Finally I have found a defense of the Book of Abraham. It is
so air-tight that I'm considering going back to Church. The
Book of Abraham is VINDICATED!

OK, it goes like this-

Abraham writes his manuscript and passes it down to his great-
grandson Joseph. Joseph takes his great-granfather's
manuscript along with one of his own and, using time-travel,
hides them in the coffin of a 1st century B.C. mummy.

Antonio Lebolo finds the mummy and Chandler brings it to
Kirtland Ohio where Joseph Smith recognizes the writings of
Abraham and Joseph.

Joseph translates the Egyptian handwriting of Abraham and
publishes the Book of Abraham.

So far so good.

However, after Joseph Smith's death faeries (probably under the
direction of Satan) change the papyri to appear as pagan
funeral documents rather than as the very handwriting of
Abraham. The faeries also change the glyphs in the margins of
the "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" and the Book of Abraham
printers manuscripts. And, finally, they also change the
hieroglyphs on all printed copies of the Book of Abraham to
make them not say what Joseph Smith accurately said they did.

You may laugh at this, but is it that much more far fetched
than what the real Mormon apologists are saying?

i think this is best explanation i have ever heard about the book of abraham.

that along with the nephites that were sled into battle, not by horses as we know them, but on deers. yup. entire armies, thousands of nephites came upon the lamanites on animals slightly bigger than a dog. makes perfect sense! of course!

i'm going back to the church myself.

in the name of jesus christ, amen.

It is more far-fetched because you've fallen into the apologist pit-fall, the one that true apologists have learned to avoid. That trap is called honesty. You're making the mistake of coming up with a positive, alternative story. The alternative story gets holes poked in it.

What you're supposed to do is to stop after "so far so good." Then you start critiquing, criticizing, piece-mealing, and casting what doubt you can on the Mo-critical story, while at the same time, trying to avoid saying what the mo-critical story is, so as not to alert your readers to the straight-forward, sensible argument of the Mo-critical. In this case, Joe's translation doesn't remotely say what we now know the papyri say. What the papyri say is: then direct translation.

You never want to take your reader to the place of saying, "okay then, now that I doubt the Mo-critical story, what really happened?" You want to stay at the, "see, the Mo-critical story's flawed and misleading; there are answers out there; smarter people than you know them, etc." Soothe the ruffled feathers and leave it at that. Don't ever risk making up a realistic alternative! Leave it at "doubt your doubts, not your faith."

MCRNU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You want to stay at the, "see, the Mo-critical
> story's flawed and misleading; there are answers
> out there; smarter people than you know them, etc."
> Soothe the ruffled feathers and leave it at that.
> Don't ever risk making up a realistic alternative!
> Leave it at "doubt your doubts, not your faith."

Kerry Muhlestein, is that you??

Nice, Baura! Lol