DiscussMormonism.com

The cover of my newest book going to press later this week. The back cover has three endorsements by Susan Staker, independent scholar, John Christopher Thomas, director, Center for Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies, Bangor University, and Brian Hauglid, professor emeritus of ancient scripture, Brigham Young University.



https://www.signaturebooks.com/books/p/ ... pologetics

Does your new book examine the evidences that Anubis (a god of Egypt) is missing his snout in Facsimile No. 3 and that the lead plate (not woodcut) shows that an original snout was scraped out and the person was reformed to suit Smith's revelation of a slave?

Ugh, that was a big question. What's the answer?

Can’t wait to both buy and read.

This will doubtless be essential reading.

I’m actually going to buy this. You can thank Shulem for his relentless posting on this forum with regard to All Things Book of Abraham. It only took me 50 years and your post here: https://www.discussmormonism.com/viewto ... 271#p12271

to finally pique my interest in understanding the topic better (and how to correct Mopologist-lying). Also, I was forced to talk about the Book of Abraham with my RM niece and I couldn’t articulate any of the pro or con arguments beyond, “Did you know the black guy was akshully Anubis?”

- Doc

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:43 am

You can thank Shulem for his relentless posting on this forum with regard to All Things Book of Abraham.

Thank you for saying that because sometimes I wonder whether I'm spinning my wheels around here and I question whether my work is appreciated and taken seriously. I feel compelled. I feel that I have a mission in this life to expose the Book of Abraham for the fraud it is.

I have passion and am ever persistent.

Humbly,

Shulem

Shulem, is there any truth to the rumor that Professor Hugh Nibley first dressed in Reformed Egyptian garb in order to appease Anubis who was angered by both the depiction of him snoutless and reference to him as a slave?

Moksha wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 27, 2021 6:53 am

Shulem, is there any truth to the rumor that Professor Hugh Nibley first dressed in Reformed Egyptian garb in order to appease Anubis who was angered by both the depiction of him snoutless and reference to him as a slave?

That is something you might like to ask Martha Beck. But, I will tell you forthright, Nibley was a Goddamn liar and he ravished the Facsimile No 3 in a brutal and perverted manner. The Church has since thrown that old bastard under the bus. RIP, Nibley.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:43 am

Also, I was forced to talk about the Book of Abraham with my RM niece and I couldn’t articulate any of the pro or con arguments beyond, “Did you know the black guy was akshully Anubis?”

- Doc

You do realize you gave your RM niece the poison shot of death? Her testimony days are numbered. When she comes to a full realization that the poor guy isn't really a slave, she will lose her faith.

Ha ha, you killed a testimony. Way to go, dude!

One fundamental point of view that is so often overlooked between arguing apologists and critics is that there is a clear separation of beliefs and claims manifested by the original Church (1836-1842) and the church of modern Mormonism today, 2021. They are not the same. Mormons today who hold to the Catalyst views and discount the works and labor of the translation process would NOT have survived the church in Kirtland or Nauvoo.

Critics go out of their way to represent the original claims of Smith and his followers as they claimed them. But apologists today go out of their way to explain them away and deny them.

When it comes to Joseph Smith, I go out of my way to represent him fairly and accurately based on what he said and claimed. Isn't that right, Philo? The apologists don't do that. That's one reason my website posted below is fundamental to any and all arguments:

Here Comes The Book of Abraham Part I, II, III