people of the Fire. There they will remain forever." - Qur'an, Surah 2:257

[@truthful2joyful]

*Cough cough* b.s. A very smart man trying very hard to validate their “prophet”. J.S. Did not make it easy for his followers 😅

[@Hanleia1]

@AJ Snyd, love your response.

[@matthewwoodworth4805]

The Book of Mormon is powerful

[@Apbt-rv7zw]

As a follower it was easy to understand.

[@taylorallred]

"we thought Joseph Smith should have been able to translate egyptian" ... yeah, because that's what Joseph Smith himself said. See March 1, 1842 Times and Seasons. "he didn't translate the way I preconceived, but he translated nonetheless" ... what a weird statement. I assumed when JS said, "I translated this text" that it meant "He translated this text" but in reality it's my fault that I didn't know he mean "I spiritually interpreted some other story that doesn't related at all to this text I pointed to and numbered when I said I translated it." ... okay ...

[@britty4755]

Getting a Mormon Egyptologist is just a HUGE bias. It would be a better argument if it was someone not affiliated with the church. Especially someone who doesn't work for the church, at least.

[@richardholmes7199]

Ritner and the other arrogant Egyptologists were debunked in 2014.

[@inChristalone1960]

I am so imbarassed for BYU. Done with BYU!!😂

[@Hustada]

“Mormon Egyptologist” is an oxymoron.

[@jeremims9044]

Yeah. There's no bias by any other scholar. None whatsoever. And those dumb lds egyptologists with PhDs from Yale or UCLA. What do they know?

[@jeremims9044]

​@@Hustada how so? Would love to hear this explanation

[@Fancifulflyfisherman]

Well I’m just glad we cleared that up!

[@gearbox6597]

The Scientific Method version of "you must have FAITH". Guess what, that isn't how science works.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"that isn't how science works" On the contrary. You have faith that the mass spectrometer is measuring what you think it is measuring. You have faith that the billions of Euros spent on the LHC is money well spent. You have faith in the calibration laboratory and the Standard Kilogram. Or perhaps not.

[@gearbox6597]

@@thomasmaughan4798 Not. We have scientific theories that we work toward proving. When proof has accumulated thru trial and error and rigorous testing with predictable results and without error, faith isn't a factor. Hence the scientific community has their own chat boards, magazines in previous days etc, so theories and results can be compared and confirmed and anyone in a particular field can stay up to date with the latest theories and innovations under examination. Faith = I really really hope so Science = Prove/Disprove it or go sit down

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@gearbox6597 "We have scientific theories that we work toward proving." We? Well I don't so that leaves you. What theory are you working on currently? Why did you choose that theory and not some other theory? How do theories come into existence? Obviously someone has faith that the scientific method will yield scientific results. When it doesn't, go with the result anyway.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@gearbox6597 "Faith = I really really hope so Science = Prove/Disprove it or go sit down" So what part of "I really hope so" is NOT part of the search for the ultimate battery? Today I watched a youtube video on developing a molten metal battery. They admit that many attempts have been made to make new kinds of battery. People have enough faith in the Periodic Table and materials science to try new things; they often do not work. If they did not have faith in materials science then they would not make the effort. Some of these attempts are difficult, expensive and sometimes even dangerous. The first flight to break the sound barrier was into an unknown realm; there was no science to predict what would happen! Test pilots had faith that it would work, HOPE that it would work, and sometimes it didn't and they died. Science STARTS with faith! It then solidifies faith by testing AGAINST the hypothesis since direct proof, while useful, often does not disprove the possibility of other causes of the observed phenomenon. In the case of a religious belief, you start the same way; faith and hope. You might even have some confirming evidence. But might that observation or evidence have been produced by some other means? Test AGAINST the claim and see if the belief remains the only possible explanation. So one of my experiences was having a voice, or the sensation of a voice, tell me to change lanes while driving on a 6 lane highway (3 each direction), and on doing so, a car came at high speed in the wrong direction in the lane I had just vacated. There was a slight hill making it impossible to see this car coming at me in the lane I had just vacated. So, the scientific method starts with a hypothesis: God told me. Now to challenge the claim. Perhaps it wasn't God, but something else supernatural, guardian angel, one of my ancestors; the possibilities are nearly infinite so I go with "God" for anything in that realm. Real world physical source of that phenomenon? None and probably none possible. I do not have over the horizon radar in my car or brain. So, Occam's Razor and all that, the simplest explanation remains "God" with wiggle room on what exactly that means.

[@Hanleia1]

@@thomasmaughan4798 The verses of one of the primary songs I grew up singing over and over and over again. Lyrics 1. Faith is knowing the sun will rise, lighting each new day. Faith is knowing the Lord will hear my prayers each time I pray. Faith is like a little seed: If planted, it will grow. Faith is a swelling within my heart. When I do right, I know. 2. Faith is knowing I lived with God before my mortal birth. Faith is knowing I can return when my life ends on earth. Faith is trust in God above; In Christ, who showed the way. Faith is strengthened; I feel it grow Whenever I obey. Notice - Faith is knowing the sun will rise, lighting each new day - “Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true….” www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/faith?lang=eng I couldn’t even finish reading the rest of what the Mormon church’s definition of faith is. I did not learn the science behind why the sun rises and sets which is, “But it appears to rise and set because of the Earth's rotation on its axis. It makes one complete turn every 24 hours. It turns toward the east. As the Earth rotates toward the east, it looks like the sun is moving west.” journeynorth.org/tm/mclass/SunriseSetAns.html Instead, I learned to believe the sun rose and set because of ‘God’. That very real, visual, well cemented what faith was and God was right, correct, etc. With all of that said I have to agree with what Gear Box said. You stated, "You have faith that the mass spectrometer is measuring what you think it is measuring. You have faith that the billions of Euros spent on the LHC is money well spent. You have faith in the calibration laboratory and the Standard Kilogram." Remember what the definition, from the Mormon church, is, “Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true….” There is knowledge of how and why a mass spectrometer measures things. I do see your point about faith that billions of Euros will be well spent by the LHC. That is something that we really can't know right away. Does any of this make sense?

[@briangrant2426]

Anyone wanting some actual truth about the Book of Abraham can read "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri" by Robert Ritner...an ACTUAL Egyptologist. The Book of Abraham is most definitley the nail in the coffin of Mormonism.

[@davidfrey5654]

LOL no it's not. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints will continue on until the end of this earth. If some other person's translation of the book of Abraham would have been the "nail in the coffin" for the church, it would have happened a long time ago. “The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.” ― Joseph Smith Jr.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

Reports of Mormonism coffins may be premature.

[@briangrant2426]

@paul austin I have seen Gee's videos and read his work. Have you read Ritner? He destroys Gee's hypotheses. No Egyptologist outside of mormonism gives any creedence to any of Gee's or Muhlestein's work. Let me guess, Satan is at work to delude us? I have no problem with you believing in the thinnest of theories, but understand that real archaeologists and Egyptologists have no incentive other than discovering the truth. LDS apologists have every incentive to come up with new and increasingly ridiculous claims about the "Book of Abraham".

[@briangrant2426]

@@thomasmaughan4798 It's dying whether its members see it or not.

[@briangrant2426]

@@davidfrey5654 Its dying whether you see it or not.

[@scottbrandon6244]

Note the book on shelf to right of Terryl Givens at 0:58. "Mormonism for Dummies".

[@Hanleia1]

Didn't even finish watching this hog wash.

[@Aaron-uq7ld]

And that is exactly why you will never know what he said. I have never met a critic of the restored gospel who was willing to listen to all that the other side had to say. They are all willfully ignorant.

[@Hanleia1]

@@Aaron-uq7ld First, your screen name is confusing with the two Ex's in it. Are you saying that I am, as a critic of the Mormon theology of the resorted gospel, a willfully ignorant person because I am choosing to not listen to lies?

[@thomasmaughan4798]

But you comment on it anyway. That's got to be good for something!

[@Hanleia1]

@@thomasmaughan4798 I mean I did call it hogwash so yea. I comment on some of these videos in the hopes that it will help others to look into this religion logically and see for themselves how Mormon theology has harmed so many people. That they may see the lies, hypocrisy for themselves.

[@Hanleia1]

@@Aaron-uq7ld In my personal view I was a devote, strong, faithful member of the Mormon faith for 37 years. I first heard about the Gospel Topic Essays that had been released in Oct 2013, in Feb of 2018. Growing up I was always told that the history of the church was 100% accurate and 100% historical. A testimony based on the history of the church and the Book of Mormon, that Joseph Smith was the prophet who restored God's church was what my testimony needed to be founded on. Finding out, from the own church's words from The Gospel Topic Essays, the church was and had changed its history so much. That what I had been taught to be true for 37 years was no longer true. That from the sources used, many were taught to be anti-Mormon literature for so many years prior. Finding out the 2013 late October Essays had rolled out as a 'soft roll out' and not broadcasted as the 2015 Proclamation to the Family had been, that this new history, from the dates, had been known by the church the same time they had been teaching the previous history of the church. From what I was taught growing up at church history to the vastly different history within the Gospel Topic essays, led me to critically and logically look at the information of the 'restored gospel'. So much information, all within the church sources, proved that The Book of Mormon was not a historically accurate book, that Joseph Smith was a sexual predator, con-man, etc. The reason why I can not stand to listen to videos such as these is due to lies, whitewashing, victim-blaming, and gaslighting that the church, their materials, and those who represent the church say, write and do. Knowing that I once thought, felt, acted, did, had the same viewpoint as the church, which I have now come to know is so very harmful no only to myself but to so many others as well I work now to be a better person. You mentioned that I was being willfully ignorant by not finishing listening to this video. Willfully-ignorant - A decision in bad faith to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt.- I was informed of how the Mormon church is. I am far better informed now as to the harm I had been causing myself, my loved ones, my friends, strangers, my husband, my children, etc. Since no longer having the view-point, the belief of the Mormon theology, or under the Mormon influence I have found myself loving more, being more open, honest, not looking down upon those who do not think or believe like I do. I no longer have the 'us vs them' mentality. I am so much less stressed, have higher self-esteem, and self-confidence in myself and my own abilities. When I had been in the church there had been so many persons who I did not get to know, as most Mormons do. I know have met so many wonderful, loving, kind, honest, caring persons from all walks of life. They are not all drug and sex addicts, or only think they are happy as the church teaches. So, no, I am not willfully ignorant. I mean I had been when I was a believing, faithful, active member of the Mormon church. I am not anymore.

[@Chris-0703]

My goal is to have BYU’s accreditation rescinded. They should not have professors like this and be able to hold themselves to the standard of academic integrity and empirical evidence. BYU is a clown college.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

Shiver me timbers! No, not that!

[@inChristalone1960]

Agreed!!😒

[@ZachBrimhall]

How can you be a phd in Egyptology and support the Book of Abraham? To be academically honest you need outside verification. Not trying to be anti Mormon but lets be real.

[@jerks6215]

ZMan he flat out said the translation was incorrect.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

It is amazing how many people are not trying to be what they clearly are.

[@ZachBrimhall]

@@jerks6215 Yet still defends the position. Why?

[@jerks6215]

@@ZachBrimhall You mean he still defends the book of Abraham?

[@ZachBrimhall]

@@jerks6215 The papyri are not what JS thought. I am not trying to bash Mormons, great people and religion, however the papyri is factually incorrect. The LDS Church needs to just make a correction with it much like blacks and the priesthood. Come clean already.

[@RonPeolman]

The papyri were common Egyptian funeral scrolls that were buried with every Egyptian that could afford mummification. They were created between 300-100 BC and had nothing to do with Abraham. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri

[@richardholmes7199]

Might I suggest proper interpretation. The Egyptologists were debunked in 2014 by Paul Gregersen.

[@jwpublisher1]

@@richardholmes7199 Actually Paul Gregersen was debunked in 2020 by Dr. Robert Ritner, the world's leading Egyptologist. Watch the video kzbin.info/www/bejne/hYOxioivfcxmprs

[@richardholmes7199]

@@jwpublisher1 Get a clue.

[@BunnyWatson-k1w]

They were part of the Book of Breathings. Abraham's name never appears in the document. Apologists like Muhlstein have a tough time on the BA, since Egyptologists have debunked the document years ago.

[@joanlantis4497]

God is not the author of confusion.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"God is not the author of confusion." You seem to be mistaken. God is the author (creator) of everything, including confusion. Or so the more fundamental of Christians insist.

[@Hanleia1]

@Joan Lantis, that is funny. The Mormon church always says that God, not the prophet, is the head of the Mormon church. "Doctrine and Covenants 1:38 We should heed all of the Lord’s words given through His prophets. 38: What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. Starting on page 10, read this with checking all the sources and tell me again that "God" is not the author of confusion. mormonbandwagon.com/app/uploads/2015/10/Leaving-the-Church-1-12-2016.pdf

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@Hanleia1 "tell me again that God is not the author of confusion." The conventional sense is that God is the author of *everything* but I have a doubt about that since it leads to various dilemmas.

[@joanlantis4497]

@@Hanleia1 looks like the lds scriptures are confusing? i'm not sure if that is what youre saying? my apologies for not understanding.

[@Hanleia1]

@@thomasmaughan4798 There is too much factual proof that God is not the author of everything. Yes from what most Christians and the Mormons teach God is a God of order, is the same yesterday, today, and forever. With much of the information, I have stated that just isn't the case. His words, teachings, are very much confusing and constantly changing, at least in the Mormon religion.

[@tykempton8562]

I cannot believe that Kerry Muhlstein says at 22:09 to 22:18 that if he could fully understand who God is that he would be disappointed because God is not that much better than him (Kerry Muhlstein). Seriously Mr. Muhlstein you would be dissapointed that you are so near perfect that you are only slightly less perfect than God who is perfect. Mr. Muhlstein must truly be amazing and awesome to be able to make a statement like that. I cannot believe that he is not in the upper echelons of the church leadership since he is so near God-like.

[@shawnlarsen9559]

Yikes, here is a fantastic example of eisegesis!

[@Joe-ty2jp]

RFM, Dehlin, Ritner QUESTIONS and letter- I've invited them to have an open conversation here, in public, where they don't control everything, where thought can rule, rather than emotional arguments. Dear Robert, Dehlin, and RFM, thanks so much for sharing thoughts. As a scientist, I’m hoping you are willing to openly answer and discuss questions in a format that won’t be filtered by Dehlin, FAIR, RFM, etc. ...I want to know the truth about the BofA. (I hope you do, too). Many of us see the abundant evidence for the BofM and wonder how it’s possible that Joseph could have blundered (as much as Critics claim) on the BofA. I agree, you all have changed many lives. No doubt, what you are teaching helps some people feel liberated from religion, justified in doubting, relieved at falling, etc. However, you probably don’t hear the many other stories. Families have been destroyed by misleading attacks directed at those who trust that you're neutral, hate groups who prey upon weaker or newer faith, etc. Fathers find excuse to abandon their children and their faithful families; mothers, husbands, wives, weep, etc.; some stray to drugs and alcohol etc., a few even turn to suicide. John Dehlin seems (as near as I can tell) to justify his occupation through telling himself that he’s simply being honest, defending doubters, not pushing anything misleading, etc. Unlike some more solid faith-Critics, it seems you three avoid open/public conversations where readers can thoughtfully question and discuss in writing. I assume that, as a scholar, you are primarily and sincerely concerned with truth, even though you have frequently stepped out of the realm of Egyptology. Therefore, as seekers of truth, as those who care about individuals and families, we have no reason to fear an open and friendly conversation here. I hope we will learn together. : ). Thank you so much for your time. I really look forward to you sharing your wisdom with us (or me), and helping us move forward in genuine BofA scholarship. Thank you so much for your time. I really look forward to you sharing your wisdom with us (or me), and helping us move forward in genuine BofA scholarship. Note, since my questions seem to move around, I'm going to add them here, but, it will be much easier to discuss individually. QUESTIONS for Robert Ritner, RFM/Dehlin as per email and comments on RFM and Mormonstories (and for general discussion after)- LDS don’t really believe the extant JSP contain the text of the BofA. Your excellent followup translations have been added to those done previously to reconfirm what Nibley explained to us 50 years ago. Thank you. However, while Critical minds tend to be closed, many LDS are still open to the multitude of other possibilities. Most (if not all) of these other possibilities fall outside the realm of Egyptology (e.g. direct revelation prompted by the Vignettes (related to if JS really taught that the vignettes were part of the long scroll as you claim, etc. etc. etc., which is more of a Church History question) -and I’m willing to discuss your feelings on why you feel qualified to interject on those and other questions, which faithful LDS seem to know more about :)). And, much of what you say (which could possibly be relevant to your fields of study) is based on assumptions that aren’t really supported by the evidence, contradict it, or haven’t been discussed or established by you (as far as I know). So, we are wasting time quibbling if we don’t first state or resolve the basic issues, or discuss the evidence for your assumptions : QUESTION #1- as you know, eyewitnesses describe an ancient BofA source text which is no longer extant. Textual criticism, eyewitnesses, etc. also indicate that the extant KEP, and later manuscripts, are reliant upon previously translated BofA text which is no longer extant. Thus, the KEP don’t represent BofA translation from any extant papyrus. Having that evidence, and other historical information, do you feel it’s honest for Critics (e.g. RFM/.Dehlin) to continue to claim you’ve translated the source of the BofA and have found it doesn’t contain anything about Abraham? Or, how do you feel about your interview running with the title “Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 1” when you’re really only sort of translating the vignettes and etc.? (And questions on those are to follow). Question #2-- For Robert/RFM/Dehlin I’m sure you're aware that the BofA shows a detailed relationship to ancient extra-Biblical Abrahamic lore (although you may be unaware of Muslim lore, celebrated or not) and, perhaps, some Ptolemaic influence. This indicates that either: a- Smith did a lot of BofA research (much of it before Chandler came to town) and was extremely fortunate to obtain vignettes that could be related to the previously-studied ancient extra-Biblical lore (some arguably unavailable to him) and the forthcoming BofA; OR b-someone anciently had access to Abrahamic records, etc. and created a record which Smith then converted to his language (“translated”). What is the best evidence supporting the logic of theory “a” rather than “b”? Or, is there anything from Egyptology that proves “a” and that isn’t based on assumptions about revelation etc.? If we could establish a real response to the apologist claims that an ancient person created an Abrahamic text which Joseph somehow tapped into (by direct revelation, or partial from papyri, or etc.), then more of what you’re saying will be shown to be relevant and we can move on in the search for truth… : ) Thanks Question #3 there are numerous ideas about the translation of the Facsimiles/Vignettes. Again, some of these fall outside of the realm of Egyptology (e.g. evidence indicates that the Fac. translation could have been a group project (including the term “we” in Fac. 2, etc.) and thus, it’s presumptuous to assign everything to Joseph and to base much of your video on your idea that the Facs. were said or thought to be attached to the missing long scroll (even though they could have been), etc.). Some may be related to Egyptology (e.g. if Joseph re-purposed the vignettes (rather than an ancient Egyptian or etc., then the ongoing discussions of the pillars/facade, heavenly Nile or earthly, 4 sons, Shinehah, etc. could still be relevant to Egyptology--depending on what “this subject” means or which “Egyptians” (Hor, J-red, or etc.). However, there are some theories that have support, are related to Egyptology, and have little attention. These should be solved before moving on e.g.: Actual Q #3--(One of several variants of Barney’s J-red theory): Some scholars believe Chandler’s mummies were the original owners of the papyri. Thus, the “old man” is Hor, etc. You seem to agree. To some of us (less learned), it seems evidence contradicts that. What chance is there that an ancient Jewish Egyptian, Greek Egyptian, Native Egyptian, or even Christian Egyptian, etc. could have repurposed the Breathing Permit (for brevity), associated it with a Ptolemaic or later BofA, and was entombed with it (or mummified it with someone else, etc.)? What is the strongest evidence against this? the original comment is on RFM didn't make it past the moderators (so far), but is posted below (or whatever) with some corrections....

[@aurorasunset16]

I feel like there was a lot of talking but nothing was said. The mental gymnastics here was too much....

[@isaacmathews4693]

Agreed. Wow, just in the first 5 minutes I was experiencing an overload of cognitive dissonance and intellectual irritation listening to Dr. Kerry Muhlestein answering Terryl Givens' questions. Too much mental gymnastics on this topic of LDS Mormonism for me. I grew up in the LDS church - 35 + years of serving in various callings / positions, etc. - and I have researched so many topics - - - the rabbit hole seems to go so deep. Is there a bottom to it all?

[@Sayheybrother8]

If a person truly believes they’re doing something but they’re not doesn’t mean they are. Yeah that’s the dissonance that is trying to be mitigated with this video. I usually really enjoy Givens but he really is undermining his intelligence in this conversation.

[@kymopar]

why don't the Prophet and Apostles come out with an official statement?..guess they are too busy dedicating shopping malls..

[@zaboomafia]

Because they are not prophets. There is no second coming. Just preaching fear to make money.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

You can read their official statement on the church website.

[@kymopar]

@@thomasmaughan4798 ..were it not for the internet..they would have been happy with keeping everything swept under the rug..

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@kymopar Perhaps. I suppose you will have to come up some other accusation, one that holds a bit more water.

[@kymopar]

@@thomasmaughan4798 i could write a book..but i'm not interested in trying to convince you..

[@shellystone3211]

1st Cor 14:33. God is not the author of confusion. This discussion sounds like a forked tongue Devil.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"God is not the author of confusion" Maybe, but you seem to suppose God is the author of 1st Cor 14:33.

[@jeremims9044]

I hope you're not basing your argument on the assumption of the infallability of the Bible.

[@Sayheybrother8]

Every question requires a long convoluted explanation leads you to presuppose it’s not complicated then a complicated answer is given. Well I guess the Lord never said it would be easy only worth it. This valuable non-quote from the Lord could be about the mental gymnastics to understand the prophets works.

[@caylencraven9040]

"Why is this a problem now and not 100 years ago" his answer is people used to be more OK with not understanding something?! How about the fact that the church has done everything it can to bury this knowledge for as long as they possibly could and at the last possible moment as the truth is becoming impossible to contain they halfheartedly post a biased essay, but still never bring it up in any official capacity. The Church has always and will always be focused on obscuring the truth as is clearly demonstrated in this video by a man who might have a phd, but does not care about what answers science has given him and will always return to his confirmation bias.

[@lawrencegottlieb6035]

This guy is not an archeologist. Even Jewish archeologists, ie, in 'The Bible Unearthed ', had enough scientific integrity to state categorically that there is NO archeological evidence that the Exodus actually took place.

[@michaelparks5669]

why will youtube delete LDS responses?

[@rampla]

You're talking in circles....we DO know what Joseph was presenting to us...because of what he claimed it was....and it is NOT what he claimed it was (PERIOD).

[@isaacmathews4693]

Agreed. Wow, just in the first 5 minutes I was experiencing an overload of cognitive dissonance and intellectual irritation listening to Dr. Kerry Muhlestein answering Terryl Givens' questions. Too much mental gymnastics on this topic of LDS Mormonism for me. I grew up in the LDS church - 35 + years of serving in various callings / positions, etc. - and I have researched so many topics - - - the rabbit hole seems to go so deep. Is there a bottom or end to it all?

[@ARKOFOURSAFETY]

Maybe if members of the church listened to what the Prophet Joseph had already revealed instead of dissenting and joining a mob that would kill the prophet than maybe he would have had more time to work out the technical aspects of the Book of Abraham. Section 76 was a revelation that Joseph Smith had on John Chapter 5:29 and it is one of the most beautiful revelations of all time!! This one verse produced 119 verses and 7 pages!! Joseph said if the saints were capable and the Lord gave permission he could reveal 100 times more information. That means we could have received 11,900 verses or 700 pages of scripture on just one verse!!! This one verse would not have matched the Bible. The problem with additional revelation is that it requires more faith and because Josephs life was cut short and because of persecution and doubt we don't get all that we want because we fail to do the basics like repent of our sin and really go and try to help make the world a better place. Its easy to stand on the sidelines and critique through laboratory conditions. The fact that we have the book of Abraham at all is a huge blessing and i believe it with all my heart! The content of the Book of Abraham is amazing and turns my heart to Christ! He didn't have any of the blessings he wanted in his life and he saw that the world was a hot mess and figured out a way to not only change his life but to change every single life that would ever be born and is still the one blessing the world! Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!

[@tymeyers1503]

“It’s possible he looked at the book of Abraham and gave us something completely different” gimme a break, always looking for the one in a million chance, never considering the 999,999 chances of it being a fraud. Choose wisely friends.

[@richardholmes7199]

The Egyptologists were debunked in 2014.

[@inChristalone1960]

See: Robert Ritner

[@cher24mj]

Sometimes it is easier to believe none of it is true then to try to do all these mental gymnastics

[@Apbt-rv7zw]

Christ somersaulted his way all the way to the cross. He was teaching things that the Jews at the time hadn't heard or understood. Christ's ministry was revelatory, confronting and enlightenment to the faithful who could somersault their minds away from the Jewish Sanhedrin and toward Christ.

[@isaacmathews4693]

Stephanie C., Agreed! Wow, just in the first 5 minutes I was experiencing an overload of cognitive dissonance and intellectual irritation listening to Dr. Kerry Muhlestein answering Terryl Givens' questions. Too much mental gymnastics on this topic of LDS Mormonism for me. I grew up in the LDS church - 35 + years of serving in various callings / positions, and I have researched so many topics - - - the rabbit hole seems to go so deep. Is there a bottom to it all?

[@cher24mj]

@@isaacmathews4693 I don’t think there is a bottom. I think if you really love Mormon history, Mormon doctrine, Mormon drama. There are so many things you could consume. I read all of Joseph Smiths wives life stories, I have read defectors stories, I have read faithful members stories, I read all my pioneer ancestor stories, I read other break offs stories and I know there are billions of other peoples stories. I have been through phases. Phases I read to comfort my broken heart and phases I read it out of just fascination and curiosity. The rabbit hole started as a journey for truth and knowledge, and now is just more like a hobby that I enjoy. Like a book or tv series and sometimes I enjoy searching around the rabbit hole and discovering new things and other times I want to go frolic in the field and try other things. Good luck on your journey.

[@Joe-ty2jp]

Edited copy of a comment I tried to post on RFM 's invite to Kerry for a debate , and on Stories' Ritner interview...we'll see what happens : ). This is the reason for the questions (presumably above this). Dear RFM, and followers. I didn't know you existed until I watched some of your mormonstories interview with Ritner. Your behaviors here don't surprise me (reminiscent of some middle school bullies I once knew). But, anyway, before seeking to contend over your assumptions about the BofA, we should first establish some basics about what Dr. Ritner has to say that is relevant, and thus worth discussing. I have fewer restrictions on immature behaviors (vs Kerry, etc.) due to my choice of occupations and lack of personal restraint. So, I’m here for you, and will contact Kerry, etc. if we are able to establish anything worth discussing. I've written to Dr. Ritner and have asked some important and relevant questions. He seems to have reservations about answering. I posted them on KZbin and sent him a link...same result there. As you know, faithful LDS are opposed to contending (especially if it's not even relevant), so I'm guessing Kerry M. probably won’t take you up on your invite for “debate” but has offered something more Christian and worthy of serious scholarship. However, it seems Sirs Robert, Dehlin, and RFM (and followers) are seeking to quibble in your house, a house you’ve built on your presumptions and "moderate." No offense or anything, but if you’re really seeking truth, then please invite your homies ; ) (Dehlin, Ritner, etc.) to a discussion in comments on a Kerry Muhlelstein KZbin interview. If Ritner/RFM/Dehlin can answer my questions in a way that helps establish the relevance of Ritner’s claims, then I’ll contact Kerry and see if he will join a legitimate conversation about important issues. If he doesn’t wish to engage, I’ll try to get his input and etc. If you kind sirs bravely shy away from thoughtful, written conversations (which you don’t control and so will have less power to steer to darkness and irrelevance), then feel free to copy everything and we’ll continue here or on your stories. If you don’t want any conversations anywhere with a person you’ve impacted with falsehoods, and if you wish to just stay here and give yourselves pats on your backs, then at least admit to everyone that you aren’t really honest, and are what you accuse us of being. Thanks : ) Here’s the link kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnvXnKqwjNt1h6c

[@JSandLDS]

it seems to boil down to this. Some people want to find out the actual facts and reality of what happened.. whereas some people want to defend what they already believe.

[@taylorallred]

Why do people make the assumption that the facsimiles ARE related to the book of Abraham? Because it was published in the Times and Season starting in March 1, 1842 by Joseph Smith with numbered explanations that directly relate to the Book of Abraham chapters AND it's printed in every version of the Pearl of Great Price along side the Book of Abraham AND the interpretation of it, as stated by JS, is that it shows Abraham on the alter & on throne of "Pharaoh, King of Egypt." That's not an assumption that the facsimiles are connected to the BofA- JS made this claim. The church has followed along with that by keeping in in print for +100 years. And now apologists have no ground to stand on so they say, "No, you're wrong the facsimiles are explanations, not translations, and translation doesn't mean what everyone understands as translations, they are special inspiration." The problem with JS being wrong about the translation of the BofA is in how he's wrong. Egyptologists may disagree on if those characters are best expressed as "virility" or "potency" (both related to ability to produce offspring) but when JS is so far off he translates "virility" as something like "Abraham, taught Pharaoh and his court about Kolob and the celestial bodies nearest to God." He's wrong in a way that makes him out as a fanatic storyteller, a liar. He said he "translated" the text, you can see this in the March 1, 1842 Times and Seasons newspaper. To say "translate" means something different than what 99% of the population at that time would have understood is to make him an even great deceiver. He had the chance to say, "I don't know what this character is." The fact that K.M. can skirt around the fact that JS chose to number the facsimiles and related them directly to the the book of abraham AND then publish them as a part of the book of abraham is a fantastic but simply false claim. The Times and Seasons publications show JS thought they were a part of the book of abraham. In doing this, JS, wasn't wrong in a "virility/potency" way he was wrong in a way where he made up some fantastic story. That is deceptive to say "translate" and secretly change the meaning of the word as to avoid all criticism.

[@curtbentley]

I think the problem is straightforward. The Church, for decades, has referred to the Book of Abraham as a translation, without any correction or nuance, when it was not a conventional translation. But that is certainly what its members assumed...that Joseph Smith, through the gift and power of God, understood the Egyptian characters and transcribed their literal meaning in English. That assumption (which the church allowed and encouraged), rather than increased secularism or prophetic perfectionism is the source of the disappointed expectations. I say this as a believing member of the church. Even if the church responded to critics in 1913, the fact is that the vast majority of its members believed (and, I think, were affirmatively taught) that the Book of Abraham was a conventional translation of Egyptian papyri. This narrative can't be sustained, and, given the gospel topics essays, I don't think the Church is trying to sustain it any longer, whether affirmatively or tacitly. So, I've let it go, and rather than try to strain the meaning of the word "translate" and my own credibility, I just regard the Book of Abraham as an important and valuable revelation and not a conventional translation in any meaningful sense.

[@clurkroberts2650]

Wow... come on guys, this was NO Gift from god. This conversation is doublespeak worthy of Joseph Goebels. Smith was not only mistaken, he demonstrably “channeled” foolish lies. Look at he life of Smith, as an academic you need to focus on knowledge not try to distort and twist facts by saying gods message is difficult to understand.

[@lesterrivers8804]

Mormon guy : I reject the true .

[@mdawgwhite]

Lol never gets old seeing how JS can still be defended for his bull shit lol people say anything. I'm sure they really do believe it but it does make it even more sad. But this isn't even a argument anymore. The church has already come out and admitted it

[@kaylynnefackrell4768]

Hahahahahahaha *Deep breath hahahahaha

[@Jeff_H_the_Guitarist]

So all Joseph needs is the back of a shampoo bottle that’s written in a language that nobody else knows and BAM he’s got new scripture. Or “other gospel” perhaps. And it’s funny I never thought of this before but regarding the translation of the book of Abraham maybe that phrase “as long as it’s translated correctly” needs to be applied.

[@joeyfangs]

“So what are the most compelling arguments against his capacity as a translator?” Haha- where to start... As if he’d jeopardize his employment. The amount of hot-potatoing around “the nature of translation“ is hilarious. Now they’re giving alternative definitions of what it means to prophetically translate something.

[@GoldBlue10]

I do have a question for you - who gets to define what "translation" means, especially when the definition has shifted in time? Recall that in the 1800s "translation" was conceived as denoting lateral movement rather than simply linguistic transmission, ie to translate something meant to move it somewhere else, like moving a bishop from one diocese to another. So, what gives you the authority to decide what definition is or is not correct?

[@joeyfangs]

@@GoldBlue10 Feel free to give us your alternative definition of translation, and in the proper context of this video. I'll lay out the hoops for you to jump through while you prepare your response.

[@GoldBlue10]

@@joeyfangs No need, they aren't my definitions. Recall that Joseph Smith used the word "translation" to describe changes in individuals, such as when they are changed from mortal to immortal or taken up as part of Enoch's city. English dictionaries of his time also used "translate" to refer to lateral movement, to move from one place to another. The definition of the word is not as concise as you appear to want it to be, and insisting that we only use it as it is used in our time is historically anachronistic. The word appears to denote change, movement, and transformation, but not any particular one of those exclusively. With this understanding, Joseph Smith's translations could easily contain some form of catalyst theory. It also doesn't hurt that the evidence pinning the Book of Abraham text to JSP XI has been undermined.

[@harambeboy]

This is the best they have?

[@mikeninjitsu4665]

Such UTTER BS! When evidence fails they have to start tap-dancing around the myriad of evidence against' Joseph Smith's many failures. A tapir was a horse! LMAO!

[@Doc-Pleroma-naut]

Ludicrous....:The Papyri opens him up to inspiration and revelation" to then what exactly? Interpret in some super-cryptogram message? These BYU professors are really laughable. How can they honestly provide an honest assessment when they have already presupposed it is a valid translation and sign an article of faith that ensures their "research" will not conflict with Church teachings. Would hate to lose funding and be deemed an apostate scholar. At the end of the day, whether the BofM or the BofA, the LDS have no need for what's "true". It all about a spiritual witnessing and praying until you are self-deceived enough to know it's true. Ambiguity is baked-into the faith as part of the "spiritual journey". Bottom line: The BofA is not the composition of Abraham, not historical, and, in fact, the simple product of JS's creative--inspired, if you will--exegesis. This conclusion can be made with confidence. It is far from a wild speculation. In contrast it must be noted that much of the BYU scholarship that has been written defending the antiquity of the book (and Abrahamic authorship or its historicity), is weak and speculative if not essentially flawed by lack of precision in reading texts and by methodological looseness. This is without dispute. Well at least the BofA transmission's "vehicle for inspiration" provided a supportive justification for those wonderful LDS tenants of Polygamy and denying the priesthood to Blacks. (Slow Golf Clap). What do your "modern day Prophets" have to say on the matter? Why differ to BYU lackeys with tainted scholarship? Why can't they ask the Lord why the translation of the BOA by Egyptologists does not match what Joseph said they did? Has revelation ceased? This obvious problem has been the catalyst for people leaving the church in droves and you'd think it deserves an answer by the leaders of the church instead of various differing opinions by LDS scholars with absolutely no authority to speak for the church.

[@Hanleia1]

@Mark Koehler , I recently found this pdf. Starting on page 10 it has detailed information factually proving the church is not true and that Joseph Smith was a con man. mormonbandwagon.com/app/uploads/2015/10/Leaving-the-Church-1-12-2016.pdf

[@Doc-Pleroma-naut]

@@Hanleia1 Yes. He was convicted - in court - without dispute. The Information Age, as opposed to a Victorian age understanding of the world, is a death blow to the LDS - yet they continue to grow. Theologically, they’ve plugged a ton of holes and have answer for everything / but what the BOM advocates is really nothing special or innovative in early 19th century North East “reformation” circles. It’s all pretty laughable.

[@GoldBlue10]

@@Doc-Pleroma-naut Actually, Joseph Smith's conviction is disputed by historians. The trial often brought up in connection with Joseph being charged as a "con-man" is the 1826 Bainbridge trial...which was never actually a trial, only a pre-trial hearing to assess the evidence. There are no official state documents which attest that an actual trial ever occurred (though such documents would be expected to exist) and recollections of the event are mixed as to guilty or not guilty.

[@Doc-Pleroma-naut]

@@GoldBlue10 That’s just not true. Sorry. “Official” church documents don’t support that / but chaplain laity and BYU apologetics sweep that under the rug. JS was basically the 19th century king-pin of an organized crime family. Sad the LDS are hidden the realities of the faith. Death by a 1000 paper cuts of deceit.

[@GoldBlue10]

@@Doc-Pleroma-naut That's a non-answer. I literally just said that state documents do not support the allegation that Joseph Smith was convicted in Bainbridge in 1826. Let me repeat: the governmental records of Chenango County in the state of New York from 1826 do not indicate that Joseph Smith was convicted or even had anything happen beyond a pre-trial hearing to assess the state of the evidence. If a pre-trial hearing occurs and a trial does not follow, that is a de facto acquittal. With regard to "official Church documents": I'm not talking about official Church documents, I'm talking about official government documents and research gathered by historians. So the assertion that Joseph Smith was convicted without dispute is mistaken. And, for what it's worth, refusing to take the research of a BYU scholar seriously simply because he works for BYU or is a member is illogical. It's like saying that no Americans should be permitted to study American history. It doesn't work in practice and is not considered to be a valid objection by serious scholars.

[@Jjj53214]

The ancient Egyptian funerary papyrus were used as a prop to stimulate interest in the scriptural writings that Smith created. The concept of translation carries a different meaning for Smith than the customary meaning of the term. For Smith, translation refers to his ability to create scripture that includes prophesy and revelation.

[@Hastenforthedawm]

I don't care about Mormon truth claims but the Book of Abraham is a cool text

[@Joe-ty2jp]

Question #3 there are numerous ideas about the translation of the Facsimiles/Vignettes. Again, some of these fall outside of the realm of Egyptology (e.g. evidence indicates that the Fac. translation could have been a group project (including the term “we” in Fac. 2, etc.) and thus, it’s presumptuous to assign everything to Joseph and to base much of your video on your idea that the Facs. were said or thought to be attached to the missing long scroll (even though they could have been), etc.). Some may be related to Egyptology (e.g. if Joseph re-purposed the vignettes (rather than an ancient Egyptian or etc., then the ongoing discussions of the pillars/facade, heavenly Nile or earthly, 4 sons, Shinehah, etc. could still be relevant to Egyptology--depending on what “this subject” means or which “Egyptians” (Hor, J-red, or etc.). However, there are some theories that have support, are related to Egyptology, and have little attention. These should be solved before moving on e.g.: Actual Q #3--(One of several variants of Barney’s J-red theory): Some scholars believe Chandler’s mummies were the original owners of the papyri. Thus, the “old man” is Hor, etc. You seem to agree. To some of us (less learned), it seems evidence contradicts that. What chance is there that an ancient Jewish Egyptian, Greek Egyptian, Native Egyptian, or even Christian Egyptian, etc. could have repurposed the Breathing Permit (for brevity), associated it with a Ptolemaic or later BofA, and was entombed with it (or mummified it with someone else, etc.)? What is the strongest evidence against this? Thanks again!

[@richarddick2955]

Its true.Hey, everybody! this Mormon is guaranteeing you 5,000 dollar's reward if we can prove that Joseph Smith is not written into the Bible by his date of 1830. wkzbin.info/www/bejne/Zl7WqZaod8-HZ5Y He claims he can mathematically show the exact prophetic math where your Bible reveals Joseph Smith as the solution for the 666 beast.kzbin.info/www/bejne/eYrGonSCabCHiLM Also, He claims his KZbin video part 9 breaks down all the right Bible verses in both Daniel and Revelation with the book of Abraham. kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4LOlot4adacqck. I say we take him upon it and go to the Salt lake tribune and publicly make him pay out the money. Can anyone here show the entire world that the Bible proves his claim false and collect 5,000 bucks?

[@3thingsfishing427]

😂

[@urstepdaddd]

only that he literally claimed he translated it...

[@michaelparks5669]

HEY KZbin STOP DELETING OUR POSTS.

[@esotericheathen]

The real question is why do most scholars claim Abraham was a fictional character 🤔

[@bryanrichards5088]

The Book of Abraham is an inspired document. Joseph Smith thought he was performing a translation but he was not. The text has nothing to do with the papyri and never did. The facimiles and related comments should be de-cannonized. I have read Nibley on this until my head spun. All he did was smokescreen the members with temple doctrines among the Egyptians, always avoiding the real question.

[@BunnyWatson-k1w]

Some issues don't mean that much? How about the "authorship" of the Book of Abraham? How about the name Abraham is never mentioned in the document? How about the the LDS church called the BA authentic for decades. Today, the Gospel Topics Essay on the subject states members can see the BA as a translation or as written by Joseph Smith through inspiration. Smith knew nothing about Egyptology or ancient Egyptian. Muhlestein is not well respected by Egyptologists as far as his research of the Book of Abraham goes. His stance as an apologist shows bias in the controversy surrounding the document.

[@richardholmes5676]

I believe you're supposed to compare the facsimiles (counterfeit) to the Book of Abraham as a way to show contrast.

[@utah133]

Yep. The Book of Abraham is a problem. But so is "The Book of Mormon." And as a matter of fact, the new and old testaments are problematic. My conclusion; Religion is horse biscuits. Religion of some sort seems to be an addiction to many folks. They want to believe that they'll live forever if they follow some recipe. Sorry. Death only results in an eternal rest, folks. And that's a good thing.

[@truthbebold4009]

Old and New Treatments are self-authenticating and could only be inspired by the same mind that is capable of creating the universe.

[@TheBackyardProfessor]

@@truthbebold4009 Self authenticating?!? If that was true, why the millions of contradicting commentaries and books and articles through the centuries? This is just silly to say. Nothing written is self authenticating. What does that even mean when it comes to scripture?! Wow that's a weird comment amigo.

[@TheBackyardProfessor]

@@binren3984 So how does this help move the conversation forward in order to weed out the mistaken ideas? Or is it just easier to cat call?

[@thomasmaughan4798]

All people have religion, even you. Whatever you believe is your religion; whatever you disbelieve is also part of it. Example: "Death only results in an eternal rest" *This is a thing you believe but cannot test* hence, your religion.

[@andrewtibbs6150]

Sounds like you're scraping at the bottom of the barrel. The flat-out truth is that he lied about translating the book of Abraham.

[@zaboomafia]

It is a problem! There is no evidence. We need to be scientific here. I cannot accept him as a prophet any more if it is not based on a real text!

[@thomasmaughan4798]

The whole point of a prophet is that no text is needed. Text originates with a prophet. Still, it does seem amiss to claim to translate a document if what's really happening is revelation. But of course it is revelation since J.S. had no skill at reading Egyptian. A bit more transparency on the process would be nice.

[@Joe-ty2jp]

Question #2-- For Robert/RFM/Dehlin I’m sure you're aware that the BofA shows a detailed relationship to ancient extra-Biblical Abrahamic lore (although you may be unaware of Muslim lore, celebrated or not) and, perhaps, some Ptolemaic influence. This indicates that either: a- Smith did a lot of BofA research (much of it before Chandler came to town) and was extremely fortunate to obtain vignettes that could be related to the previously-studied ancient extra-Biblical lore (some arguably unavailable to him) and the forthcoming BofA; OR b-someone anciently had access to Abrahamic records, etc. and created a record which Smith then converted to his language (“translated”). What is the best evidence supporting the logic of theory “a” rather than “b”? Or, is there anything from Egyptology that proves “a” and that isn’t based on assumptions about revelation etc.? If we could establish a real response to the apologist claims that an ancient person created an Abrahamic text which Joseph somehow tapped into (by direct revelation, or partial from papyri, or etc.), then more of what you’re saying will be shown to be relevant and we can move on in the search for truth… : ) Thanks

[@johnwilliams8192]

Several years ago, I sent the text of the Book of Abraham (unattributed) to the world's foremost scholar of Abrahamic pseudepigrapha to ask him if he thought the text was related to "previously-studied ancient extra-Biblical lore." He responded that it was clearly a "late Protestant production" and was unrelated to Abrahamic lore.

[@kdeltatube]

This is excellent. Sad there's so many hateful comments but no surprise.

[@EquestrianAltercationsLLC]

The reason there so many "hateful comments" is because we're not blinded by the obvious scientifically proven sham...

[@TheBackyardProfessor]

It's more sad that neither of the participants come here and explain things and talk things out. That is vastly more sad than others disagreeing with them.

[@jaxonwashburn2679]

@@EquestrianAltercationsLLC Methinks you don't understand how "science" can't be used to disprove the divine inspiration behind the Book of Abraham.

[@inChristalone1960]

Truth is not hate.

[@inChristalone1960]

​@@jaxonwashburn2679lolol. You have been decieved.

[@Apbt-rv7zw]

Good talk always good to learn more and question more.

[@miketalbot9726]

What does translation mean?? Give me a break. Mormon apologetics do more harm than good. So ridiculous 🤣

[@joshua.snyder]

LdS apologetics is a sad enterprise.

[@stevenkillen7079]

He's obviously trying to secure his job and funding.

[@sdfotodude]

Mormons gotta Morm

[@franksnyder1357]

PHD?

[@vsmckinnis]

Thank you for your insights and the study you have made available to us. Very interesting

[@Moksha-Raver]

When the professors concluded that "these are not the droids you are looking for" it delivered a blow to the critical thinking of LDS listeners, enabling them to go back to sleep.

[@richarddick2955]

Its true.Hey, everybody! this Mormon is guaranteeing you 5,000 dollar's reward if we can prove that Joseph Smith is not written into the Bible by his date of 1830. wkzbin.info/www/bejne/Zl7WqZaod8-HZ5Y He claims he can mathematically show the exact prophetic math where your Bible reveals Joseph Smith as the solution for the 666 beast.kzbin.info/www/bejne/eYrGonSCabCHiLM Also, He claims his KZbin video part 9 breaks down all the right Bible verses in both Daniel and Revelation with the book of Abraham. kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4LOlot4adacqck. I say we take him upon it and go to the Salt lake tribune and publicly make him pay out the money. Can anyone here show the entire world that the Bible proves his claim false and collect 5,000 bucks?

[@davidfrey5654]

“The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.” Joseph Smith Jr.

[@MemyzelphandI]

Joseph Smith tells us exactly how he created all of his religious texts. It is in the Doctrine and Covenants section 8. 8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. 9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me. There were no golden plates, parchment of John, or actual writings of Abraham. Joseph created it all up in his mind and felt good about it because it would draw people to Christ.

[@PedroAOlavarria]

20:19, what happened? Hugh Nibley

[@TheBackyardProfessor]

Yeah no one had a faith crisis over the 1912 affair, but then what happened in 1980-2019? Robert Ritner. Now the actual knowledge of how lousy Hugh Nibley and other LDS Egyptologists are has come forth and the faith crisis is occurring and there is quite an exodus of people over the Book of Abraham. Nothing within LDS circles is stemming that tide of a faith crisis which the leaders obviously haven't got a way to stem now. Hugh Nibley was good for his day, but even he has been far surpassed in actual reality with the Robert Ritner show. Now crap got real. It will be interesting to read Givens treatment of the Book of Abraham, but it's quite sincerely unlikely to provide much help if it doesn't refute Ritner. The simple reality is now seen. Joseph Smith did not translate the Egyptian as he claimed he could. He invented stuff. That is profoundly demonstrated in our day. Until that is overcome, there is no point in imagining there is something in favor of Joseph Smith.

[@Joe-ty2jp]

The 3 questions I posted today (wherever they end up, they begin with Questions, Question #2, and Question #3), are related to an email I sent to Robert Ritner and a comment I posted on an RFM post attacking Kerry and trying to encourage a fight (first comment today beginning with Edited copy of a comment I tried to post on RFM 's... ...Dear Robert, thanks so much for sharing thoughts. I will post a copy of this email in the comments on the youtube version of Pt1 of your stories podcasts, found here (removed)... As a scientist, I’m hoping you are willing to openly answer and discuss questions in a format that won’t be filtered by Dehlin, FAIR, RFM, etc. If you respond (in comments) on the Fair video...I want to know the truth about the BofA. (I hope you do, too). Many of us see the abundant evidence for the BofM and wonder how it’s possible that Joseph could have blundered (as much as Critics claim) on the BofA. I agree, you and Dehlin have changed many lives. No doubt, what you are teaching helps some people feel liberated from religion, or justified in doubting, etc. However, you probably don’t hear the stories I hear. Many families have been destroyed by Dehlin and hate groups. Fathers find excuse to abandon children and faithful families; mothers, husbands, wives, weep, etc.; some stray to drugs and alcohol etc., a few even turn to suicide. John Dehlin seems (as near as I can tell from his words, his Texan friends, etc.) to justify his occupation through telling himself that he’s simply being honest, defending doubters, not pushing anything misleading, etc. Unlike some more solid faith-Critics (e.g. Vogel, Benson, etc) JD avoids open/public conversations where readers can thoughtfully question and discuss in writing. I assume that, as a scholar, you are primarily and sincerely concerned with truth, even though you have frequently stepped out of the realm of Egyptology. Therefore, as seekers of truth, as those who care about individuals and families, you and I have no reason to fear an open conversation, and I hope we will learn together. : ). I’ll understand if you don’t wish to answer my questions. And, if you choose to answer in email (rather than public comments), I hope you’ll grant permission for me to post your answers with my questions so we, the average people, can discuss your insights. Thank you so much for your time. I really look forward to you sharing your wisdom with us (or me), and helping us move forward in genuine BofA scholarship.

[@brianvanceo]

What are your 3 questions?

[@kaleb6328]

Three questions for you. First Do you think Dr. Ritner would have changed his answers had RFM and Dehlin not been there for the interview? I’m pretty sure most of the podcast was him just citing his work that he had previously done long before he had known either of them. Second why is everyone so opposed to just talking to each other? I agree that writing back and forth with essays is acceptable however the fact that church scholars almost exclusively revert to this forum makes me think that they have something to hide. Obviously Dehlin and RFM are in opposition to these scholars but whenever they are given the chance to actually talk to them they are more than cordial. It just becomes frustrating when church scholars won’t talk critics who will actually hold them to a question. Finally, do you really believe that people finding out about the BOA problems turns them into horrible men? Sounds like those guys simply had issues beforehand. There are good reasons to leave the church and there are good reasons to stay in it. We can’t label all that leave as failures to their families and morals.

[@Joe-ty2jp]

brianvanceo sorry, they’re all spread out now. I posted a comment with all three in it. 👍🏼

[@Joe-ty2jp]

Kaleb RFM/Stories did try to guide him, as usual. e.g he stated several times that the 4 sons of Horus were associated with the 4 directions Seemed to me that RFM kept trying to spin that. And, that’s what I’m wondering. RFM still won’t come here but has posted some of my comments on his FB page so his followers can respond 🙄😂😊it’s all ok tho, I’m still waiting.

[@Joe-ty2jp]

brianvanceo posting Pt 3 here since RFM is MIA

[@milesgermer4871]

"... this isn't a last ditch effort to salvage a crumbling paradigm..." Actually, that is exactly what it is, which is why this video exists.

[@Joe-ty2jp]

Posting here since RFM MIA In my Defense Pt 3 of Question 1- SIMPLIFICATION & REVIEW Correct if wrong : ) You Critics dismiss those who accept the BofA as scripture, and you malign their defenders because: In spite of contrary evidence, you believe: A- all BofA sources are accessible and have nothing about Abraham and are incorrect. B- scripture must describe History as you see it. You support A with these assumptions previously shown to be false or tenuous: A-1: the KEP Parrish, etc. BofA manuscripts couldn’t be retrofit attempts because no LDS attempted such things (only Champollion, etc), and no one besides Joseph and Chandler (and Anthon and his learned?) would try to translate anyway, even though they clearly did. A-2: Joseph couldn’t translate a missing papyrus, even if he had one, because he created Cowdery’s Valuable Discovery and Phelp’s plea for help and mistranslated them, with his handwriting looking remarkably like theirs. You support A (all sources are accessible and translated) with these assumptions to be shown false or tenuous here, in Pt 3 of Q1: A-3: a-that the post October 1835 Parrish (or etc) BofA manuscript represents original translation by Joseph’s dictation directly from heaven; b-it’s not a retrofit attempt; c-and it’s aligned with accessible Hor BP characters, thus showing Joseph translated directly from the BP. A-4: Webster didn't do it like that. You support A (all sources are accessible) with these assumptions to be discussed with my replies to the other 2 questions: A-5: contra evidence, the catalyst theory doesn’t work because a-Joseph never did anything like that, b-and he couldn’t be wrong about what he thought or said, c-and translation is what we say it is, not those involved. A-6: contra evidence, the Facsimiles prove Joseph couldn’t translate, so “case is closed” and minds are closed, regardless of anything else: the Facs. were “translated” as we insist they were: a-no group or “we” project ever happened, b-no intellectual studying it out (with or without JST-like Clarke references), c-no reapplication (ancient or modern), no J-red, no C-red, or JS or peer views allowed; d-no aesthetic changes in Fac 3 wording, e-no scribal errors, etc. etc. Nothing outside your narrative can possibly be true... : ) Assumption B- (scripture must describe History as you see it), to be discussed when it comes up.. continued in replies

[@Joe-ty2jp]

PART 3 of Question 1, finally, yay, 😊 You support A (all sources are accessible and translated) with these assumptions to be shown false or tenuous here: A-3: a-that the post October 1835 Parrish (or etc) BofA manuscript represents original translation by Joseph’s dictation directly from heaven; b-it’s not a retrofit attempt; c-and it’s aligned with accessible Hor BP characters, thus showing Joseph translated directly from the BP. ABSTRACT: the evidence indicates BofA translation began in early July; reliant EA, GAEL, etc. production followed in conjunction; Parrish became scribe Oct. 29; reliant extant manuscripts WWP then WP/FGW then WWP/WP and Richards, followed and were, evidently, a retrofit, reliant upon previously translated text; Parrish’s statement of scribing original translation from Joseph referred to post Oct 29 translations and not the extant copies; the alignment of Hor BP and other characters in the copies is not original translation; said character alignment, EA, GAEL, retrofit, etc. projects were most likely projects led by WWP but, even if Joseph, etc. directed some of the copying, “research,” etc. it doesn’t discredit his BofA translation. RFM/Ritner primary Assumption A-3: a-the post October 29 Parrish (etc) BofA 1:4-2:2 manuscript represents original translation by Joseph’s dictation directly from heaven to Parrish. Now that we know retro/reverse translations are reality, and also interest in creating an Adamic/Egyptian/Hebrew alphabet (they thought related), etc. HOW do we decide if WP 3 (JSPP “3. Warren Parrish Copy of Book of Abraham Manuscript” was a retrofit or original? We each create narratives to fit our thinking, but for examples, which of these (JN vs RN) is best supported by history and reason?: was it Chandler came to town; JS takes 2 “or more” scrolls home (OC maybe gets some fragments, maybe sees them as epitaphs etc or>) perhaps OC WWP take turns scribing that night (remember the History etc. entries are late, and perhaps secondhand); either way, at some point around July 3 Joseph sat down with WWP and OC as scribes and commenced the translation, with Joseph looking at a seer stone, as he had, and translating the characters on a BofA. Before or after, it’s decided that 1 or more scrolls (depending on whose memory) contain records “purporting” to originally be of Abraham and/or Joseph (created by, finished by, etc. Joseph); and the mummies are not Patriarchs. Before or after, MC insists they buy the unwanted mummies also, and translation is ongoing between travel, busy schedules, issues, etc. Parts of the BofA and a couple of excerpts from Joseph are finished before Nov. when Parrish is scribe. In the 2nd half of July work on Phelp’s, etc. EA/GAEL begins. This is also ongoing and in conjunction with BofA translation. They created the EA/GAEL (also called translating, but a different kind) under Phelp’s experienced direction (including the Hebrew, and Adamic/Egyptian, etc. as seen in his teachings, letters, etc. and his seeking for the gift of “science and languages”), and align various characters “to” previously translated BofA text,etc. which they included in the EA/GAEL. Toward the end of the EA someone interpreted Abr. 1:12’s “commencement of this record” as meaning the Hor BP text right next to Fac. 1. They record characters from the Hor BP, with other various characters (including WWP’s Adamic, if my memory serves me), etc. Finally, they align GAEL almost precisely with Abr. 1 text. In Nov., etc. Parrish is scribe, and records additional original BofA text directly from Joseph, and also works on the GAEL “research” or “science” or “translation” Rosetta project (probably intended to help others with their goals of translating) by taking turns, (or etc., see references) copying characters from the EA/GAEL, etc. and then reading from an original JS dictated BofA with FGW, and recording matching GAEL text in the “twin manuscripts” or “copy.” Thus, the twins are not the direct inspiration documents.

[@Joe-ty2jp]

OR, could it be an RN narrative: Smith, Phelps, etc. had long been researching Abrahamic lore and languages hoping to validate priesthood, very fortunately, July 3, MC brings papyri with vignettes matching this lore, JS feels pressured to perform (though he wouldn’t with Aztec, etc. thought to match the BofM, but would with Egyptian lookin Kinderhook (maybe using Phelp’s GAEL to decipher after getting nothin by rock...showing he actually believed in the stuff he made up, lol). They pay a bundle only wanting the papyri but not Onidah or the princess who found Moses or etc. Joseph announces the papyri, which we have, are records of Jos&Abr., sits on them until Parrish is Scribe in Nov., spends laborious days, starting late July, dictating various characters making up an EA/GAEL, counting, etc. adds various phrases from various existing sources and also, perhaps mainly, a nonexistent BofA, so he can later laboriously translate the papyri (apparently direct revelation by stone was out of style, or not, doesn’t matter, we’ve rendered case moot by PhD 　, sorry, I try...Joe King tho, lol...). When they get to the end of the EA, they realize Fac. 1 is at the beginning of the record, so grab some characters near Fac. 1 and record; then create a GAEL starting on pg. 15/16 where Smith dictates “This order should be preserved,” and some Hebrew (which he hasn’t yet studied) etc. and ...Ah broam- a follower of righteousness,” “...Coming down from the begining...The first in lineage, or right…”etc. etc. & “from Chaldea I travelled to , etc. “Zip Zi.” (remember from the authentic Egytpian original Zeptah?) “The women sought to settle her sons in that land. she being the daughter of Ham,” etc. and they finally arrive at pg1 where they align it to the nonexistent BofA text and “dang,” says Smith, the Hebrew Beth means house and we have that all along associated with the nonexistent BofA Abr. 1 place of residence stuff, and looky here, we dun left it out...it’s gotta match the text we’re going to create when Parrish is here using these characters and stuff, we got the Iota as seeing, and everything else lines up just right with the text of the nonexistent BofA which we’ve referred to in various documents, etc. and the characters are from the papyri that the nonexistent text says is at the beginning, so yeah...let’s go back right before moving on and add notes all the way through in the spaces, etc. so it matches the forthcoming BofA, : )!” Then,face in hat (either looking over shoulders, or by powerpoint or chalkboard, etc.), in Nov. etc. Smith directs Phelps and Parrish to draw said characters, dissect, number, etc. to match the forthcoming nonexistent text (finally, yay!), that’s he’s memorized, and then wow!; direct from Heaven it all matches up with the words coming out of his hat. “Holy Kah-te-Min and ZePtah! Wow! Shiz-am!” say the very impressed and knowledgeable Phelps, Parrish, and Williams “profit threw & threw &c.! How’d he align that with the GAEL Hebrew in my handwriting without even looking at the GAEL? We better not make fun of him later on in Hebrew school!” Meanwhile, back in Sept, and etc. Cowdery is secretly adding Book of Joseph material to Blessings, etc. and Phelps already added more nonexistent BofA material to the GAEL, etc. along with some previously translated OTHER stuff, etc. (only OTHER stuff was previous, only BofA not, correct?), not to mention that someone at some point, before all this excitement, added BofA material to the D&C, etc. and so on and on. : ) Did I get that right? He does this with only a few errors e.g. he receives an entire paragraph directly from heaven twice (easy to read that wrong because started with the same line in the nonexistent original so...yeah, or I mean, reveal it wrong as Richards records but WP not hearing that); or e.g. they hear Regular rather than Royal (easy to reveal that wrong, because g and y look alike when dictated from heaven, good thing Joseph saw them and corrected on the fly after a double check the hat ;)); and so on.

[@Joe-ty2jp]

SO,HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHICH which is more REASONABLE and historical? We can think with our Mormon “half a brain” : ), and also check the Historical record with our other half… : ) Even Robert and maintenance people can do this (in spite of degrees or lack) : ). Evidence indicates there were at least 2 interrelated projects and that the “direct inspiration” translation mentioned by Parrish wasn’t a reference to the extant manuscripts, but a reference to a later translation session when he was scribe. The recorded sequence (supported by textual criticism and other evidence) shows: ​”...On the 3rd. of July...Chandler came to Kirtland...two or more rolls of papyrus” July 6th, 1835 certificate from chandler that Joseph’s translation is as good as the learned. July 3-6 or 6-8 Joseph sat down with WWP and OC as scribes and “...commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics…” and translated enough to know there was a book of “Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.” This may have been by seer stone, face in hat, and not looking at papyri (which doesn’t mean God put words in his mouth, but seems to be more a search for the past and putting it into his own language, or a “co-creative” project as Mike Ash suggested for the BofM, with its abundant evidence). Either way, evidence indicates this was not Joseph dictating characters to record in margins and then studying, etc. It’s logically honest to conclude that something was recorded by the two scribes, that some of that included text from Abraham and Joseph, and that Parrish wasn’t there. July 1835 “” (&c.= >?) “The remainder of this month...engaged in translating an alphabet TO the Book of Abraham, and arrangeing a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.” Note, the sequence of events, they translated portions of the BofA, and then translated/created an EA/GAEL TO the BofA. This part clearly involved WWP and was likely led by him (as evidenced by Hebrew, arrangement, etc.). The EA, in spite of what Vogel used to argue, contains BofA material, but, in agreement with Vogel, the EA/GAEL have “nothing to do with the translation of the BofA.” This is because they are derived from it and other previous materials. We continue to get statements such as this before Parrish was involved: 7 October 1835 “This afternoon, recommenced translating the Ancient Records.” We can see when Parrish started adding notes in the EA/GAEL after Oct. As late as October 1, 1835 we’re still getting this “This after noon labored on the Egyptian alphabet (EA), in company with brsr. (OC &WWP) and during the research the principles of Astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients was unfolded.” Parrish apparently wasn’t present for this, but many of the later astronomy entries were his. This indicates that brsr. O. Cowdery and W. W. Phelps likely recorded what was unfolded, and Parrish, in November, or after, transferred to the EA, etc. Note: go ahead and jump to conclusions on astronomy : ), thanks. And after Parrish was scribe: “20 Nov. ...translating...Cowdery returned… [with] Hebrew Books.” (Note, Joseph hadn’t yet studied Hebrew, and Pratt poked fun of his ineptitude with languages when he later attended Hebrew school, they clearly understood that his seer stone gift only applied to things revealed, or etc. the rest was up to his less educated human brain). Then, again, another kind of translating: 26 Nov....Spent the day in translating Egyptian characters from the Papyrus: though severly afflicted ...reading Hebrew. Bro Parish ...being afflicted...asked...in return I asked him to lay his hands on me, and we were both relieved,” (again, others with gifts). You can go through all of that, check word order, copying errors, development of ideas, etc. and think, ponder, etc. all by yourself. And, and if you’re running short on time, others have gone before. However you choose, the evidence indicates the TWIN and WWP/WP Manuscripts were retrofits and copies, reliant upon the original for BofA text. Also, the 1840s BofA was reliant on a now missing text, you may read about that in the references below. Lindsay has done excellent work on this, and read the marathon comments with Vogel, etc. and also comments on Lindsay’s Interpreter article where Vogel was courageous enough, and somewhat open minded enough, to show (without admitting) that he’d changed his stance on some things based on evidence presented on Mormanity. Mormanity: “The Twin BOA Manuscripts: A Window into Creation o…” “Kirtland's Rosetta Stone? The Importance of Word Order…” “The Twin Book of Abraham Manuscripts: Do They Reflect…” And comments here and the rejoinder on the Interpreter: “THE JOSEPH SMITH PAPERS AND THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM: A RESPONSE TO RECENT REVIEWS” In CONCLUSION: the evidence: shows that Gee and others were correct in presenting an early translation date. The D&C, EA/GAEL, Blessings, etc. predating Parrish all show reliance on BofA text (and some on Joseph). The EA/GAEL were created after the BofA and other texts, were reliant upon those other texts, were not used to translate the BofA but were a product of it and the extant Parish manuscripts (with the Hor BP, and various other characters) were created after, and reliant upon one of the other preceding copies of the BofA (perhaps one of those described by witnesses). This supports my narrative that the characters in the margins were a retrofit attempt. ALSO, we know Joseph was scribe on part of the EA, but don’t know how, or if, he was involved with the GAEL as far as selecting Hor BP characters to align to previously translated BofA text. If he was involved, there’s no need to fault him any more than anyone else. An incautious reading of the text would lead him to think just like anyone else. He’s not omniscient, as Critics believe. There’s additional evidence that the GAEL project was not his, to be discussed as needed. Just ask, thanks : ) AND- A-3: b-it’s not a retrofit attempt; and A-3: c-and it’s aligned with accessible Hor BP characters, thus showing Joseph translated directly from the BP.” Guess we covered a,b, and c. Good, that was long. A-4: Webster didn't do it like that. If you, John and Ritner were there to tell them, maybe they would have done it your way...but seems Webster did, and others, but that means nothing to me. Let me know if you want further discussion on A-3 (guessing you will, and I’m here for you :)) Moving on to the others ASAP (still have life, family, job, house issues so yeah, but I’m here for you..　.

[@lynshaffer]

Your guest, an employee of BYU, has a strong bias to keep the Mormon narrative alive despite all the evidence. He’s speaking as a TMB, rather than an intelligent professor. Any other academic at a different university would be appalled at his justification of the “translation!” He definitely earns/retains his BYU salary in this interview!

[@richardholmes7199]

The Egyptologists were debunked in 2014 by Paul Gregersen. Joseph Smith was right, the Egyptologists are wrong.

[@Hustada]

They might as well be discussing the Lord of the Rings as though it were history.

[@jeremycollins1068]

I’ll answer the last question. Lack of spirit of prophecy.

[@agarber1932]

Muhlestein seems very uncomfortable.

[@post-mormon-era1085]

I once saw a clown pull a bouquet of flowers from his sleeve. Was the clown a genius florist? No, he was just being a clever clown. I never thought to over examine the experience because it was clear as to what the clown did. Perhaps Joe Smith was a simple clown doing what clowns do - fool people.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"Is the Book of Abraham a Problem?" *NO* (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no"). Not for long anyway. If it is a problem, then one soon ceases to be a Mormon and the problem goes away. If it is not a problem then the question goes away.

[@ercianone]

Respectfully to Mormons, Muslims, Christians and religious Jews: please learn that "A thinking personal GOD" does not exist. It is an erroneous concept of our Infinite Source. Any religious book that is said to contain "the Word of God" was written by men who have the wrong concept of God. ERC is GOD, not a thinking being but our Infinite Source. Humans should become Ercians, mainly to honor the True God and avoid worshiping false “talking””thinking” gods (there is no “Word of God” ever thought or spoken) and then, to become self-directed independent thinkers. I founded the Ercian Religion, mainly because I consider my concept of God the True One, offering sound logical proofs to back that point, no “faith” required here. It debunks the “This is the Word of God” myth, so no religion can truly say they have it. The book "Ercian Testament, the Teachings of Proligion and Ercian Philosophy" available at Amazon explains what the Ercian Religion is all about. Most importantly, it gives logical proofs that show the True God cannot possibly be a "thinking" "talking" personal god. Good and bad people exist in all religions and in lay society. Proligion is the mission name of the Ercian Religion to unite ALL good people religious or secular in order to affect good world change. Self-directed! For independent thinkers! For more information, visit ercian.org

[@lovelyday8280]

Read Mathew 8;12

[@stevemitchell8267]

You two better hope that your God doesn't care about truth. What deceptive nonsense.

[@tawneenielsen4080]

Well, one thing I know for sure is I have no idea how God chooses to work. Thus I would never pretend that I know the answers as to what, and how any form.of revelation occurred almost 200 years ago. This wasn't the first time God showed himself and it certainly won't be the last. Are prophets fallible? Yes, read the scriptures, it's all over the place. Gives me hope... which, in this crazy world, makes me happy.

[@michellejean8068]

The scriptures were never meant as a historical review. Joseph Smith was a wonderful man and let's not forget humane. Jesus said we can walk on water...i know we can I just haven't learned how to. Yet. .....haha. But I keep studying prayi g and pondering. People like him just makes me stronger. Spirit of the law. Letter if the law. As for me im Spirit.

[@zaboomafia]

Cool! I loved the part where Joseph plagiarized the biblically worded book called The Late War and took ideas from View of the Hebrews book. I also loved when he made love to his maid Fanny Alger behind his wife Emma’s back before polygamy and the sealing keys!

[@BL-hj7ht]

Terryl Givens it seems is leaving out the crucial element of genuine faith. The Lord is at the helm of His church and would not have, and will not allow “made up” scripture to be disseminated among His church members. Joseph Smith was a true Prophet, if you believe that he made this stuff up, then you also believe he was false himself……You can’t have it both ways. Academia without the spirit is not enough to achieve a fullness of understanding.

[@inChristalone1960]

False.

[@davidfrey5654]

"This is an age of pessimism. Ours is a mission of faith. To my brethren and sisters everywhere, I call upon you to reaffirm your faith, to move this work forward across the world. You can make it stronger by the manner in which you live. Let the gospel be your sword and your shield. Each of us is a part of the greatest cause on earth. Its doctrine came of revelation. Its priesthood came of divine bestowal. Another witness has been added to its testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is literally the little stone of Daniel’s dream which was “cut out of the mountain without hands [to] roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth” (D&C 65:2)." President Gordon B. Hinckley

[@t-pain3343]

You should start reinterpreting that dream because the rock is rolling upwards and back into the mountain

[@katiap45]

He’s an amazing instructor. Love his sharing of all he knows

[@gxgx1190]

This guy is full of cap

[@ounkwon6442]

Who cares?

[@thomasmaughan4798]

You and apparently 157 other commenters. Next question!