one of my comments that is "awaiting moderation" for some reason. Full discussion here: http://www.fairblog.org/2011/09/21/fair-issues-24-the-cure-for-in-an-intellectual-apostasy
Jacob Says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation. October 8th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Thank you, S. Goodman, for your honesty!
This is where our conclusions do indeed diverge, although we have in
view the same problems and similar data. I am aware of the interesting
historical data regarding prejudice against not only blacks but
homosexuality as well, and many of our previous church leaders’
pseudo-scientific ideas, claims, and methodologies. None of that really
was ever an issue for me.
However, the scriptures are our keystone witnesses to the gospel.
Minor inconsistencies can be explained away, and I did so for a long
time. My bigger issues were with the New Testament texts and the Book of
Mormon, and this Isaiah stuff is just icing on the cake. I use words
like “likely” because the evidence is strongest for the readings I gave,
but it’s always possible one could be off. But not all of them.
It really hit me hard to see how non sequitur the apologists have
been about the Book of Abraham. Consider Michael Rhodes’ classic look at
the hypocephalus here. Some notes: the 3rd century demotic magical text referenced on page 6 can be found here.
Notice that the magical word Abraham is part of a long line of
nonsensical words, similar to those found elsewhere in the papyrus. Page 7, compare here,
columns XII and XIII, although the translation isn’t as good as in
Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, if you have that. The
“judgment” Abraham sees borrows from Egyptian judgment theology in
general, and trying to connect it to the Book of the Dead 125 (either
the A or B version) comes just short of utter nonsense.
The discussion of the Apocalypse of Abraham is interesting. Note that
“[what] is in the heavens, on the earth and in the sea, in the abyss,
and in the lower depths, in the garden of Eden and in its rivers, in the
fullness of the universe” is the full phrase from the apocalypse. It’s
hard to see how the words on the hypocephalus and these could possibly
have been related. Is the “striking” similarity with the hypocephalus
really that striking? Moreover, the four figures in Abraham 18 are a
lion, a man, an ox, and an eagle, and how is that “clearly” a
description of the four canopic figures in facsimile 2, figure 6, which
are, as p. 11 states, the 4 sons of horus: a jackal, a baboon, a falcon, and a human? Moreover, read chapter 18 yourself and then read Ezekiel chapter 1 and tell me where the chapter’s imagery came from.
Anyway, you can continue in the same vane and read his words, check
his sources, consider his arguments. Isn’t it obvious how non sequitur
the conclusions are? It really, instead, demonstrates the lack of
evidence supporting Joseph Smith’s interpretations, and the fact that he
just got it wrong. Why else do apologists have to invent such arguments
out of thin air? Why do they have to obscure simple truths and lie just
to make a case for the Book of Abraham?
Hugh Nibley, by the way, in making his defenses, had to draw on
materials spanning over 3000 years of Egyptian history, and treat them
as if they all somehow corresponded to the subject at hand. You can
check his sources the same way, and see how poorly his arguments pan
out. One of his most honest admissions was preserved in CWHN 18: An
Approach to the Book of Abraham, chapter 10: “I refuse to be held
responsible for anything I wrote more than three years ago” (p. 494) –
which includes a huge bulk of his works. He is basically admitting that
much of his words on Abraham were utter nonsense, in case you didn’t
want to check and discover that for yourself. Moreover, on page 495, he
says, speaking of Facsimile 1, figure 3, “in this case I think it was
Anubis”. What an admission! You look at the original papyri yourself and
it seems pretty obvious to me that figure 3 was Anubis, and especially
figure 1 was a Horus-headed hawk.
Add the translations to the text of facsimile 3 to the mix, and what
mystery is there left to understanding the nature of the Joseph Smith
Papyri? Heck, even reading the Kirtland Papers in volume 18 as opposed
to just taking Dr. Nibley’s arguments for granted should make it pretty
clear how tied they really were to the translation of the book.
Anyway, food for thought. To me, there is a final and definitive
answer, and you can know it now. I respect your stance, however, and you
don’t need to respond to my arguments listed here — just, if you really
are interested in the truth, we have enough evidence. Let me know if
you do the readings I indicated and what you think. Are the LDS
apologists really being completely honest with us? Why, or why not?
Thank you again for your responses. I respect an honest, open mind,
willing to give any truth the full benefit of the doubt until proven
otherwise.
October 8th, 2011 at 3:14 pm Thank you, S. Goodman, for your honesty!
This is where our conclusions do indeed diverge, although we have in view the same problems and similar data. I am aware of the interesting historical data regarding prejudice against not only blacks but homosexuality as well, and many of our previous church leaders’ pseudo-scientific ideas, claims, and methodologies. None of that really was ever an issue for me.
However, the scriptures are our keystone witnesses to the gospel. Minor inconsistencies can be explained away, and I did so for a long time. My bigger issues were with the New Testament texts and the Book of Mormon, and this Isaiah stuff is just icing on the cake. I use words like “likely” because the evidence is strongest for the readings I gave, but it’s always possible one could be off. But not all of them.
It really hit me hard to see how non sequitur the apologists have been about the Book of Abraham. Consider Michael Rhodes’ classic look at the hypocephalus here. Some notes: the 3rd century demotic magical text referenced on page 6 can be found here. Notice that the magical word Abraham is part of a long line of nonsensical words, similar to those found elsewhere in the papyrus. Page 7, compare here, columns XII and XIII, although the translation isn’t as good as in Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, if you have that. The “judgment” Abraham sees borrows from Egyptian judgment theology in general, and trying to connect it to the Book of the Dead 125 (either the A or B version) comes just short of utter nonsense.
The discussion of the Apocalypse of Abraham is interesting. Note that “[what] is in the heavens, on the earth and in the sea, in the abyss, and in the lower depths, in the garden of Eden and in its rivers, in the fullness of the universe” is the full phrase from the apocalypse. It’s hard to see how the words on the hypocephalus and these could possibly have been related. Is the “striking” similarity with the hypocephalus really that striking? Moreover, the four figures in Abraham 18 are a lion, a man, an ox, and an eagle, and how is that “clearly” a description of the four canopic figures in facsimile 2, figure 6, which are, as p. 11 states, the 4 sons of horus: a jackal, a baboon, a falcon, and a human? Moreover, read chapter 18 yourself and then read Ezekiel chapter 1 and tell me where the chapter’s imagery came from.
Anyway, you can continue in the same vane and read his words, check his sources, consider his arguments. Isn’t it obvious how non sequitur the conclusions are? It really, instead, demonstrates the lack of evidence supporting Joseph Smith’s interpretations, and the fact that he just got it wrong. Why else do apologists have to invent such arguments out of thin air? Why do they have to obscure simple truths and lie just to make a case for the Book of Abraham?
Hugh Nibley, by the way, in making his defenses, had to draw on materials spanning over 3000 years of Egyptian history, and treat them as if they all somehow corresponded to the subject at hand. You can check his sources the same way, and see how poorly his arguments pan out. One of his most honest admissions was preserved in CWHN 18: An Approach to the Book of Abraham, chapter 10: “I refuse to be held responsible for anything I wrote more than three years ago” (p. 494) – which includes a huge bulk of his works. He is basically admitting that much of his words on Abraham were utter nonsense, in case you didn’t want to check and discover that for yourself. Moreover, on page 495, he says, speaking of Facsimile 1, figure 3, “in this case I think it was Anubis”. What an admission! You look at the original papyri yourself and it seems pretty obvious to me that figure 3 was Anubis, and especially figure 1 was a Horus-headed hawk.
Add the translations to the text of facsimile 3 to the mix, and what mystery is there left to understanding the nature of the Joseph Smith Papyri? Heck, even reading the Kirtland Papers in volume 18 as opposed to just taking Dr. Nibley’s arguments for granted should make it pretty clear how tied they really were to the translation of the book.
Anyway, food for thought. To me, there is a final and definitive answer, and you can know it now. I respect your stance, however, and you don’t need to respond to my arguments listed here — just, if you really are interested in the truth, we have enough evidence. Let me know if you do the readings I indicated and what you think. Are the LDS apologists really being completely honest with us? Why, or why not? Thank you again for your responses. I respect an honest, open mind, willing to give any truth the full benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.