Jim Bennett and the Book of Abraham

[hauslern]

Bennett's last response to John
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWV0HqakM68
Note Bennett's intellectual gymnastics.

[kamenraider]

"Surprise! The text matches!"

That's a possibility in Jim Bennett's mind? On what planet? Planet cray cray?

[Kukulkan]

Jim came across as sincere but it is very clear that what Jim believes in is not Mormonism. It is 'Jim Bennettism'. I wish John had pushed even more against some of his statements but I do commend Jim for appearing on the podcast. It was particularly frustrating though that most every one of the issues for him rests on the idea of 'prophetic fallibility'. The argument he puts forth is essentially that church leaders (even the most important ones) are no better than anyone else and can mess up as bad as anyone else. I would have pushed back and agreed to a degree. The idea I wish was pushed back on was the idea that in capacity as 'prophet' I think Mormon doctrine leaves little room for a prophet to experience fallibility to level we have seen in the church (racial priesthood ban, November policy, etc).

If we go along with Jim Bennett's idea that prophets can promote false doctrines for centuries and can get things so wrong as to 'lead the church astray', my question is what is the point of prophets, seers, revelators? At that point aren't they no different than a lay member or even a non-member leading the church?

Also I highly suggest if you haven't already that you listen to his multi part interview with Bill Reel where they hash out many of the same issues.

[Shulem]

1378: BELIEF AFTER THE CES LETTER – Book of Mormon, BOOK OF ABRAHAM, FIRST VISION, KINDERHOOK PLATES – JIM BENNETT PT. 2

If we did not have the Book of Mormon I would dismiss the Book of Abraham out of hand for all the reasons you describe, but the fact that we have the Book of Mormon demonstrates to me that Joseph Smith's claims to revelation can be taken seriously . . . . The Book of Abraham is the most difficult to defend I think because of all the reason you describe. But the reason I'm willing to defend it and give Joseph the benefit of the doubt is because of the Book of Mormon.

In other words, the Book of Abraham can't stand on its own merits and has been demonstrably proven a total fraud.

Nobody is ever going to join the Mormon church because of the Book of Abraham. People join the Church because they get happy feelings as the consult with friendly missionaries who convince them to get a good feeling about the Book of Mormon through study and personal prayer. It's all based on a happy feeling, nothing more.

Only after converts have been suckered into Mormonism can they bear the awful consequences of having to sweep aside the obvious fraud of the Book of Abraham.

How pathetic is that?

[Kukulkan]

If we did not have the Book of Mormon I would dismiss the Book of Abraham out of hand for all the reasons you describe, but the fact that we have the Book of Mormon demonstrates to me that Joseph Smith's claims to revelation can be taken seriously . . . . The Book of Abraham is the most difficult to defend I think because of all the reason you describe. But the reason I'm willing to defend it and give Joseph the benefit of the doubt is because of the Book of Mormon.

I find it funny that the he uses the Book of Mormon, which I believe is almost as demonstrably false as the Book of Abraham as a post to sure up his belief of the Book of Abraham. From the rest of the interview it is obvious that even if he was convinced of the 19th century origin of the Book of Mormon that he would hide behind the "I have had good feelings and experiences about being a Mormon" defense. At least he is willing to admit that is a cop-out answer.

[dastardly stem]

Bennett is intent on embracing good argument and uses that as a statement against the CES Letter. Fine. I haven't really dug much into the CES Letter to know if there are bad arguments getting presented. But if that's his position on rebutting and/or dismissing the CES Letter then I don't know why he is full of bad arguments to support his position. It's a level of inconsistency that I don't find appealing.

[hauslern]

Dan Petersen on his Patheos blog claims that Gee is an expert on the hypocephalus. I had an exchange with Tamás Mekis who has written this paper on hypocephalus
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fc7 ... t3DDc/edit

I asked him how Gee was considered among Egyptologists and his response was
Happy New Year and Good Health to you too! I know John Gee personally. He is really a clever Egyptologist. I know several of his writings not related to the Mormon manuscripts, he is really a renowned Egyptologist. As for his writings on the manuscripts, you must see, he is receiving his salary from the Mormons, so he will never write about the erroneous interpretations of Joseph Smith, rather tries to synchronize the Egyptological results with those of Joseph Smith where it is possible. It must certainly be a difficult situation in which he is: he knows the mistakes, but cannot criticize them.
So, as for his general Egyptological writings, I find him also to be a fine scientist and concord with Dan Petersen.

Best wishes,
Tamás

So Gee is considered renowned on issues that have nothing to do with the Book of Abraham. The paper referenced above is good for understanding the figures in Fac 2.

[Shulem]

Dan Petersen on his Patheos blog claims that Gee is an expert on the hypocephalus. I had an exchange with Tamás Mekis who has written this paper on hypocephalus

John Gee is most certainly an expert on the Hypocephalus. Absolutely, he is an EXPERT. I have to think that anything he says about the Hypocephalus regarding Egyptology is spot on.

But, apologetic reasonings on the subject are a another thing altogether.

[hauslern]

We know there were several mummies. Would the others have the same hypocephalus perhaps displayng the snake in full but then Smith did not use because of it displayed a snake with legs and penis?

[Shulem]

We know there were several mummies. Would the others have the same hypocephalus perhaps displayng the snake in full but then Smith did not use because of it displayed a snake with legs and penis?

According to eyewitness accounting of the artifacts recovered from the bodies, there was a single Hypocephalus. That's not to say other papyri were not obtained and sold prior to the curiosities entering Kirtland.

No matter what apologists say or how much they may object, there is a PHALLUS in the figure sitting upon the divine throne of Facsimile No. 2, Fig. 7. And God depicted in Fig. 3 has a beak for a nose. And the Holy Ghost in Fig. 7 is hornier than hell even though he's been castrated and neutered! And how in God's name does the Holy Ghost get an erect phallus seeing he doesn't have blood?

Stupid Mormons.