Joseph Smith lied about the Book of Abraham +2

Reasons to agree: 7

1. One of the worst things is people who are confident, but are wrong. Joseph smith confidently proclaimed the translation of the facsimiles in the Pearl of Great Price. He was completely wrong. Not even close. When someone gets things this wrong, you must assume, what other things did he just make up? 


2. Joseph lied when he described his process as a translation. 


3. Joseph Smith described his work as translating from the papyrus that he found. Modern scholars have proven that Smiths translation does not match the original papyrus. Perhaps Joseph Smith was really inspired. Perhaps the information is really from God. However, you should not lie to exaggerate or misrepresent what really happened. It is wrong to lie. It is wrong to say you translated, if you are just getting thoughts and ideas that are unrelated to what is on a papyrus. Henry B. Eyring said that God did not need something written down on papyrus in order to get his message to us. Of course he is right, but Joseph shouldn't have acted like he was translating. In order to still believe the Church is true, you have to believe that Joseph was sort of a charlatan, but that God used a boastful, exaggerating, man to bring forth the truth. This is probably not the case. 


4. In the Times and Seasons Joseph presented, and other Church leaders continued to present drawings with interpretations that have been proven to be wrong.


5. Modern scholars, including Mormon scholars, date the papyri to a few hundred not thousands of years before Christ, but Joseph Smith said that Abraham wrote on the scrolls with his own hand. 


6. It seems that Joseph invented hieroglyphic characters to fill in for missing characters lost by the lacuna 


7. According to Smith, the book was "a translation of some ancient records ... purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus". However they are actually commonly used funderal texts, and were not written by the Prophet Abraham.

Reasons to disagree: 3

1. John Laurence Gee (born 1964) is an American Latter-day Saint and Egyptologist at Brigham Young University (BYU) who is known for his writings in support of the Book of Abraham.


2. The phrase "by his own hand" can simply mean that Abraham is the author of the book. Similarly, we could hold a modern printed Bible in our hands, point to 1 Corinthians, and say, "This was written by the Apostle Paul." 


3. Joseph was translating the writings of Abraham, so it is quite possible that he believed that the actual scroll in his possession was written by Abraham himself. There is no evidence, however, that this belief was based on revelation.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +7

# of reasons to disagree: -3

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: -0

Total Idea Score: +4

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

Website that agree

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham


2. http://www.bookofabraham.info/


3. http://ldsdebate.blogspot.com/search/label/Book%20of%20Abraham

Websites that disagree

1. 
   

Images That agree

Figure	Joseph Smith Explanation[40]	Explanation by non-Mormon and Mormon Egyptologists (quotes are from Deveria 1860)[25][41][42][43][44][45]
1	The Angel of the Lord.	"The soul of Osiris (which should have a human head)"
2	Abraham fastened upon an altar.	"Osiris coming to life on his couch, which is in the shape of a lion"
3	The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.	"The God Anubis (who should have a jackal's head) effecting the resurrection of Osiris"
4	The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah [sic], Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.	"The funeral bed of Osiris"
5	The idolatrous god of Elkenah.	Canopic jar portraying Qebehsenuf with a falcon's head - one of thefour sons of Horus
6	The idolatrous god of Libnah.	Canopic jar portraying Duamutef with a jackal's head - one of the four sons of Horus
7	The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.	Canopic jar portraying Hapy with an ape's head - one of the four sons of Horus
8	The idolatrous god of Korash.	Canopic jar portraying Imsety with a human head - one of the four sons of Horus
9	The idolatrous god of Pharaoh.	"The sacred crocodile, symbolic of the god Sedet"
10	Abraham in Egypt.	"Altar laden with offerings"
11	Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.	"An ornament peculiar to Egyptian art"
12	Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.	"Customary representation of ground in Egyptian paintings (The word Shauman is not Egyptian, and the Hebrew word is badly copied)"

Parents who love their children cannot afford to be intimidated by them

Reasons to agree

1. Your job, as a parent, isn't to let children learn from their own mistakes, but to protect them while they are young from setting bad habits, and to try to get them to learn from other people's mistakes.


2. Children might not be aware they are in danger.


3. Children are stupid adults.


4. Children are children.


5. You can destroy your life, if you get trapped in drugs, alcohol, or unhealthy sexual relationships.


6. People who are intimidated will defer, and you should not defer to children on important things.

Reasons to agree

1. You can't control your children. Children are going to eventually make up their own minds and so you should let them learn from their own mistakes.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 5

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

Sleepovers are bad

Reasons to agree

1. Too many youth try alcohol for the first time at a sleepover.
2. Too many youth try tobacco for the first time at a sleepover.
3. Too many youth have their first exposure to pornography at a sleepover.
4. Peer pressure becomes more powerful when our children are away from our influence.
5. Our defenses are weakened late at night.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 5

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

(+5) Families should spend time together once a week

Reasons to agree

1. Parenting is rewarding if you do a good job.


2. Children need a good relationship with their parent.


3. Families that play together stay together.


4. If you don't make it a goal to do every week, it will not get done.


5. If you have time to watch TV you have time to spend with your family.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 5

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

The Kindle is better than the Nook

Lead Editor: Mike Laub Just tell me your e-mail address, and you can contribute! Reasons to agree: % The Kindle cost $10 less than the Nook. The kindle is 8.7 ounces, the Nook is 11.2 ounces (28% heavier).  The Kindle has new and improved "Pearl" e-ink screen.         R2A(+): 1       R2AA(+): 0       R2DA(-): 0        Reasons to disagree: % The Kindle can not read files in the EPUB format.         R2D(-): 0       R2AD(-): 0       R2DD(+): 0        Total Score: 1 Most Probable interest of those who agree:  % Validating the decision they already made. Most Probable interest of those who disagree: % Validating the decision they already made. Books that can be said to agree: % Books that can be said to disagree: %   People that agree: People that disagree: Webpages that agree: ?  Webpages that disagree: ? Values that agree: Values that disagree:   It is nerdy to analyze issues with this much detail.

America should be a good republic, and not try to be an empire.

Reasons to Agree:

1. We just want to create a good place for our people to live. America should focus on internal prosperity rather than expanding its global influence.
2. Empires historically collapse due to overreach. Rome, Britain, and the Soviet Union all fell when they stretched too far.
3. Military expansion is financially unsustainable. Global military bases and interventions cost trillions of dollars, money that could be used for healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
4. Republican values oppose imperialism. The U.S. was founded on self-governance and democracy, not ruling over other nations.
5. Empire-building creates unnecessary enemies. Intervening in other countries often leads to backlash and long-term instability.

---

Reasons to Disagree:

1. A strong global presence ensures national security. The U.S. deters threats by maintaining military bases and alliances worldwide.
2. Economic dominance benefits Americans. U.S. influence in global trade and financial systems helps maintain a strong economy.
3. Vacuum of power would be filled by rivals. If the U.S. withdraws, China or Russia could take its place as the dominant global power.
4. Soft power requires global leadership. The U.S. spreads democratic values through its influence, diplomacy, and strategic presence.

---

Most Probable Interest of Those Who Agree:

• Prioritizing domestic well-being over foreign intervention.
• Limiting military spending to reinvest in infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
• Supporting non-interventionist foreign policy.

---

Most Probable Interest of Those Who Disagree:

• Protecting national security through global military presence.
• Maintaining economic and political influence worldwide.
• Ensuring the U.S. remains the dominant global power.

---

Books That Agree:

• The Costs of Empire by Andrew Bacevich
• Republic, Not an Empire by Patrick Buchanan
• The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John Mearsheimer

---

Books That Disagree:

• The Case for American Empire by Max Boot
• The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski

---

Most Likely Benefits:

• Reduced military spending, allowing investment in domestic programs.
• Less global conflict involving the U.S.
• Stronger economic stability with focus on national industries.

---

Local, Federal, and International Laws That Agree:

• U.S. Constitution emphasizes limited government and non-aggression.
• International sovereignty laws support non-interventionism.

---

Evidence Scores:

• High evidence linking overreach to collapse in past empires.
• Economic studies on the cost of maintaining global military presence.

---

Songs That Agree:

• Born in the U.S.A. – Bruce Springsteen
• Fortunate Son – Creedence Clearwater Revival

---

People Who Agree:

• Ron Paul – Advocate of non-interventionism.
• Tulsi Gabbard – Critic of American military overreach.

---

People Who Disagree:

• John Bolton – Former National Security Advisor, supports interventionist policies.
• Henry Kissinger – Advocate of U.S. global leadership.

---

Images That Can Be Said to Agree:

• Image of the Founding Fathers drafting the Constitution.
• Political cartoons showing the dangers of imperial overreach.

---

Videos That Agree:

• YouTube video: The Fall of Empires
• Lecture by John Mearsheimer on great power politics.

---

Objective Criteria for Assessing This Belief:

• Economic cost-benefit analysis of empire vs. republic.
• Historical case studies of successful vs. failed superpowers.

---

Media That Supports This Belief:

• Documentaries on the decline of empires.
• News articles on the cost of U.S. foreign policy.

---

Interests & Motivations Template:

• Template for analyzing why people support or oppose this belief.

Value Validity: Equality

The numbering system below describes a system that scores groups of people within a range of 1 to 10 by how much they value equality.

1. These people undervalue equality. People who value equality at a 1, do not value equality very much. These people are willing to accept inhuman, or even unnatural cruelty to others, or specific groups of people. They do not value all life equally. People from their group (family, race, nationality) are acceptable, however they give little or no concern to those from other groups, or actively seek to harm those from other groups. 


2.  


3.  


4.  


5.  


6.  


7.   


8.  


9.  


10. These people over value equality. Someone who overvalues an otherwise positive value like equality would be willing to sacrifice other good values in order to satisfy equality. These people not only are willing to steel from Peter to give to Paul, but are willing to trample all over such concepts as "freedom of choice", the "law of the harvest", justice, or reasonable application of mercy in order to ensure that Peter does not have anything more than Paul. An example of someone who is overly concerned with equality hate the strong, powerful, or beautiful. These people are not just concerned about equality of opportunity, but also equality of outcome. They are willing to sacrifice freedom, and require massive amounts of power in order to guarantee the outcome that they see fit. They don't care if anyone is happy, just that no one is more happy than others. They are so concerned with equality, that they can not accept that truly evil might be sad, or noble people to experience any happiness. They feel bad for Hitler. These people would say that no tradition, no norm, no action is wrong, or worse than other actions. It is wrong to say that someone is bad, and another person is good. We are all equal, and therefore everyone can be whatever they want as long as it is not better than someone else.