DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765592200/How-could-Joseph-know-all-of-this.html?pg=1

I really dislike this column. He chery picks everything that Joseph got "right." While ignoring everything he got wrong. Especially with the audience for this piece, most of them probably don't know the whole story.

Silly articles such as this one defending the Book of Abraham should be required to carry the following advisory:

"The papyri from which Joseph Smith Jr. claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham exist today and have been shown by modern science to comprise a common Egyptian funerary text that was written many centuries after Abraham was purported to have lived, were therefore not written by his own hand and, in fact, have nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham."

(Sort of like the health warning label on cigarette packs.)

DrW wrote:Silly articles such as this one defending the Book of Abraham should be required to carry the following advisory:

"The papyri from which Joseph Smith Jr. claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham exist today and have been shown by modern science to comprise a common Egyptian funerary text that was written many centuries after Abraham was purported to have lived, were therefore not written by his own hand and, in fact, have nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham."

(Sort of like the health warning label on cigarette packs.)

Not going to happen.

Even the "things Joseph Smith got right" claims are a stretch. The god names claim, nor the olesim claims are a huge forcing of possibility to fit the argument.

None of the names DCP is referencing are actually Egyptian, but if you cast a wide enough net, you may be able to find somewhat similar names in the other languages of the area. Proof of exactly nothing. As Joseph Smith was translating from Egyptian, one would expect the Egyptian gods to have Egyptian names....... But hey, we can give the apologists points for creativity.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7655 ... .html?pg=1

The Book of Abraham records that, as Abraham was about to enter Egypt, the Lord advised him to claim that Sarai was his sister, not his wife (2:22-25). The Bible mentions the same tactic, but omits the divine counsel that authorized it (Genesis 12:11-20). However, the Genesis Apocryphon, found seven decades ago among the famous Dead Sea Scrolls, also testifies that the patriarch's behavior was divinely ordained. And with good reason: The Pyramid Texts' tyrannical crocodile-god/king liked to steal wives from their husbands — exactly what Abraham feared Pharaoh would do to Sarai.

That's not what the Book of Abraham says. The Book of Abraham says that "the Egyptians," not "Pharaoh," would try to steal Abraham's wife. He's changing the text from referring to the Egyptians generally to Pharaoh specifically in order to invent a parallel to the Pyramid Texts.

Abraham 2

22 And it came to pass when I was come near to enter into Egypt, the Lord said unto me: Behold, Sarai, thy wife, is a very fair woman to look upon;

23 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say—She is his wife; and they will kill you, but they will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise:

24 Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live.

25 And it came to pass that I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife, all that the Lord had said unto me—Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee.

Not only does the parallel not exist---because Abraham 2:22-25 doesn't say what Peterson asserts that it says---but the Book of Abraham does say that Pharaoh was a righteous ruler who tried to imitate the order of the priesthood. That's not consistent with a tyrannical crocodile-god/king who liked to steal wives from their husbands.

Abraham 1:26

Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the bblessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

But to be fair to Peterson, when he talked about a tyrant who liked to steal wives from their husbands, he was probably just thinking of Joseph Smith.

I understand wanting to produce articles that are faith promoting, but even Dr. Peterson has to be aware that an article like this is likely to draw more attention to all that is wrong with the Book of Abraham than it is to promote the faith.

Fence Sitter wrote:I understand wanting to produce articles that are faith promoting, but even Dr. Peterson has to be aware that an article like this is likely to draw more attention to all that is wrong with the Book of Abraham than it is to promote the faith.

Dr. Peterson believes his own self promotion and grasps at attention, even negative attention.
He seems to thrive in creating pieces of writing that generate (correctly) criticisms of his integrity, or lack of it to be precise.

I wonder if anyone will comment on this article?

Maybe at least to add a reference to the Robert Ritner article with choice quotes therefrom?

Or has DCP managed, once again, to wrap himself in a comment-free bubble?

geeze, at least he has addressed the issue, answering all of Paul's questions. What will Paul have to harp on now?

Chap wrote:I wonder if anyone will comment on this article?

Maybe at least to add a reference to the Robert Ritner article with choice quotes therefrom?

Or has DCP managed, once again, to wrap himself in a comment-free bubble?

The most liked comments so far are negative.