More Connections Between the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and Prior Documents

In a previous post, I discussed William Schryver’s 2010 presentation that pointed out some surprising connections in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers that are related to the Book of Abraham project. Schryver’s presentation, “The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers” at the the 2010 FAIRMormon Conference is preserved in two Youtube videos, Part 1 and Part 2.  Schryver points to the many non-Egyptian characters in the KEP and also links some of the definitions in the KEP to the Doctrine and Covenants, both issues that show that translating the Book of Abraham from Egyptian scrolls probably was not the intent of the work. Rather, he sees some of the documents as an effort to create a reverse cipher for converting English into code. Whether the reverse cipher theory has merit or not, the observations about the nature of the “Egyptian” and relationships between various documents merit further scholarly attention.

Schryver points to Doctrine and Covenants 76 as a source for several consecutive KEP explanations. In the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, there are passages that refer to the Celestial Kingdom and two lesser kingdoms (parallel with the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms in Section 76). Schryver’s point seems valid: Phelps was drawing upon text from the existing Doctrine and Covenants for some of his explanation of “Egyptian” characters. Here is a screenshot of the relevant portion of the video, occurring around 2:00 minutes into the Part 2 video:

For those using volume 4 of the Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations series (JSPRT) to study any of these issues, or using other sources to see the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, I should explain that Schryver is combining information from two documents. He’s using the Egyptian characters in the order they appear in the Egyptian Alphabet C document (“Egyptian Alphabet, circa Early July–circa November 1835–C” in JSPRT vol. 4, Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts), and adding the more complete explanations for these characters in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL, the “Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, circa July–circa November 1835” in JSPRT vol. 4). His Characters #46 to #48 are labeled in JSPRT vol. 4 as Characters 2.23, 2.24, and 2.25, respectively. Like many of the “Egyptian” characters in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, these symbols don’t appear to be on the papyrus fragments (relying here on the very helpful “Comparison of Characters” section in the back of JSPRT vol. 4). 

Since Schryver feels the order in Egyptian Alphabet C is important, it’s worth noting that these characters aren’t grouped together the same way in the GAEL. But since Phelps wrote these characters in Egyptian Alphabet C as well as in the GAEL, and since the Egyptian Alphabets generally are believed to be sources for the more complete GAEL, what we see in Egyptian Alphabet C may reflect Phelps’ initial use of other sources that would later become compiled into the GAEL. So yes, the order as initially written by Phelps may reflect lifting concepts and language from Doctrine and Covenants 76, as Schryver argues.

His find of a parallel to Doctrine and Covenants 88:24 is also interesting. Continuing after the three characters related to Section 76, the next character in Egyptian Alphabet C, labeled Character #49 (of the EA C) by Schryver but Character 2.26 in JSPRT vol. 4, is another character that doesn’t appear to be on the papyrus fragments. It has no explanation in the Egyptian Alphabet C document but is described as the “least kingdom, a kingdom without glory” in the GAEL, very similar to Doctrine and Covenants 88:24 which dates to Dec. 1832, long before the Egyptian scrolls were acquired in 1835.

Thus in succession in the Egyptian Alphabet C, from Character 2.23 through 2.26, are four characters whose description in the GAEL deals with the three kingdoms of glory, beginning with the “Celestial kingdom” and drawing upon Doctrine and Covenants 76, and then the fourth character pertains to a kingdom of no glory per Doctrine and Covenants 88:24. And none of that has anything to do with the Book of Abraham nor, apparently, with the scrolls that we have.

All very puzzling.

One connection that Schryver didn’t mention involves the character right before his sequence, Character 2.22 (or Character #44 using his counting method). The name and explanation in the GAEL (p. 31 of the GAEL, p. 177 of JSPRT vol. 4) is:

Ebethkuaintrieth— a place beyond this earth a future place of existence, a place of residenden beyond this earth; the ceceles=tiale world; the heavenly bodies; the earth in its most sanctified state as it shall be= eternity.

Some of this language seems related to the first verse after Doctrine and Covenants 76, namely Doctrine and Covenants 77:1:

Q. What is the sea of glass spoken of by John, 4th chapter, and 6th verse of the Revelation?

A. It is the earth, in its sanctified, immortal, and eternal state.

It’s building on the theme of the Celestial Kingdom in Section 76. But this language will also be used again in the 1843 revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 130, where verse 9 tells us that the earth in its “sanctified and immortal state” will be a Urim and Thummim to its inhabitants. Interesting connections.

Why was Phelps drawing upon language from the Doctrine and Covenants? Not sure. But it seems like something besides translating Egyptian from the scrolls is going on. I’m not convinced that a reverse cipher project was underway, and prefer to think this was some aspect of pursuing “pure language” work that was soon abandoned. Thoughts?

Update, June 8, 2019: One more connection may involve Character 2.40 in JSPRT vol. 4. According to W.W. Phelps in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), Part 2, Degree 2 (see the transcript of the GAEL on the JSP website), this character refers to “a messenger having performed certain acts, having been delegated with supreme power for a fixed period of time: hereditary, coming down from father to Son: right of authority from eight days old: according to the law of priesthood.” This seems to refer to Doctrine and Covenants 84:28, which speaks of John the Baptist (a messenger) who was ordained at the age of eight days:

28 For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.

Related to the theme of divinely commissioned messengers, Doctrine and Covenants 93:8 speaks of Christ as “the Word, even the messenger of salvation,” of which John the Baptist bore witness. Perhaps this related to Character 2.36 on p. 27 of the GAEL (p. 169 in JSPRT vol. 4):

Jah ni hah= one that with delegated and redeeming power, and second in authoraty; being a swift messenger going before, and having redeeming power, as second in authority: and stand next to [on\or] on the right hand of power.

Is the authorized messenger “Jah ni hah” derived from the name John?

The same character on p. 24 of the GAEL (p. 163 of vol. 4 of JSPRT) is described as meaning:

Jah-ni hah: one delegated from the highest soar [sons?] acting in or b[e]ing clothed with the power of an other; one from sent from the Celestial Kingdom 

Here the delegated messenger sent from the Celestial Kingdom (a concept from Doctrine and Covenants 76) is “clothed with … power,” just as in Doctrine and Covenants 45:44 where Christ when He comes again will be “clothed with power and great glory.”

Looking again at Doctrine and Covenants 93, verse 29 tells us that “man was also in the beginning with God,” which relates to Character 2.2 in JSPRT vol. 4, where all four of the explanations in the KEP begin with “in the beginning with God.” Another relationship related to beginnings involves Doctrine and Covenants 84:16, telling us how Abel received the priesthood “by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man,” which relates to Character 2.10, for which all four entries in the KEP give the explanation, “Adam or the first man, or first king.”

Now consider Doctrine and Covenants 88 again in a passage talking about the divine roles of light and its power in governing God’s creation and in affecting heavenly bodies:

7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things….

45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God….

 90 And also cometh the testimony of the voice of thunderings, and the voice of lightnings, and the voice of tempests, and the voice of the waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds.

Compare this to p. 25 of the GAEL, for Character 2.39 (p. 165 of JSPRT vol. 4):

Flos isis— The highest degree of light, because its component parts are light. The gover[n]ing principle of light Because God has said Let this be the centre for light, and let there be bounds that it may not pass. He hath set a cloud round about in the heavens, and the light of the grand gover[n]ing of <​15​> fixed stars centre there; and from there its is drawn, by the heavenly bodies according to their portions; according to the decrees that God hath set, as the bounds of the ocean, that it should not pass over as a flood, so God has set the bounds of light lest it pass over and consume the planets.

The concept of bounds of the ocean in verse 90 may be too distant from the governing law of light in verse 13 to be clearly connected, but there are still interesting echoes of Section 88.

In sum, there appear to be noteworthy echoes of the Doctrine and Covenants in the KEP, primarily the GAEL, and especially for Sections 76, 77, 84, 88, and 93, all dating to before 1835.

Other parallels are found by considering some cosmological information in the Book of Abraham and comparing it to Section 121. Facsimile 2, Fig. 5 refers to the moon, earth, and sun and their “annual revolutions,” while Abraham 3:6 speaks of “set time” of rotating heavenly bodies, namely, the earth, the moon (the lesser light), and the sun (the greater light). Compare this to Doctrine and Covenants 121:30-31, in light of the above-mentioned Character 2.39 with its reference to the bounds of the ocean that echo Doctrine and Covenants 88:90:

30 And also, if there be bounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land [earth], or to the sun, moon, or stars

31 All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times.

Doctrine and Covenants 121 dates to March 20, 1839, after the 1835 translation work for the Book of Abraham, and appears to draw upon the unusual “set time” language from Abraham 3:6. Some argue that Abraham 3 and possible Facsimile 2 came later, around 1842, but John Gee and others have argued that most of the book was probably translated (at least a first draft) in 1835, though some Hebrew works in the transliteration system of Joshua Seixas may have been added later after the Saints studied Hebrew in 1836. The relationship the Abraham 3:6 and Doctrine and Covenants 121:30-31 suggest that Abraham 3:6 was translated before 1839, and thus probably in 1835 since there was very little done with the Book of Abraham between 1836 and 1842.

Consideration of the intertextuality with the Doctrine and Covenants puts some bounds on the dating for the translation of the Book of Abraham, favoring much of the book having been translated early rather than in 1842. It also reminds us that whatever the purpose of the puzzling Kirtland Egyptian Papers, the presence of text from the Doctrine and Covenants, along with an abundance of “Egyptian” characters that are not Egyptian, indicates that its purpose may have been something other than trying to translated the real Egyptian on the scrolls.

This post is part of a recent series on the Book of Abraham, inspired by a frustrating presentation from the Maxwell Institute. Here are the related posts:

Author: Jeff Lindsay

52 thoughts on “More Connections Between the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and Prior Documents

  1. "some aspect of pursuing "pure language" work that was soon abandoned. Thoughts?"

    For what it's worth, I agree, and also believe that some of it was reverse engineered from the BofA.
    I've only been studying this for a few weeks, with very little spare time, but it's becoming more and more obvious that you are right-on in so many ways. Also, the KEP (including the GAEL), were almost certainly not an effort to translate the BofA, and were largely (if not completely) based on documents that were already written.

  2. It's also evident that the BofA is an ancient document, received miraculously, and quite quickly.

    I don't have any issues with the belief that it was received directly by revelation (an idea that Brain Hauglid seems to have accepted) HOWEVER, I currently reject that theory because there is no convincing evidence indicating that JS didn't have any sort of BofA in hand. We have a BofA and, the evidence that I have seen indicates that he did have an Abrahamic text.

    "simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones." Ancient text=ancient manuscript OR revelation. : )

  3. So true, like a double edged sword, right to the heart <3 :).

    On Jeff's last blog post "He Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken: Hugh Nibley", I mentioned that I did a quick name search on the JSP BofA intro, and found 20 references to Gee; 6 to Rhodes; 2 to Muhlestein; 6 to Ritner: 2 to Chris Smith; 0 to OK (as evidence that the Church is aware that he exists and does agree with him in everything ; )), etc.

    This shows an effort to be neutral. That is a good thing with scholarship (although not-OK interprets the NT as saying there's nothing good). C. Smith, Ritner, and OK show extreme bias, yet they are included, except OK :).

    I disagree with many of the JSP Editors' personal interpretations of the evidence but, and hopefully it's ok to say this, Vogel, Ritner, C. Smith, and others completely butcher the evidence, and turn a blind eye to logic.

    I believe that, if we keep our minds open, we can find the truth.

    This is what the evidence (including that presented by Jeff, Schryver, Nibley, etc. and attempted by Ritner, CS, Vogel, OK, etc.) seems to indicate:

    1- Joseph Smith gave us a scriptural record of Abraham, which is clearly rooted in antiquity.

    2- there is missing papyri, which JS either used to translate the BofA from (most likely so far), or was inspired by.

    3- the extant BofA was largely translated by Fall of 1835, and much of it completed in July.

    everything else is details- even #s 2-3 are details but…

  4. "I believe that, if we keep our minds open, we can find the truth."

    I know, so true. Closing ones mind to divine translations like voree takes further away from truth.

  5. Not-ok it’s ok to try to distract on past posts, if u don’t have anything about the BofA. And I might not have said it but, inside, we all know you were right about the stangite venture “voree plated” being evidence for the BofM. With all that education, etc. Strange couldn’t produce anything like the BofM OR BofA (there’s another opportunity to focus…..) �� <wink emoji:).

  6. Just finished watching Vogel’s so called truth stuff, sad that he struggles so. He hides things, creates complex scenarios that still can’t make his theory work and so on. The Lord makes easy to repent, but we humans like to kick against it, maybe it’s pride. I know I’m proud but hopefully will never let that separate me from my sealing to Christ, my wife, etc.

  7. Sorry you feel distracted. The topic is inspired translations, like the Voree plates. This is the first time we have ever heard you falsely suggest that the Voree translation is a human production.

    Don't be afraid and claim distraction, to understand the translation process of the BoA, lets delve into your rejection of other inspired scripture. Then, you can overcome your own pride and repent to keep from jeopardizing your sealing to Christ and your family.

  8. Joe – Make your mind, open mind or closed mind to find truth. Your close minded position that a supposed inferiority (debatable) of the Record of Rajah to the BoM makes it false, then the nearly unanimous position of the BoM's inferiority to the Bible makes it false.

  9. HI OK/not-OK, I see that you have a lot of faith in Rajah. I don't condemn you, I've made some mistakes in my life. It might not be all bad to believe that Rajah's 3-4 plates turned leadership over to Strang. I think they'd be happy to have another member and they might even read the BofM.

    The BofM stands against all attacks as a powerful witness of Christ and the restoration. There is abundant evidence for it AND the BofA : ).

    For example: the voree plates could have been easily fabricated by Strang, there is nothing substantial in them. On the other hand, there are over 100 texts supporting the BofA. It is complex, and miraculous.

    I don't think you have anything to teach me about the Rajah but you are free to continue. HOWEVER, I'm here to learn about the BofA and, considering the scope and origins of the BofA, and the numerous ongoing effort to discourage our faith in Christ with attempts to prove that it's false, I'm thinking it's doing miraculously well.

    How bout you? : )

  10. So sad. Joe opening describes his own behavior as mocking, denigrating, discouraging faith and service with a closed mind.

  11. The Strangite Book of the Law of the Lord is a translation of a type of Egyptian, translated by the gift and power of God, testifies of Christ, is 336 pages, is complex, and it is miraculous.

  12. Oh, so you believe in Rajah AND the Law of the Lord….I'm sure the Strangites would like to have another member. You could check with them to see if they'll take you. But, maybe there's hope that you'll stop fighting beautiful truth and join us in sharing light with others :).

    It's interesting that some anonymous critic tried to sow seeds of doubt in my general direction by presenting some presumptions about DNA and the BofM, but you, you stick with Rajah:).
    AND, this is a blog about the BofA, which is supposedly the favorite book for the best of the best of the best of critics to spin while sowing their seeds. I know other, less honest critics, have been trying to prove the BofA false for over 150 years. They’ve put millions of combined hours into it. They now have computers, google, access to millions of books, word searches, Egyptologists, etc. etc. and, yet, they are increasingly turning to distractions, social issues, etc. Do you think this could be because they now know that they have no legitimate argument against the BofA as a work of scripture?

    So, ok, I guess we could talk about how Joe, allegedly, "opening describes his own behavior as mocking, denigrating, discouraging faith and service with a closed mind." I've forgotten where Joe did that…could you please remind me so we can discuss : )? <3

  13. The are many believers of Strangite scripture in the LDS faith. There is no requirement to abandon the LDS faith in order to have faith in the Strangite Scritpure.
    This is a blog post about the process of translating scripture, BoM, BoA, Strangite, Seal Portions, etc.

    The beautiful truth and light Jeff has shared with us is that the we are all corrupt and in need of restoration. This fact led Joseph Smith to declare Presbyterianism not true. This does not take faith away, because Presbyterianism is therefore like Mormonism, both true and not true, according to Jeff.

    Jeff has made it clear that DNA and the jettisoning of dearly held errant beliefs, such as the Lamanites being the principal ancestors of the Native Americans, does not sow seeds of doubt, just the opposite, it is a blessing and adds greater light and knowledge. This adds, it does not take away as you suggest.

    God demands faith. Jeff concedes that God's contradiction in DC 10 is unexplainable and that the only solution is faith. God demands faith, not the "critics" (what ever a critic is), and it is unfortunate you blame the "critics" and describe God's demand for faith as sowing seeds of doubt. God did not want rigorous examination of the BoM plates and took them away on purpose. God burned the BoA, because God did not want people to know it is true, he wanted people to have faith that it is true.

    As you know, your behavior here has been far from Christ. As others have described, you have brought an interesting combination of smugness, ignorance, false accusations, personal attacks, and talking down to others. If by your fruits you shall know them, then unfortunately you are the only one sowing seeds of doubts in the LDS church, for your behavior here testifies against it. As you know, no one here has treated you worse than you have treated them, so when you describe behavior here as "mocking, denigrating, discouraging faith and service, accusing, and etc." you are describing your own type of behavior that way.
    9:10 PM, June 07, 2019

  14. I’m sorry if you took this personally, from 9:10June 07 🙂 t was a response to an anonymous question and wasn’t one of my lead comments, where I explained myself and why I’m here and told u I love u etc :).

    9:10 June 07——“ my opinion is that there’s a huge difference between Catholics believing they’re the true church and so having faith, serving, etc. VS people hanging out on Catholic blogs and mocking, denigrating, discouraging faith and service, accusing, and etc. ”.

    Do you disagree with that?

    Perhaps if there weren’t so many awesome anonymous people commenting along with the critics who don’t want to admit to themselves that they are actually critics, then maybe you wouldn’t have felt it was directed in your general direction :).

    I, for one, agree that it doesn’t make sense when people try to discourage faith in Christ, especially when that faith does so much good. For examples, some anonymous critics commenting on this blog (and maybe not on the blogs of any other faith…oddly) apparently join with those millions who spend time trying to prove that JS was not a prophet, or that the BofA, or BofM etc. are false.
    These books are powerful evidence that Christ still interacts as in times of old, and that He is real, historical, resurrected, etc.

    Why do you think any anonymous critic would do that?
    And have you done it?

    Or are you here to support Jeff, confirm honest faith with evidence, and etc?

    In what ways do you perceive your comments as encouraging faith in Christ?

    ❤️❤️:) still luv ya even when you seem angry. It’s kinda cute :). Take some time to think about things for a bit, that always helps me. 🙂 ❤️.

  15. The Strangite scriptures are powerful evidence that Christ still interacts as in times of old, and that He is real, historical, resurrected, etc.

    You forgot to explain why you attack the Strangite scriptures so, when all it does is build faith in Christ. I mean its cute and all that you hate your own behavior, but why do you behave in the way you despise so much?

  16. Hi, so your answers to my clear questions are a tad less direct than my attempts to answer yours, but what I think you are saying is (and please correct where I’m wrong):
    1- Yes some anonymous commenters could possibly be with those millions who have spent countless hours trying, and failing, to prove the BofM or BofA false.

    2- You support this if they do it to justify little faith among anonymous commenters, because we humans tend to have to do that.

    3- You justify the justifying by pretending to believe in the Strangite record and by pretending that my rejection of their records is the same as what the anon are doing, even though I haven’t condemned your strangite belief; have encouraged u to seek further knowledge of the strangites by talking openly with members; could (if asked) quickly give reasons and evidence for my faith, explain what I’m doing here without trying to justify, provide reasons for why I don’t believe in Rajah and still have no need to take an attack first approach (rather than kindly explaining why I disagree and defending my personal beliefs when people take an offensive dodgeball like strategy against them) etc. and, even though I don’t hang out on Strangite blogs anonymously misleading them about many things and maybe in ways that I Hope can’t be pinned down because that might reveal some hypocrisy on my part, or etc. (not saying you do that, of course (lest we divert from what is really happening, just that I don’t do that :)).

    3- is a bit less common than the rest,, so I’ll discuss that after I celebrate Father’s Day and go to church, where I will meet with some edifying Christian people who will share their light, love, and knowledge with me :).


  17. However, please keep in mind that, having grown up in the Hood, I’m not yet numbed to posers, hypocrisy, and etc. Or, i.e.. I’m going to be a bit more straightforward if u want to actually honestly discuss this without playing dodgeball :), this is because I grew up with people who were honest with themselves, for example—a friend of mine explained that the church makes sense, and may be true, but, he says “I like weed, and the Church is opposed to weed, so I’m opposed to the Church.”
    I have zero condemnation, response, or question for that sort of honesty. Hopefully our conversations can begin to follow a similar course. If you’d like me to begin by again describing myself, beliefs, intentions, etc., then I will, but it seems that it’s your turn for that, I’ve caught the ball and it’s in your court 🙂

    Still luv ya, even when u reject my love ❤️ 🙂 😊

  18. Oops, typos….
    So, thought about you during family time and want you to know 2 more things:

    1- Even if I didn’t like you, I still really do love you, ❤️ at least as much as one can love a person they’ve never met and generally disagree with on almost everything.

    2- My take on Jeff’s blogs is that they’re related to his FAQ. I completely support openly and honestly seeking answers to life’s most important questions. I don’t think it’s wrong to question or ask questions about a Big Bang, the BofM, BofA, Voree plates, Kinderhook plates, Presbyterianism, the Church of Jesus Christ, or etc. Nor is it wrong to give reasons for belief or disbelief in the same. Nor is it wrong to defend belief.
    However, it’s dishonest to pretend to have questions but not really want answers or be willing to change your mind or heart when those are given. That, my friend, is how the Pharisees justified their doubts in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary.
    Luv ya 😊

  19. Joe –
    I did not bother repeating answers to questions I have I already clearly answered several times. "As you know, no one here has treated you worse than you have treated them"

    You did knock the Strangite belief, calling it a mistake. Why? Not only that, but Presbyterianism, which espouses devout faith in Christ, is often referred to as not true, Catholism, the Church of the devil, etc, the list could go on, but for some reason you pretend the Mormon tradition of attacking other Christians is justify and only claim offense when you falsely preceive Mormons are being attacked.

    "not saying you do that, of course (lest we divert from what is really happening, just that I don’t do that :))" Good for you. No here does that. So why are you bring it up over and over again if you not accusing anyone?

    You have to honestly offer love before it can be rejected. But it is very refreshing to see you finally admit that you do not like me. Why? What is that you disagree with?
    It is also nice to see you admit that what you do, dishonestly pretend you have questions, but do not really want answers or be willing to change your mind or heart when those are given, is Pharisesque behavior on your part.

    Luv ya (in the way you use the phrase)

  20. Poser Joe – BTW, I have never smoked weed, but I did vote to legalize it. Is that hypocrisy in your weird world? Oh, and if you want to honestly play dodge-ball, you need to quit lying about catching the ball.

  21. Hmmm, the dodgeball saga continues….

    Ok/not ok
    I apologize if I’ve missed an honest answer that you’ve given.

    So you haven’t corrected any mistakes, at least?

    Will you please explain how I’m treating everyone worse than they are me, some specific examples will help me repent much quicker and I’ll take u more seriously vs smug, ignorant, talking down, etc. accusations when I kindly disagree with u and the Strangites on some points but certainly not everything….at least not with the Strangites :).

    sorry if you misinterpreted my words, I didn’t knock the voree plates, thought I was being supportive while gently disagreeing. It’s just that i have no evidence for their plates and strange’s interpretation of his code directly contradicts what I know to be true. You say they’re miraculous but, again, I grew up in the Hood and you haven’t earned my trust). I support your right to believe but personally believe that it’s a mistaken belief, just as your idea that you’ve proven the BofM false is a mistaken idea and your implied (but not stated) idea that DNA proves something about the BofM etc. .
    If you want me to elaborate on what I said a bit ago I’ll try to be more clear but not sure what parts of what I said that u missed.

    Here’s a reprint—- “I completely support openly and honestly seeking answers to life’s most important questions. I don’t think it’s wrong to question or ask questions about a Big Bang, the BofM, BofA, Voree plates, Kinderhook plates, Presbyterianism, the Church of Jesus Christ, or etc. Nor is it wrong to give reasons for belief or disbelief in the same. Nor is it wrong to defend belief.”

    So, I find nothing wrong with the Strangite website claiming that we are wrong and they are right, or that they’ve found chiasmus, etc. in the 18 plates (with 300 added in translation for commentary etc) of Laban that are the Law from the ark designating Strang as king etc. Believe all you want. :).

    Why do I think it’s a mistake? The evidence I have indicates that the strangite plates are forgeries, just as Graham, one of the witnesses, admitted..
    The law claims to be from the plates of Laban but they don’t contain: Lehite lineage, did not have correct original writings from probable Josephite prophets such as Zenos, does not contain original geography unknown to Strang, does not contain accurate but unknown cultural symbols, places, concepts, etc from Biblical Times, and so on.
    On the other hand- The spirit has borne witness to me that the BofM is true and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is true. That is the most important evidence for my faith but there is much much more. I have asked about the strangites but have no similar substantiating experiences or evidence. I think they may be wonderful people who do much good and, from what I see, they are closer to Christ than anon.

    I ASK- do you believe the voree plates are true?
    Do u believe the Koran is true?
    Do you believe in Christ?
    How about the Book of Abraham?
    (Paleees, no hasty generalizations)

    Why are you here? And, since I can’t find where you’ve already answered this (or most other questions),
    “In what ways do you perceive your comments as encouraging faith in Christ?”

    JS asked God about the Presbyterianism in his time and felt that it wasn't true. I have family members who are Presbyterian and I’ve never condemned any of them and I don’t hang out and spin on Presbyterian blogs and pretend to be their victim because they claim my church isn’t true.


  22. Do you believe the Presbyterianism preached in JS’s 19th C. area is true?

    How about the Lutheranism of Martin Luther, “Protestant prophet”?

    I have never agreed with those who interpret the BofM as referring to Catholics, no matter how high or low (Bruce, some Anglican converts, etc). The BofM actually makes it clear that the Church of the devil is the church that fights against the Church of Jesus Christ.. There are only two Churches, in my opinion they include those who follow Christ (even if they don’t know about Him) and those who fight against them, even if they claim to know Him.

    Which Church is yours?
    Do you believe my Church is true?
    Of God?

    Those who “attack Christians” often justify it by claiming that members of the Church of Jesus Christ did it first. However, Nero; ancient Pharisees, 19th C “anti-Mormon” Methodists etc., “Christian” Thomas Sharp of the lets kill JS and exterminate Mormons faith, modern day Baptist “you’re going to Hell!!!!” little 4 year old Mormon who is only trying to watch an uplifting pageant! etc etc etc etc were hating on us before I said anything at all to you about disagreeing or even dared question u or them :). In fact, my questioning of their tactics is a direct result of their attacks us. So, you’re going to have to come up with something better to tell yourself, no offense my friend. But no more excuses. I’ll buy u a T-shirt if it helps :).
    Bringing it up to make the point that I love you even when you’re difficult.

    I didn’t think I said I dont like you but not going back to reread. Jesus said to love everyone but I feel like it’s ok not to like people who may or may not be accusing me of all manner of things falsely and who may or may not stir doubts in ways that help break up eternal families, etc.

    You, on the other hand, I think I’ve said I like your style and etc. :).

    What do I disagree with? Well, we did come up with a great BofM migration model together so I do agree that Jews and Native Americans are related. I also agree that Presbyterians do much good as do other Christians. Other than that I can’t think of much I agree with, there is probably something but u can assume….

    I actually have real questions. Thought I mentioned that. Jeff has answered a few, but I have many related to the BofA. If you could get over obsessing on Rajah maybe I could pick that huge brain and we could solve some of the great questions together. I do sense some fear but, as I’ve said, I have no credentials and there’s nothing to be afraid of.
    If you give valid and clear evidence I will believe it.

    Let’s start with the BofA….tada. What evidence do u have for or against? Do you believe it?

    Thanks for the love. Have I been a good influence in that way OK/not ok, etc. ?

  23. Poser Joe –
    I have already explain many of these things, but I will be kinda enough to give you a summary, because I Luv ya. But repeating over and over again falsehoods about others, just shows you are not interest in genuine dialogue.

    I am here to bring others closer to Christ via consistency and love, as Christ would want. To help you overcome your inconsistency and hate. To be consistent you would have to reject the BoM and BoA for all the reason you reject the Strangite scriptures. It is just that simple. All the reasons you give for falsifying the Strangite Scriptures demand you also falsify other LDS scripture. I believe in all the scriptures because the Spirit tells me they are true. The scriptures do not contradict each other, any more than the New Testament idea of the Messiah, contradicts the Old Testaments, or the DC contradicts parts of the Book of Mormon. Has Jeff has pointed out Eisgesis makes it impossible for any scripture to contradict another scripture.

    I believe you when you say the Spirit bears witness to you that the BoM is true. I also believe Ida Smith when she says the Spirit bears witness to her that the Seal Portion translation is true. Neither one of you is lying because you are both correct.
    We can start with your psychological denial of your behavior. I am obviously not the only who as commented on it, because " smug, ignorant, talking down, etc." were not my descriptors. Furthermore, " mocking, denigrating, discouraging faith " were your descriptors, so to start this you are going to have to show where anyone has done this and I can show you where you have done what ever you calling this also.

  24. But for example look at the way have behaved here:

    1. Falsely accused people of playing dodge-ball (it was your opening.)
    2. I opened with Poser Joe, well because it was your descriptor of your type of behavior.
    3. Accused others of not having honest questions. The well is already poisoned, your mind is already made up.
    4. Falsely referring to your accusations as kindly disagreeing. No one here agrees with you on this descriptor. Whatever you are supposedly disagreeing with is done in a way that far from kindly.
    5. "just as your idea that you’ve proven the BofM false" I never said expressed this idea. Just the opposite. This is a repeated behavioral pattern of yours, where you assign thoughts and ideas and words to others they never expressed.
    6. Strangite is not saying you are wrong, unless you are being silly in calling saying you are wrong about calling them wrong is calling you wrong. That is like you saying believers in the New Testament are wrong.
    7: "I don’t hang out and spin on Presbyterian blogs and pretend to be their victim because they claim my church isn’t true" Good for you. And I don't hang out and spin on Religious subject blogs and pretend to be a victim either. Presbyterians believe in faith in Jesus Christ, repentance and baptism. Presbyterians believe the Church is true. Sorry that you are mistaken and inconsistent. Has I have already said, Jeff has demonstrated that Presbyterianism is like Mormonism, both true and not true. Many Mormons do go door to door in areas that are predominately already Christian telling those 2 billion Christians they can not be Christian because they do not belong to Christ's Church and that God is a respecter of persons and that Christian priesthood has nothing to do with what kind of life one lives are what one believes, or documented record of their priesthood going all the way back to Peter, but rather is based on knowing the right Mormons. Those Mormons are wrong to engage in such inconsistent thoughts and hate. But hey, no one is perfect.
    9. "you could get over obsessing on Rajah " More personal attacks
    10. " I do sense some fear " Another personal attacks, which is easily demonstrated false, by all observers here.
    8. " So, you’re going to have to come up with something better to tell yourself" I cannot even figure out what you are saying here or what is you are falsely accusing me of telling myself.
    9. "Bringing it up to make the point that I love you even when you’re difficult. " In psychology this called transference. I hate the dog becomes the dog hates me. You being difficult becomes me being difficult.
    10. "we did come up with a great BofM migration model" Not me, another anon. As a believer, I know BofM migrations models are a waste of time and not what Christ wants us to spend our limit mortality on.

  25. “ Not me, another anon.”. I see, so then, my conversations may all be with another anon, and maybe one of his personas will be able to answer more of the questions I’ve asked. 😊❤️

  26. Strangite anon, you’re awesome! I support you and only have 1 question for U :).
    It’s awesome that you are a Strangite, since they already believe in the BofM.
    1- do you also believe that the Book of Abraham is true and miraculous?

    There is almost as much evidence for it as there is for the BofM. And, as you can see, critics have no valid arguments against it. I thought they would, but they must have forgotten, just like with the BofM.

    That’s it, except I also have a request. If you would sign your comments with “SA” or something, that would help me know who I’m talking to. Don’t worry, if you start to feel uncomfortable about something you’ve said or have done, you can always go back to being some other anon, and you can pretend it wasn’t you, just like the other anons I talk to every day : ). ❤️❤️��

    Love JP

    You’re awesome.

  27. I’m sorry, you must have me confused with someone who poses anonymously, so I can’t be held responsible for anything I say and can blame everything on my alter egos ;).

    I’m the slow and smug Joe, not a poser. I’ve tried having multiple personalities in the past but it doesn’t really work for me. I’ve also tried Freudian projection and skipping out of responsibility, and it got me a factory job. And, because I’m slow, I can’t understand anything you said except that I have to dismiss the BofM for the same reasons I dismiss the Voree plates. That makes sense because the BofM is the opposite of those things VS voree :). So, can I fall to pieces now, get all angry, and stop paying tithing? 😉 ;). Still luvin you… ❤️❤️������

  28. Poser Joe –

    It would be hard to fall to pieces and get angry now, when you already fell to pieces and got angry a long time ago. But keeping on posing that you have not, it is kinda of cute.

    Your questions have already been asked and answered, it is only you that has not listen, just as you do not listen to the Spirit: "I believe in all the scriptures because the Spirit tells me they are true."

    But why are you so focused on what other signatures know to be true? You need to ask the Spirit yourself. If you are not ready, that is OK, all in its due time. No one is here to take anything away from you, only to add.

  29. Poser Joe –

    The good news of the gospels includes it being an easy yoke and light burden. You express dissatisfaction with tithing and dietary balance, such as wanting to smoke more weed.

    Mormon reformist, Jeff Lindsay, has experienced a similar faith crisis as yourself when he realized "The LDS faith has never been an especially easy religion”, when the gospel should be easy. Maybe if you listen more to the Spirit and where He wants you to direct your tithing, you would find more joy in it. I find tremendous joy (no burden) in the programs that I donate my tithing to.

    Maybe if you spent less time trying to take faith away from others, and focused more on your own faith crisis, the way Jeff has, you would spend more time reforming yourself, instead of being in the gall of bitterness attacking scriptures and Freudianingly projecting the anger you feel for your burdens onto others and then attacking them.

  30. SA, since u believe the BofA, what is your theory on translation? Did JS have an actual Abrahamic text among his papyri? Or was it revealed directly?

  31. Poser Joe – If you were a believer, you would know that it does not matter. Regardless if there was an actual Abrahamic text, a copy of a text, or none among the purchased material, the revelation would still mostly likely be like the revelation of the Book of Mormon. The evidence does not appear to show that the BoA was a traditional translation like the kinderhook plates. Why does it matter and why do you distract yourself from the gospel with such trivial things?

  32. Running Anonymous spinner :), or the artist formerly known as ok/not-ok:
    we agree on something, :), yay, it ultimately “does not matter. Regardless if there was an actual Abrahamic text, a copy of a text, or none among the purchased material”. Right now, it is simply a matter of evidence leading to curiosity for me.

    The evidence indicates that we have a BofM and JS had authentic ancient plates, which he actually trandlated and has, thereby, helped change millions of lives for the better.

    I also have, in my possession, a Book of Abraham, purporting to be written by his own hand. It is clearly based on an ancient Abrahamic record, and is now supported by scores of ancient texts unavailable to JS.
    The evidence generally leads me to believe that JS had an actual Abrahamic text among the purchased material, but many faithful Christians believe he received it directly by revelation (as with the excerpts from John the Baptist, etc) and they don’t fault JS for thinking he had a manuscript in this case, nor do they judge the Lord for letting him assume things.
    Either way, the evidence shows me that he had a Ptolemaic period Abrahamic text, and that is where the curiosity comes in. :).
    Thanks for sharing more of your profound insight and solidly representing the anti-Mormon point of view and tactics. 🙂
    Luv ya, as always.

  33. Poser Joe –

    I wish I could claim I am as smart as Orbiting Kolob (poster OK), but alas, I can not.

    Thank you for sharing that you have zero desire to come closer to Christ and only wish to engage in virulently anti-Christian behavior. What a marvelous God that gives you the freedom to mock Him. He understands your mocking comes from an angry and consistently inconsistent other gospel derived from being misled and He holds out hope you can find the light and repent of your hate towards others.

  34. SA, apparently i had you confused with someone else. You shouldn’t knock yourself like that. It’s great to be humble but you’re every bit as smart as not-ok/ok, as exhibited by that unusually coherent paragraph, of kindness. I know Ramer says you’re different, and not-ok comes across as a “Christian” who loves everyone except Mormons, and would care about us also, if it weren’t for LDS apologists responding to modern day pharisees; and Ok comes across as a cool and collected, yet disinterested, anti-Mormon who is obsessed with stopping good people everywhere but, I’d bet that, in real life, you’re all very much alike in inspiration, intelligence, and methods :). ❤️
    Still luv you ❤️

  35. Poser Joe –

    "Obsessed with stooping good people everywhere" … This sounds more your virulent anti-Christian attitudes coming out yet again, not an actual assessment of OK. But you have been silent, please explain to us all what these "anti-Mormon point of view[s] and tactics" and methods you keep referencing are.

  36. Not-ok/ok, quickly read the link and didn’t notice anything that I really disagree with :). Does this mean you’re going to have a serious dialogue about my questions? Since the evidence indicates that JS had access to a BofA, the next question is—Did he have an actual manuscript or was it completely revelation, or?

  37. Not ok, those are the tactics used by anti-Mormonism to lead people astray :). I’m not complicated. I’m sure u know that u are smart enough to figure this out on your own, you seem able to read some minds, and even claim to know what God thinks of me :), not even Einstein knew the mind of God :). So there u go.

  38. Just because you don't like other's thoughtful and analytical answers, doesn't mean they don't want serious dialogue, it means you don't want serous dialogue. You, like the pharisees, demand answers, but never answer, and always falsely accuse others of not answering plainly.

    You recognize OK's vastly superior intelligence, but if even I can figure out something is non-sequitur, so should you. To repeat answers already given, it is non-sequitur to say the BoM is ancient (what everyone thinks you are calling evidence of access) therefore JS had plates. According to the LDS the BoM was completely revelation, despite the fact the plates were in his possession. Assuming the BoA followed the same pattern, some sort of abridgment was in his possession, but not used, but there is no way of knowing. The answer has been given before, you admit it does not matter, but is just a curiosity, and therefore contradict yourself regarding it being serious dialogue. You appear to be deliberately just going in circles because your confessed slowness has exhausted your anti-Christian behavior and ambition.

    I see, so you have no clear answer to what these supposed anti-Mormon tactics are, only to suggest they are but a fraction of your own tactics, which indicates more self-hate. Apparently anti-Mormon tactics is something you say when facts presented by the LDS church frustrate you. Take it up with the LDS Church if you are frustrated. Why project your anger on others and attack them?

  39. Dear Anonymous people :), in all seriousness (or at least more seriousness than normal), I hope you each understand that I do care about you, and please remember that I also enjoy friendly banter. Since you choose to post anonymously, you are already confusing. Add to that a lack of clearly stated purpose, and etc. and it makes it so that most of our conversations are simply for entertainment, and often consist of you accusing me of things, and me pointing out in jest that I often feel there is little substance to our conversations. When I have time, I’m perfectly willing to answer questions, respond to substantial claims, and etc., as you saw with the DNA conversation, or the times that I’ve responded to each question or accusation, and so on. One of you also responded to some hand picked questions (avoiding some for unknown reasons) and, etc. So, awesome, there’s no real relationship issue there, right?

    And, if you know as much as you imply, you are already aware that there are hate groups out there, by almost any definition (see FBI definition below), who spend time maligning faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We don’t need big words or anything to openly and plainly discuss their tactics, and even though I’m not sure how much we will gain from this, I will point out that groups such as MT, RFM, etc. do stir animosity and malign. If, for example, the Church, an LDS leader, scholar, or etc. were to be working on measuring a papyri, building a temple or school, digging in Egypt, running for office, and so on, some groups do send individuals, contact scholars, write misleading articles, etc. which do in fact create animosity.

    One example: Mitt Romney running for President, RFM leader Packham writes an article titled "Mott Romney's Mormon Secrets" it is well received, even though it was dishonest, trampled sacred things, etc.

    It’s a waste of time to try to argue about that because I’ve seen it firsthand and experienced the resulting hate directed at me many times. If you deny it, you are simply denying something based on your lack of experience. I'm sure that, even the KKK can justify their behaviors and attitudes to those who agree with them, and they see no harm to those they malign. That's human nature.

    If you personally don’t do that, then there is no reason to assume that any mention of them is directed to your anonymous self.

    As far as anti-Mormonism— from past experiences, I’m predicting it won’t be productive to discuss that, either, but will give it a try if I can… 🙂

    “FBI), a hate group's "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion….”, etc.