My Criticism of MormonThink: Fig 7 of Facsimile #2

[_zeezrom]

On this page: http://www.mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm, the MormonThink author states:

Of particular note is Fig 7 (bottom right shown upside down). Joseph said it represents God sitting upon his throne. Egyptologists say that this is the god "Min." Min is an "ithyphallic god," that is, a sexually aroused male deity. His erect penis is clearly shown. It's interesting to note that in some earlier editions of the Book of Abraham the church erased the penis so it wouldn't look pornographic. It has since been restored in our current versions. But isn't it somewhat disturbing that Joseph would say that this pagan god with his exposed penis is our Heavenly Father?

Bold is mine.

The implicative question about disturbing content is very subjective.

One of the objectives of MormonThink is:

We encourage people to think objectively about issues involving the doctrine, practices and history of the LDS church.

http://www.mormonthink.com/introductionweb.htm

Are the authors encouraging objective criticism when they imply Joseph's projection of the Egyptian god Min on Heavenly Father is disturbing? I argue that they are not.

They need to realize that an objective look at Heavenly Father might actually lead us to believe that he does indeed resemble Min.

[_sock puppet]

This could be called the Boner Thread, right?

[_zeezrom]

This could be called the Boner Thread, right?

Or "The Heavenly Father Thread".

[_sock puppet]

This could be called the Boner Thread, right?

Or "The Heavenly Father Thread".

Maybe that is why Father is heavenly, right?

[_Fence Sitter]

If Joseph Smith had been familiar with other examples of Facsimile#1, instead of talking about Abraham instructing the Egyptians in astronomy we might be talking about Abraham instructing the Egyptians in self abuse.

[_LDS truthseeker]

But isn't it somewhat disturbing that Joseph would say that this pagan god with his exposed penis is our Heavenly Father? [/b]

The quote was actually taken from a critic (probably the one that sent MT the article about Min) and MT does not generally edit critic's comments but this was an exception as originally the comment was more graphic saying 'his penis hanging out'. We took some liberty here and cleaned that up a bit as to not offend people.

How would you phrase this so to make the point the critic raised that it is an important issue but without encouraging objective criticism? I suppose it is MT's error for not clearly stating that this came from a critic and not the personal thoughts of the MT editor.