Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

David Bokovoy

Facsimile 3

Recommended Posts

Were you this shocked when you found out the DSS contained astrology texts? Astronomy has always been associated with temple.

First, Astrology <> Astronomy.

Second, I can't remember any Astrology or Astronomy in the LDS temple. There are some very generic references to "the stars", and an acknowledgement that the stars, moon and sun were created by God (just as found in the scriptures), but there are no references to specific stars or constellations, nor the mechanics of how the stars, moon, sun and planets move. Just saying "God created the stars" isn't astronomy.

Also, I'm no anthropologist, but would I be mistaken in assuming that every ancient culture from the beginning of time probably noticed the stars at night, and spent some time thinking about them, and also wondered about the state of a person after they died?

So why would it considered a "hit" if it is discovered that two ancient civilizations discussed the stars in the heavens, and also had beliefs and rituals regarding the afterlife?

I

Share this post


Link to post
I personally believe that the facsimiles served as a catalyst for inspiration, so from this angle, Joseph clearly did not get anything

Share this post


Link to post

Hello MC,

So you agree with critics that (1) the actual author of the facsimiles didn't intend to portray Abraham, or any of the other figures JS incorrectly identifies, and (2) the interpretation by Egyptologists is completely different from JS's attempted interpretation?

I don

Share this post


Link to post
Were you this shocked when you found out the DSS contained astrology texts? Astronomy has always been associated with temple.

First, Astrology <> Astronomy.

It was not that way till Johanns Kepler ! (Century XVII)

Did you watch Cahpter III of the series Cosmos, by Carl Sagan?

Share this post


Link to post
Why do we have to invent this unfalsifiable ad hoc explanation that the facsimiles were simply a catalyst to spark JS's inspirational abilities?"

Why is the catalyst theory an unfalsifiable ad hoc explanation? Can we not prove that Joseph Smith received his revelations using catalysts?

Share this post


Link to post
What's to argue about then? I even agree that the facsimiles served as a catalyst for JS to come up with fantastic stories and interpretations. The only thing we disagree on is where those fantastic stories came from. You think they're inspired. I think they're from JS's imagination.

That's about what it comes down to. Are they made up stories are they historical facts revealed through revelation - that's the choice YOU get to decide. Isn't this fun? :P

The question believers should be asking is "why did it turn out this way? Why couldn't the facsimiles have been what JS said they were? Why do we have to invent this unfalsifiable ad hoc explanation that the facsimiles were simply a catalyst to spark JS's inspirational abilities?"

Well, the things of the Lord's kingdom hasn't always been so cut and dry and easy to interpret. You will admit it's been a bumpy ride for the children of men since the days of Adam till today.

Also, keep in mind that you can apply the catalyst theory to any incorrect translation or interpretation of anything.

I'm not going to do that - so who is the "you"? <_<

I can look at a bunch of Egyptian glyphs and make up some fabulous story about Ishnok the destroyer taking the form of a half-bird-half-snake to punish the unbelievers, and when someone who can actually understand Egyptian glyphs tells me I'm pulling this all out of my butt, I can always fall back on the ol' catalyst defense.

That would be interesting - we could all laugh at you and poke fun. You could even start your own church! Maybe someone will give you money for your preachings.

I'll get SOMETHING right, and all the apologists defending my "inspired interpretation" will triumphantly point out that although I got the name of Ishtok the destroyer wrong, I was exactly right that the figure I called Ishtok was known for destroying things.

That's only if you can enlist some apologists to do your evil bidding! Do you think you could start a great church wherein millions will join and bear their testimonies that the Holy Ghost fell upon the Mighty C?

And then when my critics give me a funny look for this whole charade, I'll say something like "looks like we've really thrown the critics off balance on this one."

I'm giving you a funny look right now. Let's just see what kind of revelation you can pull out of your hat. :unsure:

Paul O

Share this post


Link to post
Were you this shocked when you found out the DSS contained astrology texts? Astronomy has always been associated with temple.

First, Astrology <> Astronomy.

Second, I can't remember any Astrology or Astronomy in the LDS temple. There are some very generic references to "the stars", and an acknowledgement that the stars, moon and sun were created by God (just as found in the scriptures), but there are no references to specific stars or constellations, nor the mechanics of how the stars, moon, sun and planets move. Just saying "God created the stars" isn't astronomy.

Listen, Elf, I mean Yoda, the teachings of astronomy are had in the holy temple whether we hear them taught or not. There are spirits on the other side of the veil and they received the things pertaining to astronomy that we Latter-day Saints are still waiting to hear, as they relate to our Facsimile No. 2.

So, let's be clear that the spirits in the temple before the holy altars are given their lessons while we learn about the creation of the earth and how it receives its light. Therefore, YOU are wrong. Upon every altar in the holy temple are the words:

Fig. 1. Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh.

Fig. 2. Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham, as he offered sacrifice upon an altar, which he had built unto the Lord.

Fig. 3. Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head; representing also the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood, as revealed to Adam in the Garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and all to whom the Priesthood was revealed.

Fig. 4. Answers to the Hebrew word Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament of the heavens; also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand; answering to the measuring of the time of Oliblish, which is equal with Kolob in its revolution and in its measuring of time.

Fig. 5. Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.

Fig. 6. Represents this earth in its four quarters.

Fig. 7. Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.

Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.

Fig. 9. Ought not to be revealed at the present time.

Fig. 10. Also.

Fig. 11. Also. If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen.

Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 will be given in the own due time of the Lord.

The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.

Paul O

Share this post


Link to post

Paul, I just ran into this on on Beleifnet:

The sign of the Holy Ghost

id76_m45.jpgThe Holy Ghost embraces the Eye of Re in the face of God.

Your Egyptology has built up a following.

Share this post


Link to post
Your Egyptology has built up a following.

Yes, I know it has. Thank goodness I had the courage to speak out and present my ideas. I'm afraid that FARMS has pretty much locked up all the attention in their court in pushing their theories, but it's nice to know that Internet LDS people now have different choices in which to derive information.

I must say that I wouldn't have done this if I wasn't pretty sure I had an ace in the hole in my favor - hence, I'm right and they are wrong. I know that sounds prouder than ever, but oh well, what the heck. I'm going to smell like a rose after this whole thing is said and done - at least I think so. :P

Paul O

Share this post


Link to post
Hello Sinleqeunnini,

Your point is well taken, however, to be fair to Irene, she was not discussing the exact cylinder seal that I posted, but only a basic summary of the presentation theme. I haven

Share this post


Link to post
Why don't they start with Joseph Smith's explanation?  He certainly thought he knew what was going on in the vignettes...

This is the part that I'm not understanding either, Cinepro. Perhaps someone will offer insights?

Lady Sundancer

Share this post


Link to post

David Bokovoy:

Please keep us posted on the publication of your article. I

Share this post


Link to post
Hello MC,
So you agree with critics that (1) the actual author of the facsimiles didn't intend to portray Abraham, or any of the other figures JS incorrectly identifies, and (2) the interpretation by Egyptologists is completely different from JS's attempted interpretation?

I don

Share this post


Link to post

James,

I still, after such a long time of discussing it, do not have a good handle on the Book of Abraham...or maybe I do and am confused by somethings. If Joseph said his translations were one thing...and the Egyptologist said they were not...how different are the persons you mention who formed theories about the translations from the Egyptologists?

What I'm getting here is that Joseph said they were such and such a thing...and the apologists you mention are saying they are not what Joseph claimed?

Lady Sundancer

Share this post


Link to post

Let me try that again..it's very late.

JS translated the facsimlies as such and such

Egyptologist say it is not what he said

Some folks in the LDS church also say it is not what he said?

Lady Sundancer

Share this post


Link to post
The apologists in this thread may not be old enough to know that the current

Share this post


Link to post

Enemy Ace: Before one can challenge Joseph and his assertions it might be wise to ascertain the veracity of ancient prophets and their methodologies as well.

I am not understanding something here. LDS folks are challenging Joseph's assertions, are they not?

Then you say: If Joseph was wrong then many anciently prophetic techniques and prophets were equally wrong.

That isn't even a logical conclusion, Enemy Ace.

Lady Sundancer

Share this post


Link to post
Enemy Ace: Before one can challenge Joseph and his assertions it might be wise to ascertain the veracity of ancient prophets and their methodologies as well.

I am not understanding something here. LDS folks are challenging Joseph's assertions, are they not?

Then you say: If Joseph was wrong then many anciently prophetic techniques and prophets were equally wrong.

That isn't even a logical conclusion, Enemy Ace.

Lady Sundancer

Actually, I am stating just the opposite. If the ancients were wrong then Joseph was wrong. Are we prepared to state that they were wrong? I believe that the ancients were right and therefore, Joseph because of his special calling was equally right. His gift was not in linguistic translation but in a more profound and mystic translating ability. And no, I don't believe any LDS here are challenging JS's assertions of translations, rather we are trying to understand what he meant by translation. Was it an automatic rendering of character for character, word for word, or was it something a bit deeper in where he was spiritually and mystically moved by the impression of something so ancient that it moved him to convey the words of an ancient prophet through the assistance of guidance of God and the Holy Ghost?

Share this post


Link to post
James,

I still, after such a long time of discussing it, do not have a good handle on the Book of Abraham...or maybe I do and am confused by somethings. If Joseph said his translations were one thing...and the Egyptologist said they were not...how different are the persons you mention who formed theories about the translations from the Egyptologists?

What I'm getting here is that Joseph said they were such and such a thing...and the apologists you mention are saying they are not what Joseph claimed?

Lady Sundancer

Lady Sundancer

Good question. First, let me restate it to see if I understand what you

Share this post


Link to post
]

Why is it so difficult to believe JS actually might have used the method of spontaneous translation? If we follow the OT prophetic equation then it would be entirely appropriate for such a translation to occur.

There's no such thing as "spontaneous translation" which results in two completely different translations, there are no such examples in the OT, and nowhere does Smith claim his translations are "spontaneous translations." If he doesn't claim this, why should you?

In fact, when the papyri were rediscovered in 1967, the LDS Church made absolutely no claims at all about "spontaneous translations." For that matter, there is no scriptural support for this, nor are there any letters from the First Presidency, approved by the Council of the Twelve. As far as I can tell, "spontaneous translation" is just your personal name for the "Catalyst / Two Meanings" spin theory and this is just another apologist spin theory in a long line of spin theories to try to explain away the trainwreck of Smith's completely nonsensical translations and facsimile explanations.

Now, it is your right to make these claims, but they're not supported by Joseph Smith or even your own Church leadership.

James Clifford Miller

[email protected]

Share this post


Link to post
There's no such thing as "spontaneous translation" which results in two completely different translations, there are no such examples in the OT, and nowhere does Smith claim his translations are "spontaneous translations." If he doesn't claim this, why should you?

In fact, when the papyri were rediscovered in 1967, the LDS Church made absolutely no claims at all about "spontaneous translations." For that matter, there is no scriptural support for this, nor are there any letters from the First Presidency, approved by the Council of the Twelve. As far as I can tell, "spontaneous translation" is just your personal name for the "Catalyst / Two Meanings" spin theory and this is just another apologist spin theory in a long line of spin theories to try to explain away the trainwreck of Smith's completely nonsensical translations and facsimile explanations.

Now, it is your right to make these claims, but they're not supported by Joseph Smith or even your own Church leadership.

No? Then why not re-read my previous post of two examples set by Balaam, not a Israelite prophet, and Amos, who was.

I think that the pattern espoused in the catalytic or spontaneous prophet theory is totally correct. We too often think of prophets as unique in their upbringing and calling, but yet their activities and methodologies are every bit the same as that of the shaman. There are many examples within the scripture that attest to this.

In Balaam

Share this post


Link to post

James,

As one who has watched the Church and its apologist move from one spin theory to another, I have no doubt a new generation of LDS apologists will be forced to come up with new, novel explanations.

Congratulations! You have just described the cyclical nature of all scholarly labor. Scholars present a theory based upon the evidence they possess which through an endless cycle of peer review, is then reshaped and reformatted according to additional insights and discoveries. This is what we do as scholars; it happens every day in the field of biblical studies.

Having read your posts, I know why this process bothers you so much. Clearly, reshaping one

Share this post


Link to post

Additional points to ponder regarding these presentation scenes (I admit that I cannot afford to buy Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant and have therefore not yet read John Gee

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...