LDS.ORG Essay fails to defend Facsimile No. 3

[_Shulem]

Evidence suggests that elements of the book of Abraham fit comfortably in the ancient world and supports the claim that the book of Abraham is an authentic record.

<snip>

The book of Abraham contains other details that are consistent with modern discoveries about the ancient world.

<snip>

Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles of the book of Abraham contain additional earmarks of the ancient world.

1. QUESTION: How do the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 suggest that elements of the book of Abraham fit comfortably in the ancient world and supports the claim that the book of Abraham is an authentic record?

ANSWER: The Explanations are completely false.

2. QUESTION: How do the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 contain details that are consistent with modern discoveries about the ancient world?

ANSWER: The Explanations are lies.

3. QUESTION: How do Joseph Smith’s Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 of contain additional earmarks of the ancient world?

ANSWER: They are absolutely ridiculous and provide no value in understanding the ancient world.

[Guest]

Shulem,

I have no academic understanding of the Book of Abraham at all, other than that I know it isn’t a literal translation of the papyri. I know there are anachronisms in the Book of Abraham narrative that render the story, itself, non-historical. And the explanations of the facsimiles are just plain incorrect, indefensibly incorrect.

Nonetheless, I think the Book of Abraham is such a fascinating piece of Mormon scripture. Parts of it register with me, even though I don’t accept it as accurate history. The facsimiles (and the extant papyrus) function best for me when I remember that the Book of Abraham is really a kind modern midrash.

If I’m wrong on my understanding of what a midrash is, I apologize in advance. But when I think of a midrash, I think of a scribe or an author interacting with some kind of text or artifact (like a papyrus) and, as a result, producing a new text that may or may not be historically valuable, but that may provide relevant religious commentary or narrative. (Granted, in Jewish midrashic tradition, rabbis were at least able to read and understand the source material, the Torah. Whereas in Joseph Smith’s case he couldn’t read the papyri and had to deliver the content of the Book of Abraham blindly and gradually over a period of years.)

Part of me is embarrassed to no end by the facsimiles. And part of me really hopes they don’t ever remove the facsimiles so that as our maturity about the Book of Abraham continues to develop, we continue to acknowledge the book’s midrashic nature.

[_Craig Paxton]

Evidence suggests that elements of the book of Abraham fit comfortably in the ancient world and supports the claim that the book of Abraham is an authentic record.

<snip>

The book of Abraham contains other details that are consistent with modern discoveries about the ancient world.

<snip>

Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles of the book of Abraham contain additional earmarks of the ancient world.

1. QUESTION: How do the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 suggest that elements of the book of Abraham fit comfortably in the ancient world and supports the claim that the book of Abraham is an authentic record?

ANSWER: The Explanations are completely false.

2. QUESTION: How do the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 contain details that are consistent with modern discoveries about the ancient world?

ANSWER: The Explanations are lies.

3. QUESTION: How do Joseph Smith’s Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 of contain additional earmarks of the ancient world?

ANSWER: They are absolutely ridiculous and provide no value in understanding the ancient world.

Your obsession with the Book of Abraham and Facsimile No. 3 always brings a smile to my face. Thank you for never letting us forget

[_fetchface]

I just scanned the essay again. I noticed the paragraph you alluded to above about how cool it is that the explanations to the facsimiles contain earmarks of the ancient world:

Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles of the book of Abraham contain additional earmarks of the ancient world. Facsimile 1 and Abraham 1:17 mention the idolatrous god Elkenah. This deity is not mentioned in the Bible, yet modern scholars have identified it as being among the gods worshipped by ancient Mesopotamians.39 Joseph Smith represented the four figures in figure 6 of facsimile 2 as “this earth in its four quarters.” A similar interpretation has been argued by scholars who study identical figures in other ancient Egyptian texts.40 Facsimile 1 contains a crocodile deity swimming in what Joseph Smith called “the firmament over our heads.” This interpretation makes sense in light of scholarship that identifies Egyptian conceptions of heaven with “a heavenly ocean."

I chuckled to myself a bit when I noticed that they don't seem to discuss the notes to one of the facsimiles at all.

[_kairos]

Shulem has it right-pure bs!

[_Themis]

If I’m wrong on my understanding of what a midrash is, I apologize in advance. But when I think of a midrash, I think of a scribe or an author interacting with some kind of text or artifact (like a papyrus) and, as a result, producing a new text that may or may not be historically valuable, but that may provide relevant religious commentary or narrative. (Granted, in Jewish midrashic tradition, rabbis were at least able to read and understand the source material, the Torah. Whereas in Joseph Smith’s case he couldn’t read the papyri and had to deliver the content of the Book of Abraham blindly and gradually over a period of years.)

I would be fine with that if it fit the evidence of what Joseph claimed he was doing. I also have a problem with God's supposed involvement in this way, and you bring up a good problem that Joseph couldn't read the papyri.

[_Wonhyo]

I would be fine with that if it fit the evidence of what Joseph claimed he was doing. I also have a problem with God's supposed involvement in this way, and you bring up a good problem that Joseph couldn't read the papyri.

It’s a vexing problem, I admit. I don’t know of any way to ignore what you bring up here. For some, it can worked around but not really ignored.

[_Shulem]

I have no academic understanding of the Book of Abraham at all, other than that I know it isn’t a literal translation of the papyri.

An accurate understanding of the Book of Abraham leads one to know that the Facsimiles and the rest of the Book of Abraham are definitely not a literal translation. Neither is it a unliteral or nonliteral translation. It's really not a translation of any kind. The use of the word translation is misapplied as far as modern Mormons are concerned but not to Joseph Smith and his companions. Joseph Smith claimed to be translating, literally. Joseph Smith said what he meant and meant what he said. Modern Mormons today don't really like what Joseph Smith said or implied regarding Facsimile No. 3.

I know there are anachronisms in the Book of Abraham narrative that render the story, itself, non-historical.

Right.

And the explanations of the facsimiles are just plain incorrect, indefensibly incorrect.

Right.

Nonetheless, I think the Book of Abraham is such a fascinating piece of Mormon scripture. Parts of it register with me, even though I don’t accept it as accurate history. The facsimiles (and the extant papyrus) function best for me when I remember that the Book of Abraham is really a kind modern midrash.

Joseph Smith made it up. He made a mockery of ancient Egypt.

If I’m wrong on my understanding of what a midrash is, I apologize in advance. But when I think of a midrash, I think of a scribe or an author interacting with some kind of text or artifact (like a papyrus) and, as a result, producing a new text that may or may not be historically valuable, but that may provide relevant religious commentary or narrative. (Granted, in Jewish midrashic tradition, rabbis were at least able to read and understand the source material, the Torah. Whereas in Joseph Smith’s case he couldn’t read the papyri and had to deliver the content of the Book of Abraham blindly and gradually over a period of years.)

When it comes to ancient Egypt, Joseph Smith was blind. He couldn't read the language or decipher the iconography at all. Everything he said was shooting from his hip. His followers ate it up.

Part of me is embarrassed to no end by the facsimiles. And part of me really hopes they don’t ever remove the facsimiles so that as our maturity about the Book of Abraham continues to develop, we continue to acknowledge the book’s midrashic nature.

I think it's safe to say that most LDS people who know anything about the true nature of Facsimile No. 3 are embarrassed by what Joseph Smith presented and the fact that this nonsense is canonized. The church doesn't talk about Facsimile No. 3, ever. It's a taboo subject. I've never heard a member of the church bear their testimony that they know the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are true. I don't expect I ever will.

[_Shulem]

Your obsession with the Book of Abraham and Facsimile No. 3 always brings a smile to my face. Thank you for never letting us forget

FACSIMILE NO. 3 IS IT.

[_Shulem]

I chuckled to myself a bit when I noticed that they don't seem to discuss the notes to one of the facsimiles at all.

The church has absolutely nothing to say about the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. The church has never said anything about the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3.

Regarding Hugh Nibley and other church apologists, they are not the church and neither do they speak for the church.

The church remains deafly silent regarding the official blasphemy they have committed towards the Egyptian religion and the sacred memory of the Egyptians who practiced their beliefs according to their own conscience. The church has desecrated the memory of ancient Egypt and remains unrepentant.