--Same Ol' Papryi Punchline: The Stale Mormon Joke Never Stops--

A BBC interviewer recently stated, on-air, to Mormon apostle Jeffrey Holland:

" . . . Joseph Smith got these ['Book of Abraham'] papyri and he translated them and subsequently Egyptologists cracked the code [and] something completely different came out."

Holland responded:

"All I'm saying is that what God translated, God translated into the word of God. The vehicle for that I do not understand and don't claim to know and know no Egyptian."

("LDS Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland: 'This Man Doesn't Seem Like a Dodo,'" in "The Mormon Candidate," BBC documentary interview with Holland, at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws4vgihE3Q0&feature=youtu.be)


Same ol' spin, same ol' dodge, same ol' appeal to utter nonesense.

Indeed, we've heard it all before. Holland was simply confirming on camera what two other Mormon apostles had already told me in confidence (despite LDS apologists predicatably claiming all these years that I was supposedly making it all up).

Now they've taken their clown show public for all to see.
_____


--Holland's "Vehicle" or Maxwell's "Catalyst": Take Your Pick--

In a meeting I had with Mormon apostles Dallin Oaks and Neal Maxwell in the offices of the Church Adminstration Building in September 1993, Maxwell observed that, according to "Doctrine and Covenants," Section 7, the "Book of Abraham" was translated by Joseph Smith in 'catalystic fashion.'

Smith, Maxwell claimed, had, in vision, seen parchments from the writings of John the Revelator.

Maxwell said that, likewise, Smith may have also had revealed to him Egyptian parchment which he did not touch, physically hold or from which he did not directly translate.

In other words, Maxwell said, Smith may have been "accessing" an ancient parchment that was not actually with him. Instead, Maxwell proposed, he may have had revealed to him "in some kind of vision" the source from which he then translated the Book of Abraham.

Oaks admitted he did not know how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham. He said, however, that Maxwell's explanation seemed persuasive.
_____


--Oaks/Maxwell Didn't Know Then and Holland Doesn't Know Now--

Oaks told me he was familiar with the "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" that Smith was constructing. I responded by going into brief detail about how Smith, or his scribes, would copy an Egyptian hieroglyph from the parchment into a left-hand column, then apparently from that single hieroglyph, produce a whole series of words and paragraphs.

I noted that the words and dictionary which Smith attached to the facsimiles had absolutely no relationship with the content of the papyri--as indicated and translated by such noted and reputable Egyptologists as Klaus Bauer of the University of Chicago and others.

At this point, Oaks said, "Well, there are some things I just don't understand and just don't know." But, he said, he was willing to put such matters on the shelf 'until further knowledge comes.'

Oaks said the jury was out on the "Book of Abraham" and that we should "wait and see." Oaks admitted that "the scholars" seemed to have evidence 'in their favor,' but that he himself had a "personal witness" that the "Book of Abraham" was true.

Oaks concluded by saying that he does not let evidence "weighted against Joseph Smith on this" persuade him that the "Book of Abraham is not true."
_____


--Whatever the Explanation, Don't Blame Joseph Smith: Smith Didn't Actually Translate Those "Book of Abraham" Parchments--

Holland said "God," not Smith, translated the "Book of Abraham." That's a new one, since Smith said that he himself did the translating,

Oh, well, moving on.

As to Maxwell, while acknowledging that Smith's former scribe Warren Parrish and Mormon hymn composer W. W. Phelps (of "The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning" fame) were at one point about ready to leave the Church, Maxwell told me, "Don't pounce on Joseph Smith."

Maxwell said, in fact, that the work of Parrish and Phelps on the "Book of Abraham" manuscript helped bolster the argument that the Egyptian funerary texts were not the actual parchments used by Joseph Smith in his translation of the "Book of Abraham"--or that Joseph Smith was even the author of the four extant manuscripts of the "Book of Abraham."

In support of that position, Maxwell handed me a FARMS review, written by Michael D. Rhodes, of Charles M. Larson's book, ". . . By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri" (Grand Rapids: Institute for Religious Research, 1992, p. 240 pp., illustrated).

On closer examination of the paper on which Rhodes review was photocopied, I determined the review originated with FARMS. It was printed on fax paper bearing the acronym "F.A.R.M.S," along with the "FAX" date of "09/09/93." It also bore a dispatch time of '1:55' and a B.Y.U.-area phone number of "378 3724."Clearly, Maxwell had solicited the assistance of FARMS. in preparing for my discussions with him and Oaks.

Maxwell had highlighted in yellow the following excerpt from Rhodes' article:

"First of all, none of these manuscripts of the '[B]ook of Abraham' is in Joseph Smith's handwriting. They are mostly in the handwriting of William W. Phelps, with a few short sections written by Warren Parrish. Nowhere in the documents is Joseph Smith designated as the author. Moreover, the Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin were clearly written in after the English text had been written. These cannot be the working papers of a translation process. Instead, Phelps and Parrish seemed to have copied down the text of the '[B]ook of Abraham' and were then attempting to correlate that translation with some of the scrolls in the Church's possession. These documents are most likely that preliminary stage of investigation and exploration the Lord prescribed in D&C 9:8 to 'study it out in your mind.' The Lord expects us to first do all we can to understand something (and in the process discover our own limitations) before we seek for direct revelation from him. This is what Phelps and Parrish were apparently doing, although their efforts were short-lived and unsuccessful. In fact these same men shortly after this began to turn away from the Prophet Joseph and fell into apostasy. If they had been parties to some fraudulent process of producing the '[B]ook of Abraham,' they would surely have denounced Joseph Smith for this, but they never did.?
_____


--Holland Says He's Not a "Dodo" and Maxwell Says the Mormon Church Is Not a "Jerkwater Organization"--

Holland said to the BBC interviewer:

“ . . . Well, I’ve met people and, uh, if people want to call us a cult, they can call us a cult . . . and you can call us a cult. But we are 14 million and growing.

"And, uh, I’d like to think your respect for me would be enough to know that this man [gesturing to himself] doesn’t seem like a dodo.”

Responding to criticism of the "Book of Abraham's" authenticity, Maxwell declared, "We will not twist or oscillate every time we come across new evidence. The Church is not a jerkwater organization."
_____


--Conclusion: Divert to the Illusion--

Contrary to the original insistence by Joseph Smith himself, today's apologizing apostles have earnestly attempted to distance themselves and the Mormon Church from the notion that the Egyptian papyri purchased by Smith were the actual documents from which the "Book of Abraham" was actually translated.

Rather than having managed a direct translation from the papyri, they say that, instead, Smith may have used them as a prompt of some sort to connect to a vision that revealed the meaning of the papyri's hieroglyphics through dreamily viewing papyri that Smith didn't actually have in his physical possession.

As to the supposed translation of the "Book of Abraham" papyri via that creative "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar," the modern apostolic claim is now being peddled that Smith cannot be held responsible on this score--rather, it was his scribes--not Smith--who went down that road of alphabet soup and, besides, they were just experimenting, not recording any kind of actual translation.

OK, then. If this mumbo-jumbo for dumbos doesn't give you a burning in the bosom, what possibly could?

Let's further summarize:

Mormon Church apostle Maxwell summed up the child-like dependence of Mormon Church apostles on designated apologists to make their case for the supposedly "one and only true Church," with the following confession to me:

"We're grateful for FARMS because they protect us on the flank.'" Maxwell told me that FARMS, in fact, had been given the express mission of not letting the Church become outflanked."

Fast forward to 2012.

Mormon Church apostle Holland tells the world that he's not a "dodo" but that he can't explain how "God" (not Joseph Smith) pulled off a translation of the "Book of Abraham" papyri that fails to match up in any way with what's actually written on those papyri.

Maybe the Mormon Church is getting so desperate in its dodo defenses of its made-up "Book of Abraham," that's it's decided it's now time to blame God.

Hell, why not, up til now they've been blaming everyone else:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZgVRJ-H8U



Edited 22 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2012 07:12PM by steve benson.

The old "argument from authority". If he believes it (with his PhD in American Studies) then who are you to argue.

And what is up denying any knowledge of the Bainbridge trial? At the very least that must have come up during his research for his famous Book of Mormon waving speech that addressed the Spaulding Theory. Given the positions he held at BYU, and the back-and-forth Nibley had over the Bainbridge documents during the 70s, when Holland was there, I don't see how he could have missed learning about the glass-looking trial.

And the later follow-up from LDS corp - classic weasel words again. I wish the presenter had shown a copy of the documents on screen, and noted that JS was given "leg-bail" due to his age, not that the charges didn't stick as the church imply.

I think this stuff belongs in that post-doctoral research project everyone is wondering about, the one where you pose the question, "What do the Q15 know and believe, and why are they lying?"

The "Crazy vs. Crooked" argument...

I've staked my belief, slightly in the former, but I'm damn sure not going to bother to debate the issue, and I respect the alternative point-of-view although I think there's a likely "merger" when one ventures into the realms of "abnormal" pscychology and personality disordered types...

Holland discusses the BOA and says, "I don't know."

The Hinkster, when asked about the black priesthood ban by Cricket's German friend says, "I don't know."

Might be the closest any of them can get to actual honesty...

That's enough from me; I'm going back to driving the ol' police inteceptor and doing a little history on the side... I'm halfway through "Massacre at Mountain Meadows," and if you think Holland et al do Three Stooges stuff, you should check out the Ricky, Glen, and Ronald sideshow...

I stopped into Will Bagley's office last week just to get him to talk me down.

Now you all keep an eye on rodolfo; I gave him an extra copy I had on hand, and if he starts looking like he needs a troll or two to clobber, I hope ADMIN will bend the rules a bit. And you all make sure you have his back if I'm out putting drunks to bed...

Stuff like this has been known to turn one's brain to green jello...

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think this stuff belongs in that post-doctoral
> research project everyone is wondering about, the
> one where you pose the question, "What do the Q15
> know and believe, and why are they lying?"
>
> The "Crazy vs. Crooked" argument...
>
> I've staked my belief, slightly in the former, but
> I'm damn sure not going to bother to debate the
> issue, and I respect the alternative point-of-view
> although I think there's a likely "merger" when
> one ventures into the realms of "abnormal"
> pscychology and personality disordered types...
>
> Holland discusses the BOA and says, "I don't
> know."
>
> The Hinkster, when asked about the black
> priesthood ban by Cricket's German friend says, "I
> don't know."
>
> Might be the closest any of them can get to actual
> honesty...
>

Hey Cabbie--I was out on vacation for the weekend, so I missed this.

I think you can fit the "I don't know" easily into the conman camp with it fitting as an evade/deny and move on, trying to avoid the discussion.

One or more of these guys should know this stuff. They should be able to address it directly instead of avoiding it like an alzheimer'd Reagan "I can't recall". They all avoid these issues, consistently, using whatever excuse they need at the moment. To me, that stinks of the conman denial/avoidance of controversy that shines a light directly on the con.

Holland, in that interview referenced, also says immediate to the charge that Joseph Smith was convicted as a "conman" quickly replies "I have no idea" and then says as an argument:

"There's a g'g'g'good deal of difficulty in the early frontier life in America, but that's an incidental matter to the character and integrity of the man."

So in one breath he has no idea about Joseph Smith's character, and in the next breath he's an expert on the early frontier of America as it shines a light on the character of Joseph Smith.

That's a lie that is obvious and defensive. He refuses to discuss the downside, and excuses it in generalities that are silly and not supportable.

It's part of the double speak they use when justifying early leaders, but then dissing modern times. We can't judge those early leaders by our tough standards of today, but modern society is an immoral train moving head-long into end-of-days wickedness. Joseph's lies and dishonesty and infidelity is excusable, but today's is not. Go figure.

Figure that he's just lying to support his position, not much more.

Would it be helpful to learn the origin of 'jerkwater', which Maxwell used in the BBC interview? A small town which had a railway line but which lacked a water tank down from which water was let to a locomotive's boiler, supplied water for the boiler via pails which scooped it from a trough between the rails--hence 'jerkwater', meaning trivial or insignificant. But as for Maxwell, the morg does not even make it as a religion, much less a jerkwater religion. Historically it is more accurately described as a conman's pathetic series of frauds.

Nice, Steve. You always do a good job of integrating your personal access with an historical overview.

I don't understand why anyone bothers even asking about the "text" part of the BoA...there will always be some excuse as to why it doesn't match the scrolls we have.

Ask about the facsimiles...that's all that's needed. We have the originals (and many others that have been found), we have what Joseph Smith said they said they represented, and we have the same from people who actually know Egyptian. Especially point out facsimile 2 figure 7 and what JS said about it. Who cares about the other stuff..just ask about the facsimiles. Seeing the seated figure with a massive erection that JS says is God on his throne revealing the keywords of the priesthood will be enough to send anyone into hysterical laughter.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2012 12:40AM by knowitsfalse.

Whenever I hear "jerkwater" I think of a remote and unfortunate sort of place where you probably would rather not be -- like maybe Jerkwater, Utah. I imagine people with birth defects and bad teeth playing banjos like in the movie "Deliverance." Best not to wander alone out in the woods. To apply that word to a church makes me wonder what he was thinking about. :/

...and they confess their "knowledge" that it is inspired by god, the very next question should be, "So then, you believe that the sun gets its light from Kolob, like it says in the Book of Abraham?"

They should all have to respond to that!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX6kWHf9i3o&feature=g-all-u&context=G2e576cfFAAAAAAAAAAA

What morons! Why would GOD need to translate anything? Ever? REALLY? Blame the bad translation on God! Omnipotent God needs a translation?............sure whatever you say Holland.
What the GAs are saying in a real hidden way (that they don't want anyone to realize) is that everything JS ever did was merely in his mind. There is no physical product he ever translated or actually touched. He saw it all in his mind or so the liar says so. AND since TBMs think JS is God, OK blame it on the god, JS.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2012 03:54AM by enoughenoch19.

From Steve's post above

Responding to criticism of the "Book of Abraham's" authenticity, Maxwell declared, "We will not twist or oscillate every time we come across new evidence. The Church is not a jerkwater organization."

Actually this is quite damning.
It is saying that the Church will not respond to new evidence.
That makes in intransigent and non progressive.

They may not "twist or oscillate", but they sure as Hell shuck and jive ...

+_aleph_null

Why am I reminded of Richard Nixon's "I am not a crook" speech ?

Do you wonder why he used the term "jerkwater"? Dollars to donuts he had in mind the settlements of the early morgs in the great basin. If you know much morg history, you will realize what an effort the morg has made to cover up and deny what poor, thieving, lying freaks BY filled up Deseret with. But, to your point, the morg remains a jerkwater outfit, inflexible behind the PR waffle. Call it a freudian slip.

I can't begin to tell you how I've loathed Holland since he made that notorious speech of "crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit" out of the Morg/Mormonism.

Last year, I came across his infamous "dodo" interview with BBC, and then I began to think of him as a joke.

Really? This is the kind of person the Lard sent to lead us to CK?

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In support of that position, Maxwell handed me a
> FARMS review, written by Michael D. Rhodes, of
> Charles M. Larson's book, ". . . By His Own Hand
> upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith
> Papyri" (Grand Rapids: Institute for Religious
> Research, 1992, p. 240 pp., illustrated).

[snip!]

> Maxwell had highlighted in yellow the following
> excerpt from Rhodes' article:

> ". . . the
> Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin were
> clearly written in after the English text had been
> written. These cannot be the working papers of a
> translation process. Instead, Phelps and Parrish
> seemed to have copied down the text of the Book of
> Abraham' and were then attempting to correlate
> that translation with some of the scrolls in the
> Church's possession.

This is a lie.

Back when nobody but apologists had access to the Kirtland
Egyptian Papers (KEP) this dishonest argument might have
worked, but now that the KEP have been put online in
high-resolution photographs as part of the "Joseph Smith
Papers" project anyone can go there and see this for the damned
lie that it is.

Their argument is based on two points: (1) that the ink of the
glyphs in the margin is a different ink than that of the
"translated" text. and (2) that some of the glyphs spill over
into the text showing that they were put later.

If you look at a cheap photocopy of the KEP argument (1) might
look valid since the glyphs in the margin are darker than the
text. However upon studying the high-definition, color photos
it is clear that this is because the glyphs were DRAWN with
solid parts filled in using many strokes of the pen, i.e. a lot
of extra ink went into the glyphs which were slowly and
carefully drawn as opposed to the text which was quickly
written using normal handwriting movements. HOWEVER THE COLOR
OF THE INK IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

Also, although there are parts where the glyphs over-flow from
the margin and cross the marginal line on the left-hand part of
the page into the text area, the glyphs do NOT over-write the
actual text itself. In fact in those places where the glyphs
encroach a lot into the text part of the page the text is
indented extra so as to not write upon the glyphs.

Also the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, some of which is in
Joseph Smith's handwriting, gives definitions of the glyphs in
ways that correspond to the translation in the BOA manuscripts.

So this F.A.R.M.S. stuff that these "Apostles of Christ" rely
upon is not only a lie, but a damned lie.

Clown show is correct! Geez, I am in no way connected with the cult but, damn, I'm embarrassed for Holland. These top dawgs aren't used to fielding the hard questions, and these are just the basics! Where's that ultra-smooth confident voice he/they use when GC rolls around? What, no prep whatsoever? Do they never talk about the difficult doctrines and circumstances? Is it really all about money with these dodos?

There'll be no more interviews with BBC from now on. They will stick with stateside softball encounters, thankyouverymuch.

Why doesn't the church just go with everything was inspired and not bring "facts" into the argument at all? Plenty of people claim to have visions, hear voices, see spirits. I have no idea what JS was smoking or drinking back then or whether he just spent too much time out in the sun. But to say he translated the BOA or the BOM is a historical document is false... period.