Shulem wrote:Hello, William Schryver! Where are you?
Come back and tell us how things are going. How do you feel about the Book of Abraham these days?
Come on. No hard feelings all around. Please come back and let us know how you think and feel about this subject in which we share a common interest.
I promise, I'll be nice.
Hi Shulem,
Will Schryver no longer identifies with the Mopologists. He is also no longer active in the Church, much like Bill Hamblin.
Looking back on things I suspect Will is embarrassed by his paper and how it's still being discussed and used by Mopologists to further their bizzare agenda.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Will Schryver no longer identifies with the Mopologists. He is also no longer active in the Church, much like Bill Hamblin.
Looking back on things I suspect Will is embarrassed by his paper and how it's still being discussed and used by Mopologists to further their bizzare agenda.
I figured this was the case. Nonetheless, I really wish William Schryver could come back and let us know how he's doing and feel free to open up and let us know his perspectives about the journey he took in apologetics. I don't think anyone here will judge him or hold a grudge. It's time to move on and make amends. William should feel free to come here on Mormon Discussions and tell his story anyway he pleases. There are plenty of ears that would love to listen. It would be an amazing opportunity for everyone to simply come to terms and reflect.
Anubis in Facsimile No. 1 & 3 are one in the same person. I can testify of that. So can any qualified Egyptologist that doesn't allow modern religion to cloud their judgment.
This is not the case.
Why?
Because facsimiles 1 and 3 are not Egyptian documents. The have already been appropriated, and already have a new context (which comes with a new meaning). And when symbols, images, texts, or anything else gets appropriated, they take on new meanings that don't have to be connected to the past meanings. So these are modern Mormon documents. And so there is no Anubis in facsimile 1. There was an Anubis in the original piece of Egyptian art from which facsimile 1 was derived. We shouldn't conflate these two things. (This also goes for believers who want to conflate the two in the other direction by suggesting that the meaning that Joseph Smith provided should be understood as the real meaning of the Egyptian originals ....)
Oh. Well. Why does the Church call them facsimiles?
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Benjamin McGuire wrote:Because facsimiles 1 and 3 are not Egyptian documents. The have already been appropriated, and already have a new context (which comes with a new meaning). And when symbols, images, texts, or anything else gets appropriated, they take on new meanings that don't have to be connected to the past meanings. So these are modern Mormon documents.
If the Book of Abraham was the Jehovah's Witnesses' problem, would you give them the same free pass?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Anubis in Facsimile No. 1 & 3 are one in the same person. I can testify of that. So can any qualified Egyptologist that doesn't allow modern religion to cloud their judgment.
This is not the case.
Why?
Because facsimiles 1 and 3 are not Egyptian documents. The have already been appropriated, and already have a new context (which comes with a new meaning). And when symbols, images, texts, or anything else gets appropriated, they take on new meanings that don't have to be connected to the past meanings. So these are modern Mormon documents. And so there is no Anubis in facsimile 1. There was an Anubis in the original piece of Egyptian art from which facsimile 1 was derived. We shouldn't conflate these two things. (This also goes for believers who want to conflate the two in the other direction by suggesting that the meaning that Joseph Smith provided should be understood as the real meaning of the Egyptian originals ....)
Does that make sense?
No, it doesn't make sense. What you're proposing and stating is a modern LDS apologetic approach -- looking backward, trying to make sense of someone else's mistakes, namely Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Modern apologetic excuses carry little weight in this matter. You don't speak for Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. I go by what they say. Modern Mormonism today and wild interpretations of the Book of Abraham affair are pointless and invalid. All that matters is what JOSEPH SMITH said. He's authentic Mormonism. Mormonism today has apostatized from original Mormonism -- mutated, hence two very different religions (did I mention polygamy?).
Sorry, Benjamin, but I go by what JOSEPH SMITH said and I know what he said. You can take your evolving Mormonism down any path you like and change it however you like. That's your business and if it floats your boat then go for it.
Benjamin McGuire wrote:Because facsimiles 1 and 3 are not Egyptian documents. The have already been appropriated, and already have a new context (which comes with a new meaning). And when symbols, images, texts, or anything else gets appropriated, they take on new meanings that don't have to be connected to the past meanings. So these are modern Mormon documents.
If the Book of Abraham was the Jehovah's Witnesses' problem, would you give them the same free pass?
Mormons don't give the Jehovah's Witnesses free passes for anything.
The Mormons have stolen for their own purposes. They stole Masonic rituals and they stole Egyptian religious writings for their own corrupt purposes. It's very shameful what the Mormons have done.
So let's see what this line of reasoning does when applied to other purported LDS artifacts.
Because the gold plates are not Nephite documents. The have already been appropriated, and already have a new context (which comes with a new meaning). And when symbols, images, texts, or anything else gets appropriated, they take on new meanings that don't have to be connected to the past meanings. So these are modern Mormon documents.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Oh. Well. Why does the Church call them facsimiles? - Doc
Let's be clear about something. What the church TODAY says regarding "Facsimile" is pointless. The Mormon church today doesn't represent the Mormon church from Nauvoo.
Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Online Edition
Facsimile
FACSIM'ILE, noun [Latin facio, to make, and similis, like. See Simile.]
Shulem wrote:Let's be clear about something. What the church TODAY says regarding "Facsimile" is pointless. The Mormon church today doesn't represent the Mormon church from Nauvoo.
I wonder if those that paid for the artifacts would have ponied up their money had they known that they weren't really buying the schtick of Joseph and Abraham? Or that Joseph Smith really couldn't read the documents?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
