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.
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 13, 2021 4:11 pm
Reading through all of the resources you’ve contributed here…much of the content from here:

https://site-2056867-937-9411.mystrikingly.com/

I am still not convinced that Joseph himself saw the Book of Abraham project as a precursor to adding a fourth standard work of scripture to the canon. That seems to have been the work of John Taylor. If so, then it comes down to the question of Taylor’s motivations and inspiration in this matter. Obviously if he presents the matter of canonization at conference and he supports it, those in attendance are likely to support it. At that point in time and ever since, we are then left with the results of that vote in that place at that time.

Why did Brigham Young not bring up the vote in conference for canonization? Did he feel the same way about the Book of Abraham as John Taylor? Were there other things going on there that we are not fully or even aware of at all?

Well, when it comes down to it we could find fault with both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young for failing to present the Book of Moses to the Church as official scripture and find whatever means necessary to canonize it within the volumes accepted by the Latter-Day Saint Church. What was Joseph Smith thinking? Why didn’t he act on it? I don't get it!

Look, I want to share with you something you may not be aware of on the Joseph Smith Papers website regarding the original Book of Moses manuscript. I will point you in the direction of 3 pages written in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery just 3 months after the Church was organized! I find this to be utterly fascinating and the implications of such blows my mind that Smith and Young did not canonize this work during their ministries.

Joseph Smith wrote: Visions of Moses, June 1830 p.1

A Revelation given to Joseph the Revelator June 1830

The editor’s transcript for page 3 does not contain everything on that page. You will have to scroll down the manuscript to the middle of the page to read the following which I transcribe:

Joseph Smith wrote: Visions of Moses, June 1830 p.3

A Revelation given to the Elders of the Church of Christ

On the first Book of Moses given to Joseph Smith the Seer (?)

Chapter First

QUESTION: Why was not this revelation that was given to the Elders of the Church not canonized by Joseph Smith in book form?

ANSWER: Perhaps the Elders of the Church already considered it to be such when it was first published in the Church periodicals of the Evening and Morning Star (1830's) and Times and Seasons (1840's). Smith bore solemn testimony of the the Book of Moses TWICE to the entire Church.
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 »

Canadiandude2 wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:07 am
Strong.

Thank you

I also appreciated your comments and suggestions.
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 »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:32 pm
Joseph Smith wrote: Visions of Moses, June 1830 p.3

A Revelation given to the Elders of the Church of Christ

On the first Book of Moses given to Joseph Smith the Seer (?)

Chapter First

In order to justify what I believe it says in the scribbled out words which I interpret to be “given to Joseph Smith the Seer”, I refer to to an 1828 Revelation which I see as identical to the one given for the Vision of Moses and provide the link thereto.

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 13, 2021 4:11 pm
There were a bunch of people around Joseph that viewed whatever came from the prophet as being from God Almighty Himself. Joseph’s mother Lucy was totally on board and into the Book of Abraham project from the very beginning and also saw I as a way to gain more notoriety and fame for the Saints there in Nauvoo. The T&S’s made a financial turn around as a result of the fantastic story being published in serial form. Joseph himself was the writer and promoter, along with others, of this ‘blast from the past’, so to speak. And he may very well have considered the Book of Abraham project to be God inspired in a midrashic fashion similar to the way in which he viewed his translation work with the Bible.

I hear what you’re saying and agree about how the Book of Abraham was promoted by Joseph and his entire family and the Quorum of the Twelve both in the States and in England by elder Pratt.

The idea of “midrash” is entirely a modern construct suggested by apologists but nothing of that sort was voiced at all in Kirtland, Nauvoo, and England. The Book of Abraham was announced as a genuine record written by Abraham and that’s what everyone back then believed. Today, there seems to be a shift from some faithful members who are having a hard time making sense of it all. Hence our friendly conversation which I find very refreshing.
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 13, 2021 4:11 pm
I’m willing to leave the Book of Abraham on the shelf and wait for confirmatory evidence one way or the other as to how much Joseph Smith and Co. got right vs. what they got wrong. And as I’ve tried to make clear, I think there are some items of interest as I’ve already outlined having to do with the whole canonization process, that I’m a bit wary of giving full confidence to all that transpired along the way from 1850 to 1880.

MG,

I wish you every happiness and well being as you continue in your faith and in believing Joseph Smith and his restoration. I have nothing negative to say about that in this forum and wish you well and hope you find all the answers to your prayers and meet with full satisfaction in whatever you decide to do with your spiritual life both here and in the hereafter.

I’m glad that we were able to converse together and welcome further discourse between us about this thread or any others in the Celestial Forum if that is something you elect to do.
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 13, 2021 8:15 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:11 pm
There were a bunch of people around Joseph that viewed whatever came from the prophet as being from God Almighty Himself. Joseph’s mother Lucy was totally on board and into the Book of Abraham project from the very beginning and also saw I as a way to gain more notoriety and fame for the Saints there in Nauvoo. The T&S’s made a financial turn around as a result of the fantastic story being published in serial form. Joseph himself was the writer and promoter, along with others, of this ‘blast from the past’, so to speak. And he may very well have considered the Book of Abraham project to be God inspired in a midrashic fashion similar to the way in which he viewed his translation work with the Bible.

I hear what you’re saying and agree about how the Book of Abraham was promoted by Joseph and his entire family and the Quorum of the Twelve both in the States and in England by elder Pratt.

The idea of “midrash” is entirely a modern construct suggested by apologists but nothing of that sort was voiced at all in Kirtland, Nauvoo, and England. The Book of Abraham was announced as a genuine record written by Abraham and that’s what everyone back then believed. Today, there seems to be a shift from some faithful members who are having a hard time making sense of it all. Hence our friendly conversation which I find very refreshing.
If we could hop in a time machine and go back to those days in Nauvoo and Kirtland I wonder whether or not we would see things through different eyes than we do now. We talk about midrashic writing and exegesis on the scriptures, but back then I would suppose that the line between revelatory scripture and/or translated ancient records and what we would today call midrashic writing would be very thin.

I too enjoy conversation where ideas and opinions can be exchanged without judgment and condemnation of any sort. Truthfully, I think much more is accomplished through this approach. It would be awesome if this could be the modus operandi on the terrestrial board too.

One can only wish.

Thanks for the civil and fun back and forth Shulem. I too have enjoyed the conversation. It got me over to your site that I linked to and I enjoyed reading and wading my way through it.

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 »

Canadiandude2 wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:07 am
I know of the missing scroll theory generally-speaking but there were definitely times where I would’ve appreciated greater clarification.

Canadiandude2,

I have a solution to rectify my deficiency whereby you were left wanting. I used to be a Book of Abraham apologist a long time ago. I did not fall in line with typical scholarly apologetics endorsed by Hugh Nibley and later by Gee. I had a website that explored all kinds of things pertaining to the Book of Abraham, Egyptian papyrus, and the various Kirtland Papers that were so controversial. I was at odds with Philo Sofee (a member here on Discuss Mormonism) who was also a Book of Abraham apologist and maintained his own website filled with Nibley material.

May I share a statement I made on my apologetic site some 20 years ago? I wrote this as an apologist and was a faithful member and very active, especially with temple service. Do enjoy and I hope you find it helpful.

Paul Osborne wrote: The Papyrus Rolls

There is a lot of controversy about the method used by Joseph Smith in translating Egyptian hieroglyphs into the Book of Abraham. Some LDS (Latter-day Saint) apologists insist that the papyrus Joseph Smith translated was later lost and is therefore not available for examination today. However, existing evidence shows that the writing on fragments (pieces of a scroll), including the original Facsimile No. 1, were used by the prophet to translate the Book of Abraham. LDS Critics contend that those fragments must have been the source by which Joseph Smith fabricated his story − they point to the hieroglyphic writing on the fragments that flank the Lion Couch scene of Facsimile No. 1. It is no secret that Fragment No. 11, which was returned to the church in 1967 is the very fragment that was attached to the left side of Facsimile No. 1, and yet it is nothing more than pagan spells. In short, the critics insist that the writing that flanks the picture of Abraham on the altar must be the hieroglyphic text that Joseph Smith translated into the Book of Abraham.

Egyptologists confirm that the funerary nature of Facsimile No. 1 matches the content of the funerary writing that surrounds it. Further, all of Joseph Smith's papyrus fragments that were returned to the church in 1967 are religious spells, including the Egyptian Book of Breathings, an offshoot from the Book of the Dead. Clearly, the papyrus bears no relation to the story of Abraham! It must be understood that the written language of a funerary scroll bears a direct relationship with the pictures, thus, the text supports the vignette, and vice versa. Egyptology makes it clear that this is how Egyptian religion is portrayed:

“Iconography is of little value without the written text to give meaning, but the available textual material is sufficient to provide an extensive account of Egyptian myth” (Ancient Gods Speak, A Guide to Egyptian Religion; edited by Donald Redford, p.245)

Some LDS apologists maintain the theory that the papyrus used by Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Abraham was lost or, more likely destroyed. In spite of the idea of missing papyrus, it has been documented that there were in fact several rolls had by the prophet, one of which was the Book of Abraham and another was the Book of Joseph. Eyewitness accounts give distinct descriptions of the physical nature of the rolls including the use of rubrics (red writing as headers). This seems to compare with some of the more handsome fragments recovered from the New York Metropolitan Museum and are now kept in the church archives. The following references briefly describe the papyrus purchased by the church in 1835:

“On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices.” History of the Church 2:235

“The last of June four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them. As no one could translate these writings, they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were and said they, the ‘rolls of papyrus’, contained the sacred record kept by Joseph in Pharaoh’s Court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham.” W.W. Phelps; Improvement Era 45, August 1942

“Soon after this some of the Saints in Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus, a description of which will appear hereafter, and with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphs, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, and another the writings of Joseph of Egypt” Joseph Smith; History of the Church 2:236

“The papyrus, covered with black or red ink, or paint, in excellent preservation” Times and Seasons 3; May 2nd, 1842; 774

The critics are not unreasonable to assume the writing which surrounds the original picture of Abraham upon the altar as shown in LDS scripture, to be the actual text Joseph Smith translated. Typically, LDS apologists have not been successful in answering the charges in which the critics could at least find some quarter for Joseph Smith’s work and consider alternative explanations that agree with the facts on hand. A popular theory maintained by some LDS apologists is that the roll Joseph Smith translated is currently missing and that the fragments returned to the church in 1967 are not part of the sacred record. This would suggest that the fragments now extant are little more than cast-offs from the papyrus collection put on display in the Egyptian exhibit at Kirtland Ohio in 1835. It appears that BYU professors and those who trust their arguments are the only people on the face of the earth that have reached this conclusion!

The fragments are proof that the story surrounding Facsimile No. 1 is nothing more than pagan funerary spells − this papyrus roll has nothing to do with Abraham in Egypt. Nobody can deny that the iconography and writing on this papyrus work together in perpetuating religious spells formulated by the ancient Egyptians.

Image

Personally, I can’t in good conscience agree with fellow LDS apologists who continue to insist that the papyrus Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham is entirely lost. The way I see it, the overwhelming evidence shows that significant images described by elder Oliver Cowdery and others exists on the fragments owned by the church today. The Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar created by the prophet and his associates prove that specific sets of characters from the extant papyrus were used to generate the Book of Abraham. Some of these characters were borrowed to fill in the empty spaces of Facsimile No. 2, this of course under the direction of the prophet.

Facsimile No. 1 is the beginning of the record according to the narration of Abraham himself who said:

“And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record” (Abraham 1:12)

Some theorize that the missing rolls of Abraham & Joseph were a personal treasure kept in antiquity by priestly lines and later deposited into a tomb at Thebes during Roman times. Perhaps it’s not impossible that such a book could be preserved by a family of priests who kept the records in store as a testimony of the Hebrew God, but all of this is pure speculation. This would also create serious religious complications that conflict with Egyptian burial customs. The idea of the Book of Abraham being buried in an Egyptian tomb that has been devoted to Osiris is a colossal contradiction at best! An overwhelming rebuttal will easily demonstrate how this is something that would never be tolerated by the priesthood of pharaoh.

Some hypothesize that the so-called missing rolls shared the same fate as Facsimiles No. 2 & 3, assuming they were destroyed in the 1871 Chicago fire. Others may be more prone to think they are sealed up somewhere in a box which has long been forgotten. As a matter of great convenience, these LDS apologists maintain that until the missing rolls are found, the text used to translate the Book of Abraham is not available for examination. Sadly, these apologists deny the pool of combined evidence and deny that the papyri had by the prophet was identified as funerary papyrus by experts at the Chicago Museum.

I can’t come to terms with the missing roll theory because I see the facts for what they are and my conscience tells me that that the critics have a valid complaint! I feel that honesty is better than following the incorrect persuasion of college professors who refuse to come to terms with reality. Thankfully, for my own peace of mind, I have found valid answers and real solutions to help solve the controversy of the Joseph Smith papyrus. I’m interested in sharing these things with anyone who will listen. This Website presents alternative views on how the Egyptian papyrus was translated into the Book of Abraham. Latter-day Saints no longer have to rely only on BYU professors to get positive information about this fascinating subject.

Sincerely,

Paul Osborne
Canadiandude2
CTR B
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2021 11:50 pm

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

Post by Canadiandude2 »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:28 am


Canadiandude2,

I have a solution to rectify my deficiency whereby you were left wanting. I used to be a Book of Abraham apologist a long time ago. I did not fall in line with typical scholarly apologetics endorsed by Hugh Nibley and later by Gee. I had a website that explored all kinds of things pertaining to the Book of Abraham, Egyptian papyrus, and the various Kirtland Papers that were so controversial. I was at odds with Philo Sofee (a member here on Discuss Mormonism) who was also a Book of Abraham apologist and maintained his own website filled with Nibley material.

May I share a statement I made on my apologetic site some 20 years ago? I wrote this as an apologist and was a faithful member and very active, especially with temple service. Do enjoy and I hope you find it helpful.
T’was I appreciate this. This is a completely different field than what I practice so beat with me as I digest.
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 »

Canadiandude2 wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:30 pm
T’was I appreciate this. This is a completely different field than what I practice so beat with me as I digest.

I’m glad you’re here in the Celestial Forum if only to participate in a minimal way, it’s all good. I’m also happy that MG piped in and we had a very cordial conversation based on mutual respect and goodwill. Thank you, MG!

To be honest, I don’t expect Jeff Lindsay to show up on our obscure little message board. He might not be interested or aware of what goes on here. But you never know, he could show up. This message board has a notorious reputation among faithful apologists and it’s pretty much off limits or avoided as Anathema. How I can possibly think Lindsay would show up to talk to me or defend his position from an ex-Mormon such as myself who is critical of Book of Abraham apologetics? It is unlikely he will show up to discuss anything here but if he does, he will be afforded every respect and courtesy this Celestial Forum offers. This forum is heavily moderated so there is no fear of any bad behavior taking place here.

The Celestial Forum here at Discuss Mormonism truly is a safe place where opposing forces can call a truce so to speak while sharing thoughts, information, and ideas. Only the best of behavior is acceptable on this forum and this provides a unique opportunity and environment to exchange ideas and thoughts without the usual posturing, banter, and one-upping.

I am just glad to be here if only I talk to myself. The Celestial Forum is the best place to be on this entire board.

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

Re: Olishem

Post by Shulem »

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote:The discussion of Olishem is limited to a single sentence casually mentioning that an unusual place name in Joseph’s translation is mentioned in ancient inscriptions.

“Olishem” is the name of a curious location that is designated in the Book of Abraham and apologists have taken a lot of interest in it. “Olimlah” is a curious name that designates the name of the black man in Facsimile No. 3. Egyptologist John Gee has scoured the hieroglyphs above him and is unable to locate the name within the writing above Fig. No. 6. Names above generally designate the person below and in this case it remained a frustrating dead end for Mormon Egyptologists.

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote: On this matter, Gee has noted the potential value but urges patience as more work is needed. See John Gee, “Has Olishem Been Discovered?,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22/2 (2013): 104–7.

Finding the place name Olishem was interesting enough in many ways before the actual archaeological site was found and its connection to Abraham made.

A lot of effort has been made in the attempt to locate a place called Olishem in order to provide archeological evidence to support Smith’s location mentioned in his book. But bear in mind, it’s just a name and names can be rooted and found in many ways when comparing speech and languages.

What about the name “Shulem”? It too is mentioned in the Book of Abraham in Facsimile No. 3, to designate Fig. 5, whereby above him is his name “represented by the characters above his hand.” There is a problem, however, the name is not there in the writing above the hand. It does not exist. This is a major problem for the Book of Abraham translation.

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote:While the discovery not only of the name but more recently apparently also the place Olishem in the Book of Abraham may not be as monumental as the archaeological and linguistic evidence pertaining to Nahom in the Book of Mormon, it nevertheless does, as Val Sederholm said above, “show that the Book of Abraham merits a second look.”

It all seems rather moot to me, Jeff. All this effort to find the name Olishem in the vast regions of the Levant is more or less a red herring and means little to me. Please allow me to tell you what really counts in my opinion. The fact that there is no king’s name in the writing of Facsimile No. 3, is proof that the person described by Smith is not who he claimed it to be. Not by a longshot! You can search the vignette over and over again and scour the writing but there is no royal name “given in the characters above his head” and there is no Cartouche in which to honor that name.

Those are the facts. So, it seems like a waste of time going out on archeological digs looking for the name Olishem when the king’s name can never be found in the archeological vignette of Facsimile No. 3. The very ink (which is the dirt) can never spell the name Shulem within the papyrus of Facsimile No. 3, which is the very evidence needed to confirm and verify Smith’s translation which has proven to be wrong.

I will share more of my thoughts on Olishem later, perhaps.
Post Reply