Mistakes In The News About Polygamy And Mormons

[Snow]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 20 2004, 04:40 PM

I am not discussing miracles here Snow. One cannot prove or disprove a miracle. A miracle by its very nature is an un-natural and abnormal event.....thus the reason why it is called miraculous. You are talking apples and oranges. I am asking you.... where is the archeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon? You are asking me to prove that past miracles actually happened!

I can no more prove that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin or that he actually turned water into wine then you could prove to me that there are three Nephites that actually exist and still walk the earth today.....unless you have a polaroid photo that you would like to show us Mr. Snow. It would be impressive if you could actually prove that the Nephites ever really existed at all.

Don't even bother posting anything to me Mr. Snow if you are just going to be asking purposefully assanine questions that you could not even answer yourself. I am not interested in having little wars of words with you and wasting my time posting messages to somebody who would rather play games. You put all Born Again Christians in the same category as Ed Decker and Walter Martin as you mock and criticize me and others simply because we disagree with you theologically and you label us all as you put us all in your neat pigeon holes.

Esteban,

You have no clue what you are talking about, do you? You open your mouth and stuff just comes out. You say that you can't prove a miracle? What planetoid did you learn that from. If someone had some water (that was tested and shown to be water) and someone then turned the water to wine which was tested and shown to be wine, would that not be proof? According to you, such a thing could not be proven. Have you ever considered drinking said wine and then going driving the wrong way down the I15?

What you can't prove, however, is that the Bible is true or that Christ lived. Well, if you did prove it - that would be a miracle. Let me define hypocrite: someone who claims the Bible is true but can't prove it, and demands proof that the BOM is true, Mr Snow lover.

Another example of you making things up out of whole cloth is this dishonest and fabricated statement: "You put all Born Again Christians in the same category as Ed Decker and Walter Martin as you mock and criticize me and others simply because we disagree with you theologically and you label us all as you put us all in your neat pigeon holes." Frankly that is plain untrue and you are an untruth teller for saying it Mr. Snow lover. 1. I don't put all born-agains into the same category and the lying, hypocritical, immoral fake Dr. Martin and Ed Decker - just the lying or the hypocritical ones.

Another example of you fabricating untruth is your false claim that I mock and criticize anyone because I disagree with them theologically. Hogwash. I disagree with Maureen, I disagree will Cal, I disagree with Winnie, I disagree with Jason, I disagree with Kay, I disagree with Biz, I disagree with Mother Teresa Via Verde de la Cruz of the Seven Wounds. I don't mock them, least not much lately. Why? Because they aren't hypocritical liars like the fake Dr. Walter Martin. I mock you, not because I disagree with your flavor of the month, gospel-lite, flee from responsibility, feel-good theology (though I think your theology silly, I don't find it particularly mock-worthy) but because you attack the Mormon Church and you do it with a snide tone and a pasty complexion.

Tell us, what date Enclycopdia Biblica did I use, since you claim it is outdated?

By the way Stephen. I don't think that you understand the word "bigot" cause you are using it wrong. {One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.} I am not intolerant of you because your religion differs dear boy, the way that you are of Mormons. I mock you because of your behavior towards Mormons.

Now don't talk to me for the next 20 minutes. I'm gonna go get saved.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Paul Osborne@Mar 20 2004, 04:50 AM

bizabra,

You will always be one of my goddesses!

Paul O

Thanks, Paul (blushing and giggling)

p.s. Your avatar makes me weak in the knees. . . . . . . . ;-)

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 18 2004, 03:05 PM

Yes.............The Book of Abraham is a fraud plain and simple because it is not at all what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church claim that it is. If Outshined wishes to continue to bury his head in the sand on this issue its of no concern to me.

It may be a 'fraud'...but it is a very spiritually beneficial fraud. I think that many expectations were placed upon Joseph Smith...and he was just a man. He proved it often that he was a people pleaser... (Martin Harris and the 116 pages for instance) and it got him into a lot of trouble...

But the 'revelations' and 'insight and knowledge' given in the BofA...is well worth the scandal....if anyone has ears to hear,....let him hear.. :)

Peace--regarding JS being a "people pleaser"---I think it is more that he was a Martin Harris pleaser, for a good reason---Martin Harris had MONEY! Do I need to say more?

[Cal]

Yes.............The Book of Abraham is a fraud plain and simple because it is not at all what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church claim that it is. If Outshined wishes to continue to bury his head in the sand on this issue its of no concern to me.

It may be a 'fraud'...but it is a very spiritually beneficial fraud. I think that many expectations were placed upon Joseph Smith...and he was just a man. He proved it often that he was a people pleaser... (Martin Harris and the 116 pages for instance) and it got him into a lot of trouble...

But the 'revelations' and 'insight and knowledge' given in the BofA...is well worth the scandal....if anyone has ears to hear,....let him hear.. :)

Peace--regarding JS being a "people pleaser"---I think it is more that he was a Martin Harris pleaser, for a good reason---Martin Harris had MONEY! Do I need to say more?

What insights in the BoA can we not do without? Actually, the BoA is mostly an embarrassment that the church leaders probably wish had never been accepted as scripture (and it wasn't until the 1870's or so, and I could be off 10 years either way).

The most controversial and embarrasing part of the BoA is the inference that people of African decent are somehow INFERIOR. This is really just an old testament reference to the seed of Cain being relegated to servant status. BTW it was the theological basis for one of the most horrific doctrines of early Christianity--the justification of slavery. BTW, the OT approved of slavery--does that mean God did too?

The church has all but disavowed any interpretation of the BoA as meaning that Africans were ever considered as INFERIOR. BY certainly considered them inferior and that is why he denied them the priesthood.

I'll bet a lot of GA's wish they could waive a wand and make the BoA disappear. I don't find that it has ANYTHING useful to say; and what it does seem to say is useless speculation about Kolob, and time and other issues better addressed by science, not religion. It seems that when ever religion starts wandering down the path into the scientific realm, religion comes out with a burr stuck between its toes.

[Guest Starsky]

What insights in the BoA can we not do without? Actually, the BoA is mostly an embarrassment that the church leaders probably wish had never been accepted as scripture (and it wasn't until the 1870's or so, and I could be off 10 years either way).

I don't know...I like it.

The most controversial and embarrasing part of the BoA is the inference that people of African decent are somehow INFERIOR.

Could you quote me this reference?

This is really just an old testament reference to the seed of Cain being relegated to servant status. BTW it was the theological basis for one of the most horrific doctrines of early Christianity--the justification of slavery. BTW, the OT approved of slavery--does that mean God did too?

Men can make of it what they will, but to have an accurate accounting helps us understand the way the Lord works...fake or not...because it endorses the OT.

The church has all but disavowed any interpretation of the BoA as meaning that Africans were ever considered as INFERIOR. BY certainly considered them inferior and that is why he denied them the priesthood.

It really doesn't make or break the BoA because all of that is in the OT as well.

I'll bet a lot of GA's wish they could waive a wand and make the BoA disappear. I don't find that it has ANYTHING useful to say; and what it does seem to say is useless speculation about Kolob, and time and other issues better addressed by science, not religion. It seems that when ever religion starts wandering down the path into the scientific realm, religion comes out with a burr stuck between its toes.

I don't agree. I love it....and the thing about time is found in the NT as well.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 21 2004, 12:33 PM

What insights in the BoA can we not do without? Actually, the BoA is mostly an embarrassment that the church leaders probably wish had never been accepted as scripture (and it wasn't until the 1870's or so, and I could be off 10 years either way).

I don't know...I like it.

The most controversial and embarrasing part of the BoA is the inference that people of African decent are somehow INFERIOR.

Could you quote me this reference?

This is really just an old testament reference to the seed of Cain being relegated to servant status. BTW it was the theological basis for one of the most horrific doctrines of early Christianity--the justification of slavery. BTW, the OT approved of slavery--does that mean God did too?

Men can make of it what they will, but to have an accurate accounting helps us understand the way the Lord works...fake or not...because it endorses the OT.

The church has all but disavowed any interpretation of the BoA as meaning that Africans were ever considered as INFERIOR. BY certainly considered them inferior and that is why he denied them the priesthood.

It really doesn't make or break the BoA because all of that is in the OT as well.

I'll bet a lot of GA's wish they could waive a wand and make the BoA disappear. I don't find that it has ANYTHING useful to say; and what it does seem to say is useless speculation about Kolob, and time and other issues better addressed by science, not religion. It seems that when ever religion starts wandering down the path into the scientific realm, religion comes out with a burr stuck between its toes.

I don't agree. I love it....and the thing about time is found in the NT as well.

Peace--I certainly cannot criticize the fact that you like and enjoy the BoA. Personally I find it kind of non-sensical, but that is my personal thing, not intended to be a put down of anyone else's take on it . (BTW--thank you for the supportive remarks made on my behalf on another thread)

SEE Abraham 1:21- 27. This is a scripture that has been quoted, mostly pre 1978, by mormons to explain why Africans couldn't hold the priesthood.

The fact that a lot of the BoA agrees or supports the OT does nothing for me--IMHO the old testament is full of great stuff and also a lot of really stupid, uninspired politcal garbage--one of those being the support for slavery. That the BoA supports those ideas says nothing for it , IMHO.( That is probably one of Paul's "LIES" that he thinks I tell.

Pauld---Truth is: it is an OPINION, Paul. O-P-I-N-I-O-N Read my lips :) Remember Paul: opinions are not LIES---they are, opinions. For the truth, we can all wait until we DIE, then we will know the truth. For now, let's all just take things with a little more sense of humor. I admire your conviction, but me thinks you take yourself a bit too seriously.

[Stephen]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 20 2004, 07:50 PM

Esteban,

You have no clue what you are talking about, do you? You open your mouth and stuff just comes out. You say that you can't prove a miracle? What planetoid did you learn that from. If someone had some water (that was tested and shown to be water) and someone then turned the water to wine which was tested and shown to be wine, would that not be proof? According to you, such a thing could not be proven. Have you ever considered drinking said wine and then going driving the wrong way down the I15?

What you can't prove, however, is that the Bible is true or that Christ  lived. Well, if you did prove it - that would be a miracle. Let me define hypocrite: someone who claims the Bible is true but can't prove it, and demands proof that the BOM is true, Mr Snow lover.

Another example of you making things up out of whole cloth is this dishonest and fabricated statement: "You put all Born Again Christians in the same category as Ed Decker and Walter Martin as you mock and criticize me and others simply because we disagree with you theologically and you label us all as you put us all in your neat pigeon holes." Frankly that is plain untrue and you are an untruth teller for saying it Mr. Snow lover. 1. I don't put all born-agains into the same category and the lying, hypocritical, immoral fake Dr. Martin and Ed Decker - just the lying or the hypocritical ones.

Another example of you fabricating untruth is your false claim that I mock and criticize anyone because I disagree with them theologically. Hogwash. I disagree with Maureen, I disagree will Cal, I disagree with Winnie, I disagree with Jason, I disagree with Kay, I disagree with Biz,  I disagree with Mother Teresa Via Verde de la Cruz of the Seven Wounds. I don't mock them, least not much lately. Why? Because they aren't hypocritical liars like the fake Dr. Walter Martin. I mock you, not because I disagree with your flavor of the month, gospel-lite, flee from responsibility, feel-good theology (though I think your theology silly, I don't find it particularly mock-worthy) but because you attack the Mormon Church and you do it with a snide tone and a pasty complexion.

Tell us, what date Enclycopdia Biblica did I use, since you claim it is outdated?

By the way Stephen. I don't think that you understand the word "bigot" cause you are using it wrong. {One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.} I am not intolerant of you because your religion differs dear boy, the way that you are of Mormons. I mock you because of your behavior towards Mormons.

Now don't talk to me for the next 20 minutes.  I'm gonna go get saved.

Of course I cannot prove a miracle or miracles that happened in the past....unless you have time machine Mr. Snowball!

You said: "bigot" cause you are using it wrong. {One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.}"

Exactly!!......So as soon as you can be civil with me and quit being intolerant and nasty just because I don't agree with your flavor of Christianity then you can go howl at the moon and rant and rave like a lunatic for all I care. Being a bigoted jerk does not make you look smart Mr. Snow.......just conceited and assanine at best.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 22 2004, 10:26 AM

Of course I cannot prove a miracle or miracles that happened in the past....unless you have time machine Mr. Snowball!

You said: "bigot" cause you are using it wrong. {One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.} Exactly!!......So as soon as you can be civil with me and quit being intolerant and nasty just because I don't agree with your flavor of Christianity then you can go howl at the moon and rant and rave like a lunatic for all I care.

Ah, but dear Stephen, you do care. If you didn't care you would make up little names like "Mr. Snowball" to call me.

This is such an interesing look into your psyche - Serapha is going through it too. You both publically pronounce that you don't care what I say all the while you know that it is untrue and you know that I know it is untrue and we both know that everyone reading your posts know it untrue.

What emotional or psychological motivation would drive you or Serapha to say something so obviously contradicted by the facts. Seems deliberately self-destructive to your credibility, doesn't it.

Here is another thing with you critic types. You want to be free to mock and bagger and belittle and denouce a thing so personal as another's religious faith, and then act all distraugt when someone notices your behavior and is offended by it. You attack my faith and then act like it is horrible that I speak out against your behavior of attacking my faith. How does that work for you Esteban? How hard is it to twist your thinking in such a knot that such makes sense for you?

Have you ever thought about taking the snot out of your voice?

Unless the point is blatantly stupid, I could care less when people believe differently than I do. It the tone that I react to.

[Stephen]

Its a two way street Snow......if you want me to be nice to you then you better get rid of the nasty attitude. Its amazing that anybody ever would want to be around you with that watermelon head egotistical attitude you have.

[Snow]

Mr. Snowball!

You said: "bigot" cause you are using it wrong. {One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.}"

Exactly!!......So as soon as you can be civil with me and quit being intolerant and nasty just because I don't agree with your flavor of Christianity then you can go howl at the moon and rant and rave like a lunatic for all I care. Being a bigoted jerk does not make you look smart Mr. Snow.......just conceited and assanine at best.

Hey Stephen,

I see that you just edited your last post to take out the part that says you couldn't care less what I think. (see my quote of your post for comparison). Good choice since it was so dishonest.

So what were you thinking in between the original post and the time you went back and edited to be more insulting? Were you just staring at you computer screen, steam rising up under your collar, thinking "OHHH, I didn't call him enough names. I am gonna call him a jerk and see how he likes that. Yeah! That's what I'll do. NO, WAIT! I'll call him a 'bigoted jerk' and then that will really show him. OOHH, OOHH... then for good measure I will say assine. Can I say that an not get moderated? I don't care, I'm really pissed off now. It's a good thing I edited out the part that says I couldn't care less what he thinks. Hopefully I will get this thing edited before he sees it and figures out just how desperately I really do care... AH, AH, AH, I am going to add in lunatic and really show him.. yeah and rant and rave just to prove it. I will make that Snow suffer I tell you... I'm king of the world now!"

By the way Stephen, you're still misusing the word bigot.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 22 2004, 10:46 AM

Its a two way street Snow......if you want me to be nice to you then you better get rid of the nasty attitude. Its amazing that anybody ever would want to be around you with that watermelon head egotistical attitude you have.

"...and then I'll add watermelon head and he'll be sorry, oh yes, he'll be so very, very sorry... how dare you notice by offensive behavior..."

[Stephen]

Is disagreeing with and criticizing several of the beliefs of Mormonism the reason for your lack of self-contral Snow? Do you consider it a personal attack against you? Don't you realize that the beliefs of Mormonism demand scrutiny?

It was Joseph Smith who said that all the churches of the different sects are wrong and their professors are all corrupt. They have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof as they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth in which God is well pleased, speaking of the Church collectively, but not individually.

The Mormon Church claims to be the one and only true church on the face of the earth.

For this very fact it will always be subject to deep scrutiny and criticisms for false claims, false doctrines, the numerous additions and subtractions of texts from important revelations when one compares the Book of Commandments to modern day Doctrine&Covenants, fraudulent books like the Book of Abraham that does not come from Egyptian scolls that were written by Abraham........the scrolls don't talk about the life of Abraham or his teachings. Its a fraud pawned off by a con-artist and people deserve to know. The truth of these things will be known!

[Stephen]

For the full essay, including footnotes, see Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1995 or this CD-ROM. The following is presented on the internet with the author's permission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Egyptology and the Book of Abraham

by Stephen E. Thompson

In the entry on the facsimiles from the Book of Abraham in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism we are told that "the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practice." This is a remarkable statement in view of the fact that non-Mormon Egyptologists who have commented on Joseph Smith's interpretation of the facsimiles uniformly agree that his interpretations are not correct from the perspective of the Egyptologist, who attempts to interpret Egyptian religious literature and iconography as he or she believes the ancient Egyptians would have. For example, in the famous pamphlet compiled by the Reverend Spalding in 1912, James H. Breasted, the first person to hold a chair devoted to Egyptology in America, stated, "Joseph Smith's interpretation of [the facsimiles] . . . very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization." More recently, Klaus Baer, speaking of Joseph Smith's interpretation of the original of Facsimile 1 and the accompanying text, noted that "the Egyptologist interprets it differently, relying on a considerable body of parallel data, research and knowledge."

The matter which I propose to examine is whether the "present understanding of Egyptian religious practice" supports Joseph Smith's explanations of the facsimiles found in the Book of Abraham. In addition, I will discuss the contribution which a study of Egyptian history can make to our understanding of the nature of this book of scripture.

Let us begin with Facsimiles 1 and 3 of the Book of Abraham. A correct understanding of the original context and purpose of these scenes has been made possible by the recovery of the Joseph Smith Papyri from the files of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in 1967. Within this group of papyri is the original from which Facsimile 1 was derived. A study of the papyri shows that P.JS 1 was originally a vignette belonging to an Egyptian funerary text known as the First Book of Breathings, dating to the first century B.C., portions of which are also among the papyri recovered by the LDS church. A comparison of the material found in some of the Kirtland (Ohio) Egyptian papers with P.JS 1 and 11 indicates that the scene was damaged when Joseph Smith received it and that the missing portions were restored when Facsimile 1 was created. It is also very probable that Facsimile 3 served as the concluding vignette of this text. This conclusion is based on the fact that the name of the individual for whom this particular copy of the book of Breathings was prepared occurs as Horus in both P. JS 1 and Facsimile 3, that Facsimile 1 and 3 are similar in size, and that scenes similar to Facsimile 3 also occur in other known copies of the First Book of Breathings.

The First Book of Breathings is an Egyptian funerary text whose earliest attestation is the end of the 30th Egyptian Dynasty (ca. 380-343 B.C.). This text was buried with the deceased and was intended to serve as a sort of "passport and guide" to achieving a blessed state in the hereafter. This involved the continued existence of the deceased in the company of Osiris, king of the Netherworld, and with the sun-god Re in his celestial bark. As a first step in achieving these goals, the deceased had to undergo the proper rituals of mummification. Papyrus Joseph Smith 1 (Facs. 1 in Abr.) depicts the god Anubis (Fig. 3 in Facs. 1) officiating in the embalming rites for the deceased individual, Horus (Fig. 2 in Facs. 1), shown lying on the bier. This scene does not portray a sacrifice of any sort. To note just a few instances in which Joseph Smith's interpretations of these figures differ from the way they are to be understood in their original context, consider the fact that Fig. 11 (in Facs. 1), which Joseph interprets as "designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians," is actually a palace fa ade, called a serekh, which was a frequent decoration on funerary objects. The serekh originally depicted "the front of a fortified palace . . . with its narrow gateway, floral tracery above the gates, clerestories, and recessed buttresses." Furthermore Joseph interpreted Figure 12 (Facs. 1) as "raukeeyang [a transliteration of the Hebrew word for firmament], signifying expanse or firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau [another Hebrew word], to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word Shaumahyeem [another Hebrew word]." In fact, these strokes represent water in which the crocodile, symbolizing the god Horus (Fig. 9 in Facs. 1), swims. Although it appears that the water is supported by the palace fa ade, this is simply an illusion produced by the perspective adopted in Egyptian art. Actually, everything shown above the fa ade is to be understood as occurring behind it, i.e., Figure 11 represents the wall surrounding the place in which the activity depicted in the scene occurs.

Baer has described Facsimile 3 (in Abr.) as "a summary, in one illustration, of what the [text] promised: The deceased, after successfully undergoing judgement, is welcomed into the presence of Osiris." Facsimile 3 shows the deceased, Horus (Fig. 5), being introduced before Osiris, the god of the dead (Fig. 1), by the goddess Maat (Fig. 4) and the god Anubis (Fig. 6). Osiris's wife, Isis (Fig. 2), stands behind him. That Figure 6 is to be identified as Anubis I consider a virtual certainty, owing to the fact that he is black (which is the customary color of Anubis) and because of the spike found on his head, which is actually the remnant of a dog's ear. In my opinion, none of Joseph Smith's interpretations of the figures in these scenes accord with the way in which the ancient Egyptians probably understood them.

So if this is the way the ancient Egyptians would have interpreted these figures, how can the statement be made that the prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accords "with present understanding of Egyptian religious practice"? First, it is important to note that the originals of these facsimiles of the Book of Abraham were created for a specific purpose, to provide for the successful transition of an individual to the afterlife upon his death. Every figure in the facsimiles had as its purpose the accomplishing of that goal. While it is possible that some of these figures might appear in other contexts, and take on other meanings in those contexts, in the context of the funerary papyri their interpretation is related to funerary purposes. The approach taken in attempting to support Joseph's interpretations of these figures is to compare them with figures found in other historical and textual contexts. It is simply not valid, however, to search through 3,000 years of Egyptian religious iconography to find parallels which can be pushed, prodded, squeezed, or linked in an attempt to justify Joseph's interpretations.

For example, there has been an effort made to associate Facsimile 1 with an Egyptian royal festival known as the Sed festival, whose purpose was "the symbolic renewing of the power of the kingship." Nibley has claimed that "in [the Sed- festival] the king is ritually put to death and then restored to life. An important part of the Sed festival was the choosing of a substitute to die for the king, so that he would not have to undergo the painful process to achieve resurrection."

There are serious obstacles which render this comparison invalid. First, there is the element of time. The last known depiction of the Sed festival dates to 690-664 B.C., and there is no evidence that the Sed festival was celebrated during the Greco-Roman period, the time during which P. JS 1 was created. Second, it is important to note the context in which these supposed parallels occur. Scenes of the Sed festival occurring in a private context, i.e., on an object belonging to a non-royal individual, are extremely rare, and I know of none which occur in funerary papyri. Third, the so-called "lion-furniture" scenes from the Sed festival bear no resemblance to the scene in P. JS 1. Finally, it should be noted that, while early generations of Egyptologists thought that the Sed festival involved the ritual murder of the king or his representative, more recent analysis has shown this is not the case. So even if the scene were derived from earlier depictions of the Sed festival, it would still have nothing to do with the sacrifice of anyone.

Nibley has compared Facsimile 3 (in Abr.) with scenes from Eighteenth Dynasty (1550-1295 B.C.) Egyptian tombs depicting the tomb owner in the presence of the King, since Joseph Smith claims that the scene shows Abraham "reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the King's court." Comparison of these two types of scenes runs into many of the same obstacles as the attempt to equate Facsimile 1 with the Sed festival scenes. There is a gap of over 1,000 years between the two types of scenes being compared. Nibley attempts to get around this by stating that this is a "timeless scene recognizable from predynastic monuments on down to the latest times." He cites no evidence which substantiates this claim. The work which Nibley relies on in making his comparison does not discuss any examples of such scenes from the period from which the Joseph Smith papyri derive. In fact, the scenes with which Nibley wishes to compare Facsimile 3 are atypical when viewed from the perspective of the history of Egyptian tomb decoration. It is also significant that the type of scene with which Nibley wishes to compare Facsimile 3 does not occur in funerary papyri. Comparison of Facsimile 3 to this type of scene is as spurious as that of Facsimile 1 with Sed festival scenes.

In addition to invalidating comparisons made between the facsimiles and other genres of Egyptian texts, attention to the original context of the facsimiles also serves to settle an on-going debate about whether Figure 3 in Facsimile 1 originally held a knife. Before the discovery of the papyri it was argued if this knife was original or if it was added by Joseph Smith. With the discovery of the original of Facsimile 1, it became apparent that Joseph indeed was the source of the "restoration" of the knife, as demonstrated by Ashment. There continue to be attempts, however, to argue that a knife was originally present based on accounts from individuals who saw the papyri in Kirtland or Nauvoo. The question never asked in arguments for the original presence of a knife is what would the knife have meant in its original, funerary, context. As stated earlier, Facsimile 1 represents the deceased individual, Horus, lying on a bier undergoing the rites of mummification by the god Anubis. While part of the mummification process did involve evisceration, I am aware of no instance in which this procedure is depicted. Given the Egyptians' reticence in depicting things which might be harmful to the deceased in his tomb, it is unlikely that an Egyptian would ever wish himself depicted being approached by a god with a knife. Knives are usually found in the hands of demons, protective deities such as Bes and Thoeris (who were the Egyptian god and goddess responsible for protecting women during childbirth), the door-keepers in the afterworld, and the devourer in the scenes of the judgement of the dead. I know of no instance in which Anubis is depicted with a knife. The original context of Facsimile 1 would not seem to admit the possibility of a knife in Anubis's hand, and the restoration of a knife does not, in my opinion, represent the original state of the papyrus.

Facsimile 2 is a drawing of an Egyptian funerary amulet known as a hypocephalus, which was placed under the head of the mummy and was intended to protect the head of the deceased, provide him with the sun's life-giving warmth, and to make it possible for him to join the sun god Re in his celestial boat, and thereby insure his continued, pleasant existence in the next life. Hypocephali are attested in Egypt during the Late Period and the Ptolemaic period. The interpretation of Facsimile 2 poses more of a challenge to Egyptologists, and therefore is a more fruitful ground for those seeking to justify Joseph Smith's interpretations of the figures in this facsimile. The challenge arises from the fact that many of the figures in the hypocephalus are not labeled and can only be tentatively identified through citing parallel illustrations and allusions in other texts. In interpreting the figures in the hypocephalus, Egyptologists rely on the fact that "the image of the hypocephalus presents the rising from the Duat, the rebirth of the deceased with the sun, the scenes are rich illustrations of Ch. 162 of the Book of the Dead." Concerning Joseph Smith's interpretations of the figures in this facsimile, it has been stated that "his explanations are, in general, reasonable in light of modern Egyptological knowledge." A comparison of Smith's interpretations with current Egyptological scholarship shows that this statement is also incorrect.

For example, Figure 5 is identified by Joseph Smith as "Enish-go-on-dosh," which he claims "is said by the Egyptians to be the sun." This figure actually depicts the celestial cow-goddess known as Ih.t-wrt, or Mh.t-wr.t (the great flood), or Hathor. Varga has identified this figure as "the most important in a hypocephalus." These goddesses were thought of as the mother of Re, the sun-god, with Mh.t-wr.t representing the flood from which he arises daily. It is important to note that, while this figure is associated with the sun, i.e., as the mother of the sun-god, it is never equated with the sun. The sun is always a masculine deity in Egyptian religion. Joseph Smith's interpretation might be adjudged close by some, by in my opinion it cannot be judged as "generally correct."

As another example of the attempt to justify Joseph's interpretations of the figures in this facsimile, note Facsimile 2, Figure 4, which has been claimed to be an instance in which the prophet "hits it right on the mark." The explanation given in the Book of Abraham notes that this figure "answers to the Hebrew word Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament of the heavens, also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand."

Admittedly, certain identification of this figure is not possible with the information currently available to the Egyptologist. Varga originally identified the figure as the god Sokar, but later resorted to the more vague description of "the mummy of a falcon with outspread wings." The problem is that this figure does not match exactly the iconography of any known falcon god, i.e., mummiform with outspread wings. One suggestion is that this figure is to be identified with the falcon who rises from the Duat in Book of the Dead spell 71.

When attempting to evaluate the correctness of Joseph's explanation of the figure, it should be noted that there is no evidence that the ancient Egyptians ever depicted the sky (firmament of the heavens) as a ship of any sort. In order to get around this, Mormon apologists dissect the wings of the bird in the ship and compare them with depictions of the sky as outspread wings. Rhodes identifies the bird in Figure 4 as Horus-Sokar and claims that "Horus was a personification of the sky." It should be pointed out, however, that Joseph's interpretation of the figure apparently applies to the whole figure, not to only a part of it. I can see no justification for removing a part of the figure and then claiming to find interpretations which can be forced to agree with Joseph's explanation.

In order to support Joseph's identification of this figure as the number 1,000, reference is made to a supposed Egyptian "ship of 1000" found in a passage from a sarcophagus dating to the Egyptian 26th Dynasty. There we find the expression wi3.f n h3 r tpwy.fy, which Sander-Hansen renders as "seinem Schiffe der 1000 bis zu seinen beiden K pfen" (his ship of 1,000 up to its two heads). In Sander-Hansen's discussion of the passage, he notes that he understands this phrase to mean a ship 1,000 cubits in length. This text is a later version of Book of the Dead Spell 136a. Recent translators have recognized that h3 in this phrase does not refer to the number 1,000, but to the word h3 meaning flowers or buds. T. G. Allen, in his translation of the Book of the Dead, renders the phrase as "the bark with blossom(s) at its ends," and Faulkner, in his translation, renders it as "the bark . . . which has lotus-flowers on its ends." In connection with this spell, Milde notes that "lotus-shaped prows are very common in various vignettes." In other words, there is no Egyptian "ship of 1000," only a ship with lotus-shaped prows. And all this is quite beside the point. Joseph, in his explanation of the figure in the facsimile said that it was "also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand." It was not. There is no evidence that any ship was ever used as a numerical figure to represent 1,000 or any other number. It should also be noted that of those who wish to equate the figure from the facsimile with the so-called "ship of 1000," none has ever produced an image of this ship and then compared it to the facsimile. It is simply assumed that if a ship of 1,000 can be found in an Egyptian text, it must be the one Joseph Smith was talking about.

Finally, it has been repeatedly claimed that Figure 6 in Facsimile 2, which is a depiction of the four sons of Horus (also found as Figures 5-8 in Facsimile 1) "could indeed `represent this earth in its four quarters' in the ancient world, as the explanation to the facsimile in the Book of Abraham says." As far as ancient Egypt was concerned, there is no evidence currently available to support this claim. There is only one context in which the sons of Horus are associated with the cardinal directions, i.e., the "earth in its four quarters." They were sent out, in the form of birds, as heralds of the king's coronation. In this setting, Duamutef (Facs. 1, Fig. 6) went to the East, Qebehsenuef (Facs. 1, Fig. 5) to the West, Amset (Facs. 1, Fig. 8) to the South, and Hapi (Facs. 1, Fig. 7) to the North. I must emphasize that it is only in this context, and in the form of birds, that these gods were associated with the cardinal points. In a funerary context no such relationship is evident. Furthermore, the fact that these gods were sent to the four quarters of the earth does not mean that the Egyptians equated them with these directions. There is no evidence that they did so.

Authorship

One area in which the field of Egyptology aids our understanding of the nature of the Book of Abraham is in its authorship. On one hand, it has been claimed that the Book of Abraham is an actual Abraham holograph. Recently, Paul Hoskisson stated that "the content of the Book of Abraham did not pass through numerous revisions, the hands of countless scribes. . . . It purports to be a rendering of an ancient document originally composed by Abraham himself," and as such he maintains that the Book of Abraham cannot contain anachronisms, i.e., things that could not have occurred during Abraham's lifetime. Others have argued that while the contents of the text might in some way go back to Abraham, Abraham himself was not the author of the text of the Book of Abraham as it now stands in the Pearl of Great Price. In view of the fact that the heading of the Book of Abraham in the current edition of the Pearl of Great Price states that the text represents "the writings of Abraham . . . written by his own hand, upon papyrus," I believe it is likely that many members of the church believe that the Book of Abraham is the result of a translation of a direct Abraham holograph.

One way to judge whether the Book of Abraham was translated directly from an Abraham holograph is by whether the text of the book contains anachronisms. Of course, the first thing that has to be determined is when Abraham lived. The answer to this is by no means simple, and scholarly estimates for the age of the patriarchs range from 2200 to 1200 B.C. Many scholars maintain that it is not possible to define a time-period as the most likely setting for the tales of the patriarchs. Others would argue that while it is not possible to assign a date to the lifetime of Abraham, it is possible to situate chronologically the so-called "Patriarchal Age." Many scholars would place this sometime during the first half of the second millennium, i.e., 2000-1500 B.C., while others would narrow the time frame within this period. In our search for anachronisms it would be safe to say that anything occurring after 1500 B.C. is definitely anachronistic to Abraham's lifetime, and since Abraham is portrayed as the first patriarch, anything occurring at the end of this period is probably anachronistic.

What then are the anachronisms which I believe can be identified in the Book of Abraham? First, the association of Facsimile 1 with the Book of Abraham cannot derive from Abraham, since Facsimile 1 dates to approximately 100 B.C. There are passages in the text of the Book of Abraham which are attributed to Abraham and which refer to Facsimile 1 (Abr. 1:12, 14). The most straightforward reading of these passages indicates that Abraham himself was responsible for the association of Facsimile 1 with his own attempted sacrifice. The book opens with Abraham speaking in the first person (v. 1), and there is no reason to think that the "I" in verse 12, where we read "I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record," refers to anyone except Abraham. These passages are unquestionably anachronistic to Abraham's day.

Second, there are several proper nouns in the text of the Book of Abraham which also postdate Abraham. I will consider them in the order of their occurrence in the text.

The first such term, Chaldea, occurs in Abraham 1:1, and subsequently verses 8, 13, 20, 23, 29-30, and 2:4. The Chaldeans (Hebrew kasdim) were a people who spoke a West-Semitic language similar to Aramaic and who appeared in the ninth century B.C. in the land south of Babylonia, and appear to have migrated from Syria. Westermann has noted that the city of Ur could be qualified as "of the Chaldees" only from the tenth to the sixth centuries, in any case, not before the first millennium.

The second anachronistic word we encounter in the text is Pharaoh. In Abraham 1:6 we find "Pharaoh, king of Egypt." In Abraham 1:20 we are told that Pharaoh "signifies king by royal blood." There is one passage in which the term is treated as a name, rather than as a title. In Abraham 1:25 we read "the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham."

The word Pharaoh derives from an Egyptian term for the king's palace, which in Egyptian could be called pr-c3, i.e., great house. This term is not attested as a title for the ruler of Egypt until 1504 B.C., during the reign of Thutmosis III, but was probably used as such earlier in the Eighteenth Dynasty (which began in 1560 B.C.). It has been suggested that Pharaoh was simply Joseph's method of translation for a word meaning king, and that the word never actually occurred in the text. I would reiterate that in Abraham 1:25 Pharaoh appears to be used as a proper noun. That Joseph considered Pharaoh to be an individual's name is apparent from his explanation of Facsimile 3, Figure 2, where we read "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

The next anachronistic word encountered is the name of the place of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham, which is called "Potiphar's hill" (Abr. 1:10, 20). Potiphar is the Hebrew form of the Egyptian name, P3-di-p3-rc, which means "the one whom Re (the sun god), has given." The name occurs in two forms in the Old Testament, as Potiphar, the name of the Egyptian who bought Joseph (Gen. 37:36), and as Potiphera, the priest of On, who was Joseph's father-in-law (Gen. 41:45). Names of the form P3-di DN are common in Egypt, but are first attested during the eleventh century B.C. The only occurrence of the Egyptian equivalent of Potiphar is found on Cairo stele 65444, which dates to the Egyptian 21st dynasty (1069-945 B.C.).

The final anachronistic name in the Book of Abraham is Egyptus. In Abraham 1:23 we read: "The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden." First, Egyptus is not a Chaldean word, but Greek, and does not mean "forbidden" in any language. The Greek "Egyptus" apparently derives from Egyptian hwt-k3-pth, "the house of the ka of Ptah," which was the name of a temple of Ptah in Memphis. During the New Kingdom this term came to designate the town of Memphis, the capital of Egypt, in which the temple was located. There is some evidence that forms of this name were being used by foreigners to refer to the country of Egypt. It is attested in a Mycenaean Linear B tablet from Knossos, which is usually dated to around 1375 B.C., i.e., 125 years after Abraham, as a man's name, presupposing that it was already a name for Egypt. Note also that the text (Abr. 1:22-25) implies that Egypt derived its name from an eponymous ancestor, Egyptus. Given the facts concerning the origin of the word Egyptus, however, this cannot represent historical reality.

From the foregoing discussion it appears that if one accepts a date of sometime in the first half of the second millennium for Abraham, then there are four anachronistic names in the text, Chaldea, Potiphar, Egyptus, and probably Pharaoh. Since these are names, it is not likely that they are translation equivalents of other words in the original text. I believe that there is sufficient evidence of anachronisms in the text of the Book of Abraham to conclude that it cannot be an actual Abraham holograph, i.e., that it was not "written by his [Abraham's] own hand upon papyrus."

History

One of the primary events of the Book of Abraham is the attempted sacrifice of Abraham. We are told that in the land of the Chaldeans the "god of Pharaoh," which apparently should be taken to mean "the god Pharaoh," was worshipped (Abr. 1:7, 9-10, 13, 17). There was even a priesthood dedicated to the worship of pharaoh, and this priesthood offered human sacrifices to him. We are told that a "thank-offering" was offered consisting of a child (v. 10), and that three "virgins" were killed on the sacrificial altar because they "would not bow down to worship gods of wood or of stone" (v. 11). Finally, the priest of Pharaoh attempted to sacrifice Abraham, at which point the Lord intervened, rescued Abraham, and destroyed the altar and the priest (vv. 15-20).

From this we can infer several things. Apparently Pharaoh and several other Egyptian deities were being worshipped in Chaldea. We are not told specifically that the other gods were Egyptian, but we are told that the worship practices were "after the manner of the Egyptians" (Abr. 1:9, 11), and the images which are said to represent these gods are Egyptian (v. 14). We can therefore plausibly infer that they were Egyptian deities. Part of the worship of these gods involved human sacrifice. The religion of that time and place was intolerant, anyone choosing not to engage in these worship practices ran the risk of loosing his or her life. These practices seem to have been endorsed or promoted, or at least encouraged, by the Egyptian pharaoh. We are told that at the death of the priest who attempted to sacrifice Abraham there was "great mourning . . . in the court of Pharaoh" (v. 20).

The first thing we have to ask ourselves is to what extent were Egyptian worship practices introduced into Asia. If one accepts that Ur of the Chaldees refers to Tell Muqayyar, in southern Mesopotamia, then from the start the text must be judged historically erroneous, because the Egyptians never had a strong cultural influence on Mesopotamia. There have been attempts to locate Abraham's Ur near Haran. This area is also outside of Egypt's sphere of influence, even at the height of its empire. In order to evaluate the verisimilitude of the account found in the Book of Abraham, we have to examine Egypt's religious policy toward its Asiatic Empire, which first came into existence during the New Kingdom.

The results of such a study indicate that Egyptian gods were only rarely worshipped in Syria-Palestine, and then exceptionally. Rather than introducing Egyptian gods into Asia, the most common occurrence was for Egyptians stationed at posts and garrisons in Palestine to adopt the worship of the local Asiatic gods. Stefan Wimmer has recently written that the Egyptians "never thought about forcing the local population [of Syria-Palestine] to forsake their gods in exchange for Egyptian ones." Donald Redford states that the Egyptians "forced no one to accept Egyptian ways." Concerning the Egyptians' religious tolerance, J. Cerny has written:

Egyptians were tolerant to each other within Egypt itself and they were equally tolerant to the gods of a conquered country. . . . towards the native gods they behaved as they so often did in Egypt towards the god or goddess of another town: they simply considered them as different names and forms of their own Egyptian deities. It is clear that in these circumstances no heresy could arise, and with the exception of a short period under and immediately after Ekhnaton, nothing is known of religious persecution of any kind in Egypt.

One could argue that it is the Chaldeans doing the persecuting, not the Egyptians. In response, it could be said that Chaldeans had nothing to gain from forcing Egyptian worship practices on their people, since Egyptians did not expect it. Further, there is no evidence that any Asiatic land ever became so thoroughly Egyptianized that they would have adopted such a zealous attitude toward the Egyptian pharaoh on their own. Again, Redford has noted that "we have no evidence that these `official' Egyptian cults exerted a serious attraction on the local population [of Canaan]." Bleiberg maintains that "in Palestine, traces of the state religion of Egypt can be found. These traces, however are restricted to the Ramesside period [1295-1069 B.C.]. Their influence is superficial." So it appears that in the area over which they had direct control, and at the height of their imperial power in Syria-Palestine, the Egyptians made no effort to introduce their religion to their subject peoples, and they in turn exhibited little interest in the gods of their conquerors. It is therefore extremely unlikely that any of the areas suggested for the location of Ur would ever have adopted Egyptian religious practices to the extent called for in the Book of Abraham.

Conclusion

In the preceding I have argued that (1) Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are not in agreement with the meanings which these figures had in their original, funerary, context; (2) anachronisms in the text of the book make it impossible that it was translated from a text written by Abraham himself; and (3) what we know about the relationship between Egypt and Asia renders the account of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham extremely implausible. If one accepts that Joseph Smith was using the facsimiles in a fashion which was not consonant with their original purpose, it does not make sense to then insist that "the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices." I see no evidence that Joseph Smith had a correct conception of "Egyptian religious practices" or that a knowledge of such was essential to the production of the Book of Abraham.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.lds-mormon.com/thompsom_book_of...f_abraham.shtml

[Snow]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 22 2004, 10:58 AM

...Its a fraud pawned off by a con-artist and people deserve to know. The truth of these things will be known!

Hey Stephen,

Do you put on a funny hat and cap, stand up on the toliet and get a crazy Howard Dean look in your eye when you say such things?

I imagine that you know what you look like, kind of impotent, and angry, man on a mission... I mean lookey here Stephen, this thread is about polygamy and the media, you are in a personal spitting contest - and losing badly - with me and then you start spouting off about the Book of Abraham, like it's very existence is a personal attack on you.

How tall are you anyway? Sgallan is short too but he doesn't seem to have an issue with it. Learn to deal with it.

[Stephen]

Outshined relies on the work of apologists who ignore the real issues.

Why is not any part of the Book of Abraham text on the Egyptian scrolls especially when the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others were working on clearly shows that they were getting the text of the Book of Abraham from the Sen Sen scrolls?

The fact that the Book of Abraham text cannot be found in whole or in part anywhere on the scrolls is the silver bullet problem that Mormon apologists continually ignore.

Outshined says he has answers to serious problems with the Book of Abraham.........all he has is what if's, its possible, according to this theory this could have happened.

These are not answers........they are graspings at straws.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 22 2004, 11:24 AM

The fact that the Book of Abraham text cannot be found in whole or in part anywhere on the scrolls is the silver bullet problem that Mormon apologists continually ignore.

These are not answers........they are graspings at straws.

Yeah, you noticed how distraught we all are? Silver bullet put us right out of our misery.

Stephen, what is it that makes such much of your identity rolls up into the Church not being true? Must be a tough way to go through life - the Church doing so well and you hating it so...

[Stephen]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 22 2004, 11:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 22 2004, 11:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Stephen@Mar 22 2004, 11:24 AM

The fact that the Book of Abraham text cannot be found in whole or in part anywhere on the scrolls is the silver bullet problem that Mormon apologists continually ignore.

These are not answers........they are graspings at straws.

Yeah, you noticed how distraught we all are? Silver bullet put us right out of our misery.

Stephen, what is it that makes such much of your identity rolls up into the Church not being true? Must be a tough way to go through life - the Church doing so well and you hating it so...

How well the Mormon Church is or is not doing is inconsequential. Jesus Christ's ministry started off with him and twelve disciples. They were a small minority. Christianity is still a small minority compared to the rest of the world.

I find no security in numbers.......the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian Church on earth, but its successes do not validate their religious dogma, ceremonies, principles, ect., as being correct or the truth. The same can be said about the Mormon Church.

Actually, you do seem pretty distraught Snow. If what I said did not bother you then the whiney attitude of yours would be non-existent.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 22 2004, 01:42 PM

Christianity is still a small minority compared to the rest of the world.

Could you try something Stephen. I know it is a stretch but could you try opening your mouth without making stuff up? Try, k? Just try.

Christianity is not a small minority. It is a very, very, very big minority consisting of a whopping 2 billion adherents and 33% of the world's population.

Can't you find enough to talk about without fabricating facts at every turn. Really, what do you hope to accomplish? Do you think I won't catch your mistruths?

Besides which, you COMPLETELY missed the point and instead fabricated a point I didn't imply nor intend to be inferred. By the Church doing well, I mean that the Church serves as a vehicle that bring the gospel into the lives of people around the world and plays a significant and active part in helping people to connect with God.

Pay attention and try some honesty for once.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 22 2004, 12:24 PM

Outshined relies on the work of apologists who ignore the real issues.

These are not answers........they are graspings at straws.

I notice that when Paul was discussing the facts that JS got correct about the scrolls, Stephen hid in a corner until Paul was gone, then came out to make some blanket accusations about material he never read. He never addressed Paul's points at all.....

The points he thinks he understands and are so concrete are discussed in detail in the articles I linked to, but Stephen chooses to ignore the facts and pretend he has the answers.

The easiest way to avoid seeing your theories shot down is to pretend the answers don't exist......

[Stephen]

Originally posted by Outshined+Mar 22 2004, 03:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Mar 22 2004, 03:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Stephen@Mar 22 2004, 12:24 PM

Outshined relies on the work of apologists who ignore the real issues.

These are not answers........they are graspings at straws.

I notice that when Paul was discussing the facts that JS got correct about the scrolls, Stephen hid in a corner until Paul was gone, then came out to make some blanket accusations about material he never read. He never addressed Paul's points at all.....

The points he thinks he understands and are so concrete are discussed in detail in the articles I linked to, but Stephen chooses to ignore the facts and pretend he has the answers.

The easiest way to avoid seeing your theories shot down is to pretend the answers don't exist......

Nothing is shot down except your weak arguments. None of the things in those links you gave address the real issues or you would be bringing them forward ......you can't because there is nothing to bring forward. The theories of amateur apologists notwithstanding. I have been working 12 hour shifts at my job so if I did not catch all of Paul's nonsense then don't jump to conclusions Outshined. Some of us here have a life outside of this message board.

[Stephen]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 22 2004, 02:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 22 2004, 02:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Stephen@Mar 22 2004, 01:42 PM

Christianity is still a small minority compared to the rest of the world.

Could you try something Stephen. I know it is a stretch but could you try opening your mouth without making stuff up? Try, k? Just try.

Christianity is not a small minority. It is a very, very, very big minority consisting of a whopping 2 billion adherents and 33% of the world's population.

Can't you find enough to talk about without fabricating facts at every turn. Really, what do you hope to accomplish? Do you think I won't catch your mistruths?

Besides which, you COMPLETELY missed the point and instead fabricated a point I didn't imply nor intend to be inferred. By the Church doing well, I mean that the Church serves as a vehicle that bring the gospel into the lives of people around the world and plays a significant and active part in helping people to connect with God.

Pay attention and try some honesty for once.

The vast majority of the population of the earth is not Christian at all. We are indeed small in comparison. How that is a lie I do not know. Apparently you have your own definition of words as well.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 22 2004, 10:46 AM

Its a two way street Snow......if you want me to be nice to you then you better get rid of the nasty attitude. Its amazing that anybody ever would want to be around you with that watermelon head egotistical attitude you have.

We all adore our SNOW!

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 22 2004, 07:07 PM

We all adore our SNOW!

Indeed we do!

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Stephen+Mar 22 2004, 05:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Stephen @ Mar 22 2004, 05:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Mar 22 2004, 02:40 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Stephen@Mar 22 2004, 01:42 PM

Christianity is still a small minority compared to the rest of the world.

Could you try something Stephen. I know it is a stretch but could you try opening your mouth without making stuff up? Try, k? Just try.

Christianity is not a small minority. It is a very, very, very big minority consisting of a whopping 2 billion adherents and 33% of the world's population.

Can't you find enough to talk about without fabricating facts at every turn. Really, what do you hope to accomplish? Do you think I won't catch your mistruths?

Besides which, you COMPLETELY missed the point and instead fabricated a point I didn't imply nor intend to be inferred. By the Church doing well, I mean that the Church serves as a vehicle that bring the gospel into the lives of people around the world and plays a significant and active part in helping people to connect with God.

Pay attention and try some honesty for once.

The vast majority of the population of the earth is not Christian at all. We are indeed small in comparison. How that is a lie I do not know. Apparently you have your own definition of words as well.

But if you consider how many were eaten by lions, murdered in China, and other non-christian nations....it just stands to reason ...doesn't it?

We are, however, the majority in heaven.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 22 2004, 06:38 PM

Nothing is shot down except your weak arguments. None of the things in those links you gave address the real issues or you would be bringing them forward ......you can't because there is nothing to bring forward. The theories of amateur apologists notwithstanding. I have been working 12 hour shifts at my job so if I did not catch all of Paul's nonsense then don't jump to conclusions Outshined. Some of us here have a life outside of this message board.

Funny how you can claim that your argument has not been addressed by the links I provided, but you haven't read them, have you? It's easy to keep crowing when you close your eyes to the answers that have been provided for you. I won't spoon-feed you; you'll read or you won't, but don't try and claim some sort of "victory" or expertise on the subject when you've only read one side of the subject, okay?.

It's easy to call an argument "weak" when you don't actually read it. The fact that you referred to them as "amateurs" is telling..... Keep dazzling me with your scholarship.

Your demanding work load notwithstanding, you still went out of your way to avoid addressing Paul's comments. You seem to have plenty of time now......

As far as life outside the board, we know you still have to make time to argue with Latter-day Saints, so I don't know how much of a life you have.

I myself am out of state this week, and will be available only sporadically, so try to satisfy your need for LDS interaction with Snow.

And Snow is right; your idea of "vast minority" is stretching it thin........

-Outshined