Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by MG 2.0 »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:57 pm
To what extent or how often [Orson] was present during the course of all those translations is a moot point. 10% or 50% or more, it makes no difference.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Granted, there is some importance to this pivot point. Things can swing one way or the other based on your views in this regard.

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by Shulem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:43 pm
Shulem wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:57 pm
To what extent or how often [Orson] was present during the course of all those translations is a moot point. 10% or 50% or more, it makes no difference.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Granted, there is some importance to this pivot point. Things can swing one way or the other based on your views in this regard.

Regards,
MG


Sure, we can agree to disagree. I have no problem with that. What’s important is that we are both aware of these citations in the official Church Archives and the ramifications of such statements is open to interpretation and different points of view. Neither of us desire to twist each other’s arms to make our point. This is a friendly forum, for sure.

The beauty of the Celestial Forum is that we can disagree and still be friends and treat each other respectfully.

Isn’t this great? We do enjoy the Celestial Forum. It’s nice up here.

:D
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Olishem

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:15 pm

Jeff,

The Book of Abraham text directly states that the sacrifices mentioned therein were performed in the land of Chaldea on an altar designed specifically for human sacrifice. The plain of Olishem was designated as the place where the sacrifices of Egyptian custom took place. But there is a problem with the narrative of the text (Abraham 1:10) and the vignette of Facsimile No. 1 which provides Abraham’s own illustration of the Abrahamic sacrifice mentioned in the text of verse 12. They do not agree. There are clear contradictions between Olishem being yonder in another quarter of land outside of Egypt and the location designated in the iconographic symbolism of Facsimile No. 1 of “Abraham in Egypt” according to Facsimile No. 1, Fig. 10.

I would like to discuss those differences with you, Jeff. I think it can be shown that Smith’s narrative in the text does not match the iconographic symbolism of the vignette in which he attempted to connect to his story in the Book of Abraham.

Has this ever raised any level of concern with you, Jeff?

Sincerely,

Shulem

Jeff,

With regard to the location of the alleged sacrificial ritual performed by Egyptians against Abraham’s life in Chaldea, specifically on the “plain of Olishem”, there is a clear and marked difference between the text of the Book of Abraham and the iconic representation of Facsimile No. 1. It’s rather very simple, thus, the text placed the scene in a foreign land and the Facsimile is indigenous to Egypt proper. The contradictory accounts places one scene in the northern Levant and the other in the very land of Egypt. Thus, the text says the sacrifice occurred in Chaldea but the representation shows it happening inside Egypt. Both can’t right.

Please note the following characteristics that are specific to the so-called sacrifice scene of Facsimile No. 1, described by Joseph Smith, as it compares to the iconic representation of Osiris rising forth in resurrection:

1. Osiris is over the lion bed.
2. Lion bed is under Osiris.
3. Lion bed is over the Four Sons of Horus
4. Four Sons of Horus are under the lion bed
5. Four Sons of Horus are located by the Nile river
6. Nile river is located by the Four Sons of Horus
7. Crocodile is in the Nile river
8. Nile River hosts the crocodile.
9. Temple walls are near the Nile river
10. Nile river is near the temple walls

That is the geographic message of the vignette of Facsimile No.1.

Facsimile No. 1, Fig. 10, consists of a libation stand decorated with flowers typical to a funerary scene with sacred rituals being performed. Those flowers are placed to honor and commemorate the rising of Osiris on the lion bed. You’ll agree that it’s inconceivable to think that beautiful flowers are used to decorate an execution scene where somebody is being brutally murdered because they refused to worship the gods of another religion. The only thing Smith got right about Facsimile No.1 Fig 10, was that the scene is “in Egypt”. The vignette is an Egyptian scene being held *in Egypt*.

Please consider Fig. 11, the base of the drawing and the foundation upon which the site is geographically located, this is represented as temple-like walls or a palace façade made of brick or stone. It’s adjacent to the Nile river and the crocodile that lives in the river. The scene is in Egypt. The Egyptian artist was mindful of proximity and convention using art to show the importance and placement of each particular layer or concept. The building is near the Nile, the Nile hosts the crocodile, the crocodile is near the lion bed where Osiris is rising. Proximity and geographic design is important to the message.

Egyptologist Robert Ritner gives an excellent summation of fig. 11, in Part 1, advance forward to the 1:46:00 mark. Ritner explains that the series of rectangular shapes represent a niched bricking motif, a standard feature of Egyptian design that goes back to early Egypt and has interconnections between Egypt and Sumer brick architecture and is used as a baseline in design for Egyptian art.

Everything Smith said about Facsimile No.1, from top to bottom, was essentially false. The text of the Book of Abraham attempts to take the scene out of Egypt to some fantasized place in Chaldea called “Olishem”. That too is wrong. The Facsimile Explanations and the site or location as told in the story of the Book of Abraham is wrong. John Gee can search for the plain of Olishem for the rest of his life but he will never find it!

It’s clear to me, that the libation stand dressed with flowers and pots is *IN* Egypt right next to the very lion bed in which Osiris rose from the dead. Do you agree?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by Shulem »

Jeff Lindsay wrote:
The name of the king is...

Image
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Shulem »

Jeff,

It may interest you to know that I’ve quoted you in another Book of Abraham thread here in the Celestial Forum of Discuss Mormonism. I’ve also responded to your apologetics and I think you will find those responses to be most compelling.

Here are two back-to-back threads that detail this exchange:

“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”
“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Midrash

Post by Shulem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:55 pm
The Book of Abraham may have been more or less a midrash or riff from the mind of Joseph Smith?

MG,

I received the following reply from a poster on the old Mormon Discussion (Terrestrial Forum) wherein a believer of the Book of Abraham seems to support the angle you’ve expressed to me. I think you will find this exchange interesting. This person has come to terms that the Book of Abraham is not a literal translation of the papyri. This probably is based on the fact that modern Egyptology has also come to that same conclusion. As you know, in Smith’s day, the language was a dead language and therefore anyone was able to comment on what they thought the language meant without being scientifically proven wrong. But thanks to the Rosetta Stone and the hard work of Champollion and other linguists, the Egyptian language was finally cracked. By 1912 the Church was faced with serious contention from scholars who publicly challenged Smith’s translations and church scholars began to question how to tackle these latest revelations that threatened Smith’s credibility as a translator.

Do you find the following ideas in harmony with your current beliefs or ideas of how Smith processed a nonconventional translation of Egyptian hieroglyphic writing and images?

_Wonhyo wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:12 pm
Shulem,

I have no academic understanding of the Book of Abraham at all, other than that I know it isn’t a literal translation of the papyri. I know there are anachronisms in the Book of Abraham narrative that render the story, itself, non-historical. And the explanations of the facsimiles are just plain incorrect, indefensibly incorrect.

Nonetheless, I think the Book of Abraham is such a fascinating piece of Mormon scripture. Parts of it register with me, even though I don’t accept it as accurate history. The facsimiles (and the extant papyrus) function best for me when I remember that the Book of Abraham is really a kind modern midrash.

If I’m wrong on my understanding of what a midrash is, I apologize in advance. But when I think of a midrash, I think of a scribe or an author interacting with some kind of text or artifact (like a papyrus) and, as a result, producing a new text that may or may not be historically valuable, but that may provide relevant religious commentary or narrative. (Granted, in Jewish midrashic tradition, rabbis were at least able to read and understand the source material, the Torah. Whereas in Joseph Smith’s case he couldn’t read the papyri and had to deliver the content of the Book of Abraham blindly and gradually over a period of years.)

Part of me is embarrassed to no end by the facsimiles. And part of me really hopes they don’t ever remove the facsimiles so that as our maturity about the Book of Abraham continues to develop, we continue to acknowledge the book’s midrashic nature.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Midrash

Post by MG 2.0 »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 5:11 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:55 pm
The Book of Abraham may have been more or less a midrash or riff from the mind of Joseph Smith?

MG,

I received the following reply from a poster on the old Mormon Discussion (Terrestrial Forum) wherein a believer of the Book of Abraham seems to support the angle you’ve expressed to me. I think you will find this exchange interesting. This person has come to terms that the Book of Abraham is not a literal translation of the papyri. This probably is based on the fact that modern Egyptology has also come to that same conclusion. As you know, in Smith’s day, the language was a dead language and therefore anyone was able to comment on what they thought the language meant without being scientifically proven wrong. But thanks to the Rosetta Stone and the hard work of Champollion and other linguists, the Egyptian language was finally cracked. By 1912 the Church was faced with serious contention from scholars who publicly challenged Smith’s translations and church scholars began to question how to tackle these latest revelations that threatened Smith’s credibility as a translator.

Do you find the following ideas in harmony with your current beliefs or ideas of how Smith processed a nonconventional translation of Egyptian hieroglyphic writing and images?

_Wonhyo wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:12 pm
Shulem,

I have no academic understanding of the Book of Abraham at all, other than that I know it isn’t a literal translation of the papyri. I know there are anachronisms in the Book of Abraham narrative that render the story, itself, non-historical. And the explanations of the facsimiles are just plain incorrect, indefensibly incorrect.

Nonetheless, I think the Book of Abraham is such a fascinating piece of Mormon scripture. Parts of it register with me, even though I don’t accept it as accurate history. The facsimiles (and the extant papyrus) function best for me when I remember that the Book of Abraham is really a kind modern midrash.

If I’m wrong on my understanding of what a midrash is, I apologize in advance. But when I think of a midrash, I think of a scribe or an author interacting with some kind of text or artifact (like a papyrus) and, as a result, producing a new text that may or may not be historically valuable, but that may provide relevant religious commentary or narrative. (Granted, in Jewish midrashic tradition, rabbis were at least able to read and understand the source material, the Torah. Whereas in Joseph Smith’s case he couldn’t read the papyri and had to deliver the content of the Book of Abraham blindly and gradually over a period of years.)

Part of me is embarrassed to no end by the facsimiles. And part of me really hopes they don’t ever remove the facsimiles so that as our maturity about the Book of Abraham continues to develop, we continue to acknowledge the book’s midrashic nature.
Pretty much, yes. Although I’m also willing to accept that the Lord revealed true doctrine to Joseph during this process. It sounds like this individual is also open to that.

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Midrash

Post by Shulem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 5:22 pm
Pretty much, yes. Although I’m also willing to accept that the Lord revealed true doctrine to Joseph during this process. It sounds like this individual is also open to that.

Thank you for your response, MG.

I can understand how you might embrace particular nuggets that are found in the Book of Abraham wherein there are a few choice verses that have been quoted a lot in the Church since the early days. The bits about intelligences and spirits; moreover the first and second estates. Those are probably what you refer as revealed doctrine. Other than that, the Church doesn’t do much with the Book of Abraham.

I would like to point out that there is a special problem you’ll need to work out in your own mind since you’ve chosen to embrace the Midrash Theory. It won’t be easy. Over on the King’s Name thread, I’ve quoted the entire Joseph Smith Sermon which attests that Smith declared by revelation and divine authority that the interment of the mummies and papyrus was on the order of some 3,500 years from when Smith acquired the records. I’ve also touched on this particular in my website Part II and provided multiple references to that cause. And that list is not all inclusive.

What I’m trying to get across to you, MG, is that Smith by authority of God declared the papyrus were original autographs placed on the bodies (mummies) that were left intact in their tombs for some 3,500 years! And if those papyri were left intact for 3,500 years then they could not have been Late Egyptian records or some kind of redaction from the Jews as some apologists like to imagine and if Smith was telling the truth about what God told him then the only conclusion we may infer is that the real Books of Abraham & Joseph actually fell into Smith’s hands exactly as he testified.

But, what I’m really getting at is the idea of deriving midrash from papyrus that is said to actually *BE* the books of Abraham & Joseph. You see, since God said those records were as old as Abraham and Joseph and were buried untouched after being entombed for 3,500 years, why not just actually translate the records for what they really are rather than fantasize midrash in order to conjure the original stories. Thus, *IF* the records really were the original autographs and on the order of being buried for 3,500 years then the only thing that would truly suffice is an actual translation, on the same order as translating the gold plates into the Book of Mormon.

I’m afraid the Midrash Theory clashes with Smith’s dating of the mummies and “the papyrus which has lived in their bosoms, unharmed”, therefore, they remained untouched for all the time they were hid up in the tombs.

There are also other factors you’ll need to take into consideration in order to marry the Midrash Theory with someone who never would have accepted it, namely Joseph Smith.

You are in a difficult predicament, MG.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Book of Abraham is canon

Post by Shulem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:55 pm
Might we consider the possibility that all the hoopla in regards to the Book of Abraham controversy may be unnecessary? We are living with the results of a possibly mistaken canonization of this serialization project in the early Times and Seasons that may have been looking for ways to up its subscription base? The Book of Abraham may have been more or less a midrash or riff from the mind of Joseph Smith?

Except for a few doctrinal teachings that seem to find their roots in the Book of Abraham there seems to be little use, comparatively speaking, of the Book of Abraham in the modern church. Or the JST for that matter. And it was never canonized.

Now if I’m wrong and I find out at some later date that there was no mistake about it, the Book of Abraham was authoritative scripture that was canonized as a direct result of revelation from God, then so be it. But I’m open to the possibility that because of whatever mitigating factors may have been going on back in the later 1800’s when this canonization occurred, there may have been a mistake made…and we are living with the results of that….then, it is what it is.

Regards,
MG

MG,

I’m afraid that I feel it necessary to stir up a little more trouble in your direction and I hope you receive it in the light and spirit in which it is intended, mainly, to support the argument that the Church definitely maintains the principle of the Pearl of Great Price being canonized by God, not by man. As you know, the work was canonized in 1880 and you may have forgotten that it was in principle re-canonized in 1976 under the direction of President Spencer W Kimball. I would like to cite from this proceeding which was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner in the April 1976 General Conference. Additional scripture was at that time given to the Church to be added to the canon, first in the Pearl of Great Price but later in 1979 they were moved into the Doctrine and Covenants as ordered by the First Presidency. The point is the canon was maintained as it was in 1976 and thereafter. Every single First Presidency from Taylor on maintained the canon and in 1976 the Pearl of Great Price was formerly recognized in Conference and the Church voted to approve additions to that work.

The Sustaining of Church Officers; N. Eldon Tanner

President N. Eldon Tanner wrote:President Kimball has asked me to read a very important resolution for your sustaining vote. At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the two following revelations:

First, a vision of the celestial kingdom given to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, in the Kirtland Temple, on January 21, 1836, which deals with the salvation of those who die without a knowledge of the gospel.

And second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 3, 1918, showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world and setting forth the doctrine of the redemption of the dead.

It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All in favor manifest it. Contrary, if there be any, by the same sign. Thank you. President Kimball, the voting seems to be unanimous in the affirmative.

Six months later this action was remembered in the next Conference whereby the Pearl of Great Price is formerly recognized as scripture and part of the canon of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Elder Henry D. Taylor of First Quorum of Seventy wrote: Search the Scriptures

As Latter-day Saints we accept the following scriptures as the standard works of the Church: the Bible (consisting of the Old Testament and the New Testament), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and official statements made by our leaders.

<snip>

The Pearl of Great Price presently contains “a selection from the revelations, translations, and narrations of Joseph Smith”, which includes: First, eight chapters known as the book of Moses. The material contained in the first chapter was revealed in June 1830. The materials in the next seven chapters were revealed in December 1830. Second is the book of Abraham, which consists of five chapters. These were the writings of Abraham and also of Joseph of Egypt. They were translated by Joseph Smith from two rolls of papyrus that were found in coffins with four mummies and were discovered in the catacombs of Egypt by Antonio Sebolo, a celebrated French traveler, in 1831.

Third, in the Pearl of Great Price are the writings of Joseph Smith, taken mainly from his history. Then fourth, the Articles of Faith, taken from the letter the Prophet wrote to John Wentworth, who wished to furnish the information to a friend who was writing a history of the state of New Hampshire.

New scriptures have recently been added to the Pearl of Great Price. At the last general conference, held in April 1976, President Tanner made this announcement:

“President Kimball has asked me to read a very important resolution for your sustaining vote. At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the following two revelations:

“First, a vision of the celestial kingdom given to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, in the Kirtland Temple, on January 21, 1836, which deals with the salvation of those who die without a knowledge of the gospel.

“And second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 3, 1918, showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world [between His crucifixion and resurrection] and setting forth the doctrine of the redemption of the dead.” (Ensign, May 1976, p. 19.)

Yesterday as we sustained the General Authorities we sustained designated ones as prophets, seers, and revelators. We firmly believe that they receive revelations from the Lord. President Lee has said: “In this day the scriptures are the purest at their source, just as the waters were purest at the mountain source; the purest word of God, and that least apt to be polluted, is that which comes from the lips of the living prophets who are set up to guide Israel in our own day and time.”

We should search the scriptures and ponder over the truths contained in them, for they are the words leading to eternal life.

I bear solemn testimony that inspired men are leading the Church today. Let us hearken to their voices and obey their teachings, for which I pray, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

Elder Henry D. Taylor was incorrect in stating that the Book of Abraham was translated from “two rolls of papyrus” because Smith only translated the one roll which was the Book of Abraham but the other roll was never translated into the Book of Joseph as promised by the prophet. Nonetheless, this is proof in Mormonism that the Pearl of Great Price was and is God’s will that it remain in the canon as it has since 1880 and every First Presidency has sustained this action.

MG, you have no cause or justification to reject or question the validity of the Pearl of Great Price as being canon and part of the standard works of the Church. According to the Church, God put it there, not John Taylor. Are the scriptures of God or of man? Who is at the helm of the Church? Jesus Christ! I’m willing to bet that you lifted up your hand in the April conference of 1976 and sustained the scriptures of the Church as presently constituted and accepted the additions to the Pearl of Great Price. Therefore, you really have no choice but to accept the Book of Abraham as canon. Or, you can join me and shift your vote of confidence and refuse to accept it as God’s word.

Will you join me? ;)
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

“Mormonism IN ITS TRUE LIGHT”

Post by Shulem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:55 pm
What if, and this is just a what if, the Book of Abraham was a side project of Joseph Smith that he didn’t intend to be used as scripture in the authoritative sense along with the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the D&C?

MG,

I don’t expect a response and you need not respond if you don’t care to. I simply can’t resist the opportunity to capitalize on a point which I failed to think of earlier in light of demonstrating that the Book of Abraham is the “LIGHT” of Mormonism. I think you’ll find this to be quite enlightening and it’s definitely more than a just curious quip on the prophet’s part. Here is an interesting comment made in the prophet’s journal about the publication of the Book of Abraham and what it means to the Church and the world. It involves the publication of the third installment of the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons which consisted of Facsimile No. 3, and the Explanations. A printed version of Facsimile No. 3 was applied or inked directly to the manuscript which you can see at the link provided.

Joseph Smith wrote:Joseph Smith, History, May 16,1842; p. 1333,1334

Monday 16. I was transacting business at the Store until 10 o’clock A.M.
then at home. In the afternoon at the printing office in Council with Brothers Young
Kimball and Richards, and others, I published in this day’s “Times and Seasons”
“A Fac simile from the Book of Abraham No 3.


Image

1. Abraham sitting upon Pharoah’s throne by the politeness of the king; with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood; as emblematical of the grand presidency in heaven, with the scepter of justice, and judgment in his hand. 2 King Pharaoh; whose name is given in the characters above his head. 3. Signifies Abraham, in Egypt; referring to Abraham, as given in the 9th. No. of the Times and Seasons. 4. Prince of Pharoah, King of Egypt; as written above the hand. 5. Shulem; one of the King’s principal waiters; as represented by the characters above his hand. 6. Olimlah; a slave belonging to the Prince. Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the Kings Court.

Several of the most widely circulated papers are beginning to exhibit Mormonism in its true light The first cut of a Fac simile from the Book of Abraham, has been republished both in the New York Herald, and in the Dollar Weekly Bostonian, as well as in the Boston Daily Ledger, Edited by Mr. Bartlett; together with the translation from the Book of Abraham.


There you have it! The publication of the Book of Abraham in newspapers from New York to Boston is Smith’s idea of “Mormonism IN ITS TRUE LIGHT” which certainly implies that it’s Mormon scripture being revealed to the world as the word of God.

What do you think, Philo? Does this conclusively show that the Book of Abraham including the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 demonstrate that Smith considered them to be “Mormonism in its true light”?
Last edited by Shulem on Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply