DiscussMormonism.com

On page 30 of BYU Studies Quarterly, A guide to the Book of Abraham, Stephen O. Smoot, John Gee, Kerry Muhlstein, and John S. Thompson (https://byustudies.BYU.edu/journal/61-4/), it is claimed in an attempt to downgrade the Book of Abraham from a translation (problematic) to a mere revelation (more slippery and difficult to pin down):

On at least one occasion shortly after its publication, Joseph Smith described the Book of Abraham as a “revelation” instead of a translation.fn. 5

Underlining added.

Foontnote 5 is to “Persecution of the Prophets,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 21 (September 1, 1842): 902.

"Thursday, Sept. 1, 1842 Persecution of the Prophets. Since an attempt has been made by Missouri to arrest, or rather kidnap, Joseph Smith, the prophet, we have heard many curious surmises: * * * But if we believe in modern revelation, as published in the Times and Seasons last spring, Abraham, the prophet of the Lord, was laid upon the iron bedstead for slaughter."

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ber-1842/8 Underlining added.

Who are the "we" that refer to Joseph Smith (the object) by such proper name rather than by the pronoun "me" which would be the case if Joseph Smith authored that quote that Smoot/Gee/Muhlstein/Thompson claim was Joseph Smith himself? Authorship is not there ascribed in the Times and Seasons, but of course Smoot/Gee/Muhlstein/Thompson proclaim the authorship to be Joseph Smith, though no "me" pronoun, but instead referencing to Joseph Smith by his proper name and in the plural "we" rather than the singular "I".

The only reference where earlier in the Times and Seasons to Abraham and the iron bedstead was Times and Seasons 3, no. 9 (March 1, 1842): 704. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... rch-1842/2 That is where the initial part of the Book of Abraham and Facsimile No. 1 were printed, with the introduction: A TRANSLATION Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

So, can you trust Smoot/Gee/Muhlstein/Thompson and their footnotes? Or are they just pulling another Nibley with footnotes to dress up their gloss over and assumed authorship by Joseph Smith when the text contradicts that?

sock puppet wrote: ↑

Thu May 04, 2023 9:35 pm

an attempt to downgrade the Book of Abraham from a translation (problematic) to a mere revelation (more slippery and difficult to pin down)

Sock,

I don't see it as an attempt do "downgrade" or lesson the impact of the translation. I don't think that is what they meant to imply. They know revelation and translation according to Joseph Smith are not mutually exclusive but work together to produce a single result. I think mentioning revelation in that instance was simply given as an alternative of what happened in process of translation.

The text in the Times and Seasons doesn't say "modern revelation" as you quoted in your post but says, "present revelation."

Authorship of the article "we" pays direct reference to the editors of the paper including Joseph Smith who was editor in chief -- and in general terms the we rightly applies to all members of the Church who believe what the editors are saying.

I swear I read somewhere on Sic et Non or some other apologetic blog that "Reformed Egyptian" is no longer even a thing.

They're trying to hide every scrap of the translation narrative now.

From the Midge thread, DCP is quoted:

A low and sordid form of mythopoesis is pretty much the full-time passion of some on that board.

Every accusation is a confession.

- Doc

On Facebook I had this response by Hales:

Brian Hales
Noel Frederick Hausler Hi Noel,

"Egyptologists tell us Joseph Smith didn’t restore the missing fragments of Fac. 1. Instead, he repurposed them to correspond to the revelation of the Book of Abraham that he had received (just as he had received other revelations).

If the original Egyptian scribe of fac. 1 drew something different that Joseph Smith’s restoration, then we would not expect the Book of Abraham to be written anywhere on that papyri. Likewise, Joseph Smith’s dealings with the other facsimiles would be repurposing, rather than restoring their original meanings (this is obvious with fac. 3 as well).

The critics can say that Joseph Smith thought he was translating fac. 1 and he was wrong. Victory for the critics, but not much of a victory. The Book of Abraham remains a revelation.

If you care to read the BYU Studies issue, you will find other helpful explanatory information."

I sent a copy to Kara Cooney.

"Thanks for sending. They will give up bit by bit—not until there is nothing left to give, but to the point that their audience doesn’t even care and grows bored with the discussion. Because apologetics are so detail-oriented, the substance of the argument interests very few people.

Kathlyn M. Cooney
Professor of Ancient Egyptian Art & Architecture
Chair of the Department of Near Eastern Languages & Cultures
University of California Los Angeles

“Hales” wrote: The critics can say that Joseph Smith thought he was translating fac. 1 and he was wrong. Victory for the critics, but not much of a victory. The Book of Abraham remains a revelation.

Does it though, Brian? How is this any different now than what L Ron Hubbard did?

Hungarian Egyptologist Tamas Mekis has written a major work on hypocephalus. Nothing there to support Smith's interpretations. A Facebook friend who learnt the Kerry Muhleststein was attending a Egyptological conference. In a book display they noticed a copy of Mekis book. If one wanted to purchase the book they placed a sticker on it. My friend told me there was one sticker on the book from Muhlestein.

Some reviews appeared on his book one written by John Gee. He wrote:

"Mekis deserves gratitude for an outstanding achievement in gathering and organizing a wealth of material that will make studying hypocephali much easier in the future. He also put forward a coherent interpretation. Though other interpretations are possible and will doubtlessly be forthcoming, he has at least provided for others to tilt at. This work should be the new starting point for future study"

https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.p ... e=1&vol=79

Here is the latest by BYU studies https://byustudies.BYU.edu/article/the- ... ocephalus/

"Just as the evidence left from the past often leaves itself open to multiple interpretations, so also multiple methodologies may be used to examine and analyze that evidence. The researcher must make choices about which legitimate methods to use. Different methods sometimes yield different results.”9 For this reason, any modern interpretation of the meaning of the figures and texts contained on hypocephali should always leave room for the possibility of a plurality of approaches.10"

one Non LDS response was:

"They shouldn’t even allow Gee to write reviews given his religious assumptions and biases. BiOr should know better, but Europeans don’t understand the LDS entanglement with Egyptology.

Please tell Tamas Mekis to just disregard the review."

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Thu May 04, 2023 11:32 pm

From the Midge thread, DCP is quoted:

A low and sordid form of mythopoesis is pretty much the full-time passion of some on that board.

Every accusation is a confession.

- Doc

He learned that word while producing Witnesses.

The apologists need to come here and debate the issues with us. Let the light shine. Should the light be hidden under a bushel? Show the poor slobs the error under which they live. Priesthood power should calm the savage beast and correct the error that supposedly abounds.

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Fri May 05, 2023 2:56 am

The apologists need to come here and debate the issues with us. Let the light shine. Should the light be hidden under a bushel? Show the poor slobs the error under which they live. Priesthood power should calm the savage beast and correct the error that supposedly abounds.

A direct conflict between those little pussies and the power houses on this board is too much for them to bear and the pressure is more than they can stand.

This board sets the standard and the bar by which apologists cannot meet. The moment they come here they are doomed! We would destroy them and show no mercy. Everything is timestamped and recorded. Mormon apologists are drowning in the mire...

Come and take Shulem on?



I dare those bastards! I will carve them up into pieces and torture them and only show mercy when they beg for it!



Those bastards are no match for us.