Christian recall notice

[The Reality Salesman01]

:o
|
|\
| \
|8==✊=D...
|\ ..
| \ ...
O O ...

[ether-ore]

Tell us the main gist of why you think that smith's public wild translation of the Egyptian funeral papyri is not a big fanciful lie.

Ok... There are two issues here. One is the Book of Abraham itself and The other is facsimile 1.

First let me state that what I'm about to say absolutely will not satisfy. The issue concerning the Book of Abraham requires faith which is something you guys will reject out of hand. Anyway, the Book of Abraham was translated in much the same way as the Book of Mormon. It was translated by the gift and power of God through the use of the Urim and Thummim. This instrument is mentioned in the Old Testament and was used by many prophets, including Abraham. The method used to accomplish the translation is relatively unimportant to members of the church. What is important is the substance of the message of the book and whether it is true. The papyri from which the Book of Abraham was taken is according to FAIR, "The Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings manuscript and was lost." There is no doubt but that the response to this will be "how convenient?" Nevertheless, there it is.

As for the facsimile, It does appear to be a funerary image, but there are several differences. Here are some from FAIR:

"No other lion couch scenes show the figure lying on the couch clothed in the manner shown in Facsimile 1. In most other lion couch scenes, the reclining figure is either completely nude or fully wrapped like a mummy. There is one known scene in which the figure is wearing a loin cloth. None to date show the type of clothing being worn by the figure in Facsimile 1."

"No other such scenes have hatched lines such as those designated as "Expanse" or "Firmament" in Facsimile 1."

"No other such scenes are known to have the twelve gates or pillars of heaven or anything like them."

"No other such scenes show a lotus and an offering table"

A brief comment of my own regarding the part of the image immediately to the right of the lion's head of the sacrificial alter. That, I believe, to be a signature of Abraham. It shows a small alter which represents a larger one. There is a knife just to the left of that small alter, and there is a plant representing a thicket. All of these things refer to the event where God tested Abraham's faith by telling him to sacrifice his son Isaac. That event was so important to Abraham that he used those symbols as a signature. The Egyptians did perform human sacrifice and this is a representation of the Egyptians attempting to sacrifice Abraham. Abraham was saved by an angel as represented by the bird above both of Abraham's arms raised in supplication, which is another thing not seen in other lion couch scenes.

Another thing; The Egyptian priest in other funerary images has a headdress on that resembles the head of Anubis. But it is nevertheless a man (unless someone believes that there is such a creature with a man's body with the head of a dog). There is no reason not to show the priest in facsimile 1 as a man. Again, as indicated in the quotes from FAIR, the priest is always standing over a dead person or a mummy in other lion couch scenes. The individual (Abraham) on the alter in facsimile 1 is obviously alive.

That's about as brief as I can make it, but as I said, I doubt it will alter in the least your skepticism.

---

Ether,

Smith was caught in a lie. He claimed the papayri were something they are not.

If you can post anything to support smith on this from a reputable Egyptologist, we'd all love to see it.

I've looked and can find no such support. He was simply caught red handed in a hoax.

I guess it all depends on who you choose to believe.

---

It seems like Mormonism is a great example of how something can blow out of proportion very quickly. It's only a few centuries old, and has a bunch of different sects already. Like the children or grandchildren of the people who started Mormonism are still around, and they can't keep the whole group on the same page about their divine revelations.

Yes, there are always spin offs. Not only that, there is a prophesy that half of the members of the church will leave the church because of having to choose between God and mammon'; in other words, over social issues and placing equality over liberty. However, from my perspective, the church is fulfilling the Prophet Daniel's revelation of the stone cut out of the mountain without hands and which will roll forth to fill the whole earth.

---

I really don't think the bible supports that kind of idea, and it sounds like you're trying to put even more blame on Humans for what went wrong than the bible already does. Because your precious god isn't allowed to be responsible for anything bad to happen.

If Yahweh didn't create us, and we always existed, he has even less of a right to judge us than before.

Sorry, I've been so busy with moving, I've missed some of these comments and have had to go back to find them. With regard to yours, here is the way it works according to LDS theology.

You say that the Bible doesn't support the ideas I've put forward. Actually, I believe it does when you read it in conjunction with additional scripture revealed by Joseph Smith.

You phrase your comment in an antagonistic way, but you are essentially correct; God is not responsible for evil. Men going contrary to God's law cause the evil. God allows evil to happen while in this mortal probation in order to test us. Rewards and penalties will be handed down on the day of judgment.

God has a right to judge us because we agreed to His assistance in our progression. Our submission to God's conditions for His assistance; the conditions being that we will be tested to determine the degree to which we can advance after this life. The states of advancement after mortality are God's to give; we do not have a right to them. So it is God's judgment call as to what happens to us when we die. It will be well for those who use their agency to repent. For others; not so much.

[The Reality Salesman01]

So it is God's judgment call as to what happens to us when we die. It will be well for those who use their agency to repent. For others; not so much.

I will consider this claim from you if you can do one little thing. My Muslim buddy tells me the same thing. He also tells me it's not enough to just repent, he says that I have to repent and submit to his God, Allah. He says that if I invest my afterlife into the wrong God's basket, then I will be screwed for sure. Unfortunately, if he's right, you and I are both screwed. The one little thing I need from you is to prove that Allah is the wrong God to invest my faith into. You seem pretty certain about the authenticity of your God, so, the characteristics of a fraudulent God must be easy for you point out. I don't think this is an unfair request here.

---

You get what I'm asking right? If I've got three different propositions for gods coming at me, and each of the three are incompatible with the other, that is to say, if one is right the other two cannot be right. To complicate things, each of the three offers have only one instruction on how to know their God is the right one: to just have faith. Obviously, that's not going to work with all three. Now here's where it gets interesting...

All three people are absolutely sure they're right...

If I owed you $100, and I offered you three different $100 bills to choose from. Could you spot the fake? Probably, and you'd be really good at doing it if you'd devoted your life to studying the characteristics of American currency. Part of what it means to know what something is, is to know what it is not.

So, to someone who has surely devoted some percentage of their life to understanding the nature of their God, how were you able to eliminate Allah from the group? There are far more Muslims in the world who have all been convinced that their God is the authentic $100 bill, but you weren't fooled. So, what was it about the God of Islam that made you know that it was a fake?

[Chad32]

Well, Allah and the christian god are both the same. Christians will claim he's some sort of moon god, but they have the same stories about Noah and Abraham. Hell, Yahweh was a volcano god at one point.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Well, Allah and the christian god are both the same. Christians will claim he's some sort of moon god, but they have the same stories about Noah and Abraham. Hell, Yahweh was a volcano god at one point.

Maybe, but that can't be squared up using the texts. If Mohammad calls JC out as a false prophet, then that's not very compatible with the christian/morman path to salvation, is it?

[Chad32]

When I say the same god, i mean Yahweh. Not Jesus. Of course some christians believe Jesus is Yahweh, despite the evidence to the contrary.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The idea of an omnipotent god testing us is silly. So too is the idea that humans created evil. God is alleged to have created everything.

Responsibility is a bitch.

[Chad32]

We have a few decades, using faulty and incomplete information, that will decide where we go for eternity. Hurry up and figure out which god is the real god!!!

[The Reality Salesman01]

When I say the same god, i mean Yahweh. Not Jesus. Of course some christians believe Jesus is Yahweh, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Right, but if you're looking to secure an afterlife, the knowing the name of a God doesn't seem to be enough. If I'm following Mohammad's teachings regarding Yahweh, then I'm to believe that Jesus was no son of God, and he certainly wasn't the path to salvation. Alternatively, without accepting Jesus into my heart as my lord and savior, there's nothing Mohammad can do for me when Jesus comes rolling in on his cloud of fire to lay waste to me and all my blasphemous brethren...

[robvalue]

That's the problem with "faith", you've no way of knowing if you're wrong. It is by far the most ludicrous concept I've ever heard of. To actually claim it is a good thing is something even the most evil marketing company could learn from.