"2 Inks" Gee criticises scholarly standards of JSP Project

[_aussieguy55]

Brother Jake did an interesting youtube video on Muhlestein's attempt to see some "bulleyes" in Smith's interpretation. One of Kerry's claims that having the legs in the air of the figure on the couch indicates movement and then Brother Jake shows other similar scenes which are embalming scenes. He again wrongly makes what is the wing of a bird one of the hands of the figure on the couch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KLa8HYsfpM&t=773s

[_Fence Sitter]

Brother Jake did an interesting youtube video on Muhlestein's attempt to see some "bulleyes" in Smith's interpretation. One of Kerry's claims that having the legs in the air of the figure on the couch indicates movement and then Brother Jake shows other similar scenes which are embalming scenes. He again wrongly makes what is the wing of a bird one of the hands of the figure on the couch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KLa8HYsfpM&t=773s

I have seen other non LDS Egyptologists interpret the leg in the air as movement or 'striding legs' as it has been described. The problem for defenders is that the movement of the legs is not indicative of a sacrificial scene, rather it is showing a reanimation scene. So while Kerry could be correct in that the scene is showing movement, it is not showing defensive movement of one who is being sacrificed, it is showing the movement of the legs as if the embalmed corpse is coming back to life. This still does not help in defending Joseph Smith's ability to translate Egyptian.

As far as the wing tips vs fingers controversy goes, it is possible these are actually finger tips, but they are not being raised in a defensive posture, rather they are being raised to fan the Ba spirit back into the corpse to reanimate it. Still no help for defenders who need this to be a scene where the figure on the Lion couch is being sacrificed.

[_aussieguy55]

The Gospel Topics essay suggests two possiblities still missing papyri or the catalyst theory
"Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation.33 According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.34"

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... m?lang=eng

[_Shulem]

The Gospel Topics essay suggests They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.34"

A blank check given to Joseph damned Smith to do whatever he wants. To include:

1. Hacking the nose off an Egyptian god (Facsimile No. 3)
2. Placing a white man's head atop that of a black man's body (Facsimile No. 1)

Riiiiiiigh.

Nobody is buying this except for the stupid damned Mormons.

[_RockSlider]

Shulem
When God translated Egyptian texts through Joseph Smith's eyes the direction or orientation of the text had no bearing whatsoever because what got translated got translated by God. It didn't matter if the text was right-side up or upside down because God translated Egyptian according to his own will.

God doesn't have a Ph.d in Egyptology from any credible university, so his translation may not reflect current scholarship with "real" Ph.d's. Better to stick to the real scholars...

Wasn't it Gee, many moons ago on the old MAD board that would not converse with anyone who could not pass his Egyptology test? I guess God failed his test?

[_Fence Sitter]

Wasn't it Gee, many moons ago on the old MAD board that would not converse with anyone who could not pass his Egyptology test? I guess God failed his test?

Correct, the same Gee who woefully failed the math test when he ventured into that field with his widely inaccurate scroll length estimations.

[_Doctor Scratch]

And,

Matthew C. Godfrey, Managing Historian
Robin Scott Jensen, Associate Managing Historian
Riley M. Lorimer, Associate Editorial Manager
Brent M. Rogers, Associate Managing Historian
Nathan N. Waite, Associate Editorial Manager

Surely the staff of those involved with the Joseph Smith Papers Project prayed and sought guidance from the Lord on who to consult and how to proceed? Surely the Lord answered their prayers? Did he not?

Doesn't John Gee believe in the power of prayer? It seems he doesn't. This is a red flag. This is a sign that he's losing faith in the institution in which he serves.

You forgot the former church historian Marlin K. Jensen, this was one of his major projects. The monologists also quietly blame him for some of the changes at Maxwell in 2012.

Dr. LOD: would you kindly elaborate on this, please? In what way was Jensen connected to the events of 2012? I can see the Mopologists being angry at him for "spilling the beans" concerning the mass apostasy from the Church. But was he really and truly pulling strings in order to get DCP, Midgley, et al. tossed out of the Maxwell Institute?

[_Shulem]

Dr. LOD: would you kindly elaborate on this, please? In what way was Jensen connected to the events of 2012? I can see the Mopologists being angry at him for "spilling the beans" concerning the mass apostasy from the Church. But was he really and truly pulling strings in order to get DCP, Midgley, et al. tossed out of the Maxwell Institute?

Jensen was a link in the chain of command. If he didn't give the order as a commander in that chain then another link above him did.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dr. LOD: would you kindly elaborate on this, please? In what way was Jensen connected to the events of 2012? I can see the Mopologists being angry at him for "spilling the beans" concerning the mass apostasy from the Church. But was he really and truly pulling strings in order to get DCP, Midgley, et al. tossed out of the Maxwell Institute?

Jensen was a link in the chain of command. If he didn't give the order as a commander in that chain then another link above him did.

Correct, but if that's the case, then why would the Mopologists hold a grudge against him? They know how things work: Midgley has admitted that they were [i]waiting around for Mark E. Petersen to die. Meaning: they know that some of the Brethren are on their side, and some are not. What I'd like to know is: What led them to believe that Jensen *is not* "on their side"?

[_Shulem]

Correct, but if that's the case, then why would the Mopologists hold a grudge against him? They know how things work: Midgley has admitted that they were [i]waiting around for Mark E. Petersen to die. Meaning: they know that some of the Brethren are on their side, and some are not. What I'd like to know is: What led them to believe that Jensen *is not* "on their side"?

January 1, 1982

Dear elder Mark E Peterson,

It's my sad duty to inform you that there is a growing sense of rancor and displeasure coming from certain professors at BYU regarding your position on specific matters about church policy and history. Namely, professor Louis Midgley has been gossiping and spreading discord about you and has even expressed an anxious anticipation that your passing will allow certain apologetic positions to gain ground and undermine your inspired leadership.

I'm sorry to bear this bad news. I've already contacted brother Midgley's bishop and he feels a disciplinary hearing is in order.

Sincerely,

Shulem