It seems this bit of evidence can disprove joseph smith entirely. Am i correct? Or do i need to be put in my place again?

Badassadam1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems this bit of evidence can disprove joseph
> smith entirely. Am i correct? Or do i need to be
> put in my place again?

You Adam are most correct.

A quick perusal of fig. 2 from the BoA will prove to you and everyone that Joe's designing helpers goofed by inserting a goodly chunk upside down and then rendering Almighty God with a hard on.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng

The fraud is obvious. Those who attest to its veracity are either stupid or coy. I have little patience for either.

This was exposed in full page adds in prominent newspapers back east in the 1920s.

It was again brought before the world in the 1960s.

Mormons didn't care one bit.

Yup, thoroughly debunked in the 1920s. They find the papyrus in the 1960s and just know it will prove the BoA is true. They fund professionals to do the research. Debunked yet again. Did they learn? No, they say it doesn’t matter because its truthfulness is in the way it makes you feel. Ok, so why not teach from Harry Potter books?

Yep nobody cared at all, mormonism was still going strong when i was born in the 1980's. I never even heard of the book of abraham being debunked by professionals until recent years. That religion totally ignored the facts and actual evidence against it. But they have no actual facts or evidence for it. No ancient plates to investigate for their books. They drive me crazy.

Heartless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This was exposed in full page adds in prominent
> newspapers back east in the 1920s.
>
> It was again brought before the world in the
> 1960s.
>
> Mormons didn't care one bit.

It would be cool to see those newspaper ads in the 1920's. The more solid evidence i see the better it will be for my mind i think. I want to see facts not angels in bedroom stories.

New York Times, Dec 29, 1912

Reproduced here:

http://utlm.org/onlineresources/nytimes1912papyrus.htm

logged out (nli) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> New York Times, Dec 29, 1912
>
> Reproduced here:
>
> http://utlm.org/onlineresources/nytimes1912papyrus
> .htm

Holy sh#t balls there it is. Thank you.

The B of Abraham facilitated my escape more than any other concept, book or whatever. I do owe Hugh Nibley a nod. After reading his BS I was totally convinced that I was an idiot and needed to escape. And yes I said I was an idiot, because after leaving I realized how much information had been in front of me that I refused to consider.

I do not delight in my stupidity. Having once fallen for BS I try not to do it again. I try to warn people of the God lie. You would think that people that have once been deceived would be more cautious, but this board is a testament to the hopelessness of that position.

I was an idiot as well and still maybe be an idiot but i try not to be and try to investigate things that have some evidence. I try to slow down and be smarter about things instead of believe everything i was told growing up and stay in fantasyland.

The debunking of the BoA has had an effect. It is rarely quoted in GA talks anymore. It'd be interesting to know when was the last time it was quoted in GC, and how many times has it been quoted in GC in the last 40 years.

Rank and file members may still quote from it now and then. GAs are not going to tell the members to ignore the BoA, but they are certainly sending that message by example.

Maybe members should start quoting from the book of Abraham MORE so the members listening discover the ridiculous ideas of racism, astronomy, and theology.

More quotes! Let them hear their own scriptures and maybe a few will begin to actually question. Too bad visuals can’t be used because the papyrus with the ridiculous drawn in head would be a great addition.

Any one of them from Joseph Smith's multiple versions of the first vision to his philandering to the Book of Mormon, theological.

It is false and anywhere it is given more than just a cursory examination the evidence is found.

not

Yeah, it's one of the most strong and "provable" evidences one can use to debunk Mormonism. That being said, this one item is not gonna be enough proof to a majority of Mormons to give up on their faith. For most, it takes multiple items to make their shelf collapse, hence the publications like the CES Letter. In addition, a Mormon is going to have to be willing to take the time to study this one out because, since it's dealing with archaeological and linguistic issues most lay people might not simply trust what the "anti's" say about it. In addition, the apologists have kicked up enough dust on the issue that it can be a bit murky for the typical member to wade through.

When I was Mormon, the BOA heavily weighed on my shelf but it took learning about many of the other problems in Mormon history to fully convince me it was all made up (blood atonement, Adam-God, plural marriage, plagiarism in the Book of Mormon, changed or false revelations, contradictory First Vision accounts, etc)

How do you know when your total shelf collapses? There is still bullsh#t programmed in my brain from that religion i know that much. Whether part of my brain knows its false, the other side is still brainwashed with their bullsh#t and can't get it out of my head totally.

For me, it was when I could was confident that Joseph Smith made it up and that God had nothing to do with the religion.

It wasn't like I just "had doubts" or feared "maybe it was still true." It was on par with the chances of Santa Claus being real.

Badassadam1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems this bit of evidence can disprove joseph
> smith entirely. Am i correct? Or do i need to be
> put in my place again?


Hey Adam! What's up? It turns out the papapyrus found in one of the three mummies good old Jo bought was actually from the book of breathings, aka the Book of the Dead.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2018 03:05PM by lazylizard.

What up lazylizard thanks for the info. The book of the dead, appreciate that.

The absolute worst thing I can think of is the sad, sad downward spiral spin that goes from Joseph Smith "laboring" to literally translate the BoA from original writing "by Abraham's own hand", to "The original papyri was lost", to "We now have the papyri to prove Joseph's translation was correct!", to "Well, we don't have the *original* papyri to compare because the 'long scroll' was lost", to "The papyri was simply a catalyst that inspired him", to "We don't know the mechanism by which the BoA was translated, but it's real value is the truths contained within its pages."

Adam, I agree with you.

That's all it took for me. It dis-proves Joseph Smith, and all of his other scriptures and stories, all at once. Boom!

Mother Who Knows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Adam, I agree with you.
>
> That's all it took for me. It dis-proves Joseph
> Smith, and all of his other scriptures and
> stories, all at once. Boom!


Exactly, all in one shot. It's good for the mind that it is disproven with evidence.