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

[Shulem]

If Gee’s book had been available then, it would have greatly helped.

It would have been like receiving first aid -- a much needed bandage or a patch on a suffering wound, not a cure or a magic potion to make the problem go away! The book has shortcomings and is only an Introduction about the problems.

In my case, after prayerful consideration in which I reviewed my testimony of the Book of Mormon but pled great confusion over the Book of Abraham, I felt that I needed patience and further seeking of knowledge.

I can understand how an Introduction to the Book of Abraham opens up a slew of questions that threaten devastating consequences on a testimony that is not immediately aided by careful prayer and some apologetic first aid. A brief introduction to the controversies of the Book of Abraham is all it takes to stir up a great amount of confusion in any testimony! Suddenly, it seems that logic in and of itself becomes illogical and the contradictions stare you in the face. I too have experienced those thoughts and feelings with the Book of Abraham. It’s ironic because the book was tendered by Smith for the sole purpose to shore up faith and demonstrate proof that God can translate through prophets but in the end the book challenges faith and presents so many problems and questions. Patience is required in order to hold on to that testimony and wait for sure footed answers.

That knowledge soon came when I got my hands on a book by H. Donl Peterson, The Story of the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1995), another excellent resource, where I learned what ought to be common knowledge among all Latter-day Saints, but isn’t:

That’s a great book, 1995, 26 years ago. I own it too. It takes us on a complete adventure in following along how the mummies and the papyrus were first discovered and how they made their way to Kirtland and what happened to them after the church lost possession of all the artifacts. The book is a must have for anyone who has serious interest in studying the origins of the Book of Abraham. However, you’ll agree, and also acknowledge that the black and white photos of papyri fragments at the end of the book are just as outdated as many points made in the book from a scholarly apologetic point of view but remains an important addition to scholarly work in tracking down the papyrus and piecing the story together into an interesting and easy to follow format.

Do recall the last chapter; the title in and of itself reminds readers that there are definitely open-ended questions that remain unanswered: “21 CONCEPTS, CHALLENGES, AND TESTIMONY”. Peterson ends the chapter by bearing his testimony in stating that he “knows that God lives and Jesus is the Christ”. But he makes it clear saying, “I will be interested in this work as new information surfaces and this publication raises new questions”. Indeed, Peterson admits that there are questions that remain unanswered. He, however, remains faithful and assures his readers that “younger professors with excellent credentials are fielding the questions and providing excellent answers as intelligent young scholars, armed with testimonies, continue to probe for answers.”

What answers might those be? I can think of one right off the top of my head! What’s the king’s name in Facsimile No. 3? Have any of the up and coming bright and intelligent apologists who are armed with testimonies been able to come up with the king’s name? The answer remains the same, they have not.

Peterson ends the book by stating that he anxiously awaits the day when the complete text of the Book of Abraham is revealed. No doubt this also includes the Book of Joseph which Smith promised to translate but never got around to it. With so many questions looming and so much controversy surrounding the Book of Abraham, Peterson ends on this note: “My major concern now is to live the truths that have already been revealed.”

I think this is Peterson’s way of admitting that he doesn’t have answers to the controversies and will continue to walk by faith and live the gospel while realizing he is never going to know the answers to questions that arise out of the Book of Abraham in this lifetime.

[Shulem]

...the Joseph Smith papyri, the recovered fragments from the original papyrus collection, are merely a fraction of the larger collection that Joseph used. Longer documents were sent to the St. Louis Museum after Joseph’s death, and from there they ended up in the Chicago Museum, where they apparently burned in 1871.

It’s interesting to note that this mere fraction of the so-called “larger collection” is what *is* represented in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Characters in the smaller collection are what’s represented or exhibited in the translation process -- whether an experimental translation (Hugh Nibley) or the authentic method employed by Smith, the Kirtland Papers use the very characters to decipher Egyptian, more especially elements of the Book of Abraham narrative. It’s right there in front of our eyes. It was under lock and key, hidden from the world until the Tanners exposed it and finally now everyone can see it at the Joseph Smith Papers website. Church leaders hid those papers for as long as they could presumably because they didn’t like the implications of what they represent. You’ll agree that the Kirtland Papers is not generally received or perceived by apologists as faith promoting materials even though the very penmanship is that of Smith and his scribes.

[Shulem]

The existence of other significant scrolls was not mentioned by the anti-Mormon source.

To be fair, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been running an official website on the Internet since the inception of this marvelous technology began but it’s only in very recent times that the Church has professionally published the Egyptian materials now extant in the historical vault. It’s fair to assume that Church leaders did not want the members to know about the extant materials let alone others that no longer exist. I suggest that critics don’t always feel it necessary to bring things up that don’t actually exist which serve to cloud the issue. But the Church chose not to bring things up that do exist because these things really, really, do cloud the issue! None of it is faith promoting. The entire presentation of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers is hardly faith promoting and there is nothing therein that serves to show how Smith was able to truly decipher the hieroglyphic language. Nonetheless, the Church deserves to be credited with becoming more transparent and I applaud the work in demonstrating what’s in the Church vault.

The statements of witnesses describing the documents Joseph used and the gap between those descriptions and the Joseph Smith papyri were not mentioned.

This seems reminiscent of how the Church has a long history of neglecting to publish or make known statements of witnesses describing the documents Joseph was involved with regarding the Abrahamic production. Again, the Church avoids things that are not faith promoting or things that are not very useful in promoting the Church in the best light possible. Boyd K. Packer is on record of stating that not all things are useful even though they may be true. So, sweep them aside or put them on a shelf. Don’t discuss it. Just imagine if the Kirtland Papers were secreted in the vault today and the Tanners had never leaked their photos! We might not be having this conversation today, Jeff.

[Shulem]

I felt that I had been deceived with an argument that was largely accurate except for a few crucial details that were artfully left out and which changed everything.

I know the feeling. It’s that feeling that has a tinge of dread and you’re wondering where is that sweet and confident feeling of the Holy Ghost that manfully guards the testimony with a feeling of surety? Now there is a sense of fear and questions loom unanswered. Worry!

That feeling of being deceived is the worst. The Holy Ghost has fled and you feel alone left to pick up pieces of a puzzle that seems increasingly more difficult to solve. But the Church is true no matter what! There must be answers! What are those answers?

I have since encountered many cases where critics artfully whittle away data and mitigating factors in what they report to create a shocking case to shake the faith of their readers.

I’ll not whittle anything but will straightforwardly ask you a question and I ask that you keep the answer whittled to a simply reply:

What’s the king’s name in Facsimile No. 3? That is a simple question and deserves a simple answer. All I’m asking is that you tell me the name that is written in those hieroglyphs. Can you do that, Jeff?

Caution and patience is usually a wise initial response when we don’t know where to turn for answers. But let’s get back to Gee’s excellent book.

You may use all the caution and patience you want in telling me the name which I keep asking, but please do it in this lifetime!

What is the king’s name, Jeff? Does John Gee reveal that important information in his “excellent book”? What crucial details has Gee artfully left out of his book? Do those unanswered details change anything about his argument? Former Book of Abraham apologists Paul Osborne and Kerry Shirts were unable to produce a king’s name in the writing above the head of Fig. 2. Can John Gee fair better?

[Shulem]

Gee’s 197-page book is a well-written and richly illustrated source for answers on what the Book of Abraham is and what it is isn’t.

Nearly 200 pages including richly illustrated source materials should positively reveal and decipher “Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.”

You will agree that the statement made by Smith about Fig. 2, is certainly something that can be verified by Egyptologists in order to ascertain whether it is accurate and true. We are also given to know that “Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand” is another opportunity for Egyptologist John Gee to verify Smith’s ability to translate Egyptian whereby he can properly demonstrate how “the characters above his hand” spell the name Shulem.

In this we may know what the Book of Abraham is or what it isn’t and if Joseph Smith was able to correctly translate Egyptian or not. It’s that simple. It all comes down to a name.

[Shulem]

It offers a careful discussion of the history of book and various theories regarding what the translation is, how it was done, and what relationship it has to the Joseph Smith papyri as well as to the rest of the original papyri.

Jeff, all I want to know is the “translation” of the king’s name and how does John Gee spell “Shulem” in Egyptian so that I may compare his answers with the hieroglyphic text in the registers of Facsimile No. 3. I see no reason to invent or discuss wild “theories”! Just tell me the name of the king and how to spell Shulem. Facsimile No. 3, is practically for all intents and purposes a photograph of the original papyrus and the Explanations tendered by Smith are translations and descriptions of what is contained in that Facsimile in both pictorial and written form.

[Shulem]

It is written as a general overview of many aspects of the Book of Abraham, with an emphasis its origins and its relationship to antiquity, as well as its significance for Latter-day Saints today.

This general overview should definitely cover the most important aspect of Egyptian history which is that Egypt was governed by kings. That is also clearly manifest in the narrative of the Book of Abraham chapters. Egypt was governed by kings! I cannot over emphasize that!

So, what is the king’s name in Facsimile No. 3? Every Egyptian priest and educated historian of Egyptian history would be able to decipher the writing above the head of Fig. 2, and tell us the name of the king.

Can John Gee do that? Yes or no?

[Shulem]

Along the way we encounter some pleasantly surprising issues that can strengthen our respect for this work of scripture, including a variety of issues with apologetic value, though that is not Gee’s overarching purpose, so don’t expect a complete list of the many apologetic gems that could be cited.

Perhaps I sound like a broken record. But if you want to strengthen my respect for the Book of Abraham translation tendered by Joseph Smith, then please, please, tell me the name of the king in the writing of Facsimile No. 3. And with that, the only apologetic value I’m interested in at this time is how “Shulem” is written in the characters above the hand of Fig. 5. I realize that this nearly 200 page book is going to have limitations and the scope of Gee’s work has to be sized to meet the needs of his message in demonstrating those apologetic gems in which you speak of. But the only gems I am asking for is the king’s name and to demonstrate how the name Shulem is represented in the writing above Fig. 5.

Jeff, I’m not asking too much. I’m asking essentially a couple of basic questions and the answers are relatively rather simple. So, please produce those answers. Can you do that?

[Shulem]

I too would invite Lindsey here for a discussion of the actual issues with the Book of Abraham

Philo, how do you think Jeff might answer the questions I’ve posed for him? How do you think Jeff would fare if he came to our Celestial Forum to have a friendly and respectful conversation about his piece that is published by The Interpreter Foundation?

I trust you feel my questions are valid? I constantly repeat them because nobody ever answers them.

[Shulem]

And now for an observation. Please note that Jeff Lindsay has credited Gee’s book for having some “apologetic gems”. Some of these gems are surprising, perhaps like sweet surprises in a box of Lucky Charms? The “apologetic gems” within the book are a sample of the gems that are claimed by apologists who keep a list. Like I said, and I don’t mean it out of disrespect, but it reminds me of a box of Lucky Charms with sweet surprises therein which are gems the magic leprechaun has been searching for. But in order to find those gems one must consume a great deal of oats -- or in other words sowing wild oats!

That all sounds good and nice but here is the problem. The Book of Abraham and the apologetics associated with it shouldn’t be like a box of cereal with surprises therein or gems, so to speak. The entire box should be made up entirely of pure gold and the bag made of the finest silk containing precious gems of every kind. Everything about this allegory should be magically delicious or wonderfully amazing! If Joseph Smith was really translating Egyptian correctly and had a proper understanding of Egyptian iconography then the whole Book of Abrahamic structure would be like a golden masterpiece decked out with gems -- shining proudly in the sunshine before the whole world. It truly would be a wonder to behold!