Factual reality for Guy Briggs

[John Manning]

Great Moments in Church History

Source: The Mormon Hierarchy : Extensions of
Power - D. MICHAEL QUINN
Hardback. 960 Pages. / 1-56085-060-4 /

For synopsis and bio of author see:
http://www.signaturebooks.com/hier2.htm

Jan 23,1852 - Brigham Young instructs Utah
Legislature to legalize
slavery because "we must believe in slavery."

Feb 5,1852 - Brigham Young announces policy
of denying priesthood to all
those black African ancestry, even "if there
never was a prophet, or
apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before"
because "negroes are the
children of old Cain....any many having one
drop of the seed of Cain in
him cannot hold the priesthood." Contrary to
Joseph Smith's example in
authorizing the ordination of Elijah Abel,
this is LDS policy for the
next 126 years.

Jan 3,1854 - Brigham Young invites Elijah
Abel, free black and ordained
Seventy, to party with 98 other men in
Social Hall. Some of these
parties are male-only dances.

Nov 22,1855 - Brigham Young secretly ordains
his eleven year old son
John W. an apostle in connection with
receiving the endowment. Young
later ordains three other sons apostles.

Mar 21,1858 - Brigham Young tells this
special conference that Joseph
Smith disobeyed revelation by returning to
Nauvoo to stand trial, that
the church's founding prophet lost Spirit of
God the last days of his
life, and died as unnecessary martyr. He
published this talk as
pamphlet.
Dec 15,1858 - Young readily grants divorce
to unhappy plural wives but
requires husbands to pay him personally a
$10 fee ($214.50 in 2001 U.S.
dollars). Young issues 1,600 certificates of
divorce for unhappy
polygamous marriages. (This equals 16
thousand dollars, or $343,200 2001
U.S. dollars)

Aug 20,1859 - Brigham Young regarding
slavery: "We consider it of devine
institution, and not to be abolished until
the curse pronounced on Ham
shall have been removed from his descendants."

Sep 7,1859 - Salt Lake City clerk records
sale of twenty six year old
"negro boy" for $800 to William H. Hooper.
Until federal law ends
slavery in U.S. Territories in 1862, some
African-American slaves are
paid as tithing, bought, sold and otherwise
treated as chattel in Utah.

Nov 18,1861 - Abraham Lincoln checks out
Book of Mormon from Library of
Congress. He returns it on 29 July 1862,
apparently first U.S. president
to read Book of Mormon.

Dec 10,1862 - Deseret News reports that
Church Historian's Office is
displaying sample of tobacco crops grown in
Provo during past summer.

Oct 6,1863 - Brigham Young prophesies to
general conference: "Will the
present struggle (of the U.S. Civil War)
free the slaves? No..... and
men will be called to judgement for the way
they have treated the
negroe." The 13th Amendment legally ends
slavery in the United States in
1865.

May 15,1864 - Brigham Young preaches, "I
don't want Mormonism to become
too popular... we would be overrun by the
wicked."

Dec 9,1869 - ZCMI Drug Stores advertises
that is has just opened on Main
Street with "Liquors, Draught and by the case."

Jun 18,1870 - First Counselor George A Smith
tells Salt Lake School of
Prophets about "the evil of masturbation"
among Utah Mormons. Apostle
Lorenzo Snow says that "plural marriage
would tend to diminish the evil
of self pollution and the indulgence on the
part of men was less in
plural marriage than in monogamy."

Sep 1,1870 - Salt Lake City's 9th Ward
reports that only thirty one of
its 181 families attends Sunday Services
regularly and 50% of families
are perfectly indifferent.

Jun 3,1871 - Salt Lake Tabernacle service:
"Pres D.H. Wells spoke 25
minutes following Pres Young's remarks. Not
very good attention.
Considerable moving about, passing out, and
drowsiness."

Jan 4,1877 - Joseph Smith's last born child
David is committed to
Illinois Hospital for the Insane. Proclaimed
by Brigham Young in 1866 as
rightful heir of LDS presidency, he has
served as counselor on RLDS
presidency since 1873. He dies in asylum in
1904.

Aug 29,1877 - Brigham Young dies. His last
words are "Joseph, Joseph,
Joseph!"

June 4,1879 - John Taylor and apostles
decline to allow Elijah Abel to
receive temple endowment because he is
Negroid, even though Abel
received Melchizedek priesthood with Joseph
Smith's authorization in
1836. This African American regularly
attends his Seventy's quorum
meetings and serves proselyting mission just
before his death in 1888.

Dec 27,1879 - Apostle Wilford Woodruff tells
stake conference in
Snowflake, Arizona, "There will be no United
States in the year 1890."

Jan 9,1880 - Apostle Orson Pratt writes to
his children that city of New
Jerusalem will be constructed by April 1950.

Jan 7,1882 - Apostle Francis M Lyman's diary
begins recording month-long
nervous breakdown of Heber J Grant, his
successor as Tooele Stake
President. Physician diagnoses Grant's
condition as "nervous
convulsions" and warns that condition could
lead to "softening of the
brain," if Grant continues his stressful
pace of activity. Grant becomes
apostle ten months later and is first LDS
leader with diagnosed history
of emotional illness.

Mar 31,1882 - John Taylor closes Church
Historian's Office to the
public.

Mar 22,1884 - James E Talmage begins using
hashish at Johns Hopkins
University as "my physiological experiment"
of its effects. By April 6
he is using twenty grains, "and the effect
was felt in a not very
agreeable way." This is last reference in
his diary. Four months later
he becomes member of stake high council.

May 17,1888 - At dedication of Manti Temple,
Wilford Woodruff says, "We
are not going to stop the practice of plural
marriage until the Coming
of the Son of Man."

Feb 27,1889 - LDS political newspaper Salt
Lake Herald: "In 1870 Utah
had second highest rate of divorce and in
1880 the tenth highest for all
states and territories."

Jun 8, 1889 - Apostle Lorenzo Snow says that
"his sister, the late Eliza
R. Snow Smith, was a firm believer in the
principle of reincarnation and
that she claimed to have received if from
the Joseph the Prophet, her
husband. He said he saw nothing unreasonable
in it, and could believe
it, it it came from the Lord or His oracle."

Dec 5, 1891 - Stake President relates
"incident of the Prophet Joseph
telling Dimick B Huntington.....that Noah
built the Ark in the land
where South Carolina is now."

Nov 29,1893 - Presidents Wilford Woodruff
and George Q Cannon meet with
three apostles and James E Talmage: "That
there will also be daughters
of Perdition there is no doubt in the minds
of the brethren."

Dec 7,1893 - First Presidency and Twelve
decide that garments worn under
clothing should be white. This is first
departure of Utah temple garment
from contemporary "Union Suit" which comes
in various colors and upon
which Utah "street garment" is based.

Apr 5,1894 - At meeting of First Presidency
and apostles, Wilford
Woodruff announces revelation which ends
practice of adopting (sealing)
men to LDS leaders.

Apr 9,1894 - Death of Thomas C Sharp,
principal conspirator in murder of
Joseph and Hyrum Smith. He has had a
successful career as mayor, judge,
school principal and newspaper editor.

Apr 15,1894 - Juvenile Instructor publishes
hymn "Our Mother in Heaven,"
which is phrased as prayer to the goddess.

May 18,1894 - In Salt Lake Temple, "Jane
Elizabeth Manning (a Negro
woman) is sealed as a servitor for eternity
to the Prophet Joseph
Smith." Joseph F. Smith acts as proxy."

Aug 26,1894 - "First time a woman has spoken
in the Salt Lake Tabernacle
on the Sabbath at the regular service- the
people don't know what to
make of it-it must bode good for women." The
speaker is a non-Mormon.

Oct 24,1894 - Wilford Woodruff and his two
counselors each give approval
for Apostle Abraham H Cannon to marry
another plural wife. In all, ten
general authorities marry post-Manifesto
plural wives by permission of
church president or his counselors during
next ten years.

Mar 1,1895 - Some non-Mormons are given full
tour of dedicated Salt Lake
Temple interior.

Apr 7,1895 - Wilford Woodruff tells
conference: "Cease troubling
yourselves about who God is; who Adam is,
who Christ is, who Jehovah is.
For Heaven's sake, let these things alone."

Aug 22,1895 - First Presidency and apostles
decide to deny temple
endowments to "Black Jane" Manning (James)
because of her "negro blood."

Mar 12,1896 - First Presidency gives James
E. Talmage "an instruction to
smoke tobacco to relieve his persistent
insomnia."

Aug 23,1896 - Sugar House Ward congregation
votes against man proposed
as Bishop of new ward to divided from the
old. Salt Lake stake president
Angus M. Cannon furiously shouts, "Sit
down! and shut your mouths, you
have no right to speak!" When Cannon engages
in shouting match with
dissenting congregation, a ward member and
policeman threaten to arrest
stake president for disturbing the peace.
Cannon more calmly repeats his
attempt but is voted down "again several
times." Secretary of the First
Council in attendance writes: "I have been
taught that the appointing

power comes from the priesthood and the
sustaining power from the people
and that they have the right of sustaining
or not sustaining
appointees."

Aug 26,1896 - Apostle Moses Thatcher begins
treatment with Keeley
Institute for his addiction to opium and
morphine. First Presidency and
apostles tolerated Thatcher as a "morphine
fiend" and "opium eater", but
on 26 July his family and friends considered
involuntary commitment to
treatment. His is most prominent drug addict
in Mormon history. Twelve
drop Thatcher from quorum membership on 19
Nov because of four year
conflict over his insubordination in
political matters, but Thatcher's
drug addiction aggravates that conflict.

Nov 5,1896 - Apostle Lorenzo Snow's youngest
plural wife bears his last
child in Canada. At age 82 he is the oldest
General Authority to father
a child.

Jan 15,1897 - Apostle Brigham Young, Jr.
temporarily resigns as
vice-president of Brigham Young Trust
Company because first counselor
George Q. Cannon allows its property to
become "a first class" brothel
on Commercial Street (now Regent Street),
Salt Lake City. Apostle Heber
J. Grant is invited to its opening reception
and is stunned to discover
himself inside "a regular whore-house." This
situation begins in 1891,
and for fifty years church controlled real
estate companies lease houses
of prostitution.

Oct 7,1898 - At general conference Apostle
John W. Taylor reports that
in one rural area, 80% of LDS marriages
involve premarital sex.

Feb 7,1901 - Apostle Brigham Young, Jr
writes that proposal to provide
Utah's school children with smallpox
vaccinations is "Gentile doctors
trying to force Babylon into the people and
some of them are willing to
disease the blood of our children if they
can do so, and they think they
are doing God's service."

Mar 3,1901 - Lorenzo Snow promises Salt Lake
temple workers that "some
of us would go back to Jackson County,
Missouri."

July 11, 1901 - First Presidency and
apostles agree that Danish beer is
not harmful or in violation of Word of
Wisdom and release an official
statement to the same affect.

Nov 7,1901 - First Presidency officially
declares that there is no "rule
in the church forbidding cousins to
intermarry" and that first cousins
can have temple marriages if they present
civil license.

Apr 3,1902 - First Presidency and apostles
read letter that U.S.
President Theodore Roosevelt and Republican
Part leader Mark Hanna
guarantee they will arrange to defeat
proposed constitutional amendment
on polygamy and unlawful cohabitation. They
expect Mormons to vote
Republican in exchange.

Mar 26,1903 - Joseph F Smith tells apostles
"there would be no daughters
of perdition, only sons" in final judgement.

Oct 22,1903 - First Presidency and Twelve
authorize purchase of twenty
five acres of the original temple lot at
Independence, Jackson County,
Missouri. Purchase is complete on
14 Apr 1904. These purchases continue
throughout twentieth century.

Feb 20 1904 - First verified suicide of full
time LDS missionary. He
shoots himself as he is returning to Utah.

Mar 2,1904 - Before committee of U.S.
Senate, Joseph F. Smith testifies:
"I have never pretended to nor do I profess
to have received
revelations. I never said that I had a
revelation except so far as God
has shown me that so-called Mormonism is
God's devine truth, that is
all."

Apr 14,1904 - First Presidency and apostles
decide to resume sale of
liquor at church resort of Saltair due to
need for non-Mormon patronage.

Jan 10,1906 - First Council of Seventy
instructs B. H. Roberts to go to
Los Angeles for "recuperation from a
weakness for liquor that had
fastened itself upon him."

Oct 6, 1907 - At sustaining of church
officers a man votes against
Joseph F. Smith because of his admitted
violation of Utah's cohabitation
law. Smith has him ejected from Salt Lake
Tabernacle.

1904 - Church president instructs twelve
apostles to walk through all
doorways in order of seniority.

1906 - Joseph F. Smith pleads guilty in
court to unlawful cohabitation
for which he pays $300 fine.

1907 - General Conference votes to send
twenty tons of flour to China
for famine relief. This comes from Relief
Society grain storage program.

1909 - October at General Conference,
Apostle George Albert Smith stops
speaking after three minutes as he begins to
"tremble and perspire."
Apostle Reed Smoot had referred two weeks
earlier to Smith's "mental
trouble." Since January Smith's diary has
described symptoms of his
eventual collapse. At age thirty-nine he is
first general authority
whose debilitating mental problems cannot be
attributed to senility.
Hospitalized for ten weeks at Gray's
Sanatarium in Salt Lake City, Smith
does not recover from his emotional
breakdown until 1913. Problem
re-emerges in 1930's and in 1949-51.

1910 April - Stake president writes of
church members "complaining on
account of so many Smiths being chosen."
Recent conference sustained
John Henry Smith as second counselor and
President Smith's son, Joseph
Fielding Smith, as new apostle. In addition
to appointing his son Hyrum
M. an apostle in 1901, Smith also appointed
his son David A. Smith to
Presiding Bishopric in 1907.

Oct 2,1910 - First anti-Mormon film, Victim
of the Mormons ("Mormons
Offer"), opens in Copenhagen, Denmark. Film
goes into international
distribution, is publicly condemned by
Apostle David O. McKay at next
general conference. It is target of first
censorship effort led by Utah
governor (William Spry, LDS).

Jan 1913 - Deseret News favorably reviews
One Hundred Years of
Mormonism, first commercial film about
Mormons made with cooperation of
church officials. The 6 reel, 90 minute
silent film features one of
Brigham Young's grandsons in the role of his
grandfather. During Joseph
F. Smith presidency, Hollywood produces
other silent features which
portray Mormonism less favorably: A Trip to
Salt Lake City (1905), The
Mountain Meadow Massacre (1912), The Mormon
(1912), Deadwood Dick Spoils
Brigham Young(1915), Cecil B. DeMille's A
Mormon Maid (1917), and The
Rainbow Trail (1918).

Dec 17,1913 - Death of Joseph Smith's last
surviving plural wife, Mary
E. Rollins Lightner. She helped save the
still-unbound Book of
Commandments from printing office set afire
by mob in 1833. She
witnessed adoption of 1835 D&C, which
prohibited polygamy, and became
secret plural wife of Joseph Smith at Nauvoo
while still living with her
non-Mormon husband.

Oct 8, 1916 Apostle James E. Talmadge
announces in Conference that "The
[ten lost] tribes shall come: they are not
lost unto the Lord; they
shall be brought forth as hath been
predicted; and I say unto you there
are those now living - aye, some here
present - who shall live to read
the records of the Lost Tribes of Israel..."

Mar 22,1919 - "The Nigger" is the new
production to be given at the
Social Hall, proclaims Deseret News with
explanation: "The Nigger" is
distinctly Southern. It is a romance based
on Southern ideals and the
race problem.

Nov 11,1919 - Apostle James E. Talmage
attends Third Christian
Citizenship Conference in Pittsburgh as
delegate chosen by Utah's
governor. Utah delegates are booed and
hissed by 4,000 other delegates.
Talmage hurriedly leaves after some
delegates surround him and threaten
to strip off his clothes in order to display
his temple garments.

Jan 4,1922 - From 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Brigham
H. Roberts presents
detailed summary of textual and historical
problems in Book of Mormon to
combined meeting of First Presidency,
apostles, and Seventy's
presidents. He recommends that these
problems should be researched and
publicly discussed.

May 17,1923 - First Presidency and Twelve
agree to alter temple
undergarment worn outside temple: "buttons
instead of strings; no
collar; sleeves above the elbow and few
inches below the knee and a
change in the crotch so as to cover the
same." Mormons of the time
regard this as a dramatic change from
endowment garment introduced by
Joseph Smith.

Nov 26,1923 - Corporation of the President
is incorporated, becoming the
successor of the Trustee-in-Trust as center
of church financial
operations.

Jan 21,1925 - Mason Grand Lodge of Utah
officially prohibits Mormons
from membership in any of its Masonic lodges
and provides for expulsion
of any Mormons who are current members of
any Utah lodge. Utah is the
only state with formal Masonic restriction
against religious group or
denomination. Some Mormons (primarily
converts) affiliate or preside in
Masonic lodges outside Utah after 1925.

May 22,1925 - Deseret News editorializes in
favor of new Utah law which
legalizes horse racing and pari-mutual
betting. Legislature has
appointed Brigham F. Grant as chair of
Racing Commission. He is manager
of Deseret News and brother of church
president, Heber J. Grant.

Feb 15,1927 - Apostle George F. Richards
notifies temples that it is
decision of First Presidency and Quorum of
Twelve to immediately omit
from prayer circles "all references to
avenging the blood of the
Prophets. Omit from the ordinance and
lecture all reference to
retribution." Letter also instructs to "omit
the kissing" at the end of
the proxy sealings.

Jan 19-20, 1928 - Frederick M. Smith, RLDS
president, supervises
disinterment of his martyred grandfather and
granduncle, Joseph and
Hyrum Smith, from coffin-less burial place
kept secret since 1844. They
are reburied in coffins, one on each side of
Emma Hale Smith Bidamon,
next to Mansion House in Nauvoo.

Sept. 24,1929 - Heber J. Grant writes: "I am
free to confess that I am
disappointed with the Yosemite valley. It
seems only about one-half as
grand as the American Fork canyon of Utah."

Aug 16,1930 - Heber J. Grant remarks that
Apostle George Albert Smith
"is getting very nervous. We don't want him
to have another breakdown
such as he had years ago, almost costing him
his life." Apostle Smith
doesn't begin describing his symptoms until
January 1932, and year later
writes,"My Nerves are nearly gone but am
holding on the best I know
how." Symptoms gradually subside and do not
resume until he is church
president years later.

April 2,1932 - Heber J. Grant launches
campaign against use of tobacco
as part of his emphasis on observing Word of
Wisdom by total abstinence
from alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee.
Previously, Section 89 was not
regarded as a commandment nor was it
interpreted as simply abstaining
from four specific substances.

May 5,1932 - Apostle Stephen L. Richards
tells First Presidency and
Quorum of the Twelve that he will resign as
apostle rather than
apologize for his general conference talk
which says church is putting
too much emphasis on Word of Wisdom. He
later confesses his error to
Heber J. Grant on 26 may and retains his
position.

July 29,1932 - Death of George H. Brimhall
from self inflicted gunshot.
He served as BYU President from 1904 to 1921
and is only BYU president
to commit suicide.

Dec 9,1933 - Church News article "Mormonism
in The New Germany,"
enthusiastically emphasizes parallels
"between the LDS Church and some
of the ideas and policies of the National
Socialists." First, Nazis have
introduced "Fast Sunday." Second, "it is a
very well known fact that
Hitler observes a form of living which
Mormons term the Word of Wisdom.
Finally, due to the importance given to the
racial question by Nazis and
the almost necessity of proving that one's
grandmother was not Jewish,
there no longer is resistance against
genealogical research by German
Mormons who now have received letters of
encouragement complementing
them for their patriotism."

Jan 25,1936 - Church News Section photograph
of LDS basketball team in
Germany giving "Sieg Heil: salute of Nazi
Party."

Oct 31,1936 - First Presidency publishes
unsigned editorial in Deseret
News, which argues against re-election of
Democratic president Franklin
D. Roosevelt. Editorial, written by J.
Reuben Clark, accuses F.D.R. of
unconstitutional and Communist activities.
In response one thousand
Mormons angrily cancel their subscriptions
to the News. Three days
later, 69.3 percent of Utah's voters help
re-elect Roosevelt. Utah's
electorate re-elects F.D.R. again
(1940,1944), despite First
Presidency's opposition.

Mar 29,1940 - First Presidency asks Apostle
Joseph Fielding Smith to
chair "Literature Censorship Committee
authorized by Quorum of the
Twelve last Thursday."

Mar 10,1941 - First Presidency orders
Clayton Investment Company to get
rid of its "whore-houses," no matter the
financial loss, so that church
affiliated company can merge with
church-owned Zion's Securities Corp.
Ends fifty years of church's leases to brothels.

June 8,1941 - First counselor J. Reuben
Clark tells annual conference of
youth and their leaders: "When I was a boy
it was preached from the
stand, and my father and mother repeated the
principle to me time and
time again. They said, 'Reuben, we had
rather bury you than to have you
become unchaste.' and that is the law of
this Church." This doctrine
continues in the church and is included in
all editions of Bruce R.
McConkie's great work Mormon Doctrine under
the heading "Chastity."

June 1945 - Improvement Era states: "When
our leaders speak, the
thinking has been done." This is the ward
teacher's message to all
members for the month. To an inquiring
Unitarian minister, George Albert
Smith writes that "not a few members of the
Church have been upset in
their feelings, and General Authorities have
been embarrassed" by above
statement. "Even to imply that members of
the Church are not to do their
own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the
true ideal of the Church,"
he continues. However, church president's
retraction reaches one
non-Mormon, while original statement reaches
entire LDS population
without similar retraction.

Oct 6,1946 - Public release of Joseph
Fielding Smith (b. 1899) as
Patriarch to Church due to "ill health" but
actually due to discovery of
his recent homosexual activity.

Oct 9,1946 - First Presidency and apostles
decide to allow faithful
African-American Mormons to receive
patriarchal blessings, and Patriarch
Eldred G. Smith blesses black couple for the
first time.

April 16,1948 - Apostle Mark E. Petersen
asks for permission to instruct
local leaders to begin excommunication
trials for persons he suspects of
having disloyal attitudes towards LDS
Church. First Counselor J. Reuben
Clark warns Petersen "to be careful about
the insubordination or
disloyalty question, because they ought to
be permitted to think, you
can't throw a man off for thinking."

Jan 20,1949 - President George Albert Smith
begins week's stay in
California Lutheran Hospital for his "tired
nerves," which his diary
first refers to at Oct 1948 general
conference. He is first LDS
president with history of severe emotional
illness and hospitalization.
He does not recover from this episode until
mid May 1949, when able to
be in First Presidency office at least half
day. Smith is absent from
church headquarters 12 Jan to 27 Feb 1950 to
stay at Laguna Beach,
California, "to rest my nerves." He returns
there to recuperate again
for ten days in March. Year later his nurse
notes that church president
is "very confused, very nervous." Ten days
before his death, nurse adds
that George Albert Smith is "irrational at
times."

April 5,1949 - First counselor J. Reuben
Clark tells meeting of bishops:
"I wish that we could get over being
flattered into almost anything. If
any stranger comes among us and tells us how
wonderful we are, he pretty
much nearly owns us."

Aug 17,1951 - First Presidency statement
that church's restriction on
negroid peoples receiving priesthood "is not
a matter of the declaration
of policy but of direct commandment from the
Lord."

Oct 16,1951 - Temple council of First
Presidency, Quorum of Twelve
Apostles and Patriarch to church decides to
allow beer commercials on
church-owned KSL television station.

Nov 5,1951 - First Presidency learns of
plans by Warner Brothers to make
film about Mountain Meadows Massacre, based
on recent scholarly book by
LDS Juanita Brooks. Within seven days First
Presidency successfully
persuades Hollywood studio to kill project.

Mar 3,1953 - First Presidency secretary
answers Mormon's inquiry about
receiving blood transfusions from African
Americans: "The LDS Hospital
here in Salt Lake City has a blood bank
which does not contain any
colored blood." This represents five year
effort to keep LDS Hospital's
blood bank separate from American Red Cross
system in order "to protect
the purity of the blood streams of the
people of this Church" (Counselor
J. Reuben Clark's phrase.)

March 30,1955 - Quorum of Twelve recommends
establishment of separate
unit or branch for African-American members
in Salt Lake City.

April 10,1956 - Non-LDS governor of Utah, J.
Bracken Lee, speaks of his
counsel to prominent non-Mormons: "I said to
them you are never going to
have any success in Utah unless you let the
leaders of the Church give
you some advice."

Dec 4,1959 - Budget Committee reports that
church spent $8 million more
than its revenues that year. As result,
church permanently stops
releasing annual reports of expenditures.

Jan 7-8,1960 - First Presidency decides that
Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon
Doctrine "must not be re-published, as it is
full of errors and
misstatements, and it is most unfortunate
that it has received such wide
circulation." They are exasperated that
McConkie and his publisher
released the book without pre-publication
publicity or notifying First
Presidency. Even his father-in-law, senior
apostle, Joseph Fielding
Smith, "did not know anything about it until
it was published." This is
McConkie's way to avoid repetition of
Presidency's stopping his
pre-announced Sound Doctrine three years
earlier. Committee of two
apostles (Mark E. Petersen and Marion G.
Romney) report that McConkie's
Mormon Doctrine contains 1,067 doctinal
errors. For example, page 493
said: "Those who falsely and erroneously
suppose that God is progressing
in knowledge and gaining new truths cannot
exercise sufficient faith in
him to gain salvation until they divest
themselves of their false
beliefs." However, McConkie is affirming
doctrine of omniscience
officially condemned by previous First
Presidency and Quorum of the
Twelve Apostles in 1865. In announcing their
decision to the Twelve on
28 Jan 1960, First Presidency says there
should be no revised edition of
Mormon Doctrine. Presidency reverses
initial decision on 7 Jan. "that
the book should be officially repudiated."

By 28 Jan Presidency decides against
requiring McConkie to make public
apology because "it might lessen his
influence" as general authority.

In 1966 year after his father-in-law becomes
assistant counselor to
First Presidency, McConkie publishes second
edition of Mormon Doctrine.
It corrects only a few of first edition
"errors" cited by First
Presidency and apostles in 1960. Book
becomes best seller among
Latter-day Saints. McConkie becomes member
of Quorum of Twelve Apostles
to fill vacancy which his father-in-law's
death creates in 1972.

Nov 10,1960 - Brigham Young University's
president tells Executive
Committee of BYU's trustees "about a colored
boy on campus having been a
candidate for the vice presidency of a class
and receiving a very large
vote." The three apostles present want to
exclude all African Americans
from BYU. "If a granddaughter of mine should
ever go the BYU and become
engaged to a colored boy," Apostle Harold B.
Lee fumes, "I would hold
you responsible!"

May 14,1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith
announces to stake
conference in Honolulu: "We will never get a
man into space. This earth
is man's sphere and it was never intended
that he should get away from
it." Smith, the Twelve's president and next
in succession as LDS
President, adds: "The moon is a superior
planet to the earth and it was
never intended that man should go there. You
can write it down in your
books that this will never happen." In May
1962, he privately instructs
that this view be taught to "the boys and
girls in the Seminary System."
On 20 July 1969 U.S. Astronauts are first
men to walk on moon. Six
months later Joseph Fielding Smith becomes
church president.

June 22,1961 - First Presidency supports
plan to persuade U.S. Army to
send its "colored contingents" to California
rather than to Utah. At its
same meeting Presidency agrees to allow
baptism of Nigerians seeking
membership in church.

Feb 3,1962 - Church News Headlines, "MIA
Bans The Twist," popular dance
among teenagers and young adults. This
prohibition is widely ignored by
youth and even by adult leaders in some
wards and stakes, especially in
Britain and Europe.

May 25,1962 - Boyd K. Packer is first to
earn regular doctorate while
serving as general authority. He receives
Ed.D. degree from Brigham
Young University.

Sep 19,1962 - First Presidency rules that
prominent Egyptian polygamist
can be baptized because polygamy is legal in
Egypt. This is in reference
to "an earlier ruling in the matter of
Indians who had married more than
one wife and it was decided that they may be
baptized, if they were
legally married according to their tribal
customs."

Oct 27,1962 - In midst of Cuban Missile
Crisis, Apostle Ezra Taft Benson
publicly endorses John Birch Society as "the
most effective non-church
organization in our fight against creeping
socialism and godless
communism," and his son Reed A. Benson
announces that he is Utah
coordinator of the society.

Jan 1,1964 - "Home Teaching" replaces
traditional "ward teaching"
program of monthly visits of priesthood men
to church members. This
begins new emphasis on family life which
subtly (yet fundamentally)
replaces previous priorities of God, Church
and family with new ranking
of family, church and God.

Feb 29,1964 - After forty one years teaching
in Church Education System,
George S. Tanner writes that "a large
majority of CES teachers are so
narrow and ignorant that it is a shame to
have them indoctrinating our
young people. I would much rather my sons
and daughters go to other
schools in the state than have them led by
these religious fanatics."

Apr 15,1964 - Daryl Chase, Mormon president
of Utah State University,
confides that "the LDS church has a greater
strangle hold on the people
and institutions of the state now than they
had in Brigham's time.
Complete academic freedom is actually
non-existent."

March 3,1965 - Apostle Harold B. Lee is
"protesting vigorously over our
having given a scholarship at BYU to a negro
student from Africa.
Brother Lee holds the traditional belief as
revealed in the Old
Testament that the races ought to be kept
together and that there is
danger in trying to integrate them on the
BYU campus."

April 29,1965 - BYU President Ernest L.
Wilkinson makes first reference
in his diary to receiving reports from
student "spy ring" he has
authorized and which becomes national
scandal within ten months.

July 1967 - Church-wide Priesthood Bulletin
prohibits women from praying
in sacrament meeting.

Nov 27,1967 - New York Metropolitan Museum
of Art gives to LDS church
the original Egyptian papyri upon which
Joseph Smith based "Book of
Abraham" in Pearl of Great Price. Scholars
and church officials
authenticate papyri as the same used by
Smith. Apostle N. Eldon Tanner
states the discovery of the papyri will
finally prove Joseph Smith could
translate ancient documents. Unfortunately,
Egyptologists, LDS and
non-LDS, verify that these papyri are
typical "Book of Breathings" in
form and content. Church officials begin
repressing the story that the
original papyri have been discovered and are
in their possession.

June 33,1967 - BYU's president receives
"confidential draft" by Terry
Warner, professor of philosophy and
religion, that "freedom of speech as
it is known today is a secular concept and
has no place of any kind at
the BYU."

Nov 19,1967 - BYU's administration discuss
possibility of taking legal
action to close down off campus student
newspaper.

Dec 19,1967 - BYU's Daily Universe publishes
article in favor of
recruiting African American athletes. BYU's
president writes: "This
argues all the more in favor of our making
the student newspaper an
agency of our Communications Department
rather than a student
publication." Universe ceases to be
independent student paper on 18 Apr
1969, but "nothing would be announced about
this new policy."

Sep 14,1971 - Apollo 15 astronauts present
to President Joseph Fielding
Smith a Utah state flag that has traveled
with them to the moon.

May 13,1972 - May Presidency letter that
"fluoridation of public water
supplies to prevent tooth decay" is one of
the "non-moral issues" that
Mormons should vote on "according to their
honest convictions." John
Birch Society, which Apostle Ezra Taft
Benson and many other Mormons
support, is condemning fluoridation as a
Communist "plot."

April 6,1974 - April conference sustains
Neal A. Maxwell as Assistant to
the Twelve, first general authority who
previously worked for U.S.
Government's Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA). Maxwell becomes member
of the twelve in 1981.

Aug 14,1976 - New York Times reports U.S.
patent granted to Mormons G.
Richard Jacobs, Cluff Peck, Dean G.
Doderquist for "speaking mannequins"
at LDS information centers.

Nov 1,1977 - Spencer W. Kimball dedicates
Osmond Family Studio in Orem,
Utah.

Feb 15,1978 - First Presidency letter that
Mohammed and Confucius
"received a portion of God's light."

June 9,1978 - First Presidency announces
"priesthood now available to
all worthy male members." First Presidency
secretary Francis M. Gibbons
writes that this change "seemed to relieve
them of a subtle sense of
guilt they had felt over the years."

June 17,1978 - Church News headline
"Interracial Marriage Discouraged"
in same issue which announces authorization
of priesthood for those of
black African descent. Sources at church
headquarters indicate that
Apostle Mark E. Petersen requires this emphasis.

Dec 29,1978 - First Presidency allows women
to pray in sacrament
meetings again, rescind earlier ban from
July 1967.

August 1979 - Church's Ensign magazine
publishes first counselor N.
Eldon Tanner's statement: "When the prophet
speaks the debate is over,"
which echoes Improvement Era's message of
June 1945.

Feb 7,1980 - Dallin H. Oaks, president of
BYU, is chair of board for
television's Public Broadcasting Service. He
continues as PBS Chair
after his appointment to Twelve in April 1984.

March 2,1980 - Introduction of "Consolidated
Meeting Schedule" of
three-hours on Sundays. This eliminates
week-day meetings of
auxiliaries, as well as traditional twice
daily Sunday meetings. This
eases transportation and weekly scheduling
but erodes fellowshipping
opportunities and diminishes tightly knit
social environment of LDS
Wards. By 1996, this has severely diminished
emotional ties of North
American Mormon youth to LDS community,
eroding what is called "Mormon
ethnic identity." Most dramatic
manifestation of this trend is fact that
for first time in Mormon history, young
women cease LDS participation at
greater percentages than young men
(according to general authority Jack
H. Goaslind's statement in BYU Daily
Universe, 31 Aug 1992). Likewise,
despite absolute increase in missionary
numbers, proportion of Mormon
males who accept full time missions has
decreased significantly in North
America.

July 3,1981 - After nearly eleven years of
losing advertising revenues,
Deseret News begins publishing ads for
R-rated movies.

August 22,1981 - Apostle Boyd K. Packer
instructs BYU religion faculty,
all seminary and institute teachers, and
administrators of Church
Education System that Mormon history, "if
not properly written or
properly taught, may be a faith destroyer,"
and he affirms that Mormon
historians are wrong in publicizing
controversial elements of Mormon
past. BYU Studies publishes this address in
full. At request of
students, BYU history professor gives his
perspective on Elder Packer's
talk and role of historical inquiry to
meeting of BYU's history majors.
Summarized within days by off-campus student
newspaper Seventh East
Press, this conflict between some apostles
and some Mormon historians is
subject of Feb 1982 Newsweek article which
quotes BYU professor that "a
history which makes LDS leaders flawless and
benignly angelic would
border on idolatry."

Oct 1,1981 - New York Times reports official
announcement that new
edition of Book of Mormon changes prophecy
that Lamanites will "become
white and delightsome." Instead of
continuing original reference to skin
color, new edition emphasizes inward
spirituality: "become pure and
delightsome."

Oct 31,1981 - Apostle Bruce R. McConkie
preaches to combined stakes of
BYU that second coming of Jesus Christ will
not be in his lifetime or in
lifetime of his children or his
grandchildren. This runs contrary to the
common folk belief that Christ will come in
year 2000 or shortly
thereafter.

March 2,1982 - In televised sermon at BYU
Apostle Bruce R. McConkie
denounces "spiritually immature: students
and other Mormons who devote
themselves to gaining a special personal
relationship with Christ." He
criticizes widely circulated book on that
topic by popular religion
professor George Pace who writes public
letter of apology within days
and is released as stake president shortly
thereafter.

April 2,1982 - First Presidency announces
service of male missionaries
is reduced from 24 months to 18 months. "It
is anticipated that this
shortened term will make it possible for
many to go who cannot go under
present financial circumstances," counselor
Gordon B. Hinckley explains.
"This will extend the opportunity for
missionary service to an enlarged
body of our young men." Instead, the annual
number of new missionaries
level off. Annual convert baptisms decline
more than 7 percent each year
rather than increase by same proportion as
before.

Jan 11,1983 - Second counselor Gordon B.
Hinckley pays document dealer
Mark Hoffmann $15,000 for alleged Joseph
Smith letter about his treasure
digging activities. He has Hoffmann agree
not to mention the
transaction to anyone else and then he
sequesters document in First
Presidency's vault. First Presidency does
not acknowledge its existence
until Los Angeles Times is about to release
story about document, which
Hoffmann later admits he forged.

April 15,1983 - University Post: The
Unofficial Newspaper of Brigham
Young University reports interview with
director of Standards
Department. He acknowledges that students
suspected of cheating, illegal
drug use, stealing, or homosexuality are
expelled from BYU if they
refuse to take polygraph examination. BYU
Security has licensed
polygraph examiner.

Nov 26,1984 - First Presidency announces
that as of 1 January mission
service for young men will return to 24 months.

May 5,1985 - LDS Astronaut Don Lind
administers sacrament in zero
gravity Skylab 3.

June 9,1985 - Church headquarters telephones
all bishops in Utah, Idaho
and Arizona with instructions to forbid
discussion of Linda Newell and
Valeen Tippetts Avery's biography Mormon
Enigma: Emma Hale Smith in
Relief Society or other church meetings.
Lasting for ten months, this
ban is apparently what triples book's sales.

April 4,1987 - First Counselor Gordon B.
Hinckley tells priesthood
session of conference that "marriage should
not be viewed as a
therapeutic step to solve problems such as
homosexual inclinations of
practices..." This reverses decades long
policy formulated by Spencer W.
Kimball.

Oct 2,1988 - Michaelene P. Grassli, general
Primary President, is first
woman to speak in general conference in 133
years.

Oct 12,1989 - Deseret News reports that
representative of Eli Lilly
pharmaceutical company confirms that Utah
has highest per-capita use in
nation of anti-depressant Prozac.

April 1,1991 - Student at BYU's commencement
offers prayer to "Our
Mother and Father in Heaven."

April 17,1991 - Chronicle of Higher
Education reports that Utah "ranks
last in proportion of students who are
female" throughout the United
States. This is result of Utah's "traditions
that inhibit the
educational progress of women."

Aug 9,1991 - Salt Lake Tribune article, "Of
LDS Women, 58% Admit
Premarital Sex."

April 4,1992 - Apostle Richard G. Scott
tells general conference that
LDS women should avoid "morbid probing into
details of past acts, long
buried and mercifully forgotten," and that
"the Lord may prompt a victim
to recognize a degree of responsibility for
abuse."

Among his concluding remarks: "Remember,
false accusation is also a
sin," and "bury the past." Unspoken
background to his remarks is that in
recent years current stake presidents and
temple workers have been
accused of child abuse by their now adult
children. Salt Lake Tribune
reports that suicide prevention lines are
swamped with telephone calls
by women in days after Scott's remarks.

Aug 8,1992 - Salt Lake Tribune reports that
First Presidency's spokesman
has acknowledged existence of special
"Strengthening the Members
Committee" that keeps secret files on church
members regarded as
disloyal. Due to publicity on this matter,
including New York Times,
Presidency issues statement on 13 Aug.
defending organization of this
apostle-directed committee as consistent
with God's commandment to
Joseph Smith to gather documentation about
non-Mormons who mob and
persecute LDS Church. Presidency lists
Apostles James E. Faust and
Russell M. Nelson as leading the committee.

May 18,1993 - Apostle Boyd K. Packer tells
All-Church Coordinating
Council that LDS church faces three major
threats: "The dangers I speak
of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the
feminist movement (both of
which are relatively new), and the
ever-present challenge from the
so-called scholars or intellectuals."

June 27,1993 - Counselor Gordon B. Hinckley
dedicates former Hotel Utah
as new Joseph Smith Memorial Building to
serve primarily as additional
office space for LDS central bureaucracy.
Its large theatres also begin
showing devotional film, "Legacy" (about
Mormon pioneers), scripted by
Academy award-winner Keith Merrill according
to Hinckley's
instruction:"I want them to leave the
theatre crying."

Nov 6,1994 - Apostle M. Russell Ballard
tells 25,000 students at BYU
that general authorities "will not lead you
astray. We cannot." This
claim of infallibility is officially
published, and he repeats it to
another BYU devotional meeting in March 1996.

May 3,1995 - Agreement between LDS church
and American Gathering of
Jewish Holocaust Survivors "over the issue
of posthumous baptisms of
Jewish Holocaust victims." First Presidency
agrees to "remove from next
issue of International Genealogical Index
[public-access record only]
names of all known posthumously baptized
Jewish holocaust victims,"and
"to discontinue any further baptisms of
deceased Jews, including all
lists of Jewish Holocaust victims who are
know Jews, except if they were
direct ancestors of living members of the
Church."

Sept. 1995 - Ensign magazine publishes First
Presidency message by
second counselor James E. Faust which
denounces "the false belief of
inborn homosexual orientation." Next month's
Ensign contains what
appears as one apostle's direct challenge to
First Presidency's
unequivocal statement. In his October
article "Same-Gender Attraction,"
Dallin H. Oaks writes: "There are also
theories and some evidence that

inheritance is a factor in susceptibilities
to various behavior-related
disorders like aggression, alcoholism, and
obesity. It is easy to
hypothesize that inheritance plays a role in
sexual orientation."

1996 Fall, Brigham Young University Studies
publishes study by two
sociologists who analyze 1,384
questionnaires submitted by LDS
"householders," including discovery that LDS
men are more likely to
think they are going to heaven ("celestial
kingdom") than women think of
themselves. Men are less likely to attend
church or pray privately than
women.

[John Manning]

Here is the bio of the author:

D. Michael Quinn is a former professor of
history at Brigham Young University.

His accolades include the Samuel F. Bemis,
the George W. Egleston, and the Frederick W.
Beinecke prizes; Best Book and Best Article
awards from the Mormon History Association;
"Outstanding Teacher" by vote of graduating
BYU seniors; and invitations to lecture at
the University of Paris's Fondation de la
Maison des Sciences de l'Homme and other
similar venues.

He is the author of J. Reuben Clark: The
Church Years; Early Mormonism and the Magic
World View; The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of
Power; and Same-Sex Dynamics Among
Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example.

He is the editor of The New Mormon History:
Revisionist Essays on the Past and a
contributing author to American National
Biography; Faithful History: Essays on
Writing Mormon History; Fundamentalisms and
Society: Reclaiming the Sciences, the
Family, and Education; Reader's Encyclopedia
of the American West; Under an Open Sky:
Rethinking America's Western Past; and Women
and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism.

His research honorariums include grants from
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
the American Council of Learned Societies,
the Henry E. Huntington Library, the
National Endowment for the Humanities, the
Mrs. Giles Whiting Foundation, Yale
University, and others.
http://www.signaturebooks.com/hier2.htm

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:

<1400+ lines of cut 'n past snipped>

Still not seing any facts about the 1826 Bainbridge trial!

Are you so afraid of saying you're wrong that you present this blizzard
so's folks won't notice? First you hurl insults, then you try the left-
handed compliment, now this red herring.

bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

Guy R. Briggs wrote:
> jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
>
> <1400+ lines of cut 'n past snipped>
>
> Still not seing any facts about the 1826 Bainbridge trial!

What I posted had nothing to do with the
1826 Bainbridge trial - as you well know.
Nor did I say that it did.

> Are you so afraid of saying you're wrong that you present this blizzard
> so's folks won't notice? First you hurl insults, then you try the left-
> handed compliment, now this red herring.

You call *actual* LDS Church history a red
herring? Interesting.

>
>
> bestRegards, Guy.

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

<snip>

>> Still not seing any facts about the 1826 Bainbridge trial!
>
> What I posted had nothing to do with the
> 1826 Bainbridge trial - as you well know.
> Nor did I say that it did.
>

Well, duh!

Let's review, shall we? First, Lance/"christian" posits that
documents have come to light about Smith's arrest for glass-looking. I
post a rebuttal citing facts, figures and case law - to which you make a
childish response about believing in fairies. I ask you for facts and
figures, to which you respond with a left-handed compliment about being
able to dance. "You can respond with more than hurled insults!" I reply.
Instead of coming back with facts and figures about Bainbridge in 1826,
you respond with almost 1500 lines which have nothing to do with the
1826 trial.

Can you say, "Non-sequitur," boys amd girls? I knew ya could!

>>
>> Are you so afraid of saying you're wrong that you present
>> this blizzard so's folks won't notice? First you hurl
>> insults, then you try the left- handed compliment, now this
>> red herring.
>
> You call *actual* LDS Church history a red
> herring?
>

As a response to my call for facts and figures about Bainbridge in
1826? Yes, I most certainly do.

>
> Interesting.
>
I thought so.

bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

Do you have any comment on the Great Moments
in Church History that I posted?

>
>
> bestRegards, Guy.

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

<snip>

> Do you have any comment on the Great Moments

> in Church History that I posted?
>

John, it almost 1500 lines! A thoughtful reply isn't going to happen
overnight.

bestRegards, Guy.

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
>
> Great Moments in Church History
>
> Source: The Mormon Hierarchy : Extensions of
> Power - D. MICHAEL QUINN
> Hardback. 960 Pages. / 1-56085-060-4 /
>

Long post, and you've already started growing impatient for an
answer. I'll start with this preface and deal with specifics as time
allows. I'll likely split up the timeline and group similar items. For
example, there seem to be a lot of items about racial issues - I'll
likely devote one response to those and snip everything else.

But for now, this preface will have to do.

Point one: I have believed, for some time now, that God chooses
flawed men to be His leaders. I don't have to look past the Apostle
Peter, lying his butt off the night before Calvary, to know this is
true. And this only makes sense - since if God required men to be
perfect before He called them as leaders, we'd have damned few leaders.

So a comprehensive list of leaders' flaws is going to do little to
impress me.

Point two: I have a strong testimony about the rightness of the
Church. If you ask my why, I'd answer that for the first 20 years of my
life it was because I was born into it, a sixth-generation Mormon,
raised in Utah. For the second twenty years of my life, it's because one
of the things that happened to me as a missionary is that I finally got
around to praying about whether the Church was true - so add to my
heritage the strength of a personal revelation.

Then, about 12 years ago, I got involved in Mormon newsgroups, and in
the course of researching critics' attacks, I've come to see how logical
the doctrine is. So add to heritage and personal revelation the idea
that it just plain makes sense - moreso than any other belief system
I've examined.

Bottom-lining it, rejecting the doctrine because LdS leaders
occasionally say or do dumb things is a case of throwing the baby out
with the bathwater.

Point three: It's a good system. When I go to priesthood and sit with
a bunch of men who genuinely love me and support me, it's a good
feeling. When I go to testimony meeting and hear of other people's
struggles and how the Church has helped them, it strengthens me.
Conversely, when I'm not able to get to church for a while, I feel
noticeably different - as if my spiritual batteries were drained.

So even if your not-so-little-list were to pursuade me that LdS
leaders were totally uninspired, I'd still continue as a member - simply
because I like it and it makes me feel good.

But not to worry, I've been dealing with stuff like this list on
USENET for going-on 13 years now, and it has only made my testimony
stronger. There is some truth, it would seem, in the maxim that there
must needs be an opposition in all things.

Next: The list!

bestRegards, Guy.

[Gene Fuller]

"Guy R. Briggs" <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D64F5EC...@69.28.186.121...

> jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
>>
>> Great Moments in Church History
>>
>> Source: The Mormon Hierarchy : Extensions of
>> Power - D. MICHAEL QUINN
>> Hardback. 960 Pages. / 1-56085-060-4 /
>>
> Long post, and you've already started growing impatient for an
> answer. I'll start with this preface and deal with specifics as time
> allows. I'll likely split up the timeline and group similar items. For
> example, there seem to be a lot of items about racial issues - I'll
> likely devote one response to those and snip everything else.
>
> But for now, this preface will have to do.
>
> Point one: I have believed, for some time now, that God chooses
> flawed men to be His leaders.

I don't know when I first started believing that. Back in pre-historic days,
I assume. The only evidence I need for that, however, is that He does not
provide any non-flawed men on earth to choose from. <g>

Snip

> So a comprehensive list of leaders' flaws is going to do little to
> impress me.

Ah yes. I t would be more impressive, and probably more productive, to
produce a list of the non-flaws that we see in our leaders. Men like Nixon,
Carter and others (Even Truman and Nixon) have many good characteristics.
Even men like Ezra Taft Benson, Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie
or Boyd K Packer or Henry Eyring!

Snip

> Then, about 12 years ago, I got involved in Mormon newsgroups, and in
> the course of researching critics' attacks, I've come to see how logical
> the doctrine is. So add to heritage and personal revelation the idea
> that it just plain makes sense - moreso than any other belief system
> I've examined.

That is what keeps me here. I am so thankful for the irrational attacks by
some to bring me back from some of the expectations I develop for people
just because they are bishops or whatever.

> Bottom-lining it, rejecting the doctrine because LdS leaders
> occasionally say or do dumb things is a case of throwing the baby out
> with the bathwater.

Yes, I did something like that once.

> Point three: It's a good system. When I go to priesthood and sit with
> a bunch of men who genuinely love me and support me, it's a good
> feeling. When I go to testimony meeting and hear of other people's
> struggles and how the Church has helped them, it strengthens me.

Even when those testimonies are of the type that some people resent!

> Conversely, when I'm not able to get to church for a while, I feel
> noticeably different - as if my spiritual batteries were drained.

Yes.

Snip remainder

[John Manning]

Guy R. Briggs wrote:
> jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
>
>>Great Moments in Church History
>>
>>Source: The Mormon Hierarchy : Extensions of
>>Power - D. MICHAEL QUINN
>>Hardback. 960 Pages. / 1-56085-060-4 /
>>
>
> Long post, and you've already started growing impatient for an
> answer. I'll start with this preface and deal with specifics as time
> allows. I'll likely split up the timeline and group similar items. For
> example, there seem to be a lot of items about racial issues - I'll
> likely devote one response to those and snip everything else.
>
> But for now, this preface will have to do.
>
> Point one: I have believed, for some time now, that God chooses
> flawed men to be His leaders. I don't have to look past the Apostle
> Peter, lying his butt off the night before Calvary, to know this is
> true.

Peter was afraid for his life. That's quite
a bit different, Guy - than the 'prophet'
selling alcohol, and leasing whore houses.

[John Manning]

Guy R. Briggs wrote:
> jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
>
>>Great Moments in Church History
>>
>>Source: The Mormon Hierarchy : Extensions of
>>Power - D. MICHAEL QUINN
>>Hardback. 960 Pages. / 1-56085-060-4 /
>>

[snip]

> Point one: I have believed, for some time now, that God chooses
> flawed men to be His leaders. I don't have to look past the Apostle
> Peter, lying his butt off the night before Calvary, to know this is
> true. And this only makes sense - since if God required men to be
> perfect before He called them as leaders, we'd have damned few leaders.

Peter was afraid for his life. That's quite

a bit different, Guy - than the 'prophet'
selling alcohol, and leasing whore houses.

[snip remainder]

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:

<snip>

Hello? Hello? I think there's an echo in here! Didn't you post this
same drivel this morning? You trimed it better this time.

bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

Guy R. Briggs wrote:
> jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
>
>>net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>
>>>jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>Point one: I have believed, for some time now, that God
>>>chooses flawed men to be His leaders. I don't have to look
>>>past the Apostle Peter, lying his butt off the night before
>>>Calvary, to know this is true. And this only makes sense -
>>>since if God required men to be perfect before He called
>>>them as leaders, we'd have damned few leaders.
>>
>>Peter was afraid for his life. That's quite
>>a bit different, Guy - than the 'prophet'
>>selling alcohol, and leasing whore houses.
>>
>
> Hello? Hello? I think there's an echo in here! Didn't you post this
> same drivel this morning? You trimed it better this time.

I notice that you are avoiding addressing
it's substance. Rather, you changed the
subject and referred to it's factual
documentation from Great Moments of Church
History as "drivel." Not surprising at all,
with you.

> bestRegards, Guy.

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

<snip>

>> flawed men to be His leaders. I don't have to look past the
>> Apostle Peter, lying his butt off the night before Calvary,
>> to know this is true.
>
> Peter was afraid for his life.
>

Does that make it any less a lie? Any one of the three times?

>
> That's quite a bit different, Guy - than the 'prophet'
> selling alcohol, and leasing whore houses.
>

"The 'prophet'??" Since the only mention of prostitution in your list
involved Brigham Young, JUNIOR (in 1897, well after his father's death) -
which prophet would you be talking about?

bestRegards, Guy.

[joseph_dan...@yahoo.com]

I notice that you have avoided addressing something as well.

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

<snip>

> That's quite a bit different, Guy - than the 'prophet'
> selling alcohol, and leasing whore houses.
>

Let's examine this charge a bit further, shall we?

<text from original post reinserted>

>
> Jan 15,1897 - Apostle Brigham Young, Jr. temporarily resigns
> as vice-president of Brigham Young Trust Company because
> first counselor George Q. Cannon allows its property to
> become "a first class" brothel on Commercial Street (now
> Regent Street), Salt Lake City. Apostle Heber J. Grant is
> invited to its opening reception and is stunned to discover
> himself inside "a regular whore-house." This situation
> begins in 1891, and for fifty years church controlled real
> estate companies lease houses of prostitution.
>

First off, we aren't talking about "the" Prophet. It appears we're
talking about his son, well after his father's death. We're also talking
about him /resigning/ a position because he doesn't agree with something
the company which bears his father's name is allowing - something
another apostle (Grant) is shocked to discover.

Apparently, a third apostle (Cannon) is willing to allow (what
appears to be) a private company to accept a lease from a questionable
enterprise. Fast forward to 1941.

<snip down to>

> Mar 10,1941 - First Presidency orders Clayton Investment
> Company to get rid of its "whore-houses," no matter the
> financial loss, so that church affiliated company can merge
> with church-owned Zion's Securities Corp. Ends fifty years
> of church's leases to brothels.
>

We are not told what Clayton Investment Company has to do with
Brigham Young Trust Company, only that it is "church-affiliated". But if
this means "church-controlled" why is it that the whore-houses have to
be gotten rid of to make it acceptable for acquisition by "church-
owned" Zions?!?

Seems to me, John, that this is the perfect situation for a habitual
whiner like yourself: If the Church forces either BYTC or CIC to get rid
of the brothels, the the Church is forcing its will upon private
enterprise, and you can complain. OTOH, even though it is private
enterprise, since it is somehow "church-affiliated" - though the nature
of the sffiliation is never specified - you can imply that the Church is
in the brothel business and still complain.

But from where I sit, it appears you're trying to manufacture
evidence - first from tenuous claims of "church affiliation" in what
appears to be two private enterprises, and second from insinuating that
"the" prophet is somehow involved and that the Church was making money
from directly prostitution.

But it just doesn't have the ring of truth, knowwhatimean?

bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

Guy R. Briggs wrote:
> jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
>
>>net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>flawed men to be His leaders. I don't have to look past the
>>>Apostle Peter, lying his butt off the night before Calvary,
>>>to know this is true.
>>
>>Peter was afraid for his life.
>>
>
> Does that make it any less a lie? Any one of the three times?

I didn't say it wasn't a lie. I said Peter
was afraid for his life. That 'flaw' as you
would call it has no comparison to the LDS
Church leasing whore houses for 50 years and
selling alcohol.

>>That's quite a bit different, Guy - than the 'prophet'
>>selling alcohol, and leasing whore houses.
>>
>
> "The 'prophet'??" Since the only mention of prostitution in your list
> involved Brigham Young, JUNIOR (in 1897, well after his father's death) -
> which prophet would you be talking about?

Mar 10,1941 - First Presidency [of Heber J
Grant] orders Clayton Investment Company to

get rid of its “whore-houses,” no matter the

financial loss, so that *church affiliated*

company can merge with church-owned Zion’s
Securities Corp. Ends fifty years of

*church’s* leases to brothels.

Who were the prophets from 1891 to 1941? Who
was in charge of the Clayton Investment Company?

Wilford Woodruff 1887-1898
Lorenzo Snow 1898-1901
Joseph F. Smith 1901-1918
Heber J. Grant 1918-1945

I find it next to impossible that any of
Christ's *actual* disciples would make money
from leasing whore houses for 50 years.

Who said beer is not harmful?

July 11, 1901 - First Presidency [Joseph F
Smith] and apostles agree that Danish beer

is not harmful or in violation of Word of
Wisdom and release an official statement to
the same affect.

> bestRegards, Guy.

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

<snip>

>>> That's quite a bit different, Guy - than the 'prophet'

>>> selling alcohol, and leasing whore houses.
>>
>> "The 'prophet'??" Since the only mention of prostitution
>> in your list involved Brigham Young, JUNIOR (in 1897, well
>> after his father's death) - which prophet would you be
>> talking about?
>
> Mar 10,1941 - First Presidency [of Heber J
> Grant] orders Clayton Investment Company to
> get rid of its “whore-houses,” no matter the
> financial loss, so that *church affiliated*
> company can merge with church-owned Zion’s
> Securities Corp. Ends fifty years of
> *church’s* leases to brothels.
>
> Who were the prophets from 1891 to 1941?
>

See below. You answered your own question.

>
> Who was in charge of the Clayton Investment Company?
>

That is the problem, Sherlock. You haven't established any link
whatsoever between Clayton Investment Company and the prophet of the
Church - only some vague assertion, unsubstantiated, that it is somehow
Church-affiliated.

Putting asterisks around it in the cite doesn't establish that
affiliation.

On top of that, you haven't shown a link between Clayton and Brigham
Young Investment Company, which your 1400+ line rant says was the guilty
party in the prostitution business.

Further, the notion that Clayton is somehow Church-affiliated is
substantially weakend by the fact that the Church wants the brothels
disposed of - even at a financial loss - BEFORE it can BECOME Church-
affiliated under the Zions corporate flag.

>
> Wilford Woodruff 1887-1898
> Lorenzo Snow 1898-1901
> Joseph F. Smith 1901-1918
> Heber J. Grant 1918-1945
>
> I find it next to impossible that any of
> Christ's *actual* disciples would make money
> from leasing whore houses for 50 years.
>

I find it impossible to believe you're passing this off as evidence!

Wait - considering the source, I retract that statement.

bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

The paper undoubtedly referred to the
Clayton Investment Company, the successor to
the Brigham Young Trust Company; see Brigham
Young Trust Company Records, file no. 853,
Corporation Files, Salt Lake County Clerk.
Tribune, 9 Dec. 1908
http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/nichols/ch4.html

> But if
> this means "church-controlled" why is it that the whore-houses have to
> be gotten rid of to make it acceptable for acquisition by "church-
> owned" Zions?!?

Public perception, obviously.

> Seems to me, John, that this is the perfect situation for a habitual
> whiner like yourself: If the Church forces either BYTC or CIC to get rid
> of the brothels, the the Church is forcing its will upon private
> enterprise, and you can complain.

Baloney. The church was in effect endorsing
prostitution and profiting from it.

Your weasely introduced diversionary straw
man doesn't effectively change the subject,
Guy, nor the obvious fact that the church
*did* lease whore houses for 50 years.

> OTOH, even though it is private
> enterprise, since it is somehow "church-affiliated" - though the nature
> of the sffiliation is never specified -

The paper undoubtedly referred to the
Clayton Investment Company, the successor to
the Brigham Young Trust Company; see Brigham
Young Trust Company Records, file no. 853,
Corporation Files, Salt Lake County Clerk.
Tribune, 9 Dec. 1908
http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/nichols/ch4.html

> you can imply that the Church is
> in the brothel business and still complain.

The church *was* in the business of leasing
whore houses. The facts speak for themselves.

> But from where I sit, it appears you're trying to manufacture
> evidence - first from tenuous claims of "church affiliation" in what
> appears to be two private enterprises, and second from insinuating that
> "the" prophet is somehow involved and that the Church was making money
> from directly prostitution.

I've already put to rest your first
conjecture. The prophet *was* and *is* in
charge of church investments. The church
made and makes money from those investments.
In this case, it was leasing brothels for 50
years.

> But it just doesn't have the ring of truth, knowwhatimean?

Your weasely, weak attempts at obscuring
simple, obvious facts are characteristic of
you, Guy.

>
>
> bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

The paper undoubtedly referred to the
Clayton Investment Company, the *successor*

to the Brigham Young Trust Company; see
Brigham Young Trust Company Records, file
no. 853, Corporation Files, Salt Lake County
Clerk.
Tribune, 9 Dec. 1908
http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/nichols/ch4.html

[snip]

[James Bolin]

"Guy R. Briggs" <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in message >

> So even if your not-so-little-list were to pursuade me that LdS
> leaders were totally uninspired, I'd still continue as a member - simply
> because I like it and it makes me feel good.

You know, Guy, your statement above is probably one of the most lucid ones
I've ever seen in this newsgroup. Sure, there will always be arguments and
disagreements about the LDS church, or ANY church one wants to single out,
for that matter.

But, if something appeals to your sense of values and makes you happy, then
I can't think of a better reason to be a part of it. The debates, some
rational, some not-so-rational will always be there for those interested in
pursuing them. It seems like neither side of the arguement is likely to
convince the other to believe as they do based on the "facts" or
speculations, etc.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, if you've found something that is fulfilling
to you and makes you happy, then more power to you.

JB

>
> bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

An opium smoker could make the same claim
that Guy made.

"...simply because I like it and it makes me
feel good."

>
> JB
>
>
>
>>bestRegards, Guy.
>
>
>

[John Manning]

John Manning wrote:
> James Bolin wrote:

>> So, I guess what I'm saying is, if you've found something that is
>> fulfilling to you and makes you happy, then more power to you.
>
>
> An opium smoker could make the same claim that Guy made.
>
> "...simply because I like it and it makes me feel good."

Here's Guy's "fix":

"...when I'm not able to get to church for a

while, I feel noticeably different - as if
my spiritual batteries were drained."

No surprise.

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

<snip>

>>> Jan 15,1897 - Apostle Brigham Young, Jr. temporarily resigns

Undoubtedly? Simply because you claim it is so? Because the SL Trib
claimed it was so??

Fine, let's accept that for now, that the CIC is, in actual fact,
successor to the BYTC. This still does not establish your claim to even
be "church-affiliated" - much less church-controlled. And even still
less established is your claim that the Prophet was putting money in his
pocket from prostitution.

In fact:

>
> http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/nichols/ch4.html
>
Did you even bother to read this? From the above cite:

"But the [explicitly anti-Mormon 'American' political
party, which controlled Salt Lake City politics from
1905 to 1911] established the 'Stockade,' a new
restricted district, and forced most of the city's
prostitutes to work there. Dora B. Topham, better
known as Belle London, managed the district with the
open approval and protection of the municipal
authorities. For the first time, a single person
dominated the business of prostitution in the city
instead of independent madams managing houses within
the network of brothels. The high visibility of the
Stockade allowed some Mormons and gentiles to claim
the moral high ground against the Americans. The
district became the leading issue in municipal
elections, a point of contention in state politics,
and the target of moral reformers across religious,
political, and gender lines. After many failed
attempts, reformers managed to convict Topham of
pandering and she closed the Stockade. The women who
sold sex there were thrown out of work, and the
Americans were turned out of office. While
prostitution was not eliminated, open regulation and
political anti-Mormonism based on moral claims were
discredited."

So, according to your source, it was the anti-Mormon party who was
controlling things in and around SLC at the time and setting up a
distinct tenderloin district.

From the same source:

"The press also cast the issue [of a city-controlled
red light district] in Mormon-gentile terms. The
Tribune condemned the Stockade [as the aforementioned
red-light district was known] and predicted that it
would never open, since 'powerful interests in the
dominant church are vitally concerned in protecting
and retaining their Commercial street tenants because
of the enormous revenue derived therefrom.'"

I'll spell this out in small words for you.

(1) The red-light district had been created but ...

(2) The SL Trib predicts it will never open, because ...

(3) The LdS Church is protecting its business interests on
Commerce Street.

But the Stockade /did/ in fact, open. Prostitution moved from
wherever it was being practiced to that area. And the Church, if it ever
did have any such interests in the Commerce Street area, didn't have any
such interests in the Stockade. Kinda shoots your theory about Church
operating brothels from 1891 to 1941 in the head.

>>
>> But if this means "church-controlled" why is it that the
>> whore-houses have to be gotten rid of to make it acceptable
>> for acquisition by "church-owned" Zions?!?
>
> Public perception, obviously.
>

So why didn't "public perception" matter in the case of Brigham Young
Trust Company cum Clayton Inventment Company? Your argument makes no
sense.

>>
>> Seems to me, John, that this is the perfect situation for a
>> habitual whiner like yourself: If the Church forces either
>> BYTC or CIC to get rid of the brothels, the the Church is
>> forcing its will upon private enterprise, and you can
>> complain.
>
> Baloney. The church was in effect endorsing
> prostitution and profiting from it.
>

The title of this thread is "factual reality." So far, you've
presented precious few facts. They are:

1) In 1897 there was a entity called Brigham Young Trust
Company. One of it's management team, Brigham Young, Jr.
is a sitting Apostle. Another of its management team is
George Q. Canon, a member of the 1st Prexy. Young is
a Vice President at BYTC, we don't know in what capacity
Cannon served.

2) We know that Young resigned when he found out that BYTC
was leasing property to a brothel. We assume Cannon did
not. Missing facts are who else sat on the Board of
Directors and whether Cannon spoke out against the
lease(s) or not.

3) At some point BYTC is folded into Clayton Investment
Company. We know nothing of the management team at CIC.

4) In 1941, Clayton is about to be purchased by a Church-
controlled entity, Zion's Securities Corporation. Among
the terms of the merger are "orders" by the First
Presidency - the ones you claim are profiting from the
illegal enterprise - to get rid of the operation even if
it means a financial loss.

These are the facts.

>
> Your weasely introduced diversionary straw man doesn't
> effectively change the subject, Guy, nor the obvious fact
> that the church *did* lease whore houses for 50 years.
>

The /Church/ did no such thing. Allegedly, a "church-affiliated"
entity did so, although the only affiliation you've been able to produce
to date is the fact that a sitting Apostle was part of her management
team up to the time BYTC became CIC.

You've also failed to answer why you think that the Church should be
able to control the business activities of private citizens, operating
private companies.

And you've fallen way, WAY short of backing up your assertion that
"the prophet was leasing whore houses."

>>
>> OTOH, even though it is private enterprise, since it is
>> somehow "church-affiliated" - though the nature of the

>> affiliation is never specified -

>
> The paper undoubtedly referred to the
> Clayton Investment Company, the successor to
> the Brigham Young Trust Company; see Brigham
> Young Trust Company Records, file no. 853,
> Corporation Files, Salt Lake County Clerk.
> Tribune, 9 Dec. 1908
> http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/nichols/ch4.html
>

So it claims. You've pointed me there twice now instead of answering
the question of how Clayton was affiliated with the Church.

>>
>> ... you can imply that the Church is in the brothel

>> business and still complain.
>
> The church *was* in the business of leasing
> whore houses. The facts speak for themselves.
>

Until you can show that the Church owned any piece of Clayton, you've
got no facts saying anything to back up that statement.

>>
>> But from where I sit, it appears you're trying to
>> manufacture evidence - first from tenuous claims of "church
>> affiliation" in what appears to be two private enterprises,
>> and second from insinuating that "the" prophet is somehow
>> involved and that the Church was making money from directly
>> prostitution.
>
> I've already put to rest your first conjecture.
>

Not even close.

>
> The prophet *was* and *is* in charge of church investments.
>

Nice red herring. Now show me that the Church ever invested in
Clayton.

>
> The church made and makes money from those investments.
>

Agreed. The fact we're still missing is whether or not the Church had
invested any money in Clayton Investment Company. Or in Brigham Young
Trust Company, for that matter.

Produce the facts, John, or else STFU.

>
> In this case, it was leasing brothels for 50 years.
>

Produce the facts, John.

>>
>> But it just doesn't have the ring of truth, knowwhatimean?
>
> Your weasely, weak attempts at obscuring simple, obvious
> facts are characteristic of you, Guy.
>

I'm still waiting for you to produce a fact linking Church money to
prostitution. Simple or otherwise.

bestRegards, Guy.

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:

<snip>

>> So, I guess what I'm saying is, if you've found something

>> that is fulfilling to you and makes you happy, then more
>> power to you.
>
> An opium smoker could make the same claim
> that Guy made.
>
> "...simply because I like it and it makes me
> feel good."
>

As could an aerobics instructor or a triathelete.

"... simply because aerobics makes me feel good."

"... simply because long distance running/biking/swimming makes me
feel good."

bestRegards, Guy.

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:

<snip>

> Here's Guy's "fix":

>
> "...when I'm not able to get to church for a
> while, I feel noticeably different - as if
> my spiritual batteries were drained."
>

When I don't get to the gym for a while, I start feeling sluggish, as
though my physical batteries were drained.

>
> No surprise.
>
Agreed.

bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

Have you ever heard of True Believer
Syndrome, Guy?

How could the LDS Church order the Clayton
Investment Company to dump the whore houses
if it didn't *control* the Clayton
Investment Company?

Apart from that, you continue to expose your
weasely and weak excuses for not facing
simple factual reality.

>
>
> bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

Seems that simple factual truth takes a back
seat to how 'good' you feel.Drug addicts
make the same claims as you have. Seems you
'need' that "fix" and can't stand on your
own - just like any other junkie. Interesting.

>
>
> bestRegards, Guy.

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
> NET...@gEOcITIES.COM (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>> jrob...@terra.com.br wrote:
>>> net...@GeoCities.com wrote:

<snip>

>>>>> Mar 10,1941 - First Presidency orders Clayton Investment
>>>>> Company to get rid of its "whore-houses," no matter the
>>>>> financial loss, so that church affiliated company can merge
>>>>> with church-owned Zion's Securities Corp. Ends fifty years
>>>>> of church's leases to brothels.

<snip>

>> I'm still waiting for you to produce a fact linking Church
>> money to prostitution. Simple or otherwise.
>
> Have you ever heard of True Believer
> Syndrome, Guy?
>

Yes. A term invented by an ex-Mormon to explain why believers ask for
actual facts.

>
> How could the LDS Church order the Clayton
> Investment Company to dump the whore houses
> if it didn't *control* the Clayton
> Investment Company?
>

Because it was trying to MERGE with Clayton Investment Company, a
corporation it did not yet control - as your source very plainly
indicates. It told CIC that it could either drop the whorehouses or
forget the deal.

Sorta like the deal between Yahoo! and GeoCities about five years
ago. There was a clause in GeoCities' Stock Incentive Plan which
immediately vested all shares for employees who were displaced by the
merger. Yahoo! didn't control GeoCities at the time or vicey-versey -
but Yahoo! had to honor those terms or forget the deal.

bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

It doesn't change a thing. Brothels
continued to operate *outside* of the
Stockade. Further, all of that happened
*way after* 1891, when the church brothel
leasing began.

>>>But if this means "church-controlled" why is it that the
>>>whore-houses have to be gotten rid of to make it acceptable
>>>for acquisition by "church-owned" Zions?!?
>>
>>Public perception, obviously.

> So why didn't "public perception" matter in the case of Brigham Young
> Trust Company cum Clayton Inventment Company? Your argument makes no
> sense.

The Clayton Investment Company was obviously
not prominently known about publicly [as are
many LDS Church owned functionaries today],
as I said. However the 'Zion' enterprise was
public PR.

>>>Seems to me, John, that this is the perfect situation for a
>>>habitual whiner like yourself: If the Church forces either
>>>BYTC or CIC to get rid of the brothels, the the Church is
>>>forcing its will upon private enterprise, and you can
>>>complain.

>>Baloney. The church was in effect endorsing
>>prostitution and profiting from it.

> The title of this thread is "factual reality." So far, you've
> presented precious few facts. They are:

> 1) In 1897 there was a entity called Brigham Young Trust
> Company. One of it's management team, Brigham Young, Jr.
> is a sitting Apostle. Another of its management team is
> George Q. Canon, a member of the 1st Prexy. Young is
> a Vice President at BYTC, we don't know in what capacity
> Cannon served.
>
> 2) We know that Young resigned when he found out that BYTC
> was leasing property to a brothel. We assume Cannon did
> not. Missing facts are who else sat on the Board of
> Directors and whether Cannon spoke out against the
> lease(s) or not.
>
> 3) At some point BYTC is folded into Clayton Investment
> Company. We know nothing of the management team at CIC.
>
> 4) In 1941, Clayton is about to be purchased

No. You're now lying. There is *ZERO*
mention of 'purchase'. It was *already* part
of the church investment venture. Check with
the Brigham Young Trust Company Records,

file no. 853, Corporation Files, Salt Lake
County Clerk.

> by a Church-
> controlled entity, Zion's Securities Corporation. Among
> the terms of the merger are "orders" by the First
> Presidency - the ones you claim are profiting from the
> illegal enterprise - to get rid of the operation even if
> it means a financial loss.

Indeed. PR is everything when promoting the
Zion's Securities Corporation publicly after
50 years of leasing whore houses under both
the Brigham Young Trust Company AND the
Clayton Investment Company.

> These are the facts.
>
>>Your weasely introduced diversionary straw man doesn't
>>effectively change the subject, Guy, nor the obvious fact
>>that the church *did* lease whore houses for 50 years.
>>
>
> The /Church/ did no such thing. Allegedly, a "church-affiliated"
> entity did so, although the only affiliation you've been able to produce
> to date is the fact that a sitting Apostle was part of her management
> team up to the time BYTC became CIC.

Amazing dance, Guy. It, however doesn't
change the simple truth. The LDS Church
through both the Brigham Young Trust Company
AND the Clayton Investment Company and
prior, leased whore houses for 50 years

> You've also failed to answer why you think that the Church should be
> able to control the business activities of private citizens, operating
> private companies.

There's no need to address that question.
The Clayton Investment Company wasn't a
private business. It was the successor of
the Brigham Young Trust Company. BOTH were
entities of the church. Check with the
Brigham Young Trust Company Records, file
no. 853, *Corporation* Files, Salt Lake
County Clerk.

> And you've fallen way, WAY short of backing up your assertion that

> "the prophet was leasing whore houses."

Now you're getting absurd. Church financial
enterprises like both mentioned, are fully
under the auspices of the First Presidency.

>>>OTOH, even though it is private enterprise, since it is
>>>somehow "church-affiliated" - though the nature of the
>>>affiliation is never specified -
>>
>>The paper undoubtedly referred to the
>>Clayton Investment Company, the successor to
>>the Brigham Young Trust Company; see Brigham
>>Young Trust Company Records, file no. 853,
>>Corporation Files, Salt Lake County Clerk.
>>Tribune, 9 Dec. 1908
>>http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/nichols/ch4.html
>>
>
> So it claims. You've pointed me there twice now instead of answering
> the question of how Clayton was affiliated with the Church.

I've made it clear. Check with the Brigham

Young Trust Company Records, file no. 853,
Corporation Files, Salt Lake County Clerk.

>>>... you can imply that the Church is in the brothel

>>>business and still complain.
>>
>>The church *was* in the business of leasing
>>whore houses. The facts speak for themselves.

> Until you can show that the Church owned any piece of Clayton, you've
> got no facts saying anything to back up that statement.

It couldn't be more obvious that Clayton was
church owned. Check with the Brigham Young

Trust Company Records, file no. 853,
Corporation Files, Salt Lake County Clerk.

>>>But from where I sit, it appears you're trying to

>>>manufacture evidence - first from tenuous claims of "church
>>>affiliation" in what appears to be two private enterprises,
>>>and second from insinuating that "the" prophet is somehow
>>>involved and that the Church was making money from directly
>>>prostitution.
>>
>>I've already put to rest your first conjecture.

> Not even close.

I'm not responsible for your unwillingness
to acknowledge simple factual reality, Guy.

>>The prophet *was* and *is* in charge of church investments.

> Nice red herring. Now show me that the Church ever invested in
> Clayton.

Check with the Brigham Young Trust Company

Records, file no. 853, Corporation Files,
Salt Lake County Clerk.

>>The church made and makes money from those investments.

> Agreed. The fact we're still missing is whether or not the Church had
> invested any money in Clayton Investment Company. Or in Brigham Young
> Trust Company, for that matter.

Check with the Brigham Young Trust Company

Records, file no. 853, Corporation Files,
Salt Lake County Clerk.

> Produce the facts, John, or else STFU.

I have. You clearly choose not to see them.

>>In this case, it was leasing brothels for 50 years.

> Produce the facts, John.

I clearly have. You clearly choose not to
see them.

>>> But it just doesn't have the ring of truth, knowwhatimean?
>>
>>Your weasely, weak attempts at obscuring simple, obvious
>>facts are characteristic of you, Guy.

> I'm still waiting for you to produce a fact linking Church money to
> prostitution. Simple or otherwise.

It's already been done, in spite of your
willful and dishonest refusal to recognize it.

> bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

Guy R. Briggs wrote:
> jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
>
>>NET...@gEOcITIES.COM (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>
>>>jrob...@terra.com.br wrote:
>>>
>>>>net...@GeoCities.com wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>>Mar 10,1941 - First Presidency orders Clayton Investment
>>>>>>Company to get rid of its "whore-houses," no matter the
>>>>>>financial loss, so that church affiliated company can merge
>>>>>>with church-owned Zion's Securities Corp. Ends fifty years
>>>>>>of church's leases to brothels.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>I'm still waiting for you to produce a fact linking Church
>>>money to prostitution. Simple or otherwise.
>>
>>Have you ever heard of True Believer
>>Syndrome, Guy?
>>
>
> Yes. A term invented by an ex-Mormon to explain why believers ask for
> actual facts.

Eric Hoffer is an ex-Mormon?

True Believer Syndrome

The Skeptic’s Dictionary entry on
true-believer syndrome explores this
"disorder" further, citing research
conducted by Eric Hoffer, author of "The
True Believer", who suggests that those who
cling to untrue beliefs are simply suffering
from a case of insecurity or a desire to
"free themselves from the burden of
freedom." A holy quest or divine support for
ones actions or beliefs can turn insecurity
into religious zeal. Also, it is often
easier to be told what to do rather than
make up one's own mind and take
responsibility for the consequences of
defining their own morality. Instead of
accepting the responsibility for making poor
decisions, it is easier to blame the outcome
on curses, satanic attacks, or
superstitions. Wishful thinking was also
cited as a probable cause for stubborn
belief in obvious fakery. Fear is another
factor that may contribute to a seemingly
irrational belief in things that defy
science. The perceived consequences for
rejecting religious claims such as
creationism or a global flood can lead one
to uphold such beliefs despite obvious
scientific evidence refuting them.

http://www.xprojectmagazine.com/archives/paranormal/faith.html

>>How could the LDS Church order the Clayton
>>Investment Company to dump the whore houses
>>if it didn't *control* the Clayton
>>Investment Company?
>>
>
> Because it was trying to MERGE with Clayton Investment Company, a
> corporation it did not yet control - as your source very plainly
> indicates. It told CIC that it could either drop the whorehouses or
> forget the deal.

I saw no such thing was said in that source.
Show the *specific* direct quote that
supports what you've claimed, ie, "it [the
LDS Church] was trying to MERGE with Clayton
Investment Company, a
corporation it did not yet control" - or
consider yourself a documented liar.

The Clayton Investment Company was the
successor of Brigham Young Trust Company -
BOTH were directly under control of the
church. Check with the Brigham Young Trust

Company Records, file no. 853, Corporation
Files, Salt Lake County Clerk.

> Sorta like the deal between Yahoo! and GeoCities about five years

> ago. There was a clause in GeoCities' Stock Incentive Plan which
> immediately vested all shares for employees who were displaced by the
> merger. Yahoo! didn't control GeoCities at the time or vicey-versey -
> but Yahoo! had to honor those terms or forget the deal.

Sorry. No relevance there, Guy.

>
>
> bestRegards, Guy.

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:

> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>> jrob...@terra.com.br wrote:
>>> net...@GeoCities.com wrote:
>>>> jrob...@terra.com.br wrote:
>>>>> net...@GeoCities.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>>> Mar 10,1941 - First Presidency orders Clayton Investment
>>>>>>> Company to get rid of its "whore-houses," no matter the
>>>>>>> financial loss, so that church affiliated company can merge
>>>>>>> with church-owned Zion's Securities Corp. Ends fifty years
>>>>>>> of church's leases to brothels.
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> I'm still waiting for you to produce a fact linking Church
>>>> money to prostitution. Simple or otherwise.
>>>
>>> Have you ever heard of True Believer
>>> Syndrome, Guy?
>>
>> Yes. A term invented by an ex-Mormon to explain why believers
>> ask for actual facts.
>
> Eric Hoffer is an ex-Mormon?
>

No, but Steve Lowther is. I always assumed he invented the term about
four years ago. If the source is Hoffer, then I stand corrected.

<snip>

>>>
>>> How could the LDS Church order the Clayton Investment
>>> Company to dump the whore houses if it didn't *control*
>>> the Clayton Investment Company?
>>
>> Because it was trying to MERGE with Clayton Investment
>> Company, a corporation it did not yet control - as your
>> source very plainly indicates. It told CIC that it could
>> either drop the whorehouses or forget the deal.
>
> I saw no such thing was said in that source.
>

Then, as a native speaker of American English, allow me to explain. When
two or more companies /merge/ the assets and liabilities of the selling
firm(s) are absorbed by the buying firm. Although the buying firm may be a
considerably different organization after the merger, it retains its
original identity.

In this case, Zion's Securities Corp. was the buying firm, Clayton
Investment Company was the selling firm. For money or some other valuable
consideration, ZSC agreed to purchase and CIC agreed to sell its assets to
ZSC. Except for the properties being used as whorehouses, which ZSC - for
obvious reasons - didn't want.

Let's look at your original posting: The 1st prexy

"... orders Clayton Investment Company to get rid of

its "whore-houses," no matter the financial loss, so
that church affiliated company can merge with
church-owned Zion's Securities Corp."

Q: Which company does the Church own?
A: Zion's Securities Corp.

Q: Which company was the Church trying to buy (i.e. DIDN'T own)?
A: Clayton Investment Company

Q: What was one of the conditions of the sale?
A: That Clayton "get rid of its whorehouses, no matter the
financial loss..."

Q: Why?
A: In order that ["so ..."] Clayton ["that ... company..."]
can merge with [i.e. be purchased by] church-owned Zion's.

Q: And if Clayton refused?
A: Then Clayton can't merge with Zion's.

It's a simple IF-THEN-ELSE construct.

>
> Show the *specific* direct quote that supports what you've
> claimed, ie, "it [the LDS Church] was trying to MERGE with
> Clayton Investment Company, a corporation it did not yet
> control" - or consider yourself a documented liar.
>

See above. And please apply the rules of standard English.

>
> The Clayton Investment Company was the successor of Brigham
> Young Trust Company -
>

Irrelevant, unless you can prove that the Church had money invested in
BYTC that wasn't returned to the Church when BYTC became CIC. Still waiting
for that proof.

>
> BOTH were directly under control of the church.
>

A statement you've not supported with ANY facts.

>
> Check with the Brigham Young Trust Company Records, file no.
> 853, Corporation Files, Salt Lake County Clerk.
>

Third time you've posted this. I expect that the only thing it will show
is that BYTC was superceded by Clayton - nothing more. Aren't we supposed
to be going for "factual reality" and not proof by repeated assertion?

>>
>> Sorta like the deal between Yahoo! and GeoCities about five
>> years ago. There was a clause in GeoCities' Stock Incentive
>> Plan which immediately vested all shares for employees who
>> were displaced by the merger. Yahoo! didn't control
>> GeoCities at the time or vicey-versey - but Yahoo! had to
>> honor those terms or forget the deal.
>
> Sorry. No relevance there, Guy.
>

Perfect relevance. Especially for someone, like yourself, who doesn't
seem to fully grasp the term "merger".

bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

That has nothing to do with whether or not
both entities were controlled by the church.
They obviously were. Why would BY Jr have
resigned if BYTC wasn't under his auspices?
The fact that *first counselor* George Q
Cannon, ""allows its property to become “a

first class” brothel on Commercial

Street..."" makes it quite plain who was in
charge of the company.

>>BOTH were directly under control of the
church.
>>
>
> A statement you've not supported with ANY facts.
>
>
>>Check with the Brigham Young Trust Company Records, file no.
>>853, Corporation Files, Salt Lake County Clerk.
>>
>
> Third time you've posted this. I expect that the only thing it will show
> is that BYTC was superceded by Clayton - nothing more.

Your expectations are not substantiated
without actually checking. What we know is
that CIC was the *successor* of BYTC which
*was* under church control and there is
nothing to show that CIC, which was its
*successor* wasn't, except your wishful
thinking.

Aren't we supposed
> to be going for "factual reality" and not proof by repeated assertion?

That isn't assertion. CIC *was* the
successor of BYTC according to the Tribune,

9 Dec. 1908
http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/nichols/ch4.html

>>>Sorta like the deal between Yahoo! and GeoCities about five

>>>years ago. There was a clause in GeoCities' Stock Incentive
>>>Plan which immediately vested all shares for employees who
>>>were displaced by the merger. Yahoo! didn't control
>>>GeoCities at the time or vicey-versey - but Yahoo! had to
>>>honor those terms or forget the deal.
>>
>>Sorry. No relevance there, Guy.
>>
>
> Perfect relevance. Especially for someone, like yourself, who doesn't
> seem to fully grasp the term "merger".

The term ''merger", doesn't preclude that
CIC was not under church control. In fact,
you've refuted nothing of the following, either:

Jan 15,1897 - Apostle Brigham Young, Jr.

temporarily resigns as vice-president of

Brigham Young Trust Company because first
counselor George Q. Cannon allows its
property to become “a first class” brothel
on Commercial Street (now Regent Street),
Salt Lake City. Apostle Heber J. Grant is
invited to its opening reception and is
stunned to discover himself inside “a
regular whore-house.” This situation begins
in 1891, and for fifty years church
controlled real estate companies lease
houses of prostitution.

>
>
> bestRegards, Guy.

[James Bolin]

"John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:BuCdnRVzjrUy5a3eRVn->>

>> So, I guess what I'm saying is, if you've found something that is
>> fulfilling to you and makes you happy, then more power to you.
>
> An opium smoker could make the same claim that Guy made.
>
> "...simply because I like it and it makes me feel good."
>

You won't get any arguments from me there. And religion being compared to
mind altering substances is nothing new or surprising, either.

"Religion is the opium of the masses" -- Karl Marx

JB

[Guy R. Briggs]

John Manning wrote:
> John Manning wrote:
>> James Bolin wrote:
>>
>>> So, I guess what I'm saying is, if you've found something
>>> that is fulfilling to you and makes you happy, then more
>>> power to you.
>>
>> An opium smoker could make the same claim that Guy made.
>>
>> "...simply because I like it and it makes me feel good."
>

What Guy actually wrote was:

"If you ask my why [I'm a believer], I'd answer that

for the first 20 years of my life it was because I
was born into it, a sixth-generation Mormon, raised
in Utah. For the second twenty years of my life,
it's because one of the things that happened to me
as a missionary is that I finally got around to
praying about whether the Church was true - so add
to my heritage the strength of a personal
revelation.

"Then, about 12 years ago, I got involved in Mormon
newsgroups, and in the course of researching
critics' attacks, I've come to see how logical the
doctrine is. So add to heritage and personal
revelation the idea that it just plain makes sense
- moreso than any other belief system I've
examined. "

So y'see, Timmy, it isn't "simply because I like it and it makes me
feel good." There are three reasons in front of that - which I notice
you completely ignored.

1) Heritage

2) Personal Revelation

3) Most logical doctrine

It was only after supposing, for the sake of argument, that your
list could somehow convince me that the above three reasons were null
and void - only then would I remain LdS "simply because I like it and

it makes me feel good."

But then, you knew that, no? Didn't stop you from selectively
quoting me to propogate a falsehood, however.

bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

True Believers like Guy are indeed at a loss
when not close to their 'confirmation'
environment. 'Group-think' is self
sustaining. There is comfort in numbers.
Thinking for one's self, apart from the
group, is discouraged - even dangerous. The
thinking has already been done.

"... When our leaders speak, the thinking
has been done. When they
propose a plan -- it is God's plan. When
they point the way, there is no
other which is safe. When they give
direction, it should mark the end of
controversy."
(The Improvement Era, June 1945, page 354,
which was most
likely authored by Joseph Fielding Smith,
senior member of the Twelve.
Also see *Deseret News*, Church Section,
Page 5, May 26, 1945).

We do, we do, we do, believe in fairies!

>
>
> bestRegards, Guy.
>

[dale]

Guy observed,

>But then, you knew that, no? Didn't stop you from selectively
>quoting me to propogate a falsehood, however.

Selective quoting and scripture wresting pretty common in here, eh Guy?
8-(

[joseph_dan...@yahoo.com]

Scripture wrestling! The new Olympic event!

Let's all practice, now.

> 8-(

:(

[Guy R. Briggs]

John Manning wrote:
> Guy R. Briggs wrote:

<snip>

>> But then, you knew that, no? Didn't stop you from
>> selectively quoting me to propogate a falsehood,
>> however.
>
> True Believers like Guy are indeed at a loss when not close
> to their 'confirmation' environment. 'Group-think' is self
> sustaining. There is comfort in numbers. Thinking for one's
> self, apart from the group, is discouraged - even dangerous.
> The thinking has already been done.
>
> "... When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.
> When they propose a plan -- it is God's plan. When they
> point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they
> give direction, it should mark the end of controversy."

> (The Improvement Era, June 1945, page 354, ...
>
You respond to a charge of selective quoting with more selective
quoting?

"NO LATTER-DAY SAINT IS COMPELLED TO SUSTAIN THE
GENERAL AUTHORITIES OF THE CHURCH. When given the
opportunity to vote on the proposition in any of
several conferences held throughout the Church, he
may indicate his willingness to sustain them by
raising his right hand; he may manifest his
opposition in like manner; or he may ignore the
opportunity entirely. THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF
COERCION OR FORCE IN THIS OR ANY OTHER CHURCH
PROCEDURE.

"However, THERE IS A PRINCIPLE OF HONOR INVOLVED in
the member's choice. When a person raises his hand
to sustain Church leaders as 'prophets, seers, and
revelators,' it is the same as A PROMISE AND A
COVENANT TO FOLLOW THEIR LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOW
THEIR COUNSEL as the living oracles of God.
Consequently, any subsequent act or word of mouth
which is at variance with the will of the Lord as
taught by the leaders of the Church places the
sincerity of the person in serious doubt. One could
scarcely have claim upon complete integrity, if he
raises his hand to sustain the Authorities of the
Church and then proceeds in opposition to
their counsel."

Y'see, Timmy, Improvement Era article is not at all how you present
it. Members /are/ encouraged to think. They are also encouraged to come
to conference and indicate the results of that thinking - pro, anti, or
otherwise. But after you raise you hand and promise to sustain, the
thinking has been done - or at least it should have been - and it's a
matter of integrity after that.

>
> ... which was most likely authored by Joseph Fielding Smith,

> senior member of the Twelve.
>

Call for references. I have a photocopy of the article, and there is
no indication, whatsoever, that JFS had anything to do with it.

bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

Perhaps it was conjecture about that
particular association with JFS. However,
the following *totally* confirms the same thing.

Joseph Smith [Jr] himself once boasted: "God
made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the
children of Israel, and He will make me to
be god to you in His stead, and the Elders
to be mouth for me; and if you don't like
it, you must lump it" (Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, by *Joseph Fielding
Smith*, p.363; also History of the Church,
vol. 6, pp.319-20)

Heber C. Kimball, First Councilor to Brigham
Young, exhorted the Mormon people to "...
learn to do as you are told, ... if you are
told by your leader to do a thing, do it,
[it is] none of your business whether it is
right or wrong" (Journal of Discourses, vol.
6, p.32)

"When the Prophet speaks the debate is over".
N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3

"Now, whatever I might have obtained in the
shape of learning, by searching and study
respecting the arts and sciences of
men--whatever principles I may have imbibed
during my scientific researches, yet, if the
Prophet of God should tell me that a certain
principle or theory which I might have
learned was not true, I do not care what my
ideas might have been, I should consider it
my duty, at the suggestion of my file
leader, to abandon that principle or theory."
Wilford Woodruff: (Journal of Discourses,
Vol. 5, page 83)

> bestRegards, Guy.

[dale]

>>Selective quoting and scripture wresting pretty common in here, eh Guy?

>Scripture wrestling! The new Olympic event!

Well, there's always that too <grinz> LDS would definitely have an
advantage in the event cuz we gotz more "raw materials" ;-)

>Let's all practice, now.

<LOL>

_Wresting_, Joseph, _wresting_... <grinz>

~Dale

[Guy R. Briggs]

"dale" <dale....@gmail.com> wrote in news:1127428165.692758.156780
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Whatever gave you that idea?

bestRegards, Guy.

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

<snip>

>> Y'see, Timmy, Improvement Era article is not at all how you
>> present it. Members /are/ encouraged to think. They are
>> also encouraged to come to conference and indicate the
>> results of that thinking - pro, anti, or otherwise. But
>> after you raise you hand and promise to sustain, the
>> thinking has been done - or at least it should have been -
>> and it's a matter of integrity after that.
>>

>>> ... which was most likely authored by Joseph Fielding
>>> Smith, senior member of the Twelve.
>>
>> Call for references. I have a photocopy of the article, and
>> there is no indication, whatsoever, that JFS had anything
>> to do with it.
>
> Perhaps it was conjecture about that particular association
> with JFS.
>

To be convincing, this attack has to be from a more authoritative source
than some unnamed editor at the Improvement Era. So the story gets
embellished by promoting the editor to senior member of the 12. Ironically,
in a thread entitles "factual reality."

>
> However, the following *totally* confirms the same thing.
>

Totally? Erm, I don't think so, John.

>
> Joseph Smith [Jr] himself once boasted: "God made Aaron to
> be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will
> make me to be god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be
> mouth for me; and if you don't like it, you must lump it"
> (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by *Joseph Fielding
> Smith*, p.363; also History of the Church, vol. 6,
> pp.319-20)
>

"AND the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a
god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy
prophet."
-- Exodus 7:1

This concept should be familiar and acceptable to Christians of every
stripe: once you have accepted God as your Lord and Master, you do what He
wants. It is that plain and simple. You also follow the counsel and
guidance of those who speak for Him.

That doesn't mean you check you brain at the door, however, because you
still have to determine if those who are /claiming/ to speak for God are
actually doing so.

You wanted JFS? I'll give you JFS:

"It is the duty of every [member] of the Church to
know the truth, for each is entitled to the guidance
of the Holy Ghost ... Each member of the Church
should be so well versed [in the Standard Works]
that he, or she, would be able to discern whether or
not any doctrine taught from the pulpit conforms to
the revealed word of the Lord. Moreover, the members
of the Church are entitled ... to have the spirit of
discernment"
-- Joseph Fielding Smith, from
the 1971-72 Priesthood Manual

President Smith added that members are "under obligation to accept the
teachings of the authorities ... unless they can discover in them some
conflict with the revelations that the Lord has given." IOW, are we
supposed to be mindless robots? Nope, we're supposed to compare what our
leaders say with previous revelation.

>
> Heber C. Kimball, First Councilor to Brigham Young, exhorted
> the Mormon people to "... learn to do as you are told, ...
> if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it, [it is]
> none of your business whether it is right or wrong" (Journal
> of Discourses, vol. 6, p.32)
>

Very next line: "You will get water if you dig away." Alludes to a
story earlier in the discourse about digging a well.

"Some time ago I brought up a figure. Say I, John,
Timothy, Jack Peter - I do not care who they are -
you go up above the arsenal and dig a well, and dig
ten or twelve feet, and you shall find a good spring
of water. 'Well,' says brother John, 'I have no
confidence in that, that there can be water got
there, neither have I any confidence in you as an
Apostle.' Say I, I do not care whether you have or
not; go and do as I tell you and you shall be paid
for it. You go and dig a well, and dig twelve feet,
and find a good spring of water. Now, do you not get
the knowledge of that water without a particle of
faith or confidence? It is in the works."

So again we see that, when you examine the discourse in context, the LdS
leader is not talking about blind, mindless obedience - he is talking about
putting the leaders to the test, to see if they are indeed representatives
of God.

>
> "When the Prophet speaks the debate is over". N. Eldon Tanner,
> August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3
>

Wrong. The statement was made by Elaine Cannon, Young Women President,
at a fireside the previous yesr. The tipoff should have been the opening
line of the article:

"Recently, at the Churchwide fireside meeting held for
the women of the Church, Young Women President Elaine
Cannon made the following statement: ..."

Later in the same article, Tanner writes:

"True Latter-day Saints have no such dilemma. They
know that the messages of the prophet have come from
the Lord and have the concurrence of all the General
Authorities, who are men of vision and integrity, and
who themselves try to keep in tune with deity. THEY
ARE NOT, AS SOME WOULD SUGGEST, FOLLOWING BLINDLY AND
ACTING WITHOUT THEIR OWN AGENCY TO SPEAK AND ACT FOR
THEMSLEVES. Through prayer to our Heavenly Father each
of us can have the assurance that the course we choose
has his divine approval.

"Why should there be any debate over the moral issues
which are confounding the world today? From the
beginning God has made his position very clear in
regard to marriage, divorce, family life and love of
children, immorality, chastity, virtue, and the high
and holy role of women. Through his prophet today he
reiterates the Old and New Testament teachings which
are clear on these matters."

Emphasis mine. Once again we see that the very article you point us to
in support of your assertion that LdS are expected to "blindly follow" says
specifically that we shouldn't blindly follow.

More twisting of the truth through selective quotation. Ironically, in a
thread entitled "factual reality."

bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

Guy R. Briggs wrote:
> jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
>
>>net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

[snipped, but read]

> Later in the same article, Tanner writes:
>
> "True Latter-day Saints have no such dilemma. They
> know that the messages of the prophet have come from
> the Lord and have the concurrence of all the General
> Authorities, who are men of vision and integrity, and
> who themselves try to keep in tune with deity. THEY
> ARE NOT, AS SOME WOULD SUGGEST, FOLLOWING BLINDLY AND
> ACTING WITHOUT THEIR OWN AGENCY TO SPEAK AND ACT FOR
> THEMSLEVES. Through prayer to our Heavenly Father each
> of us can have the assurance that the course we choose
> has his divine approval.
>
> "Why should there be any debate over the moral issues
> which are confounding the world today? From the
> beginning God has made his position very clear in
> regard to marriage, divorce, family life and love of
> children, immorality, chastity, virtue, and the high
> and holy role of women. Through his prophet today he
> reiterates the Old and New Testament teachings which
> are clear on these matters."
>
> Emphasis mine. Once again we see that the very article you point us to
> in support of your assertion that LdS are expected to "blindly follow" says
> specifically that we shouldn't blindly follow.
>
> More twisting of the truth through selective quotation. Ironically, in a
> thread entitled "factual reality."

Heh, heh...

No matter how you dance through all of this,
Guy, the *fact* remains that individuals
like you *do* ignore the obvious. As I wrote
in response to Woody Brison, you two guys
are noted LDS apologists. You border on
cult-like behavior and 'obedience' to church
'authority' to justify just about anything
from your church and its history.

"Woody is an unyielding apologist for the LDS
Church. He and Guy are noted for it. Their
apparently desperate need to always defend
the LDS Church produces rhetorical feats of
monumental proportion. Every verbal
manipulation is employed to shield the 'one
true church' from the obvious massive
factual evidence of its lack of legitimacy
by any genuinely objective standards.

Of course, they both think of their critics
as somehow 'hating' Mormons.

For the record:

I for one don't hate Mormons. I lived in
Mormon Utah for around 35 years. In my view
Mormons are no different than people of any
other faith. You have good people and bad
people in any religion.

I suppose if I hate anything at all, it's
lies and deceptions that hurt others. And
denying the factual evidence of the fatal
flaws in the early church is offensive to
me. It speaks to their self-justification
and hypocrisy of 'seeking the truth' in all
things.

Again, in my view, it would serve them
better to admit those *obvious* and *documented*
short-comings and focus on Christ and what
He *actually* taught. Somehow, with these
two guys, it seems that they accept their
doctrine and dogma in lieu of Christ's message."

Guy is a classic *dependent* ' true
believer'. When it comes to rational
objective observation that threatens his
*safe world* ideological construct, he runs
to mommy [the church] - and mommy protects
him. In other words, the thinking really
*has* been done - and his powerful
group-think church [mommy] will back him up.
He gets his 'fix'.

Nothing is more pathetic, in my view.

I have more respect for Art Bulla in that
'specific' regard. At least Bulla has the
balls to speak his *own* views. Even though
his views are sick and perverted, he stands
for his *own* vision and doesn't depend on
mommy. Guy would fall apart in the world
without mommy's drug fix.

And Guy claims that he thinks for himself.
HA HA HA HA HA.....

> bestRegards, Guy.

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

<snip>

>> Once again we see that the very article you
>> point us to in support of your assertion that LdS are
>> expected to "blindly follow" says specifically that we
>> shouldn't blindly follow.
>>
>> More twisting of the truth through selective quotation.
>> Ironically, in a thread entitled "factual reality."
>
> Heh, heh...
>

Laugh on, Chuckles.

>
> No matter how you dance through all of this, Guy, ...
>
I'm dancing?!? You're throwing out a snippet here and a snippet
there, I'm supplying the substance behind each of your outrageous
claims. Ever hear the parable of the 3 blind men and the elephant?
You're like the guy holding the tail, insisting that an elephant is just
like a rope.

>
> ... the *fact* remains that individuals like you *do* ignore
> the obvious.
>
If it's a fact, especially a *fact* with asterisks around it, there
ought to be some evidence to back it up, no? Suppose you find post where
our roles are reversed - where I'm the guy throwing out snippets of
quotation and you're the guy supplying the r-r-r-rest of the story.

>
> As I wrote in response to Woody Brison, you two guys are
> noted LDS apologists.
>

Flattery isn't going to get you out of this one!

<snip>

bestRegards, Guy.

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>> jrob...@terra.com.br wrote:

<deletia>

>>> The Clayton Investment Company was the successor of Brigham
>>> Young Trust Company -
>>
>> Irrelevant, unless you can prove that the Church had money
>> invested in BYTC that wasn't returned to the Church when
>> BYTC became CIC. Still waiting for that proof.
>
> That has nothing to do with whether or not
> both entities were controlled by the church.
>

John, Jonn, John. Do you understand how a corporation works?

In a corporation, the decisions are made by a group called the Board
of Directors. If you want to influence the decisions of the Corporation
- IOW, if you want to "control" it - you have to own enough stock in the
Corporation to get people elected as Directors who will vote the way you
want them to.

Of the entities involved, which one was "controlled" by the Church?
Zion's Securities Corporation. It is "controlled" by the Church because
it is "owned" by the Church. IOW, the Church owns at least a majority
stock position, and can, therefore, put anybody she wants to on the
Board of Directors - and control the decisions made by the Corporation.

Was Clayton in that same situation? Frankly, we don't know - and
nothing you've presented would lead a reasonable thinker to believe so.
In fact, the second item, the one from 1941, called Clayton "church
affiliated" and NOT "Church controlled". In 1941, Clayton went from
being "Church affiliated" to being "Church controlled" through the
merger process, as the item clearly indicates.

Bottom-lining it, unless and until you can show that the Church owned
stock in Clayton (or BYTC for that matter) - enough to be a "controlling
interest" (which is what businessmen call it) - then you cannot make the
claim that Clayton was controlled by the Church.

Except in your own wishful dreams, of course.

>
> They obviously were.
>
This is not obvious at all.

>
> Why would BY Jr have resigned if BYTC wasn't under his
> auspices?
>

Because he had enough integrity that he didn't want to be associated
in any way with a business entity connected with prostitution. Even if
the connection was simply collecting rent.

>
> The fact that *first counselor* George Q Cannon, "allows its
> property to become “a first class” brothel on Commercial
> Street..."" makes it quite plain who was in charge of the
> company.
>

That would be an assumption made by a biased writer. But we're
supposed to be dealing in "factual reality" - remember? For this to be
factual, you are obligated to show Cannon was in charge by ACTUALLY
PRESENTING FACTS THAT PROVE HE WAS.

Furthermore, you've asserted that it was the Church as an
organization, not Cannon as a private businessman, calling the shots.
For that to be considered "factual reality" you've got to present some
proof - not some wild-eyed conspiracy theory.

>>>
>>> BOTH were directly under control of the church.
>>
>> A statement you've not supported with ANY facts.
>>
>>> Check with the Brigham Young Trust Company Records, file no.
>>> 853, Corporation Files, Salt Lake County Clerk.
>>
>> Third time you've posted this. I expect that the only thing it
>> will show is that BYTC was superceded by Clayton - nothing more.
>
> Your expectations are not substantiated without actually checking.
>

Look it up, then. and prove me wrong.

>
> What we know is that CIC was the *successor* of BYTC ...
>
We are assuming that, yes. The URL you pointed us to (1) cited some
political rhetoric, which (2) made the claim that the Church wanted to
protect business interests on Commerce Street (and therefore predicted -
wrongly - that the Stockade would never open). (3) The statement was
footnoted, which footnote suggested that the "business interests" was
"probably" Clayton, and pointed to the Corporation Files.

Based on that rather tenuous chain, beginning with political
rhetoric, I have stipulated that Clayton was likely a successor to BYTC.
But we don't know any more than that.

>
> ... which *was* under church control ...
>
You haven't provided a single fact to support that claim.

>
> ... and there is nothing to show that CIC, which was its

> *successor* wasn't, except your wishful thinking.
>

There's nothing to show that BYTD /was/. Show me the facts. I'll
gladly admit I'm wrong if the facts warrant it.

>>
>> Aren't we supposed to be going for "factual reality" and
>> not proof by repeated assertion?
>
> That isn't assertion. CIC *was* the successor of BYTC
> according to the Tribune, 9 Dec. 1908
>

I'm not challenging that. What I /am/ challenging is the idea of
corporate control.

<snip>

>>>> Sorta like the deal between Yahoo! and GeoCities about five
>>>> years ago. There was a clause in GeoCities' Stock Incentive
>>>> Plan which immediately vested all shares for employees who
>>>> were displaced by the merger. Yahoo! didn't control
>>>> GeoCities at the time or vicey-versey - but Yahoo! had to
>>>> honor those terms or forget the deal.
>>>
>>> Sorry. No relevance there, Guy.
>>
>> Perfect relevance. Especially for someone, like yourself,
>> who doesn't seem to fully grasp the term "merger".
>
> The term ''merger", doesn't preclude that CIC was not under
> church control.
>

Except for the simple fact that if the Church controlled it, it
wouldn't have had to purchase with it.

>
> In fact, you've refuted nothing of the following, either
>
> Jan 15,1897 - Apostle Brigham Young, Jr. temporarily resigns
> as vice-president of Brigham Young Trust Company because
> first counselor George Q. Cannon allows its property to
> become “a first class” brothel on Commercial Street (now
> Regent Street), Salt Lake City. Apostle Heber J. Grant is
> invited to its opening reception and is stunned to discover
> himself inside “a regular whore-house.” This situation
> begins in 1891, and for fifty years church controlled real
> estate companies lease houses of prostitution.
>

I'm not challenging BY, Jr.'s resignation.

I'm not challenging BYTC's ownership of a piece of property.

I'm not challenging that the property was being leased to a person
involved in prostitution.

I'm not challengin the fact that Heber J. Grant was stunned to find
out what the property was being used for - in fact, to my way of
thinking it hurts your case. Why would Grant have been stunned if the
Church was controlling the activities of BYTC?

I'm not challenging the notion that it started in 1891.

I'm challenging two things:

(1) 50 years. When the Stockade opened, all prostitution (or at
least, most of it) was moved there, so any Church affiliated corporation
previously involved would no longer have been involved.

(2) That either BYTC or CIC was Church controlled. I'll not challenge
Church-affiliated.

Show me the facts!

bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

What Guy snipped:

[Guy R. Briggs]

jrob...@terra.com.br (John Manning) wrote:

<snip what John had no answer for>

>
> What Guy snipped:
>
> "Woody is an unyielding apologist for the LDS Church.
>

Leave Woody out of this, this is between you and me, Bucko.

>
> He and Guy are noted for it. Their apparently desperate

> need to always defend the LDS Church ...
>
Apparent to whom? It would seem that the "desperat[ion]" becomes
"apparent[]" to those who cannot answer our rebuttals.

>
> ... produces rhetorical feats of monumental proportion.

> Every verbal manipulation is employed to shield the 'one
> true church' from the obvious massive factual evidence
> of its lack of legitimacy by any genuinely objective
> standards.
>

Back to factual evidence. The one problem with that is I'm the one
producing factual evidence, you're the one producing out-of-context
snippets.

>
> Of course, they both think of their critics as somehow 'hating'
> Mormons.
>
> For the record:
>

For the record, I don't think it's a question of hate on your part. I
think it's something else. Rodney Stark - that non-Mormon bean-counter who
looked at Church growth rates a couple of decades ago - once wrote:

"I continue to be astonished at the extent to which
colleagues who would never utter anti-Semitic,
anti-Catholic, or even anti-Moslem remarks,
unself-consciously and self-righteously condemn
Mormons."
-- Stark, Rodney, "The Rise of
a New World Faith", p.27

IOW, some people just have to feel superior to others. In a politically
correct world, there's a diminishing number of groups one can self-
righteously condemn. For a lot of people - it's Mormons.

<snip personal history>

> I suppose if I hate anything at all, it's lies and

> deceptions ...
>
I find that odd - since you seem to delight in twisting facts to condemn
Mormons.

>
> ... that hurt others. And denying the factual evidence of

> the fatal flaws in the early church is offensive to me.
>

There a lot less fatal than you make it seem. You seem to be wroking
from the assumption that Church leaders must be perfect, and anything less
is a "fatal flaw" in God's True Church.

I, for one, am glad to see the God can make use of flawed men. Makes me
think that I can be useful, warts and all.

>
> It speaks to their self-justification and hypocrisy of
> 'seeking the truth' in all things.
>

There's a big difference between seeking truth and having found all
truth. We certainly don't claim the latter - since we have an Article of
Faith which speaks of the many "great and important things" yet to be
revealed.

>
> Again, in my view, it would serve them better to admit those
> *obvious* and *documented* short-comings and focus on Christ
> and what He *actually* taught.
>

I do admit well-documented short-comings. It's the ones where there's
only conjecture that I question. Like most of the stuff on that 1500-line
post, for example. We've barely scratched the surface of it, and already I
see you making leaps of conjecture.

Here's a clue: Conjecture is not the same as factual reality.

>
> Somehow, with these two guys, it seems that they accept
> their doctrine and dogma in lieu of Christ's message."
>

BZZZZZT! Wrong! But thaks for playing. LdS doctrine is more logical than
any other I've come across. Makes Christ's message all the more beautiful.

>
> Guy is a classic *dependent* ' true believer'.
>

Yup. Dependent on facts, not conjecture.

>
> When it comes to rational objective observation that
> threatens his *safe world* ideological construct, he runs
> to mommy [the church] - and mommy protects him. In other
> words, the thinking really *has* been done - and his
> powerful group-think church [mommy] will back him up.
> He gets his 'fix'.
>

Sorry, but most of what I've learned over the last dozen years of
participating on a/s.r.m I've done on my own. You don't find these answers
in Sunday School.

>
> Nothing is more pathetic, in my view.
>

Well, you've got to feel superior to somebody. IMHO, it's why we see all
the off-topic stuff you post. Has nothing whatsoever to do with Mormonism,
but you post it here anyway. Why? Because, and again IMHO, because it's the
one group in which you feel superiority.

>
> I have more respect for Art Bulla in that 'specific' regard. At
> least Bulla has the balls to speak his *own* views. Even though
> his views are sick and perverted, he stands for his *own* vision
> and doesn't depend on mommy.
>

You prefer fiction, which is one's own opinion to truth supported by a
group you feel superior to. Interesting.

>
> Guy would fall apart in the world without mommy's drug fix.
>

Guy would be just fine, thankyouverymuch.

>
> And Guy claims that he thinks for himself.
> HA HA HA HA HA.....
>

Laugh on, Chuckles. Don't let the facts get in the way.

bestRegards, Guy.

[Woody Brison]

From: John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br
Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:14:19 -0300

> Subject: "Factual reality for Guy Briggs"

It is discourteous to include a participant's name in
the subject line. Therefore I am changing it.

> Great Moments in Church History
>
> Source: The Mormon Hierarchy : Extensions of
> Power - D. MICHAEL QUINN
> Hardback. 960 Pages. / 1-56085-060-4 /
>
> For synopsis and bio of author see:
> http://www.signaturebooks.com/hier2.htm
>
>
> Jan 23,1852 - Brigham Young instructs Utah
> Legislature to legalize
> slavery because "we must believe in slavery."

Several problems with these items:

1) Every single one of these little tidbits comes without a
pedigree. An honest researcher will indicate where he found
the item, then people can go check it. He wants to do this
because he has carefully checked his sources and they really
say what he claims they say; if people check up on him it
will only verify this and add to his credibility. In the
rare case that he HAS made a mistake, he wants it to be
found, and will issue a correction. A sloppy or dishonest
researcher will try to hide where he got the info, because
the source probably didn't say what he's claiming for it.

It's sad, because some of these items are interesting.
Where can we go to get the whole story? I'd like to, on
many of them; for one thing, they would doubtless expose
more antimormon lies and falsehoods, which is often
hilarious; and for another, we might learn something about
Mormon history and doctrine.

"The Latter-day Saints court inquiry, such as this. They
want to know the truth, and only the truth. There is no
important issue that they are not glad to face, whether
presented by friend or foe." -Janne M. Sjodahl, Improve-
ment Era, 1913, p.333; quoted in the Collected Works of
Hugh Nibley v14, p.88.

John Manning claims he got the list out of Quinn's book, but
that doesn't wash. Michael Quinn is not the source, nor his
book. He was not alive in 1852 and was not an eyewitness. He
probably included the source references in his book, but it's
all been cropped out of this list. Therefore citing his book
as the source is not truth. More likely, John Manning has
captured this thing off some website. I can't imagine him
sitting and typing in all this text (without the source info)
I CAN imagine him copying and pasting from a website or an
email or something. Ergo, Quinn's book is not the source.

If you get your info from some website, you should cite that
website as your source. If you're honest.

We the audience have no obligation to do John's homework.
If he wants to push this agenda, the burden is on him to
provide the source information. Then if we want we can check
the information. Maybe it's in Quinn's book and maybe not;
but I definitely wouldn't pay anything for any of his books.
The burden of reference (and proof) is on John Manning.

I don't anticipate it happening.

2) Apparently John Manning thinks this list is just too
damning on the LDS - he billed it as "reality" that Guy
Briggs won't face - but quite a number of these items are
rather innocuous, if accurate. For instance:

> Nov 18,1861 - Abraham Lincoln checks out
> Book of Mormon from Library of
> Congress. He returns it on 29 July 1862,
> apparently first U.S. president
> to read Book of Mormon.

Everybody likes Lincoln, our favorite President. It's
almost an endorsement of the book, that none of those other
dumb presidents read it; but he did. How we'd know that
the others didn't is a mystery.

3) Many of the items that seem like indictments of the LDS,
if accurate, really aren't on close inspection. For
instance,

> Feb 5,1852 - Brigham Young announces policy
> of denying priesthood to all
> those black African ancestry, even "if there
> never was a prophet, or
> apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before"
> because "negroes are the
> children of old Cain....any many having one
> drop of the seed of Cain in
> him cannot hold the priesthood." Contrary to
> Joseph Smith's example in
> authorizing the ordination of Elijah Abel,
> this is LDS policy for the
> next 126 years.

As I remember, it was not known that Elijah had African
ancestry when he was ordained. When it became known, he was
asked to not use his priesthood. The claim that this was
JS's example, and that it runs counter to BY's edict, is
false. JS wouldn't have ordained the man if it had been
known he had African blood.

Also, BY was now the prophet and has the keys, JS was gone.
A fundamental principle.

There is no reason to suppose that the Lord revealed
everything to Joseph Smith anyway, or set everything
in order all at once; it is known that He did not.

For several thousand years, there were restrictions on
who could be ordained to the priesthood. In the time of
Moses, only descendants of Levi could hold the lower
priesthood. In modern times it was revealed that men
descended from Egyptus, daughter-in-law of Noah, could
not be ordained.

The Lord has now rescinded all priesthood restriction, so
it's a moot point today.

We can see that many of these items will seem strange to
someone who does not know the gospel well. It is a common
technique for smearing an innocent people, to bring out
details of their beliefs without any explanation.

4) Some of these items are blatant manipulations. For
instance,

> Jan 3,1854 - Brigham Young invites Elijah
> Abel, free black and ordained
> Seventy, to party with 98 other men in
> Social Hall. Some of these
> parties are male-only dances.

Quinn's insinuation of homosexuality has no validity; his
personal problems give no information about Brigham Young.
In those days, men danced, women danced, dancing was not
always men with women only. This was normal and customary.
Sometimes things that seem strange to us are explained
knowing something about past customs; to deliberately not
provide such information is to blatantly twist things.
Especially considering the source.

That Elijah should be invited to the dances shows that the
priesthood restriction did not come from racial bias; if
it had, they would not have invited the guy to their social
events.

5) Some of the items seem like pure fiction. For instance,

> Nov 22,1855 - Brigham Young secretly ordains
> his eleven year old son
> John W. an apostle in connection with
> receiving the endowment. Young
> later ordains three other sons apostles.

There is no a priori reason that BY's sons could not serve
as apostles. That one should receive his endowments at 11,
or be ordained at that age, is certainly unusual. He would
have to be sustained to serve in the council of the 12:

DC 42:11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be
given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to
build up my church, except he be ordained by some one
who has authority, and it is known to the church that
he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the
heads of the church.

But I'm fairly certain that we have NEVER sustained any 11-
year old to the Council of the Twelve, or to any other
weighty office. If we had the source information, this would
be an interesting item to double check against the source. I
would guess that it's a pure fabrication, or at best, a
misreading of that (unknown) source.

6) A few of the items CAN be verified, and they don't wash.
For example:

> Oct 6,1863 - Brigham Young prophesies to
> general conference: "Will the
> present struggle (of the U.S. Civil War)
> free the slaves? No..... and
> men will be called to judgement for the way
> they have treated the
> negroe." The 13th Amendment legally ends
> slavery in the United States in
> 1865.

This I was able to verify, it's in JD 10:250. Here is what
he actually said:

"What is the cause of all this waste of life and
treasure? To tell it in a plain, truthful way, one
portion of the country wish to raise their negroes or
black slaves, and the other portion wish to free them,
and, apparently, to almost worship them. Well, raise
and worship them, who cares? I should never fight one
moment about it, for the cause of human improvement is
not in the least advanced by the dreadful war which
now convulses our unhappy country. Ham will continue
to be the servant of servants, as the Lord has
decreed, until the curse is removed. Will the present
struggle free the slave? No; but they are now wasting
away the black race by thousands. Many of the blacks
are treated worse than we treat our dumb brutes; and
men will be called to judgment for the way they have
treated the negro, and they will receive the
condemnation of a guilty conscience, by the just Judge
whose attributes are justice and truth. Treat the
slaves kindly and let them live, for Ham must be the
servant of servants until the curse is removed. Can
you destroy the decrees of the Almighty? You cannot.
Yet our Christian brethren think that they are going
to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the
seed of Ham. They cannot do that, though they may kill
them by thousands and tens of thousands."

So... was Ham cursed to be a servant of servants? Yes,
Gen. 9:25.

Did the Civil War end slavery? No, it was ended by a
Constitutional Amendment, after the war was over.

Was the war somehow necessary to get the Amendment
passed? No, the American people could have accomplished
this via due process. Joseph Smith had a really good
idea: buy the slaves from the their masters, the money
to be raised from the sale of public land, which we had.

Did BY issue a false prophecy? No, his prophecy was
fulfilled, if that's what it was; if it was just good
solid common sense, it was still vindicated. The war
didn't free the slaves, and the Amendment didn't really
either; they still aren't, and won't be, until they can
be free of prejudice and persecution. I think progress
is being made, but we're not there yet.

Did BY endorse cruelty to blacks? No, he WARNED AGAINST
IT. It's more evidence that the LDS were not racially
biased.

7) The sheer volume of the list is a problem. If these were
real indictments of the LDS, it would show that they are
pretty sick folks. The fact that the list is undocumented,
and heavily padded as I have shown, and that the LDS are not
sick folks at all, shows pretty strongly that the list is
not designed to exhibit truth, but to push a falsehood, an
agenda. Sometimes these creeps that compile such lists do
it to deliberately decieve people; one of the tricks is to
pad the list with an enormous amount of material that looks
impressive but isn't true or isn't applicable. The size
therefore becomes a problem in that no one has the time
to research it. It's basically useless except to decieve.

There is no surprise in this. The internet is so clogged
with nutcases and false information its factual
unreliability has become a proverb.

That's why I say if you get your info from some website,
you should cite that website as your source. If that's
embarrassing, then reflect that it's nice to realize this
BEFORE you post it. You're under no obligation to post
iffy stuff.

Wood

[John Manning]

Contrary to what Woody Brison says, the
sources AND documentation are *fully* and
*extensively* provided in The Mormon

Hierarchy : Extensions of Power - D. MICHAEL
QUINN
Hardback. 960 Pages. / 1-56085-060-4 /

For synopsis and bio of author see:
http://www.signaturebooks.com/hier2.htm

Providing that extensive documentation here,
from a 960 page book, is impracticable here.
It's openly available in the book itself.

Woody says:

> 7) The sheer volume of the list is a problem.

It's *all* documented.

>If these were
> real indictments of the LDS, it would show that they are
> pretty sick folks.

LDS people are no different than any other
people. There are good people and bad people
in any group. The point is that the *actual*
history *happened*.

> The fact that the list is undocumented,

The book has the *actual* documentation. I
can't post all 960 pages! LOL!

> and heavily padded as I have shown, and that the LDS are not
> sick folks at all, shows pretty strongly that the list is
> not designed to exhibit truth, but to push a falsehood, an
> agenda.

Documented truth is documented truth. *ALL*
of the documentation is provided. Check the
credentials of its author here:
http://www.signaturebooks.com/hier2.htm

Woody says:

> John Manning claims he got the list out of Quinn's book, but
> that doesn't wash. Michael Quinn is not the source, nor his
> book. He was not alive in 1852 and was not an eyewitness. He
> probably included the source references in his book, but it's
> all been cropped out of this list. Therefore citing his book
> as the source is not truth.

Michael Quinn had access to the LDS Church
archives as an LDS BYU history professor.
*ALL* of the information is in his book with
the documentation. Once again, check his
credentials here:
http://www.signaturebooks.com/hier2.htm

If you have any doubts, read his book. I'm
quite confident that Woody Brison doesn't
really want to do that.

[Gene Fuller]

"Woody Brison" <woody_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128121203....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Snip

John Manning aparenlty said

>> Feb 5,1852 - Brigham Young announces policy
>> of denying priesthood to all
>> those black African ancestry, even "if there
>> never was a prophet, or
>> apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before"
>> because "negroes are the
>> children of old Cain....any many having one
>> drop of the seed of Cain in
>> him cannot hold the priesthood." Contrary to
>> Joseph Smith's example in
>> authorizing the ordination of Elijah Abel,
>> this is LDS policy for the
>> next 126 years.
>
> As I remember, it was not known that Elijah had African
> ancestry when he was ordained. When it became known, he was
> asked to not use his priesthood. The claim that this was
> JS's example, and that it runs counter to BY's edict, is
> false. JS wouldn't have ordained the man if it had been
> known he had African blood.

Woody, I don't think you can know the truth of that last sentence and I am
pretty sure I don't nor do I believe it. Can you provide a reference?

> Also, BY was now the prophet and has the keys, JS was gone.
> A fundamental principle.
>
> There is no reason to suppose that the Lord revealed
> everything to Joseph Smith anyway, or set everything
> in order all at once; it is known that He did not.

In fact we had to sait until 1978 to get that one set in order. <G>

> For several thousand years, there were restrictions on
> who could be ordained to the priesthood. In the time of
> Moses, only descendants of Levi could hold the lower
> priesthood. In modern times it was revealed that men
> descended from Egyptus, daughter-in-law of Noah, could
> not be ordained.
>
> The Lord has now rescinded all priesthood restriction, so
> it's a moot point today.

When was the restriction removed from women receiving the Aaronic and
Melchizedek Priesthoods? Oh, you misspoke in your enthusiasm? <G>

Snip

> 6) A few of the items CAN be verified, and they don't wash.
> For example:
>
>> Oct 6,1863 - Brigham Young prophesies to
>> general conference: "Will the
>> present struggle (of the U.S. Civil War)
>> free the slaves? No..... and
>> men will be called to judgement for the way
>> they have treated the
>> negroe." The 13th Amendment legally ends
>> slavery in the United States in
>> 1865.

Legally, yes. But in actual fact the black folks lot did not improve
materially for a long while. And the reports are that some folks are still
held in slavery even in this country even today. (Think Mexicans and other
illegal immigrants, some women in prostitution, etc)

> This I was able to verify, it's in JD 10:250. Here is what
> he actually said:
>
> "What is the cause of all this waste of life and
> treasure? To tell it in a plain, truthful way, one
> portion of the country wish to raise their negroes or
> black slaves, and the other portion wish to free them,
> and, apparently, to almost worship them. Well, raise
> and worship them, who cares? I should never fight one
> moment about it, for the cause of human improvement is
> not in the least advanced by the dreadful war which
> now convulses our unhappy country.

I suspect that is true, even today. Is the real cause of human improvement
being advanced by our War against Terrorism?

Snip

> So... was Ham cursed to be a servant of servants? Yes,
> Gen. 9:25.

But it was not God who pronounced the curse. It was a drunken Noah.

> Did the Civil War end slavery? No, it was ended by a
> Constitutional Amendment, after the war was over.

The legality of slavery was, as I said above. Not the reality.

> Was the war somehow necessary to get the Amendment
> passed? No, the American people could have accomplished
> this via due process.

When do you think that would have happened?

> Joseph Smith had a really good
> idea: buy the slaves from the their masters, the money
> to be raised from the sale of public land, which we had.

I agree. I do not know this for sure, but I believer others had already had
that idea as well. But it was not a popular idea.

> Did BY issue a false prophecy? No, his prophecy was
> fulfilled, if that's what it was; if it was just good
> solid common sense, it was still vindicated. The war
> didn't free the slaves, and the Amendment didn't really
> either; they still aren't, and won't be, until they can
> be free of prejudice and persecution. I think progress
> is being made, but we're not there yet.

I think I almost said that above, but I add it is not only Negros that are
slaves today.

> Did BY endorse cruelty to blacks? No, he WARNED AGAINST
> IT. It's more evidence that the LDS were not racially
> biased.

Well, some were not. But I challenge anyone to show that none were.

[RetroProphet]

> -Brigham Young

>
>Did the Civil War end slavery? No, it was ended by a
>Constitutional Amendment, after the war was over.
>

>Did BY issue a false prophecy? No, his prophecy was
>fulfilled, if that's what it was; if it was just good
>solid common sense, it was still vindicated. The war
>didn't free the slaves, and the Amendment didn't really
>either; they still aren't, and won't be, until they can
>be free of prejudice and persecution. I think progress
>is being made, but we're not there yet.
>
>Did BY endorse cruelty to blacks? No, he WARNED AGAINST
>IT. It's more evidence that the LDS were not racially
>biased.
>

What planet are you living on?

The Civil War did not free the slaves?

Brigham Young championed the idea of whites
"raising" their blacks. This is how HE defined
slavery. Whites may raise all sorts of things
today, but none "raise" slaves. Young's concept
of slavery is DEAD, killed by the freeing of
the slaves.

Brigham Young declared that blacks
would forever be servants to whites.
He meant that literally. But there are
more whites today who are "servants"
to whites, than blacks who are "servants"
to whites. How are they not just as enslaved
as blacks today you claim aren't "free"?
There are also a goodly number of whites
today who are "servants" to blacks.
Race doesn't matter. Young's wrong again.

Brigham Young declared that "the cause

of human improvement is not in the least

advanced" by the abolition of human bondage.
How can you stand by this assessment and in
the next breath lament that prejudice and
persecution still exist, AND THAT PROGRESS
IS BEING MADE?

That progress started with the righteous
folks who stood against human bondage and
defeated those like Brigham Young who
outrageously justified the unjustifiable
by claiming that an ancient barbaric
human practice was a commandment of God.

Finally, what does it matter that Young did
not advocate "cruelty" to blacks when the
fact is that it is impossible for slavery
to NOT be cruel?

[Rick Hurd]

But if they be content to abide in his household, it is better: he
shall appoint them their food, their raiment, and their habitation, in
due season; and they shall labour in his shop, and his field, and with
his flock; they shall share in all his toils, and in all his
possessions, and he shall be a ruler over them: if they serve him, he
shall not cast them off forever; but if he oppress them, and they flee
from him, ye
shall not return them to him, lest his hand be hard upon them.

This Law does not justify slavery. The servitude is voluntary. Every
servant can depart from oppression, at his will.

(Extracted from the 1856 edition of the Book of the Law of the Lord,
which was published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints.)

[RetroProphet]

Certainly this is a far more enlightened view
than that of Brigham Young.

[Raleigh]

Did the Civil War end slavery? No, it was ended by a
Constitutional Amendment, after the war was over.

Was the war somehow necessary to get the Amendment
passed? No, the American people could have accomplished
this via due process. Joseph Smith had a really good
idea: buy the slaves from the their masters, the money
to be raised from the sale of public land, which we had.

Very true.

Abraham Lincoln stated that a great many people came to
offer him help in "preserving the union." He was disgusted, however,
that everyone who came tied their help to their slavery agenda. One
leader would approach him and offer him if Lincoln would guarantee the
continuance of slavery; another would offer him help if he would
guarantee the destruction of slavery. Lincoln affirmed that his
purpose was to preserve the Union by any means. If he could preserve it
without freeing a single slave, he would do so. If he could do so by
freeing some slaves and not others, he would do it. If he had to free
them all to preserve the Union, he would.

However, to Lincoln, abolition of slavery in the Confederate
States only was merely a tool (devised very late in the war) to help
conclude the war. Slavery had nothing to do with the onset of
hostilities.

The biggest lie in the world is that the Civil War was fought
to free the slaves. Check out those who claim to be the descendants of
slaves. They don't vote Republican.

Raleigh

[RetroProphet]

It is just bad and simplistic historical analysis to
assert that slavery had nothing to do with the
onset of the Civil War.

Lincoln's "House Divided" speech in 1858 set the tone
for the role the slavery issue played, that it must be
resolved one way or the other, by peaceful means or not.
Everyone took sides on the issue, was wary of consequences,
thought of the issue as central to the future of the nation.

"Preserve the union" would not have been so pressing a cause,
nor so effective a rallying cry, if the spectre of discord
over the practice of human bondage did not loom so
overwhelmingly large.

The fact is that matters were brought to a head over multiple
and interrelated issues. From the southern point of view,
all of these revolved around slavery.

Tariff measures that were unfair to the southern states
were made even more ominous when they contemplated how
much worse things might become if they were forced to
operate without slave labor.

States rights issues similarly were asserted mainly to
battle unfairness regarding tariffs and slavery.

The slavery issue was central in the run-up to war: Lincoln
and his party were seen as radical and serious abolitionists
by all southerners; Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in nine
states in the election of 1860!

In the south, it was generally understood AND planned for
that in the event of his election, southern action was
absolutely inevitable and the potential of compromise slim.
Abolitionist federal rule was the one thing they could not
stand by and just accept.

[Guy R. Briggs]

John Manning wrote:
> Great Moments in Church History
>

Final analysis: 154 "factoids." I'll be sorting them by topic and
replying. I'll start with 5 I'm going to call Red Herrings.

"June, 1945 - Improvement Era states: 'When our leaders
speak, the thinking has been done.' This is the ward
teacher's message to all members for the month. To an
inquiring Unitarian minister, George Albert Smith
writes that 'not a few members of the Church have been
upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have
been embarrassed' by above statement. Even to imply
that members of the Church are not to do their own
thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of
the Church,' he continues. However, church
president's retraction reaches one non-Mormon, while
original statement reaches entire LDS population
without similar retraction."

In context, the article makes it clear that members are supposed to
do the thinking /before/ they raise their hands in support of Church
leaders. "No Latter-day Saint is compelled to sustain the General
Authorities of the Church," it reads, "when given the opportunity to
vote ... he may indicate his willingness to sustain them by raising his

right hand; he may manifest his opposition in like manner; or he may

ignore the opportunity entirely." It goes on to say that there "is no
element of coercion or force in this or any other Church procedure."

Of course, anti-Mormons such as yourself never cite that part. Kinda
ruins your case. In fact, they usually carefully snip around it,
quoting one part of the article and then another, until the words
scream, "Uncle!" and say exactly what you want them to say.

The end justifies the meanness.

"August, 1979 - Church's Ensign magazine publishes
first counselor N. Eldon Tanner's statement: 'When
the prophet speaks the debate is over,' which echoes
Improvement Era's message of June 1945."

One little problem. It wasn't Tanner's statement. It was Elaine
Cannon's statement. And even though Tanner makes a case for following
the counsel of the General Authorities, he also states, explicitly,
that Latter-day Saints "are not, as some would suggest, following
blindly and acting without their own agency to speak and think for
themselves. Through prayer to our Heavenly Father each of us can have

the assurance that the course we choose has his divine approval."

"October 1, 1981 - New York Times reports official
announcement that new edition of Book of Mormon
changes prophecy that Lamanites will 'become white
and delightsome.' Instead of continuing original
reference to skin color, new edition emphasizes
inward spirituality: 'become pure and delightsome.'"

The Times, apparently (although it may simply have been snipped, as
in the examples above) failed to report that the change was made to
bring the Book of Mormon into conformity with the edit made in 1840 by
Joseph Smith himself.

"April 17, 1991 - Chronicle of Higher Education reports
that Utah 'ranks last in proportion of students who
are female' throughout the United States. This is
result of Utah's 'traditions that inhibit the
educational progress of women.'"

Statistics are like a string bikini - what they reveal can be
interesting, but they cover up can be vital. There is a statistic, for
example, that Utah ranks very low in education $$ per student. What
never gets revealed is the statistic that Utah ranks very high in
education $$ collected per capita.

In the above example, we do not know why it is that "Utah ranks
last" - if it is even true. What's worse is that it's being presented
that the CHE had discovered the cause. In actual fact, the article
quotes one person, the Dean of the College of Science at UofU, who
believes that it is true.

"November 6, 1994 - Apostle M. Russell Ballard tells
25,000 students at BYU that general authorities 'will
not lead you astray. We cannot.' This claim of
infallibility is officially published, and he repeats
it to another BYU devotional meeting in March 1996."

Problem is, it's not a claim of infallibility. The only way GA could
ever lead us astray is for the Saints to stop thinking. As I proved
above, that's not the way the Church works.

Next subject: Outright lies.

bestRegards, Guy.

[Guy R. Briggs]

Woody Brison wrote:
> From: John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br

<snip>

> John Manning claims he got the list out of Quinn's book,
> but that doesn't wash. Michael Quinn is not the source,
> nor his book. He was not alive in 1852 and was not an
> eyewitness. He probably included the source references in
> his book, but it's all been cropped out of this list.
> Therefore citing his book as the source is not truth.
> More likely, John Manning has captured this thing off some
> website.
>

Right you are, Woody. Cut and pasted from www.exmormon.org, posted
by somebody hiding behind the nom de guerre of "deconstructor."
Interesting name - reminds me of a poem.

I passed, one day, through a lonely town,
And saw men tearing a building down.
With a "Ho! Heave ho!" and a lusty yell,
They swung a beam and a side wall fell.
I asked the foreman, "Are these men skilled?
The kind you'd use if you had to build?"
"Oh, no," he chuckled, "No, indeed.
A common laborer is all I need.
And I can destroy in a day or two,
what builders have taken weeks to do."
I thought to myself, as I went on my way,
"Which of these roles have I tried to play?
Am I a builder, who works with care,
strengthening lives by rule and square?
Shaping my deeds to a well-made plan,
and patiently being the best I can?
Or, am I a wrecker who walks around,
content with the labor of tearing down?"

Deconstructor, indeed!

<snip>

> 4) Some of these items are blatant manipulations. For
> instance,
>
>> Jan 3,1854 - Brigham Young invites Elijah
>> Abel, free black and ordained
>> Seventy, to party with 98 other men in
>> Social Hall. Some of these
>> parties are male-only dances.
>
> Quinn's insinuation of homosexuality has no validity; his
> personal problems give no information about Brigham Young.
> In those days, men danced, women danced, dancing was not
> always men with women only. This was normal and customary.
> Sometimes things that seem strange to us are explained
> knowing something about past customs; to deliberately not
> provide such information is to blatantly twist things.
> Especially considering the source.
>

If you or I posted somewhere online as disinterested third parties,
it would be considered dishonest - since we're card-carrying
apologists. When Quinn includes same-sex attraction tidbits such as the
above, pretending to be nothing more than a regular historian
presenting the facts, he too is being dishonest.

<snip>

> The fact that the list is undocumented, and heavily padded
> as I have shown, and that the LDS are not sick folks at
> all, shows pretty strongly that the list is not designed
> to exhibit truth, but to push a falsehood, an agenda.
>

It's a long list, but I'm working on it. It includes red herrings,
outright lies, leaps of conjecture, etc. But considering that it came
from "exmormon.org" that's not too surprising. After all, would one's
ex-wife be the most accurate indicator of one's character?

bestRegards, Guy.

[pp]

Guy R. Briggs wrote:
* * *

> The end justifies the meanness.
>
> "August, 1979 - Church's Ensign magazine publishes
> first counselor N. Eldon Tanner's statement: 'When
> the prophet speaks the debate is over,' which echoes
> Improvement Era's message of June 1945."
>
> One little problem. It wasn't Tanner's statement.

Scroll down to the last sentence, where you will find that President
Tanner does make it his very own statement.

"True Latter-day Saints . . . know that the messages of the prophet

have come from the Lord and have the concurrence of all the General
Authorities, who are men of vision and integrity, and who themselves try

to keep in tune with deity. . . . Whose side are we on? When the prophet
speaks the debate is over." (First Presidency Message, by N. Eldon
Tanner, "The Debate Is Over," Ensign, Aug. 1979, 2)

This is a damning statement, considering all the inconsistencies and
patent falsehoods LDS prophets have declared in their messages.
President Tanner is telling quite a lie. Contrary to what he insists, it
is easily demonstrated that LDS prophets have given messages that
certainly did not "have the concurrence of all the General Authorities."

[Guy R. Briggs]

pp wrote:
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>

>> The end justifies the meanness.
>>
>> "August, 1979 - Church's Ensign magazine publishes
>> first counselor N. Eldon Tanner's statement: 'When
>> the prophet speaks the debate is over,' which echoes
>> Improvement Era's message of June 1945."
>>
>> One little problem. It wasn't Tanner's statement.
>
> Scroll down to the last sentence, where you will find that
> President Tanner does make it his very own statement.
>

He echoes Sister Cannon, nothing more.

>
> "True Latter-day Saints . . . know that the messages of the
> prophet have come from the Lord and have the concurrence of
> all the General Authorities, who are men of vision and
> integrity, and who themselves try to keep in tune with deity.
> . . . Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate
> is over." (First Presidency Message, by N. Eldon Tanner, "The
> Debate Is Over," Ensign, Aug. 1979, 2)
>

> This is a damning statement, ...
>
Only if you read the opening and closing statements and throw out
all the rest - including the part where he specifically addresses those
who think this means to stop thinking.

>
> ... considering all the inconsistencies and patent falsehoods

> LDS prophets have declared in their messages. President Tanner
> is telling quite a lie.
>

So you read the creamy middle, after all. But you've also switched
subjects - from whether or not LdS are supposed to think, to whether or
not the GAs are infallible.

Turn to your Book of Mormon. From the time it was first published in
1830, the message of Moroni-over-and-out has been "think about this
stuff and then pray about it." Turn to the D&C - when Cowdery pestered
the Lord long enough that he was given the chance to translate - and
failed at it - the reason was given: you skipped over the
think-about-it step and went directly to the pray-about-it step.

IOW, the bulls-eye on our doctrinal archery target, the /canon/
instructs us to (1) think and (2) pray. And in that order.

Then along come the anti-Mormons, trying to tell us that we're
taught /not/ to do any thinking. See the disconnect between what you're
trying to sell and "factual reality?"

>
> Contrary to what he insists, it is easily demonstrated that
> LDS prophets have given messages that certainly did not "have
> the concurrence of all the General Authorities."
>

Then they weren't doctrine, plain and simple. We do not claim
infallibility. We /are/ taught that we need to be so-o-o-o familiar
with the scriptures that we can tell if any message from the pulpit
conforms ot what the Lord has already revealed on the subject. And if
the message is /not/ in conformity, we're under no obligation to accept
it as inspired.

Blind acceptance? Not part of the program!

bestRegards, Guy

[John Manning]

Watch Guy Briggs as he performs the 'Mormon
Shuffle' attempting to make black appear to
be white and delightsome!

"We have the greatest and smoothest liars in
the world, the cunningest and most adroit
thieves, and any other shade of character
that you can mention."
~~ Brigham Young - Journal of Discourses 4:77

[Woody Brison]

John Manning wrote:
> Watch Guy Briggs as he performs the 'Mormon
> Shuffle' attempting to make black appear to
> be white and delightsome!

Wait a minute, you posted all this garbage, and now
you seem unwilling that anyone should respond to it.

If they don't respond to it, they are hiding from
reality.

If they do, they're trying to make black appear
white, etc.

Is there any real reason anyone should read this long
list and try to understand it?

Have you even read it yourself?

Wood

[John Manning]

Quinn's documentation was meticulous and is
practically irrefutable. You guys and people
like Hugh Nibley never have matched that.

Mr. Brison takes Guy's hand for an encore of
the Mormon Shuffle on the dance floor.
Obvious reality takes a back seat as they
perform and gently whisper, "I do! I do! I
do believe in fairies." The ugly obvious
truth gets transformed into a sweet song and
a dance for them - just like Christ said:

... ye are like unto whited sepulchres,
which indeed appear beautiful outward, but
are within full of dead [men's] bones, and
of all uncleanness.
Matthew 23:27

[Woody Brison]

So, I take it then you didn't read it.

[Guy R. Briggs]

John Manning wrote:
> Great Moments in Church History

<snip>

There's a couple of items on the list where I have to call Bullshit
Bingo.

"October 6, 1946 - Public release of Joseph Fielding
Smith (b. 1899) as Patriarch to Church due to 'ill
health' but actually due to discovery of his recent
homosexual activity."

First, you need proof of homosexual activity. Second, you need proof
that he wasn't actually ill.

"November 27, 1967 - New York Metropolitan Museum of
Art gives to LDS church the original Egyptian papyri
upon which Joseph Smith based 'Book of Abraham' in
Pearl of Great Price. Scholars and church officials
authenticate papyri as the same used by Smith.
Apostle N. Eldon Tanner states the discovery of the
papyri will finally prove Joseph Smith could
translate ancient documents. Unfortunately,
Egyptologists, LDS and non-LDS, verify that these
papyri are typical 'Book of Breathings' in form and
content. Church officials begin repressing the
story that the original papyri have been discovered
and are in their possession."

First problem is that Smith didn't base the Book of Abraham on the
papyrus fragments recovered from the NYMM. Those fragments were
individually framed and hanging on a wall the year before a non-Mormon
eyewitness reports a /scroll/ (as opposed to fragments) containing the
"writing of Abraham and Isaac" - in Nauvoo House.

Second problem is that world-renowned Egyptologist Klaus Bauer is on
record as saying the documents are anything /but/ common.

Third problem is the nonsense about the Church /repressing/ the
story - unless you consider publishing photos of them in the Ensign a
form of repression.

bestRegards, Guy.

[Bret Ripley]

On 6 Oct 2005 17:50:10 -0700, Guy R. Briggs wrote:

> John Manning wrote:
>> Great Moments in Church History
>
> <snip>
>
> There's a couple of items on the list where I have to call Bullshit
> Bingo.

[snip]

> "November 27, 1967 - New York Metropolitan Museum of
> Art gives to LDS church the original Egyptian papyri
> upon which Joseph Smith based 'Book of Abraham' in
> Pearl of Great Price. Scholars and church officials
> authenticate papyri as the same used by Smith.
> Apostle N. Eldon Tanner states the discovery of the
> papyri will finally prove Joseph Smith could
> translate ancient documents. Unfortunately,
> Egyptologists, LDS and non-LDS, verify that these
> papyri are typical 'Book of Breathings' in form and
> content. Church officials begin repressing the
> story that the original papyri have been discovered
> and are in their possession."
>
> First problem is that Smith didn't base the Book of Abraham on the
> papyrus fragments recovered from the NYMM.

It is astonishing that you state this as bald fact, Guy. In fact, the
evidence is almost overwhelming that these papyri were indeed at least part
of what Smith referred to as the Book of Abraham (and also, perhaps, the
untranslated "Book of Joseph"). I think you will find that even most LDS
scholars agree on this point. The existing evidence -- most notably
Smith's facsimiles and also his "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" --
unmistakably connect BoA to these papyri.

The idea that these papyri may be unrelated to Smith's BoA was suggested by
Hugh Nibley in his book "The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyrii". In this
book, Nibley presented several possible connections between BoA and the
papyri, including the theory that they weren't related at all. However,
Nibley himself did not appear to subscribe to the "no connection" theory.

I am familiar with the arguments against identifying the papyri as source
material for BoA, and they amount to little more than speculation with no
sort of supporting evidence. Worse, some of these arguments (the "rubric"
argument, for example) dishonestly misunderstand the evidence in order to
arrive at a desirable conclusion. At most, these arguments will succeed in
raising doubts in the minds of those who may be predisposed to doubt. The
physical evidence, however, points in the opposite direction. For example,
one could argue that the portion of the papyri containing BoA is lost, but
the physical evidence (the facsimiles, and Smith's "Egyptian Alphabet and
Grammar") supports the opposite conclusion.

> Those fragments were individually framed and hanging on a wall the year before a non-Mormon
> eyewitness reports a /scroll/ (as opposed to fragments) containing the
> "writing of Abraham and Isaac" - in Nauvoo House.

You provide no source, but if you are referring to Henry Caswall's account
of his 1842 visit, you will recall that Mr. Caswall was told specifically
that the framed papyri "contained the writings of Abraham, written with his
own hand while in Egypt." Caswell goes on to describe some of the papyri,
including what was probably to become the source for Facsimile 1 from "The
Book Of Abraham".

(Caswall may be a bit of an ass, but his pamphlet makes for an interesting
read):

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1840s/1842Cas1.htm

If you have another source wherein it is specifically claimed that the
framed papyri were *not* the writings of Abraham, it is perhaps evidence
only of a failure to keep the story straight.

> Second problem is that world-renowned Egyptologist Klaus Bauer is on
> record as saying the documents are anything /but/ common.

Are you sure?

Again you provide no source, but in the quote I believe you have in mind,
the late Dr. Baer (for some reason, several LDS sources insist on "Bauer")
is referring not to the papyri in general but specifically to Smith's
Facsimile #3. Baer commented that Facsimile #3 was "not a judgment scene"
and "exact parallels may be hard to find". Whether Dr. Baer ever commented
on the nature of the papyri themselves in relation to common Egyptian
funerary texts, I really don't know.

More importantly, Dr. Baer's translation of the papyri confirms the
funerary nature of the text:

"Osiris shall be conveyed into the Great Pool of Khons --and likewise
Osiris Hor, justified born to Tikhebyt, justified --after his arms have
been placed on his heart and the Breathing Permit (which [Isis] made and
has writing on its inside and outside) has been wrapped in royal linen and
placed under his left arm near his heart; the rest of his mummy bandages
should be wrapped over it. The man for whom this book has been copied will
breathe forever as the bas (soul) of the gods do."

Many prominent Egyptologists are on record as identifying the Joseph Smith
papyri as typical examples of funerary texts.

Bret

[pp]

Guy R. Briggs wrote:

> There's a couple of items on the list where I have to call Bullshit
> Bingo.
>
> "October 6, 1946 - Public release of Joseph Fielding
> Smith (b. 1899) as Patriarch to Church due to 'ill
> health' but actually due to discovery of his recent
> homosexual activity."
>
> First, you need proof of homosexual activity.

As you know, Quinn has provided the proof, showing that Smith was not
only abruptly released from being Patriarch, but also denied Church
privileges for the next 10 years! Prior to his ordination as Church
Patriarch, he was a sex partner to Norval Service and numerous other
"boys" at the University of Utah. While Patriarch 1942-1946, his sex
partners included Byram Dow Browning (US Navy) and a Wallace A. G-. Now
Google That!

Sometimes "the dirt" is just the facts. This is why many wise Mormons
are leaving the religion they were raised in.

[pp]

Guy R. Briggs wrote:
> pp wrote:
>
>>net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The end justifies the meanness.

Sometimes the "the dirt" on Mormonism is just the facts. See below.

>>>
>>> "August, 1979 - Church's Ensign magazine publishes
>>> first counselor N. Eldon Tanner's statement: 'When
>>> the prophet speaks the debate is over,' which echoes
>>> Improvement Era's message of June 1945."
>>>
>>>One little problem. It wasn't Tanner's statement.
>>
>>Scroll down to the last sentence, where you will find that
>>President Tanner does make it his very own statement.
>>
>
> He echoes Sister Cannon, nothing more.

You told a falsehood when you denied that it was "Tanner's
statement." President Tanner is clearly speaking for himself and the
First Presidency in the extract below:

>>"True Latter-day Saints . . . know that the messages of the
>>prophet have come from the Lord and have the concurrence of
>>all the General Authorities, who are men of vision and
>>integrity, and who themselves try to keep in tune with deity.
>>. . . Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate
>>is over." (First Presidency Message, by N. Eldon Tanner, "The
>>Debate Is Over," Ensign, Aug. 1979, 2)

This ties in well with the 1945 Improvement Era editorial, "When our
leaders speak, the thinking has been done." In President Tanner's First
Presidency Message it is "the prophet" who properly thinks for all Mormons.

[Guy R. Briggs]

pp wrote:
> Guy R. Briggs wrote:
>
>> There's a couple of items on the list where I have to call
>> Bullshit Bingo.
>>
>> "October 6, 1946 - Public release of Joseph Fielding
>> Smith (b. 1899) as Patriarch to Church due to 'ill
>> health' but actually due to discovery of his recent
>> homosexual activity."
>>
>> First, you need proof of homosexual activity.
>

> As you know, Quinn has provided the proof, ...
>
As I know, Quinn has an agenda. I don't trust a single bit if his
stuff when homosexual behavior is involved.

>
> ... showing that Smith was not only abruptly released from
> being Patriarch, ...
>
After writing a letter complaining of his health (a bad back).

>
> ... but also denied Church privileges for the next 10 years!
>
And we all know there are several reasons that might happen. I was
asking for proof, remember? About "recent homosexual activity?"

>
> Prior to his ordination as Church Patriarch, he was a sex
> partner to Norval Service and numerous other "boys" at the
> University of Utah.
>

"According to Cynthia Blood's University of Utah
transcripts, she took Speech and Drama classes from
Joseph F. Smith. In an August 19, 1989 interview I
held with her, Cynthia claimed that 'everybody on
campus knew' that Maud May Babcock and Joseph F.
Smith, both from the university's Drama Department,
'were queer', but it was pretty much 'unspoken'.
Blood reported that 'Professor Smith flitted amongst
the boys and Maud flitted amongst us girls. We
adored it! I guess we were all a little queer back
then.' When I asked her what she meant by that, she
replied, 'Oh, we all had crushes on each other at one
time or another.' I asked if the boys did too. 'I
suppose, in their own way - but they didn't call them
crushes. I do remember two young men who mooned over
each other for several months - I don't remember their
names. But they were real handsome boys. Very
intelligent, very proper all the time.' Drama
students? I asked. 'Oh yes. Yes they were.'"
-- from
www.affirmation.org/memorial/joseph_fielding_smith.asp

Crushes? Mooned? These euphamisms for "sex partner?" Also, this from
1926-29, yet the "factoid" claims "recent homosexual activity" in 1946.
So even if you somehow connect "cruch" to "sex" how do you redefine 20
years as "recent?"

>
> While Patriarch 1942-1946, his sex partners included Byram Dow
> Browning (US Navy) and a Wallace A. G-. Now Google That!
>

I Googled Browning. From the same source (one of only two hits):

"1943 - March 11 Some time prior to this date, Byram
Dow Browning had an intimate relationship with
Patriarch Smith, whether overtly sexual or not is
unknown. On this date, Browning entered into military
service in the Navy."

Again, the "factoid (so-called) claims "recent homosexual activity"
and yet according to the only English hit on Google, whether this was
"overtly sexual" is NOT KNOWN.

>
> Sometimes "the dirt" is just the facts. This is why many
> wise Mormons are leaving the religion they were raised in.
>

If they were wise, they would stay in - realizing that GAs can be
sinners. After all, if we required them to be perfect, we wouldn't have
any!

bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

Woody Brison wrote:
> So, I take it then you didn't read it.

I read everything that you wrote. I stand by
what I wrote in response.

[John Manning]

LOL!

[RetroProphet]

> First problem is that Smith didn't base the
>Book of Abraham on the papyrus fragments recovered
>from the NYMM.

Yes, he did.

We know this because Henry Caswall saw the Facsimile 1
illustration (NYMM Papyrus JS 1) and Caswell says that Smith
told him that the illustration depicted Abraham. Smith also
told him that the other papyrus sheets contained the
writings of Abraham.

Smith's translated BOA text states that this illustration
was at the beginning of the Book. The supposed Book of Abraham
text would be expected to be on papyri that were originally
to the left of Papyrus JS 1.

We have this papyrus, too (NYMM Papyrus JS 11).
It joins up at the edge with Papyrus JS 1.

Characters in order from Papyrus JS 11 are found in the
same order in Smith's Book of Abraham translation manuscript,
with Smith's BOA translation passages next to them:

http://www.irr.org/mit/boamss1.html

Clearly he was working with Papyrus Joseph Smith 11
in preparing his "translation".

It is indisputable that Papyri JS 1 and JS11 are both
from what is in fact The Book of Breathings.

The Book of Breathings cannot possibly be The Book of Abraham,
not even a later copy of it, not even a profoundly corrupted
later copy of it.

Conclusion: The fact that Joseph Smith mistook what is
without a doubt The Book of Breathings to be the Book of
Abraham proves that he had no ability to translate
Egyptian writing correctly.

If additional evidence is needed that Joseph Smith
did not even possess a rudimentary knowledge of
Egyptian writing, Ashment provides more in:

Abraham in the Breathing Permit of Hôr(JS 1)
by Edward H. Ashment
http://mormonscripturestudies.com/boabr/eha/abrhor.asp

[John Manning]

Guy R. Briggs wrote:
> pp wrote:
>
>>Guy R. Briggs wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There's a couple of items on the list where I have to call
>>>Bullshit Bingo.
>>>
>>> "October 6, 1946 - Public release of Joseph Fielding
>>> Smith (b. 1899) as Patriarch to Church due to 'ill
>>> health' but actually due to discovery of his recent
>>> homosexual activity."
>>>
>>>First, you need proof of homosexual activity.
>>
>>As you know, Quinn has provided the proof, ...
>>
>
> As I know, Quinn has an agenda.

Right, as an historian. He provided 300
pages of meticulous references in the book
from which the 'Great Moments in Church
History' was taken.

> I don't trust a single bit if his
> stuff when homosexual behavior is involved.

Guy's *only* defense is to attack Quinn.

Here's Quinn's academic bio:

D. Michael Quinn is a former professor of
history at Brigham Young University.

His accolades include the Samuel F. Bemis,
the George W. Egleston, and the Frederick W.
Beinecke prizes; Best Book and Best Article
awards from the Mormon History Association;
"Outstanding Teacher" by vote of graduating
BYU seniors; and invitations to lecture at
the University of Paris's Fondation de la
Maison des Sciences de l'Homme and other
similar venues.

He is the author of J. Reuben Clark: The
Church Years; Early Mormonism and the Magic
World View; The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of
Power; and Same-Sex Dynamics Among
Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example.

He is the editor of The New Mormon History:
Revisionist Essays on the Past and a
contributing author to American National
Biography; Faithful History: Essays on
Writing Mormon History; Fundamentalisms and
Society: Reclaiming the Sciences, the
Family, and Education; Reader's Encyclopedia
of the American West; Under an Open Sky:
Rethinking America's Western Past; and Women
and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism.

His research honorariums include grants from
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
the American Council of Learned Societies,
the Henry E. Huntington Library, the
National Endowment for the Humanities, the
Mrs. Giles Whiting Foundation, Yale
University, and others.
http://www.signaturebooks.com/hier2.htm

[Guy R. Briggs]

John Manning wrote:
> Guy R. Briggs wrote:
>> pp wrote:
>>> Guy R. Briggs wrote:

<snip>

>>>> First, you need proof of homosexual activity.
>>>
>>> As you know, Quinn has provided the proof, ...
>>
>> As I know, Quinn has an agenda.
>
> Right, as an historian.
>

He does OK when writing as an historian. Enough so that the Tanners
called him "unprincipled and incompetent" - high praise, considering
the source.

But when pushing his same-sex agenda, it's a different story.

"Quinn has produced a mixed bag of LDS related
material. Much of his early work is very good.
Some of his later work has some interesting
insights. Although Quinn is an excommunicated
Mormon, he considers himself to be a believer in
the Mormon faith. Quinn's writings on Joseph Smith
and his early treasure digging years has some
value, while most of his writings on Joseph
Smith's supposed connection to early frontier
magic is often specious. Quinn's writings on early
LDS history and priesthood authority is also a mix
of good and bad, while his writings on supposed
'gay' relations in early LDS history is so far off
the accuracy scale that it makes it difficult to
trust some of his other history-related conclusions."
-- http://www.mormonfortress.com/who1.html

>
> He provided 300 pages of meticulous references in the
> book from which the 'Great Moments in Church History'
> was taken.
>

"In June 1986 the staff of the church historical
department announced it was necessary to sign a
form which Elder Packer declared gave the right
of pre-publication censorship for any archival
research completed before signing the form. I
and several others refused to sign the form and
have not returned to do research at LDS church
archives since 1986."
-- Quinn, _Faithful History_, p.109

A little over 19 years since he's been inside the Church Archives.
Seems like a long time to me.

>>
>> I don't trust a single bit if his
>> stuff when homosexual behavior is involved.
>
> Guy's *only* defense is to attack Quinn.
>

Not my only defense. You've already seen my "herrings" list (where
/your/ only defense was to attack me - "Watch Guy Briggs as he performs
the 'Mormon Shuffle'") and "lies" list (where your only defense was an
anemic "LOL").

But when the subject is homosexuality and the author is Quinn, I'm
going to bring up bias.

>
> Here's Quinn's academic bio:
>

So you posture is: "Quinn must be right, he has a good resume." No
concern for the stated "factual reality," mind you, just concern for
how good the bio is.

You don't think well-educated people can have an agenda?

bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

Guy R. Briggs wrote:
> John Manning wrote:
>
>>Guy R. Briggs wrote:
>>
>>>pp wrote:
>>>
>>>>Guy R. Briggs wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>First, you need proof of homosexual activity.
>>>>
>>>>As you know, Quinn has provided the proof, ...
>>>
>>>As I know, Quinn has an agenda.
>>
>>Right, as an historian.
>>
>
> He does OK when writing as an historian. Enough so that the Tanners
> called him "unprincipled and incompetent" - high praise, considering
> the source.
>
> But when pushing his same-sex agenda, it's a different story.

You've provided no evidence of that at all.
It's just your cowardly attempt to discredit
the messenger; one of your disingenuous
rhetorical methods.

Relevance? None.

>>>I don't trust a single bit if his
>>>stuff when homosexual behavior is involved.
>>
>>Guy's *only* defense is to attack Quinn.

> Not my only defense. You've already seen my "herrings" list (where
> /your/ only defense was to attack me - "Watch Guy Briggs as he performs
> the 'Mormon Shuffle'") and "lies" list (where your only defense was an
> anemic "LOL").

Your list was an empty attempt. The
overwhelming facts are self evident..

> But when the subject is homosexuality and the author is Quinn, I'm
> going to bring up bias.

Bigots do that - as if it had anything
whatsoever to do with his scholarship.

>>Here's Quinn's academic bio:

> So you posture is: "Quinn must be right, he has a good resume." No
> concern for the stated "factual reality," mind you, just concern for
> how good the bio is.

You're grasping at straws, Guy. It's
embarrassingly obvious.

> You don't think well-educated people can have an agenda?

You sorry sap, you've provided ZERO evidence
of any 'agenda' on Quinn's part.

> bestRegards, Guy.

[Guy R. Briggs]

Keyword being "based". Dictionary says that means "to form or
provide a base for; to find a basis for; establish". Synonyms for
"basis" are "foundation" and "groundwork." The claim being touted as
"factual reality" is that these recovered papyri are the foundation
"upon which Joseph Smith based [the] 'Book of Abraham'."

IOW, there's a big difference between being based on and being
related to. I will gladly admit that the papyri are in some way
connected. I will not accept - as "factual reality" at least - that the
BofA is based on the papyrus fragments recovered from the NYMM. The
Frieberg illustration of Helaman atop his might battle steed is related
to the Book of Mormon; but the Book of Mormon is not based on the
Frieberg illustration.

>
> I think you will find that even most LDS scholars agree on this
> point.
>

I think you are wrong about that.

>
> The existing evidence -- most notably Smith's facsimiles and also his
> "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" -- unmistakably connect BoA to these
> papyri.
>

Connect? Perhaps. Based on? Don't think so.

And most LdS apologists are working on the theory that the Kirtland
Egyptian Papers are a post-Book-of-Abraham attempt to reverse-engineer
an "Alphabet and Grammar". The papyri as Rosetta Stone, if you will.
The only LdS writer (of which I'm currently aware) who thinks that BofA
came directly from papyrus fragments is Sampson. The same Sampson who
was panned in "Review of Books on the Book of Mormon" by the FARMS
boys.

>
> The idea that these papyri may be unrelated to Smith's BoA was
> suggested by Hugh Nibley in his book "The Message of the Joseph
> Smith Papyrii".
>

If the Dean of LdS scholars thinks they might be unrelated, how
could you suggest that "most LDS scholars agree" BofA is based on the
papyri?

>
> In this book, Nibley presented several possible connections
> between BoA and the papyri, including the theory that they
> weren't related at all. However, Nibley himself did not
> appear to subscribe to the "no connection" theory.
>

Nibley's book is now 30 years old, and dates back to a time when
Nibley himself admitted that LdS were "sparring for time" (his words,
IIRC) until we could learn enough about Egytology to provide scholarly
opinions.

We now have the PhDs in Egyptology, published in peer-reviewed
journals.

<snip>

>> Those fragments were individually framed and hanging on a wall
>> the year before a non-Mormon eyewitness reports a /scroll/ (as
>> opposed to fragments) containing the "writing of Abraham and
>> Isaac" - in Nauvoo House.
>
> You provide no source, but if you are referring to Henry Caswall's

> account of his 1842 visit, ...
>
Caswall is the non-Mormon source for the fragments being mounted
under glass and hanging on a wall in 1842. See: _The Visitor or Monthly
Instructor for 1842_, in an article entitled "The
Mormons," p.406.

The other non-Mormon source, the one that places scrolls in Nauvoo
House the following year, is Charlotte Haven.

"Then she [Mother Smith] turned to a long table, set
her candlestick down, and opened a long roll of
manuscript, saying it was 'THE WRITING OF ABRAHAM and
Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit,' and she read
several minutes from it as if it were English. It
sounded very much like passages from the Old
Testament - and it might have been for anything we
knew - but she said she read it through the
inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to
have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she
interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll.
One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent,
who - the serpent, I mean - was standing on the tip
of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod,
and had his head in Eve's ear."
-- 19-Feb-1843, "A Girl's Letter from
Nauvoo" in _The Overland Monthly_
December 1890, emphasis mine

Bottom-lining it, the source for the BofA could not have been sliced
and diced in 1842, and mounted on "a number of glazed slides, like
picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian
inscriptions and hieroglyphics" (Caswell) and still have been in the
form of two long scrolls in 1843 (Haven).

<snip>

>> Second problem is that world-renowned Egyptologist Klaus Bauer
>> is on record as saying the documents are anything /but/ common.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> Again you provide no source, but in the quote I believe you have
> in mind, the late Dr. Baer
>

Late /and/ great.

>
> ... (for some reason, several LDS sources insist on "Bauer") ...
>
Mea culpa. I was working from memory, on a business trip to
Savannah, GA, and didn't have my trusty LdS Reference CD with me.

>
> ...is referring not to the papyri in general but specifically to

> Smith's Facsimile #3. Baer commented that Facsimile #3 was "not
> a judgment scene" and "exact parallels may be hard to find".
> Whether Dr. Baer ever commented on the nature of the papyri
> themselves in relation to common Egyptian funerary texts, I
> really don't know.
>

Facsimile #1 and facsimile #3 are two pieces of the same document.

Larson called Facsimile 3 "the most common form of Egyptian funerary
scene known - the deceased being led into the presence of the Court of
Osirus, god of the underworld" so Baer's comment is relevant when a
COTMC tries to insist that the papyri are just run-of-the-mill, pagan
nonsense.

>
> More importantly, Dr. Baer's translation of the papyri confirms
> the funerary nature of the text:
>
> "Osiris shall be conveyed into the Great Pool of Khons --and
> likewise Osiris Hor, justified born to Tikhebyt, justified --after
> his arms have been placed on his heart and the Breathing Permit
> (which [Isis] made and has writing on its inside and outside) has
> been wrapped in royal linen and placed under his left arm near his
> heart; the rest of his mummy bandages should be wrapped over it.
> The man for whom this book has been copied will breathe forever as
> the bas (soul) of the gods do."
>

In chapter 12 of the _Testament of Abraham_, a pseudoepigraphic work
purporting to be an accounting of events from the life of the
Patriarch, there is a description of the judgement of the dead that
matches in minute detail the scene depicted in Facsimile #3 and,
incidentally, Chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The TofA
wasn't discovered, BTW, until long after Smith was dead and buried.

>
> Many prominent Egyptologists are on record as identifying the
> Joseph Smith papyri as typical examples of funerary texts.
>

"It is especially significant to recognize that knowledge
of these things was unavailable even to the best scholars
of Joseph Smith's day. The pseudepigraphic works
attributed to Abraham I cited above, for example, first
came to light near the turn of [the 20th] century. The
demotic papyri referring to Abraham were not published
until 1839 and a translation of them not until 1904.
Although Champollion had deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphs
in 1822, it required many years of painstaking work
before Egyptologists were able to publish grammars and
dictionaries of the Egyptian language. Joseph Smith
simply could not have acquired the understanding he had
of these things from the world. Nevertheless, as this
study has shown, many of the prophet's explanations of
the hypocephalus illustrated in Facsimile 2 are
supported by our present understanding of ancient
Egyptian religion, and are in fact especially typical of
Late Egyptian religious writings. One or two could
conceivably be dismissed as mere chance or lucky
guessing, but the many correct interpetations taken
together are impossible to ignore. It is clear that
Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about."
-- Rhodes, "The JS Hypocephalus: 20 Years Later"

IOW, it's far from clear what role the papyrus fragments played in
the coming forth of the Book of Abraham. In a thread entitled "Factual
Reality" the only factual reality we have about them are the
explanations which accompany three of them, written by Joseph Smith
himself, and as published in our present-day scriptures. For at least
one scholar - who is an expert in Egyptology /and/ an expert in LdS
beliefs, making him more qualified to comment than most - Smith gave us
many correct interpretations.

bestRegards, Guy.

[RetroProphet]

> In chapter 12 of the _Testament of Abraham_

>a pseudoepigraphic work purporting to be an accounting
>of events from the life of the Patriarch, there is a
>description of the judgement of the dead that matches
>in minute detail the scene depicted in Facsimile #3 and,
>incidentally, Chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
>The TofA wasn't discovered, BTW, until long after Smith
>was dead and buried.
>

"Matches in minute detail"? Really?
Have you compared them yourself?
Where are the similarities?

Here's Facsimile #3:
http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_3

Here's Chapter 12 of Testament of Abraham:
XII. "And after Abraham had seen the place of judgment,
the cloud took him down upon the firmament below,
and Abraham, looking down upon the earth, saw a man
committing adultery with a wedded woman. And Abraham
turning said to Michael, Seest thou this wickedness?
but, Lord, send fire from heaven to consume them.
And straightway there came down fire and consumed them,
for the Lord had said to Michael, Whatsoever Abraham
shall ask thee to do for him, do thou. Abraham looked
again, and saw other men railing at their companions,
and said, Let the earth open and swallow them, and as
he spoke the earth swallowed them alive. Again the
cloud led him to another place, and Abraham saw some
going into a desert place to commit murder, and he
said to Michael, Seest thou this wickedness? but let
wild beasts come out of the desert, and tear them
in pieces, and that same hour wild beasts came out
of the desert, and devoured them. Then the Lord God
spoke to Michael saying, Turn away Abraham to his
own house, and let him not go round all the creation
that I have made, because he has no compassion on
sinners, but I have compassion on sinners that they
may turn and live, and repent of their sins and
be saved."

[RetroProphet]

> In chapter 12 of the _Testament of Abraham_

>a pseudoepigraphic work purporting to be an accounting
>of events from the life of the Patriarch, there is a
>description of the judgement of the dead that matches
>in minute detail the scene depicted in Facsimile #3 and,
>incidentally, Chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
>The TofA wasn't discovered, BTW, until long after Smith
>was dead and buried.
>

While you're at it, you might like to back-up
up your other assertion, that chapter 12 of TofA
"matches in minute detail" chapter 125 of
Book of the Dead.

Aside from both chapters having to do with
"judgement" in general, where do you see any
similarities at all?

In TofA 12, God lets Abraham run amok destroying
sinners at will with powers normally associated
with God Himself, but then puts a stop to this
saying that Abraham has no compassion for the sinner.
(btw, Abraham smites living sinners; you claim
this chapter has to do with the judgement of the
dead, another error you make.)

Chapter 125 of Book of the Dead is all about
how one might destroy ONE'S OWN wickedness,
and in doing so becoming pleasing to the gods,
two-hundred-and-forty of them to be exact:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/BOD125.HTM

It's hard to imagine two more opposite concepts
of judgement; Abraham eagerly usurps God's power to
judge and destroy sinners, versus the infinitely
more humble Egyptian approach, which is focused
entirely upon one's own worthiness, fearing only
judgement upon oneself.

[EbedDoulos]

"RetroProphet" <RetroProp...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:diam9...@drn.newsguy.com...

For those who would like to test the veracity of RetroProphet, I suggest you
go to volume 1, page 889 of Charlesworth's Apocalyptic Literature and
Testaments and read chapter 12 of the Testament of Abraham. You will notice
that the Testament of Abraham somehow fails to mention that God lets
"Abraham run amok destroying sinners", like Retro states. Please note that
Retro also states that Chapter 12 has nothing to do with the judgment of the
dead. Read verse 11: "And the wondrous man who sat on the throne was the one
who judged and sentenced souls." Then notice how the judgment is
accomplished - the sins of the individual are weighed.

You should then compare chapter 12 of the Testament of Abraham with Chapter
125 of Book of the Dead. I like the translation taken from the Papyrus of
Ani by Neil Parker. (http://www.egyptologyonline.com/book_of_the_dead.htm,
http://www.bardo.org/ani/ch125.html) Chapter 125 is one of the best known
vignettes in the Book of the Dead. Like the Testament of Abraham, it too
deals with weighing the individual's sins.

Now that you have read it, you decide. Was this a deliberate deception on
the part ofRetroProphet or could it be that he is relying on the deliberate
deception of someone else?

--
Ebed Doulos ~ Christ seeking, Bible believing, Blood bought, Truth taught
Latter-day Saint Christian.

>

[pp]

EbedDoulos wrote:
* * *

> For those who would like to test the veracity of RetroProphet, I suggest you
> go to volume 1, page 889 of Charlesworth's Apocalyptic Literature and
> Testaments and read chapter 12 of the Testament of Abraham. You will notice
> that the Testament of Abraham somehow fails to mention that God lets
> "Abraham run amok destroying sinners", like Retro states. Please note that
> Retro also states that Chapter 12 has nothing to do with the judgment of the
> dead. Read verse 11: "And the wondrous man who sat on the throne was the one
> who judged and sentenced souls." Then notice how the judgment is
> accomplished - the sins of the individual are weighed.

The problem with your remarks is that there are two different
recensions of TAb. You are each citing one as though the other did not
exist. Which of you is being deceptive, ignorant, or lazy?
What _IS_ fairly certain, however, is that the Book of Abraham exists
in only one form, which is written in English vernacular, blissfully
unburdened by any ancient source text.

[Bret Ripley]

Above, you stated (apparently as "factual reality") that "Smith didn't

base the Book of Abraham on the papyrus fragments recovered from the

NYMM." That is very different from not accepting the opposite
conclusion.

I only point out that any reservations you may have require that you
"explain away" the evidence, rather than follow the evidence to the
most likely conclusion.

> The
> Frieberg illustration of Helaman atop his might battle steed is related
> to the Book of Mormon; but the Book of Mormon is not based on the
> Frieberg illustration.
>
>>
>> I think you will find that even most LDS scholars agree on this
>> point.
>>
> I think you are wrong about that.

That's certainly possible, although I read an awful lot of LDS scholars
arguing for paralells, possible mnemonic devices, and other remarkable
efforts to make some sense of the papyri as source material for BoA.

>> The existing evidence -- most notably Smith's facsimiles and also his
>> "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" -- unmistakably connect BoA to these
>> papyri.
>>
> Connect? Perhaps. Based on? Don't think so.

I must be misunderstanding you: you aren't suggesting that the BoA
facsimiles are not based on these papyri, are you? That the "Egyptian
Alphabet and Grammar" do not refer directly to the papyri?

> And most LdS apologists are working on the theory that the Kirtland
> Egyptian Papers are a post-Book-of-Abraham attempt to reverse-engineer
> an "Alphabet and Grammar". The papyri as Rosetta Stone, if you will.

Sure, but it's pure speculation with no supporting evidence. It
certainly isn't the simplest and most elegant of explanations --
"Occam's Razor" and all that.

> The only LdS writer (of which I'm currently aware) who thinks that BofA
> came directly from papyrus fragments is Sampson. The same Sampson who
> was panned in "Review of Books on the Book of Mormon" by the FARMS
> boys.
>
>>
>> The idea that these papyri may be unrelated to Smith's BoA was
>> suggested by Hugh Nibley in his book "The Message of the Joseph
>> Smith Papyrii".
>>
> If the Dean of LdS scholars thinks they might be unrelated, how
> could you suggest that "most LDS scholars agree" BofA is based on the
> papyri?

This makes no sense at all. First of all, Nibley lists the "no
connection" theory as only one of several possibilities. The fact that
several of the possibilities he cites are incompatible with each other
makes it obvious that Nibley was not endorsing any single theory --
just stating various possibilities.

Secondly, even if Nibley did favor this particular theory doesn't mean
that subsequent scholars necessarily agree with him.

>> In this book, Nibley presented several possible connections
>> between BoA and the papyri, including the theory that they
>> weren't related at all. However, Nibley himself did not
>> appear to subscribe to the "no connection" theory.
>>
> Nibley's book is now 30 years old, and dates back to a time when
> Nibley himself admitted that LdS were "sparring for time" (his words,
> IIRC) until we could learn enough about Egytology to provide scholarly
> opinions.
>
> We now have the PhDs in Egyptology, published in peer-reviewed
> journals.

Yes, I am aware of that. I was simply trying to identify the origin of
the "no connection" theory.

Please note that these long scrolls are identified as being written in
Heberew and Sanscrit, not in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Other eyewitness
descriptions of the Book of Abraham writing as Egyptian.

Even so, we now have sources stating that both a scroll and the framed
papyri containted the writings of Abraham. Even if we accept the
problematic description of the "Abrahamic" material as "Hebrew and
Sancrit", taken on the whole the evidence continues to support the
notion that the Joseph Smith papyri were a source (if not the source)
for BoA.

In short, this does not argue against identifying BoA with the JS
Papyri.

> <snip>
>
>>> Second problem is that world-renowned Egyptologist Klaus Bauer
>>> is on record as saying the documents are anything /but/ common.
>>
>> Are you sure?
>>
>> Again you provide no source, but in the quote I believe you have
>> in mind, the late Dr. Baer
>>
> Late /and/ great.
>
>>
>> ... (for some reason, several LDS sources insist on "Bauer") ...
>>
> Mea culpa.

No, it's not just you, Guy. I found at least two LDS sources that use
"Bauer".

> I was working from memory, on a business trip to
> Savannah, GA, and didn't have my trusty LdS Reference CD with me.
>
>>
>> ...is referring not to the papyri in general but specifically to
>> Smith's Facsimile #3. Baer commented that Facsimile #3 was "not
>> a judgment scene" and "exact parallels may be hard to find".
>> Whether Dr. Baer ever commented on the nature of the papyri
>> themselves in relation to common Egyptian funerary texts, I
>> really don't know.
>>
> Facsimile #1 and facsimile #3 are two pieces of the same document.
>
> Larson called Facsimile 3 "the most common form of Egyptian funerary
> scene known - the deceased being led into the presence of the Court of
> Osirus, god of the underworld" so Baer's comment is relevant when a
> COTMC tries to insist that the papyri are just run-of-the-mill, pagan
> nonsense.

The significance of this statement is unclear to me. Besides, if, as
you say, it isn't a source for BoA what possible difference would it
make if it is typical or not?

That is very cleverly worded. What is clear is that the JS Papyri were
used by Smith (whether in whole or in part) to produce BoA. The
precise manner in which it was used by Smith is "far from clear", since
it certainly wasn't a matter of simple translation.

> In a thread entitled "Factual
> Reality" the only factual reality we have about them are the
> explanations which accompany three of them, written by Joseph Smith
> himself, and as published in our present-day scriptures. For at least
> one scholar - who is an expert in Egyptology /and/ an expert in LdS
> beliefs, making him more qualified to comment than most - Smith gave us
> many correct interpretations.

Good gracious. Smith's interpretations are almost completely wrong,
but comfort should be taken because he may have gotten a few details
right?

I truly hope that A) there is a heavan, and B) that LDS apologists get
to go there. It is difficult to conceive of an exercise more
cognitively excruciating. Perhaps it's a sort of intellectual
purgatory?

Best wishes to you, Guy.

Bret

[EbedDoulos]

"pp" <p...@example.net> wrote in message
news:11ki5ac...@corp.supernews.com...

RetroProphet has yet to "cite" anything. He has only made unsubstated
claims. That there are two recenssions (a long and a short) I do not
disagree. I do disagree that either say what RetroProphet claims. One is
merely longer than the other. The Testament of Abraham translated by G.H.
Box, says the same thing as Charlesworth. "And Abraham said, My lord
chief-captain, who is this most wondrous judge? and who are the angels that
write down? and who is the angel like the sun, holding the balance? and who
is the fiery angel holding the fire? The chief-captain said, "Seest thou,
most holy Abraham, the terrible man sitting upon the throne? This is the son
of the first created Adam, who is called Abel, whom the wicked Cain killed,
and he sits thus to judge all creation, and examines righteous men and
sinners."

There may be others who have translated it but until someone actually
provides a reference, one must stand by Box and Charlesworth. Matthew 18:16
and John 8:17 comes to mind.

I am not the only one who agrees with Guy. "Several prominent scholars have
argued for the dependence of the Testament of Abraham upon pagan Egyptian
sources, most commonly chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. M.R.
James first suggested an Egyptian provenance for the weighing of souls scene
in Testament of Abraham. Birger Pearson also maintained that the dramatic
depiction in the Testament of Abraham of weighing the souls "is reminiscent
of the weighing of the 'heart' in the Egyptian judgment scenes, and the
'righteousness of God' mentioned in ch. 13 is reminiscent of Egyptian maat,
the feather against which the heart is weighed. There can hardly be any
doubt as to the influence of Egyptian ideas on T[estament of] Abr[aham]."
Pearson also refers to S.G.F. Brandon's analysis of ancient religion The
Judgment of the Dead, in which Brandon discusses these same elements.
Brandon states that the judgment motif in Testament of Abraham parallels
"Anubis and his office in the Osirian judgment scene," and thus "an Egyptian
derivation of this psychostasia appears most probable." Brandon and Pearson
agree that Testament of Abraham and other related writings from the same
milieu were "instrumental in spreading the idea [of the weighing of souls]
among Christians outside of Egypt."" Are "you is being deceptive, ignorant,
or lazy" also or just supporting RetroProphet as he does so? Go read it for
yourself. (http://www.hains.net/articles/moyer/jewishbookofabraham.html)
--
Ebed Doulos ~ A Christ seeking, Bible believing, Blood bought, Truth taught
Latter-day Saint Christian.

[RetroProphet]

XII. "And after Abraham had seen the place of judgment,
the cloud took him down upon the firmament below,
and Abraham, looking down upon the earth, saw a man
committing adultery with a wedded woman. And Abraham
turning said to Michael, Seest thou this wickedness?
but, Lord, send fire from heaven to consume them.
And straightway there came down fire and consumed them,
for the Lord had said to Michael, Whatsoever Abraham
shall ask thee to do for him, do thou. Abraham looked
again, and saw other men railing at their companions,
and said, Let the earth open and swallow them, and as
he spoke the earth swallowed them alive. Again the
cloud led him to another place, and Abraham saw some
going into a desert place to commit murder, and he
said to Michael, Seest thou this wickedness? but let
wild beasts come out of the desert, and tear them
in pieces, and that same hour wild beasts came out
of the desert, and devoured them. Then the Lord God
spoke to Michael saying, Turn away Abraham to his
own house, and let him not go round all the creation
that I have made, because he has no compassion on
sinners, but I have compassion on sinners that they
may turn and live, and repent of their sins and
be saved."

Sounds like running amok to me.

I was trying to make the point that nothing
about ToA is reliable enough to act as a proof
point, textually or historically. Heck, some parts
of the surviving ToA might even have been parody.
How can you say anything meaningful about a text
you really don't know the purpose of? ToA manuscripts
date back no earlier than the 5th century AD and much
of the text is found in manuscripts about half that old.
Did it originate just before the Christian era or after?
Is it a Jewish production or a Christian one?
There is no definitive answer.

You're trying to tie it into a Egyptian religious
tradition but let's say ToA WAS actually in
circulation in Egypt around the same time period
as the papyrus Smith translated from. Do you really
think IT WAS OF THE SAME RELIGIOUS TRADITION?

>Please note that Retro also states that Chapter 12
>has nothing to do with the judgment of the dead.
>Read verse 11: "And the wondrous man who sat on
>the throne was the one who judged and sentenced
>souls." Then notice how the judgment is accomplished
>- the sins of the individual are weighed.

I should have phrased that better, I admit it.
Abraham was judging and destroying living sinners
but other parts of ToA certainly have to do with
the judgment of the dead...nevertheless...

>You should then compare chapter 12 of the
>Testament of Abraham with Chapter 125 of
>Book of the Dead. I like the translation
>taken from the Papyrus of Ani by Neil Parker.
>(http://www.egyptologyonline.com/book_of_the_dead.htm,
>http://www.bardo.org/ani/ch125.html) Chapter 125 is
>one of the best known vignettes in the Book of the Dead.
>Like the Testament of Abraham, it too deals with
>weighing the individual's sins.

...you make the unwarranted leap that discounts the
distinct logic that suggests that the Egyptian religion
originated the weighing of sins concept independently
and it was merely adopted by LATER religious traditions,
namely Jewish apocryphal literature such as the ToA and
Coptic Christianity. The oldest ToA fragments indeed
are Coptic.

Let's look at the facts. This theological innovation emerges
within an Egyptian religion that is quite alien to and
utterly unreliant upon Judaic tradition. The Egyptian
mortuary practices were involved in MAGIC techniques to
acquire immortality or resurrection from death. The moral
Judaic considerations one would expect to accompany the
weighing of the heart concept are simply not there, but
instead we find bizarre concepts such as you had to
beseech your heart not to testify falsely against you
at judgment. Why? Because Egyptians believed that your
heart was a god within you, and might trip you up by
bearing false testimony. One of hundreds of gods you
needed to placate to get what you wanted.

In other words, you ignore the vast disparity between
the Egyptian religion and anything resembling Judaism,
but then claim that what is arguably Egypt's most important
theological innovation, which it gives to Judaism and
not the other way around, as a proof-point that Joseph
Smith could possibly derive an authentic ancient Jewish
scripture from a religious document of a completely
different tradition. Absurd.

Let's not lose sight of what
Guy was trying trying to demonstrate:

Guy said that ToA Chapter 12 matches Book of Abraham
Facsimile 3 in minute detail.

WHOSE DETAIL? Not Joseph Smith's -- he said it was
Abraham sitting on Pharaoh's throne discussing
astronomy with Pharaoh, a prince, a waiter, and
a slave.

Smith DID NOT CORRECTLY INTERPRET THIS SCENE.
Egyptologists who REALLY knew how translate
Egyptian writing were the ones who figured
out that the scene depicts the judgment of
a deceased person. Well, it IS a Egyptian
FUNEREAL document, so no surprise there.
Surprised Smith, though. Why?

So now, Guy would like to demonstrate what, exactly,
NOW THAT WE KNOW WHAT SMITH DIDN'T?
That we should consider Egyptian funereal traditions
to be descendant from Abrahamic tradition?
That Smith conjured up the Book of Abraham from a
text that still had some "Abraham" in it?

That Egyptian funereal document is NEVER going to
be the Book of Abraham no matter what you say.

What Smith did with it is never going to accord
with what he claimed he did with it...translate it.

Smith actually had a shot at doing something quite
impressive with Facsimile 3: he could have pointed
out that the Egyptians invented the idea of judgment
of individual sins in the afterlife...he wiffed.

[EbedDoulos]

After doing some additiuonal research I happened to stumble upon the other
you mentioned. As luck would have it, after a little more reasearch, I
found it in my own library and in the same book (page 901) I cited. In case
I am not making it clear, I am trying to wipe egg off my face. So without
further ado, please accept both my thanks, my apologies and my
acknowlegement that you were correct.

[Guy R. Briggs]

RetroProphet wrote:

<snip>

> Then the Lord God spoke to Michael saying, Turn away
> Abraham to his own house, and let him not go round
> all the creation that I have made, because he has no
> compassion on sinners, but I have compassion on
> sinners that they may turn and live, and repent of
> their sins and be saved."
>
> Sounds like running amok to me.
>

You need to hear the r-r-r-rest of the story. God was teaching
Abraham a lesson - from an earthly point of view it looks as though God
rewards the wicked by letting them live, whereas the good, well the
good die young, as they say - but from the celestial point of view, God
is shows compassion on the sinner, allowing him to live until he
repents. Abraham didn't understand that until he had a chance to "sit[]
upon [God's] throne, by the politeness of the King" and do a little
judging his ownself.

>
> I was trying to make the point that nothing about ToA

> is reliable enough ...
>
That's why we call it pseudoepigraphical. As opposed to, erm,
scripture - as an example.

>
> ... to act as a proof point, textually or historically.

> Heck, some parts of the surviving ToA might even have
> been parody. How can you say anything meaningful about
> a text you really don't know the purpose of? ToA
> manuscripts date back no earlier than the 5th century
> AD and much of the text is found in manuscripts about
> half that old.
>

You're missing the point entirely. Smith produced the BofA, which
said a lot of things about Abraham not found in the Bible. Years pass.
Ancient documents - like TofA, for example, that match the non-Biblical
things Smith wrote about Abraham. Logical conclusion?

Buncha lucky guesses, right?

<snip>

bestRegards, Guy.

[pp]

A picture of saints sitting in the throne of God is in the NT. Since
Abraham is the father of the faithful, what applies to his posterity
applies all the more to Abraham. Nice try, though.
E.g.,
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne"
(Revelation 3:21)
"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" (1
Corinthians 6:2)

Guy R. Briggs wrote:
* * *

[Guy R. Briggs]

<snip>

Perhaps it would have been better stated "It's nowhere close to
being "factual" that Smith based the BofA on the recovered papyri" -
the opposite of what had been stated as "factual reality." Still, at
least one non-Mormon Egyptologist, writing in a peer-reviewed journal,
has recognized that the assumption of breathings text as source of
BofA is incorrect. (Zondhoven, Annual Egyptological Bibliography 1977,
p.180-81)

>
> I only point out that any reservations you may have require
> that you "explain away" the evidence, rather than follow the
> evidence to the most likely conclusion.
>

From my point of view, it's the critics who are having to "explain
away" the evidence. Ashment, as an example, trying to explain away the
appearance of Abraham's name in the Leiden papyrus by saying it's
really the name of a building contractor.

>>
>> The Frieberg illustration of Helaman atop his might battle
>> steed is related to the Book of Mormon; but the Book of
>> Mormon is not based on the Frieberg illustration.
>>
>>> I think you will find that even most LDS scholars agree on
>>> this point.
>>
>> I think you are wrong about that.
>
> That's certainly possible, although I read an awful lot of
> LDS scholars arguing for paralells, possible mnemonic devices,
> and other remarkable efforts to make some sense of the papyri
> as source material for BoA.
>

All are agreed that the BofA is not a direct translation of the
papyri. So they advance theories about what the connection, if any,
might be.

>>>
>>> The existing evidence -- most notably Smith's facsimiles and
>>> also his "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" -- unmistakably
>>> connect BoA to these papyri.
>>
>> Connect? Perhaps. Based on? Don't think so.
>
> I must be misunderstanding you: you aren't suggesting that
> the BoA facsimiles are not based on these papyri, are you?
>

Of course not. The facsimiles are woodcuts of the papyri, with a
little artistic license thrown in for the papyrus pieces that are
missing.

>
> That the "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" do not refer
> directly to the papyri?
>

EA&G does refer to the papyri. The current theory is that EA&G came
/after/ the corresponding parts of the BofA were complete.

>>
>> And most LdS apologists are working on the theory that the
>> Kirtland Egyptian Papers are a post-Book-of-Abraham attempt
>> to reverse-engineer an "Alphabet and Grammar". The papyri
>> as Rosetta Stone, if you will.
>
> Sure, but it's pure speculation with no supporting evidence.
>

No supporting evidence? As opposed to nothing but speculation on the
EA&G-as-source-for BofA theory?

<snip>

As if Mother Smith - or Charlotte Haven, for that matter - knew the
difference.

But also remember that one of the early witnesses described the
scrolls as having "Hebrew" on them, only "without the points". Supports
my case a lot better than it supports your case.

>
> Other eyewitness descriptions of the Book of Abraham
> writing as Egyptian.
>
> Even so, we now have sources stating that both a scroll and
> the framed papyri containted the writings of Abraham.
>

By a tour guide.

>
> Even if we accept the problematic description of the
> "Abrahamic" material as "Hebrew and Sancrit", taken on the
> whole the evidence continues to support the notion that the
> Joseph Smith papyri were a source (if not the source)
> for BoA.
>

You keep asserting that.

<snip>

>>> ...is referring not to the papyri in general but specifically
>>> to Smith's Facsimile #3. Baer commented that Facsimile #3
>>> was "not a judgment scene" and "exact parallels may be hard
>>> to find". Whether Dr. Baer ever commented on the nature of
>>> the papyri themselves in relation to common Egyptian funerary
>>> texts, I really don't know.
>>
>> Facsimile #1 and facsimile #3 are two pieces of the same document.
>>
>> Larson called Facsimile 3 "the most common form of Egyptian
>> funerary scene known - the deceased being led into the
>> presence of the Court of Osirus, god of the underworld" so
>> Baer's comment is relevant when a COTMC tries to insist that
>> the papyri are just run-of-the-mill, pagan nonsense.
>
> The significance of this statement is unclear to me.
>

The entire basis of the COTMC argument is that the papyrus fragments
are nothing but common funerary documents, that they are clearly the
source of the BofA (no, I'm not kidding!) but they don't translate to
anything resembling the BofA.

The middle premise is anything but clear. We've been talking about
that. Now we're addressing the first premise.

>
> Besides, if, as you say, it isn't a source for BoA what
> possible difference would it make if it is typical or not?
>

None. But the previous post contained three rebuttals: (1) the
papyri are /not/ clearly the source of the BofA, they're not common
funerary documents, and the third had to do with repressing the story
(which is neither here nor there).

To illustrate it, anyway.

>
> The precise manner in which it was used by Smith is "far
> from clear", since it certainly wasn't a matter of simple
> translation.
>

Agreed.

>>
>> In a thread entitled "Factual Reality" the only factual
>> reality we have about them are the explanations which
>> accompany three of them, written by Joseph Smith himself,
>> and as published in our present-day scriptures. For at
>> least one scholar - who is an expert in Egyptology /and/
>> an expert in LdS beliefs, making him more qualified to
>> comment than most - Smith gave us many correct
>> interpretations.
>
> Good gracious. Smith's interpretations are almost completely

> wrong, ...
>
You haven't read Rhodes, have you?

OK. By the numbers on facsimile #2:

Figure 1 - "This agrees well with the Egyptian symbolism
of god endowed with the primeval creative force
seated at the center of the universe. The name
Kolob is right at home in this context. The
word most likely derives from the common
Semitic root QLB, which has the basic meaning
of 'heart, center, middle' ... In fact, qalb
forms part of the Arabic names of several of
the brightest stars in the sky, including
Antares, Regulus, and Canopus."

Figure 2 - "Joseph also says this figure pertains to the
plan of God's creations as revealed to Abraham
as he was making a sacrifice. This agrees
exactly with the Apocalypse of Abraham account
as described above, as well as with the
Egyptian concept of the hypocephalus
representing all that the sun encircles."

Figure 3 - "Joseph Smith said this represented God,
sitting upon his throne clothed with power
and authority; with a crown of eternal light
on his head. The was-scepter, as I mentioned
above, represents power and authority, and
the sun certainly qualifies as a crown of
eternal light. He also said that it
represented the grand key words of the
priesthood. The Greek writer Plutarch
explained that the Wedjat-eye of Osiris
represented ... 'divine providence' (literally
'foreknowledge'), the divine wisdom by which
God oversees and cares for all of his
creations. It is not unreasonable to see in
this 'the grand key words of the priesthood'
('The glory of God is intelligence,' D&C
93:36)."

Figure 4 - "Joseph Smith sees here symbolism for the
expanse or firmament of the heavens, which
concept, as stated above, the Egyptians often
represent by the hawk-god Horus. Joseph's
explanation that this figure represents the
revolutions of Kolob and Obilish agrees
favorably with what we know of the use of the
Sokar-boat in the festival of Sokar to
represent the revolutions of the sun and other
celestial bodies. Joseph also says that it is
a numerical figure in Egyptian signifying one
thousand. While this is not the standard
hieroglyph for one thousand, there is a clear
connection between the number one thousand
and the ship of the dead. For example, in the
Coffin Texts we read, 'He takes the ship of
1000 cubits from end to end and sails it to
the stairway of fire.' On the sarcophagus of
the princess Anchenneferibre is found a
description of the 'Khabas in Heliopolis' and
'Osiris in his ship of a thousand.' The term
Khabas ... means 'A Thousand is her souls'
and refers to the starry hosts of the sky,
confirming again Joseph Smith's explanation
that it represents the expanse of the heavens."

Figure 5 - "Joseph Smith's explanation that this is the sun
is in agreement with the Egyptian symbolism. Of
various names used here by Joseph, I can find an
equivalent only for Hah-ko-kau-beam, which is
recognizable as the Hebrew ... 'the stars.' But
again as stated above, strange, incomprehensible
names are typical of this class of Egyptian
religious documents."

Figure 6 - "Joseph Smith is right again describing these
figures as representing 'this earth in its four
quarters.' To the right of these four figures is
the name of a god written with a lotus blossom,
a lion, and a ram ... These three signs are
thought to symbolize the gods of the rising,
midday, and setting sun, i.e. Re, Khepri, and
Atum. This same god is found in several different
passages of the late Egyptian demotic papyrus,
which refers to Abraham. Joseph Smith gives no
explanation of this hieroglyphic name, but it is
clearly associated with Abraham in this ancient
document."

Figure 7 - "Joseph Smith said this figure represented God
sitting upon his throne revealing the grand
key-words of the priesthood. The connection of
the Wedjat-eye with 'the grand key-words of the
priesthood' was discussed above. Joseph also
explained there was a representation of the sign
of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. The
Egyptians commonly portrayed the soul or spirit
as a bird, so a bird is an appropriate symbol
for the Holy Ghost."

>
> but comfort should be taken because he may have gotten a
> few details right?
>

He's seven for seven on the hypocephalus. He gets the underlying
symbolism of the figures right and nails several words.

<snip>

>
> Best wishes to you, Guy.
>

To you, as well.

bestRegards, Guy.

[Guy R. Briggs]

pp wrote:
> A picture of saints sitting in the throne of God is in the
> NT. Since Abraham is the father of the faithful, what
> applies to his posterity applies all the more to Abraham.
> Nice try, though.
>

How about these details, not found anywhere in the Bible - not even
with whimsical parallels like those above.

1) There was a famine in Abraham's homeland (Abr.2:1,5)
2) Haran died in the famine (Abr.2:1)
3) Terah, after repenting, returned to his idols (Abr.2:5)
4) Believers are the seed of Abraham and are blessed
through him (Abr.2:11-12)
5) Abraham held the priesthood (Abr.2:9,11)
6) Abraham sought God earnestly (Abr.2:12)
7) An angel came to rescue Abraham (Abr.2:13)
8) Abraham was familiar with Egyptian idols (Abr.2:13;3:20)
9) Abraham was a different age, when leaving Haran, than 75
as Genesis says. (Abr.2:14)
10) Abraham made converts in Haran (Abr.2:15)
11) Abraham prayed that God would end the famine in Chaldea
(Abr.2:17)
12) The Lord instructed Abraham to say that Sarah was his
sister (Abr.2:22-25)

In _Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham_, Tvednes, Hauglid
and Gee examine sources in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic,
Demotic, Old Coptic, Old Turkish, and Persian. Sources from three
different continents and thousands of years of human history. The
premise of their book is that if the BofA is authentic, these same
themes or elements will be attested in non-Biblical Abrahamic
traditions.

"The nonbiblical traditions about Abraham underscore
the pervasive influence this great patriarch had on
ancient and modern peoples. Because the Book of
Abraham parallels so many nonbiblical stories, it is
clearly part of the same tradition.

"One might dismiss a single element found in
nonbiblical tradition that parallels the Book of
Abraham as mere coincidence. However, when a large
number of of such elements come together from
diverse times and places, they overwhelmingly
support the Book of Abraham as an ancient text.
There are far too many references to Terah as
idolator, Abraham as sacrificial victim, Abraham as
astronomer, and Abraham as missionary to lightly
dismiss their antiquity. In addition, other
distinctive elements found in these traditions,
though not repeated as frequently, add to the
overall strength of the unique elements found in the
Book of Abraham."
-- Traditions, p.xxxv

565 pages, including index and credits, of support for BofA as
ancient text. A lovely coffee-table book that would be an attractive
addition to any LdS home.

bestRegards, Guy.

[Bret Ripley]

Yes, that would probably have been a better way to state it. I believe
it is still overly cautious, as the evidence is quite clear that the JS
papyri were a/the source for BoA. The only real question is the
precise nature of the connection.

> the opposite of what had been stated as "factual reality." Still, at
> least one non-Mormon Egyptologist, writing in a peer-reviewed journal,
> has recognized that the assumption of breathings text as source of
> BofA is incorrect. (Zondhoven, Annual Egyptological Bibliography 1977,
> p.180-81)

Can you please present the relevant Zondhoven material? I am unable to
locate it.

That the text of the breathing permit cannot be reconciled with BoA is
the root of the problem; in that context it can well be said that the
actual *text* of the book of breathings could not possibly have been
the source of BoA (ie BoA is not a translation of the text).

> > I only point out that any reservations you may have require
> > that you "explain away" the evidence, rather than follow the
> > evidence to the most likely conclusion.
> >
> From my point of view, it's the critics who are having to "explain
> away" the evidence.

It is not critics who posit theories that certain notations in Smith's
"Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" were post-hoc additions.

> Ashment, as an example, trying to explain away the
> appearance of Abraham's name in the Leiden papyrus by saying it's
> really the name of a building contractor.

Is this at all relevant to how the JS papyri relate to BoA? It strikes
me as tangential, at best.

> >> The Frieberg illustration of Helaman atop his might battle
> >> steed is related to the Book of Mormon; but the Book of
> >> Mormon is not based on the Frieberg illustration.
> >>
> >>> I think you will find that even most LDS scholars agree on
> >>> this point.
> >>
> >> I think you are wrong about that.
> >
> > That's certainly possible, although I read an awful lot of
> > LDS scholars arguing for paralells, possible mnemonic devices,
> > and other remarkable efforts to make some sense of the papyri
> > as source material for BoA.
> >
> All are agreed that the BofA is not a direct translation of the
> papyri. So they advance theories about what the connection, if any,
> might be.

Exactly -- advancing these theories would be futile if they were truly
convinced that no such connection existed.

> >>> The existing evidence -- most notably Smith's facsimiles and
> >>> also his "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" -- unmistakably
> >>> connect BoA to these papyri.
> >>
> >> Connect? Perhaps. Based on? Don't think so.
> >
> > I must be misunderstanding you: you aren't suggesting that
> > the BoA facsimiles are not based on these papyri, are you?
> >
> Of course not. The facsimiles are woodcuts of the papyri, with a
> little artistic license thrown in for the papyrus pieces that are
> missing.

Soooooo, we appear to be back where we started: BoA is in fact based on
(at least some of) the the JS Papyri. Right? Or do you propose to
divorce the facsimiles from BoA, despite Smith's claims that the
facsimiles were taken from BoA?

> > That the "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" do not refer
> > directly to the papyri?
> >
> EA&G does refer to the papyri. The current theory is that EA&G came
> /after/ the corresponding parts of the BofA were complete.

Whose current theory? What is the supporting evidence that, despite
all appearances, EA&G is not representative of Smith's translation
method?

> >> And most LdS apologists are working on the theory that the
> >> Kirtland Egyptian Papers are a post-Book-of-Abraham attempt
> >> to reverse-engineer an "Alphabet and Grammar". The papyri
> >> as Rosetta Stone, if you will.
> >
> > Sure, but it's pure speculation with no supporting evidence.
> >
> No supporting evidence?

Unless you would care to provide some?

> As opposed to nothing but speculation on the EA&G-as-source-for
> BofA theory?

The nature of Smith's EA&G enjoys but one obvious interpretation: it
is his translation of Egyptian characters from one of the JS Papyri.
If you consider that to be speculation, please feel free to also
speculate that I am using a keyboard to type this sentence.

The nature of EA&G is quite apparent -- to try to understand it as
something else with no compelling evidence is the very essence of
speculation.

In case it wasn't clear: that is precisely why I granted the point,
Guy.

> But also remember that one of the early witnesses described the
> scrolls as having "Hebrew" on them, only "without the points". Supports
> my case a lot better than it supports your case.

"My" case is the one where the JS papyri were used by Smith to produce
BoA -- you appear to have already accepted that. The only question
remaining is precisely *how* Smith used these papyri.

> > Other eyewitness descriptions of the Book of Abraham
> > writing as Egyptian.
> >
> > Even so, we now have sources stating that both a scroll and
> > the framed papyri containted the writings of Abraham.
> >
> By a tour guide.

And by Guy Briggs, which is more than good enough for me. :)

> > Even if we accept the problematic description of the
> > "Abrahamic" material as "Hebrew and Sancrit", taken on the
> > whole the evidence continues to support the notion that the
> > Joseph Smith papyri were a source (if not the source)
> > for BoA.
> >
> You keep asserting that.

I didn't think it required formalization, but:

1) The JS Papyri contain certain illustrations
2) Smith's Book of Abraham contained "wood-cut" facsimiles of
illustrations from the JS Papyri (as you have stated, above)
3) Smith claimed that these facsimiles were based on illustrations
contained in Book of Abraham

4) Therefore, "the Joseph Smith papyri were a source (if not the
source) for BoA.

Can anything be more plain?

> <snip>
>
> >>> ...is referring not to the papyri in general but specifically
> >>> to Smith's Facsimile #3. Baer commented that Facsimile #3
> >>> was "not a judgment scene" and "exact parallels may be hard
> >>> to find". Whether Dr. Baer ever commented on the nature of
> >>> the papyri themselves in relation to common Egyptian funerary
> >>> texts, I really don't know.
> >>
> >> Facsimile #1 and facsimile #3 are two pieces of the same document.
> >>
> >> Larson called Facsimile 3 "the most common form of Egyptian
> >> funerary scene known - the deceased being led into the
> >> presence of the Court of Osirus, god of the underworld" so
> >> Baer's comment is relevant when a COTMC tries to insist that
> >> the papyri are just run-of-the-mill, pagan nonsense.
> >
> > The significance of this statement is unclear to me.
> >
> The entire basis of the COTMC argument is that the papyrus fragments
> are nothing but common funerary documents,

I believe that is an incorrect statement of the argument. The argument
is that these *are* Egyptian funerary documents -- that they may be
common simply makes them easier to identify as such.

> that they are clearly the
> source of the BofA (no, I'm not kidding!)

Nor should you: the evidence indicates that Smith was of the same
opinion.

> but they don't translate to
> anything resembling the BofA.

That's the fly in the ointment, yes.

> The middle premise is anything but clear.

Yet, if the scrolls did in fact translate to something resembling BoA,
you would be happy to accept EA&G as Smith's translation notes, right?
(In the interest of full disclosure: I'm attempting to illustrate that
your assesment of the evidence may be a reaction to the conclusion,
rather than a strict and sober analysis of the evidence itself).

> We've been talking about
> that. Now we're addressing the first premise.

Ah. As far as I'm concerned, whether they were common or not is
entirely beside the point.

> > Besides, if, as you say, it isn't a source for BoA what
> > possible difference would it make if it is typical or not?
> >
> None. But the previous post contained three rebuttals: (1) the
> papyri are /not/ clearly the source of the BofA, they're not common
> funerary documents,

But you would agree that they are funerary documents, right?

> and the third had to do with repressing the story
> (which is neither here nor there).

Agreed.

[snip]

> > Good gracious. Smith's interpretations are almost completely
> > wrong, ...
>
> You haven't read Rhodes, have you?

I have. Please note that Rhodes nowhere affirms Smith's translations.
He only notes that certain interpretations may be consistent, or may
share a common context.

I'll leave the following un-snipped because I think it illustrates my
point rather well.

Well, I'll grant you that Rhodes gets seven for seven, at any rate! In
fact, Smith's "translation" of the hypcehpalus is incomprehensible
without Rhodes-colored-glasses.

But here's a far weightier issue: apologists cannot cite even one
Egyptologist (LDS or otherwise) who will agree that Smith's is an
accurate translation from the Egyptian. (In fact, as a matter of form
apologists would do well to try to act less surprised when they claim
that Smith got one right.)

> He gets the underlying
> symbolism of the figures right and nails several words.

Well, no, not really. The words he supposedly "nails" are not
translations from the Egyptian at all, but are Hebraic (or
pseudo-Hebraic) equivalents that may approximate the context of the
Egyptian.

And even if we go so far as to grant that he may have gotten something
right, so what? Whatever his method (prophecy, guesswork, whatever),
his translations remain vastly inferior to that which can be produced
by applied scholarship.

I'll take a guess at the answer: Smith's "translation" work somehow
remains spiritually superior. A defense of Smith's "translation" is
ultimately an argument from faith and not primarily a studied
evaluation of the evidence at hand -- it is more interested in
"rescuing" Smith's translation than it is in understanding the meaning
of the source material. In essence, Smith's translation *becomes* the
source material -- rather than accepting them for what they are, the
original documents must be understood in Smith's terms (as illustrated
by Rhodes, above). To some, the evidence may even be irrelevant,
except perhaps where it may coincide with what is already "known"
through faith.

Even though I cannot accept it, it's an argument I can in some ways
respect. However, I do not see the point in presenting it as anything
other than a matter of faith. It seems to me that to disguise an
article of faith as an argument from evidence does a disservice to
reason and faith both.

As it stands, there is strong evidence that the JS Papyri is what Smith
claimed to use as source material for translating BoA. The arguments
against this conclusion (however well-intentioned) are speculative
and/or require unlikely reinterpretations of evidence (for example,
what may appear to be Smith's translation notes are actually anything
but). Some day, evidence may surface that will justify such
reinterprtations. Until then, the the evidence alone -- evidence
divorced from a faith-based rejection of the conclusion -- leads to the
realization that the JS Papyri were in fact used by Smith to produce
BoA.

Obviously, BoA is not a translation (in any ordinary sense) of the JS
Papyri, yet they are connected. The problem faced by apologists is try
to understand this relationship (as Rhodes attempts to do, above).
Niggling over whether the JS Papyri funerary documents are "common" or
not is simply spitting in the ocean. And the wrong ocean, at that. I
know, the COTMCs started it, but spitting is ungainly whomever the
participants.

Best regards,

Bret

[Guy R. Briggs]

John Manning wrote:
> Guy R. Briggs wrote:
>> John Manning wrote:
>>> Guy R. Briggs wrote:

<snip>

>> But when pushing his same-sex agenda, it's a different story.
>
> You've provided no evidence of that at all.
>

See Duane Boyce, "A Betrayal of Trust," _FARMS Review of Books 9/2_
(1997) 147-63, and George L. Mitton and Rhett S. James, "A Response
to D. Michael Quinn's Homosexual Distortion of Latter-day Saint
History," _FARMS Review of Books_ 10/1 (1998) 141-263, both providing
an absolutely astonishing litany of Quinn's ubiquitous misreadings,
misrepresentations,
and distortions.

>
> It's just your cowardly attempt to discredit the messenger;
> one of your disingenuous rhetorical methods.
>

Three words for you: Pot. Kettle. Black.

Everything in your post attempts to "discredit the messenger" rather
than answering the points I've raised. What a hypocrite you are!

You're the one claiming his references are "meticulous." I'm the one
claiming they're a little stale.

>>>>
>>>> I don't trust a single bit if his stuff when homosexual
>>>> behavior is involved.
>>>
>>> Guy's *only* defense is to attack Quinn.
>>
>> Not my only defense. You've already seen my "herrings" list
>> (where /your/ only defense was to attack me - "Watch Guy
>> Briggs as he performs the 'Mormon Shuffle'") and "lies" list
>> (where your only defense was an anemic "LOL").
>
> Your list was an empty attempt. The overwhelming facts are
> self evident..
>

Then they should be easy to rebut, no? Instead, you choose to
"attack the messenger".

>>
>> But when the subject is homosexuality and the author is
>> Quinn, I'm going to bring up bias.
>
> Bigots do that - as if it had anything whatsoever to do with
> his scholarship.
>

May I quote you on that? The next time any COTMC brings up the issue
of bias in FARMS or FAIR or SHIELDS, etc., etc.?

>>>
>>> Here's Quinn's academic bio:
>>
>> So you posture is: "Quinn must be right, he has a good
>> resume." No concern for the stated "factual reality," mind
>> you, just concern for how good the bio is.
>
> You're grasping at straws, Guy. It's embarrassingly obvious.
>

Then it should be easy to rebut, no? Instead, you "attack the
messenger."

<remainder snipped>

bestRegards, Guy.

[John Manning]

Guy R. Briggs wrote:
> John Manning wrote:
>
>>Guy R. Briggs wrote:
>>
>>>John Manning wrote:
>>>
>>>>Guy R. Briggs wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>But when pushing his same-sex agenda, it's a different story.
>>
>>You've provided no evidence of that at all.
>>
>
> See Duane Boyce, "A Betrayal of Trust," _FARMS Review of Books 9/2_
> (1997) 147-63, and George L. Mitton and Rhett S. James, "A Response
> to D. Michael Quinn's Homosexual Distortion of Latter-day Saint
> History," _FARMS Review of Books_ 10/1 (1998) 141-263, both providing
> an absolutely astonishing litany of Quinn's ubiquitous misreadings,
> misrepresentations,
> and distortions.

FARMS is an LDS apologist group that is no
more objective than you are. Anything to
discredit Quinn's scholarship is the game.

>>It's just your cowardly attempt to discredit the messenger;
>>one of your disingenuous rhetorical methods.

> Three words for you: Pot. Kettle. Black.

Non-sequitur.

> Everything in your post attempts to "discredit the messenger" rather
> than answering the points I've raised. What a hypocrite you are!

You're just dancing, Guy - for your mommy.

Documented references don't get 'stale', Guy.

>>>>>I don't trust a single bit if his stuff when homosexual
>>>>>behavior is involved.
>>>>
>>>>Guy's *only* defense is to attack Quinn.

>>>Not my only defense. You've already seen my "herrings" list
>>>(where /your/ only defense was to attack me - "Watch Guy
>>>Briggs as he performs the 'Mormon Shuffle'") and "lies" list
>>>(where your only defense was an anemic "LOL").
>>
>>Your list was an empty attempt. The overwhelming facts are
>>self evident..

> Then they should be easy to rebut, no? Instead, you choose to
> "attack the messenger".

The overwhelming facts are self-evident.

>>>But when the subject is homosexuality and the author is
>>>Quinn, I'm going to bring up bias.
>>
>>Bigots do that - as if it had anything whatsoever to do with
>>his scholarship.

> May I quote you on that? The next time any COTMC brings up the issue
> of bias in FARMS or FAIR or SHIELDS, etc., etc.?

Sure. You're a bigot.

>>>>Here's Quinn's academic bio:
>>>
>>>So you posture is: "Quinn must be right, he has a good
>>>resume." No concern for the stated "factual reality," mind
>>>you, just concern for how good the bio is.

The factual reality of his work isn't
questioned by the unbiased; just the opposite.

>>You're grasping at straws, Guy. It's embarrassingly obvious.
>>
>
> Then it should be easy to rebut, no? Instead, you "attack the
> messenger."

The overwhelming facts are self-evident and
substantiated by meticulous documentation.
Simple.

The factual reality of a lot of Mormon
history is a painful experience for some
TBMs. Many, like Guy Briggs, choose to
attempt to make it somehow disappear.

"We have the greatest and smoothest liars in

the world, the cunningest and most adroit
thieves, and any other shade of character
that you can mention."
~~ Brigham Young - Journal of Discourses 4:77

> <remainder snipped>
>
>
> bestRegards, Guy.
>

[Bret Ripley]

On 7 Oct 2005 15:34:41 -0700, RetroProphet wrote:

>> First problem is that Smith didn't base the
>>Book of Abraham on the papyrus fragments recovered
>>from the NYMM.
>
>
> Yes, he did.

[snip]

> Smith's translated BOA text states that this illustration
> was at the beginning of the Book. The supposed Book of Abraham
> text would be expected to be on papyri that were originally
> to the left of Papyrus JS 1.

This is an excellent point and deserves some emphasis:

BoA 1:12 states: "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."

BOA 1:14 states: "That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have
given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner
of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies
hieroglyphics."

These verses refer specifically to BoA Facsimile 1. That Facsimile 1 is a
represntation of Papyrus JS 1 is beyond dispute.

> We have this papyrus, too (NYMM Papyrus JS 11).
> It joins up at the edge with Papyrus JS 1.

Interestingly enough, this discovery was made by Dr. Klaus Baer, whose good
name Guy Briggs has had cause to invoke elsewhere in this thread.

> Characters in order from Papyrus JS 11 are found in the
> same order in Smith's Book of Abraham translation manuscript,
> with Smith's BOA translation passages next to them:
>
> http://www.irr.org/mit/boamss1.html

As Ashment notes in the link below, there are 4 surviving manuscript
versions of Smith's "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar": the title page of the
final version (which is a summary of the first 3) bears the description:
"Grammar & Aphabet [sic] of the Egyptian Language". Smith himself refers
to the time he spent preparing "an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and
arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients."
(History of the Church, Vol. 2:238, entry for July 1835).

Now, some have argued that the "alphabetic" characters were later additions
to the pages, and had nothing to do with Smith. If this were true, it must
be asked: why would Smith claim to have written a "Grammar and Alphabet"
that in fact contained no "alphabet"? The simplest and most elegant
explanation is simply to take Smith at his word: the "Grammar" and
"Alphabet" elements are the results of his efforts.

> Clearly he was working with Papyrus Joseph Smith 11
> in preparing his "translation".
>
> It is indisputable that Papyri JS 1 and JS11 are both
> from what is in fact The Book of Breathings.
>
> The Book of Breathings cannot possibly be The Book of Abraham,
> not even a later copy of it, not even a profoundly corrupted
> later copy of it.
>
> Conclusion: The fact that Joseph Smith mistook what is
> without a doubt The Book of Breathings to be the Book of
> Abraham proves that he had no ability to translate
> Egyptian writing correctly.
>
> If additional evidence is needed that Joseph Smith
> did not even possess a rudimentary knowledge of
> Egyptian writing, Ashment provides more in:
>
> Abraham in the Breathing Permit of Hôr(JS 1)
> by Edward H. Ashment
> http://mormonscripturestudies.com/boabr/eha/abrhor.asp

Further discussion of BoA by Ashment appears in his "Reducing Dissonance:
The Book of Abraham as a Case Study":

http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/resscri3.htm

This short essay concludes on a thoughtful note; a note that "Antis" and
"Apologists" alike may find largely unacceptable:

"It is therefore suggested that such means of dealing with the dissonance
concerning the Book of Abraham be abandoned. An observation by biblical
scholar Jacob Neusner is appropriate here: "an old Christian text, one from
the first century for example, is deemed a worthy subject of scholarship
[by historians of religion]. But a fresh Christian expression (I think in
this connection of the Book of Mormon) is available principally for
ridicule, but never for study. Religious experience in the third century is
fascinating. Religious experience in the twentieth century [or the
nineteenth] is frightening or absurd.

"Mormon apologists have thoroughly accepted the flawed hypothesis of which
Neusner speaks. Evidence of this is their attempt to make the Book of
Abraham "a worthy subject of scholarship" and to keep it from being an
object of ridicule by unnecessarily archaizing it. It seems more
appropriate--as well as more accurate--to regard it as "a fresh Christian
expression" also. Let the LDS community begin to study, ponder, and learn
from the Book of Abraham for what it is--not for what some within that
community want it to be."

Bret

[RetroProphet]

>
>>> First problem is that Smith didn't base the
>>>Book of Abraham on the papyrus fragments recovered
>>>from the NYMM.
>>>

>>>Guy Briggs

>>
>> Yes, he did.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Smith's translated BOA text states that this illustration
>> was at the beginning of the Book. The supposed Book of Abraham
>> text would be expected to be on papyri that were originally
>> to the left of Papyrus JS 1.
>
>This is an excellent point and deserves some emphasis:
>
>BoA 1:12 states: "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."
>
>BOA 1:14 states: "That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have
>given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner
>of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies
>hieroglyphics."
>
>These verses refer specifically to BoA Facsimile 1.
>That Facsimile 1 is a represntation of Papyrus JS 1
>is beyond dispute.
>
>> We have this papyrus, too (NYMM Papyrus JS 11).
>> It joins up at the edge with Papyrus JS 1.

>> Characters in order from Papyrus JS 11 are found in the
>> same order in Smith's Book of Abraham translation manuscript,
>> with Smith's BOA translation passages next to them:
>>
>> http://www.irr.org/mit/boamss1.html

>
>Interestingly enough, this discovery was made by
>Dr. Klaus Baer, whose good name Guy Briggs has had
>cause to invoke elsewhere in this thread.
>

Thanks for picking this up, Brett.

Two years ago to the day, Guy Briggs did not respond
when I pointed out this quite logical proof that the
papyrii we have are the papyrii Joseph Smith was
working from...perhaps LDS "scholarship" has advanced.

http://tinyurl.com/7ebs2

[Bret Ripley]

I remember that thread -- can it possibly have been 2 years ago? That
thread does bring back memories -- Duwayne Anderson, Scott Marquardt, Randy
Jordan, Lee Paulson, Clovis Lark. Maybe a.r.m. needs a "Where Are They
Now?" thread.

You're right, though: Guy was busy arguing with Duwayne -- a full time
occupation, for some -- and did not respond to your proof. Unless some
startling new evidence can be produced, it is difficult to imagine any
response that doesn't amount to obfuscation.

Also in that thread, Randy Jordan included a link to an important article
by Egyptologist Robert Ritner entitled, “The Breathing Permit of Hôr” Among
The Joseph Smith Papyri". Ritner gives the JS Papyri (including its
relationship to BoA and Smith's explanations of the vignettes) a thoroughly
scholarly treatment and should be required reading for anyone who is
serious about BoA research.

The paper also includes some elements that may be of general interest. In
academia, it is common practice (and courtesy) to allow scholars access to
rare or unique documents; however, Ritner (a respected Egyptologist with
The University of Chicago) was compelled to use photographs of the Papyri
because he was inexplicably denied access to the documents by Steven
Sorenson, Director of LDS Archives.

Concerning his former student (and well known LDS Apologist) John Gee,
Ritner had this to say:

"With regard to the articles by my former student John Gee, I am
constrained to note that unlike the interaction between Baer and Nibley,
and the practice of all my other Egyptology students, Gee never chose to
share drafts of his publications with me to elicit scholarly criticism, so
that I have encountered these only recently. It must be understood that in
these apologetic writings, Gee’s opinions do not necessarily reflect my
own, nor the standards of Egyptological proof that I required at Yale or
Chicago."

The original link to this paper now apparently requires a subscription to
The University of Chicago's "Journal of Near Eastern Studies", but a pdf
version of the paper can still be viewed here:

http://www.utlm.org/other/robertritnerpapyriarticle.pdf

Bret

[Bret Ripley]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:54:06 -0700, Bret Ripley wrote:

[snip]

Just cleaning up some loose ends.....

>> Second problem is that world-renowned Egyptologist Klaus Bauer is on
>> record as saying the documents are anything /but/ common.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> Again you provide no source, but in the quote I believe you have in mind,

> the late Dr. Baer (for some reason, several LDS sources insist on "Bauer")

> is referring not to the papyri in general but specifically to Smith's
> Facsimile #3. Baer commented that Facsimile #3 was "not a judgment scene"
> and "exact parallels may be hard to find".

I just stumbled across the Klaus Baer quote. In "A Guide to the Joseph
Smith Papyri", John Gee imperfectly represented Baer by quoting only part
of Baer's statement. While Baer states that "exact parallels may be hard
to find", he also says:

"But one must not exaggerate in the other direction. I doubt that one could
find many instances of exactly identical scenes in Egyptian art." I
recognize it is simply following Gee, but to state that "the documents are
anything /but/ common" is to "exaggerate in the other direction."

Moreover, subsequent scholarship has indeed uncovered the parallels that
Baer thought "may be hard to find." So, even though it may be (at least
IMO) an insignificant point, the statement that the JS Papyri are "common
Egyptian funerary documents" turns out to be an accurate description after
all.

(See Robert Ritner's "'The Breathing Permit of Hor' Among the Joseph Smith
Papyri", footnote 126):

http://www.utlm.org/other/robertritnerpapyriarticle.pdf

Just FWIW.

Bret

[scott.m...@gmail.com]

Bret Ripley wrote:

> I remember that thread -- can it possibly have been 2 years ago? That
> thread does bring back memories -- Duwayne Anderson, Scott Marquardt, Randy
> Jordan, Lee Paulson, Clovis Lark. Maybe a.r.m. needs a "Where Are They
> Now?" thread.

Well for my part, I'm still as busy as can be with I.T. and 4 kids from
8 to 19 (that and noting the occasional Google Alert for my name on
usenet -- but I won't be waxing wroth if someone disses me in their
signature in some obscure usenet group ;-)

Best to all (Hi Joshua ;-)

- Scott

[scott.m...@gmail.com]

Bret Ripley wrote:

> I remember that thread -- can it possibly have been 2 years ago? That
> thread does bring back memories -- Duwayne Anderson, Scott Marquardt, Randy
> Jordan, Lee Paulson, Clovis Lark. Maybe a.r.m. needs a "Where Are They
> Now?" thread.

Well for my part, I'm still as busy as can be with I.T. and 4 kids from

[Guy R. Briggs]

Bret Ripley wrote:
> RetroProphet wrote:

<snip>

>> Smith's translated BOA text states that this illustration
>> was at the beginning of the Book. The supposed Book of
>> Abraham text would be expected to be on papyri that were
>> originally to the left of Papyrus JS 1.
>
> This is an excellent point and deserves some emphasis:
>
> BoA 1:12 states: "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."
>
> BOA 1:14 states: "That you may have an understanding of these
> gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at
> the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the
> Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics."
>
> These verses refer specifically to BoA Facsimile 1.
>

So by this logic, I could tell you that I was facilitating a seminar in
Ft. Lauderdale last week, and to give you some idea of what that was like,
include a photograph of the conference room from the hotel's sales
literature - and from this you would deduce that the sales literature
formed the basis for my training materials, right?

>
> That Facsimile 1 is a represntation of Papyrus JS 1 is
> beyond dispute.
>

Agreed. But what we are discussing is what purpose - beyond illustration
- the drawing might have served.

>>
>> We have this papyrus, too (NYMM Papyrus JS 11).
>> It joins up at the edge with Papyrus JS 1.
>
> Interestingly enough, this discovery was made by Dr. Klaus
> Baer, whose good name Guy Briggs has had cause to invoke
> elsewhere in this thread.
>

True, but irrelevant.

>>
>> Characters in order from Papyrus JS 11 are found in the
>> same order in Smith's Book of Abraham translation manuscript,
>> with Smith's BOA translation passages next to them:
>>
>> http://www.irr.org/mit/boamss1.html
>

Interesting figure. Notice the layout of the page: The English is
written with a neat .75" margin, each sentence indented and properly
capitalized. Handwriting belings to Warren Parrish, who wrote all of BofA
Mss. #1 except for the first dozen+ lines on page 1. Important, because
Parrish didn't begin to write for Smith until 21-Jan-1836 (when he was set
apart as a scribe) and was dismissed in December of the following year.

But more important is the layout - it's clearly designed for the
English, not the Egyptian. Nibley expressed the problem this way:

"The margins themselves show this: the margins of the
English text are remarkably straight and neat, and it
it is at once apparent that the hieratic symbols must
adapt themselves to those margins, and not the other
way around. Thus on the last page of B. of A. Ms. #2
W. W. Phelps has kept a neat margin but one more than
twice as wide as necessary to accommodate the
Egyptian characters; this waste of space and paper
would have been avoided had he been adapting his
margin to the hieratic signs. On the other hand, on
the last three pages of Ms. # 1 some Egyptian
characters are squeezed right off the page by a
margin that is not wide enough for them, and one
jumps over the margin and intrudes a whole inch on
the space of the English text. Thus the margins
always accomodate the English text, but not the
Egyptian symbols. Which can only mean that the
English of the Book of Abraham was here copied down
before the Egyptian signs were added. This was borne
out further by the fact that all the marginal
Egyptian writing is supplied by a single hand, an
expert at copying them, and not by the writers of the
English text.32 We can hardly call evidence that
Joseph Smith derived the Book of Abraham from
Egyptian symbols documents not written by him in
which the Abraham text is not derived from those
symbols."
-- Nibley, "The Meaning of the
Kirtland Egyptian Papers"

Footnote 32 reads, "There are two styles of writing, a thin line-drawing
and a heavy brush-like stroke, a good imitation of the original. At least
all the drawings of each type are by the same person, who may have tried
his hand at both styles."

This is your evidence that the KEP were used in translation?!? The
English perfectly written, indented, capitalized and properly punctuated -
whereas the Egyptian shows signs of being added afterwards?

But is this how Smith did things? No, it isn't. A few years earlier,
working on the BofM, he was using either the Nephite "interpreters" or the
peep-stone (depending on which account you prefer) and dictating - to a
scribe who eschewed capital letters, proper spelling, indented sentences
and even punctuation - and never needed to imbed reformed Egyptian
characters in the manuscript to indicate what was being translated.

OTOH, you have the BofA manuscript, perfectly spelled, indented and
capitalized - and, more importantly, conforming to the format of the pages
- with the nieratic symbols being added as an afterthought, and even though
neither is in Smith's handwriting, the BofA stuff shows none of the
features Smith insisted on embedding in the work.

And another thing - the principal characters in this little melodrama
all left the Church, and wrote some very inflammatory stuff about Smith -
later admitting that they made it up - yet never mention the KEP! Seems to
me that if Smith had been the author, and they had been privy to the
charade, it would have surfaced then. But it didn't.

>
> As Ashment notes in the link below, there are 4 surviving
> manuscript versions of Smith's "Egyptian Alphabet and
> Grammar": the title page of the final version (which is a
> summary of the first 3) bears the description: "Grammar &
> Aphabet [sic] of the Egyptian Language".
>

Another problem. The so-called "title page". The A&G /has/ no title
page! The writer did not even leave room for a title, so that the words
"Grammar and A[l]phabet of the Egyptian Language" have to be awkwardly and
unevenly crammed in at the top of the first page, as an afterthought when
the page was completed. Here's Nibley again:

"What makes this interesting is that Joseph Smith was
a stickler for titles, as his publications will show.
Indeed, the one proper title page among the Kirtland
Egyptian Papers was penned by Joseph Smith himself.
Why, then, does this most ambitious work have no
title page if Smith wrote or dictated it?"

>
> Smith himself refers to the time he spent preparing "an
> alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of
> the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients."
> (History of the Church, Vol. 2:238, entry for July 1835).
>

Now your theory runs into serious chronological problems. It is
/impossible/ for Smith to have been referring, in July, 1835, to the
Kirtland Egyptian Papers - which could not have been created before January
of 1836 (as indicated by the presence of Parrish's handwriting).

Worse, we have Joseph Smith on record, in 1843, as saying that an
Alphabet and Grammar of the Egyptian Language ought to be created. This
means that he either (a) had no knowledge of the 1836-37 effort, or (b)
rejected it as being worthless.

>
> Now, some have argued that the "alphabetic" characters were
> later additions to the pages, and had nothing to do with
> Smith.
>

As clearly indicated by the format.

>
> If this were true, it must be asked: why would Smith claim
> to have written a "Grammar and Alphabet" that in fact
> contained no "alphabet"?
>

Because he was referring to something else - which actually existed when
he made the comment.

>
> The simplest and most elegant explanation is simply to take
> Smith at his word: the "Grammar" and "Alphabet" elements are
> the results of his efforts.
>

Simple and elegant - except, of course, for the fact that it is
chronologically impossible, as noted above.

<snip>

>> Abraham in the Breathing Permit of Hôr(JS 1)
>> by Edward H. Ashment
>> http://mormonscripturestudies.com/boabr/eha/abrhor.asp
>
> Further discussion of BoA by Ashment appears in his "Reducing
> Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study":
>
> http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/resscri3.htm
>

Ashment is hardly a convincing source to apologists. _Review of Books on
the Book of Mormon_ calls him a "California insurance salesman who once
studied Egyptology... ." Far be it from me to attack the messenger, but so
often the argument used against the Church involves what "real
Egyptologists" think, it is amusing that you're now asking us to consider
Ashment to the exclusion of Gee and Rhodes.

A later number from the same source speaks to Ashment's argument that
the figure in Facsimile #1 should be jackal-headed. One of the sources
Ashment quotes calls the figure a priest:

"Thus, however the restoration is made, the figure
shown in Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is a priest, and the
entire question of which head should be on the figure
is moot so far as identifying the figure is concerned.
The entire debate has been a wast of ink. It is ironic
that the best work Ashment has ever produced,
Egyptological or otherwise, has been spent on a point
that makes no difference in the end. The question is
not 'whether or not Joseph Smith's reconstruction of
the standing figure in his lion-couch vignette is
accurate' (p.13) but whether or not the figure is
correctly identified as a priest. It is."

WRT whether or not the name Abraham ever appears in Egyptian fragments
from the same period as the J.S. Papyri, we read the following: After
citing several Egyptological works, and even quoting Origen, Gee writes
(emphasis in original):

"Thus ancient Egyptian documents contain the name
/Abraham/, modern scholars who study these documents
say that they contain the name /Abraham/, and other
ancient sources say that Egyptians used the name
/Abraham/. Most people seem to be convinced that
there has been sufficient'demonstration that a name
exists, and is not unlilkely in the given region and
period.' To my knowledge, the only person who doubts
that the name /Abraham/ exists in the papyri is
Edward H. Ashment. Ashment, who finds himself outside
the mainstream of scholarship on this point, must
give some convincing evidence to support this
denial."

>
> This short essay concludes on a thoughtful note; a note that
> "Antis" and "Apologists" alike may find largely unacceptable:
>
> "It is therefore suggested that such means of dealing with
> the dissonance concerning the Book of Abraham be abandoned.
>

A good option for Ashment, since he seems to be losing the debate.

>
> An observation by biblical scholar Jacob Neusner is
> appropriate here: "an old Christian text, one from the first
> century for example, is deemed a worthy subject of
> scholarship [by historians of religion]. But a fresh
> Christian expression (I think in this connection of the Book
> of Mormon) is available principally for ridicule, but never
> for study. Religious experience in the third century is
> fascinating. Religious experience in the twentieth century
> [or the nineteenth] is frightening or absurd.
>
> "Mormon apologists have thoroughly accepted the flawed
> hypothesis of which Neusner speaks.
>

But is it a flawed hypothesis? How does one determine the validity of
scripture? What empirical test can we employ to discover whether Moses
parted the waters of the Red Sea, or whether Christ walked on water,
("Don't believe it?" my father used to ask, "I can show you the water!") or
whether God appeared to Abraham or even Joseph Smith?

Quite simply, we can't - which is why we call it "religion" and not
"science". In the latter, we take observable, empirical evidence and form
theories (which exist until we can find evidence which disproves them). In
the former, we take the theory and look for evidence which supports it.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen."
-- Hebrews 11:1

>
> Evidence of this is their attempt to make the Book of
> Abraham "a worthy subject of scholarship" and to keep it
> from being an object of ridicule by unnecessarily archaizing
> it.
>

So you're suggesting that we roll over and play dead? That we don't do
any study /at all/ regarding the facsimilies? Isn't that a form of "the
thinking has been done" for which we're so often (unjustly, IMHO)
criticized?

bestRegards, Guy.

[Bret Ripley]

Ha!

> Best to all (Hi Joshua ;-)
>
> - Scott

Thanks for stopping by, Scott. Don't be a stranger.

Bret

[Bret Ripley]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:20:27 GMT, Guy R. Briggs wrote:

> Bret Ripley wrote:
>> RetroProphet wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Smith's translated BOA text states that this illustration
>>> was at the beginning of the Book. The supposed Book of
>>> Abraham text would be expected to be on papyri that were
>>> originally to the left of Papyrus JS 1.
>>
>> This is an excellent point and deserves some emphasis:
>>
>> BoA 1:12 states: "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."
>>
>> BOA 1:14 states: "That you may have an understanding of these
>> gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at
>> the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the
>> Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics."
>>
>> These verses refer specifically to BoA Facsimile 1.
>>
> So by this logic,

Hi, Guy! I'm glad you're back.

> I could tell you that I was facilitating a seminar in
> Ft. Lauderdale last week, and to give you some idea of what that was like,
> include a photograph of the conference room from the hotel's sales
> literature - and from this you would deduce that the sales literature
> formed the basis for my training materials, right?

Um, huh?

The BoA text refers to an illustration, and also gives a description of
this illustration. This description of the illustration perfectly
describes Facsimile 1, which (according to the label in POGP and elswehere)
was taken from the BoA. Papyrus JS 1 is the "original" on which Facsimile
1 is based. The BoA text describes the illustration as being placed at the
beginning of the manuscript. Papyrus JS 1 is at the beginning of what we
now know to be the Breathing Permit of Hor.

So, as far as I can tell, Ft. Lauderdale doesn't come into it at all. ;)

>> That Facsimile 1 is a represntation of Papyrus JS 1 is
>> beyond dispute.
>>
> Agreed. But what we are discussing is what purpose - beyond illustration
> - the drawing might have served.

If we were discussing alternate purposes for Facsimile 1, I am blissfully
unaware of it. My interest was simply to confirm its identification with
PJS 1 and the relationship between PJS 1 and PJS 11.

>>> We have this papyrus, too (NYMM Papyrus JS 11).
>>> It joins up at the edge with Papyrus JS 1.
>>
>> Interestingly enough, this discovery was made by Dr. Klaus
>> Baer, whose good name Guy Briggs has had cause to invoke
>> elsewhere in this thread.
>>
> True, but irrelevant.
>
>>> Characters in order from Papyrus JS 11 are found in the
>>> same order in Smith's Book of Abraham translation manuscript,
>>> with Smith's BOA translation passages next to them:
>>>
>>> http://www.irr.org/mit/boamss1.html
>>
> Interesting figure. Notice the layout of the page: The English is
> written with a neat .75" margin, each sentence indented and properly
> capitalized. Handwriting belings to Warren Parrish, who wrote all of BofA
> Mss. #1 except for the first dozen+ lines on page 1. Important, because
> Parrish didn't begin to write for Smith until 21-Jan-1836 (when he was set
> apart as a scribe) and was dismissed in December of the following year.

FWIW, Dean Jessee places the date of Parrish's employment as October 1835.
In fact, on 14 November 1835, Smith gave a revelation about Parrish:
"Behold, it shall come to pass in his day, that he shall see great things
.... he shall see much of my ancient records, and shall know of hidden
things, and shall be endowed with a knowledge of hidden languages .... he
shall be privileged with writing much of my word, as a scribe unto me for
the benefit of my people .... and it shall be said of him in time to come,
Behold Warren, the Lord's scribe for the Lord's Seer, whom He hath
appointed in Israel." (from History of the Church, Volume 2)

Also, please remember that there are 4 translation manuscripts, one of them
in Smith's own handwriting (with notes by Cowdery). The 4th manuscript
(which appears in Parrish's handwriting) is a distillation of the other 3
manuscripts.

[snip]

>> Smith himself refers to the time he spent preparing "an
>> alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of
>> the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients."
>> (History of the Church, Vol. 2:238, entry for July 1835).
>>
> Now your theory runs into serious chronological problems. It is
> /impossible/ for Smith to have been referring, in July, 1835, to the
> Kirtland Egyptian Papers

Now we're going sideways with the facts. FWIW, Smith didn't necessarily
write that entry *in* 1835 -- it appeared several years later in "History
of the Church" in reference to his activities of July 1835. Please note
that I cited the source, above.

> - which could not have been created before January
> of 1836 (as indicated by the presence of Parrish's handwriting).
>
> Worse, we have Joseph Smith on record, in 1843,

You don't provide a source, but I'll venture a guess that it is HotC. In
any event, please provide your source so it is possible to establish
context. It so happens that the citation I provided above was also
published in 1843, but it refers specifically to his thoughts and
activities from July 1835. Was Smith expressing wishes that were current
in 1843, or was he citing his journal, in which case 1843 is nothing more
than the year of publication? Anyway, read on:

> as saying that an
> Alphabet and Grammar of the Egyptian Language ought to be created.

Yet, in History of the Church Smith explicitly states that he worked on an
Alphabet and Grammar in July 1835. What we know about Smith's scribes
means that the 4 EA&G manuscripts can *only* date to the period 1835 -
1836. Contra to your statement above, there is no reason to expect that
Smith was referring to anything *but* one or more of these manuscripts.

[snip]

> Ashment is hardly a convincing source to apologists. _Review of Books on
> the Book of Mormon_ calls him a "California insurance salesman who once
> studied Egyptology... ." Far be it from me to attack the messenger,

Uh, don't look now, but I think you just did! A kinder description of
Ashment would probably describe him as former "Supervisor of Scripture
Translation Research" for the Translation Division of the LDS Church.

> but so
> often the argument used against the Church involves what "real
> Egyptologists" think, it is amusing that you're now asking us to consider
> Ashment to the exclusion of Gee and Rhodes.

[snip]

FWIW, I didn't think that Ashment's more relevant observations had much to
do with Egyptology, per se. Besides, I would prefer that you consider them
all (yes, even Gee and Rhodes) in the context of what the Egyptologists as
a whole have to say. At one extreme, Rhodes has provided what is perhaps
the most sympathetic treatment of Smith's explanations regarding BoA
Facscimile 2 (aka "the hypochephalus"). Even so, Rhodes succeeds only in
identifying vague thematic parallels or similarities, and states only that
Smith's "explanations are, in general, reasonable." The attentive observer
will note, however, that the details of Rhodes' own translation bear no
resemblance to Smith's, but are strikingly similar to that of other
Egyptologists. These same Egyptologists are almost unanimous in labeling
Smith's explanations as a load of nonsense.

If that sounds like a bit of a sour note to end on, chalk it up to jealousy
because I've never been to Ft. Lauderdale. :)

Good to have you back, Guy.

Bret