A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid

[Gadianton]

I think they see the brethren as too preoccupied with business and the day to day running of the church to delve too deeply into doctrine or mopologist issues.

take out the italicized words and I'd say it's a reasonable possibility. But the apologists are once again in a fork. Either the Brethren are too busy to notice and Holland's rebuke is exaggerated within their circle and lose the rook, or Holland's rebuke was directed towards the targets Midgley has revealed and carries the full considered fury of the brethren and lose the Queen, since years later, the MI is unrepentant yet still tacitly endorsed.

[Doctor Scratch]

I really have to wonder how the Mopologists don't see the Q12 as a bunch of incompetent fools. Let's turn this around on the mopologists: If Givens really believes (or has convinced himself) that the best way to balance between faith and evidence is to believe in his "junk art" theory, and the Church is implicitly (at the least) backing his theories by publishing them from their university outlet, then why should he listen to Dennis Horne and others and concede merely on their own say-so?

(emphasis added)

Yes: it's worth highlighting your point here--i.e., that the book was published by Oxford University Press, which was the same outlet that the Church relied upon for Turley et al.'s MMM book. They turn to the imprimatur of Oxford U. Press when they want the real stamp of legitimacy and authority, and not to junk vanity publications like the "Mormon Interpreter Blog."

And you bringing up Holland's alleged "rebuke" is important for another reason, I think. Back when the Mopologists were affiliated with the MI, the Brethren would often hang out with them, attend celebratory dinners, and give talks, and that sort of thing. Well, we know that, at minimum, Holland still occasionally comes by to chat with the "new" MI. So where is the Brethren's involvement with "Mormon Interpreter"? The Mopologists hold their annual "birthday parties" each summer. Does Pres. Oaks ever show up to that? Or Bednar? Or any of the 15?

[Doctor Scratch]

Check it out:

I want to say something clearly and for the public record: Terryl Givens is a believing Latter-day Saint. He is also prodigiously talented. I don’t always agree with him, but I always find him worth reading and hearing. I consider him a friend.

Okay. But what is your position on Givens's views on the Book of Abraham? And why, as President of the Interpreter Foundation, did you allow an article to be published that basically accuses him of apostasy?

[consiglieri]

It has become incontrovertible that the Book of Abraham is not a translation of an ancient Egyptian document.

It has also become incontrovertible that similar ideas to those expressed in the Book of Abraham obtained in Joseph Smith's milieu.

Givens leaps into the breach with his bricolage banner to save the Book of Abraham from fraudulent ignominy.

Now The Interpreter stabs Givens in the back for performing CPR on the Book of Abraham because he fails to endorse the failed theories that drove him to the bricolage theory in the first place.

But the article, while chiding Givens for straying from the Mopologetic Plantation by not agreeing Smith actually translated an ancient Egyptian text into English, never seems to understand why that theory was discarded by Givens in the first place.

Or why their theory is causing Mormons to leave the church in droves.

[Dr Moore]

But the article, while chiding Givens for straying from the Mopologetic Plantation by not agreeing Smith actually translated an ancient Egyptian text into English, never seems to understand why that theory was discarded by Givens in the first place.

So true. They take some of Givens’ assumptions and dismiss them out of hand (such as the GAEL informing the translation process) because, hey, no direct proof of that, even if the evidence strongly points that way. And yet in almost the same breath, the bit about Shulem being “represented” by characters warrants an elaborate defense to preserve the notion that Joseph literally translated some ancient Egyptian stuff and was only syncrotizing other stuff that obviously isn’t ancient Egyptian.

[consiglieri]

Good catch, good doctor.

Strangely, the review faults Givens for saying translate doesn't mean translate while at the same time saying Joseph giving the representation of the glyphs above the figures in Fac. 3 is... wait for it... something different than translation.

Egyptologist exhume thyself.

[Shulem]

Strangely, the review faults Givens for saying translate doesn't mean translate while at the same time saying Joseph giving the representation of the glyphs above the figures in Fac. 3 is... wait for it... something different than translation.

Egyptologist exhume thyself.

Smith made it perfectly clear that he was translating Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in the registers of Facsimile No. 3 into an English explanation. There is nothing apologists can do to alter or change that fact. The meaning and intention given by Smith himself is perfectly clear. The fact that Smith has been proven wrong is never going to change. Smith's error is set in stone forever.

1. "whose name is given in the characters"

2. "as written above"

3. "represented by the characters"

Smith's explanations of the hieroglyphic writing is more than just a representation but is a literal translation of names "given in the characters", "as written above", by the scribe (Abraham).

Clearly, it's an open and shut case. Smith was wrong, period. The names Shulem and Olimlah are not given in the characters in any way shape or form and neither are they written or represented in any way by (Abraham) in whom Smith claimed was written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Joseph Smith lied. I know it with every fiber of my being, I so testify that Smith deceived those around him and had absolutely no ability to translate Egyptian into English. I warn everyone within the sound of my text to beware of apologetic tricks and mental gymnastics that attempt to justify Smith's erroneous claims.

For those who have questions or doubts, please contact a qualified (nonMormon) Egyptologist for advice.

Shulem

[Doctor Scratch]

The Mopologists have always tried to define themselves by their commitment to doctrinal principles, the chief of those being the idea that the Book of Mormon is a real, authentic history. They've said over and over again that if that edifice falls, it will spell the absolute doom of the Church. So, that's them. They can't get away from it, because they've been doing it for decades, and abandoning that approach would basically end their existence. And yet, here they are: Terryl Givens is going against one of their core positions, which is that the Book of Abraham is actually what Joseph Smith said it was. I've said it before and will say it again: this is the terrible specter that continues to haunt Mopologetics. They have not ever been able to mount a successful defense of the Book of Abraham, and it has been devastating. What Givens is saying is honest, so you have to be very, very concerned when Dr. Peterson says, "I don't always agree with him" in the context of this latest "article."

[Shulem]

They have not ever been able to mount a successful defense of the Book of Abraham, and it has been devastating.

It's impossible to defend Smith's translation. He specifically targeted hieroglyphs in the upper left corner of Facsimile No. 3 and boldly told the whole world in his publication of the Times and Seasons that those characters designated the person below as King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head. What could be more clear than that? It's as simple as A B C or 1, 2, 3.

Unknown to Smith at the time was that an Egyptian king's name must be contained in a royal Cartouche in a vignette that designates his person. But Smith didn't know that. There is no king's name in those characters in which Smith's own eyes spied when he tendered the Explanation under the influence of the Holy Ghost. You see, it's not just that Smith was wrong and the Mormons were deceived by him -- but the Holy Ghost of Mormonism which is the foundation of all truth claims was also wrong.

Then there is the problem with the name "Shulem" which is not actually in the Facsimile hieroglyphs but only in the mind of Smith who thought to convince others in order to prop up his story. And it only gets worse when Smith labels Anubis a slave and slaps a fictitious name on him. The final straw was Smith instructing Hedlock to assassinate the character Anubis by removing the snout and assigning him as the court slave.

[Moksha]

The final straw was Smith instructing Hedlock to assassinate the character Anubis by removing the snout and assigning him as the court slave.

Good thing Joseph had that magic talisman and his protective undergarments when finally faced by an angry Anubis.