Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Book of Abraham - Revision history

GregSmith: /* top */Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

2024-04-13T20:20:35Z

top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:20, 13 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~FairMormon~~}}		{{Main Page}}
	{{H1		{{H1
	\|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Book of Abraham		\|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Book of Abraham

RogerNicholson at 17:59, 4 August 2017

2017-08-04T17:59:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:59, 4 August 2017
Line 8:		Line 8:
	\|>=[[../The Kinderhook Plates\|The Kinderhook Plates]]		\|>=[[../The Kinderhook Plates\|The Kinderhook Plates]]
	}}		}}
	~~{{ChartMormonThinkTheBookOfAbraham}}~~		[[File:Mormonthink.chart.book.of.abraham.png\|center\|frame]]
	<onlyinclude>		<onlyinclude>
	{{H2		{{H2

RogerNicholson at 15:59, 4 August 2017

2017-08-04T15:59:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 4 August 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{FairMormon}}		{{FairMormon}}
	~~<onlyinclude>~~
	{{H1		{{H1
	\|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Book of Abraham		\|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Book of Abraham

FairMormonBot: Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|information= +}}\n{{information|)

2017-08-04T15:50:11Z

Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|information= +}}\n{{information|)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:50, 4 August 2017
Line 59:		Line 59:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=Facsimile 3...This particular scene corresponds to Chapter 125 of the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. According to Egyptologists, this scene depicts the deceased (Hôr) successfully completing his afterlife journey and entering into the presence of Osiris.		\|claim=Facsimile 3...This particular scene corresponds to Chapter 125 of the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. According to Egyptologists, this scene depicts the deceased (Hôr) successfully completing his afterlife journey and entering into the presence of Osiris.
	\|~~information=~~This is correct.		}}
			{{information\|This is correct.
	}}		}}

FairMormonBot: Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|misinformation= +}}\n{{misinformation|)

2017-08-04T15:41:54Z

Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|misinformation= +}}\n{{misinformation|)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:41, 4 August 2017
Line 40:		Line 40:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=since the original Papyri have been examined by both LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists and both groups have indicated clearly that the scrolls are funerary texts that have nothing to do with Abraham or anything mentioned in the LDS scripture		\|claim=since the original Papyri have been examined by both LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists and both groups have indicated clearly that the scrolls are funerary texts that have nothing to do with Abraham or anything mentioned in the LDS scripture
	\|~~misinformation=~~There were no "scrolls" recovered, only fragments of the original scrolls. Not all of the original papyri was recovered. What was recovered were a number of fragments, including the original of Facsimile #1. The originals for Facsimile's #2 and #3 were not recovered. The recovered fragments have nothing to do with Abraham-a fact which was noted in the official Church magazine, the ''Improvement Era'' in January 1968.		}}
			{{misinformation\|There were no "scrolls" recovered, only fragments of the original scrolls. Not all of the original papyri was recovered. What was recovered were a number of fragments, including the original of Facsimile #1. The originals for Facsimile's #2 and #3 were not recovered. The recovered fragments have nothing to do with Abraham-a fact which was noted in the official Church magazine, the ''Improvement Era'' in January 1968.
	}}		}}

Line 78:		Line 79:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=one of the sections of papyrus was clearly the Egyptian writing from which Smith claimed to "translate" the Book of Abraham. There were still handwritten copies of the original translation work which showed the individual Egyptian figures down the left margin of a page, with the English translation right next to it. The handwriting on these copies was by Smith's regular scribes who helped him in his work. These Egyptian figures are clearly seen in a section of one of the recovered papyrus sections, all in exactly the same order that they appear on the handwritten "translation" pages.		\|claim=one of the sections of papyrus was clearly the Egyptian writing from which Smith claimed to "translate" the Book of Abraham. There were still handwritten copies of the original translation work which showed the individual Egyptian figures down the left margin of a page, with the English translation right next to it. The handwriting on these copies was by Smith's regular scribes who helped him in his work. These Egyptian figures are clearly seen in a section of one of the recovered papyrus sections, all in exactly the same order that they appear on the handwritten "translation" pages.
	\|~~misinformation=~~The critics are referring to the documents known as the "Kirtland Egyptian Papers." There is no evidence that these documents were produced before or during the translation of the Book of Abraham. The evidence indicates that after the Book of Abraham was translated, that this may have been an attempt to "reverse engineer" the translation by matching Egyptian characters to the Book of Abraham text.		}}
			{{misinformation\|The critics are referring to the documents known as the "Kirtland Egyptian Papers." There is no evidence that these documents were produced before or during the translation of the Book of Abraham. The evidence indicates that after the Book of Abraham was translated, that this may have been an attempt to "reverse engineer" the translation by matching Egyptian characters to the Book of Abraham text.
	}}		}}
	{{:Question: What criticisms are associated with the Kirtland Egyptian Papers?}}		{{:Question: What criticisms are associated with the Kirtland Egyptian Papers?}}
Line 90:		Line 92:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=The original that Smith had used had pieces missing, including portions of the picture in Facsimile 1. Smith had obviously commissioned an artist to "fill in" the missing details according to Smith's speculation of what would have been in the missing sections.		\|claim=The original that Smith had used had pieces missing, including portions of the picture in Facsimile 1. Smith had obviously commissioned an artist to "fill in" the missing details according to Smith's speculation of what would have been in the missing sections.
	\|~~misinformation=~~The missing sections were filled in prior to their publication, however, it is not known ''who'' decided how to "restore" these missing sections. It may have been Joseph Smith, or it may have been the engraver, Ruben Hedlock. The critics cannot simply assert the Joseph Smith "obviously" had someone complete this according to his "speculation."		}}
			{{misinformation\|The missing sections were filled in prior to their publication, however, it is not known ''who'' decided how to "restore" these missing sections. It may have been Joseph Smith, or it may have been the engraver, Ruben Hedlock. The critics cannot simply assert the Joseph Smith "obviously" had someone complete this according to his "speculation."
	}}		}}
	{{:Question: How were the missing portions of the Joseph Smith Papyri facsimiles restored?}}		{{:Question: How were the missing portions of the Joseph Smith Papyri facsimiles restored?}}
Line 149:		Line 152:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=The Book of Abraham also introduced the first and only scriptural basis for denying the priesthood to Blacks, the Church's official position until 1978.		\|claim=The Book of Abraham also introduced the first and only scriptural basis for denying the priesthood to Blacks, the Church's official position until 1978.
	\|~~misinformation=~~ the use of this scripture to justify the ban was very late. Latter-day Saint attitudes on this point generally echoed those of contemporaries: “With very little effort one can duplicate the Mormon arguments to the most specific detail from these contemporary non-Mormon sources,” and this includes the use of biblical proof texts. Lester E. Bush Jr., “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8/1 (Spring 1973): 15–16; see also 26–27. The use of uniquely LDS scripture to justify the ban dates from B. H. Roberts, The Contributor (1885), 6:296–7 (Bush, “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine,” 34–35; Bush also notes a possible earlier allusion to this idea in 1880 by Erastus Snow in Journal of Discourses, 21:370). Bush asks, “Why wasn’t the Pearl of Great Price invoked earlier on this matter? Most probably there was no need. The notion that the Negroes were descended from Cain and Ham was initially common enough knowledge that no ‘proof’ or corroboration of this connection had been necessary” (“Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine,” 36). Following Roberts’ work, an explanation based on the Pearl of Great Price was used extensively.		}}
			{{misinformation\| the use of this scripture to justify the ban was very late. Latter-day Saint attitudes on this point generally echoed those of contemporaries: “With very little effort one can duplicate the Mormon arguments to the most specific detail from these contemporary non-Mormon sources,” and this includes the use of biblical proof texts. Lester E. Bush Jr., “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8/1 (Spring 1973): 15–16; see also 26–27. The use of uniquely LDS scripture to justify the ban dates from B. H. Roberts, The Contributor (1885), 6:296–7 (Bush, “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine,” 34–35; Bush also notes a possible earlier allusion to this idea in 1880 by Erastus Snow in Journal of Discourses, 21:370). Bush asks, “Why wasn’t the Pearl of Great Price invoked earlier on this matter? Most probably there was no need. The notion that the Negroes were descended from Cain and Ham was initially common enough knowledge that no ‘proof’ or corroboration of this connection had been necessary” (“Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine,” 36). Following Roberts’ work, an explanation based on the Pearl of Great Price was used extensively.
	}}		}}
	{{:Question: Do the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon link a person's skin color to their behavior in the pre-existence?}}		{{:Question: Do the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon link a person's skin color to their behavior in the pre-existence?}}

FairMormonBot: Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|disinformation= +}}\n{{disinformation|)

2017-08-04T15:37:22Z

Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|disinformation= +}}\n{{disinformation|)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:37, 4 August 2017
Line 66:		Line 66:
	\|claim=In 1967, the Museum presented the papyri as a gift to the LDS Church. It was time for Evans' challenge to be taken up by Mormon critics.		\|claim=In 1967, the Museum presented the papyri as a gift to the LDS Church. It was time for Evans' challenge to be taken up by Mormon critics.
	The Church itself did some of the investigative work in comparing the results of modern studies in Egyptology applied to the papyri to the claims Joseph Smith had made for his work on the Book of Abraham. But when it became obvious that the results were going to be painfully uncomfortable for the Church, work became very slow. Outside researchers eventually obtained adequate copies of the material and began publishing their own results.		The Church itself did some of the investigative work in comparing the results of modern studies in Egyptology applied to the papyri to the claims Joseph Smith had made for his work on the Book of Abraham. But when it became obvious that the results were going to be painfully uncomfortable for the Church, work became very slow. Outside researchers eventually obtained adequate copies of the material and began publishing their own results.
	\|~~disinformation=~~The Church published the finding that the recovered papyri fragments were from the Book of Breathings in the ''Improvement Era'' in 1968. The critics make it sound as if the Church attempted to hide this information.		}}
			{{disinformation\|The Church published the finding that the recovered papyri fragments were from the Book of Breathings in the ''Improvement Era'' in 1968. The critics make it sound as if the Church attempted to hide this information.
	}}		}}
	{{:Question: Was the Church forthright in identifying the rediscovered papyrus prior to their examination by non-LDS Egyptologists?}}		{{:Question: Was the Church forthright in identifying the rediscovered papyrus prior to their examination by non-LDS Egyptologists?}}
Line 101:		Line 102:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=Below is a modern reconstruction of what the missing pieces likely contained, based on contents of similar funeral documents....It should be noted that not all nonMormon Egyptologists agree that there should be a second bird in the middle of the facsimile. Dr. Lanny Bell supports the idea that the figure on the table is indeed holding up two hands. However, no nonMormon Egyptologists believe Anubis (the priest as identified by Joseph) was holding a knife or that he had a man's head instead of a Jackal's head.		\|claim=Below is a modern reconstruction of what the missing pieces likely contained, based on contents of similar funeral documents....It should be noted that not all nonMormon Egyptologists agree that there should be a second bird in the middle of the facsimile. Dr. Lanny Bell supports the idea that the figure on the table is indeed holding up two hands. However, no nonMormon Egyptologists believe Anubis (the priest as identified by Joseph) was holding a knife or that he had a man's head instead of a Jackal's head.
	\|~~disinformation=~~The Charles Larson restoration has a number of inaccuracies.		}}
			{{disinformation\|The Charles Larson restoration has a number of inaccuracies.
	\|provenance=Charles M. Larson, ''By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri Paperback'' (1992)		\|provenance=Charles M. Larson, ''By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri Paperback'' (1992)
	}}		}}
Line 115:		Line 117:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=The Book of Abraham supports the concept of polygamy as Abraham took another wife as directed by the Lord.		\|claim=The Book of Abraham supports the concept of polygamy as Abraham took another wife as directed by the Lord.
	\|~~disinformation=~~The Book of Abraham does not discuss Abraham's practice of polygamy. It does not talk of him taking "another wife" or lying about it.		}}
			{{disinformation\|The Book of Abraham does not discuss Abraham's practice of polygamy. It does not talk of him taking "another wife" or lying about it.
	}}		}}

Line 122:		Line 125:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=Perhaps what's even more significant is that God actually instructs Abraham to lie about it. God tells Abraham that he must lie to the Egyptians and tell them that his wife is really his sister so they wouldn't take her from him (Abraham 2:22-25). This is the only scriptural reference that we know of where God instructs someone to lie. This is important because Joseph lied to his congregations and to the public about his involvement in polygamy.		\|claim=Perhaps what's even more significant is that God actually instructs Abraham to lie about it. God tells Abraham that he must lie to the Egyptians and tell them that his wife is really his sister so they wouldn't take her from him (Abraham 2:22-25). This is the only scriptural reference that we know of where God instructs someone to lie. This is important because Joseph lied to his congregations and to the public about his involvement in polygamy.
	\|~~disinformation=~~This is not the only scriptural reference where God instructs someone to lie. Other examples of God instructing others to hide the truth include:		}}
			{{disinformation\|This is not the only scriptural reference where God instructs someone to lie. Other examples of God instructing others to hide the truth include:
	* Moses regarding "borrowing treasure from the Egyptians" ({{s\|\|Exodus\|12\|35-36}})		* Moses regarding "borrowing treasure from the Egyptians" ({{s\|\|Exodus\|12\|35-36}})
	* Egyptian midwives lying about Hebrew children ({{s\|\|Exodus\|1\|15-22}})		* Egyptian midwives lying about Hebrew children ({{s\|\|Exodus\|1\|15-22}})
Line 137:		Line 141:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=If God would instruct Abraham to lie about his wives then it seems plausible that God could tell Joseph to lie about his wives as well.		\|claim=If God would instruct Abraham to lie about his wives then it seems plausible that God could tell Joseph to lie about his wives as well.
	\|~~disinformation=~~The Book of Abraham says nothing about God instructing Abraham to "lie about his wives."		}}
			{{disinformation\|The Book of Abraham says nothing about God instructing Abraham to "lie about his wives."
	}}		}}

Line 152:		Line 157:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=It described Pharaoh and the Egyptians as descendants of Ham and Canaan (the progenitors of the Negro race), and under the curse of Canaan and disqualified from the priesthood (Abraham 1:21-22, 26-27).		\|claim=It described Pharaoh and the Egyptians as descendants of Ham and Canaan (the progenitors of the Negro race), and under the curse of Canaan and disqualified from the priesthood (Abraham 1:21-22, 26-27).
	\|~~disinformation=~~The author is mixing up "Cain" and "Canaan," however, there is no relationship between the two. The Canaanites were ''not'' descendants of Cain, despite the similar sounding names. There was no "curse of Canaan." The author is thinking of the "curse of Cain."		}}
			{{disinformation\|The author is mixing up "Cain" and "Canaan," however, there is no relationship between the two. The Canaanites were ''not'' descendants of Cain, despite the similar sounding names. There was no "curse of Canaan." The author is thinking of the "curse of Cain."
	}}		}}
	{{:Source:Gospel Topics:Race and the Priesthood:2013:Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor}}		{{:Source:Gospel Topics:Race and the Priesthood:2013:Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor}}
Line 165:		Line 171:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=If it wasn't for the Book of Abraham, it is possible that two of the most controversial and objectionable doctrines of the LDS church (polygamy and denying the priesthood to blacks) would not have happened or have been as prominent as they were. Polygamy was already in practice by Joseph but perhaps it would not have been so prominently practiced by the members if there was no Book of Abraham to support the practice.		\|claim=If it wasn't for the Book of Abraham, it is possible that two of the most controversial and objectionable doctrines of the LDS church (polygamy and denying the priesthood to blacks) would not have happened or have been as prominent as they were. Polygamy was already in practice by Joseph but perhaps it would not have been so prominently practiced by the members if there was no Book of Abraham to support the practice.
	\|~~disinformation=~~Again, the Book of Abraham says nothing about polygamy, and was never used as justification for the practice.		}}
			{{disinformation\|Again, the Book of Abraham says nothing about polygamy, and was never used as justification for the practice.
	}}		}}

Line 172:		Line 179:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=The two current most prominent Egyptologists on each side of the BOA issue are LDS Egyptologist Michael Rhodes and nonLDS Egyptologist Robert Ritner. Who would you believe is more qualified to answer the question as to the correct interpretation of the facsimiles and of the Egyptian papyri? Look at their websites and see for yourself.		\|claim=The two current most prominent Egyptologists on each side of the BOA issue are LDS Egyptologist Michael Rhodes and nonLDS Egyptologist Robert Ritner. Who would you believe is more qualified to answer the question as to the correct interpretation of the facsimiles and of the Egyptian papyri? Look at their websites and see for yourself.
	\|~~disinformation=~~The two most prominent Egyptologists on each side of the Book of Abraham issue are LDS Egyptologist John Gee and non-LDS Egyptologist Robert Ritner. John Gee (Ph.D., Yale University) formerly taught at Yale University, and worked in the Department of Egyptian Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. He has numerous publications in non-LDS peer reviewed Egyptology journals. Dr. Gee has been the most prominent LDS Egyptologist for many years. The MormonThink author has disingenuously minimized Gee's credentials (just a "student" of Ritner) and instead chosen Michael Rhodes to compare to Ritner as a way of making it appear that there are no LDS Egyptologists with sufficient credentials to speak on the subject of the Joseph Smith papyri.		}}
			{{disinformation\|The two most prominent Egyptologists on each side of the Book of Abraham issue are LDS Egyptologist John Gee and non-LDS Egyptologist Robert Ritner. John Gee (Ph.D., Yale University) formerly taught at Yale University, and worked in the Department of Egyptian Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. He has numerous publications in non-LDS peer reviewed Egyptology journals. Dr. Gee has been the most prominent LDS Egyptologist for many years. The MormonThink author has disingenuously minimized Gee's credentials (just a "student" of Ritner) and instead chosen Michael Rhodes to compare to Ritner as a way of making it appear that there are no LDS Egyptologists with sufficient credentials to speak on the subject of the Joseph Smith papyri.
	}}		}}

Line 179:		Line 187:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=John Gee: FARMS Egyptologist (now at the Maxwell Institute at BYU). William "Bill" Gay Assistant Research Professor of Egyptology at the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts. He has written many articles for FARMS. He was a student of Egyptology under Robert Ritner.		\|claim=John Gee: FARMS Egyptologist (now at the Maxwell Institute at BYU). William "Bill" Gay Assistant Research Professor of Egyptology at the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts. He has written many articles for FARMS. He was a student of Egyptology under Robert Ritner.
	\|~~disinformation=~~The critics portray Dr. Gee as "FARMS Egyptologist and simply a "student" under Robert Ritner. In reality, Gee has a Ph.D. in Egyptology from Yale University and has made, and continues to make, ''substantial'' contributions to the field of Egyptology that have nothing to do with FARMS or Latter-day Saint interests.		}}
			{{disinformation\|The critics portray Dr. Gee as "FARMS Egyptologist and simply a "student" under Robert Ritner. In reality, Gee has a Ph.D. in Egyptology from Yale University and has made, and continues to make, ''substantial'' contributions to the field of Egyptology that have nothing to do with FARMS or Latter-day Saint interests.

	*John Gee (Ph.D., Yale University) is currently the William (Bill) Gay Research Professor of Egyptology and a Senior Research Fellow at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University. He formerly taught at Yale University, and worked in the Department of Egyptian Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.		*John Gee (Ph.D., Yale University) is currently the William (Bill) Gay Research Professor of Egyptology and a Senior Research Fellow at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University. He formerly taught at Yale University, and worked in the Department of Egyptian Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Line 226:		Line 235:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=Stuart Ferguson: LDS archaeologist that spent 20 years on a quest to discover some archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon from his expeditions that were funded by the church. He never found any evidence and was getting concerned when about the lack of BOM evidence when the news of the Book of Abraham papyri was rediscovered and given to the church. After reports came out that the Joseph Smith papyri was nothing more than common Egyptian funeral documents he lost his testimony.		\|claim=Stuart Ferguson: LDS archaeologist that spent 20 years on a quest to discover some archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon from his expeditions that were funded by the church. He never found any evidence and was getting concerned when about the lack of BOM evidence when the news of the Book of Abraham papyri was rediscovered and given to the church. After reports came out that the Joseph Smith papyri was nothing more than common Egyptian funeral documents he lost his testimony.
	\|~~disinformation=~~Thomas Stuart Ferguson was not an archaeologist and he had no formal training in archaeology.		}}
			{{disinformation\|Thomas Stuart Ferguson was not an archaeologist and he had no formal training in archaeology.
	}}		}}
	{{:Question: Was Thomas Stuart Ferguson an archaeologist?}}		{{:Question: Was Thomas Stuart Ferguson an archaeologist?}}

FairMormonBot: Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|propaganda= +}}\n{{propaganda|)

2017-08-04T15:32:32Z

Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|propaganda= +}}\n{{propaganda|)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:32, 4 August 2017
Line 47:		Line 47:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=Of particular note is Fig 7 (bottom right shown upside down). Joseph said it represents God sitting upon his throne. Egyptologists say that this is the god "Min." Min is an "ithyphallic god," that is, a sexually aroused male deity. His erect penis is clearly shown. It's interesting to note that in some earlier editions of the BOA the church erased the penis so it wouldn't look pornographic. It has since been restored in our current versions. But isn't it somewhat disturbing that Joseph would say that this pagan god with his exposed penis is our Heavenly Father? Note, even LDS apologists admit that this figure, with the erect penis, is the god Min		\|claim=Of particular note is Fig 7 (bottom right shown upside down). Joseph said it represents God sitting upon his throne. Egyptologists say that this is the god "Min." Min is an "ithyphallic god," that is, a sexually aroused male deity. His erect penis is clearly shown. It's interesting to note that in some earlier editions of the BOA the church erased the penis so it wouldn't look pornographic. It has since been restored in our current versions. But isn't it somewhat disturbing that Joseph would say that this pagan god with his exposed penis is our Heavenly Father? Note, even LDS apologists admit that this figure, with the erect penis, is the god Min
	\|~~propaganda=~~This wasn't a big deal to the Egyptians. It is a point of mockery used by critics because they know that it offends 21st century sensibilities regarding how we portray God.		}}
			{{propaganda\|This wasn't a big deal to the Egyptians. It is a point of mockery used by critics because they know that it offends 21st century sensibilities regarding how we portray God.
	}}		}}
	{{:Question: If modern Egyptologists say that this is a representation of Min, and Min is a “pagan” God, how could Joseph Smith say that it represents God sitting on his throne?}}		{{:Question: If modern Egyptologists say that this is a representation of Min, and Min is a “pagan” God, how could Joseph Smith say that it represents God sitting on his throne?}}
Line 236:		Line 237:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=Smith published the BOA in the "Times and Seasons" newspaper (which he owned) in serial form, and notified readers that they needed to renew their subscriptions so they wouldn't miss any of the cliff-hanging Abrahamic adventures in Egypt.		\|claim=Smith published the BOA in the "Times and Seasons" newspaper (which he owned) in serial form, and notified readers that they needed to renew their subscriptions so they wouldn't miss any of the cliff-hanging Abrahamic adventures in Egypt.
	\|~~propaganda=~~This is nonsense.		}}
			{{propaganda\|This is nonsense.
	}}		}}

Line 243:		Line 245:
	\|title=MormonThink		\|title=MormonThink
	\|claim=In this 2012 BBC documentary, Apostle Jeffrey Holland was asked why the translation of the Book of Abraham by Joseph Smith doesn't match what Egyptologists say it means. Holland only responded that it was the word of God and he doesn't understand how it was translated. That is somewhat disturbing that an apostle can't give a better answer than that.		\|claim=In this 2012 BBC documentary, Apostle Jeffrey Holland was asked why the translation of the Book of Abraham by Joseph Smith doesn't match what Egyptologists say it means. Holland only responded that it was the word of God and he doesn't understand how it was translated. That is somewhat disturbing that an apostle can't give a better answer than that.
	\|~~propaganda=~~Elder Holland was asked this question and honestly answered that he didn't understand the exact method by which the Book of Abraham was produced. Critics of the Church constantly promote the idea that General Authorities are dishonest, yet they complain when one says "I don't claim to know".		}}
			{{propaganda\|Elder Holland was asked this question and honestly answered that he didn't understand the exact method by which the Book of Abraham was produced. Critics of the Church constantly promote the idea that General Authorities are dishonest, yet they complain when one says "I don't claim to know".
	}}		}}
	{{:Question: How did Elder Holland respond during a BBC interview when asked how the Book of Abraham was translated?}}		{{:Question: How did Elder Holland respond during a BBC interview when asked how the Book of Abraham was translated?}}

RogerNicholson at 14:55, 4 August 2017

2017-08-04T14:55:55Z

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 |H=Response to claims made on MormonThink page "The Book of Abraham"
 |S=
-|L1=
+|L1=Response to claim: "LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists and both groups have indicated clearly that the scrolls are funerary texts that have nothing to do with Abraham"
 }}
 </onlyinclude>
-==Quick Navigation==
 ==Response to claim: "LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists and both groups have indicated clearly that the scrolls are funerary texts that have nothing to do with Abraham"==
 {{IndexClaimItemShort

RogerNicholson at 14:54, 4 August 2017

2017-08-04T14:54:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:54, 4 August 2017
Line 2:		Line 2:
	<onlyinclude>		<onlyinclude>
	{{H1		{{H1
	\|L=~~{{check}}~~		\|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Book of Abraham
	\|H=Response to MormonThink page "The Book of Abraham"		\|H=Response to MormonThink page "The Book of Abraham"
	~~\|S=~~
	~~\|L1=~~
	\|T=[[../\|MormonThink]]		\|T=[[../\|MormonThink]]
	\|A=Anonymous		\|A=Anonymous
Line 12:		Line 10:
	}}		}}
	{{ChartMormonThinkTheBookOfAbraham}}		{{ChartMormonThinkTheBookOfAbraham}}
			<onlyinclude>
			{{H2
			\|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Book of Abraham
			\|H=Response to claims made on MormonThink page "The Book of Abraham"
			\|S=
			\|L1=
			}}
			</onlyinclude>
	==Quick Navigation==		==Quick Navigation==
	*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Book of Abraham#Response to claim: "LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists and both groups have indicated clearly that the scrolls are funerary texts that have nothing to do with Abraham"\|Response to claim: "LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists and both groups have indicated clearly that the scrolls are funerary texts that have nothing to do with Abraham"]]		*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Book of Abraham#Response to claim: "LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists and both groups have indicated clearly that the scrolls are funerary texts that have nothing to do with Abraham"\|Response to claim: "LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists and both groups have indicated clearly that the scrolls are funerary texts that have nothing to do with Abraham"]]

FairMormonBot: Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|H1 +|H)

2017-06-26T21:37:04Z

Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|H1 +|H)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:37, 26 June 2017
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{H1		{{H1
	\|L={{check}}		\|L={{check}}
	\|H1=Response to MormonThink page "The Book of Abraham"		\|H=Response to MormonThink page "The Book of Abraham"
	\|S=		\|S=
	\|L1=		\|L1=