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

[hauslern]

Tamis on who the black figure is.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hy4 ... OJ5qM/edit

So one illustration has him behind and another in front

[Philo Sofee]

Tamis on who the black figure is.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hy4 ... OJ5qM/edit

So one illustration has him behind and another in front

Excellent! And, When I had Michael Marquardt over a couple years ago celebrating Veteran's Day and he lectured us on some of the Joseph Smith Papers, he told me Gee was in complete agreement with Coenen (again, as with Ritner, Mormons are just not in a position at all of doing anything but being in line with the powerful scholars and Coenen is truly one of the greats) and that just made Marquardt giddy with glee. It was like a kid in a candy store man, it was AWESOME! And yes, if you can Coenen's study in Ritner's book is stellar, a very good read.

[hauslern]

I wonder if it is co-incidental that once I started sharing here I have been blocked from commenting on DanP's blog. I showed through evidence that Fa 2 was falsely restored in a number of places. They refuse to concede the evidence. Smith unfortunately did not access to the museum databases we have and see fac 2 is a garden variety.

Dear Noel,

This is an interesting question. I just checked that Smith finished the Book of Mormon in 1829 in which he states that his source was two golden plates written in a reformed Egyptian language, but with finishing his translation he must have given back these plates to an angel. So he had nothing in his hands which would have supported his translations (revelations).
We must state as you wrote in your previous email, that he was in the right place and in the right time (1835) when he could purchase the mummies and the papyri, by these "documents" he had now in his hands some ancient things which could support his previous work on the Book of Mormon. By "translating" these new sources, nobody could have questioned his knowledge concerning the "reformed Egyptian language" of the sources of the Book of Mormon. It was a great catch that allowed him to recruit plenty of followers.

Look I would say he was really a talented person who was able to establish a new church working out its beliefs and doctrines which attracted believers.
On the basis of his translations from the Egyptian antiquities, he was a fraud.

On the other hand the illustrations (we call vignettes) of the papyri, for example his Facsimile no 1. -again I must emphasise without any Egyptological knowledge- could have easily been interpreted as biblical scenes, Facsimile no. 1: as Abraham sacrificing his son to God.
From this aspect we must again say that he was lucky, purchased ancient papyri written on a language which nobody could translate in the 1830's America and the vignette of which depicted from his view biblical scenes like Abraham sacrificing his son.

Everything played into his hands. So from this viewpoint - although he was a fraud - his translations, interpretations to the vignettes, one may see them, as being sincere attempts.
The best analogy may be when somebody goes to the psychologist and the psychologist shows different abstract pictures and the patient has to say what he sees on the pictures and on the basis of the answers the psychologist draws a conclusion concerning the psychic state of the patient.

Smith saw the vignettes, drew the conclusion and associated them to create a coherent story (Book of Abraham) (he was the patient and psychologist together

Best wishes,
Tamás

[Lem]

Interesting thesis on Fac 3 https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=etd
One can download

He talks about the printing plates

"The Challenge with Anubis
Though Anubis is not found leading the deceased from in front, some have argued that he
is nevertheless present in Facsimile No. 3. These individuals suggest the head of the individual
standing behind the deceased (Figure 6) has been either badly drawn or otherwise significantly
altered and should have originally been the head of a jackal, representing the Egyptian god
Anubis.41 The reasons cited for this argument have included the ear-like shape atop the head of
Figure 6, his black skin, and the hieroglyphic text written above him. However, each of these
points of reasoning have major issues surrounding them that are worth careful consideration.
The first issue has to do with the claim that the cone-shaped item atop the head of Figure
6 was originally meant to represent a jackal ear.42 One critic has even gone so far as to claim that
the original lead printing plate for Facsimile No. 3 contained a jackal snout to accompany the
apparent ear, but that Joseph Smith instructed Reuben Hedlock to remove it.43 However, a close
look at the lead plate suggests nothing more than the expected carving and chiseling necessary to
create the plate to begin with, and any argument otherwise is entirely speculative.44

What do you think Shulem?

What I find interesting is that even though the author has acknowledged that "these points of reasoning have major issues surrounding them that are worth careful consideration," he fails to give anything like "careful consideration."

A significant example is what you bolded, hauslern:

One critic has even gone so far as to claim that the original lead printing plate for Facsimile No. 3 contained a jackal snout to accompany the
apparent ear, but that Joseph Smith instructed Reuben Hedlock to remove it.43 However, a close look at the lead plate suggests nothing more than the expected carving and chiseling necessary to create the plate to begin with, and any argument otherwise is entirely speculative.44

How does this author justify that his personal "close look at the lead plate" is "careful consideration"? He also talks about "expected carving and chiseling." Unless he is an expert in the 19th century carving of plates, his statement is meaningless, especially the word 'expected'.

He should have said something like 'until such issues are presented with some expert opinion from woodworkers' etc. This still would have been a deflection of a legitimate issue, but it would have been a better attempt at preserving the integrity of his paper. As it is, this 'i took a look and even though I have no idea about woodworking my church is still true' approach is really inappropriate for a thesis.

[Shulem]

How does this author justify that his personal "close look at the lead plate" is "careful consideration"? He also talks about "expected carving and chiseling." Unless he is an expert in the 19th century carving of plates, his statement is meaningless, especially the word 'expected'.

He should have said something like 'until such issues are presented with some expert opinion from woodworkers' etc. This still would have been a deflection of a legitimate issue, but it would have been a better attempt at preserving the integrity of his paper. As it is, this 'i took a look and even though I have no idea about woodworking my church is still true' approach is really inappropriate for a thesis.

Does he mention how John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein have consulted with professionals who have an understanding of that craft in order to ascertain their opinion? Has anyone who is involved with the safeguarding of the plate offered any kind of statement about having the plate examined and determining if in fact the nose was scratched out after the fact?

I believe John & Kerry know damn well that there was a snout there and it was scraped out. They know damn well that the eye is that of a jackal and that there is a remnant of an ear(s) atop the head. They damn well know that Anubis is black because he has BLACK FUR.

There is nothing John & Kerry can do do get out of this one. They might as well face up to the fact that Smith made some changes in modifying the face in order to match the story he was trying to portray and avoid being detected that he called the Masonic Dog Star a slave.

And all this has been discovered and played out right here on this little Message Board that Dan Peterson thinks is so insignificant.

[Lem]

How does this author justify that his personal "close look at the lead plate" is "careful consideration"? He also talks about "expected carving and chiseling." Unless he is an expert in the 19th century carving of plates, his statement is meaningless, especially the word 'expected'.

He should have said something like 'until such issues are presented with some expert opinion from woodworkers' etc. This still would have been a deflection of a legitimate issue, but it would have been a better attempt at preserving the integrity of his paper. As it is, this 'i took a look and even though I have no idea about woodworking my church is still true' approach is really inappropriate for a thesis.

...I believe John & Kerry know damn well that there was a snout there and it was scraped out...

I agree. If they had any confidence that the piece was intended to be carved exactly as the final rendition shows, they would have investigated this issue and put it to rest. in my opinion, they don't because they are afraid of what they know they will find.

And all this has been discovered and played out right here on this little Message Board that Dan Peterson thinks is so insignificant.

[Shulem]

It's entirely possible that Peterson will someday make his way back to this board to pick a few bones. When he retires there will be many changes with his lifestyle and pursuits. He may shift and change his life like everyone does and eventually decide to come here and pick a fight with you, Lem-baby!

What will you do, run?

[Lem]

It's entirely possible that Peterson will someday make his way back to this board to pick a few bones. When he retires there will be many changes with his lifestyle and pursuits. He may shift and change his life like everyone does and eventually decide to come here and pick a fight with you, Lem-baby!

What will you do, run?

I doubt he would come here where the field is level.