John Gee is a defender of lies

[_why me]

I have received revelation (personal to me) that Book of Abraham is unnecessary for human existence and simply a lie. Yeah, we might be able to find a couple of interesting sentences in there that could be interpreted in a way to encourage us to be better people, but that is it for me.

The book of abraham has one important fact in it: it declares to humankind that god exists and that god directs the people who follow him. And as such, it becomes another testament that god is real.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Dwight,

Thanks for your thoughtful, interesting post, Enuma. I have a question about this bit in Psalms. In reading through the part represented by ellipsis, it seems to me David (or whoever) is tying his visit to "the sanctuary of God" with his realization of the ultimate fate of the wicked. While his mention of the hand thing follows this, I'm not sure I can see that it is as directly related to his visit to the "sanctuary" as you seem to suggest. But, given your training, you're obviously in a better place than I am to know.

So I suppose my question is: Have any non-LDS scholars picked up on the significance of the handholding mentioned in v. 23 in relation to "the sanctuary of God" mentioned in v. 17?

Thanks for your post, and I hope it receives more interesting interaction than it has so far generated.

Thanks for the great question. Despite what tradition suggests, there's no reason to assume that David authored any of the psalms. Instead, biblical scholars recognize that many of the psalms represent ritualized temple prayers and performances. This is particularly true of biblical Psalms of Individual and Communal Lament.

Because of the hand-clasp, which as Kraus suggests, appears directly linked with royal imagery, it appears that Psalm 74 presents a Davidic king suffering through heavy afflictions (vv. 14,26,). As is typical for these types of psalms, the prayer refers to the singer's innocency and discusses the fate of the wicked/enemies (see for example Psalm 6, 13, etc.).

There are a number of elements such as the handclasp with God that appear connected with ancient temple worship via allusions in the Psalms. Scholars who have commented on these motifs, typically connect these rituals with Israelite kings, rather than the general community. For further reference, see the citation I provided from Nicholas Wyatt. I'm a big fan of his work! Wyatt, for example, takes Psalm 19:8-10 as an allusion to an anointing ritual performed in the temple:

"The teaching of Yahweh is perfect,restoring the breast.
The testimony of Yahweh is certain,making wise the head,
The precepts of Yahweh are upright,rejoicing the heart.
The commandment of Yahweh is pure,making bright the eyes.
The speech of Yahweh is ritually pure,standing forever.
The judgments of Yahweh are truth,they are righteous all together,
More desirable than gold,than much pure gold,
More sweet than honey,or the refined comb
Your servant is indeed illumined by them,
and in their observance is there great gain"

“It is true that there is no narrative statement about unction here: oil is not even mentioned. But only thus can the successive blessings on various parts of the king’s body by explained. For comparison we should consider the unction of priests, in Exod 29:4-9,19-2, 40:12-15 and Lev. 8:10-12, 22-24, where various parts of the priest’s body are anointed with oil and blood, undoubtedly with some liturgical commentary on the action, such is now narrated in these passages, providing a suitable performative utterance” N. Wyatt, “Degrees of Divinity: Some Mythical and Ritual Aspects of West Semitic Kingship,” Ugarit-Forschungen 31:1999, 875.

Fun stuff!

[_Enuma Elish]

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?

Honestly, I don't think so. Our manuals tend to avoid these issues altogether. If you look at the most recent Institute manual for the Book of Abraham, there's not much substance, beyond basic principles of application. Moreover, these matters are certainly not discussed in General Conference, etc.

I think it's probably more a reflection of our lay ministry, with Gospel Doctrine lessons proliferating non-sophisticated views as revealed truth.

[_zeezrom]

The book of abraham has one important fact in it: it declares to humankind that god exists and that god directs the people who follow him. And as such, it becomes another testament that god is real.

Thanks why me.

Have you ever read the book Discovering God?
http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780 ... index.aspx

It talks about how things happened all over the world to help point to the existence of God.

Stark said, "it is our capacity to understand God that has evolved—that humans now know much more about God than they did in ancient times."

I can see that it would be important for us to have as many witnesses of God as possible. If the Book of Abraham is a witness of God's existence, then I would agree it is a good thing - for those that need to believe in God.

But I find it bizarre that God would tell the author of the story to portray Osiris when he really meant Abraham. It makes me question whether Joseph Smith really knew what he was doing. It makes me think Joseph wanted desperately to look like he was a prophet but really wasn't.

[_zzyzx]

"who are going to take what you have said seriously, read and digest the relevant LDS scholarship on the matter, and come to a cool, informed conclusion on the matter based on familiarity with those materials."

Better be careful... LDS Scholarship seems to be on par with Military Intelligence.

[_why me]

But I find it bizarre that God would tell the author of the story to portray Osiris when he really meant Abraham. It makes me question whether Joseph Smith really knew what he was doing. It makes me think Joseph wanted desperately to look like he was a prophet but really wasn't.

I can understand where you are at now in your life when it comes to things lds. It all becomes one great question mark with more questions than answers.

Joseph Smith started all this when he was a very young man. Difficult to believe that such a young man could have invented it all. But it is not impossible. I see no reason that joseph needed to prove himself to be a prophet by translating something that he purchased. It would have been a surefire way to be proven false if he were a conman since such material could have been checked by experts.

[_Dr. Shades]

I see no reason that joseph needed to prove himself to be a prophet by translating something that he purchased. It would have been a surefire way to be proven false if he were a conman since such material could have been checked by experts.

And that's exactly what happened!

[_zeezrom]

I can understand where you are at now in your life when it comes to things lds. It all becomes one great question mark with more questions than answers.

Joseph Smith started all this when he was a very young man. Difficult to believe that such a young man could have invented it all. But it is not impossible. I see no reason that joseph needed to prove himself to be a prophet by translating something that he purchased. It would have been a surefire way to be proven false if he were a conman since such material could have been checked by experts.

I can't let you get away with this. As much as you want it to be true, I don't foresee my life becoming a giant question mark now that I've decided to go to the Catholic church... er - I mean stop believing in much of Mormonism.

I just learned today that Joseph Smith thought Osiris was Abraham.

I also heard someone say that the depiction of Osiris was meant (by God) to mean Abraham.

The fact that I find this bizarre has nothing to do with some increased amount of confusion in my life due to Satanic influence and everything to do with this simply being very bizarre.

[_Nimrod]

I see no reason that joseph needed to prove himself to be a prophet by translating something that he purchased. It would have been a surefire way to be proven false if he were a conman since such material could have been checked by experts.

And that's exactly what happened!

Wow, Doc, don't you love when somebody lobs you a home run pitch like that?

[_Themis]

His defense, exclude it from Mormon apologetics!

It sure looks that way. This is the guy who should be the Apologists front man on Book of Abraham issues, but he doesn't appear to be very interested in defending it. He instead seems to be trying to De-emphasize it and it's importance to the church. Unfortunately it is crucial to Josephs claims about the divine, but I can understand when something is not really defend-able one may lose interest in trying.