NOM

I was thinking about something the other day. I saw (yet again) that we cannot prove Joseph Smith was a prophet and we cannot prove he was a fraud. We are all free to choose what we believe about him. I thought to myself, if the Bible were true (it isn't) then "by their fruits ye shall KNOW them" had to mean more than just believing one way or the other, right? Isn't the implication we can KNOW if a prophet is a prophet?

By that reasoning, I pondered on how one could go about proving Joseph Smith was or wasn't a prophet. No video surveillance of the First Vision would ever surface for obvious reasons, so only one realistic thing could ever possibly happen to prove this.

The gold plates would need to be presented to the world and undergo independent testing and translation.

That's it. If the church had the plates along with a handwritten note from Joseph Smith that these were indeed the plates to authenticate the claim, then an independent source could test them and date them as well as offer up a translation. If they turned out to be 19th century brass with gibberish markings that meant nothing, we would know it was a hoax. If they turned out to be some sort of 600 BC ore with a translation that roughly aligns with the Book of Mormon, then we would know of a surety that the Book of Mormon was not a hoax.

Sadly, such a presentation will never happen for obvious reasons. But then I thought, hey, we do have the next best thing.

We have the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham both as transcribed by Smith and the original source document

As I thought about this it dawned on me that we can absolutely prove Smith was a fraud. We have the facsimiles with his translation. We have the source document for the facsimiles. We have the ability to translate Egyptian. Let's simply present the facsimiles with Smith's translation to the archaeologists and Egyptologists who can read them.

Turns out we have. And Smith was not just wrong but not even remotely close. Say what you want about the Book of Abraham, its translation or anything you want. We have the facsimiles. We have Smith's translation. And it is dead wrong. The essay on this says nothing more than this:

"Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings."

That is literally all. This is an outright lie of course as SOME should read NEARLY ALL.

I mean, forget polygamy. Forget the Book of Mormon. Forget the First Vision stuff. Forget everything. This is the smoking gun. This is proof positive of the fraud. He translated it. He was wrong. Very wrong.

As a TBM I literally never knew this or even thought about it. I guess I really didn't give the facsimiles any thought to be honest. I'm betting 9 out of 10 members of the church don't think about the facsimiles in any meaningful way, let alone wonder if modern Egyptologists who can now read Egyptian have authenticated Smith's translation.

If you want to get wheels turning, this is what needs to be broadcast far and wide in my opinion. We need a one page, concise website like ldsfacsimiles.com or something like that which shows side by side comparisons and appears to be faith promoting but isn't. Use targeted Facebook ads to send LDS people to the site that appears harmless. Then don't overtly say Smith was wrong. Just show the interpretations side by side and let people see he was wrong. Then at the end link to the MormonThink article on the Book of Abraham. I think that would be brilliant.

The Kinderhook plates work pretty well as proof that Joseph was a fraud also.

I agree, the facsimiles are the smoking gun. If that won't convince a person, nothing will.

Here is one scriptural story when proof was delivered: Elijah and the Priests of Baal

You want proof? Fire from heaven consuming the waterlogged altar after a worthy prayer was offered is pretty compelling. It's not like God can't provide proof for whatever baloney reason is usually given. It's just that it simply won't be offered again after that one time deal.

You are right, dandy. The facsimiles were the one thing I could never get around. It is as close to a smoking gun as you could ask for. Any critically thinking person without an emotional or cultural investment in the church should be able to come to a negative conclusion in about two minutes when presented with the evidence.

But it just doesn't seem to work for people who are converted to The Brethren and the storybook version of history. Most of us remember that horrible feeling of cognative dissonance when we encountered something like that and then ran away, assuming that feeling of darkness was the devil trying to deceive us with anti-mormon lies.

That said, I really like your one-pager idea. It puts the message in people's heads without requiring them go against their programming by investing time to read a long, scary document. Most members only want confirmatory information anyway.

Someone did make a one-page infographic along those lines. Maybe you could track that down and build a simple website around it.

Here you go.

http://www.mormoninfographics.com/2012/ ... d.html?m=1

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:44 am Here you go.

http://www.mormoninfographics.com/2012/ ... d.html?m=1

Thanks Dandy and Hagoth, for the thoughts and references. It would be interesting to see how many TBM's we could get to look at this site. To a TBM, it might have the "smell" of an anti-mormon site. Robert Ritner's book, or response to the BOA essay could be more palatable to some.

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchica ... ty%20of%20

Sorry if this reference doesn't work. One could try googling Robert Ritner Book of Abraham.

Try this :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE&t=43m1s

If only we could get Ritner and somebody like Kerry Muehlstein to meet on a discussion board.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:17 pm The Kinderhook plates work pretty well as proof that Joseph was a fraud also.

I came in to mention those. We have Smith incorrectly translating a genuine document from antiquity. We also have Smith incorrectly taking a hoax as genuine and making up a translation for them. When he claims to translate something, via rock in hat, something that is conveniently missing, that is totally solid, it's totally believable and one mustn't try to see parallels and a pattern in his behaviors.

Unfortunately we don't have an actual translation for the Kinderhook plates. Too bad, because we have facsimiles of the plates themselves. If I remember correctly the writing was inspired by the Chinese characters on a tea box.

There is also the Greek Psalter incident, but the firsthand account isn't well verified.

What do you think about the apologetic response of biblical precedent of prophet's being intentionally decieved in the old testament (IE the birthright switcheroo ala Jacob and Esau, Genesis 27:16) as an answer to the kinderhook plates as well as Mark Hoffman?

Dravin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:51 am

wtfluff wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:17 pm The Kinderhook plates work pretty well as proof that Joseph was a fraud also.

I came in to mention those. We have Smith incorrectly translating a genuine document from antiquity. We also have Smith incorrectly taking a hoax as genuine and making up a translation for them. When he claims to translate something, via rock in hat, something that is conveniently missing, that is totally solid, it's totally believable and one mustn't try to see parallels and a pattern in his behaviors.

Yep. And: wasn't the entire hoax was actually designed to prove that Joseph was a fraud?

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:40 am Unfortunately we don't have an actual translation for the Kinderhook plates. Too bad, because we have facsimiles of the plates themselves. If I remember correctly the writing was inspired by the Chinese characters on a tea box.

There is also the Greek Psalter incident, but the firsthand account isn't well verified.

Even if we don't have an actual translation, we have first hand accounts of Joseph "translating" the Kinderhook plates

And again, the same question as above: Weren't the Kinderhook plates created with the intention of proving that Joseph was a fraud?

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:45 am What do you think about the apologetic response of biblical precedent of prophet's being intentionally decieved in the old testament (IE the birthright switcheroo ala Jacob and Esau, Genesis 27:16) as an answer to the kinderhook plates as well as Mark Hoffman?

Wow, that's an interesting thought. It was Rachel who actually put the plan into action. Viewed from that perspective, she seems more inspired than Isaac. I just can't go along with a lying trickster god, which is where Joseph Smith and I part ways.

Good job Dandy I think that is as close as we will ever get to having real proof . Many of us on this board have already figured this was the case but now we have even more evidence to convict JS . As we know this religion to be completely false many of us go and just grind through sunday services for our spouse or other family member but good lookin out !!!!!!!! Much appreciated.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:48 am And again, the same question as above: Weren't the Kinderhook plates created with the intention of proving that Joseph was a fraud?

Yes. And it worked, as far as I'm concerned. It's just that, since we don't have the actual translation, there is always the apologetic "the scribes did it" loophole that seems to have worked for them with the GAEL.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:42 am But it just doesn't seem to work for people who are converted to The Brethren and the storybook version of history....

That's because it's not about believing, but rather BELONGING.

I had a discussion with my wife about this lately. I asked her how uncomfortable the facsimiles made her. My thought was that if they didn't make her uncomfortable it was probably due to the fact that the pearl of great price, while still canonized, ranks pretty low in the grand scheme of scriptural importance. Turns out I have introduced too much for her to parse out how uncomfortable this situation makes her because all of it is so uncomfortable. But she did say that most of her life the PoGP has been sort of an afterthought as far as scriptures go, which is also how I feel.

As far as proof, you are right in that this is as close as you get. But the people for whom proof is important won't have the kinds of hesitations others feel. The people for whom proof is not important will not be phased by this information regardless of how it's presented. We are taught all our lives that proof is not important.

Its "neatly" taken care by the catalyst theory. The scrolls aren't translated, they were tools to open his mind. I mean, face it, the bible translation didn't even have that he just "knew" what was missing!
Anyone who doesn't already have major questions doesn't need it to be a translation. Its not so much a "smoking gun" as an obvious clue that gets overlooked, but you slap your head for missing once you know the plot twist.

mooseman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:24 pm Its "neatly" taken care by the catalyst theory. The scrolls aren't translated, they were tools to open his mind. I mean, face it, the bible translation didn't even have that he just "knew" what was missing!
Anyone who doesn't already have major questions doesn't need it to be a translation. Its not so much a "smoking gun" as an obvious clue that gets overlooked, but you slap your head for missing once you know the plot twist.

This particular plot twist was brought to you by apologists, not duly ordained leaders of God's One True Church. Apostles only started using the catalyst theory after being caught with a "deer in the headlights" look once Egyptian could be reliably translated. However, there is one further plot twist: I have met more than one modern LDS member who is confident that Joseph Smith was actually right and thousands of scholars of ancient Egyptian as actually wrong.

Corsair wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:27 am

mooseman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:24 pm Its "neatly" taken care by the catalyst theory. The scrolls aren't translated, they were tools to open his mind. I mean, face it, the bible translation didn't even have that he just "knew" what was missing!
Anyone who doesn't already have major questions doesn't need it to be a translation. Its not so much a "smoking gun" as an obvious clue that gets overlooked, but you slap your head for missing once you know the plot twist.

This particular plot twist was brought to you by apologists, not duly ordained leaders of God's One True Church. Apostles only started using the catalyst theory after being caught with a "deer in the headlights" look once Egyptian could be reliably translated. However, there is one further plot twist: I have met more than one modern LDS member who is confident that Joseph Smith was actually right and thousands of scholars of ancient Egyptian as actually wrong.

....and those LDS members know Joseph Smith was right the same way Bill Hoffmann knew his son Mark was innocent; the same way thousands of LDS knew they were going back to Independence, Missouri to build a temple before 1890, the same way countless LDS know today that was God's will to withhold the priesthood from people of a certain race, and/or sex.

deacon blues wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:08 pm ....and those LDS members know Joseph Smith was right the same way Bill Hoffmann knew his son Mark was innocent; the same way thousands of LDS knew they were going back to Independence, Missouri to build a temple before 1890, the same way countless LDS know today that was God's will to withhold the priesthood from people of a certain race, and/or sex.

I still know plenty of people who are waiting for the prophet to tell them that it's time to walk back to Missouri. Certainly, there were lots of them who were seminary and Sunday School teachers when I was a child. I'm almost disappointed that "hastening the work" is not still being printed on T-shirts and being mentioned regularly. Perhaps some new generation of LDS fundamentalists will get the updated message in general conference next month.