A few questions for Shulem

[_Craig Paxton]

Are there questions that arise from the facsimiles that I cannot explain now? Yes.

You can't explain them now and you never will.

OOO I can, I can. "MAGIC" Silly Shulem...all unanswerable Mormon questions can be answered by evoking Magic.

[_Shulem]

Are there questions that arise from the facsimiles that I cannot explain now? Yes.

As an Egyptologist you most certainly can explain the questions but as an LDS apologist defending Smith's fraudulent translations you can't.

Joseph identifies certain people in Facsimile 3 and points out that their names are indicated by the hieroglyphs over their heads.

Hey, isn't that a coincidence, that's exactly what professional Egyptologist today do!

As I translate these hieroglyphs, they do not match Joseph's interpretations. There are some facts that cast light on this.

I trust you are translating correctly, as do other professionals. Facts are facts. Did you know Joseph Smith pointed at hieroglyphs on the scrolls and claimed they were the names, original autographs, from the patriarchs? Do you think you could have read those names, Muhlestein?

I am not disturbed by Joseph labeling Figure 2 as a male when the picture and text identify a female.

How do you think the goddesses Isis and Maat would feel about this? No doubt the original scribe would be disturbed if he knew his papyrus was stolen and usurped by a modern cult that embraced the Old Testament god.

This happened more often in Egyptian papyri than one would think. Strikingly, the ancient owner of Facsimile 3 was pictured as both a male and female in his own Book of the Dead.

Nibley used this same trick in getting us to think that it was common for men to dress up as women during funerary rituals in order to justify the labeling of Facsimile No. 3. I wrote about this in another thread:

Let the apologists feel free to post the vignettes of those men dressing up as women and let's look at the evidence. I've researched one such example that Hugh Nibley used in his footnotes for this same argument and discovered that he greatly exaggerated this claim. I've also discussed this with an Egyptologist and we can safely dismiss John Gee and Hugh Nibley's apologetic as a ruse.

This business about men dressing up as women in order to save Facsimile No. 3, from Gee's standpoint is ridiculous. How many people does Gee think are going to fall for that excuse? Nibley tried the same thing and I actually bothered to look up one of his chief references through the interlibrary loan system. I then passed off his reference to an Egyptologist for his opinion and was informed that Nibley's position "does not justify his ideas".

Wildung's statement does not justify Nibley's ideas since what it says is that the Pharaoh UNDER VERY SPECIFIC AND UNIQUE circumstances could be described as adopting a god or goddess as his divine manifestation but from there to assume that a Pharaoh will appear dressed up as a goddess while receiving a foreign visitor (as FARMS people say) not only is an undue extension of an obscure and infrequent religious conception but also not supported by the extant iconography where the king always appears as a man and as a king... I think it's another example of FARMS people splitting hairs and distorting facts in order to defend their unlikely views.

Any mention of kings dressing up as women is extremely rare in literature form, but using such cases to justify an eccentric interpretation of a fairly common scene is preposterous. The thought of pharaoh being visited by a foreign visitor while he himself dresses up as a woman is complete disregard for the truth and for the historical iconographic evidence that makes such an idea ridiculous.

Yet this does not fully satisfy my questions about how I understand the labels Egyptologically as opposed to how Joseph Smith understood them.

Muhlestein is having to deal with this. I know the dreadful feeling.

[_Fence Sitter]

Here's another way to look at how Muhlestein and Gee are being disingenuous when it comes to their Egyptological interpretations of the Joseph Smith papyri.

Are there any translations in the rest of the Joseph Smith papyri, areas which are not directly tied to the Book of Abraham or translations made by Joseph Smith , which Gee and or Muhlestein differ greatly with non-LDS Egyptologist?

That special pleading should tell you why you cannot trust them in regards to when they do differ.

[_Shulem]

Are there any translations in the rest of the Joseph Smith papyri, areas which are not directly tied to the Book of Abraham or translations made by Joseph Smith , which Gee and or Muhlestein differ greatly with non-LDS Egyptologist?

That special pleading should tell you why you cannot trust them in regards to when they do differ.

The Kirtland papers contain many examples of Joseph Smith's Egyptian translations and interpretations. All of them prove an embarrassment to the church. There is absolutely nothing in all of Joseph Smith's work that today's Egyptologists could adopt or use in furthering the understanding of modern Egyptology.

Smith's primitive views are entirely outside the scope of science and modern Egyptology.

[_Shulem]

While I am not satisfied with the answer thus far, I am not concerned

Considering that you're employed by BYU and depend on them for your paycheck it doesn't surprise me that you'd make such a statement. But I don't believe you. I think you are concerned.

During more than a decade of research on this subject, I have often found that I have misunderstood the Book of Abraham and made incorrect assumptions about it.

And during this time of misunderstanding and wrong assumptions, did you vigorously defended those old positions which you no longer endorse?

Even more frequently I have found mistakes and inaccuracies in my own professional discipline, Egyptology.

It's a wonderful field that is growing and ever advancing. Professional contributions within the scope of science are appreciated.

We are a fairly young discipline, and just as research on the Book of Abraham is a work in progress, so is Egyptology as a whole.

There is nothing further to translate in Facsimile No. 3. No more research is needed. The translations are complete. Don't make that appear as an open book as is the general studies of Egyptology. That's just a trick to keep the faithful from questioning further or doubting their doubts. The facts are, we have the all the facts when it comes to the translations of Facsimile No. 3.

Our history as a discipline is full of gaffes, mistakes, stumbles, and wonderful discoveries and corrections. Many of these corrections have been immensely helpful in my efforts to understand the Book of Abraham.

So with that, all of the problems with the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are solved. No worries. No troubles. No problems.

Riiiiight.

[_Cylon]

Muhlestein stupidly admitted in public published information (somewhere, maybe someone can find the link) that his entire method is to simply search for stuff that confirms Joseph Smith's interpretations and leave out all the other stuff. A more blatant form of fallacious confirmation bias cannot be written! He automatically from the get go gets an "F" on everything he writes because of his genuinely faulty method that will never leave us the wiser or more knowledgable. Everything the man writes will be questionable.

That is why we don't bother with him. He has already decided the truth and only forces evidence to fit his conclusion. That ain't scholarship, that's apologetics. No Egyptologist will ever agree with his tripe for that reason alone.

Here's the link: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... tml?pg=all
Relevant quote:

I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, and anything else that we get from the restored gospel, is true. Therefore, any evidence I find, I will try to fit into that paradigm.

Your assessment of his shameful non-scholarship on the Book of Abraham is spot on. He's a wannabe philosopher who heard something about worldview apologetics one time and thinks that gives him carte blanche to continue believing whatever the hell he wants despite disconfirming evidence.

[_I have a question]

Muhlestein stupidly admitted in public published information (somewhere, maybe someone can find the link) that his entire method is to simply search for stuff that confirms Joseph Smith's interpretations and leave out all the other stuff. A more blatant form of fallacious confirmation bias cannot be written! He automatically from the get go gets an "F" on everything he writes because of his genuinely faulty method that will never leave us the wiser or more knowledgable. Everything the man writes will be questionable.

That is why we don't bother with him. He has already decided the truth and only forces evidence to fit his conclusion. That ain't scholarship, that's apologetics. No Egyptologist will ever agree with his tripe for that reason alone.

Here's the link: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... tml?pg=all
Relevant quote:

I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, and anything else that we get from the restored gospel, is true. Therefore, any evidence I find, I will try to fit into that paradigm.

Your assessment of his shameful non-scholarship on the Book of Abraham is spot on. He's a wannabe philosopher who heard something about worldview apologetics one time and thinks that gives him carte blanche to continue believing whatever the hell he wants despite disconfirming evidence.

One might describe him (Muhlestein) as a sort of mental gymnast.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... gymnastics

mental gymnastics
The mental ability to distort the truth even in the face of overwhelming facts

[_Cylon]

One might describe him (Muhlestein) as a sort of mental gymnast.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... gymnastics

mental gymnastics
The mental ability to distort the truth even in the face of overwhelming facts

Indeed. He has many kindred spirits.

[_Shulem]

Thus, while there are questions which have not been fully answered, I know that the search for answers is part of scholarly progress. As an Egyptologist I have far more unanswered questions regarding Egyptian history than I have regarding the Book of Abraham.

I will agree that there are a myriad of unanswered questions pertaining to Egyptian history. It's an ongoing process trying to uncover evidence and sort things out. Some dynastic history is fragmentary and scant while others are rich and full of content. You admitted earlier that you still have questions in which you are seeking answers and now you confess that these come through a progressive scholarly process. You'll never be able to justify Joseph Smith's Explanations through scholarship. All you have is your faith in some unseen answer which will never come.

I was once dissatisfied with the question of human sacrifice as depicted in Facsimile 1, and no answer appeared to be forthcoming. But we have learned more, and now I am satisfied.

Really? The wonder of parallels and imaginative thinking! Where are the shackles that bind him fast? Where are the cords? Where are the bonds? Where are the implements to bind a prisoner and hold him down?

I once was dissatisfied with explanations of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, but as we have done further research I have become satisfied (though I still have questions as to what they really represent).

How can you be satisfied when you still have questions that challenge your faith and prove that Joseph Smith and his companions didn't know what they were doing? I don't believe you. I think you are saying that to protect your job and keep those paychecks coming in.

Claims of textual anachronisms once gave me pause, but research has answered each of these questions. How grateful I am that I did not abandon my faith over these questions, for they have now been answered so well. As we wrestle with these issues, undoubtedly both critics and defenders will make missteps along the way. Most likely there will be questions for which we will not find answers in my lifetime. Perhaps we will in the next. We have eventually found answers to past questions, so I research furiously but wait patiently for answers to current ones.

You are a LIAR. I don't know how you sleep at night. The questions have all been answered and lead to the final conclusion: Joseph Smith committed FRAUD.

[_Dr. Shades]

I wonder: If the Book of Abraham was some other religion's problem, would Kerry Muhlestein defend it with the same amount of charitable "wait-and-see" attitude?