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

[Moksha]

Have the people working on the Joseph Smith Papers Project responded to the Interpreter Foundation's charge of being anti-Mormons?

[dastardly stem]

Such insights may be obtained by careful study of the documents if one does not subscribe, as the editors do, to anti-Mormon theories about the production of the Book of Abraham. The evidence of editorial bias in JSPRT4 is demonstrable, pervasive, and systemic. This bias opposes the interests of the Joseph Smith Papers institutional sponsors, the beliefs of most members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and (most importantly) the evidence of the manuscripts being published.

I"m loving that Gee is taking this on. His arguments are so crappy. I'm delighted to see him speaking on behalf of "most members". He's so right on that point. Most members think the Book of Abraham carries legitimacy as scripture and is meaningful, even if they are only aware of one passage that has any meaning to their beliefs. But reading his whole piece all I see is one complaint repeated over and over--the JSP editors are wrong because what they say doesn't really support Mormon belief. I mean I can't help but point out he's right. It's funny the leaders of the Church don't seem to realize that and would probably have to side with the JSP folks if this little battle got noise enough to matter to anyone.

I like SHulem's post above where he points out that all of Gee's arguments dissipate into nothing when you realize everything he says is proven untrue when you consider the facsimiles.

[Shulem]

John Gee doesn't think it was a spiritual quest wherein the Lord unfolded it by revelation. Gee downplays it as the work of mere mental effort wherein they were simply trying to figure things out, but obviously failed:

The editors claim that “Joseph Smith [Joseph Smith] and his scribes envisioned them [these documents] less as an academic production meant to be evaluated by scholars of the day and more as a continuation of their spiritual quest to uncover ancient languages.”11 The editors may be correct that the Egyptian Alphabet documents were probably not intended for evaluation by the scholars of the day. The documents were probably internal explorations. Were they seen as a “spiritual quest”? The term Joseph Smith uses for their work is labored, which means “performing hard work.” He did not use the revelatory term unfolded that he used elsewhere in this entry, nor did he use the term translate as in other entries in late 1835. In the Doctrine and Covenants, the verb labor is often used for secular work; even if it may have a spiritual dimension the frequent metaphor is laboring in the vineyard.12 In the nominal form, [Page 83]this is emphasized by the phrases “temporal labors,”13 “labors on the land,”14 and “labor of his hands.”15 In his journals, Joseph Smith refers to “our Labours in the printing buisness,”16 “Laboured in Fathers orchard gathering apples.”17 In discussing conducting Church councils to correct erring saints, he recorded: “Much good will no doubt, result from our labors during the two days in which we were occupied on the business of the Church.”18 A similar usage appears a couple of months later: “after I came home I took up a labour with uncle John and convinced him that he was wrong & he made his confession to my satisfaction; I then went and laboured with President Rigdon and succeded in convincing him also of his error which he confessed to my satisfaction.”19 Sometimes he does use the word labor in a spiritual sense, though this seems to be the minority: “This day Joseph Smith jr. labored with Oliver Cowdery, in obtaining and writing blessings. We were thronged a part of the time with company, so that our labor, in this thing, was hindered.”20 While Joseph Smith could use the term labor for spiritual things, he more often used it for the exertion of physical and mental effort, and there is no particular reason to interpret it necessarily as some “spiritual quest.”21 Joseph Smith’s usage suggests that mental effort is more likely in this context. Those who wrote them were working something out in their own minds.

Read it and weep, John Gee. Are you smarter than Joseph Fielding Smith?

From June, 1830, until March 7, 1831, the Brethren labored with the revision of the early chapters of Genesis. However, on the latter date they were instructed to begin a translation of the New Testament also (D. and C. 45:60- 61.) This they began the next day, March 8. The work continued through both the Old and New Testaments until July 2, 1833, when the Prophet finished the work as far as the Lord required of him at that time

And the Lord said:

Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again; therefore see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of translation as you have begun.

And Joseph Smith said:

Upon the reception of the foregoing word of the Lord, I re-commenced the translation of the scriptures, and labored diligently

So, who are we suppose to believe? John Gee or Joseph Smith?

[hauslern]

Interesting discussion on Facebook on Facsimile 3: https://www.Facebook.com/tim.barker.988 ... &ref=notif

[Shulem]

Interesting discussion on Facebook on Facsimile 3. https://www.Facebook.com/tim.barker.988 ... &ref=notif

hauslern,

Notice how Barney-boy-baby plays the typical apologetic mind game to deflect and lead his listeners away from the truth for the purpose of justifying Smith's wanton errors:

Noel - That is correct, Anubis does have a snout and two ears. He's often depicted as a jackal, after all. Nobody is disagreeing with you there. As far as Facsimile No. 3 is concerned however, there's much more to consider. Anywho, I've quite enjoyed being largely MIA on Facebook lately, so I'm gonna peace-out! Best wishes in your studies.

Now, with that said, the jackal Anubis is ALWAYS depicted with a snout and ears -- ALWAYS, except in the case of the perverted Mormon papyrus which Joseph Smith raped. There is no "often" about it! There is nothing to consider as far as Facsimile No. 3 is concerned other than the FACT that Smith hacked the snout off Anubis! There is nothing to consider other than it's a clear case of a COVERUP which I discovered, live, right here on Mormon Discussions:

A few questions for Shulem
by Shulem » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:56 pm

[consiglieri]

Wonderful analysis, Shulem!

Here is the question that occurs to me while perusing your musings:

“If Joseph Smith & Co. we’re so demonstrably out of their depth in reverse engineering the translated Book of Abraham text into Egyptian characters, on what basis should we have more confidence in their ability to translate from Egyptian into English in the first place?”

[Shulem]

There is nothing to consider as far as Facsimile No. 3 is concerned other than the FACT that Smith hacked the snout off Anubis! There is nothing to consider other than it's a clear case of a COVERUP which I discovered, live, right here on Mormon Discussions:

A few questions for Shulem
by Shulem » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:56 pm

Dr. Shades,

You'll notice that the time stamp in the above quoted post is a Friday night which is when I typically might do a lot of drinking! Had I been following the mandate in which you set, "No alcohol for 24 hours", I might never have made the discovery.

No doubt, I was drinking that night when zooming in to take a close up look at Anubis's face.

Breaking the Word of Wisdom and Board Rules; it's a miracle!!

[Shulem]

“If Joseph Smith & Co. we’re so demonstrably out of their depth in reverse engineering the translated Book of Abraham text into Egyptian characters, on what basis should we have more confidence in their ability to translate from Egyptian into English in the first place?”

Indeed, I have zero confidence that Joseph Smith was able to translate Egyptian into English and neither could he translate English into Egyptian. It goes hand in hand, my friend.

Now, consider how apologists, more especially Nibley & Gee, who have been pushing the missing papyrus theory and blinding the eyes of countless ignorant Mormons for many years. Think about that! Nibley & Gee have been telling church members that the Book of Abraham was translated from text contained on papyrus that is NOT in the possession of the Church because it was lost, perhaps to the Chicago fire. That's been their story for many years and suckers have been buying that -- hook, line, and sinker.

But wait! We have the text of Facsimile No. 3, in which Smith translated and tendered his Explanations! We have that text! It's not missing and neither was it burned in Chicago but is right there in front of our eyes in the registers of Facsimile No. 3, published in the Times and Seasons in 1842. I think this very simple observation speaks volumes about Smith's ability to translate whether it be Egyptian into English or English into Egyptian -- and you'll recall that Explanations of Facsimile No. 2, boast the latter.

[Shulem]

hauslern,

Referring again to the quote you cited in Face Book:

Noel - That is correct, Anubis does have a snout and two ears. He's often depicted as a jackal, after all. Nobody is disagreeing with you there. As far as Facsimile No. 3 is concerned however, there's much more to consider. Anywho, I've quite enjoyed being largely MIA on Facebook lately, so I'm gonna peace-out! Best wishes in your studies.

And just what might that be? I'm all ears; or should I say, "Anubis is all ears".

This is another apologetic way to appeal to authority as if they have so much information to prove their cause but not enough time to do it. I've still not read his paper. You are more than welcome to post a synopsis of what he has to say about the chiseled snout and how he justifies the mutilated face of the Egyptian god who is left with a single ear and his distinct jackal eye.

Do feel free. I promise that I'll be nice to you. I'm not looking for a fight. Really. Welcome to the board!

Shulem

[hauslern]

Have you seen this blog?

https://thebookofabraham.blogspot.com/2017/