Debate : Book Of ABRAHAM

Your right and him and welcome fireflies in new YouTube viewers to a special event. I'm your host Michael Flournoy and tonight we have with this LDS apologist Brent Dennis is sure to debate our very own: Nürnberg. The topic for the debate tonight will be is the book of Abraham ancient Scripture before we turn the time over tour debaters will give a brief bio for each and then my sister Matthew will cover the debate format I'll start with Brett. Dennis is a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He has a passion for studying the Scriptures with an emphasis on the relationships between the Bible and LDS scripture. He served as a missionary in central California a mini Bible Belt, where frequent challenges to his religious views ignited and abiding interest in interfaith discourse in resolving criticism of his faith using simple fact-based methods he has had several stanzas were gospel doctrine teacher and he currently lives in Tuscan Arizona with his wife Lisa and four children all Nürnberg was born in Utah and raised a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He served a two-year mission to Hungary where he first encountered the gospel of grace preached to him by a young Baptist missionary couple was later married in the Bountiful Utah Temple and continued to serve in the LDS church during his adult years in the LDS church. He was a counselor and teacher in the young men's organization. A primary teacher and was twice a counselor and teacher in the elders quorum through several challenging life experiences God through Paul to his son Jesus Christ alone for salvation, and in May 2010: his family left the LDS faith he accepted Christian baptism of the age of 33 on August 11, 2011 he received an M.Div. in biblical studies in 2017.

All lives in northern Kentucky across the Ohio River from Cincinnati and his wife Angela have five children is a heart for Latter Day Saints, especially those who leave that charge and become agnostic or atheist. He cofounded the outer brightness podcast to be a resource for ex-Mormons in faith transitioning toward Rhonda faith in Jesus Christ. I can Michael so my name is Matthew and I will be the debate moderator. So following introduction thank you Michael for that once again will introduce to everyone.

The topic of the debate tonight will be is the book of Abraham ancient Scripture with Brett L. Dennis affirming and Paul Nürnberg opposing so the basic rules of this debate, not a lot, but hoping we can stick to it. There should be no injured interruptions. If it's someone else's time to speak the other one should be respectful and hopefully have their microphone muted.

The speakers must wait their turns and treat each other with dignity and respect and I may need to enforce these rules, but we hope that it will go smoothly and that everything will go well. Try to be as fair and balanced as I can be with the timings of someone takes extra time during one of the sections will try to be fair in an offer that to the other participant. So the basic format of the debate will start with opening statements with 25 minutes each in length.

There will be a following that a rebuttal period of 10 minutes each.

Where each participant will be able to rebut the arguments from their opponent. Following is the rebuttal. There will be a cross-examination. Which will have 20 minutes each. So, one participant will have 20 minutes to ask questions of their opponent, and then vice versa, and following the cross-examination. There will be a segment for audience question and this will last 20 minutes so for those who are watching our live feed on YouTube. We recommend that you leave comments and we will will be filtering out the questions will be available that will be given so please keep your questions on topic related to the debate. I would you post a question, please specify the person to whom the question is being asked or if it is being asked to both participants and our host Michael he will screen and read those questions are not. In following the audience questions. There will be a closing statement. For each participant will have five minutes to give their closing statements. So before we get started with opening statements. The participants have agreed that a brief introduction to the book of Abraham will be presented by me. The moderator sold every quickly and then I will put time on the clock for Mr. Dennis's opening statement so I will read this out these these were agreed upon by both participants as an introduction to the book of Abraham between 1818 and 1820 Egyptian Explorer Antonio LeBeau low uncovered some artifacts and eat in 1833 they were acquired by Michael Chandler, who sold some papyri and mummies to the Latter Day Saints and Kirtland, Ohio, in 1835 Joseph Smith examined the papyri and declare that they contain the writings of the biblical patriarchs, Abraham and Joseph translation of the umpire he began in 1835, with various scribes. Abraham chapter 1 through Abraham chapter 2, verse 18 was translated that year and then Joseph Smith was interrupted in his translation work resume translation in in Nauvoo, Illinois in the early 1840s, the book of Abraham as we have it today was first published in serial form in the Mormon periodical times and seasons, Nauvoo, Illinois between March 1 and May 16, 1842. The initial publication was in paragraph form and included the text of the book of Abraham, and three facsimiles or engravings of images reconstructed from the papyri and Joseph Smith's possession.

The last installment containing Abraham. Chapter 5 ends with the words.

To be continued indicating that Joseph Smith intended to pub to publish more. He was killed in 1844 and nothing more was ever published. After Joseph's death. The papyri were sold by Emma Smith and ended up in a museum in Chicago where they were presumed destroyed by the Chicago fire of 1871 in 1851 in Liverpool, England. The book of Abraham was published by Mormon apostle Franklin D Richard as part of the collection. He titled the pearl of great price. That collection was reissued in 1878 by the body of Mormons in Utah, led by Brigham Young in 1880.

It was adopted as canon by what is now the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a new addition with chapter and verse divisions was published in 1901 and again accepted by common consent is canonized Scripture by the church other restoration denominations stemming from Joseph Smith do not accept the book of Abraham as canon in 1967. Aziz Atia discovered a subset of the papyri in the Metropolitan Museum of New York.

These fragments were donated to the LDS church in 19 the most interesting of these fragments is called by various names. The breathing terminal for the book of breathing or the sense and document which is Egyptian for to breathe in and out some lines of evidence tie the breathing permit of or to the book of Abraham as a source.

Joseph Smith was looking at when he translated the main text of the document claim is disputed by some LDS scholars facsimile one was damaged and likely reconstructed by Joseph Smith.

It was at the beginning of the breathing permit of court facsimile three is no longer extant but likely was at the end of the breathing permit of court facsimile to is the hydrocephalus of Shashank no longer extant in the papyri so that is the introduction to the book of Abraham. I will now start the clock or 25 minutes and like I said it was a turns yellow ninja five minutes. Brett and Mr. Dennis and winners one minute left, it will turn red siliceous burrito so I will now turn the time over to Mr. Dennis for his opening statement you want to start out by thinking all for being willing to talk to me tonight. I also are they Michael and Matthew for hosting the event this evening and I want to thank the viewing audience for joining and flattered and I know most of you are actually here to see Michael Flournoy is still in the laws he sees blackened on house August reacted to deal with the my face. Now you actually see my face.

By the way, I can get good good villages and I don't wear my lucky thing when socks and I know you can see them but it should be a fun debate, as I've had interactions with the with Paul before extensively as well as with Matthew and and and Michael Moore Michael and Matthew, but is good but faces and adjusters with the written text.

This debate came to fruition. It started with a challenge that Paul issued to me back in August of last year you challenge me to listen to a Mormon stories podcast with John Boleyn where he was interviewing Dr. Robert Ritter, Dr. Ratner is the foremost non-LDS scholar commenting on the book of Abraham today.

He doesn't like Joseph Smith. I think you might have a personal grudge against a particular BYU scholar not getting it into that biotics.

Suffice it to say that it was not a friendly interview to the Latter Day Saints. I listens all 13 hours because I didn't bode well me a chicken. I have interest in the subject anyway so I was happy to do it and about a month and I posted comments to the Facebook group: I are both in after Paul read through those comments.

Again, please. Angelina said you know under which your money where your mouth is joy to talk to Dr. ringer cells about the criticisms you issued against his work was joking. Honestly and I thought you Robert Ritter does not want to talk to me but Paul went away for three days. I thought I would never see him again. Then he came back and I found out he was serious. He said Robert written or does not want to talk to you but I do so, he challenged me to this debate and here we are. I want to cover about while I covered three points of analysis in my opening statement.

First of all I would like to make some concessions. Not everything that book of Abraham pretty say about the book of Abraham is incorrect song and start their and to submit where some of the things people say are true. Second, I want to introduce a conceptual framework, a midazolam model for viewing the book of Abraham as well as the other translations of Joseph Smith is my belief that if you let go of some fundamental reasonable but incorrect assumptions turn the prism just a little bit start doing the book of Abraham through a different light that the inspiration of Joseph Smith against will explode on the page and finally number three I would like to spend the rest of the time is going over examples as many examples I can't illustrate a framework that I introduced. So number one concessions.

It is, I think, usually bad foreman today to start by anticipating what your opponent is going to say and refuting that generally you start with your own affirmative statement and find reasons to sport. I make an exception in this case because the book of Abraham is so pervasive and discussions are so pervasive, I've been involved in these discussions really since my mission 25 years ago, but more especially the last eight years and they all tend to go the same way.

So I wants the audience to be to know that I am familiar with the criticisms that have been leveled against the book of Abraham and inmate where some of them are actually correct position number one. The papyrus in the church's position does not mention the name Abraham. This is admitted by the church gospel topics essay on the book of Abraham's. I don't think I'm breaking a bracket is number two of Abraham is not a direct literal translation of the breathing permit of war or any other document in the church's possession does not say it is in the translation.

In some sense of the work. There are some lines of evidence that points to a relationship between the breathing permit for and the book of Abraham.

He should not be dismissed lightly thing that should be taken seriously by white blouse. As I mentioned the church as they think is important. Also to mention that the church as it has been misrepresented.

It says that the relationship between the papyrus and book of Abraham is not clear. It does not say that the church is admitted there is no relationship.

So, because I heard that point of view expressed a couple times about what that other concession number three. I don't think it. Many of the apologetic arguments that are issued in response to Abraham's book of Abraham criticism are our necessarily valid in particular, there is a theory called the long scroll theory that I don't buy into and a lot of members of the church do. I was going to spend a little bit of time explaining it. If anyone's interested. I encourage you to bring it up again in our Q&A session but I don't have time to go over it anymore.

At this point, possession of the four is difficult to produce positive evidence for individuals and small-scale events that happened thousands of years ago. This is definitely true with Abraham through the Abraham of the Bible as well as the Abraham of the book of Abraham is not to say that the book of Abraham is not historical but that's not my interest and I will be talking about the historicity of the book of Abraham narrative.

I will leave members of the church who are interested in that, to to pick up that porch after having made these concessions.

How then can I proclaim the book of Abraham is inspired Scripture to love the look of these these things I just said and they say will. This is damning. You know it proves of the book of Abraham is false that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and by extension and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the whole Mormon movement is invalid when going to there is now is a framework that I found particularly useful in discussing and studying the LDS Scriptures. The basic idea is that Joseph was able to read and translate the documents in his possession and he usually produced in his English translation. The core concept of the glyph or the figure or the word or the character that he was looking at in the original language, but he didn't stop there. Once he had the core meaning of the item in place, he would expand it you would often offer commentary on you recontextualize a put it in context, either to make a new pointer to reemphasize the point regarding eight would repurpose it and this is one of my favorite things he would combine it with other sources so the question is no longer does everything in the translated document map something in the source document and police not in a phrase by phrase like that that that question is replaced in this model by two other questions.

First, does the meaning of the translated text capture the meaning of the source text consistently enough to be statistically significant. In other words, the Joseph Smith prove that he actually knew the language in second for the context for the text that is surrounding the English translation can we find reasons that context exist, such as he commenting on it or is he combining with other sources as I have suggested. I think the answer to both of these questions is yes and Audrey does verbatim setting. This is maybe the most important thing I I'm saying tonight least with reference to the doctor in her interview and understanding of what the Egyptian on Joseph Smith's primary source documents.

It is only part of what we need to know to evaluate its meaning. Repeat that again and understanding of what the Egyptian on Joe's as primary source documents documents as is only part of what we need to know to evaluate its meaning. What this means is that somebody like Dr. Ritter who was Egyptologist may not be the best person to evaluate the book of Abraham, so he died in here with some examples start to spend time on a first example because it did.

I think it is very illustrative on the topics were discussing yourself is your ice cream. Okay, let's get it here was only please give me a verbal confirmation that you can see my screen distribute Matthews Anaya Maca to go back and I can get out of this know you can find a window is not what I want. Seven. Have you sign with a share screen and share these different silver works or not. That really was him using the screen's then okay so if you are minute. By the way political discipline that would be great. I appreciate that day's so want to start out talking here about facsimile to visit facsimile to zero in on figure 2, which is in the upper portion there in the center cell is just fast forward a little bit in particular armies on the about this stand that is on the right-hand side near the bottom that this stand is something that Joseph Smith called an altar question is is is an accurate depiction of what the Egyptian symbol is and I know that it is I don't even have to go to only as a biologist to show that it is because Dr. Ratner said so what actually is is an altar master altar stand. An operator is not going to give Joe Smith credit for this, and I'll show in just a minute how he tries to get around light when you boil all of the minutia away the core of what what Dr. Ritter is saying is that this is an altar and Elizabeth said it was an offer at this point we blown out of the water. The notion that Joseph got nothing for ranked in the papyrus you to get something for ideally's got this correct and only one counterexample to challenge the assertion that he got nothing correct so this is the level you start discussing this at it just it is not adequate to say the Joseph understood no objection whatsoever now. Is there a lot of text around the altar hear the answer is yes, there is where that text come from is the next light and we can see that Joe said is pertaining to other planets as revealed in God. Abraham as he offered sacrifice upon altar boys are going to ask is, is there a Abraham and document that the pace Abraham sacrificing on altar and being receiving a revelation about the planets and the answer is yes, there is called the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Abraham is a document was written and also Blahnik probably about the time of Christ. But it wasn't discovered until after Joseph Smith's death, it was discovered in 1863, I believe, wasn't translated into English until the 1890s. In this document, the apostles of Abraham has probably about two dozen different specific parallels with the book of Abraham more lively than to be attributed to chance. So here the Rolodex from the Apocalypse. Notice I will show you standing up, I will show you standing beside you, for they are the altar on the mountain to offer sacrifice to the eternal one. Notice how this compares with Joseph Smith's explanation pertaining to other planets, as revealed to God from God to Abraham as he offered sacrifice upon an altar. What happens in the Apocalypse all Abraham sacrificing says for I will ascend on the wings of birds to show you what is in the heavens, in the fullness of the universe. In other words, Abraham was being shown. The planets just as the book of Abraham says right so this is I think it's writing, and it shows one of the sources that Joseph is combining with the altar of the Egyptian document to produce this figure to sign Apocalypse of Abraham. The altar is not literal. It says that Abraham is to give his sacrifice to men who will represent an altar, whereas figure 2 says that Abraham built the altar unto the Lord.

So there is little difference there in the question. It then is is there a place we can go to find where Abraham built an altar to the Lord answers yes we don't have to go very far. Genesis 22, nine Abraham built an altar there is a significant because this is the sacrifice of Isaac in both the book of Abraham and the Apocalypse of Abraham has a very striking parallels to the sacrifice of Isaac, which again about time to get into at this point in Genesis 13, eight Abraham built there an altar unto the Lord. So to summarize those that is talking about altar written or confirms of the altar is there we find context of the problems of Abraham. In this figure. And then of course we have the biblical associations. This is I think a good example of how Joseph combined sources. He takes the core essence of what is in the Egyptian document and then combines other sources into his description to give us what the expanded meaning. The God wants us to have kids now 11 question I get frequently is well, you know that, looks like an altar could have been a lucky guess, by Joseph Smith and it is impossible, impossible to prove that it wasn't but I do know that figure is not obviously in altar. How do I know that I get to go to the interview with Dr. Ritter first a little background a little more on the story of how that altar got to where it is now. This is the hydrocephalus of Shashank as it exists today, and as it apparently existed in Joe's mystic Joseph had to fill in the missing portion there in the upper right-hand corner. One of the ways he did that was by taking by borrowing other parts of the papyrus in a clearing. So in this case. Apparently, he took the altar from facsimile one figure 10 and he caught it and pasted it over there into that section of the types of lists in that manner that I've said the altar probably was not original to the hydrocephalus. That doesn't mean that it was wrong, it just means that Joseph had a purpose for putting it there and if there's any question about how about whether Joseph knew the original what it should look like will find evidence of that in figure 3. So you have a chance to get there, but the point is that yes he knew what the original said, and he was taking liberties with. I don't have a problem with that and I think if you understand that this is vintage Joseph Smith. I think it's is really not much of a problem at all. But now, how did Dr. Ritter treat this in the interview.

The ball discussing figure 1. This is where we get his statement that what it actually is an altar that your altar stand. He was using the statement to contrasted with Joseph Smith's explanation, which was Abraham in Egypt, then pointed out that the when he was discussing facsimile to.

He pointed out that the copy from figure 10 was made into facsimile to where Joseph actually does collect an altar.

But now this is where things get very interesting because Dr. Ritter is going to backtrack on his earlier statement.

He says my smiling text that is where he says there is no altar except that of course he's added many stops himself. He says well he's he's adding the standard of the flowers he doesn't want to call it an altar now because that's the were the Joseph Smith uses which, if you will remember in the facsimile one you labeled as representing Abraham in Egypt so he stuck it from here in a cut-and-paste giving it essentially the same meaning it had in facsimile one Millie didn't come off) on reading and reading his words, but he did not get essentially the same description in figure 10, as he did in figure 2.

He gave two different descriptions. They are not mutually exclusive and I think it's best to understand them as being different aspects of the same figure in some sense, this is an altar that represents Abraham in Egypt. Both of the descriptions apply and written or for whatever reason, I think I know the reason only wants one of them to apply now you notice like that sometimes there this is a text that I cut out was a dialogue between John Boleyn and Dr. Ritter were John the Lynn listen to what he just said. He said okay so what Joseph did was take a figure that he thought would like an altar and pasted it in here called an altar is reasonable. The Lynn would've thought that even though he'd Artie been told it was an altar because this was the misdirection that Dr. written was applying and this is what shows me now that this is not an easy guess the Lynn did not think this was an altar and he allowed Dr. written notice by having set with an altar to to convince him that it wasn't at this point Dr. written her seemingly begins to understand that he is maybe talking to itself in the holes we kind of backtracks a little bit again.

He goes on the altar. He didn't understand he does. Smith didn't understand here what we are calling an altar. He didn't know was an altar financing to be astonishing because Smith actually said in figure 2 that it is an altar so we can see through this.

How does Smith think of something right and it can be spun to make it look wrong. The second check my time here know how we doing on time mad yet.

What was the time right now, so added side a minute and 1/2 so you have about five and that her at six and half minutes washing my screen I can see the times as you like a two minute warning that betrayed their excellence get back into this so what I want to do now is just go through some examples of how to show this is not a an isolated event. We see Joe Smith getting the correct Egyptian explanation. Over and over and over again and over and over and over again. Dr. written her either doesn't mention it or tries to downplay it or does something else to try to office is… Again here. This is figure 1. Hydrocephalus. It appears in the middle of the figure shows that it is prologue, signifying the first creation is a Dr. Ritter said about it in his book the central figure is not prologue in Egyptian terms. I believe this callout is probably related to other similar groups. There is a an Arabic QLD called, I guess, is how you pronounce it, which means center which makes sense because figure 1 is in the center of the hydrocephalus it's cognate with the Hebrew Karl Rove, which means near and so you can see there that Joseph captured the connotation of being mere as well. He appears to be playing on his word and in a couple different languages is not Egypt. So, I'll grant them the central figure is not prologue in Egyptian terms, nor is he the first creation, etc. rather, the image is the creator God himself. So, written, or is is splitting hairs between Joseph saying this is the first creation and the fact that it is the creator. I guess kind of don't be honestly lights you now to me. You can have a creator without creation, and vice versa. But I guess you can make your own judgment there as long as you have that information. Unfortunately, in the interview Dr. nurse at the primary scene is the creator God, but he does not call attention to the fact that Joseph Smith said it was the first creation. So again, you can make a dozen on figure 1.

This is an Egyptian phrase the Joseph Smith reconstructed called agile a don't spend a lot of time on this one, but apologist Michael Rosen, John G has sought to defend Smith's explanation as over the earth. Ritter did have an objection to that. I don't these objections are legitimate. In the interview he just said is an attempted say Yahweh, but he did not provide any evidence for his opinion. Figure 2 is old English, which is next to the grant governing creation, holding the key of power. Now this is significant because Dr. written or said that in similar hypothetical lie. The figure in this position carries a lost scepter.

He doesn't tell us what Law Center is busy garlic. You can find out that while scepter is a power center that's how loss is translated so for Joseph Smith to say he's holding the key of power is significant. Figure 3. Remember, this is the reconstructed portion of the parties. This is very interesting. Again, the figure is holding a lost scepter. So for Joseph Smith associated with power is accurate. You went with a crown of eternal light upon his head.

He has a solar disk here so that is also accurate. It was reconstructed by Joseph Smith from a different part of the papyrus and Dr. written her in talking about the image, said that what you see is the falcon headed sun god Ra with the scientist on his head, so he's describing the image that Joseph replace their in his book he said on site is also within one's first podcast. He said the law section often contains a solar bark with the sun god. So I Joseph Daisy found an image that contained the assigned audience sitting apart. You pasted it into the section hydrocephalus, which is exactly are these very close.

It was similar to what should be there anyway is a limited discussion between the Lynn and RFM on this Glenn are feminine and I Dr. written on this point, the Lynn asks is it a little bit impressive that they got it is a little bit impressive that they got boat right and Ritter says to us will be sarcastically yes but the thing is I know where he got his particular book, because it's elsewhere in the papyrus so he doesn't want to give Joseph Smith credit for because he borrowed from someplace rather than free handing but you can see the image is what it should be and Dr. written or essentially admits it just under two minutes. By the okay. Think of a seven figure 4.

Figure 4 adjustment associated with revolution of the planets and the measuring of time you I challenge anyone to look at this and tell me what about this figure suggest that it represents the revolution of planets governor says that has nothing to do with the heavens, but is contradicted by Louis Spence in a book called ancient Egyptian myths and legends which said that some parts to provide the revolution of the sun is targeted by this website. The revolution of the sun and other celestial bodies was symbolized and he is greeted by this website. This is that so far mirrors the revolution of the sun, planets or other celestial bodies. I mean, this is astonishing. Again, I would like anyone to explain to me how Joseph Smith got this right now. He captured this aspect so far. If you did not know the Egyptian associated with it.

How would you know you Egyptian associated with it. If it works the revelation so we just summarize Arabic. I was going keep on going on as I know I run out of time, but stop sharing. The point is know you're not going to find a phrase by phrase rendering of the Egyptian into English. That's not what Joseph Smith translation looks like, but it is evident as you go through these things that Joseph did know what he was looking at and he captured the essential meaning of these figures in each of the of the things they said okay so it was like I'm actually out of time. Here the times no one up so I will. I know I will reported not to settle down.

Under no turnover to Paul and Joe job St. Paul thanks RA very much Brett are Mr. Dennis, which would you prefer right is fine but is fine okay you want to keep it, not to US not to professional and by auditors and iPhones on the ball as well.

We call him grandpa so is my respectfully called you, thank you very much Brett appreciate it. Yeah you and sorry about the technical difficult days but like I said will try to be fair and elaborately that it was Michael Alano. It's it's all Gary Wheatley were doing a test stream earlier we had some problems to RA something very much.

I will reset the timer for 25 minutes and I will turn the time over to Paul for his opening statement. So Paul believed you are. First of all electric. When Bradford agreed to this debate prize. He mentioned he and I've been discussing Mormonism on Facebook and private messages for probably around seven or eight years now. I appreciate your friendship, Brett, and I'm glad to finally talk to you live even if it is just virtually.

I also like to thank our audience for tonight and I hope you enjoyed tonight's debate, and that helps guide you into truth so bread I as he mentioned began discussing the idea for holding this debate when he was in the 13 hour Mormon stories series of podcast episodes with Robert K. Written or just get a quick background of Dr. written or is he is the professor of Egyptology at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and was from 1991 to 1996 the first Marilyn M.

Simpson, assistant professor of Egyptology at Dale University. Dr. Rimmer is the author of three books and over 100 publications on Egyptian religion, magic, medicine, language and literature as well as social and political history. So we would say that he knows what he's talking about when it comes to Egyptology nine is a question. Is the book of Abraham, ancient Scripture, this question has two parts that have to be answered. The first is is the book of Abraham ancient and the second is is it Scripture to answer this two-part question.

We first must tackle a series of related questions in some depth one. What is the book of Abraham to how did it come to be three what would entail for it to be ancient and what would entail for the for it to be Scripture and the last one has a corollary question how has the church, the body of believers who have been saved by God through faith historically recognized which writings constitute Scripture with an S. So what is the book of Abraham, the book of Abraham is the English text that was produced by Joseph Smith and the scribes between 1835 and 1842 in my comments. I'll be all be distinguishing between English text and the Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith possessed to the stated copy of the book of Abraham, published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints contains the following introduction quote the book of Abraham, translated from the papyrus by Joseph Smith translation of some ancient records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. Writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt called the book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus that introduction is a combination of the introduction written into the English manuscripts produced by Smith, describes the first scholars have labeled the book of Abraham manuscripts to. It was produced sometime between July and November 1835, William W. Phelps was the scribe for this manuscript and the introduction of his handwriting reads as follows.

Translation of the book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the catacombs of Egypt.

The second one. Scholars call book of Abraham manuscript an explanation to accompany facsimile one is dated February 1842 and contains the English text for Abraham chapter 1 verse one through chapter 2 verse 18. Willard Richards was describing was and it was copied from an earlier manuscript likely a preparation of the printers.

Manuscript in this text. Introduction reads as follows.

A translation of some ancient records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt according to be the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt called the book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus. Take note from the purchase of the papyri onward. Joseph Smith told people that they contained the writings of the biblical patriarchs, Abraham and Joseph do not only told his followers. This told others who traveled to Nauvoo Illinois to see what latter-day Saints were building their and to review the monies in papyri on displacements mansion house talking about the book of Abraham to be a very complex very quickly to keep these clearance answer the question what is the book of Abraham, the first answer what it is and what it is not the book of Abraham is the modern English text produced by Joseph Smith between 1832 rating 35 in 1942 the book of Abraham is not ancient.

The book of Abraham is not a translation in any conventional sense of that word of the Egyptian papyri possessed by Joseph Smith the Egyptian papyri and mommies purchased by Smith and his colleagues are ancient artifacts that can now be authenticated by Egyptologist and understood in their proper context out of the book of Abraham come to be established in the opening that Michael Shandler sold some Egyptian mummies in papyri to Joseph Smith 1835 in the Smith declared them to be the writings of the biblical patriarchs, Abraham and Joseph. Prior to that Shandler had displayed them in various exhibition. Also, museums first in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Baltimore, Maryland, and Lancaster Harrisburg in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Cincinnati, Ohio, Louisville, Kentucky, Hudson, Cleveland, and finally in Kirtland, Ohio selling off portions of the collection as he traveled.

We must keep in mind we are talking about authentic Egyptian relics and distinguish those from the inauthentic book of Abraham which is the English text produced by Joseph Smith. I spent a bit on the prominence of the artifacts because no one in the United States making 35° Egyptian had the papyri that made their way to Kirtland Ohio and into the hands of Joseph Smith actually contains the writings of Abraham and Joseph. It would've been an amazing discovery is Michael Marquart an independent historian of Mormonism contributed a chapter titled Joseph Smith Egyptian papers or history to Robert Ratner's book titled Joseph Smith. Egyptian papyri complete edition in his chapter, Marquart said, quote it would be a major discovery of the papyri contained mention of the patriarch Abraham and Joseph of Egypt. In fact they would constitute the oldest authentic documents ever found regarding them there's a problem for Joseph Smith in his book of Abraham. They don't what would entail for it to be ancient. The book of Abraham would have to be an authentic literal translation of the content on the papyri possessed by Smith for many years. The papyri were lost.

They were thought to have been destroyed in the great Chicago fire of 1871 as a result of this supposed loss almost a century, it was thought impossible to authenticate whether or not estimates English text was an accurate translation of the content on the papyri but in November 1967 the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City made a gift to the LDS Church of 10 papyrus fragments that it been part of the collection owned by Smith. These fragments are now identified by Egyptologist today between 500 BC or 300 BC and 150 BC far too late to have been written by Abraham's own hand upon papyrus fragments have nothing to do with the biblical patriarch Abraham build his church recently published a series of gospel topics, essays, and helping its members understand the contextualized number of difficult issues related to its history and doctrine on July 8, 2014, the LDS church published its essay titled translation and historicity of the book of Abraham. In this essay. It is admitted that quote. None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham's name or any of the events recorded in the book of Mormon book of Abraham. Sorry Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham.

Though there is no unanimity even among non-Mormon scholars about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.

Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as part of standard funerary texts were deposited with mummified bodies in the section of my remarks. I focused on the question, what would it entail for the book of Abraham to be ancient.

My answer that question and that of many who have investigated this matter is that the English text produced by Smith would have to be authenticated as a valid translation of the Egyptian content on the papyrus into English when I presented as evidence enough to demonstrate that such is not the case. Thus, the book of Abraham is not ancient since discovering the papyrus fragments 1967 in two major approaches taken by Mormon apologists in trying to account for the fact the papyrus fragments clearly demonstrate the Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian into English. The first approach can be called the missing school. This posits that the Pirates fragments were in fact part of the collection possessed by Smith but of the book of Abraham was translated from a longer scroll but is still missing. I recognize that Brett does not accept that. But I'm throwing it out there because it's one of the theories that apologists of the fourth Department Egyptian papers and the translation of facsimile one bite. Egyptologists have rendered this apologetic approach longer scroll. Untenable benchmark age.

Michael Marquart has written quote since 1967. Most analyses of the book of Abraham LDS church members no longer argue for the work as a literal translation of an ancient text, and neither did Brett continue." The papyrus that contains the Egyptian characters appearing on the three translation manuscript was today preserved in the LDS archives there.

Marquart refers to the Kirtland Egyptian papers which are now published as part of the Joseph Smith papers Project. Anyone can find them with high quality digital photographs with a simple Google search. These papers are important because they give us a pretty clear view of what Smith describes thought they were doing in their translation process. They produced an Egyptian alphabet grammar and thought they were producing a literal translation of the characters on the papyri. To quote Michael Marquart about the Egyptian alphabet grammar. He said quote the surviving manuscripts of this alphabet contained Egyptian characters copied by Smith Calgary Phelps and later it November 18 35 x 1/3 scribe one parish.

Some of the characters were copied directly from the original papyrus virus from the vignette where illustration of what Smith published in 1842 US facsimile number one of his book of Abraham translation details into hazy for those not familiar with this, but the take away here is this some of the characters in alphabet grammar were taken from the vignette published is about as facsimile one when examined closely characters and their interpretation of the Egyptian alphabet grammar can detract to the English text of the book of Abraham. Anyone can examine this for themselves and I encourage all to yourself.

While the missing scroll theory is teetering precariously on the edge of the table, some recent warm recent Mormon scholars take possession of the book of Abraham does not consist of anything that is on the papyri at all. This is been termed the catalyst. Because it views the Egyptian artifacts disturbing the purpose of catalyzing Joseph Smith into regulatory state in which Mormon neurobiologists argue he received the English text of the book of Abraham by inspiration from God. In an interview with scholar Terrell Givens posted on the faith matters YouTube channel. Milstein, professor of ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University and who also holds a PhD in Egyptology from UCLA takes this position.

Terrell Givens asked Milstein quote do you believe that there are alternative ways of thinking about Joseph and his prophetic capacity.

Do not rely upon him being a successful translator of Egyptian. In this case, Milstein responds quote yeah yeah I think that there is a possibility that he's not giving us anything on the papyri at all. The problem with that theory is that it's impossible to prove it wrong. There's no evidence that could you could run up against it, and is the same with Brett's theory as well so therefore ways Mormon apologists current or Mormon apologists, and Egyptologist during Milstein here seems to move away from the missing scroll theory which is previously defended with another Mormon Egyptologist, John D. And in a recent Mormon stories, but now I think it was today. There was a lot of talk about how John is is pushing up against the Joseph Smith papers Project scholars, most of which had moved away from missing scroll.

This position Mormon video apologists attempt to remove the Egyptian papyrus fragments having any bearing on the question to Joseph Smith translate Egyptian and English. By this they also attempt to remove them from having any bearing on the question of whether or not the book of Abraham is ancient Scripture, and further by taking this position preceded the point.

The Smith was not a successful translator of Egyptian. What would it entail for the book of Abraham to be Scripture to conclusion to the LDS church's essay on the translation historicity of the book of Abraham states the following veracity and value of the book of Abraham cannot be settled by scholarly debate concerning the books translation historicity.

The book statuses Scripture lies in the eternal truths of teachers and the powerful spirit it conveys the book of Abraham imparts profound truths about the nature of God, his relationship to his children and the purpose of his mortal life truth of the book of Abraham is ultimately found through careful study of its teaching sincere prayer and the confirmation of the spirit.

This ask people to dismiss the scholarly investigations into the veracity of the book of Abraham and accepted as inspired Scripture despite its utter lack of historicity. In second Peter 116 we read quote for we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his Majesty within the narrative of the Bible when God acted in history. He often commanded the stones be placed as memorials of the accident done Protestant Christians take the view stated plainly by RC Sproul quote the only source in norm for all Christian knowledge is holy Scripture's thematic statement introduces district tourist Sacra of Hyder's classic work in the reform dogmatics and provides a distinct expression of the reforms float admission slogan solos for two or two keywords that are used to crystallize the solar character of Scripture are source in norm. So it's important for us to answer the question, is the book of Abraham ancient Scripture and visit Scripture at all, because Scripture should be the source in norm for true beliefs about God. If one is a believer and revealed religion is important to distinguish between and define some terms now those terms are Scripture with an S and Canon different groups hold a different canons of Scripture and all Scripture is Canon for those communities that use a particular set of books. However, not all Canon is Scripture in the inspired sense of that word. Some scholars define in writing of Scripture. If it is accepted by a group to be inspired and may collect Scripture because it exceeded because it is accepted by the group to be a holy writing. Thus, the book of Mormon Bible the doctrine and covenants, and accrual of a prize are all considered Scripture for Latter Day Saints.

However, this definition of Scripture is inadequate precisely because of equivocation between the two terms Canon and Scripture. Scripture can be defined as those writings that are inspired freaked out by God and which are God's revelation of truth about himself and his plan of salvation for humanity. Second Timothy 316 and 17 states quote all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, but the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work than is the category that her writing is in.

If it is in fact inspired by God Canon can be defined as a technical term with several distinct components and may accordingly be defined as the closed list of books accepted retrospectively by a group is authoritative or binding for religious practice and doctrine. That's from Peter W.

Flint editor of the Bible.

I can run text shape and interpretation. Canon man is the set of books accepted by a particular group is authoritative.

However, writings inclusion in any particular groups. Canon does not grant writing the status of inspired Scripture think of it this way is common in our culture now to say that truth is relative. There's your truth is my truth, but there's no such thing as ultimate truth percent were applied to the concept of Scripture and it is by those who are careless with definitions then we would say that there is Mormon scripture s and there is Christian scripture s but there is no ultimate Scripture S of each group is dedicated to identifying understanding and integrating as truth. T into their life of faith, but this is not the sense of Scripture that the LDS church wants us to have in mind when they claim that the book of Abraham is inspired Scripture.

They want us to accept their proposal that this writing was revealed by God.

They want us to accept that it falls within the category of Scripture S they want us to accept that the nature of God and man presented in the book of Abraham is truth is truth T. Instead, or indeed the book of Abraham is integral to Mormonism's unique view, anthropology, astronomy, and a pre-mortal life of human spirits. Now the corollary question for a what has the church or how is the church, the body of believers who have been saved by God through faith historically recognized which writings constitute Scripture, S both Latter Day Saints and Protestant Christians except the 66 books of the Protestant canon of the Bible is Scripture, though for different reasons in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints additions to bear Canon can be made by common consent. Historically that is meant that a resolution for an addition is put forth by LDS church leadership Atty. Gen. conference and the resolution is accepted by the membership of the LDS church. The last time that this took place was September 30, 1978, one official declaration number two was added to the LDS Canon Protestant Christians except the 66 books of the Bible because it is the result of the process of canon formation within the early church in Jesus's day. It appears that a tripartite or three-part collection of Scripture election if she were Scripture was generally recognized as authoritative. The three parts were the Torah. The law and never even the prophets and the captivating writings. This seems to be evident in Luke 2444 where Jesus is recorded as saying quote, these are my words which I spoke to you while I was with you that all things which are written about me in the law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled is also seems to be evident from document among the Dead Sea Scrolls indicated that found among the Dead Sea Scrolls indicated from Ron for to MMT the mixed Atmos that huts were the title of which can be translated as some presets on the terrace were some rulings pertaining to the Tarawa.

This document also contains a passage that seems to refer to the pre-part Jewish canon. It reads quote Shirley for your grade we bring our words forward and we write to you to pay attention to the book of Moses into the words of the prophets, as well as to David and that day-to-day Chronicles through the ages Christians the Jewish scriptures were accepted because they prophesied of Jesus Christ process of canon formation men largely has to do with which writings produced during that during and after the apostolic age would be considered Canon from a study of canon formation, we can see that the early church over a period of centuries applied a number of guidelines to identify authentic Scripture and weed out those writings which are not Latter Day Saints should agree that this process of canon formation on the guidelines I'm about to present resulted in the preservation of the New Testament for us today live the LDS Bible dictionary which is available as a study hall on the church's website states the following quote in the main, however, sound guidelines were established to help preserve the authoritative books among these rules for the following one. Is it claimed that the document was written by a prophet or apostle to is the content of the writing consistent with known and accepted doctrines of the faith really is the document ready already used and accepted by the church by application of these test the books now contained in the Bible have been preserved." And I will be discussing four guidelines of the early Christians used identify authentic inspired writings and I'll be implying applying the book of Abraham. These core criteria are discussed at greater length in many scholarly works on the formation of the biblical canon.

I'm using the biblical canon, its origin, transmission and authority Eileen Martin McDonald apostolate city is the first one writing was believed to been produced by an apostle.

It was eventually accepted as sacred Scripture and included in the New Testament Canon was the book of Abraham, the English texts or the papyrus fragments written by Abraham. No, but the English text presents it as a first person account is safe to assume that if there were authentic writings of the biblical patriarch Abraham Mormon and Christian scholars alike would be interested in studying about even if the LDS church admits that the Egyptian papyrus fragments Smith owns including proximally one or not about Abraham, even the LDS church admits this so the book of Abraham fall feels the apostolate city test orthodoxy theological issues were significant concerns. The early church and played an important role in it, in its development is theological concern, but severely church employing the rule of faith is the criterion for orthodoxy to determine which writings could be used in the church is the theology and the book of Abraham consistent with the ultimate new Testaments and the role of faith of the early Christian church. Again, the answer is no is consistent with the theology of Joseph Smith which he developed in his other writings, between 1835 and 1842 in the book of Abraham, Joseph Smith further develops his doctrine of the pre-mortal life and tries to make his team.

The ancient HR's new and believed in the doctrines of 3° of glory and having multiple guys in plural marriage is doctrines are not found among the ancients nor among the early Christians. So the book of Abraham fails the orthodoxy test antiquity. So for the church. Jesus's ministry was a defining moment in history so they look to see if a writing was old enough to be close to Jesus's ministry and his apostles ministry is the book of Abraham, the English or the acquiring fragments sufficiently old enough to have been written by Abraham his own hand upon papyrus surely not the English text was produced by Joseph Smith and 1835, 1842.

Papyri fragments were produced by Egyptian scribes and 500 BC between 500 BC and 150 BC.

The book of Abraham fails antiquity test and met the papyrus fragments states more than a millennium after Abraham lived, and then use the regular use of writings in the ancient churches was also an important factor in their selection for the New Testament Canon the widespread use of New Testament writings in the churches may have been the most determinative factor in the canonical process is there evidence that authentic writings of Abraham were used by the Jews or the early Christian church is there evidence that anything like the English texts produced existed anciently and was used by and considered Canon by ancient Jews or Christians know there is not the book of Abraham fails all four criteria.

Therefore, it is not ancient and it is not Scripture SIC my time great thank you very much Paul for your opening statement and for keeping the time sheet that my job easier. Okay so we have concluded the opening statement section of the debate. So now we will proceed with the rebuttal. Of the debate so each section of the rebuttal. Will be 10 minutes in length. So for the first section Brett T will be on the affirmative, and you will be responding to the opposing opening statement apologist gave you. I defy the areas of conflict and answer any questions that may have been raised by Paul so let me just fix the timer.

I should've done that before placenta for 10 minutes. I will give warning time at five minutes and alert time at one minute. So I now turn the time over to Brett for his rebuttal. Okay. Thank you, Matthew yet so close opening statement bays basically focus on the questions is the book of Abraham ancient and is it Scripture I get to say with no maybe not as thoroughly as as I could because I have the M.Div. that Paul has is always a gone through a lot of the young Christian history, and so on so forth.

Latter Day Saints point of view we don't accept the same criteria for accepting Scripture that you know the traditional Christians do Marranos promise comes to my mind where Moron I declares that if you study it out if you praying in the Holy Ghost will answer you as to whether it Scripture not self things that Paul is talking about here. The things that orthodoxy antiquity test and use it all seemed to be tradition.

There based on tradition. They don't appeals any real authority doesn't appeal to authority was was the book written by an apostle, and while I think that is actually probably pretty good criteria for determining whether someone is Scripture, not I think the number of Abraham passed that test because I understand this is something works. An ongoing agreement.

I believe Joseph Smith was an apostle. So as the translation passed through his mind as it was revealed to him, it gained the apostolic stamp of approval so that I think is is going to say about whether Abraham Scripture out loud about what I wanted to focus on more is is the book of Abraham ancient Paul said in his remarks that the book of Abraham modern English translate modern English text is not translation any conventional sense of the work like a thing of the direct quote and take notes with quicker focusing on network conventional. No one is saying here the move.

Abraham is a conventional translation. I didn't present that argument in my opening statement. I don't think Ellie's apologist generally, except that you and the book of Abraham essay on the church website pretty much states that he was well that it is not a conventional translation. But what I did show in my opening statement is that it is a translation in some sense of the work and again take you back to the question that I asked initially. Is there enough actual translation can we verify enough Egyptian running through Joseph Smith translation work to be statistically significant and I believe the answer is yes. As I was going through the facsimiles I just started with figure wine. I worked my way out. As far as the year for I could've gone through all seven the Joseph Smith attempted an exclamation for an interview go back to two facsimile one is going to show yes there's a crocodile there. The Joseph Smith identifies the God of Pharaoh.

Dr. Riner agrees with this and you notice I'm not going to Ellie's apologist for these claims. I'm saying that Robert written or is confirming, in most cases that these exhalations are correct enough he doesn't get credit at the time. He says it is you partially saying carefully and if you can see that the exhalations that Joseph Smith is giving our actual translation so I don't get hung up on his work. Conventional II think that seven that is an arbitrary requirement and will really looking for is evidence of inspiration and Joseph Smith the translate, which he showed that he could do then is not going to match a a conventional scholarly translations want all attention is anger. Paul mentioned no one in 1835 could read Egyptian that is true therefore becomes very difficult to point to the hits the Joseph Smith God in his in his interpretations, and say that he got it from a lexicon or that he got it from an Egyptian scholar because it simply didn't exist and read Egyptian 1835 is only later, now that we've been able to verify some of these things, both as the devoted neighbor has not ancient because the pain translation doesn't match again.

He's talking about more of a conventional translation. I think I sent them everything that is ancient show that is ancient in the sense that Joseph Smith was actually able to capture the core essence of the Egyptian figures in the facsimiles I show that is ancient by virtue of the fact that he recognized the astronomy of facsimile two was one of the main points of the of the solar disk. The hydrocephalus I show this ancient by virtue of the fact that Joe's was going to other sources such as the apocalypse of Abraham which is his main idea from the time Abraham is certainly ancient. It was on it inaccessible to him.

So now I think organ dancing as a definition what you mean by match. I think that the book of Abraham doesn't bite if you of the ancient documents the Joseph Smith was either seeing physically in front of him or seeing the revelation of volatile little bit about catalyst theory mentioned a quote by Dr. Milstein is that the possibility exists and again is his mind if her phrase because I was writing quickly.

The possibility exists that the translation doesn't correlate with the text at all. I would have see what Dr. Milstein meant by that, in context, by Paul then went on to say, the rest position is similar that you can correlate anything I said with the, yet you can't relate anything in the text of the book of Abraham with the papyrus. I spent nearly all 25 minutes of my opening statement showing how the English of the book of Abraham correlates with the papyrus so I don't think that point is valid, wise, and the curtain Egyptian papers. I thought this would probably come up early Egyptian papers were sent working notes the Joseph Smith used. This is why the lines of evidence the times the reading permit for two. The book of Abraham and one of the criticisms of this document is that it can state contains the text of the book of Abraham with Egyptian characters running down the left-hand column. Egyptian characters mismatch the ratio of the English words by a rate of about 1 to 25. Let's review this quote by David Witmer. He said that he is referring to the book of Mormon translation, but I think it applies equally to the book of Abraham translation. He said frequently.

One character would make two lines of manuscript, while others made little word or two words now business is losing in the early Egyptian papers and against all this is why I'm addressing you have one Egyptian character, creating two lines of manuscript. Again, this goes back to my opening statement.

The theory is that Joseph Smith was able to translate the core essence of the Egyptian character and he expanded it. He recontextualize that he repurposed in any combined with other sources. I demonstrated what one of those other sources not applicable other of those sources. So you remember I talked about how the altar was which was confirmed by Dr. Robert written or as being altar also found a parallel in the apocalypse. Abraham, which is been denied access to, and found parallels in the King James Bible. So when you have this this one symbol. This altar with all this other material tied into it. This can start to account for why there are there is so much English text for each Egyptian character. It happened in the book of Mormon as we conceive in the curtain Egyptian papers.

It happened with the book of Abraham, and again I believe I've given a plausible demonstration of how this could be finally with my meetings. I want to address this point here is said that the book Abraham was written by his own hand upon papyrus.

This is one evidence that Latter Day Saints site as being evidence of a law school that is you actually have text from Abraham, then this is bright.

This criterion is not met.

I think that when you get into a study of the god Osiris who was the father was actually lying on the lion couch and facsimile one you begin to see that Osiris and Abraham are actually related to each other. This this was true in the Jewish religion as well as the Joseph Smith papyrus.

So for example Osiris substance was a substitute answer Abraham as a substitute for Osiris in Luke 16 the story of the rich young man and Lazarus and the rich man and Lazarus, which many scholars believe was taken from an Egyptian myth and in that that story in Luke 16 Osiris in the Egyptian is Abraham in the New Testament so that there are some correlations there between Abraham Osiris and my time is it appears that I have time to get into that mean will discuss a little bit more later. Thank you, great.

Thank you Brett shady of being conscious of the time. Thank you for rebuttal of Paul's opening statement and so now we will move to Paul's turn now to have 10 minutes to respond to the affirmative opening statement that Brett gave so I will restart the timer and you have 10 minutes Paul first of all I want to start out by thinking Brett for his concessions that he made at the beginning of his opening statement and I also want to apologize to Brett.

I did not intend to give the impression that I think you hold to the catalyst theory will hold to the theory that nothing in the injustice interpretations order English text lines at all with Egyptian papyri know the Snyder position from previous conversations that we've had and I apologize.

I did impression that is the catalyst theory. That is what what Karen Milstein was presented in the video, Gibbons mentions that response with the clippings you mentioned just now and then I'll respond to some of the items you mentioned in your in your opening statement. You mentioned the mismatch ratio between the number Egyptian glyphs and the English words and that that could be evidence that we can't expect the government Egyptian papers to be a translation problem with that is that Smith does seem to have believed that that one glyph could expand out into many English words and I was a conventional I was a contemporary understanding or thought about how Egyptian worked at the time of Joseph Smith which was proven wrong with the discovery of aggressive Rosetta Stone and so what we see is Joe the Smith act inconsistent with the contemporary understanding of how Egyptian worked in his time. The problem with your post Brett is that you you don't take into account what Joseph Smith describes thought they were doing.

If I were to grant and I don't that the English tax was given to Smith via Revelation Smith is Smith and his contemporaries still believed that he was revealing a translation of what was on the papyri. The Latter Day Saints of traditionally held to the position. The Smith translated the actual characters on the pyrite English is consistent with what the traditional position has been on the book of Mormon with regards the golden plates as well.

That is an English translation of the characters that were on the golden plates while the golden plates can't be tested.

The book of Abraham, can and it fails rest position is akin to imagining the Smith is an archer takes approximately 6400 shots of the target doesn't have the balls. I once but because there's a dozen arrows embedded in the hay bales behind the target Smith should be believed as a translator sign adjusted land for me so that you mentioned that you know you honed in on my use of the word translation and that I seven book of Abraham is not a translation of the pyrite, any conventional sense of that word. The reason I say that is because to to shift the narrative the way the LDS church and apologists have done.

It's a post hoc apologetic approach since 1967 when the papyri for papyrus fragments were found and shown not to be able to be translated into what Joseph Smith produced so doesn't all represent what Joseph Smith and his contemporaries believed they were giving her believe they were producing on the trust on facsimile one figure 2. Osiris, you argued that the substitution of Abraham for Osiris happens in antiquity, and the most notable example of that is the rich man and Lazarus narrated in Luke 16, I wasn't aware that until you brought to my attention on Facebook but I did look into a little bit but I would ask you here. If you think that this is rhetorical is my time, but I would ask you here. If you think that Egyptologist had it wrong when they identify figure 2. Here is the prone image of Osiris, you would have us be impressed. The Smith developed a narrative Abraham praying for help from image the Smith reconstruction incorrectly misses I'm responding or something else. Brett has said elsewhere where Smith moved reconstructed Osiris's hands and he argues that because that looks like the Egyptian prayer glyph that that Smith somehow understood something about Egyptian but I don't find that impressive walk impressive at all because he reconstructed the image incorrectly for the Egyptian site if I can clear the line drawing of a right angle made it into a door with a woman walking through and then wrote a story about a woman walking through a door for a job interview nor would find it impressive that my narrative described seeing that I constructed from the original line drawing because Brett believes that the glyphs matching the narrative makes it impressive that all that Abraham supposedly was in a prayer stance.

The Egyptian prayer stands at the point where Abraham was praying in Joseph Smith's narrative, but Joseph Smith is creating all of that so is not impressive to close off critique of my rebuttal of this point uplifted hands is an image for prayer or worship is not unique to Egyptian practice at all is a quick look at the Bible to demonstrate Brett also mentioned facsimile one figure 9, claiming the Joseph correctly identifies the crocodile as the idolatrous God of Pharaoh. Okay that's going here would be that I would Joseph Smith know that the crocodile would be an idolatrous God of Pharaoh will very simply. She has been shown to abuse.

Adam Clarke's Bible commentary and his own translation of the Bible and Adam Clark provides a likely source for Smith's understanding of the crocodile being an Egyptian deity connected with Pharaoh Clark said, quote, it may be necessary to observe that all the Egyptian kings, whatever their own name was took the surname of Pharaoh when they came to the throne and name which in its general acceptation signified the same as king or monarch, but in its literal meaning as both chart has amply proved proved. This signifies the crocodile, which, being a sacred animal among the Egyptians word might be added to their kings in order to hearing them a greater reverence and respect. So I contemporary source available. Joseph Smith identified the crocodile as the is a God of Pharaoh, so as not at all impressed of the Joseph Smith came up with that. Greg mentioned that facsimile one.

Figure 10, the identification of the Lotus flowers on the altar is Abraham Egypt and he focused on this in an in relation to facsimile to but the overall argument is that Joseph Smith identified the Lotus flowers on the altar or stand which everyone collect as Abraham, Egypt, and breast-feeds this is reasonable. In this context because the Lotus flower represents upper Egypt and lower Egypt. So all of Egypt. So it seems to be acceptable for Joseph Smith to identify that symbol as Abraham Egypt. I find this to be among the weakest type of parallels the bread makes its it's this type of loose parallel it clearly shows Brad's approach to be smoke and mirrors. I'm not saying the Braves intentionally deceiving. I think Brett is sincere in his desire to find reasons to believe Smith was a prophet and steer.

But his approach is akin to saying quote don't look at the bare facts look at this potentially shiny aspect instead but the bare facts matter here because the fact that the Lotus represent Egypt and Smith identified Lowe's as Lotus is Abraham in Egypt obscures the bare facts. Here is what we now Egyptologist property red nurses about the bare facts in talking about the figures of facsimile one River says the symbols offering standards. Figure 10 Abraham in Egypt. According to Smith, the mild water is explained as figure 12. Ralph Yang, signifying expanse of the permanent firmament over our heads, but in this case in relation to the subject.

According to Smith, the Egyptians mentor to signifies chow mall to be higher, the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word found my" on the contrary view Egyptian representation of the four of the four supports of heaven is in here with written or alludes to a glyph that resembles for Y's standing next to one another and to translate liberation from Egyptian that I do not know how to pronounce, but in case the figure to Smith identified as the pillars of heaven according to written or is the palace façade because this image in particular comes from the Ptolemaic. Far too late to be written by Abraham were drawn by Abraham and the book of Abraham narrative that Smith translated into English claims that facsimile one was drawn by Abraham.

Abraham in first person refers his readers to that drawing in the text of the book of Abraham.

None of this stands up as ancient Brett. None of listener is doing here is using some of the Hebrew that he year he learned from Joshua stages in 1836 in Kirtland and he's doing some type of transliteration into the Egyptian saying it represents something Egyptian, but it doesn't Egyptologist's agreement with the Smith interpretations do not stand up for the rest my time making it, making it easy for fall's given us out with us on time.

RA excellent so that and this hour rebuttal.

A rebuttal session of the debate so now we are going to go to the cross examination.

And this is if debates go off of that off the rails. This is usually where it happens the sale. Hopefully this will go well and smoothly at your your both excellent debaters and dear respectful site. I have no fears that this will have any issues, but now, so now we go to the cross exam nation. This is the time where each debate participant will be able to ask questions of their opponent, and what's important is that when it is when it is Brett's turn to ask Paul questions we should focus on Brett asking the questions and when it is Paul's turn to answer questions. He will be the one asking questions.

So the one who is being asked the questions may ask for clarification or something like that, but it is not there. Turn to ask questions if they have questions they should keep those for their cross-examination. So each comp cross-examination. Will be 20 minutes each, and each participant will have a lot of time to probe the physician of their opponent relative to the book of Abraham's antiquity so we will set the timer for 20 minutes or threats. And as always go smoothly. I'll just let you go and let press the questions start to get if people start to talk over each other than Alaska to an outbreak of the fight, so I good clean fight fellows. No sucker punches no kidney punches, no sand in the face. So that's the good of a good discussion here, so start the timer 20 minutes and alternate time over to Brett for his cross-examination. Well, that's obviously what were doing is merging the silly answers and all space I so projects on Paul's latest statement here and say bye-bye to view things and I just want clarification on on some of somebody's knockabout and now the top of your last segment you thought about how it's Joseph Sneddon. Agnes is the limit Egyptian understandings of the time that one character expands you multiple lines of text. Okay, this was actually an idea book board by Athanasius Kercher I think you like the 16th-century or something like that so and in my opening statements on a pointed out how the apocalypse of Abraham was light was a light source for some of the material in the book of Edward and I listed the one example where we should see Abraham sacrificing on the altar and while he's doing that receives a vision of the heavens is so my first question is always DDU extended the apocalypse of Abraham says what I represented an essay I am staying around in front of you right now that you believe that that my presentation was consistent with and is not you have any problems with what I said I not look into it.

I don't have infirmity. Knowing what I know you like number the trust that you are representing the apocalypse of Abraham accurately okay right. Thank you. So that's the case then it why did this not given the evidence or a model in which Joseph was combining themes from other sources. In other words, if you have associated says Abraham was sacrificing on the altar and receive revelation and source be sent Abraham a site sacrificing an altar and seat receive the same kind of revelation. Why cannot that not seeing as a parallel that is deliberate, so money let me ask questions to make sure I'm understanding what you're asking me you want to know whether I see it as valid evidence that Smith was reproducing something that existed anciently, not exactly. I want to know why it cannot be seen. You use same as easily ripped so I guess what I was saying there is that the knowledge of Abraham being an astronomer teaching astronomy to the Egyptians, is not something that was unavailable to Joseph. It was available to them in Josephus does as well as probably Adam Clark as well and it is available to him and Adam Clark as well were Adam Clark talks about the call defense so I don't I don't think. This knowledge has to come to Joseph Smith through some miraculous means it was available to them can temporarily and I don't think it has to be seen as evidence that he was somehow reproducing something as a parallel to the apocalypse of Abraham. Any other sources where the sacrifice is is coupled with the revelation and you know that I need a anachronism is wondering if you have a mission so this is my big brother was doing something different. When Athanasius Kercher was doing.

He simply get you now seem to create generators in his explanations for single let's you compared is that when Archer needed that the target wants. So, do you know exactly what I said about Dr. written her saying for example that figure in that that I demonstrated in facsimile to figure 2, was an altar. Do you believe that is an altar. Yes, I believe Dr. Riner one point in the book represents as an altar. It is this that does just what derrière I know and younger.

Like I did, but the decking from the interview came in part one of the interview I do you believe that when Dr. written said that the God in the center of hydrocephalus is the creator God yields that thinking back to a Dr. written or sad about that in the interview has been several months since I listen to it, probably last summer when I first printing attention.

Knowing that I don't think it's a stronger parallels represented an DDU extended operator stated this is the creator God. He died I i.e. gave you a quote from the book and from the interview where he saying this is the creator God and so Thompson ran right yes I mean is the Egyptian creator God, yes, but it do move. At that Eric so take exception and with Joe Smith saying that this is the first creation is there possible way you can have a creation without creator or vice versa I think is a loaded loaded statement first creation with regards to Joseph's theology.

So Joseph Smith doesn't believe and Mormonism doesn't believe in a first creation right in the sight in the sense that that term represents.

Mormonism believes in the creation ex materia and multiple creations ex materia as God's. Upon God's become God's so I am not sure you go with the question here because the question is, is it reasonable to associate a creator with the creation of so this is what describes is live one above that out there again is like is that Miami statement you make it what you will but Dr. Edgar said to be figure in the center of the hydrocephalus is a creator Joe Smith that it was the first creation, whether you know how that is in archaeology is really beyond the scope of this discussion but is disappointed that I selected clarify that your right stated, you can't have a creation without a creator, but to count this as a hit for Smith because identified it as the first creation and it's actually the God onto Ray you just got onto Ray who for them is the creator. I don't know that's a hit.

Can you can a guy I can ask was the last question later. Right moving on to your two Joe Smith said the God in that figure was holding acute power.

Again, this is my opening statement.

Dr. enter said that there are gods and similar satellite that fold a lost scepter which is a symbol of power and unity go to with you.

They look at loss after you see that it says that this this represent how so the figures only lost after Joe Smith that it was the key of power and the loss that represents power. Why do you not consider this a bit because I think is simple enough for a person to recognize what the scepter is not understand that that was a symbol of power both anciently and very close to Joseph Smith's day with with kings and monarchs all throughout history. I don't think that that's his necessarily basic position is Bennett guess correctly that it was aghast that right yes I want to run and stationary as many people say that doesn't didn't get anything right at all and his explanations was very different as Amy guessed right right and I know I know I clarified my my Archer analogy right so I know I'm not saying you did anything right.

In terms of his connect something like like the center power to a similar image and an understanding of the Egyptian cliff sure he did that on on a couple of occasions, short but did she identify those glyphs correctly as what they were and what they represent four Egyptian now. He did not. He denies nonliterary translation of the glyphs that that the book of Abraham is not that so so that that that analogy does he ever represents the Egyptian as it actually is not. He does not does he have some errors in the hay bales behind that you grab on to you and say it's close enough that is got those, but that's not hit the bull's-eye.

Fingers lost three AIA demonstrated my opening statement that the there was a missing portion of the house that was a Laguna in the original document does not yet fill in the details. The way you filled in figure 3's toque a big sign got Ray sitting on his bark and the pasted alien to the highest ethical doctrine or concedes that the hydrocephalus and it originally stood.

Had you known one part one bone or two and then on that Mark was the son God Ray rock argued you say his name and so Joseph Smith's pasting of the Sangha on his bark into that location seems very striking to me how you explained I don't know I wasn't there when Joseph Smith was reconstructing what was damaged. I don't know why she had that I can imagine piece of papyrus that fragments and there's a piece that yes we can reconstruct because that the fragmented pieces so damaged that it will do to pasted aside, where it belongs to a reconstructive as a possibility right you don't you don't know that he didn't have that as it stood, but was able to represent the whole. Because of the damage to papyrus so that's how would explained that I would also add that it's not impressive to me because other places where he reconstructed the papyrus fragments he reconstructed them wrong, may I say wrong navigating is great. I did get a lot right here in these dilemma right then you should be getting it in the right moving on to figure 4, which is the clock on about this is the God sector. As always, it's just the spot. Sitting on both Joseph Smith associated this with the revelation of the plants I gave three different sources to websites as well as a statement from Louis Benson's book ancient Egyptian selections that show that second are so far varies that was indeed associated with the revolution plants. Is there anything in this figure of St. Geer on his belt.

This suggests the revolution of Emily bodies the there not to me.

When you're presenting that now and then I just preface this by center just state that I can preside and prepare against your notes on on this particular image, so I would have to look at it more deeply to study editors response and I'm thinking it might surprise a lot of the stuff but is this lagging executor with the Archer analogy, I think there is there is just too soon consistent thread of actually running through these these characters to be done by chance. So I understand only that one plan document stating there you talk about how the arsenal of Abraham they are.

Which is true. Both doctors need that so additional information is mom to us after the fact. Since we discover the papyrus in 1967 and is caused us to reevaluate as long as we are reevaluating things, according to evidence. I think the post hoc approaches in our necessarily bad advantage that what you're saying right it's what you're saying is that it's NOT. If you are struggling to justify a position that you already decided on then a lot of people use both sought explanations to avoid a position of being falsified will you concede Paul that coming out with an explanation after the fact London-based and evidence is not, and Sam yes I would agree with that. However, I see the catalyst theory or read in your theory does bump up against the evidence as I stated of what Joseph Smith is a good and his contemporaries appeared to believed they were doing and what Joseph Smith himself presented the papyrus as being which is the writings of Ingram Sierra. You have the advantage here that I know and discussion with you about some of the staff. I do want to hear the screen again. The uplifted hands on altar on the altar in facsimile one presenting arm's-length insurance. Anna wants to get at is the agreement I this can result in a question for me. It will K grounds and Brownian can you see my screen. Note pass housing and I guess it's fair that you get this inside introduce it into the discussion you mean nearly arrogant again. I have been in the graphic that I will just describe it.

Maybe I'll be able regular player you said that Joseph Smith reconstructed facsimile one incorrectly. Dr. or himself presented a graphic in part three of his interview where he is all calling Lanny down produced a reconstruction of his own that had the Osiris/Abraham figure with both hands raised was already aware that this man okay so given that Lanny Bell, Dr. Ratner's colleague has on produced a a.m. figure with both hands up raised in indicating that he believes it very likely implausible that the the bigger online that have both hands in the air.

Does that calling the question the certainty of the fact that most that that the bigger sort of been reconstructed with only one hand in the air.

Not because there are many other extant papyrus fragments of this drawing that have the opposite of the good, the other understanding so does it represent potentially one, maybe, but it doesn't represent the many, many, many others, I believe, written and made this point from it from the catacombs of Egypt that special otherwise subject, I would have to look into. I would have to look into more into related bills. Evidence of what he did to reconstruct that okay so you're saying that they know it's not you use any library that will Lanny Bell bed and everything is possible that Lanny Bell has created an accurate understanding of the papyrus is that there is asset and how to look into landing those evidence for that. But when I am aware of is that the many other papyrus fragments of the same image do not have to upgrade every stance heightens the data has yet to be happier at and once again I tried to chair the screen.

I lost my timer & mala so yeah cameo there's about a minute I get about two minutes. If one is not a bar quotes this and that the Pharaoh signifies the Latin Joe Smith did not exactly stated that the crocodile cigar did the Pharaoh signifies crocodile or the vice president prognoses.

What he actually said from Abraham one verse 20 he said Pharaoh signifies heating by Royal blood.

This actually my new is pretty close to the actual Egyptian interpretation of the Pharaoh, which means great house so Darrell means great house Gary saying skiing with means great by Royal blighted it, which is the house that had been people to live with just did not say that he signifies it probably also leave if Joseph is following Adam Clark, why didn't he say Aaron Abraham 120.

Pharaoh signifies crocodile laissez signifies the Bayreuth what is our used to be sent away from the actual figure in Joses representation and I was referred to, which is on facsimile one.

Figure 9 where where Smith identifies the crocodile as the idolatrous God of Pharaoh so referred to the verse in the text of Abraham that you are referring to, but it also is consistent with what Clark says about Egyptian kings and the name and the certainty Pharaoh but the point I was making is simply that good. Been knowledge that a crocodile was a God of the Egyptians connected specifically with Pharaoh. That's the point I was making that that is not necessary to assume estimate… Revelation because he simply could have gotten from Adam Clark did have the fanatics are there when you read it again. It may be necessary to observe that all Egyptian kings, whatever their own name was took the surname of Pharaoh when they came to the throne, a name which is which, in its general expectation which signified the same as king or monarch, but in its literal meaning as Butchart has amply proved to signifies a crocodile, which, being a sacred animal among the Egyptians, the Lord might be added to their teams in order to procure them a greater reference.

Okay and elsewhere in Clark. He identifies the crocodile as is, as of the idolatrous God of those specific terms, but as a God connected with Pharaoh.

I was getting a question, where did the Clark actually referred to a crocodile is a godparent unite against red the divine animal right sacred animal is what he says is minimal. That matter in hand (elsewhere in part all over the place to references all kinds of animals that were viewed as divine and ensconced by the Egyptians, so it was knowledge easily accessible for Joseph okay when, where, where about a minute over our timer that we have a currently has a time limit so it kicked itself out. So is looking for guidance. It's in the waiting room and okay I should be of so I think I have singularly good government okay yeah so appalled that all will add an extra minute tear as exam nation. So that is even okay so should be okay. Is the link you are right. Thank you for that's for that cause exam nation. Appreciated sorry, but the technical difficulties appreciate your being patient and accommodating. So now we will go to Paul for his 21 minute cross-examination. They also turned over to Paul only hold on I got I got a fix a timer. An extra minute of the settings reset okay turning revolve.

I so you conceded that the English text of the book of Abraham is in no way literal translation of the Egyptian on the papyrus do I understand you will be making that concession correctly. I said that it is not a direct literal translation, but that it may be a translation substance with regards to the Kirtland Egyptian papers do you believe they have connection to the book of Abraham text. Specifically, Abraham chapter 1, and if so what actually is why I brought up quote of David Witmer a little earlier that said, one character can expand into multiple lines of text, Athanasian Burger, notwithstanding I've I believe there is evidence of that was going on in the Joseph Smith translation there was a paper that I actually really like it's been dismissed. The only as apologetic. Community met again on the late 60s by Ridgely Crapo and John Dennis where they identified parallels with each of the characters in the currently Egyptian papers were juxtaposed next to the person about they were so you carry that they review my diving is really interesting, but it I believe it shows that there is a relationship actual relationship between those characters in the AEP and the technical labor and okay so deftly I agree with you on that. My next question to that would be is Joseph Smith's interpretation, translation, whatever you want to call it that the text as he sat side-by-side with those characters is an accurate representation of the what the Egyptian characters made just in the sense that I described before, in the sense that the Egyptian peers in the English there are many words in the English they do not. The addiction that each needs character in the Egyptian peers and you are so for example, Joseph juxtaposed with the work from justice next to Amber verse exactly, but it is a verse that talks about the justice of Pharaoh and doesn't describe the justice apparent go to the Wikipedia pages of the mod is particularly associated with it is a word that means justice, and particularly associated with Pharaoh so I do believe that there is a correlation Egyptian and the English in every case, every case, every case, some of them are easier to see than others. I'll grant you that agency by having this discussion is all is that when I want to present his evidence of the will always gravitate for the ones that are the most questionable and are someone that I you know if I decide in isolation would be questionable by if you consider the symbolism of the spiritual meanings of the agent of the Egyptian characters. I believe there is a correlation in English every case. It is shallow how an Egyptian word not it is – is probably what you're going for here and it is the singular of the Hebrew Shema in which refers to the heavens made, I will credit Robert Boylan forgetting his information ready for this debate, but there is a solemn and you can if you want to look at what we know will that will will just go in general terms, the moment there is a Psalm that the King James translation translates from all in the Hebrew as his name, but if you localize a little bit differently it becomes, which is the singular form of habit now again it's a it is a Hebrew word, it is a you know in this analysis, it is a legitimate Hebrew singular which may only appear once in the Hebrew Bible because not all the other cases that it uses the dual form from IM and I'll ask again, is it an Egyptian word is Isaacson's humor not do Joseph Smith represents shall now as an Egyptian word he says in relation to the subject. The Egyptians meant to signifies Shema to be higher that is answering to the Hebrew word hot shot, i.e. pictures from IM so I don't know if he's actually presenting it as an Egyptian word here.

He does explicitly say that the Hebrew word from IM and so I think is reasonable to connect this word to the Hebrew so you don't believe this move is there saying shallow is the Egyptian cognitive to show my intensive muzzle assigned to me and many others. So verse chapter 1 verses 12 to 14 say quote and it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me that they might slay me. Also, as they did those virgins upon this altar and that you may have a knowledge of this altar. I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record is it your position than the facsimile one was drawn by Abrahams himself and referred to by Abraham himself as part of his own autobiography, probably not. I believe that it may possibly represent an earlier image that was described by Abraham.

It is obviously different from like the second century A.D. in the second century BC and in and in his most little Western position on the proportions of the book of Abraham had basically copied the Genesis account of Abraham changing the pronouns to first person, book of Abraham to 1 to 25 parallels Genesis 1128 to 12 and 13.

Do you believe Smith possessed the fiery are either contained the first person account of Abraham. Now what I believe is and what I mentioned earlier in this discussion, which was that Joseph was taking the Egyptians from the papyrus and he was combining it with other sources.

I don't think there is any different document that exactly run parallel to Genesis. I think it was an expansion by Joseph Smith and again remember the model I presented was that Joseph captured the core meaning of the Egyptian and anti-CD expanded re-contextualized in regard to state and combined with other sources, citing the James Bible is one of the source that he combined with do you believe that Joseph Smith believed that he had papyri with the writings of Abraham and Joseph on them as a top one I will question but I think that may, maybe, maybe not. I think that you when you consider the. The information that Joseph had about Abraham, such as from the apocalypse of Abraham, and other sources that you do not have access to ideas. He was receiving revelations about Abraham and about Abraham writings if he was simply using the papyrus in his possession to represent those writings.

I I now I think that's acceptable because he is clearly demonstrating relation and other aspects of his rights and that needs to be accountable, so it may simply part of the genre and he is engaging invite Jan on the other hand, it could be that he was just a conduit and that dates the largest order information. It was had and he actually believed that in one symbol that actually expands to two lines of text (and it is very difficult to read his mind on the subject. I I agree with you.

It's difficult to read mine the other historical figure, but I think there's plenty of evidence to show that he did believe he had writings of Abraham, unless he didn't and was simply presenting it that way, which would make him a fraud, but I don't want to go there because I don't I don't think it's necessarily chargeable to do so, but it is a possibility because he died he just present what he had as being the writings of Abraham, Joseph, I present your politeness here. My my take on this is you know if you're going to what you call it a slide or you just stated he was mistaken. There's nothing much jacking down for their there is so much in this world of books revelatory to look like it came to the inspiration of heaven and it is difficult for rules now divine intervention because the how you can prove God, but I did you get the point where no other mundane explanation makes sense. So that's right you live where I think we are realistically is a point where there are mundane explanations of the evidence shows that she didn't have the writings of Abraham and Joseph you represented what he had, as that is.

So whether he was mistaken or not it. It's the evidence is clear that it's it's it's not inspiration or revelatory in my book some of the hardest question the questions in so I think you I think you would concede that you agree with that. The LDS church is business estimate that I read in my opening opening statement. None of the characters on the papyrus fragments pension Abraham or any of the events. The events recorded in the book of Abraham is limited so Joseph Smith did present papyrus papyri that he had as being the writings of Abraham and Joseph that he never published anything from the book of Job, Joseph Solomon present presented with with an analogy related to that and ask you to respond to it though. If you do a Google search for the LDS church is gospel topics essay on the book of Abraham, and if you open the link in your phone's browser rather than in the Gospel library app.

You can then click on the reader view in your browser and see that the essay is attributed to Elder Neal and Maxwell and for listeners. He is a now passed on. The leader of the LDS church so given that we know that this essay was first published more than a decade after Maxwell's death. Do you trust this attribution to him as author why or why not and what would you want to see to authenticate the delay. Maxwell was indeed the author of that essay, you say that who is this making the claim that nearly Maxwell was the author inside. If you do if you Google search for the top for the essay and you do it on your phone. I was sick. I surprised to find this myself.

When you click on the link to the essay on the church's website from your phone.

It gives you the option to either open the gospel is Gospel library app which I have on my phone or to open up with your browser if you open it with your browser. You can click on the reader view in your browser which makes the text little bit bigger for you to read and when you click on that reader view. The attribution shows the author is the only Maxwell is interesting. If this is an official very publication. I would say that there are people who obviously were familiar with Elder Maxwell breaking his dad and I would say they they are in position to know what contributions Elder Maxwell had to this estate as far as I know it was completely unattributed but I would believe that over Maslow contributed to the essay and it says I Bible are probably other figures as well, but I I can be persuadable.

Would you would you want to see the evidence that he wrote it be nice for that IBM does not mean nothing. I'm going to be calling up church headquarters for by I would like to know why white state was nature my would be evidenced important evidence is always important is design for migrated is a cyborg included uvula get evidence you hired, and his gaze is. I think maybe the thrust of your question is not why is it important to know it. Elder Maxwell was the author and there is probably couple reasons that he was an apostle.

So you know, there may be statements in there. More apostolic weights.

It also brought them then than otherwise, and be respected in a certain way in the church and an awaken on negative BYU scholars not so it will be useful to know if he was the author for that reason that there are various reasons might want wrote the BSA-I agree. I think that the evidence you would like to see for that is similar to the evidence that many would like to see for the book of Abraham actually been written by Abraham as it was if it was be a big deal but is not established that it's not. I think that it's you know there various transformations that could have been made from the kind Abraham wrote the document for thousand years. Designed to end up in its present form. We can, I don't know because their there is evidence for them, but it is a position that many: I think it is a is a reasonable one. If you believe the dark direct drive all there's not going to be a smoking gun that stands get out that you can verify from 4000 years ER 6000 years. Elaborate was for thousand years. The organist is closer that where where some you know fragment is on earth the exact text of the book of Abraham and his little signature that we can verify is the signature Weber that that is it is like a set of the top here is very difficult to validate historically, events and individuals that live that long ago estimate a final estimate of the Bible as well is Jesus that is Joseph Smith's claim with regard to the book of Abraham and the evidence now shows that not to be the case. I think the evidence is insufficient.

Say one word that's not you agree that he presented the papyrus that he had, as the writings of Abraham by his own hand on papyrus.

Yes. I relaxing using the gospel topics as a states quote the book of Abraham was first published in 1842 and was canonized as part of the earlybird price of 80 book originated with Egyptian papyrus, the Joseph Smith translated beginning in 1835.

Many people saw the papyri but no eyewitnesses account of the trend. No eyewitness account of the translation survives making it impossible to reconstruct the process.

Only small fragments of the long papyrus scrolls once adjustments possession exist today. The relationship between those fragments in the text we have today is largely a matter of conjecture." Though that aside the fact that there are eyewitness accounts of the book of Abraham translation process from Smith scribes as opposed to someone published a paper claiming that they found the record of an eyewitness to the translation process but proved that the relationship between the accident fragments and the English text that we have today is no longer a matter of conjecture. What would you want to see, to validate that claim. I would die. Would this is now highly hypothetical question.

I think there are a lot of different factors that acts may play into this by II would simply start by asking what is the nature of your evidence. I would say okay what what are the documents you have shown here. You should rule out the possibility that they marked off in style forgery. First of all with native Goldendale bite you now suppose you could be validated that would just like to see what is what is the document state and I would take it there evaluated as it sounds. That may not answer your question, making the more specific. You mentioned Mark Hoffman, what many are familiar many and I know what what was it they gave away his forgers started bombing people. As I recall, in general, wasn't it allowed investigators to begin to recognize documents that he had sold as forgeries and I asked him to go back Monday for a day care and either they started investigating an excellent down the basement where he was working on his forgeries. I believe is one of the things the main suspect was that he was you know finding a rare, valuable discovery every other month. My thing is one of things a call in question is something just primarily it was it was the ink because they hate being crazy was using to try to re-create ink from the period of Joseph Smith and his contemporaries due to cracked in ways that the increment. Would not have which Doug stated that it was a recreation facility demonstrated that his forgeries did not actually dated two. That she claimed they did do you think that the evidence is important. Murder has new prevalent relevance to our discussions, not about the book of Abraham by the ink of Mark, per se, but about a base text not actually dating to the. That Joseph Smith said that is important here and you notice they were dealing with is that of the snake had the nation about Abraham and Abraham writings that he only could have obtained through revelation. I think that's what the evidence show. I think that's what you know that the smoking gun set with one thing do you make of of the quote that I rent you than about Pharaoh and the Quat crocodile from Adam Clark at that doesn't come only from as revelation comes from a source available to Joseph Smith papers are layered as a non-111 simple explanation of one figure what I'm the case that I'm making and that I started midnight. I didn't repair other figures of yours gather paralyzing fear is that your name is Landon present because of time and then present the case that I'm making here is that these kids are consistent all the way through the facsimiles and even execs of the book they were in and so I don't think again and be able to go to Adam Sarkisian why these cases and say you know this was the store's large, there's no evidence the drugs were maybe maybe not Adam Clark but then he went with Mrs. Knoblauch Yang and that in the firmament and and and you make that out to be a hit because he supposedly understood Egyptians viewed Evans as Waters morning all you do go to find that is go to Genesis 1 is this very readily available to them.

So maybe not Adam Clark. In every instance, but certainly places that are readily available to them to understand ancient near East understandings of things they did to buy their Genesis by airless later in the nemesis monitors above Waters. That could simply be the source with the stated how the ancients viewed the heavens okay thank you gentlemen for that.

For cross-examination session.

So now we will continue on to the audience questions so the participants will be asked questions from the audience. So there have been several been submitted via YouTube comments and our host Michael.

He will be the one to assess questions so rubbing of the questions can be related to the topic at hand that they'll be focused and so were going to kind of be a little bit more flexible time on the section we want to allow both participants to be able to answer the questions if they so choose. So if the if the answer start to get a little bit too long though, but I cut in and in and say okay it's time to move on to the next question, but will allow at least a couple minutes to answer the question and if the participants answer than they are free to do so. Saul turn the time over now to Michael and he will be asking questions from the audience right is to jointly share my screams. He can see the questions well in reading them. The answer okay me see if I can do that earthquake.

So here minute ago the share screen option and now I don't see it to be at the bottom.

If you really are cursing on their pop-up more of their see how this works here okay so I see myself like a mere okay just focus on the right side of the screen that he see the questions facing the chat and rain.

You can also deposit video Michael that might help to keep it from being confusing so sentries interface with the belief in the first question here. There Canada mixed in here. Okay, so this question is actually for Paul first. Most of these are to be for Brent this means for Paul. It's really interesting that there are examples of Joseph's translations of the papaya read to be correct. I like the receptor without being in Egyptologist. How did he decipher them is constant in relation to a similar question on how to look at each one.

The center I don't find very impressive, but for reasons I restated the center represents power. That's something I think that most people learned growing up, especially in a religious context were in a monarchical, monarchial context, so that I don't think that's very impressive baby.

Just as acute power, but others others I have to look at individually and as I mentioned to note that the 25 parallels the bread is typically present presented to the wood to the number of them cared for them. I was only able to respond to the ones that he raised a great friend to give me a he wanted to add to that is all I have a difference of opinion in what counts as a header, not begging to be impressed by these things, but United's I think when you like the consistency of these hits it is deserved to be remarkable in a very short yeah I understand your point about statistical significance, but I think if you don't throw out all of the Mrs. is not very statistically significant at all, and there may be many nurses which if there weren't, the church wouldn't have to go to the catalyst. I totally on this next question is for Brent Dennis from G free, why would the book of Abraham conflict with the book of Moses as well as the book of Mormon concerning how many gods there are debate now that is my quiet time on it, you can really stay focused on the book of Abraham or getting into it. Suffice it to say that this is a paradigm that she is that exists in the Bible as well, sometimes not as presented in the singular, and sometimes he is presented in plural. I understand most often is presented in the singular, but Jesus said in John chapter 10 is it not written in your law. I said ye are God's. He expanded on that idea. In John 17, where he talked about his disciples, all being one, even as he and his father are one. So in certain sense, even in the Bible, God is presented in the plural form and in some sense he's presented in the singular form is no different in the restored gospel sometimes not as presented is singular, and sometimes he is presented in a plural and there's there's a contradiction in one and there is also a contradiction in the other, but I think were just looking at two different models to represent same reality. Okay, regarding Paul would answer that question if he was asking so unless you want to add something I would just ask my guess, Brent, typically latter-day Saints will say the bill challenge the doctrine of the Trinity by saying that God is one God is one purpose rather than being right and so your use of was. It was a John 17 at the Los Angeles something that the times looking specifically Johnson to admit that his disciples would be one even as he and the father are one in your you seem to be extrapolating at that out to me that they would each become gods of the mass sense would become one with them in the other sense of understanding you correctly essentially settings on so I guess I would ask than if if the oneness of God, not in the Bible oneness of God and the Bible is understood by Latter Day Saints in one place, to represent all he's one in purpose why would you jump from John 17 into okay, everyone of all people and humans can become gods. Well I will more background on John chapter and John chapter's ideas verse 30 Jesus starts out by saying I and my father are one and then by verse 34. He's saying, is it not written in your law. I stayed near God. So, even within the same passive verse 30 to 34. Jesus starts out by staying off the other two individuals are two persons in my column that are wine and Trinitarian disease name of the father and son are one and the claims of their different first and God is so anyway that I don't has been very passive, but you start out by saying that where one in John chapter 10 verse 30 name and but in John chapter 10 was 34 saying that your dogs all I'm saying is that Jesus is presenting two different models for how to understand any doings on the nursing content so I have, you know, maybe two different models presented in different context for how God is to be understood. I think that's that's natural and why. Why is Jesus quoting Psalm 82, which is on single events. The Pharisees were challenging him and he is doing it to grow that he himself has the authority to be called.right so it is not about the Pharisees and is not saying the Pharisees are God. Now he's not saying it is heresy to God supporting Scripture to say that that refers to the plurality of gods because they are challenging his authority to call himself the son of God right desperate against the question from a ceiling explained it here. Somebody asked Brad if if the book of Abraham is the book of Abraham Revelation Scripture and of his revelation, how can it be argued that it is ancient.

Well what you mean by revelation.

Revelation is anything that is communicated by God to man so that I can communicate ancient documents to man. I suspect what the question is is it a brand-new revelation and I would say, given the multifaceted aspect of Joseph Smith work.

It is there some certain aspects of their modern there certain aspects of it that are ancient again. ICM is combining ancient with modern throughout his revealed writings okay and I think this this next question goes along with that one as well and this is also for you Brent ceases bread mentions the symbols that were translated correctly alike and Brent mentioned symbols that were translated correctly. If conventional translation was irrelevant and that is when I talk about conventional translation. I refer to a linear phrase by phrase rendering of one language, but one of one source language text to another island saying is that Joseph Smith while he did capture the meanings of the symbols that he was translating as I demonstrated is not quite as linear as a typical translation is a is a water conga conventional translation. Any translation that would be done by a scholar at a university has different characteristics and find any thoughts on that has been overwhelming evidence with regards the book of Abraham shows that he did not have the ability to translate Egyptian into English and that he did represent the contents of the virus that was in front of them correctly either in translation or in topic it's not about Abraham. It's not about any of the narrative that he presents in the book of Abraham okay and I think I think Matthew had a question to ask their squirrels got a new it was going to happen eventually. I'm not having any other questions, chat, Michael did you.

There's another one here but I think that the verses are kind of things can spread out among the chat here. Someone wanted me to ask Brett Franco Latina about first John four 111 believe not every spirit to try the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world based on the Scripture.

How do you justify believing that Joseph Smith is a prophet. If all you need to discern if someone writing Scripture is to pray. I think that is a strawman argument of the ugliest position. You need to stay on your mind and ask if it's right your personal favorite is the second I did more than just pray to find out the book of Mormon is the word of God. I believe that I have followed the spirit of first John 41 and a lot of study I've done and do not spend a lot of time comparing book of Mormon to the Bible overlays clear from this discussion that I spent a lot of time comparing book of Abraham material to other ancient documents and I found a lot of reasons to believe that it is inspired material. Read the Lord has told us that he will tell us in our mind and in our heart and illegals which will come upon us so is not assimilated.

This comes up a lot. This is a major discussion of debate on Uniface performance on but II think there's a lot more to this process than simply praying and getting a good feeling. I think that it does need to make sense in your mind and needs to make sense intellectually as well, as in your heart.

So yeah, I think I've I think of been true to the injunction. John present for one business to follow question to you Brett about that you that if there was a great deal of evidence that something was Scripture, but you didn't get that good feeling in your heart, then, would you have to state have to throw something out as being Scripture in that case John absented to see the specifics of the situation I think that I do kind of an evidence-based guy you know I things that that make sense to me also feel good night. I guess I never really had to face his question before where you know something is just been so obviously true in a spiritual sense is that is felt wrong, I believe, given the type of person that I am that I would accept it is true even if it you know didn't didn't sit well with me but I do not have the face of a situation okay thanks for thanks for answering that I think Matthew is back on the air or Ankeny amino.

Yes, we can plan something wacky happened.

You know it's like everything will work fine for days and weeks and then as soon as something important happens, it breaks any of your screen sharing work. I feel your pain yeah hey Paul, I got a question for you so case of every this okay so one of the points that you made throughout the debate is the idea that one of the reasons that it's the Abraham cannot be considered ancient Scripture is because it dates to correct me if I'm wrong around the third century BC the that the diary yeah the various various papyrus fragments due to anywhere between 501 50 BC okay so the thing is, though, is that someone might point out that we don't have any original texts of the New Testament in the time. At the Everett so the earliest fragment we have is B-52 I believe is still the earliest and that dates to the early second century and as far as the entire codex or an entire Bible. We don't have the earliest ones we have.

As far as I know her codex Betty Kennison codex and Atticus, which date to the fourth century. So that's around 300 years after the New Testament was written so is not a possibility that what's is considered the proprietary. That's the basis that some consider the basis for the book of Abraham is a copy that came much later after Abraham wrote it couldn't have been a copy of a copy of a copy etc. that survive now to our time just because it doesn't dates Abraham's time does not mean does it not automatically discredit it as the Aztecs that could've come from Abraham Updike. Since you and Emilio's church does does make this case the gospel top existing so we could papyrus and papyri fragment was fragments due to between 500 150 BC and therefore there too late for Abraham is not so much that it couldn't be a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. Let's suppose that it is aware copy of a copy of a copy of a copy will Abraham was copied out of everything on it is not there. Good point about it being too late for Abraham is more in relation to Joseph Smith's statement about the virus, which was that it was written by his own hand upon papyrus bracelet. He believes he actually had the papyrus fragments that were written by Abraham is clear from the text of the book of Abraham is a is a point granted my question. That Joseph Smith thought he had a drawing that was made by Abraham. He represented it that Abraham is referring to that point in the first person to further explain what he was describing was his own story to have been pointed out being too late isn't necessarily that it can be a copy of a copy of a copy because that's how we have the Bible through three transmission but it is more in relation to Mike instead Joseph Smith's belief about what had okay any he could've just been incorrect about that particular point, but sometimes thing is he coming at that point, but it still could've been a copy of a copy etc. amended the assumption then is that I like it was a copy of a copy of a copy.

Why does Abraham not show up in it while you have a wide range of colleges not translate anything on their you have anything to do with why does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints concede the point is a copy of something earlier is a terrible copy doesn't represent what what would've existed previously okay thank you Brett Deveney comments on the question yes I would just say that is not an irrelevant question. You know what what window the specific area were dealing with date to advising is overly simplified again. I think there are a lot of issues here that need to be accounted for that are not account for when we focus on you now just what is the actual lineage from Abraham to the virus that we have again are so many other sources that Joseph Smith paid in dealing with Abraham more you're going to adopt the fraud hypothesis or even youngest billing statement. Hypothesis. It just doesn't seem to be lookout for all of that evidence.

So yeah is a is an interesting question gets a relevant question, but there are other relevant questions that need to be discussed, that I think are by and large neglected when we discussed the book of Abraham. You agree Brett that he was wrong about the content of the powers now. I don't anything in terms of relations in terms of it being about Abraham diagram.

I don't think he was wrong. I think as I said, he may have been using the tires to represent a think he saw things, and that papyrus that very closely related to both Abraham as well as the endowment later revealed think that when he presented the papyrus to people who travel to non-view and view them as Matt moved mansion house as being the writings of Abraham and Joseph as being the writings of Abraham by his own hand upon papyrus to think that his contemporaries understood anything like your understood him to be meeting anything like you're presenting now probably not that gas.

One quick question related to that to you Brett so one thing that I struggle to understand is one where so I can understand how he could see the symbols and maybe interpret them differently than how Egyptologist would interpret them specifically related to the facsimiles, you know, maybe there's a literal understanding versus a spiritual or metaphorical understanding. One thing I really struggle with is when we examine the facsimile number three. He is a label for everyone of the characters on the facsimile and so in the figure. He labels Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne and Egyptologist, which includes Michael Rhodes includes LDS scholars will say that's a label for Osiris King. Pharaoh is labeled as Isis which is a goddess. So in that case, King Pharaoh is labeled as a as a woman is a female goddess to how to explain how to explain the escape and see between what Joseph Smith was labeling, and in particular this facsimile between the characters and what Egyptologists have determined what they represent, and in two cases.

At least there there, not even the right gender soaking Pharaoh versus Isis, the goddess and then Prince of Pharaoh versus Mott the mistress of the gods, anything that we deal with facsimile three element is probably the most difficult of yelp of the three facsimiles for Latter Day Saints to deal with by going out here are the first of all, Joe Smith made the substitution of Abraham for Osiris in facsimile three just as he did in facsimile one just as you know I do that the Jewish people did when they were writing the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in the 16 only when Jesus gave that a denial as well as leader that was was involved in addiction itself is being consistent bear with the substitution of Abraham for Osiris. I will also say that even though he does not give Egyptian means for the care of the figures in character. He correctly understands that they are name so you and I said that this is that like stealing or whatever is indicated by the characters in above his head while you go through and if you actually review gifts and they are getting the names in there what what I think is the most interesting aspect of things about facsimile three again. I think I was just refocusing it revelations that the there are aged eight Abraham sourcing the talk about Abraham sitting on Pharaoh's throne. There are source of the dog about Abraham teaching Egyptians astronomy and Pharaoh's court just is not one of those by the way Jesse does not mention Brathwaite is mentioned. Josephus credited Abraham thought astronomy to the tips and what facsimile three is is a weighing of the heart scene where an initiate is brought to the presence of God see it is ours. Puritans allowed to enter into the presence of God delegate deep in this, by their very strong parallels between the vaccine and the endowment.

I think though that was missing it in, yet he wasn't exactly getting the that the particular meaning of facsimile three. In the book of Abraham I think would be sort of repurposed or there in a club that purpose and be transplanted over when he revealed the endowment Latter Day Saints, long-winded answer, but there are several lines without association.

I think point to you know why you facsimile three to be regarded as inspired. Okay thank you Brett, and then write every time, but somehow I do have a short response to a question no I think I covered pretty well. My point was my points would be on the okay. Thank you for indulging on that last question I was. I was curious to hear your response on that one. So thank you Dylan for her for that audience questions section of the debate. So now this leads us to do with the final portion of the debate where we have our closing statements so each participate. Each participant will be given five minutes to close out there because of the debate with any comments or closing statements are related to the position he defended and typically this is not this the time to present new information.

This is not a second rebuttal. This is typically a closing statement time where you're meant to kind of summarize the topic of the debate summarize the points that you and your opponent is made and make a case for your position so also for this time if if you want to explain why this is important for your faith that will be allowed also. So if you want to give a testimony about about it. That's allow that. So will first go with Brett in the affirmative, and will give him five minutes and then afterward we will turn it over to Paul for his so I'll give you five minutes Brett for your closing statement thank you Matthew you gave me the opportunity to give a brief testimony here. I think Obama started them. Why is the book of Abraham important my faith. There are a couple reasons that first of all, it reveals information in clearer terms that we don't find anywhere else. For example, Dr. Devon is 93 talks about how we lived in the presence of God before we were born, but it doesn't say anything about counsel why Abraham does so in terms of the preexistence of souls at the book of Abraham is unparalleled when it comes to revealing Dr. I also think in him may be contrary to popular opinion in the book of Abraham is one of this mysterious testimonies that Joseph Smith was a prophet and again I guess in the top you may have turn prison is a little bit and let go of the few starting assumptions about what you think. Translations to look like. But once you do that and you shining light on the blogs. It's just explodes with insight Revelation insight into the Bible and cited ancient documents like the apocalypse of Abraham and show the Joseph Smith would translate Egyptian and asked out so that you had getting into a recap of what I've Artie said careless is that at the top of this broadcast and 80.

I presented a pair nine. A conceptual model for understanding the book, Weber and which of the Joseph Smith good and did translate the characters from the ancient languages and included that that translation incident with pets, but I stated that he didn't stop there. He and Bella snap translation elaborated on the combined with other material included in contacts and so the relevant questions. Are we actually see an accurate spread of Egyptian running through those isolations.

I think I answered that in the affirmative. Yes, you can and can we account for the portions of the text that do not necessarily, from his primary source documents and book by my illustrations might my parallels with the apocalypse of Abraham did with the Bible. I believe I show that that was also answered in the affirmative went through several examples that showed how Dr. Richter and probably other craze of the book of Abraham could be limited to this is a well how very often things that Joseph gets right are misrepresenting all say they're lying. But I think they're misrepresenting the evidence in favor of their their position and if so how doddering are in one place should describe a symbol as an altar where Joseph Smith said it was one thing and when in another place for godlessness that it was an altar, then doctrine or change since our economy something else as a child at additional figures that demonstrated that this tendency advertisement to get things right was fairly consistent. I pointed to the first four examples in the hydrocephalus facsimile to where Joseph Smith associated purgation with creator. In figure 2. He associated the wet wet wet while went separately in the or the loss after as a symbol of power.

I show how in figure 3, Joseph made a very reasonable reconstruction of the figure. The figure was the God Ray sitting on the boat with the sword is over his head and borrowed it from a different part of the papyrus mast rather closely.

What should have been in the original was kind of go to explain and then I ended with figure 4, which debated a sock in his boat it or not meeting on center and this God was associated with rituals where he was brought around sanctuary and represented a revolution of the sun and doesn't and so associated sector. The revolution of heavenly bodies. If I had time like that have gone through each one of the characters or the figures in the facsimile and showed a similar line of accuracy by Joseph Smith in the Egyptian demand, and this demonstrates I think fairly clearly that he knew Egyptian and that we need to start looking for models to explain the portions of his bags that they don't necessarily come from his primary source documents the ideas and suggestions of how we might approach that subject, but they give your time tonight is Dan findings been stimulating and I will see you again on the Internet and care. Thank you Brett appreciate it.

Thank you for the closing statement and now I'll turn it over to Paul.

Let me reset the timer for five minutes to Paul and the temerity for your closing statement.

I think you first of all, explain Brett for again agreeing to this debate over the years, having conversations and discussions with you come to Carefree very much so appreciate that you took time to speak with me tonight and tackle some of my pointed questions you've also like to direct in the most likely targets for sitting with us, appreciate the time you took to his men as well. Tonight, our topic was is the book of Abraham ancient Scripture.

If you are a latter-day St. As I was for 33 years of my life. This question is an important one. The reason that's important is because the primary reason and evidence given not just by the LDS church, but by Joseph Smith himself or his supposed calling as a prophet and Cedar was his ability to translate ancient ancient records and so the question of whether or not he successfully did that with the book of Abraham is an important question to answer because it goes to his authority on Snyder and argued I think successfully that the book of Abraham text produced by Joseph Smith is not ancient and it is not Scripture. The papyrus fragments rediscovered in 1967, tied directly to the curb Egyptian papers specifically to the Egyptian alphabet grammar produced by some of the described which is connected to Abraham chapter 1 here is what the LDS church says about that quote.

Some evidence suggests that Joseph studied the characters on the Egyptian papyri and attempted to to learn the Egyptian language is history reports that in July 1835 he was continually engaged in transiting an alphabet to the book of Abraham and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients this grammar as it was called consisted of columns of hieroglyphic characters followed by English translations recorded in a large notebook by Joseph scribe William W. Phelps, another manuscript written by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey as Egyptian characters, followed by explanations. This relationship of these documents to the book of Abraham is not fully understood."

I would ask is the relationship truly not understood or does the relationship pose problems for the claim. The Smith could translate the Egyptian language into English. I'll remind our listeners and Brett that the LDS church admits that the papyrus fragments do not mention Abraham and have nothing to do with the contra what Joseph Smith said my also presented arguments against breast some abreast proposed parallels between Joseph Smith's narrative and ancient Egyptian beliefs could do them more, but did not have time tonight, the LDS church claims to be the only true church on the face of beer and it does so on the authority of Joseph Smith's ministry that Joseph Smith claimed things that are not true. For example, with the claims, but as a Cedar he was able to translate ancient records, which he believed to be written by Abraham, and it is demonstrable that he could not translate ancient records and the financial records he claims to translate have nothing to do at all with the subject he claimed was the ancient author and he most assuredly was not a Cedar when Jesus spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well establishes authority by telling the woman things about herself that he could not have known about the stranger.

Namely that she had been married five times and with the man that she was now with was not her husband that prompted her to recognize him as a prophet and pose the thorny question to them, but divided the Samaritans from the Jews.

Where is the right place to worship Yahweh on noun kerosene or in Jerusalem. Jesus responded, quote the hours come when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. We worship the father you worship what you do not know.

We worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hours coming in yet and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth of the father is seeking such people to worship and what does it mean to worship the Father in spirit and in truth means to flee from error and ask leader told Paul the apostle, and Silas traveled from Thessalonica to Berea to teach that in the synagogue there. Chapter 7 verse 11 we read now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so when Paul and Silas brought them a new message about Jesus the Messiah to examine the Scriptures to see things that Paul and Silas were teaching were true as a Mormon. I was taught that if I came to know that the book of Mormon was truly witness was treated by witness from the Holy Spirit that Joseph Smith was God's prophet and if he was a prophet but all that he did with Todd was true.

There is a question for latter-day St. listeners due to feeling that Joseph Smith was a prophet and Cedar overcome all evidence to the contrary. In another. What does it mean to worship God in spirit and in truth. Thank you for taking the time to listen. May God bless you and bring you into his glorious grace by drawing you to Jesus alone for salvation. I recall thinking bread.

Thank you.

Appreciate both coming on and in doing this debate is that it was fantastic. Thank you Michael is one yeah it was fun it was nice seeing you outside of just the Facebook groups that absolutely fireflies. That's a wrap for this debate.

Feel free to share your thoughts in the outer brightness group on Facebook is an aspect of this topic. We missed any debate topics he'd like to see in the future. Let us know the podcast version of this debate will be posted March 7 this Sunday the regularly scheduled podcast episode will wrap up our discussion of the sixth LDS article of faith. What about priesthood and trip structure part three and coming up on February 21 will be sharing a conversation we had not. We had about the form covenant theology with pastors been hiding in Darren Colwell from covenant Grace Church syrup received.

Thank you for tuning into this first outer brightness debate shine bright fireflies in the rent thank you for coming. They think policy thank you for tuning into this pursuit of the outer brightness podcast. We love to hear from please visit the outer brightness and contrast Facebook. Feel free to send us a message than with comments or questions by clicking send a message of appreciated the page life. We also have and how to frame his face and others.

As we discussed the pursuit can also send this outer brightness on hear from you soon can subscribe to the outer brightness podcast on campus cast box cast cast the spot of science teacher. Also you can check out our new YouTube channel. If you like it shortly surveyed also connect with Michael the just one lungs and sometimes Poland as well. Music for the outer brightness podcast is graciously provided by the talented Breanna Flournoy and by Adams Road. Learn more about Adams Road. By visiting their ministry page.

It Adams Road ministry.com. Stay bright fireflies to show in the daily kind man and is a a a and and and we the he may and in the human a will and and and