A few questions for Shulem

[_Philo Sofee]

MG quoting John Gee
My approach also parallels that which has been stated by Professor Gee:

Those interested in these sorts of questions should constantly bear in mind that the historical evidence is limited and that limitations on the evidence often preclude definitive answers, or sometimes any answers, to the types of questions that we ask. Scholarship can be useful but is often incapable of answering particular questions. But faith does not require everything to be proved. Ironically, the relationship between the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham is a situation in which both believers and detractors must rely on their faith.

Faith is only ever invoked when a position does not have the needed evidence in order for it to become knowledge. The invocation of faith is proof that the apologists cannot defend what Joseph claimed to have and to have done. The Book of Abraham is not on the papyri as Joseph Smith stated, Joseph Smith is wrong QED. Saying we have to now go with faith is irrelevant, it does not change what evidence we have showing Joseph Smith is wrong. Only and always evidence is needed to refute that Joseph Smith is wrong. LDS don't have that evidence, so there is no reason for us to believe Joseph Smith until that evidence shows up. The evidence shows Joseph Smith was wrong, therefore we are perfectly justified in going with the evidence, even though it is tentative, it is more probable and that is a valid foundation to lay doubt on. Thank you for quoting Gee and confirming my doubt about Joseph Smith.

[_Shulem]

This statement is inscribed by Willard Richards. Between late 1841 and early 1842, correct? There are no earlier iterations that have survived. And it was copied from a prior draft made at another time, right?

Is it a direct quote from Joseph Smith? Can the dots...words...be connected directly to him?

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/explanation-to-accompany-facsimile-2-circa-15-march-1842/4

Sure. Wonderful.

No one can know for sure how many drafts or copies existed of any particular extract. There may have been many to ensure the work was protected. That's pure speculation and doesn't negate the authority of the final draft which was the published result -- the only one that truly matters. Joseph Smith frequently used scribes to dictate his revelations. That was standard practice on his part. The extracts that went to press were Joseph Smith's revelations and approved by him. After printing, the revelations were again reviewed by him through his own verification process as editor in chief. You may rest assured that the extracts that went to press were revelations from none other than the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Revelation is given to the church through the prophet, the man who holds the keys of the kingdom. No one else can do that. Later, as we shall see, these words were canonized by another First Presidency and thereafter approved by the general vote of the church.

As a side note, it is wonderful seeing the church finally publishing these documents for everyone to see and appreciate for what they are!

[_Shulem]

Well, since Grindael has left the board we can see pump-o-the-clown setting his sights on another poster who decimates the Church's truth claims. He'll probably do a lot of testimonkeying, passive-aggressive insults regarding homosexuality, and an attempt to turn every thread shulem posts on into a thread about himself.

- Doc

Never fear. I can handle MG just fine. He's going to be another feather in my cap.

[_Bret Ripley]

MG quoting John Gee

Ironically, the relationship between the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham is a situation in which both believers and detractors must rely on their faith.

I can't decide which tickles me more: the idea that Gee wrote that in earnest, or that anyone claiming to be familiar with the evidence could for one moment take it seriously. (I, of course, will stand ready to eat my words when the 'Cipher Theory' is published.)

[_Shulem]

Those interested in these sorts of questions should constantly bear in mind that the historical evidence is limited and that limitations on the evidence often preclude definitive answers, or sometimes any answers, to the types of questions that we ask. Scholarship can be useful but is often incapable of answering particular questions. But faith does not require everything to be proved. Ironically, the relationship between the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham is a situation in which both believers and detractors must rely on their faith.

The historical evidence of the iconography and the hieroglyphic writing of Facsimile No. 3 is not subject to Gee's "limitations" clause because science and Egyptology provide everything there is to know about what the writing says and who the persons are within the Facsimile. The writing bears witness to the iconic persons and vice versa.

Iconography is of little value without the written text to give meaning, but the available textual material is sufficient to provide an extensive account of Egyptian myth

[_Shulem]

MG quoting John Gee

Ironically, the relationship between the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham is a situation in which both believers and detractors must rely on their faith.

I can't decide which tickles me more: the idea that Gee wrote that in earnest, or that anyone claiming to be familiar with the evidence could for one moment take it seriously. (I, of course, will stand ready to eat my words when the 'Cipher Theory' is published.)

One need not exercise faith in trying to understand Facsimile No. 3. Faith is to believe in things that are not seen hoping that they are true. Egyptologists don't require faith when they translate and interpret the true meaning of the Facsimile. The Mormons, however, are forced to do so because their founding prophet placed them in that position and to do otherwise would cause them to lose faith in their prophet. For Mormons, it all comes down to faith. It all comes down to putting it on that back burner and waiting for a miracle answer to rescue them.

But we shall see that MG is not going to be rescued. His faith is wavering.

[Guest]

[_Shulem]

Since, for the most part, Latter-day Saints and Egyptologists agree that the preserved portions of the Joseph Smith Papyri do not contain the Book of Abraham, there is the possibility of detente between the two because scholarship cannot tell what was or was not on the missing papyri. Egyptologists could stick to what is knowable from the remains, and Latter-day Saints could trust God about the origins of the Book of Abraham. Our trust (or faith) in God becomes, for those fortunate enough to possess it, “the basis of what we hope for, the evidence of things unseen” (Hebrews 11:1, my translation). Those who have it require no other proof. Those who have chosen not to trust God will not “be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31). If we had the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated—and I testify that we do not—the critics would not believe it; and most of them could not read it anyway. One of the ironies of the Joseph Smith Papyri is that critics (and even some Egyptologists), who are quick to point out what the papyri are not, are otherwise uninterested in what they contain. They could be a laundry list, a get-well card, or the greatest piece of literature ever written; it does not matter so long as they are not the Book of Abraham, so long as they are not scripture, so long as they do not contain the words of God, so long as they are not conveyed by a prophet of God. Here, though, is another great irony. The Rosetta Stone ends with a passage that directs that it be written “on a stone stele in the writing of words of god (hieroglyphs), the writing of letters (Demotic), and the script of the foreigners (Greek).”[125] For the Egyptians, hieroglyphs are literally the “words of God.” For the Egyptians, the Joseph Smith Papyri contain the words of God, conveyed by a prophet of God, just as for Latter-day Saints, the Book of Abraham contains the words of God, conveyed by a prophet of God.

I feel sorry for poor and tortured, John Gee. Aside from the fact that he is able to decipher and read the writing of Facsimile No. 3 as good as any professional Egyptologist, he is unable to reconcile any of it to Joseph Smith's revelations and must depend entirely on faith and hope in something he doesn't understand. How much easier it would be for poor John Gee to simply admit that Smith's work is a fraud and rejoice in the fact he can translate Egyptian as good as anyone.

I really feel sorry for the guy.

[_Philo Sofee]

John Gee said
The Rosetta Stone ends with a passage that directs that it be written “on a stone stele in the writing of words of god (hieroglyphs), the writing of letters (Demotic), and the script of the foreigners (Greek).”[125] For the Egyptians, hieroglyphs are literally the “words of God.” For the Egyptians, the Joseph Smith Papyri contain the words of God, conveyed by a prophet of God, just as for Latter-day Saints, the Book of Abraham contains the words of God, conveyed by a prophet of God.

Pure twaddle and will only convince those who lack the capability of critically thinking. The Egyptian papyri are supposed to contain the words of Abraham. They don't. Hey, is it not ironic that I am defending what Joseph Smith actually said and taught about what the papyri contained?! He is the one who made the claim. Gee's sleight of hand doesn't change that it emphasizes his desperation to find any kind of parallel possible in order to keep the Book of Abraham afloat. In doing so he has no choice but to literally ignore the prophet he testifies he believes in. Irony cannot possibly get any richer here.

[_Shulem]

For the Egyptians, hieroglyphs are literally the “words of God.” For the Egyptians, the Joseph Smith Papyri contain the words of God, conveyed by a prophet of God, just as for Latter-day Saints, the Book of Abraham contains the words of God, conveyed by a prophet of God.

It's bunk trying to fantasize parallels. The Mormons have made a mockery of the Egyptian religion and continue to publish slanderous statements made by Joseph Smith, in particular mocking the mighty Anubis in calling him a slave and usurping a Hebrew enemy to the divine Egyptian throne. There is simply no forgiveness for the wretched behavior of the LDS church. They must cease and desist the defaming of sacred Egyptian writings. It's slander and immoral behavior. Very shameful!