How Did I Stop Believing My Own Evidence for the Book of Abraham?!

[hauslern]

Egyptologist Tamis Mekis wrote this to me regarding facsimile 2.

"Dear Noel,

The depiction of the penis on Nehebkau and on the Min-like-god, has importance in the correct interpretation of the scenes of the register where they appear.

One must see that the two figures, the enthroned Min-like-god ( correctly he is Amenemope or Res-wedja in my interpretation) and Nehebkau are in a finishing position as for the interpretation of the register. The register usually begins with the three forms of the sun god: a scarab (morning form of the god), falcon headed god (midday form) and the ram-headed god (sunset and the nightly form of the god), then comes a trigram of the god depicting lotus, lion and a ram again the sun-cycle is represented (lotus-morning sun, lion-midday sun, ram - sunset and the nightly form of the god). Then comes a sanctuary usually with a ram-head atop, this is the tomb of the sun god described in some religious texts that I analysed in my dissertation. Then comes the Four Sons of Horus with mummified body they represent the transformed being of the deceased/sun god, in which the deceased/sun god is able to enter on the west of the horizon to the underworld, the following figure is the cow, mistress of West, who guards the gates of the West and accept and accompany the deceased in his underworldly/nightly journey, then comes a god with an encircled eye on the place of the head, this is usually identified as Atum, the form of the sun god who represent the descending sun god who travels in the underworld in the protection of the circle, in the eye. And now we reach the two figures, the Min-like one and Nehebkau. The enthroned god is depicted back to the god with the encircled eye on the place of his head, this is important, since the previous scenes depicted the entering into the underworld, this last depicts the creative forces by which the sun god/deceased is able to be reborn on the eastern horizon and the sun-cycle may start again. Thus the erected penis either on the enthroned god, or on the Nehebkau snake represents the creative, life-giving forces which are necessary for the renascent sun god/deceased.

Hope I was with some help to the interpretation."

Notice the appendage in this hypocephalus
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYq ... Um8lg/edit

[Moksha]

Kerry once told me to "keep digging" which I did, and needless to say, all my digging is what led me to know the Book of Abraham was a hoax.

Bravo, Philo!

Thank goodness his suggestion did not land you in Ningbo, China.

That will be a fun episode of RFM with Kerry Shirts.

[Philo Sofee]

Egyptologist Tamis Mekis wrote this to me regarding facsimile 2.

"Dear Noel,

The depiction of the penis on Nehebkau and on the Min-like-god, has importance in the correct interpretation of the scenes of the register where they appear.

One must see that the two figures, the enthroned Min-like-god ( correctly he is Amenemope or Res-wedja in my interpretation) and Nehebkau are in a finishing position as for the interpretation of the register. The register usually begins with the three forms of the sun god: a scarab (morning form of the god), falcon headed god (midday form) and the ram-headed god (sunset and the nightly form of the god), then comes a trigram of the god depicting lotus, lion and a ram again the sun-cycle is represented (lotus-morning sun, lion-midday sun, ram - sunset and the nightly form of the god). Then comes a sanctuary usually with a ram-head atop, this is the tomb of the sun god described in some religious texts that I analysed in my dissertation. Then comes the Four Sons of Horus with mummified body they represent the transformed being of the deceased/sun god, in which the deceased/sun god is able to enter on the west of the horizon to the underworld, the following figure is the cow, mistress of West, who guards the gates of the West and accept and accompany the deceased in his underworldly/nightly journey, then comes a god with an encircled eye on the place of the head, this is usually identified as Atum, the form of the sun god who represent the descending sun god who travels in the underworld in the protection of the circle, in the eye. And now we reach the two figures, the Min-like one and Nehebkau. The enthroned god is depicted back to the god with the encircled eye on the place of his head, this is important, since the previous scenes depicted the entering into the underworld, this last depicts the creative forces by which the sun god/deceased is able to be reborn on the eastern horizon and the sun-cycle may start again. Thus the erected penis either on the enthroned god, or on the Nehebkau snake represents the creative, life-giving forces which are necessary for the renascent sun god/deceased.

Hope I was with some help to the interpretation."

Notice the appendage in this hypocephalus
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYq ... Um8lg/edit

Thank you for sharing this! This is really quite important and helps us see how Smith put a Biblical spin to everything in his day, and especially in this instance with the papyri and facsimiles it just cannot possibly pan out. We now have it in front of our eyes with everything that Smith was guessing and imagining the biblical view was all pervading in all ancient civilizations, and it just wasn't so.

[Shulem]

Smith put a Biblical spin to everything in his day, and especially in this instance with the papyri and facsimiles it just cannot possibly pan out.

Indeed, and it's interesting to see how modern apologists have to put a spin on what Smith said in order to get out from under the fact that he said what he meant and meant what he said. Book of Abraham defenders have put so many spins on Smith that they've essentially thrown the poor man under the bus and told him to shut his mouth because they know what's best.

Yes, this vey much has become the case for defending the Book of Abraham. So what's the point in sticking with it? How about just get the hell out of the Church, keep the 10% of your hard earned money, and enjoy a a nice cocktail and a beer or, three or four or more? Life is so much more than the dreaded restrictions and guilt ridden associations that are bound up in Mormonism.

Gawd, praise lord JeZus, I'm out of the cult -- for ever!

PS. You might notice that I'm making serious threads up in the Celestial Board and am now taking down the Book of Mormon like you've never seen before. Trust ole Shulem to get the job job. The apologists best run for the hills because Shulem is unleashed and I'm going after the Book of Mormon!

[Philo Sofee]

Shulem
Indeed, and it's interesting to see how modern apologists have to put a spin on what Smith said in order to get out from under the fact that he said what he meant and meant what he said. Book of Abraham defenders have put so many spins on Smith that they've essentially thrown the poor man under the bus and told him to shut his mouth because they know what's best.

Oh goodness yes! And.......is THIS the kind of evidence we would expect to see from apologists as believers? I say, seriously, this evidence fundamentally tilts further toward disbelievers views than believers. When you have to throw Smith under the bus to save your own pet theories so that you can align yourself with the actual Egyptology, which refutes Smith in the first place, but you know Egyptology is actually valid, then man there is something SERIOUSLY wrong in Zion!

[hauslern]

Just in case I have not mentioned here is Tamis Mekis paper on hypocephalus. He deals with each register and shows examples in museum collections.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fc7 ... t3DDc/edit

Just look at the collection of hypocephalus in the https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... ooFkQAtish Museum

[sock puppet]

Philo, long time, no see in person. We should correct that with our good friend from the near south. Now, on to your post--

Do you want to regain faith (belief in the absence of evidence)? Why? Would it satisfy an emotional need?
Now that you have opened Pandora’s Box, do you think it is possible to go back to accepting religious propositions uncritically?
I for one like that you use terms “correct and accurate” rather than “truth.”

I understand your argument about diminishing the ratio of probability of any one apologetic by the addition of a new apologetic. However, if apologetic A, B or C does not strike your mental/logical fancy, then maybe D, E or F will. Their aim is not a pure logical exercise. It is to try to develop and advance apologetics to keep members in the fold. Of say 150,000 (1% of the 15 million total) members that have concerns about the Book of Abraham, E might be appealing to 3,500 for which none of A, B, C, D or F is.

A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away…I attended some of Nibley’s informal lectures at the Wilkinson Center. For me, it seemed Nibley just rattled off one parallelism after another, leaving the adulating BYU students with ‘sugar plums’ dancing in their heads. It was like a gatling gun. With any one student, he didn’t need to get a hit with each round he fired off so long as any one round landed on target. In fact, I think more than that, it was the rapid spray of bullets, fired off so quickly by his quick mind, that dazzled and prevented most of those students from going over them, one by one, and critically pulling them apart. Most of the listening students would walk away, surer in their faith and their doubts pushed into the back ground thinking, if not voicing, there were so many that there must be some of Nibley’s points that can withstand scrutiny. So without thinking about them any further, they marched off to their secular studies with a bit more faith arrogance. Nibley did not seem intellectually honest enough to use his keen mind to explore the problems, or if he did, he dishonestly presented his case without acknowledging those problems. In any event, the more tidbits of apologetics that he could have on the tip of his tongue, the more effective he was at misleading those young BYU minds.

98%? Hmmm. So, if there’s a 2% chance of LDS theology propositions being accurate (49:1 against), and you are on this planet for 85 years compared to eternity afterwards (85 years:∞), that sort of begs for buying into and living according to LDS theology since ∞:85 years is infinitely greater than 49:1. At least making it worth a Pascal’s wager, right?

“Epistemic belief”? Belief in knowledge, to the extent it can be validated, right? While sound, I think it undercuts your ability to fool yourself back into faith. With the Book of Abraham, it seems the apologists are down to their ride: the unprovable/non-disprovable catalyst theory. It takes a leap of faith.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Hi Kerry,

I just read your post detailing your process for realizing you had been wrong about the Book of Abraham. I think it would be valuable for a non-Mormon audience if you could write something more formal, which I would love to publish.

While we do publish reporting and analytical pieces, we also do publish personal experience ones as well. For one example, please see the following link:

https://flux.community/chrissy-stroop/2 ... angelicals

In working with the author of that article, it became apparent to me just how much ex-evangelicals have in common with ex-Mormons. We both went through very similar exit processes, largely because we were inculcated with an attitude of presuppositionalism, the notion that all human knowledge and reason is ultimately useless because the real truth is in the scriptures, even if they don't seem to be historical.

If you're interested in writing something about realizing how defective your former epistemology was, I would definitely love to publish it. We also pay for articles as well. Please let me know you are interested.

Thanks,
Matt

[Jersey Girl]

While we do publish reporting and analytical pieces, we also do publish personal experience ones as well. For one example, please see the following link:

https://flux.community/chrissy-stroop/2 ... angelicals

In working with the author of that article, it became apparent to me just how much ex-evangelicals have in common with ex-Mormons. We both went through very similar exit processes, largely because we were inculcated with an attitude of presuppositionalism, the notion that all human knowledge and reason is ultimately useless because the real truth is in the scriptures, even if they don't seem to be historical.

Yes, we do have much in common with ex-Mormons. Although I am don't consider myself an "ex" evangelical. I left organized religion (my last church being an SBC) several years ago (hard to believe it's been that long) for a variety of reasons. I guess I am what you might call an un-churched Christian by choice.

There. I just created a new category to ponder.

[Alphus and Omegus]

While we do publish reporting and analytical pieces, we also do publish personal experience ones as well. For one example, please see the following link:

https://flux.community/chrissy-stroop/2 ... angelicals

In working with the author of that article, it became apparent to me just how much ex-evangelicals have in common with ex-Mormons. We both went through very similar exit processes, largely because we were inculcated with an attitude of presuppositionalism, the notion that all human knowledge and reason is ultimately useless because the real truth is in the scriptures, even if they don't seem to be historical.

Yes, we do have much in common with ex-Mormons. Although I am don't consider myself an "ex" evangelical. I left organized religion (my last church being an SBC) several years ago (hard to believe it's been that long) for a variety of reasons. I guess I am what you might call an un-churched Christian by choice.

There. I just created a new category to ponder.

Ultimately, it is the literalism and fundamentalism that is problematic. People have all sorts of unprovable and even false beliefs, but as long as they don't try to mandate that others share these beliefs or genuflect before them, it mostly doesn't matter, as far as I'm concerned.