Shulem wrote:And, please tell us why Joseph Smith, the self-proclaimed Egyptian translator, dared insult the great god Anubis in Facsimile No. 3, by calling him a "slave". I want to hear your reasoning on this blunder. Apparently the successors of Joseph Smith (Church Presidents) are too afraid or simply unwilling to comment on this matter -- but the Mormon church is guilty of slamming another religion by insulting one of its chief gods in a very uncaring way and has not issued an apology. The Mormon church has a lot to answer for! What say ye?
Joseph Smith wasn't
particularly interested in refraining from insulting great gods of other faiths. Smith's main interest was in recording
those things God wanted him to record, after looking at the ancient documents.
Perhaps you think the good God who controls the universe
couldn't have inspired Smith to write down one story, if scholars had a way of interpreting such records that gave good results, and if that way of interpreting told a story that varied sharply from the one Smith told. Furthermore I think such a viewpoint is completely understandable; I can see how a lot of very reasonable people might agree with you. But I don't share that viewpoint. I think it's
completely possible that there might be
two interpretations of the facsimile, one held by the ancient Egyptians and one held by God.
And all what we've said also rests on the assumption that the translation of the facsimile by the scholars you're referring to
is in fact accurate. Before I came to that conclusion I'd have to make a thorough analysis of both the documents those scholars have published
and the things
other people have said on both sides of the Book of Abraham controversy.
I've kind of commented on things like this in the past. Another thread talked somewhat about the question of what people would do if they left the LDS Church. I said that I've actually thought about what
I would do if I left the Church
a lot. What I
wouldn't do is leave the Church and become an atheist or an agnostic; I'm simply not that kind of person. Instead I would set up an organization whose purpose was to
do thorough investigations of the type mentioned above, that would
rigorously analyze statements made on all potentially credible sides of issues like the Book of Abraham controversy, and that would present conclusions to the organization for a democratic vote as to whether the conclusions made sense or not. Before such a vote the general audience would have an opportunity to ask questions of the investigator, to insure that all voices have been represented.
But as I also said previously, spearheading this organization would be a full-time job, which would involve the financially risky step of
quitting my current job. Also, judging from what my wife has said the two times since 1999 I've brought up with her the idea of this organization, she would almost certainly
leave me if I did try to set it up. For these two reasons, probably the latter more than the former, I'm probably not going to be spearheading this organization any time soon.
In the absence of such an organization, all I can do is stay open to the possibility that
either side might be right, which is what I'm doing right now. In such a situation, the LDS idea that the way to find out the truth about things is to build one's theological foundation on something God has told one personally, actually sounds
very persuasive. In a world where being
absolutely sure that what scholars are telling one is accurate, is so difficult, trusting the theological foundation that
God has given one makes a lot more sense.