DiscussMormonism.com

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraha ... acsimile_3

FAIRMORMON wrote: Book of Abraham/Joseph Smith Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile 3

I’ll make brief comments in response to the deceptive article postulated on the notorious FAIRMORMON website regarding the Facsimile No. 3.

FAIRMORMON wrote: The following are common criticisms associated with Facsimile 3:
• The scene depicted is a known Egyptian vignette which Egyptologists state has nothing to do with Abraham.
• Joseph indicated that specific characters in the facsimile confirmed the identities that he assigned to specific figures.
• Joseph identified two obviously female figures as "King Pharaoh" and "Prince of Pharaoh."
Critics consider these items to be conclusive evidence that Joseph Smith was not a prophet.

FAIR is correct about Egyptologists confirming that this vignette has nothing to do with Abraham and correctly admitted that Mormon translator Joseph Smith made claims about the hieroglyphic writing and personages in the vignette. Critics do in fact conclude that this is positive proof that exposes Joseph Smith as a false Egyptian translator.

FAIRMORMON wrote:The matter is not as simple as critics would like to have us believe. Like almost all of us, the majority of critics are not experts on Egyptian writing or art.

Actually, it is quite simple. It’s black or white, yes or no, true or false. Critics don’t need to be experts to be able to determine the truth with a little help from modern Egyptology.

FAIRMORMON wrote: So, this presents an interesting problem--if we are going to take an "academic" or "intellectual" approach to the problem, both believers and critics must all decide to trust an expert. The problem that we immediately encounter is that there are multiple "experts," and these experts do not all agree. Therefore, we are left to decide which "expert" we will trust. There are LDS experts who believe the Book of Abraham is a genuine artifact, and that it testifies to Joseph Smith' status as a prophet. Non-LDS experts obviously do not agree with that.

Yes, I will agree that an academic and intellectual approach is the only sound course to pursue -- an appeal to authority, that of modern Egyptology and the stewards that guide it. The argument of being not in agreement over the results is a ploy in rejecting the final outcome from a professional conclusion offered by Egyptologists the world over. A couple of LDS Egyptologists may believe in the validity of the Book of Abraham but they cannot defend the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 using science so this is why the appeal to experts is more or less rejected by the LDS apologists who refuse to face the natural conclusion. They know they have lost the argument from a scientific point of view.

FAIRMORMON wrote:Latter-day Saints, as believers unequipped to deal with Egyptology, are not able to really assess that information for ourselves. We would need 15-20 years of schooling to do it. So, we can either trust our spiritual future to the experts of our choice, or we can rely ultimately upon revelation.

This is not true! A student of Egyptology can obtain good books on Egyptian grammar, history, art, religion, etc., and within a few years develop a basic sense of identity and purpose for basic Egyptian messages and imagery. One does not need a degree in Egyptology to learn how to read the language on a basic level and identify with Egyptian art and culture. There are lots of books and material on the market that can assist anyone in achieving knowledge on the subject.

The dishonest apologist makes an either or statement that is utterly dishonest and untrue: “So, we can either trust our spiritual future to the experts of our choice, or we can rely ultimately upon revelation”.

Wow! How about just trusting the collective experts who are the guardians of modern Egyptology and listen to what they have to say about Egyptology while also getting a little knowledge ourselves about the language and culture? Is that really so hard? I think not. But here we see the LDS apologist wants us to scrap the appeal to authority and lay everything at the feet of Joseph Smith and his professed revelations. The LDS apologists don’t want to trust/appeal to science and modern Egyptology but keep to Joseph Smith’s revelations for the sake of faith and a spiritual future Mormon future.

FAIRMORMON wrote: Critics' claim that Facsimile #3 alone is enough to settle the question of whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet. This is very convenient for them, because it allows one to focus only on one (very complex) issue that only a few people have the tools to understand. It is, in a sense, to put the critic in an "unassailable position." The critics has made his or her choice, and does not want to debate it or be told he or she is wrong, or return to the question.
And, what the critic might consider a "slam dunk" or "vital point," might (from a believer's or some Egyptologist's point of view) really not be so conclusive OR so vital.

How about we look at this way: Critics' claim that Facsimile No.3 alone is enough to settle the question of whether or not Joseph Smith was translating Egyptian correctly. THIS WOULD BE A VERY CONVIENENT TEST, WOULD IT NOT? Yes, it focuses on a single item presented by Joseph Smith to the whole church, showcases his wonderful ability to translate Egyptian documents. What a marvelous opportunity to test the prophet’s work and see if he really knew what he was talking about. Facsimile No. 3 is a splendid sample and lovers of Egyptology and professional Egyptologists around the world can make a fair judgment under the basic rule of modern Egyptology. There really isn’t anything complicated about it! Either the Explanations offered by Joseph Smith are correct or they are not. Modern Egyptology can settle that within a heartbeat. It really isn’t rocket science and even those with some basics skills in Egyptology having studied many good books will be able to make a reasonable judgment whether Joseph Smith was correctly translating and interpreting Egyptian imagery.

Critics have already appealed to modern Egyptology and have come to a conclusion that the LDS apologists do not like because they want to hang on to their faith and testimony of Joseph Smith no matter what the evidence shows. So, the apologists reject the appeal to authority and make it all seem as if it's too complicated to settle and that there are just things we don’t understand. It’s their way of not facing up to the truth when truth stares them in the face. It really is a slam dunk against Joseph Smith’s revelations.

Paul O

Furthermore:

FAIRMORMON wrote: The problem that we immediately encounter is that there are multiple "experts," and these experts do not all agree.

Wait, hold on there! ALL Egyptologists (including LDS Egyptologists) will admit that there is no king’s name written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 and neither is the name Shulem. Joseph Smith by revelation declared it but ALL Egyptologists the world over have proven this to be untrue. Joseph Smith was wrong. Again, ALL Egyptologists agree that there is no king’s name and the name Shulem is not contained in the writing of the vignette.

FAIRMORMON wrote: There are LDS experts who believe the Book of Abraham is a genuine artifact, and that it testifies to Joseph Smith' status as a prophet. Non-LDS experts obviously do not agree with that

Critics recognize that the LDS position is purely faith based having nothing to do with proof or science. We grant you that! We know that it is the belief in the Book of Abraham for belief sake that offers validity to the Joseph Smith’s claim to be a prophet. But, science and modern Egyptology have shown otherwise and don’t base their outcomes on faith or feelings from a supposed spirit source.

Paul O

This kind of dishonesty may work on those who need to believe but want to feel good about a troubling issue that they stumble into. It doesn't work on those who are smarter and don't just want a substance-less feel good answer. It's why fair and farms are good places for members to go to.

FAIRMORMON wrote: The interpretation of Facsimile 3
According to Michael D. Rhodes in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism,
Facsimile 3 presents a constantly recurring scene in Egyptian literature, best known from the 125th chapter of the Book of the Dead. It represents the judgment of the dead before the throne of Osiris. It is likely that it came at the end of the Book of Breathings text, of which Facsimile 1 formed the beginning, since other examples contain vignettes similar to this. Moreover, the name of Hor, owner of the papyrus, appears in the hieroglyphs at the bottom of this facsimile.

That’s nice, thank you. The point being, the name associated with the papyrus is Hor, not Abraham. This is not evidence in favor of Joseph Smith.

FAIRMORMON wrote: Joseph Smith explained that Facsimile 3 represents Abraham sitting on the pharaoh's throne teaching principles of astronomy to the Egyptian court. Critics have pointed out that the second figure, which Joseph Smith says is the king, is the goddess Hathor (or Isis). There are, however, examples in other papyri, not in the possession of Joseph Smith, in which the pharaoh is portrayed as Hathor. In fact, the whole scene is typical of Egyptian ritual drama in which costumed actors played the parts of various gods and goddesses.

We agree that Joseph Smith pointed out that the person sitting on the throne is Abraham. But then the apologist starts talking about what CRITICS have to say. Stop, hold on there! Never mind the critics. How about we base our information on what Egyptologists say since they are the real experts? So, let’s reword FAIRMORMON to say:

EGYPTOLOGISTS have pointed out that the second figure, which Joseph Smith says is the king, is the goddess Hathor (or Isis) and the critics agree.

Then the apologist goes on to talk about other papyrus that draw parallel with Joseph Smith’s interpretation as if to justify and change the meaning of Facsimile No. 3. I’ve researched those and found that Hugh Nibley exaggerated his claim. Regardless of what another vignette might represent or say, we need only go off what the Facsimile No. 3 represents and says. The apologists wants us to think about another source and forget about the one at hand. But we will not do that. Let’s focus purely on what the Facsimile No. 3 really says and what Joseph Smith said it said. That’s the key and the one the apologists want to throw away.

Paul O

FAIRMORMON wrote:The matter is not as simple as critics would like to have us believe...blah...blah...blah...

FAIRMORMON wrote:The problem that we immediately encounter is that there are multiple "experts," and these experts do not all agree...blah...blah...blah...

FAIRMORMON wrote:Latter-day Saints, as believers unequipped to deal with Egyptology...blah...blah...blah...

FAIRMORMON wrote: Critics' claim that Facsimile #3 alone is enough to settle the question of whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet. This is very convenient for them, because it allows one to focus only on one (very complex) issue...blah...blah...blah...

These "appeals to complexity" (or whatever you want to call them) were doubtless very effective before the internet. But now, after nearly two decades of ubiquitous internet access, this strategy just doesn't work anymore. In fact it's quickly becoming counterproductive. Personally, I find it all rather patronizing and insulting.

In all fairness though, I find myself reacting in much the same way when Chripologists (Christian apologists) tell me I'm "going down an epidemiological rabbit hole" when I ask for clear, convincing proof that A) a god exists, and B) that it's the god of the Bible. I guess what this means is that both Mopologists and Chripologists are ultimately motivated by the same tribal jealousies and insecurities.

The Erotic Apologist wrote:These "appeals to complexity" (or whatever you want to call them) were doubtless very effective before the internet. But now, after nearly two decades of ubiquitous internet access, this strategy just doesn't work anymore. In fact it's quickly becoming counterproductive. Personally, I find it all rather patronizing and insulting.

The "appeal to complexity" is the method used by apologists to succor enquiring minds without offering real answers. LDS people who question the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are simply given a pat on the back and told that it's just too hard to explain and to not worry about it. This is certainly a form of lying. I have to believe that Mormon apologists have perfected the art of lying. They are good at it and able to fool a great many ignorant LDS people.

Paul O

FAIRMORMON wrote: In summary, Facsimile 1 formed the beginning, and Facsimile 3 the end of a document known as the Book of Breathings, an Egyptian religious text dated paleographically to the time of Jesus. Facsimile 2, the hypocephalus, is also a late Egyptian religious text. The association of these facsimiles with the book of Abraham might be explained as Joseph Smith's attempt to find illustrations from the papyri he owned that most closely matched what he had received in revelation when translating the Book of Abraham. Moreover, the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices.

Notice how the apologist says that the “association of these facsimiles with the book of Abraham MIGHT be explained as Joseph Smith's ATTEMP” (emphasis added). The apologist reveals his weak argument in trying to defend Joseph Smith’s Egyptology by employing the words might and attempt. You see, they don’t have an argument based on fact and science. All they can do is pretty much say things such as: What if, maybe, could be, perhaps, no one really knows, etc.

But then the apologist blatantly lies when stating that Joseph Smith’s explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices. This is a lie. The Explanations of the Facsimiles mock the Egyptian religion and insult their system of beliefs. For example, the Egyptians would never have called one of their chief gods a slave. The Explanations of the Facsimiles are a solid mockery of Egyptology and ancient Egypt. The Mormon apologist is a shameful liar.

Paul O

FAIRMORMON wrote: However, BYU Egyptologist John Gee challenges the notion that Facsimile 3 is associated with Book of the Dead 125,
[B]oth Facsimile 1 and Facsimile 3 are assumed to belong to the Book of Breathings Made by Isis because they accompanied the text in the Joseph Smith Papyri. Yet the contemporary parallel texts of the Book of Breathings Made by Isis belonging to members of the same family have different vignettes associated with them. Instead of a scene like Facsimile 3, most Books of Breathings Made by Isis show a man with his hands raised in adoration to a cow. This indicates that the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham do not belong to the Book of Breathings.

John Gee and the apologist are blowing smoke and using mirrors to deflect away from the basic truth. And what is the basic truth? THE FACSIMILE NO. 3 IS EGYPTIAN PAGAN FUNERARY MATERIAL, PERIOD! Regardless of what chapter or genre you care to classify it in the fact remains the same, it’s pagan funerary material from a religion that has nothing to do with Jehovah or Christ.

The apologist will try any trick in the book to downplay their losing side of the argument and divert the attention away to things that are irrelevant. It’s a weak attempt to try and bolter their argument by gaining some kind of credibility but the facts remain the same, Joseph Smith falsely translated and interpreted the pagan Egyptian literature. There is nothing John Gee can say to change that.

Paul O

FAIRMORMON wrote:Responses to Joseph's interpretations of Facsimile 3
Robert K. Ritner, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, states that "Smith’s hopeless translation also turns the goddess Maat into a male prince, the papyrus owner into a waiter, and the black jackal Anubis into a Negro slave."

That was an accurate statement made by a respectable Egyptologist who knows what he is talking about and is reporting the truth:

1. Joseph Smith’s translations are hopelessly unEgyptian
2. Maat is a goddess, not a man
3. The papyrus owner is not a waiter
4. Anubis is not a negro slave

FAIRMORMON wrote: Larry E. Morris notes the following in response to criticism leveled by Professor Ritner at the Book of Abraham,
Furthermore, Ritner does not inform his readers that certain elements of the Book of Abraham also appear in ancient or medieval texts. Take, for example, Facsimile 3, which depicts, as Ritner puts it, "enthroned Abraham lecturing the male Pharaoh (actually enthroned Osiris with the female Isis)" (JNES, p. 162). In what Ritner describes as nonsense, Joseph Smith claimed that Abraham is "sitting upon Pharoah's throne . . . reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy" (Facsimile 3, explanation).

Apologists love to take the argument away from the argument. Do we need concern ourselves about some medieval text that has nothing to do with the pagan funerary document that Joseph Smith translated? The apologist is trying to remove or excuse the argument and present other evidence to win their case. The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are unEgyptian and no matter what the apologist do or say they cannot turn Anubis into a slave or produce the name Shulem out of the hieroglyphic text contained in the vignette. The man sitting on the throne is no more Abraham than there is a king’s name in the writing as Joseph Smith claimed by revelation. Egyptologists can correctly translate and interpret Facsimile No. 3, not Joseph Smith.

The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are all wrong. Egyptologists have already proven that.

Paul O

FAIRMORMON wrote: Clearly, Joseph Smith's interpretation did not come from Genesis (where there is no discussion of Abraham doing such a thing). From Ritner's point of view, therefore, this must qualify as one of Joseph's "uninspired fantasies." But going a layer deeper reveals interesting complexities. A number of ancient texts, for example, state that Abraham taught astronomy to the Egyptians. Citing the Jewish writer Artapanus (who lived prior to the first century BC), a fourth-century bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius, states: "They were called Hebrews after Abraham. [Artapanus] says that the latter came to Egypt with all his household to the Egyptian king Pharethothes, and taught him astrology, that he remained there twenty years and then departed again for the regions of Syria."22

The apologist seems to think it’s a big deal that the Book of Abraham along with other sources of antiquity mentions Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptians as if this lends credit to Joseph Smith’s inspiration. This was not a secret to anyone who had access to the works of Josephus which surely Joseph Smith did. According to Josephus, a biased Jewish historian, Abram reasoned with the Egyptians concerning religious doctrine and discussed the science of arithmetic and astronomy. Supposedly, the Egyptians were ignorant of astronomy which was a science had by the Chaldeans and delivered to Egypt by Abram. (See Josephus Book 1; 8:2)

Whether Joseph Smith had access to Artapanus/Eusebius, I cannot say, but it is almost certain that Joseph Smith was versed in the works of Josephus and there is evidence that he borrowed and altered some Egyptian terminology from Josephus and planted it in his Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar for his own.

So, this business of Abraham teaching astronomy is nothing new in the days of Joseph Smith. Josephus already covered that long before Joseph Smith came around to offer his own version .

Color me not impressed. The apologetic offering that the Book of Abraham talks about Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptians does nothing to defend Jospeph Smith's false translations of Facsimile No. 3. It's just a red herring tactic, a trick to try and get us to take our eyes off the ball.

Paul O