Apoyeque is the second greatest evidence

[_Shulem]

I entirely second Fence Sitter. Shulem get SCHOLARLY for Clark, because Clark is nothing but a knowledgable gent. Quit the name calling, and substantially discuss the evidence. Polemics be damned, lets see what you two have. I really like both of you and respect your knowledge. TEACH US with a great discussion, don't let it denigrate into a name calling fest.

I hear what you're saying but I just don't feel like it. Sigh.

Tomorrow I'm going to Six Flags over Texas and am going to ride all the roller coasters. Got the platinum flash pass so I'm skipping the lines. I think the coasters are what I need right now.

[_Themis]

The question is how the vignette was used in its 1st century context. Which, of course, is speculative.

Shulem is correct that it is not speculative at all. One of the major problems for those who believe Joseph is iconography of fac 3, but worse is that the text explaining the scene is also part of fac 3. Together they leave no reasonable doubt about what the scene is about and that still leaves out two other facsimiles that show they same story line. And that still leaves out all the pages of text telling us the same story we see in the facsimiles. Not to mention that Abraham is a fictional character. This and a bunch of other biblical characters is of course a major problem for Mormonism that Christianity can at least deal with.

[_canpakes]

I was down wind of St Helen when it exploded and experienced the complete darkness. It was not a vapor it was clearly dust. You could feel and handle the dust. It did not prevent other forms of light and certainly did not prevent fire from burning.

Relevant point is relevant.

Less relevant, but observed when reading through the passage in context, and especially this verse:

19 And it came to pass that when the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the storm, and the tempest, and the quakings of the earth did cease—for behold, they did last for about the space of three hours; and it was said by some that the time was greater; nevertheless, all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hours—and then behold, there was darkness upon the face of the land.

... once you read this in the spoken voice of our current President, you might never be able to unhear it that way. It's as if it channels his style perfectly were he ever to pepper his tweets with a little Old English.

There's probably a reason for that ...

[_Shulem]

Truthfully, I don't want to argue with Clark. I know, he's a good guy and I don't dislike him in the least. I just understand his position all too well. Been there, done that. It's hard to reach people when they are in that position. He's just not ready to make the big shift yet. He's still trying to work it all out. I completely understand it. He needs to work his way through that maze and explore it until he's ready to make the exit.

I wish you all the best, Clark. I really do.

[_cwald]

Shulem, enjoy your time at Six Flags and then come back and re-engage, because I think you are correct but I need it explained and spelled out because I'm not as smart or educated as Clark or yourself on this issue.

themis wrote: Shulem is correct that it is not speculative at all...

[_Themis]

Truthfully, I don't want to argue with Clark. I know, he's a good guy and I don't dislike him in the least. I just understand his position all too well. Been there, done that. It's hard to reach people when they are in that position. He's just not ready to make the big shift yet.

Yup. Until one wants the truth more then wanting what they believe to be true they are not ready for this kind of information.

[_Themis]

All I'm saying is that the 1st century Roman context matters here a great deal. But you might be right. Even in the 1st century it may just be used traditionally. However not everything was.

How would we tell if it is being used traditionally? By reading the text. Fac 3 has text identifying each participant giving good evidence about what the scene is about and who is represented. Then add in fac 1 and 2. Then add in the best evidence with pages of text very specifically telling us what the story is about. We know both fac1 and 3 belong to the papyri that was rediscovered and that fac 2 is part of the same traditional story of burying ones dead. There is 0 evidence to support any story about Abraham.

The counter-argument would be that since the mummies were found in Thebes it's more likely they're traditional rather than being caught up in Roman syncretism of the 1st century. That is, the argument would be that the burden of proof would be on Mormons to establish a non-standard use of the vignette. I'd certainly agree Mormons have not remotely met that burden of proof. But I don't think that's really what I'm engaging with - although clearly it's what you're focused on.

Mormons have been trying for decades and have not gotten anywhere. Kinda hard when you have the book that tells a different story and no text even hinting at Abraham. I'm curious though what you mean when you say you are trying to engage in something else.