I would imagine that my reaction and thoughts were the same as most who are not members of the LDS Church when opening up The Book of Abraham for the first time: fascination and curiosity. Even Mormons might have the same reaction if they were converts to the Church and then discovered The Book of Abraham themselves for the first time. I would venture to say that the reaction of either of these groups would pale in comparison to the reaction of Mormons when Michael Chandler rode into Kirtland, Ohio on July 3, 1835. His wagon cart contained four Egyptian mummies with papyri. Joseph Smith desired to have these artifacts and some Mormons gave Chandler $2,400 for them. That was a large sum of money back then. I wonder what the equivalent would be today?
Joseph Smith made bold claims about the papyri parchments. He stated that these were the writings of Abraham while he was living in Egypt. He further explained that these were written by hand by Abraham himself! Smith claimed that he could translate the Egyptian language, a language practically unknown in America at the time. This wasn’t the first time Smith claimed the supernatural ability to translate an Egyptian-based language: The Book of Mormon was supposedly written originally in “Reformed Egyptian”.
“The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients” (Documented History of the Church 2:238)
After Joseph’s death, Emma Smith remarried a man named Lewis Bidamon. The scrolls that belonged to Joseph Smith were sold and thought to be lost until they were rediscovered in New York over 100 years later. A certification letter from Emma was found with the parchments verifying that they were the property of Joseph Smith.
“In 1966, Dr. Aziz S. Atiya of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, discovered papyri known to have been used by the Prophet Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Abraham.” (Improvement Era, January 1968, p. 12)
With this discovery one can only imagine again what excitement was taking place in the Mormon community. Could this finally be the proof that the LDS Church had been looking for to validate their founding prophet, Joseph Smith, as prophet, seer, revelator? Until this point the LDS Church had no other manuscript evidence to validate their scriptures. The LDS Church claimed that the golden plates, the ones supposedly used by Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon, had been taken back by the angel Moroni. Mormons now had manuscript evidence for their scriptures with The Book of Abraham. Surely now it would be possible to validate Joseph Smith as divinely appointed by God.
The experts in Egyptology were called in to examine the papyri and the news wasn’t good. It appeared that these papyri showed no relationship to Abraham. The name of Abraham wasn’t even mentioned in the parchments. Instead, the papyri were from the Book of the Dead which was a common Egyptian funerary text. The papyrus was written for a man named Hor. He was a priest of Amon-Ra. Hor died around A.D. 60 – long after the time of Abraham!
“It has been proven that the Book of Abraham collection is nothing more than a common collection of Egyptian funeral documents that are based on pagan myths related to Egyptian idolatry.” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, pp. 109-34)
What particularly fascinated me were the facsimiles that are presented throughout The Book of Abraham. There are three facsimiles. Pictured below is the first one:
The parchments that Joseph Smith had were torn in many places so Joseph Smith had to fill in what was missing from the parchments he had purchased from Michael Chandler. The parchment found in New York that belonged to Joseph Smith is pictured below. You can see what was missing and how Joseph Smith filled in the missing pieces.
How close were Joseph Smith’s divine drawing skills given through revelation and inspiration in putting these missing pieces back together again? Egyptologists state this portrayal by Joseph Smith in Facsimile No. 1 is not accurate – not even close. The actual portrayal of the missing pieces in the parchment is quite common as part of the funerary text in the Book of the Dead. Compare Joseph Smith’s rendition with the actual Egyptian portrayal:
It’s very clear that Joseph Smith was way off on his “divine” drawings. A complete analysis of this picture above is given by Bill McKeever and you can see the presentation here:
Notice some of the characters seen in the picture above. Several of them will be mentioned again in the series of blog posts. Egyptologists state that the figure on the far left is the jackal-headed god Anubis. He is embalming Osiris who is lying on the lion-headed embalming couch. (This isn’t Abraham!). The bird with the human head to the far right is the soul of Osiris about to enter his body. Isis, wife of Osiris, has taken the form of a falcon and is on top of Osiris’ phallus (male organ) which he is holding to impregnate her with his future son Horus. The four sons of Horus are shown as the heads of the canopic jars below the couch. Their names are Amset, Hapi, Duamutef, and Qebehsenuef. In the water below is the crocodile god Sobek.
It is amazing to see the difference between Joseph Smith’s creation and the actual portrayal from the Book of the Dead side by side. How can any person honestly and sincerely not admit that there is a credibility problem with Joseph Smith? In the next segment of this series we will look at Facsimile No.2 to see what other messages Joseph Smith supposedly received for us from his god.
Commence Nibley-esque parallelomania in 3… 2… 1…
Just to set things straight. Non-mormons took issue with the BoM before the papyri were rediscovered. The facsimiles were around and based off those we know Joseph Smith, and his church, got it wrong. Before the redisvocery, the standard Mormon reply was, “Well, we don’t have the originals so no one really knows.” Well now we have the originals.
For those Mormons out there who think J. Smith copied from some other text rather than what we have now – how do you explain the presence of the facsimles and their bogus interpretation in the PoG?
Wait a minute. There’s a “FALCON” in the picture? I don’t know if I like that.
Isn’t this the point where Mormons will tell us that the parchments merely provided inspiration for Joseph Smith and that what he wrote and drew were “revelation”? What do we know about Mormonism? We know that the premise “The Mormon church is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet” is the only acceptable conclusion to Mormons. Given that, any explanation will do. Start tugging on this loose thread and the whole Mormon sweater will unravel.
What’s kind of funny (except that it’s not) is how often the LDS accuse the Christians out here of going only by our contra- LDS literature “talking points”. And yet, how much, especially lately, have we seen all the “talking points” come up off of the FAIR website?
Will there be any Mormon, today, who consults their Standard Works, reads the interpretations given to the facsimiles, reads the attending “scripture”, and puts together for themselves that it’s a lot of hooey?
None of those that post, I am pretty sure…
LOL again, seems I have been doing that a lot lately here at “coffee”. Wow, where does one begin, hopefully with what is in the Contents of the Book of Abraham, since the translation problem is really not the issue, since neither side has any history or witnesses to the process.
Brother Gee said that in many cases the argument about the Book of Abraham has become so complex that even some of the sharpest critics lose perspective and fail to be consistent in their contentions.
“We cannot afford to lose sight of the big picture,” he said.
He offered a few rules for “apologists,” a word that in this context means defenders:
First, it is not necessary to refute every statement by a critic. “The critic may be wrong about a point, but if it is not central to the argument, one can often let it slide.”
Second, not every argument or point is worth defending. “Even widely held opinions do not need to be defended if they are mistaken,” he said.
Third, truth is not well-served by a bad argument. “We apologists make no claims to perfection, either in ourselves or our arguments, so it is simply better to let go of bad arguments.”
Fourth, though God knows everything, “we do not and cannot,” he said.
Gee, I got this right off of “Mormon Coffee” how convenient.
Another thing that Shem told me while back was that LDS are forced to twist words because we force them to explain their doctrine.
I think this might apply to the BoA because it all makes sense when you believe it to be true, but in trying to defend it to people who don’t get it it gets messy.
Wouldn’t be easier if you just stopping trying to get it and ask God to show you the understanding? I mean, the Bible tells us that we are to ask and he’ll make known his secrets to us. Besides, believing without evidence is only proof of a strong faith.
Sure… Go tell that to the Bereans…
Hank, great post about some of the attitudes and stances of apologists. Seems to me we can start off by applying them to you. Again, thanks to you and brother Gee.
Except, without textual evidence, exegesis, preponderance of evidence vis a vis one verse here and there, and context, we are just standing around the fire roasting marshmallows of supposed truth. Satisfying, but not good for you in the long run.
Hey Ward, I suggest you have that same argument with a Atheist on the Bible. Hmmm, interesting, they put up a pretty good argument in showing that the Bible is not the word of God.
As for me, I like the true and tried method of following the Scriptures, especially James 1:5. Also good buddy, I received my testimony the same way Peter did, read up on that if you already have forgotten, “for flesh and blood did not reveal it, but my Father who is in Heaven.”
Hmmm.
Richard.
Last I knew or heard, “Reformed Egyptian” never existed. Also I know the Jews went to Egypt as the Bible teaches, but the Egyptians were enemies of the Jews, so why would the Jews stop witting in the native language and start writing in the language of their enemies?
I love how Hank cannot defend the lies of his church, yet he tries and uses the Bible as he sees fit, but yet ignores scriptures like, Be ready in season and out of season to give every man an answer that asks for the hope that lies with in you.
Were asking, yet he is ignoring it by coming up with stupid arguments saying, their really is no point in talking to us. Their is a point, the point is, your serving a false god who is taking you and millions of others to hell and you refuse to look into the evidence. Rick b
“”The Book of Dead” is the common name for the ancient Egyptian funerary text known as “Spells of Coming” (or “Going”) “Forth By Day.” The Book of the Dead was a description of the ancient Egyptian conception of the afterlife and a collection of hymns, spells, and instructions to allow the deceased to pass through obstacles in the afterlife. The Book of the Dead was most commonly written on a papyrus scroll and placed in the coffin or burial chamber of the deceased.[2]”
Okay. So Joseph Smith got a couple random mummies from a proprietor who got them from his uncle who obtained 11 coffins out of ONE OF the catacombs near Thebes, which catacomb contained several hundred coffins. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 2, pages 235-6, 348-9)
There was a roll of parchment for each of two mummies, plus 2 or 3 scraps from the other mummies.
We now know, from the fragments that have been found, that these pieces of parchment are common funerary texts. What does that mean? It means the were the same kind of burial spells, etc, that were USUALLY wrapped up with dead (who could afford it) Egyptians.
Okay, so we have these two dead Egyptians and their burial papers, and the papyrus we have left indicates nothing whatsoever about Abraham or Joseph, like it’s supposed to. (Joseph Smith claimed one was the writings of Abraham, one the writings of Abraham, HotC vol 2. page 235)
And we’re supposed to believe that mixed up with these two random Egyptian people and their coffins and funeral texts are these writings, but there is nothing left of them because they were burned in a fire?
Joseph Smith said that the two mummies WERE NOT Abraham nor Joseph of Egypt, by the way (HotC vol 2 page 348)
Hank,
Here’s your problem, I received a testimony also as I went into in great length and detail with you at least a month ago. My testimony totally refutes your’s and mine lines-up with the Bible. Peter’s revelation was that Jesus was the Christ….period. Peter had the witness of the Holy Spirit and the support of the scriptures. Mormons have neither. Mormons read the BoM, something in it made them feel good and bango, it’s true. I would say what made them feel good was probably the spirit of revivalism that Joseph Smith was able to communicate.
People can receive “revelations” that have absolutely no truth to them. There’s a guy in New Mexico that comes out of a Christian background and has received a revelation that he is God. He has followers who believe he is God. The women have sex with him and not with their husbands. He’s the only man allowed to have sex. One of the teenage girls had it revealed to her that she should come and lay naked with him. It was enough to get the guy convicted and he’s now spending a couple of years in jail.
So Hank, don’t talk to me about “revelation” and what God has revealed to you. Show me the proof in the Bible regarding your revelation. I would add, use some form of systematic Biblical interpretation and not just the typical Mormon pull a verse out of thin air and say it applies.
Jesus was revealed in the scriptures. Mormon “scriptures” like the BoA have been proven to be totally false. Even a couple of the other Mormon denominations don’t accept it. So you’re basing your testimony on a feeling you got when you prayed.
Having traveled in neocharasmatic circles and being a firm believer in the active manifestations of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, I’ve learned to identify/discern the true from the false. Mormonism is slam dunk easy to debunk. But having given themselves over to this delusion, Mormons have had their conscious seared. Their ability to pick out the true from the false is lost in a fog.
Hank Saint,
That specific passage (Matt. 16:17) refers to the testimony of Jesus Christ. And, if you really want to exegete that passage, the Catholics could really state a strong position regarding Peter as the first Pope with the keys of the kingdom given to him. Furthermore, the “church” Jesus establishes (and I must interject that Jesus probably wouldn’t have used the word “church (ekklesia)” as the word came about later when the writings were being done)was going to be a church against which the gates of hell could not prevail. Now, it seems you want to use a portion of this pericope that you think helps your cause, while disregarding the rest of it. I say this because you believe a total “apostasy” occurred, and for that to happen one would have to conclude that Jesus didn’t know what He was talking about when He said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it–basically one would have to say that Jesus lied. I know you’ll come up with some convoluted twisting of the biblical text to support your views, but it would really be great if you could do a word study as well as an exegetical study of the scriptures before you go and spout off inaccurate conclusions. I know you only made a comment referring to the testimony of Peter, and you are right that his testimony came from God and not from man. I just want you to consider that this pericope is only referring to the testimony of Jesus. I guess you would not use the Bereans as an example as Paul did; after all, they examined the scriptures to see if everything Paul said was true. I suggest you be as the Bereans and apply this to the words of JS.
Blessings…
So I can see where we are heading with this and I believe I alluded to it in my first post. That is, the “revelation option”. This is what Mormons pull out when all else fails. It’s a take on the “God told me…..” or “The Lord revealed to me…..” claim that can be observed in many religious traditions. It sounds good, gives the proclaimer authority and power and is very difficult to disabuse the person of (the notion). There’s a subtle claim to being very mystical and super spiritual for those who employ this tactic.
So here we have a parchment written in Egyptian. Joseph Smith says he can translate it and develops a book based on what he says the parchment says. Years later, someone who can actually translate the language determines that Smith’s translation isn’t even close to what is written on the parchment. Now is it that difficult to conclude that Joseph Smith was clueless? Only someone who is totally deluded and not in touch with reality would conclude differently about Joseph Smith and his BoA.
False works are produced by false prophets. The fact that Mormons can’t connect the dots here is not just perplexing but scary. But ignorance is bliss.
Just a few comments, and I will not post on this thread after this, as the argument is one that is so old it has become tiresome.
First, by the accounts given of many people who saw the scrolls, we have only a very small fraction of what Joseph Smith posessed. Also, form some accounts there was red writing on the scroll Joseph Smith worked from, which is not found on the fragments we now have.
Thus, it is no real problem, or stretch of the facts, to say that the actual scroll that Joseph translated into the Book of Abraham is not had by anyone at this time.
As to the differences in the two facsimilies, this is my personal belief, and one that very nicely answers the problem.
Abraham sojourned in Egypt. At that time he was favored by Pharoah. As all the righteous are called to preach the Gospel it is likely that he entered into many discussions on the subject of religion with the priests of Pharoah (and likely formed a friendly relationship with them). To illustrate the doctrine he taught (or the story of his life) he took well known pictures and altered them slightly. In this way he made the concepts more familiar to the Egyptians, but still taught the truth.
As to these just happening to end up in the tomb of an Egyptian priest of Amen-Ra, if the man was a friend of Abraham they could easily have been a gift from him, and thus would have been buried with him as a treasured possession, along with the traditional scrolls of the Egyptian culture. This can also be said about the Joseph scroll (which we do not even have a translation of).
Now, I will also add that Micheal miss quotes what I said, and thus misleads. I said that we do explain our doctrine very plainly, but then people deny that it is our doctrine. Since we want all men to know and understand the truth some of us fall into the trap of trying to explain it in a way that you will accept, and this becomes a twisting of words (or making it possible for you to twist our words) because it becomes more complex.
HankSaint,
I asked you point blank “Is it your contention that Facsimile #1 was restored and translated correctly by Joseph Smith?” and you answered “Of course I do, or wouldn’t I be a Creedal Christian instead.” I would ask how you can square your comments with the facts.
Look at the apologetic used by your Church prior to the rediscovery of the papyri to the apologetic used today. Prior to having the originals, Nibley and others posited that the facsimiles had been corrupted by the “scribe” who copied it. After the discovery of the originals Nibley claims that we do not have all of the scrolls used by Smith. After the discovery Nibley distances himself from the Smith notes of Egyptian translation claiming they have nothing to do with the Book of Abraham. All of the apologetic used prior to the rediscovery of the Smith papyri became obsolete when the papyri were translated by Klaus Baer (Nibley’s Egyptian teacher).
Examine in contrast the state of Old Testament scholarship today as opposed to prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Instead of requiring a entirely new apologetic and a rethinking of the translation of the Old Testament we find that this discovery only improved our understanding of the Old Testament Canon. In fact the Dead Sea Scrolls proved a number of liberal views of the OT to be false.
It is only Gee and other Mormons who can see the Book of Abraham as a complex issue. It is in truth exceedingly simple and rests on Smith’s interpretation of the existing Facsimiles. If we were to grant the possibility of undiscovered material used by Smith for translation of the BoA, a disputed fact that your entire case rests on, it does not help your case at all because we already know Smith was incapable of translating Egyptian because of his work on Facsimile 1.
Shematwater,
I am sorry but your apologetic does not work, simply because we do have the Facsimiles in the Pearl of Great Price. For the sake of argument I will grant you that we may not have all of the material used by Smith or that we do not have any of the material used by Smith, whatever you prefer. We still have the Facsimiles in the PoGP, this would mean that we would return to the state of affairs prior to the discovery of the Smith papyri and then the work of Reverend F. S. Spaulding would be sufficient to disprove Smith’s translation of Egyptian.
Your Church made a fatal (providential from my perspective) error when it published the Facsimiles in the PoGP. The Facsimiles are the Achilles heal of the BoA and there is no taking them back, the existence and mistranslation of the Facsimiles in the PoGP is sufficient to discredit all of Smith’s work. When I say all of Smith’s work a mean “ALL” of his work not just the BoA. As I see it the Facsimiles in the PoGP are a failure of the Deuteronomy 18:20-22 test for prophets.
Shem,
I want to address your comments as the issues you raise come up frequently during discussions of the BoA. There is debate over how much of the original cache we have today. Between the 1st century and the 1830’s and between the 1830’s and now some could have been lost. It is not debatable that we have at least some of the original; the issue is how much.
You put much weight into the eye-witness accounts because they allow a “way out” for J. Smith. It is very plausible that the eye-witness accounts were just wrong. As for the color of the ink – again, someone could have been mistaken or very possibly the color changed which sometimes happens with ancient documents.
What these eye-witness testimonies don’t do is contravene the evidence that the BoA is a fraud. Is anyone willing to state that the pictures in the PoG have anything to do with Abraham? That right there is enough for your church to be a fraud. The facsimiles are just plain wrong. Even if the originals did say something else, your church would still be in a mess. How could your church with a living prophet and seer count put pagan, inaccurate pictographs in the PoG?
Furthermore, your church had Smith’s Egyptian “Grammar & Alphabet” in its possession the entire time. The grammar shows he did not know Egyptian. Also, the BoA translation reflects Smith’s understanding of Egyptian; he “translated” the BoA in the manner that he wrote down in the grammar, at least in part. We can then go back and see those same characters on the scrolls we do have.
Even if there were large potions of the cache missing, which I do not think is the case, then somehow those pieces would have to contravene what we do have and know. As stated by gundeck, it is only Mormons who make this a complex issue. If we were in a court of law and were not discussing a religious text, then I think the overwhelming majority of impartial observers would use the same skills they use in everyday life and call the BoA a fraud.
OK, Shem, you say you plainly state your case. I say you think you might do that but when we explore what you say and logically connect them, it fails, yet you repeat your comments that will always fail, hence my conclusion that you have to twist them to make them work because they don’t work in any other way. You can say I misquoted you, and that’d fine. But my conclusion is the same, because what I have told you before, as have others, is that you have to start from a very different place to reach the conclusions you do, and that place is to ignore what is plainly written or said. You have to explain it away, which is twisting.
Heck, you even said this yourself: “Since we want all men to know and understand the truth some of us fall into the trap of trying to explain it in a way that you will accept, and this becomes a twisting of words (or making it possible for you to twist our words) because it becomes more complex.” But you say here that we twist your words, but then, where are we coming from and what is the starting point of our reasoning?
Alas…
As to the BoA, the lack of evidence means y ou should have more faith, right? There is little evidence the BoA is what Smith said it was, so beleiving it proves my faith. Would this be a sufficient LDS response?
Mormon Expose, or just plain Christian?
While I can hardly endorse most the blogs on MC, I think this one was pretty well presented.
I think it fairly summarizes the value placed upon Chandler’s Egypt. scrolls in Kirtland, & the mystique that Smith brought to them by connecting them personally to Abraham (& Genesis Joseph as well).
I think it also fairly summarizes what the Times & Season’s “BoA” incorrectly restores of the embalming scene from the Book of Breathings. The fasc. fairly follows the typical scene except where the Chicago scroll is damaged, and from there we get 1 very essential element of the sacrifice episode from the BoA: the bloody knife (rather than the smoking peter).
This is all in fair summation of a decent EV inspired documentary appearing a few years ago.
Do I, as a believing Mormon, & as a believer in the divine calling of the Prophet JSmith, think tht Fasc. 1 from the BoA was based upon anything different than what is typical from the Egypt. BoBreathings? No, I don’t. I know of more than a few Mormons who wish that it were, but I think tht any rationalist worth his salt would admit tht it plainly isn’t. And at the end of the day I hope I can honestly claim that distinction.
However, as I mentioned in my previous posts, the BoA represents but a fraction of the prophecy tht we get from Smith that is directly inspired by these scrolls. As one who has a deep spirit-inspired conviction of the truth of JSmith’s prophetic literature, I will gladly admit tht there are many rational reasons to believe tht what JSmith “translated” from those ancient texts was dead on in ways tht no one of his century could’ve guessed.
You can call these revelations “pagan” if you will, but in all fairness you have to at the same time acknowledge we are talking of the Osiris myth–the one tht a good many scholars (much like the ones behind Egypt. translation) say is foundational to the myth and faith of the resurrected Christ.
Sincerely, mutu
Wow, all the theories that just get regurgitated over and over.
Facts:
1). Church has the original fragments that Joseph has in his possession at one time
2). The fragments where described as a attachment to the Book of Abraham papyri.
3). The Church was the first to describe them as Funeral Text.
4). What the Metropolitan Museum of Art obtained and in turn gave to the church were ten fragments of papyri that had once comprised three separate manuscripts, originally belonging to a man named Hor (JSP I, X—XI) and women named Tsemminis and Neferirtnoub.
5). On one of the female mummies exhibited by Michael Chandler, termed “No. 1,” “was found with this person a roll or book, having a little resemblance to birch bark; language unknown. Some linguists however say they can decipher 1336, in what they term an epitaph; ink black and red; many female figures.”13 Another female mummy, termed “No. 2,” was “found with a roll as No. 1, filled with hieroglyphics, rudely executed.”14 A male mummy, termed “No. 3,” “had a roll of writing as No. 1 & 2.”15 These can plausibly be linked with the following remaining fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri: No. 1, with the red and black ink and the many female figures, is the roll of Tsemminis. The cipher 1336 would probably be an attempt to make out the hieratic of dd mdw à n “words said by” in the rubric (called here an “epitaph”). No. 2, from a female and with the rudely executed hieroglyphs, is likely the roll of Neferirtnub, and No. 3, from a male, would be the roll of Hor.
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=47&chapid=268
🙂 continued
1). William W. Phelps—who at that time, among other assignments, served as scribe to Joseph Smith—wrote to his wife in Missouri: “The last of June four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them.”16 Thus, at that time there were two rolls and more than one piece of other scattered papyri.
2). Oliver Cowdery, who like Phelps was Joseph’s scribe and so had worked closely with the papyri, described them as “two rolls of papyrus” filled with “characters . . . such as you find upon the coffins of mummies, hieroglyphics, &c. with many characters or letters exactly like the present, (though probably not quite so square,) form of the Hebrew without points” forming a “record . . . beautifully written on papyrus with black, and a small part, red ink or paint, in perfect preservation.”17 To this he added “that two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c. were found with others of the Mummies.”18 Cowdery thus indicated that there were several other miscellaneous pieces of papyri besides the two large rolls.
3). The prolix Cowdery19 also described the vignettes on the papyri:
The representation of the god-head—three, yet in one, is curiously drawn. . . . The serpent, represented as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to walk, standing in front of, and near a female figure, is to me, one of the greatest representations I have ever seen upon paper, or a writing substance. . . . Enoch’s Pillar, as mentioned by Josephus, is upon the same roll. . . . The inner end of the same roll . . . presents a representation of the judgment: At one view you behold the Savior seated upon his throne, crowned, and holding the sceptres of righteousness and power, before whom also, are assembled the twelve tribes of Israel, the nations, languages and tongues of the earth, the kingdoms of the world over which satan is represented as reigning, Michael the
Continued 🙂
Michael the archangel, holding the key of the bottomless pit, and at the same time the devil as being chained and shut up in the bottomless pit. But upon this last scene, I am able only to give you a shadow, to the real picture.20
Jay Todd, years ago, seems to have accurately connected these descriptions with the present papyri fragments.21 The “god-head” representation seems to be from JSP IV; the walking serpent and pillar seem to be from JSP V, thus all from the Tsemminis roll. The description of the judgment scene (which Cowdery got right)22 would match JSP IIIa—b, except Cowdery describes it as being on “the inner end of the same roll,” which leads one to conclude that this was a vignette from Book of the Dead 125 on the Tsemminis roll, and this would seem to be confirmed by a fragment of the text of Book of the Dead 125 included in JSP IX.
4). In 1837, William S. West described the papyri he saw as “a quantity of records, written on papyrus, in Egyptian hieroglyphics. . . . These records were torn by being taken from the roll of embalming salve which contained them, and some parts entirely lost.”28 This is confirmed by Luman Shirtliff’s examination of the papyri in December 1837. Shirtliff
looked at the parchment or Papyrus as called in the Egyptian language. This Parchment appeared to be made of fine linen cloth starched or sized with some kind of gum then ironed very smooth and written on in characters, figures, hieroglyphics, and conveying the Egyptian language. These sheets were about as large as the face of this book [12 x 15” ≈ 30 x 37.5 cm] when open. They were rolled up, put in a gum case and laid on the breast of one of the leading men of the Egyptians, when the Mummy or body was found this record was on his breast.29
Thus, by the end of 1837, parts of the papyri were already separated into sheets.
RickB,
You stated “…why would the Jews stop witting in the native language and start writing in the language of their enemies?”
What I found online is that the O.T. was written largely in hebrew, but some small sections were written in Aramaic.
“A few chapters of the books Ezra (ch. 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (ch. 2:4 to 7:28), one verse in Jeremiah (ch. 10:11, and a word in Genesis (ch. 31:47) are written, not in ancient Hebrew, but in Aramaic. Aramaic is about as closely related to Hebrew as Spanish is to Portuguese. However, the differences between Aramaic and Hebrew are not those of dialect, and the two are regarded as two separate languages.”
“Aramaic belongs to the Afro-Asiatic language family. Within that diverse family, it belongs to the Semitic subfamily. Aramaic is a part of the Northwest Semitic group of languages, which also includes the Canaanite languages such as Hebrew and Phoenician. Aramaic script was widely adopted for other languages, and is ancestral to the Arabic and Hebrew alphabets.” Bibleinfo.com
“The earliest Aramaic alphabet was based on the Phoenician script. In time, Aramaic developed its distinctive ‘square’ style. The ancient Israelites and other peoples of Canaan adopted this alphabet for writing their own languages. Thus, it is better known as the Hebrew alphabet today. This is the writing system used in Biblical Aramaic and other Jewish writing in Aramaic.” wikipedia
Its possible that hebrew along with other related languages developed their script from ‘reformed egyptian’.(Phoenician script) Its interesting to think that canaanite languages are related to hebrew, the canaanites were not especial friends to the hebrews, at least how its recorded in the O.T.
Continued some more 🙂
On 5 May 1841, William I. Appleby visited Joseph Smith and wrote an extensive account in his journal. Much of this account copies sections from the Book of Abraham before it was published; we are, however, interested here in the descriptions of the papyri included here within context. Appleby says that he
Saw the Rolls of Papyrus and the writings thereon, taken from off the bosom of the Male Mummy, having some of the writings of ancient Abraham and of Joseph that was sold into Egypt. The writings are chiefly in the Egyptian language, with the exception of a little Hebrew. I believe they give a description of some of the scenes in Ancient Egypt, of their worship, their Idol gods, etc. The writings are beautiful and plain, composed of red, and black inks. There is a perceptible difference, between the writings. Joseph, appears to have been the best scribe. There are also representations of men, beasts, Birds, Idols and oxen attached to a kind of plough, and a female guiding it. Also the serpent when he beguiled Eve. He appears with two legs, erect in the form and appearance of man. But his head in the form, and representing the Serpent, with his forked tongue extended. There are likewise representations of an Altar erected, with a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar with several Idol gods standing around it. A Celestial globe with the planet Kolob or first creation of the supreme Being—a planet of light,—which planet—makes a revolution once in a thousand years,—Also the Lord revealing the Grand key words of the Holy Priesthood, to Adam in the garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and to all whom the Priesthood was revealed. Abraham also in the Court of Pharaoh sitting upon the King’s throne reasoning upon Astronomy, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven,
HankSaint, wholesale copying and pasting of LDS apologetic material is not what we’re looking for at Mormon Coffee. Please discuss the issues in your own words.
Mantis mutu wrote “You can call these revelations “pagan” if you will, but in all fairness you have to at the same time acknowledge we are talking of the Osiris myth–the one tht a good many scholars (much like the ones behind Egypt. translation) say is foundational to the myth and faith of the resurrected Christ.”
Mantis,
Why look to Egypt to see into the heavens?
Shouldn’t you be looking to Christ, the incarnate Word of God?
Perhaps I misunderstood; maybe you have no connection to the Christian revelation and no desire to be part of it?
Martin, can you explain the “incarnate Word of God”. 🙂
I looked and looked but nothing in the Bible states incarnate Word of God.
R.
Hank, it is the word of God as demonstrated through Christ. Christ is God, so the term is very apt, even if it is not used in the Bible. Incarnate means in the flesh, and, well, you know what Jesus was/is. Ergo, the incarnate word of God.
But, this, like so many other of your arguments, is a red herring. But, man, does it sound smart!
So, here’s a question that I haven’t seen addressed by you: if the BoA is proven fraudulent, what do you do with your faith? This is a direct question, and do not want to get into Gee’s argument. If the BoA is proven wholely false, what do you think of the certainty of the BoM? Does a failure of one translate to a possible failure of another?
RickB,
That is an interesting topic. I looked into the phonecian script, and it turns out its NOT thought to have come from Egyptian hieroglyphs. So ‘reformed egyptian’ is probably not a great discription. So I was definately wrong in speculating that.
“When the Phoenician alphabet was first uncovered in the 19th century, its origins were unknown. Scholars at first believed that the script was a direct variation of Egyptian hieroglyphs.[2] This idea was especially popular due to the recent decipherment of hieroglyphs. However, scholars could not find any link between the two writing systems.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet
Its interesing to note that the christiancourier states “It is believed that Hebrew came from the Canaanite language.” Thats an interesting association to say the least. The O.T. also has some segments written in Aramaic. I was so curious as to why it appears. Some sources consider Aramaic to be a distinct language, where as christiancourier makes the distinction less pronounced.
“Aramaic is a close cognate language (actually a group of Semitic dialects) of Hebrew.”
There is some disagreement as to what aramaic’s appearance means.
“Liberal scholars have contended that the Aramaic of the Bible is of late date, hence, those works of the Old Testament containing this dialect (mainly Daniel and Ezra) were thus composed much later than the periods traditionally assigned to them.
However, Aramaic papyri, very similar to these works, have been discovered at Elephantine, Egypt, which date to the fifth century B.C. The critical charges are thus shown to be valueless.”
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/200-languages-of-the-bible
Different languages usually indicates cultural differences of some type. I can only speculate as to the meaning of hebrew and aramaic script in the O.T.
The N.T. was written largely in greek. Is that an enemy language?
Michael, I wonder what Peter would have done? If someone came along and said, the OT and some of the latest writing are a fraud.
We can prove it, so “If” we do, what are your intentions about following this person Christ for ever, will you quit this foolishness and follow us.
IF, wow, “IF”, the word does not prove anything Michael, it introduces an indirect question. Now, how about asking me what if Peter was mistaken, and Peter was only being led along by Satan. What did Christ actually state about Peter, it was not by flesh and blood you know, but by my Father who is in Heaven. So Michael, if I had that exact same experience, how are you going to prove me wrong.
Since no one yet has shown the Book of Mormon as being false, you only have your speculation and “ifs” to deal with.
r.
Martin,
“Why look to Egypt to see into the heavens?
Shouldn’t you be looking to Christ, the incarnate Word of God?”
There are people who believe that Horus was the first to say he was ‘The way, the truth and the life”.
“Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection”
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html
Enki said
you said it’s possible, well it’s possible your wrong also, but the bigger question is, is Reformed Egyptian real? If you say yes, then please provide evidence from where, like the Smithsonian for example, or some credible source, not some LDS from farms saying it is real because he wants it to be real. Rick b
Well, Hank, I think if an OT document is false, our faith falls, too, right?
BTW, nice job at not answering my question. You are very good at avoiding answering them.
And I expect Peter would have thought about it. But your question about Peter misses one very important and impossible to ignore aspect: Peter was with the Christ, and Peter in fact walked on water with Christ, and he personally witnessed the many miracles of Christ, and listened thoroughly to his teachings. I think he had a good idea of who Christ was, though even then he didn’t fully grasp it until the end.
I can show you are wrong because you did not have that exact same experience, and I CAN prove that. You have not walked on water, have you? Have you walked beside Christ or witnessed him feed thousands on a few loaves of bread? I think not.
So, your experience is indeed not the same as Peter’s and that you suggest you have had the same is kind of troubling, I think. It is troubling because it is so obvious you have not had the same kind of experience as Peter yet you compare your experience to his, using the phrase “exact same experience”.
You rely on the argument that no one has proven the BoM as false. Well, this is a matter of perspective, now, isn’t it? I am 100% confident it is false, and just because you believe it is true doesn’t make it so. Just because I say its false doesn’t make it so, either, but this is where we compare notes, isn’t it?
What do we compare? Well, let’s see, a good place to start is history. And then maybe what the books say about themselves. And how about a consistency throughout them, and since you view the BoM as an extension of the Bible, we have to compare them to see if they jive. We can look at a host of other things, too, to see which is holds up better to scrutiny.
I know, I know, none of that proves either, right? Fair enough, but a good place to look is what others say about them both.
So, what do others say about these books? Well, archeologists have used the Bible text as a map to find cities and other items. The Bible can be shown to have predicted certain events, actually many. Do you know the odds of these predictions coming true, just pointing to Christ alone? How about customs? The Bible stands pretty tall when describing ancient customs, doesn’t it? And the funny thing is that these claims are pretty universal to most everyone. Sure, the predictions can be explained this way or that, but the rest is well accepted, so much so that the Bible is at least seen as a reliable book on history.
The BoM? Hmmm… I can’t think of too many who really endorse any of that above, except LDS themselves. I know you are sick of it, but I am sure you are familiar with the Smithsonian’s statement, and the lack of any credible or widely accepted evidence, historically, archeologically, prophetically, and down the line.
Even when you look to compare the BoM with the Bible, it falls short. And then you have to look at all the other doctrine from LDS and they aren’t supported by the Bible, either. You’ve even got a translator who can’t always translate.
But, you’ve got your witness, and so nothing else matters. You’ve got your faith, and so all is well in your mind regarding all the supposed problems. But this faith is a hope on things yet to be discovered. It is a “hopeful” hope that it just might, maybe, be true. “If I just believe enough, and do enough, it’ll be true,” you might say.
But God indeed has something better than a hopeful hope. He’s got something waiting for you, once you open the door that he’s knocking on. He’s got a beautiful message of grace, mercy, and forgiveness. Acceptance of this gift will give you a freedom you know nothing about.
How do I know this? I have my testimony, just like you have yours. But, do you want to see where I get my testimony from? Open your Bible alone. Its there.
HankSaint said: “As for me, I like the true and tried method of following the Scriptures, especially James 1:5.”
If Hank really liked “the true and tried method” he would take his Bible seriously and translate it correctly thus not violating LDS Articles/Creeds of Faith #8. This begins with looking at the context of James 1:5 where it mentions the word “wisdom”. Those who lack of wisdom IN WHAT should ask of God. The “IN WHAT” is the context and that is in James 1:2-3, 12: “divers temptations”, “the trying of your faith” and “temptation”. The context is wisdom to overcome temptation. The text is not saying to pray about whether a book is true or not. Where in the Bible does it say we are to pray about a book to find out if it is true? Nowhere!
Ironically, Joseph Smith referred to these “divers temptations” and his “foolish errors” in being “offensive in the sight of God” in Joseph Smith History 1:28.
Hank would be spiritually well-served if he followed the guidelines set by the Apostle Paul in 1 Thes 5:21: “test all things”. He could also follow the guidelines of my favorite people in Acts 17:10-11: the Bereans. Paul preached to them, but it wasn’t sufficient for the Bereans. They had to test what Paul said BY THE SCRIPTURES to see if what he said measured up. If it didn’t, they wouldn’t listen to Paul any longer.
We have the Word of God as revealed in the Bible. Jesus said that this is truth in John 17:17. Praying about a book is spiritually dangerous because false spirits can lie to someone. That is why we have to test them too in 1 John 4:1. Trusting in feelings is what fools do in Prov 28:26. Using Mormon logic, what books should we pray about and which ones should we not? The Qu’Ran? Hindu, Confucius, Buddha, Zoraster scriptures? How about The Satanic Bible? If not, why not?
When one takes James 1:5 out of context we see the end result: millions being deceived by a false prophet who didn’t know anymore about the Bible than Hank, unfortunately.
HankSaint said: “Also good buddy, I received my testimony the same way Peter did, read up on that if you already have forgotten, ‘for flesh and blood did not reveal it, but my Father who is in Heaven’.”
The problem for Hank and the rest of our Mormon friends when they use this verse as a reference is that they “shoot themselves in the foot” based on their own theology. Why? Look very closely at Matt 16:17: The Father – flesh and blood hath NOT. Problem? Yes, because in Mormonism their god/father has flesh as stated in D&C 130:22! To further complicate matters, nowhere in the BoM is the Mormon god/father referred to as having flesh, bones or blood. Instead he is referred to as the “Great Spirit” in Alma chapters 18 & 22.
I submit that it is a false spirit that gives Mormons this subjective feeling that the BoM & the BoA is true because when these books are tested by what God has already revealed in His oldest revelation (the Bible), we see that these are false because God cannot lie. “Gods” in Abraham chapter 4? Conflicts with earlier revelation: one God. God cannot lie in Hebrews 6:18.
Hank also gave us this fact: “What the Metropolitan Museum of Art obtained and in turn gave to the church were TEN fragments of papyri that had once comprised three separate manuscripts”
FALSE – “In 1966 ELEVEN fragments of papyri once possessed by the Prophet Joseph Smith were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. They were given to the Church and have been analyzed by scholars who date them between about 100 B.C. and A.D. 100.” (Pearl of Great Price Student Manual Religion 327, p, 28)
Hank brings up an interesting comment about a WHAT IF scenario regarding the OT somehow being false or that our translation of it is in error. It’s funny that he mentions that because that has indirectly crossed my mind as I have done research and studying of the ancient manuscripts and textual criticism to a small degree. Mormons would be surprised at how much biblical manuscript evidence we have right here in the United States. It’s everywhere from coast to coast. The closest place for me is at the Palestine Institute Museum at Berkley. I hope to one day travel to England and look at the oldest: P52 which dates back to A.D. 125.
I’ve been enjoying reading Codex Sinaiticus online at: http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/codex/ This complete Bible goes back to the 4th century.
I would be devastated to look up John 1:1 and see that it says “a god” as it does in the Jehovah’s Witnesses NWT. I would also be devastated to find out that if the Septuagint is corrupt or that, in fact, there are “Gods”, he is an exalted man who became a God, He is married and resides on/near Kolob, etc. What would I do if all the ancient manuscripts and the writings of the Church Fathers stated what Mormonism teaches? Well, I would convert! If I found out that there had been no Christ, no crucifixion, no redemption, no resurrection? Well, my faith would be in vain 1 Cor 15:17. What next? Get mad; weep; become defiant and start committing massive sin – probably lose my mind.
This is why I have great compassion and understanding for the Mormons because this is exactly what it must be like for them to find out the Book of Abraham is a farce and thus the Book of Mormon falls too. Joseph Smith was either a prophet the whole way through or he was a false prophet from day one until he fell out the window at Carthage Jail pumped full of lead. There is no middle ground.
I feel for Hank. He appears to be by himself here defending the non-defendable Boof of Abraham.
Andy,
A few blogs ago I addressed your statement about the BoM saying God is a spirit. It does not. The chapters in Alma are where Ammon is teaching 2 kings of the Lamanites. He first asks them (Alma 18:24) “And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?“
The king answered (v25) “And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.”
So Ammon next states (v26) “Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?” This is in direct reference to v18 when the king asks Ammon if he is ‘the Great Spirit”. Ammon is using what the king knew to teach the king about God.
Now if we use your logic in the Bible to Acts 17:22-31, does this mean that Paul believes that God is one of the Greek pantheon? If we look at what Paul actually said –
Acts 17:23 “For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.“
“Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship…” Does this really mean that the Greeks are worshipping God? If so does this mean that God is just one of the Greek Pantheon?
No, Paul is just using what they know and adapting it to teach them the truth. And this is what Ammon is doing in Alma 18 and 22. So no where in the BoM does it say that God is a spirit.
HankSaint wrote “Martin, can you explain the “incarnate Word of God”.
I looked and looked but nothing in the Bible states incarnate Word of God.”
Hank,
Fair question. Its another way of stating John 1:14 “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (NIV, but KJV is similar, if you prefer).
…so, John tells us that the Word becomes flesh, which is literally what “incarnate” means (think of “chilli con carne” – chilli with “flesh”).
Incidentally, the phrase “made his dwelling among us” is, I understand, derived from “tabernacled”, which is a direct reference to the presence of God “incarnated” with the Israelites as He guides them through the desert to the promised land.
In other words, John is telling us that the presence of God among His people is in the “tabernacle” of Jesus’ flesh. You would be well served by trying to understand what John is saying here.
One outcome of John’s message is that the true presence of God does not reside in a tent, or building, or even temple, but in the person of Jesus. Jesus is the true temple.
HankSaint. This is how you can know if your divine revelations that brought about your testimony are from God, besides the fact that scripture nowhere tells us to pray for revelation or confirmation of truth. In light of Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful abvoe all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?” I would advise against that sort of confirmation.
As has been stated before, Deuteronomy 1:1-3 says, “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”
The warning here is that Israel is not to go after other gods, because the One True God has revealed Himself to them. They recorded who this God is in their scriptures, which we have highly accurate faithful copies of today. How do we know the bible is the standard? Because Jesus himself quoted from it. He didn’t see it as corrupted. In fact, in Matthew 5:18 Jesus states that not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law (used in context to mean the OT scriptures, the Law and the Prophets) until all is fulfilled. Is Jesus making a claim that he cannot fulfill?
You obviously believe that JS was a prophet. You believe that his writings are true and are revelations from God. Test his revelations against the bible, the only standard that we have. JS’s revelations and writings have caused you to go after gods different than the God of the Bible.
You should also heed Paul’s warning in Galations 1:6-9. I know you reject the gospel Paul so clearly preached. It goes against every tenet of the LDS faith in regard to salvation by works. But you cannot miss the consistency of Paul’s gospel. Yours is another
Mantis,
Thanks for the admission. To some it may not seem like a lot, but I think some of us who have frequented this blog for awhile take for granted how hostile it can seem at times.
I think your view is out of sync with Joseph Smith’s view of the BoA as well as that of the Mormons of his day. Every indication is that, up until the time of the rediscovery of the papyri, SLC Mormons believed that the BoA was a literal translation. To now claim that the BoA is otherwise seems like a cop-out, an ad hoc apologetic defense. I think these Mormons of yester-year understood something that perhaps some modern Mormons do not – if the BoA is not a literal translation of an Egyptian text then the BoM is in question.
As an outsider I have to ask – Does J. Smith’s prophetic status stand or fall on anything? I often ask people of other faiths the question: What would be a problem for you faith? So Mantis what would be a problem?
Ralph, in reference to what you said above about the BoM not saying that God is a Spirit I submit the following:
1. Nowhere in the BoM does it say that your god is an exalted man who became god and has a body of flesh and bones.
2. The word “Great Spirit” throughout the BoM is capitalized which signifies Deity. If this Great Spirit was not Deity, then Joseph Smith should not have written it as so.
3. Notice verse 2 of Alma 18: “Surely, this is more than a man. Behold, is not this the Great Spirit”. Verse 3: “And now O King, we do not believe that a man has such great power”
4. If Ammon knew that the Mormon god was an exalted man and not Spirit, then why did he bear false witness to King Lamoni in presenting to him the impression of God that was not correct? Why didn’t Lamoni correct him and just tell him who the Mormon god really was as all Mormons have known supposedly since 1820?
5. In Alma 22:9-11 we have Aaron teaching Lamoni’s father about the Great Spirit. Verse 9: “And the kind said: Is God that Great Spirit?” Verse 10: “And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit”. Verse 11: “And he said: Yea, I believe that the Great Spirit created all things”. Why is Aaron breaking the commandment of lying and bearing false witness if this is not a correct view of the Mormon god?
6. The “Book of Mormon Student Manual Religion 121 & 122” skips over Alma 18 and offers no insight. I wonder why? Think about it.
7. “Lectures on Faith”, which was part of the 1835 D&C until 1921, states in lecture 5: “the Father being a personage of spirit”. Confusion?
8. The Bible says that God is [a] Spirit. Greek: Pneuma O’ Theos – Spirit the God. Jesus said this. If the real God was an exalted man who has flesh and bones, why didn’t Jesus say that?
9. In Luke 24:39 Jesus tells us that a spirit does not have flesh and bones.
10. Joseph Smith couldn’t make up his mind on the nature of God and his views kept changing. He has no credibility & reliability.
In my listing above for point #8 the Bible Scripture reference is John 4:24.
Andy, apparently you did not read any of the accounts given by WITNESSES I just posted, sorry about that. No matter how you like to twist the truth and manipulate my post, you are the one who has to deal with the true facts as given by witnesses that saw the two Scrolls, not fragments. But why believe the truth when ignorance is bliss. 🙂
Michael, you call that answering the what, how and why of Peters testimony, wow, that took a lot of stretching to get where you ended up.
Peter’s Confession of Christ
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.
So Michael, show me where he confessed Jesus is the christ based on his walking, talking, and seeing his miracles? Further good buddy, based on this revelation, “ROCK”, I will build my Church. Hmmm, simple, basic, and true. Revelation is to play a major part in his Church.
James 1:5 also very important, and then you have —- 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened
Our poor Mormon friends like HankSaint are holding on for dear life to a belief system that is so obviously fraudulent, but emotionally satisfying. Hank wants us to believe that he’s getting direct revelation from God just like the apostle Peter. He can’t let that go. It’s his priesthood ego being carried around in a very delicate shell. “Just like Peter” WOW equal with Peter. Now, what happens to our friend Hank when his little world just crumbles? Well unfortunately what happens to Mormons guys like Hank is they end-up atheist. So in order to maintain the delusion they twist themselves into intellectual pretzels. It’s quite a painful exhibition.
I don’t know why but I keep thinking about Mark Hoffman, the Mormon who pulled the wool over the eyes of the SLC LDS “prophets” regarding some forged documents (he sold them). These “prophets” had such a desire to maintain the Joseph Smith fantasy that they dropped some significant money on fraudulent documents. The “revelation” power of these prophets was, I’m afraid, just like that practiced by their minions like Hank. The desire to believe is so strong that judgment is thrown to the wind. Anything will work as revelation or evidence. In the end they end-up looking like saps and dupes that really have no revelatory power, just their imaginations driven by a desire to believe.
Falcon, can’t stay on topic so he needs to bring in another borrowed talking point, (Hoffman). Nice thing about deflection good buddy, it fools those who are part of the Choir and herd, but my LDS friends see the twisting in the wind and gyration you need to perform to fit your little square block in the the very round hole. Frustrating isn’t it.
Yep, Falcon, and proud of the fact I have a testimony that Jesus is the Christ, given to me by the witness of the Holy Ghost. Peter and the Rock, interesting piece of scripture, but of course you have another interpretation of the Rock, it could never mean, “revelation” to you, since you nicely close the Heavens and any communication other then the Word of God found in the Bible.
Thank goodness you can count on your Ten Year, I would hate to think of what other line of work you could qualify for.
Maybe a Government Job, nice salary, good health care, and no body to look over your shoulders. 🙂
Lets see, eleven witness to the Brass Plates, now go and figure.
Must have been priest craft and a little to much to drink, ya think? 🙂
Regards, Richard 🙂
The cloud of desperation that surrounds our poor friend Hank is to the degree that he can’t see the connection between the forger Mark Hoffman and the forger Joseph Smith. He can’t even get the connection between the false prophets that run his church and their lack of any real revelatory power and Joseph Smith. It’s a wonderful fantasy wold that Hank lives in that can’t be covered up by a little vibrato and some smiley decals.
I have no clue what Hank is talking about regarding “ten year” and “government job” blah, blah, blah. He obviously thinks he knows me but as with most things, he’s clueless (insert smiley decal) But it’s a personal attack that old Hank resorts to when he’s been pinned against the wall and is flailing away trying to find an opening.
And Hank, I think you better do a little research into the occultist Joseph Smith and his use of “second sight vision” that allowed folks not to actually “see” things but see them “through the eyes of faith”.
Oh and Hank, didn’t I spent several days, about a month ago, going over with you the whole concept of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit as specifically outlined in First Corinthians 12 and 14 regarding such things as revelation? The other posters are right when they say of you that you have convenient memory lapses. Hate to break the news to you (again) but you’re not receiving revelation from God. You’re operating under the same spirit as the leaders of your denomination that couldn’t even discern between real and fake documents. But that’s the fantasy world of SLC LDS Mormonism.
HankSaint,
WOW!! You are amazingly in the dark. The ROCK is NOT revelation “good buddy” but Jesus Christ. The Church is built on Jesus Christ, and there is where you err. You try to sound smart but your words reveal otherwise, man.
Andy said: “The problem for Hank and the rest of our Mormon friends when they use this verse as a reference is that they “shoot themselves in the foot” based on their own theology. Why? Look very closely at Matt 16:17: The Father – flesh and blood hath NOT. Problem? Yes, because in Mormonism their god/father has flesh as stated in D&C 130:22! To further complicate matters, nowhere in the BoM is the Mormon god/father referred to as having flesh, bones or blood. Instead he is referred to as the “Great Spirit” in Alma chapters 18 & 22.” EXCELLENT POINT ANDY!
Ralph,
Please take a look at what you write: “No, Paul is just using what they know and adapting it to teach them the truth. And this is what Ammon is doing in Alma 18 and 22. So no where in the BoM does it say that God is a spirit.” This argument makes no sense. This is the same argument I heard regarding baptism for the dead. God is spirit, unless you don’t want to believe the Bible. So, just say you don’t believe in the Bible, and then at least you’ll be operating out of honesty. The conspiracy theory for an apostasy makes no sense when the things you all claim to have been taken out by evil men is exactly what evil men put into it: plural marriage, blood atonement, becoming gods, etc. What evil men would take that out of the Bible? It seems evil men would take out things like: repent, have faith in Jesus, obey God’s command. Do you see how the Mormon theory is founded on sand? WOW! Truly amazing that you can’t see the Truth when it’s presented to you day after day after day.
Praying for the whole lot of you!!!
Hank and many LDS love to quote James and say, it says pray for wisdom, Praying for wisdom is not the same as praying for truth or following Acts 17:11 and searching the scripture.
If I am lost in the woods and I am starving, and I have never seen a poison mushroom, then even if I pray for wisdom, that wisdom will not tell me if that mushroom will kill me, since wisdom cannot tell me truth from error.
Then LDS need to read further into James,
James 3:15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but [is] earthly, sensual, devilish.
Notice their is wisdom from Man, So it could be JS revived this wisdom. Plus lets go back to the wisest man in the world, Solomon. He prayed for wisdom, and God made him the wisest man on earth, ever, even to this day. What did his wisdom do for him? He rebelled against the Word of God and did much evil. How did that wisdom help him?
Because before you place all your trust in wisdom alone. Rick b