Philo Sofee wrote: Even as an Egyptologist, Muhlestein would refute Smith’s translation! He admits that! Does he not recognize what this means? So If Joseph Smith simply assumed that was how hieroglyphs should translate, how can we be sure he didn’t do this all the way through all the scriptures he ever pretended to translate?! Does Muhlestein not get how stupid this apologetic actually is?!
How about Muhlestein hop in his time machine and go back to Kirtland and set the prophet straight? What kind of reception would Muhlestein receive from Smith's cult should he tender a conventional translation and contradict the prophet in the midst of Zion?
Away with Muhlestein! Away with apostates and those who fight against the Lord.
Philo Sofee wrote: All you have to do with the apologists claims is simply quote Joseph Smith back at them. They obviously don’t believe what he said, because he thought it safe back then, and back then it was. But today Joseph Smith is caught in the snare, and so apologists have to lie for Joseph Smith in order to extract him out of his errors. But he talked too much and left too much evidence behind for us to grasp the truth.
The conversations had by the early saints regarding Joseph Smith's translations of the papyrus are totally unlike the conversations of the unbelieving saints today. Back then they used to brag about the prophet's ability to translate Egyptian and how he was able to interpret the Egyptian writings and images just as the Egyptians did in ancient times. They bragged that Joseph Smith was restoring original content had by the Egyptians and that the language of the Egyptians was being restored through the instrumentality of the prophet. The Kirtland papers are perfect examples to show that the early Mormons really believed they were restoring Egyptian and that Joseph Smith really knew his stuff.
But today, Mormons lack faith and don't like the Kirtland papers at all or the Facsimiles for that matter. They have thrown the poor founding prophet and his translations under the bus.
moksha wrote:If Joseph Smith's interpretation of the characters and actions in Facsimile #3 have nothing to do with the real characters and actions, then maybe he was seeing through an alternate reality veil into a possible meaning in that alternate reality.
That is, of course, the most logical explanation.
Maybe the magic mushroom did have a place in Joseph Smith's life?
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
This idea of a Jewish redactor is speculative nonsense.
The only thing it is has going for it is that it is technically possible--in the same sense it is possible the sun will not rise tomorrow.
One other thing it has going for it--it is completely non-falsifiable. How can you refute the idea that it is possible the sun might not rise tomorrow?
I have said it before and I will say it again.
Although this type of explanation may be possible, Mormons should be aware that they are more and more being pushed to explanations for their foundational scriptural texts that are objectively indistinguishable from intentional fraud.
That recognition alone should be enough to give a reasonable person pause.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
consiglieri wrote:This idea of a Jewish redactor is speculative nonsense.
The only thing it is has going for it is that it is technically possible--in the same sense it is possible the sun will not rise tomorrow.
One other thing it has going for it--it is completely non-falsifiable. How can you refute the idea that it is possible the sun might not rise tomorrow?
I have said it before and I will say it again.
Although this type of explanation may be possible, Mormons should be aware that they are more and more being pushed to explanations for their foundational scriptural texts that are objectively indistinguishable from intentional fraud.
That recognition alone should be enough to give a reasonable person pause.
I also see the hint at this life being a "test" from the apologists in order to combat the intentional fraud conclusion. They never want to go to "god purposefully deceives" in order to "test." But it is there lurking.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Kerry Muhlestein wrote:Again, Joseph Smith did not claim to be able to read hieroglyphs.
An eyewitness account says otherwise by quoting Joseph Smith:
Henry Halkett's notes, Clements library, Michigan (The Saga of the Book of Abraham; Jay M. Todd, p. 256,257)
. . . . These are hieroglyphics, nobody can read them but myself. I can read all the writing and all the hieroglyphics . . . .
Kerry Muhlestein doesn't know what he is talking about . . . .
Outstanding..... just o.u.t.s.t.a.n.d.i.n.g........ refute em with actual eyewitness testimony. They claim it works for the Book of Mormon witnesses, then it works with Book of Abraham/papyri witnesses also. And in a Mormon source to boot!
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
deacon blues wrote:Muhlestein isn't going to get that kind of thinking/writing into many Egyptology journals, but he might get it considered by some psychology journals.
No LDS Egyptologist that I am aware of has actually stated Joseph Smith's translations of the facsimiles and defended them showing the evidences he is "mostly correct" (Rhodes claim) in any scholarly journal such as The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology or the Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Ritner has talked about the subject in the JNES, but not one LDS scholar of any calibre or inkling ever has. It is always in the safe LDS venues, written to and for believers who already won't argue, and who mostly just can't because they lack the necessary scholarship. The old cackle that no one is interested in that subject so they wouldn't publish it is mere eyewash.
Yes, I am perfectly aware that Gee gave a paper and it was published about hypocephali in a tribute to Edith Varga (and it's a good study actually), but he nowhere shows Joseph Smith's translations or any defense and evidence they were correct. He won't touch that with a twenty foot pole (to use an old Nibley metaphor that is coming back to haunt the students of the grand old man).
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
An eyewitness account quotes Joseph Smith wrote: Henry Halkett's notes, Clements library, Michigan (The Saga of the Book of Abraham; Jay M. Todd, p. 256,257)
. . . . These are hieroglyphics, nobody can read them but myself. I can read all the writing and all the hieroglyphics . . . .
LDS.org and church scholars do not quote sources that ruin their whole argument -- LDS.org is not to be trusted. They are a terrible source for unbiased and accurate reporting. The church cannot provide evidence that Joseph Smith claimed he couldn't read Egyptian. It's just the opposite! The church simply sweeps the evidence under the rug in a cover up. The LDS religion is dishonest in their presentation.
We do know some things about the translation process. The word translation typically assumes an expert knowledge of multiple languages. Joseph Smith claimed no expertise in any language.
The Lord did not require Joseph Smith to have knowledge of Egyptian.
Philo Sofee wrote:Kerry Muhlestein (p. 46) “Interpreter, A Journal of Mormon Thought” (2016) Discussing the Book of Abraham facsimiles....
This particular issue has not yet received much scholarly attention.”
Joseph Smith's translations don't really deserve major scholarly attention.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
