But it was destroyed in the Chicago fire!

Btw, I have been thinking lately how much I would enjoy traveling back in time, to say about 1965, and attend a meeting of the 1st Quorum of the Bigots. I would take with me a copy of the of recent essay on racism. I'd simply explain to Mark, and Delbert, and Ezra, and Harold how they had been misled by Brigham, and were just giving their opinions as men. They will be very easy to convince and I will be warmly received, I'm sure.

Speaking of Delbert, if you haven't seen this letter of his to George Romney, you should take a look.

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf


Simply mindboggling.

What me worry?

PREDICTIONS

* The BoA essay will appeal to the "missing" red text like they did in the Ensign in the 1980s.

* There will be no mention of the "Book of Joseph".

* There will be no mention of the EAG.

* The main thrust will be that the papyri inspired a vision (i.e. no literal translation).

Catalyst for sure.
You watch
Same as they "prepared the way" with the Rock in the hat.
Luckily for them the book itself doesn't make reference to those pesky facsimiles.
Oh, wait

facsimile3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PREDICTIONS
>
> * The BoA essay will appeal to the "missing" red
> text like they did in the Ensign in the 1980s.

The papyri in the Church's possession contain red text, or
"rubrics" as Egyptologists call them. These were not noticed
by the general public when the papyri were first published in
the "Improvement Era" because they published sepia versions of
black-and-white photographs. The sepia color fooled many into
thinking they were full-color pics of the papyri.

The sensen papyrus contains no red text. Hugh Nibley (in a
moment of supreme dishonesty) used this fact and a statement in
the History of the Church that the "records" (obviously meaning
all the papyri) had some red ink or paint on it, to dismiss the
sen-sen papyrus as a possible source, in Joseph Smith's mind,
for the BoA.

That said I'm sure the Church's Essay will appeal to the
missing papyri.

> * There will be no mention of the "Book of
> Joseph".

This might be mentioned in passing, but not in any detail.

> * There will be no mention of the EAG.

There MIGHT be mention of the EAG. They will talk about how nobody knows what it was meant for etc.

> * The main thrust will be that the papyri inspired
> a vision (i.e. no literal translation).

They will not come out and say this as much as hint at it or
suggest it as a possibility. They will emphasize that the
"translation manuscripts" were prepared by scribes and not by
J.S. himself. They will say nobody knows the connection
between the BoA and the papyri.

They will probably not mention that we have the original of
facsimile 1, and that it is clearly pagan, Egyptian funerary
document and that this can be known from the heiroglyphs
surrounding it.

They will blow a lot of smoke about supposed ancient Egyptian
practices of including different books in scrolls buried with
mummies.

They will emphasize that the TEXT of the BOA has "glorious
doctrines" and that the SPIRIT is the true test yadda yadda.

They may mention that the facsimiles are not original with
Abraham but were used by J.S. to give truths yadda yadda

From the 1988 Ensign article (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/07/i-have-a-question?lang=eng):

[The Prophet described the papyrus he used in translation in these words: “The record … found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation.” (History of the Church, 2:348.)]


The author, Michael D. Rhodes, goes on to point out that the "Book of Breathings papyrus has no writing in red ink". What I found the MOST interesting, and which influenced one of my predictions above is what Rhodes excluded with the ellipsis. Certainly, there must have been a substantial amount of superfluous text to warrant the use of the ellipsis. Right?

Wrong. The three dots replaced exactly four words: "of Abraham and Joseph".

Rhodes is a dishonest zealot who obviously did not want to provide too much *relevant* information.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2014 02:14PM by facsimile3.

Rhodes is following Hugh Nibley who used the ellipses in his
book on the J.S. Papyri.

"A lie can get around the world before truth even has its pants on."

Typical.

Be sure you don't get the idea that he is "Against the Negro people" since he has several in his employ.....
PAUSE - OK I am back from vomiting now. If there are any black people on this board (and I know there are some, I sure hope there are some), PLEASE EXPLAIN to me how you could ever be in TSCC. It makes as much sense to me as blacks being in KKK. Please explain.

Isn't it similar to women being in the TSCC?

Imagine being like, a black woman in the church

Hey I can top that.
A disabled, poor black woman who is infertile and struggling with SSA.
I guarantee there's probably someone right now like that.
Talk about drawing a short straw

Sheri Dew is black?

Only hearted.

lostinutah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't it similar to women being in the TSCC?

Isn't it interesting that in the last Presidential campaign
there was talk about Mitty's Church's FORMER policy regarding
Blacks but no talk about Mitty's Church's PRESENT policy
regarding women.

This letter is absolutely absurd and mind boggling! It really gives me insight into the mindset of UT TBMs I know. How can the Church even deny this is not originally attributed to the Book of Abraham is beyond me! Just connect the dots in a couple of passages. And that takes this whole knotty problem of race all the way back to JS.

Thanks for sharing!

http://josephsmithpapers.org/intro/introduction-to-book-of-abraham-manuscripts

Lucy Mack smith says in this essay that JS could read the papyri with his face in a hat and could even read missing text.

This looks like an essay addressed from the JSP project.

Looks like an essay to me!

Thank you for sharing, oldklunker. That is the first time I have seen the following excerpt:

[After JS’s death, JS’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith retained the mummies and papyri and showed them to visitors. According to the published 1846 account of a group of visiting Quakers, she described a process similar to that of Parrish, one that paralleled some accounts regarding how the Book of Mormon was dictated: “She said, that when Joseph was reading the papyrus, he closed his eyes, and held a hat over his face, and that the revelation came to him; and where the papyrus was torn, he could read the parts that were destroyed equally as well as those that were there; and that scribes sat by him writing, as he expounded. She showed us a large book where these things were printed, which of course sealed their truth to Mormon eyes and minds; but we had not time to read them.”]


Interesting that the slimy fraud was still using the old face-in-the-hat trick. It is also nice to have another friendly source that the original papyri were damaged, with some portions "destroyed". Funny how that corresponds with the recovered papyri and contradicts the apologists like Nibley who appealed to the idea that there was no evidence that the papyri were damaged, and held up a painting of Mother Smith with an intact Facsimile 1 hanging in the background as proof that it was whole. The old fraud Nibley failed to mention that the painting in the background included the numbers next to the various figures that were added to publish the translation.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2014 07:35PM by facsimile3.

So I go to the Church's link and in the first sentence I find
something false.

It says, "Napoleon Bonaparte’s late eighteenth-century
adventures, depredations, and exploits unintentionally
inaugurated an age of exploration and inquiry into Egyptian
antiquities."

Napoleon's exploits in Egypt INTENTIONALLY inaugurated an age of
exploration and inquiry into Egyptian antiquities. When he
invaded Egypt he took a team of about 150 scholars with him. It
was their duty to study the Egyptian antiquities as they had
never been studied before. Nothing "unintentional" about it.

These guys don't do their homework, do they?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2014 12:52PM by baura.

Wonder how they are going to address the character by character translation notes from JS? To me, that solidifies the BOA as a "smoking gun". I wonder how that can be disputed besides saying those notes are an absolute forgery. IMHO, the whole argument about the BOA being BS would stand up in any court of law under the most rigorous burden of proof. They would need the likes of Johnny Cochran to sway the jury otherwise! :)

With the right twist you can make almost anything seem reasonable

Nibley claimed that the scribes were trying to learn Egyptian without the involvement of Joseph Smith. Detailed description of Nibley's explanation starts on page 121 of "...by his own hand upon papyrus" by Charles Larson.
From page 122:
"These 'men of Kirtland [scribes],' Dr. Nibley proposed, were simply trying to see if they could learn Egyptian ...
by matching up symbols and words..."

Larson points out that this theory is invalidated by Joseph Smith's own words as recorded in the following entry from B. H. Roberts' History of The Church:
"[July 1835] - The remainder of the month I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian alphabet as practiced by the ancients (History of The Church, Volume 2, p. 238)"

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!!!"

Actually, the gloves had already shrunken prior to the murders. OJ, BTW, was not the killer nor did OJ have anything to do with the murders.

The BOA was my tipping point. When I realized that it was made up, I thought, if JS made that up, he made it all up! And I was mentally OUT!

It just occurred to me that the following excerpt from the Lucy Mack Smith paraphrase above...

"...when Joseph was reading the papyrus, he closed his eyes, and held a hat over his face, and that the revelation came to him; and where the papyrus was torn, he could read the parts that were destroyed equally as well as those that were there..."


...completely discredits the catalyst theory. Notice how he translates the parts that "were there" as well as "the parts that were destroyed". In other words, the "parts" of the papyrus were essential and did not just inspire some kind of vaguely-related vision.

Very good point...there is no way the catalyst theory can hold water...they're grasping at straws on this one

I'm reading the letter to mean that God punishes those who go contrary to His racist will regarding the "colored race" with DEATH. Includes an implication that Lincoln and Kennedy were killed according to the Lord's will as a consequence of "being active in the Negro cause." Holy SHIT (indeed)!

My mom's family is mixed with black, white and Native American. The lighter members of the family all converted (all women except my white looking uncle that didn't convert, but his daughters did) and have strong testimonies. My mother being the darkest of the girls converted, but went less active. My uncle that looks 100% black refused because of the priesthood issue (they tried converting him before the lift on the ban).

This was the hardest thing for me to deal with as a member and tried to deal with it as best I could. It really pissed me off to see white kids at church trying to act black when they had no idea what being black meant on a day-to-day basis (I don't look black, but my mom did so I saw the differences). 2 of my aunts stayed in the church. One died and one is still alive, but both always emphasized how white our family was rather than how black we were. I have a feeling it had to with the churches teachings on blacks. Odd enough that the black guy from the MOTAB and Gladys Knight are popular members, my aunt has started to be a little more embracing of her black roots.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2014 03:50PM by petergunz.

Wow, just wow. I had to create a new Mormon Related File to bookmark this labeled "Sick Mormon Shit." I have finally found an ounce of respect for a Romney...but I won't let it get me carried away.

Yeah, and where's George Romney now? DEAD! See? See? That's what happens when you support civil rights. :P

I'm so glad that, at present, I am beyond the influence of these so-called "Essays." The fact that they even exist indicates that they are there to defend the indefensible.