DiscussMormonism.com

The New FARMS Review is online, including an article by John Gee about the Joseph Smith papyri. I haven't read it yet, but I definitely plan to give it a read sometime this week and comment here. The other Book of Abraham pundits are welcome to get the jump on me, if they feel so inspired. ;-)

The review of the Dawkins book = lame.

Here's the link to the Table of Contents.

CaliforniaKid wrote:The New FARMS Review is online, including an article by John Gee about the Joseph Smith papyri. I haven't read it yet, but I definitely plan to give it a read sometime this week and comment here. The other Book of Abraham pundits are welcome to get the jump on me, if they feel so inspired. ;-)

I am not a Book of Abraham pundit, though I have a certain amount of practice in dealing with scholarly literature, and have gained one of the skills needed to deal with it - the ability to glance quickly at an article in a journal to see if it is worth looking at in detail.

Gee's article is called "New Light on the Joseph Smith Papyri". I have gone through it twice in order to find what this 'new light' is. One really is, I think, justified in expecting something a bit significant with a title like that. But this is the conclusion:

Most of what we as Egyptologists think we know about the Joseph Smith Papyri is demonstrably wrong, whether on the details of their history or on Mormon attitudes about them. The assumptions we make, the presuppositions we have, and the myths that we have invented dominate discussions of the papyri and the Mormons. It seems therefore fitting to conclude with a slight alteration of one of Professor Ritner's astute observations: "In the past, our theories have dictated our facts as often as our facts have dictated our theories. Theoretical bias has been unrecognized and its pervasive influence ignored. So long as we are willing to allow our preconceptions to structure our questions and answers, to rewrite the historians, or disbelieve the papyrus evidence, how will we ever find examples of positive . . . interaction between Egyptian and [Mormon]? It will not matter whether we use [Mormon] or [Egyptian] evidence, or any evidence at all; we shall see only our long-ingrained stereotypes.

And that is about it (yes, and the digs at Ritner recur throughout the text). I have no doubt that those deeply embroiled in the Book of Abraham controversy may find something here to talk about. But is there anything here to shake the assumption of the (probably) vast majority of those who have heard of the Book of Abraham that Joseph Smith made it up? No. Is there anything here to boost the faith of those who believe that the Book of Abraham is divinely revealed scripture? No.

If the article had been entitled 'Some random thoughts on past and present discussions of the Book of Abraham, by a participant' one might not feel disappointed. Some few might have turned to it eagerly. But 'New Light'? Hardly.

Sweet! Something to read.

I'm currently reading the Poulsen piece. I'll save the DCP piece for later.

Poulsen's piece seems to boil down to:

"Don't take what this guy says as concrete opinion for Book of Mormon scholars, there are numerous models for Book of Mormon geographical location. You just have to ask the right questions and make the right assumptions. It'll work out in the end...I swear!"

Bond...James Bond wrote:Sweet! Something to read.

I'm currently reading the Poulsen piece. I'll save the DCP piece for later.

Just warning you... it's bad...

GoodK wrote:

Bond...James Bond wrote:Sweet! Something to read.

I'm currently reading the Poulsen piece. I'll save the DCP piece for later.

Just warning you... it's bad...

The DCP piece?

Bond...James Bond wrote:

GoodK wrote:

Bond...James Bond wrote:Sweet! Something to read.

I'm currently reading the Poulsen piece. I'll save the DCP piece for later.

Just warning you... it's bad...

The DCP piece?

Yes, awful. Here, so you don't waste your time:

Now, I am not saying that Hitchens is lying, but I am saying there is virtually not a sentence in this book that is true. It is absolutely astonishing. He has become wealthy with this book, which gives me hope: by reputation among some ex- and anti-Mormons, I am a constant liar, so perhaps my own future is bright.

Awesome.

GoodK wrote:

Bond...James Bond wrote:Sweet! Something to read.

I'm currently reading the Poulsen piece. I'll save the DCP piece for later.

Just warning you... it's bad...

Examples?