Lost Book Of Abraham: Anti-mormon Video

[Hammer]

Perhaps I'm not aware of an element of this debate that seems to go unspoken whenever I hear it. What on earth does the dating of the other Abraham papyri have to do with the book of Breathings? Surely the conclusion is not being reached that we are currently in possession of the oldest papyri that has ever existed on this earth that mentions Abraham (thus making it clear that the book of Breathings cannot be related). That's a ridiculous argument. All of this stuff works within a body of literature that repeats over and over again for centuries. We have translated very little of the papyri that has been discovered, and that can't amount to more than about 5% of what was anciently written. To say that we have all the information we need to make just about any conclusion is a big mistake.

They constantly use large generalizations to make their points. (just like I just did) LOL

[Olavarria]

In light of the Testament of Abraham,Apocalypse of Abraham, Anastasi cache(one of which I posted) and a few other things....., If i were an anti I would say: "Joe got alot right. But that doesnt prove that he had a theophany in the woods". That is alot more honest.

Maragaret Barker and Raphael Patai are two non-mormon scholars that have written favorably on the BoM, yet they are not mormons. They know what they know and are 1)not out to get the church and 2)secure in their own beliefs. Hmmmmmm. What a concept.

[alex]

See

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Egyptolog...ge.php?id=10241 or http://humanities.uchicago.edu/depts/nelc/...tner/index.html for more information on these 2 professors and the institutes where they work - i.e. the University of Chicago and Brown University. I didn't know that the people at FAIR consider both these universities to be anti-Mormon pseudoscholarly institutions. Really?

[maklelan]

In light of the Testament of Abraham,Apocalypse of Abraham, Anastasi cache(one of which I posted) and a few other things....., If i were an anti I would say: "Joe got alot right. But that doesnt prove that he had a theophany in the woods". That is alot more honest.

Maragaret Barker and Raphael Patai are two non-mormon scholars that have written favorably on the BoM, yet they are not mormons. They know what they know and are 1)not out to get the church and 2)secure in their own beliefs. Hmmmmmm. What a concept.

Jordan Vajda was a scholar who looked into Mormon theosis and ended up getting baptized.

Since we're talking about the Book of Abraham, I thought I would bring up good old Rabbi Nissim Wernick. No one seems to remember this guy, but he's a non-Mormon scholar who had some interesting things to say about the Book of Abraham in his 1968 doctoral dissertation, "A Critical Analysis of the Book of Abraham in the Light of Extra-Canonical Jewish Writings."

A few highlights:

"...the concept of pre-mortal existence appears in Jewish history as a common tenet of the religion..." (p. 18).

"The souls of all generations are said to have been created at the beginning of the world, and kept until the time of their birth in a heavenly repository called "guf" (body). (p. 20).

Wernick shares that the Slavonic "Book of Enoch" states "All souls are prepared before the foundation of the world."

"Bring me such a spirit which is in paradise and has such a name and such a form; for all spirits which are to enter the body exist from the day of creation of the world until the earth shall pass away! The spirit answered, Lord of the world! I am content with the earth, where I have lived since Thou didst create me!" (p. 22). Wernick points out that the Book of Abraham says basically the same thing.

"Throughout Jewish thought it is apparent that man is placed on this earth to be proved. The 'Midrash Tanhuma Pekude' reveals a spirit (soul) that was placed on earth. It had a shape and form. Presumably the soul passed the test - or it 'kept the second estate', and therefore would be rewarded with an existence 'even more beautiful' than the present - i.e. 'shall have glory added upon their heads forever and ever.'" (p. 23).

Wernick quotes the Book of Zohar I. 96b, "At the time the Holy One, Blessed be He, desired to create the world, it came in His will before him, and He formed all the souls which were prepared to be given afterward to the children of men; and all were formed before Him." (p. 23).

"Comparisons, therefore, can be made; parallels do exist between the Book of Abraham and Jewish literature, with regards to pre-mortal existence. Similar to the BofA there is a pre-earth state of man, these souls are different, but have the potential of becoming equal. These souls are consulted and take part in the affairs of heaven. This analysis affords a fuller understanding of some areas of correspondence between Judaism, its beliefs and concepts, and those of the Book of Abraham. Man is here to be proved, and if man is successful while on earth, then the Lord will accept the souls back to their eternal abode where they will 'have glory added upon their heads forever and ever.'" (p. 27).

He goes on to quote the Wisdom of Solomon and the fact that creatio ex nihilo is of completely pagan origin.

Wernick also notes that the "Midrash" states that "Abraham was the author of a treatise on the subject of creation." (p. 87). Hmm...

A closing statement is made about "the divine promise and how the reaffirmation of these promises emerged are basic to both Judaism and Mormonism as seen through the Book of Abraham. Identical concepts are found when viewing them, and the evidence suggests they are similar." (p. 105).

It seems Klaus Baer was dead on: it's not what the Egyptian says that will vindicate the Book of Abraham, but what the English says. In case anyone is hoping to make the argument, yes, we will concede that this dissertation was written after the Hor book of Breathings.

This should be the full dissertation here:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/WERNICK.html

[ED500]

Is it another "revelation"? SOunds like another LDS effort to whitewash their never ending problem with doctrine and fantasy claims

Oh good, YOU are back! Amazing how the Church took no effort to whitewash how the Book of the Dead coincides with temple theology. I guess we just can't get past that "problem." Gee whiz. Speaking of fantasy claims -- have you read the Bible lately?

Have you?

Maybe not - you're a cultist

You are working full-time at getting yourself invited out of here. This is your second warning today. If you can't stop the name calling you need to go somewhere else. ~ Mod

[e=mc2]

It seems Klaus Baer was dead on: it's not what the Egyptian says that will vindicate the Book of Abraham, but what the English says.

This CANNOT be overestimated........ I have copies of all the correspondence between Nibley and Baer, Wilson, and others, and between the Martins, Tanners, and Baer, etc., and Baer was rather emphatic that th SCHOLARS can ONLY work with the Egyptian, whereas in matters of faith and religion, it was hands off. Baer even told Martin once ( I think it was Martin) to not push too hard about scholars always being right, since his own Christian understanding of the Bible is undermined by scholarship! Fascinating reading all these letters and notes, too bad someone can't get permission to show them ALL so the final context and tally can come out.

I can absolutely assure you that whether one converts or not is NOT proof that they are not impressed with the scriptures. Baer was amazed, but also of a different faith and stayed that way. It had nothing to do with reflecting his thinking that the Book of Abraham was phony and Smith a fraud.

[structurecop]

Oh good, YOU are back! Amazing how the Church took no effort to whitewash how the Book of the Dead coincides with temple theology. I guess we just can't get past that "problem." Gee whiz. Speaking of fantasy claims -- have you read the Bible lately?

Have you?

Maybe not - you're a cultist

A nice try to sidestep the issue by not identifying fantasy elements of the Bible. Talking snakes, talking donkeys, Joseph's magic goblet, worldwide floods, millions of people just one day up and walking out of Egypt, crossing the Reed Sea on dry ground, people dying and coming back to life, the list goes on...

[maklelan]

Oh good, YOU are back! Amazing how the Church took no effort to whitewash how the Book of the Dead coincides with temple theology. I guess we just can't get past that "problem." Gee whiz. Speaking of fantasy claims -- have you read the Bible lately?

Have you?

Maybe not - you're a cultist

A nice try to sidestep the issue by not identifying fantasy elements of the Bible. Talking snakes, talking donkeys, Joseph's magic goblet, worldwide floods, millions of people just one day up and walking out of Egypt, crossing the Reed Sea on dry ground, people dying and coming back to life, the list goes on...

That's a funny little dynamic that is so often overlooked. Even the "Bible vs. the Book of Mormon" video makes it sound like the Book of Mormon is filled with fantasies while nothing in the Bible has ever been questioned. Do these people consciously overlook this or are they just that dense?

[Dale]

Tom Murphy has said the edited his interviews to protect the Bible. I thought they asked a lot of leading questions in the films.

[PacMan]

Let's be sure that the key assumptions perpetuated by experts by Ritner (a said "expert") are 100% wrong. Ritner is an egyptologist and not a historian of egyptology. At times, he was talking out of his nether regions and promulgated complete nonesense (I'd debate this with him and everyone else all together in a heart beat), which is ultimately the downfall of a substantial part of the critical argument. Moreover, critics have been tremendously choosy when it comes to analyzing the KEP, doing so in segments rather than noticing that the KEP itself grossly undermines those conclusions. The only thing we can really tell from the KEP is, we have NO idea what to make of it.

PacMan

[maklelan]

Considering the two comments that precede this it staggers my imagination that this video will ocntinue to be publicized and sold by the Tanners and other people who either know it's junk but don't care, or will never examine the issue enough to know it's garbage. That they edited out the comments that detract from the historicity of the Bible makes it abundantly clear the video is dishonest propaganda and nothing more.

[Olavarria]

I love how people who say Joseph didnt know anything about egyptian, assert that he "Studied hebrew and must have surmized that egyptian read from write to left". Give me a break!!!! What leads them to say that? The KEP?

I love howthey neglect to mention that the hieractic charachters at the margins were written in different ink, sometimes dont line up with the sentences and at least one case overlap them. This shows that the hieractic characters where ADDED AFTER THE TRANSLATION. And their are only 6 haracters in the translation margin. Why did they stop? The KEP as modus operandi is completely baseless.

I also love how they assert that Joseph knew enough hebrew to guess egypian read from right to left BUT he didnt know enough to understand that 1 character does not egual a paragraph.

A bunch of must haves and maybe's cant stand in place of facts.

[maklelan]

Ever since the "New Mormon Challenge" tried to introduce new and more respectable arguments they have been reduced to guessing about who is lying and who is telling the truth. They also read minds 175 years after the fact and psychoanalyze someone based on other people's written statements about them. It seems honest historical methodology leaves no room for anti-Mormon arguments. They have to start making stuff up to have a case.

[Brackite]

Hi Her Amun,

You wrote:

I love howthey neglect to mention that the hieractic charachters at the margins were written in different ink, sometimes dont line up with the sentences and at least one case overlap them. This shows that the hieractic characters where ADDED AFTER THE TRANSLATION. And their are only 6 haracters in the translation margin. Why did they stop? The KEP as modus operandi is completely baseless.

There is No way of knowing that the hieractic characters where were added after the Translation.

You also wrote:

As to the age of our BoD..........: it is 100 to 200 years older than the Anastasi collection. But so what? The questian should be: when did these associations begin to start? That I dont know. BUT I think it is important to note, the more we know about the ancient world the more ancient the BoA looks. That should not happen if the anti's are correct.

And maklelan wrote:

Perhaps I'm not aware of an element of this debate that seems to go unspoken whenever I hear it. What on earth does the dating of the other Abraham papyri have to do with the book of Breathings?

The main and big thing about the Egyptian Papyrus that mentions the name of Abraham on them, that they are all dating over 130 years after the Book of Breathings papyrus text was written is that the Egyptian Papyrus that mentions the name of Abraham on them gives absolutely No external evidence for John Geeâ??s missing papyrus text theory that he so much believes in. Why is John Gee and quite a few of other LDS Apologists are so insisting in proclaiming that there was a Book of Abraham text that was attached to the Book of Breathings papyrus text??? Has there ever been a Book of Breathings papyrus text to have an attached Book of Abraham text on it. I do Not think and believe that there has ever been.

[Dale]

I don't think they thing Book of Abraham text hidden in near a Book of of Brreathings upon the same papyrus would be common. If somebody ancient did sneak such a text it it would be a unique way to preserve a story of Abraham. It's kind of like finding the Dead sea scrolls in some way without the cave.

It's been admitted by supporters of the missing papyrus theory that the scribes did think the Book was related to the content of the Book of Abraham. The idea that they were trying to match up the Book of Abraham text with the Book of Breathings suggests that. The thing they try to add to dissacociate Joseph Smith from KEP is to say he wasn't in the room at times agreeing with what they were doing. Where was he on a long vacation in another town? If he witnessed any of it whether his handwriting, of W.W. Phelps, or whomever was on it was on it doesn't mater as he never once told them they were on the wrong track.

And they viewed Joseph Smith translating didn't they see him skipping translating the worthless parts of the papyrus unrelated to Abraham?

[maklelan]

Hi Her Amun,

You wrote:

I love howthey neglect to mention that the hieractic charachters at the margins were written in different ink, sometimes dont line up with the sentences and at least one case overlap them. This shows that the hieractic characters where ADDED AFTER THE TRANSLATION. And their are only 6 haracters in the translation margin. Why did they stop? The KEP as modus operandi is completely baseless.

There is No way of knowing that the hieractic characters where were added after the Translation.

You also wrote:

As to the age of our BoD..........: it is 100 to 200 years older than the Anastasi collection. But so what? The questian should be: when did these associations begin to start? That I dont know. BUT I think it is important to note, the more we know about the ancient world the more ancient the BoA looks. That should not happen if the anti's are correct.

And maklelan wrote:

Perhaps I'm not aware of an element of this debate that seems to go unspoken whenever I hear it. What on earth does the dating of the other Abraham papyri have to do with the book of Breathings?

The main and big thing about the Egyptian Papyrus that mentions the name of Abraham on them, that they are all dating over 130 years after the Book of Breathings papyrus text was written is that the Egyptian Papyrus that mentions the name of Abraham on them gives absolutely No external evidence for John Geeâ??s missing papyrus text theory that he so much believes in. Why is John Gee and quite a few of other LDS Apologists are so insisting in proclaiming that there was a Book of Abraham text that was attached to the Book of Breathings papyrus text??? Has there ever been a Book of Breathings papyrus text to have an attached Book of Abraham text on it. I do Not think and believe that there has ever been.

That's all very fascinating, but I'm not arguing for that theory. What gave you the idea I was?

[Noggin]

Her Amun

First off, learn how to spell. You use "their" when you should use "there", "arnt" is spelled "aren't" etc. The overuse of the clickable smilies presents your posts as cartoonish. I cannot take you seriously for content as it is, but the overuse of cartoon smilies pushed me over the top to respond to you. I am going to uncheck the "enable emoticons" box in my profile to see if that will help.

It's amazing to see you stuff your bloated arguments into that tiny bag of preconceived notions you carry around. It's bursting at the seams about now. The church has to be true in your world, so you cannot think objectively about the possibility that the Book of Abraham is invented.

And when someone pointed out that leading non LDS egyptologists are not converting over to Mormonism, in fact they are concurring that the Book of Abraham is bogus, this forum, you included, puts out that these men have Doctorate degrees obtained at "a mill". Or that they just don't get "it" ("it" meaning your point of view?). And who cares that the priest figure has the head of a jackal or whatnot... ? I care. That drawn in was a deliberate forge to support the "translated" text. The jackal figure, in the rest of the breathing permits of that time does not hold a knife like Smith had drawn in after the fact. Please.

I will look into the claim that the book of the dead that is supposed to coincide with the LDS temple endowment. I don't recall digesting that in my exodus out of Mormonism. I'll even go at it with an open mind.

Noggin

[maklelan]

The church has to be true in your world, so you cannot think objectively about the possibility that the Book of Abraham is invented.

I've been waiting for months for someone to take up the problem of accounting for the other ancient Jewish apocryphal works that so closely mirror the Book of Abraham. I have yet to see a single person try to make sense of the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Testament of Abraham and the Book of Abraham. They're always glossed over. If you do possess the capacity to see past your biases (which ability I am skeptical of), then please, analyze our claims in light of those texts.

[charity]

noggin, before you call a kettle black, you should examine your own spelling. You wrote, "That drawn in was a deliberate forge to support the "translated" text." Oops. Can you spell a-p-o-l-o-g-y?

And no one said that the Egyptologists all had diplomas from mills. And for that silly argument that the fact that Egyptologists are not joining the Church in droves is proof it is specious. . . well, I call your attention to post #20 on this topic. Please read it and then rejoin the discussion. And be sure that your spelling is perfect before you criticize someone else. Thanks.

[Olavarria]

There is No way of knowing that the hieractic characters where were added after the Translation.

Given the evidence, if their is no way of knowing whether they were added after the translation, how do you know they where added before? I know my description may not have been adequate. I recommend you see pictures of what I am actually talking about. John Gee prepared a booklet called"A guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri". I tried to find some pictures online but I failed. Try to find what Im talking about, you might see my point. If I have time I might try to scan something, if I have time.

The main and big thing about the Egyptian Papyrus that mentions the name of Abraham on them, that they are all dating over 130 years after the Book of Breathings papyrus text was written is that the Egyptian Papyrus that mentions the name of Abraham on them gives absolutely No external evidence for John Geeâ??s missing papyrus text theory that he so much believes in.

Im not so sure that such papyrus is being used to prove a missing papyrus theory. How could it be used to do that? Look, our BoD and the Abraham Papyrus( Leiden Papyrus I 384 (PGM xii). ) are 130 years apart. Fine. However, they come from the same period in egyptian history, the Greco-Roman period. Which is the same period that Apocalypse of Abraham and Testament of Abraham were written. All Leiden Papyrus I 384 (PGM xii) proves is this: SOME ANCIENT EGYPTIAN PRIESTS FROM THE SAME HISTORICAL TIME PERIOD OF OUR BoD , ASSOCIATED THE BIBLICAL ABRAHAM WITH A LION COUCH SCENE.

Thats it.

It is not an attempt to validate the missing papyrus theory.

Show me where Gee makes such a claim.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbr...am_egyptian.htm

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=171&table=review

Why should we be impressed? Well, when Joseph brought forth the BoA, and for quite a while after that, associating Abraham with a lion-couch was considered foolish. HE WAS THE FIRST MODERN TO DO SO. In other words, a concept that once looked foolish 50 years ago is now an attested, all though rare, egyptological concept. A concept Joseph was the first to teach. Make of it what you will.

Has there ever been a Book of Breathings papyrus text to have an attached Book of Abraham text on it. I do Not think and believe that there has ever been.

Not that we know of. Page four of Michael Rhodes's response to the video deals with that. The idea that such a story would be attached to a BoD is not impossible. I personally believe that the BoD's relation to the BoA involves priesthood more than anything. The BoD prayer resembles LDS temple theology, just switch pantheons and and covenants. I personally think that Joseph "translated" the BoA the same way he translated the Book of Moses.

http://home.comcast.net/~michael.rhodes/Th...okofAbraham.pdf

[Olavarria]

First off, learn how to spell. You use "their" when you should use "there", "arnt" is spelled "aren't" etc. The overuse of the clickable smilies presents your posts as cartoonish. I cannot take you seriously for content as it is, but the overuse of cartoon smilies pushed me over the top to respond to you. I am going to uncheck the "enable emoticons" box in my profile to see if that will help.

I had no idea that the purpose of these message boards was to present publishable research papers. Next time, I'll write according to MLA strandards. For the record, I purposely lace my posts with cartoons so as to lighten the mood. Like this:

It's amazing to see you stuff your bloated arguments into that tiny bag of preconceived notions you carry around. It's bursting at the seams about now. The church has to be true in your world, so you cannot think objectively about the possibility that the Book of Abraham is invented.

Ahh, the wonderful ad hominum. Looks like you ran out of ammo my friend. Rather than attacking me attack my arguments. "Your mormon, therefore your view is by definition irrational and unobjective". Funny, I never accused anti's and otherwise non-members of doing the same. If I were to say, "It's amazing to see you stuff your bloated arguments into that tiny bag of preconceived notions you carry around. It's bursting at the seams about now. The church has to be a fraud in your world, so you cannot think objectively about the possibility that the Book of Abraham is an ancient text , beacuese you would have to repent, get rid of your porn and rejoin the church." I dont play that game. Thats not how I roll. Now, does that take us anywhere?

And when someone pointed out that leading non LDS egyptologists are not converting over to Mormonism, in fact they are concurring that the Book of Abraham is bogus, this forum, you included, puts out that these men have Doctorate degrees obtained at "a mill".

I challenge you to show where I said that. If your going to commit the fallacy of using ad hominum attacks, at least back them up.

Or that they just don't get "it" ("it" meaning your point of view?).

No, the fact that the BoA is not an egyptologiacl subject. The papyri and facsimilies are, but when they have begun to attack the BoA, then they have stepped outside the bounds of their expertise. ALL THEY CAN TELL US IS WHAT THE PAPYRUS AND THE FACSIMILIES MEANT TO AN EGYPTIAN. THEY CANNOT, NOR HAVE THEY ATTEMPTED TO, TELL US WHAT THEY MEANT TO AN ANCIENT JEW.

And who cares that the priest figure has the head of a jackal or whatnot... ? I care

Fine, I don't because I subscribe to semitic adaption/redaction it makes no difference what the original was.

That drawn in was a deliberate forge to support the "translated" text. The jackal figure, in the rest of the breathing permits of that time does not hold a knife like Smith had drawn in after the fact. Please.

IF the figure never held a knife, how does that prove a forge? Do you have evidence that suggests Joseph believed he was making an inspired restoration of the facsimilies to their original state? Funny, the figure is still a priest and that egyptian priests shaved off all the hair from their bodies. Joseph left no record, or description of how the translation took place. Attribute evil motives if you will, but such evil motives are just as faith based as my attribution of pious ones.

I will look into the claim that the book of the dead that is supposed to coincide with the LDS temple endowment. I don't recall digesting that in my exodus out of Mormonism. I'll even go at it with an open mind.

Sadly, we mormons arn't capable of that.

[Jerubaal]

And who cares that the priest figure has the head of a jackal or whatnot... ? I care. That drawn in was a deliberate forge to support the "translated" text. The jackal figure, in the rest of the breathing permits of that time does not hold a knife like Smith had drawn in after the fact. Please.

Ummmmm... No. We have journal accounts describing the papyri prior to the lacunae in Fac. 1 that describe a bald man holding a knife. And Michael Rhodes has shown contemporary examples of priests holding knifes in BoB and related texts.

[Noggin]

noggin, before you call a kettle black, you should examine your own spelling. You wrote, "That drawn in was a deliberate forge to support the "translated" text." Oops. Can you spell a-p-o-l-o-g-y?

I'd apologize, but can't see my spelling error. You bolded "forge" and this is how I intended to use that "big" word.

forge: verb, forged, forg‧ing. noun

â??verb (used with object)

1. to form by heating and hammering; beat into shape.

2. to form or make, esp. by concentrated effort: to forge a friendship through mutual trust.

3. to imitate (handwriting, a signature, etc.) fraudulently; fabricate a forgery.

4. to commit forgery.

And no one said that the Egyptologists all had diplomas from mills.

I suggest you re read the thread. That statement was an attempt to discredit the non LDS or former LDS scholars who previously took the Book of Abraham to task... namely, DeeJay Nelson. Take Mr. Nelson to task, fine, but give credit to the scholars who earned the right to call themselves Doctor.

And for that silly argument that the fact that Egyptologists are not joining the Church in droves is proof it is specious. . .

Yes, it is specious to you. Nice word there btw, that one was even longer that "forge". Look. About 6 billion non mormons can see right through the Book of Abraham, your baptismal rates are slowing with the advent of the internet and here you all are in an absolute dither trying to defend the book of breathings as an actual autobiography of a man who lived in a completely different time period than Hor. The Book of Abraham was written when the church was falling apart, a justification for priesthood authority and polygamy, and lying for the lord was needed. Enter the "autobiography" of Father Abraham and there you have it. How fortuitous! Not to mention that high ranking church officials were leaving Joseph Smith. Time to gather the troops.. another miracle is needed. The Book of Abraham was a very timely document.

well, I call your attention to post #20 on this topic. Please read it and then rejoin the discussion. And be sure that your spelling is perfect before you criticize someone else. Thanks.

Oh please.

Maybe try talking to someone else other than a Mormon about the Book of Abraham. There is a really great book by a Mr. Larsen that can explain what the rest of the world sees. Title: "By His Own Hand On Papyrus".

Noggin

post script: now I remember why I quit coming around here.

[consiglieri]

noggin, before you call a kettle black, you should examine your own spelling. You wrote, "That drawn in was a deliberate forge to support the "translated" text." Oops. Can you spell a-p-o-l-o-g-y?

I'd apologize, but can't see my spelling error. You bolded "forge" and this is how I intended to use that "big" word.

forge: verb, forged, forg‧ing. noun

â??verb (used with object)

1. to form by heating and hammering; beat into shape.

2. to form or make, esp. by concentrated effort: to forge a friendship through mutual trust.

3. to imitate (handwriting, a signature, etc.) fraudulently; fabricate a forgery.

4. to commit forgery.

And no one said that the Egyptologists all had diplomas from mills.

I suggest you re read the thread. That statement was an attempt to discredit the non LDS or former LDS scholars who previously took the Book of Abraham to task... namely, DeeJay Nelson. Take Mr. Nelson to task, fine, but give credit to the scholars who earned the right to call themselves Doctor.

And for that silly argument that the fact that Egyptologists are not joining the Church in droves is proof it is specious. . .

Yes, it is specious to you. Nice word there btw, that one was even longer that "forge". Look. About 6 billion non mormons can see right through the Book of Abraham, your baptismal rates are slowing with the advent of the internet and here you all are in an absolute dither trying to defend the book of breathings as an actual autobiography of a man who lived in a completely different time period than Hor. The Book of Abraham was written when the church was falling apart, a justification for priesthood authority and polygamy, and lying for the lord was needed. Enter the "autobiography" of Father Abraham and there you have it. How fortuitous! Not to mention that high ranking church officials were leaving Joseph Smith. Time to gather the troops.. another miracle is needed. The Book of Abraham was a very timely document.

well, I call your attention to post #20 on this topic. Please read it and then rejoin the discussion. And be sure that your spelling is perfect before you criticize someone else. Thanks.

Oh please.

Maybe try talking to someone else other than a Mormon about the Book of Abraham. There is a really great book by a Mr. Larsen that can explain what the rest of the world sees. Title: "By His Own Hand On Papyrus".

Noggin

post script: now I remember why I quit coming around here.

Dear Noggin,

I think the comlaint made by Charity was that you were not using the word "forge" as a verb, but as an object.

All the Best!

Syntactically yours,

--Consiglieri

[Dale]

I think Brent Metcalfe is writing an essay for publication that argues the Book of abraham although it may mirror ancience sources can mirror 19th century ones also. I understand he is working on two Book of Abraham books one on the KEP (rather technical) and I asume a collection of essays. Although he could state what his projects are better than I can. I hate to mislead about his projects, but that's what I understand his two Book of Abraham related projects are.