noel AUGUST 18, 2018 AT 9:28 PM wrote:Your section on the Book of Abraham is getting a great deal of discussion on Mormondiscussions.com.
Teancum AUGUST 19, 2018 AT 12:02 AM wrote:We tried to sign up for that site but it kept giving us an error message. Oh well. It would be fun to talk to skeptics about all of it. This is a difficult subject to get right because there is so much academic speculation, and the only people interested in focusing on Mormonism are defenders of the faith like me or operatives interested in disproving Mormonism.
My suggestion would be to stick with Facsimile No. 3 and do NOT drift away from talking about Smith's claims and Explanation of the king's name and how he falsely identified Isis as a king of Egypt. The apologist will try and change the subject and move it elsewhere. DON'T! Stick to the king's name and how the Explanation is wrong. Use evidence and proof to keep hammering away at this single point and keep all guns pointed in that direction. Mention other elements of the Facsimile No. 3 to support the case and any quotes from Joseph Smith and eyewitnesses. Bring to the table quotes and information from conventional Egyptology to prove it's really only Isis and there is no justification to make her a king as Joseph Smith said.
DON'T allow the apologists to wiggle away and try and change the subject. After wearing him down and making the point several times then it's time to shift gears heavily into another part of Facsimile No. 3.
It would be interesting if they would come over here and discuss the things they think are right. Instead of ridicule and mockery however, we ought to just simply decimate their ideas with reality, as you are saying about fac 3. We tend to get pretty excited instead of academic when these things pop up. And actually, any of the facsimiles are the weakness, without doubt. Fac 3 is the best because it is so straight forward, as you note. There is no wiggle room.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
Philo Sofee wrote:It would be interesting if they would come over here and discuss the things they think are right. Instead of ridicule and mockery however, we ought to just simply decimate their ideas with reality, as you are saying about fac 3. We tend to get pretty excited instead of academic when these things pop up. And actually, any of the facsimiles are the weakness, without doubt. Fac 3 is the best because it is so straight forward, as you note. There is no wiggle room.
Indeed. Facsimile No. 3 really is the key into breaking their argument and opening the door to let the light in. I agree, should such a discussion take place with this apologist on this board it should remain cordial and friendly. I don't think this apologist knows how bad he would be beaten in debating these matters here in a free speech zone.
For those who are interested, I just added a few very brief comments in the comments section of this notorious apologetic website.
The Book of Abraham remains a thorn in the church's side and the Facsimiles are a nightmare. Little wonder the apostles and prophets NEVER discuss it. They fear the Explanations of the Facsimiles and dare not discuss them in public.
Teancum wrote:Fallacy of reverse premise. Just because royal names are included in a cartouche does not mean it CAN’T be without a cartouche. Especially considering Egyptian spanned many thousands of years and underwent many changes.
But regardless, the Royal Horus name wasn’t in a cartouche. A good researcher doesn’t jump to conclusions.
My response:
Royal Egyptian funerary scenes of dynastic Egypt in Abraham’s time and thereafter would include a king’s name contained in the sacred Cartouche. A king of Egypt portrayed in a vignette must be accompanied with the king’s NAME in order to legitimize eternal life and the authority associated with being a king of Egypt. The name therein is required according to royal conventions and the Egyptian religion. The idea of portraying a king outside the standards of Egyptian conventions is inappropriate at best and sacrilegious at worst. It simply was not done. The Facsimile No. 3 does not bear the image of an Egyptian king of any dynasty and the spell therein is not a Pharaonic scene — hence there is no king portrayed therein and no king’s name. All official representations of a king must contain the royal label. That’s rule number #1 when it comes to royal Egyptian art.
Maksutov wrote:Dude's a pretentious loon. See below. ............
When you look into Letter to a CES Director, you find disturbing propaganda tactics straight out of 19th century Communism.
Just about every paragraph in CES Letter is dedicated to finding a contradiction in Mormon belief. That’s basically what CES Letter is all about. In the very first sentence, we see that the Book of Mormon claims to be ancient scripture yet “1769 King James” errors are present. How could it be ancient scripture then?
The CES letter is not dedicated to finding contradictions, it’s specifically designed as a list of contradictions as was asked for on the basis answers would be given. That the dude doesn’t understand what the CES letter is and where it came from does indeed mark him down as a loon.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
Just about every paragraph in the Conflict of Justice apologetic website is dedicated to slamming conventional Egyptology and finding any creative and elusive idea it can imagine to grant Smith a superior ability to translate and interpret the vignette of Facsimile No. 3.
The tactics used by this website are extremely misleading and bear little regard or respect to ancient Egypt or to the restoration of true Egyptology through modern science and the discipline of countless men and women who have worked to make Egyptology what it is today.
Mormon Egyptology is wrong. Mr. Smith was wrong and his wanton acts against the Egyptians were extremely disrespectful -- a slam on their whole race.
I love that Kerry and Paul are now a team and they're on the other side of Book of Abraham apologetics than say a decade ago. It's like super duo that turned heel. I was also a "believer" when they were defenders of the Church. So crazy to see where we stand now!
I'm sure it is one of Mentalgymnast Weasel's favorite places.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door; Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors. One focal point in a random world can change your direction: One step where events converge may alter your perception.