Anubis and Osiris vs. Elkenah and Abraham

[SilverKnight]

I didn't come here to put Mormons on the ropes nor put Mormons down. I came here seeking the best explanation possible.

You came here as one of star-posters on one of the most virulently anti-mormon countercult boards on the internet. Indeed there are few individuals, on this earth, who spend more time attacking mormonism than you.

You did not come here "seeking the best explanation possible". As you are a professional anti-mormon, you likely know more about the BoA fascimiles, its "best explanations" and its problems, than most LDS people.

You came here simply to flout one of the most problematic issues in mormonism, watch LDS posters squirm over it, then return to CARM to recite the affair to a cadre of mormon-hating admirers. It is very much like a well-trained secular scientist going over to CARM and asking your ilk to explain some of the absurdities of fundamentalist calvinism, watching you make fools of yourselves, then pasting the responses over on RichardDawkins.net for the amusement of all. The difference is the secularist doesn't believe those who disagree with him are bound for an eternity of hellish torment by a monstrously vengeful being who lives in the sky - you do.

So by all means, please continue exposing the falsehoods, absurdities, and contradictions of mormonism while conveniently ignoring the same problems in your own theology.

[RussB]

The BoA depicts Abraham as rejecting his father's worship of false gods. What's pagan about that?

Did you put up a Christmas tree last December, by the way?

The BoA depicts Abraham as involved. Abraham would never have been involved at all.

Egyptologists inform us that it wasn't Abraham at all. It was Osiris or a person becoming a type of Osiris, a pagan deity.

The BoA informs us that a pries name Elkenah drew a sword to slay Abraham.

Egyptologists inform us that it's Anubis, not Elkenah.

LDS apologists defend Smith's ideas while those who know what's happening in the scene inform us otherwise.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The BoA depicts Abraham as involved. Abraham would never have been involved at all.

Egyptologists inform us that it wasn't Abraham at all. It was Osiris or a person becoming a type of Osiris, a pagan deity.

The BoA informs us that a pries name Elkenah drew a sword to slay Abraham.

Egyptologists inform us that it's Anubis, not Elkenah.

LDS apologists defend Smith's ideas while those who know what's happening in the scene inform us otherwise.

Negative, they tell us that it is a preist of Anubis, not Anubis himself.

A priest is a priest.

And I don't think that egypotologists are all that informed on the JS papri. They seem to think that it is a "common funeral scene". How they arrive at that I will never know.

Are you also going to tell us that "professional" egyptologists have reconstructed Fac.1 and they show 2 birds, and that they are not hands but wing tips?

[RussB]

You did not come here "seeking the best explanation possible"

Yes I did come seeking the best explanation possible and I've gleaned that the best explanation is loosely connected dots.

And I'm no star. I'm investigating your Church's claims and presenting its defense, or lack thereof, to others.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes I did come seeking the best explanation possible and I've gleaned that the best explanation is loosely connected dots.

And I'm no star. I'm investigating your Church's claims and presenting its defense, or lack thereof, to others.

Guilty as charges, huh?

[SilverKnight]

Yes I did come seeking the best explanation possible and I've gleaned that the best explanation is loosely connected dots.

And I'm no star. I'm investigating your Church's claims and presenting its defense, or lack thereof, to others.

There is much literature on the BoA that consitutes the LDS church's "best explanation possible"

However beyond LDS apologetics, you will find a general consensus that the BoA Fascimiles largely do not match the current Egyptology.

It appears as if Joseph saw the pictographs and assigned his own meanings and interpretations.

There were a few fortuitous "hits", but for the most part Joseph got it wrong.

But I think you knew this.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There is much literature on the BoA that consitutes the LDS church's "best explanation possible"

However beyond LDS apologetics, you will find a general consensus that the BoA Fascimiles largely do not match the current Egyptology.

It appears as if Joseph saw the pictographs and assigned his own meanings and interpretations.

There were a few fortuitous "hits", but for the most part Joseph got it wrong.

But I think you knew this.

I am also not so sure that JS was trying to give the "standard" egyptoligical view of the Facs. He called them explinations, he never claimed that he was translating the facs. As far as the hits he got, they are some what impressive.

I remeber this comming up on my mission from the Dean of Liberty asked me " If the BoA was found to be a fraud, would you still believe that JS was a prophet" I responded that" Yes I would as my testimony is in the BoM and taht JS is indeed a true prophet no in the BoA, or more specifically the facs".

As to the BoA itself, I find it quite an amazing volume of scripture.

How do you know that God did not reveal to JS what he claimed was revealed with regards to the facs?

[LifeOnaPlate]

The BoA depicts Abraham as involved. Abraham would never have been involved at all.

That's sort of like saying the Bible depicts Joseph as an adulterer because he was propositioned by Potipher's wife.

Even more tellingly, Joseph is sometimes called Joseph of Egypt. As you might recall, this is because he became #2 in Pharaoh "The Pagan's" court. A compromising position for Jacob's favored son?

Egyptologists inform us that it wasn't Abraham at all. It was Osiris or a person becoming a type of Osiris, a pagan deity.

Some Egyptologists inform us there wasn't an Abraham at all. How do you handle their data? How do you respond, as an apologist, to "those who know what's happening in the scene"?

The BoA informs us that a pries name Elkenah drew a sword to slay Abraham.

Egyptologists inform us that it's Anubis, not Elkenah.

See above, you still haven't demonstrated that you are aware of responses to the question you raise. Typically when asking questions it is polite to listen to answers actively. One way to do this is by restating the statements of the other to make sure you understand them. It is evident to me you do not understand the responses, or have ignored them.

LDS apologists defend Smith's ideas while those who know what's happening in the scene inform us otherwise.

Some LDS apologists are part of "those who know what's happening in the scene." You act as though translation and interpretation are set mathematical sciences, I am not sure why you seem to think that, but it shows you have excluded yourself from "those who know what's happening in the scene."

And you forgot to answer my other question: did you put up a Christmas tree last year? Why would this question be relevant to the conversation?

[RussB]

Negative, they tell us that it is a preist of Anubis, not Anubis himself.

A priest is a priest.

And I don't think that egypotologists are all that informed on the JS papri. They seem to think that it is a "common funeral scene". How they arrive at that I will never know.

Are you also going to tell us that "professional" egyptologists have reconstructed Fac.1 and they show 2 birds, and that they are not hands but wing tips?

This is the problem. "And I don't think that Egypotologists are all that informed on the JS papyri."

Those who've examined LDS claims are informed.

They tell us that Joseph got the story wrong, the genders wrong, and identities wrong.

[SilverKnight]

They tell us that Joseph got the story wrong, the genders wrong, and identities wrong.

When it comes to the Fascimiles, yes that is more or less correct.

Here's what a highly-trained professor of Egyptology had to say about it:

These three facsimiles of Egyptian documents in The Pearl of Great Price depict the most common objects in the Mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith's interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, 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.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is the problem. "And I don't think that Egypotologists are all that informed on the JS papyri."

Those who've examined LDS claims are informed.

They tell us that Joseph got the story wrong, the genders wrong, and identities wrong.

I see content on repeating your same mantra. What you reall should say is " I want to hear what you all have to say but what I will say as a rebuttle to every thing you say is, They tell us that Joseph got the story wrong, the genders wrong, and identities wrong."

It is so nice to have this discussion with you. John Gee has a PHD in egyptology, are you going to ignor what he has to say?

All I have is you claiming that they say so. Most egyptologist wont even touch this stuff. Not to mention that most egyptologist think that Abraham never even exsisted, that would have serious consiquesnces to your own theological views. So do you really want to go down this rabbit trail?

[T-Shirt]

Egyptologists inform us that.....

Egyptologists inform us that .....

You keep making this claim. Could you cite the names of these Egyptologists who you seem to think are so familiar with the JS papyri?

T-Shirt

[RussB]

Typically when asking questions it is polite to listen to answers actively.

I've posted politely and listened politely.

As one Christian posted on Walter Martin:

Jeff, when I have read what the different LDS sites say about the Book of Abraham, I do find good little factoids mixed in there. Just NOTHING about Joseph translating the name of a single Egyptian god correctly.

[T-Shirt]

I've posted politely and listened politely.

As one Christian posted on Walter Martin:

Jeff, when I have read what the different LDS sites say about the Book of Abraham, I do find good little factoids mixed in there. Just NOTHING about Joseph translating the name of a single Egyptian god correctly.

Russ,

When John, in the Book of Revelation, speaks of Babylon, is he literally referring to the ancient city of Babylon or is he referring to something else?

T-Shirt

[RussB]

Russ,

When John, in the Book of Revelation, speaks of Babylon, is he literally referring to the ancient city of Babylon or is he referring to something else?

T-Shirt

T-Shirt,

If you are Kerry Shirts, I would appreciate your direct responses to the problem I have encountered, i.e. Smith did not correctly name the gods.

LDS apologists only loosely connect the dots.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I've posted politely and listened politely.

If you have, you have also failed to make it apparent to everyone else in the discussion. In fact, your words say exactly the opposite, that you either haven't paid attention or have not understood responses. Moreover, you have ignored several questions I have raised to you.

[RussB]

If you have, you have also failed to make it apparent to everyone else in the discussion. In fact, your words say exactly the opposite, that you either haven't paid attention or have not understood responses. Moreover, you have ignored several questions I have raised to you.

Is it okay that I prefer to stick directly to the topic at hand sans responding to off-topic tangents?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Is it okay that I prefer to stick directly to the topic at hand sans responding to off-topic tangents?

I don't feel that my questions have been tangential, but directly relevant. Are you aware of the double-standards and faulty reasoning you have brought to the discussion? Answer my questions and let's find out.

[T-Shirt]

T-Shirt,

If you are Kerry Shirts,

I am not Kerry Shirts, I am but a lowly peon.

T-Shirt I would appreciate your direct responses to the problem I have encountered, i.e. Smith did not correctly name the gods.

Are you sure? Let me ask you a similar question. Did John correctly name "Rome" in the Book of Revelation?

Best,

T-Shirt

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I've posted politely and listened politely.

As one Christian posted on Walter Martin:

Jeff, when I have read what the different LDS sites say about the Book of Abraham, I do find good little factoids mixed in there. Just NOTHING about Joseph translating the name of a single Egyptian god correctly.

Who claimed that JS was looking at it through the lense of an ancient egyptian? Nice straw man.

You claimed "Just NOTHING about Joseph translating the name of a single Egyptian god correctly" Who claimed that he did?

[RussB]

I don't feel that my questions have been tangential, but directly relevant. Are you aware of the double-standards and faulty reasoning you have brought to the discussion? Answer my questions and let's find out.

I've seen an example of your questions.

"Did you put up a Christmas tree last December, by the way?"

Let's stick to Smith, okay?

He said that Elkenah is Anubis and that Abraham is Osiris.

This is obviously a mistake.

Convince others otherwise?

Convince me?

Well, Russ, you're just an anti-Mormon and you don't have faith.

Yeah, I know.

Try anyway.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I've seen an example of your questions.

"Did you put up a Christmas tree last December, by the way?"

Let's stick to Smith, okay?

He said that Elkenah is Anubis and that Abraham is Osiris.

This is obviously a mistake.

Convince others otherwise?

Convince me?

Well, Russ, you're just an anti-Mormon and you don't have faith.

Yeah, I know.

Try anyway.

I take it then that you ahve not read any of the responces to this? This has been dealt with. I will see if I can find the responces that you request. It is not as cut and dry as you would lead poeple to believe.

BTW Did you put of a Christmas tree last year? This is directly relevean to the discussion at hand as we can see just how consitant you are in your approaches.

[RussB]

I am not Kerry Shirts, I am but a lowly peon.

Are you sure? Let me ask you a similar question. Did John correctly name "Rome" in the Book of Revelation?

Best,

T-Shirt

This is sadly the typical red herring that has become the LDS apologetic on discussion boards.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is sadly the typical red herring that has become the LDS apologetic on discussion boards.

Red herring all you want, it shows how consistantly (or lack there of) you appraoch the problems of your own faith. If you can use those same approaches why cant we?

[SilverKnight]

Let's stick to Smith, okay?

He said that Elkenah is Anubis and that Abraham is Osiris.

This is obviously a mistake.

Yes it is.

You have irrefutable proof of such.

So why exactly are you still here?