Bokovoy on Facsimile 3

[_Roger Morrison]

David, thanks for your time and your two major informative posts on page 1... These seem to demonsrate the "Divine Right of Kings," that monarchy through the ages have exploited to justify their powers over the masses. That is simply historical...

The real question of this fact, to me, is of its morality, not of its practice--another topic? Don't be disheartened by the lack of applause... You are appreciate, Bro...
Roger
*
*

[_Roger Morrison]

Looks like I might have already killed this thread, but reading an article about Carl Sagan I gleaned the following paste:

The receiver of messages from the transcendent dimension is that presence within us which we have always called the human spirit. Science cannot dissect that receiver because it is not itself subject to space and time. It is the infection of God in us.

Speaking of interstellar communication, Dr. Sagan muses on the effect of such a message: "But if the message contains valuable information, the consequences for our own civilization will be stunning--insights on alien science and technology, art, music, politics, philosophy and religion, and most of all, a profound deprovincialization of the human condition. We will know what else is possible."

I related the, "...(to be a) receiver of messages..." (Joseph Smith in the case of the Book of Abraham) "...is that presence within each of us..." Whether a fraud, con-man, pious-persona, et al... when we rub the sticks together we get flame that can destruct or give light...

The messenger is not as important as the message. A truth that religionists, especially Christians, just can't seem to grasp. The tendency is to either iconize or castigate the messagenger, and interpret the message to suit institutional purpose...
Roger
*
*

[_Who Knows]

That's a good assessment of my perspective. I agree with every critic who suggests that the traditional orthodox view of the Book of Abraham and the facsimiles, yea, even the view apparently held by Joseph himself is in error.

Ok. So would it be too much work for you to bust out some verses from the Book of Abraham, that you feel were unknowns at the time of Joseph Smith, but that have been confirmed or discovered since his time? Sorry, I'm sure you've done this, but my mind works in a crazy order. I'm just trying to keep it simple - for my sake.

David - you still around? Any chance of doing this?

[_solomarineris]

Although I am ordinarily tremendously averse to listening to podcasts, which I consider an extremely awkward medium for presenting scholarly conclusions, I broke down and listened to David Bokovoy's just-posted series on Facsimile 3. There are three parts so far, but I get the impression there will be more. I suppose I'll probably take further notes and post them as he goes, if I can convince myself it's worth investing the time required. Here are notes on the first three parts

Part 1:

• Joseph Smith is not trying to reproduce an ancient Egyptian understanding of these documents
• Ritner’s criticism is the only critique of the Book of Abraham that isn’t silly. Ritner obviously has an agenda to mock and belittle the Book of Abraham, should not have used the language he used.
• Ritner claimed the meaning of the document is “certain”, but David points out that language is symbolic and like all symbols can have more than one meaning. Joseph Smith gives this document a new Sitz im Leben and thus a new meaning. This is what he is doing when he interprets the figures in Facsimile 3 in something other than the way the ancient Egyptians interpreted them.
• This standard Egyptian presentation scene actually derives from Mesopotamia, are seen on cylinder seals. These show a deified figure seated on a throne, often include a symbolic hand clasp, show someone being introduced into the presence of the deified figure. In Sumerian seals, the person on the throne is a human, deified king, just as Joseph Smith interprets Figure 1 in Facsimile 3.
• When we consider Joseph’s interpretation of this facsimile, it “comes alive with theological depth and meaning”.

Part 2:

• Facsimile 3 shows the deified deceased person “at the veil”, being introduced into the heavenly council or assembly. In Joseph Smith’s interpretation, Abraham is the enthroned god.
• During the Ur-III period, Sumerian kings begin to be depicted as deified, and are so presented in the cylinder seals that inspired the Egyptian presentation scenes.
• From a Sumerian perspective, this scene is “temple drama”: a person enters the presence of a god with a spiritual guide and clasps the deity’s hand.
• The scene is not foreign to the biblical world. In Ps. 73:23, the king claims to be continually with God and to grasp his right hand. This indicates the conferral of privilege and charisma on the king.
• In Facsimile 3, Hor clasps hands with lady Ma’at and is introduced at the veil.

Part 3:

• According to D&C 132:29, Abraham has entered into his exaltation and sits upon his throne.
• Revelation refers to our becoming kings and priests and reigning on the earth.
• From this angle, the Facsimile presents a “type” of what would eventually occur for Abraham as a result of his faithfulness: his deification. When Abraham sits on the throne, he becomes the deified Osiris.
• The star imagery at the top of Facsimile 3 is reminiscent of the “dinger” symbol on the Mesopotamian cylinder symbols, which was originally a star but later just a web-shaped writing reminiscent of a cross. The stars were connected with deities, were included in the cylinder seals to mark the king as a divine being.
• The presence of the stars in Facsimile 3 are interesting because they connect back with the astrological imagery in chapter 3. Joseph Smith uses this to introduce his material about the divine council.
• We find the same sort of view in the Hebrew Bible. There is evidence that some Israelite kings were considered deified, and participated in enthronement rituals that changed them from humans into gods. Enthronement = apotheosis.
• When we combine Joseph’s views with Ancient Near Eastern views, we get rich theological implications.

ad

Dude,
You are seemingly bright guy, right?
Just tell me this; You know this is a total bull**it chase.
Why go after? Why waste your time?

It doesn't get any simpler than this; You know it's a crock, you still pursue it.
Why?
I don't believe you're stupid.
Do you believe in any of this stuff?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Dude,
You are seemingly bright guy, right?
Just tell me this; You know this is a total bull**it chase.
Why go after? Why waste your time?

It doesn't get any simpler than this; You know it's a crock, you still pursue it.
Why?
I don't believe you're stupid.
Do you believe in any of this stuff?

Hey solomarineris,

It comes down to this:

1) It's fun to be right, especially when some very smart people are wrong about whatever you're right about.
2) Everyone needs a hobby.
3) There's a lot of interest in the subject, which means there's publishing potential. Publishing is good for the sort of career I want to go into.
4) There are people who do genuinely believe this stuff, and I feel it's important that they be provided with accurate information that cuts through all the bull**** so they can make intelligent decisions.

Am I stupid? Do I believe this stuff? Do I expect to find confirmation that the Book of Abraham is true?

Of course not.

-Chris

[_solomarineris]

Dude,
You are seemingly bright guy, right?
Just tell me this; You know this is a total bull**it chase.
Why go after? Why waste your time?

It doesn't get any simpler than this; You know it's a crock, you still pursue it.
Why?
I don't believe you're stupid.
Do you believe in any of this stuff?

Hey solomarineris,

It comes down to this:

1) It's fun to be right, especially when some very smart people are wrong about whatever you're right about.
2) Everyone needs a hobby.
3) There's a lot of interest in the subject, which means there's publishing potential. Publishing is good for the sort of career I want to go into.
4) There are people who do genuinely believe this stuff, and I feel it's important that they be provided with accurate information that cuts through all the bull**** so they can make intelligent decisions.

Am I stupid? Do I believe this stuff? Do I expect to find confirmation that the Book of Abraham is true?

Of course not.
-Chris

What I don't understand is;
How can you go into a publishing career, if you&everybody knows, the subject is fake. Accurate information has been always there.
Of course, if I were you I'd look for better avenues to make a living.
I guess I'm too old to beat 'round the bush. I just hate to see a bright mind like yours go waste.

See, I sit on top of the food-chain (so to speak), I ask people first, "Try not to waste my time, or I'll cut you off", they say 'Oh no, this is a good product".
As soon as they make their presentation I tell them "Get Lost".
Far in between I encounter valuable vendors.
don't waste your time. Especially if you have a family & kids.

[_CaliforniaKid]

What I don't understand is;
How can you go into a publishing career, if you&everybody knows, the subject is fake.

My product isn't fake. I'm disseminating accurate information. Think of me as a consumer advocate doing quality control on somebody else's fake product.

Of course, if I were you I'd look for better avenues to make a living.
I guess I'm too old to beat 'round the bush. I just hate to see a bright mind like yours go waste.

I don't intend to make a living critiquing the Book of Abraham. It's just one of many interests and the one I happen to be working on at the moment. Once I have all my conclusions on paper and available to the general public, I will move on to the next subject on my list.

Of course, if you aren't interested, you don't have to read or post here. I write for those who are interested.

-Chris

[_CaliforniaKid]

Solo,

It occurred to me that you might think I agree with the presentation I summarized in the OP. Let me make very clear that I do not agree with it. The OP is simply my summary of a presentation by David Bokovoy.

Best,

-Chris

[_solomarineris]

Solo,

It occurred to me that you might think I agree with the presentation I summarized in the OP. Let me make very clear that I do not agree with it. The OP is simply my summary of a presentation by David Bokovoy.

Best,

-Chris

Comeon now Chris.....
Of course I don't think you are in agreement in any part of DB's presentation.
I am sorry if I offended you.
After sleeping over this thread I read DB's response to you again.
No doubt, DB knows alot about this subject. All he is doing is trying very hard to correlate some logical links of Papyrus with Joseph Smith's own translation.
He knows Joseph Smith created & concocted the whole story.
I believe that Joseph assumed he was producing a literal translation when in fact he clearly was not.
"So when Joseph Smith recontextualizes an Egyptian presentation scene to depict Abraham as the enthroned god/king in facsimile no. 3, Joseph has created an undeniable link between ancient Near Eastern and biblical views regarding enthronement and human deification that reflects Joseph’s revelation regarding Abraham’s present glorified state: “[Abraham] hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne” (D&C 132:29)."
He is aware of the fabrication process.

I do read your posts with great interest, you have a above average analytical mind.
All I expressed is; this subject ain't worth it.
This is a done/delivered case. There's no other damaging subject in Mormon history comes close to this one.

[_antishock8]

I recognize that Joseph appears to have believed that his adaption was a literal translation, however, the fact that the Prophet was mistaken on this issue does not create any theological problems in my mind.

This has to be one of the clearest examples of *I-won't-say-it* that I've ever seen. Perfect. Thank you for being an object lesson on *I-won't-say-it*.