Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:51 am
And Daniel C Peterson? He's racist and a bigot.
YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF THAT!! Sure, he's posted some politically incorrect things in the past, but that's most likely due to being a member of a generation less "woke" than our own. If he had ever hinted at believing that one race is superior to another, we'd all have heard about it by now.
Old Testament
News from Antiquity
By Daniel C. Peterson
Let's look at what Peterson had to say back in January of 1994 with regards to an article he published in slamming the black Egyptian god, Anubis.
Peterson wrote:The book of Abraham occupies a mere fifteen pages in the current English edition of the Pearl of Great Price, including four pages of illustrations and explanations.
Note that Peterson confirms that Smith's Book of Abraham also includes
explanations of the Facsimile
illustrations, to include the horrific statements Smith made about Anubis in both Facsimiles. Peterson goes on to say,
"the book has often been a focus of criticism for those seeking to find some error in the works of Joseph Smith", and yet, Peterson does nothing to correct any of those errors or repudiate false statements made about the black Egyptian god. Peterson says nothing to indicate Smith was incorrect in labeling the black god a slave in one Facsimile and a murderer in the other! Peterson stands by Smith's racism and says in his very next breath,
"And yet as the world’s knowledge of antiquity increases—as scholars probe ancient nonscriptural texts that have come to light during the past 150 years—the book of Abraham receives intriguing support".
Support? What support? The scholarly world is not shedding any new light to show that Smith was correct in labeling Anubis a slave and a murderer and yet we see Peterson sides with Smith's horrific slander and has no problem with calling Anubis a
"slave". Daniel C. Peterson is a RACIST! Period. He fully supports Smith's errors and acts like the world is providing evidence to show that Smith was correct as if a blanket of protection rests upon all the Explanations when in fact the scholarly world has condemned Smith's Explanations -- especially the racist ones.
Peterson wrote:
Ancient texts sustain the book of Abraham account that there was indeed an attempt on Abraham’s life (Abraham depicted it in facsimile 1).
Peterson knows full well that modern Egyptology has confirmed that the person in the above Facsimile is not a mortal man who is bent on murdering an Asiatic man from the north. Egyptology has confirmed that the head of this person should be a black jackal to go with the black body that is covered in black fur. But Peterson, being the racist he is, says nothing about that. Peterson is fine with a Caucasian head ruling a black body. Peterson probably thinks he's special because he figures he's from the tribe of Ephraim which is far better than being African and then having to be adopted into the house of Israel.
Am I correct about that, Dan? I think so.
Peterson wrote:
They also verify the names of four idols (detail) and confirm the terminology for the “pillars of heaven” (bottom of facsimile).
Peterson knows that those feet and legs are that of a black man. He's consulted with fellow scholars and knows the person really is Anubis but he chooses to side with Smith's slanderous accusations that Anubis is attempting to murder an innocent Asiatic man when in fact the person on the lion bed is Osiris, an Egyptian god. Both Smith and Peterson are guilty of slandering another religion and mocking their gods.
Peterson wrote:
A number of ancient texts support Joseph Smith’s account, depicted in facsimile 3 from the book of Abraham, that the patriarch taught astronomy in Egypt.
It's true that there are ancient accounts available such as Josephus that do mention Abraham having an interest in astronomy. The study of the stars just so happen to be a matter of study for all ancient civilizations! It's a no brainer. But, you'll note, Peterson says absolutely nothing about Anubis being labeled a slave and why the poor chap has a dog ear but is missing his snout. Peterson is just fine with mutilating a black man. Why? Because he's a racist.
Peterson wrote:Abraham going to Egypt and there teaching astronomy or astrology both to the priests of Heliopolis and to the Egyptian king himself.
Peterson cites evidence (Praeparatio Evangelica) to indicate that Abraham went to Egypt and met the king of Egypt. Well, Joseph Smith said the same damn thing, more or less and even introduced
King Pharaoh in one of his Facsimile presentations:
Joseph Smith wrote:Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
So, Dan, what's the King's name given in the characters above his head? What's the name, Dan? I'm waiting for an intelligent response. I'm waiting for you to deny you're a racist pig who enjoys watching Anubis be slandered in Smith's facsimiles. I think you like it and you think it's funny. Don't you?
You are welcome to come on over here to Mormon Discussions and defend yourself, Dan. I've accused you of being a racist. Go ahead and bring Gee with you and his lapdog, Muhlestein. You guys think it's funny to pick on poor dead Egyptians but their voices will speak out of the ground and whisper through me.
Peterson wrote:Hugh Nibley has made an exhaustive study of these claims and has shown that the papyri we now have were probably not the ones from which Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham.
I wonder if Peterson supports that outdated view today in light of all the new research and discoveries in uncovering the truth of the matter? Peterson can't possibly deny that the hieroglyphic writing in Facsimile No. 3, is the very writing Smith used to tender his translation:
Joseph Smith wrote:Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
Dan, are any of the characters missing above the hand and if so, which ones?
You're a racist, Dan. You are a white supremacist from the tribe of Ephraim, are you not?