Mormonite Gods
Mark Hines
I have not received a responsible reply to the following previously
posted question: Why is it respectful of the LDS "church" to represent
God with Min (Menu-ka-mut-f), a pagan Egyptian god (Figure 7 of
Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham) who has an erect penis? The question
merits repetition until there is a responsible reply from an official
"church" representative. In Figure 7, Mormons also represent the Holy
Ghost with the ithyphallic (with erect penis) god Nehebkau, and in
Figure 3, Mormons represent God with the Egyptian sun god Re (Ra), even
though God finds all Egyptian gods abhorrent in His sight (see Ezekiel
20:7-8, Jeremiah 43:12-13 et al.). God calls the gods of Egypt "idols"
(Ezekiel 20:8) and He says that idolaters will not inherit the kingdom
of God (1 Cor. 6:9). How can Mormons represent God with that which He
utterly detests? Do they think it a small matter to anger God? When LDS
die, how can they anticipate anything other than what God promised
idolaters?
----- snip -----
To Mormons, the Pearl of Great Price is one of four books accepted as
scripture, on equal holiness and authority with the Bible. To informed
Christians, it is pornographic, idolatrous filth that honors pagan idols
and disrespects God. One can prove very easily that the Book of Abraham,
a part of the Pearl of Great Price, is of Satan. Facsimile 2 of the Book
of Abraham is known to Egyptologists as a hypocephalus, an Egyptian
funerary amulet. As a part of pagan burial ritual, the hypocephalus was
placed under (hypo) the deceased's head (cephalus) to provide magical
light and warmth. The hypocephalus, as a part of pagan burial
superstition, has no business representing anything claiming to be
"Christian."
For comparison purposes, here is a picture of a hypocephalus that was
made for Lady Takhred-Khonsu, daughter of Khonsu-ir-dis. It is similar
to Joe Smith's Facsimile 2 hypocephalus that was made for a man named
Sheshonq:
Here is this entire article with pictures:
<http://www.freeyellow.com:8080/members7/mjhines/pg.htm>
Mormons should open a copy of the Book of Abraham to the Facsimile 2
picture, and should compare this picture of a hypocephalus with the one
at the above link. It may help them to print out the Takhred-Khonsu
hypocephalus. Various similar features in the two hypocephali include
the sun god Ra (Fig. 3) on his solar bark; Amon-Re (Fig. 2), the
two-headed god with jackal's heads on his shoulders; Thoth's baboons
(Figs. 22-23) who have disks on their heads and who stand in the posture
of adoration; Khnum (Fig. 1), a ram headed god; the hawk (Fig. 4) with
outstretched wings; the four sons of Horus (Fig. 6); the cow goddess
Hathor (Fig. 5); Min and Nehebkau (Fig. 7). Notice that the figures are
drawn in a similar way.
In both hypocephali, Min has an erect penis. In the Takhred-Khonsu
hypocephalus, both Min and Nehebkau, whom Joe Smith says represents
"God" and the "Holy Ghost," face each other with stiff penises. In both
hypocephali, Min has his characteristic hawk's tail, beard and
lightening bolt flail (in the form of a crooked arrow). In both
hypocephali, Nehebkau presents Min with the udjat eye (All-Seeing Eye of
Horus). Mormons should look carefully at the two pagan gods facing each
other with erect penises, and should decide for themselves if the Figure
7 personages whom Joe Smith says represent the LDS "God" and the "Holy
Ghost" are the God and Holy Ghost of the Bible, or whether they are a
different God and Holy Ghost. If after this examination, people remain
in Mormonism, they will not have even the slightest grounds to complain
about their eternal fate in hell. They will have to admit that their
eternal punishment in hell is completely fair and just.
The introduction of Joe Smith's Book of Abraham reads: "A Translation of
some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs
of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book
of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."
In official Mormon writings, Smith claimed not only to translate the
papyri, but to give a "correct translation" of them (History of the
Church, vol. 2, pp. 348, 350-51).
The papyri Smith claimed to translate from Biblical patriarch Abraham's
hand into the Book of Abraham have been shown by top Egyptologists to be
the Book of Breathings, a shortened and later version of the Book of the
Dead. The text has nothing to do with Abraham or his religion.
After examining the Joseph Smith papyri, Dr. John A. Wilson, professor
emeritus of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, said that they made
up a "mortuary text" known as the "Book of Breathings " (Shait en
Sensen) (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, p.68).
Dr. Klaus Baer, associate professor of Egyptology at the University of
Chicago's Oriental Institute, also found the papyri to be the Book of
the Dead. Dr. Baer's translation of the papyri and his explanations
of the Facsimiles had nothing in common with Smith's (Dialogue, Autumn
1968, p.119-20).
Professor Richard A. Parker, chairman of the department of Egyptology at
Brown University, translated Smith's holograph of "Abraham" into about
eighty-seven words as follows:
1. [.....] this great pool of Khonsu
2. [Osiris Hor, justified], born of Taykhebyt, a man likewise.
3. After (his) two arms are [fast]ened to his breast, one wraps the Book
of Breathings, which is
4. with writing both inside and outside of it, with royal linen, it
being placed (at) his left arm
5. near his heart, this having been done at his
6. wrapping and outside it. If this book be recited for him, then
7. he will breath like the soul[s of the gods] for ever and
8. ever (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, p.98).
The papyri are no more than pagan myths related to Egyptian idolatry.
Additionally, Egyptologists date the papyri to about the first century
(Charles Larson, By his own hand upon papyrus, 1992, p. 62.). Since
Abraham lived at least 1,500 years earlier, he could not have hand
written the papyri as Joe Smith had claimed.
In 1842, Joe Smith published Facsimile 2 in the Mormon periodical Times
and Seasons. He published it as a serial of the Book of Abraham.
Claiming that he could explain and translate sections of the picture,
he numbered Figures to facilitate his explanations. So that there is
no suspicion that I have altered Facsimile 2, here is the site of BYU
professor Michael Rhodes:
<http://home.att.net/~michael.rhodes/jshypo.htm>
Here is Joe Smith's explanation of Figure 7 in Facsimile 2:
"Fig. 7. Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the
heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the
Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove."
Professor Rhodes has an article accompanying the hypocephalus graphic.
In his article, Professor Rhodes repeats Smith's explanation. If one
goes to BYU professor Michael Rhodes' link above, one will find Figure 7
in the lower right quadrant of the hypocephalus. Christians will be
aghast to see that Figure 7 is a man with an erect penis. Under Joe
Smith's directions, Reuben Hedlock made woodcuts for the original
facsimiles printed in the Times and Seasons. The Figure 7 man with the
erect penis was in this early 1842 edition. Ashamed and embarrassed,
Mormon officials expunged the erect penis from the 1966 edition of the
Pearl of Great Price, but they returned Min's penis in the 1981 edition.
Their alternately removing and returning it called attention to their
guilt. They were guilty, and they knew it in their hearts.
Even in Smith's day, a moderately retarded person could identify the
sitting person as having an erect penis. Anybody with high school level
reading comprehension skills can read Joe Smith's explanation. Sanity,
common sense, basic decency, etc., tells one that this "prophet" Smith
and his obscene representation of God are of Satan.
Professor Rhodes and professional Egyptologists identify the figure as
Min, an Egyptian fertility god. At his Website, Rhodes identifies the
Figure 7 person as Min, an ithyphallic god. The word "ithyphallic" is
from the Greek word meaning "with erect penis." Min's full Egyptian name
is "Menu-ka-mut-f." The name literally means "Min, Bull of his Mother."
Min, as one might guess from his name, was incestuous with his own
mother. He is usually represented as having an erect penis. In some
hypocephali, Min holds his stiff dick with one hand.
When Klaus Baer, Associate Professor of Egyptology at the University of
Chicago's Oriental Institute, translated the original papyrus (P. JS I)
from which Joe Smith copied the Facsimile 1 vignette of the Book of
Abraham, he found the term "Min Bull-of-his-Mother." (Dialogue: A
Journal of Mormon thought, Autumn 1968, page 116)
Even the Mormon "church" admits that Joe Smith copied the Facsimile 1
vignette from P. JS I: "Only for Facsimile 1 is the original document
known to be extant" (Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism,
New York: MacMillan, 1992, Vol. 1).
Dr. Baer translates columns on the papyrus from which Smith copied
Facsimile 1:
"Lines 1-3 give the titles, name, and parentage of the man for whose
benefit the Breathing Permit was written:
" . . . the prophet of Amonrasonter, prophet [?] of Min
Bull-of-his-Mother, prophet [?] of Khons the Governor . . . Hor,
justified son the holder of the same titles, master of secrets, and
purifier of the gods Osorwer, justified [?] . . . Tikhebyt, justified.
May your ba live among them, and may you be buried in the West. . . .
"Too little is left of line 4 to permit even a guess at what it said.
Insofar as I can make it out, line 5 reads: 'May you give him a good,
splendid burial on the West of just like. . . .'" (Dialogue: A Journal
of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, pp. 116-17).
The epithet "Min Bull-of-his-Mother" refers to the ithyphallic god Min,
whom Egyptologists also find in Smith's Facsimile 2. Min, then, is an
irrefutable tie between Joe Smith's Facsimile 1 and Facsimile 2. Since
even the apologetic Encyclopedia of Mormonism admits that Smith copied
the Facsimile 1 vignette from P. JS I, Mormons are forced to acknowledge
that Min is in their "scripture" of the Book of Abraham, a part of the
Pearl of Great Price.
Anybody who can read Egyptian hieratics can find Min in the writing
around the perimeter of the round hypocephalus. Joe Smith copied
characters from the Sensen (P. JS XI) papyrus to fill in the perimeter
of the hypocephalus. Knowing nothing of hieroglyphic and hieratic
writing, Smith copied some characters upside down in relation to others
(Charles Larson, By his own hand upon papyrus. Institute for Religious
Research, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1992). Since LDS "church" members also
didn't know much about Egyptology, Smith was relatively safe in conning
them.
Joe Smith numbered the writing "Figure 18" and said about the writing:
"will be given in the own due time of the Lord. The above translation is
given as far as we have any right to give at the present time."
Smith's comment "as far as we have any right to give at the present
time" suggests that the writing is holy. Well, let us look at the
writing and see how holy it is. BYU professor and Mormon apologist
Michael Rhodes has translated writing around the perimeter as:
"I am Djabty in the house of Benben in Heliopolis, so exalted and
glorious. [I am] copulating bull without equal. [I am] that mighty god
in the house of Benben of Heliopolis. . . ." (BYU Studies, Spring 1977,
p. 265)
The filth is in both the Egyptian writing and, in case somebody can't
read the Egyptian writing, the sitting Egyptian god with an erection,
whom Joe Smith explains as "God sitting upon His throne." In Facsimile
2, then, Min is identified by both text and a graphic.
To the right of Min in Figure 7 is a slender personage Joe Smith
identifies as the "Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove." What
Smith identifies as the "Holy Ghost" Egyptologists identify as the snake
god Nehebkau, who has arms and legs, but a serpent's body. As an
ithyphallic god, Nehebkau often has an erect penis. In his article,
professor Rhodes also identifies the snake god to the right of Min. The
depiction of Nehebkau at this link was taken from a hypocephalus
designated Leyden AMS 62, a hypocephalus that is similar to Smith's:
Mormons should download and study this picture because in the picture
are the exact personages whom Egyptologists identify as Menu-ka-mut-f
and Nehebkau, and whom Joe Smith identifies as the Mormon "God" and the
"Holy Ghost." What Mormons identify as Holy Scripture, Christians
identify as Satanic.
Dr. Samuel Mercer was one of the eight Egyptian antiquities experts who
were quoted in Franklin S. Spalding's booklet Joseph Smith, Jr., as a
Translator (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Arrow Press, 1912). Dr. Mercer was
distinguished as the custodian of the Hibbard Collection of Egyptian
reproductions, the most complete collection in the United States (The
Utah Survey, vol. 1, no. 1, September, 1913, p. 3). Dr. Mercer agreed
that the ithyphallic god Min and the ithyphallic snake god Nehebkau are
in Figure 7 of Facsimile 2.
Dr. Mercer wrote, "Fig. 7 represents Nehebka, the serpent-god,
presenting an uzat-eye to Horus-Min who is seated. Horus-Min was
formerly sometimes called Horammon. Joseph Smith calls Horus-Min 'God
sitting upon his throne,' and Nehebka, the Holy Ghost 'in the form of a
dove,' the last expression being, of course, an anachronism." (The Utah
Survey, p. 24)
Dr. Mercer wrote, "No one can fail to see that the eight scholars are
unanimous in their conclusions. Joseph Smith has been shown by an
eminently competent jury of scholars to have failed completely in his
attempt or pretense to interpret and translate Egyptian figures and
hieroglyphics." (Ibid., p. 10).
Dr. Mercer observed, "Any pupil of mine who would show such absolute
ignorance of Egyptian as Smith does, could not possibly expect to get
more than zero in an examination in Egyptology." (Improvement Era, vol.
16, p 615.)
Egyptologist Wallis Budge, famous for his Book of the Dead translation,
summed up Joe Smith's translation of the Facsimile 2 hypocephalus as
having "no archeological value" (E. A. Wallis Budge, The Mummy, A
Handbook of Egyptian Funerary Archeology, Dover Publications, New York,
1989, p. 477).
One of the earliest Egyptian antiquities experts to find Smith's
explanation of Facsimiles in the Book of Abraham completely false and to
find "An ithyphallic serpent, with human legs" in Figure 7 of Facsimile
2 was M. Theodule Deveria (Journey to Great Salt Lake City, 1861). Here
are his findings: <www.ortk.org/deveria.htm>
Egyptologist Emily Teeter, associate curator of the Oriental Institute
Museum, University of Chicago, also recently agreed that the seated
figure in Figure 7 "could certainly be Min-ka-mut.f, per the suggestion
of the late Prof. Klaus Baer." (Emily Teeter, letter to Mark Hines, 16
September 1999.)
According to Egyptologists, the two personages in Figure 7 are the
ithyphallic Egyptian gods Min (Menu-ka-mut-f) and Nehebkau. Recently
Dr. James P. Allen, curator of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Department of Egyptian Art, identified both Min and Nehebkau in Figure
7.
In his expert opinion, Egyptologist James Allen sees "no reason to
question the identification of them as a form of Min and Nehebkau,
respectively, since that is what the parallels indicate they are."
(James P. Allen, letter to Mark Hines, 8 September 1999)
This is Smith's explanation of Figure 3 in Facsimile 2:
"Fig. 3. Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with
power and authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head;
representing also the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood, as
revealed to Adam in the Garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah,
Melchizedek, Abraham, and all to whom the Priesthood was revealed."
In Figure 3 of Facsimile 2, Egyptologists immediately recognize the
well-known scene of the hawk-headed god Ra (or Re) with a sun disk on
his head. A sun god, Ra is sitting in his solar bark. In Egyptian
idolatry, the sun was thought to die and be reborn each day. Ra
represents the sun in its daily journey across the firmament, a death,
rebirth and resurrection cycle. Mormon apologist and BYU professor
Michael Rhodes also identifies Ra in Figure 3.
In the Bible, God finds Egyptian gods detestable in His sight. Having
anything to do with these gods is a sure way to anger God and bring down
His fury. Only LDS and other Satanic religions represent God with that
which is an abomination to Him. Do Joe Smith and Mormons think it a
small matter to anger God? In the below NASB Jeremiah 43:13 verse, the
city of heliopolis was a main center for worshipping Ra. The Obelisks
God resolves to shatter are solar symbols. One can count at least
fifteen pagan gods being honored and prayed to in Smith's Facsimiles.
Any attempted justification by LDS "scholars" contradicts specific
teachings in the Bible. God does not want His name mixed or associated
with that of any pagan deities. God repeatedly punished Hebrews for
worshipping Baal or other gods (Judges 2:2-3, 11-15), and God commanded
Hebrews to break off any association with foreign gods.
Joshua 24:14 says: "Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in
sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served
on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord."
So, given God's specific commands, it is unreasonable and illogical to
say that God would use pagan documents containing honorings of the false
gods of Egypt as a way to communicate truth about Himself.
-----Jeremiah 43:
13 He will also shatter the obelisks of heliopolis, which is in the land
of Egypt; and the temples of the gods of Egypt he will burn with fire.
-----Jeremiah 44:
8 In that ye provoke me unto wrath with the works of your hands,
burning incense unto other gods in the land of Egypt, whither ye be gone
to dwell, that ye might cut yourselves off, and that ye might be a curse
and a reproach among all the nations of the earth?
-----Ezekiel 20:
7 Then said I unto them, Cast ye away every man the abominations of his
eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt: I am the LORD
your God.
8 But they rebelled against me, and would not hearken unto me: they did
not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they
forsake the idols of Egypt: then I said, I will pour out my fury upon
them, to accomplish my anger against them in the midst of the land of
Egypt.
-----Exodus 20:
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
-----Deuteronomy 8:19
If you ever forget the Lord your God and follow other gods and worship
and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely
be destroyed."
-----Deuteronomy 11:16
Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods
and bow down to them. Then the Lord's anger will burn against you. . . .
.
God has tremendous love for those LDS who read all of the articles at
the links below and who leave the Satanic LDS "church." If they don't
leave the LDS "church," even though they know better in their hearts,
they show utter disrespect for God and His awesome holiness. How can
Mormons represent God with Min, a pagan god who has an erect penis? A
pagan idol who, according to Egyptian mythology, had sex with his own
mother and who represents beastly sexual lust? The Bible tells us that
people worship demons when they worship gods made with their hands.
Being away from God in blackness and eternal burn pain is going to be
unbearable for those who read this and who choose not to act. God
describes hell as a place where there are a lake of fire (Revelation
20:15), a furnace of fire (Matthew 13:50), everlasting fire (Matthew
25:41), everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46), eternal damnation (Mark
3:29), wailing and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:42), outer darkness and
weeping (Matthew 25:30) torments in flames (Luke 16:24).
________________________
Mark Hines
http://www.freeyellow.com:8080/members7/mjhines/
Akicita
Mark Hines <mjh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3881f148...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>
>
> I have not received a responsible reply to the following previously
> posted question: Why is it respectful of the LDS "church" to represent
> God with Min (Menu-ka-mut-f), a pagan Egyptian god (Figure 7 of
> Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham) who has an erect penis? The question
> merits repetition until there is a responsible reply from an official
> "church" representative. In Figure 7, Mormons also represent the Holy
> Ghost with the ithyphallic (with erect penis) god Nehebkau, and in
> Figure 3, Mormons represent God with the Egyptian sun god Re (Ra), even
> though God finds all Egyptian gods abhorrent in His sight (see Ezekiel
> 20:7-8, Jeremiah 43:12-13 et al.). God calls the gods of Egypt "idols"
> (Ezekiel 20:8) and He says that idolaters will not inherit the kingdom
> of God (1 Cor. 6:9). How can Mormons represent God with that which He
> utterly detests? Do they think it a small matter to anger God? When LDS
> die, how can they anticipate anything other than what God promised
> idolaters?
I'm not a Mormon by ANY means, but I gotta be honest here. I'm looking at my
copy of the BoA right now, and the figure marked "Fig. 7" on page 35 of my
edition (1965 publishing) does not show anything resembling an erection. I'm
not trying to dodge your whopping 21k of arguments, but frankly I just don't
see it. Am I missing something?
TheJordan6
>Date: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 17:53 EST
>Message-id: <7_rg4.15028$Ce.4...@monger.newsread.com>
>
>
>Mark Hines <mjh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:3881f148...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>>
>>
>> I have not received a responsible reply to the following previously
>> posted question: Why is it respectful of the LDS "church" to represent
>> God with Min (Menu-ka-mut-f), a pagan Egyptian god (Figure 7 of
>> Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham) who has an erect penis? The question
>> merits repetition until there is a responsible reply from an official
>> "church" representative. In Figure 7, Mormons also represent the Holy
>> Ghost with the ithyphallic (with erect penis) god Nehebkau, and in
>> Figure 3, Mormons represent God with the Egyptian sun god Re (Ra), even
>> though God finds all Egyptian gods abhorrent in His sight (see Ezekiel
>> 20:7-8, Jeremiah 43:12-13 et al.). God calls the gods of Egypt "idols"
>> (Ezekiel 20:8) and He says that idolaters will not inherit the kingdom
>> of God (1 Cor. 6:9). How can Mormons represent God with that which He
>> utterly detests? Do they think it a small matter to anger God? When LDS
>> die, how can they anticipate anything other than what God promised
>> idolaters?
>
>
>I'm not a Mormon by ANY means,
Whuh happen? You aposasise?
but I gotta be honest here. I'm looking at my
>copy of the BoA right now, and the figure marked "Fig. 7" on page 35 of my
>edition (1965 publishing) does not show anything resembling an erection. I'm
>not trying to dodge your whopping 21k of arguments, but frankly I just don't
>see it. Am I missing something?
The 1965 edition of the PGP had the erect penis deleted. It was restored in
the 1981 edition. Peek at one.
Randy J.
Kilgore Trout
<dbro...@gte.net> wrote:
> I suppose that if the "real" Mormons can
> take the "Mormon" out of the Mormon Tabernacle
> Choir...
When did they do that? Being out of the "celestial loop", I don't hear
these things. Do they just call it the "Tabernacle Choir" now? Why
the change? More attempts at mainstreaming? Preparation for
distancing themselves from the BOM before admitting it's a fraud?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Akicita
TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000116182211...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
> >From: "Akicita" <aki...@telepath.com>
> >Date: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 17:53 EST
> >Message-id: <7_rg4.15028$Ce.4...@monger.newsread.com>
> >
> >
> >Mark Hines <mjh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:3881f148...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> I have not received a responsible reply to the following previously
> >> posted question: Why is it respectful of the LDS "church" to represent
> >> God with Min (Menu-ka-mut-f), a pagan Egyptian god (Figure 7 of
> >> Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham) who has an erect penis? The
question
> >> merits repetition until there is a responsible reply from an official
> >> "church" representative. In Figure 7, Mormons also represent the Holy
> >> Ghost with the ithyphallic (with erect penis) god Nehebkau, and in
> >> Figure 3, Mormons represent God with the Egyptian sun god Re (Ra), even
> >> though God finds all Egyptian gods abhorrent in His sight (see Ezekiel
> >> 20:7-8, Jeremiah 43:12-13 et al.). God calls the gods of Egypt "idols"
> >> (Ezekiel 20:8) and He says that idolaters will not inherit the kingdom
> >> of God (1 Cor. 6:9). How can Mormons represent God with that which He
> >> utterly detests? Do they think it a small matter to anger God? When LDS
> >> die, how can they anticipate anything other than what God promised
> >> idolaters?
> >
> >
> >I'm not a Mormon by ANY means,
>
> Whuh happen? You aposasise?
Naw. I never was a Mormon. I'm Reorg.
> but I gotta be honest here. I'm looking at my
> >copy of the BoA right now, and the figure marked "Fig. 7" on page 35 of
my
> >edition (1965 publishing) does not show anything resembling an erection.
I'm
> >not trying to dodge your whopping 21k of arguments, but frankly I just
don't
> >see it. Am I missing something?
>
> The 1965 edition of the PGP had the erect penis deleted. It was restored
in
> the 1981 edition. Peek at one.
No foolin'? That's fascinating! That in itself indicates that the LDS church
did indeed notice such a thing, and acknowledged it by gonig so far as to
conceal it for so many years! The vanishing and returning penis is the most
objective evidence of all that it really IS there, and the church really
DOES know exactly what it is.
Elizabeth & Dale
> >
> > Whuh happen? You aposasise?
>
> Naw. I never was a Mormon. I'm Reorg.
I suppose that if the "real" Mormons can
take the "Mormon" out of the Mormon Tabernacle
Choir, we Josephites can take the "Mormon"
out of this whole problematical religion.
Anyway, it sounds good to me.
d'Unk
(Always a Saint - Never a Christian - Sometimes a Mormon)
Raleigh345
>No foolin'? That's fascinating! That in itself indicates that the LDS church
>did indeed notice such a thing, and acknowledged it by gonig so far as to
>conceal it for so many years! The vanishing and returning penis is the most
>objective evidence of all that it really IS there, and the church really
>DOES know exactly what it is.
>
>
Only difficulty is that I looked in my 1969 Large Print Quad, and there is
nothing that looks like the alleged "arm"/"penis". The figure on the throne
looks like a snowman with three arms sticking out of his shoulder.
The picture in my post-1981 (smaller) Quad looks exactly the same.
Is the so-called penis the log that God is sitting on in both editions? If
that is what is being referred to here, it would make a bull elephant envious.
Raleigh
R L Measures
ralei...@aol.comQQQQ (Raleigh345) wrote:
> >
> >No foolin'? That's fascinating! That in itself indicates that the LDS church
> >did indeed notice such a thing, and acknowledged it by gonig so far as to
> >conceal it for so many years! The vanishing and returning penis is the most
> >objective evidence of all that it really IS there, and the church really
> >DOES know exactly what it is.
> >
> >
>
> Only difficulty is that I looked in my 1969 Large Print Quad, and there is
> nothing that looks like the alleged "arm"/"penis". ......
€ Try looking at the Fig. 7 woodcut in the 1 March, 1842 issue of Times
and Seasons. For a photocopy of a hypocephalus,
http://home.netcom.com/~mjhines/jw6.gif
Min the Bull is in the second row from the bottom, at the right, inverted. .
Be sure to visit Mark's flying saucer Web site.
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
Elizabeth & Dale
> > take the "Mormon" out of the Mormon Tabernacle
>
> When did they do that? Being out of the "celestial loop", I don't hear
> these things. Do they just call it the "Tabernacle Choir" now? Why
> the change? More attempts at mainstreaming? Preparation for
> distancing themselves from the BOM before admitting it's a fraud?
hmmmmmm.....
d'Unk
TheJordan6
>> >I'm not a Mormon by ANY means,
Randy wrote:
>> Whuh happen? You aposasise?
Akicita wrote:
>Naw. I never was a Mormon. I'm Reorg.
That's still Mormon, dude.
>> but I gotta be honest here. I'm looking at my
>> >copy of the BoA right now, and the figure marked "Fig. 7" on page 35 of
>my
>> >edition (1965 publishing) does not show anything resembling an erection.
>I'm
>> >not trying to dodge your whopping 21k of arguments, but frankly I just
>don't
>> >see it. Am I missing something?
>> The 1965 edition of the PGP had the erect penis deleted. It was restored
>in
>> the 1981 edition. Peek at one.
>No foolin'? That's fascinating! That in itself indicates that the LDS church
>did indeed notice such a thing, and acknowledged it by going so far as to
>conceal it for so many years! The vanishing and returning penis is the most
>objective evidence of all that it really IS there, and the church really
>DOES know exactly what it is.
Yes, they do, in spite of the fact that a few valiant spirits like Red Davis,
PatentWorm, and Woody Brison still try to tell us "it's an arm!"
I posted documentation on this while you were away. I'll repeat it for your
listening and dancing pleasure:
Every Egyptologist of note, and everyone else who is remotely interested in
this subject, is aware that the ancient Egyptian religion, as depicted on tomb
walls, and on funerary papyrii, is a religion that believed in the afterlife,
an underworld, and regeneration/reincarnation. Ancient Egyptians depicted
their mummified male corpses as being able to impregnate the god "Isis," which
was often depicted as a falcon figure. If you will bother to study the
subject, you will discover that many mummies had their penises packed with
materials to make them erect in death, and wrapped in linens. It was a MAJOR
part of their religion. You can read all about it in many works, especially E.
A. W. Budge's "Osiris---The Egyptian Religion of Resurrection." You will
probably recognize Budge's name as a frequent reference of the Nibley/Shirts
hydra. Go and read his work, along with the work of other qualified
Egyptologists (including Mormon ones), and you will discover many depictions
and references to the importance of the erect penis as pertaining to Egyptian
beliefs about deceased corpses impregnating "Isis", to achieve their own
regeneration.
Egyptologist Richard A. Parker spoke of Facsimile No. 1: "This is the
well-known scene from the Osiris mysteries, with Anubis, the jackal-headed god,
on the left ministering to the dead Osiris on the bier. The pencilled
restoration is incorrect. Anubis should be jackal-headed. The left arm of
Osiris is in reality lying at his side under him. The apparent upper hand is
part of the wing of a second bird which is hovering over the ERECT PHALLUS of
Osiris....The second bird is Isis and she is magically impregnated by the dead
Osiris and then later gives birth to Horus..." (Dialogue, Summer 1968, p. 86).
Egyptologist Klaus Baer, (Kerry's Hero), concurred with Parker: "He (Osiris)
was almost certainly represented as ithyphallic, ready to beget Horus..."
(Dialogue, Autumn 1968, p. 119).
Facsimile No. 2 that Mark Hines referred to, is called a 'hypocephalus.' It
has NOTHING to do with the Biblical 'Abraham,' nor anything in the
Judeo/Christian religion or culture. MANY such hypocephali have been unearthed
and deciphered from the same time and space as the one JS claimed to be from
the 'writings of Abraham.' It is beyond the bounds of sanity to believe that
the particular one that happened through Kirtland, Ohio, in a traveling
exhibition, was a relic of any Biblical characters or religion. 'Hypocephalus'
means 'head-warmth', and they were placed under the heads of mummies to keep
them warm during their journey into the underworld.
The hieroglyphic drawings thereon depict various aspects of their religious
beliefs. Mormon Egyptologist Michael Rhodes stated that "The text of the
hypocephalus itself seems to be
an address to Osiris, the god of the dead.....Hypocephali first appeared during
the first Saite Dynasty (663-525 BC) and their use continued down at least to
the Christian era." (BYU Studies, Spring 1977, p. 260, 274).
That information alone rules out the possibility that Fac. No. 2 is from any
so-called "Book of Abraham," because, according to tradition, the Biblical
Abraham lived many centuries before hypocephali even came into use in the
Egyptian religion. Joseph Smith came up with a story about 'Abraham', and
installed him in a venue that didn't even exist during Abraham's lifetime.
Facsimile No. 2, figure 7, depicts the Egyptian god Min as an ithyphallic
(erect penis) figure.
As Mark Hines has repeated (and repeated), even Michael
Rhodes identified Min and his erect penis:
"(Figure) 7: A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk's tail.....The seated god is
clearly a form of Min, the god of the regenerative, procreative forces of
nature.....The procreative forces, receiving unusual accentuation throughout
the representation, may stand for many divine regenerative powers....." (BYU
Studies, Spring 1977, p. 273).
The infamous Mormon-paid apologist "R. C. Webb", (who for some reason declined
to use his real name J. C. Homans), interpreted figure 7 as did Rhodes, in his
book "Joseph Smith As A Translator," in 1936:
"The group shown in the common run of hypocephali is evidently entirely
phallic, the seated figure being usually identified with the dual god,
Horus-Min......he becomes identified with the creative principle of nature, or
the universal generative power typified in phallic symbols.....To the Egyptian
artist, the symbol of creative power is the phallic symbol."
Hugh Nibley also wrote of the god Min:
"As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves with shocking
promiscuity....he is everywhere represented as indulging in incestuous
relationships with those of his immediate family....(he was) literally the Bull
of his mother." (Abraham in Egypt, 1981, pp. 210- 211).
To repeat, Joseph Smith identified this same Egyptian pagan god Min as "God
sitting upon His throne," which is laughable.
The LDS Church's 'Times and Seasons' of 1842 printed Facsimile No. 2, clearly
showing the erect penis of Min, and the facsimile was published in England in
1851 intact. However, in the LDS Church's 1878 publication of that facsimile,
the erect penis suddenly disappeared---then it reappeared in an 1891
edition---then in its 1907 edition, the penis was again gone! It seems that
the LDS Church alternately inserted and removed Min's penis
from edition to edition.
Various Mormons responsible for the publications probably were embarrassed at
having an obvious erect penis in their book of 'scripture', so they apparently
removed it in several editions.
In the church's latest 1982 edition of the Book of Abraham, Min's penis is
restored----for which I'm sure he is eternally grateful.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 09:03 EST
>Message-id: <20000117090302...@ng-fy1.aol.com>
>
>>
>>No foolin'? That's fascinating! That in itself indicates that the LDS church
>>conceal it for so many years! The vanishing and returning penis is the most
>>objective evidence of all that it really IS there, and the church really
>>DOES know exactly what it is.
>>
>>
>
>is
>looks like a snowman with three arms sticking out of his shoulder.
> The picture in my post-1981 (smaller) Quad looks exactly the same.
> Is the so-called penis the log that God is sitting on in both editions? If
>that is what is being referred to here, it would make a bull elephant
>envious.
>
> Raleigh
The penis is plain and obvious in my 1981 BOA. Maybe you should go to Red's
website to view the blow-up of a hypocephalus with Min's and Nehebka's monster
tools.
Randy J.
BO-man
James Archer
> No foolin'? That's fascinating! That in itself indicates that the LDS church
> did indeed notice such a thing, and acknowledged it by gonig so far as to
> conceal it for so many years! The vanishing and returning penis is the most
> objective evidence of all that it really IS there, and the church really
> DOES know exactly what it is.
What's so terrible about a penis, anyway? Why is everyone so afraid of
the thing? Geez....
Akicita
Has anyone here every actually answered this in plain English, and using
reputable source of information?
TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000117183253...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
Copperhead
Agkistrodon
Community - Identity - Stability!
-Aldous Huxley
Elizabeth & Dale
> Has anyone here every actually answered this in plain English, and using
> reputable source of information?
The very early Reorganization viewed the "Book of Abraham" as being
a literal translation of the Egyptian funeral documents purchased
by Joseph Smith at Kirtland -- and as one of two patriarchial
holographs represented by those ancient documents: A book written by
Abraham and a book written by Joseph.
Wisely, the members of the Reorganization never canonized the book,
however. In 1860-61 Remy & Brenchely's book came out and the leaders
of the Reorganization (most notably Jason Briggs) backed away from
the notion of the Book of Abraham being a literal holograph handed
down from the patriarch Abraham. I think that Remy & Brenchley's
book just gave a bit of support to RLDS who were already very
uncomfortable with the polytheism in the work.
Wayne Ham wrote an interesting article on the matter of the BoA
which was printed in "Restoration Studies" V (1993).Richard P. Howard
more or less ignored the entire book when he wrote his "Restoration
Scriptures." For him, as for many other RLDS, the BoA was best left
undiscussed.
I know that RLDS priesthood can get into trouble by opening up
the BoA on the pulpit and reading it as though it were scripture,
but I do not have any details on exactly how that has been dealt
with in the past. I do not think it has been an issue since the
1870s, when some of the Cutlerites were merged into the Reorganization.
The question naturally arises for the RLDS -- "If this is not an
authentic holograph handed down from the patriarch Abraham, and if
it is not reliable, canonical scripture, just what is it?"
Put in even the most gentle of terms, I think we RLDS mostly concede
that it is indeed a "fake." Whether it was a "fake" produced with
good intentions, even sincerity on the part of Smith -- who knows?
Did he allow his imagination to run away with him -- throw out the
"Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" somebody had prepared for the
translation process, and just write down ideas as they came into
his head. Did he think he was revealing unto the people of his
day the actual words of Abraham?
I think probably not. I think that the BoA was carefully crafted to
reflect the theology which grew up after the Kirtland period and
that it did not just flow out of the mind of a deceiving, but
well-intentioned Joseph Smith, Jr. one day.
If I am correct in my opinion here, we might also ask what Smith's
sincerity may have been in realtion to a near-contemporary
purported scriptural history -- the record on the Kinderhook plates.
Did Smith have yet another new scripture (like the never released
"Book of Joseph") in his desk drawer, which he was willing to link
up to the Kinderhook plates? I don't know. It just seems like a
natural question to ask, once you accept the BoA as a "fake."
And -- of course -- we might also ask ourselves about the truthfulness
and sincerity of a man who would put forth the BoA as being an
authentic holograph from Abraham. Would such a man also put forth
"scriptures" he knew originated in other ways, as being the authentic
translation of the holographs or Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni?
Questions to ponder. And not just for the RLDS.
This stuff will cause some trouble among the LDS in the days
and months to come. Sooner or later their very best scholars
and their top religious leaders will have to come up with
some intelligent answers for their people on these very questions.
I think that will not be a happy event.
Unka Dale
R. L. Measures
<aki...@telepath.com> wrote:
> There just doesn't seem to be much escape to that conclusion, does there?
> Has anyone here every actually answered this in plain English, and using
> reputable source of information?
>
>
> TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000117183253...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
>
> Every Egyptologist of note, and everyone else who is remotely interested in
> this subject, is aware that the ancient Egyptian religion, as depicted on
> tomb
> walls, and on funerary papyrii, is a religion that believed in the
> afterlife,
> an underworld, and regeneration/reincarnation. Ancient Egyptians depicted
> their mummified male corpses as being able to impregnate the god "Isis,"
> which
> was often depicted as a falcon figure. If you will bother to study the
> subject, you will discover that many mummies had their penises packed with
> materials to make them erect in death, and wrapped in linens. It was a
> MAJOR
> part of their religion. You can read all about it in many works,
especially E. A. W. Budge's "Osiris--
>-The Egyptian Religion of Resurrection." .....
€ perhaps a more fitting title would have been *The Egyptian Religion of
Erection*.
cheers, Randy.
Dick M.
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> >From: ralei...@aol.comQQQQ (Raleigh345)
> >Date: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 09:03 EST
> >Message-id: <20000117090302...@ng-fy1.aol.com>
> >
> >>
> >>No foolin'? That's fascinating! That in itself indicates that the LDS church
> >>did indeed notice such a thing, and acknowledged it by gonig so far as to
> >>conceal it for so many years! The vanishing and returning penis is the most
> >>objective evidence of all that it really IS there, and the church really
> >>DOES know exactly what it is.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Only difficulty is that I looked in my 1969 Large Print Quad, and there
> >is
> >nothing that looks like the alleged "arm"/"penis". The figure on the throne
> >looks like a snowman with three arms sticking out of his shoulder.
> > The picture in my post-1981 (smaller) Quad looks exactly the same.
> > Is the so-called penis the log that God is sitting on in both editions? If
> >that is what is being referred to here, it would make a bull elephant
> >envious.
> >
> > Raleigh
>
> The penis is plain and obvious in my 1981 BOA. Maybe you should go to Red's
> website to view the blow-up of a hypocephalus with Min's and Nehebka's monster
> tools.
>
€ what is the URL? I have been trying to get a high-res. JPEG
hypocephalus from Mark Hines for months - butt he is still apparently
pissed off at yours truly about something I said.
thanks, Randy
Akicita
BO-man <br...@NOSPAM.cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3883c3a3$1...@news2.one.net...
> What the heck is a "mormonite god"?
Apparently it's a deity with some prominent sexual attributes (which
wouldn't be completely inappropriate, given Mormon theology about men's and
women's functions in the afterlife).
Today, we have celebrities like Tommy Lee who's impressive attributes are
accidentally caught on video and revealed to the world. But apparently in
ancient times, before video was invented, lurid voyeurs had to document
their visual prey on parchment instead, leading to a similar divulgence of
physical attributes to the eyes of the LDS church in the form of the Book of
Abraham (copyright BC 2500 by Abraham Hefner).
Given the remarkable sexual attributions to the BoA by anti-M critics in
this thread, one might expect the BoA to begin, "Behold, my generations, I
have long searched forth these writings for mine own enlightenment and
fulfillment, and marvelled at their accounts. I wouldst not have believed
this would ever happen to me, until it came to pass that I did find mine
self, yea, even me, alone with the most delightsome goddess of the Egyptian
underworld..."
Guy R. Briggs
>
> This stuff will cause some trouble among the LDS in the days
> and months to come. Sooner or later their very best scholars
> and their top religious leaders will have to come up with
> some intelligent answers for their people on these very questions.
> I think that will not be a happy event.
>
course of the next few months which will bolster the attitude of the
Bretheren re: the BoA and give apologists more ammo against relentless
CotMC attacks - most notably Nibley's _One Eternal Round_.
Don't look for capitulation out of SLC any time soon.
bestRegards,
__________________________________________________________________
Guy R. Briggs www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/1818
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Hail To The Prophet
Akicita wrote:
>
> BO-man <br...@NOSPAM.cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3883c3a3$1...@news2.one.net...
> > What the heck is a "mormonite god"?
>
> Apparently it's a deity with some prominent sexual attributes (which
> wouldn't be completely inappropriate, given Mormon theology about men's and
> women's functions in the afterlife).
So perhaps it is a correct picture after all.
Warmest Regards,
Joseph
--
Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Mormon Church But Were
Afraid To Ask! Banned/Rare Mormon Books And Collectibles Relating To
Polygamy, Adam God, Blood Atonement And Other Early Church Doctrines?
Come Investigate The Early Teachings Of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young And
Others. Click On http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/jmoss37/ Now!
Browsing And History Lessons Are FREE!
Hail To The Prophet
isolated few.
Then draw conclusions. I can abide by yours, if you can abide by mine.
Warmest Regards,
Joseph
--
Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Mormon Church But Were
Afraid To Ask! Banned/Rare Mormon Books And Collectibles Relating To
Polygamy, Adam God, Blood Atonement And Other Early Church Doctrines?
Come Investigate The Early Teachings Of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young And
Others. Click On http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/jmoss37/ Now!
Browsing And History Lessons Are FREE!
"R. L. Measures" wrote:
>
> In article <9DOg4.9$Ug3....@newshog.newsread.com>, "Akicita"
> <aki...@telepath.com> wrote:
>
> > There just doesn't seem to be much escape to that conclusion, does there?
> > Has anyone here every actually answered this in plain English, and using
> > reputable source of information?
> >
> >
> > TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000117183253...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> >
> > Every Egyptologist of note, and everyone else who is remotely interested in
> > this subject, is aware that the ancient Egyptian religion, as depicted on
> > tomb
> > walls, and on funerary papyrii, is a religion that believed in the
> > afterlife,
> > an underworld, and regeneration/reincarnation. Ancient Egyptians depicted
> > their mummified male corpses as being able to impregnate the god "Isis,"
> > which
> > was often depicted as a falcon figure. If you will bother to study the
> > subject, you will discover that many mummies had their penises packed with
> > materials to make them erect in death, and wrapped in linens. It was a
> > MAJOR
> > part of their religion. You can read all about it in many works,
> especially E. A. W. Budge's "Osiris--
> >-The Egyptian Religion of Resurrection." .....
>
> € perhaps a more fitting title would have been *The Egyptian Religion of
> Erection*.
>
> cheers, Randy.
>
> --
> - Rich... 805.386.3734.
> www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
--
Elizabeth & Dale
> >
> > This stuff will cause some trouble among the LDS in the days
> > and months to come. Sooner or later their very best scholars
> > and their top religious leaders will have to come up with
> > some intelligent answers for their people on these very questions.
> > I think that will not be a happy event.
> >
> I rather think that some interesting stuff will be published in the
> course of the next few months which will bolster the attitude of the
> Bretheren re: the BoA and give apologists more ammo against relentless
> CotMC attacks - most notably Nibley's _One Eternal Round_.
>
> Don't look for capitulation out of SLC any time soon.
>
> bestRegards,
Where is Leonard Arrington, when we really need him?
Oh well -- we shall see, we shall see...
yer Unk
Raleigh345
>>-The Egyptian Religion of Resurrection." .....
>
>€ perhaps a more fitting title would have been *The Egyptian Religion of
>Erection*.
In a still-lighter vein, Rich, I laughed so much this morning in the car I
almost had to pull off the road.
I passed a Mack truck built with a tremendous double-folded crane atop it,
that (when extended) would have been probably 7 stories high.
On the back of the truck was factory-painted in very large capital letters:
SCHWING
I just wish I'd had a camera. I hardly believe it myself.
Raleigh
Akicita
Hail To The Prophet <"spammingisbad "@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3884AF9C...@worldnet.att.net...
> I think in plain english, one should look at all the facts, not just an
> isolated few.
>
> Then draw conclusions. I can abide by yours, if you can abide by mine.
If you have any facts that add insights into the fact that the book is based
on a common funeral text depicting Egyptian pagan gods and goddesses with
translatable text bearing no resemblance to the BoA, I'd love to hear them.
TheJordan6
>Red's
>> website to view the blow-up of a hypocephalus with Min's and Nehebka's
>monster
>> tools.
>>
>€ what is the URL? I have been trying to get a high-res. JPEG
>hypocephalus from Mark Hines for months - butt he is still apparently
>pissed off at yours truly about something I said.
>
>thanks, Randy
It be at
Randy J.
Mark Hines
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> The penis is plain and obvious in my 1981 BOA. Maybe you should go to
>Red's website to view the blow-up of a hypocephalus with Min's and Nehebka's
>monster tools.
>thanks, Randy
>
>It be at
>
>http://reddavis.clanpages.com
>
>Randy J.
This Red character is living in fantasy land. At the link above, he
tries to make a case that the penis is an arm. There is no reason for
him or any other LDS to be confused. The graphic of the Lady
Takhred-Khonsu hypocephalus at the link below leaves no doubt about the
penises on the Mormon "God" and "Holy Ghost." Since the same
hypocephalus picture was at the site of a Mormon who illustrated a book
by Hugh Nibley, a rational person cannot say that I altered the picture.
Some may recall that I posted the link to Nibley's illustrator and to
the Lady Takhred-Khonsu hypocephalus months ago. One may copy the Lady
Takhred-Khonsu graphic and flip it for a better look at Min and
Nehebkau. Here is the link:
http://www.freeyellow.com:8080/members7/mjhines/pg.htm
Just as with the Facsimile 2 hypocephalus, Min and Nehebkau are upside
down. One can get a better view of them by vertically flipping the
graphic. There is no reason for Red, Raleigh 345 and others to be
confused (other than mental health problems, or an inability to read at
even the high school level).
Beyond the graphic evidence, the identification of Min and Nehebkau is
certain. I post almost every day the documented quotations of half a
dozen or so Ph.D. Egyptologists who make the positive identification.
Even BYU professor and Mormon apologist Michael Rhodes identifies both
Min and Nehebkau in Figure 7 of Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham. Do
Red, Raleigh 345 and some others have at their houses a mother or
somebody who knows how to use a browser to find Rhodes' Website? Here is
Michael Rhodes' site:
http://home.att.net/~michael.rhodes/jshypo.htm
Because of mental health problems, dishonesty, or whatever, Red, Raleigh
345 and some others are not able to understand professor Rhodes' clear
English, but others will understand it. Professor Rhodes finds the two
personages in Figure 7 of Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham to be Min
and Nehebka (Nehebkau). Rhodes also identifies Min as an ithyphallic
god. If one has a dictionary at home, one can look up word
"ithyphallic," as it means "with erect penis." Below is Rhodes
explanation of Figure 7 taken directly from his Website:
"7. A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk's tail, holding aloft a flail.
This is a form of Min, the god of the regenerative, procreative forces
of nature, perhaps combined with Horus, as the hawk's tail would seem to
indicate.[75] Before the god is what appears to be a bird presenting him
with a Wedjat-eye, the symbol of all good gifts.[76] In other
hypocephali it can also be an ape, a snake, or a hawk-headed snake that
is presenting the eye. This figure represents Nehebka, a snake god and
one of the judges of the dead in the 125th chapter of the Book of the
Dead.[77] Nehebka was considered to be a provider of life and
nourishment,[78] and as such was often shown presenting a pair of jars
or a Wedjat-eye."
To those whose opinions matter, the documented findings of the half
dozen or so Ph.D. Egyptologists I post almost every day mean more than
Rhodes' finding. Again, there is no reason for Mormons to be confused.
Mormons do represent both "God" and the "Holy Ghost" with ithyphallic
(with erect penis) pagan gods. Anybody who does not have mental health
problems and who can read at least at the high school level can verify
the facts.
____________________________
Mark Hines
http://www.freeyellow.com:8080/members7/mjhines/pg.htm
Night_Wolf
Once again your focus on penises, Oh dear, are you perhaps Gay and
repressing it? or is it simply that you need to insist that some one else
(other than you) is warped and strange?
Mark Hines wrote in message <38855ad5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> >> The penis is plain and obvious in my 1981 BOA. Maybe you should go to
> >Red's
> >> website to view the blow-up of a hypocephalus with Min's and Nehebka's
> >monster
> >> tools.
> >>
> >€ what is the URL? I have been trying to get a high-res. JPEG
> >hypocephalus from Mark Hines for months - butt he is still apparently
> >pissed off at yours truly about something I said.
> >
> >thanks, Randy
>
> It be at
>
> http://reddavis.clanpages.com
>
thanks, Randy J.
R. L. Measures
<Wol...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Ah Mark,
>
> Once again your focus on penises, .....
€... and on mental illness.
........
cheers
R. L. Measures
@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> I think in plain english, one should look at all the facts, not just an
> isolated few.
>
€ The majority of antimormon Web sites list the official LDS Web site.
The LDS Web site lists none of the antimormon sites.
........
R. L. Measures
ralei...@aol.comQQQQ (Raleigh345) wrote:
> > meas...@vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) wrote:
>
> >>-The Egyptian Religion of Resurrection." .....
> >
> >€ perhaps a more fitting title would have been *The Egyptian Religion of
> >Erection*.
>
> In a still-lighter vein, Rich, I laughed so much this morning in the car I
> almost had to pull off the road.
> I passed a Mack truck built with a tremendous double-folded crane atop it,
> that (when extended) would have been probably 7 stories high.
> On the back of the truck was factory-painted in very large capital letters:
>
> SCHWING
not bad, not bad
cheers, Raleigh
R. L. Measures
<net...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
> dbro...@gte.net ("Unka Dale") wrote:
> >
> > This stuff will cause some trouble among the LDS in the days
> > and months to come. Sooner or later their very best scholars
> > and their top religious leaders will have to come up with
> > some intelligent answers for their people on these very questions.
> > I think that will not be a happy event.
> >
> I rather think that some interesting stuff will be published in the
> course of the next few months which will bolster the attitude of the
> Bretheren re: the BoA and give apologists more ammo against relentless
> CotMC attacks - most notably Nibley's _One Eternal Round_.
>
> Don't look for capitulation out of SLC any time soon.
>
€ What with $6 billion in supertithes rolling in every year, why admit to
anything?
Raleigh345
>> SCHWING
>
>not bad, not bad
>
>cheers, Raleigh
I'm starting to wonder if the writers of WAYNE'S WORLD are familiar with
this company, and we aren't.
Raleigh
*
If faith without works is dead, then death without works is faith indeed.
TheJordan6
>almost had to pull off the road.
> I passed a Mack truck built with a tremendous double-folded crane atop it,
>that (when extended) would have been probably 7 stories high.
> On the back of the truck was factory-painted in very large capital
>letters:
>
> SCHWING
>
>
>
> Raleigh
I get a kick out of the name of a local crane service:
"Volunteer Erection Services."
Randy J.
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
and they don't need to advertise
Clovis Lark
>> > I suppose that if the "real" Mormons can
>> > take the "Mormon" out of the Mormon Tabernacle
>> > Choir...
>>
>> When did they do that? Being out of the "celestial loop", I don't hear
>> these things. Do they just call it the "Tabernacle Choir" now? Why
>> the change? More attempts at mainstreaming? Preparation for
>> distancing themselves from the BOM before admitting it's a fraud?
> hmmmmmm.....
Naw, it's probably to deny chorus members royalties from Ormandy
recordings currently being reissued on CD.
> d'Unk
Neos Efialtis
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~shirtail/mormonis.htm#Book
http://www.farmsresearch.com/review/4/gee.html
http://lds.net/pages/wwbrison/rolls.htm
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/abraham.htm
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/abraham2.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/Abraham.html
http://home.att.net/~michael.rhodes/jshypo.htm
Fake?
--
--Efialtis
BoM:
Alma Chapter 5, Verses 59 through 60
Also see:
Alma Chapter 5, Verses 56 through 62
Raleigh345
>I get a kick out of the name of a local crane service:
>
>"Volunteer Erection Services."
>
>Randy J.
Are they referred to as the Viagra Brigade?
Akicita
Night_Wolf <Wol...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:ddeh4.6100$3b6....@ozemail.com.au...
> Ah Mark,
>
> Once again your focus on penises, Oh dear, are you perhaps Gay and
> repressing it? or is it simply that you need to insist that some one else
> (other than you) is warped and strange?
Pretty lame reply, NW. It actually bolsters Mark's position when outsiders
like me see defenders unable to muster any better response than playground
antics mocking someone's sexuality. Meanwhile, Mark has posted some pretty
damning information, and seems to attract a thousand insults without a
single rebuttal. Frankly, I've been as eager as he is to see someone take it
one with actual knowledge; until then, each petty swipe (bereft of actual
knowledge of the issue) is another point for Mark.
R. L. Measures
<Efia...@WinISP.net> wrote:
> http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml
> http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml
> http://www.cyberhighway.net/~shirtail/mormonis.htm#Book
> http://www.farmsresearch.com/review/4/gee.html
> http://lds.net/pages/wwbrison/rolls.htm
> http://www.lightplanet.com/response/abraham.htm
> http://www.lightplanet.com/response/abraham2.htm
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/Abraham.html
> http://home.att.net/~michael.rhodes/jshypo.htm
>
> Fake?
>
€ an ''Egyptian alphabet'' is undoubtedly a fabrication. Have you read
JS' delightsome ''Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language''?.
TheJordan6
>Date: Wed, 19 January 2000 01:57 PM EST
>Message-id: <865h5t$1...@news.dns.microsoft.com>
>
>http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml
>http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml
>http://www.cyberhighway.net/~shirtail/mormonis.htm#Book
>http://www.farmsresearch.com/review/4/gee.html
>http://lds.net/pages/wwbrison/rolls.htm
>http://www.lightplanet.com/response/abraham.htm
>http://www.lightplanet.com/response/abraham2.htm
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/Abraham.html
>http://home.att.net/~michael.rhodes/jshypo.htm
>
>Fake?
>
>--Efialtis
Neos, scholarly rebuttals have been offered to all of the claims that are made
in the websites you list. Two of your sites you list are run by former ARM
posters Kerry Shirts and Woody Brison. I have repeatedly rebutted all of their
alleged 'evidence.'
If you wish to examine responsible opposing viewpoints to Mormon apologetics on
the BoA, I recommend that you read Charles Larson's "By His Own Hand Upon
Papyrus," as well as scholarly refutations of work like Gee's and Nibley's, put
forth by other Mormons like Edward Ashment and Stephen Thompson, and also Stan
Larson's "Quest for the Gold Plates."
If you would like me to re-post some of my old rebuttals to Kerry Shirts, Woody
Brison, Charles Dowis, and Russell McGregor, on the BOA, I'll be happy to.
Randy J.
Akicita
apologetics on
> the BoA, I recommend that you read Charles Larson's "By His Own Hand Upon
> Papyrus," as well as scholarly refutations of work like Gee's and
Nibley's, put
> forth by other Mormons like Edward Ashment and Stephen Thompson, and also
Stan
> Larson's "Quest for the Gold Plates."
>
> If you would like me to re-post some of my old rebuttals to Kerry Shirts,
Woody
> Brison, Charles Dowis, and Russell McGregor, on the BOA, I'll be happy to.
Yes, please.
TheJordan6
>Woody
>> Brison, Charles Dowis, and Russell McGregor, on the BOA, I'll be happy to.
>
>
>Yes, please.
Look for 'em on this thread. I've been having trouble with some of my posts
not showing up on ARM, so we'll have to see if they make it or not.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Upon the subject of the Egyptian records, or rather the writings of
>Abraham and Joseph, I may say a few words. This record is beautifully
>written on papyrus with black, and a small part, red ink or paint, in
>perfect preservation. The characters are such as you find upon the
>coffins of mummies, hieroglyphics, &c. with many characters or letters
>exactly like the present, (though probably not quite so square,) form of
>the Hebrew without points.
My comments are for people who are interested in learning about this subject
from a standpoint of logic, reason, and common sense. If you don't fall into
those categories, I suggest that you delete this now, and forget about it. I
am not interested in debating the issue with people who are not serious about
using logic, reason, or common sense, as opposed to fanatical apologetics, to
deal honestly with the subject. My comments are plain and simple for any
person of average intelligence to comprehend. I employ the basic skills of
any
honest researcher, such as deductive reasoning and the process of elimination.
My comments:
1. Cowdery speaks of at least two scrolls, one of 'Abraham' and one of
'Joseph'. Since the only work published from the papyrus is the 'Book of
Abraham', and thus is the only work by which we can test JS' 'translating
abilities', then it is obvious that the only papyrus fragments relative to
this
issue are the ones which JS himself clearly identified as being 'facsimiles
from the BOA', which everyone knows, portions of are printed in the LDS BOA in
the PGP. We simply can't debate what may or may not be on any possible
'missing scrolls'; we have to work with what we have.
2. If there are, in fact, any 'missing scrolls', logic dictates that they
would be from what JS claimed was the 'book of Joseph', not from the 'book of
Abraham.' The obvious reason for this is that JS, having declared portions of
the papyrus as being from 'the writings of Abraham', had Reuben Hedlock copy
the three 'facsimiles' for publication in the 'Times and Seasons'. If any
drawings or hieroglyphs from any alleged 'missing scrolls' had any relevance
to
the 'book of Abraham', then it is obvious that JS would have instructed
Hedlock
to copy those as well, and include them in with the other three supposed 'BOA'
facsimiles for publication. The fact that portions of the published BOA text
relate to the copied facsimiles, as JS supposed them to be 'illustrations' for
the story, indicates that JS considered those fragments, above all others, to
be of prime relevance to the story of the BOA.
In plain English, if any alleged 'missing' scrolls were relevant to the BOA,
JS
would likely have included drawings or hieroglyphs from them in his 'BOA', but
he didn't.
3. JS clearly recorded in his 'history' that he himself---not anyone
else---was
the creative force behind 'translating an alphabet and grammar of the Egyptian
language'. People who assert that persons other than JS were actually
responsible for the gibberish known as the 'EA&G' have nothing to back up that
assertion, except a desire to make JS not look like a fool.
If JS himself was not the person who was creating such a work, then he lied in
his history when he said that it was he who was doing so.
4. The EA&G, as well as the original handwritten BOA manuscript, include
hieratic characters copied in order from the Sen-Sen text, which is part of
the
'Book of Breathings', which was originally a portion of the same scroll which
includes the 'lion-couch scene' known to Mormons as Facsimile No. 1.
It is obvious that JS interpreted that scene as 'Abraham' being sacrificed
upon
an altar; the 'Abraham' character in JS' story states 'that you may have a
knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the
beginning of this record.' (Abr. 1:12).
Egyptian characters read right to left, like Hebrew; thus, when the 'Abraham'
character refers us to the 'beginning of this record', he obviously means to
the right of the 'lion-couch' scene. The hieratic characters which are
copied,
in sequential order, from the Sen-Sen text, into the margin of the original
BOA
manuscript, come from the right-hand end of the 'lion-couch' scene which was
separated by JS or his associates; thus, it is obvious that those same
hieratic
characters in the BOA manuscript margins, are the same ones which the
'Abraham'
character describes as being 'at the beginning of this record.' So it is
obvious that
JS wanted his followers to believe that those hieratic characters----and not
any from some alleged 'missing scroll'----were the characters that he claimed
to 'translate' into the BOA.
5. A reporter from the 'Quincy Whig' published his visit to JS and his tour
of
the mummies and fragments on October 17, 1840, which is obviously a
contemporary, and thus credible, source. Those comments have been published
numerous times by LDS scholars and apologists to support the story of the BOA
origin. However, certain statements from the article are very revealing, and
destructive, to the LDS apology for the BOA, to wit:
"Then he (JS) walked to his secretary (that is, the old-fashioned
secretary---a
piece of furniture----on the opposite side of the room, and drew out several
frames *COVERED WITH GLASS*, under which were numerous fragments of Egyptian
papyrus on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical characters had
been imprinted. 'These ancient records,' said he, 'throw great light on the
subject of Christianity.....But I will show you how I interpret certain
parts.
There', said he, pointing to a particular character, 'THAT IS THE SIGNATURE OF
THE PATRIARCH ABRAHAM.'
The relevant portions of this are what I capitalized. The article states that
the papyrus fragments had ALREADY been cut up to fit into glass frames; and JS
himself identified
a character on that cut-up portion as being the 'signature of Abraham.'
That means that the papyrus fragments that JS claimed was from the 'BOA' was
not some 'missing', UNCUT, scroll, which Charlotte Haven described as 'running
across the floor'; but rather, the fragment which JS claimed contained the
'signature of Abraham' was cut up and framed for display.
That is more evidence that the 'characters' from which JS claimed to
'translate' the BOA are not 'missing', but are the ones from the Sen-Sen text,
as the other evidence already makes clear.
6. After JS' death, the fragments and mummies were eventually sold to the St.
Louis Museum. In 1859, that museum published a catalog which included the
artifacts. That those artifacts were the ones which JS possessed is
irrefutable, as a reading of the catalog entry proves.
A professor Gustavus Seyffarth, who was apparently familiar with Egyptology as
it could be interpreted to that time in history, gave his interpretation of
the
fragments thus, as published in the 1859 catalog:
"These mummies were obtained in the catacombs of Egypt... forwarded to New
York...purchased in the year 1835, by Joe Smith, the Mormon prophet, on
account
of the writings found in the chest of one of them, and which he pretended to
translate, as stating them to belong to the family of the Pharoahs---but,
according to Prof. Seyffarth, the papyrus roll is not a record, but an
invocation to the deity Osirus, in which occurs the name of the person
(Horus),
and a picture of the attendant spirits, introducing the dead to the judge,
Osirus."
We can extrapolate a couple of vital points from this quote:
A. Mormon apologists claim that Bishop Spalding's eight scholars of 1912 can
be disregarded, because they only viewed COPIES of the facsimiles, rather than
the actual fragments. Seyffarth's interpretation is vital because he
obviously
inspected the actual fragments, rather than the LDS-published facsimiles (1907
edition) that Spalding's scholars had to rely on. (Remember, some of
Spalding's scholars commented on how poorly the facsimiles had been copied,
and
that it was difficult to give accurate interpretations because of that).
Seyffarth was not handicapped by that.
B. We all know that no hieratic characters were included in Hedlock's cut of
Fac. 1. JS obviously only wanted to use the lion-couch scene as an
illustration for his story, and at that time, Egyptian had not yet been
deciphered by Champollion, and Egyptian was a 'dead language', so including
any
hieratic characters in the 'Times and Seasons' illustrations would have served
no purpose.
However, Seyffarth had the ACTUAL PAPYRUS, INCLUDING the Sen-Sen text that
was
originally attached to the lion-couch scene, to work with; this is obvious,
because Seyffarth, even with his limited knowledge of the newly-deciphered
Egyptian, gave the interpretation quoted above. His interpretation of the
nature and purpose of the papyrus still stands today----"an invocation to the
deity Osirus, in which appears the name of the dead person (Horus), and a
picture of the attendant spirits....."
Today's Egyptologists, including Mormon ones, agree with Seyffarth's basic
interpretation-----the papyrus are from the ancient Egyptian 'Book of
Breathings', containing invocations, or magical chants, and associated other
Egyptian religious paraphernalia.
The implications of this are obvious and devastating to the authenticity of
JS'
'Book of Abraham.' Not a single item on the papyrus has to do with the
Biblical Abraham, nor in fact anything to do with Judeo/Christian religion or
culture. The papyrus were simply used by JS because his followers purchased
the artifacts for over $2,000; because JS claimed the ability to 'translate
ancient languages'; and thus, JS was forced to use the illustrations on the
papyrus to invent a story with a Biblical theme. If he had not come up with a
story to back up his claim of ability to 'translate', he would have been
exposed as a fraud. As it turned out, his exposure came only a little more
than a decade after his death, when Seyffarth gave his interpretation of the
fragments.
Cowdery's words, which Woody quoted, stated that "the characters are such as
you find upon the coffins of mummies, hieroglyphs, etc."
Cowdery was dead right on his remarks. That's ALL the fragments are, and they
have NOTHING to do with 'Abraham.'
And that is why arguing the authenticity of the BOA is akin to 'beating a dead
Horus'.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Have you read John Tvedtnes' theory on the translation of the BOA text? Are
>you familiar with his demonstration of how the BOA translation matches quite
>well the papyri? One with ominiscence should at least have read Tvedtnes.
>
>In fact, there is an objective method to test his theory. I will be happy to
>give you the references to his theory, if you are willing to participate in
>an experiment to test it.
>
>Do you agree? Do we have a deal??
>
>(Before you answer, you might want to do your homework on Tvedtnes'
>**mneumonic** theory of the translation. I have posted this challange many
>times but have no takers. If JS really was "wrong" in his translation, then
>you should have no problemo in using a scientific test of his translation
>ability.)
Attention Bob Deep:
I assume you're new here. Just to fill you in, Charles Dowis has a nagging
habit of posting material, being soundly refuted on his assertions, and then a
few months later, as though we've forgotten all about them, he re-posts his
already-refuted assertions. I can only conclude that he believes that all
other posters on ARM are as stupid or forgetful as he is.
I have refuted Charles' "mnemonic device theory" twice in the last year or so,
wherein he claims that "no one has taken the challenge." I will now refute it
again, for your benefit, so that you will never again be taken in by slippery
Charlie.
The title page to Joseph Smith's "Book of Abraham", written by Joseph Smith,
states:
"A Translation of some ancient records, that have fallen into our hands from
the catacombs of Egypt.--The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called
the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."
Note that Joseph Smith claimed the papyrus to be written by Abraham's own hand,
and that contained an account of Abraham's own biography, as the text of the
BOA indicates. On July 3, 1835, Joseph Smith reiterated that idea by stating,
"I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphs, and much
to our joy found that one of the scrolls contained THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM,
another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc."
To a man, every Egyptologist, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, who has examined the
papyrii, has identified them as funerary documents associated with the ancient
"Book of Breathings," and has dated them to about the first century AD. The
documents contain the name of the mummy which they were buried with, and
verbiage within deals with the afterlife of the deceased, making it
unmistakable that the papyrus is part of a funerary text---not some story about
"Abraham."
Joseph Smith made other bold, yet incorrect statements about the mummies which
were recorded by witnesses of his day. A reporter from the 'Quincy Whig'
recorded Smith as saying:
"The embalmed body that stands near the center of the case..is one of the
Pharoahs who sat upon the throne of Egypt, and the female figure by it was
probably one of the daughters. It may have been the Princess
Thermutis.....These ancient records...throw great light on the subject of
Christianity.....I will show you how I interpret certain parts."
'There,' said he, pointing to a particular character, 'that is the SIGNATURE of
the prophet Abraham.' "
Also, noted author Josiah Quincy recalled an 1844 visit with Smith:
"Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us....'That is
the HANDWRITING of Abraham, the father of the faithful,' said the prophet.
'This is the AUTOGRAPH of Moses, and those lines were WRITTEN by his brother
Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the creation, from which Moses
composed the first book of Genesis."
(Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past,p. 385.)
In 1859, the then-current owner of the mummies and papyrus, the St. Louis
Museum, published a catalog which described the items, including some
explanatory comments by a Professor Gustavus Seyffarth:
"These mummies were obtained in the catacombs of Egypt, sixty feet below the
surface of the earth, for the Antiquarian Society of Paris, forwarded to New
York, and there purchased, in the year 1835, by Joe Smith, the Mormon prophet,
on account of some of the writings on some of them, and which he pretended to
translate, as stating them to belong to the family of the Pharoahs---but,
according to Professor Seyffarth, the papyrus roll is not a record, but an
invocation to the Deity Osirus, in which occurs the name of the person (Horus),
and a picture of the attendant spirits, introducing the dead to the Judge,
Horus."
Thus we see that only 17 years after Joseph Smith's 1842 "translation," a
scholar of Egyptian exposed the fraud, and stated the correct interpretation of
the papyrii, which is still agreed upon by Egyptologists today.
One of Joseph Smith's closest followers, Parley P. Pratt, recorded the details
of the transfer of the mummies from Michael Chandler to Joseph Smith:
"Mr. Chandler was..anxious to find someone who could interpret or translate
this valuable relic of antiquity...He everywhere heard of Joseph
Smith...inquire(d) if he had a power to translate the ancient Egyptian. Mr.
Smith REPLIED THAT HE HAD, when Mr. Chandler presented the fragment which had
been partially interpreted. Mr. Smith retired into his translating room, and
presently returned with a WRITTEN TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH, OF THE FRAGMENT,
confirming the supposed meaning ascribed to it...."(Millenial Star, July 1,
1842.)
Note Pratt's statement that it only took Smith a short time to come up with a
"translation" of ancient hieroglyphs that scholars of Egyptian were just
beginning to unfold through the Rosetta Stone.
Note also that Pratt mentioned nothing about a "memory device" or "triggering
device," but instead the impression JS wished to give was that he had made a
literal translation of what was written on the papyrus. That corroborated other
witnesses' recollections that JS had claimed
"The record is now in the course of translation...and proves to be a record
written partly by the father of the faithful, Abraham, and finished by Joseph
when in Egypt."
I could post many other quotes from Smith and his contemporaries that show that
Smith claimed the papyrus to contain actual handwritings and autographs of
Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron, and other quotes that repeat his claim that
the mummies were remains of "Pharoahs" and their families. But the above quotes
are sufficient from a variety of sources, all consistent.
Conclusions:
1. Joseph Smith incorrectly identified the mummies as being in the class of
"Pharoahs," and from the approximate time of the Biblical Abraham. Scholars
have dated the mummies and papyrus from about the time of Christ, some 1500
years after the traditional time of Abraham. The papyrus speaks of the Pharoah
Shishak, who was not born until about 600 years after the time of Abraham,
thereby making it impossible for them to have been written "by the hand of
Abraham."
2. Joseph Smith made no statement whatsoever about what the papyrii actually
were, or what they meant in the ancient Egyptian religion. If he had said
"Brethren, these fragments are of course, part of the ancient Egyptian Book of
the Dead, from about the time of Christ, but they contain a hidden message
about Abraham that I am going to translate via a mnemonic device," one could
cut Smith a little slack. His utter failure to identify the fragments as what
they actually were, even though Mormon apologists claim he saw a "hidden
message" within them, belies his claimed ability to translate ancient
languages. There is nothing about the Biblical Abraham, nor any other Bibical
character, nor anything concerning the Judeo/Christian religion on the papyrus
that Joseph Smith owned.
3. The "mnemonic device theory" pitched by Mormons such as Charles Dowis is
not only a desperate, ill-conceived attempt to "save" Smith as a "translator,"
but also, by pushing the theory, Mormons first have to call Smith a liar!
Mormons must throw Smith's many documented statements about the "handwriting"
and "autographs" of Biblical figures being on the papyrii out the window!
Every lawyer knows that if he casts the slightest shadow of doubt on the
credibility of his own star witness, he has impeached him and lost his case.
Joseph Smith is the "star witness" of Mormonism. When Mormon apologists have
to call Smith a LIAR, while simultaneously advocating that Smith told the
TRUTH, then anything else they may have to say on the subject of Smith's
credibility is null and void.
When I pointed this out to Charles several months ago, his response to me was
that "Joseph Smith was wrong, and if he were here, he'd apologize to you."
Can you imagine a lawyer saying that about his client in the courtroom?
Case closed.
The only thing left unsettled is how long it will be until Charles re-posts his
"unanswered challenge" again.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
> I've searched and searched, but have not been
>able to find any statement by Joseph Smith or anyone around him
>identifying the document he translated to any known existing
>document today.
Well then, Mr. ace Mormon scholar and seminary teacher Woody, maybe you
should have just searched for about 10 minutes in Joseph Smith's own journal:
23 February 1842:
gave Reuben Hedlock instructions concerning the cut for the altar & Gods in
the
RECORDS OF ABRAHAM. as designed for the Times and Seasons.
24 February 1842:
was explaining the RECORDS OF ABRAHAM to the recorder.
1 March 1842:
Correcting the first plate or cut of the RECORDS OF FATHER ABRAHAM prepared by
Reuben Hedlock for the Times and Seasons
2 March 1842:
Read the Proof of the "Times and Seasons" as Editor for the first time, No.
9-Vol 3d in which is the commencement of the BOOK OF ABRAHAM.
4 March 1842:
Exhibiting the BOOK OF ABRAHAM in the ORIGINAL, to Bro. Reuben Hedlock, so
that
he might take the size of the several plates or cuts. and prepare the blocks
for the Times and Seasons. & also gave instruction concerning the arrangement
of the WRITING on the large cut. illustrating the PRINCIPLES OF ASTRONOMY.
8 March 1842:
Commenced Translating from the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, for the 10 No. of the Times &
Seasons
9 March 1842:
continued the TRANSLATION of the BOOK OF ABRAHAM
All quotes are from "The Papers of Joseph Smith", Deseret Book, 1992.
"The Book of Abraham," 1:12:
"that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the
representation AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS RECORD."
Now, Woody, a question:
How long are you, and other Mormons on ARM, going to keep up the lie that "we
don't have the source material for the Book of Abraham?"
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>This is for Randy who thinks
Randy wrote:
You could have ended the sentence there, to distinguish me from you guys on
the
pro-Mormon side.
he has the knowledge and understanding of the
>papyri issues of the Book of Abraham.
I am smart enough to read what Joseph Smith CLAIMED about the papyrus, and
separate it from what obfuscaters like yourself try to cloud the issues with.
>His dismal performance here on ARM
"Dismal" is in the eyes of the reader. Some people may think it "dismal" that
you didn't copy or refute a single quote from any of my recent posts on the
BoA, in your response to which I am now responding. Your tactic might make
some people believe that you have no rebuttal to the actual facts of history,
so you substitute for the facts, the opinions of modern-day Mormon apologists.
>has finally forced me to at least bother to try and update him, though I
>know he will continue to go his way in his outdated knowledge from the
>1960's era of information. I insist this is 1999, and anyone who is at
>least half honest instead of half baked would try to avail himself of
>correct information.
To the contrary, I don't put nearly as much stock in the "1960's era of
information" as I do in the "1840's era of information." What was said in the
1840's is NEVER outdated; it's the very history that we are discussing. The
tactic of modern Mormon apologists is to try to make the world forget all
about
what Joseph Smith and his contemporaries CLAIMED about the papyrus, and to
trust in the apologists instead. The reason they must do that is because
after
Facsimile 1 was re-discovered in 1966 (destroying the "it all burned up in the
Chicago fire" excuse), and was translated by several Egyptologists, and
confirmed to be nothing more than a Christian-era pagan funerary text, they
have been forced to fill Mormon minds full of mush with red herrings and
strawmen, that cloud the main issues and keep people believing that Joseph
Smith was not a fraud.
>In that spirit I present the very latest updated info.
"Info"=red herrings and strawmen, that cloud and ignore the more important
issues that I have raised.
>on the papyri descriptions as we have them from eyewitness accounts.
>--------------------------
>As of March 1999 the newest most up to date information on the description
>of the Joseph Smith papyri and their descriptions of what they were are as
>follows:
"As of March 1999?" What historical quotes or references from eyewitnesses
has
Gee uncovered that we haven't been able to read ourselves for the last half a
century? Nearly all the quotes you refer to below can be found in James R.
Clark's "Story of the Pearl of Great Price," published by Bookcraft in 1955.
You can also read most of them in "Mormonism: Shadow or Reality", first
published 30 years ago, or in Larson's "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus,"
published in 1992. How do you figure that re-stating 150-year-old quotes is
"new and up-to-date"?
>John Gee, the LDS Egyptologist,
Is that the same John Gee whose claims about the BoA were ripped to shreds by
another LDS Egyptologist, Edward Ashment?
in his lecture on the Papyri called "A
>History of the Joseph Smith Papyri and Book of Abraham in "The Book of
>Abraham Lecture Series," has noted the most frequent descriptions of the
>papyri from people who actually saw them with their own eyes.
I have quoted them many times on ARM for nearly two years. Tell us something
we don't already know.
>Granted the anti-Mormon argument of the papyri fossilized in 1969,
You are a blind, fanatical apologist who is totally out of touch with reality.
You are so incorrect and juvenile as to make it impossible to communicate with
you on an intelligent, adult level. But I will continue to respond, for the
benefit of adult, thinking people on the forum.
while it
>has been the Mormon scholars who have carried the work forward and onward
>with new discoveries and analysis.
"New discoveries and analysis"=More red herrings and strawmen designed to make
Mormons take their minds off the bogus claims that Joseph Smith made about the
papyrus.
The anti-Mormons, ill equipped to handle
>Egyptian
"Anti-Mormons"=Baer, Parker, Wilson, Rhodes, Nibley? I can't read ancient
Egyptian hieroglyphs, Kerry, but when I read that Mormon scholars come up with
the same interpretation that secular ones do, and that they all contradict
what
Joseph Smith said, then it's obvious that Smith was wrong.
have not tried to understand anything further than what was known
>in 1969. Their anti-Mormon status is in a sad state of affairs.
All of the statements that Kerry has made, such as the one above, is a tactic
of Mormon apologists that Kerry learned from his hero Nibley, which is to
"condition" his readers by making 7 or 8 derogatory (though unfounded and
irrelevant) remarks that prejudice his readers' minds before he even begins to
state a word of facts or evidence. It's an example of the type of mind
control
that Mormonism employs. Mormon apologetic works are chock-full of this
tactic,
Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie being prime examples of this
arrogant, know-it-all smarminess.
Smart, rational thinking persons learn how to see through KerryNibley's
tactic,
and to get to the real issues. Stupid, irrational thinking people love
KerryNibley's tactic, and eat it up, actually believing that it has some
worth.
>The papyri once were three ancient manuscripts.
The 10 fragments we now
>possess is simply not all the papyri that Joseph Smith possessed by any
>stretch of the imagination.
There's red herring number one. IT DOESN'T MATTER if Joseph Smith had three
fragments, or THREE HUNDRED fragments. We can only debate what we know he
had, and what he claimed about them. There is more than enough existant to
make a determination of Joseph Smith's claims.
Joseph Smith possessed at least 5 papyri. A
>description of William H. Rust in 1837 said the papyri were a quantity of
>rolls with some pieces being torn off and some pieces lost. The sheets were
>originally rolled up.
I can quote you a dozen statements that were only TWO actual scrolls----one,
Joseph Smith declared was "the writings of Abraham," and the other, "the
writings of Joseph in Egypt." Although the one he claimed contained "the
writing of Joseph" is lost, we know that from contemporary descriptions of it,
that it, like the three Facsimiles published in the BoA, are Egyptian funerary
documents, having nothing to do with Judeo/Christianity. Therefore, Joseph
Smith was O-for-everything in his claims about the missing papyrus, as well as
the found ones.
"Seven of the said eleven (mummies) were purchased by gentlemen for private
museums, previous to Mr. Chandler's visit to this place, with a small quantity
of papyrus, similar (as he says) to the astronomical representations,
contained
with the present *TWO ROLLS*, of which I previously spoke..."
-----Oliver Cowdery, 1835.
>In 1840 the papyrus were described as being in several frames under glass.
Hmmmm.....I wonder why the learned scholar, Mr. Gee, doesn't take it one step
further, and tell us that the 'Quincy Whig' reporter of 1840 specified that
one
of the scrolls that was cut up and framed, also was claimed by JS to be the
"writings of Abraham?" Could it be because it WOULD DESTROY HIS ENTIRE
ARGUMENT, AND PROBABLY HIS LIFE'S WORK?????
"Then he (Joseph Smith) walked to his secretary (that is, the old-fashioned
secretary--a piece of furniture) on the opposite side of the room, and drew
out
several frames COVERED WITH GLASS, under which were numerous fragments of
Egyptian papyrus on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical
characters had been imprinted. 'These ancient records,' said he, 'throw great
light on the subject of Christianity.....But I will show you how I interpret
certain parts. There,' said he, pointing to a particular character, 'THAT IS
THE *SIGNATURE* OF THE PATRIARCH ABRAHAM."
Goodbye, "missing scroll theory," Kerry.
>May 1841- Appleby saw the "rolls of papyrus."
>Caswell in 1842 said he saw glazed slides of papyrus.
>Charlotte Haven Feb. 1843 described a "long roll" and hieroglyphics on
>"another long roll."
Haven's "long roll" quote is negated by JS' statement that the "signature of
Abraham" was contained in a fragment that was already cut up and framed three
years earlier, in 1840. Therefore, any "long roll" Haven may have seen would
not have been the "writings of Abraham," but another fragment.
And if you believe, as Haven wrote, that Lucy Mack Smith claimed the ability
to
read 'Hebrew and Sanscrit,' I've got a seer stone I'd like to sell you.
>Some papyri were in the St. Louis Museum in 1856, Gustav Seifarth (sp?)
Seyffarth.
saw
>at least one papyrus "roll," and appears to describe "two rolls." Showing
>"rolls" were in existence in the JS Papyri as late as 1856!
Exactly. "Two rolls." "Two rolls," Kerry. One that JS claimed was from
Abraham, and the other from Joseph, both of which were Egyptian funerary
papyrii, as Seyffarth himself interpreted while they were in his possession,
and his interpretation has been agreed upon by every Egyptologist since that
time. Seyffarth described them as being "an invocation to the Deity, Osirus,
in which occurs the name of the person, (Horus), and a picture of the
attendant
spirits introducing the dead to the Judge, Osirus." (Story of the Pearl of
Great Price, p. 159).
Seyffarth's description is exactly what the Facsimiles published in the BoA
contain, as agreed upon by numerous Egyptologists, and have nothing to do with
Abraham, or the Judeo/Christian religion in the least. Thank you for bringing
up Seyffarth; his remarks destroy every modern Mormon argument for the BoA.
>Some sheets were cut and put into frames, leaving at "least two rolls, one
>being a long roll of manuscript."
Already covered.
The roll in the museum of Chicago was
>destroyed by the fire.
The one found in NY in 1966 was supposedly destroyed in that same fire too,
but
it wasn't, was it? I bet you wished it HAD been.
It was described as a "roll." This one seemed to
>have contained fac. 3.
Utterly irrelevant, as the fragment that JS claimed contained the "signature"
of Abraham was cut up and framed, therefore was no longer a "roll."
The only surviving pieces are our 10 fragments
>today.
Those 10 are consistent in showing that they have nothing to do with "Abraham"
as JS claimed. He's 0-for-everything.
Two rolls were destroyed by the fire in Chicago, according to its
>description of its own inventory.
Irrelevant.
>The original roll of Sunenies, (sp?) was 320 by 32 centimeters! The
>damaged outside leaves were preserved under glass preserved as papyrus #,
>7,8,5,6,4,2.
>Only 27 chapters of the Book of the Dead are in these fragments.
Irrelevant.
>One person described the Book of Abraham as translated from the papyri as
>taking over two hours to read aloud.
If you've read any of JS' nonsensical EA&G, you know why. And not all of the
"translated" BoA is published in the PGP. Wonder why that is, Kerry?
Compare today where it takes only a
>mere few minutes, clearly, we do not have all of the Book of Abraham, let
>alone all of the papyri.
Irrelevant. We have enough papyrii to know that it contained no writings of
Abraham.
>Papyri 3a and 3b was described from early accounts as a "roll." We only
>have two meager fragments of this "roll" today. And all we have of another
>is fac. 2 the hypocephalus. It was separated from its roll sometime and
>somewhere.
The hypocephalus alone kills the BoA, because hypocephali did not even exist
at
the time of Abraham. When JS installed "Abraham" into the hypocephalus, it
roughly equated to putting the Apostle Paul into a story wherein he was killed
by a Baptist preacher.
>The Book of the Dead of Amen Hotep described as a "roll," and separate
>document appears only as a small piece as fragment 6 in the Kirtland
>Egyptian Papers. We no longer have any roll of this original, but a mere
>small piece.
Irrelevant.
>The papyrus of Hor was 300 by 11 centimeters!!! All we have from this is
>papyrus Joseph Smith 1, 11, and 10, three small fragments of a roll over
>300 centimeters long!!! And it is two of these fragments, #'s 10 and 11
>that anti-Mormons claim are ALL the original of the Book of Abraham!
Tell the truth, Kerry. It isn't what "anti-Mormons" claim; it's what JOSEPH
SMITH HIMSELF CLAIMED. If the three Facsimiles are not the supposed source
material of the BoA, then please tell us why you think JS would have those
three fragments copied and published in the BoA, rather than the "real" BoA
source material, which you claim is "missing."
This
>simply cannot be demonstrated according to the physical descriptions of
>Joseph Smith's journal nor in descriptions in the History of the Church.
Utterly false, as I have already shown. Go back and read Joseph Smith's
journal entries that I wrote earlier (which you obviously couldn't refute, so
you went with your irrelevant red herrings and strawmen.)
And here's another quote you can scratch your head on, and smoke a few more
cigarettes over:
"We have the pleasure, this month, in being able to give an ILLUSTRATION AND
EXTRACT from the Book of Abraham, a book of higher antiquity than any portion
of the Bible."
---Parley P. Pratt, Millenial Star, July 1842.
>The critics are mind reading, not showing us HOW Smith translated the
>fragments,
He translated nothing. He merely invented a story, using the drawings on the
papyrii to flesh it out. It doesn't take a mind reader to see that, Kerry.
nor WHICH ONES Smith used. There is simply no description of
>WHICH pieces Joseph Smith used.
Perhaps you should re-read Abraham 1:6-17.
The anti-Mormons are lying when they say
>the small fragments of the papyri we now possess are ALL the papyri the
>Prophet owned.
Please quote the "anti-Mormons" who have said that. And even if some did, it
would be irrelevant.
The fragments represent a mere 13% of what Joseph Smith once
>owned.
Irrelevant, because the ones that he claimed were from the BoA are published
IN
the BoA. If he had thought any "missing" portions related to the BoA, he
would
have published them before they were "lost."
Until the critics become honest enough to admit this, I see no
>possible continuing dialogue with any intelligence with them.
>
>Kerry A. Shirts
I agree with that statement, except for replacing the word "Mormons" for
"critics."
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>> 23 February 1842:
>> gave Reuben Hedlock instructions concerning the cut for the altar & Gods
>in the
>> RECORDS OF ABRAHAM. as designed for the Times and Seasons.
Kerry ("Director of Research") Shirts wrote:
>And this says anything about WHICH papyri Smith used as his translation?
Uhhh.....Kerry, I realize you're brain dead, but maybe you could get somebody
to read it and explain it to you. Read Joseph Smith's journal entry again.
And
again, if you need to.
>Pray tell please demonstrate how Papyri Joseph Smith #'s 10 and 11 are
>mentioned here at all.....go ahead, show us yer stuff dude.
Read the quote again, Kerry. What did JS tell Hedlock to copy for the Times
and Seasons? "The cut for the altar and gods in the RECORDS OF ABRAHAM."
>> 24 February 1842:
>> was explaining the RECORDS OF ABRAHAM to the recorder.
>
>And THIS proves Smith actually translated the papyri #'s 10 and 11???
>Surely you jest! There is NOTHING here identifying WHICH PAPYRI Smith used.
Just a continuation of what I quoted above.
>> 1 March 1842:
>> Correcting the first plate or cut of the RECORDS OF FATHER ABRAHAM
>prepared by
>> Reuben Hedlock for the Times and Seasons
>
>Nothing here about papyri #'s 10 and 11 either
The quote is self-explanatory for non-brainwashed people, Kerry. The "cut"
Hedlock prepared for publishing in the Times and Seasons contained the
"RECORDS OF FATHER ABRAHAM." Read Abraham 1:12.
.....you read WAY TOO MUCH
>into all this Jordo,
Hmmm....I read it exactly as JS wrote it, in his own diary. The fact that it
destroys your entire "missing scroll theory" and rocks your pathetic little
junior apologist career is not my problem.
but then you HAVE to or you are bankrupt. Gee that I
>had these mind reading skills!
Who needs mind-reading skills? All *I* need is basic READING skills, sans the
obfuscating opinions of Mormon apologists.
>> 2 March 1842:
>> Read the Proof of the "Times and Seasons" as Editor for the first time,
>No.
>> 9-Vol 3d in which is the commencement of the BOOK OF ABRAHAM.
>
>And THIS identifies the exact fragments of #'s 10 and 11 of the papyri???
It continues the theme.
>> 4 March 1842:
>> Exhibiting the BOOK OF ABRAHAM in the ORIGINAL, to Bro. Reuben Hedlock,
>so that
>> he might take the size of the several plates or cuts. and prepare the
>blocks
>> for the Times and Seasons. & also gave instruction concerning the
>arrangement
>> of the WRITING on the large cut. illustrating the PRINCIPLES OF
>ASTRONOMY.
>
>And THIS identifies anywhere that the fragments 10 and 11 were used???
What does the phrase "Exhibiting the Book of Abraham *IN THE ORIGINAL*,....so
that he might take the size of the several plates or cuts...for the Times and
Seasons..." mean to you, Kerry?
What was the "original" of the BOA? Obviously, JS claimed it to be on his
papyrii. Which papyrii did JS claim it was on? The ones he instructed
Hedlock
to publish in the T&S.
JS even instructed Hedlock on the "arrangement of the writing on the large
cut," obviously referring to Facsimile 3.
>> 8 March 1842:
>> Commenced Translating from the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, for the 10 No. of the
>Times &
>> Seasons
>
>WHere is the fragments 10 and 11 ever mentioned here??? No source
>documentation at all.....
Kerry, JS never numbered the fragments. But his diary quotes explain exactly
which pieces he was referring to. You'll obviously have to clear your mind of
years of Nibleycrap to understand it, though.
>> 9 March 1842:
>> continued the TRANSLATION of the BOOK OF ABRAHAM
>
>Nor are the original fragments identified here either.
It continues the theme. There's no reason to believe that he wasn't
"translating" from the fragments he was instructing Hedlock on---especially
seeing as how hieratic characters from the Sen-Sen text appear in the margins
of three original BoA manuscripts, as though JS wanted the world to believe
that those characters were the actual writings of Abraham, and the English
text
within was the English translation of them.
>> All quotes from "The Papers of Joseph Smith", Deseret Book, 1992.
>>
>> "The Book of Abraham," 1:12:
>>
>> "that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the
>> representation AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS RECORD."
>
>Is this an identification of fragments 10 and 11 as we now possess them?
"Abraham" is obviously referring to Facsimile No. 1. The "record" Abraham
speaks of HAS to be the Sen-Sen characters, because they originally were
attached to the "lion-couch scene" which appeared "at the commencement of this
record."
"Q: Are the three facsimiles related to each other?
A: Definitely, by all being attached to one and the same document, namely, the
Joseph Smith Papyri X and XI, which contain a text of the Egyptian Book of
Breathings. Facsimile No. 1 is followed immediately on its left-hand margin
by
Joseph Smith Papyrus XI, which begins the Book of Breathings. Someone cut
them
apart, but the fibre edges of their two margins still match neatly. Facsimile
No. 1 thus serves as a sort of frontispiece."
----Hugh Nibley, "Ensign" magazine, March 1976, page 34.
If you can PROVE these quotes actually identify THE
>SPECIFIC fragments, I'll QUIT MORMONISM Jordan........
Please don't, Kerry. What would I do for fun?
>> Now, Woody, a question:
>>
>> How long are you, and other Mormons on ARM, going to keep up the lie that
>"we
>> don't have the source material for the Book of Abraham?"
>
>How long are you going to keep mind reading and confusing the issues
>Jordan?
You mean confusing the "missing scroll theory" that Mormon apologists have
spent 30 years developing and repeating, only to see it dashed to pieces by
perusing a few words from JS' own diary?
> How long are you going to ignore that we have only 13% of the
>papyri that Joseph Smith once owned?
Already covered that irrelevant strawman of yours, Kerry. If there is another
missing 87%, as you believe, none of it would relate to what JS claimed was
"the writings of Abraham." There could be another 587% missing; but the part
that JS claimed was the BoA is published IN the BoA.
It is obvious, from
a) JS' own diary entries, giving descriptions, details, and instructions on
the
facsimiles,
b) from his use of the three facsimiles both to illustrate the BoA and to
furnish text for, and
c) his use of hieratic characters from the Sen-Sen text in both his BoA
manuscript and his EA&G,
that the three facsimiles that are published in your BoA today are what JS
wished the world to believe was his source for the BoA.
>Kerry A. "Love yer sleight of hand tricks, but I'm after truth, not nitwit
>scholarship as you present" Shirts
I guess my scholarship will have to be judged by the individual reader,
Kerry.
"Sleight of hand tricks?" I quoted JS' exact words from his own journal,
published by Deseret Book and edited by Dean Jessee. It's not my fault that
the
plain facts destroy your entire "missing scroll theory."
Get out yer cryin' towel, bud. The BoA is a dead Horus.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
<< the Book of Moses was not
> >translated from the papyri *and NEVER purported to be*.
Randy wrote:
> It's easy to get this stuff confused, because Joseph Smith claimed so
many
>> different things about the papyrus.
> Randy, there is a difference between what Joseph Smith claimed, and what
others claim that he claimed.
But if SEVERAL people reported that JS said certain things, and they all
corroborate each other, then it is likely that he said them.
>For example:
> > Josiah Quincy reported on his 1844 visit
> > with JS:
> See what I mean? This isn't Joseph's claim; it's Josiah's claim about
> what Joseph claimed.
It's what Quincy reported from his own 1844 interview with JS; that same
interview has been used by Mormon apologists to support JS for over 100
years. Quincy's "Figures of the Past", from which I quoted this, also
contains the oft-repeated "faith-promoting" account:
"It is by no means improbable that some future textbook, for the use of
generations yet unborn, will contain a question something like this: What
historical American of the nineteenth century has exerted the most powerful
influence upon the destinies of his countrymen? And is by no means
impossible that the answer to the interrogatory may be thus written: Joseph
Smith, the Mormon prophet."
Mormon writer Dr. James R. Clark supported the accuracy of Quincy's report in
his "Story of the Pearl of Great Price," p. 71:
"Charles Francis Adams of the famous colonial Adams family accompanied Josiah
Quincy to Nauvoo. According to Josiah Quincy, he wrote his chapter in
"Figures of the Past" (1883) on Joseph Smith at Nauvoo on the basis of
letters written at the time and sent to Boston, and the diary of his
traveling companion Charles Francis Adams."
In addition, JS made similar statements about the mummies and papyrus which
were recorded by others, including his own followers. So it is disingenuous
for you to attempt to dismiss Quincy's report simply because it was not
written by JS' hand (to coin a phrase). If you wish to dismiss everything
said or written about JS that he himself did not say or write, then you'll
have to dump practically every historical document of Mormonism, including
the "scriptures."
If you dismiss Quincy's words about the papyrii, then you must dismiss his
complimentary remarks about JS as well. Poor credibility, you know.
>> "Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us.
>Interrupting here to note that parchment is made from leather, whereas
papyrus is made from a plant. This is by no means an important point,
but it does show that Quincy wasn't trying really hard to be accurate
> here.
You're right, it's a typically inconsequential, trivial point from you, and
it doesn't reflect on Quincy's accuracy in the least, but it says a lot about
your pettiness.
Quincy wasn't an antiquities expert; he was a writer. If you held Joseph
Smith to the same standard of accuracy that you apparently hold Josiah
Quincy, you'd have dumped Mormonism long ago.
> They were
> preserved under glass and handled with great respect. 'That is the
handwriting
> of Abraham, the father of the Faithful,' said the prophet. 'This is
the
> autograph of Moses, and those lines were written by his brother Aaron.
>This is called "free embellishment."
It is what Quincy reported JS as saying. Since you weren't there, and Quincy
was, your assertion of "embellishment" is worthless.
Joseph Smith never identified any
> papyrus as containing anyone's "handwriting."
JS' exact words, which he wrote in the introduction to the BoA, was that the
papyrus was written by the actual hand of Abraham. Every other statement by
him, by his followers, and by other eyewitnesses support that contention.
Nowhere did JS say it was a "copy," or imply in any way that the papyrii was
not written by the actual hand of Abraham himself. Since Quincy interviewed
JS personally, and you did not, and Quincy's report is supported by all other
statements of the time, I will accept Quincy's word that Smith actually said
those words, rather than your ridiculous attempt in 1999 to assert otherwise.
>It is quite absurd to suggest that one papyrus would contain the
"autographs" of >men who lived at least 500 years apart.
I agree, but that is nevertheless exactly what JS said. His first statement
about the papyrus was "I....found that one of the rolls contained the
writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph, etc...." (HoC, 2:235).
He then claimed "Thus I have given a brief history of the manner in which the
writings of the Fathers, Abraham, and Joseph have been preserved and how I
came into possession of the same...." (HoC, 2:350).
Parley P. Pratt repeated the claim that the papyrus contained the actual
writings of Abraham and Joseph in the "MIllenial Star," July 1, 1842:
"We have much pleasure this month in being able to give an illustration and
extract from the BOOK OF ABRAHAM; a book of higher antiquity than any portion
of the Bible......The record is now in course of translation.....and proves
to be a record written partly by the father of the faithful, Abraham, and
finished by Joseph when in Egypt. After his death, it is supposed they were
preserved in the family of the Pharoahs and afterwards hid up with the
embalmed body of the female with whom they were found."
Pratt's words repeat the idea that the papyrus was the actual medium that
Abraham and Joseph personally had written upon; if they were a "copy", as
some modern Mormons attempt to claim, there would have been no need for them
to be "preserved in the family of the Phaoroahs and afterwards hid up" inside
a later mummy. The ONLY reason Mormon apologists claim it was a "copy" is
because the papyrii have been dated to the first century, rather than to the
time of Abraham. The text of the BoA itself refutes the "copy" assertion; in
1:12, "Abraham" could not refer us to the "representation at the commencement
of this record", unless he had the actual "representation" (the lion-couch
scene) before him with which to refer his readers TO.
Obviously, "Abraham" could not predict or control what alleged "copyists" did
1500 years after his time; he could not know if "copyists" would faithfully
re-arrange his writings in correct order; therefore, the only person who
could have referred us to a particular illustration in a particular place was
the writer himself.
Of course, since the papyrus is part of the "Book of the Dead," from the 1st
century, having nothing to do with "Abraham," the issue of it being Abraham's
actual handwriting is moot. The real issue is Joseph Smith's honesty and
credibility.
Since the accompanying hypocephalus, which JS identified as part of the BoA,
did not even appear in the Egyptian religion until about 600-900 BC,
centuries after the time of Abraham, it is impossible for the hypocephalus to
have even been a "copy" of anything "Abraham" drew. That fact alone sinks
the "copy" theory, but there is yet another account that sinks it even
deeper----an interview with Lucy Mack Smith from 1845, while she was still
showing the antiquities publicly:
"Her story with regard to the mummies (learned from Joe), is about as
follows: It seems that, for the express purpose of corroborating the 'brass
plates' which were one day to be dug up, and translated as the 'Book of
Mormon' the angel of the Lord, three thousand years ago, appeared to Joseph
in Egypt and delivered to him a wooden case, containing a roll of papyrus,
which was to be buried by him with the family of one of the patriarchs; that
Joseph did so, depositing the case on the Queen's breast, where it lay until
the discovery of the 'brass plates,' the Lord then causing the bodies to be
discovered also and conveyed with the identical deposit of Joseph into the
hands of 'Joe'.....accordingly having already deciphered the plates, he made
short work of the hieroglyphics..." (St. Louis "Reveille," September, 1845,
quoted in Clark, p. 149).
Note that Lucy's remarks corroborate Pratt's comment that the papyrii were
actually from the time of Joseph of Egypt, who himself installed the papyrii
into the mummy case. Obviously, neither Pratt or Lucy would invent such a
bold common claim; they had to have heard it from JS. Pratt said it in 1842;
Lucy said the same thing in 1845. Nowhere do we see a hint of an idea that
the papryii that JS owned was a "copy" of an earlier writing; the assertion
is clear that JS wanted the world to believe the papyrii to be an original
work, begun by Abraham, "finished by Joseph," and put into the mummy case by
Joseph himself.
Goodbye, "copy of a copy" theory. It goes into the round file along with the
"missing scroll" theory and the "mnemonic device" theory.
> > Here we
> have the earliest account of the creation, from which Moses composed
the first
> Book of Genesis.' The parchment showed a rude drawing of a man and
woman, and
>> a serpent walking upon a pair of legs." (Figures of the Past, p.
385.)
>Which is an authentic point; others reported such pictures, and there
seem to have been at least two of them. But the fact that Quincy had
seen the picture does not prove that Joseph said any part of what is
> reported above.
The fact that you concede his accuracy on the description of the picture, yet
question his accurate reporting of JS' words, means that you are a zealous
fanatic who will call someone a liar, without evidence or support, for no
other reason other than to make JS look better. However, even aside from
that, you are wrong anyway, because Quincy's remarks are corroborated by
other witnesses.
> I can show you a picture of me in the North Visitors'
Centre on Temple Square in August of 1986. If I published an account of
an interview with President Benson, would that picture serve to prove
> the accuracy of my report?
It can if your report could be corroborated by other witnesses and
statements, which Quincy's was.
> JS also spoke of 'Moses' in relation to the papyrus to the 'Quincy
Whig'
> reporter on October 17, 1840:
> " 'The embalmed body that stands near the center of the case,' said
he, 'is one
> of the pharoahs who sat upon the throne of Egypt, and the female
figure by it
> was probably one of the daughters. It may have been the Princess
Thermutis.'
> I replied, 'The same that rescued Moses from the waters of the
Nile?'....The
> prophet replied, 'It is not improbable.....' "
>Correction: the 'Quincy Whig' reporter mentioned Moses, and *said* that
>Joseph agreed with *him*.
Exactly. If JS did not agree that the mummy could have been "Thermutis," he
should have said so, but he did not. The mummies have been dated to about
the 1st century. The fact that JS had no clue as to their date, and even
theorized that they could have dated to Moses' time, is further evidence that
JS had no expertise or credibility on the subject, as is also his claim that
the mummies were from the "family of the Pharoahs," which they were not.
>> So when Brent mentioned the "writings of Moses" in relation to the
papyrus, we
> must remember that JS himself claimed that the papyrus contained
information
> about Moses as well as Abraham and Joseph, although it wasn't his 1830
revision
> > of Genesis that is now called the "Book of Moses" in the PGP.
>What we *really* need to remember is that various *other parties*
claimed that Joseph claimed that the papyri contained information about
Moses. Let us not fall into the trap of automatically attributing to
>Joseph everything that someone else wants to attribute to him.
And let us not fall into the trap of questioning the accuracy of those
attributions without showing some evidence for it.
There's at least one other corroborative quote on this issue from JS' own
mother. Mormons use the 1843 Charlotte Haven recollection to
support the BoA. Here is a more complete recitation of Haven's visit with
Lucy Mack Smith:
"From there we called on Joseph's mother.....she lit a candle and conducted
us up a short, narrow stairway to a low, dark room under the roof. On one
side were standing half a dozen mummies, to whom she introduced us, King
Onitus and his royal household,--one she did not know. Then she took up what
seemed to be a club wrapped in a dark cloth, and said 'This is the leg of
Pharoah's daughter, the one that saved Moses.'.....Then she turned to a long
table, set her candlestick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying
it was 'the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit,'
and she read several minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very
much like passages from the Old Testament...she said she read it through the
inspiration of her son Joseph,...in the same way she interpreted to us
hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the
serpent...who was standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs
formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear. I said, 'But serpents don't
have legs.' 'They did before the fall,' she asserted with perfect
confidence." (Overland Monthly, December 1890, pp. 623-24).
Note that Haven's 1843 quote of Lucy Smith corroborates the "Quincy Whig's"
1840 quote of JS about "Pharoah's daughter that saved Moses." Obviously, the
only way that both the 1840 "Whig" reporter and Haven in 1843 could have
reported similar statements, was if JS himself had made the statements.
Certainly old "Mother Smith" would not have made such a claim about the
mummies without having first heard it from her "inspired prophet" son. Two
witnesses three years apart could not have invented details that mirrored
each other; therefore, they had to have gotten their information from the
Smiths.
Note also Lucy's statement about the "serpent with legs." That corroborates
exactly Josiah Quincy's report of his 1844 interview with JS:
" 'And now come with me,' said the prophet 'and I will show you the
curiosities.'...There were some pine presses fixed against the wall of the
room. These receptacles Smith opened, and disclosed four human bodies,
shrunken and black with age. 'These are mummies,' said the exhibitor. 'I
want you to look at that little runt of a fellow over there. He was a great
man in his day. Why, that was Pharoah Necho, King of Egypt!' Some
parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us......the
parchment last referred to showed a rude drawing of a man and a woman, and a
serpent walking upon a pair of legs. I ventured to doubt the propriety of
providing the reptile in question with this unusual means of locomotion.
'Why, that's as plain as a pikestaff,' was the rejoinder. 'Before the Fall
snakes always went about on legs, just like chickens. They were deprived of
them, in punishment for their agency in the ruin of man.' We were further
assured that the prophet was the only mortal who could translate these
mysterious writings, and that his power was given by direct
inspiration...'Gentlemen,' said this bourgeois Mohammed, as he closed the
cabinets, 'those who see these curiosities generally pay my mother a quarter
of a dollar."
Note that Quincy's quote of JS about the serpent losing his legs in 'the
Fall' dovetails with Lucy Mack Smith's identical comment; obviously, for you
to believe that the idea didn't come from JS, you would have to opine that
Quincy and Haven, in visits a year apart, somehow conspired to tell a
common fantastic lie, purely to make JS look bad. Note also that JS claimed
the
legged serpent to be the same that "beguiled" Eve in the Garden; he was wrong
in that assertion as well, as the legged serpent does not depict a Biblical
scene, but is an oft-repeated, common
figure from the Book of the Dead.
So, in toto, we've got at least six different sources telling a consistent
story about JS and what he claimed about the papyrii:
1. The "Whig" reporter's 1840 interview with JS
2. JS' 1842 introduction to the BoA
3. Pratt's 1842 remarks
4. Haven's 1843 visit and recollection
5. Josiah Quincy's 1844 interview
6. The "St. Louis Reveille" 1845 interview with Lucy Smith
All of those accounts are consistent with each other, and combine to destroy
your assertion.
Note also JS' revealing comment about his mother showing the antiquities for
money.
Mormonism was the Smith Family Business; they used the Egyptian antiquities
like a Ripley sideshow. Lucy's fantastic statements to Haven, pretending to
read 'Hebrew and Sanscrit,' indicates that she had made herself into a
carnival pitchman, somewhat reminiscent of her son's early "peep-stoning"
trade, and a continuation of her "following the faculty of Abrac"; there's no
telling how many of Nauvoo's 12,000 Mormons paid her a quarter to see the
mummies; but I'm sure P. T. Barnum would have been impressed with the amount.
So, what was JS' motivation for publishing the BoA? To bring forth 'new
scripture' to the masses? Nope, he was out to make a buck like mom:
"In February, 1843, John Taylor indicated to the Saints and subscribers that
if their subscriptions were not kept current they would miss the additional
translations from the Book of Abraham.....'We would respectfully announce to
those of our subscribers...who commenced their subscription for the Times and
Seasons at the time when Brother Joseph took the editorial department that
the term for which they subscribed is nearly at a close.....We have given
this timely notice that our friends may prepare themselves......we have the
promise of Br. Joseph, to furnish us with further extracts from the Book of
Abraham.' " (Clark, p. 98).
When one is researching JS' motives, it's always best to follow the money.
>When Joseph is allowed to tell his own story, it is sober, consistent,
and with the exception of his accounts of hierophanies, not at all
> strange or fantastic.
I'd say that the evidence I've laid out pretty much blows that assertion to
bits.
>When others step forward to help him out, the
>story becomes increasingly bizarre.
It certainly appears that Parley P. Pratt, Charlotte Haven, and Lucy Mack
Smith helped paint JS as sufficiently bizarre. And they are all FRIENDLY
witnesses.
As concerning the other witnesses, you are theorizing that all the people who
reported JS' words were liars or incredible. You have no foundation for your
theory. JS was hardly "sober and consistent" in his statements on the
papyrus or many other issues; throughout his career, he made wild, fantastic,
absurd, unsupportable claims about antiquities, geographical sites, Biblical
themes, etc. His "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" is the very DEFINITION of
"strange and fantastic." His statements about the papyrii are no more
"strange or fantastic" than his claims about the Garden of Eden being in
Missouri, Indians being cursed by God, ancient writings on gold plates,
visions of angels, or 100 other silly claims of his. I don't see you rushing
to discredit those wild, unsupportable claims; the ONLY reason you wish to
discredit this one issue is because the papyrus have been dated far too late
to have been written "by the hand of Abraham," so you are forced to call many
people liars in order to support JS' "strange and fantastic" claims.
> > It's easily confused.
>That depends upon one's approach. If we start with Joseph's own
accounts, and stick with the scriptures *he* caused to be published,
> there is little cause for confusion.
<chuckle> JS himself "stuck" so firmly to his "scriptures" that he himself
published, that he had to make hundreds of revisions in the D&C in the two
short years between the 1833 and 1835 editions. Everything he wrote is full
of inconsistencies and unsupportable assertions, and many of his teachings
have had to be redacted, rescinded or disavowed. His statements on the
papyrus are no different. He was more "confused" about the papyrus than
anything else in his entire life.
>If we cast around looking for
anything and everything that we can use as ammunition against him, it
>does indeed become mightily confusing, because *just like today*, the
critics then did not care about the subject enough to make the effort to
>get it right.
We don't have to "look" for ammunition against the BoA; it screams at us.
Your pontification about "the critics" is inappropriate and unjustified, and
just makes you appear worse.
>If those who want to criticise the Pearl of Great Price would actually
read that volume -- it is, after all, fairly small -- *instead* of
relying upon hostile diatribes on the papyri, they would trip themselves
>up far less often.
Here you throw the unfounded "critics just haven't read the book" lunacy out
from your Mormon ivory tower with arrogance and disdain upon us poor, lost
"Gentiles."
The actual text of the BoA is as damning as the papyrii issues, because the
text is an obvious reflection of JS' modern milieu, just as the BOM was. The
stamp of the 19th century is all over it.
The "fairly small"--ness of the BoA is another point against its
authenticity. It should not have taken the "prophet" seven years to
"translate" 15 pages.
And you really should read Thomas Dick's 1829 "Philosophy of a Future State."
Russell C. McGregor
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
It is obvious that when it comes to ancient Egyptian papyrii, JS' opinion
wasn't worth a straw either.
Randy J.
Akicita
Neos Efialtis <Efia...@WinISP.net> wrote in message
news:865h5t$1...@news.dns.microsoft.com...
> http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml
Here's something I don't get. This article (yes, I am actually reading those
links!) is founded upon the popular idea that maybe the facsimiles we have
today are NOT the ones from which JS made his translation. It acknowledges
that what we have really IS the "book of breathings," but that "I feel that
the source of the Book of Abraham was not the tiny Book of Breathings (the
Sensen scroll) which was recovered in 1966. Rather, a lengthier scroll of
different physical appearance was used (in my view); that scroll is
currently missing from the recovered set of papyrus fragments."
Here's my question. If there were a larger scroll, and it's now missing
after the fire, why was the irrelevant BoB papyrus the only one ever
reproduced in the Times and Seasons? Why was its image so prominently
displayed in church publications, if Joseph knew it was irrelevant and that
it was NOT the book of Abraham? And if it isn't the right one, why did he
label its pictures and then write descriptions for what each image is
supposed to mean?
Bill Williams
Akicita <aki...@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:NBmi4.698$Ug3....@newshog.newsread.com...
Akicita, you've hit on the big problem with the BoA. Not only is there no
evidence that it is a translation from Egyptian, but it is even impossible
to come up with a feasible explanation of how it COULD be a translation.
With every 'theory' of the origin of the Book of Abraham brought forth by
LDS apologists, there is some definite evidence that makes the 'theory' not
feasible. That's why there have been so many theories, and why some of them
appear so silly. The 'memory device' theory is proposterous, yet it is the
kind of explanation that apologists must devise to attempt to make the BoA
even appear POSSIBLY a translation.
The BoA is simply impossible to defend. For a thorough description of the
many theories and contradictions between them concerning the origin of the
Book of Abraham, I suggest "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" by Charles Larson
(© 1992 Institute for Religious Research). I have the text of this book at
my web page www.concordance.com/mormon.htm, but since the graphics
(especially the pictures of the papyrii) and charts are very valuable (and
which I can't put into a concordance file), I would suggest actually
obtaining the book, which is reasonable priced.
Bill Williams
Akicita
Bill Williams <will...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:g3ni4.1834
> Akicita, you've hit on the big problem with the BoA. Not only is there no
> evidence that it is a translation from Egyptian, but it is even impossible
> to come up with a feasible explanation of how it COULD be a translation.
> With every 'theory' of the origin of the Book of Abraham brought forth by
> LDS apologists, there is some definite evidence that makes the 'theory'
not
> feasible. That's why there have been so many theories, and why some of
them
> appear so silly. The 'memory device' theory is proposterous, yet it is the
> kind of explanation that apologists must devise to attempt to make the BoA
> even appear POSSIBLY a translation.
>
> The BoA is simply impossible to defend. For a thorough description of the
> many theories and contradictions between them concerning the origin of the
> Book of Abraham, I suggest "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" by Charles
Larson
> (© 1992 Institute for Religious Research). I have the text of this book at
> my web page www.concordance.com/mormon.htm, but since the graphics
> (especially the pictures of the papyrii) and charts are very valuable (and
> which I can't put into a concordance file), I would suggest actually
> obtaining the book, which is reasonable priced.
Let me take this opportunity to comment on the first essay that Neos
referred me to, at http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml I
already mentinoed a few comments above. But here are some more:
1. Let me repeat, briefly, that the essay defends Smith by straining for a
conclusion that the papyri we now have were NOT the ones by which JS made
his translation. I find this troubling, since if it were irrelevant (while a
second scroll were the significant work), JS was absurd in his decision to
publish and refine images of the irrelevant work in the church magazine
while never paying any public attention (in print) to the one he was
actually working on. Why claim to do a translation, and then say, "here is a
sample of the work I'm translating" and print something that's absolutely
NOT the scroll you're studying? Why does he produce for the public copies of
the scroll that's NOT the one that matters and pass it off as the one that
he's translating, thus ensnaring later LDS author's attempts to say that the
BoB papyrus isn't the right one to consider?
2. If it's not the document from which the BoA is taken, that's fine. The
article offers pages and pages of attempted proof that the BoA is not
related to the BoB (Book of Breathings), but that's actually irrelevant.
It's wasted space. It doesn't absolve JS, because he still stupidly numbered
the Book of Breathing papyrus and offered hand-written interpretations of
each of its icons, too. He was still wrong, it's just that he was
astonishgly wrong on translaion X instead of Y. It still makes the case that
he didn't have a clue about Egyptian.
3. And don't give me this "mnemonic device" nonsense. That's insulting to
me. And it abandons the LDS essay's own previous assertions that JS actually
*did* translate correctly but we don't have the original scroll. It
demonstrates a pathetic attempt by the essayist to cover all his bases,
regardless of the circumstance ("Look! He had a direct hit on that word!",
implying actual translation, versus "Look, we're not saying it was an actual
translation. It could have been a mnemonic one" when he fails on the rest).
It's a swiss-army-knife of defenses; the author will whip out whatever
defense he needs in any situation, even if it conflicts with the notions he
offered us just prior.
4. Nibley's defense, quoted on the page Neos sent me to, is absolutely,
mind-bogglingly silly. Nibley's argument is essentially, "If joseph
translated 200+ words from a few Egyptian pen strokes, such a conclusion
would be obvious to us all: it's ridiculous. If it's so obviously stupid to
you, to me, to anyone else (even those who have no knowledge of Egyptian can
tell that such a proposition is stupid), then it would have been just as
obviously stupid to JS himself if he were trying to defraud. Which menas
that there must be more to it than that, or he wouldn't have made such an
obvious blunder." Or, to distill Nibley's argument even more, "It's so
obviously and undeniably stupid that there has to be another explanation,
because no fraud would have adopted such blatantly absurd methods."
5. The essay, like several I've seen, makes vague references to JS getting
some "direct hits" and "near misses" that a farm boy just couldn't have done
alone. But after that tantalizing assertion it continues without any
examples or verification. But what's interesting is that even if it IS true,
it shows that the LDS church does indeed defer to scholarly Egyptologist's
translations of heiroglyphs (as a means of saying "See? It means this in
real life, and our boy tranlated it to mean something kinda similar, so we
score!"). It's impossible to uphold academic translations when they
correspond to JS's guesswork, thus suiting the LDS agenda, and then dismiss
or suspiciously question that academic translation when it conflicts with
JS. That's picking and chooing the rules as you go, and doesn't impress me
with BoA scholarship in the least.
PatentWorm
TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000122110623...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
You mean not all 800 of your daily posts actually make it? Damn!
TheJordan6
>Date: Tue, 25 January 2000 12:47 AM EST
>Message-id: <GMaj4.1974$Ed.6...@news.uswest.net>
Not all of my posts make it, but as opposed to yours, mine actually contain
something of value.
Randy J.
Patent_Worm
> >From: ralei...@aol.comQQQQ (Raleigh345)
> >Date: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 09:03 EST
> >Message-id: <20000117090302...@ng-fy1.aol.com>
> >
> >>
> >>No foolin'? That's fascinating! That in itself indicates that the LDS
church
> >>did indeed notice such a thing, and acknowledged it by gonig so far as
to
> >>conceal it for so many years! The vanishing and returning penis is the
most
> >>objective evidence of all that it really IS there, and the church really
> >>DOES know exactly what it is.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Only difficulty is that I looked in my 1969 Large Print Quad, and
there
> >is
> >nothing that looks like the alleged "arm"/"penis". The figure on the
throne
> >looks like a snowman with three arms sticking out of his shoulder.
> > The picture in my post-1981 (smaller) Quad looks exactly the same.
> > Is the so-called penis the log that God is sitting on in both
editions? If
> >that is what is being referred to here, it would make a bull elephant
> >envious.
> >
> > Raleigh
>
> The penis is plain and obvious in my 1981 BOA. Maybe you should go to
Red's
> website to view the blow-up of a hypocephalus with Min's and Nehebka's
monster
> tools.
>
> Randy J.
Why would we want to look at a manuscript that is unrelated to the BoA? How
does this prove anything? But it's nice that you have taken to time to
perform a careful examination of these Egyptian God's units. What else
excites you?
Patent_Worm
BO-man <br...@NOSPAM.cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3883c3a3$1...@news2.one.net...
> What the heck is a "mormonite god"?
>
>
Maybe it has something to do with "Kryptonite".
PatentWorm
> >From: "PatentWorm" <jgu...@uswest.com>
> >Date: Tue, 25 January 2000 12:47 AM EST
> >Message-id: <GMaj4.1974$Ed.6...@news.uswest.net>
> >
> >
> >> >> If you would like me to re-post some of my old rebuttals to Kerry
> >Shirts,
> >> >Woody
> >> >> Brison, Charles Dowis, and Russell McGregor, on the BOA, I'll be
happy
> >to.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Yes, please.
> >>
> >> Look for 'em on this thread. I've been having trouble with some of my
> >posts
> >> not showing up on ARM, so we'll have to see if they make it or not.
> >>
> >> Randy J.
> >
> >You mean not all 800 of your daily posts actually make it? Damn!
>
> Not all of my posts make it, but as opposed to yours, mine actually
contain
> something of value.
>
One man's trash is another man's treasure I suppose.
Akicita
PatentWorm <jgu...@uswest.com> wrote in message
news:pFvj4.873$a4.4...@news.uswest.net...
> One man's trash is another man's treasure I suppose.
It's nice that people can keep arguing, but can anyone address my questions
abotu the BoA? I was handed a list of about 10 links by Neos, but I'm not
about to keep reading if my questions after the first essay are just
ignored. It seems much easier for LDS to toss out a handful of links and
then retreat from the issue, convinced that they've addressed their
inquisitors.
alkhemy
things over and over like they have for yearsssss! boring....try something
new for a change (this is not directly related to the poster of this
message, just a general note...) D ;)news:C5Ej4.648$Gz.6...@newshog.newsread.com...
R. L. Measures
<alk...@home.com> wrote:
> just as it is much easier for anti's to keep posting and saying the same
> things over and over like they have for yearsssss! boring....try something
> new for a change (this is not directly related to the poster of this
> message, just a general note...) D ;)
€ Do you believe that the Egyptian language has an alphabet?
> "Akicita" <aki...@telepath.com> wrote in message
> news:C5Ej4.648$Gz.6...@newshog.newsread.com...
> >
> > PatentWorm <jgu...@uswest.com> wrote in message
> > news:pFvj4.873$a4.4...@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > > One man's trash is another man's treasure I suppose.
> >
> >
> > It's nice that people can keep arguing, but can anyone address my
> questions
> > abotu the BoA? I was handed a list of about 10 links by Neos, but I'm not
> > about to keep reading if my questions after the first essay are just
> > ignored. It seems much easier for LDS to toss out a handful of links and
> > then retreat from the issue, convinced that they've addressed their
> > inquisitors.
> >
> >
> >
--
Akicita
alkhemy <alk...@home.com> wrote in message
news:xBGj4.196$wM....@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com...
> just as it is much easier for anti's to keep posting and saying the same
> things over and over like they have for yearsssss! boring....try something
> new for a change (this is not directly related to the poster of this
> message, just a general note...) D ;)
Well, one of the things most often accused of the "anti's" is that we
"anti's" (I'm not really "Anti," just in strong disagreement) tend to rattle
off accusations without considering LDS responses more fairly. So I tried
"something new," as you put it: I've actually been reading LDS essays.
Rather than welcoming someone who's finally willing to read and investigate
the LDS research on this, everyone's acted like posting links is the end of
the conversation. I'm not trying to deliberately replicate prior criticisms,
but I do feel that after having read the first essay of ten that some
questions still remain. Nobody wants to answer them, and frankly I think
they're some good questions.
But on the other side, perhaps the LDS does the same thing as the anti's you
describe. Apparently, several people here have posted repeated or
well-researched criticisms of the BoA, incorporating a very adept
understandiong of actual LDS research on the topic but still issuing further
challenges to the information. Like the anti's, LDS scholars or apologists
have tended to fall back on old research by rebutting with the *very essays*
to which the criticisms are aimed! This reveals an impatience with ongoing
questions, and shows that the LDS tactic with regard to the BoA is to offer
older research, then ignore more recent discreditation of that VERY research
by answering critics with, "Here--read this!" and linking to the same essay.
The three major defenses made about the BoA (it's the wrong papyrus! JS made
some direct hits in his translation! Maybe it was mnemonic device and not a
literal translation?) are all mindbogglingly full of holes and outright
inaccuracies. If there is later research to fill in those gaps I'd like to
see it, but until then the irksome nature of the repeated criticisms of the
"antis" doesn't discard the fact that the anti-BoA arguments are right on
the money, and remain unresolved.
Elizabeth & Dale
> some direct hits in his translation! Maybe it was mnemonic device and not a
> literal translation?) are all mindbogglingly full of holes and outright
> inaccuracies. If there is later research to fill in those gaps I'd like to
> see it, but until then the irksome nature of the repeated criticisms of the
> "antis" doesn't discard the fact that the anti-BoA arguments are right on
> the money, and remain unresolved.
We were recently discussing the matter of what IS and ISN'T scripture
in our Weds. Bible study class here in Hilo. The consensus of the
students was that scripture was a record of God's revelation which
is accepted as being "authoritive" by a certain group of believers.
We had a bit of a problem in figuring out how to define those sections
of the RLDS D&C which were several years back dropped from the book.
Are they scripture today? Nobody was willing to say "yes." Were they
scripture back before they were dropped? Most agreed that in the past
that they were -- and that those same D&C sections remain scripture for
the LDS. How the change in status occurred nobody would venture a guess.
This last consideration brought a response from out of left field
from one of the participants: "Is the LDS-printed "Book of Abraham"
scripture?" Obviously, since it is not in the RLDS canon, it is NOT
scripture for us.
But that brought up a second question: Was the "Book of Abraham"
ever scripture to the Latter Day Saints -- and, if not, why does
it read like scripture? Did Joseph Smith, Jr. intend that it be
used a scripture? And, if so, was he telling the truth or a lie?
I don't think anybody here on a.r.m. will agree with the consensus
of the class -- it was that the BoA IS scripture for LDS but ISN'T
scripture for RLDS. Further -- that it ISN'T a true ancient record,
but that Joseph THOUGHT that it was when he wrote it down.
I am not at all happy with that consensus viewpoint, but it is
a good example of the kind of mental gymnastics we Saints go through
to try and justify Smith's having written a book which he obviously
intended be used as scripture, but which we RLDS do not so use.
A final word -- one of the participants described an incident in
which a Utah Mormon had born (beared?) her testimony aloud that
the Book of Abraham was true -- because she had felt a burning in
her bosom after praying about the thing. The RLDS who heard the
testimony said that to him, it appeared to be "of the Devil."
So much for the opinion of a handful of Saints out here in the
Islands of the Sea.
Unka Dale
Akicita
Elizabeth & Dale <dbro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:388FA191...@gte.net...
> This last consideration brought a response from out of left field
> from one of the participants: "Is the LDS-printed "Book of Abraham"
> scripture?" Obviously, since it is not in the RLDS canon, it is NOT
> scripture for us.
Historical query: Did Joseph Smith himself ever actually introduce the BoA
as scripture? My understanding was during his entire life he did not. He
published it as an article in the T&S, were it was largely forgotten about
until years after his death when it was revived by the Utah church in
missionary tracts for England which would later become the PoGP.
alkhemy
"R. L. Measures" <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote in message
news:meas+ures-260...@port28.dial.vcnet.com...
> > things over and over like they have for yearsssss! boring....try
something
> > new for a change (this is not directly related to the poster of this
> > message, just a general note...) D ;)
>
alkhemy
>
Like the anti's, LDS scholars or apologists
> have tended to fall back on old research by rebutting with the *very
essays*
> to which the criticisms are aimed! This reveals an impatience with ongoing
> questions, and shows that the LDS tactic with regard to the BoA is to
offer
> older research, then ignore more recent discreditation of that VERY
research
> by answering critics with, "Here--read this!" and linking to the same
essay.
>
>
maybe becaue the answers are there and nobody will look into it and read it
for what it is...I guess I have always just had a strong faith and assurance
of the things I have grown up with and have been taught, but I have just not
taken people's word for it, I searched it out and prayed for the answers,
and I got the answer (s) I needed to have the affirmations of the
truthfullness of these things. I do understand the other side of the fence
as I was a missonary and have seen what others go through in searching for
the truths that they want. so I guess that is why the "anti's use these
tactics, because they may see things and think that the answers are right in
front of their face and we don't see it (by their perspective...?) hummm I
have just done some deep thinking, I think my head will explode! tee hee D
;)>
>
R. L. Measures
<aki...@telepath.com> wrote:
> alkhemy <alk...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:xBGj4.196$wM....@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com...
> > just as it is much easier for anti's to keep posting and saying the same
> > things over and over like they have for yearsssss! boring....try something
> > new for a change (this is not directly related to the poster of this
> > message, just a general note...) D ;)
>
>
> Well, one of the things most often accused of the "anti's" is that we
> "anti's" (I'm not really "Anti," just in strong disagreement) tend to rattle
> off accusations without considering LDS responses more fairly. So I tried
> "something new," as you put it: I've actually been reading LDS essays.
> Rather than welcoming someone who's finally willing to read and investigate
> the LDS research on this, everyone's acted like posting links is the end of
> the conversation. I'm not trying to deliberately replicate prior criticisms,
> but I do feel that after having read the first essay of ten that some
> questions still remain. Nobody wants to answer them, and frankly I think
> they're some good questions.
>
> But on the other side, perhaps the LDS does the same thing as the anti's you
> describe. Apparently, several people here have posted repeated or
> well-researched criticisms of the BoA, incorporating a very adept
> understandiong of actual LDS research on the topic but still issuing further
> challenges to the information. Like the anti's, LDS scholars or apologists
> have tended to fall back on old research by rebutting with the *very essays*
> to which the criticisms are aimed! This reveals an impatience with ongoing
> questions, and shows that the LDS tactic with regard to the BoA is to offer
> older research, then ignore more recent discreditation of that VERY research
> by answering critics with, "Here--read this!" and linking to the same essay.
>
> The three major defenses made about the BoA (it's the wrong papyrus! JS made
> some direct hits in his translation! Maybe it was mnemonic device and not a
> literal translation?) are all mindbogglingly full of holes and outright
> inaccuracies.
€ however, they are a good source of laughs. If there is later research
to fill in those gaps I'd like to
> see it, but until then the irksome nature of the repeated criticisms of the
> "antis" doesn't discard the fact that the anti-BoA arguments are right on
> the money, and remain unresolved.
€ The BoA "translation" is undoubtedly indefensible. There is no
Egyptian alphabet. Prof. Brodie was right. The BoA was the most
misfortunate thing that Joseph ever wrote.
cheers
R. L. Measures
<aki...@telepath.com> wrote:
> Elizabeth & Dale <dbro...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:388FA191...@gte.net...
>
>
> > This last consideration brought a response from out of left field
> > from one of the participants: "Is the LDS-printed "Book of Abraham"
> > scripture?" Obviously, since it is not in the RLDS canon, it is NOT
> > scripture for us.
>
>
> Historical query: Did Joseph Smith himself ever actually introduce the BoA
> as scripture?
€ . What matters is that it was written in his own hand on paper. //
The Book of Abraham ''translation'' as well as the ''Grammar and Alphabet
of the Egyptian Language'' are sheer flim-flam used originally for the
purpose of shearing the flock. .
There is no alphabet in the Egyptian language.
> My understanding was during his entire life he did not. He
> published it as an article in the T&S, were it was largely forgotten about
> until years after his death when it was revived by the Utah church in
> missionary tracts for England which would later become the PoGP.
--
R. L. Measures
<alk...@home.com> wrote:
> yeah, why?
€ because hieroglyphic languages do not have an alphabet.
> "R. L. Measures" <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote in message
> news:meas+ures-260...@port28.dial.vcnet.com...
> > In article <xBGj4.196$wM....@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com>, "alkhemy"
> > <alk...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > just as it is much easier for anti's to keep posting and saying the same
> > > things over and over like they have for yearsssss! boring....try
> something
> > > new for a change (this is not directly related to the poster of this
> > > message, just a general note...) D ;)
> >
> > ? Do you believe that the Egyptian language has an alphabet?
> >
> > > "Akicita" <aki...@telepath.com> wrote in message
> > > news:C5Ej4.648$Gz.6...@newshog.newsread.com...
> > > >
> > > > PatentWorm <jgu...@uswest.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:pFvj4.873$a4.4...@news.uswest.net...
> > > >
> > > > > One man's trash is another man's treasure I suppose.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's nice that people can keep arguing, but can anyone address my
> > > questions
> > > > abotu the BoA? I was handed a list of about 10 links by Neos, but I'm
> not
> > > > about to keep reading if my questions after the first essay are just
> > > > ignored. It seems much easier for LDS to toss out a handful of links
> and
> > > > then retreat from the issue, convinced that they've addressed their
> > > > inquisitors.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
Akicita
> >
> Like the anti's, LDS scholars or apologists
> > have tended to fall back on old research by rebutting with the *very
> essays*
> > to which the criticisms are aimed! This reveals an impatience with
ongoing
> > questions, and shows that the LDS tactic with regard to the BoA is to
> offer
> > older research, then ignore more recent discreditation of that VERY
> research
> > by answering critics with, "Here--read this!" and linking to the same
> essay.
> >
> >
>
it
> for what it is...
You're doing precisely what I said too many LDS do: instead of handling the
questions, you're insisting that the answers are there if I look into them.
I'm telling you, I *am* looking into them, reading the LDS essays on the
topic, and finding that they are incomplete and do NOT answer these
questions! But instead of moving on to the questions that still remain,
you're returning back to the same flawed and weak research that started me
on these questions in the first place--exactly like I described yesterday.
> I guess I have always just had a strong faith and assurance
> of the things I have grown up with and have been taught, but I have just
not
> taken people's word for it, I searched it out and prayed for the answers,
> and I got the answer (s) I needed to have the affirmations of the
> truthfullness of these things. I do understand the other side of the
fence
> as I was a missonary and have seen what others go through in searching for
> the truths that they want. so I guess that is why the "anti's use these
> tactics, because they may see things and think that the answers are right
in
> front of their face and we don't see it (by their perspective...?)
Yeah, I forgot to mention the second tactic: when research collapses, return
to the "I prayed and got a testimony" reply. If the answers are faith-based,
why am I being referred to LDS research? Why does research even exist at all
if we're going to ulimtately flee from it when it fails and toss out the
"testimony" assurance, for which there is no possible subsequent reply?
This is following the generic "LDS defense" tactic extremely predictably,
considering that this began with criticism of the "anti's" for following the
same course in each discussion. It seems Mormons have a universal favorite
course of actino, too, from which there can be no turning. In the meantime,
I have some honest and genuine questions that apparently won't get asked
because I'm assured that the "answers are there if you just look" (but
looking is precisely what got me questioning!), and when that falls short,
"I prayed and got a testimony" (well that's nice, but it doesn't cement the
gaps in the research).
Akicita
R. L. Measures <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote in message news:meas+ures-
> ? The BoA "translation" is undoubtedly indefensible. There is no
> Egyptian alphabet. Prof. Brodie was right. The BoA was the most
> misfortunate thing that Joseph ever wrote.
But I've been assured that the answers are there if I just go read them.
Since I *have* read the research, and found it to be extremely faulty
(producing questions that noone wants to answer), I have to assure you,
Robert, that there is another answer: someone else has a testimony that it's
true, even if the LDS research can't back it up.
Daniel & Amy North
<aki...@telepath.com> wrote:
Even the atheists refer to "By His Hand Upon Papyrus" as being one of the
most enlightening of all books on the alleged translation of the Book of
Abraham. If you're not a Christian (we all pray, yet), don't read the
"alter call" chapter toward the end. Wait a minute! Go ahead and read
it! ;)
--
In Christ Jesus,
Dan
"For while I was with you, I was determined to know only Jesus Christ
and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2, NET).
Patent_Worm
Daniel & Amy North <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-270...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> In article <rM%j4.909$Gz.1...@newshog.newsread.com>, "Akicita"
> <aki...@telepath.com> wrote:
>
> > R. L. Measures <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote in message news:meas+ures-
> >
> > > ? The BoA "translation" is undoubtedly indefensible. There is no
> > > Egyptian alphabet. Prof. Brodie was right. The BoA was the most
> > > misfortunate thing that Joseph ever wrote.
> >
> >
> > But I've been assured that the answers are there if I just go read them.
> >
> > Since I *have* read the research, and found it to be extremely faulty
> > (producing questions that noone wants to answer), I have to assure you,
> > Robert, that there is another answer: someone else has a testimony that
it's
> > true, even if the LDS research can't back it up.
>
> Even the atheists refer to "By His Hand Upon Papyrus" as being one of the
> most enlightening of all books on the alleged translation of the Book of
> Abraham. If you're not a Christian (we all pray, yet), don't read the
> "alter call" chapter toward the end. Wait a minute! Go ahead and read
> it! ;)
>
How are we supposed to feel when we read this book? How does one feel
according to you, Dan, when wrought upon by the Holy Spirit? How do you
feel?
R. L. Measures
> R. L. Measures <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote in message news:meas+ures-
>
> > ? The BoA "translation" is undoubtedly indefensible. There is no
> > Egyptian alphabet. Prof. Brodie was right. The BoA was the most
> > misfortunate thing that Joseph ever wrote.
>
>
> But I've been assured that the answers are there if I just go read them.
>
> Since I *have* read the research, and found it to be extremely faulty
> (producing questions that noone wants to answer), I have to assure you,
> Robert, that there is another answer: someone else has a testimony that it's
> true, even if the LDS research can't back it up.
€ Robert?
alkhemy
true that I do not have a degree in ancient history, nor personally do I
care...all I know is what I know and what I believe. thanks for the info,
but it was not the point of my posting, I am just getting tired of all the
people that are always bringing up the bad and really if you don't like or
agree with the LDS way of thinking why don't they stay away (not anyone in
particular just a general note, again...) Dawnnews:meas+ures-270...@port45.dial.vcnet.com...
> In article <i1Rj4.275$wM....@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com>, "alkhemy"
> <alk...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > yeah, why?
>
> > > In article <xBGj4.196$wM....@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com>, "alkhemy"
> > > <alk...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > just as it is much easier for anti's to keep posting and saying the
same
> > > > things over and over like they have for yearsssss! boring....try
> > something
> > > > new for a change (this is not directly related to the poster of this
> > > > message, just a general note...) D ;)
> > >
> > > ? Do you believe that the Egyptian language has an alphabet?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > PatentWorm <jgu...@uswest.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:pFvj4.873$a4.4...@news.uswest.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > > One man's trash is another man's treasure I suppose.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's nice that people can keep arguing, but can anyone address my
> > > > questions
> > > > > abotu the BoA? I was handed a list of about 10 links by Neos, but
I'm
> > not
> > > > > about to keep reading if my questions after the first essay are
just
> > > > > ignored. It seems much easier for LDS to toss out a handful of
links
> > and
> > > > > then retreat from the issue, convinced that they've addressed
their
> > > > > inquisitors.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
alkhemy
unfortuanately I am not a scriptorian and not all that good with the LDS
history as I should be, so I am afraid that I cannot answer your questions
like you want. I am just a simple gal with simple tastes etc, and I just
like to stick to the basics of the Gospel which is God the Father and his
son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost and scriptures, yes I like deep doctrine
as much as the other guy, but we are counseled to not worry about it too
much, and I agree, we need to understand the basics and believe those before
we try to understand the deeper doctrine, that is why a lot of people don't
understand us, because they don't have the "basics" down or understood or a
belief in them. so I hope that someone will be able to help you in your
understanding and I hope that I have not come across as being too agressive
in my past postings, I guess I just believe and sometimes I don't understand
why people don't because to me it just makes sense...good luck to you. Dawn.news:PJ%j4.908$Gz.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
alkhemy
R. L. Measures
<alk...@home.com> wrote:
> oops, oh no I have been found out! but they do have a language, and it is
> true that I do not have a degree in ancient history, nor personally do I
> care...all I know is what I know and what I believe. thanks for the info,
> but it was not the point of my posting, I am just getting tired of all the
> people that are always bringing up the bad and really if you don't like or
> agree with the LDS way of thinking why don't they stay away (not anyone in
> particular just a general note, again...) Dawn
€ TBM denial of reality is clearly in a class by itself. .
> "R. L. Measures" <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote in message
> news:meas+ures-270...@port45.dial.vcnet.com...
> > In article <i1Rj4.275$wM....@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com>, "alkhemy"
> > <alk...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > yeah, why?
> >
> > ? because hieroglyphic languages do not have an alphabet.
> >
> >
> > > "R. L. Measures" <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:meas+ures-260...@port28.dial.vcnet.com...
> > > > In article <xBGj4.196$wM....@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com>, "alkhemy"
> > > > <alk...@home.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > just as it is much easier for anti's to keep posting and saying the
> same
> > > > > things over and over like they have for yearsssss! boring....try
> > > something
> > > > > new for a change (this is not directly related to the poster of this
> > > > > message, just a general note...) D ;)
> > > >
> > > > ? Do you believe that the Egyptian language has an alphabet?
> > > >
> > > > > "Akicita" <aki...@telepath.com> wrote in message
R. L. Measures
<alk...@home.com> wrote:
> and follow moroni's promise to read AND ponder AND pray. dawn ;)
€ Has it ever occured to you that there may be a hidden message in that name?
> "Akicita" <aki...@telepath.com> wrote in message
> news:rM%j4.909$Gz.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
> >
> > R. L. Measures <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote in message news:meas+ures-
> >
> > > ? The BoA "translation" is undoubtedly indefensible. There is no
> > > Egyptian alphabet. Prof. Brodie was right. The BoA was the most
> > > misfortunate thing that Joseph ever wrote.
> >
> >
> > But I've been assured that the answers are there if I just go read them.
> >
> > Since I *have* read the research, and found it to be extremely faulty
> > (producing questions that noone wants to answer), I have to assure you,
> > Robert, that there is another answer: someone else has a testimony that
> it's
> > true, even if the LDS research can't back it up.
> >
> >
> >
--
alkhemy
> In article <Hcak4.475$wM....@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com>, "alkhemy"
> <alk...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > oops, oh no I have been found out! but they do have a language, and it
is
> > true that I do not have a degree in ancient history, nor personally do I
> > care...all I know is what I know and what I believe. thanks for the
info,
> > but it was not the point of my posting, I am just getting tired of all
the
> > people that are always bringing up the bad and really if you don't like
or
> > agree with the LDS way of thinking why don't they stay away (not anyone
in
> > particular just a general note, again...) Dawn
>
> > > In article <i1Rj4.275$wM....@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com>, "alkhemy"
> > > <alk...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > yeah, why?
> > >
> > > ? because hieroglyphic languages do not have an alphabet.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > In article <xBGj4.196$wM....@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com>, "alkhemy"
> > > > > <alk...@home.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > just as it is much easier for anti's to keep posting and saying
the
> > same
> > > > > > things over and over like they have for yearsssss! boring....try
> > > > something
> > > > > > new for a change (this is not directly related to the poster of
this
> > > > > > message, just a general note...) D ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > ? Do you believe that the Egyptian language has an alphabet?
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PatentWorm <jgu...@uswest.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:pFvj4.873$a4.4...@news.uswest.net...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One man's trash is another man's treasure I suppose.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's nice that people can keep arguing, but can anyone address
my
> > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > abotu the BoA? I was handed a list of about 10 links by Neos,
but
> > I'm
> > > > not
> > > > > > > about to keep reading if my questions after the first essay
are
> > just
> > > > > > > ignored. It seems much easier for LDS to toss out a handful of
> > links
> > > > and
> > > > > > > then retreat from the issue, convinced that they've addressed
> > their
> > > > > > > inquisitors.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
alkhemy
> <alk...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > and follow moroni's promise to read AND ponder AND pray. dawn ;)
>
name?
>
>
> > >
> > > R. L. Measures <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote in message news:meas+ures-
> > >
> > > > ? The BoA "translation" is undoubtedly indefensible. There is no
> > > > Egyptian alphabet. Prof. Brodie was right. The BoA was the most
> > > > misfortunate thing that Joseph ever wrote.
> > >
> > >
> > > But I've been assured that the answers are there if I just go read
them.
> > >
> > > Since I *have* read the research, and found it to be extremely faulty
> > > (producing questions that noone wants to answer), I have to assure
you,
> > > Robert, that there is another answer: someone else has a testimony
that
> > it's
> > > true, even if the LDS research can't back it up.
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
R. L. Measures
<alk...@home.com> wrote:
> what name?
€ Moroni.
.....
Elizabeth & Dale
> > "R. L. Measures" <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:meas+ures-280...@port78.dial.vcnet.com...
> > > In article <dmak4.478$wM....@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com>, "alkhemy"
> > > <alk...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > and follow moroni's promise to read AND
> > > > ponder AND pray. dawn ;)
> > >
> > > ? Has it ever occured to you that there may
> > > be a hidden message in that name?
>
> > <alk...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > what name?
> >
> > * Moroni.
> > .....
> > - Rich
>
>
> You're a fan of Pope Celestine V, also, Rich?
> What a small world!
>
>
> > William A Linn's theory (in "The Story of the Mormons," NY, 1902) of the
> > 13th century "Everlasting Gospel" movement in Europe having indirectly
> > affected Sidney Rigdon's religious thoughts is an interesting one. It
> > was responded to by B.H. Roberts in 1909. Roberts argued that Rigdon did
> > not have access to published accounts of angelic messengers bringing new
> > gospels on metalic plates, as theorized by Linn.
> >
> > Both Linn and Roberts missed seeing another interesting parallel in this
> > history however, -- that the "Everlasting Gospel" movement indirectly
> > resulted in the election of "Peter Moroni" (spelled "Morrone" in English)
> > to the papal office as Celestine V.
>
> http://home1.gte.net/dbroadhu/RESTOR/Lib/Linn1902.htm
>
> Nephi "angel, metal plates & 'everlasting gospel' - in 1230??" Poindexter
Akicita
> well then I am sorry, that you are not getting your questions answered,
> unfortuanately I am not a scriptorian and not all that good with the LDS
> history as I should be, so I am afraid that I cannot answer your questions
> like you want. I am just a simple gal with simple tastes etc, and I just
> like to stick to the basics of the Gospel which is God the Father and his
> son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost and scriptures, yes I like deep
doctrine
> as much as the other guy, but we are counseled to not worry about it too
> much, and I agree, we need to understand the basics and believe those
before
> we try to understand the deeper doctrine, that is why a lot of people
don't
> understand us, because they don't have the "basics" down or understood or
a
> belief in them. so I hope that someone will be able to help you in your
> understanding and I hope that I have not come across as being too
agressive
> in my past postings, I guess I just believe and sometimes I don't
understand
> why people don't because to me it just makes sense...good luck to you.
Dawn.
I appreciate that your answer offers more honesty in one comment than most
of my experiences with defenders of ANY denomination heretofore. You've
shown an appealing and attractive genuineness, and I appreciate that.
Yesterday I got carried away in what became a derisive belittlement of the
failures of LDS research, and although I do maintain that the apologist
research has been astoundingly shoddy, I regret my tone in light of your
candor. I hope you will accept an apology from me for carrying through with
my instinctive mockeryof something you value. I also hope that someday
someone will be able to answer my questions; until then I regard the BoA as
a hoax (your honesty deserves mine), but a hoax whose believers deserve much
more respect when they respond as politely as you.
alkhemy
> In article <Glkk4.594$wM....@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com>, "alkhemy"
> <alk...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > what name?
>
alkhemy
really is no need to get nasty with people, it doesn't get you anywhere,
although I have to confess, I have gotten nasty with some on these ng's
because they do seem to have their minds made up that we are going to hell,
and that I think that they are here just to argue. anyway I accept your
apology, although you were not rude, you just have questions and again I am
sorry that I cannot answer them, I wish I could, but I will try ans see what
I can come up with, to help in any way that I can. If I gain wisdom soon I
will share! Dawn ;) have a great day, and God bless...news:aKsk4.2032$e56.1...@monger.newsread.com...
R. L. Measures
<alk...@home.com> wrote:
> so tell me what in your mind does it mean??? Dawn
€ consider the first five letters.
R. L. Measures
<alk...@home.com> wrote:
> thank you very much, I really do try to be a good, and nice person, there
> really is no need to get nasty with people, it doesn't get you anywhere,
> although I have to confess, I have gotten nasty with some on these ng's
> because they do seem to have their minds made up that we are going to hell,
€ anyone who claims that LDSaints are going to Hell is obviously not a
follower of Christ.
Bill Williams
> In article <bawk4.1074$wM.1...@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com>, "alkhemy"
> <alk...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > thank you very much, I really do try to be a good, and nice person,
there
> > really is no need to get nasty with people, it doesn't get you anywhere,
> > although I have to confess, I have gotten nasty with some on these ng's
> > because they do seem to have their minds made up that we are going to
hell,
>
> follower of Christ.
Anyone who believes in a loving God that created a torturous Hell must
have a split personality.
Bill Williams
R. L. Measures
Williams" <will...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
€ Be not a party pooper, Bill.
Elizabeth & Dale
> >
> > ? anyone who claims that LDSaints are going to Hell is obviously not a
> > follower of Christ.
>
> Anyone who believes in a loving God that created a torturous Hell must
> have a split personality.
>
> Bill Williams
We each create our own hell.
God just watches and sighs.
"All in all, it was just
another brick in the wall..."
Dale
R. L. Measures
> > >>they do seem to have their minds made up that we are going to hell,
> > >
> > > ? anyone who claims that LDSaints are going to Hell is obviously not a
> > > follower of Christ.
> >
> > Anyone who believes in a loving God that created a torturous Hell must
> > have a split personality.
> >
> > Bill Williams
>
>
> We each create our own hell.
€ with generous help from priestcrafters.
> God just watches and sighs.
>
€ My guess is that He is laughing. Anyone who has observed a litter of
kittens at play, be they domesticated, snow leopards, or bengals, knows
that whoever created them has a divine sense of humour.
>
cheers, Dale
Best Sellers
>€ What with $6 billion in supertithes rolling in every year, why admit to
>anything?
Rich, you love to make this kind of non
sequuitor.
However, if the Brethren were really
interested in the money, as you claim them to
be, why in the world did they reduce the
"required" contributions we all have been
asked to make?
When I was younger, we had, beyond tithing
and the fast offering, the building fund,
missionary finds, temple funds, ward budget,
stake budget, welfare assessments, and others
I don't even remember. An average
contributor could donate as much as 20% of
his pre-tax income and 15% or more was not at
all uncommon. (The very generous might give
much more, but I'm talking about people like
my father, hardly a wealthy man.) But under
recent administrations, it is pretty hard to
donate much more than 12%.
The Brethren are concerned about the Lord's
finances; they spend the money frugally. Yet
rather than increasing assessments, they
decreased them, substantially.
I have no doubt, either, that you will
continue to make your baseless insunuations
that the Brethren are living much better than
they actually do and that their primary goal
in life is to increase their gross through
the tithing of the Church. Rich, you are
simply full of pre-digested pasturage.
Lehi
====
Governments discovered early on that offering
"free" schools was an easy way to cultivate a
dependent citizenry who would eventually
dedicate their minds to the state. Please
visit www.sepschool.org.