A few questions for Shulem

[_honorentheos]

We act rather than being acted upon.

Regards
MG

No, you don't. When you dismiss evidence, even if incomplete and partially lost to time as history may be because of heresay you learned, you are not acting. You were acted upon and the inertia of this is carrying you through.

Please, it is not an achievement to close one's eyes to the facts because one prefers the story with the tiger.

[_Shulem]

That is the default position I have come to after many years of riding the roller coaster of belief and doubt/questioning, yes. And to be honest, after having arrived at this default position, many things that bothered me before faded into the background somewhat. Yes, there is a world of understanding and logic but there is also a world with a certain sense of wonder and ambiguity. It is the ambiguity that creates an environment for faith. And it is through faith...without full understanding...that we become independent decision makers as to whether or not we look to God and live. We knock at the door. It doesn't just open automatically or without effort.

We act rather than being acted upon.

I get that you are having a testimony problem to some degree and your faith has and still is going through a trial. I can tell because I have magic power. It's the power of the mind, mind you. I asked you a question in the other thread and you've not answered it. It's either yes or no. Well?

Answer the question. Yes or no?

The statement is authoritative and is direct from President Smith, himself. The Explanations were revelations from Joseph Smith. He oversaw the work and carefully managed the press. He was fully responsible for the presentation in form and word. After the printing, the prophet proudly stood by his work. The church fully embraced the revelations. Do you?

[_Fence Sitter]

Since, for the most part, Latter-day Saints and Egyptologists agree that the preserved portions of the Joseph Smith Papyri do not contain the Book of Abraham, there is the possibility of detente between the two because scholarship cannot tell what was or was not on the missing papyri.

There is no detente here, there is no equal footing on which both are standing their ground. This is Gee at his finest trying to cast the issue of the missing papyri as a cornerstone on which people like MG can hang on.

"Hey look, we don't have all the papyri, so maybe the Book of Abraham was on a missing papyrus."

He even goes so far as to make up the existence of two additional scrolls to further the hope in the minds of uninformed believers. There are multiple problems with this statement, none of which Gee bothers to point out.

1. None of the extant 43 patches (those those small pieces that fell off the scrolls when Joseph Smith was working on them) can be identified as from anything other than the two scrolls the church currently posses. If there really was a different scroll on which Joseph Smith spent the most time working, why are none of the loose pieces from that unknown scroll?

2. Gee has pointed to a "Toronto scroll" as being somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 feet to use as an example as how long these scrolls can get. "Hey the missing scrolls could be 40' long or ever longer, just look at this scroll" He has to do this because as an Egyptologist he knows how many feet of Egyptian text it would take to record the Book of Abraham on papyri. First of all comparing the Toronto scroll to the Joseph Smith papryi scrolls is like comparing a roll of 4 ply toilet paper to a roll of adding machine tape. They simply are not the same thickness and he knows it. Gee also is relying on the ambiguous descriptions from Haven and the 2nd hand unverifiable Nibley account to project scrolls that are 40' long. Neither of these accounts are reliable, Haven exaggerates as Don Bradley has pointed out and the 2nd hand Nibley account is based on the 75 year old memory of a someone who was 5 years old at the time of the telling and simply cannot be verified or trusted. Under any circumstances neither account be construed to indicate a 40' long scroll. Haven was in an attic room describing the "long" scroll on a table. We are supposed to believe that the attic room was long enough to hold a 40 foot long table? Nonsense. The Nibley account describes a scroll extending through two rooms, even if it is accurate, that would indicate two adjacent rooms whose combined length was over 40' in the early 1800's. Not happening.

3. Gee is arguing that the majority of the papyri is missing. (He has to in order to allow for the Book of Abraham to actually be on it in Egyptian.) If that is true why are we able to identify where on the extant papyri all contemporary accounts of what was on the papyri? Remember Joseph Smith and Co. spent a lot of time copying the Egyptian characters and pictures on to other paper which they labeled as "Important". Are we supposed to believe they didn't bother to copy any parts of the Book of Abraham, the part they thought most important? And why make up two more scrolls if you are also going to argue the Book of Abraham could be on the missing section of the Hor scroll, see below. Again this is more hand waving and misdirection from Gee to make sure the faithful do not look behind the curtain.

4. Not a single extant description of what was/is on the papyri describes anything other than common Egyptian funerary iconography. If the Book of Abraham is missing why don't we have descriptions of Egyptian characters that cannot be related to common burial documents? Even if there are significant missing documents from the Joseph Smith papyri collection there is no expectation that they would contain anything other than common Egyptian funerary documents, none.

5. Cook and Smith dismantle Gee's claim of how much is missing from the Hor scroll. See The original Length of the Scroll of Hor This discussion got interesting because Gee tried to respond in writing and only served to demonstrate that he was unable to understand some fairly basic math terms like "derived". There is only about two feet missing from the Hor scroll.

Interesting enough we see how Gee is playing both sides of the missing scroll coin here. He is trying to argue that there is 15' plus missing from the Hor scroll and simultaneously arguing for two really long missing unknown scrolls? If the Book of Abraham is on the Hor scroll why argue for other missing scrolls or vice versa?

There is more but this is sufficient to show what Gee is doing is not scholarship and I understand why he needs to claim faith is needed, but in the case of the scroll lengths and quantities, it appears to be mostly bad faith.

[_mentalgymnast]

I asked you a question in the other thread and you've not answered it. It's either yes or no. Well?

Answer the question. Yes or no?

The statement is authoritative and is direct from President Smith, himself. The Explanations were revelations from Joseph Smith. He oversaw the work and carefully managed the press. He was fully responsible for the presentation in form and word. After the printing, the prophet proudly stood by his work. The church fully embraced the revelations. Do you?

The Book of Abraham was canonized. I never had any argument with the fact that Joseph Smith's handprints are on the Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham contains/teaches essential doctrines of the church that I believe make sense in my mind and heart. I see the Book of Abraham as a book of scripture in the same sense that I would see Isaiah in the Old Testament as being a book of scripture. Do they both have their controversies attached to them? Sure. Did the writer(s) of Isaiah have their own humanness mixed in with the Isaiah text? Sure. I believe that Joseph may have also had his own handprints in the Book of Abraham also. The way that it was serialized in Nauvoo and the time constraints/deadlines for publication and the public's need for more...entertainment value(?)...would all weigh on those producing the Book of Abraham narrative/text. If there are elements that are controversial and/or found to be fabricated/imagined in order to increase 'audience appeal', that would not surprise me in the least.

That being said, I don't know that this would negate the possibility of Joseph having received revelation within the Book of Abraham narrative that teaches essential eternal truths in more detail...such as the pre-mortal spirit of man...first/second estate...etc. And yes, I know some of these 'eternal truths' were being tossed around at the time and were 'in the air'. But that doesn't surprise me either that Joseph Smith and his companions would bring in 'truth' from wherever it might have sprung up in that fertile environment at the time.

At the end of the day, I think Joseph believed that the scroll text that he was using to 'translate' helped him understand and deliver the 'world of Abraham' as a revelatory text couched in story/narrative that he may also have involved himself in as an author. Think of the Kinderhook Plates and the work that Don Bradley has done. Joseph was involved 'as a man' in that short translation snapshot he came up with. We don't have any evidence either way that he would have continued that project. He did continue the Book of Abraham project and I see it as a mix of midrash/revelation/story. With God and man in the mix.

It happened in the Old Testament (New Testament also?)...why not the Book of Abraham?

Anyway, that's pretty much where I'll have to let the chips fall at this point. I can see where you're coming from and I don't fault you for that.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I get that you are having a testimony problem to some degree and your faith has and still is going through a trial.

You keep saying that. Are you trying to create a meme through putting forth your propaganda?

Let me be clear. I have a testimony. It is a different sort of testimony than say for example my TBM neighbor...and the individual way in which I came about my own testimony...but it is a testimony nonetheless. I would appreciate it if you would discontinue promoting a false narrative and creating propaganda which could result in another false meme that goes viral on this board.

Thanks,
MG

[_Chap]

.... this is sufficient to show what Gee is doing is not scholarship and I understand why he needs to claim faith is needed, but in the case of the scroll lengths and quantities, it appears to be mostly bad faith.

I agree. Even after all the discussions of recent years, we see Gee repeating and repeating assertions that he knows darn well have been thoroughly exploded.

And yet on and on he goes, trotting out the same old stuff to keep TBM readers happy. But what alternative does he have?

What a miserable job. What a miserable way to live. One great criticism of modern Mormonism is that it traps people like Gee and Peterson into such hopeless and degrading roles as these.

[_Shulem]

The Book of Abraham was canonized. I never had any argument with the fact that Joseph Smith's handprints are on the Book of Abraham.

Indeed, it can't be argued that the book is canonized, that's a fact. It can, however, be argued that there are more than just Smith's handprints on the Book of Abraham. As far as the world is concerned, the book is a product from the mind and thoughts of Smith -- writing words on paper with an ink pen. The saints take it further and believe God revealed the contents of Abraham's original work to Smith's mind through the Spirit of direct/divine revelation.

The Book of Abraham contains/teaches essential doctrines of the church that I believe make sense in my mind and heart.

I can appreciate that. People have a right to feel good about what they believe.

I see the Book of Abraham as a book of scripture in the same sense that I would see Isaiah in the Old Testament as being a book of scripture.

I don't care about Isaiah or biblical records. Those works are of a different class altogether than the collective works of Mormonism. But I get it that you consider the Book of Abraham to be on par with Isaiah.

Do they both have their controversies attached to them? Sure. Did the writer(s) of Isaiah have their own humanness mixed in with the Isaiah text? Sure.

Isaiah and Joseph Smith were human. They put their thoughts to paper and called it scripture. Not everyone believes it and for good reason.

I believe that Joseph may have also had his own handprints in the Book of Abraham also.

Why do you say, "may"? There really is no "may" about it. The entire Book of Abraham presentation in the Times and Seasons came from the mind of Joseph Smith. Whether he wrote it down or dictated, it came from the mind of Joseph Smith. Forget the handprints. We are talking about thoughts from the human mind transformed into words. Now, if you want to claim that a higher power such as the Holy Spirit was helping him with his thoughts that takes it to a different level. But, the Book of Abraham came from the translator Joseph Smith. That's a proven fact. What's not proven is that some other higher power helped him think up and express the content.

The way that it was serialized in Nauvoo and the time constraints/deadlines for publication and the public's need for more...entertainment value(?)...would all weigh on those producing the Book of Abraham narrative/text.

Don't forget that Joseph Smith proclaimed a revelation from God to the Twelve that the printing press management was under direct care from the Holy Spirit, thus God was at the helm.

I received the following revelation to the Twelve concerning the Times and Seasons.

Revelation

Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Joseph, go and say unto the Twelve, that it is my will to have them take in hand the editorial department of the Times and Seasons, according to that manifestation which shall be given unto them by the power of my Holy Spirit in the midst of their counsel, saith the Lord. Amen.

If there are elements that are controversial and/or found to be fabricated/imagined in order to increase 'audience appeal', that would not surprise me in the least.

What do you mean by, "If"? Are you not already convinced that there are controversial matters about the production of the Book of Abraham which are difficult to explain let alone defend? I'm surprised that you would not be surprised to learn that there could be fabricated/imagined elements added into the Book of Abraham presentation of the Times and Seasons to increase audience appeal. I'm honestly surprised you'd entertain that notion considering the power of the Holy Spirit was in the midst of their counsel.

That being said, I don't know that this would negate the possibility of Joseph having received revelation within the Book of Abraham narrative that teaches essential eternal truths in more detail...such as the pre-mortal spirit of man...first/second estate...etc.

You don't know? Obviously your testimony of this particular aspect is on shaky ground. I can appreciate that. I get that you're happy with the premortal doctrine and certain eternal things mentioned in the book, so you'll just take the whole thing as is and hope for the best. I understand your position.

And yes, I know some of these 'eternal truths' were being tossed around at the time and were 'in the air'. But that doesn't surprise me either that Joseph Smith and his companions would bring in 'truth' from wherever it might have sprung up in that fertile environment at the time.

I understand that. Things do tend to get around and people borrow from others to make their own stuff. You remind me of Led Zeppelin's Robert Plant who confessed in an interview to a little bit of honest thievery in producing great music.

See this 32 second clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdLYtJbbFNo

At the end of the day, I think Joseph believed that the scroll text that he was using to 'translate' helped him understand and deliver the 'world of Abraham' as a revelatory text couched in story/narrative that he may also have involved himself in as an author.

I understand your position. Whether Joseph Smith actually "believed" or not is debatable. There is a lot of evidence to show otherwise, or that he was committing fraud, knowingly.

Think of the Kinderhook Plates and the work that Don Bradley has done. Joseph was involved 'as a man' in that short translation snapshot he came up with. We don't have any evidence either way that he would have continued that project.

We will agree that the Kinderhook incident is not a faith promoting story or one the church likes to talk about. As an LDS apologist it made me cringe.

He did continue the Book of Abraham project and I see it as a mix of midrash/revelation/story. With God and man in the mix.

Ha, you remind me of Lucifer, you know: "We teach a religion made of the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture".

It happened in the Old Testament (New Testament also?)...why not the Book of Abraham?

Anyway, that's pretty much where I'll have to let the chips fall at this point. I can see where you're coming from and I don't fault you for that.

The chips are falling, my friend. Just not where you want them!

[_Shulem]

Let me be clear. I have a testimony. It is a different sort of testimony than say for example my TBM neighbor...and the individual way in which I came about my own testimony...but it is a testimony nonetheless. I would appreciate it if you would discontinue promoting a false narrative

I know you have a testimony. But I also know your testimony isn't very strong. It's a different sort of testimony say then that of Gordon B. Hinckley. He never questioned the validity of scripture or the Book of Abraham in public discourse but maintained a firm stance in all things. He didn't present his understanding of the Book of Abraham and things pertaining thereto as a "juggling act". He never once publicly admitted that the Book of Abraham for him was an "enigma" or "conundrum". President Hinckley seems strong and resolute in his convictions unlike you who seem to be wavering in personal dissatisfaction.

I give it as my opinion you are ripe and ready to lose your testimony altogether. I'm here to help you meet that end.

[_Shulem]

The Book of Abraham
Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith

A Facsimile from the Book of Abraham No. 2

Explanation

Fig. 9. Ought not to be revealed at the present time.

The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.

The bottom note of the Explanations is a declaration given by Joseph Smith that the Explanations of Facsimile No. 2 are given to the world through the instrumentality of the President of the Church: Joseph Smith, the prophet, seer, and revelator and the only man designated by God to declare revelation for the whole church. Previously, the prophet through direct revelation called the Twelve and urged them to get their affairs in order as the Holy Spirit prepares to minister among them in proclaiming Egyptian translations via the Times and Seasons press.

With that said, what did the Holy Spirit reveal about the Facsimile contents of Fig. 9?

[_Themis]

Whether Joseph Smith actually "believed" or not is debatable.

This is not the issue. What Joseph claimed about the papyri is. MG has never been able to present an explanation of Joseph clear claims that the papyri contained the writings of Abraham and Joseph. Why would Joseph claim the papyri contained the writings of these two biblical figures? He couldn't possibly know on his own, or even have a clue. I can't see him being a real prophet of God and making it up. He made up a lot of clear claims about the papyri and what he was doing with it. So Joseph would have to be quite dumb to make it up. Especially if his other claims are true. He claims to be able to translate ancient languages and to have a good communicate ability with God. It makes no sense he would not ask God about the papyri, especially since he claims to be asking God and getting revelation all the time about many other issues, many much less important then this one. MG fails from the start to provide a plausible explanation why Joseph would have made false claims about the papyri and what he was doing and be a prophet communicating with God on a regular basis. This is just the start of the problems with his nuanced/catalyst theory.