These arguments cndartoict each other. Either Joseph Smith used the manuscript revealed in 1966 or he did not. Do they cndartoict? Why couldn't it be both? I can write a book based partially on interviews, and partly on research, can I not? Then why couldn't the book of Abraham be part translation and part inspiration? The problem with the first argument is that the manuscript was accepted by the Mormon hierarchy and Hugh Nimbley as the authentic manuscript Joseph Smith used. Was it? Was it accepted as the sole manuscript Joseph used? Was it accepted as a source of translation, a source of inspiration, or a mixture of both? And could we not suppose, for the sake of argument, that Nibley and the Mormon hierarchy were wrong? Would that make the book of Abraham inauthentic, or merely show once again, as has never been disputed, that mere mortal men are imperfect and sometimes misled?“Scholars conclude that the recovered papyri are portions of the originals partly based on the fact that the fragments were pasted onto paper which had “drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area” on the back and were accompanied by an affidavit by Emma Smith stating that they had been in the possession of Joseph Smith.[11].”Portions of the original what? Portions of the scrolls that were recovered along with the scrolls from which the book of Abraham was translated? Portions of the scrolls that served as the source of the translation? Also should we really be trusting Wikipedia to lead us through this discussion? I trust Wikipedia for unimportant stuff, but not so much for this type of stuff. The problem with the second argument, is that Joseph Smith specifically used the word “translation” to describe what he was doing: Does that mean he was actually translating all the time? According to many accounts, including that of his wife, Joseph Smith was a bit of a backwoods ignoramus. Can we be sure that when he used the word translating that he meant what we mean when we use the same word? I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hiero

You’ve got it in one. Couldn’t have put it btteer.

Marta verta visu bapkiu ir daug daugiau. Bet man siaip idomu - kas yra LDS???? Menininku socialinis projektas? Nu gal ir gerai? juk jei lds visais nabagais negaletu rupintis tai valstybe vistiek jais kazkaip tures rupintis. Bet palaukite, girdejau kad sudalyvauti toje siaubingoje parodoje LDS nariai dar turejo susimoketi.... Kazkas turi atsitoketi. Kas tas tas LDS? Gudruciu lizdelis???

na nesutinku, jei uz mano sumoketus izdo mokescius menininkas tik bezdalus leidzia,- vadinasi nenusipelno stipendijos ir tegu grazina pagal reglamenta ka dykai gavo. ir Gryte, kol kas, portretu alejos niekur dar nerode, a?

Nepavydėkite Martai stipendijos, pavydėkite grožio ir talento!

o Marta uz valstybine stipendija tik tiek isspaude, kur ataskaitine paroda?

Kai viename tekste susitinka dvi tokios aistringos personos, Monika ir Marta, - tai yra Dieviška!