For Paul -- The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham

[_Runtu]

The point is, is that the symbolism used in the Facsimiles could represent a wide array of stories.

That Nibley can't provide even one other story, let alone a "wide array," ought to give you pause. Mere assertion is not evidence.

Perhaps not, and the reference I read did not cite any sources because it was a reply to Ashment.

Your point being?

Then why does Paul think it is Anubis?

Paul is correct. It's either Anubis or a priest wearing an Anubis mask. It isn't a generic human priest. Incidentally, why did Joseph Smith draw in a priest who looks like Bat-Boy?

Clear enough... I do not know what your point is. It is very possible that it is not Anubis, but simply a priest.

A priest wearing an Anubis mask. I'll give you an analogy:



1. This is Krusty from the Simpsons.
2. Sideshow Bob and Homer dressed up like Krusty.
3. This picture, therefore, cannot be said to be Krusty but represents a generic human being.

But there is nothing to say that they could not tell the story that is in the Book of Abraham.

By that logic, there is nothing to say that Mission Impossible II could not tell the story of the birth of the Savior.

I can't help you there, I'm afraid.

Obviously not.

Where do you get this information from?

From looking at photos of the actual papyrus. I know you're no expert, but are you unfamiliar with the contents of the papyri? The vignettes were damaged, and Joseph Smith filled in the missing pieces. Do you think it's coincidental that all the problematic elements in the facsimiles come from those missing parts?

Again, it was probably a quick reply (I don't know the entire background).

You asked for a response to an unsupported assertion. I gave it.

[_sock puppet]

Simon,

I hope you will take this as friendly advice. Please check with Will Schryver as to why he does not defend the Facsimiles and even has stated he would not be surprised to see them removed from the scriptural canon. Will is ardent, and highly imaginative, in his defense of Mormonism, but he has drawn the line at the Facsimiles.

The BoAbr may be the elephant in your Church's room that nobody wants to talk about (recently, it was noted that in a survey of general conference talks, it has barely been noted in the last 60 years). However, the Facsimiles are the elephant's hind leg and foot crushing down on the chest of your Church's credibility. If the membership were to take a serious look at the evidence surrounding the Facsimiles, you'd see members leaving in droves. The Facsimiles are not worth you losing all credibility over.

[_Fionn]

What metric do you use to determine whether the Church is harmful?

Personal experience, of course. As I said, I can only speak for myself.

I will indeed dismiss it. You are responsible for your choices, and for your life. It is an act of cowardice to blame another person or an organization because your life did not happen the way you expected it to. We are all responsible for ourselves, and we need to own that responsibility.

Yes. I am indeed responsible for all my choices. My life has pretty much happened the way I expected it to because I made it so. That does not preclude the influence that others in our families, communities and churches have on us. Especially as minor children. The most important decision of my youth was that I did not buy what Mormonism was selling. I left as soon as I possibly could, at 18. I own my apostasy and am extraordinarily pleased with the outcome. I wouldn't trade places with a Mormon for anything.

As a very quick example of harm caused to me, I will relate my first day of school in Utah as a jack Mormon transplant from the east coast. The teacher asked me to say the opening prayer. I had never attended a school where such a thing was done. I was young. I panicked and froze. All I could do was shake my head. I was obviously terrified and confused. The teacher sent me to the principal's office for "refusing" to pray. All in all, a horrible first day of school as the new kid. This experience in conjunction with many more experiences similar to this left me feeling like an outsider. Did I choose to feel this way? If I did, it certainly wasn't conscious. And the constant re-enforcement from others that I was different just set the lesson in stone.

Now that I am significantly older, I see this as a very, very good and desirable thing. But at that time, it was difficult and traumatic.

There is no such thing [as an atheistic agnostic].

Well, I am telling you that I am one and I assure you, I definitely exist. But ultimately, I am purposefully selecting words which most closely resemble my beliefs. I.e., atheistic: pick a god, any god, from any pantheon, from any point in human history. I cann tell you straight up that I do not believe in that god. Whether that god is Isis or YHWH. They are all the same to me.

My agnosticism is the part of me which believes that god may well be a word which is trying to describe something sublime and unknowable. Is there a conscious power in the universe calling all the shots? I have no idea. And I am perfectly comfortable not knowing.

How do you know he even cares?

Are you a parent Simon? I know what my child cares about because we talk.

Why is it harmful to teach about a loving father in heaven, etc.?

Nothing harmful at all with that, necessarily. But that is certainly not all that religion teaches and not all religious tenets are as innocuous as this one. Teaching children that evolution is false and creationism/id is factual is harmful to the child's development and education.

At this point, what I would like my child to understand is that we have many, many friends and family members who are not christian and that their beliefs as just as valid as the christian beliefs he is being taught about in school.


Harmful by people is not the same as harmful by an organization.[/quote]


I said, "both by teachings and by people. You can tell me I was not harmed till you're blue in the fact, Simon. But the fact of the matter is, you cannot speak for me. You do not know how I internalized the teachings and beliefs I was exposed to as a child. Nor do you really know how I've dealt with those experiences as an adult.

You assume far too much about people's most deeply felt inner spiritual lives and makeing pronouncements about their veracity. You are being irrational.

[_Runtu]

Harmful by people is not the same as harmful by an organization.

Is there such a thing as an organization that is not made up of people? I can't quite picture that.

As I said before, we're not talking about some valueless, benefitless, harmless organization (as if such a thing could even exist). We are talking about an organization (that includes its people) and an ideology. Organizations and ideologies are equally capable of being harmful or beneficial.

It is nonsensical to suggests that Mormonism, alone among ideological organizations, has no effect whatsoever on those whose lives it touches.

[_Simon Belmont]

As a very quick example of harm caused to me, I will relate my first day of school in Utah as a jack Mormon transplant from the east coast. The teacher asked me to say the opening prayer. I had never attended a school where such a thing was done. I was young. I panicked and froze. All I could do was shake my head. I was obviously terrified and confused. The teacher sent me to the principal's office for "refusing" to pray. All in all, a horrible first day of school as the new kid. This experience in conjunction with many more experiences similar to this left me feeling like an outsider. Did I choose to feel this way? If I did, it certainly wasn't conscious. And the constant re-enforcement from others that I was different just set the lesson in stone.

This is indeed a sad story, and the actions of the teacher was very wrong. This is not the Church's fault. The Church does not teach people to act this way.

There is no such thing [as an atheistic agnostic].

[color=#4000BF]Well, I am telling you that I am one and I assure you, I definitely exist. But ultimately, I am purposefully selecting words which most closely resemble my beliefs. I.e., atheistic: pick a god, any god, from any pantheon, from any point in human history. I cann tell you straight up that I do not believe in that god. Whether that god is Isis or YHWH. They are all the same to me. [/quote]

That's Monism.

My agnosticism is the part of me which believes that god may well be a word which is trying to describe something sublime and unknowable. Is there a conscious power in the universe calling all the shots? I have no idea. And I am perfectly comfortable not knowing.

Okay, that is agnosticism. How are you comfortable now knowing?

Are you a parent Simon? I know what my child cares about because we talk.

Oooh, I see! When I say that I know when an organization is harming my child, you berate me and ask by what metric do I use to judge that, since it is wholly subjective to my child.

But, when YOU claim you know something about your child it is okay.

I understand your double standard now.

Teaching children that evolution is false and creationism/id is factual is harmful to the child's development and education.

First of all, why would that be harmful? Since we do not know either way, both methods should be presented.

Second of all, it is not the position of the Church that evolution is false. In fact, many BYU professors teach it.

You assume far too much about people's most deeply felt inner spiritual lives and makeing pronouncements about their veracity. You are being irrational.

Look, I am sorry that, culturally, you were treated badly. That is sometimes a side-effect of moving to a religious-oriented community (ever seen Footloose?). Your teacher should not have treated you that way, and the other kids should not have viewed you as any different than they. Unfortunately, people can be jerks/idiots sometimes.

[_Fionn]

How is my disbelief in the existence of supernatural deities to be considered Monism?

[_Simon Belmont]

How is my disbelief in the existence of supernatural deities to be considered Monism?

Because you said they are all the same to you.

[_Joseph]

simone the morgbutt writes: "They are always allowed. I suspect they will go along with what their parents teach them until a certain age (this does not harm them at all)."

Hitler, Stalin, Mao and every other despotic parental type says the same thing... no harm to children when you brainwash them with your personal beliefs.

[_Simon Belmont]

simone the morgbutt writes: "They are always allowed. I suspect they will go along with what their parents teach them until a certain age (this does not harm them at all)."

Hitler, Stalin, Mao and every other despotic parental type says the same thing... no harm to children when you brainwash them with your personal beliefs.

Uh huh... and so did Ghandi, Mother Teresa, etc.

Your point?

[_Paul Osborne]

Paul,

I do not claim to be an expert in Egyptology or the Book of Abraham, but that is okay because neither are you.

Your mantra has been that the characters in the Facsimiles are not what the Book of Abraham says they are.

You don't need to worry about making any claims. It's obvious that you are not an expert on any level with regards to Egyptology. I already know that. I however, have obtained expert level for an amateur. I've been studying Egyptology for a long time, Simon. Trust me, you wouldn't want to try and clock in as many hours as I have.

There is a doctoral dissertation that has just come out of Germany by a young man who has taken over a hundred facsimiles matching our facsimile number three, private and so forth and so on, and compared them. The results show that they all look very much alike. But the accompanying inscriptions show that they tell the widest variety of stories.

This apologetic reference to Nibley is pointless because the content of this statement is nothing but noise. Does Nibley tell you what the writing above the black personage actually says in the conventional Egyptian tongue?

I don't give a damn how Nibley looks at other papyri. I'm concerned with the facts and the truth of Facsimile No. 3 that was created by an ancient Egyptian scribe. Nibley often uses tricks to deceive his modern readers and lead them down a rabbit trail of deception -- an insult to conventional Egyptology.

[the position that] Anubis is never drawn with a human head. How can we say that: "Never"? Even in Bonnet's Lexikon you can find Anubis drawn with a human head (with the head of a priest clearly drawn beneath the Anubis mask) you see; every Egyptian who looked at it knew that this was a man, a human priest wearing a mask ... The point is that it does show that a figure standing in the position of Anubis wearing the same outfit Anubis does, does not have to be Anubis or have his head.

I've not been talking about FACSIMILE NO. 1 as of late. I've been talking about Facsimile No. 3. The revelations that Joseph Smith gave about the black character of Facsimile No. 3 is an insult to modern Egyptology and an insult to the scribe who created the original papyrus and an insult to the Egyptian religion.

Do you understand what I'm saying, Simon? Are you intelligent enought to understand this?

The point is that the man with the Anubis head is a priest; he is the priest of Pharaoh and he is sacrificing. That is Anubis' business: he is to wrap up the dead and send him on his way; and this is regarded as a form of sacrifice, too. With the incision he makes, the embalming priest is performing a sacrifice. The person has to follow the example of Osiris being sacrificed, and so forth.

Again, I've not been discussing Facsimile No. 1. I've been discussing Facsimile No. 3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is wrong to identify the black personage as a slave. The church insults modern Egyptology. The church denies the writing above the person that idenifies the person below BY NAME as Anubis! The church insults the Egyptian religion and everyone who has an honest appreciation of the Egyptian religion, art, history, science, culture, etc.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a dishonest organization that has attacked another religion falsely and has refused to own up to their mistakes because it discredits the revelation of their founding prophet. But the church is responsible for this abomination. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has committed lies and deception -- having snubbed their noses against the ancient Egyptian religion treating it as if it was a joke.

I hope that someday the church is sued by the Egyptian religion -- perhaps a restoration of the Egyptian religion will sue the church for these lies and slander against their god. If the church refuses to make ammends then it should be sued for slander. If anything it would cause a great stir and many of the members of the church would learn about lies created by Joseph Smith.

Paul O