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

[_LDSToronto]

So why is it when you challenge the belief system of the Mormons and they don't respond they are 'cowards', but you're free to run from every challenge to your own belief system? By your own standards you're a coward.

You are confused. I am not running away from anything. I am trying to get Mormons to run or at least try to crawl TOWARDS meeting my challange to simply provide us with some evidence that will confirm that their "prophet" supposedly translated what is universally recognized among qualified Egyptologists and other experts as a copy of the "Book of Breathings" into what Mormons call the "Book of Abraham" and in particular, as a case in point that they show us some reason to think that their "prophet" properly identified the canopic idol deities in Fac #1 CORRECTLY.

There's lot's of evidence - 5 chapters in fact - The Book of Abraham's existence is evidence that Joseph did what he said he did.

H.

PS. I'm crafting an overall reply to your challenge, I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I'd run off.

[_Darth J]

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.

You are obviously confused. I did not say that complaining about the Bible was against the rules, Darth; I said it has nothing to do with my request that Mormons show us some reasons to think that the Egyptian document universally recognized as the "Book of Breathings" somehow really does translate into what Mormons call the "Book of Abraham". And as a case in point that Smith identified the canopic deities in Fac #1 in your "Book of Abraham", CORRECTLY.

Yes, "my" Book of Abraham, which I so valiantly defend on this board.

If the Bible recites a bunch of mythology, like the story of Noah's ark, and the Book of Abraham repeats that mythology (which it does), then showing that the Egyptians are not the descendants of Ham, and that Egyptian civilization existed during the time frame when the entire planet was supposed to be underwater, furthers the case that the narrative in the Book of Abraham is not a true story. Mormon apologists frequently try to show that the substance of the Book of Abraham narrative is indicative of it being a revealed ancient document. However, if the substance of the Book of Abraham can be shown to be a reiteration of Old Testament mythology mixed with literature that was in fact available to Joseph Smith, the "catalyst" theory is disposed of. (Although that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without argument, so there is no reason to find the catalyst theory persuasive, anyway).

The simple logical fact is, even if the Bible did not exist, my question would still be entirely valid. Thus the Bible's veracity is as irrelevant as the veracity of the Pophul Vuh, the Kojiki or even Harry Potter.

-BH

That is a dazzlingly stupid statement. All of Mormonism's truth claims depend on the Bible being actual history. Joseph Smith was a biblical literalist, and there is not a single story in the Bible that the modern LDS Church does not teach to be a record of events that really happened. The veracity of the Bible is constantly at issue when approaching Mormonism.

ETA: The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price also assume that the events recorded in the Bible really happened.

[_Droopy]

However, if the substance of the Book of Abraham can be shown to be a reiteration of Old Testament mythology mixed with literature that was in fact available to Joseph Smith...

Unfortunately, some of it was theoretically available to him, but there is no record of his ever having availed himself of it. Much other material was not available to him, or anyone else, at the time, and some that was available would not have been available in English.

[_mfbukowski]

So I guess that stupid Joseph, even though Egyptian was already in the process of being translated, very bad conman that he was, decided to write up the Book of Abraham which clearly has no relation to the temple "revelations" so no one would even see that relationship as justifying their existence, knowing full well that the papyri he left behind would later be translated by competent Egyptologists, even though he had already been burnt in the Anthon affair by making the same "mistake".

And he did all this because of his incredibly stupidity knowing that all future ages would see him as the con man he was; and that none of his theological ideas have any merit on their own.

Is that about what you (plural) are saying?

[Guest]

So I guess that stupid Joseph, even though Egyptian was already in the process of being translated, very bad conman that he was, decided to write up the Book of Abraham which clearly has no relation to the temple "revelations" so no one would even see that relationship as justifying their existence, knowing full well that the papyri he left behind would later be translated by competent Egyptologists, even though he had already been burnt in the Anthon affair by making the same "mistake".

And he did all this because of his incredibly stupidity knowing that all future ages would see him as the con man he was; and that none of his theological ideas have any merit on their own.

Is that about what you (plural) are saying?

I am unaware that Joseph knew that Egyptian was currently being deciphered. Could you provide sources? My understanding is that he would have thought it a dead language. I am also unaware that he was worried about being found out after he was long gone.

I don't consider Joseph stupid. I think he was very smart and talented. Making up what he did takes some smarts and talent. He didn't do it perfectly, and made many mistakes. Thankfully he did or many of us would not have the information we need to see that.

Edit: Also you have brought up the anthon affair as Joseph being burned. Could you say how he was burned? I have seen you say this before, but I still don't see how he was burned. He didn't have any problem making a go at the Greek Psalter. MY impression is that he reveled in this kind of thing, wanting others to think highly of him. Just like his Zelph the white lamanite.

[_Runtu]

I am unaware that Joseph knew that Egyptian was currently being deciphered. Could you provide sources? My understanding is that he would have thought it a dead language. I am also unaware that he was worried about being found out after he was long gone.

I don't consider Joseph stupid. I think he was very smart and talented. Making up what he did takes some smarts and talent. He didn't do it perfectly, and made many mistakes. Thankfully he did or many of us would not have the information we need to see that.

Agreed. The Book of Abraham was a low-risk endeavor for Joseph. At the time, people thought Egyptian was a dead language, which was indecipherable. It's obvious that Joseph had no idea how to translate/explain the hieroglyphics, and saying that he must have been "stupid" to try doesn't add anything.

To me, Joseph seemed far more interested in keeping things going and keeping himself healthy and alive than he was in leaving a lasting legacy. Does his clumsy attempt at the Book of Abraham invalidate his theological ideas? I don't think so. Why do you?

[_Themis]

To me, Joseph seemed far more interested in keeping things going and keeping himself healthy and alive than he was in leaving a lasting legacy. Does his clumsy attempt at the Book of Abraham invalidate his theological ideas? I don't think so. Why do you?

I think it invalidates the idea that it came from God, and that he had any authority from God to create God's church. It becomes to much when I evaluate the Book of Abraham issue with all the other issues. The evidence to much supports he was making it up. This of course doesn't mean any principle he came up with has to be wrong.

[_Darth J]

However, if the substance of the Book of Abraham can be shown to be a reiteration of Old Testament mythology mixed with literature that was in fact available to Joseph Smith...

Unfortunately, some of it was theoretically available to him, but there is no record of his ever having availed himself of it.

Yep. Just another amazing coincidence. If there were sources available to Joseph Smith that parallel the substance of the Book of Abraham, no reasonable person can infer that he read them. Parallels can only be used by apologists in favor of the Church's truth claims, never against. Just because!

There's no record of Joseph Smith availing himself of the King James Bible while purporting to translate the Book of Mormon, either. So the only reasonable inference is that the ancient Nephite prophets were familiar with the English translation of the Bible that happened hundreds of years after they are supposed to have existed.

And he owned a copy of The Works of Flavius Josephus, Philosophy of a Future State, and the King James Bible---all of which, shall we say, inform the Book of Abraham. But that doesn't mean Joseph Smith ever read them!

Much other material was not available to him, or anyone else, at the time, and some that was available would not have been available in English.

Droopy, we already know that you are uninterested in methodology as long as the "correct" conclusion is reached. You don't need to keep drawing attention to yourself in that regard.

http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm#text

[_RockSlider]

Does his clumsy attempt at the Book of Abraham invalidate his theological ideas? I don't think so. Why do you?

I think this is a good point ... I believe Will, at one point, indicated that he would not be surprised if
the church de-canonized all or portions of the Book of Abraham aspects of current scripture.

[_Runtu]

I think it invalidates the idea that it came from God, and that he had any authority from God to create God's church. It becomes to much when I evaluate the Book of Abraham issue with all the other issues. The evidence to much supports he was making it up. This of course doesn't mean any principle he came up with has to be wrong.

I was directing that question more at mfb. What I mean is that, for some Mormons, like David Bokovoy, the translation is not "correct," but the theological product is still inspired of God. I'm just wondering why mfb seems to disagree.