Mistakes In The News About Polygamy And Mormons

[Snow]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 22 2004, 05:40 PM

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.

Oh, now I get it Stephen. You weren't making it up, you just don't understand the math. Still you have to admit that you have been making up a lot of stuff lately so I plead your own history as my excuse for misunderstanding your intention.

Okay. There are about 6 plus billion people in the world. Of all religious bodies, including the body of 'no-religion' Christians dwarf all other groups, almost twice the size of the next closest group, the Muslims. Christians represent 1/3 of the worlds population. Christians are a minority. One way to look at it is a minority is a group with less than 50% of the pop. At 1/3 the world population and 2 billion plus adherents, it is a very big minority, not a very small minority like you mistakenly claim.

Does that help and where did you go to school?

[Lindy]

I am just sitting back, reading and LOVING THIS!!!!

This is GREAT!!!! Thanks guys.... After a days work, I like some good entertainment

[Stephen]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 22 2004, 08:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 22 2004, 08:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Stephen@Mar 22 2004, 05:40 PM

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.

Oh, now I get it Stephen. You weren't making it up, you just don't understand the math. Still you have to admit that you have been making up a lot of stuff lately so I plead your own history as my excuse for misunderstanding your intention.

Okay. There are about 6 plus billion people in the world. Of all religious bodies, including the body of 'no-religion' Christians dwarf all other groups, almost twice the size of the next closest group, the Muslims. Christians represent 1/3 of the worlds population. Christians are a minority. One way to look at it is a minority is a group with less than 50% of the pop. At 1/3 the world population and 2 billion plus adherents, it is a very big minority, not a very small minority like you mistakenly claim.

Does that help and where did you go to school?

Its not an issue of knowing math or not. Small is a relative term. For example one million compared to two hundred billion is small in comparison.

Its like saying...........How tall is tall?

You can disagree with me, but to say I'm wrong about something when you don't know what you are talking about just shows that you like to split hairs over a difference of opinion. Nobody said "very" small. That was a word you added to try and bolster your weak argument.

[Stephen]

Originally posted by Outshined+Mar 22 2004, 07:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Mar 22 2004, 07:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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

I have read alot of the information on the websites from the links you provided. I can understand the excitement of a Mormon(like yourself) who desparately wants to believe the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church purports it to be; would anxiously grab on to weak theories with holes in them and any excuse/theories the Mormon apologists could come up with to make you feel better.

You ignored Stephen Thompson's comments altogether and his demolishing of the Book of Abraham argument as you accuse me of ignoring things.

If you have the answers why are you afraid to address the issues?

Quit being a wimp for crying out loud!

Just because I disagree with the far fetched ideas of those Mormon apologists does not mean that I have not read what they said! Quit making strawman-arguments.

I have read most of the information you provided. I doubt you read what Stephen Thompson said at all.

I disagree with your weak side of the argument..........I'm not ignorant of it.

[Stephen]

Here is an excerpt from comments made by the Mormon Egyptologist Stephen Thompson.

"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"?

The conclusion is that according to the Egyptologists of the world except perhaps for several biased Mormon Egyptologists there is general agreement on what the Egyptian Papyri scrolls actually say. There is mass agreement that Joseph Smith got it wrong and was ignorant of the Egyptian language.

Snow wont even argue this no doubt because he recognizes the weak position that Mormons are in when it comes to the Book of Abraham issue.

[porterrockwell]

This is a prime example of why we come across as smug. Because we get ##### #### like this in here who come on a MORMON website, obviously disgruntled about the church. Plus, they expect people to be "curtious" and such while they try to kick our religious teeth in. Very good, you are learning how to use Lucifer's Little Bag of Deminutive Goodies very well, "On sale at a Utah Lighthouse Ministries near YOU!" All I can say is the Anti world is very weak. If you side with the Tanners, then Ed Decker and anyone who has followed over the years holds no water. If you side with Ed, then the Tanners have no ground to stand on. And yet 70% of the God Makers was CUT AND PAST from the Tanners Shadow or Reality book. Huh. Kinda fishy if you ask me. Satan's little minions can't get along, HAHAHAHAHA, well...he'll just have to straighten them out quick. I mean, when he is bound to outer darkness,(and all his pawns...i.e. the Tanners and Decker+his goones) he is gonna get annoyed real quick with having to hear their squabbling at each other for the next millenia.

[Stephen]

Originally posted by porterrockwell@Mar 23 2004, 11:25 AM

This is a prime example of why we come across as smug.  Because we get #### #### like this in here who come on a MORMON website, obviously disgruntled about the church.  Plus, they expect people to be "curtious" and such while they try to kick our religious teeth in.  Very good, you are learning how to use Lucifer's Little Bag of Deminutive Goodies very well, "On sale at a Utah Lighthouse Ministries near YOU!"  All I can say is the Anti world is very weak.  If you side with the Tanners, then Ed Decker and anyone who has followed over the years holds no water.  If you side with Ed, then the Tanners have no ground to stand on.  And yet 70% of the God Makers was CUT AND PAST from the Tanners Shadow or Reality book.  Huh.  Kinda fishy if you ask me.  Satan's little minions can't get along, HAHAHAHAHA, well...he'll just have to straighten them out quick.  I mean, when he is bound to outer darkness,(and all his pawns...i.e. the Tanners and Decker+his goones) he is gonna get annoyed real quick with having to hear their squabbling at each other for the next millenia.

If Stephen Thompson the above quoted LDS Egyptologist is anti-Mormon and part of Satan's minions then you have much more to worry about then lies and sensationalism from Ed Decker!

Do you you have anything productive to say?

I suppose all the Egyptologists are anti-Mormon that said Joseph Smith's translations of the Egyptian papyri scrolls were wrong!

Thats its................its a mass conspiracy.............the whole world is against you!!!

[Maureen]

Originally posted by porterrockwell@Mar 23 2004, 11:25 AM

...And yet 70% of the God Makers was CUT AND PAST from the Tanners Shadow or Reality book....

I'm pretty sure Decker and the Tanners work independently from one another. Ed Decker may have used information from the Tanners research but personally I doubt it. I think Ed put his own touch into The Godmakers.

M.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Stephen+Mar 23 2004, 12:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Stephen @ Mar 23 2004, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--porterrockwell@Mar 23 2004, 11:25 AM

This is a prime example of why we come across as smug.  Because we get #### #### like this in here who come on a MORMON website, obviously disgruntled about the church.  Plus, they expect people to be "curtious" and such while they try to kick our religious teeth in.  Very good, you are learning how to use Lucifer's Little Bag of Deminutive Goodies very well, "On sale at a Utah Lighthouse Ministries near YOU!"  All I can say is the Anti world is very weak.  If you side with the Tanners, then Ed Decker and anyone who has followed over the years holds no water.  If you side with Ed, then the Tanners have no ground to stand on.  And yet 70% of the God Makers was CUT AND PAST from the Tanners Shadow or Reality book.  Huh.  Kinda fishy if you ask me.  Satan's little minions can't get along, HAHAHAHAHA, well...he'll just have to straighten them out quick.  I mean, when he is bound to outer darkness,(and all his pawns...i.e. the Tanners and Decker+his goones) he is gonna get annoyed real quick with having to hear their squabbling at each other for the next millenia.

If Stephen Thompson the above quoted LDS Egyptologist is anti-Mormon and part of Satan's minions then you have much more to worry about then lies and sensationalism from Ed Decker!

Do you you have anything productive to say?

I suppose all the Egyptologists are anti-Mormon that said Joseph Smith's translations of the Egyptian papyri scrolls were wrong!

Thats its................its a mass conspiracy.............the whole world is against you!!!

I just wonder why you care...move on with your life...or get one.

[Stephen]

from U. of Chicago Egyptologist Robert Ritner, from the July 2003 edition of the Journal of near Eastern Studies:

"A customary scholarly request to examine the original Joseph Smith Papyri for

this publication was refused by Steven R. Sorenson, Director of LDS Church

Archives."---Page 161.

"Facsimile No. 2, Explanation. Attempts to salvage these pseudo-Egyptian

transcriptions reach desperate levels in suggestions by current apologists

Michael Rhodes and John Gee....."---page 161, note 3.

Referring to Hugh Nibley's series of articles in the 'Improvement Era' in 1968:

"Nibley undercuts this 'appeal to authority' by a series of personal

attacks...Nibley's logic is peculiar in these tracts circulated only among the

faithful...Nibley wants a sympathetic audience, not Egyptological fact. The

August 1968 continuation [of Nibley's articles] derides the careers of T.

Deveria, J. Peters, A. C. Mace, A. M. Lythgoe, G. Barton, E. Banks, and E.A.W.

Budge.

Nibley's tactic has been adopted by his followers. The earlier version of this

article produced internet discussions devoted not to the translation, but to

scurrilous remarks concerning my own religious and personal habits. Let the

scholar be warned."---Page 162, note 7.

"With the regard to the articles by my former student John Gee, I am

constrained to note than unlike the interaction between Baer and Nibley, and

the practice of all my other Egyptology students, Gee never chose to share

drafts of his publications with me to elicit scholarly criticism, so that I

have encountered these only recently. It must be understood that in these

apologetic writings, Gee's opinions do not necessarily reflect my own, nor the

standards of Egyptological proof that I required at Yale or Chicago."---p. 167.

On page 168, footnote 41, Ritner states that "the most reasonable

explanations of the vignettes" [facsimiles] were published by Klaus Baer, Edward

Ashment, and Stephen Thompson---not Nibley, Gee, or Rhodes. "Human sacrifice in

Egypt was rare and more political execution, never depicted as on the altered

Book of Abraham rendition of P JS I.....The early assessments of this material

by Egyptologists Breasted, Petrie, Mercer, et al. solicited by Spalding in 1912

remain valid in 2003, despite ad hominem attacks by Nibley, cited by Gee....."

Page 172, note 88: "My citation of the available image of P JS IV should not be

construed as an endorsement of Nibley's scholarship, contra the implications of

Gee....."

Nibley had asserted that Egyptologist Klaus Baer had written him that the

vignette depicted in Facsimile 1 "is not a judgment scene." Nibley and other

Mopologists misrepresent Baer's statement and used it to support Joseph Smith's

claim that the vignette depicted "Abraham appearing before Pharoah." But Ritner explains:

"Baer's statement that it is 'similar to but not identical with scenes showing

judgment of the deceased before Osiris'..... and 'is not a judgment

scene'.....means only that the actual process of judgment is not shown. This

image *does*, however, form part of standard judgment scenes."---page 175, note

122.

Page 176, note 128: "Stephen E. Thompson, 'Egyptology and the Book of

Abraham,' Dialogue 28/1 (1995): 145-48. Gee's brief rebuttal (A Guide to the

Joseph Smith Papyri, pp. 40 and 67, n. 17) is unacceptable. Reference to a

costumed private individual in the Roman procession of Isis is not evidence

that the figure of Isis here (no. 2) is 'King Pharaoh, whose name is given in

the characters above his head,' as published by Joseph Smith.

Smith misunderstood 'Pharaoh' as a personal name (cf. Abraham 1:25), and the

name above fig. 2 is unquestionably that of the female Isis. Osiris (fig. 1)

is certainly not 'Abraham,' nor is it possible that the altar of Osiris (fig.

3) 'signifies Abraham.' Maat (fig. 4) is not a male 'prince,' Hor (fig. 5) is

not a 'waiter,' nor is Anubis (fig. 6) a 'slave' (because of his dark skin).

Such interpretations are uninspired fantasies and are defended only with the

forfeiture of scholarly judgement and credibility."

End quotes.

[porterrockwell]

Originally posted by Maureen+Mar 23 2004, 01:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Mar 23 2004, 01:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--porterrockwell@Mar 23 2004, 11:25 AM

...And yet 70% of the God Makers was CUT AND PAST from the Tanners Shadow or Reality book....

I'm pretty sure Decker and the Tanners work independently from one another. Ed Decker may have used information from the Tanners research but personally I doubt it. I think Ed put his own touch into The Godmakers.

M.

Actually the movie has been broken down, and compared. And other than the "conspiracy-theory"(aka...Deckers touch to the film) it is pretty much the Tanners Shadow or Reality Book cut up move around and seasoned with a few of Ed's own sentiment or phrasing. Which is sad, because while he claims against the Tanners research he continues to use it and promote the products produced from it. The whole point is they both have about as much ground to stand on with their claims as Wile E. Coyote after he has walked off a cliff and is suspended in mid-air, before he plummits to the earth and a million miles an hour. Plus, the only anti's I think even have remote shot at coming across as legit are the Tanners, but even then their Strawman technicques are laughable at best. All they are doing are feeding the lustful sensations of revenge and hatred that come from those who have left the church or have been exed. That isn't a ministry of Christ, sorry not in my book, or in God's. Similar "anti-cult" groups rose up against Christ and his followers, which eventual led to the Great Apostasy.

[Guest Starsky]

So Stephen....

What do you know about God?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Maureen@Mar 23 2004, 12:16 PM

I'm pretty sure Decker and the Tanners work independently from one another. Ed Decker may have used information from the Tanners research but personally I doubt it. I think Ed put his own touch into The Godmakers.

M.

I assume that the Tanners are as digusted at Decker as is the rest of decent society.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 23 2004, 02:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 23 2004, 02:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Maureen@Mar 23 2004, 12:16 PM

I'm pretty sure Decker and the Tanners work independently from one another. Ed Decker may have used information from the Tanners research but personally I doubt it. I think Ed put his own touch into The Godmakers.

M.

I assume that the Tanners are as digusted at Decker as is the rest of decent society.

I would agree with that.

M.

[serapha]

Mistakes In The News About Polygamy And Mormons

Hi there!

Did anyone see Oprah today (Tuesday) ?

~serapha~

[AFDaw]

yes

[Guest Starsky]

No...what was it about...?

[Outshined]

I can see my more polite treatment of Stephen was casting pearls before swine. How unfortunate.

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 23 2004, 11:01 AM

 

I have read alot of the information on the websites from the links you provided.

Don't be surprised that I don't believe this at all; you are too ignorant of the scholarship of the sites, or you wouldn't use the same weak arguments that they refute. Nice try, though.

I can understand the excitement of a Mormon(like yourself) who desparately wants to believe the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church purports it to be; would anxiously grab on to weak theories with holes in them and any excuse/theories the Mormon apologists could come up with to make you feel better.

Your attempt at condescension aside, this is another comment ignorant of fact or reason. It is a grasp for some semblance of superiority. You failed.

You ignored Stephen Thompson's comments altogether and his demolishing of the Book of Abraham argument as you accuse me of ignoring things.

Nope, wrong again (no surprise). I have read his work, but consider it a personal interpretation that flies in the face of other research. Just because you like what it says doesn't mean everyone will be as dazzled as you apparently were. Try reading more from both sides of the issue; you may gain a more balanced perspective.

If you have the answers why are you afraid to address the issues?

I have, but you run from anything but what you want to hear. I realize my time has been wasted in trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, as you are interested in name-calling and childish banter. (see next quote for example)

Quit being a wimp for crying out loud!

Name-calling; how adult of you! I've served in two wars so far; what have you done? Follow Mormons around and snivel at them; how heroic!

I guess it takes some sort of "courage" to linger and engage in inane arguments with members of your former religion? No, it takes more to grow up and walk away from it. But apparently you can't do that. Pity. I did, and it is a far better choice.

Oh well, this is what I get for trying to treat you like an adult, with some respect. Well, no more, kid. You get what you earn.

Just because I disagree with the far fetched ideas of those Mormon apologists does not mean that I have not read what they said! Quit making strawman-arguments

You've just described your behavior exactly, so how about taking your own advice, eh? And I've seen no far-fetched ideas; nor have you, but it makes good rhetoric, doesn't it? You're just making noise. No straw men, except at your keyboard.

I have read most of the information you provided. I doubt you read what Stephen Thompson said at all.

Actually, I don't believe you have at all. And doubt what you want, you have no argument except putting your fingers in your ears and going "la lal la la". While Thompson is interesting, he's hardly universally accepted as accurate. If you accept it as truth, good for you, but like you did with the subject of Tanners, you attack those who disagree with you. Hardly adult behavior.

I disagree with your weak side of the argument..........I'm not ignorant of it.

If you say so , but I get the feeling you haven't read it at all. The Book Of Abraham Project alone would take quite a while to read through. Try it sometime.

You call my argument weak, but you don't even know of what it consists........

Sorry my attempts at treating you like a grown-up were to no avail. If you feel like having a civil conversation some time, let me know. But save your name-calling and non-existent argument for other boards; it just wastes bandwidth.

[Outshined]

To the other members of the board: I'm sorry for the interaction with Stephen. I've tried to treat him civilly, but he's having none of it.

HERE is an article that addresses the posts he's made. Read it for yourselves. I won't cut-and-paste it, as it just eats up the board's bandwidth.

Check it out.

-Outshined