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

[_Mike Reed]

I still like "Half Moon Boy" . . .

That's catchy. :)

[_consiglieri]

As in, "Where has that Half Moon Boy got himself to?"

And, "Will that Half Moon Boy ever come back to the thread he started?"

Or, "Has LDST put the fear of God into that Half Moon Boy, or what?"

[_BrianH]

I hope you don’t mean me. Sorry. Me and my big mouth.

No, I didn't mean you specifically, CG. Not to worry.

I just thought it immensely entertaining that BrianH would bulldoze his way onto a board packed to the gills with the most intellectual LDS critics around and use his schoolyard tactics to try to pick a fight with anybody here who wouldn't defend Mormonism against his bantamweight attack.

And then to have LDST pick up the gauntlet was priceless.

LDST may yet make a Mormon out of BrianH.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Wait a minute ...Challenging Mormons to support their claims that Smith properly identified the canopic idols in his Fac #1, is now, what... "bulldozing", "picking a fight" an "attack"?

Wow. You Mormon guys really need to grow some skin and maybe even a little spine.

LDST might make a Mormon out of me IF he could at least TRY to simply answer the same challenge that has you so obviously on the run, C-man.

But I gotta tell ya, I an not pricing any magic underpants yet.

-BH

.

[_BrianH]

While we wait for BrianH to reappear, I will tell you I was only kidding about his being Brian Hauglid....

Gotcha. I should have known. So is BrianH's last name Hauglid?

I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember BrianH claiming that he is a Calvary Chapel pastor over a local house church.
http://forums.carm.org/v/showthread.php?t=194391
And only two CC house-Church pastors are named Brian with surnames starting with "H".
http://calvarychapel.com/?q=brian&optio ... &Itemid=70

LOL !!!

Keep reaching, Mike ...and learn to read English a little better - the sources you cited (without actually READING, apparently) do not even hint at your identification of me as a "house church" pastor.

-BH

.

[_BrianH]

3. I was disappointed when other posters spilled the beans about LDST's true identity and position regarding Mormonism, because that was half the fun. No worries there, either. BrianH isn't reading or comprehending any of it and continues to address LDST as if he is a believing Mormon.

In the lack of evidence to the contrary, I generally treat those who publicly defend Mormonism as "Mormons".

Perhaps that is a great error. If so, the joke's on me. Mock away, have your laugh and then help me to find a real Mormon here on the "Mormon Discussions" board.

To Consig:

7. This thread should be required reading for anyone who wants to know the difference between an anti-Mormon and a Mormon critic, or who claims this is an "anti-Mormon" board, or that it is inhabited by "anti-Mormons," or that it is a "trailer park" of some kind.

So again we see that simply asking Mormons to actually support the claims of their organization will result in instant dismissal and adolescent insults.

Typical.

Consiglieri, you have gone too far, giving up the sacred truths that have previously defined us as anti-Mormon, when in fact many of us are simply seeking and pointing out the truth.

Indeed.

-BH

.

[_BrianH]

Do you REALLY think that the Egyptological academy actually ACCEPTS Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Book of Breathings?

A glance at my post above may temper your condescension.

Is that your answer, because nothing in that post answers my question ...as usual.

-BH

.

[_BrianH]

Hi BrianH,

A while back I asked how your answer would differ from those of our pro-LDS participants if we were to take a similar line of reasoning as you use with the Joseph Smith papyri translation but apply it to scientifically refuted ideas contained in the Book of Genesis?

Hi.

Questions about my beliefs are simply irrelevant to the topic of this thread, or indeed this forum, at least if I read the name of the forum correctly.

You've claimed elsewhere that all Mormoms appear to be cowards, and even had the gall to include ex-Mormons who supported your position in that category simply because they questioned your lack of integrity.

Its not clear that you even read that post, since I nowhere mentioned ex-Mormons in its contents. My experience with Mormons slinking away from meeting the challenges of even the simplest and most obvious questions about their claims is based on decades of observing exactly that ...and in fact in Mormon behavior right here in this thread as not one has even tried to answer this simple, fundamental question. Your accusation of MY lack of integrity is nothing but the usual empty accusation and is also irrelevant to the challenge I have posed in this thread.

Since you don't value cowardice in the face of challenge, let's have it. Answer my question.

Why should I let you change the subject?

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?

Of course, I personally don't buy that, but I think its no different than a biblical literalist arguing for a literal resurrection of Christ or that Adam and Eve really were the first human beings.

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that the idols in question are easily recognized EGYPTIAN mythological deities, and appear on a ~1st century, document that is universally recognized as the EGYPTIAN "Book of Breathings", which has as little to do with Sumarian mythology as it does with Abraham.

If you are going to use the tool of science, friend BH, please recognize it has to be used in full. And it cuts just as sharp when it encounters your own beliefs. Maybe even more so.

Even if that was true, it would simply be irrelevant to this topic. Even IF the Bible, for example, was proven to be a total fraud, invented by the Roman Catholic Church in 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, that STILL would not in any way even vaguely hint at any kind of support for the claims of the LDS church regarding the truthfulness of their "prophet's" translation of the LDS "scriptures".

-BH

.

[_Darth J]

Even if that was true, it would simply be irrelevant to this topic. Even IF the Bible, for example, was proven to be a total fraud, invented by the Roman Catholic Church in 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, that STILL would not in any way even vaguely hint at any kind of support for the claims of the LDS church regarding the truthfulness of their "prophet's" translation of the LDS "scriptures".

-BH

.

The veracity of the Bible is directly on point. If the Bible is not true, then Mormonism cannot possibly be true. The uncomfortable fact that your cherished beliefs also go down with the ship is just too bad.

You put your beliefs at issue by coming here and posting. The truth value of other religious traditions is necessarily at issue with regard to Mormonism, since the LDS Church claims to be the one, true church. Also, the scope of this board is not defined by its name alone:

http://mormondiscussions.com/

Mormon Discussions. . . Because we all want the truth.

Here is a place of free discussion. Whether you want to discuss the finer intricacies of doctrine, or whether you want to discuss the truthiness of the church in general, your word will be heard here.

Pro, anti, investigator, questioner, critic, apologetic, no matter what you call yourself, what you have to say, or what your agenda is, you have a place here. We pride ourselves on a minimalistic moderation policy, so that your voice is always heard.

[_BrianH]

One more chance - what criteria do you use to understand if an event is supernaturally influenced or supernatural in origin?

H.

I will give you one more chance to try your best to understand this simple reality: The challenge I have presented here is the challenge to present a valid confirmation of an allegedly supernatural translation. I am not asking for anything "supernatural". The confirmation that the LDS "prophet" correctly rendered the Book of Breathings into the "Book of Abrham" (an absurd claim on its face) is necessarily linguistic and literary/mythological evidence, just as, for example, the confirmation of claims of let's say, a divine healing from an osteosarcoma tumor would be medical evidence.

The challenge you (and/or actual Mormons) face here is the challenge of showing that Joseph Smith actually translated the Book of Abraham correctly by, in this case, showing that he identified the canopic idols otherwise universally recognized as the four sons of Horus, Imsety, Duamutef, Hapi, Qebehsenuef, if that is indeed what you are claiming is what happened with the Book of Abraham "translation". Such a confirmation does not require a divine revelation. It simply requires linguistic and literary evidence - evidence which thus far, no Mormon has ever presented.

-BH

[_BrianH]

BH>>Even if that was true, it would simply be irrelevant to this topic. Even IF the Bible, for example, was proven to be a total fraud, invented by the Roman Catholic Church in 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, that STILL would not in any way even vaguely hint at any kind of support for the claims of the LDS church regarding the truthfulness of their "prophet's" translation of the LDS "scriptures".

Darth>The veracity of the Bible is directly on point. If the Bible is not true, then Mormonism cannot possibly be true. The uncomfortable fact that your cherished beliefs also go down with the ship is just too bad.

Nonsense. Do try to follow here, Darth. The veracity of the Bible is not only NOT "directly on point", it is entirely irrelevant to the challenge I have placed before Mormons here. I am not asking about the truth of Mormonism in general, I am asking about the veracity of claims that a twice-convicted occult con artist supposedly translated the Egyptian Book of Breathings into the so-called "Book of Abraham" (which is as absurd as claiming that the Magna Carta was translated into a Chinese cook book).

MY belief pertaining to this subject is the only one that is relevant and I have good reason to believe that Smith was a total fraud. Among those reasons is the way Mormons flee from the challenge of simply providing any reason to believe them.

You put your beliefs at issue by coming here and posting. The truth value of other religious traditions is necessarily at issue with regard to Mormonism, since the LDS Church claims to be the one, true church. Also, the scope of this board is not defined by its name alone:

http://mormondiscussions.com/

Mormon Discussions. . . Because we all want the truth.

Here is a place of free discussion. Whether you want to discuss the finer intricacies of doctrine, or whether you want to discuss the truthiness of the church in general, your word will be heard here.

Pro, anti, investigator, questioner, critic, apologetic, no matter what you call yourself, what you have to say, or what your agenda is, you have a place here. We pride ourselves on a minimalistic moderation policy, so that your voice is always heard.

[/quote]

More nonsense. Just because Mormons cannot stay on topic or answer direct challneges to the claims of their organization is no reason to pretend that the rules somehow give them an excuse to avoid dealing with such challenge.

Don't get me wrong. Mormons are indeed welcome to continue to avoid answering my challenge by trying to make ME the topic of the debate. In fact I love it when Mormons do that because they prove by their own behavior that they are unable to deal with even the simplest and most obvious questions. But by the same rules, I have the right ignore the usual hand-waving distractions and evasions and to point out their failure to address, much less answer my challenge here.

-BH

.