John Gee Accuses JSP of "subscrib[ing]...to anti-Mormon theories about...the Book of Abraham."

[Doctor Scratch]

Shulem:

Have you had an opportunity to read this volume of the JSPP (i.e., Vol. 4)?

[Doctor Scratch]

It seems to me that with all the political distractions of late, that the most hardcore apologists are using this time to seize as much power as they can while people aren't looking.

So, somehow, the Editors of the JSP--who were appointed by the Brethren themselves, if I'm not mistaken--are being depicted as "critics of the Church"

It's not just a way to take the JSP down a notch, but really, they're saying that the Church leaders answer to them.

Yeah, for sure. Just look at this:

Is there any chance that we might a get a new "improved" edition of the JSPP Volume 4?

It would be nice.

But -- and I have absolutely no inside information on this -- I don't expect it.

Yeah, and why should he? The Brethren were the ones who set this up, after all. The Mopologists have really been aggressively stepping out of line lately.

[Philo Sofee]

Gee wrote:
There are three basic theories about the original source text from which the Book of Abraham was translated. One is that Joseph Smith translated the text of the Book of Abraham from the papyri fragments we now have. Few members of the Church believe this theory, but it is pushed by anti-Mormons. The second theory is that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyri that we do not currently possess. The third theory is that Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham directly through revelation without possessing a text that contained the ancient text of the Book of Abraham. The Church accommodates either of the latter two theories.

The irony here is simply staggering. Praise to the man who......(well, except what he says about his own involvement with translating papyri)

So the church according to Gee does NOT accept what Joseph Smith himself said he did with the papyri?! That's downright incredible when you think about it. Few people in the church believe Joseph Smith translated the papyri we have?!? Holy cow. I never thought I'd see the day when members don't believe what Joseph Smith said.

And just how on earth can Joseph Smith who spent well over $2000 to get those damnable papyri in the first place be ok with the idea of getting Abraham through revelation without possessing a text that contained the ancient text of the Book of Abraham when that is exactly what Joseph Smith himself said the papyri contained and therefor he translated them?!? This is astonishing. Poor, poor John Gee. So this is what his career ended like....all dressed up and nowhere to go with it. Just wow.

[Shulem]

Shulem:

Have you had an opportunity to read this volume of the JSPP (i.e., Vol. 4)?

Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts

I haven't. I just can't get myself to do it. I've had about all I can take of Mormon apologetics. I'm burned out. But I have something very special planned for the apologists and the Book of Abraham which you may have noticed in another thread. My crystal ball is getting hot!

[Moksha]

It seems to me that with all the political distractions of late, that the most hardcore apologists are using this time to seize as much power as they can while people aren't looking.

Wonder if they might claim the Brethren are all Deep State, what with their Joseph Smith Papers. Letting those Papers Project people tell the truth defeats the best-laid plans to build a Maginot line around the Book of Abraham made of gossamer, sophistry, and Nibley footnotes.

[Shulem]

One is that Joseph Smith translated the text of the Book of Abraham from the papyri fragments we now have. Few members of the Church believe this theory, but it is pushed by anti-Mormons.

Although we don't have the original papyrus vignette of Facsimile No. 3 -- we have the FACSIMILE which is a copy of the said vignette, to include the very hieroglyphs he used to tender the Explanations. Few members actually believe Smith's Explanations and anti-Mormons push and make a point that Smith's translations are completely wrong. John Gee continues to stir up silly excuses and ideas to justify Smith's deception.

The second theory is that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyri that we do not currently possess.

We are 100% SURE that Joseph Smith translated the papyrus of Facsimile No. 3, using the very hieroglyphs contained in the registers of the vignette. The problem for the the Church is that those translations of the hieroglyphs are utterly false.

The third theory is that Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham directly through revelation without possessing a text that contained the ancient text of the Book of Abraham.

We are absolutely certain that Smith claimed to received so-called direct revelation while translating the very text contained in the registers of Facsimile No. 3 -- and those translations are all wrong.





Hey, John Gee: You're not as smart as you think you are. How do you sleep at night? How does it feel to live a lie? What do you think people are going to say about your Egyptology 50 years from now? You do realize you will be villainized? Your legacy will be one who lied for the Lord at any cost. In the end, the Church will dump you and throw you under the bus.

Stop! Just stop. Enough is enough.

[hauslern]

Something written on my Facebook page:

I echo what Tim has said Noel - more than a superficial look is needed, especially with facsimile 3. As per the "chiseled out snout," I addressed that argument in my thesis (which has been linked to above), though I'd add that unless your friend has found a lead snout that had been chiseled off and fits onto the original printing plate, or otherwise had found the original vignette, I'm not sure how anyone can really prove that argument."

[Shulem]

Something written on my Facebook page:

I echo what Tim has said Noel - more than a superficial look is needed, especially with facsimile 3. As per the "chiseled out snout," I addressed that argument in my thesis (which has been linked to above), though I'd add that unless your friend has found a lead snout that had been chiseled off and fits onto the original printing plate, or otherwise had found the original vignette, I'm not sure how anyone can really prove that argument."

The subject of Quinten Barney's paper has been brought up quite recently, here on the old Mormon Discussions Board:

The Neglected Facsimile: An Examination and Comparative Study of Facsimile No. 3 of the Book of Abraham, Quinten Barney

I, have not taken the time to read his paper for the reason stated therein. Nobody on the board wanted to bother with it either due to lack of interest. Quinten Barney is undoubtedly refusing to face reality and admit the fact that the Egyptian artist who created the original vignette of Facsimile No. 3, most assuredly featured Anubis with his jackal head. What will it take to convince him; Jesus Christ coming down out of heaven and announcing it along with the 7 trumpets? Regardless, some people will always deny what they see with their own lying eyes.

[Lem]

The subject of Quinten Barney's paper has been brought up quite recently, here on the old Mormon Discussions Board:

The Neglected Facsimile: An Examination and Comparative Study of Facsimile No. 3 of the Book of Abraham, Quinten Barney

I, have not taken the time to read his paper for the reason stated therein. Nobody on the board wanted to bother with it either due to lack of interest. Quinten Barney is undoubtedly refusing to face reality and admit the fact that the Egyptian artist who created the original vignette of Facsimile No. 3, most assuredly featured Anubis with his jackal head. What will it take to convince him; Jesus Christ coming down out of heaven and announcing it along with the 7 trumpets? Regardless, some people will always deny what they see with their own lying eyes.

Barney's argument is that unless HE sees the shaved off snout parts, they don't exist, and the event didn't happen?

Any chance he will be attending the 'Witnesses' movie?

Of course, the evidence actually exists for the shaving of the snout, whereas no angels have stepped up to provide even a D-ring for the plates. Peterson may not want to hear from this guy.

[Shulem]

Barney's argument is that unless HE sees the shaved off snout parts, they don't exist, and the event didn't happen?

Any chance he will be attending the 'Witnesses' movie?

Of course, the evidence actually exists for the shaving of the snout, whereas no angels have stepped up provide even a D-ring for the plates. Peterson may not want to hear from this guy.

I was hoping that someone would have taken an interest in reviewing his paper. But even Philo Sofee wasn't interested and he's one of the most veracious readers on the subject. It seems that everyone is getting pretty tired of the Church and its apologists pushing the same old lies. The Church has been publishing horrific falsehood in the Facsimiles for 179 years and refuses to apologize or make amends. As far as I'm concerned, the Church has ravished the papyrus and abused it in a criminal way. The Church is guilty as sin and it will pay the price, eventually.

I have to wonder if Quinten Barney would apply his logical reasoning to a man who was castrated and everyone else refuses to believe he once had a penis simply because his rotted member had since turned to dust. Anubis had a jackal head and Barney is a dick.