Bonus: Book of Abraham Debate Recap

RA welcome fireflies. This is our video which is going to be bonus content posted after the release of the debate that Paul had with Brett Dennis so we wanted to kind of gets our thoughts out on the table talk about the debate.

We felt about it. Maybe talk about some things we wish we could've set up during the debate, or some thoughts about some things that we could responded to during the mid-run out of time so we've got just a lot of things are going to talk about the debate and hopefully this will be enriching and it will be a good supplement to the actual debate itself.

So I would start off all give you my thoughts with the debate. Overall, I was reviewing I think it through, watching the debate again, but thousands are moderated and Artie seen it obviously so, but my general thoughts are thought is really well done.

I think is very respectful. I think Brett did a really good job at sticking to time and sticking to the to the topic thought his PowerPoint slides were organized excuse me, but as per PowerPoint slides were well-organized and I thought he was very articulate in his position and apply think you were as well. I think you were very you are super a lot of time and effort into preparing the material that you presented so overwrought that is really great especially house watching another one of those gospel truth debates were Marlin moderates. It tonight and it was pretty rough. There is a lot of talking over each other. There is a lot of kind of very heated discussion. So I was really pleased with where debate turned out only thing I can mention that I felt like that. I've build out was that I will edit on my I could've moderate a little bit better part of that also was some of the technical difficult is I had a microphone just like stop working at some point I was checking all the connections and try to figure out where where were the problem was so those will be weird but yeah so other couple times I try to step in and then it's like everybody kept talking and I was like oh what's happening so those were strange, but so what about you Paul. What are your general thoughts about the debate yeah I was. I was pleased with it. You know it's something the Brinkmeyer discussed for for quite a while. We initially had it on our docket to do as part of the podcast episode late last year and actually ended getting pushed to this year in early February, which was probably best for for both of us. We doesn't give us more time to prepare, but the guide I appreciated Brett's concessions that he made at the beginning. I think it made it very clear what he was and was not arguing and you just appreciate his demeanor throughout.

He was very respectful, which my history with him online is that were generally respectful with one another in a week.

We disagree pretty vehemently with each other's positions and have stridently debated online and and sometimes that the host has gone maybe a little bit stated that she and I have always been good at recognizing one that's becoming the case and Kenneth taking a step back. Both of us from that.

I appreciate that about him.

I appreciate his friendship that we can have ongoing so study will do yeah thought you guys. I could tell the you guys have respect for each other that you felt passionately about your positions but the same time he wanted to. You want to give the other side their fair time to share their opinions. I really appreciated that.

So my question for you is in terms of what's was presented there in terms of Brett's positive his prison presentation for the case of the book of Abraham being ancient Scripture had you been aware had he presented and the pastor were you aware of all that material or is there anything that kind of caught off guard and I've definitely seen. I think most everything he presented previously hidden in various points discussing the book of Abraham with him.

I think I was a little bit caught off guard with the examples that he provided his to his method of arguing for the book of Abraham is really nuanced and and quite different than any other than many other lot latter-day St. apologists will go to and you his position as is, essentially, that there are these areas where Joseph Smith seems to have gotten some things correct. For example, he brought up the blue some item 9 on facsimile one as being an altar and he knew he argued for that being the case, and then from there goes to arguing that the the apocalypse of Abraham which is an ancient super graphic document about Abraham produced during the second Temple. That it presents Abraham sacrificing on an altar so his these arguments can get fairly complex, but from what I understand the gist of his argument is that this is an altar in the Egyptian drawing and Egyptian understand the understanding that even scholars understanding of the Egyptian is that this this figure is an altar and Joseph Smith refers to in his at least in his descriptions of on facsimile to you as an altar facsimile one he refers to it as Abraham and Egypt, so he's not consistent and in the way that he refers to it, but now he argues them that because both the book of Abraham and the apocalypse of Abraham represent Abraham as sacrificing on an altar that Joseph Smith must've known something about Egyptian because that seems to have gotten the identification of of an altar correct. I can appreciate that approach where I wear doesn't hold up for me though is that there are and I mentioned this in the debate are so many other interpretations that Joseph Smith made that are not correct. And so the fact you know anything even if you look at that one example of the altar. If you look at the apocalypse apocalypse of Abraham, of the book of Abraham presents and I believe Brett even called out this this discrepancy, the book of Abraham presents Abraham as building an altar to the Lord. When you read the apocalypse of Abraham.

However, Abraham is brought to a mountain where an altar is already there and in the apocalypse of Abraham. I believe Abraham calls out to the angel that's that's leading him to go to this mountain, you know.

Here, lectures, and altar already existing one home. I will sacrifice there's nothing here to sacrifice and it's then that animals are presented to Abraham to sacrifice so there's this kind of a major discrepancy there between the text so it while while on the one hand, it may look like. Oh Joseph Smith was able to buy Revelation present the story that is similar to the apocalypse of Abraham which is an ancient document. How could he have known such a thing without Revelation when you really dig into the details, the discrepancies make it so that is pretty clear that he's not repressed, reproducing what was in the apocalypse of Abraham lived there just very different and so ultimately the method of argumentation. The prep text is not does not land as is viable for me.

Yeah thank you that's that's one thing I have in reviewing his opening statement he really focused on the altar motif and it's kind of, I see why you'd want to do that because that's probably one of the strongest connections you can make between anything and of a fiery, there's really not much to go on. If you're just looking at the the facsimiles and what there's translated.

There is also the crocodile that he brought up later and I think you you quoted Adam Clarke's commentary right on the Bible to kinda make me the connection between Pharaoh and the crocodile so could you talk a bit more about that also. Yes, so the crocodile comes in the play in a couple of places in Joseph Smith's production.

One is in facsimile one. There's a picture of a crocodile and on facsimile one Joseph Smith's explanation of the crocodile is that it is the idolatrous God of Pharaoh and then in the text of the book of Abraham and will be pull this up in the text of chapter 1 of the book of Abraham think it's 120 more than believe now let's not right can be just a second, will find it. Oh Abraham, 120 – so I have to review what for press that on this, but because I don't think the text of the book of Abraham mentions anything about a crocodile, but the so the facsimile what Brett has presented to you in the past, there may remember this a few years ago and I want to mark one of our written debates is that the crocodile God of the Egyptians was so back right and the argument is typically made is that so back is an actual Egyptian God and if it's an Egyptian God connected with Pharaoh with the Pharaoh king of Egypt and so the fact that Joseph on facsimile one correctly identified the crocodile as idolatrous God of Pharaoh.

The argument is made that all he see he was getting something about religious notes. Egyptian religion correct, but my point on that is that is a that I stated in the debate Adam Clark which is a commentary that Mormon scholars are coming around to recognizing that he made use of Smith made use of in his translation of the Bible, Adam Clark in several places mentions the one place specifically which I read out in the debate mentions that the crocodile is a defendant is being of the of the Egyptians right and as well as other animals which we know what I would point out that they think is of critical importance here is not. It's not that the crocodile is it is a God of Pharaoh that that is something that Adam Clark calls us. Let's do something that Smith could have gotten from a contemporary source is not at all necessary to assume that he could only have gotten that from Revelation. I think the main point however is that if you want to make the argument that Smith asked to Smith somehow understood something of Egyptian religion beyond what was available available to him can temporarily you would have to show that Smith identified the crocodile as so back, which he does not and specifically in relation to the economic jars on facsimile one she does not get the correct names for those so she's not is not representing Egyptian religion and again is not presenting anything about the crocodile that's not available to them in the source and 1835 when he's working on that for 1842 and is working on the facsimiles and great thank you you thought that source easy when you quoted Adam Clarke's commentary that was pretty interesting especially like you said is no I connections between most of the changes being verified in his does a Smith translation as incremental Clarke's commentary.

There's only one other thing that I had a question about that a friend.

She's not a Christian, but she's just a friend of mine and she was watching the debate and she felt like there is a question in one of the cross-examination periods where brats he had made assertions. I think earlier in one of either in a rebuttal or in his opening statement where he talked about. He made this connection to this keyer. This this rod and he asked you a question something on lines of how could you explain that in a represents authority or power you go more into that that point.

If you remember yeah yeah so it's a particular image on facsimile to and Joseph Smith describes them, just pull it up or Quicken share accident could be important for listeners to see it.

Okay! Stan got it up so over looking at here is this figure right here.

Figure 2 is in at the yeah I can see it so Joseph Smith describes this figure as stands next to co-log called by the Egyptians, only bluish which is the next grand governing creation near the celestial or the place where God resides holding the key of power. Also pertaining to other planets is revealed from God to Abraham as he offered up sacrifice upon the altar which he had built unto the Lord is so this staff here is what Brett is arguing is being referred to as the key of power, right, and he makes a connection with with something Dr. Ratner says about what it actually represents in in Egyptian being the power I think of the Pharaoh. Now here's my question to me and this is the point I made in the debate. To me this looks like a scepter right and a scepter represents power think everybody would agree with that. That know when a king holds a scepter.

It's a representation of the king's power and next to that kind of thing is is represented all throughout your culture even even modern culture enough. If you see in a movie somebody holding a scepter. It's just it's a symbol of power.

You recognize that person is holding something that's powerful right to think about like even even like most of staff right in in it if you would like the Hollywood production of of the 10 Commandments right worry. She pulled up the staff and brings it down into the ground and that in the resting parts right is its staff or a scepter is has always been a representation of power so I don't think it's a leap for Smith to be looking at this image and recognize that as a scepter and save it in a student's acute powers into representational power and is not. I don't think it's remarkable for him to do so, and then be correct that that's what it represents an Egyptian as well so you also, I can hear another 20 failsafes to bring up so it seemed like he started pregnant from Ronnie started translating in 1835 is not around when they received the fiery so at this point he is what 30 years old around their 29, 30 years old is born 1805, correct. So his entire life he was raised on the King James Bible and that's one thing is or is you watching some videos with Dan Vogel this week and he said that he says that Joseph Smith may not of been fluent in Egyptian, but he was fluent in King James is useful in the Bible and so it I looked at some verses in the Bible that you refer to the router staff referring to God's power or someone's power and you brought up Moses and his staff. There's another example in Esther, so the king or the Queen could only approach the king's throne when he held out his will scepter to her. Sophie did hold the royal scepter out to them than they could and approached also if the scepter is broken. It represented a loss of authority and position that's in Isaiah chapter 14 where it says the Lord is broken. The staff of the wicked scepter of the rulers that struck the People's in wrath with unceasing close so he's broken the staff of the wicked is basically break broken down their authority. Scepter is also used to civilize God's rules on some 45 six it says your throne of God will last forever and ever.

A scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom will see in Numbers chapter 24 verse 17 that's it also refers to prophetic passages so in this verse is as a star shall come out of Jacob in a scepter shall rise out of Israel.

So this is a prophecy about Christ and at his second coming.

It also refers to how Jesus will rule them rule the kingdom's. The nations of the world with an iron scepter so she she felt like that it wasn't that it could be assumed but I think even just from the King James Bible which Joseph Smith knew her well you can show that this scepter rod represents authority or power so I think I think that's something that I thought was important to bring up because she she had kind of a question about the data and that those are all really good points. Thank you for bringing those out, but it illuminates the just the ready of readily available sources that Joseph Smith could've looked to to understand a scepter is power without having to appeal to direct revelation and one of the other things that that Brett kind of concedes in been making his points is there's a lot of even says it in the end the bear.

There's a lot of text around at the Goodson, specifically in reference to his point about the altar. There's a lot of text around altar that kinda makes it difficult to really nail that down as I have, that's not the point. Brett makes the best that's my point.

The same is true here with figure 2 right called by the Egyptians, only bluish arrhythmia calls out that that's all English is just nonsense.

It's it's nothing to do with with the Egyptians Egyptian so and all that all the other texts that Joseph Smith gives a description of of figure 2.

Doesn't doesn't fit with the Egyptian Soto to Canada to Yunnan while he represented the scepter like the needle being held as a key of power against it's not a remarkable connection. I don't think it's a connection that that an educated person been enough. You want to argue that Joseph Smith wasn't educated.

His father was was a teacher units often brought out while you only have 1/3 grade education will back on the third grade education was but it was pretty decent and his his father was an educator and I don't think based on what she produced that the argument that he was an ignorant person completely an ignorant person really stands up.

She was someone who was interested in studying was interested in trying to learn and I think it's okay to point that out, but what he presented what he what he presented as the writings of Abraham.

They're not so help open up any a dead horse, but I think this is important for people or listen to the debate to listen to this, but I think also we talk a lot about how he made connections between the book of Abraham is a much as a Smith and the apocalypse of Abraham which is a pseudo-paperwork. I think it's it's even admitted that this came out around the time of Christ.

And so we don't have any copies of that apocalypse as far as I understand that date to before hundred years BC so the newest are the oldest we have is a relative of Christ.

And so that's several hundred years is over thousand years after Abraham and so and when we know it Studebaker fall because a random write it, but it's attributed to earlier authors circle and I was just a look let's call out and define for listeners who may not know what's to the paper for me means it's if you translate it literally wooden leg. It's false writing right but really what it what it means it's it's a writing that was that was made and presented as a writing made by an important figure within Jewish culture.

In this case, Abraham right and so but it's it's understood by scholars not to have been written by Abraham right because, as you noted it, it comes out during the cycle second Temple.

Shortly before the time of of Jesus Christ and so it's it's fark it itself is far too late to be the writing of Abraham and like you slightly pointed out, we don't have manuscript history for it.

Going back further than that. And so that's why scholars place it in the in the category that they call us to the paper find a lot of a lot of people kind of like the scholarly world recognizes you stupid for works isn't as important to understanding the cultural context of a particular time. Right in this case, the second Temple. But sometimes when you when the scholarly ways of talking about things get this translated kind of into the more laypersons way of speaking about things.

Pseudoephedrine becomes forgery right that the idea that the people have in their minds is the somebody was trying to foist a writing as authoritative by giving it the. The curvature of Abraham and then certainly that that there is evidence of that being done. I met now that is what kind of like what the. The Maxwell Institute is trying to argue that Joseph Smith was doing with the book of Abraham, but it's a Studebaker for now there's there's a there's a distinction I'm trying to draw between, the way the scholars view stupid refer and way you know somebody who may be a layperson and an angry might I call something a forgery right so it's important. It's kind of tease that out, but but yeah, it's that icing is important to call out what stupid was stupid. Refer to the group to the biographical work is and and why certain works are put in that category. It essentially it's here's this work that purports to be written by Abraham. We can't date it to any earlier than 150 BC, for example. Therefore, it cannot be the work of Abraham.

There just isn't a manuscript history that would allow it to allow us to trace it back to the actual patriarch Abraham and so know that the book of Abraham by Joe Smith does not identify clear definition fall into that category. Where where I see a major difference however is that Joseph Smith did have ancient papyri in his possession and he did claim that those papyri were the writings of Abraham and Joseph. The biblical biblical patriarchs, and then she did produce what he claimed was a translation of those papyri and so efforts I think efforts now by Mormon apologists to try to distance the papyri from what Joseph Smith produced. I think her her.

I think they do damage to what Joseph Smith himself claimed he had in his possession and what his contemporaries believed he was producing. I don't think his contemporaries would have believed he was not producing a representation in English of what was on the papyri and Egyptian characters.

I think that the Col. in addition papers that the Jewish and elfin grammar bear that out. Now just about say that that that the fact that they we have the grammar in alphabetical Egyptian language relay pointed to specific characters on the papyri and gave explanatory passages saying what that meant. It, like you said, it does demonstrate that there were trying to do a more traditional translation and there there even legal certain Bismarck would mean they submit this mark mean that they try to expand everything out and in the text shows that they were trying to do it is standard traditional translation, though I think they point to the Joseph Smith transition of the Bible as trying to say will see he wasn't translating it from a text. It was more of a commentary.

I hear that a lot from this apologists, and so there they use as an example that Joseph Smith thought that translation was a more fluid term that didn't necessarily mean taking one text and translating it from that language into English directly, but I do know it's it's kind of a weak argument to me. I look, you can bring it back to Brett's argument and then, where some of the meal. Mormon apologists go so brace Brett's overall thesis and he stated this pretty clearly in the debate is that related it felt to me like he was debating written her rather than me and that's okay because it's initially what he wanted to talk about but you hissed is his case. Is that okay so there these therapies places were Joseph Smith seems to have gotten some things correct about Egyptian religion and therefore it's not correct to say that Joseph Smith didn't get anything right and I think that's I think that's a fair case to make. But where I'm left with Brett is to ask the question okay so you've identified these 25 areas where you think their correspondences between what Joseph Smith produced and what the Egyptian actually means. What does that amount to when talking about the book of Abraham because if it if it is meant to show that Joseph Smith had by revelation a correct understanding of Egyptian that's not demonstrable because of all of the other Mrs. so then you're left asking the question okay so if God was helping Joseph Smith to translate this this papyri into English from Egyptian. Why did he give him some things correct and many many many more other things incorrect so you left at the end of the day talking to Brett say okay what what does amount to it doesn't amount to a correct translation of the Egyptian. There may be these 25 correspondences that you pull out, but even when you dig into the details on those. I don't think they stand up and so unless you're willing to argue must Brett is willing to argue that all of the Egyptologists actually have it wrong and Smith had it right by revelation, and the only reason we don't see that now is because the Egyptologists are wrong. Well, that's it. That's a lot to swallow and I don't think Brett is willing to make that argument, but without that argument, you really left same to him. Okay, so what is amount to. So then you are talking about waiting where the neo-Mormon apologists are going there there trying to call us to the Pagosa because it gives her the patina of respectability in the in the scholarly world to do so, but what does that mean I missed and this comes out in a conversation between that I referenced in the debate between Karen Milstein and Carol Givens to Mormon apologists there having a conversation on YouTube about the book of Abraham. What it what is all of the evidence about the translation process and everything that's coming out now through the Joseph Smith papers Project and the publication of the Kirtland Egyptian papers with the Egyptian outback grammar all all information that was not publicly available until very recently. What is that all mean thereafter talking with each other and gathered their wrestling through the idea that okay.

Joseph Smith had these papyri. She said they were the writings of Abraham and Joseph. They are not so if were not going to understand him as a successful translator of Egyptian than how we understand Herman and they even end up going back and forth on whether or not it's incredible to view him as himself.

Not understanding what he was doing and you know for me beyond 10 years removed from having been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Now, but if I were still a member and I was learning all of the stuff in reading all of the stuff there is no way that I could hang around because it just it's not if Joe is even Joseph Smith didn't understand what he was doing then what are you gonna say about what he said it is a was mistaken about them being the writings of Abraham and Joseph. You know and and and you get into territory with the neo-apologists was just like yeah we don't understand what he was doing and he didn't seem to understand what he was doing, but it still is still divine and still of God is still Scripture and I don't know the that those conclusions follow from those kind of flimsy premises at us is something I really struggled with.

When asked, questioning his is, I forget which apologists edit but I think Emad Ben Peterson, but they dared they asserted basically the catalyst theory and they said well Joseph had the plates and he got a feeling any translating from them, but he often did anyone use the plates so it's imagine the sending of the proprietary gets about fiery get the feeling you know, some kind of spiritual prompting to get these papyri, but they ultimately don't have anything to do with the final product module, Smith thought they did say he got a feeling in them and that was just the catalyst that started all this revelation often not that it really didn't sit well with me because like you said you open up your the book of Abraham in your your quad or triple combination. It'll still say it's the translation from the fiery and all point to the facsimiles and say this means that this means that so I think the only really way to deal with that is to just say we were wrong in all end of the text has nothing to do with the papyri or kind of do as Paul Gregerson, does all toggled about that later is saying, well, the spiritual understanding is totally separated from the secular understand, you know, like there's a secular base value reading of this text, but that's not what God was saying and of the is a spiritual underlying message that God give Joseph Smith. So do any other thoughts. But the debate over all the on add formula right so moving on. We received some comments for the debate from her friend Jeremy Howard Hughes on an episode with us before where we talked about's what was it is freedom of politics are also worth but what was the topic of it was Catholic freedom of religion, right religion is one of article 5 articles of faith episode where, who was 11 and you were really the something something about our own conscience as to latest yet as there is limited privilege of worshiping God. According to the dictates of our own conscience. Somebody extends the same courtesy to others, idea we had Jeremy on the talk about the and is his thoughts on primary, secondary and tertiary doctrines within the Christian faith. Yet he doctors about the chart that he made and they've made an updated version to so go check out the do theology podcast it on their website or need to.

They've got an updated discussion on that. So let's read his comments on the debate and them open okay Erica, sorry it don't read all that are just parts of it that scope 1234 okay so his first comment on the debate Jeremy said the topic wasn't the best diving into the historical accuracy of a document from the 19th century doesn't exactly lend itself to the issues that lie at the heart of the matter within a topic.

It's hard to make a straight line to what I referred to as the big four issues at the heart of Mormonism is a parenthetical note.

He says I've spoken about these and I'll be publishing an article I website about them soon. If the topic were something more like is it heretical to accept the book of Abraham Scripture. It would've been easier to discuss the major theological issues instead of sword fighting over details pertaining to an accurate translation. So what do you think about that, I think it's a fair comment. It definitely doesn't definitely lead to a debate that was more focused on historical issues than on doctrinal issues. The topic for the debate was one that that I chosen pitch to Brett in the end it was again the question is the book of Abraham ancient Scripture. The reason I chose that topic is because that that was Joseph Smith's claim of what he had claimed he had the writings of Abraham by his own hand upon papyrus so the historical?

The question of whether what he produced in English is an accurate representation of what is on the papyri that a good it's it goes directly to the question of whether it can be considered Scripture because if it's not what Joseph Smith represented as if the papyri aren't actually the writings of Abraham. But Joseph Smith represented them as the writings of Abraham. Then that is not ancient Scripture written by Abraham and so that's that's the reason I chose that topic to go into at the end and also because it gave Brett the the opportunity to present his case. One thing I will say about the case that Brett presented is that she didn't. She did not attempt to present the case that the book of Abraham was ancient Scripture. He when he summarized the topic of the debate. At one point she talked about inspired Scripture which is something he had to do given the case he was attempting to make, which is ultimately that the book of Abraham to him is Scripture because Joseph Smith was a prophet and a steer and was inspired and given revelation to produce it but again that's not the original case that Joseph Smith attempted to make among his contemporaries, which was everybody look coming up with these papyri and mummies on display in Kirtland and later in love you and I'm to show them not only to my followers but I'm to show them to anyone who comes to see them and I'm going to claim that they are the writings of Abraham and Joseph and so I thought it was important for for Mormons to look at that case, and it's it's it is the crux of the apologetic case for the book of Abraham is what the papyri actually are because of what Smith's claim was so identify, understand where Jeremy is going with this, from a from the perspective of a Christian it's definitely more interesting to hear okay what are the doctrinal issues with the book of Abraham that would bump up against Christian doctrine that would make it heretical to believe that the book of Abraham is Scripture before Mormon who believes in Smith as a senior could reproduce in English ancient texts that were written in other languages. The crux of the argument is whether or not the papyri actually represent what Joseph Smith claimed they did and the reason that's the crux of the crux of the argument for Latter Day Saints is because it goes directly to the book of Mormon. You cannot test plates because they are not sheer, whether or not you believe Smith ever had plates or whether you believe he produced plates that he allowed his witnesses to see what whatever you may believe about the plates we cannot examine the mall so we cannot test to see. Does the book of Mormon accurately represent what may have been on the plates in another language reformed Egyptian but with the book of Abraham. We can test that and so that's why it's the crux of the argument. That's why I chose the historical approach to debate with Brett yeah I think I agree. I think I think both aspects are just looking at different sides of the same coin like is that I think they're both.

They both have theological applications. They both have historical implications just how you look at it and I kind of agree that if it were me, and I did choose a topic I'm not a great historian, but I think I could Tackle the systematic theology aspect will be better in my missing out great.

But that's how I would want to approach her, because he could probably throw out some historical data that identical I don't know anything about that so I know how to deal with that. So yet it's it was interesting, and I really thought about that. So thanks Jeremy for that is one of second one he says your demeanor was pretty reserved and quiet, which of course isn't bad at all.

However, since Brett is confident and outspoken. You came across as uncertain of your position at times personality such an unfair aspect of debating, but is totally valid and a very real part of how people interpret the conversation. I got some feedback about having a grumpy demeanor, and my debate was quick to but it helped that he came across very childish in comparison. Aaron shuffle all of got a ton of feedback about his demeanor and his last debate with Quaker. It's tough, but it's a reality. So I'll give myself a just a short comment to I I can notice that to I notice it, but that's just your demeanor in general is that you're very calm and reserved in your very thoughtful and you're able to think things through very well before you respond, and I find that that's what I respond to personally as someone who can think things through and give a very very precise argumentation rather than someone who can presented very charismatic leader very you know with a lot of pizzazz or a lot of confidence or bravado. I'm not saying that that's what Brett was doing here.

He was very he knows how to do public speaking. I could tell you someone he's very he knows how to work with the crowd, but I didn't think that I was a bad thing.

The only thing that I would've commented on his felt like in your opening statement. It felt like you had a lot of material to get through and so I felt towards and like you were rushing very quickly and there was a lot of really heady topics to to kind of wrap your head around and so I felt like even I was like, even after having listened debate.

Listening to it again.

Isaac well I gotta pause like think about this for a second.

You know, because there's a lot of stuff that's only thing I would I would comment on about that. So how would you any comments about Jeremy's comment again.

It's a good point.

This was my very first attempt at a public debate. So definitely have a lot to learn in that regard. Yeah, I got kind of surprised about the reserved and quiet, not because I don't already know that about myself but because after after the debate. I kind of know when talk to my wife and just now, when you know you think you even Matthew had said you know the so my comments were pretty term or how you set a pretty strident or how you phrased it at them. You know, and I did feel like I know at times was that way I'll be you, I'm pretty reserved and quiet person. Very thoughtful and so that probably the definitely came across but yeah I get that that's that's definitely the something that can can when you debate or lose you debate right especially I think would work with what was sort of challenging is that this one's online so I'm sitting here my office looking at Brett, looking at that you and Michael as we were working through the debate on her resume call and I know that you have the comments the life comments the live chat was kind of blowing up in the room knew Michael was kinda moderating that and recommend to the nuclear membrane and questions were coming in but I'm not seeing any of that and I didn't have any of the feedback that a speaker in a public debate in person would have from the audience.

So it's hard it's kinda hard to know okay you know I think if you speaking to people live you know you can kinda feel the crowd right know when you need to really drive something home that that inhabited a feedback so you know would be interesting to do it in person live debate and and see how I do there and then have that can have that feedback. I I unite. I have been told of a good public speaker, so I think I probably would do okay with that but yeah this this is my first go around with with such a thing in regards to your comment Matthew about being rushed at the end of my my opening statement.

That's that's true idea. No set times for for the statements, and I died looked up know how many words will fit in a 25 minute period of time right so I knew exactly what I needed to to kinda prepare and be ready to present one.

One regret is that I wish I would've had time to present some visuals because I think you know and all my debate you know that that kind of helps so wish I would've had time to present that and prepare that I just didn't ending in with regard to being rushed.

I recognized that one point that my time was getting short so I began to speak faster to try to get through the end of my material and underwrite some of the is towards the end of my opening statement where my doctrinal points about Scripture were made and so that probably did not come across as strongly as it is a should have and to be honest I probably could've done a better job presenting Matt and preparing for preparing that argument. It it it was more of like a subsidiary argument to my overall argument, which is if it's not the book of Abraham isn't ancient writings of Abraham Bennett can't be considered ancient Scripture and so the doctrinal points of to be considered Scripture were kind of like a subsidiary like us of a subsidiary point to that and you know couple days before the debate, Brett asked if we could present some historical background on the on the book of Abraham. The wooden count against either of us that did actually open up some room in my opening statement to kinda put in some more of that stuff towards the end about the doctrinal points about Scripture that were timed more time to pair might've been better. I think I did a fair job with what I had and I think it is great.

I mean, it does kind of respond to your doctrinal approach of whether it Scripture, not by basically saying well. We just have different opinions on what qualifies as Scripture. Like that's a bit, and I mean I guess I agree.

So I guess I let you know I got a sink, save it all at work and like as I gained a great job with anything. Well, we just don't agree on what what qualifies as Scripture.

So I read so point number three. So Jerry says I wish you would have been more outspoken upfront about the biblical realities that are on the line if we even consider that the book of Abraham. It is Scripture. It would've been good to hear more about the inerrancy, authority and sufficiency of the Bible, but as a note in the first comment, the topic kind of pigeonholed you into discussing historical accuracy of the document. So what do you think that I think the student maybe it could've been a better format if it was a series of debates right is the book of Abraham ancient and man is the book of Abraham Scripture where you could dig into more of the biblical realities that might be on the line in considering the book of Abraham is Scripture yeah Jim. Jim is right bye-bye including in the question is ancient Scripture by including Scripture in their it does kind of put the expectations of the audience that you're going to really dig into that and that that really was a subsidiary part of both of arguments really from from me and from Brett Agri points so but the last point that Jeremy gave us.

He says with those critiques out of the way, I should say that you seem to have well-organized material in your will study you combated Brett very unfairly in our thinking alike away from the debate thinking, wow, the book of Abraham really is reliable. The fact that you are willing to put yourself out there and have the conversation publicly is encouraging and helps advance a Christian because in LDS Christian dialogue you Jeremy for comment giving responsible to legally appreciate Jeremy's feedback values feedback, which is why reached out to him and asked for thankful that is as a friend of the mentor he was going to to give that to me. I think it's deftly helpful in thinking about in future debates I might be condition. So Jeremy, thank you for the great. All right, so we wanted to talk. Also, briefly, because after the debate Robert Boylan made some articles on his website Scripture. Mormonism, where he talked about the debate or impair a reference to debate so there are two main articles so she read the just one of the top first in the document you gave and then go from there is some good data sensitive okay go, so he has one topic one article that he published on February 13 titled Pearl of great Price Central so Becky got a Pharaoh and a note on Adam Clarke's purported influence on Joseph Smith. The article reads an excellent website on the book of Abraham is pro-great Price, Central, whether wonderful articles is so big.

The got a Pharaoh in endnote 11 we read the following about the claim forwarded recently by Paul Nyberg that Joseph associated this is Joe Smith associated the crocodile figure and facsimile one with the got a Pharaoh from animal Clarke's commentary on Exodus one source contemporary to Joseph Smith did report that the crocodile or hippopotamus was the emblem of Pharaoh and Egyptians, and was one of their principal divinities.

This source also reported that Pharaoh signifies a crocodile, Adam Clark, the holy Bible containing the old and new Testaments such as commentary this Bible edition with Clark's notes was based on a line commentary series, Clark published between 18 and 1826 I contrast the book of Abraham says nothing about hippopotamus hippopotamus. I and indicates that arrow it signifies king by royal blood, not crocodile. Furthermore, none of the archaeological or in scriptural evidence concerning Sobek's presence in northern Syria, or his association with Egyptian kingship was available in justices lifetime. I think that was a quote from that article right Sobek, the got a Pharaoh and loose boiling continues is on the parties of Adam Clark by Joseph Smith in the production of the justice that translation see Kent Jackson some notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clark. So what are your thoughts on that first article soothingly.

First, the first thing I want to point out is that Boylan seems to misunderstand the argument that I was making, which is that it's not in relation to Abraham 120 right disease. I just wanted to say okay Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood, not crocodile but that wasn't the point I was missing from Adam Clark. I wasn't saying that crocodile is Pharaoh. The point I was making is that momentum grandpa quote from Adam Clark so that it's important to to read through it. So Adam Clark says, "it may be necessary to observe that all the Egyptian kings, whatever their own name was took the surname of Pharaoh when they came to the throne, a name which in its general acceptation signified the same as king or monarch, but in its literal meaning as both start has amply proved his signifies a crocodile, which, being a sacred animal among the Egyptians, the word might be habits the Kings in order to procure them.

The greater reverence and respect. So Clark refers to another scholar both start I have a rundown what he's actually referring to there is saying that that Pharaoh signifies a crocodile like I guess I can see where Boylan is going with this, however, might my point is not trying to make the case that Pharaoh means crocodile. That's not the point I'm trying to make from Adam Clark plan to make from Adam Clark, is that there was unknown connection between Pharaoh and an Egyptian God agenda Egyptian crocodile God in justices lifetime. That was the source was available to look could've given that information. So when she identifies as I described earlier.

The figure on facsimile one as the idolatrous got a Pharaoh and that figure is a crocodile on facsimile one is holy, understandable and possible that he got that from Adam Clark that understanding that the crocodile in Egyptian religion represented a God of Pharaoh and was connected closely with Pharaoh so denied that the. The point I made earlier on Joseph Smith doesn't correctly identify the crocodile as Sobek and so whatever points are being made, and in the book of Abraham or the program.

Price Central article about when and where Sobek was was recognized in the time of Abraham are not in the time of Abraham in the area were worse listed. Abraham was all of that is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Which is simply that it's not a remarkable connection for Smith to identify a crocodile is a God of Pharaoh. That's great and and even in his book he admits that when there are hits. He does admit that their heads, but the same time. It's complete. It it's like you said the names were quite right, or the context was quite right so English, we should be no we've admitted that he dealt with when there is when there are things that he got right and that the translation we should note that there's so much more that he got wrong that we didn't really time to address all of those every single one of those Mrs. us was move on to the second one. So it's a title Paul Nyberg assuming never proving us so scriptural to refute. If the company stops nature of the book of Abraham. So that's the second article that Boylan wrote sources also from every 13th 2021 so this article says a Brett Dennis LDS debate upon Nürnberg XL DSU sadly has embraced Protestantism in." Galatians 1 is a false gospel. As expected, much of Nürnberg's "arguments assume that the Protestant doctrine of souls. Keturah Brent since around the 50 minute 3053 second mark. Note the following comment.

I think this is a comment from you is he quoting yeah I think is going Protestant Christians take the view stated plainly by RC Sproul the only source the norm for all Christian knowledge is holy Scripture and then at the that's in a quote and that the 52 minute 37 second mark in time-honored manner of Protestant apologists.

He assumes second Timothy 316 teach us all skip tour without providing an iota of exegesis to see how this is not the case and that Paul's guilty of cultic exegesis of second Timothy 316 see an article in an article not by Scripture alone.

A latter-day St. reputation of Torah.

See Boylan the says on the book of Abraham itself. I was hoping to debate a Catholic apologist on the book of Abraham, but one this Roman Catholic apologist wanted to date all LDS control texts in a singular debate which would be akin to me wanting to debate all purported instances of people error in a singular debate and to they refused to debate a Roman Catholic dogma icon veneration-online.

What would have been my opening statement slides online is the book of Abraham. Evidence for authenticity and a being a script script is allowed to impact their LS comment the last bits and are irrelevant.

But what's what he think about this article.

Again, I would say Boylan is Miss understanding or misrepresenting my case I did not quote second Timothy 316, to suggest that it teaches solo script, Torah, the reason I did not do that is because at the time that second Timothy 316, was written, the New Testament canon was not complete so I don't believe that that is a bit for that passage is a case for solo script Torah and go to Tacoma jump back to his title upon Nürnberg assuming never proving solo script Torah to refute that that the operator stops nature of the book of Abraham.

I didn't assume solo script tour to refute the book of Abraham as Scripture. My case was very specifically Joseph Smith claimed acts it's not acts, therefore, not Scripture.

So might my case was not solo script Torah. Only the Bible therefore book of Abraham is not Scripture students. Again, I know that you solo script tour is kind of a hobbyhorse for Boylan and I look forward to hearing Jeremy Howard debate him on that topic but my point was never to assume solo script tour and my argument where I referenced scroll in his statement about solo script Torah was simply to draw a distinction between the way Protestant Christians reason to what is Scripture verses how latter-day Saints reason to what is Scripture and I presented myself my case, I think pretty clearly yeah and I think I presented the latter-day St. case fairly and referencing common consent and the way that works are accepted as Scripture within the latter-day St. faith versus how works are accepted as Scripture in the Protestant faith that was simply my point not to assume solo script Torah and exclude the book of Abraham outright.

I think I also think I was fair to latter-day Saints and saying okay, let's look at the case. Joseph Smith made for what he had.

Let's answer the question, is it what he said he had if it's not, it's not ancient Scripture in the in the sense that it's not an ancient text written by the patriarch Abraham by revelation. That's great. Yeah, I didn't get the sense of that's what you're saying and what I want when I was listening but at the same time.

What times will here was somebody saying and can fill in the dots either because they maybe they didn't explain it well enough. Or maybe because that's just how the human brain works like to take shortcuts. Maybe that's what happened. There is a team thought you were using it to prove something when that wasn't what you're trying to do so yeah so great that we can address that.

So also after that we wanted to address.

We actually had some comments on our YouTube video after the fact so wasn't the live chat. It was the is a common sectional YouTube video after the fact. And so this family's latter-day St. Richard Holmes. He made comments so I will read those comments. So, this is Richard Holmes comment the translation/revelation from the obvious true prophet Joseph Smith was never like the uninvited apologist and anti-Mormons assumed are supposed to concur with the translation from that of the Egyptologists. In other words, the translation/revelation. Joseph Smith was never supposed to match up with that of the Egyptian mythology in order to be seen as being translated correctly as a Smith translated in reverse back to a biblical text. The original this is proper interpretation and he also said so. He said Google quote book of Mormon book of Abraham apart. Want to know why Egyptologists are wrong.

New" is a video from one from one by the name of Paul Gregerson Gregerson first debunked Egyptologists in 2014 video debunking the lies from the anti-Mormons, like the above on those accounts he left he left someone runs with those of the relevant ones. So we watch the video and sewed. Do you want to first comment about Richard's comments and then about the video are. I really wanted to. This poem yeah I think maybe just a few comments on Richards comments and and then will talk about the video first law want to say no I'm I'm glad Richard listens. I'm glad that she engaged and then provided his thoughts. I appreciate that what Jeremy said these types of debates, especially when done respectfully help to further the dialogue between Christians latter-day Saints something for that that Richard listened and you know he mentions that the Egyptologists are uninvited.

The one comment I would make on that is that latter-day St. Egyptologists have looked at the papyri. Milstein, Michael Rhodes and innovative their thoughts on them and I think because of what were dealing with, which are, as I argued in the debate actual authentic ancient Egyptian papyri because of that's because that's what they are uninvited or not. Non-latter-day St. Egyptologists I think are welcome to weigh in and say okay what does what does this papyri the Joseph Smith mean had mean what it what is it what is actually how was it used within Egyptian religious practice and send burial rights.

I think it's holy, holy, respectable and right for them to do so. It helps to further the understanding of what were what were looking on with the claims that it what the claims were the Smith made so I'm glad they weigh in, because for me it it it has allowed me to think through and what do I believe, why do I believe it is what I believe reasonable is a stand up to scrutiny. Those are all questions that I asked myself as a latter-day St. that ultimately helped lead me to leave that faith because I by studying and trust that that God was leading me in my study because my my desire was to stay close to God and through that led me to to Stephen that I don't think the claims of Joseph Smith are reliable.

Are there or stand up to scrutiny. So yeah I'm I'm thankful that the non-Mormon Egyptologists, even though it's a for them for someone like Robert Brickner is a side project to the scholarship that she does normally within the digital logical community but I'm glad that he doesn't ethics your comments.

I love that just to bring it back and into Canada round out what you're saying Ruben Clark" always I was like dozen fateful letter to see the questioning latter-day St. in a form latter-day St. E said that's if we have the truth cannot be harmed by investigation if we have not truth it ought to be harmed and there is also quote us trying to find for Brigham Young where he said something along the lines of the of the Bible, the book of Mormon and the revelations any business at square them up with each other and judge whether there basically is that they match up together so we kind it was inviting this investigation.

This is scrutiny of what they believe to see if they match. So to kind of assert that in uninvited edits, like saying well but out. This isn't doesn't belong to you. It doesn't really match up with and what Brigham Young and other offensive invited them to do so in terms of the video that Paul Gregerson posted so he has like seven or eight or maybe even nine.

Now parts to his book of Abraham videos so he the one that Richard Holmes like the studio is just part one is kind introduction to all the rest is videos and it's basically saying what Richard Holmes said, he says to quote him again. He says, in other words, the translation/revelation from Joseph Smith was never supposed to match up with that of Egyptian mythology in order to be seen.

It as being transited correctly. So what do you think about these comments and I'll Gregerson's video – so having watched Paul Gregerson's video. I think what I would say is that he kinda starts off his video by making some really grandiose claims about his method of arguing for the scriptural nature of book of Abraham because it really doesn't argue, as Brett tries to do for the reliability and authenticity of the book of Abraham being in some way connected with the papyri rather, he argues more from there being a kind of an esoteric spiritual connection between certain passages in the book of Abraham and passages in the Bible but is video really starts out like us there was some very grandiose claims.

Here's my I'm Paul Gregerson. I've got this argument that no Christian mental critic of the LDS church is ever been able to refute. I had I don't respond well to those types of grandiose claims that just think it is valid and it's that I guess it's the bluster that I don't have is just not my thing on my personality but the yeah that's my initial thought on them. The first part of his video. Maybe we should share some of his video and talk about leaving and he found that listed here got Paul Gregerson's video, so let's listen first little bit just in a quick thumbs up a master plan to make sure this audio and video is working for you quite can make my formula for symbolism, revelation, greatest mystery is no faced understanding of the symbolism of Daniel and John for the first time in world history. Explain the 666 how this puzzle goes first time church. This is your shot.

This is your big chance to look foolish together correctly, mathematically single guys, this is your chance to make more challenge.

Right now all others who want to be wrong with a controversy over the cell is factored by misinformation centered around Egyptian style facsimiles that Joe's success misinformation is fully many people only works if you read which explains why painting pictures which he claimed was just as Scripture is only my witness be likely pictures of Sue's.

This is obviously one of the things angels is a great target for today's grace.

However, don't seem to care. Want to ask why these facsimiles will today stand one in the beginning of the book in chapter 1 tells us exactly why they so these figures at the beginning so that you may have an understanding of how these false gods are the context of fashion. The copy false gods confidence of the true God so hard time understanding why people are confused. Your text is clear.

Egyptians copying the patriarchal priesthood. They were seeking to earnestly imitate your imitate means counterfeit text. This is the curse of idolatry.

Because of their imitating order of God's authority which cursed the land of Egypt was alive. 124 I was stopped there for a second and make some comments so I remember when I first click the link from our listeners, and started watching this video from Paul Gregerson kind economies by surprises argument and then Matthew, correct me if you think I'm misunderstanding him. He seems to be arguing that Smith added the facsimiles to the book of Abraham to demonstrate how the Egyptians copying the authentic and true religion tried to counterfeited rhyme and he cites to book of Abraham chapter 1 verse 14 as being the words of Smith explaining why she included the facsimiles this to my understanding is argument correctly do think that's that's what I understood pretty much that that there that there is this original worship and that like you said the Egyptians try to copy that worship with their false gods and idols and so Joseph Smith wasn't trying to translate to what the Egyptians believed he was trying to get back to what was originally copied by the Egyptian yeah I think both are understanding correctly what Paul Gregerson arguing, share my screen began to look at the actual text of the book of Abraham and the surrounding verses to the one he's quoting right so here's book of Abraham chapter 1 she quoted verse 14. If you look at this chapter. It begins in the land of the Chaldeans at the residence of my father I Abraham saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence so that the narrative starts out as a first person account of Abraham and then you continue on through here and Abraham describes his desire to have the priesthood of the fathers.

Be a person of righteousness. More and more about the fathers not trying to minimize what's being said here and just try to make the case that all of this is presented by Smith as a first person account of Abraham, which is consistent with with Smith's claim that what he had on the papyri were the writings of Abraham. If you get to verse 414 and you're going to assert that this is Joseph Smith making an editorial aside. Sorry if you assume that verse 14 is Joseph Smith making an editorial aside for why she included the facsimiles I I just can't buy that argument because within the narrative of what Joseph produced.

This is Abraham explaining why she included the facsimiles which are purported to be, specifically with reference to facsimile one which is purported to be Abraham on what he's saying where's that he calls the bed like unto a bedstead here in verse 13 Ryan that the alternate Abraham is purportedly being sacrificed on in facsimile one is referenced as being after the form of a bedstead, as was had among the Chaldeans, stood before the gods of Ellicott Alcan live no matter my mock rock core ash and also God likened to that of Pharaoh king of Egypt secure Smith is just reproducing his descriptions of facsimile one and I just don't think it holds, to argue that verse 14 is Smith making an editorial aside for why she included the facsimile what you think Matthew yet many still so he may be asserting that it's that's on editorial insert in verse 14 Smith, he might be asserting that trying to understand. Maybe he was saying that it was meant to be written in the text by Abraham. However the translation. It is a Smith gave us doesn't match up with the Egyptologists translation but the doubt was intended from the beginning but then that doesn't make sense to me because the gods that Abraham points to and here this Alcan.

I live not a mock crime core ash.

They don't have any corresponding connection to any actual idolatrous gods of Pharaoh right now so I'm still saying here that these are the names of idolatrous gods of Pharaoh, but what it sound like he was saying is that it's the gods that were the idolatrous gods in the original facsimiles were not what was originally intended by Abraham. Did you see what I mean. I think that's what he saying because he he says why would you include idolatrous pagan gods in your Scriptures is that like basically telling people to you pagan worship. But in the text itself. Abraham explains why includes a dinner he does include them in there to worship them includes them as part of the historical narrative of saying I was put on this altar. You know they were going to sacrifice me to their gods and so it's just it's there is like a historical recounting of the events as is not there to say. Here's his peers. These idolatrous gods that you should worship so I was confused why he made that argument. See what I mean yeah I view Suleman because I'm confused by this well I'm trying to understand why why Paul Gregerson would mean that just doesn't make sense if I guide him yeah I can make sense of it. That's all confusing up.

I like to trade interacting with them before in the past and it it was all it was a struggle so let's go back and see what else you might say yeah. Caesar gets nuclear as these facsimiles are counterfeit is because it's all about us translating these things in the English translate is only a Scripture.

This is about exposing something for just a minute and talk about what he said there is talks about the facsimiles being from this. This is why is argument is hard for me to understand because he seems to want to be distant, saying the facsimiles from from the book of Abraham, but there being included to show how the Egyptians tried to steal the true religion. That's why either Joseph Smith or Abraham depending on the love to get Paul Gregerson's thoughts on when he says the prophet, the steaming's method is immune.

Abraham but there being included to show that the idolatrous nature of the Egyptians.

But what doesn't make sense about it is that facsimile one and Joseph since explanation of it is Abraham being sacrifice or or the enclosed stock price communally wasn't, but being close sacrifice on an Egyptian altar by an Egyptian priest in the land of were the Kolbe's rhyme, the Egyptologists have told us that this is a common funerary tax some the elements are missing from the bed of the damage. The pirated score of the peptide refinements we have a facsimile water damage so Smith re-created basically pasted them to a piece of paper and drew in where the holes were what he thought was there and that is not correct.

For example you see in the video here by figure 3. This human head in many other representations of this scene in Egyptian funerary texts.

This is a jackal head of Anubis and so he seems to want to be arguing that and and I think it is. I think it's an attempt it's another attempt to distance the facsimiles from West Smith produced and the reason the reason Mormon apologists do this is because of that the crux of the argument of our debate.

When you dig into the details of the facsimiles the papyri that are extant that we have and can be examined. West Smith produced does not represent what is there. This is a somewhat convoluted argument to try to get around that.

I think that so much what you think about my commentary there. Matthew yeah I agree that's it's like if if you just read the text and compared to the facsimiles it make it.

It seems like it's a seamless narrative in all it's all Sica when you write a children's book, I am not trying to be insulting. I'm just to boil it down in a children's book any of the picture. The picture should match the text.

If the picture doesn't match the text.

The kids can get confused and so when you just read expiration adjustment had of the facsimiles is the text they match so this explanation that the facsimiles are a fraud. And they're not actually what they're supposed to be, or in a just the transiting something else or each is you has nothing to do with the text just doesn't make sense to just scan it.

I Understand why how you can make that assertion unless if you want to be go back to where we are talking out before a lot of Mormon apologists are saying to the slave didn't know what it was that he was translating. He thought he was translating from the fiery, but really is getting something else but it seemed and it seems like that's what that's the vibe that I got from Mr. Gregerson. Here is what he saying is that's what Egyptologists can actually translate and verify is not what Joseph Smith was intending to produce.

And when you when you make that assertion goes into the realm of well what were what were claiming here is unfalsifiable is a completely spiritual document and so there's no way that you can actually disprove it. And at that point it's it's a matter of faith and that you know you can't really debate someone is as well. This is just what I believe in all but without so much as that was saying he he seemed to be saying that this is something that you can actually verify by translation… An actual historical document that I'm translating which can be which is falsifiable of what he and other bulges seem to be saying is that no not part or all of it is not human related to actual papyri itself, which makes it unfalsifiable them yeah and and facsimile one is directly tied to become Abraham chapter 1 verse 14 which Mr. Gregerson quotes from where it is you are saying and in a seamless narrative seems to be Abraham saying hey I'm including this drawing of me being sacrificed so you can understand what to talk about with it with you being sacrifice of these idolatrous gods as if if that's the case then okay so let's let's go back and talk about okay so the argument that Gregerson and some others seem to want to make is the book of Abraham English text is representative truly of what Abraham wrote the papyri including the facsimiles represent a corrected copy okay and this is this is where our listener. Richard gets into calling me dishonest and and you know I'm okay with that. Not because I think I'm dishonest but I do get the baby from his perspective. He thinks that I am but let me let me explain myself. I'm not unaware of the argument that that is being made. There, that the fact that the fiery may be represent a corrupted copy of what Abraham actually wrote. I'm not aware. I'm not aware of it because it's presented in the pearl of great price student manual that I have from from my time as a missionary. When I ordered the D LDS Institute manuals to better understand what I believed the boys been somebody wanted to study and understand the and and and believe in things that were verifiable since August. I was studious as a mission LDS missionary C-arm. I'm aware that that argument is made both there and in the recent church essay that we talked about extensively, and in the debate so that the claim is made that the papyri represent a corruption later corruption later corrected copy of of Abraham's narrative, the Smith restored to your point. Matthew that is completely unfalsifiable. There's nothing you could do to argue against that because nobody how are you doing now we go to Mr. to Mr. Gregerson's, bluster and what I would say to that is I don't think it comports with what Smith presented to his contemporaries.

I don't think Smith's contemporaries would've made these convoluted arguments that that modern LDS apologists make they believed that what Smith had he was representing an English what was on the papyri and back then that was unfalsifiable because there was no one in the United States who were the world really who truly understood Egyptian until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone which comes after Smith's production of the book of Abraham.

So in both cases, what the LDS want to present as it is a completely unfalsifiable claim and you know that's when we think about the obvious faith being a religion that claims that the biblical text was corrupted by scribal errors to the to such an extent that plan, and precious truths are missing to such an extent that those plan precious truths would have to be restored to Joseph Smith, all of these are claims made by Joseph Smith, all of these are claims that are falsifiable when you actually look at what Smith produced, compared with what we have in the primary with regard to the book of Abraham, or what we have in the transmission and send documentary evidence that we have for the Bible.

The biblical texts. Smith's corrections in the JST art aren't supported by wise claim so you know, yeah, unfalsifiable claims, I don't deal in those anymore. I yeah so it's I tried talking to.

I tried talking Mr. Harrison about that pretty much because later videos he makes connections between figures 9 through 11, and facsimile number two in poinsettia scriptures that just happen have the verse numbers nine through 11 and I'm like well you know that when God gives Scripture eating diverse numbers so you know how to hunt it as I work in 90s in his ear as it is difficult to talk to him because it it was like the same thing.

It's it's like there's there's no way to really refute somebody you make that assertion them do need to go on to think with his video or do you think the crux of his argument has been addressed yeah think that's a pretty good at them suggested we could do like a old wicked like a nine part series are just watch the entire videos and address everything.

It's pretty interesting. Towards the end he also got a video where the book of Abraham predicted 9/11. I think we should we should we start by that. Okay okay with diagnosing the king, he kinda goes into like this whole idea that the book of Abraham predicts end times rights that's eschatological items. I don't remember reading anything of Abraham that that goes there but he finds it. If it's entertaining event.

Not really a historical yeah I may not really a solid method to execute the text.

Sure, that's pretty much all you want to talk about to do anything else wide ramp locus one think think our listeners for tuning in listening to the debate. And of course let us know as we said at the end of the day. If there's other topics you want to hear us debate will try to find a letter since willing to talk to us about them. And if you if somebody else has more comments about the debate or about this episode, it can leave it in our Facebook group or they can leave it on the YouTube channel so there is is they can contact us and we love we love any can responses so just let us know. So thank you for tuning in and I will see next time