John Gee is a defender of lies

[_Themis]

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

I have never seen anyone whose reasoning skills is so backwards as Whyme's. I would add that there were no experts in Joseph's day (at least not that he or others around him would have been aware of). For them this was a dead language no one could translate, which may have looked as though it was going to stay that for for the foreseeable future, so I think Joseph would have felt fairly safe making up revelation about the papyri. Lets face it, he seemed to revel in doing so on many occasions. He would have been great to have on scout camps just for the stories.

[_Themis]

The thing is, one (even a five year old), can take any picture, let's go with an Egyptian painting, and even without the least bit of knowledge or understanding of anything Egyptian, come up with a story that one could "make work." The way some apologists (read Nibley...smile), come up with "hits" makes one wonder what would be a miss.

I'm pretty sure that one could take ANY picture and make it fit ANY story... this phenomenon has become an art form.

:-)

~td~

I agree. What we have is papyri that does not translate to to anything about Abraham. We have three facsimiles that don't translate to any Abraham story, but they all do translate to funeral rites which the experts have all agreed on. The evidence shows Joesph thought he was translating Egyptian into a Abraham story, but I guess God was just fooling him on just that part (LOL).

So it seems that the next strategy is to look for similarities in the Book of Abraham, Temple, Book of Mormon with other ancient cultures of interest, (Middle East, Meso-America, etc). The problem I see is first that Joseph got most of it all wrong, and second, what hits are claimed, have not been shown whether they are significant, or another words, can we expect someone to get some hits, and how many might we expect. How many similarities are there between cultures? Can one, like TD says, make things fit to look like a hit. I'm reminded of Nostradamus and how believers have made events fit his many prophecies.

[_Nimrod]

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

I have never seen anyone whose reasoning skills is so backwards as Whyme's. I would add that there were no experts in Joseph's day (at least not that he or others around him would have been aware of). For them this was a dead language no one could translate, which may have looked as though it was going to stay that for for the foreseeable future, so I think Joseph would have felt fairly safe making up revelation about the papyri. Lets face it, he seemed to revel in doing so on many occasions. He would have been great to have on scout camps just for the stories.

He seems to have other qualities that would make him a fit in the Boy Scouts of America as well.

[_Themis]

He seems to have other qualities that would make him a fit in the Boy Scouts of America as well.

I honestly think Joseph would have been at lot of fun to hang out with as a kid.

[_RockSlider]

He seems to have other qualities that would make him a fit in the Boy Scouts of America as well.

I honestly think Joseph would have been at lot of fun to hang out with as a kid.

as a kid? heck before Emma got tired of cleaning up after the boys, he would have been a hoot as an adult

[_floatingboy]

enuma... i am impressed by the amount of research that you have apparently done. honestly. that takes a lot of patience and hard work. and i would also be impressed if Joseph Smith had said that all of that stuff was on the scroll. but he didn't. he said that it contained other types of things. he said that the facsimiles were other things that they are not. and to say that he recast the people depicted in those drawings or is some major reverse engineering which i can't buy.

about the similarities between egyptian beliefs regarding apotheosis as compared to the Mormon endowment, and for that matter, compared to the beliefs of any religion that believes in a type of salvation, here are my unlearned musings:

-i do find it interesting that there are similarities, however,
-i tend to think that between religions that believe in a creator that will exercise judgment over people at the end of their lives, you're bound to find recurring themes
-regarding the themes that are perhaps less common or even only occurring in the Mormon endowment and ancient near eastern beliefs (if, indeed, there are themes the only occur in these belief systems), i personally would first appeal to the notion that Joseph Smith was very, very familiar with the Bible, particularly the old testament. i almost wonder if he is not given enough credit for this. so when you reference a passage from psalms or anywhere else in the Old Testament that is somewhat obscure to the average person, my first impression is that it was quite probably not obscure to Joseph Smith. so the fact that many of these things could find their way into the endowment ceremony isn't exactly surprising to me.
-why do apologists consider it a good thing that there are similarities between the endowment and ancient beliefs in sumeria and egypt? i suppose the argument is that those beliefs originally came from adam? (from jackson county? oh right, the worldwide flood took noah over to the middle east.) ok, fine. but has anyone shown similar themes in, say, far eastern, norse, etc. beliefs? if they are there, would the same argument (came down from adam) apply?

again, when i say "unlearned musing", i really mean it. maybe you will tear them apart limb from limb. :)

[_Enuma Elish]

Again, when i say "unlearned musing", i really mean it. maybe you will tear them apart limb from limb. :)

No way friend. Acceptance of any religious work as a spiritual guide is a matter of faith.

End of story.

I believe that there exists compelling intellectual reasons for a Latter-day Saint to accept the Book of Abraham as an inspired work, particularly in light of what we know about ancient scriptural pseudepigraphic texts from the Bible, but if we’re simply talking intellectual arguments for/against the Book of Abraham, there are just as many legitimate points that one could raise against the authenticity of the work that I could raise in support of it.

Acceptance of the work as inspired amounts to whether or not the text successfully influences our lives, drawing us closer to God. For me it does.

i would also be impressed if Joseph Smith had said that all of that stuff was on the scroll. but he didn't. he said that it contained other types of things.

I’m not convinced that Joseph really understood what was actually taking place in terms of his work with the Book of Abraham. The historical evidence seems to suggest that Joseph Smith believed that he was producing a faithful translation of the Egyptian papyri.

However, I actually take a different approach than yours. If Joseph Smith had said everything I presented about the facsimile, it would indicate that Joseph Smith possessed advanced training in ancient Near Eastern studies, similar to what one could acquire today by simply attending a good university and/or through diligent personal study.

Hence, the fact that Joseph does not appear to have understood how truly remarkable the pieces of the puzzle he was putting together proved in terms of the Book of Abraham provides further evidence for the possibility that Joseph was in fact being divinely inspired in the production.

he said that the facsimiles were other things that they are not. and to say that he recast the people depicted in those drawings or is some major reverse engineering which i can't buy.

Fair enough. However, from a historical perspective, much of the Bible was in fact produced this way, including the Covenant Code in Exodus, which is simply a reformulation, and adaptation of the Babylonian laws of Hammurabi presented by a biblical author as the actual words of Moses.

-i do find it interesting that there are similarities, however,
-i tend to think that between religions that believe in a creator that will exercise judgment over people at the end of their lives, you're bound to find recurring themes

I agree. And speaking personally, I can find evidence for what I view as inspiration in all the world’s religions.

-regarding the themes that are perhaps less common or even only occurring in the Mormon endowment and ancient near eastern beliefs (if, indeed, there are themes the only occur in these belief systems), i personally would first appeal to the notion that Joseph Smith was very, very familiar with the Bible, particularly the old testament.

Joseph Smith was certainly well-versed in the Bible and his revelations in the D&C illustrate that he could reproduce ancient literary forms in modern compositions. So, Joseph Smith could have gotten lucky. But if so, Joseph got lucky an awful lot! Especially in terms of the divine council/plurality of Gods portrayal connected with the astrological imagery in chapter 3. It's quite impressive!

-why do apologists consider it a good thing that there are similarities between the endowment and ancient beliefs in sumeria and egypt? i suppose the argument is that those beliefs originally came from adam? (from jackson county? oh right, the worldwide flood took noah over to the middle east.) ok, fine. but has anyone shown similar themes in, say, far eastern, norse, etc. beliefs? if they are there, would the same argument (came down from adam) apply

I can’t speak for every believer’s approach, but I tend to see religion as evolutionary in terms of its development. From my perspective, though unique on some levels, Israelite theology is simply an inspired subset of Northwest Semitic belief. I approach LDS scriptural texts through the doctrines of the Restoration and the lenses of general Near Eastern tradition.

It's an exciting result.

Best.

[_Paul Osborne]

In contrast to Paul, in my mind, Joseph Smith’s use and interpretation of Facsimile 3 provides one of the greatest pieces of evidence for the Prophet’s inspiration.

This position is dishonest and self destructive. Show me the name SHULEM contained in the writing of the Facsimile and then tell me about how it is a great piece of evidence. You will not deceive me, EE. This trick you are pulling will not work with me or on this board.

From an Egyptian perspective, Facsimile 3 depicts the deceased Hor being introduced to Osiris after having been declared innocent in the Hall of Two Truths. As Michael Rhodes explains, at this stage, Hor is now “worthy to enter the presence of Osiris.” The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary, 23.

Your Hugh Nibley tactics and points you make are irrelevant! Joseph Smith lied about the name Shulem and Anubis is not a slave, etc; In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Historically, this standard Egyptian presentation scene derives from ancient Sumer. Like the LDS temple endowment, this ancient Near Eastern portrayal presents a sacred walk into the presence of deity.

“The approaching individual usually wears a simple fringed garment draped over one shoulder, and one arm at least is bent at the elbow, the hand raised almost to the lips in what seems to be a gesture of greeting” I.J. Winter, “The King and the Cup: Iconography of the Royal Presentation Scene on Ur III Seals,” Insight Through Images: Studies in Honor of Edith Porada, (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1986): 254.

Your Hugh Nibley tactics and points you make are irrelevant! Joseph Smith lied about the name Shulem and Anubis is not a slave, etc; In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

During this sacred walk, the owner of the seal/papyrus appears helped along by means of a sacred handclasp (in the case of Facsimile 3, the deceased Hor clasps hands with the goddess Isis, sister/wife of Osiris, wearing cow horns with a moon disk, the standard headdress of both Isis and Hathor).

These type of ritual gestures appear in biblical tradition connected with temple worship described in the Psalms: “Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end… I am continually with thee: thou hast holden me by my right hand. Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory” (Psalm 73:17-24).

Your Hugh Nibley tactics and points you make are irrelevant! Joseph Smith lied about the name Shulem and Anubis is not a slave, etc; In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

As suggested in this passage, the clasping of the right hand of God denotes a continual state of at-one-ment with God. As biblical scholar Hans~Joachim Kraus explains concerning these references:

“This [the clasping of the right hand] points to a royal (might we even say, messianic?) procedure. The formula, ‘God grasps- one by the hand, when the king ascends the throne and is inducted into royal office, denotes the conferring of privilege and charisma on the king (Isaiah 45:1; 42:1).” Hans~Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms, pg. 173.

Your Hugh Nibley tactics and points you make are irrelevant! Joseph Smith lied about the name Shulem and Anubis is not a slave, etc; In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

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:

“Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne” (D&C 132:29)

Your Hugh Nibley tactics and points you make are irrelevant! Joseph Smith lied about the name Shulem and Anubis is not a slave, etc; In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

As Nicholas Wyatt explains, enthronement, from a Near Eastern perspective, signifies a movement to apotheosis:

“The rituals which transform status of the earthly king, removing him from ‘merely human’ status to that of a sacral figure, to be couched in a narrative about a god, carries with it the hint that the king himself is to be seen as transformed into a god… the enthronement of the king, is thus his apotheosis” N. Wyatt, “Degrees of Divinity: Some Mythical and Ritual Aspects of West Semitic Kingship,” Ugarit-Forschungen 31:1999, 857.

Your Hugh Nibley tactics and points you make are irrelevant! Joseph Smith lied about the name Shulem and Anubis is not a slave, etc; In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Hence, Facsimile 3 ties in perfectly with the Prophet Joseph's theology, indeed, from my perspective, it's one of the greatest pieces of evidence for Joseph's inspiration:

"You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.” Joseph Smith, Teachings, 346-47.

Your Hugh Nibley tactics and points you make are irrelevant! Joseph Smith lied about the name Shulem and Anubis is not a slave, etc; In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

You smell like red fish. EE. I’m not impressed with these tricks at all. You will not deceive me.

Paul O

[_Enuma Elish]

This position is dishonest and self destructive. Show me the name SHULEM contained in the writing of the Facsimile and then tell me about how it is a great piece of evidence. You will not deceive me, EE. This trick you are pulling will not work with me or on this board.

Not everyone is out to deceive you Paul. I honestly wish you nothing but peace and happiness. I simply refuse to subject scripture, the Prophet Joseph Smith, and revelation to the highly simplistic paradigm that has caused you so much distress. Based upon my experiences, neither scriptural texts, nor life itself accords with the strict fundamentalist views you endorse.

Best

[_Paul Osborne]

While hyenas are in the midst of a frenzy of ripping, tearing and gouging at a raw, juicy carcass, its a difficult thing to jump into the middle of the fray and restore order, but that's what you have attempted to do enuma, and kudos for your attempt.

I'm afraid, however, that there are very, very few here, let alone alleged serious intellectuals like Paul Osborne who like to act out online like grounded teenagers mad at their parents, 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.

Show me the name Shulem in the hieroglyphic writing and then tell me why you believe Anubis is a slave. Bear your pitiful testimony of the authority of Hugh Nibley to turn the goddesses of Egypt in Facsimile No. 3 into men. The artist who drew the original papyrus which brought about the Facsimile will differ with you.

There are so many striking parallels in the ancient world, not the least of which is ancient Egyptian religion and symbology, that one would be hard pressed; indeed, one would have to engage, if one is familiar with the relevant scholarship, in a willful suspension of rational thought in order to preserve the idea that Joseph Smith somehow concocted the Book of Abraham from his fertile imagination, and the the numerous bulls-eyes he hit in his interpretations of the facsimiles were nothing more than a long string of highly improbable good guesses.

Irrelevant, Joseph Smith lied about the name Shulem and Anubis is not a slave.

For me its when one really delves into the Old Testament pseudipigrapha New Testament apocrypha, midrash, and other ancient sources and sees the same patterns, motifs, ritual scenarios, and ideas portrayed by each culture, each in its own way and yet representing the same fundamental concepts and core schemas regarding the nature and purpose of existence and human's place within the cosmos, that Joseph's production of the Book of Abraham looks ever more like revelation than literary creation.

Irrelevant, Joseph Smith lied about the name Shulem and Anubis is not a slave.

I agree with bc here that Gee is simply wrong, and unaccountably so, when he claims for the Book of Abraham a peripheral status in the Church. The Book of Abraham is canon scripture and contains among the deepest and most profound doctrines and concepts found within the restored gospel.

Irrelevant, Joseph Smith lied about the name Shulem and Anubis is not a slave.

Nibley's work on the Book of Abraham has, over decades, shown just how thoroughly interpenetrated its motifs and concepts are throughout the eastern, near eastern, and even ancient western worlds, and how easy it is to poke holes in the critics' arguments if one is willing to take a deeper look at all the relevant evidence as a body.

Irrelevant, Joseph Smith lied about the name Shulem and Anubis is not a slave.

Of course, the only way to know that the Book of Abraham is divinely inspired scripture is through the principle of revelation. Scholarship is only an adjunct to this, but its power to support a positive view of Joseph as having far more knowledge of the materials he had than he possibly could have had, is startling.

Irrelevant, Joseph Smith lied about the name Shulem and Anubis is not a slave. Your apologetic reasoning is a failure, Droopy. How pitiful.

Paul O