How to Read a Mormon Scholar

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: How to Read a Mormon Scholar

Post by Shulem »

hauslern wrote:
Sat Oct 01, 2022 10:26 pm
Kerry was it a knife or a jar.? I see in the picture you sre studying facsimile 1
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P1l ... HNVYg/edit
Supplied to me by an Egyptologist from York University

Kerry knows it was a jar. He has zero precedent in which to turn Anubis into a knife wielding feign! Neither is there any precedent to represent Anubis without a snout. Anubis always has a snout whether in his full animal jackal form or a man with a jackal head. But now we see Joseph Smith taking it upon himself to arm Anubis with a knife in which to murder Osiris! And we have Joseph Smith mutilating the face of an Egyptian god! Oh the corrupt nature of Mormonism! It is an abomination.

How pathetic is that, Kerry, you lying sack of ______?
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: How to Read a Mormon Scholar

Post by canpakes »

Physics Guy wrote:
Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:56 pm
He has a nice tie. Hieroglyphics or something, I think.
Weirdly, the characters on it translate to, “I’m making it up as I go along”.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Let's have fun with Muhlestein's opening statement

Post by Shulem »

Muhlestein wrote:Researching the Book of Abraham is hard to do.

What's hard is to make the Book of Abraham fit into an ancient Egyptian mold. Take for example, how Egypt was first founded according to the information given in chapter one. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ancient Egypt was not founded in that manner or in that time period. Smith was wrong on all counts!

Muhlestein wrote:It is also important to do.

It's only important to LDS Egyptologists. The world body of Egyptologists could care less about the Book of Abraham. They know in universal terms that the origin story of Egypt's making as told in chapter one is a complete farce.

Muhlestein wrote:As part of canonized Latter-day Saint scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Abraham teaches many doctrines and reveals truths not found elsewhere.

Likewise, the revealing of how and when Egypt came into existence as given in chapter one is certainly not found elsewhere in any Egyptological publication.

Muhlestein wrote:But because of the book’s unusual origins, it tends to raise questions among earnest truth-seekers about when, where, and why it was written; how it was translated; how the text relates to the original papyrus and facsimiles; and—perhaps most importantly—what it can tell us about Joseph Smith as a prophet and translator.

Is that so? The thought never crossed my mind. I can't imagine. :roll:

Muhlestein wrote:These are questions worth answering, and the people asking them deserve to have someone put in the time and effort to try to find answers.

So, Kerry-baby; what's the King's name in Facsimile No. 3? Why did Smith hack off Anubis's nose in Facsimile No. 3?

Well, I'm waiting for you to give an answer you lying piece of ________!
Last edited by Shulem on Wed Oct 05, 2022 1:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 1478
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: How to Read a Mormon Scholar

Post by malkie »

Physics Guy wrote:
Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:56 pm
He has a nice tie. Hieroglyphics or something, I think.
If you look closely you will see that there are some inverted hieratic symbols that have been grafted in to fill some lacunae.

Not at all due to ignorance, of course, ...
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Let's have fun with Muhlestein's opening statement

Post by Philo Sofee »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 6:38 pm
Muhlestein wrote:Researching the Book of Abraham is hard to do.

What's hard is to make the Book of Abraham fit into an ancient Egyptian mold. Take for example, how Egypt was first founded according to the information given in chapter one. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ancient Egypt was not founded in that manner or in that time period. Smith was wrong on all counts!

Muhlestein wrote:It is also important to do.

It's only important to nonLDS Egyptologists. The world body of Egyptologists could care less about the Book of Abraham. They know in universal terms that the origin story of Egypt's making as told in chapter one is a complete farce.

Muhlestein wrote:As part of canonized Latter-day Saint scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Abraham teaches many doctrines and reveals truths not found elsewhere.

Likewise, the revealing of how and when Egypt came into existence as given in chapter one is certainly not found elsewhere in any Egyptological publication.

Muhlestein wrote:But because of the book’s unusual origins, it tends to raise questions among earnest truth-seekers about when, where, and why it was written; how it was translated; how the text relates to the original papyrus and facsimiles; and—perhaps most importantly—what it can tell us about Joseph Smith as a prophet and translator.

Is that so? The thought never crossed my mind. I can't imagine. :roll:

Muhlestein wrote:These are questions worth answering, and the people asking them deserve to have someone put in the time and effort to try to find answers.

So, Kerry-baby; what's the King's name in Facsimile No. 3? Why did Smith hack off Anubis's nose in Facsimile No. 3?

Well, I'm waiting for you to give an answer you lying piece of ________!
I'm also waiting for him to refute Dan Vogel's videos, or mine, which I use your solid information. We all know why he remains silent on all this as does John Gee, Daniel C. Peterson, and Lou Midgley, not to mention Patrick Mason, Teryl Givens, and others who defend the indefensible.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Let's have fun with Muhlestein's opening statement

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Wed Oct 05, 2022 12:44 am
I'm also waiting for him to refute Dan Vogel's videos, or mine, which I use your solid information. We all know why he remains silent on all this as does John Gee, Daniel C. Peterson, and Lou Midgley, not to mention Patrick Mason, Teryl Givens, and others who defend the indefensible.

I will kick Muhlestein's boy butt the moment he even attempts to explain those things away. I will show no mercy and will hang him out to dry.

You will see the full fury of Shulem's wrath and it will be very, very, ugly.

So, Muhlestein best keep his mouth shut if he knows what's go for him.

:twisted:
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: How to Read a Mormon Scholar

Post by Shulem »

Kerry Muhlestein wrote:Because if you want to research the Book of Abraham comprehensively, you need to acquire skills and knowledge in multiple ancient languages, in at least two phases of ancient history in two regions of the ancient world.

How hardly! You are overcomplicating things into trying to turn Egyptian into something it is not. You apologists are trying to Judaize Egyptology in order to fool your readers. Liars!

Look, just decipher the text in Facsimile No. 3, please. All you need to know and understand is ancient Egyptian. The Bible has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

So what's the King's name, Kerry? what is it?

Tell me!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: How to Read a Mormon Scholar

Post by Shulem »

Kerry Muhlestein wrote:You also need to understand ancient symbolism and semiotics, in 19th-century general history and Church history, and in the historical method—as well as knowledge of dozens of theories about how the Book of Abraham came to be.

I don't need to know any of that crap to look you in the eyes and tell you face to face that there is no King's name in the writing of Facsimile No. 3. No amount of silly theories you guys make up can produce a king's name in that writing. Period! You loose, you stupid __________________!

:evil:
Post Reply