DiscussMormonism.com

Shulem wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:20 pm

That said, the historian John L. Brooke notes that there are several other contemporary sources besides Dick that could have been the source of inspiration for the Book of Abraham. LDS historian Benjamin Park similarly notes that the direct link to Dick is tenuous and the ideas could have come from the cultural milieu.

What other wild ideas about Egypt and speculative theology were in the public milieu at that time?

Moksha wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:51 pm

What other wild ideas about Egypt and speculative theology were in the public milieu at that time?

Joseph Smith relied on information derived from secular learning in his day as did everyone. But secular learning in those times was of a different standard and very much based on biblical learning and beliefs of the Bible. The ridiculous long lives of the Patriarchs both before and after the mythical flood are excellent examples to show that the Bible was produced for religious purposes in creating myth. Kishkumen can explain those things better than I.

The chronology and timeline of the Bible is based on religious myth. Adam, Noah, Abraham and other characters of the Bible are mythical persons that serve a basic purpose which is to produce religion. Joseph Smith was a believer in all things biblical and wholly adopted literal things into his own brand of Christian religion. Philo Sofee can attest to Smith’s literalism. Interestingly enough, exceptional long lives are included in the Book of Mormon, hidden in the written script, wherein certain Nephite characters are chronicled to have lived ridiculous long lives during both BC and AD eras.

So, with that said, we really only need look no further than Joseph Smith’s own backyard which consists of the Holy Bible and all the ridiculous things written therein. The second coming of Christ was believed to have been imminent during the days of Saint Paul and the apostles of Christianity. The day was at hand, even at the very door. Christ was soon to return in glory. But that prophecy failed and the centuries passed while the Christian religion survived and became myth in and of itself. Joseph Smith revived the prophecy and the Mormons believed the second coming was imminent yet again. Christ was coming. Joseph Smith was ushing in the last dispensation and preparing the world for Christ’s personal reign of a thousand years. But that prophecy failed too. The centuries will pass, and Christ will still not have returned. Thousands of years from now Mormonism will be nothing but myth and evolve into God only knows what.

Mr. Smith was hardly the first, nor the last, individual in the early nineteenth century to focus on the imminent return of Jesus Christ. With the Napoleonic Wars there was an intense focus on the Second Coming and the AntiChrist (widely believed to be Napoleon Bonaparte). Other contemporaneous groups included the following:

1. The Shakers (The United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers
2. Amana Gesellschaft (Amana Colonies) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amana_Colonies
3. Irvingians (Catholic Apostolic Church) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Apostolic_Church
4. Plymouth Brethren (many divisions) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Brethren
5. Millerites (Seventh-Day Adventists with Jehovah's Witnesses as a primary split-off) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerism

To The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,

So, which is it?

[ ] 2300 BC
[ ] 3000 BC

You cannot have both! Make your choice and take a stand. Talking out of both sides of your mouth is dishonest and misleading.

Shulem

bbbbbbb wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:04 am

1. The Shakers (The United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers
2. Amana Gesellschaft (Amana Colonies) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amana_Colonies
3. Irvingians (Catholic Apostolic Church) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Apostolic_Church
4. Plymouth Brethren (many divisions) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Brethren
5. Millerites (Seventh-Day Adventists with Jehovah's Witnesses as a primary split-off) -

Any interesting tidbits about the Icarians who moved into Nauvoo after the Mormons moved to Utah?

Royal Skousen wrote:I definitely do NOT hold a positive view of Joseph Smith’s “interpretation” of the facsimiles.

Royal,

Do you hold a positive view of Joseph Smith’s interpretation for *HOW* and *WHEN* Egypt was first founded and established as explained in chapter one of the Book of Abraham? How does Smith’s timing for Egypt’s birth, given x-number of years before Abraham, coincide with science and modern Egyptology!

Explain that, Skousen! Do you have a positive view of 2300 BC for being accurate dating in representing Egypt’s making?

Royal Skousen wrote:Yes, the facsimiles are shameful “reproductions” and have been so from the 1840s when first published in Times and Seasons.

Shall I tell you what else is shameful? Smith’s fictitious biblically-minded story of HOW and WHEN Egypt was first founded and established as revealed in the Book of Abraham is equally shameful to anything Smith ever said about the facsimiles because it’s *ALL* a lie! The deception from Joseph Smith about the papyrus is One Great Whole. Can you understand that, sir? Can you think with both sides of your brain? Are you not trapped within the Mormon testimony box?

YOU, Royal Skousen, are a hypocrite and are only fooling yourself. You are just as bad as the apologists! You are just as bad as Gee and Muhlestein. Is it not that you simply pick your own poison and cherry-pick what you want for yourself?

Color me not impressed.

Shulem wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 09, 2023 7:18 pm

Shall I tell you what else is shameful? Smith’s fictitious biblically-minded story of HOW and WHEN Egypt was first founded and established as revealed in the Book of Abraham is equally shameful to anything Smith ever said about the facsimiles because it’s *ALL* a lie! The deception from Joseph Smith about the papyrus is One Great Whole. Can you understand that, sir? Can you think with both sides of your brain? Are you not trapped within the Mormon testimony box?

Egyptologists have rejected Joseph Smith's "translation" since at least 1858. Convoluted apologist theories that say he wasn't really translating don't pass the smell test. The last time I doubted my doubts (over 20 years ago) I looked up what the Egyptologists had to say. I also looked at what the apologists had to offer. The apologist's arguments didn't hold water. It seemed like grasping for straws.

Father Francis wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 10, 2023 4:28 am

Shulem wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 09, 2023 7:18 pm

Shall I tell you what else is shameful? Smith’s fictitious biblically-minded story of HOW and WHEN Egypt was first founded and established as revealed in the Book of Abraham is equally shameful to anything Smith ever said about the facsimiles because it’s *ALL* a lie! The deception from Joseph Smith about the papyrus is One Great Whole. Can you understand that, sir? Can you think with both sides of your brain? Are you not trapped within the Mormon testimony box?

Egyptologists have rejected Joseph Smith's "translation" since at least 1858. Convoluted apologist theories that say he wasn't really translating don't pass the smell test. The last time I doubted my doubts (over 20 years ago) I looked up what the Egyptologists had to say. I also looked at what the apologists had to offer. The apologist's arguments didn't hold water. It seemed like grasping for straws.

The separation between Joseph Smith and modern apologists is ever increasing. The gap widens as apologists dismiss what Smith actually said and *wrote* in their silly attempts to salvage what they consider were his inspired intentions. In other words, Smith didn’t necessarily mean what he said on every point and the apologists are ready to step in and tell us what Joseph Smith really meant.

Apologetic excuses for the nonexistent king’s name do NOT hold water. Apologists are indeed grasping for straws in a vain effort to explain it away with convoluted nonsense.

Shulem wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 01, 2023 12:35 pm

To The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,

So, which is it?

[ ] 2300 BC
[ ] 3000 BC

You cannot have both! Make your choice and take a stand. Talking out of both sides of your mouth is dishonest and misleading.

Shulem

Funnily enough, the citation cartel is at it again:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... press.html

To whit Smoot quotes Pratt:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/intr ... otnote-007

When we read the Book of Abraham with the reflection that its light has burst upon the world after a silence of three or four thousand years …

A thousand years is, uh, quite the variance when we’re talking about Egyptian history, culture, and dynasties. -_-

Captain Hook continues:

The Book of Abraham is accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-­day Saints as an inspired or revealed translation of the writings of the biblical patriarch Abraham.

And so it begins, the mopologists are moving the Book of Abraham from hard history to inspired fiction. Cont’d:

While Latter-­day Saints cherish the Book of Abraham and accept its inspiration on faith, they also have not been afraid to explore the text with scholarly tools in order to better understand it. A pioneering scholar of the Book of Abraham was Hugh Nibley (1910–2005), a former professor of religion at Brigham Young University with academic training in ancient history and languages.

-_-

- Doc

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 11, 2023 12:50 pm

Funnily enough, the citation cartel is at it again:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... press.html

To whit Smoot quotes Pratt:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/intr ... otnote-007

When we read the Book of Abraham with the reflection that its light has burst upon the world after a silence of three or four thousand years …

A thousand years is, uh, quite the variance when we’re talking about Egyptian history, culture, and dynasties. -_-

Indeed, a thousand years is a whole millennium! It’s equal to one of the 7 epochs of earth’s temporal existence of 7,000 years continuance (D&C 77). Joseph Smith was adamant in his revelation of the age of the papyrus being on the order of 3,500 years. Nothing can change what Joseph Smith said. Nothing can change what Joseph Smith declared by revelation!

Philo Sofee: Shulem where is your J.S. revelation from Jesus on the 3500 yr old papyri?

See also the article in my signature: Here Comes The Book of Abraham Part I, II, III (By Paul Osborne)

My arguments are bulletproof and invincible! Truth is on my side.