LDS Apologists
AlienWard
false claims and dishonesty) web pages is at:
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~shirtail/original.htm
Kerry stays away from the former Egyptian, now LDS god Min, but
here is an example of the misrepresentation used to claim JS
accurately filled in the missing chunks for facsimile 2:
"(JS Hypo Fig. 7) Here the bird figure is correctly drawn as a
bird's head, and the wedjat eye is also clearly drawn and
obvious. This is strictly correct according to the conventions
of hypocephali, such as the British Museum 9445a below."
Kerry claims JS correctly represented Nehebka as a bird figure.
This claim is completely false.
When you look at the British Museum sample Kerry provides, you
can see this. The Min's in both hypocephali are almost exactly
alike. The representation of the snake god Nehebka in the
British Museum is clearly a snake with an erection. It's easy
to see JS's Nehebka would have also been depicted as a snake
with a boner if the body wasn't missing.
JS filled in a missing piece with a bird when he should have
used a snake with an erection. Any person that has done
research and still claims JS correctly represented Nehebka as a
bird, is deliberately lying.
LDSers that attempt to support JS's obvious BoA fraud, are
dishonest people.
Alien
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
R. L. Measures
<monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>€ "in Abraham's own hand'' is undoubtedly a laugher.
later, Alien
--
- Rich... ag6k, 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
darr...@my-deja.com
Dear Smarty Pants,
If you did some research you'll find that Min is a form of Amen-Ra;
who, by the way, is identified by Paul as Jehovah (i.e. the "Unknown
God" of the Greeks on Mars Hill was Amen-Ra, who was known in Egypt as
the "Hidden God"--the Creator). AMN (Amon/Amen/Amin) means "hidden" or
"unknown" in ancient Egyptian.
Joseph Smith seems to identify not Nehebka as the "sign of the dove"
but rather Min's arm to the square as the sign or form of the dove.
Missionaries make that sign everytime they baptise.
Darrick Evenson
> Alien
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
AlienWard
>
>
>Dear Smarty Pants,
>
> If you did some research you'll find that Min is a form of
Amen-Ra;
>who, by the way, is identified by Paul as Jehovah (i.e.
the "Unknown
>God" of the Greeks on Mars Hill was Amen-Ra, who was known in
Egypt as
>the "Hidden God"--the Creator). AMN (Amon/Amen/Amin)
means "hidden" or
>"unknown" in ancient Egyptian.
>
Jehovah is insulting. Besides Jehovah is the LDS Jesus, right?
JS had no clue he had a hypocephalus that had absolutely nothing
to do with Abraham, and that he had identified a pagan god known
for having sex with his mother as Elohim.
Here's a little Nibley about Min for you:
"The whip that the Min-images hold with upraised arm is
always viewed as a fertility symbol... some Egyptologists have
maintained that it signifies that Min took advantage of his
mother by
brute force, seizing the matriarchal rule of the land by
violence and
incest... What suggested that was his commonest epithet, Ka-mut-
ef,
'Bull of his Mother,' the title that the youthful successor to
the
throne went by at the coronation..." (Abraham in Egypt, 1981,
pages
210-211)
> Joseph Smith seems to identify not Nehebka as the "sign of the
dove"
>but rather Min's arm to the square as the sign or form of the
dove.
>Missionaries make that sign everytime they baptise.
>Darrick Evenson
>
JS most certainly identifies Nehabka as the Holy Ghost present
the grand keywords of the priesthood in the sign of the dove.
To complete the representation of Min, the missionaries need to
hold a flail with the arm to the square and whip their dicks out
and hold them with their other hand (at least until they have an
erection). This is how far off, the LDS church continues to be
in its blind obedience to its founding con artist.
Here's some Michael Rhodes for you:
"Before the god is what appears to be a bird presenting him with
a Wedjat-eye, the symbol of all good gifts. 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."
"Joseph also explained there was a representation of the sign of
the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. The Egyptians commonly
portrayed the soul or spirit as a bird, so a bird is an
appropriate symbol for the Holy Ghost."
The LDS's own scholars say JS's Holy Ghost bird is Nehebka the
snake god. I have just shown you references from two prominent
LDSers. Is your claim that Min's flail is the sign of the dove
from your own imagination or do you have some extreme LDS
crackpot references to support your claim?
R. L. Measures
> Dear Smarty Pants,
>
> If you did some research you'll find that Min is a form of Amen-Ra;
> who, by the way, is identified by Paul as Jehovah (i.e. the "Unknown
> God" of the Greeks on Mars Hill was Amen-Ra, who was known in Egypt as
> the "Hidden God"--the Creator). AMN (Amon/Amen/Amin) means "hidden" or
> "unknown" in ancient Egyptian.
>
[chortle]
> Joseph Smith seems to identify not Nehebka as the "sign of the dove"
> but rather Min's arm to the square as the sign or form of the dove.
> Missionaries make that sign everytime they baptise.
> Darrick Evenson
>
[guffaw] seems like more bandini.
> > Alien
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> > Up to 100 minutes free!
> > http://www.keen.com
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Clovis Lark
> In article <8jltta$ocn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, darr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> Dear Smarty Pants,
>>
>> If you did some research you'll find that Min is a form of Amen-Ra;
>> who, by the way, is identified by Paul as Jehovah (i.e. the "Unknown
>> God" of the Greeks on Mars Hill was Amen-Ra, who was known in Egypt as
>> the "Hidden God"--the Creator). AMN (Amon/Amen/Amin) means "hidden" or
>> "unknown" in ancient Egyptian.
>>
> [chortle]
>> Joseph Smith seems to identify not Nehebka as the "sign of the dove"
>> but rather Min's arm to the square as the sign or form of the dove.
>> Missionaries make that sign everytime they baptise.
>> Darrick Evenson
>>
> [guffaw] seems like more bandini.
And Darrick wins today's Min shaped jello mold. Try to be careful with it
and don't mess with that "arm"...
Elizabeth & Dale
Good to hear that.
You're known by the company your keep,
and my estimation of Bro. Shirts just
went up another 10%.
Nephi "Bull of his Mother -- Phallus of Mark Hines, etc. etc." Poindexter
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
> When you look at the British Museum sample Kerry provides,
> you can see this. The Min's in both hypocephali are almost
> exactly alike. The representation of the snake god Nehebka
> in the British Museum is clearly a snake with an erection.
> It's easy to see JS's Nehebka would have also been depicted
> as a snake with a boner if the body wasn't missing.
>
Your argument would be greatly strengthended were it not for the
fact that the "Nehebka" figure is drawn in /several/ different ways,
including the snake you mention, a hawk-headed snake, a babboon and (on
the JS Hypocephali) a dove.
<snip>
>
> LDSers that attempt to support JS's obvious BoA fraud, are
> dishonest people.
>
How about critics who keep insisting that all hypoocephali are
"almost exactly alike?" Are they not "dishonest people?"
bestRegards,
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guy R. "BrickWall" Briggs, MCSE* - net...@GeoCities.com
Used cars - Land - Whiskey - Manure - Nails
Fly Swatters - Racing Forms - Bongos
Wars Fought - Tires Balanced - Assassinations Plotted
Revolutions Started - Governments Run - Uprisings Quelled
Tigers Tamed - Bars Emptied - Orgies Planned
*Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
I also program computers
AlienWard
>monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> When you look at the British Museum sample Kerry provides,
>> you can see this. The Min's in both hypocephali are almost
>> exactly alike. The representation of the snake god Nehebka
>> in the British Museum is clearly a snake with an erection.
>> It's easy to see JS's Nehebka would have also been depicted
>> as a snake with a boner if the body wasn't missing.
>>
> Your argument would be greatly strengthended were it not for
the
>fact that the "Nehebka" figure is drawn in /several/ different
ways,
>including the snake you mention, a hawk-headed snake, a babboon
and (on
>the JS Hypocephali) a dove.
>
object as a hypocephalus belonging to a person named Sheshonq,
Min as Min and Nehebka as Nehebka.
>
> How about critics who keep insisting that all hypoocephali
are
>"almost exactly alike?" Are they not "dishonest people?"
>
and turn the tables. I had said the Min's in the JS and the
British Museum hypocephali are almost exactly alike, not all
hypocephali are almost exactly alike. You even included the
paragraph which is at the start of this post. Here's the
sentence again in case you had trouble understanding it:
The Min's in both hypocephali are almost exactly alike.
Your LDSers operate with some pretty low ethics.
AlienWard
>
>
>Why because we refuse to cave in to your silly arguments? So
some aspects
>of the hypocephali are alike and this proves what? That Smith
blew it?
>BWAHAHAHA! Give me something better will ya?
>
Yes Smith completely blew it. If he had a clue, he would have
identified the hypocephalus as one, filled in the missing pieces
correctly and translated the text. If you can get past writing
monkey sounds like ooooooooooo and bwahahahahah in your posts,
you can start by explaining how Abraham managed to make the
hypocephalus with his own hand and why it's cool to represent
Elohim with a glyph of the pagan god Min.
Kerry A. Shirts
AlienWard <monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in article
<279fe7a5...@usw-ex0104-031.remarq.com>...
Why because we refuse to cave in to your silly arguments? So some aspects
of the hypocephali are alike and this proves what? That Smith blew it?
BWAHAHAHA! Give me something better will ya?
Kerry A. Shirts
R. L. Measures
<shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
€ them boys undoubtedly had large equipment. . .
>That Smith blew it?
€ Yes. Proclaiming the ''grand key words'' is a delightsome laugher. So
is Smith's ''Alphabet and Grammar of the Egyptian Language''. So is the
flim-flam Book of Abraham. ''by his own hand'' is a laugher. Somehow
God's true prophet was not aware that Champollion's Grammar had been
published in London in 1837.
> BWAHAHAHA! Give me something better will ya?
>
€ You are up to your nostrils in it, Kerry ''Neos'' Shirts
Clovis Lark
> of the hypocephali are alike and this proves what? That Smith blew it?
> BWAHAHAHA! Give me something better will ya?
Well, he did, according to Rhodes, Nibley, BArber, all TBM's.
> Kerry A. Shirts
>
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> When you look at the British Museum sample Kerry provides,
>>> you can see this. The Min's in both hypocephali are almost
>>> exactly alike. The representation of the snake god Nehebka
>>> in the British Museum is clearly a snake with an erection.
>>> It's easy to see JS's Nehebka would have also been depicted
>>> as a snake with a boner if the body wasn't missing.
>>
>> Your argument would be greatly strengthended were it not
>> for the fact that the "Nehebka" figure is drawn in /several/
>> different ways, including the snake you mention, a hawk-
>> headed snake, a babboon and (on the JS Hypocephali) a dove.
>
> Your argument would be greatly strengthened if JS identified
> the object as a hypocephalus belonging to a person named
> Sheshonq, Min as Min and Nehebka as Nehebka.
>
and Omega" - "alpha" being a symbol that originated from a bull and was
used in the same context as "Min, the bull of his mother".
You are confusing the symbol with the thing in exactly the same way.
>
>> How about critics who keep insisting that all hypoocephali
>> are "almost exactly alike?" Are they not "dishonest people?"
>
> You have intentionaly misrepresented something I wrote to
> try and turn the tables. I had said the Min's in the JS and
> the British Museum hypocephali are almost exactly alike, not
> all hypocephali are almost exactly alike.
>
But your argument depends on the assumption - a priori - that all
hypycephali are the same. It is only from that (erroneous, IMHO)
assumption that you can claim that since it's a walking snake on the
British Museum example, it must be a walking snake on the missing
portion of the JS hypocephalus.
CsOTMC perform the same sleight of hand when they claim that the JS
hypocephalus was translated by Baer. It was not. Translation is
difficult when you have, at best, 13% of the original document. What
Baer translated was a different copy of the "Book of the Dead" and he
called his work "A Translation of the Apparent Source of the Book of
Abraham" (in _Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought_, III (Autumn
1968), 109-134) - emphasis on the "apparent".
The standard issue, OD, COTMC interpretation is that every example
of the "Book of the Dead" is identical - therefore if you've seen Juan
you've seen Ahmal. This is an important point for critics of the book
of Abraham. The facsimiles must be dismissed as just run-of-the-mill
pagan nonsense. The University of Chicago's Klaus Baer, however,
disagreed: "Facs[imile] No. 3 is not a judgment scene and exact
parallels may be hard to find." Much the same might be said of the
other facsimiles. Calling them "typical funerary texts" does not
explain anything, and is not really true.
>
> You even included the paragraph which is at the start of this
> post. Here's the sentence again in case you had trouble
> understanding it:
>
> The Min's in both hypocephali are almost exactly alike.
>
I had no problem understanding it. I was using it as an example of
the camel which must first be swallowed before CsOTMC can begin
straining at gnats.
>
> Your LDSers operate with some pretty low ethics.
>
Pot. Kettle. Black.
AlienWard
> Same argument could be made for any reference to the Lord
as "Alpha
>and Omega" - "alpha" being a symbol that originated from a bull
and was
>used in the same context as "Min, the bull of his mother".
>
> You are confusing the symbol with the thing in exactly the
same way.
>
It's pretty simple to understand the reference is to the Lord
being the first and the last as in the letters of the Greek
alphabet. And, it's as intellectually deficient to argue Alpha
represents the Lord as a bull as it is to argue a glyph of "Min,
the bull of his mother" represents Elohim. You're the one
confusing the symbols and God’s going to have a special very
large Min Jell-O mold waiting for you to use as your throne.
> But your argument depends on the assumption - a priori -
that all
>hypycephali are the same. It is only from that (erroneous,
IMHO)
>assumption that you can claim that since it's a walking snake
on the
>British Museum example, it must be a walking snake on the
missing
>portion of the JS hypocephalus.
>
You continue to be dishonest. Again, I only said the Min's in
two hypocephali were almost exactly alike. The scenes depicted
in figure 7 of Sheshonq's hypocephalus and the British Museum
hypocephalus have Min's that look as alike as God and Jesus in
LDS depictions of the first vision. About this common scene,
Michael Rhodes says "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 The scene depicts Min and Nehebka a snake
god." A snake god is best represented as...
Now, since the Min's are alike, the JS translation for the
corresponding scene on the British Museum hypocephalus would
read:
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 in the form of a walking snake with an
erection.
> CsOTMC perform the same sleight of hand when they claim that
the JS
>hypocephalus was translated by Baer. It was not. Translation is
>difficult when you have, at best, 13% of the original document.
What
>Baer translated was a different copy of the "Book of the Dead"
and he
>called his work "A Translation of the Apparent Source of the
Book of
>Abraham" (in _Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought_, III
(Autumn
>1968), 109-134) - emphasis on the "apparent".
>
Apparent as in the text in the BoA doesn't even come close to
what's on the papyri and is from a period 2,000 years later than
Abraham.
> The standard issue, OD, COTMC interpretation is that every
example
>of the "Book of the Dead" is identical - therefore if you've
seen Juan
>you've seen Ahmal. This is an important point for critics of
the book
>of Abraham. The facsimiles must be dismissed as just run-of-
the-mill
>pagan nonsense. The University of Chicago's Klaus Baer,
however,
>disagreed: "Facs[imile] No. 3 is not a judgment scene and exact
>parallels may be hard to find." Much the same might be said of
the
>other facsimiles. Calling them "typical funerary texts" does
not
>explain anything, and is not really true.
>
Some of the standard issues are:
The LDS church claims the BoA was translated from papyrus
written by Abraham while the papyrus are from 2,000 years after
Abraham and have nothing to do with him.
JS's EAG and translation of the papyri are complete nonsense.
The hypocephalus pilfered by some Egyptian grave robber and
bought by JS, belonged to a person named Sheshonq. If the LDS
church had any decency, it would at least return it to the
country of Eygpt.
Your argument is that the hypocephalus belonging to Sheshonq and
from a time period 2,000 years later than Abraham was written by
Abraham to explain the principles of astronomy and was
translated correctly by JS. You must also believe that other
hypocephali with similar scenes and text are based on Abraham's
astronomy lesson. God is frequently represented as Min with and
erection and the Holy Ghost is frequently depicted as Nehebka
drawn as a walking snake with an erection. And one more thing,
where is Abraham in figure 7? Is that candelabra looking thing
JS filled in supposed to represent him? Looks more like an
homage to Liberace.
Clovis Lark
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>> Same argument could be made for any reference to the Lord
> as "Alpha
>>and Omega" - "alpha" being a symbol that originated from a bull
> and was
>>used in the same context as "Min, the bull of his mother".
>>
>> You are confusing the symbol with the thing in exactly the
> same way.
>>
> It's pretty simple to understand the reference is to the Lord
> being the first and the last as in the letters of the Greek
> alphabet. And, it's as intellectually deficient to argue Alpha
> represents the Lord as a bull as it is to argue a glyph of "Min,
> the bull of his mother" represents Elohim. You're the one
> confusing the symbols and God’s going to have a special very
> large Min Jell-O mold waiting for you to use as your throne.
Yo dude, who died and made you trustee of the Min Shaped Jello selection
committee?. Begone vile pretender!
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
>> Same argument could be made for any reference to the Lord
>> ated from a bull and was used in the same context as "Min,
>> the bull of his mother".
>>
>> You are confusing the symbol with the thing in exactly the
>> same way.
>
> It's pretty simple to understand the reference is to the
> Lord being the first and the last as in the letters of the
> Greek alphabet.
>
they understand and accept the symbolism. A critic of Christianity
might say you were being dishonest.
>
> And, it's as intellectually deficient to argue Alpha
> represents the Lord as a bull as it is to argue a glyph
> of "Min, the bull of his mother" represents Elohim.
>
Ad hominim.
>
> You're the one confusing the symbols and God’s going to
> have a special very large Min Jell-O mold waiting for you
> to use as your throne.
>
The Min-shaped Jell-O mold is an earthly reward, currently
administered by Clovis Lark (if memory serves).
>
>> But your argument depends on the assumption - a priori -
>> that all hypycephali are the same. It is only from that
>> (erroneous, IMHO) assumption that you can claim that
>> since it's a walking snake on the British Museum example,
>> it must be a walking snake on the missing portion of the
>> JS hypocephalus.
>
> You continue to be dishonest.
>
I call 'em as I see 'em. Mistaken, maybe. Dishonest, never.
>
> Again, I only said the Min's in two hypocephali were almost
> exactly alike.
>
The KJV and Shakespere's _Romeo and Juliet_ both make extensive use
of "thee" and "thou". Doesn't mean the text is interchangeable.
>
> The scenes depicted in figure 7 of Sheshonq's hypocephalus
> and the British Museum hypocephalus have Min's that look as
> alike as God and Jesus in LDS depictions of the first vision.
>
Irrelevant, unless you can prove that all hypocephali are alike.
>
> About this common scene, Michael Rhodes says "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 The
> scene depicts Min and Nehebka a snake god."
>
And the sentence DIRECTLY IN FRONT of the one you are quoting reads,
"In other hypocephali it can also be an ape, a snake, or a hawk-headed
snake that is presenting the eye" - which destroys your entire argument
that it should have been drawn as a sexually-aroused snake.
It is customary to be familiar with a source you are using.
>
> A snake god is best represented as...
>
Any number of strange creatures.
>
> Now, since the Min's are alike, the JS translation for the
> corresponding scene on the British Museum hypocephalus would
> read:
>
> 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 in the form of a walking snake
> with an erection.
>
This is, as Rich would say, jolly equine feculence.
>
>> CsOTMC perform the same sleight of hand when they claim
>> that the JS hypocephalus was translated by Baer. It was
>> not. Translation is difficult when you have, at best, 13%
>> of the original document. What Baer translated was a
>> different copy of the "Book of the Dead" and he called
>> his work "A Translation of the Apparent Source of the
>> Book of Abraham" (in _Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon
>> Thought_, III (Autumn 1968), 109-134) - emphasis on the
>> "apparent".
>
> Apparent as in the text in the BoA doesn't even come close
> to what's on the papyri ...
>
You have no earthly idea what is on the papyri as you have little
(or non, I suspect) training in things Egyptian, thus you cannot make
as judgement as to whether it is close or not.
The expert you quote, in the very document you quote, writes:
"It should come as no surprise to members of the
Church that as we gain more understanding of
Egyptian matters, we find an increasing number of
Joseph Smith's explanations of Facsimile 2 are in
accord with that increased understanding."
IOW, you and I are not qualified to judge things Egyptian. But a
person who IS qualified says that the more we learn about things
Egyptian, the more we find that Joseph was right.
"The Greek writer Plutarch explained that the Wedjat-
eye of Osiris represented 'divine providence'
(literally 'foreknowledge'), the divine wisdom by
which God oversees and cares for all of his creations.
It is not unreasonable to see in this 'the grand key
words of the priesthood'."
And also ...
"Joseph also explained there was a representation of
the sign of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. The
Egyptians commonly portrayed the soul or spirit as a
bird, so a bird is an appropriate symbol for the Holy
Ghost."
>
> ... and is from a period 2,000 years later than Abraham.
>
Does not matter. Smith never claimed it was from the Abrahamic
dispensation, although he claimed the document itself made that claim.
>
>> The standard issue, OD, COTMC interpretation is that every
>> example of the "Book of the Dead" is identical - therefore
>> if you've seen Juan you've seen Ahmal. This is an important
>> point for critics of the book of Abraham. The facsimiles
>> must be dismissed as just run-of-the-mill pagan nonsense.
>> The University of Chicago's Klaus Baer, however, disagreed:
>> "Facs[imile] No. 3 is not a judgment scene and exact
>> parallels may be hard to find." Much the same might be
>> said of the other facsimiles. Calling them "typical
>> funerary texts" does not explain anything, and is not
>> really true.
>
> Some of the standard issues are:
>
> The LDS church claims the BoA was translated from papyrus
> written by Abraham while the papyrus are from 2,000 years
> after Abraham and have nothing to do with him.
>
Not so. We have shown repeatedly that Smith claimed the papyrus
ITSELF purported to be written by Abraham's own hand. It was Parley P.
Pratt who later removed the "purporting".
Further, we have also shown how a copy made in the "land of
copyists" OFTEN claimed to be written by somebody's own hand and meant
that the document had originated from that author.
The "by his own hand" criticism is thus bogus.
>
> JS's EAG and translation of the papyri are complete nonsense.
>
Quoting your expert again:
"Although Champollion had deciphered Egyptian
hieroglyphs in 1822, it required many years of
painstaking work before Egyptologists were able to
publish grammars and dictionaries of the Egyptian
language. Joseph Smith simply could not have
acquired the understanding he had of these things
from the world. NEVERTHELESS, AS THIS STUDY HAS
SHOWN, many of the prophet's explanations of the
hypocephalus illustrated in Facsimile 2 are
supported by our present understanding of ancient
Egyptian religion, and are in fact especially
typical of Late Egyptian religious writings. One or
two could conceivably be dismissed as mere chance
or lucky guessing, but the many correct
interpetations taken together are impossible to
ignore. IT IS CLEAR THAT JOSEPH SMITH KNEW WHAT HE
WAS TALKING ABOUT. This only reaffirms what every
honest person can learn in earnest prayer, that
Joseph Smith received these things from God, even
as he claimed."
>
> The hypocephalus pilfered by some Egyptian grave robber and
> bought by JS, belonged to a person named Sheshonq. If the
> LDS church had any decency, it would at least return it to
> the country of Eygpt.
>
Non-sequitur.
Here are some of the issues I'd like to see answered by critics of
the book:
(1) The book of Abraham has close affinities to a large number of
apocryphal and Egyptian writings to which Joseph Smith could have had
no access. How?
(2) Abraham claims that his story starts out near a place called
"Olishem" (Abraham 1:10), and that place name is indeed attested in
newly discovered inscriptions from approximately Abraham's time. Lucky
guess on Joseph's part?
(3) There is no evidence to place Ur of the Chaldees in southern
Mesopotamia, but there is good reason to locate Ur in the north, near
the site of Olishem.
(4) Most of Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles have
been shown to be in the right general ballpark although "there has been
little or no work done on [these types of texts by Egyptologists] since
the end of the last century." (quoting Michael Rhodes)
(5) The astronomy detailed in the book of Abraham does not match the
heliocentric astronomy of Joseph Smith's or our own time, but can only
be a geocentric astronomy like that characteristic of the ancient
Mediterranean world. Interesting little nuance for Joseph to include.
(6) David Cameron discovered an Egyptian lion couch scene much like
Facsimile 1 explicitly mentioning the name Abraham. This last reference
casts in a new light the claim that "none of the book of Abraham
facsimiles (or the papyrus drawings from which they were adapted) make
mention of Abraham". (quoting Larson)
>
> Your argument is that the hypocephalus belonging to Sheshonq
> and from a time period 2,000 years later than Abraham was
> written by Abraham to explain the principles of astronomy and
> was translated correctly by JS. You must also believe that
> other hypocephali with similar scenes and text are based on
> Abraham's astronomy lesson.
>
Not what I am claiming at all. What I am claiming is that an
Egyptian priest was buried with his own personal copy of the Book of
Abraham.
>
> God is frequently represented as Min with and erection and
> the Holy Ghost is frequently depicted as Nehebka drawn as a
> walking snake with an erection.
>
Tell you what, Alien. Since you keep insisting that you understand
Egyptian (as evidenced by repeated translations of the hpyocephalus in
the British Museum and others) why don't you tell us the proper
Egyptian way of writing "God [the Hebrew Jehovah], sitting upon his
throne, revealing the grand key-words of the priesthood."
>
> And one more thing, where is Abraham in figure 7? Is that
> candelabra looking thing JS filled in supposed to represent
> him? Looks more like an homage to Liberace.
>
We do not know. Are you, as expert in things Egyptian, claiming that
the Egyptians knew of Liberace?
R. L. Measures
€ Numerous Egyptologists have judged Smith's BoA ''translation'' as
fraudulent.
>
> .............
> > ... and is from a period 2,000 years later than Abraham.
> >
> Does not matter. Smith never claimed it was from the Abrahamic
> dispensation, although he claimed the document itself made that claim.
>
€ [guffaw]
> >
...
enough.
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
AlienWard
And the sentence DIRECTLY IN FRONT of the one you are quoting
reads, "In other hypocephali it can also be an ape, a snake, or
a hawk-headed snake that is presenting the eye" - which destroys
your entire argument that it should have been drawn as a
sexually-aroused snake.
*This sentence supports the argument, you baboon. The head in
the JS hypocephalus was either a snake or hawk, not an ape. The
body that was missing was a snake's body.
The expert you quote, in the very document you quote, writes:
"It should come as no surprise to members of the
Church that as we gain more understanding of
Egyptian matters, we find an increasing number of
Joseph Smith's explanations of Facsimile 2 are in
accord with that increased understanding."
*This is nothing but deceptive apologetics.
"Joseph also explained there was a representation of
the sign of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. The
Egyptians commonly portrayed the soul or spirit as a
bird, so a bird is an appropriate symbol for the Holy
Ghost."
*JS didn't have a clue. He drew in a dove to represent the Holy
Ghost. His BoM has the HG showing up as a dove twice. The
above statement is completely dishonest because it does not
mention JS filled in a missing piece with a dove or that JS's
drawn in dove is Nehebka, a snake god.
Does not matter. Smith never claimed it was from the Abrahamic
dispensation, although he claimed the document itself made that
claim.
*The LDS church continues to deceive people with that claim in
every BoA that gets handed out.
Not so. We have shown repeatedly that Smith claimed the papyrus
ITSELF purported to be written by Abraham's own hand. It was
Parley P. Pratt who later removed the "purporting".
Further, we have also shown how a copy made in the "land of
copyists" OFTEN claimed to be written by somebody's own hand and
meant that the document had originated from that author.
The "by his own hand" criticism is thus bogus.
*The copulating bull without equal lives on.
Here are some of the issues I'd like to see answered by critics
of the book:
(1) The book of Abraham has close affinities to a large number
of apocryphal and Egyptian writings to which Joseph Smith could
have had no access. How?
*Hebrew.
(2) Abraham claims that his story starts out near a place
called "Olishem" (Abraham 1:10), and that place name is indeed
attested in newly discovered inscriptions from approximately
Abraham's time. Lucky guess on Joseph's part?
*Hebrew.
(3) There is no evidence to place Ur of the Chaldees in southern
Mesopotamia, but there is good reason to locate Ur in the north,
near the site of Olishem.
*Huh?
(4) Most of Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles
have been shown to be in the right general ballpark
although "there has been little or no work done on [these types
of texts by Egyptologists] since the end of the last century."
(quoting Michael Rhodes)
*False.
(5) The astronomy detailed in the book of Abraham does not match
the heliocentric astronomy of Joseph Smith's or our own time,
but can only be a geocentric astronomy like that characteristic
of the ancient Mediterranean world. Interesting little nuance
for Joseph to include.
*False.
(6) David Cameron discovered an Egyptian lion couch scene much
like Facsimile 1 explicitly mentioning the name Abraham. This
last reference casts in a new light the claim that "none of the
book of Abraham facsimiles (or the papyrus drawings from which
they were adapted) make mention of Abraham". (quoting Larson)
*Crackpot.
Not what I am claiming at all. What I am claiming is that an
Egyptian priest was buried with his own personal copy of the
Book of Abraham.
*You apostate. Your church says it was written by Abraham's own
hand. This claim is silly. The translations from Egyptian
papyri created 2,000 years after Abraham are the BoA and have
nothing to do the Egyptian Book of breathings of Book of the
Dead.
Tell you what, Alien. Since you keep insisting that you
understand Egyptian (as evidenced by repeated translations of
the hpyocephalus in the British Museum and others) why don't you
tell us the proper Egyptian way of writing "God [the Hebrew
Jehovah], sitting upon his throne, revealing the grand key-words
of the priesthood."
*I've told you this before. Do you really want to see it again?
*You are telling us the proper Egyptian representation of
Jehovah is a depiction of the pagan Egyptian ithyphallic god
Min. You seem to be trying to tell us that every god worshiped
is the LDS god, but was the Egyptian god Min representing
Jehovah/Jesus or Elohim/Heavenly Father?
We do not know. Are you, as expert in things Egyptian, claiming
that the Egyptians knew of Liberace?
No. I'm claiming JS knew of Liberace.
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
>>> Apparent as in the text in the BoA doesn't even come close
>>> to what's on the papyri ...
>>
>> You have no earthly idea what is on the papyri as you have
>> little (or no, I suspect) training in things Egyptian, thus
>> you cannot make as judgement as to whether it is close or not.
>
> € Numerous Egyptologists have judged Smith's BoA
> ''translation'' as fraudulent.
>
Like Sayce (1845-1933), Petrie (1853-1942), Meyer (1855-1930),
Breasted (1865-1935) and von Bissing (1873-1956)? These were the most
prominent scholars to whom Bishop Spaulding appealed in 1912, and
that's whre most of the criticism of the Book of Abraham comes from
even now.
The point I tried to make with with our resident alien was that
Mormons are looking at scholarship from the last quarter-century and
finding some pretty surprising stuff. Meanwhile, CsOTMC continue to
quote old, dead guys.
>
>>> ... and is from a period 2,000 years later than Abraham.
>>
>> Does not matter. Smith never claimed it was from the
>> Abrahamic dispensation, although he claimed the document
>> itself made that claim.
>
> € [guffaw]
>
You laugh at truth?
R. L. Measures
net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
> meas...@vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
> >> monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> Apparent as in the text in the BoA doesn't even come close
> >>> to what's on the papyri ...
> >>
> >> You have no earthly idea what is on the papyri as you have
> >> little (or no, I suspect) training in things Egyptian, thus
> >> you cannot make as judgement as to whether it is close or not.
> >
> > € Numerous Egyptologists have judged Smith's BoA
> > ''translation'' as fraudulent.
> >
> Like Sayce (1845-1933), Petrie (1853-1942), Meyer (1855-1930),
> Breasted (1865-1935) and von Bissing (1873-1956)? These were the most
> prominent scholars to whom Bishop Spaulding appealed in 1912, and
> that's whre most of the criticism of the Book of Abraham comes from
> even now.
>
> The point I tried to make with with our resident alien was that
> Mormons are looking at scholarship from the last quarter-century and
> finding some pretty surprising stuff. Meanwhile, CsOTMC continue to
> quote old, dead guys.
>
> >
> >>> ... and is from a period 2,000 years later than Abraham.
> >>
> >> Does not matter. Smith never claimed it was from the
> >> Abrahamic dispensation, although he claimed the document
> >> itself made that claim.
> >
> > € [guffaw]
> >
> You laugh at truth?
>
In Abraham's own hand.
Guy R. Briggs
>>> net...@GeoCities.com wrote:
>>>> monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
<snip>
>>>>> ... and is from a period 2,000 years later than Abraham.
>>>>
>>>> Does not matter. Smith never claimed it was from the
>>>> Abrahamic dispensation, although he claimed the document
>>>> itself made that claim.
>>>
>>> € [guffaw]
>>
>> You laugh at truth?
>
> In Abraham's own hand.
>
Part of the title, not Smith's opinion as to the copyist. Here's
Nibley:
"When the Book of Abraham was first published, being
personally edited by Joseph Smith, it was designated
by him as 'A translation of some ancient Records,
from the Catacombs of Egypt, PURPORTING to be the
writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, CALLED
_The Book of Abraham, Written by His Own Hand, Upon
Papyrus_'"
-- BYU Studies, Vol.9, No.1, pp.74-75
(emphasis in original)
Note that Smith himself designates the writings only as "some
ancient Records," then he tells us what they are purported to be, and
finally gives us the title of the document. Here "written by his own
hand" is not Joseph Smith's verdict but part of the original title of
the document translated. Such long explanatory titles are
characteristic of Egyptian writings.
"Two important and peculiar aspects of ancient author-
ship must be considered when we are told that a
writing is by the hand of Abraham or anybody else. One
is that according to Egyptian and Hebrews thinking any
copy of a book originally written by Abraham would be
regarded and designated as the very work of his hand
forever after, no matter how many reproductions had
been made and handed down through the years. The other
is that no matter who did the writing originally, if
it was Abraham who commissioned or directed the work,
he would take the credit for the actual writing of the
document, whether he penned it or not."
"As to the first point, when a holy book (usually a
leather roll) grew old and worn out from handling, it
was not destroyed but renewed. Important writings
were immortal - for the Egyptians they were 'the
divine words,' for the Jews the very letters were
holy and indestructible, being the word of God. The
wearing out of a particular copy of scripture
therefore in no way brought the life of the book to a
close - it could not perish. In Egypt it was simply
renewed (ma.w, sma.w) "fairer than before," and so
continued its life to the next renewal. Thus we are
told at the beginning of what some have claimed to be
the oldest writing in the world, 'His Majesty wrote
this book down anew ... His Majesty discovered it as
a work of the Ancestors, but eaten by worms ... So
His Majesty wrote it down from the beginning, so that
it is more beautiful than it was before.' It is not a
case of the old book's being replaced by a new one,
but of the original book itself continuing its
existence in a rejuvenated state. No people were more
hypnotized by the idea of a renewal of lives than the
Egyptians - not a succession of lives or a line of
descent, but the actual revival and rejuvenation of a
single life."
R. L. Measures
net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
> meas...@vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
> >> meas...@vcnet.com wrote:
> >>> net...@GeoCities.com wrote:
> >>>> monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>>>> ... and is from a period 2,000 years later than Abraham.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does not matter. Smith never claimed it was from the
> >>>> Abrahamic dispensation, although he claimed the document
> >>>> itself made that claim.
> >>>
> >>> € [guffaw]
> >>
> >> You laugh at truth?
> >
> > In Abraham's own hand.
> >
> Part of the title, not Smith's opinion as to the copyist. Here's
> Nibley:
>
> "When the Book of Abraham was first published, being
> personally edited by Joseph Smith, it was designated
> by him as 'A translation of some ancient Records,
> from the Catacombs of Egypt, PURPORTING to be the
> writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, CALLED
> _The Book of Abraham, Written by His Own Hand, Upon
> Papyrus_'"
> -- BYU Studies, Vol.9, No.1, pp.74-75
> (emphasis in original)
>
> Note that Smith himself designates the writings only as "some
> ancient Records," then he tells us what they are purported to be, and
> finally gives us the title of the document. Here "written by his own
> hand" is not Joseph Smith's verdict but part of the original title of
> the document translated.
€ No part of the hypocephalus had anything to do with Abraham. The time
frame was off by 2000 years. Smith's basic problem was ignorance of
Champollion's Grammar being published in 1837. The March 1, 1842 issue
of *Times and Seasons* is a laugher. The Book of Abraham is 99+%
flim-flam. When are you going to stop defending an untruthful person, Mr.
Briggs?
>............
R. L. Measures
<monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> And the sentence DIRECTLY IN FRONT of the one you are quoting
> reads, "In other hypocephali it can also be an ape, a snake, or
> a hawk-headed snake that is presenting the eye" - which destroys
> your entire argument that it should have been drawn as a
> sexually-aroused snake.
>
> *This sentence supports the argument, you baboon. The head in
> the JS hypocephalus was either a snake or hawk, not an ape. The
> body that was missing was a snake's body.
>
> The expert you quote, in the very document you quote, writes:
> "It should come as no surprise to members of the
> Church that as we gain more understanding of
> Egyptian matters, we find an increasing number of
> Joseph Smith's explanations of Facsimile 2 are in
> accord with that increased understanding."
>
> *This is nothing but deceptive apologetics.
>
€ Amen to that. The amazing thing is that lds apologists proffer such
embarrassments without any embarrassment. The elevator is not going to
the top floor. It seeems that the thinking is not being done on-site.
Clovis Lark
> monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>
>>> Same argument could be made for any reference to the Lord
>>> as "Alpha and Omega" - "alpha" being a symbol that origin-
>>> ated from a bull and was used in the same context as "Min,
>>> the bull of his mother".
>>>
>>> You are confusing the symbol with the thing in exactly the
>>> same way.
>>
>> It's pretty simple to understand the reference is to the
>> Lord being the first and the last as in the letters of the
>> Greek alphabet.
>>
> Easy for a totally believing mainstream Christian (TBMC) because
> they understand and accept the symbolism. A critic of Christianity
> might say you were being dishonest.
For sure they are, or ignorant...
>>
>> And, it's as intellectually deficient to argue Alpha
>> represents the Lord as a bull as it is to argue a glyph
>> of "Min, the bull of his mother" represents Elohim.
>>
> Ad hominim.
Maybe...
>>
>> You're the one confusing the symbols and God’s going to
>> have a special very large Min Jell-O mold waiting for you
>> to use as your throne.
>>
> The Min-shaped Jell-O mold is an earthly reward, currently
> administered by Clovis Lark (if memory serves).
I am the Trustee... But to answer your point. As a hollow effigy, 'tis
worldly. Filled with the right recipe, it is the key to heaven, perhaps
even Kolob itself...
>>
>>> But your argument depends on the assumption - a priori -
>>> that all hypycephali are the same. It is only from that
>>> (erroneous, IMHO) assumption that you can claim that
>>> since it's a walking snake on the British Museum example,
>>> it must be a walking snake on the missing portion of the
>>> JS hypocephalus.
>>
>> You continue to be dishonest.
>>
> I call 'em as I see 'em. Mistaken, maybe. Dishonest, never.
Mistaken...
>>
>> Again, I only said the Min's in two hypocephali were almost
>> exactly alike.
>>
> The KJV and Shakespere's _Romeo and Juliet_ both make extensive use
> of "thee" and "thou". Doesn't mean the text is interchangeable.
Different brand of gelatin
>>
>> The scenes depicted in figure 7 of Sheshonq's hypocephalus
>> and the British Museum hypocephalus have Min's that look as
>> alike as God and Jesus in LDS depictions of the first vision.
>>
> Irrelevant, unless you can prove that all hypocephali are alike.
THey require sertain images in order to serve their liturgical purpose.
Suggesting their absence is tantamount to insisting the RCC mass may be
performed without the Agnus dei.
>>
>> About this common scene, Michael Rhodes says "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 The
>> scene depicts Min and Nehebka a snake god."
>>
> And the sentence DIRECTLY IN FRONT of the one you are quoting reads,
> "In other hypocephali it can also be an ape, a snake, or a hawk-headed
> snake that is presenting the eye" - which destroys your entire argument
> that it should have been drawn as a sexually-aroused snake.
> It is customary to be familiar with a source you are using.
True true, and we know who was the first to fall on this sword.
>>
>> A snake god is best represented as...
>>
> Any number of strange creatures.
Citation?
> And also ...
Here's a question: The hypocephalus dates from a distinct period. How
does that relate to JS's claim that it was in Abraham's own hand. It
represents all sort of animalistic deities. How does that relate to god's
words to ABraham and others in those days about himself?
AlienWard
>> ''translation'' as fraudulent.
>>
> Like Sayce (1845-1933), Petrie (1853-1942), Meyer (1855-
1930),
>Breasted (1865-1935) and von Bissing (1873-1956)? These were
the most
>prominent scholars to whom Bishop Spaulding appealed in 1912,
and
>that's whre most of the criticism of the Book of Abraham comes
from
>even now.
>
> The point I tried to make with with our resident alien was
that
>Mormons are looking at scholarship from the last quarter-
century and
>finding some pretty surprising stuff. Meanwhile, CsOTMC
continue to
>quote old, dead guys.
>
discussed research by Ashment (1993) and Thompson (1995) in the
Nehebka and Min topic in this NG in May. You intentionally left
recent criticisms out of your list to support a bogus claim of
new findings.
Ashment has a paper reached through the Oriental Institute of
the University of Chicago.
http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/ABZU/ABZU_AUTHOR_AD.HTML
In the paper, Ashment dismantles John Gee's claims of new
findings:
"The documentation that Gee offers as evidence of his
extraordinary assertions comes from magical papyri — a fact Gee
neglects to tell his readers." (Edward H. Ashment, "The Use Of
Egyptian Magical Papyri To Authenticate The Book Of Abraham",
1993)
Thompson got his PhD in Egyptology at Brown so he could conduct
unbiased research. Here's what he says about the monkey
business attempts to find new findings:
"The approach taken in attempting to support Joseph's
interpretations of these figures is to compare them with figures
found in other historical and textual contexts. It is simply not
valid, however, to search through 3.000 years of Egyptian
religious iconography to find parallels which can be pushed,
prodded, squeezed, or linked in an attempt to justify Joseph's
interpretations." (Stephen E. Thompson, "Egyptology and the Book
of Abraham", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 28 (Spring
1995):143-60.)
With your intentional omission of recent critical research, you
have confirmed your dishonesty as a LDS apologist.
R. L. Measures
<monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
€ They seem to be unaware of reality.
>
>
later, Alien
Kerry A. Shirts
Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
<8k26it$61i$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> AlienWard <monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
>
> >> Same argument could be made for any reference to the Lord
> > as "Alpha
> >>and Omega" - "alpha" being a symbol that originated from a bull
> > and was
> >>used in the same context as "Min, the bull of his mother".
> >>
> >> You are confusing the symbol with the thing in exactly the
> > same way.
> >>
> > It's pretty simple to understand the reference is to the Lord
> > being the first and the last as in the letters of the Greek
> > alphabet. And, it's as intellectually deficient to argue Alpha
> > represents the Lord as a bull as it is to argue a glyph of "Min,
> > the bull of his mother" represents Elohim. You're the one
> > confusing the symbols and God’s going to have a special very
> > large Min Jell-O mold waiting for you to use as your throne.
>
> Yo dude, who died and made you trustee of the Min Shaped Jello selection
> committee?. Begone vile pretender!
Probably the same idiot who made him an Egyptologist wannabe, but actually
just a Tanner fobber.......
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in article
<8F69A5621netza...@209.84.17.10>...
> monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
> > About this common scene, Michael Rhodes says "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 The
> > scene depicts Min and Nehebka a snake god."
> >
Guy Briggs notes:
> And the sentence DIRECTLY IN FRONT of the one you are quoting reads,
> "In other hypocephali it can also be an ape, a snake, or a hawk-headed
> snake that is presenting the eye" - which destroys your entire argument
> that it should have been drawn as a sexually-aroused snake.
Oh shame on you Guy for providing context. Dammit dontchta know the critics
and antiAliens ALWAYS have to be right, even to the point of taking things
outta context. I call it the AntiShtik.
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
R. L. Measures <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote in article
<meas+ures-070...@port51.dial.vcnet.com>...
> In article <0933eed4...@usw-ex0101-007.remarq.com>, AlienWard
> <monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
>
> € They seem to be unaware of reality.
You, Rich, who accepts that Allegro's contentions that Jesus was in reality
a mushroom anciently, dare lecture us on reality?
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
<8k4ojr$gka$3...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
> > monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
> >> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
> >>> But your argument depends on the assumption - a priori -
> >>> that all hypycephali are the same. It is only from that
> >>> (erroneous, IMHO) assumption that you can claim that
> >>> since it's a walking snake on the British Museum example,
> >>> it must be a walking snake on the missing portion of the
> >>> JS hypocephalus.
> >>
> >> You continue to be dishonest.
> >>
> > I call 'em as I see 'em. Mistaken, maybe. Dishonest, never.
>
> Mistaken...
Oh? Now this is interesting.......How would you know Briggs is mistaken
with this? I've done enough comparative research and have over 22
hypocephali in my collection of copies to absolutely KNOW no two of them
are alike. But then, I'm bias and ignorant also ain't I, so what good would
that do for me to present the evidence? You'll call us mistaken no matter
what we bring out. Too bad the Egyptologists (ANY OF EM) would agree with
us that not all hypocaphali are alike exactly.
Kerry A. Shirts
R. L. Measures
<shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
[chortle]
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
> <8k26it$61i$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> AlienWard <monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Same argument could be made for any reference to the Lord
>> > as "Alpha
>> >>and Omega" - "alpha" being a symbol that originated from a bull
>> > and was
>> >>used in the same context as "Min, the bull of his mother".
>> >>
>> >> You are confusing the symbol with the thing in exactly the
>> > same way.
>> >>
>> > It's pretty simple to understand the reference is to the Lord
>> > being the first and the last as in the letters of the Greek
>> > alphabet. And, it's as intellectually deficient to argue Alpha
>> > represents the Lord as a bull as it is to argue a glyph of "Min,
>> > the bull of his mother" represents Elohim. You're the one
>> > confusing the symbols and God’s going to have a special very
>> > large Min Jell-O mold waiting for you to use as your throne.
>>
>> Yo dude, who died and made you trustee of the Min Shaped Jello selection
>> committee?. Begone vile pretender!
> Probably the same idiot who made him an Egyptologist wannabe, but actually
> just a Tanner fobber.......
One set of lies for another, and the ball kept rolling...
> Kerry A. Shirts
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
> <8k4ojr$gka$3...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
>> > monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
>> >> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>> >>> But your argument depends on the assumption - a priori -
>> >>> that all hypycephali are the same. It is only from that
>> >>> (erroneous, IMHO) assumption that you can claim that
>> >>> since it's a walking snake on the British Museum example,
>> >>> it must be a walking snake on the missing portion of the
>> >>> JS hypocephalus.
>> >>
>> >> You continue to be dishonest.
>> >>
>> > I call 'em as I see 'em. Mistaken, maybe. Dishonest, never.
>>
>> Mistaken...
> Oh? Now this is interesting.......How would you know Briggs is mistaken
> with this? I've done enough comparative research and have over 22
> hypocephali in my collection of copies to absolutely KNOW no two of them
> are alike. But then, I'm bias and ignorant also ain't I, so what good would
> that do for me to present the evidence? You'll call us mistaken no matter
> what we bring out. Too bad the Egyptologists (ANY OF EM) would agree with
> us that not all hypocaphali are alike exactly.
Here's a great idea. COuld you place photos of all 22 on your site so the
discrepancies can be viewed?
> Kerry A. Shirts
AlienWard
but actually
>just a Tanner fobber.......
>
seem to be much more of an armchair Min than I am. And what's
your problem with the Tanners, besides their release of the
Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar to the non-LDS world and the
subsequent review by Egyptologists like I.E. Edwards who said it
was "largely a piece of imagination and lacking in any kind of
scientific value"?
Kerry's web pages show the hypocritical nature of LDSers like
Kerry and Guy who put down "outsiders" who study the BoA but are
not Egyptologists. When someone like me says the Mins in two
hypocephali look almost exactly alike, I get accused of claiming
all hypocephali are alike and called an Egyptologist wannabe as
if there something wrong with comparing JS's butchering of his
hypocephalus with other intact ones.
In this web page, Kerry makes quite a few comparisons with other
hypocephali:
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~shirtail/original.htm
"Everything lines up correctly, as we see on other hypocephali
as well"
"Other hypocephali also have the two serpents"
"Compare with other hypocephali"
"Again, we find that in another hypocephalus"
"This is strictly correct according to the conventions of
hypocephali"
"very closely to the ancient Egyptian practice of hypocephali"
What you really have done here, is confirm that the JS
hypocephalus is one and that it has everything to do with the
Egyptian Book of the Dead and nothing to do with JS's Book of
Abraham fiction.
Here is an example of Kerry's amature Egyptology in action:
"Here the rams horns are like those in the JS Hypo. Nothing is
in the EAG, the supposed original that Joseph Smith was working
from, yet he correctly displays a correct set of horns on the
central figure. So this is an authentic touch in favor of Joseph
Smith."
Kerry is claiming JS didn't have the rams horns in the E&G, so
JS couldn't have possibly known they were supposed to be there
and is correct in filling them in. Of course, Kerry tries to
downplay the fact that JS just copied the whole head from the
top figure that includes the horns. There wasn't any knowledge
revealed to JS at all. He just copied a head from one part of
the hypocephalus to another.
It's enlightening to study the work of professional
Egyptologists, and then go read web pages like Kerry's to see
the deceptive, misleading and desperate attempts to support a
corrupt founder of a religion.
Kerry A. Shirts
AlienWard <monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in article
<17e03801...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com>...
> "Kerry A. Shirts" <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Probably the same idiot who made him an Egyptologist wannabe,
> but actually
> >just a Tanner fobber.......
> >
> Kerry, with your web site chock full of BoA apologetics, you
> seem to be much more of an armchair Min than I am. And what's
> your problem with the Tanners, besides their release of the
> Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar to the non-LDS world and the
> subsequent review by Egyptologists like I.E. Edwards who said it
> was "largely a piece of imagination and lacking in any kind of
> scientific value"?
The Tanners are about as good of historians as R.L. Measures is a Mormon.
That's just the beginning of my problems with their worthless writings, in
many cases.
>
> Kerry's web pages show the hypocritical nature of LDSers like
> Kerry and Guy who put down "outsiders" who study the BoA but are
> not Egyptologists.
Yada, yada, yada........
Kerry A. Shirts
R. L. Measures <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote in article
<meas+ures-090...@port29.dial.vcnet.com>...
> In article <01bfe970$f093f2e0$aa2aa1d1@default>, "Kerry A. Shirts"
> <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>
> > R. L. Measures <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote in article
> > <meas+ures-070...@port51.dial.vcnet.com>...
> > > In article <0933eed4...@usw-ex0101-007.remarq.com>, AlienWard
> > > <monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > € They seem to be unaware of reality.
> >
> > You, Rich, who accepts that Allegro's contentions that Jesus was in
reality
> > a mushroom anciently, dare lecture us on reality?
> >
> [chortle]
Actually I was thinking more in terms of BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
<8kae1v$5dh$3...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> Kerry A. Shirts <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
> > <8k4ojr$gka$3...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> >> Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
> >> > monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
> >> >> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
> >> >>> But your argument depends on the assumption - a priori -
> >> >>> that all hypycephali are the same. It is only from that
> >> >>> (erroneous, IMHO) assumption that you can claim that
> >> >>> since it's a walking snake on the British Museum example,
> >> >>> it must be a walking snake on the missing portion of the
> >> >>> JS hypocephalus.
> >> >>
> >> >> You continue to be dishonest.
> >> >>
> >> > I call 'em as I see 'em. Mistaken, maybe. Dishonest, never.
> >>
> >> Mistaken...
>
> > Oh? Now this is interesting.......How would you know Briggs is mistaken
> > with this? I've done enough comparative research and have over 22
> > hypocephali in my collection of copies to absolutely KNOW no two of
them
> > are alike. But then, I'm bias and ignorant also ain't I, so what good
would
> > that do for me to present the evidence? You'll call us mistaken no
matter
> > what we bring out. Too bad the Egyptologists (ANY OF EM) would agree
with
> > us that not all hypocaphali are alike exactly.
>
> Here's a great idea. COuld you place photos of all 22 on your site so
the
> discrepancies can be viewed?
No I can't. I would if there would be no copyright violation, dang it.
Kerry A. Shirts
Bill Williams
Kerry A. Shirts <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote in message
news:01bfe9f8$b44efd60$b82aa1d1@default...
>
>
> AlienWard <monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in article
> > but actually
> > >just a Tanner fobber.......
> > >
> > Kerry, with your web site chock full of BoA apologetics, you
> > seem to be much more of an armchair Min than I am. And what's
> > your problem with the Tanners, besides their release of the
> > Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar to the non-LDS world and the
> > subsequent review by Egyptologists like I.E. Edwards who said it
> > was "largely a piece of imagination and lacking in any kind of
> > scientific value"?
>
> The Tanners are about as good of historians as R.L. Measures is a Mormon.
> That's just the beginning of my problems with their worthless writings, in
> many cases.
And yet no LDS apologist has attempted to refute the Tanners point-by-point.
Why not give it a shot, Kerry?
Bill Williams
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
> <8kae1v$5dh$3...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> Kerry A. Shirts <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
>> > <8k4ojr$gka$3...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> >> Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
>> >> > monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
>> >> >> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>> >> >>> But your argument depends on the assumption - a priori -
>> >> >>> that all hypycephali are the same. It is only from that
>> >> >>> (erroneous, IMHO) assumption that you can claim that
>> >> >>> since it's a walking snake on the British Museum example,
>> >> >>> it must be a walking snake on the missing portion of the
>> >> >>> JS hypocephalus.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You continue to be dishonest.
>> >> >>
>> >> > I call 'em as I see 'em. Mistaken, maybe. Dishonest, never.
>> >>
>> >> Mistaken...
>>
>> > Oh? Now this is interesting.......How would you know Briggs is mistaken
>> > with this? I've done enough comparative research and have over 22
>> > hypocephali in my collection of copies to absolutely KNOW no two of
> them
>> > are alike. But then, I'm bias and ignorant also ain't I, so what good
> would
>> > that do for me to present the evidence? You'll call us mistaken no
> matter
>> > what we bring out. Too bad the Egyptologists (ANY OF EM) would agree
> with
>> > us that not all hypocaphali are alike exactly.
>>
>> Here's a great idea. COuld you place photos of all 22 on your site so
> the
>> discrepancies can be viewed?
> No I can't. I would if there would be no copyright violation, dang it.
> Kerry A. Shirts
Just disguise it as a paper and only show Min and Nebukah and you are OK.
Actually, I just spoke with the authors and they said their lawyers had
advised them that they could only sue in the celestial kingdom for
copyright infringement.
HBlack
<snip>
> And yet no LDS apologist has attempted to refute the Tanners point-by-point.
> Why not give it a shot, Kerry?
DM Quinn tried in the 1970s, under an assumed name.
The Tanners taught him a thing or two, and by the 1980's
he was providing them with tons of first-class publication
material.
Now he focuses his attacks on the BYU-FARMS polemicists,
who evade facts in order to pander to a close-minded
audience.
Irony is that Quinn may believe in Joseph Smith as
a prophet (in his idiosyncratic way), more than any of
the obviously dishonest FARMS whores, holed up in
their empty but comfortable intellectual closets.
Harry
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
>>> The scenes depicted in figure 7 of Sheshonq's hypocephalus
>>> and the British Museum hypocephalus have Min's that look as
>>> alike as God and Jesus in LDS depictions of the first vision.
>>
>> Irrelevant, unless you can prove that all hypocephali are alike.
>
> THey require sertain images in order to serve their liturgical
> purpose. Suggesting their absence is tantamount to insisting
> the RCC mass may be performed without the Agnus dei.
>
The purpose of any hypocephalus, according to Rhodes, was "to keep
the body warm (i.e., ready for resurrection) and to transform the
deceased into a God in the hereafter. The idea that part of that
process involves receiving further knowledge from diety was,
apparently, part of the Egyptian belief system.
The purpose of language, written or oral, is to communicate a
concept. And whether you're an Egyptian who believed that a fecund
eternal being named Min transferred some sort of gift as part of the
deification process, or a Mormon who believes in a fecund eternal being
named Elohim transfers a gift of "further light and knowledge" as part
of the deification process - the concept being communicated is
strikingly similar.
Make of that what you will. We see our version as the restored true
original and the Egyptian version as a corrupt pagan remnant. CsOTMC
see it differently. Point being that our critics can't/won't see past
the glyphs used to communicate the concept. That's why I keep bringing
up the "Alpha and Omega" comparison.
>>>
>>> About this common scene, Michael Rhodes says "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 The
>>> scene depicts Min and Nehebka a snake god."
>>
>> And the sentence DIRECTLY IN FRONT of the one you are quoting
>> reads, "In other hypocephali it can also be an ape, a snake,
>> or a hawk-headed snake that is presenting the eye" - which
>> destroys your entire argument that it should have been drawn
>> as a sexually-aroused snake.
>>
>> It is customary to be familiar with a source you are using.
>
> True true, and we know who was the first to fall on this sword.
>
LDS believe that Smith /was/ familiar with the source he was using.
That becomes more and more obvious as we learn more about the Egyptian
system of belief.
The laugher in all of this is that the same critics who insist on
archeological confirmation for the BofM are quite silent on the fact
that NEARLY EVERY VERSE of the Book of Abraham has a parallel in the
pseudepigraphic Abraham literature - all discovered and translated by
non-Mormons, and long after Smith was dead and buried.
>>>
>>> A snake god is best represented as...
>>
>> Any number of strange creatures.
>
> Citation?
>
Same source Alien originally used: Michael D. Rhodes.
"The text as well as the figures and illustrations of
the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus all point toward the
Egyptians' hope in a resurrection and life after
death as a divine being. Although to our modern way
of thinking, this message is conveyed by a strange
assortment of gods, animals, and other bizarre
figures, it is important to remember, that to the
Egyptians, who always tried to express abstract
ideas with concrete representations, these were all
aspects of the One God who manifested himself in
many forms."
<snip>
>> Here are some of the issues I'd like to see answered by
>> critics of the book:
>>
>> (1) The book of Abraham has close affinities to a large
>> number of apocryphal and Egyptian writings to which Joseph
>> Smith could have had no access. How?
>
> Here's a question: The hypocephalus dates from a distinct
> period. How does that relate to JS's claim that it was in
> Abraham's own hand. It represents all sort of animalistic
> deities. How does that relate to god's words to ABraham
> and others in those days about himself?
>
Asked and answered, but I'll try again.
First, Abraham makes a record of his experiences.
Second, a copy of that record gets recorded in Egyptian and is
titled _The Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus_. It
makes its way into the Egyptian system of belief. Those abstract
beliefs are expressed "with concrete representations, [and] were all
aspects of the One God who manifested himself in many forms."
Third, several centuries later it gets incorporated into a form
which would later come to be called a hypocephalus. An example of the
religious record and hypocephalus ends up in the hands of Joseph Smith.
Fourth, Smith extracts from those artifacts, the _Book of Abraham_.
You'll notice that I'm careful not to use the word "translated"
because I don't honestly have any idea how Smith extracted the BofA
from the artifacts. It doesn't seem to me that he did it in the same
way an Egyptologist would do it - examining each glyph and writing the
literal translation. But I do believe the BofA to be scripture.
An analogy would be an uneducated high-school kid who claims to have
converted lead into gold. The educated spend great amounts of time and
energy telling everybody how that's impossible. But nobody ever thinks
to assay the result to see whether or not it's really gold.
Mormons know that it's gold, and we've gotten tired of hearing how
it can't be done. So a few of us have gone out and become experts in
metallurgy - even formed an organization: the Foundation for the Assay
of Rich Metallilc Substances (FARMS).
Clovis Lark
>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>> monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
> <snip>
>>>> The scenes depicted in figure 7 of Sheshonq's hypocephalus
>>>> and the British Museum hypocephalus have Min's that look as
>>>> alike as God and Jesus in LDS depictions of the first vision.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant, unless you can prove that all hypocephali are alike.
>>
>> THey require sertain images in order to serve their liturgical
>> purpose. Suggesting their absence is tantamount to insisting
>> the RCC mass may be performed without the Agnus dei.
>>
> The purpose of any hypocephalus, according to Rhodes, was "to keep
> the body warm (i.e., ready for resurrection) and to transform the
> deceased into a God in the hereafter. The idea that part of that
> process involves receiving further knowledge from diety was,
> apparently, part of the Egyptian belief system.
> The purpose of language, written or oral, is to communicate a
> concept. And whether you're an Egyptian who believed that a fecund
> eternal being named Min transferred some sort of gift as part of the
> deification process, or a Mormon who believes in a fecund eternal being
> named Elohim transfers a gift of "further light and knowledge" as part
> of the deification process - the concept being communicated is
> strikingly similar.
Well, by that logic, we might just apply the Agnus dei to hindus. I don't
think they'd agree...
> Make of that what you will. We see our version as the restored true
> original and the Egyptian version as a corrupt pagan remnant. CsOTMC
> see it differently. Point being that our critics can't/won't see past
> the glyphs used to communicate the concept. That's why I keep bringing
> up the "Alpha and Omega" comparison.
As long as you understand that it's just a personal observation without
historical or cultural basis...
>>>>
>>>> About this common scene, Michael Rhodes says "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 The
>>>> scene depicts Min and Nehebka a snake god."
>>>
>>> And the sentence DIRECTLY IN FRONT of the one you are quoting
>>> reads, "In other hypocephali it can also be an ape, a snake,
>>> or a hawk-headed snake that is presenting the eye" - which
>>> destroys your entire argument that it should have been drawn
>>> as a sexually-aroused snake.
>>>
>>> It is customary to be familiar with a source you are using.
>>
>> True true, and we know who was the first to fall on this sword.
>>
> LDS believe that Smith /was/ familiar with the source he was using.
> That becomes more and more obvious as we learn more about the Egyptian
> system of belief.
THere are translations of the papyrii and they couldn't disagree more.
> The laugher in all of this is that the same critics who insist on
> archeological confirmation for the BofM are quite silent on the fact
> that NEARLY EVERY VERSE of the Book of Abraham has a parallel in the
> pseudepigraphic Abraham literature - all discovered and translated by
> non-Mormons, and long after Smith was dead and buried.
Sorry, but the articles are not a body of other literature. They are a
couple of papyrii containing standard funerary issues. They have been
translated.
>>>>
>>>> A snake god is best represented as...
>>>
>>> Any number of strange creatures.
>>
>> Citation?
>>
> Same source Alien originally used: Michael D. Rhodes.
> "The text as well as the figures and illustrations of
> the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus all point toward the
> Egyptians' hope in a resurrection and life after
> death as a divine being. Although to our modern way
> of thinking, this message is conveyed by a strange
> assortment of gods, animals, and other bizarre
> figures, it is important to remember, that to the
> Egyptians, who always tried to express abstract
> ideas with concrete representations, these were all
> aspects of the One God who manifested himself in
> many forms."
He isn't referring to Snakeman. He's referring to all the caractors.
> <snip>
>>> Here are some of the issues I'd like to see answered by
>>> critics of the book:
>>>
>>> (1) The book of Abraham has close affinities to a large
>>> number of apocryphal and Egyptian writings to which Joseph
>>> Smith could have had no access. How?
>>
>> Here's a question: The hypocephalus dates from a distinct
>> period. How does that relate to JS's claim that it was in
>> Abraham's own hand. It represents all sort of animalistic
>> deities. How does that relate to god's words to ABraham
>> and others in those days about himself?
>>
> Asked and answered, but I'll try again.
> First, Abraham makes a record of his experiences.
> Second, a copy of that record gets recorded in Egyptian and is
> titled _The Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus_. It
> makes its way into the Egyptian system of belief. Those abstract
> beliefs are expressed "with concrete representations, [and] were all
> aspects of the One God who manifested himself in many forms."
This seems to be a quote, but I don't see the beginning quote. But,
basically, you're saying that egypto-polytheism is the same as judaic
monothesism. It's just cleverly disguised, in code, if you will. Shall
we ask Rhodes if he wants to take this up with the Dept. of Religion at
the U. of Chicago?
> Third, several centuries later it gets incorporated into a form
> which would later come to be called a hypocephalus. An example of the
> religious record and hypocephalus ends up in the hands of Joseph Smith.
> Fourth, Smith extracts from those artifacts, the _Book of Abraham_.
How, since the actual text does NOT relate to JS's "musings"?
> You'll notice that I'm careful not to use the word "translated"
> because I don't honestly have any idea how Smith extracted the BofA
> from the artifacts. It doesn't seem to me that he did it in the same
> way an Egyptologist would do it - examining each glyph and writing the
> literal translation. But I do believe the BofA to be scripture.
Believing the boa to be scripture does not validate this scenario
concerning its origins. I might create a belief system where I canonize
the instructions on the box for the preparation of lime jello as
scripture. THat's OK. But were I then to extrapolate how those
instructions were a coded system of beliefs from a feculent, beer
swillin', professional wrestling god, the author (some bespectacled dweeb
deep in the bowels of Kraft) might take you to court.
> An analogy would be an uneducated high-school kid who claims to have
> converted lead into gold. The educated spend great amounts of time and
> energy telling everybody how that's impossible. But nobody ever thinks
> to assay the result to see whether or not it's really gold.
In this case, the educated translated the papyrii and reported that Joe
had perpetrated a fraud.
> Mormons know that it's gold, and we've gotten tired of hearing how
> it can't be done. So a few of us have gone out and become experts in
> metallurgy - even formed an organization: the Foundation for the Assay
> of Rich Metallilc Substances (FARMS).
Close to the Min Shaped Jello Mold...
Copperhead
>Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
>> cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Clovis Lark) wrote:
>>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>>> monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
>>>>> The scenes depicted in figure 7 of Sheshonq's hypocephalus
>>>>> and the British Museum hypocephalus have Min's that look as
>>>>> alike as God and Jesus in LDS depictions of the first vision.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant, unless you can prove that all hypocephali are alike.
>>>
>>> THey require sertain images in order to serve their liturgical
>>> purpose. Suggesting their absence is tantamount to insisting
>>> the RCC mass may be performed without the Agnus dei.
Hindus don't eat Angus ... on anmy dei of the week... or Jersey
either. But there I go again... blathering off my witticisms,
irrelevant though they be.
Agkistrodon
The Church says that the world is flat but I know that it is round for I have seen its shadow on the
moon and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church.
-Ferdinand Magellan
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
>>> cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Clovis Lark) wrote:
>>>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>>>> monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>> The scenes depicted in figure 7 of Sheshonq's hypocephalus
>>>>>> and the British Museum hypocephalus have Min's that look as
>>>>>> alike as God and Jesus in LDS depictions of the first vision.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant, unless you can prove that all hypocephali are alike.
>>>>
>>>> THey require sertain images in order to serve their liturgical
>>>> purpose. Suggesting their absence is tantamount to insisting
>>>> the RCC mass may be performed without the Agnus dei.
> Hindus don't eat Angus ... on anmy dei of the week... or Jersey
> either. But there I go again... blathering off my witticisms,
> irrelevant though they be.
There comes a time when brute force, effort, persistence can move a rock
where a simple blasting cap could have done the job instantly. In
recognition of such persistence.... You ARE awarded the daily Min Shaped
Jello Mold with the Recipe for Mormon's PLates inscribed in Reformed
Eyptian on the sides. The awsome feature is NOT suitable for holding a
yard of beer and should never, never be employed as the substitute for the
exhaust system of an AMC Gremlin.
You have the mike to thank the little people...
Copperhead
>Copperhead <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>>>Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
>>>> cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Clovis Lark) wrote:
>>>>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>>>>> monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>>> The scenes depicted in figure 7 of Sheshonq's hypocephalus
>>>>>>> and the British Museum hypocephalus have Min's that look as
>>>>>>> alike as God and Jesus in LDS depictions of the first vision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant, unless you can prove that all hypocephali are alike.
>>>>>
>>>>> THey require sertain images in order to serve their liturgical
>>>>> purpose. Suggesting their absence is tantamount to insisting
>>>>> the RCC mass may be performed without the Agnus dei.
>
>> Hindus don't eat Angus ... on anmy dei of the week... or Jersey
>> either. But there I go again... blathering off my witticisms,
>> irrelevant though they be.
>
>There comes a time when brute force, effort, persistence can move a rock
>where a simple blasting cap could have done the job instantly. In
>recognition of such persistence.... You ARE awarded the daily Min Shaped
>Jello Mold with the Recipe for Mormon's PLates inscribed in Reformed
>Eyptian on the sides. The awsome feature is NOT suitable for holding a
>yard of beer and should never, never be employed as the substitute for the
>exhaust system of an AMC Gremlin.
>
>You have the mike to thank the little people...
First, I want to thank all the members of the Academy, my director, my
producer, my costars, and my pimp. Second, I will use it as a
"tobacco" humidor and put my Zig-Zags under the pedastal.
You see... persistence pays.
AlienWard
>
> The purpose of language, written or oral, is to communicate
a
>concept. And whether you're an Egyptian who believed that a
fecund
>eternal being named Min transferred some sort of gift as part
of the
>deification process, or a Mormon who believes in a fecund
eternal being
>named Elohim transfers a gift of "further light and knowledge"
as part
>of the deification process - the concept being communicated is
>strikingly similar.
>
figure 7 again. Nehebka is presenting a Wedjat-eye to Min.
JS's translation has it backwards with Min presenting the Wedjat-
eye to Nehebka. He was completely clueless about Min and filled
in a snake body with a dove body and incorrectly calls Nehebka
the Holy Ghost.
See how twice, Michael Rhodes says Nehebka is presenting the
Wedjat-eye to Min:
"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. Before the god is what
appears to be a bird presenting him with a Wedjat-eye, the
symbol of all good gifts. 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.
Nehebka was considered to be a provider of life and nourishment,
and as such was often shown presenting a pair of jars or a
Wedjat-eye. As for the bird found in Facsimile 2, this could
symbolize the Ba or soul (which the Egyptians often represented
as a bird) presenting the Wedjat-eye to the seated god."
>
> Same source Alien originally used: Michael D. Rhodes.
>
> "The text as well as the figures and illustrations of
> the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus all point toward the
> Egyptians' hope in a resurrection and life after
> death as a divine being. Although to our modern way
> of thinking, this message is conveyed by a strange
> assortment of gods, animals, and other bizarre
> figures, it is important to remember, that to the
> Egyptians, who always tried to express abstract
> ideas with concrete representations, these were all
> aspects of the One God who manifested himself in
> many forms."
>
Rhodes said: "In other hypocephali it can also be an ape, a
snake, or a hawk-headed snake that is presenting the eye." He
has limited representations of the snake god Nehebka to three
figures. With the head that JS did have on the hypocephalus it
was either a snake head or a hawk head. JS incorrectly filled
in a dove body when he should have used a walking snake body
with an erection.
>
> Third, several centuries later it gets incorporated into a
form
>which would later come to be called a hypocephalus. An example
of the
>religious record and hypocephalus ends up in the hands of
Joseph Smith.
>
Several centuries? About when did Abraham write the BoA and
about when was Sheshonq's hypocephalus created?
lpau...@my-deja.com
agkis...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> >Copperhead <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>>> cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Clovis Lark) wrote:
> >>>>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
> >>>>>> monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>>>>> The scenes depicted in figure 7 of Sheshonq's hypocephalus
> >>>>>>> and the British Museum hypocephalus have Min's that look as
> >>>>>>> alike as God and Jesus in LDS depictions of the first vision.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Irrelevant, unless you can prove that all hypocephali are
alike.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> THey require sertain images in order to serve their liturgical
> >>>>> purpose. Suggesting their absence is tantamount to insisting
> >>>>> the RCC mass may be performed without the Agnus dei.
> >
> >> either. But there I go again... blathering off my witticisms,
> >> irrelevant though they be.
> >
> >There comes a time when brute force, effort, persistence can move a
rock
> >where a simple blasting cap could have done the job instantly. In
> >recognition of such persistence.... You ARE awarded the daily Min
Shaped
> >Jello Mold with the Recipe for Mormon's PLates inscribed in Reformed
> >Eyptian on the sides. The awsome feature is NOT suitable for holding
a
> >yard of beer and should never, never be employed as the substitute
for the
> >exhaust system of an AMC Gremlin.
> >
> >You have the mike to thank the little people...
>
> First, I want to thank all the members of the Academy, my director, my
> producer, my costars, and my pimp. Second, I will use it as a
> "tobacco" humidor and put my Zig-Zags under the pedastal.
>
> You see... persistence pays.
>
> Agkistrodon
>
Oh my Dear Snake! I'm SO very proud of you! Okay, I know I said you
didn't stand a chance, but I knew if you kept trying and trying, you'd
get the award about the time that Susan Lucci got her daytime Emmy.
It's sort of like when John Wayne won an Oscar out of pity and
longevity. But really, I am very proud of you. I'll expect to see lime
jello at the next party.
--
Regards,
Lee Paulson
We should display the 10 commandments in every U.S. public school and
public building just as soon as the U.S. Constitution is glued to the
chest of every statue of Jesus across America.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Copperhead
>> >
>> >You have the mike to thank the little people...
>>
>> First, I want to thank all the members of the Academy, my director, my
>> producer, my costars, and my pimp. Second, I will use it as a
>> "tobacco" humidor and put my Zig-Zags under the pedastal.
>>
>> You see... persistence pays.
>>
>> Agkistrodon
>>
>
>
>Oh my Dear Snake! I'm SO very proud of you! Okay, I know I said you
>didn't stand a chance, but I knew if you kept trying and trying, you'd
>get the award about the time that Susan Lucci got her daytime Emmy.
>It's sort of like when John Wayne won an Oscar out of pity and
>longevity. But really, I am very proud of you. I'll expect to see lime
>jello at the next party.
>
>--
>Regards,
>Lee Paulson
>
Ooooh, I'm going to enjoy smearing that ithyphallic jello all over
you, Babe. I owe it all to you. Behind ever great Min, there's an
even greater woMin, right?
Agkistrodon
>We should display the 10 commandments in every U.S. public school and
>public building just as soon as the U.S. Constitution is glued to the
>chest of every statue of Jesus across America.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
The Church says that the world is flat but I know that it is round for I have seen its shadow on the
Clovis Lark
>>> >
>>> >You have the mike to thank the little people...
>>>
>>> First, I want to thank all the members of the Academy, my director, my
>>> producer, my costars, and my pimp. Second, I will use it as a
>>> "tobacco" humidor and put my Zig-Zags under the pedastal.
>>>
>>> You see... persistence pays.
>>>
>>> Agkistrodon
>>>
>>
>>
>>Oh my Dear Snake! I'm SO very proud of you! Okay, I know I said you
>>didn't stand a chance, but I knew if you kept trying and trying, you'd
>>get the award about the time that Susan Lucci got her daytime Emmy.
>>It's sort of like when John Wayne won an Oscar out of pity and
>>longevity. But really, I am very proud of you. I'll expect to see lime
>>jello at the next party.
>>
>>--
>>Regards,
>>Lee Paulson
>>
> Ooooh, I'm going to enjoy smearing that ithyphallic jello all over
> you, Babe. I owe it all to you. Behind ever great Min, there's an
> even greater woMin, right?
Behind ev'ry woMin is a Bull!
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>
>> The purpose of language, written or oral, is to
>> communicate a concept. And whether you're an Egyptian
>> who believed that a fecund eternal being named Min
>> transferred some sort of gift as part of the
>> deification process, or a Mormon who believes in a
>> fecund eternal being named Elohim transfers a gift of
>> "further light and knowledge" as part of the
>> deification process - the concept being communicated
>> is strikingly similar.
>
>
Mistaken, perhaps. Dishonest, never.
>
> ... you're misrepresenting the meaning of figure 7 again.
>
Erm, no I am not. I am positing that Egyptians believed Min to be a
"fecund eternal being" (FEB). Why do you suppose he's drawn in a state
of arousal?
>
> Nehebka is presenting a Wedjat-eye to Min.
>
And you know this ... how? Even the Mormon Egyptologist you quote
states that Nehebka only "appears to be a bird presenting [Min] with a
wedjat eye".
<snip>
> Rhodes said: "In other hypocephali it can also be an ape, a
> snake, or a hawk-headed snake that is presenting the eye."
> He has limited representations of the snake god Nehebka to
> three figures.
>
Plus the dove on the JS Hypocephalus makes four. D'oh!
>
> With the head that JS did have on the hypocephalus it
> was either a snake head or a hawk head. JS incorrectly
> filled in a dove body when he should have used a walking
> snake body with an erection.
>
You think you can repeat this erroneous assertion enough times it
will turn from false to true?
>>
>> Third, several centuries later it gets incorporated into a
>> form which would later come to be called a hypocephalus. An
>> example of the religious record and hypocephalus ends up in
>> the hands of Joseph Smith.
>
> Several centuries? About when did Abraham write the BoA and
> about when was Sheshonq's hypocephalus created?
>
Circa 1700 BC and circa 300 AD, respectively, although the name
Sheshonq is interesting. The only Sheshonq I'm aware of is Sheshonq
III, the pharaoh who sacked the temple of Jerusalem at the time of
Rehoboam, son of Solomon, and carried off all its holy implements to
use in the Temple of On.
That happened much earlier than 300 AD.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
>> a hawk-headed snake that is presenting the eye" - which destroys
>> your entire argument that it should have been drawn as a
>> sexually-aroused snake.
>
> the JS hypocephalus was either a snake or hawk, not an ape. The
> body that was missing was a snake's body.
>
There is no way you can know that for sure. And ad hominems do not
impress me.
>
>> The expert you quote, in the very document you quote,
>> writes: "It should come as no surprise to members of the
>> Church that as we gain more understanding of Egyptian
>> matters, we find an increasing number of Joseph Smith's
>> explanations of Facsimile 2 are in accord with that
>> increased understanding."
>
> *This is nothing but deceptive apologetics.
>
Translation: Alien cannot refute it, so he tries to pass it of with
a scornful epithet.
>
>> "Joseph also explained there was a representation of
>> the sign of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. The
>> Egyptians commonly portrayed the soul or spirit as a
>> bird, so a bird is an appropriate symbol for the Holy
>> Ghost."
>
> *JS didn't have a clue. He drew in a dove to represent the
> Holy Ghost. His BoM has the HG showing up as a dove twice.
>
Different accounts of the same event (1 Nephi 31:8 and 2 Nephi
11:27) where the prophet sees the Saviour being baptized in Jordan and
the Holy Ghost descending as a dove.
>
> The above statement is completely dishonest because it does
> not mention JS filled in a missing piece with a dove or that
> JS's drawn in dove is Nehebka, a snake god.
>
We do not know what that portion of the original hypocephalus looked
like, nor do we know for sure who it is. To make the dishonest charge
stick, you have to prove five things:
1) All hypocephali - each and every one - have a snake drawn
in that scene.
2) Smith knew that fact.
3) Smith chose to draw in a dove instead (i.e. knowingly
presenting something he knew to be otherwise)
4) Rhodes was aware of the above deception.
5) Rhodes knowingly made the above statement though he knew
the truth to be otherwise.
You cannot prove point one, as I have already presented examples of
hypocephali in 3 different forms (four, if you count the JS
hypocephalus).
You refute point two every time you assert that Smith was
"clueless".
Failing points one and two, you cannot possibly prove that Smith was
deceptive. That kills off points four and five.
>
>> Does not matter. Smith never claimed it was from the
>> Abrahamic dispensation, although he claimed the document
>> itself made that claim.
>
> *The LDS church continues to deceive people with that claim
> in every BoA that gets handed out.
>
We believe that the original author was Abraham. Where is the
deception in that?
>
>> Not so. We have shown repeatedly that Smith claimed the
>> papyrus ITSELF purported to be written by Abraham's own
>> hand. It was Parley P. Pratt who later removed the
>> "purporting".
>>
>> Further, we have also shown how a copy made in the "land
>> of copyists" OFTEN claimed to be written by somebody's own
>> hand and meant that the document had originated from that
>> author.
>>
>> The "by his own hand" criticism is thus bogus.
>
> *The copulating bull without equal lives on.
>
Preserved, by antiMormons who want to discredit the church and draw
attention AWAY from the fact that nearly every verse of the BofA has a
parallel in Abrahamic literature discovered and translated after
Smith's death.
How can a book that Smith supposedly made up match so completely
documents that wouldn't be discovered for another half-century or so?
>
>> Here are some of the issues I'd like to see answered by
>> critics of the book:
>>
>> (1) The book of Abraham has close affinities to a large
>> number of apocryphal and Egyptian writings to which Joseph
>> Smith could have had no access. How?
>
> *Hebrew.
>
Hebrew? What the heck kind of answer is that? Are you saying that
because Joseph spent a little bit of time studying Hebrew that he had
the power to create a book which would match documents not to be
discovered for another 50 years or so? How does that work? Does the
study of Hebrew make one prescient?
>
>> (2) Abraham claims that his story starts out near a place
>> called "Olishem" (Abraham 1:10), and that place name is indeed
>> attested in newly discovered inscriptions from approximately
>> Abraham's time. Lucky guess on Joseph's part?
>
> *Hebrew.
>
You're beginning to sound like the enigmatic raven in Poe's poem.
"Quoth the Alien 'Hebrew!' once more" Again, how is that an answer?
Smith studied Hebrew, so he was able to pick a name out of thin air - a
nmae that's NOT Hebrew, BTW - and the actual place gets discovered more
than a century later? How does that work? Does the study of Hebrew
make one prescient?
>
>> (3) There is no evidence to place Ur of the Chaldees in
>> southern Mesopotamia, but there is good reason to locate Ur
>> in the north, near the site of Olishem.
>
> *Huh?
>
Nearly all Bible study aids printed in the last forty years identify
the Ur of Abraham with the Uri(m) of southern Mesopotamia. There are
reasons for doing so, of course, but the BofA puts Ur in "the plain of
Olishem" - and the newly discovered Olishem is in Northern Mesopotamia.
The argument for a northern location was made by Paul Y. Hoskisson
in "Where Was Ur of the Chaldees?" [in H. Donl Peterson and Charles D.
Tate, Jr., eds., The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God (Provo,
UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), 119-36.]
>
>> (4) Most of Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles
>> have been shown to be in the right general ballpark
>> although "there has been little or no work done on [these
>> types of texts by Egyptologists] since the end of the last
>> century." (quoting Michael Rhodes)
>
> *False.
>
True.
>
>> (5) The astronomy detailed in the book of Abraham does not
>> match the heliocentric astronomy of Joseph Smith's or our
>> own time, but can only be a geocentric astronomy like that
>> characteristic of the ancient Mediterranean world.
>> Interesting little nuance for Joseph to include.
>
> *False.
>
Which part? That the astronomy of our time is geocentric or that the
astronomy of the ancient Mediterranean world was heliocentric?
>
>> (6) David Cameron discovered an Egyptian lion couch scene
>> much like Facsimile 1 explicitly mentioning the name Abraham.
>> This last reference casts in a new light the claim that "none
>> of the book of Abraham facsimiles (or the papyrus drawings
>> from which they were adapted) make mention of Abraham".
>> (quoting Larson)
>
> *Crackpot.
>
I couldn't agree more heartily! But I'm surprised you'd call Charles
M. Larson, author of _By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the
Joseph Smith Papyri_, a crackpot in a public forum!
>
>> Not what I am claiming at all. What I am claiming is that
>> an Egyptian priest was buried with his own personal copy
>> of the Book of Abraham.
>
> *You apostate. Your church says it was written by Abraham's
> own hand.
>
They do not, as we have shown again and again.
>
> This claim is silly.
>
Agreed, so why do you keep posting it?
>
>>> The translations from Egyptian papyri created 2,000 years
>>> after Abraham are the BoA and have nothing to do the
>>> Egyptian Book of breathings of Book of the Dead.
>>
>> Tell you what, Alien. Since you keep insisting that you
>> understand Egyptian (as evidenced by repeated
>> translations of the hpyocephalus in the British Museum
>> and others) why don't you tell us the proper Egyptian way
>> of writing "God [the Hebrew Jehovah], sitting upon his
>> throne, revealing the grand key-words of the priesthood."
>
> *I've told you this before. Do you really want to see it again?
>
Yes, I do. I'm going to play Duwayne's little game of claiming to
have missed the original.
>
>> *You are telling us the proper Egyptian representation
>> of Jehovah is a depiction of the pagan Egyptian
>> ithyphallic god Min.
>
Not even close to what I'm claiming. What I'm saying is that your
mouth is writing check your brain can't cash: that you don't have
enough expertise in things Egyptian to judge whether or not Smith was
close.
>
> You seem to be trying to tell us that every god worshiped
> is the LDS god, but was the Egyptian god Min representing
> Jehovah/Jesus or Elohim/Heavenly Father?
>
No. What I'm claiming is that the story of Abraham got incorporated
into the Egyptian system of religious belief - and that Smith extracted
the story of Abraham in its pure form.
Nothing more.
>
>> We do not know. Are you, as expert in things Egyptian,
>> claiming that the Egyptians knew of Liberace?
>
> No. I'm claiming JS knew of Liberace.
>
Makes as much sense as any of your other claims.
Duwayne Anderson
net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
> Yes, I do. I'm going to play Duwayne's little game of claiming to
> have missed the original.
<snip>
The statement by Guy R. Briggs above is typical of Mormon apologetics.
Guy is just playing games (by his own admission) and trying to justify
it in his mind by inventing motive on the part of others. Dedication
to truth was abandoned long ago.
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
AlienWard
>
> Erm, no I am not. I am positing that Egyptians believed Min
to be a
>"fecund eternal being" (FEB). Why do you suppose he's drawn in
a state
>of arousal?
>
Any attempt to associate the pagan Egyptian god Min "in a state
of arousal" with a god from another religion is a
misrepresentation.
> And you know this ... how? Even the Mormon Egyptologist you
quote
>states that Nehebka only "appears to be a bird presenting [Min]
with a
>wedjat eye".
>
I wrote "Nehebka is presenting a Wedjat-eye to Min". In his
description of figure 7 Michael Rhodes wrote:
"This is a form of Min"
"This figure represents Nehebka"
"Nehebka was considered to be a provider of life and
nourishment, and as such was often shown presenting a pair of
jars or a Wedjat-eye."
Get it yet? Nehebka is presenting a Wedjat-eye to Min.
> Plus the dove on the JS Hypocephalus makes four. D'oh!
>
A walking snake with an erection and either a snake or a hawk
head is still Nehebka, and JS filled in a dove body when he
should have used the body of a walking snake with an erection.
JS was incorrect, so the number of representations in all intact
hypocephali is three.
> You think you can repeat this erroneous assertion enough
times it
>will turn from false to true?
>
You need to show me other hypocephali that have a dove in the
figure 7 scene with Min. Until then, you have not justification
to call my assertion erroneous.
> Circa 1700 BC and circa 300 AD, respectively, although the
name
>Sheshonq is interesting. The only Sheshonq I'm aware of is
Sheshonq
>III, the pharaoh who sacked the temple of Jerusalem at the time
of
>Rehoboam, son of Solomon, and carried off all its holy
implements to
>use in the Temple of On.
>
You were misleading when you said a few centuries knowing the
time difference is 2,000 years. You're trying to quibble over
the spelling of Sheshonq and I don't know if you spell it
Sheshonk, Sheshock or Hamhock. Here's where I got the spelling
from:
http://www.farmsresearch.com/review/4/gee.html
"So from an Egyptological perspective how many papyri do we know
that Joseph Smith had? We know that there was a Book of
Breathings belonging to Hor, son of Remnyqay and Taykhebit, a
Book of the Dead belonging to Tasheritmin, a Book of the Dead
belonging to Neferirnub, a hypocephalus belonging to Sheshonq,
and a document belonging to Amenhotep, the son of Hor."
Guy R. Briggs
>
>> Yes, I do. I'm going to play Duwayne's little game of
>> claiming to have missed the original.
>
>
> The statement by Guy R. Briggs above is typical of Mormon
> apologetics.
>
sincere question and when we're just being toyed with.
>
> Guy is just playing games (by his own admission)
>
Read it carefully. I specifically stated that I REFUSE to play your
little game.
>
> ... and trying to justify it in his mind by inventing motive
> on the part of others.
>
One of the nice things about the internet is that we can go back and
see exactly who said what and when.
01-Jan-00 You post the original "What is official Mormon
doctrine?" Currently #1 in the deja news lookup.
06-Jan-00 My reply, using Acts 15, D&C 26, D&C 107 and
Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Currently #231 in
the deja news lookup.
06-Jan-00 You respond to only the first paragraph, ignoring
my entire definition of official doctrine. #234
14-Jan-00 After I made a long, detailed response to "Harry
Black" you ask, "If you don't like Black's answer,
why not answer it yourself?" #379
Already done so, and you answered the post but
ignored the definition. This is where the game
began.
14-Jan-00 Posted the same information as 06-Jan-00, albeit
in short form. #380. Triggered another of Harry's
"will, mind, word, voice of the Lord" twistings
of our scriptures.
14-Jan-00 A response to Russell, in answer to your question.
#545
14-Jan-00 I ask you why you hadn't replied to my definition. #546
14-Jan-00 You reply, "Perhaps I missed it. Would you be so
kind as to repost..." #547
15-Jan-00 I repost my entire 06-Jan-00 post. #548
I'm beginning to see that a game is being played,
and I write "If I didn't know better, I'd say you
were deliberately ignoring it"
14-Jan-00 You again reply to #546, an write, "I didn't ask
for YOUR definition of Mormon doctrine. I asked
for THE OFFICIAL definition of Mormon doctrine. #549
14-Jan-00 I respond, "I consider myself to be reasonably-
educated and having grown up in the Church ... I
think I understand the doctrine reasonably well.
With that in mind, EVERY answer I give in this
ng is the official answer, at least as far as I
understand it - or is clearly noted as my humble
opinion. I try to include relevant quotes whenever
possible. #550
06-Feb-00 You are still trying to convince Neos that every
thing LDS leaders say becomes scripture and is,
therefore, official Mormon doctrine. #687.
09-Feb-00 I respond by asking why you have not yet responded
to the definition I gave. 3 times now. #717.
12-Feb-00 Your reply: "So if you have another definition of
official Mormon doctrine, in addition to the one
the LDS Church posts on it's official Internet
site, why didn't you post it in your last
article? #718.
12-Feb-00 I reply: "Been there, done that, been ignored
twice. Not going to play your game any more." #719.
And that's been my response ever since.
13-Feb-00 You: If you have a better definition, I sure we'd
all like to hear it" #720.
14-Feb-00 Me: Everybody's heard it twice now. Go look it up
and get back to me when you are ready to stop
playing games and answer. #721.
16-Feb-00 Still trying to bait me you write, "If you don’t
like my definition of official Mormon doctrine,
why not provide one yourself? After all, the
apologists brought up the issue with their
“that’s not official doctrine” argument." #722.
16-Feb-00 Me: I already have. And when you claimed to have
"missed" it I posted it a second time. I refuse
to play that game any more. #723.
22-Feb-00 You: So you claim. I notice Black isn't afraid
to post his definition when people say they
haven't seen it. I've posted my definition with
very request.
But Mormon apologists seem to be really stingy
with their definitions. Miss it? Tough luck. #729.
Y'see, Timmy, from where I sit this is not so much a matter of
asking a sincere question (and considering the sincere reply) as it is
"lying in wait to deceive". You are trying to get one of us to say that
everything out of a Prophet's mouth is official doctrine. You've
pointed us to the LDS website dozens of times, highlighting the areas
where it says that inspired (note the use of the qualifier!) utterances
are scripture. You've then tried to get us to make the connection
scripture = official doctrine.
What is the motive?
We can only guess, of course. But the most logical motive is that
you want to defuse the "not official doctrine" argument in a way that
anything said from the pulpit, inspired or not, can be attacked in the
standard "this is what Mormons REALLY believe" format.
>
> Dedication to truth was abandoned long ago.
>
Not on OUR side of the aisle.
Guy R. Briggs
>>> net...@GeoCities.com wrote:
<snip>
>>>> It is customary to be familiar with a source you are using.
>>>
>>> True true, and we know who was the first to fall on this
>>> sword.
>>
>> LDS believe that Smith /was/ familiar with the source he was
>> using. That becomes more and more obvious as we learn more
>> about the Egyptian system of belief.
>
> THere are translations of the papyrii and they couldn't
> disagree more.
>
The JS Papyri? Especially the one originally attached to the
hypocephalus?? Has not been translated with the possible exception of
the one Smith did. Hard to translate something you have, at best, 13%
of.
>>
>> The laugher in all of this is that the same critics who
>> insist on archeological confirmation for the BofM are quite
>> silent on the fact that NEARLY EVERY VERSE of the Book of
>> Abraham has a parallel in the pseudepigraphic Abraham
>> literature - all discovered and translated by non-Mormons,
>> and long after Smith was dead and buried.
>
> Sorry, but the articles are not a body of other literature.
> They are a couple of papyrii containing standard funerary
> issues. They have been translated.
>
Other examples of both the JS hypocephalus and what appears to be
the _Book of the Dead_ have been translated, yes. But you're assuming,
a priori, that the Book of Abraham came from them. That's a stretch.
>>>>>
>>>>> A snake god is best represented as...
>>>>
>>>> Any number of strange creatures.
>>>
>>> Citation?
>>
>> Same source Alien originally used: Michael D. Rhodes.
>
>> "The text as well as the figures and illustrations of
>> the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus all point toward the
>> Egyptians' hope in a resurrection and life after
>> death as a divine being. Although to our modern way
>> of thinking, this message is conveyed by a strange
>> assortment of gods, animals, and other bizarre
>> figures, it is important to remember, that to the
>> Egyptians, who always tried to express abstract
>> ideas with concrete representations, these were all
>> aspects of the One God who manifested himself in
>> many forms."
>
> He isn't referring to Snakeman. He's referring to all the
> caractors.
>
/Including/ Nehebka, and I've already quoted Rhodes as saying that
Nehebka can be represented at least 4 different ways.
>> <snip>
>
>>>> Here are some of the issues I'd like to see answered by
>>>> critics of the book:
>>>>
>>>> (1) The book of Abraham has close affinities to a large
>>>> number of apocryphal and Egyptian writings to which Joseph
>>>> Smith could have had no access. How?
>>>
>>> Here's a question: The hypocephalus dates from a distinct
>>> period. How does that relate to JS's claim that it was in
>>> Abraham's own hand. It represents all sort of animalistic
>>> deities. How does that relate to god's words to ABraham
>>> and others in those days about himself?
>>
>> Asked and answered, but I'll try again.
>
>> First, Abraham makes a record of his experiences.
>
>> Second, a copy of that record gets recorded in Egyptian
>> and is titled _The Book of Abraham, written by his own
>> hand, upon papyrus_. It makes its way into the Egyptian
>> system of belief. Those abstract beliefs are expressed
>> "with concrete representations, [and] were all aspects
>> of the One God who manifested himself in many forms."
>
> This seems to be a quote, but I don't see the beginning quote.
>
Rhodes, above.
>
> But, basically, you're saying that egypto-polytheism is
> the same as judaic monothesism. It's just cleverly
> disguised, in code, if you will.
>
Not what I'm saying, at all. I'm saying that the Egyptians were
aware of Abraham, that their legends about him were the same as
Christian legends and that they adapted some of those legends into
their own polytheistic religion.
>
> Shall we ask Rhodes if he wants to take this up with the Dept.
> of Religion at the U. of Chicago?
>
Get it correct, and sure.
>
>> Third, several centuries later it gets incorporated into a
>> form which would later come to be called a hypocephalus. An
>> example of the religious record and hypocephalus ends up in
>> the hands of Joseph Smith.
>>
>> Fourth, Smith extracts from those artifacts, the _Book of
>> Abraham_.
>
> How, since the actual text does NOT relate to JS's "musings"?
>
Better question is how the Book of Abraham matches the extant
Abrahamic literature so closely - if Smith just made it all up. You
guys are the ones that keep asking for archeological confirmation of
the Book of Mormon. We HAVE archeological confirmation of the Book of
Abraham, and it keeps getting ignored.
Kinda' supports my argument that if archeologists found Book of
Mormon horsies, still yolked to a wheeled chariot, with a steel sword,
a bolt of silk and a peck of barley in the back - it STILL wouldn't
convert any of our critics.
>>
>> You'll notice that I'm careful not to use the word
>> "translated" because I don't honestly have any idea how
>> Smith extracted the BofA from the artifacts. It doesn't
>> seem to me that he did it in the same way an Egyptologist
>> would do it - examining each glyph and writing the literal
>> translation. But I do believe the BofA to be scripture.
>
> Believing the boa to be scripture does not validate this
> scenario concerning its origins.
>
True, but it gives insight as to why we keep talking past each
other.
>
> I might create a belief system where I canonize the
> instructions on the box for the preparation of lime jello
> as scripture. THat's OK. But were I then to extrapolate
> how those instructions were a coded system of beliefs from
> a feculent, beer swillin', professional wrestling god, the
> author (some bespectacled dweeb deep in the bowels of
> Kraft) might take you to court.
>
>> An analogy would be an uneducated high-school kid who
>> claims to have converted lead into gold. The educated
>> spend great amounts of time and energy telling everybody
>> how that's impossible. But nobody ever thinks to assay
>> the result to see whether or not it's really gold.
>
> In this case, the educated translated the papyrii and
> reported that Joe had perpetrated a fraud.
>
No, they did not. They made assumptions about what certain of the
papyri must have contained, assumed (a priori) that the BofA must have
come from those documents, and then told us that the BofA didn't match.
>>
>> Mormons know that it's gold, and we've gotten tired of
>> hearing how it can't be done. So a few of us have gone out
>> and become experts in metallurgy - even formed an
>> organization: the Foundation for the Assay of Rich Metallic
>> Substances (FARMS).
>
> Close to the Min Shaped Jello Mold...
>
You mean I STILL haven't qualified?!? I would consider it a great
honor.
Duwayne Anderson
net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
> You are trying to get one of us to say that
> everything out of a Prophet's mouth is official doctrine.
This is another example of typical Mormon apologetics. Presuming to
have the holy ghost tell you how to read someone's mind.
> You've pointed us to the LDS website dozens of times,
Oh, my Gawd. Imagine that -- using the official LDS Internet site
to explain what Mormons believe.
What will the evil devil anti's think of next?
> highlighting the areas where it says that inspired (note the use
> of the qualifier!)
So who says when they are or not inspired? YOU? Are YOU the official
filter?
> utterances are scripture.
<snip>
It says it in your own D&C, Guy. You say the D&C is official doctrine.
Well, your own D&C says that when Mormon leaders speak by the
Holy Ghost their words are scripture.
Who are you to tell Mormons that their prophets don't speak by the
Holy Ghost?
Bill Williams
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8kiqcf$7e8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8F6F8EB94netza...@131.119.28.155>,
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > everything out of a Prophet's mouth is official doctrine.
>
> have the holy ghost tell you how to read someone's mind.
>
>
> to explain what Mormons believe.
>
> What will the evil devil anti's think of next?
>
> > of the qualifier!)
>
> filter?
>
> > utterances are scripture.
> <snip>
>
> It says it in your own D&C, Guy. You say the D&C is official doctrine.
> Well, your own D&C says that when Mormon leaders speak by the
> Holy Ghost their words are scripture.
>
> Who are you to tell Mormons that their prophets don't speak by the
> Holy Ghost?
This is an unsolvable paradox for LDSs. Either (a) the words of the prophets
are consistently inspired, and so there are embarrassing teachings that
can't be explained; or (b) they are not always inspired, so there's no
standard for telling when their teachings are true. There's no way to solve
this problem.
Bill Williams
cdo...@my-deja.com
AlienWard <monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> >
> to be a
> >"fecund eternal being" (FEB). Why do you suppose he's drawn in
> a state
> >of arousal?
> >
> Any attempt to associate the pagan Egyptian god Min "in a state
> of arousal" with a god from another religion is a
> misrepresentation.
You're kidding, right?
Are you familiar with the history of the "christmas tree", or the
significance of Dec 25 as the date of Christmas? Each of these have a
meaning within historic Christianity, even though their origins are
*************non-Christian****************. I'm sure that we can find
many more examples.
Your argument falls flat on its face.
snip
> >
> A walking snake with an erection and either a snake or a hawk
> head is still Nehebka, and JS filled in a dove body when he
> should have used the body of a walking snake with an erection.
> JS was incorrect, so the number of representations in all intact
> hypocephali is three.
>
> > You think you can repeat this erroneous assertion enough
> times it
> >will turn from false to true?
> >
> You need to show me other hypocephali that have a dove in the
> figure 7 scene with Min. Until then, you have not justification
> to call my assertion erroneous.
And with this statement you tacitly admit that this hypocephalus is
indeed unique. That seems to strengthen the concept that this is not
ordinary, run-of-the-mill as the antis claim. It has unique features.
"Find another one", indeed. Why should we? This uniqueness totally
discredits your "JS should have" done this or that. Why? How do you
know for certain what should be on the document, if it does indeed have
unique aspects.
This is an elaborate strawman argument -- you demand that JS follow
convention when JS says that this is a unique document. You then
criticize him for making it unique. You then demand "other
hypocephepli" -- with the strident demand that it become ordinary, when
its very nature makes it unique.
Again your argument falls flat on its face.
snip
Best regards,
Charles dowis
"Try to reason with a cat? I'm not sure that's possible."
AlienWard
>
>You're kidding, right?
>
>Are you familiar with the history of the "christmas tree", or
the
>significance of Dec 25 as the date of Christmas? Each of these
have a
>meaning within historic Christianity, even though their origins
are
>*************non-Christian****************. I'm sure that we
can find
>many more examples.
>
>Your argument falls flat on its face.
>
Heavenly Father.
>
>And with this statement you tacitly admit that this
hypocephalus is
>indeed unique. That seems to strengthen the concept that this
is not
>ordinary, run-of-the-mill as the antis claim. It has unique
features.
>
It's unique because JS incorrectly filled in missing pieces
including text he supposedly knew how to translate that he put
in upside down.
>"Find another one", indeed. Why should we? This uniqueness
totally
>discredits your "JS should have" done this or that. Why? How
do you
>know for certain what should be on the document, if it does
indeed have
>unique aspects.
>
Form the head that was intact, we know the dove should be a
walking snake with an erection.
>This is an elaborate strawman argument -- you demand that JS
follow
>convention when JS says that this is a unique document. You
then
>criticize him for making it unique. You then demand "other
>hypocephepli" -- with the strident demand that it become
ordinary, when
>its very nature makes it unique.
>
>Again your argument falls flat on its face.
>
Yes, JS made the hypocephalus unique. BY gets the award for
copulating bull without equal, right? Who gets the award for
translating the text that ought not be revealed at the present
time?
Copperhead
>
>Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8kiqcf$7e8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <8F6F8EB94netza...@131.119.28.155>,
>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > You are trying to get one of us to say that
>> > everything out of a Prophet's mouth is official doctrine.
>>
>> This is another example of typical Mormon apologetics. Presuming to
>> have the holy ghost tell you how to read someone's mind.
>>
>> > You've pointed us to the LDS website dozens of times,
>>
>> Oh, my Gawd. Imagine that -- using the official LDS Internet site
>> to explain what Mormons believe.
>>
>> What will the evil devil anti's think of next?
>>
>> > highlighting the areas where it says that inspired (note the use
>> > of the qualifier!)
>>
>> So who says when they are or not inspired? YOU? Are YOU the official
>> filter?
>>
>> > utterances are scripture.
>> <snip>
>>
>> It says it in your own D&C, Guy. You say the D&C is official doctrine.
>> Well, your own D&C says that when Mormon leaders speak by the
>> Holy Ghost their words are scripture.
>>
>> Who are you to tell Mormons that their prophets don't speak by the
>> Holy Ghost?
>
>This is an unsolvable paradox for LDSs. Either (a) the words of the prophets
>are consistently inspired, and so there are embarrassing teachings that
>can't be explained; or (b) they are not always inspired, so there's no
>standard for telling when their teachings are true. There's no way to solve
>this problem.
>
It is the great unsolvable paradox of the Bible as well. There is
no way to know when symbolism is meant and when it is to be read
concretely. Without such knowledge, it becomes merely a matter of
personal preference as to what you want to believe about it. It is
further complicated by its historical errors. If it contains one
thing that is known not to be true and other things taht are not
verifiable, we have no way of knowing if the unverifiable parts are
true. In short, we do not know where the errors are and they can be
anywhere.
Agkistrodon
Bill Williams
Copperhead <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:396d08d5....@news.mindspring.com...
> "Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:8kiqcf$7e8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> In article <8F6F8EB94netza...@131.119.28.155>,
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> > everything out of a Prophet's mouth is official doctrine.
> >>
> >> have the holy ghost tell you how to read someone's mind.
> >>
> >>
> >> to explain what Mormons believe.
> >>
> >> What will the evil devil anti's think of next?
> >>
> >> > of the qualifier!)
> >>
Indeed! And there are plenty of errors, embarrassments, and unverifiable
claims. Two good sources on this are Mark Twain, 'Letters from the Earth' at
www.concordance.com/twain.htm, and the writings of Ingersoll at
http://www.concordance.com/infidel.htm
Bill Williams
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> out of a Prophet's mouth is official doctrine.
>
> Presuming to have the holy ghost tell you how to read
> someone's mind.
>
CsOTMC want to continue the practice of proof-texting dusty old
documents looking for stuff you can throw in our faces and triumphantly
cry, "THIS is what Mormons /really/ believe!"
Doesn't really matter if Mormons believe it or not. Doesn't matter
if it was ever official doctrine or not. The important thing is to get
non-Mormons to believe it's official Mormon doctrine, so they are not
tempted to listen to the LDS message.
You think Mormonism evil, so anything you can do to prevent people
from listening is justifiable, including shading the truth to suit your
needs. Sorta' like telling children that the bogeyman will get 'em if
they participate in some undesired behaviour.
"It'll make you go blind!"
>>
>> You've pointed us to the LDS website dozens of times, ...
>
> Oh, my Gawd. Imagine that -- using the official LDS Internet
> site to explain what Mormons believe.
>
> What will the evil devil anti's think of next?
>
If that was your real intent, it would be fine. But you go a step
further than that. You point us there, tell us what it says there and
then twist it to suit your own needs. That's what I'm protesting.
>>
>> ... highlighting the areas where it says that inspired
>> (note the use of the qualifier!) ...
>
> So who says when they are or not inspired? YOU? Are YOU
> the official filter?
>
Yes, me. I am the official filter for me. Each and every member is
the official filter for himself. That's why we are given the Gift of
the Holy Ghost right after we're baptized.
>>
>> ... utterances are scripture.
>
> <snip>
>
> It says it in your own D&C, Guy. You say the D&C is official
> doctrine. Well, your own D&C says that when Mormon leaders
> speak by the Holy Ghost their words are scripture.
>
Yes, it does and this is the perfect example of the "shading of the
truth" I'm talking about. It doesn't say "when leaders speak, their
words are scripture." It says "whatsoever they shall speak WHEN MOVED
UPON BY THE HOLY GHOST shall be scripture..."
CsOTMC would have us believe that Mormon leaders are NEVER inspired
by the Holy Ghost. Of course that puts them in a logical conundrum,
because it would mean that NOTHING they say is scripture! But I
digress....
OTOH, some LDS believe that everything that leaders say is doctrine.
This is the other extreme, and, IMHO, equally false. The truth, I
think, lies somewhere in between.
We also make a distinction between scripture and canon. If I am
"moved upon by the Holy Ghost" and record the experience, that becomes
scripture FOR ME. Just me, not the entire Church. When a Partiarch is
"moved upon by the Holy Ghost" and gives me a Patriarchal Blessing,
that becomes scripture for me. Just me, not the entire Church. It is
scripture, but it is not canon. Nor is it doctrine.
Here's a truth table for these two concepts (switch to Courier 10
for alignment):
__ Moved upon by Holy Ghost?
| __Canon?
| | __Doctrine?
| | |
V V V
Case 1 Y Y Y Official Mormon doctrine (OMD)
Case 2 Y Y N Not OMD - for example, Saturday worship
Case 3 Y N Y OMD - example: 1912 Doctrinal Exposition
Case 4 Y N N Not OMD - example: patriarchal blessing
Case 5 N Y Y Not logically possible
Case 6 N Y N Not logically possible
Case 7 N N Y What CsOTMC want, but NLP
Case 8 N N N Knock-knock jokes the prophet tells
In this table, Cases 1 and 3 are the only examples of official
Mormon doctrine. A leader has been "moved upon by the Holy Ghost" and
whether canonical or not, it's OMD because it was inspired and intended
for the entire Church.
But CsOTMC are trying to turn case 7 into a possibility because all
the things they like to attack are part and parcel of case 7. Adam/God,
GodhadsexwithMary, Jesuswasmarried - you name it.
The standard (and correct!) defense of these issues is to point out
that they are not now, nor were they ever, official Mormon doctrine.
Case 7 is not logically possible.
>
> Who are you to tell Mormons that their prophets don't speak
> by the Holy Ghost?
>
They do! But not always. The possibility exists that some of the
things they say are uninspired - therefore, not OMD.
Bill Williams
Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in message
news:8F6FBE264netza...@131.119.28.155...
We're not going to have a quiz on this, are we?
> In this table, Cases 1 and 3 are the only examples of official
> Mormon doctrine. A leader has been "moved upon by the Holy Ghost" and
> whether canonical or not, it's OMD because it was inspired and intended
> for the entire Church.
>
> But CsOTMC are trying to turn case 7 into a possibility because all
> the things they like to attack are part and parcel of case 7. Adam/God,
> GodhadsexwithMary, Jesuswasmarried - you name it.
>
> The standard (and correct!) defense of these issues is to point out
> that they are not now, nor were they ever, official Mormon doctrine.
>
> Case 7 is not logically possible.
>
> >
> > Who are you to tell Mormons that their prophets don't speak
> > by the Holy Ghost?
> >
> They do! But not always. The possibility exists that some of the
> things they say are uninspired - therefore, not OMD.
Can you back up anything in this post with any scripture or statements by
the General Authorities?
Bill Williams
Guy R. Briggs
<much snippage>
>>> So who says when they are or not inspired? YOU? Are
>>> YOU the official filter?
>>
>> Yes, me. I am the official filter for me. Each and every
>> member is the official filter for himself. That's why we
>> are given the Gift of the Holy Ghost right after we're
>> baptized.
<more snippage>
>>> Who are you to tell Mormons that their prophets don't speak
>>> by the Holy Ghost?
>>
>> They do! But not always. The possibility exists that some of
>> the things they say are uninspired - therefore, not OMD.
>
> Can you back up anything in this post with any scripture or
> statements by the General Authorities?
>
Sure. Joseph Smith:
"This morning I read German and visited with a
brother and sister from Michigan, who thought
that 'a prophet is always a prophet;' but I told
them that a prophet was a prophet only when he
was acting as such."
-- TPJS, p.278
President Joseph Fielding Smith:
"It makes no difference what is written or what
anyone has said, if what has been said is in
conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can
set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any
other member of the Church, high or low, if they
do not square with the revelations, we need not
accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We
have accepted the four standard works as the
measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we
measure every man's doctrine.
"You cannot accept the books written by the
authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine,
only in so far as they accord with the revealed
word in the standard works.
"Every man who writes is responsible, not the
Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding
Smith writes something which is out of harmony
with the revelations, then every member of the
Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes
that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed
word of the Lord, then it should be accepted."
-- Doctrines of Salvation,
vol. 3, pp. 203-204
Bruce R. McConkie:
"With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets
are yet mortal men with imperfections common to
mankind in general. They have their opinions and
prejudices and are left to work out their own
problems without inspiration in many instances...
Thus the opinions and views even of prophets may
contain error unless those opinions and views are
inspired by the Spirit. Inspired statements are
scripture and should be accepted as such. (D&C 68:4)"
-- Mormon Doctrine, p.609
President J. Reuben Clark:
"[after quoting D&C 68:2-4] The very words of the
revelation recognize that the Brethren may speak
when they are not 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost,'
yet only when they do so speak, as so 'moved upon'
is what they say Scripture. No exceptions are
given to this rule or principle. It is universal
in its application.
"The question is, how shall we know when the things
they have spoken were said as they were 'moved
upon by the Holy Ghost?'
"I have given some thought to this question, and
the answer thereto so far as I can determine is:
We can tell when the speakers are 'moved upon by
the Holy Ghost' only when we, ourselves, are
'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.'
"In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility
from them to us to determine when they so speak."
-- Address to Seminary and Institute
Personnel, BYU, 07-Jul-54
Brigham Young:
"You may know whether you are led right or wrong, as
well as you know the way home; for every principle
God has revealed carries its own convictions of its
truth to the human mind, ...
"What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to
utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more
afraid that this people have so much confidence in
their leaders that they will not inquire of
themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am
fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-
security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands
of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in
itself would thwart the purposes of God in their
salvation, and weaken that influence they could give
to their leaders did they know for themselves, by the
revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right
way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering
of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their
leaders are walking in the path that the Lord
dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation
continually."
-- JoD 9, 149-150
Kerry A. Shirts
Bill Williams <will...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
<ls7a5.5004$iS2.3...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>...
>
> Kerry A. Shirts <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote in message
> news:01bfe9f8$b44efd60$b82aa1d1@default...
> >
> >
> > AlienWard <monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in article
> > <17e03801...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com>...
> > > "Kerry A. Shirts" <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Probably the same idiot who made him an Egyptologist wannabe,
> > > but actually
> > > >just a Tanner fobber.......
> > > >
> > > Kerry, with your web site chock full of BoA apologetics, you
> > > seem to be much more of an armchair Min than I am. And what's
> > > your problem with the Tanners, besides their release of the
> > > Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar to the non-LDS world and the
> > > subsequent review by Egyptologists like I.E. Edwards who said it
> > > was "largely a piece of imagination and lacking in any kind of
> > > scientific value"?
> >
> > The Tanners are about as good of historians as R.L. Measures is a
Mormon.
> > That's just the beginning of my problems with their worthless writings,
in
> > many cases.
>
> And yet no LDS apologist has attempted to refute the Tanners
point-by-point.
> Why not give it a shot, Kerry?
Point by point? For the first 17 entire pages of their "Mormonism Shadow or
Reality" they squeal about Hugh Nibley! That ain't about the papyri, nor
Mormonism. Gee, all it took me was a mere few seconds to show that their
Book of Abraham chapter is literally ad hominim against a single man.
Kerry A. "1/2 of their entire chapter down tonight the rest to come later
in print" Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
<8kb25b$7bb$3...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> Kerry A. Shirts <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>
> Just disguise it as a paper and only show Min and Nebukah and you are OK.
> Actually, I just spoke with the authors and they said their lawyers had
> advised them that they could only sue in the celestial kingdom for
> copyright infringement.
LAUGH! Actually I have included what I can on my website......
Kerry A. Shirts
>
Kerry A. Shirts
Copperhead <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<396b80d8...@news.mindspring.com>...
> lpau...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >Oh my Dear Snake! I'm SO very proud of you! Okay, I know I said you
> >didn't stand a chance, but I knew if you kept trying and trying, you'd
> >get the award about the time that Susan Lucci got her daytime Emmy.
> >It's sort of like when John Wayne won an Oscar out of pity and
> >longevity. But really, I am very proud of you. I'll expect to see lime
> >jello at the next party.
> >
> >--
> >Regards,
> >Lee Paulson
> >
>
> Ooooh, I'm going to enjoy smearing that ithyphallic jello all over
> you, Babe. I owe it all to you. Behind ever great Min, there's an
> even greater woMin, right?
HOWLING LAUGHTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kerry A. Shirts
Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in article
<8F6EAA17Fnetza...@209.84.17.10>...
> monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
> >>
> >> The purpose of language, written or oral, is to
> >> communicate a concept. And whether you're an Egyptian
> >> who believed that a fecund eternal being named Min
> >> transferred some sort of gift as part of the
> >> deification process, or a Mormon who believes in a
> >> fecund eternal being named Elohim transfers a gift of
> >> "further light and knowledge" as part of the
> >> deification process - the concept being communicated
> >> is strikingly similar.
> >
> > Oh great dishonest one, ...
> >
> Mistaken, perhaps. Dishonest, never.
>
> >
> > ... you're misrepresenting the meaning of figure 7 again.
> >
> Erm, no I am not. I am positing that Egyptians believed Min to be a
> "fecund eternal being" (FEB). Why do you suppose he's drawn in a state
> of arousal?
To show anti-Mormons what they are missing?
Kerry A. "Just an educated guess" Shirts
P.S. I could have said the scientific types around here bragging they can
rebuild everything the ancients did, but are "dickless" to actually prove
it......GRIN!
Kerry A. Shirts
Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in article
<8F6EAA17Fnetza...@209.84.17.10>...
> monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
> You think you can repeat this erroneous assertion enough times it
> will turn from false to true?
Why not Guy? The scientists among us do so in regards to rebuilding the
Great Pyramid....Surely the anti's can do so with the Egyptian Min. Seems
like all around us, no one can "get anything up" concerning Egypt.
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
AlienWard <monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in article
<212d2952...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com>...
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> >
> > Erm, no I am not. I am positing that Egyptians believed Min
> to be a
> >"fecund eternal being" (FEB). Why do you suppose he's drawn in
> a state
> >of arousal?
> >
> Any attempt to associate the pagan Egyptian god Min "in a state
> of arousal" with a god from another religion is a
> misrepresentation.
As Randy Jordon told me, this is only your opinion, so what? PROVE IT.
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
AlienWard <monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in article
<2dced924...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com>...
> cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >You're kidding, right?
> >
> >Are you familiar with the history of the "christmas tree", or
> the
> >significance of Dec 25 as the date of Christmas? Each of these
> have a
> >meaning within historic Christianity, even though their origins
> are
> >*************non-Christian****************. I'm sure that we
> can find
> >many more examples.
> >
> >Your argument falls flat on its face.
> >
> Only if you pray to your Christmas tree and call Santa Claus
> Heavenly Father.
HOWLING LAUGHTER!!!!!! You miss Charles' point entirely....... but, please
don't tell Randy Jordon I posted this cause he's gonna continue asking me
to post something relevant. I do, and he's so out of it, apparently in his
own opinion, he can't see the relevance of my posts.
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
<8kieuu$v3j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <8F6EBDA8Dnetza...@131.119.28.155>,
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Yes, I do. I'm going to play Duwayne's little game of claiming to
> > have missed the original.
> <snip>
>
> The statement by Guy R. Briggs above is typical of Mormon apologetics.
>
> Guy is just playing games (by his own admission) and trying to justify
> it in his mind by inventing motive on the part of others.
You obviously have not been keeping track of the conversations then. Guy is
simply delightful in these posts, and I appreciate his wonderful sense of
humor, of course, at the expense of a typical Anti-Mormon moron who thinks
Hebrew is the explanation of How the BofAbr. matches all the Abraham texts
found 50 years after Smith was dead! This is great stuff Guy! Keep going, I
love it!
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
<8kiqcf$7e8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <8F6F8EB94netza...@131.119.28.155>,
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> Who are you to tell Mormons that their prophets don't speak by the
> Holy Ghost?
>
> Duwayne Anderson
Well, I will listen to Guy Briggs far and away more than I will some cheap
apostate as to what is spoken of by the Holy Ghost or not, that's for
certain.
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
Bill Williams <will...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
<TG6b5.161$%P2.4...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>...
>
> This is an unsolvable paradox for LDSs. Either (a) the words of the
prophets
> are consistently inspired, and so there are embarrassing teachings that
> can't be explained; or (b) they are not always inspired, so there's no
> standard for telling when their teachings are true. There's no way to
solve
> this problem.
No way that YOU will accept, no. It's not a problem for US, its a problem
for YOU apparently. Those who are guided by the Spirit of God have no
problem whatever determining when doctrine is real for them.
Kerry A. Shirts
P.S. You can always go to God himself, but apparently you are too proud to
do so, and that just ain't my problem bub.
lpau...@my-deja.com
Perhaps then different LDS have different doctrines, depending on how
often the HS speaks to them. That would solve the problem, I think.
The doctrine would be each man for himself. Though why God would want
that if he's looking for consistent holiness is beyond me.
--
Regards,
Lee Paulson
We should display the 10 commandments in every U.S. public school and
public building just as soon as the U.S. Constitution is glued to the
chest of every statue of Jesus across America.
lpau...@my-deja.com
AlienWard <monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >You're kidding, right?
> >
> >Are you familiar with the history of the "christmas tree", or
> the
> >significance of Dec 25 as the date of Christmas? Each of these
> have a
> >meaning within historic Christianity, even though their origins
> are
> >*************non-Christian****************. I'm sure that we
> can find
> >many more examples.
> >
> >Your argument falls flat on its face.
> >
> Only if you pray to your Christmas tree and call Santa Claus
> Heavenly Father.
>
> >
>
> Alien
>
>
HA! I have an artificial Christmas tree that I keep in the basement,
and my kids are well aware that Mom is Santa Claus.
R. L. Measures
<shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> Bill Williams <will...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
> <TG6b5.161$%P2.4...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>...
> >
> > This is an unsolvable paradox for LDSs. Either (a) the words of the
> prophets
> > are consistently inspired, and so there are embarrassing teachings that
> > can't be explained; or (b) they are not always inspired, so there's no
> > standard for telling when their teachings are true. There's no way to
> solve
> > this problem.
>
> No way that YOU will accept, no. It's not a problem for US, its a problem
> for YOU apparently. Those who are guided by the Spirit of God have no
> problem whatever determining when doctrine is real for them.
>
> Kerry A. Shirts
> P.S. You can always go to God himself, but apparently you are too proud to
> do so, and that just ain't my problem bub.
€ Kerry/Neos -- do you use tobacco?
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
Clovis Lark
> <snip>
I believe a dove is not one of them...
SOurce?
>>
>> Shall we ask Rhodes if he wants to take this up with the Dept.
>> of Religion at the U. of Chicago?
>>
> Get it correct, and sure.
I want to have a citation for Egypto awareness of Abraham.
>>
>>> Third, several centuries later it gets incorporated into a
>>> form which would later come to be called a hypocephalus. An
>>> example of the religious record and hypocephalus ends up in
>>> the hands of Joseph Smith.
>>>
>>> Fourth, Smith extracts from those artifacts, the _Book of
>>> Abraham_.
>>
>> How, since the actual text does NOT relate to JS's "musings"?
>>
> Better question is how the Book of Abraham matches the extant
> Abrahamic literature so closely - if Smith just made it all up. You
> guys are the ones that keep asking for archeological confirmation of
> the Book of Mormon. We HAVE archeological confirmation of the Book of
> Abraham, and it keeps getting ignored.
Where? That it matches extant literature?
> Kinda' supports my argument that if archeologists found Book of
> Mormon horsies, still yolked to a wheeled chariot, with a steel sword,
> a bolt of silk and a peck of barley in the back - it STILL wouldn't
> convert any of our critics.
It wouldn't convert me. But at least I'd say there was some factual basis
for that rambling text.
So just what are them thar Faxy-smiles?
>>>
>>> Mormons know that it's gold, and we've gotten tired of
>>> hearing how it can't be done. So a few of us have gone out
>>> and become experts in metallurgy - even formed an
>>> organization: the Foundation for the Assay of Rich Metallic
>>> Substances (FARMS).
>>
>> Close to the Min Shaped Jello Mold...
>>
> You mean I STILL haven't qualified?!? I would consider it a great
> honor.
It cometh not when ye expect it. It holdeth vast quantities of jello in
its awesome feature, a full 2 years' supply...
Clovis Lark
> AlienWard <monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in article
> <212d2952...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com>...
>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Erm, no I am not. I am positing that Egyptians believed Min
>> to be a
>> >"fecund eternal being" (FEB). Why do you suppose he's drawn in
>> a state
>> >of arousal?
>> >
>> Any attempt to associate the pagan Egyptian god Min "in a state
>> of arousal" with a god from another religion is a
>> misrepresentation.
> As Randy Jordon told me, this is only your opinion, so what? PROVE IT.
Part of receiving the endowment of the Min Shaped Jello Mold is the
obligation to provide amusement, wit, and variety. This you are failing
here...
> Kerry A. Shirts
cdo...@my-deja.com
> >And with this statement you tacitly admit that this
> hypocephalus is
> >indeed unique. That seems to strengthen the concept that this
> is not
> >ordinary, run-of-the-mill as the antis claim. It has unique
> features.
> >
> It's unique because JS incorrectly filled in missing pieces
I assume that you are able to prove that statement. Opinons,
speculation, assertions do not constitute proof.
> including text he supposedly knew how to translate that he put
> in upside down.
Yawn. He was careless. Perhaps he was distracted.
>
> >"Find another one", indeed. Why should we? This uniqueness
> totally
> >discredits your "JS should have" done this or that. Why? How
> do you
> >know for certain what should be on the document, if it does
> indeed have
> >unique aspects.
> >
> Form the head that was intact, we know the dove should be a
> walking snake with an erection.
Really. The word "know" here means "I think". Please see my comment
above on opinion, speculation, assertion, etc.
>
> >This is an elaborate strawman argument -- you demand that JS
> follow
> >convention when JS says that this is a unique document. You
> then
> >criticize him for making it unique. You then demand "other
> >hypocephepli" -- with the strident demand that it become
> ordinary, when
> >its very nature makes it unique.
> >
> >Again your argument falls flat on its face.
> >
> Yes, JS made the hypocephalus unique.
The hypocephalus has unique features beside the drawings of JS.
BY gets the award for
> copulating bull without equal, right?
I've noticed with the anitmormons, when logic fails, then comes sarcasm
and mockery. You now have bowed out of the discussion, and are reduced
to silliness.
Who gets the award for
> translating the text that ought not be revealed at the present
> time?
Yawn.
>
> Alien
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
>
--
Best regards,
Charles dowis
"Try to reason with a cat? I'm not sure that's possible."
Duwayne Anderson
> <8kiqcf$7e8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > In article <8F6F8EB94netza...@131.119.28.155>,
> >
> > Holy Ghost?
> >
> > Duwayne Anderson
>
> Well, I will listen to Guy Briggs
No doubt.
> far and away more than I will some cheap
> apostate as to what is spoken of by the Holy Ghost or not,
> that's for certain.
<snip>
Wow. In support of my argument I've posted the opinions of Mormon
prophets and apostles and statements from the official LDS Internet
site. It sounds as if you are saying those guys
are "cheap" apostates.
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
"Kerry A. Shirts" <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
<snip>
> You obviously have not been keeping track of the conversations
> then. Guy is simply delightful in these posts, and I appreciate
> his wonderful sense of humor, of course, at the expense of a
> typical Anti-Mormon moron ....
<snip>
Kerry's tendency toward name calling is a typical form of Mormon
apologetics.
FAWNSCRIBE
for YOU apparently. Those who are guided by the Spirit of God have no
problem whatever determining when doctrine is real for them.
Kerry A. Shirts
P.S. You can always go to God himself, but apparently you are too proud to
do so, and that just ain't my problem
bub.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WOW!! That sounds EXACTLY like what KORESH said..
Fawn
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
>> It says it in your own D&C, Guy. You say the D&C is
>> official doctrine. Well, your own D&C says that when Mormon
>> leaders speak by the Holy Ghost their words are scripture.
>>
>> Who are you to tell Mormons that their prophets don't speak
>> by the Holy Ghost?
>
> This is an unsolvable paradox for LDSs. Either (a) the words
> of the prophets are consistently inspired, and so there are
> embarrassing teachings that can't be explained; or (b) they
> are not always inspired, so there's no standard for telling
> when their teachings are true. There's no way to solve
> this problem.
>
It's only a paradox if you're applying the model for mainstream
Christianity, i.e. that (1) the canon is closed and (2) the creeds (or
statements of faith/belief) are fixed.
You forget that Mormonism is a /revealed/ religion. Much of our
canon (and I am loathe to use the term because it implies final and
unchangeable) has been revealed and our epistemology (i.e. "How do you
know this is true?") involves personal revelation, as well.
IOW, we know it's true because the Spirit confirms to us that it is.
That is true of our Scripture as well as the teachings of our leaders.
So the answer is (c) they are not always inspired but there IS a way to
determine whether they are or not.
I posted this just this AM. From President J. Reuben Clark:
"[after quoting D&C 68:2-4] The very words of the
revelation recognize that the Brethren may speak
when they are not 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost,'
yet only when they do so speak, as so 'moved upon'
is what they say Scripture. No exceptions are
given to this rule or principle. It is universal
in its application.
"The question is, how shall we know when the things
they have spoken were said as they were 'moved
upon by the Holy Ghost?'
"I have given some thought to this question, and
the answer thereto so far as I can determine is:
We can tell when the speakers are 'moved upon by
the Holy Ghost' only when we, ourselves, are
'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.'
"In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility
from them to us to determine when they so speak."
-- Address to Seminary and Institute
Personnel, BYU, 07-Jul-54
bestRegards,
Kerry A. Shirts
lpau...@my-deja.com wrote in article <8kka8g$7sm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <01bfeca5$d78c0520$e92aa1d1@default>,
> "Kerry A. Shirts" <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> Perhaps then different LDS have different doctrines, depending on how
> often the HS speaks to them. That would solve the problem, I think.
> The doctrine would be each man for himself. Though why God would want
> that if he's looking for consistent holiness is beyond me.
Yep, you've hit the nail right on the head. God even says "For my ways are
NOT your ways, and your ways are NOT mine." Isaiah somewhere or other I am
quite sure.....
Kerry A. Shirts
P.S. Consistency is a HUMAN trait and highly valued in this temporal angle
of existence at this point. We simply do not KNOW how God acts or how God
performs his ways. He certainly will not worry about whether we accept it
or not. He'll go on doing His thing, and if we don't like it, tough.
Kerry A. Shirts
R. L. Measures <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote in article
<meas+ures-130...@port68.dial.vcnet.com>...
> In article <01bfeca5$d78c0520$e92aa1d1@default>, "Kerry A. Shirts"
> <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>
> > Bill Williams <will...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
> > <TG6b5.161$%P2.4...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>...
> > >
> > > This is an unsolvable paradox for LDSs. Either (a) the words of the
> > prophets
> > > are consistently inspired, and so there are embarrassing teachings
that
> > > can't be explained; or (b) they are not always inspired, so there's
no
> > > standard for telling when their teachings are true. There's no way to
> > solve
> > > this problem.
> >
> > No way that YOU will accept, no. It's not a problem for US, its a
problem
> > for YOU apparently. Those who are guided by the Spirit of God have no
> > problem whatever determining when doctrine is real for them.
> >
> > Kerry A. Shirts
> > P.S. You can always go to God himself, but apparently you are too proud
to
> > do so, and that just ain't my problem bub.
>
> € Kerry/Neos -- do you use tobacco?
Rich/Mushroom/Jesus--heck yeah.....I use it while bathing, I use it wash my
tomatos with, I use it in my hair for a shampoo rinse, I used it as a
tootpick for my teeth, I use it as gasoline for my car. Heck
Rich/Mushroom/Jesus, I use alcohol for my health, and weed for the marrow
in my bones. I use Rock and Roll for my enthusiasm, and I break the speed
limit each and every day. Yep, me a sinner.
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
FAWNSCRIBE <fawns...@aol.com> wrote in article
<20000713183434...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
> No way that YOU will accept, no. It's not a problem for US, its a problem
> for YOU apparently. Those who are guided by the Spirit of God have no
> problem whatever determining when doctrine is real for them.
>
> Kerry A. Shirts
> P.S. You can always go to God himself, but apparently you are too proud
to
> do so, and that just ain't my problem
> bub.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> WOW!! That sounds EXACTLY like what KORESH said..
> Fawn
Oh golly! Oh Gee! Oh glory! Funny, while you quote Koresh, I was thinking
of Christ. That's what CHRIST said also, but I suppose you can skip over
that FAWNIE to keep going with your own version of religion of Jesus right?
So is Koresh a Christian, or was Jesus a CULT???
Kerry A. Shirts
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
<8kl2af$re4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <01bfeca5$998bd3e0$e92aa1d1@default>,
> "Kerry A. Shirts" <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
> > <8kiqcf$7e8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > > In article <8F6F8EB94netza...@131.119.28.155>,
> > > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
> > >
> > > Who are you to tell Mormons that their prophets don't speak by the
> > > Holy Ghost?
> > >
> > > Duwayne Anderson
> >
> > Well, I will listen to Guy Briggs
>
> No doubt.
>
> > far and away more than I will some cheap
> > apostate as to what is spoken of by the Holy Ghost or not,
> > that's for certain.
> <snip>
>
> Wow. In support of my argument I've posted the opinions of Mormon
> prophets and apostles and statements from the official LDS Internet
> site. It sounds as if you are saying those guys
> are "cheap" apostates.
>
> Duwayne Anderson
LAUGH! Why does your post here simply not surprise me none.
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
<8kl2ee$rgn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <01bfeca5$28b25cc0$e92aa1d1@default>,
> "Kerry A. Shirts" <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > You obviously have not been keeping track of the conversations
> > then. Guy is simply delightful in these posts, and I appreciate
> > his wonderful sense of humor, of course, at the expense of a
> > typical Anti-Mormon moron ....
> <snip>
>
> Kerry's tendency toward name calling is a typical form of Mormon
> apologetics.
>
> Duwayne Anderson
Oh and I assume, Mr. Scientific, that YOU are certainly above the tactics
of name calling or making fun of, etc. Oh sure, sure, you be Mr. Smooth to
be sure.
Well let me put it this way, when a person says the explanation for the
parallels in the Book of Abraham (1830') fitting the Abrahamic literature
which was found only starting in the 1860's (remember your chronology dear
Mr. Science, Smith died in 1844), that those parallels is the Prophet
Joseph Smith learning Hebrew, then the only thing I can honestly POSSIBLY
think of is BLITHERING MORON. So yes, when the explanations are so patantly
idiotic and stupidly presented, then I call it what it is, in this case,
obviously dumber than a post.
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
<8kf8n9$nje$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
> > cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Clovis Lark) wrote:
> >> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
> >>> monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>>> The scenes depicted in figure 7 of Sheshonq's hypocephalus
> >>>> and the British Museum hypocephalus have Min's that look as
> >>>> alike as God and Jesus in LDS depictions of the first vision.
> >>>
> >>> Irrelevant, unless you can prove that all hypocephali are alike.
> >>
> >> THey require sertain images in order to serve their liturgical
> >> purpose. Suggesting their absence is tantamount to insisting
> >> the RCC mass may be performed without the Agnus dei.
> >>
> > The purpose of any hypocephalus, according to Rhodes, was "to keep
> > the body warm (i.e., ready for resurrection) and to transform the
> > deceased into a God in the hereafter. The idea that part of that
> > process involves receiving further knowledge from diety was,
> > apparently, part of the Egyptian belief system.
>
> > The purpose of language, written or oral, is to communicate a
> > concept. And whether you're an Egyptian who believed that a fecund
> > eternal being named Min transferred some sort of gift as part of the
> > deification process, or a Mormon who believes in a fecund eternal being
> > named Elohim transfers a gift of "further light and knowledge" as part
> > of the deification process - the concept being communicated is
> > strikingly similar.
>
> Well, by that logic, we might just apply the Agnus dei to hindus. I
don't
> think they'd agree...
>
> > Make of that what you will. We see our version as the restored true
> > original and the Egyptian version as a corrupt pagan remnant. CsOTMC
> > see it differently. Point being that our critics can't/won't see past
> > the glyphs used to communicate the concept. That's why I keep bringing
> > up the "Alpha and Omega" comparison.
>
> As long as you understand that it's just a personal observation without
> historical or cultural basis...
Tell you what Clovis, you seem to know about what the Egyptians believed
and all about their culture. Lets talk about their Gods for a bit and see
if this is without cultural basis. I know, in very fact, that culturally,
things Egyptian are how Guy has been explaining it. I will quote
Egyptologists to you. Will you believe then or continue to dismiss all of
this with another flimsy excuse made in, what I suspect is ignorance?
(concerning the Egyptian culture, religion, their Gods, etc.)
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
Copperhead <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<396b2e6f....@news.mindspring.com>...
> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> >Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
> >> cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Clovis Lark) wrote:
> >>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
> >>>> monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
> >
> >> <snip>
> >
> >>>>> The scenes depicted in figure 7 of Sheshonq's hypocephalus
> >>>>> and the British Museum hypocephalus have Min's that look as
> >>>>> alike as God and Jesus in LDS depictions of the first vision.
> >>>>
> >>>> Irrelevant, unless you can prove that all hypocephali are alike.
> >>>
> >>> THey require sertain images in order to serve their liturgical
> >>> purpose. Suggesting their absence is tantamount to insisting
> >>> the RCC mass may be performed without the Agnus dei.
>
> Hindus don't eat Angus ... on anmy dei of the week... or Jersey
> either. But there I go again... blathering off my witticisms,
> irrelevant though they be.
So what? Sometimes they are funny and I enjoy laughter and life -
BWAHAHAHAHA! GOOD ONE Agkistrodon.....
>
> Agkistrodon
Kerry A. "I can even appreciate humor from our critics" Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
<8kkit0$c38$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
GUY:
> > Better question is how the Book of Abraham matches the extant
> > Abrahamic literature so closely - if Smith just made it all up. You
> > guys are the ones that keep asking for archeological confirmation of
> > the Book of Mormon. We HAVE archeological confirmation of the Book of
> > Abraham, and it keeps getting ignored.
>
CLOVIS:
> Where? That it matches extant literature?
KERRY:
Yes........AND NONE of that literature was available until the middle to
late 1860's, long after Smith was dead. Nibley has already noted this as
long ago as 1981, and John Tvedtnes and Brian Hauglid have a new book
coming out either later this year or next year detailing ALL the available
extra canonical writings showing the FULL story of Abraham in the Book of
Abraham is NOT made up, but was known anciently.
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry A. Shirts
Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
<8kkj8j$c38$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> Kerry A. Shirts <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>
>
> > AlienWard <monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in article
> > <212d2952...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com>...
> >> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Erm, no I am not. I am positing that Egyptians believed Min
> >> to be a
> >> >"fecund eternal being" (FEB). Why do you suppose he's drawn in
> >> a state
> >> >of arousal?
> >> >
> >> Any attempt to associate the pagan Egyptian god Min "in a state
> >> of arousal" with a god from another religion is a
> >> misrepresentation.
>
> > As Randy Jordon told me, this is only your opinion, so what? PROVE IT.
>
> Part of receiving the endowment of the Min Shaped Jello Mold is the
> obligation to provide amusement, wit, and variety. This you are failing
> here...
That's because the above post asks me to accept, since it is merely written
(sorta like you and building the Great Pyramid) that cross sectioning of
Gods through ancient cultures is a misrepresentation. THAT I want to see
proven. No humor intended here.
Kerry A. "But I gots plenty for you later" Shirts
Clovis Lark
> R. L. Measures <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote in article
> <meas+ures-130...@port68.dial.vcnet.com>...
>> In article <01bfeca5$d78c0520$e92aa1d1@default>, "Kerry A. Shirts"
>> <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Bill Williams <will...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
>> > <TG6b5.161$%P2.4...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>...
>> > >
>> > > This is an unsolvable paradox for LDSs. Either (a) the words of the
>> > prophets
>> > > are consistently inspired, and so there are embarrassing teachings
> that
>> > > can't be explained; or (b) they are not always inspired, so there's
> no
>> > > standard for telling when their teachings are true. There's no way to
>> > solve
>> > > this problem.
>> >
>> > No way that YOU will accept, no. It's not a problem for US, its a
> problem
>> > for YOU apparently. Those who are guided by the Spirit of God have no
>> > problem whatever determining when doctrine is real for them.
>> >
>> > Kerry A. Shirts
>> > P.S. You can always go to God himself, but apparently you are too proud
> to
>> > do so, and that just ain't my problem bub.
>>
>> € Kerry/Neos -- do you use tobacco?
> Rich/Mushroom/Jesus--heck yeah.....I use it while bathing, I use it wash my
> tomatos with, I use it in my hair for a shampoo rinse, I used it as a
> tootpick for my teeth, I use it as gasoline for my car. Heck
> Rich/Mushroom/Jesus, I use alcohol for my health, and weed for the marrow
> in my bones. I use Rock and Roll for my enthusiasm, and I break the speed
> limit each and every day. Yep, me a sinner.
Do you wear your seatbelt?
> Kerry A. Shirts
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
> <8kkit0$c38$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> GUY:
>> > Better question is how the Book of Abraham matches the extant
>> > Abrahamic literature so closely - if Smith just made it all up. You
>> > guys are the ones that keep asking for archeological confirmation of
>> > the Book of Mormon. We HAVE archeological confirmation of the Book of
>> > Abraham, and it keeps getting ignored.
>>
> CLOVIS:
>> Where? That it matches extant literature?
> KERRY:
> Yes........AND NONE of that literature was available until the middle to
> late 1860's, long after Smith was dead. Nibley has already noted this as
> long ago as 1981, and John Tvedtnes and Brian Hauglid have a new book
> coming out either later this year or next year detailing ALL the available
> extra canonical writings showing the FULL story of Abraham in the Book of
> Abraham is NOT made up, but was known anciently.
> Kerry A. Shirts
Then why isn't it in the source Joe claimed it was in?
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
> <8kf8n9$nje$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
>> > cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Clovis Lark) wrote:
>> >> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>> >>> monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid (AlienWard) wrote:
>>
>> > <snip>
>>
>> >>>> The scenes depicted in figure 7 of Sheshonq's hypocephalus
>> >>>> and the British Museum hypocephalus have Min's that look as
>> >>>> alike as God and Jesus in LDS depictions of the first vision.
>> >>>
>> >>> Irrelevant, unless you can prove that all hypocephali are alike.
>> >>
>> >> THey require sertain images in order to serve their liturgical
>> >> purpose. Suggesting their absence is tantamount to insisting
>> >> the RCC mass may be performed without the Agnus dei.
>> >>
I'm still waiting for a coherent meshing of ancient monotheist judaic
doctrine and egyptian polytheist doctrine. I haven't seen it yet. I'm
trying, honest...
> Kerry A. Shirts
gary0
> In <01bfeca5$d78c0520$e92aa1d1@default>, Kerry A. Shirts wrote:
> > Bill Williams <will...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > This is an unsolvable paradox for LDSs. Either (a) the words of
> > > the prophets are consistently inspired, and so there are
> > > embarrassing teachings that can't be explained; or (b) they are
> > > not always inspired, so there's no standard for telling when
> > > their teachings are true. There's no way to solve this problem.
No way that relies only upon the words themselves, that's true; but, as
is pointed out below, personal confirmation through the Spirit is the
answer. This has been taught by the leadership *at least* since BY.
> > No way that YOU will accept, no. It's not a problem for US, its a
> > problem for YOU apparently. Those who are guided by the Spirit of
> > God have no problem whatever determining when doctrine is real for
> > them....
>
> Perhaps then different LDS have different doctrines, depending on how
> often the HS speaks to them. That would solve the problem, I think.
> The doctrine would be each man for himself. Though why God would want
> that if he's looking for consistent holiness is beyond me.
Closer: Each LDS accepts inspired extracanonical pronouncements
as "scripture" to the extent that *he* is spiritually prepared to
discern them as such. The only scriptures that is binding without
point-by-point personal confirmation are the Standard Works (although
we should strive for such confirmation of them, too).
Inspired pronouncements don't just come from those in leadership
positions.
The only guaranteed consistency in the Church is in the Standard
Works. They are "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest
of all saints, who are or can be called saints."
Beyond that, the membership is "inconsistently holy," being made up of
fallible mortals at different levels of spiritual understanding.
Gary0
Bill Williams
Kerry A. Shirts <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote in message
news:01bfec92$54d21e20$e92aa1d1@default...> <ls7a5.5004$iS2.3...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>...
> >
> > Kerry A. Shirts <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote in message
> > news:01bfe9f8$b44efd60$b82aa1d1@default...
> > >
> > >
> > > AlienWard <monsonwar...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in article
> > > > but actually
> > > > >just a Tanner fobber.......
> > > > >
> > > > Kerry, with your web site chock full of BoA apologetics, you
> > > > seem to be much more of an armchair Min than I am. And what's
> > > > your problem with the Tanners, besides their release of the
> > > > Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar to the non-LDS world and the
> > > > subsequent review by Egyptologists like I.E. Edwards who said it
> > > > was "largely a piece of imagination and lacking in any kind of
> > > > scientific value"?
> > >
> > > The Tanners are about as good of historians as R.L. Measures is a
> Mormon.
> > > That's just the beginning of my problems with their worthless
writings,
> in
> > > many cases.
> >
> > And yet no LDS apologist has attempted to refute the Tanners
> point-by-point.
> > Why not give it a shot, Kerry?
>
> Point by point? For the first 17 entire pages of their "Mormonism Shadow
or
> Reality" they squeal about Hugh Nibley! That ain't about the papyri, nor
> Mormonism. Gee, all it took me was a mere few seconds to show that their
> Book of Abraham chapter is literally ad hominim against a single man.
>
> Kerry A. "1/2 of their entire chapter down tonight the rest to come later
> in print" Shirts
I'm glad you're actually reading "Shadow .... ", Kerry. The Tanners show
clearly that Nibley's work on the BoA consisted of evasions, bluffing, and
stalling. Nibley himself even admitted that he was just stalling for time in
all those articles after the papyri were found. The criticism of Nibley's
work was based on statements from qualified Egyptologists and other
scholars, some of them LDS. The Tanners also provide plenty of solid
evidence against the BoA, ignoring Nibley altogether.
Another good book is Charles Larsen's "By His Own Hand On Papyrus",
available for searching at www.concordance.com/mormon.htm , or at
http://www.irr.org/mit/boapage.html, downloadable by chapter, and also
available in hardcopy at a nominal price. The hardcopy is worth getting,
since the pictures of the papyri and other graphics are excellent.
Instead of using an ad hominem argument against the Tanners, Kerry, why not
deal with the substantive issues on the BoA? Did JS really 'translate' it?
What was that "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" thing about, anyway? How about
the bizarre changes in the facsimiles in the BoA, even combining writings
from vastly different periods?
Once against, Kerry, show us a real case justifying the 'translation' of a
record written by Abraham. Where's the beef??
Also, I have links to your page and Jeff Lindsay's page on my concordance
site. How about your showing some intestinal fortitude by linking to my site
and to the IRR page above?
Bill Williams
Charles B. Shield
<snip>
>Kerry's tendency toward name calling is a typical form of Mormon apologetics.
And generalizations like this seem to be quite common with anti-Mormon fools.
C9postal
LOL
"Not all critics of Mormons and Mormonism are anti-Mormons
but all anti-Mormons are critics of Mormons and Mormonism."