The Missing Scroll Theory is dead on arrival. It can't work. Suppose they find the rest of the missing scroll? What's on it? The very thought terrifies John Gee. He'd simply read more funerary literature and he damn well knows it. Looking at the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 tells you all you need to know about the source material of the Book of Abraham text and how Joseph Smith translated it. If members of the church will just put science and common sense ahead of their testimonies they will find it much easier to dump their testimonies.

The Book of Abraham is a lost cause. The faithfull are left clutching to the story chapters but are forced to deny the Facsmilies. It's very painful for the faithful as they struggle to hold on for dear life.

Paul O

Enlighten us.



Who is they and please provide evidence.



Feel free to provide evidence, especially of Egyptians doing it.



Who said it was?

Don't play ignorant. You can read the BofA as well as I can.

We still don't see you providing any evidence that Egyptians were sacrificing humans to their Gods. How can we dismiss this problem until you do?

But the Church continually tells us the source was the papyrus by publishing Joseph Smiths words at the start of the published book and online. Why haven't they removed it do you think?

For the same reason it took them so long to reject polygamy and deal with the doctrine banning black men from the priesthood. Instead of critically and carefully thinking through things and agreeing with the truth when it is clearly visible, they claim they don't know. I wish they'd change a lot more quickly. How many problems would have been avoided if the Mormon Church leaders had embraced Martin Luther King when he was alive and picked up his message and marched along with him? If you want to pick a hot button with me, that is it when it comes to the leadership of the Mormon Church and their prophetic calling. They should apologize, put MLK's speeches and teachings in their lesson manuals, and dedicate a statue to him on temple square.

The problem with them changing on this one is that too much water has passed under the bridge. A correction rejects what Joseph Smith the Prophet stated, and if he was wrong in that then what else needs correcting? It's a can of worms they just won't open and so members are left with holding a belief that it came from the papyrus when clearly it didn't.

To bad you cannot do this. The Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon are clearly 19th century products.

BTW still waiting for you to provide evidence Egyptians were sacrificing humans to their Gods during Abraham's time. This should be simple seeing that they do have a fair bit of evidence of Egyptians for you to go through.

And the church should get rid of the slander and lies in their scriptures:

Figure 6
Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.



Paul O

They would have to correct the KJV Isaiah errors in the Book of Mormon too. And all those wonderous statements made by prophets and apostles about the hill Cumorah in New York state and the wars that were fought there in ancient times were spoken under the influence of uninspired men as they stood in General Conference testifying.

Clearly, nothing the General Authorities say can be trusted. Look for anything and everything to be overturned. It's a matter of protecting the corporation and keeping the top leaders in power.

Paul O

I was convinced through much study that the text of the Book of Abraham was indeed 19th century thinking and production. Joseph Smith tried hard to make it look ancient and dress it up as such but he totally failed as he did with the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. The Book of Abraham story is just a story Joseph Smith made up and he borrowed most of it from other souces in his creative venture.

1. The text of the Book of Abraham is a fraud.
2. The Facsimile Explanations are also a fraud.

Paul O

Paul, I am really curious about your metamorphasis with this.

When I first met you, you were one of the most formidable apologists for the Book of Abraham.

Would you mind starting a thread detailing how you changed your thinking on this?

It's true that I had influence in defending the BofA on the Internet for several years and received a lot of well wishes from people who benefited from my articles and ideas. It's one of the toughest things to have to defend because there are so many things that point to fraud but you have to somehow make turns and twists and put frosting on it to make it look eatable. These days I pretty much am left to just taking jabs at the BofA and write very little against it in order to keep my blood pressure from rising. So, I just keep harping on Facsmile No. 3 because the apologists can't get past, behind, or over it. The apologists are simply stuck. When you pull out the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 from under the BofA the whole thing comes crashing down. It's one of the legs that holds the story and authority of the divine claims that Joseph was actually translating Egyptian. And of course, everyone (including John Gee) knows that the translations of the Explanation are not true. So it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the apologists. A bitter pill to swallow!

I just can't get into detailed discussions of the BofA these days. It's not good for my health. But I appreciate your desire to know more about my story and venture in defending that work and finally being forced to have to drop it because it was no longer doable. There are few people who want to defend the BofA because it's such a lost cause.

Luv ya, Liz.

Paul O

I have already answered this. You just can't see past the preconceptions you've developed. You either believe falsely that the BofA indicates the people of Ur of Chaldees were Egyptian or embraced the Egyptian religion. Neither is indicated by the text. They adopted Egyptian gods (like was often the case throughout the region) and had a priest dedicated to these Gods. This would not have discontinued other practices such as human sacrifice.

You haven't answered it at all, and what you claim are my preconceptions you can't quote since they don't exist. I never stated Ur of the Chaldees was Egyptian. You might try reading the text.



What group are you talking about? The Egyptians in Abraham's time show no evidence of sacrificing humans to their Gods. Show some evidence like we have asked multiple times.

And this is why I usually ignore you. I don't know if it is that you act ignorant of the topic at hand or it is purely a mental problem, but I really can't make it any more clear to you and your failure to grasp what is said is not my problem.

You usually just ramble with a few assertions without substance. You get upset that some of us ask for the substance. Now where is the evidence of Egyptians in Abraham's times sacrificing humans to their Gods. This is one of the cores issues of this discussion, and you keep trying to dodge the request for evidence. I really don't think my request is unfair in any way.

BTW you never addressed your incorrect accusations of what I never said.

I see you have no intentions of even trying to see if there is any evidence for your assertions. This is the problem I see from the apologetic mind set. You think you have the truth and are not interested in seeing what the evidence says. You make stuff up as you have been in this thread and think this constitutes evidence. It doesn't. I call this the possibility game. Here you are suggesting that maybe some groups that were sacrificing humans to their Gods later adapted the Egyptian Gods but continued with human sacrificing. The problem is that you think this is evidence. It's just asserting a possibility without substance. We are asking you to provide the substance or evidence that some group in the past did as you want to assert. Until then you have nothing and the problem in the text does not go away. It's the same thing with Ur.

Duuuude. Not cool. Even I learned my lesson on this issue with Mr. Droopy.

- VRDRC