John Gee is a defender of lies

[_dblagent007]

Now in the Book of Abraham, the Prophet Joseph Smith took this scene and gave it a new Sitz in Leben or “setting in life” connected with Abraham. This process, whereby an author takes an ancient text/portrayal and places it into a new context happens regularly throughout the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, it’s the very historical process whereby many scriptural text came into existence. By using the symbol representing Osiris to denote an enthroned Abraham, Joseph created an impressive prefiguration of Abraham’s exaltation as deity.

David, I appreciate what you are trying to do. However, it is exceptionally difficult to believe that Joseph Smith took an ancient text/portrayal and placed it into a new context when that is not what Joseph Smith thought he was doing - i.e., translating the literal text of the Book of Abraham from the papyri.

[Guest]

By using the symbol representing Osiris to denote an enthroned Abraham, Joseph created an impressive prefiguration of Abraham’s exaltation as deity:

Let me get this straight.

Joseph Smith said: Elkenah is attempting to sacrifice Abraham and the angel of the Lord is there to stop it.

The historians said: The God Anubis is effecting the resurrection of Osiris and the soul of Osiris is present.

So the symbol of Osiris just happens to denote exactly what Joseph Smith said? Why in the world wouldn't the Egyptian writer just describe Abraham's story in the first place? Did he not have the symbols at his disposal to properly describe Abraham?

I'm seriously asking this: Did the writer not have the Egyptian characters available to him to fully describe Abraham?

PS - who is Elkenah? I can't find reference to that person in the Old Testament.

[_Nimrod]

You didn't address Dr Gee's comment, EE.

Is the church moving away from the canon?

Of course it isn't. What on earth would give you this idea?

The only people I can think of who would seriously consider the Church moving away from its own scriptures, is someone who has thoroughly moved away from the Church.

Or someone that knows LDS Inc history about the de-canonization of the Lectures on Faith.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Harmony,

Is the church moving away from the canon?

Not that I can tell. More importantly, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for members to assume that the Book of Abraham is uninspired. It is an extraordinary book with impressive ties to biblical and general Near Eastern views regarding apotheosis, the divine council of gods, and temple worship/ritual.

What is needed, at least from my perspective, is perhaps a more sophisticated understanding on the part of some members, regarding the nature of scripture, inspiration, and prophets. In terms of the Book of Abraham, believers can and sadly do get into trouble when they insist that Joseph's work conform to their preconceived notions on what constitutes the makeup of a scriptural text. Without getting too personal, from my perspective, this is precisely what has occurred in the case of our friend, Paul O.

It's not just Mormons, however, who face this challenge. We see the same thing happen with many Evangelical Christians, who once exposed to an academic approach to the Bible, often fall of the deep end in terms of their religious convictions when they learn that the Bible does not hold up to their fundamentalist views regarding the nature of scripture.

[_Enuma Elish]

Thanks Rockslider,

I've been known to loose my patience with certain posters. But I'm feeling much more loving again, as of late.

Enuma Elish,

First off, for what it's worth, I've somewhat followed your posting here and on MAD and respect you for it.

I would like to follow some good information on this topic, and it appears you are up on the details fairly well.

It had seemed to me that over the past, that the main apologetic players were dropping like flies. I am just very surprised that it is not Gee presenting the material you have given here; instead it appears he is backing away from it.

Where can/will we expect to see scholarly defense of the Book of Abraham in the future?

Kudos for jumping into the fray, as usual you handle it well.

John is a brilliant man. He is a personal friend, and I hold him in high esteem. I was unable to attend the FAIR conference, so alas, did not hear exactly what John said on this instance. However, when I read the review, I found myself in agreement with his comments and felt his views were well-stated.

That having been said, it's no secret that John and I hold differing opinions on some key issues including biblical source criticism, the Book of Abraham, etc. This in no way lessons my respect for him, both as a person and in terms of his scholarship. What John and I hold in common, far out weighs our differences.

Best

[_Dwight Frye]

What is needed, at least from my perspective, is perhaps a more sophisticated understanding on the part of some members, regarding the nature of scripture, inspiration, and prophets. In terms of the Book of Abraham, believers can and sadly do get into trouble when they insist that Joseph's work conform to their preconceived notions on what constitutes the makeup of a scriptural text. Without getting too personal, from my perspective, this is precisely what has occurred in the case of our friend, Paul O.

Enuma, do you think the Church itself, through its manuals and magazines and such, is at all responsible for the less sophisticated understanding some members have?

[_Runtu]

If you wish to be taken seriously in your criticisms, than be serious. Otherwise, you're just another Paul Osborne: a fuming anti-Mormon stand-up comic.

Just when I start thinking you're a decent guy, you pull crap like this. You specifically said that, in regards to the Book of Abraham, scholarship is secondary to revelation. So, zeezrom tells you he's had revelation on the matter, and you mock him.

You can really be an ass sometimes, Loran.

[_lostindc]

Where were you when I had a brief stint taking an institute class? David, as always your posts have great substance.

[_why me]

Our Book of Abraham was invented by a man who was a lover of many women. Joseph Smith was determined to be an Abraham of modern times and to be like a king with a harem greater than Solomon’s. To do this, he had to make himself like an Abraham and get his people to accept him as such. Joseph Smith was totally addicted to sex, his drug of choice.

Come and listen to a prophet’s voice:

Icki-iky-o-mie-gos Moo-Omn-peni-enishsh-go!!

I interpret the words “knee pads” somewhere in that phrase. How pitiful. Don’t be a sucker BC. Reject the papyrus translation of Joseph Smith and embrace reason.

Paul O

Well, if Joseph wrote the book of abraham, he was a very talented guy who loved to take risks. I see no reason for Joseph Smith to write the book of abraham and risk it all. All were perfectly content with the Book of Mormon. No need for another book.

Plus, if he did write that book, he was a very talented guy for sure. Again no manuscript to be found or seen at that time.

He should have put his talents to better use. Heck, if I were him and had an itch for women, I would begin to write from the top of my head romance yarns to woo women. It certainly would have worked.

[_zeezrom]

So the "symbol" of Osiris just happens to denote exactly what Joseph Smith said? Why in the world wouldn't the Egyptian writer just describe Abraham's story in the first place? Did he not have the symbols at his disposal to properly describe Abraham?

I'm seriously asking this: Did the writer not have the Egyptian characters available to him to fully describe Abraham?

Can someone please answer this? (preferably someone that defends the Book of Abraham).

Are there apologists out there who believe the original author of the scrolls meant Abraham but authored it as Osiris?