To my knowledge, the current Church President Russell M. Nelson has never made a public statement or address about the controversies of the Book of Abraham during his lifetime service as a General Authority. President Nelson has remained silent on the issues and has not used his alleged prophetic abilities to explain matters or provide answers that will satisfy inquisitive members who require prophetic counseling to help alleviate their doubts about the authenticity of the Book of Abraham.
It could be that President Nelson is unfamiliar with technical arguments on this subject and does not feel qualified or confident to address the matter. Or it could be that he feels restrained to speak out because he has not been authorized or commanded by God to say anything on the subject. Nobody can be sure because President Nelson says absolutely nothing about the Book of Abraham problems which makes some wonder if he knows they exist or is afraid to speak up and disseminate information from a prophet’s mind in how to best understand these matters.
I don’t think we will ever hear anything from President Nelson about the Book of Abraham. His lips are sealed and he will not speak. In the meantime, the Book of Abraham is under serious attack and is being rejecting by tens of thousands of members and many are leaving the Church because of it. I feel impressed to say that many more members will walk away and deny the Book of Abraham. Ironically, it seems to me that lazy learners are the ones who will continue to accept the Book of Abraham out of ignorance rather than knowledge.
President Nelson would prefer that you use the proper title Book of Breathings of Ancient-day Egypt.
NINE Presidents of the Church have presided since the days the papyri were returned to the Church and extensive study was undertaken to ascertain the true meaning and purpose of the ancient documents. To my knowledge, none of the Church Presidents have used proper language or terminology in describing the papyri in real terms. Church Presidents have not honored or acknowledged the genuine names of the papyri and what they represent. The dead in whom the funerary work was performed is of no consequence to Mormonism or its leaders. However, BYU Egyptologists (Gee & Muhlestein) are not faulted in this regard because they know and understand the names of all the fragments contained in the Joseph Smith papyri collection and to my knowledge they respect the real names with regard to original production and cite them in a responsible way.
The following are proper titles of the original documents possessed by Joseph Smith:
I am a lawyer who represents Isis and Ma'at. (They're swell gals. Oh man, the good times.) They're mad as a wet hornet about all of this.
I’ve spent a great many posts here on this message board lashing out and criticizing this very thing and am beside myself on how the Church can continue to ignore the horrible errors made by their founding prophet in describing ancient funerary art by those who practiced and lived their religion according to the dictates of their own conscience. The hypocrisy and absolute disregard by Mormon leaders for refusing to own up to these things and make amends by setting the record straight is because of pride and haughtiness.
The Church needs to stop publishing the Explanations in their canon. Leave it as a matter of historical record in their history books but please stop publishing it as if it’s an inspired work based on truth because it isn’t inspired and it’s not true.
What more can I say? Stop slandering the ancient Egyptians! It’s not cool and people in general will not find favor in doing so. It has to stop.
NEWSROOM wrote:The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838.
The official name of the vignette in which Facsimile No. 3 was copied comes from the Book of Breathings. The faith and teachings of the Book of the Dead belong to the ancient Egyptian religion, not Mormonism.
NEWSROOM wrote:When referring to Church members, the terms “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” “Latter-day Saints,” “members of the Church of Jesus Christ” and “members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ” are preferred. We ask that the term “Mormons” and “LDS” not be used.
I ask that you respect the names of ISIS, OSIRIS, MAAT, HOR, and ANUBIS.
Practice what you preach! The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is hypocritical when it slanders the sacred names of the Egyptian pantheon by renaming them with fictitious lies as published in Mormon canon and then tells everyone else in the world to call them what they will. The Church needs to repent and amend its ways. Stop the hypocrisy and lying NOW!
Practice what you preach. It starts at the top; President Nelson, REPENT! Fix it now.
How so? It’s the gift of PROOF in proving Smith’s fraud. The missing king’s name is all the evidence anyone ever needs to know that Smith was making everything up out of thin air. Isn’t that right, professor Gee?
Look, the possibility of reading a king’s name in the writing pointed out by Smith is on the same level of possibility of reading George Washington’s name in the same writing. The possibility becomes impossible! It simply cannot be done, period.
“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”
or
“American President whose name is given in the characters above his head”
Either way, it’s impossible. However, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are free to believe what they want and fantasize to their heart’s content. That is their privilege. But they should know that these beliefs will not be accepted by the WORLD, not now and not ever.
The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are condemned writings.
If a freshman student at BYU wrote a story and came up with titles like Count Baron or Sir Marquis, would they get dinged by the English department for lack of research but praised by the Religion department for loyal continuity?
If a freshman student at BYU wrote a story and came up with titles like Count Baron or Sir Marquis, would they get dinged by the English department for lack of research but praised by the Religion department for loyal continuity?
You make a point that is worth exploring. Let’s see what comes of it:
1. “John Gee, whose name is given in the characters above his head.”
2. “Kerry Muhlestein, whose name is given in the characters above his head.”
That is too charitable. Let’s try something different and plug it in:
1. “John Gee, a slave belonging to the prince.”
2. “Kerry Muhlestein, a slave belonging to the prince.”
If John Gee had been born of the cursed lineage (African), then he could not have been ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood when he was twelve years old because the curse of Cain was still maintained by the Church at that time. However, Muhlestein could have been ordained because the curse was lifted after 1978.
John, if you had been born black you could not have been ordained a deacon! It’s the white skin like that of the priest’s head of Facsimile 1 that allowed you to be ordained a deacon. But it’s the black shoulders, arms, hands, legs, and feet of the black priest of Facsimile 1 that would have barred you from the priesthood. How do you feel about that? Care to discuss the finer points of Facsimile 1 with me? Can you handle that?
