Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 126

Thread: Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

  1. #1
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

    Mormons will frequently try to cloud the issues pertaining to the so-called “Book of Abraham” (BoA)by pointing to the fact that while we today possess at least SOME of the original document (identified by scholars as the “Sensen Papyrus”), we do not have ALL of it. Apparently they want to insinuate that while the “Book of Abraham” material cannot be correctly derived from any valid translation of the papyrus that we DO have, one COULD show that the BoA was derived from the missing portion ..if we had it.

    First of all this is simply a retreat – an admission that one cannot show any connection between the BoA and the original papyrus from which it was supposedly translated by the Mormon “prophet” and his alleged divine gift for translating languages he could not even read.

    Secondly, while it is indeed possible that there was additional papyri that Smith used –i.e. that the Sensen papyrus is not complete- the FACT is, Smith himself included materials copied directly from the existing papyrus and claimed to have translated these exact portions where they appear in the BoA. So we absolutely CAN test his claim to have translated this portion of this ancient Egyptian document, even if there might be other portions that we cannot test.

    So let’s have a look at just ONE part of Smith’s translation, and then see if he got it right using his supposed divine, prophetic gift of translating ancient languages.

    In every copy of the BoA there appears a some “facsimiles” of hieroglyphics copied directly from the images on the existing papyrus, including images of some of Egypt’s mythical gods. In Facsimile #1, Smith identifies the idol figures he numbers as 5, 6, 7 and 8. (These are the four figures that appear beneath the alleged “alter” upon which the claimed figure of “Abraham” is supposedly being sacrificed). The “prophet” Smith, claiming to use his alleged "gift and power of God" to translate languages he could not even read tells us explicitly that these figures represent the idolatrous gods of (his exact words): “Elkenah”, “ Libnah”, “Mahmackrah” and “Korash”.

    Now, the simple irrefutable FACT is, these exact same figures appear all over ancient Egyptian documents and artifacts. So for Smith’s claim to be true, we would have to accept that the same images appearing in all those other ancient documents represent the same “gods”. So the question is ...do they? Are these same images appearing here and elsewhere representative of Egyptian gods named, “Elkenah”, “ Libnah”, “Mahmackrah” and “Korash”.

    The answer is no, of course.

    First of all there are NO Egyptian gods named “Elkenah”, “ Libnah”, “Mahmackrah” and “Korash”. Those names appear NOWHERE in the vast archives of Egyptian literature, mythology, lore and oral tradition. Nor do they appear on any monument or on any other archaeological find. They simply do not exist anywhere in any Egyptian sources. In fact, they appear NOWHERE outside the BoA.

    Second, to believe Smith you have to accept that that the Egyptians did not know the names of their own gods because these figures DO consistently correspond throughout all of the ancient Egyptian literature where they appear with the mythical “sons of Horus” known as “Qebehseneuf” (fig. #5 on the papyrus and duplicated in Facsimile #1), “Duamutef” (fig. #6), “Hapy” (fig. #7) and “Imsety” (fig. #8). Even an elementary familiarity with Egyptian lore will quickly inform you that these mythical figures are quite common. In fact, as sons of one of the most important Egyptian deities (Horus) they are rather important figures. For example, Hapy (aka “Hapi”) is the god of the Nile – that all important source of all life for the entire Egyptian civilization. The name means “running one” and refers to the flow of the river. In fact, he was thought to control the annual flooding of the Nile. This word corresponds to other uses of the same word to describe a “running one”. By contrast, Smith's supposedly divine gift for translation lead him to identify "Hapy" as "Mahmackrah" a word that has no Egyptian meaning and in fact, is not even an Egyptian name (nor even a name of anyone in ANY language).

    Here’s the problem. There is no Egyptian deity known as “Mahmackrah”. That name appears exactly NOWHERE in any Egyptian literature or lore. There IS an Egyptian deity known as “Hapy”, and he was a pretty important dude to the Egyptians. So his REAL name is quite common and his image is well-known among Egyptologists and other antiquarians. But Smith's name for this figure is totally unknown outside the claims of the LDS organization and its "prophets".

    The same is true for literally ALL of the other figures throught the Facsimiles found in every copy of the BoA as published by the LDS church.

    If Smith was right, all Egyptian literature needs to be corrected and these idol-gods need to be re-identified to redeem all of Egyptian literature from the gibberish to which it is reduced by the error of 100% of all qualified Egyptologists, linguists, archaeologists, historians to have ever studied ancient Egypt and made the error of mistranslating the names of the Egyptian gods.

    On the other hand, if Smith was just making stuff up to fool his hapless, uninformed, unquestioning victims, then the whole field of Egyptology can continue to make sense in its own terms and it is Mormons who must account for the demonstrated fact that they have believed the lies of a not-so-clever occult con artist.

    The veracity of the LDS religion hinges on this issue. Either the Mormon “prophet” translated the Sensen papyrus correctly by the same alleged divine gift for translating ancient languages he could not even read, or else he was lying ...or possibly just delusional.

    So the challenge to Mormons here is this: SHOW US why we should think that 100% of all qualified Egyptologists and scholars from all related fields are all WRONG to identify these figures as “Qebehseneuf”, “Duamutef”, “Hapy” and “Imsety” and correct the entire academy of Egyptologists by showing us (and them) why those deities are REALLY to be identified as “Elkenah”, “ Libnah”, “Mahmackrah” and “Korash” .

    You may begin by showing us that the names used by Joseph Smith AT LEAST existed somewhere in Egyptian lore BEFORE he showed up in the early 1800s and claimed that they did. Then you can conclusively demonstrate the “inspiration” of your so-called “prophet” by simply showing us that the names he used are indeed correctly ***ociated with the idols to which he attached them.

    And please ...don’t try to change the subject by making ME (or anyone or anything else) the issue here. Such behaviors will be quickly identified and exposed.

    Thank you

    -BH

    .
    Last edited by BrianH; 07-08-2011 at 07:31 AM.

  2. #2
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    AGAIN, the challenge to Mormons here is this: SHOW US why we should think that 100% of all qualified Egyptologists and scholars from all related fields are all WRONG to identify these figures as “Qebehseneuf”, “Duamutef”, “Hapy” and “Imsety”. Your so-called "prophet" said they are to be identified as “Elkenah”, “ Libnah”, “Mahmackrah” and “Korash”. You have the chance to set the record straight, correct the entire academy of Egyptologists and show the world why those deities are REALLY to be identified as your "prophet" supposedly discerened by means of his alleged divine gift for translating languages he could not even read.

    You may begin by showing us that the names used by Joseph Smith AT LEAST existed somewhere in Egyptian lore BEFORE Smith showed up in the early 1800s.

    Then you can conclusively demonstrate the “inspiration” of your so-called “prophet” by simply showing us that the names he used are indeed correctly ***ociated with the idols to which he attached them.

    If your organization is telling the truth and the BoA REALLY IS a work inspired by the Holy Spirit, then your "prophet" should AT LEAST have gotten the names of these idols right. Can you show us that he AT LEAST got that much correct? If not, why should we think he got ANY of it right?

    -BH

    .
    Last edited by BrianH; 07-11-2011 at 12:08 PM.

  3. #3
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default Bump

    AGAIN ... the challenge to Mormons here is this: SHOW US why we should think that 100% of all qualified Egyptologists and scholars from all related fields are all WRONG to identify these figures as “Qebehseneuf”, “Duamutef”, “Hapy” and “Imsety” and correct the entire academy of Egyptologists and archaeologists by showing us (and them) why those deities are REALLY correctly identified as “Elkenah”, “ Libnah”, “Mahmackrah” and “Korash”.

    You may begin by showing us that the names used by Joseph Smith AT LEAST existed somewhere in Egyptian lore BEFORE he showed up in the early 1800s and claimed that they did. Then you can conclusively demonstrate the “inspiration” of your so-called “prophet” by simply showing us that the names he used are indeed correctly ***ociated with the idols to which he attached them.

    If the Mormon organization is telling the truth, this should not be hard at all. On the other hand if the Mormon organization's "scriptures" are a pack of lies, and even just plain stooopid lies, then there will continue to be no answer to this challenge here or anywhere else.

    -BH

    .

  4. #4
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    So Mormons, who is right here? Is it your so-called "prophet" or the collective, uniform consensus of the entire academy of Egyptologists, archaeologists, historians and linguists who have consistently identified these idols and shown how the mythical "gods" are routinely integrated throughout Egyptian lore, religion and myth?

    If you say Smith was right, please show us the evidence that led to that simple, linguistic conclusion. (And please don't try to tell us that we have to have "faith" in Smith or his alleged "translation" to "know" he was right. The circularity of that fatally flawed reasoning is just too silly to refute again).

    -BH

    .supposedly

  5. #5
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    So Mormons, who is right here? Is it your so-called "prophet" or the collective, uniform consensus of the entire academy of Egyptologists, archaeologists, historians and linguists who have consistently identified these idols and shown how the mythical "gods" are routinely integrated throughout Egyptian lore, religion and myth?

    If you say Smith was right, please show us the evidence that led to that simple, linguistic conclusion. (And please don't try to tell us that we have to have "faith" in Smith or his alleged "translation" to "know" he was right. The circularity of that fatally flawed reasoning is just too silly to refute again).

    -BH

    .supposedly

    My brother is is clear that the mormons hate to involve themselves in arguments that there is no way to talk their way out of.. The BofA has been shone to be a total fraud.. Even the explanation of the facsimiles is laughed at by scholars.. Smith actually identifies the Goddess Isis as the Pharaoh.. See facsimile Number 3.. Funny yes but still so SAD that so many have put their eternal welfare at stake believing such destructive LIES.. IHS jim

  6. #6
    Radix
    Guest

    Default

    Wow, three weeks and no response on this Brian. Even Richard has not dug up any silly apologetic response. Kerry Shirts is my favorite. His responses are long, frequently the references and quotes make no sense, and I love how this Marine Biologist states Ritner does not get it because he has not read Nibley's (another non-Egyptologist like himself) works.
    Here is a Shirts quote " Well, here’s what about this. Robert Rittner is apparently unaware of Hugh Nibley’s ****ysis in Abraham in Egypt."

    Please. According to a Marine Biologist, Ritner would be better informed if he just listened and accepted what Nibley had to say. The quoted reference comes from "KERRY SHIRTS ON THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM VIDEO FROM I.R.R."

    One has even more fun reading Dan Peterson's "News from Antiquity"

    "Ancient texts indicate that the idolatrous gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, and Korash, described in the book of Abraham (Abr. 1:6, 13, 17; facsimile 1, figs. 5–8), truly were worshipped in the ancient world, despite the fact that the Bible makes no mention of them"

    Sadly his reference for this is other Mormon apologists. There is nothing in the real world of academics to back this up, but since Peterson says it, it has to be almost gospel in the minds of some Mormons. Sadly, most Mormons are never going to take the time to check this out. They have their pre-suppositions that Peterson is trustsworthy, and in their minds it would almost be apostasy to actually dig into his references.

    Daniel claims the church was the first to point out the translation of the Facsimiles do not correspond to Joseph Smith's. But above, we see that LDS are still trying to prove it true, and will lie through their eye***** to make it appear so.

    Everything about all of this is kept so vague, it does not matter which side of the coin LDS land on. They can always feel comfortable in their stance. The real leaders of the LDS church know never to take any kind of stance on this, that is why they have their apologetic teams. NOTHING these apologists says has any real spiritual value to a true Mormon. Their real value is helping the real leaders of the church avoid having to face hard, legitimate questions.

  7. #7
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Still not one word of defense for the BofA from a mormon poster.. This proves to me that what they think they know, what they have been taught about that volume of lies is 100% false based on Joseph Smith alone and not on the teaching of God through Abraham.. IHS jim


    Come on dear LDS friends.. If the BofA is a fraud, then so is Smith!!! He is a false prophet, a liar because he told the world he had the power to translate the papyri and interpret the facsimiles. And it turns out that nothing of the BofA is present on the scrolls, that the interpretation of the scrolls is 100% incorrect. That Smith couldn't even tell a king from a goddess.. That is not the power of God working in a man that is the man's pride, ego, and deceitful heart working to retain a place he had lied to achieve in the first place. That of being a prophet of God. This is proof one and for all that Smith was a liar and a con man with no power of God in him at all.. IHS jim
    Last edited by James Banta; 07-31-2011 at 07:27 AM.

  8. #8
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Yeah, its amazing how Mormons have been reduced to reflexively regurgitating each other's comments and granting themselves and each other automatic unquestioned and final authority on all these things.

    They take the time to format their footnotes correctly in order to make their stuff look authentic, and their websites are nicely produced. To the easily duped, I am sure this makes them all look entirely credible. The problem is, their arguments are all based on nothing more than wishful thinking, speculation and empty guesswork.

    Over against this, we have the uniform consensus of all qualified Egyptologists, archaeologists, historians and linguists as to the names and iden***ies of these Egyptian deities as well as how they figure into Egyptian mythology and religion. And NOT ONE scholar, Mormon or otherwise has ever once produced a single iota of any kind of evidence to challenge that consensus. Instead, Mormons are told to take the claims of the LDS organization on "faith".

    Its as if there was a religion based on an excerpt of the U.S. Declaration of Independence supposedly translated into a story about an invasion of space aliens and the names signed at the bottom identified as members of a mythological Mayan pantheon. Its just plain STOOOOOOPID, and literally NO ONE takes the LDS claims seriously. And in fact, Mormon Egyptologist Stephan Thompson has totally debunked the Book of Abraham.

    At least there are a few honest Mormon scholars on earth.

    -BH

    .

  9. #9
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Still no answers...

    -BH

    .

  10. #10
    Radix
    Guest

    Default

    I posted this OP over at another place. It has had exactly the number of substantive responses as you have here. This is a skeleton (or mummy) in the closet that LDS do not have the guts to face.

  11. #11
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Radix View Post
    I posted this OP over at another place. It has had exactly the number of substantive responses as you have here. This is a skeleton (or mummy) in the closet that LDS do not have the guts to face.
    Hi Rad.

    And the reason WHY there is no substantive response here or there, is because there is no possibility of such a response. The simple fact is, Smith was a lying fraud and no Mormon nor anyone else can change that fact. His overt fraudulence is made overwhelmingly obvious by his complete and total mistranslation of a 1st century Breathing Permit into the silly fantasy of the so-called "Book of Abraham".

    That's like someone finding a copy of a Brazilian driver's license that expired in 2001 and "translating" it into a speech by Thomas Jefferson, while claiming to be a prophet of the God of Israel. How ANYONE could fall for such a thing remains a great mystery.

    But the entire LDS religion is built on just exactly that level of absurdity.

    -BH

    .

  12. #12
    Radix
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post

    That's like someone finding a copy of a Brazilian driver's license that expired in 2001 and "translating" it into a speech by Thomas Jefferson, while claiming to be a prophet of the God of Israel. How ANYONE could fall for such a thing remains a great mystery.
    .
    The mystery is that some people like being gullible. The sad thing is that being gullible is turned into "having faith." And the more blind the faith, the holier you must be. The holier you are, then you get to become a god. When you become a god, you get to forget how gullible you are.

  13. #13
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    I think you nailed it, Radix. Mormons in general seem to think that believing fantasies require more "faith" and thus make them more worthy.

    Chrsitianity is difficult because it is real. Those who only defend fantasies can just make stuff up while Christians are bound by reality to the God of Truth.

    People who authorize themselves to just believe/invnet whatever suits them this week have no need for God at all, because they are happier with their idols.

    -BH

    .

  14. #14
    HopefulSaint
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    Chrsitianity is difficult because it is real.
    What about being in your version of Christianity do you find so difficult?
    Is it the part where you feel you have to believe in Trinitarianism even though it makes no sense--is that the difficult part?

    Or is it obeying Jesus' commandment about how you should treat others--is that the difficult part (***uming the version you follow believes that such a commandment exists)?

    If not those, then what parts DO you feel are so difficult?

  15. #15
    jdjhere
    Guest

    Default

    We are more interested in an actual answer to post #1 than you asking more questions, HopefulSaint. Thanks.

  16. #16
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HopefulSaint View Post
    What about being in your version of Christianity do you find so difficult?

    Is it the part where you feel you have to believe in Trinitarianism even though it makes no sense--is that the difficult part?

    Or is it obeying Jesus' commandment about how you should treat others--is that the difficult part (***uming the version you follow believes that such a commandment exists)?

    If not those, then what parts DO you feel are so difficult?
    You ignored the rest of what I said. Furthermore, while I appreciate your need to change the subject, I was not talking to you and so I owe you no response to this attempted distraction. I am being nice to even respond.

    Now, if you would like to shatter the Mormon mold and try to actually address the topic of this thread for once, I might be willing to see what you have to say. Please show us some reason to think that the entire body of Egyptian literatrue and lore should be re-writen to accommodate the uniqe and as-yet-unfounded claims of your so-called "prophet".

    -BH

    .

  17. #17
    HopefulSaint
    Guest

    Default

    You made an ***ertion, in this thread, and I was just wondering if you were able to explain why you think the way you do.

    Originally Posted by BrianH
    Chrsitianity is difficult because it is real.
    If you thought you could throw out ***ertions and be immune to having them questioned, then maybe you are in the wrong forum.

  18. #18
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HopefulSaint View Post
    You made an ***ertion, in this thread, and I was just wondering if you were able to explain why you think the way you do.



    If you thought you could throw out ***ertions and be immune to having them questioned, then maybe you are in the wrong forum.
    If you thought you could isolate a clause from a post not addressed to you and use it to deflect and disrupt the thread, you are on the wrong planet.

    In fact, I would have thought that you would have learned a LOOOOONG time ago that these Mormon antics of yours do not work on non-Mormons. The topic of this thread is Smith's rather obvious deception as exhibited in his totally mis-identifying four well-known Egyptian idols.

    You yourself know you have no means to even begin to refute the facts that prove your so-called "prophet" was a total fraud. That's why you are forced by your "faith" in him to try to cover up your inability to defend his fraudulent claims.

    -BH

    .

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    159

    Smile

    First to address HopefulSaint's question about the statement "Christianity is hard because it is real": actually Jesus is the one who said "with men it is impossible." The reason is that to become holy as God is holy cannot be attained by natural efforts. It takes the power of God with the infilling of the Holy Spirit to become holy (i.e. become a saint). Holiness must be real, it cannot be just a theory or concept, just as eternal punishment is real, and the lake of fire is a very real result of sin. So if you read the Bible enough to become familiar with it, you will see that the statement measures up to its teachings.

    In regard to the Book of Abraham, a simple and cursory reading of chapter 1 reveals inconsistencies with truth as portrayed in the Bible and in history and archaeology. For example, Smith is apparently under the presumption that Egypt and Chaldea are one-and-the-same nation, or that Chaldea was being ruled by the Pharaoh at that time. There is apparently no truth in this, since none of the current archaeological or historical findings agree with this idea, in addition to it being contrary to the ***umptions in the scripture concerning the relationship of those nations at that time. Even if we stretch the imagination to presume that a Pharaoh ruled Chaldea at that time, it is ridiculous to suggest that the people of Chaldea would have mourned for an Egyptian priest of an Egyptian god (even if it were Ra or Aton or whatever the name). It seems reasonable that if Smith was going to invent a "Book of Abraham" from Egyptian heiroglyphics, he had to invent some major connection between Egypt and Chaldea.

    Many other evidences can be shown that the Book of Abraham is a fabrication. It reads in style like many of the cultic pseudoepigraphal writings, and one of the obvious fabrications is the statement "refer to the commencement..." which means essentially "the drawing is in the appendix." Such format is foreign to ancient m****cripts. It is written in King James style English as a strategy to authenticate it as a "holy writing" to unknowledgeable people.

    When the proverbial skirts of Joseph Smith are lifted, Mormons are afraid to look at his nakedness, because it would tell them that all their efforts for salvation up to this point are null and void. One can only hope that God would grant openness of mind and heart to them so that they could repent of their deception from following "The Prophet", and follow the true Shepherd and Guardian of souls, who is explained only in the Holy Bible, and not in the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham or any other Mormon writing.
    Last edited by tdidymas; 08-10-2011 at 11:18 PM. Reason: word connotation

  20. #20
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Well said, TD. Thank you.

    -BH

    .

  21. #21
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Over a month and 345 hits later and, as usual, we still see not even one ATTEMPT to justify Smith's identification of these Egyptian idols.

    So AGAIN, the challenge to Mormons here is this: SHOW US why we should think that 100% of all qualified Egyptologists and scholars from all related fields are all WRONG to identify these figures as “Qebehseneuf”, “Duamutef”, “Hapy” and “Imsety” and correct the entire academy of Egyptologists by showing us (and them) why those deities should be CORRECTLY identified as “Elkenah”, “ Libnah”, “Mahmackrah” and “Korash” .

    You Mormon guys may begin by AT LEAST showing us that the names used by Joseph Smith existed somewhere in Egyptian lore BEFORE (or heck, even AFTER) Joseph Smith showed up in the early 1800s and claimed that he had employed his alleged divine gift for translating languages that he could not even read to render God's own translation of this document. Then you can conclusively demonstrate the “inspiration” of your so-called “prophet” by simply showing us that the names he used are indeed correctly ***ociated with the idols to which he attached them.

    If you and your "prophets" and your organization are telling the truth, then you should be able to find at least SOME kind of actual confirmation in the m***ive and vast archives of Egyptian religion, lore and language. OTH, if you are propagating falsehoods while only pretending to be speaking the truth on behalf of the father of lies, your continuing silence will be no surprise.

    How about it?

    -BH

    .

  22. #22
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    Over a month and 345 hits later and, as usual, we still see not even one ATTEMPT to justify Smith's identification of these Egyptian idols.

    So AGAIN, the challenge to Mormons here is this: SHOW US why we should think that 100% of all qualified Egyptologists and scholars from all related fields are all WRONG to identify these figures as “Qebehseneuf”, “Duamutef”, “Hapy” and “Imsety” and correct the entire academy of Egyptologists by showing us (and them) why those deities should be CORRECTLY identified as “Elkenah”, “ Libnah”, “Mahmackrah” and “Korash” .

    You Mormon guys may begin by AT LEAST showing us that the names used by Joseph Smith existed somewhere in Egyptian lore BEFORE (or heck, even AFTER) Joseph Smith showed up in the early 1800s and claimed that he had employed his alleged divine gift for translating languages that he could not even read to render God's own translation of this document. Then you can conclusively demonstrate the “inspiration” of your so-called “prophet” by simply showing us that the names he used are indeed correctly ***ociated with the idols to which he attached them.

    If you and your "prophets" and your organization are telling the truth, then you should be able to find at least SOME kind of actual confirmation in the m***ive and vast archives of Egyptian religion, lore and language. OTH, if you are propagating falsehoods while only pretending to be speaking the truth on behalf of the father of lies, your continuing silence will be no surprise.

    How about it?

    -BH

    .
    Even quilified scholars who are mormon (there are only 2) deny the BofA was translated by Smith. Dr. Stephen E. Thompson stated the following as a responce to a question asked in the Northeast Sunstone Symposium about By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus by Charles M. Larson.

    In my opinion, it's the best source to go to if you want to know what's been going on with the Book of Abraham .... Nothing that's been written from an apologetic point of view comes close to it in accuracy.


    Please read the full articale on this subject at http://www.irr.org/mit/thompson.html IHS jim

  23. #23
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    Even quilified scholars who are mormon (there are only 2) deny the BofA was translated by Smith. Dr. Stephen E. Thompson stated the following as a responce to a question asked in the Northeast Sunstone Symposium about By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus by Charles M. Larson.

    In my opinion, it's the best source to go to if you want to know what's been going on with the Book of Abraham .... Nothing that's been written from an apologetic point of view comes close to it in accuracy.


    Please read the full articale on this subject at http://www.irr.org/mit/thompson.html IHS jim
    Wow. If Richard (HankSaint, etc.) had not pulled his customary disappearing act, it would have been fun to watch him try to get around this one. As it stands, we can fully expect to see all Mormons totally avoid confronting this reality.

    The bottom line continues to remain obvious: the Book of Abraham is a hoax, which is conclusive proof that Joseph Smith was a fraud. That unchallenged FACT all by itself shoots the entire religion of Mormonism right in the face with both barrels.

    Game over, man.

    -BH

    .

  24. #24
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    Wow. If Richard (HankSaint, etc.) had not pulled his customary disappearing act, it would have been fun to watch him try to get around this one. As it stands, we can fully expect to see all Mormons totally avoid confronting this reality.

    The bottom line continues to remain obvious: the Book of Abraham is a hoax, which is conclusive proof that Joseph Smith was a fraud. That unchallenged FACT all by itself shoots the entire religion of Mormonism right in the face with both barrels.

    Game over, man.

    -BH

    .

    How can we do it? We have Deuteronomy 18 that tells us that if a prophet speaks in the name of God and what he says is proven false then he is a false prophet and is not to be followed.. But still these hang onto Smith with the devotion that should be held only for God when he is so obviously a fraud..

    Lord we need you to prevent the lose of these your creation. You have already died for them, please Lord come to them and convict them of this sin of denying you and turn them to you and away from the myths of men.. IHS jim

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    How can we do it? We have Deuteronomy 18 that tells us that if a prophet speaks in the name of God and what he says is proven false then he is a false prophet and is not to be followed..
    Deut. 18 says no such thing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •