Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

[_BrianH]

by the way, BH, it was awfully convenient of you to "blah-blah-blah" this out of my post:

Oh, while the defenders of the pro-LDS argument may or may not mean this, you need to recognize that if Abraham were a real person (I doubt that personally), he would have been a Sumerian (Ur) with an entirely different set of deity than the Egyptians that included family deity. As I recall, some have suggested that the hebrew God YHWY may have simply been Abraham's family deity who, it so happened to turn out, didn't like Abraham's Dad making idols for other family deity so Abraham was commanded to break them all. So who knows what deity-names we're dealing with when it comes to Abraham?

Now, I could be wrong, but I wonder if there is an argument to be made outside of the realm of science that simply suggests the Egyptian papyri were a corrupted form of true theology conveyed by Abraham and what Joseph received via his seership was a restoration of something "true" but not accurately contained on the document. Thus, while modern science has been able to provide an accurate translation of the papyri hieroglyphs, it simply lacks the means of providing what a seer would be able to provide - a pure form of the original theology corrupted by the priesthood of Egypt?

I cut it out because it is IRRELEVANT to the topic at hand. I fully recognize the lame, but aged LDS tactic of creating tangents and using the ensuing rabbit trail fallacies to evade the simple questions that totally stump you guys. I don't see that I have any obligation to let you get away with using such tired old rhetorical trickery. It only works on Mormons anyway, and I am not a Mormon.

Personally, I think it would have been very odd to have Joseph accurately call out egyptian gods while talking about Abraham the Sumerian. We'd have a literal, ongoing war in the heavens! As it is, I think my explanation above covers any argument you make from science by relying on faith and the role of seer per LDST's comments. At that point, there isn't much more to say than you are missing the point - Abraham wasn't in Egypt so Joseph Smith doesn't have to reveal truths about Egyptian deity, he has to reveal truths about God in order for LDS persons to believe in his abilities to restore lost truths.

Uh ...the original document was in EGYPTIAN, not Sumerian. Learn the difference and you might begin to understand how meaningless this little diversion here really is.

Deal with that if you can. And if you say another thing about the papyri without explaining how your own views somehow are out of reach of scientific examination then = FAIL.

Straw man fallacy. You have yet to show that I have said or even implied that my my own views of the papyri are out of the reach of science. My views on OTHER topics are simply irrelevant to this debate, so your attempt to change the subject is as clumsy as it is empty.

-BH

.

[_Jersey Girl]

BrianH

The real problem here is Mormons putting faith in claims that cannot be shown to be connected to reality by facts.

I think the real problem here is a Bible believing Christian, attempting to criticize LDS for putting faith in claims that cannot be shown to be connected to reality when he puts his own faith in claims that cannot be shown to be connected to reality.

The LDS see that your "challenges" can be applied equally to other religions and on that basis, not to mention your arrogant approach, they likely (note I said "likely") do not take you seriously.

[_honorentheos]

It wouldn't provide us with any reason to believe that Joseph Smith provide a translation of the papyri. ...<snip>

Then it is irrelevant.

-BH

.

To the contrary, it's more efficient and covers a lot of issues far beyond the insignificant questions about Joseph Smith's ability to translate egyptian.

You see, BH, your motive here is questionable. It appears you aren't here to investigate truth though debate. Instead, you seem to think calling someone a "little girl" is an insult (by the way - as a father of a "little girl" I not only find the implied insult completely off, but a bright shining light into the shallow character of the supposed "man" before me. When added to your lack of ability to defend your own beliefs, the portrait becomes one of a cowardly bully.)

Add to that your one-note approach to the thread's subject and it appears you are incredibly ill-prepared for debate with the participants of this board, but are instead a weekend sport anti-Mormon crusader. Are you familiar with the "Peasant's Crusade", BH? Our own little Peter the Hermit you are, BH.

[_honorentheos]

I think the real problem here is a Bible believing Christian, attempting to criticize LDS for putting faith in claims that cannot be shown to be connected to reality when he puts his own faith in claims that cannot be shown to be connected to reality.

The LDS see that your "challenges" can be applied equally to other religions and on that basis, not to mention your arrogant approach, they likely (note I said "likely") do not take you seriously.

Thank you, Jersey Girl. Very well put.

[_Stormy Waters]

It wouldn't provide us with any reason to believe that Joseph Smith provide a translation of the papyri. ...<snip>

Then it is irrelevant.

-BH

.

It's funny, you go around calling people cowards for not defending their beliefs, but you're running from every challenge to your own beliefs.

[_Chap]

... you seem to think calling someone a "little girl" is an insult (by the way - as a father of a "little girl" I not only find the implied insult completely off, but a bright shining light into the shallow character of the supposed "man" before me. ...

+100

I really would not like to see what happened if BrianH used this kind of insult in the presence of several young human females known to me.

[_consiglieri]

Are you familiar with the "Peasant's Crusade", BH? Our own little Peter the Hermit you are, BH.

I hadn't heard of this but did some quick wiki-research.

What an interesting historical episode.

Just one of the things I love about this place is how much great stuff I learn.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_honorentheos]

Just one of the things I love about this place is how much great stuff I learn.

Totally agree, and am glad I could point out an interesting tidbit in return for the many new insights I've picked up from you over the years.

[_honorentheos]

BrianH -

I'm going to try one more time to point this out and hopefully you'll think about what I'm saying.

You said -

Uh ...the original document was in EGYPTIAN, not Sumerian. Learn the difference and you might begin to understand how meaningless this little diversion here really is.

Yes, the Joseph Smith papyri were egyptian.

No, Abraham was not Egyptian he was Sumerian.

Was Joseph Smith providing a hieroglyph for word translation of the papyri? or revealing truths about Abraham?

LDST has presented an argument you've missed repeatedly. That being:

- We can answer "yes" to the papyri being a funerary text

- We can answer "yes" to agreeing modern translations are likely correct regarding the intentions of the original authors of the Joseph Smith papyri

- We can answer "yes" to the names of the Gods provide by the modern translators equaling an Egyptian's deity name that is not contained in the Book of Abraham

Where you seem to have closed your mind and won't consider any other alternative is that this doesn't mean Joseph Smith could not use the papyri to have lost truth revealed to him by God just based on the evidence you've provided so far. There is a school of though you'll find among LDS familiar with Book of Abraham issues that the papyri were a catalyst for the content of the Book of Abraham, not the actual source. If you're familiar with the process used to reveal the Book of Mormon, you would already know that Joseph Smith did not use the physical plates (if one believes in such) to provide the translation/compose the Book of Mormon. So physical translation wasn't exactly his thing, even from the knowledgeable believers' perspective.

So, back to my point for you to consider:

Abraham wasn't Egyptian. So if God really was revealing lost truth to Joseph Smith, wouldn't we expect the truths revealed to be about Abraham's world rather than the Egyptians? You yourself suggested that the Egyptians were the enemies to God's people. Mormons also believe that the Egyptians were seeking a form of the priesthood via Ham (son of Noah) and corrupted the truths of the true religion of God. Egyptian Gods need not be part of the revelation at all and no Mormon would bat an eyelash. Your current argument falls on deaf ears for that reason.

If you're really sincere in wanting to debate this with Mormons I would suggest taking a more "listening focused" approach. You might find it useful. Having access to the thoughts of persons like Mike Reed and Kevin Graham who have spent so much time on the topic would probably benefit you more than you think. They've dealt with every argument for and against there is regarding the Book of Abraham.

[_LDSToronto]

BrianH,

I'm going to open the kimono a bit and let you have a peek at what I was doing in this thread. You see, the moment you started posting it became evident that you were not here to have a discussion about the truth claims of the LDS church, rather you were more interested in attacking the LDS people by denigrating their beliefs and treating them with disrespect.

You can search this board and see what my position is on the LDS church and you can see what the position of others are as well. If you do this, you will find that we all have different views about the church. But let me tell you what makes us different than you:

None of us think it's cool to attack the LDS people.

The church and it's doctrine, history, policies and leadership, those are fair game. But critic, ex-mo, never-mo, and believers alike hold many LDS close to our hearts.

From the get-go I could tell you were going to get wrapped around the axle very easily and so I decided to take a very slow and detailed approach to our discussion. The very first thing I did was establish a position and see how you would react. My next step would have been to start exploring various options with respect to my position and to your position. However, you don't seem to have the patience.

Rather, you seem hellbent on getting a quick answer to a very specific question. You have held me and others to a standard that you don't feel obliged to honour - you insist on scholarly evidence when you won't provide it yourself and you refuse to explore anything outside the very narrow scope of 4 specific Egyptian symbols and a very specific translation.

The thing is, we could have a very enriching conversation here. I know the apologetic side of the Book of Abraham debate and I know the critical side of the debate as well. I can not claim expertise in either side - there are others that frequent these forums that should be considered "best in the world" with respect to these topics, pro and con.

I am also not an Egyptologist, a biblical scholar, an historian, nor an expert on ancient texts or civilizations. My training is in mathematics. But, I can read and my comprehension is reasonably good, so citations are a wonderful thing to help those of us who aren't as well-educated as you claim to be.

Nonetheless, your question can not be answered with a few citations. Your questions need to be answered within the context of LDS theology, Old Testament historical settings, and Abraham's own cultural setting. Yet, every time I have made an attempt to slowly bring you into these areas, you have resisted and run back to the shelter of a narrow position.

My friends consiglieri and honorentheos and darthj have fast-forwarded this debate by bringing you to places that I was slowly leading you towards. Not in an attempt to convince you, but in an attempt to show you that there is more than one way to think about the things that you have focused on. The way you have responded shows that you are incapable of engaging on this level. You are insulting and you get wrapped around the axle on small points. I will continue to beat on you, though, because I really don't like the way you treat people and I want your close-mindedness to be cached in google for all generations of time.

H.