RFM gives a rundown of the fallout apologists have been experiencing due to the Robert Ritner interviews! On top of that, three examples are given of the games apologists play in defending the Book of Abraham!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Hi RFM, didn’t get to watch yet, but looks like I’m not mentioned in the abstract?? Sad ; )… did you cover the games you play while failing to support your claims that the “case is closed” and the BofA is false, as shown in the discussion on Brave Sir Kerry?
I’d love to watch if you did…. : )
I covered how John Gee tricked you with one of the games he plays.
But looks like you are busy playing games of your own.
In case no one mentioned it yet…your comment on the video ‘Interview with Kerry Muhlestein: Book of Abraham’ was deleted. If it still shows up for you then its just ‘hidden’ also called shadow banning.
Ok, so I listened to this all the way home from work and it was great…što learn that youāre a Lawyer, that explains a lot. Iām thinking you should stick with written discussions. Your followers think you almost seem to have a glimpse of humanity in your comments. ā¤ļøā¤ļøš Hoping you didnāt bravely run away yet, Iāll check back later.
I hope you also learned how you have been duped by Mormon apologists.
Consider my podcast a gift from me to you.
RFM, you should let “Joe” go. His anger is a direct reflection on the fact that he recognizes that his positions are unsupportable. He has nothing left but snark and misdirection (the way Daniel Peterson got there, right before they pulled the plug on him). I feel sorry for him.
It’s clear from Joe’s comments that he really doesn’t study the topic. His tunnel vision are to make apologetic comments, not to engage in concrete discussion.
Never fear, RFM, I have waved at Joe over on your Facebook page. I’ve asked him what was the king’s name in Facsimile No. 3 and he seemed rather reliant on others for an answer and tendered a female name by the name of Isis. I explained to him that Isis was the wife of mortal Osiris who lived on earth (before dynastic Egypt) and that Osiris was murdered by his evil brother, Set. I also explained that Osiris was resurrected as shown on the lion bed of Facsimile No. 1 where he impregnated his wife, Isis who gave birth to Horus the first king Egypt. So, it’s up to Joe to come up with a king’s name that is in the hieroglyphic writing of which Smith referred to in Facsimile No. 3. I told him not to supply a female name! But I expect an answer from him.
Thanks so much, Paul!
I knew you would be the cure for what ails me!
RFM…..love how they have nowhere to run or hide with you! LOL!
I’ve noticed something odd with these kinds of people playing these kinds of games…..in any other context , these men would be summarily given their mental illness diagnosis and be easily labelled correctly for the brand of personality disorder neurosis their tactics reveal.
But because they are discussing religious beliefs and they have initials behind their names, everyone tip toes around these outrageous lies and manipulations. Their antics are a disgrace and and should be a huge embarrassment to the church. There is no shame.
They are somehow allowed to roam around at large in the world of truth and common sense, dodging any real accounting of their shenanigans, just because they can pontificate endlessly never making sense of anything!
Its very difficult to stomach and even harder to believe I was ever cosigning a institution that behaves so unethically.
What you are asking of them is bare bones minimum sanity….not happening in this century!
It’s like the lights suddenly came on in the apartment kitchen at 3am and the cockroaches are scattering everywhere. You at least have given us some satisfaction of that. Please tell me I’m giving you a little chuckle:)
And then there are the apologists who come out of the woodwork to defend the apologists when they are being held to account.
As if God needed an apologist in the first place!
But the LDS Church definitely does!
And even those apologists need apologists it seems.
I always appreciate reading your comments, Angie.
And under the heading of I don’t actually say everything that comes into my mind, the thought had occurred to me that it’s amazing all you can see scrambling when you turn the lights on!
But not wanting to offend, I virtuously changed the analogy to fire ants.
Speaking of scrambling, when I was a missionary, I lived in one apartment with 5 other elders that was really cockroach infested.
Our main tactic for dealing with the cockroaches was to tiptoe into the kitchen in the dark with a block of wood and then someone would turn on the lights and we would start madly crushing the cockroaches against the walls as they scattered.
LOLOLOLOL!
RFM —
Once again, very interesting episode.
To me, the desperation, mendacity and ad hominem attacks by the traditional apologists shows that they are fighting a losing battle and that they know it at some level. You don’t start slinging sand in your opponent’s face if you are winning.
Having listened to some of the back and forth, it seems their arguments tend to be based on random, disconnected details (e.g., hey, look at this random mention of the name Abraham in a love charm several centuries later, etc. . . . ) What is missing from the apologists is a coherent story that explains how the Book of Abraham came to be–if you try to put a coherent story together based on the disconnected shards of argument that the apologists use, you come up with a mess.
So I will wager that the traditional apologist approach (at least as concerns the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham) will go the way of the dodo and the church will ultimately fully pivot to the “neo-apologist”/catalyst/translation=revelation approach (i.e., Terryl Givens). That approach has its own significant issues but I believe it is the only sustainable path forward for the church.
Thanks again for all of your good work.
I’m afraid the apologists keep winning, you aren’t playing the same game.
They continue to preserve tax exempt status for the over 100 billion assets under management hedge fund known as the Morm.. I mean “Church of yada yada yada”
The coo coo for coco puffs Scientologists have their tax exemption, so obviously it’s not that hard to win, just keep spewing BS.
My brother is a TBBSM. True believing of BS Mormon. I recently asked him if his testimony depended on the historicity of the BOM and BOA. That looped him and he spent the next 10 minutes on saying how would that even happen and he never answered my question but it made his eyes go wide and I could see the fear in them.
Misuse, abuse, and confuse the members and they will never leave you. In fact they will defend and hide you when the authority shows up to help them. Kind of parallels a batterer type relationship. This could answer why women stay with the LDS church in larger quantities than men. Women it would seem can take abuse to a higher degree than men. It would also seem to me that women could use a lesson or three on thinking for themselves. As a woman the doctrines of Mormonism were not believable if I wanted to believe I had any worth. Read section 132. Especially vs 54 and 55. Joseph or the man gets an hundredfold of fathers mothers houses lands wives and concubines and Emma or the women? Well IF we submit to all we won’t be destroyed and our reward is polygamy for eternity. So every time I hear someone say they wished Mormonism was true and that Smith really had been a true prophet and are beguiled by his ability to plagiarize any and all theology that came his way…..try putting yourself in what Mormon doctrine really looks like for women. It’s everything but beautiful.
But you will always have people like Joe. The abused protecting his abuser. It’s sad.
Well said K. I think the analogy of Joe protecting (or more accurately trying to protect) his abuser is spot on.
Why do women marry abusive men? It has to do with DNA. Women obey their DNA, which tells them to have children with the men who are best at survival. The men who are best at survival, are also the most likely to be bullies, abusive, fornicators, adulterers. Thus, women love them and wish to be with them, and will put up with HELL in order to mate with them. Answer is: Evolution. Survival of the fittest.
Most attractive Mormon women marry wealthy Gentile men, or are the concubines of wealthy already-married Gentile men. Add to that the MASSIVE amount of overweight LDS women in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and you will find out why most Mormon men leave. Most leave because they can’t find a woman to marry them. Problems in Mormon history usually don’t concern a happily married Mormon male, who is too busy and too happy to pay attention to problems in Mormon history, or the BOM or BOA or Kinderhook Plates. But if a man is “unhappy” he starts to open his eyes.
Mormon women, like all women everywhere, are happy if they have a male who can provide a high quality of life for them. If they can’t attract a male, then they can find happiness is the Church support system of ready-made female friends for life. Unmarriageable Mormon women supply a strong emotional support system for each other, a system that does NOT exist among never-married Mormon males, who see each other as competitors for very limited resources. However, for the “never-married-never-will-marry” Mormon women, the Church provides a strong Sisterhood: a place of close friendships that will last a lifetime, of “Sisters” in the same lifeboat, with no other boats on the horizon.
I once lived in a one-room hell-hole that was cockroach infested. When you turned on the lights the cockroaches jumped on my little twin bed and demanded that “I” got the hell out.
Here is a link where I’ve taken Pearl of Great Price Central to the woodshed and have thoroughly and without mercy disproved the so-called Sacrifice Scene. I’ve also credited Radio Free Mormon’s work in the thread!
http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=53749
Do enjoy! This is a must and is filled with golden nuggets!
Well said K. I think your analogy of Joe protecting ( or more accurately trying to protect) his abuser is spot on.
This question exposes my ignorance of Egyptology but…
Has it been proposed that the BYU egyptologists do a reverse translation of the book of Abraham from English to Egyptian? Could this be done?
Could the things in the BoA even be conveyed with the Egyptian hieroglyphs? Iāve got to think… not.
to add to my previous question…
If the BoA was translated from English to Egyptian hieroglyphs, if you were to try to fit this new translation onto a scroll, how long would that scroll need to be? I just wonder how this approach would fit into the missing scroll theory or the really really really long scroll theory … just thinking out loud here
BYU professor emeritus Michael Rhodes has provided a translation of papyrus. It has nothing to do with the BoA. The fact that these professors stay aligned with their employer and local culture has nothing to do with scholarship.
The questions regarding whether the Book of Abraham can actually be written in authentic Egyptian script is YES, it most certainly can and would well read as the Book of Abraham because the story is being properly translated by specialists from English into Egyptian. Of course, none of that was actually on Smith’s roll which contained only funerary spells and sacred Egyptian literature attributed to their gods.
Egyptologists around the world are well aware of the Mormon hoax in publishing their Book of Abraham. It’s been documented and specialists are aware of Mormon claims that Smith translated funerary papyri. But Egyptologists (other than the Apostate Egyptologists from BYU) reject the false translations and claims made by Smith. Richard Parkinson — British Museum Keeper wrote: . . . . “it was not the first influential attempt to ‘translate’ Egyptian texts, since the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith Jr had in 1835-44 worked on three Roman period funerary papyri, one of which he translated by direct inspiration as now canonical scripture, The Book of Abraham.”
I have a question for Paul, I wanted to post this on the mormondisscussions forum but canāt at this time.
You have recorded an eyewitness account:
Rev. Henry Caswall wrote:
The storekeeper now proceeded to redeem his promise of obtaining for me access to the curiosities. He led the way to a room behind his store, on the door of which was an inscription to the following effect: “Office of Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Latter Day Saints.” … Turning to another of the drawers, and pointing to a hieroglyphic representation, one of the Mormons said, “Mr. Smith informs us that this picture is an emblem of redemption. Do you see those four little figures? Well, those are the four quarters of the earth. And do you see that big dog looking at the four figures? That is the old Devil desiring to devour the four quarters of the earth. Look at this person keeping back the big dog. That is Christ keeping the devil from devouring the four quarters of the earth. Look down this way.
Doesnāt this account support your theory that the extant copy of fac. 3 did have a traditional depiction of Anubis, and that he was altered by Hedlock?
Yes. Absolutely.
Kerry is wearing two hats: 1) the Latter-day Saint hat, and 2) the Egyptologist hat. When he defends Joseph Smith, he takes his Egyptologist hat off and puts on his Latter-day Saint hat. This has to do with “wife and children” and “career” at BYU he loves. That’s what its all about for him. Has nothing to do with Egyptology, or even Joseph Smith.
Agreed but when doing so he tries to create the impression that he is still wearing his Egyptologist hat or at least reminds TBMs that he owns an Egyptologist hat to support the position that the BoA truth claims can’t be that crazy because some one who owns an actual Egyptologist hat believes in them.
Great episode as usual RFM, but when are you going to get to John Gee’s book being pulled from publication? It looks as if Bro. Gee got his toast burned on both sides this month, first Mr. Ritner debunks Gee’s spurious conclusions regarding Egyptology and the book of the dead as it related to the Book of Abraham. Then as if the toaster could not be more set to deep fat fry, Gee gets his latest book pulled from publication at BYU. In this book Gee, in typical apologist dishonesty misrepresents facts as if they never existed in the first place. Now we can anticipate an episode or two on a book, much like the Book of Abraham , that defies logic and enters into unfounded speculation in nearly every chapter.
Thanks again for entertaining us with the nonsense only Mormonism and its apologists seems to be able to deliver as of late.
M.R. Snevets
Great recap of the recent BoA discussions. I’m so glad that you spent time to do it.
Just want to emphasize what was stated earlier, your comments on the BoA Central video on YouTube were hidden fairly soon after you posted them. YouTube does this incredibly annoying thing of not letting the author know that their comment has been hidden. Because it still looks likes the comment is still shown to the person who posted it, you have to authenticate using a different account, you will see that it is gone.
These types of videos are cult like acts of gas lighting. The Church continues to play with people’s lives with their dishonest approach to their history. As they seek to hide the core issues of their truth claims, when people get all the information the result is often very damaging. It’s like a hand grenade going off.
Mol,
To answer your question, the papyrus in which you refer having the “dog” is not Facsimile No. 3 or from the Hor roll. It’s from one of the other roll, see here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/egyptian-papyri-circa-300-bc-ad-50/5 — the dog you see is sitting on the altar is a beast named Amemait which means “The Devourer”. So, as you can see this particular account doesn’t testify of Anubus. But Prof. Seyffarth does seem to allude to Anubis when examining the papyrus and he was a professional for the day, scroll down near the bottom of this page to see Prof. Seyffarth’s analysis and my comments: CATALOGUE OF THE ST. LOUIS MUSEUM https://book-of-abraham-facsimile-no-3.my-free.website/
Good episode. Thanks. However, be advised that comments posted on YouTube can only be removed by the commenter, which explains why your comment still exists.
RFM –
Hearing about Brave Sir Gee once again shrinking from opposition reminded of the intro of Elder Craig Christensen’s talk at fairmormon. In his intro he basically stated that he won’t deal with the problems. The building is on fire but they don’t want to talk about it, they only want to ignore the flames and discuss all the happy memories they had in the building.
Keep up the good work, it is greatly appreciated!
https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2019/08/12/fairmormon-conference-podcast-36-elder-craig-c-christensen-foundations-of-our-faith
Great Interview. Shawn is the best. I had the pleasure of having dinner with him and his wife Mary a couple of yesars ago in SLC. His honesty is rare and he really is authentic.
Keep up the good work
Paul
Just wanted to comment on the part where it was stated that the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with Egyptology….
RFM you sounded surprised that the speaker said that. To me it makes perfect sense when one is dependent on the “Catalyst Theory” there really is no need to have skills in Egyptology .
The reason I was surprised is because it was Kerry Muhlestein, a long-time devotee of the “Missing Papyri Theory,” who said it.
It marks what I see as a shift by Dr. Muhlestein to at least considering the “Catalyst Theory” as a viable option.
An option I think Dr. Muhlestein would never consider viable unless he had serious personal doubts about the validity of the “Missing Papyri Theory.”
;^)
Hi RFM, I was curious if you had seen Denverās recent post regarding the book of Abraham and if you wouldnāt mind sharing your thoughts on it? https://denversnuffer.com/2020/09/egyptian-records/
Yes, I did happen to see that posting! Thanks for bringing it to my attention here.
It seems Denver wants to pit scholars against Joseph Smith and leave it to your testimony to determine the winner.
But at some point, when the evidence is so overwhelming that Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian, I have to lean a little on the scholars’ side.