In the end, I’m disinclined to believe that Abrahamic records really made it across the millennium accurate and intact before they were written down on papyrus, and I just think that Joseph Smith got it wrong in terms of what the papyri were.
So don't believe what he said now, since, of course, Egyptology has simply trounced any option of Joseph Smith's clear declarations about what the papyri contained. O.K., I'm good with that. But then, who's to say what else he simply muffed? Is this a matter of deciding he muffed stuff when the professionals demonstrate how utterly imbecile the claims are, but keep those that have a fudge factor towards possible authenticity? Is this cafeteria Mormonism we get a whiff of? indubitably!
That being said, some of his takes on Egyptological symbols found in one part of the papyri that we do know very directly about—the facsimiles (the pictures on the papyri) —were, in my opinion better than you would get if you were guessing, and touch on gospel principles through the lens of ancient Egyptology.
Stephen, meet Shulem...Shulem, Stephen...
Many people assume that the whole set of facsimiles interpretations is wrong, if one puts all the “this is what you should think”s aside and objectively examines the parallels themselves, I believe they’re fairly compelling on the whole when compared to the alternative of lucky guessing.
Still drinking the Kool Aid I see...
For example, the image in Facsimile 2 identified by Joseph Smith as the location where God lives is the symbol for the Egyptian creator god;
This is a parallel and evidence?!
similarly, the four gods of the four cardinal directions were identified by Joseph Smith as a symbol of the four cardinal directions,
Stephen Thompson argued otherwise. Ansd Robert Ritner is not so swayed yet either.
a boat identified by Joseph Smith as (among other things) a symbol for one thousand is a boat that in Egyptological mythology is sailed by a god for one thousand cubits, etc.
This old discussion has been thoroughly refuted by both Thompson and Ritner.
If you do not want to believe, none of this forces you into some epistemological corner, but it’s conspicuous enough to open up a space for belief if slam dunk word-for-word perfect translation isn’t assumed.
Unfortunately, no it does not open up any space whatsoever. But thanks for playing the Mormon testimony game.
https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/ ... en-cranney
