A challenge to BrianH - You've been called out

[_LDSToronto]

I can hardly wait to see yet another Mormon trying to deflect and evade the questions while trying to change the subject.

BrianH,

You have been challenged by no mere mortal here. Mike Reed is, like, super-smart and super-scholarly and you have every right to fear him. I would go so far as to say you won't find many more people as knowledgeable as he when it comes to Book of Abraham scholarship.

You may be frustrated with me, but I guarantee you won't be frustrated with Mike.

So, will you continue to evade Mike's questions below, or are you afraid? Taking Mike on will definitely up your street cred around here.

DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE!

H.

And yet the irony is that you've evaded my questions in this very thread.

Again...

Sure. I'll debate you. My position: You don't have a clue what the latest scholarship is on the matter, for or against the Book of Abraham.

Please prove me wrong by listing three new contributions to the Book of Abraham debate--contributions that have been made in the the last three years--for and against the Book of Abraham.

For the Book of Abraham
1.
2.
3.

Against
1.
2.
3.

Also... please list two works related to the topic that critics/apologists anticipate being published soon. One of each will suffice.

[_Fence Sitter]

There will not be a debate. BH is either a troll with no interest in discussion or he is, as all his posts have demonstrated, incapable of such. At this point my money is on the former.

[_Mike Reed]

BrianH,

You have been challenged by no mere mortal here. Mike Reed is, like, super-smart and super-scholarly and you have every right to fear him. I would go so far as to say you won't find many more people as knowledgeable as he when it comes to Book of Abraham scholarship.

LDSToronto, you are probably confusing me with Chris Smith. This seems to happen a lot on the forums.

On this topic you should rank me below Chris Smith, Brent Metcalfe, George Miller, Kevin Graham, et al.

I know my place. ;)

If only BrianH knew his.

The research I am doing on the Book of Abraham is focused primarily on its relevance to the Endowment and Freemasonry.

You may be frustrated with me, but I guarantee you won't be frustrated with Mike.

He assumes I am a believing Mormon, and doesn't understand why I reject his drivel. As you know, it is not because I accept the Book of Abraham as sacred scripture.

It is because

--He is a bigoted prick (having insulted many of our friends and family members).
--He doesn't have a clue about how far the Book of Abraham debate has progressed.

The second of these two is the least of his problems.

So, will you continue to evade Mike's questions below, or are you afraid? Taking Mike on will definitely up your street cred around here.

DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE!

Bring it, BrianH. Answer the questions.

[Guest]

I can hardly wait to see yet another Mormon trying to deflect and evade the questions while trying to change the subject.

BrianH,

You have been challenged by no mere mortal here. Mike Reed is, like, super-smart and super-scholarly and you have every right to fear him. I would go so far as to say you won't find many more people as knowledgeable as he when it comes to Book of Abraham scholarship.

You may be frustrated with me, but I guarantee you won't be frustrated with Mike.

So, will you continue to evade Mike's questions below, or are you afraid? Taking Mike on will definitely up your street cred around here.

DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE!

H.

And yet the irony is that you've evaded my questions in this very thread.

Again...

Sure. I'll debate you. My position: You don't have a clue what the latest scholarship is on the matter, for or against the Book of Abraham.

Please prove me wrong by listing three new contributions to the Book of Abraham debate--contributions that have been made in the the last three years--for and against the Book of Abraham.

For the Book of Abraham
1.
2.
3.

Against
1.
2.
3.

Also... please list two works related to the topic that critics/apologists anticipate being published soon. One of each will suffice.

Mr. Reed's challenge was posted in response to my question, without answer it. The challenge he is avoiding (along with you and all other Mormons who have responded) is the simple task of showing that your so-called "prophet" properly identified the canopic jar idols from the Book of Breathings as the idol gods "Elkanah", "Libnah", "Mahmackrah" and "Korash".

As such his challenge is an evasion.

Such evasions are not very impressive for a supposedly real smart Mormon. Personally I would have been far more impressed had he simply answered the question and at least TRIED to show some evidence to support the LDS claim that the idols universally recognized throughout all relevant Egyptological literature asthe Sons of Horus, really were named what Smith claimed and attributed to "God".

As for the content of this evasive answer and distraction, I don't see what the debate is. What is the proposition to be debated here? I mean, look man, if you cannot at least articulate the resolution in question, no debate is even possible.

-BH

.

[_DrW]

BrianH,

While I pretty much agree with your view of the Book of Abraham, and see most LDS "scholarship" related to "revealed" LDS scripture as equivalent to study and debate regarding the provenance and fine points of the Quatrains of Nostradamus, Lord of the Rings, or the Galactic Lord Xenu narrative of L. Ron Hubbard, I have to wonder about your motivations in bringing these issues up on this board.

In case I may have missed it elsewhere, are you by any chance an Evangelical Christian?

[Guest]

BrianH,

You have been challenged by no mere mortal here. Mike Reed is, like, super-smart and super-scholarly and you have every right to fear him. I would go so far as to say you won't find many more people as knowledgeable as he when it comes to Book of Abraham scholarship.

LDSToronto, you are probably confusing me with Chris Smith. This seems to happen a lot on the forums.

On this topic you should rank me below Chris Smith, Brent Metcalfe, George Miller, Kevin Graham, et al.

I know my place. ;)

If only BrianH knew his.

The research I am doing on the Book of Abraham is focused primarily on its relevance to the Endowment and Freemasonry.

You may be frustrated with me, but I guarantee you won't be frustrated with Mike.

He assumes I am a believing Mormon, and doesn't understand why I reject his drivel. As you know, it is not because I accept the Book of Abraham as sacred scripture.

It is because

--He is a bigoted prick (having insulted many of our friends and family members).
--He doesn't have a clue about how far the Book of Abraham debate has progressed.

The second of these two is the least of his problems.

So, will you continue to evade Mike's questions below, or are you afraid? Taking Mike on will definitely up your street cred around here.

DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE!

Bring it, BrianH. Answer the questions.

Is this supposed to be a debate???

If so, I must ask first of all, what is the topic of this debate? What is the resolution that you are proposing? If you cannot at least identify the proposition we are debating, I am afraid that no further discussion is even possible. if the proposition you are proposing is that I do not have a clue, well ...let's see. Please go back and answer the original question you have thus far avoided.

-BH

.

[Guest]

There will not be a debate. BH is either a troll with no interest in discussion or he is, as all his posts have demonstrated, incapable of such. At this point my money is on the former.

So far Mr. Reed is the one who has not shown any interest in debating me. I long ago posted an open challenge and directed him to it. There I simply asked that Mormons support the proposition that Joe Smith translated the Book of Breathings correctly to somehow contain the so-called "Book of Abraham". In particular, as a case in point, I challenged Mormons to simply show that Smith correctly identified the canopic jar idols in his Facsimile #1 correctly.

So far all I have seen as an answer is this counter-challenge to answer questions about the books I have read. The number and names of books I have read hardly amounts to any kind of answer to my challenge. It is Mormons who are on the run here. And the question I asked was so darn SIMPLE, too.

I have been around long enough to easily recognize the common LDS tactic of creating tangents to use as rabbit trails that lead away from the central proposition being debated. Its usually used to obscure the fact that Mormons usually have no answers for even the simplest most obvious questions. I simply refuse to be deceived by the lame rhetorical tactics that LDS "scholars" and leadership have used to keep their followers so obviously flumoxed for so long.

Its amazing to see Mormons panic and flee like this from what should have been such a simple challenge ...IF their organization had them believing the truth, that is.

-BH

.

[_BrianH]

BrianH,

While I pretty much agree with your view of the Book of Abraham, and see most LDS "scholarship" related to "revealed" LDS scripture as equivalent to study and debate regarding the provenance and fine points of the Quatrains of Nostradamus, Lord of the Rings, or the Galactic Lord Xenu narrative of L. Ron Hubbard, I have to wonder about your motivations in bringing these issues up on this board.

I like your comparison between debating Mormon "scripture" and pure fantasy/science fiction. I have yet to see anything that connects most of LDS "scripture" to reality. As to your question, I'm sorry ...did I miss something? Isn't this the "Mormon Discussion" board? Is this the wrong board to discuss Mormon topics?

In case I may have missed it elsewhere, are you by any chance an Evangelical Christian?

I am a Christian though I am not sure that I will confine myself to the title "Evangelical" until I know more of what that word means to you.

-BH

.

[_BrianH]

.

On this topic you should rank me below Chris Smith, Brent Metcalfe, George Miller, Kevin Graham, et al.

I know my place. ;)

If only BrianH knew his.

So what IS my "place", Mike? Should I not be ...here, for example?

The research I am doing on the Book of Abraham is focused primarily on its relevance to the Endowment and Freemasonry.

Then there is little to debate. I fully agree with your assessment that the Book of Abraham is relevant to the LDS endowment ceremonies. I could even see how it might in some distant way be abstractly relevant, if not necessarily any part of the foundation of Freemasonry. Now...
If only you could show that the Egyptian Book of Breathings (known among Mormons as "the Book of Abraham") is relevant to Abraham, you might have done something that no Mormon has ever done before.

You may be frustrated with me, but I guarantee you won't be frustrated with Mike.
He assumes I am a believing Mormon, and doesn't understand why I reject his drivel. As you know, it is not because I accept the Book of Abraham as sacred scripture.

It is because

--He is a bigoted prick (having insulted many of our friends and family members).
--He doesn't have a clue about how far the Book of Abraham debate has progressed.

The second of these two is the least of his problems.

Wow. I Must have touched a nerve with my questions and my refusal to be fooled by mere repetitions of the same old rehashed LDS excuses and goofy "scholarship". Some people are VERY sensitive and should avoid public debates. They get their feelings hurt and then get all nasty.

So, will you continue to evade Mike's questions below, or are you afraid? Taking Mike on will definitely up your street cred around here.

I have no reason to be worried about my credibility among Mormons. My experience has been that Mormons (TBMs, that is) appear to have been programmed to automatically reject anything that challenges what their organization has told them to believe. My purpose is not to persuade Mormons, for the TBM cannot be persuaded by argumentation.

-BH

.

[_RockSlider]

I've given a shallow attempt, from time to time, to try and get a grasp on the Book of Abraham issues. The level of complexity (either real or contrived) surely requires the rocket scientists of all theology and Egyptology experts to even qualify one with the credentials needed to venture into this arena.

Wasn't it Gee who was a forerunning in setting the needed standard required for players in the field (i.e. his Egyptology test --- if you can't pass it don't ask questions, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars).

My shallow and short lived attempts in understanding these issues stem from basically the same question/conclusion that BrianH seems to be pointing out. There are so many simple surface level issues exposed with the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and the explosion of understanding of Egyptology since that time, that the mind numbing rocket science requirements of analysis is a waste of brain power.

and who in the heck is this Shulem guy anyway? (hehe)