Indecent Exposure (Part 2 of 4)

For mature audiences only

In the second part of our series on the facsimiles from The Book of Abraham I would now like to focus our attention on Facsimile No.2. This will be the main focus of our attention from this point on. Let’s look at Facsimile No.2 that comes from the Book of the Dead and is contained in The Book of Abraham.

Facsimile 2

Facsimile no.2

Just like Facsimile No.1, this has been proven by Egyptologists to be a common funerary amulet called a hypocephalus. It was placed under a mummy’s head to supposedly keep the dead person warm and for protection against grave robbers who might want to desecrate the body. There is no known photograph of the original papyrus of Facsimile No.2. What Joseph Smith had purchased from Michael Chandler had been damaged and contained missing pieces just like Facsimile No.1. In the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar papers, published in 1966, there was a remarkably good drawing of Facsimile No.2 completed in pen and ink. This drawing showed that much of the right side on the top and bottom were blank due to being missing. Just like Facsimile No.1, this meant that Joseph Smith would have to fill in the missing parts. When Joseph Smith completed his drawings were they close to what actual copies of this common funerary amulet look like? No, they weren’t. For followers of Joseph Smith who didn’t know anything about these amulets they looked genuine. For Egyptologists they aren’t.

Here is a picture of the kind of hypocephalus that is seen in museums around the world:


I would now like to draw your attention to a certain part of this facsimile. Here we have a picture of a man/bird sitting in a chair with an erect penis. The explanation of Figure 7 is listed in the Book of Abraham.

Facsimile 2

(In at least the 1973 edition of the Church-published Pearl of Great Price, the erection was removed from Facsimile 2.)

When I first saw this character I thought it might have been Horus. In Facsimile No.1 Osiris and Isis procreate and Isis has a son called “Horus” according to Egyptian legend. Their son, Horus, is portrayed as a man with the head of a falcon. Horus is half-man and half-falcon because of his mother, Isis, had taken the form of a falcon and his father, Osiris, who was in the form of a man. However, it’s clear in the picture in Facsimile No.2, Figure 7, that this is not the head of a falcon. However, the character does have the tail of a hawk so it’s similar to Horus in that respect. (Personally, it looks like the head of a penguin, but I doubt that would be in any Egyptian pictures since no Egyptian would have ever seen a penguin anywhere near Egypt!) The bird/man in Figure 7 has the head of a dove. Here is what Horus looks like according to Egyptologists:



Egyptologists confidently state this character in Facsimile No.2, Figure 7 is the Egyptian god named “Min”. He is the god of fertility and sexuality. He is mostly portrayed as a male with an erect penis as can be seen in the picture above from Facsimile No.2. However, what is different about this picture in Facsimile No.2, Figure 7, is that the only thing visible that Joseph Smith saw with this character was the head of the dove. Joseph Smith had to fill in the rest and he did not do it correctly. The classic and well known rendition of this common scene in the funerary amulet is pictured below and is known as Leyden AMS 62. Compare this photo with the actual amulet of the hypocephalus pictured above in the color photo from a museum. Which does Leyden AMS 62 resemble most?


Leyden ams 62

Here is the pagan god Min. Caroline Seawright explains:

“In Egyptian times, he was usually an ithyphallic bearded mummified man, standing with both legs together, an arm raised holding his symbol or a flail and wearing the same low crown with twin plumes as Amen. (The way he holds the flail forms the V while his upraised forearm seems to thrust inside the V.) The Egyptian paintings and reliefs on tomb walls and temples didn’t show Min’s other arm, but the statues of the god show him with his hand encircling the base of his penis.” (Min, God of Fertility, Power and the Eastern Desert).

Joseph Smith also got the character standing in front of Min wrong. Joseph Smith has a bird being representative of the Holy Ghost while in fact in Leyden AMS 62 it is supposed to be a serpent with legs with an erect penis as well, the Egyptian god Nehebka, presenting to Min the wedjat-eye which is the symbol of good gifts. In addition to being a fertility god, Min was also the god of male fertility giving mankind the ability to procreate. He was also an agricultural god. He was the god of the Eastern Desert. He was a god who would protect those who were traveling including merchants who were involved in trading. He was worshipped by miners and men who worked the stone quarries. Min was also a moon god, but he is mainly known at the fertility god. He was also known for being very destructive despite his creative abilities in the area of fertility. LDS Scholar Dr. Hugh Nibley says this about Min:

“As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves with shocking promiscuity, which is hardly relieved by its ritual nature…His sacred plants were aphrodisiacal [lettuce]…and he is everywhere represented as indulging in incestuous relationships with those of his immediate family; he had the most numerous and varied religious entourage of all the gods, consisting mostly of his huge harem…The hymns, or rather chanting of his worshippers were accompanied with lewd dancing and carousing…to the exciting stimulus of a band of sistrum-shaking damsels” (Abraham in Egypt, p. 210)

After reading all of the above I was curious as to what the LDS Church had to say about figure 7 from Facsimile No.2 in their Church manual called, The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual – Religion 327:

“…the explanations for figures 3, 7 and 8 establish a clear relationship between the contents of facsimile 2 and the ordinances of the temple.” (p. 39)

“Facsimile 2, figures 7-8. Returning to God’s Presence: Egyptologists suggest that the hypocephali contain information to help deceased persons return to the presence of God. Similarly, the Lord has given Latter-day Saints divine help to return to His presence. President Brigham Young taught: ‘Your [temple] endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angles who stand as sentinels’ (Discourses of Brigham Young, 416)”. (p. 40)

That’s it? Where’s the rest of it? Surprisingly enough, that was all this LDS Church manual had to say about figure 7 despite all the other information from knowledgeable Egyptologists on what this figure is all about. Here is what the good professors over at BYU had to say about Joseph Smith’s drawing and explanation of what is taking place in figure 7:

“Joseph Smith mentions here the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove and God ‘revealing through the heavens the grand key-words of the priesthood.’ The procreative forces, receiving unusual accentuation throughout the representation, may stand for many divine generative powers, not least of which might be conjoined with blessing of the Priesthood in one’s posterity eternally” (BYU Studies, Spring 1977, p. 273)

What does all of this talk about Min have to do with the Mormon god? Is there any similarity? Why is the correlation made with the sexually active Min? Mormonism does teach that their god is united in celestial marriage to (at least one) “mother in heaven”:

“God the Father is married and there is a Mother God” (Answers to Gospel Questions, Joseph Fielding Smith, Vol. 3, pp. 143-144).

In the second part of our series on the facsimiles from The Book of Abraham I would now like to focus our attention on Facsimile No.2 and this will be the main focus of our attention from this point on. Let’s look at Facsimile No.2 that comes from the Book of the Dead and is contained in The Book of Abraham.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

118 Responses to Indecent Exposure (Part 2 of 4)

  1. setfree says:

    Amen, Aaron.

  2. mantis mutu says:

    Well then, Aaron, you should stick to worshipping your God rather than playing “scholar” and informed polemicist in the “exposition” of Mormon faith.

    Scholarship is a two-edged sword tht flaming Evangelicals shouldn’t be playing with. “TBM” Mormons and their “blind-faith” ways are your brothers MUCH more than you are willing to admit to yourself, nevermind to the world.

    Sincerely, mutu.

  3. mutu, your comment should show now. Any comment with more than one link (I believe) gets held up for moderation, which we sometimes don’t get to until later on in the day.

    I have never claimed to be a scholar, much less on the BoA. I have hardly even written on it, given my focus and learning elsewhere. But I don’t need to be an expert on it to watch LDS defenders play the parallelomania game and know that Smith got it wrong.

  4. falcon says:

    It would very much be appreciated it if you would provide some documentation when you write. You’re presenting a particular point of view and I, for one, would like to know how you source it. Provide names of texts, authors, authorities please. You said something about welcome to the world of Biblical criticism. You are providing a particular point of view. Sorry but I can’t just take your opinion. You’re pulling this from some place, I’d like to know where. So unless you can provide a source, I’ll take your posts as according to you, which I’ve found often is a lot of blue smoke and mirrors. My intellectual and spiritual antenna is twitching vigorously which is an indication that something isn’t quite right here with both you and what you’re presenting.

  5. Ralph says:


    You asked Mantis Mutu ” Let me get this straight, the Hebrews were polytheists, right? That’s kind of interesting because what set the Hebrews a part from their neighbors was that they had one God. … Are you developing this concept of a polytheistic Hebrew religion on your own, or are you getting some help with it?”

    Liv4jc said that Abraham was originally a pagan idolater mentioning the many idols/gods that God called him away from (22-8-09 Mormon Church Showcases Statement, “The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham”). So this indicates from the Bible, according to liv4jc’s interpretation, that the early Hebrews (ie ancestors to the Israelites and current Jews) were polytheists to begin with.

    But why stop with an interpretation of the Bible. On a TV show here in Australia, back in 2003 was 3 episodes called “It ain’t necessarily so” narrated by journalist John McGrath, who was held hostage for 5 years by Islams. During this time he was forced to study both the Bible and Koran. In one episode he had this to say about the ancient Hebrew/Israelite religions –

    ” Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Magonet explains that a number of Hebrew words are translated as “God”. One such term, the word used in the first sentence of the Book of Genesis, is a plural. Professor William Dever says it is now known that the Israelites worshipped several gods including a goddess, Ashera, and Diana Edelman says that she was a widely worshipped fertility goddess. Dever tells John that when he first discovered an Israelite inscription proving that Ashera was being worshipped he was afraid to publish it, and kept it secret until others found more evidence that the God of the Israelites did have a Goddess as a consort. Visiting the excavation at Tel Rehov, John is shown an Israelite shrine which seems to be a place for worshipping three or four gods and the goddess.”

  6. falcon says:

    Boy are you missing the point. Have you ever read the OT? Have you ever read the first commandment. One of the big problems with the Hebrews was that they would wander off into idolatry. Moses goes up on the mountain to talk with God and while he’s gone they talk Aaron into building a golden calf and they get down with some serious debauchery. So you’ve totally missed the point in that God called them, picked them, elected them. They were to be His people and He was to be there God. But they’d get tied-up with foreign women and up on the high places they’d go worshiping idols and false gods. After the Babylonian captivity, they had their bellies full of idolatry and it was never a major problem again.
    See the Mormons haven’t learned the lesson that the Hebrews had to learn. The Hebrews turned away from the false gods of Egypt like Min but the Mormons haven’t; embracing this false god. When you pray to the Mormon god, for example, you are praying to Min. The facsimile provided above (endorsed by Joseph Smith and canonized by your church) shows him in all his naked glory exposing himself. This provides the connection with polygamy and eternal celestial sex. It’s nasty business and I don’t like getting this graphic but it’s about time you woke-up to the reality of what you are involved in. It’s your choice of course but don’t try to run away from it. Proclaim it openly.

  7. Ralph says:


    No I haven’t missed the point. You asked for ‘evidence’ that the Hebrews were polytheistic. The Hebrews were the ancestors of the Israelites and modern day Jews. According to the Liv4jc, the Bible states that Abraham (an Hebrew) was polytheistic and left the polytheism behind to become monotheistic. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Abraham come before the Law of Moses? Didnt he come before the Israelites ‘stay’ in Egypt? Isn’t Abraham an Hebrew? Doesn’t his answer your question for evidence that the Hebrews were polytheists and one of them decided to give it the boot (whether chosen of God or chose his God)? So while the Jews are monotheists and the Israelites were taught monotheism, their ancestors – the Hebrews – were polytheists. At least according to liv4jc’s interpretation of the Bible. But as I said and showed, there are others that support this opinion in the academic world.

    Puts a whole new meaning on the ‘Elohim’ in Genesis if the original writers of teh Bible were polytheists, doesn’t it?

  8. mobaby says:

    Bingo Falcon. If you’ve read the Bible you know the Hebrews worshiped many gods. This is the reason they were sent into captivity: for abandoning the one true God and following after other gods. Introducing the concept to the Bible that worship of many different gods is acceptable and that different cultures worshiped correctly, with the Hebrews following in their footsteps or at least following a similar program, is something that doesn’t square with scripture. So either mantis mutu is wrong, or the OT revealing the one true God is wrong, they both can’t be right. If mutu is right, God poured out a lot of punishment on His chosen people for no good reason. So Min or Amun or Zeus or Molech or Horus or Dagon or whatever, no matter, God is not pleased. He’s actually beyond not pleased, he pours out his judgment on those who follow after false gods. Joseph Smith took a frisky false god and said it was God Almighty. He said this false Egyptian god is the Mormon deity, whether Amun or Min. It’s an interesting point to determine precisely which god Joseph Smith is proclaiming as God on his throne and may be of more interest to Mormons than others. If I was in mantis mutu’s position, I may have a similar zeal for finding out who the god is that is so elevated by Joseph Smith and why is he shown in such an immodest pose. Mutu, what is your source of knowledge that the god Joseph Smith proclaimed is Amun and not Min? You had a lot of blustery talk about the source that Dr. Watson referenced, but precisely what is your source? How do Egyptologists view the JS interpretation? If I went to a Church founded by a Bible translator that was shown to have slaughtered the scriptures, I would run to the nearest exit. I am going to Google Min and Amun and do a little freelance sleuthing myself and see what comes up at the top of the old internet search pile.

  9. mobaby says:

    Okay, I’m back from a quick review of that source of all knowledge, wikipedia. The figure that JS says is God on his throne looks more like Min and not Amun (and wiki fails to mention the JS interpretation). Of course, wikipedia could have it wrong and Mantis Mutu and Joseph Smith have it right. Wikipedia is user generated content, so Mutu, get over there and submit your content along with JS interpretation of just who these images represent.

  10. HankSaint says:

    Interesting that few Egyptologist, who work within this discipline have yet produced practices, procedures or rules regarding translation. Of course if you can produce some set of rules that understand specified or traditional symbolic forms, hint the facsimiles, associated with this subject, can you also show that all Egyptologist or those who follow this discipline have come to any consensus, no you can’t.

    So what we have is a very brilliant statement by Falcon, “The facsimile provided above (endorsed by Joseph Smith and canonized by your church) shows him in all his naked glory exposing himself. This provides the connection with polygamy and eternal celestial sex.”

    Wow, just so intuitive, brilliant. So please tell me, what particular kingdom did you identify the figure from? Sources from the Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, and New Kingdom? Identify the figure and tell us what ancient Egyptians understood by the figure? Only by identifying the proper time will you ever be creditable, but I doubt you understand even what your borrowed talking points want you to believe since not even the best scholars have a answer.

    At least I find the assumptions you give are mostly tacit, implied or inferred from actions or statements by others regarding the Facsimiles.
    Colorful, yes, but unduly and rarely made explicit by you. Where can you show anything but assumptions, your research is lacking, but huge on rhetoric and little reality. Obviously both you and I are not experts, but even those whom you choose as your experts, don’t seem to have agreement on the complexities of the Facsimiles.

    Regards, Richard.

  11. liv4jc says:

    The operative word is Abraham “was” an idoloter before God called him (Joshua 24). I was also a filthy, self-righteous, arrogant sinner before God called me. Isn’t grace wonderful?

    Mutu, there is a difference between something occurring in a society and God condoning a societie’s actions, even those who he has chosen by His grace.

    Mobaby and Falcon are absolutely correct.

  12. Enki says:

    The program about UFOs and the idea of them connected to evil spirits, I didn’t find this providing any spiritual nurishment. It was just about creepy happenings, and about people who just spent too much time thinking about them.

    Bringing it back to the current topic, another program made a connection between ufos and an egyptian painting or papyri. How this connects to the current topic, I don’t know.

    You mentioned that some believe that the ‘angel of the lord’ was a pre-earth jesus. Is there any more support for this idea?

    The LDS church established by satan? Why would that be? Why would satan support or give lip service to jesus and the bible? Its clear that LDS belief is not in alignment with most other christians, but how do you figure what you figure? What about other sects which are not in alignment with fundementalist belief? Isn’t there some statement in the bible about a kingdom divided against its self cannot stand?

  13. Michael P says:

    Hank, I don’t believe I am going to even ask this: but is every argument something along the lines of there is so much we don’t know or don’t have? Or even no one has proven it wrong?

    I am beginning to see these lines very often from you and others.

    Does it bother you that you keep using a line like that?

  14. HankSaint says:


    No, does the fact that you bring nothing to the table regarding what other Egyptologist understand and do NOT agree upon, bother you? Where are your great scholars? why do you feel the need to keep using dated talking points that only criticize but never give a answer to the actual translations of the facsimiles? Embarrassing isn’t it?


  15. Andy Watson says:


    I guess since we are going to go by last names here I hope you don’t mind if I address you as such. I don’t know if you are a man or a woman so I’ll leave that blank. You can call me “Watson”. It reminds me of my military school days and my time in the Army. “Doc” is good too. I was called that too in the Army at times when I had to try to put wounded people back together. I do hope to one day have the official “Dr.” in front of my name, but I don’t see it coming anytime soon.

    I appreciate your passion. I know you love Joseph Smith dearly and I realize what is on the line here if Smith blew it as a prophet with his reckless and imaginary translations of these papyri from the Book of the Dead attributing it to Abraham.

    No, sir, I have not let my “flock” down by my presentation of this article. You sure had nothing but good thiings to say about my accuracy in Part 1. You know that is not Abraham on the lion-headed embalming couch – it’s Osiris. Yet, you want to claim something else for figure 7 in this facsimile that your church is silent on. You ought to be ticked at them for leaving you out here all by your lonesome.

    I have exposed a part of this facsimile that Mormons are in denial about. If you doubt this read what they said a few weeks ago when I tried to get them to just look at the picture. I was told it didn’t even exist. The real let down has been done by the LDS Church in not fully and honestly giving it’s flock the truth about the BoA. The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual on this subject is very thin. There is much guessing and much left up to the LDS faithful to figure out on their own.

    I gave references both within Mormonism and non-LDS. Would you like some more? Here are two more and when you can provide something from your side of the house I’ll give you some more. Right now, as far as I’m concerned, it’s all just your opinion and we know what Mormons say about opinions.

    Dr. Marvin Cowan
    Dr. James White

  16. Michael P says:

    No, not really Hank, because from what I can tell, they actually say something different from what you say. I am no expert and will not talk about that which I don;t know. But these last two pieces actually quote what they do say, unless you can give names and sources of those who say otherwise, I have no reason to doubt what is said here by Andy.

    BTW, I am only stating what I see, and I see you saying that we don’t know enough to say you are wrong on a host of issues, kind of like the dumb and dumber quote given some time ago– you mean there’s still a chance!

    The simple point of that is that eventually the lack of evidence proving your faith has to be a red flag that there may not be any at all. I know, you have your testimony, but so do Muslims and so do I.

  17. Andy Watson says:

    Part 2


    The difference between you and I is that I give references and quote them accurately. Congratulations for going and checking them out. That is the purpose. I also quoted Nibley, LDS manuals, etc. The spectrum is very wide. I can’t think of anyone better to quote on this subject than the LDS sources themselves. I do whenever I can. Unfortuantely, most of them have decided to keep their mouth shut and I suspect the reason is that deep inside they know trying to defend this lousy and laughable work by the proclaimed prophet Smith is indefensible.

    Ah yes…attack Miss Seawright…typical LDS playcard. You know what I’m guessing? I bet she has more credenetials in the study of Egyptology than you and I put together. That is why I reference her. You confuse me. You attack her credibility and then turn around and her quote her later to help with your cause. Make up your mind. What’s it going to be? Credible or not? One last thing on credentials: Is Nibley an Egyptologist? That’s what I thought – no. He’s as much an expert in that field as my 16 year-old who is a junior in high school. Yet, the LDS put the load on him to defend this load of scholastic garbage that we see in the BoA.

    I could have posted many pictures of Min both standing and seated. I referenced Leyden AMS 62 which is exactly the picture should look like in Facsimile 2. This is in the picture in the hypocephalus above from the museum with Nehebka with an erection facing him. Nice huh? Kind of sick if you ask me. You have agency to pray to him if you want whether he is Amun, Min, Thor or Frosty the Snowman. I won’t. If you, Muth, wanted to be consistent with LDS doctrine you’d call this figure “Elohim” – not Amun or Min. If figure 7 represents your god, then call him by his real name. If I go to the FAIR website and say that fig.7 is Pinocchio, what will be said to me? Correct: prove it with documentation! The same goes for you and the rest of the spin machine at BYU/FAIR.

  18. Andy Watson says:

    Part 3

    Mutu said: “If you, Watson, can see the intuitive rationale in this iconography, then please spell it out for me. Until then, I think you better tone down your emphatically sweeping judgments of Joseph Smith just a tad.”

    I don’t see any rationale for anything Smith hatched in his wingin’ it in his rendtions/translations of the BoA facsimiles. I’ve asked for a list of any Egyptologist outside of BYU that says that Smith got it right. You haven’t produced anyone. I’d like just one name. I watched a video interview with Dr. Ritner. They pressed him about his opinion on what Smith had done with had translated with the papyri. He was annoyed that his time was being wasted and could only laugh and say that it was worthy of consideration. It’s an absolute joke. I could spell it out for you even more clear, Mutu. Would it do any good? No, because you have to defend Smith no matter what…even if he’s wrong because your church goes right down the sewer drain if Smith is a fraud – which he is – big time.

    You won’t me to tone it down about Smith and not pass sweeping judgements on his credibility as a prophet? Let me “spell it out” for you as you requested: NOT A CHANCE! This prophetic fraud has brought about the eternal damnation of millions with his deceit and lies. Millions more today are still following him and the cost is still the same. If Joseph Smith didn’t repent of his heresy while he was being pumped full of lead at Carthage Jail on the way to ground out of the window, then right now he is in hell/eternal torment just like the rich man in Luke 16:19-31. Smith thought he was a funny prophet too:

    “I see no faults in the Church, and therefore let me be resurrected with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to any other place. And if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol.5:517)

    I don’t want you or anyone else joining Smith.

  19. Andy Watson says:


    The research and information provided in this part of the series is accurate and trustworthy. The vast majority of Mormons don’t know about it, but the spin doctors at BYU and FAIR do know about it so they do their handy work when it comes out. It was known well ahead of time that this would be provocative but needed to be stated. There is a lot that takes place behind the scenes before an article is posted on MC.

    First, I didn’t write this 4 part series overnight. It was put together over a long period of time. It was heavily scrutinized and checked for accuracy by many people ahead of time. Editing and changes did take place. I believe in accountability before my brethren, teachers and mentors. Second, discernment and understanding was used by those analyzing this in making it presentable to the Mormon people that would be appropriate. Third, Bill McKeever is the founder of MRM 30 years ago. This is his website, blog and ministry. Do you think that he would allow anything to be put forth on his webpage that was not accurate and reliable? I have nothing but the highest respect for him, the MRM staff and this ministry to give them something was scholastic garbage. They would not post it if this was fiction.

    Fourth, what I have put forth here is NOT new. The information was taught to me long ago and I did more research on it and filled in even more and it’s what you see here. Dr. James White wrote on this as well (link was given) and he is not going to put something out that would ruin his reputation either. The information is tight and solid. Fifth, I am not stupid or foolish enough to use my name (not some anonymous screen name) and put it out for the world to see if what I was saying could not be substantiated thus humiliating myself. Sixth, and most importantly, I would not tarnish the name of Christ by being an embarrassment to the Faith in my service to Him by writing something that would discredit myself and bring shame to His Name.

  20. setfree says:

    You’ve done an excellent job out here, both in your blog posts and comments. I thoroughly enjoy your writings, because they are solidly researched and thought through.

    Grace and Peace to those in Christ Jesus!

  21. Enki says:

    Martin from Brisbane,
    You mentioned “the death-cult of the Egyptians”.
    I found some interesting information about egyptian belief.

    “Egyptians believed that the body was the link to a spiritual existence in the afterlife. The body was mummified so the spirit could get needed food and drink in the afterlife. In case the body was destroyed or damaged, magical spells were placed on a statue of the deceased so the spirit could continue to have their needs met.”

    There is some controversy within the monotheistic faiths over whole body funerals and cremation. Its not uncommon for people to leave objects and flowers near the grave of loved ones. Its probably cultural, but any connection to the idea that there needs to be a whole body for life after death?(for christians)

    In hinduism most people are cremated, but often saints are buried in special mausoleums. I read some commentary by a hindu on this. It had something to do with retaining a saint, keeping it immortal or something like that. The cremated person is seen as more liberated because there form is so altered. Something like that.

    Whatever is the belief, there are certainly a lot of burial space taken up by dead bodies all over the world. In some countries the bodies are stacked up on top of each other, kind of like file cabinets. I don’t know how the bodies are preserved for storage. Freeze dried? Maybe thats the next thing…

  22. HankSaint says:

    Michael, since we are not the experts, and that goes for the translation of the Scriptures also, then all we really have is the what statement, what does the Book of Abraham have to say. Just like the Bible, it’s what the Word of God states that is more important then all the quibbling about the how, what and why of the BOA’s origin.

    Point being, no one has of this day, proven that the BOM is false.
    Theories, speculations, etc, etc. Nothing but a multitude of different theories, yet no one can agree on anyone of them.

    170 plus years, and the Book of Mormon is still a vital missionary tool, why because the Holy Ghost testifies to those who desire to know.


  23. falcon says:

    You still don’t get the point, but thinking Mormon will do that to you. Genesis 12:1-3 God calls Abraham to leave what is present day Iraq to a land that God will show him. God makes covenants with Abraham known as the Davidic, Palestinian Genesis 13:14-18 and Genesis 15, and New Heart Covenant Jeremiah 31:31. God tells Abraham that He will make his name great, He will give him in essence land, seed and a blessing. The Davidic covenant deals with the “seed”, Jesus is the fullfillment as the King that sits on the throne forever. Read Luke 1:32-33. Key words are throne, house, kingdom.
    So God introduces Himself to Abraham as thee God. The history of Israel is their harlotry in turning away from God to chase after idols. This is the problem with Mormonism. It has forsaken God for other gods that aren’t really gods at all. Again, in the article that is the point of this discussion, it has been demonstrated that Mormons worship an Egyptian pagan god named Min. What else are we to conclude? You need to turn from this pagan god just as the children of Israel had to turn from idols and accept God and the salvation He offers through faith.

  24. Andy Watson says:

    I have made mention of Marvin Cowan. He is a friend and mentor in this field of study and ministry. He is an ex-Mormon who became a Christ follower decades ago. He’s been a missionary to the Mormon people since 1961. He is a man of impeccable character, highly trustworthy and a dear servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. It goes without saying that he knows Mormonism from the inside-out. I am honored to have him as a mentor.

    I received a packet from him in the mail yesterday. He was living in Salt Lake in 1966 when Dr. Aziz came forth with the facsimiles from the Metropolitan. Marvin Cowan was at “ground zero” in having this work analyzed by Egyptologists from various universities around the country. This packet he sent me contains the letters that he wrote between the years 1966-68 to those professors of Egyptology and their responses back with their findings typed on their university letterhead as being official. Their conclusions:

    1. Joseph Smith’s translations are “incorrect” & “completely wrong”.
    2. The papyri was “decipherable”.
    3. There is no such language called “reformed Egyptian”.
    4. No Egyptologist colleague of theirs that they know of would concur with Smith’s translation of the facsimiles.
    5. What Smith had was common funeral papyri and well known in Egypt – the Book of the Dead.
    6. The LDS Church had contacted them for help, but they could offer them nothing favorable to their cause.
    7. The god “Min” is stated to be in the facsimile.
    8. Joseph Smith’s “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar” do not correspond with the factual meanings well known by Egyptologists. Smith is in error.

    I’m still waiting on a list or just one Egyptologist outside of BYU that is non-LDS that BYU, FAIR or FARMS can supply that says that Smith is correct in his translations.

    Thank you for your time.

  25. Michael P says:

    Hank, not really. The how what and why of origin is of huge importance. No matter what is included in a document, if it is created under false pretenses, the whole document’s credibility is destroyed.

    And you rely on the fact that the BoM has not been proven false. This is a bit of a convenient position for you. Despite all the evidence that suggests its veracity is a stretch, you say its not enough proof to say its wrong. How much do you want or need?

    In all seriousness, what would it take for you to see that your faith is wrongly placed in a charlatans scheme?

    I think every Christian here is ready to answer the question of what would make us admit our faith was wrong. Can you answer it? If you don’t answer here, answer it in your own heart.

  26. jackg says:


    You keep saying that no one has proven the BOM to be false. I would say that no one has proven it to be true. You claim that the Holy Ghost testifies to those who desire to know. This comment suggests that if the Holy Spirit testifies to someone that it’s not true that such testimony is obviously not from the Spirit but a false spirit. Well, the thinking is right. What’s wrong is that those following a false spirit are those who follow the teachings of JS. How can one know the difference? Well, for the teachings of JS to work, one has to denigrade the biblical text to a work that can’t be trusted because of evil men, and that “new” prophecies will usurp the authority of the Bible. This wild approach is championed when one claims to believe in “new” beliefs despite the clear evidence that they differ from what the Bible teaches. Every Christian can rest assured that their spiritual experience is legitimate because they can test it against the Truth of the Bible. Mormons can’t do that, so they have to test the Bible against their experiences. Well, guess what wins out in that scenario? Yes, the experiences. This is a man-centered approach to discovering the Truth. There are false spirits, Hank, and I am certain that you are following a false spirit. I say this out of experience, because I, too, followed a false spirit and believed the heretical teachings of JS. Nearly two years, I wanted ever so badly for the Mormon Church to be true. I began to read the BOM to find the truth in it, but it wasn’t there. I cried out to God to restore my testimony of JS as a prophet, but it didn’t come. Instead, God reassured me that He had indeed led me out of Mormonism. God is calling you to the Truth, Hank. Allow yourself to be humbled by the True and Living God who loves you.


  27. HankSaint says:

    Sorry, but if you have proof that it’s false, please provide one of the 20 some theories. If it is false what’s the need for 20 some theories, why not just one big bit of evidence that will destroy the book of ever.

    You need to get around the 11 witnesses, a huge problem
    Find someone of Joseph’s educational limits, and put together over 600 pages of doctrine, scripture, and history.
    Prove plagiarism, Tom Donfrio tried, yet admitted, “Plagiarism is hard to prove”. Read the Book of Mormon, and tell me that it was written by only one author, prove the study done by computers that show there were as many authors as there were different Chapters. Show that a group of men got together and combined in a act of fraud, wrote the Book of Mormon and convinced 11 others to participate. Prove that what researcher found in the Arabian deserts and by the sea, exactly the places as described by Lehi as he traveled from Israel. So much more that you have to disprove, please give me your best ideas.


  28. Enki says:

    To Ev’s and LDS,
    Some are objecting to sexuality in connection to god concepts. It seems like the N.T. uses some sexual sounding imagery to describe something very special in connection to salvation. I don’t think its literal, but is it meant to convey an idea?

    “…every one who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not, because his seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God he hath been begotten.”

    Begotten used frequently in the N.T.

  29. Michael P says:

    OK, Hank: the witnesses saw them with their mind, right? So, it is debatable whether they actually saw them physically, and yes I would then state that it is very possible for a group to believe they mentally saw the same thing. There have been studies where people believe the stangest things when peer pressure is exerted, even though they are intelligient and otherwise competant people.

    Anyone can be a good story teller, and there are many, many examples of those who have created vast other worlds, so, no I don’t think it impossible for someone “of his education” to create such a story. To the contrary, I don’t think education has anything to do with it. Intelligience and creativity play a large role in that, and education shows neither of these traits.

    I also think it entirely possible that Smith was a voracious reader and had access to many books available to him that discussed such topics.

    So, really, I don’t think it hard to raise serious questions about the veracity of the book.

    On top of that, we also have Smith’s questionable history and character.

    It is not hard to build a case against him and the LDS. Is that proof? Nope, but it certainly weighs against the evidence that he spoke the truth. Keep in mind, Hank that the other side has evidence that it may be true. Doesn’t prove it is, but it makes a case…

    So, Hank, what do you believe? Why?

  30. mobaby says:


    I don’t think you are a scoffer. A mocker or a scoffer doesn’t possess a love for truth as much they just love to mock. Some who appear to be mockers are really truth lovers who are performing the Biblical office of flogging the fool-albeit verbally.

    You asked, “Why would Satan give lipservice to Jesus?” Well if he came in a blazing yelling “I am the rebel, the would be usurper of the ALmighty here to take your soul to hell.” He wouldn’t get very many followers! I admit there is always that few.

    The most effective lie is the one closest to the truth.
    If Jesus appeals to you there are many false ones for you to adore. Issa didn’t shed his blood for your sins -he says,”Be good and I will return to judge.” The Mormon Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t good enough, it needs your help by being good and it’s purpose is not for you to be reconciled with God to worship him forever, but to BECOME a god. I could go on and on with other Jesuses.

    Lies are slippery things. Artful decievers can change meanings with pauses or glances. The classic is to use words with multiple meanings to deceive.
    “Connect the dots method”- throw out a bunch of random data preferably that which sounds learned and cultured, but really it is nonsense. The listener will connect the data in a manner pleasing to him. (because we humans can never seem to resist creating meaning even where it does not exist) When forced to confront the faulty logic of the connections the speaker can always say “I didn’t say that.” True, but he knew many would interpret it that way. See Jack Van Impe or B52’s or HankSaint

    By staying within the “Christian” arena there is the bonus that listeners will not even hear what is REALLY being said, but will import their own worldview into it and give it a ringing endorsement. See US election.

    What is the Kingdom that should not be divided? It doesn’t include those who worship false gods or false Jesuses.

  31. liv4jc says:

    HankSaint, it seems to be getting clearer as these posts continue. As our friend Shem stated to me on the “Gods” thread, and I’m paraphrasing, “Well, I believe it’s true and it makes me feel good so stop challenging my beliefs. Besides, you cannot prove that it’s not true.”

    It seems that our lack of evidence is your evidence. Just because there is no archaeology to prove the BoM isn’t accurate doesn’t mean that there won’t be evidence found. Because we don’t have the other claimed 20 feet of the Egyptian scrolls (that may or may not have actually existed) we can’t really prove that what is in the BoM is not what JS read. So you neglect all of the surrounding evidence based upon a subjective feeling. And so we go round and round. This brings us back to the real issue: How are you doing with those commandments? Are you doing enough? How do you know? When was the last time you looked at a woman with lust? How many lies have you told today? This week? This year? In your life? The same goes for anger, stealing (regardless of the value or if the object was tangible or not), and being covetous. Do you have enough good works to pay your way? Can you repay Christ for the debt you owe to Heavenly Father? Remember, it’s the same rules, just a different creditor. Can you bridge the gap?

    Let the real excuses begin….

  32. Andy Watson says:

    “During 1837 there were intense financial and spiritual conflicts in Kirtland, Ohio. Martin Harris later said that he ‘lost confidence in Joseph Smith’ and ‘his mind became darkened’ (quoted from Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, page 110). He was released from the high council in September 1837 and three months later was excommunicated.” (Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks, Ensign, May 1999).

    Like Martin Harris, David Whitmer later testified that he did not see the plates literally with his fleshly eyes: He said he saw the plates “by the eye of faith” handled by an angel. (Palmyra Reflector, March 19, 1831).

    “If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spoke to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to ‘separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to undo me, so should it be done unto them.’ In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness.” (David Whitmer, An Address To All Believers, page 27)

    March 25, 1838: Martin Harris, in the Kirtland Temple, states that NONE OF THE WITNESSES had physically seen or handled the plates, that they had not seen the plates with their “natural eyes” but rather their “spiritual eyes”. (Joseph Smith Letterbook, Vol.2:64-66, LDS archives, Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 2:291)

    Joseph Smith states: “Such characters as David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them.” (History of the Church, Vol.3, p. 232).

    How do I know the BoM is false? God through His Holy Spirit told me it is false. I have a testimony. Mormons should be able to relate to that. That is one reason. I’ll give Hank & our LDS friends 49 more when the BoM topic is presented in a blog post.

  33. Enki wrote “Some are objecting to sexuality in connection to god concepts. It seems like the N.T. uses some sexual sounding imagery to describe something very special in connection to salvation. I don’t think its literal, but is it meant to convey an idea?”


    I’ve only got time for a very brief reply now.

    Firstly, sex is good. It was created by God as part of His good creation. It is our sin that has brought pain and futility into it (Gen 3:16), and when we take a good thing and make it the ultimate thing, we make it into an idol.

    The entire Book of Song of Solomon rejoices in the sexual union between a man and his wife.

    The most striking sexual imagery in the language of salvation is the “Consummation”, when Jesus is finally united with his bride (his Church) in an enduring, exclusive and intimate relationship (PS it has always been understood metaphorically).

    The Bible also talks about “seed”. There’s the “seed” of Abraham (Gen 12:2-3 and Gen 15:5-6 etc, his children) and the “seed” of God (1 John 3:9) as you point out. The latter is a metaphor for the thing that “incarnates” the life of God in the life of the believer.


    Read Ezekiel 23, particularly Ezekiel 23:27. When I read this last night, I could almost feel the contempt dripping off the page that YHWH of Isreal had of the Egyptian and Bablyonian gods. The sexual imagery in this chapter is stark, to the point of offense. However, the message is clear; don’t fool around with the gods of Egypt, or Babylonia. Have nothing to do with them.

    Mantis and your Mormon colleagues, don’t you get it? God loathes and detests the gods of Egypt and Babylon. If God hates them, why do you defend them?

  34. Pingback: Mormon Coffee » Indecent Exposure (Part 3 of 4)

  35. Mike R says:

    You used a source by William Dever that said,
    according to him, the ancestors of the Israelites
    worshipped various gods, including a goddess.
    Are you implying that we should worship them
    as well? If Almighty God called Abraham out of
    this lifestyle then that would be confirmation
    that God was,nt happy with polytheism.
    Also, Is this goddess your Heavenly Mother?
    If ancient peoples worshipped her, are you also?
    ( I know your answer as you clearly stated weeks
    ago that you don’t worship Her, choosing to
    ignore Her, not even telling Her you love Her
    As liv4JC, Martin,Michael P., Jack,David, Andy
    and others on this blog have stated the huge
    difference between the belief in gods/goddesses
    and the one True Almighty God, do you not see
    that this is the message of Bible ( and Book
    of Mormon, for that matter) ?

  36. falcon says:

    Excellent Martin. That pretty much sums up the entire discussion regarding the god of Egypt that the Mormons follow. Thanks to Andy’s article we have a name for this Mormon god. We also know what he was all about. We also know that Joseph Smith was a good representative of this Mormon god’s behavior so it all fits together very well.

    I think some of our Mormon friends find it incredible that these witnesses to the BoM could “see” things that weren’t physically there. Actually it’s not all that difficult. Given the devotion some of these Mormon folks (who post here) have to Joseph Smith and their deep belief that they are having things “revealed” to them, they’d be prime candidates for the practice of second sight vision experiences.
    Grant Palmer, author of “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins” talks about how Martin Harris was seeing things all the time. Joseph Smith was good at creating the ambiance necessary for these visions to take place. Remember, Smith honed his skills while searching for buried treasure with his magic rock. Look, I could get HankSaint to see the angel Moroni and the gold plates right now. He’s preset for just about any type of Mormon mystical experience.
    I have a book here called “The Art of Seduction” by Robert Greene. It’s a virtual “how to” book on how to get what you want by manipulating everyone’s greatest weakness. “The 18th century Austrian charlatan Franz Mesmer was one of the best. His dupes would feel relaxed, uplifted, and as they sat in the room where he used magnets for their healing powers, they would feel a kind of spiritual tingling pass from body to body. Anything vaguely mystical helps block out the real world, and it is easy to move from the spiritual to the sexual.” (pp. 434-435)
    The Mormon’s desire to believe coupled with the thought of being in the “in group”, to be receiving special messages and revelation is a catalyst for the power of suggestion. I don’t think a whole truckload of deprogamers could help these folks.

  37. HankSaint says:


    “OK, Hank: the witnesses saw them with their mind, right? So, it is debatable whether they actually saw them physically, and yes I would then state that it is very possible for a group to believe they mentally saw the same thing. There have been studies where people believe the stangest things when peer pressure is exerted, even though they are intelligient and otherwise competant people”.


    “which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship”.

    Saw then with there mind? yet did handle with our hands, Interesting, what else do you have?


  38. HankSaint says:


    I’m doing fine with the commandments, I must break at least some everyday. So the need to continue getting on my knees and expressing my regrets and weaknesses.

    Working my way to heaven? Not sure if you even understand what we mean by that, so until you actually understand our doctrine, you will continue to fumble your way through your borrowed talking points that quiet frankly are ridiculous.

    Mossier and Owen:

    “The evangelical world needs to wake up and respond to contemporary Mormon scholarship. If not, we will lose the battle without ever knowing it. Our suggestions are as follows: First, evangelicals need to overcome inaccurate presuppositions about Mormonism.”

  39. Michael P says:


    Ah, but then why would at least one admit they only saw with their minds? Hence, the debate, friend. Hence the debate.

    Again, as we see with your approach to the Bible, you choose to ignore one set of words in favor of another, and you do not attempt to reconcile them.

    This comparison and acknowledgement of the other stuff is what makes me doubt your faith to the extreme. If we didn’t have the quote stating they only saw it with their minds, then I would put more stock in your quote, but the existence of that raises serious questions, right?

    Do you want me to provide other examples of the same thing within your faith?

  40. HankSaint says:


    They described the physical plates as weighing between forty and sixty pounds and being approximately eight inches long, five or six inches wide, and five or six inches thick. Their descriptions varied, from seven by five by four to eight by six by five, but the descriptions are consistent because they are estimations. They didn’t take a measurement. Not only did the Eight Witnesses see the characters and turn over the leaves, but they reported seeing a sealed part. They described the plates as bound with “D”-shaped rings, saying a perpendicular center ran through the plates, like a loose-leaf notebook, and then the ring curved in a half circle across the spine. There is definitely a consistency in what the Eight Witnesses claim they saw.

    Some people wonder if any of the Three Witnesses ever denied his testimony. The answer is, No, never. The Three Witnesses’ lives went in different directions, but none ever denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon and its coming forth. So what did each say he experienced, and how did each support his testimony?

  41. HankSaint says:

    Let me give the flavor of two interviews with David Whitmer. First, Orson Pratt, who had known David as a fellow leader of the church before David left the church, visited David as an old man. Pratt was accompanied by Joseph F. Smith, who was then a young Apostle, but who later became president of the church from about 1900 to 1918. As these two men interviewed David, Joseph F. Smith wrote down what David said:

    We not only saw the plates of the Book of Mormon but also the brass plates, the plates of the Book of Ether, the plates containing the records of the wickedness and secret combinations of the people of the world. . . . The fact is, it was just as though Joseph, Oliver and I were sitting just here on a log, when we were overshadowed by a light. It was not like the light of the sun . . . but more glorious and beautiful. It extended away round us . . . [We saw] many records or plates . . . besides the plates of the Book of Mormon, also the Sword of Laban, the Directors . . . and the Interpreters. I saw them just as plain as I see this bed (striking the bed beside him with his hand), and I heard the voice of the Lord, as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life, declaring that the records of the plates of the Book of Mormon were translated by the gift and power of God. Nibley, comp., Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, 68.

  42. mobaby says:


    From the images on this blog we can see that the BOA is a fraud. A prophet who produces one fraud is not to be trusted. That’s one of many reasons why the BOM is also a fraud. No one can trust a “prophet” whose work can be displayed for everyone as a fraud – review the images here, look at what JS said they mean, compare that with what actual scholars say – it’s easy, JS produced fraudulent “scripture” and is shown to be incapable of “translating” Egyptian when he says that is precisely what he is doing. JS created a tall tale about Abraham writing these documents with his own hand upon papyrus. He also concocted a tall tale about gold plates and visitations of God. Those are the religious parallels that are apparent to everyone – not these far fetched religious parallels between Egyptian funeral documents and God’s revelation of Himself.

  43. Enki says:

    “3. There is no such language called “reformed Egyptian”.

    Is there a communication problem here? The concept is that orthography evolves and changes. There is well documented orthography which came out of egyptian hieroglyphics. Some of these were adapted to fit other languages.

  44. Enki says:

    I realize that you had time for only a short reply, but I am really curious about modern burial habits vs. ancient ones. I really look forward to reading it, and take your time. Its a complex topic, I shouldn’t expect you to know a the drop of a hat. I looked up some info…and I am thinking…eh, do I really want to read all that to find out all the differences in burial customs?

  45. There is no such language as Reformed Egyptian that corresponds to the characters on the Anthon manuscript. Joseph Smith made that up.

  46. liv4jc says:

    Andy and Aaron. I apologize if this post is a little off subject. I know that Andy has done a great deal of work on this post, and I know that it will do much good to those who are reading it with an open mind, but I want to voice an opinion about some of the short-comings of apologetics.

    My point to HankSaint was this: Apologetics and defenses of one’s faith are great to sway a questioning or open person to a particular belief. Jackg said that it was his study of the claims of Mormonism that brought him to saving faith in Christ. HankSaint and others believe the apologetics of their faith, and they seem to be as entrenched in their beliefs and as convinced as we are in ours. What is the end result of our faiths? For LDS it is exaltation by believing in Joseph Smith as a prophet, Jesus Christ as savior, the BoM, and belief that the COJCLDS is the one true church. Beyond that they must also perform all of the ordinances of their church, and obey the commandments, which have several additions to the Biblical 12, such as the Word of Wisdom and daily Bible reading and prayer. I am taking license adding Deuteronomy 6:4 and Levitcus 19:18, as quoted by Jesus in Matthew 22:34-40, to the Ten Commandments.
    To Christians the end result is justification. Justification is the forensic declaration of righteousness upon sinful, dead men by God because of Jesus Christ’s atoning work on the cross. We do not earn this legal declaration of righteousness by any means or works of our own. This righteousness is declared because of our faith in God’s promise that all who repent and believe that Jesus Christ paid for their sins will be justified. Even this faith is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God, and not of works, so that no man may boast in his own accomplishments, intelligence, spiritual wisdom, etc. (Genesis 15:6, Psalm 51:16,17, John 1:12,13, John 5:24, Romans 4, Ephesians 2, Titus 3 ad infinitum).

  47. liv4jc says:

    When we come to this evidence-based apologetic stale mate, we must turn to the nature of God, the nature of man, who the Bible declares God to be, who the Bible declares men to be, and the means by which man can be freed from his condition. Both Mormonism and Christianity have their answers to these questions, but which answer is feasible? Is God a God who justifies or not?
    Like the heresy of pure Arminianism, Mormonism claims that Christ only suffered for our sins, and did not pay for them. What Christ did do was mediate our debt with Heavenly Father, so we now owe the debt to Jesus, under the same credit terms. Therefore, in Mormonism it is necessary for those who exercise their will to believe in Christ to work to become righteous, as He was righteous, by following His commandments, to pay Him back. This is in direct contradiction to Romans 4:4.This creates a salvation that is only a possibility, and not a guaranteed reality. Added to this burden of works (contrary to what Hank replied earlier) is the necessity of absolute sinlessness to obtain exaltation.

  48. liv4jc says:

    We have the parable of the creditor and debtor as explained in the 1997 Gospel Principles Manual ch. 12 pp 75-78, also in 1997 Gospel Principles Manual ch. 39 p. 252 we have, “Elder Kimball said: “To every forgiveness there is a condition.. . . The fasting, the prayers, the humility must be equal to or greater than the sin. There must be a broken heart and a contrite spirit. . . . There must be tears and genuine change of heart. There must be conviction of the sin, abandonment of the evil, confession of the error to properly constituted authorities
    of the Lord” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 353). And also, “But Elder Kimball warns: “Even though forgiveness is so abundantly promised, there is no promise nor indication of forgiveness to any soul who does not totally repent. . . . We can hardly be too forceful in reminding people that they cannot sin and be forgiven and then sin again and again and expect forgiveness” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 353, 360). Those who receive forgiveness and then repeat the sin are held accountable for their former sins” (see D&C 82:7; Ether
    2:15) ibid. There are plenty more proof-texts of this doctrine, but to save space this will suffice. Man can never stop sinning completely, so he will continually be held accountable for all former sins.

    So what we see here is a gospel of hopelessness, not the Christian gospel of helplessness. Salvation or exaltation is impossible for the Mormon, despite the claims that will follow that I have taken those words out of context. The reason I did not quote Mormon scripture is because they are supposed to have a unified church and this Gospel Principles manual is used to teach church doctrine. The Mormon God may be Min, or Horus, or Isis, but he surely is not YHWY or our Lord Jesus Christ. My God justifies. My God save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them (Hebrews 7:25).
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my faith.

  49. bfwjr says:

    Darn fine defense of the faith Hanksaint.Just like the X-Files one weird story after another. I wuz born and raised in Youtah, SLC to be precise. I was raised around the GA’s and their dang kid’s. I have met most of them at one point or another and hung around in quiet moments at their houses. They are a lot like you, they are SPECIAL and they KNOW it. Even as a young kid I loved to “play with em”, ya know, ask em a tough question and get stock cheese-ball reply and act like I was “blown away” with their great insights. What a blast. Stroking those massive egos and receiving puffed up reply’s and then watching them deliver their pronouncements from the pulpit during General Conference with feigned and bogus humility. It used to turn my stomach (still does). Thankfully I found Jesus Christ and took him up on an offer only a fool would refuse.
    Unlike the X-Files his message is simple and beautiful. The one who loves you most will give you all, if you let him. I can’t seem to break my mind of toying with “the saints”. Too much inbreeding here I guess. God love brother. Find him before it’s too late.

  50. Michael P says:

    Hank, but I beleive it was Martin Harris who stated they only saw them with their spiritual eyes. So, again, here we are, back to that stalemate mentioned above.

    It is very true we can compare notes and evidence, but liv4jc has some excellent points. In short, he says we are to go to the Bible.

    But why the Bible? I’d say for a few reasons: one, it is the one text we both agree to be the word of God. Two, even Mormons beleive it to be the most important of scripture. Three, it has other items listed in it that are trusted.

    So, then, if we use the Bible as our common and reliable guide, we have to look at what it says.

Comments are closed.