Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church Announces BofA To Be Removed From Canon


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I do not think that the Lectures ever represented LDS theology.  Even less so than racism ever represented LDS theology.  In neither case were they based on revelation, and both were opposed to the actual theology of Joseph Smith and biblical and restoration scripture.

Maybe you can explain how you determine what constitutes LDS theology and what doesn't.  I'm looking at theology from a historical perspective, and all that matters to me is what the members at the time believed.  Its pretty clear that Joseph Smith and the early Apostles and Prophets believed what is in the Lectures on Faith in the 1830s.  Like I said before, theology is evolutionary in nature, and I can point to a multitude of examples where the prominent beliefs of the community and its leaders have shifted significantly over time.  To me, that doesn't change the fact that those earlier ideas existed and represented the LDS theology of that time period.  Perhaps you're using a different standard to determine what LDS theology is orthodox according to your perspective?  

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Scholars judge publications based on their quality, not on some tendentious demand for peer-review.  However, I can't think of any of Gee's books or articles which are not peer-reviewed.  Perhaps you could cite one.

I'm speaking specifically of BoA apologetic theories from Gee and Muhlestein, and I'm saying they aren't peer reviewed by Egyptological scholars and I don't count Gee and Muhlestein peer reviewing each other's apologetics as peer review.  If any of their BoA apologetics have been published in an scholarly peer reviewed journals, can you please point me to that as I am willing to adjust my perspective if I am wrong on this point.  

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No, of course not.  I judge Hauglid's work by its quality.  I am not interested in emotions of the moment.

You would use the scholarship from someone who essentially disavows their earlier perspective?  You call that judgment based on quality, and I call that confirmation bias.  

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't know who wrote it, but it was obviously put together by a scholar(s) who understood the issues and the breadth of opinion which exists.

There were 3 authors. One who still believes in the missing scrolls and thinks the BofA is a translation of an ancient text, one who thinks the missing scrolls is silly and that it's a modern revelation, and one who leans more to the second but is sympathetic to the first.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I do not think that the Lectures ever represented LDS theology.  Even less so than racism ever represented LDS theology.  In neither case were they based on revelation, and both were opposed to the actual theology of Joseph Smith and biblical and restoration scripture.

Not sure when this was published, but there is new Topics essay on the Lectures, which I think is well done.

Some snippets:

Quote

These lectures represent perhaps the earliest attempt to formulate a systematic Latter-day Saint theology, informed by the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s early revelations.

Quote

All seven lectures were published together later that year in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, the lectures constituting the “doctrine,” and Joseph Smith’s revelations, the “covenants.”

Quote

The extent of Joseph Smith’s involvement in the production of the lectures, if any, is unknown. Nevertheless, the inclusion of the lectures in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835 strongly suggests that Joseph Smith approved of the content of the lectures.

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Not sure when this was published, but there is new Topics essay on the Lectures, which I think is well done................

I agree that Joseph Smith (and likely Oliver) approved of the addition of the Lectures to the 1835 D&C, but that does not grant them special status such that they rate permanent canonicity.  The new Essay probably ought to have considered also the following:

Reynolds, Noel B. “The Case for Sidney Rigdon as Author of the Lectures on Faith.” Journal of Mormon History 32 (Fall 2005): 1–41.

Reynolds, Noel B. “The Authorship Debate concerning Lectures on Faith: Exhumation and Reburial.” In The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, 355–382. Provo: FARMS, 2000.

Partridge, Elinore H. Characteristics of Joseph Smith’s Style and Notes on the Authorship of the Lectures on Faith. Task Papers in LDS History 14. Salt Lake City: History Division, Historical Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1976.

Phipps, Alan J. “The Lectures on Faith: An Authorship Study.” Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1977.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I agree that Joseph Smith (and likely Oliver) approved of the addition of the Lectures to the 1835 D&C, but that does not grant them special status such that they rate permanent canonicity.  The new Essay probably ought to have considered also the following:

Reynolds, Noel B. “The Case for Sidney Rigdon as Author of the Lectures on Faith.” Journal of Mormon History 32 (Fall 2005): 1–41.

Reynolds, Noel B. “The Authorship Debate concerning Lectures on Faith: Exhumation and Reburial.” In The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, 355–382. Provo: FARMS, 2000.

Partridge, Elinore H. Characteristics of Joseph Smith’s Style and Notes on the Authorship of the Lectures on Faith. Task Papers in LDS History 14. Salt Lake City: History Division, Historical Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1976.

Phipps, Alan J. “The Lectures on Faith: An Authorship Study.” Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1977.

The second note references both Reynolds's JMH article and Phipps's thesis. I haven't tread through this thread enough to understand your comment about permanent canonicity, but I think the use of the Lectures in the school and it's inclusion in the 1835 D&C as the doctrine half of its name is quite indicative of it reflecting Joseph's still-developing theology at the time.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Maybe you can explain how you determine what constitutes LDS theology and what doesn't.  I'm looking at theology from a historical perspective, and all that matters to me is what the members at the time believed.  Its pretty clear that Joseph Smith and the early Apostles and Prophets believed what is in the Lectures on Faith in the 1830s.  Like I said before, theology is evolutionary in nature, and I can point to a multitude of examples where the prominent beliefs of the community and its leaders have shifted significantly over time.  To me, that doesn't change the fact that those earlier ideas existed and represented the LDS theology of that time period.  Perhaps you're using a different standard to determine what LDS theology is orthodox according to your perspective?  

Personal judgments about which theology or philosophy is best is necessarily subjective.  The history of theology and philosophy, while complex, is not subject to such subjectivity.  It is a matter of fact which particular views were held by whom at some particular time.  One of the best ways to take account of the variety of theological POVs which have been held by various LDS people over time is by examining their writings and Scripture.  I have already made some recommendations for your reading list, but there are many more sources which you could consult, including especially Charles R. Harrell, "This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology (Kofford, 2011).  If you have read it, what did you think?

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm speaking specifically of BoA apologetic theories from Gee and Muhlestein, and I'm saying they aren't peer reviewed by Egyptological scholars and I don't count Gee and Muhlestein peer reviewing each other's apologetics as peer review.  If any of their BoA apologetics have been published in an scholarly peer reviewed journals, can you please point me to that as I am willing to adjust my perspective if I am wrong on this point. 

You make no sense here at all.  Scholarship is either accurate or not.  It is either of good quality.  Or it is not.  You are so prejudiced that it doesn't matter to you at all whether scholarship is of good quality.  You simply reject it out of hand because of your deep seated prejudices.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You would use the scholarship from someone who essentially disavows their earlier perspective?  You call that judgment based on quality, and I call that confirmation bias.  

You are saying that Hauglid no longer stands by his excellent work in his A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions (BYU/NAMI, 2010)?  Even though Hauglid has not disavowed it, you are saying that my respect and admiration for his fine work in that volume represents "confirmation bias."  You are utterly contemptuous of good quality scholarship if it doesn't support your apriori POV.  That is your confirmation bias, not mine.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, the narrator said:

The second note references both Reynolds's JMH article and Phipps's thesis. I haven't tread through this thread enough to understand your comment about permanent canonicity, but I think the use of the Lectures in the school and it's inclusion in the 1835 D&C as the doctrine half of its name is quite indicative of it reflecting Joseph's still-developing theology at the time.

I don't disagree.  As to canon, it has always been in flux, from biblical times till now.  There has never been an unvarying and fixed canon.

ETA:  I looked at the resources and bibliography at the close.  Didn't even  notice that the notes were hidden.  Thanks for the heads up.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Personal judgments about which theology or philosophy is best is necessarily subjective.  The history of theology and philosophy, while complex, is not subject to such subjectivity.  It is a matter of fact which particular views were held by whom at some particular time.  One of the best ways to take account of the variety of theological POVs which have been held by various LDS people over time is by examining their writings and Scripture.  I have already made some recommendations for your reading list, but there are many more sources which you could consult, including especially Charles R. Harrell, "This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology (Kofford, 2011).  If you have read it, what did you think?

I have read Harrell's book and I like it very much.  Is there something about Harrell's book that would support your points about the Lectures on Faith not being representative of LDS theology historically speaking.  I find your other comments to "the narrator" confusing as well on this topic as it seems like you're trying to say that you agree with the link he shared from the church's web site that says the Lectures on Faith "represent perhaps the earliest attempt to formulate a systematic Latter-day Saint theology", but you  also seem to still be defending your earlier comments to me that "I do not think that the Lectures ever represented LDS theology."   Which is correct?  Did they represent LDS theology at the time they were created in 1835 or not as you seem to be arguing?  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:
Quote

I'm speaking specifically of BoA apologetic theories from Gee and Muhlestein, and I'm saying they aren't peer reviewed by Egyptological scholars and I don't count Gee and Muhlestein peer reviewing each other's apologetics as peer review.  If any of their BoA apologetics have been published in an scholarly peer reviewed journals, can you please point me to that as I am willing to adjust my perspective if I am wrong on this point. 

You make no sense here at all.  Scholarship is either accurate or not.  It is either of good quality.  Or it is not.  You are so prejudiced that it doesn't matter to you at all whether scholarship is of good quality.  You simply reject it out of hand because of your deep seated prejudices.

I'm asking if the apologetic scholarship of Gee and Muhlestein has been subject to publication and peer reviewed critique.  Are you suggesting that we should accept everything that a scholar produces just because some of their other works have been reviewed and passed muster?  It absolutely matters what the quality of the scholarship is like.  I completely agree, the strength of the evidence is what I am committed to follow.  I am only questioning their apologetic BoA arguments, not the entirety of their work.  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are saying that Hauglid no longer stands by his excellent work in his A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions (BYU/NAMI, 2010)?  Even though Hauglid has not disavowed it, you are saying that my respect and admiration for his fine work in that volume represents "confirmation bias."  You are utterly contemptuous of good quality scholarship if it doesn't support your apriori POV.  That is your confirmation bias, not mine.

I thought you had already read his somewhat infamous quote, from other threads on this message board.  Here it is again, along with a blog post that has some other comments and thoughts on the topic.  

https://proveallthingsholdfasttogood.wordpress.com/book-of-abraham-apologist-brian-hauglids-transformative-journey/

Quote

Brian Hauglid: For the record, I no longer hold the views that have been quoted from my 2010 book in these videos. I have moved on from my days as an “outrageous” apologist. In fact, I’m no longer interested or involved in apologetics in any way. I wholeheartedly agree with Dan‘s excellent assessment of the Abraham/Egyptian documents in these videos. I now reject a missing Abraham manuscript. I agree that two of the Abraham manuscripts were simultaneously dictated. I agree that the Egyptian papers were used to produce the BoA. I agree that only Abr. 1:1-2:18 were produced in 1835 and that Abr. 2:19-5:21 were produced in Nauvoo. And on and on. I no longer agree with Gee or Mulhestein. I find their apologetic “scholarship” on the BoA abhorrent. One can find that I’ve changed my mind in my recent and forthcoming publications. The most recent JSP Revelations and Translation vol. 4, The Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts (now on the shelves) is much more open to Dan’s thinking on the origin of the Book of Abraham. My friend Brent Metcalfe can attest to my transformative journey.

It sounds like Hauglid's revised perspectives will become more clear as forthcoming publications arrive.  But until then, it sounds like the paradigm shift he's had in recent years undercuts some of his positions published in 2010.  

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Joseph's interpretations of the illustrations are so often correct that one can only conclude, based on Egyptological scholarship, that Joseph's translation of the BofA text is also correct, as I point out using standard Egyptology in my “Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 10 online Mar 21, 2019, online at https://www.scribd.com/document/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

His interpretation of the facsimiles is just as off as the text. Research the fertility god Min, who Joseph Smith said was God sitting upon his throne. Min was always shown to have an erect penis, which is clearly visible in the facsimile. That's just one of the embarrassing errors in his translation.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, 10THAmendment said:

His interpretation of the facsimiles is just as off as the text. Research the fertility god Min, who Joseph Smith said was God sitting upon his throne. Min was always shown to have an erect penis, which is clearly visible in the facsimile. That's just one of the embarrassing errors in his translation.

Its almost like Joseph didn't know anything about Egyptian....  :lol:

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Joseph's interpretations of the illustrations are so often correct that one can only conclude, based on Egyptological scholarship, that Joseph's translation of the BofA text is also correct, as I point out using standard Egyptology in my “Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 10 online Mar 21, 2019, online at https://www.scribd.com/document/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

Well....no.

I admit we don't know exactly where Joseph Smith was translating from when it comes to the text, but we do have his translation of the symbols in the manuscripts. His translation of hieroglyphics on the manuscripts could not be more false. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

His interpretation of the facsimiles is just as off as the text. Research the fertility god Min, who Joseph Smith said was God sitting upon his throne. Min was always shown to have an erect penis, which is clearly visible in the facsimile. That's just one of the embarrassing errors in his translation.

So ... your position is there is nothing of fatherhood in the G-d of Jacob?

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct.  Joseph Smith could not read Egyptian.  He needed some sort of help to do so.

Correct again.  Except for the Egyptian illustations, the papyri we currently have do not contain the BofA text.  However, that is not a controversial claim.  The debate is over whether there was a papyrus in Joseph's possession in Kirtland, Ohio, which contained the BofA text, and which he translated by some revelatory means.

Joseph's interpretations of the illustrations are so often correct that one can only conclude, based on Egyptological scholarship, that Joseph's translation of the BofA text is also correct, as I point out using standard Egyptology in my “Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 10 online Mar 21, 2019, online at https://www.scribd.com/document/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

Thanks, gotta check it out!

Link to comment
8 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

Well....no.

I admit we don't know exactly where Joseph Smith was translating from when it comes to the text, but we do have his translation of the symbols in the manuscripts. His translation of hieroglyphics on the manuscripts could not be more false. 

That is a theory which is held by quite a few people, including some on this board.  However, I don't see any reason to credit that theory as valid.  It assumes what has to be proved.

It is a myth that any of the KEP constitute an effort to translate or prepare a translation key to the Book of Abraham.*  The available documents were all part of an attempt to create a “cipher-key” for encipherment-by-substitution of portions of Joseph Smith’s revelations then being prepared for publication as the 1835 D&C.**  William W. Phelps began this cipher-key work before the arrival of the Egyptian papyri and mummies in Kirtland, and he was the dominant force in continuing that effort – which utilized an already extant, complete Book of Abraham text along with significant portions of already extant revelations (D&C 76 and 88).#  The text was written first, and then symbols were inserted in the margins, not the other way around.

*  J. Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 13-42,177.  
**  Cf. David J. Whittaker, “Substituted Names in the Published Revelations of Joseph Smith,” BYU Studies 23/1 (Winter 1983):103-112; Samuel Brown, “Joseph (Smith) in Egypt: Babel, Hieroglyphs, and the Pure Language of Eden,” Church History, 78/1 (Mar 2009):26-65; Christopher C. Smith misses the point in his “The Inspired Fictionalization of the 1835 United Firm Revelations,” Claremont Journal of Mormon Studies, 1/1 (Apr 2011):15-31.
#  Cf. May 27, 1835 letter of Phelps to his wife (before the arrival of the papyri in Kirtland).

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The available documents were all part of an attempt to create a “cipher-key” for encipherment-by-substitution of portions of Joseph Smith’s revelations then being prepared for publication as the 1835 D&C

If the KEP was a "cipher-key" why would they consider publishing it? Or why would it be something Joseph thought useful to translate a portion of the Kinderhook plates?

Edited by CA Steve
Link to comment
21 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

His interpretation of the facsimiles is just as off as the text. Research the fertility god Min, who Joseph Smith said was God sitting upon his throne. Min was always shown to have an erect penis, which is clearly visible in the facsimile. That's just one of the embarrassing errors in his translation.

Are you saying that the erect penis is an embarrassing error in his translation?  That doesn't make much sense.  Perhaps you could clarify.

Fac 2:7 is partly explained by Joseph as "God sitting upon his throne."  An ithyphallic falcon-wing-backed god is indeed seated up his throne, holding a flail over his right shoulder.

Egyptology says that this god was Min, god of vegetation and procreation, primarily at Coptos and Akhmim-Panopolis (both nome capitals), but also at Thebes and Hermonthis.  He was Lord of the Eastern Desert (esp. Wadi Hammamat), god of the hill countries (Sinuhe, B, 209), and ruler of Bowmen (‘Iwntyw, the people of the south-eastern deserts and Nubia).  Min was a fully developed sky and fertility-god already in ancient times.  His double or multiple arrow-thunderbolt was known already in the pre-Dynastic Gerzean period, and he was also known as the god of emmer-wheat (bdt).  He was present at the ancient hoeing ceremony, as well as at the reaping or harvest festival in which wheat was laid before the Bull of the Sky sacred to him.  He carried his flail in his right hand.

However, Min was merely a form of the supreme Egyptian god Amun (in Hebrew as ‘Amon in II Kings 21:18-26, Jeremiah 46:25, Proverbs 8:30, Nahum 3:8, Isaiah 65:15-16), Min-Amun,* who was especially prominent in the Sed-festival, or simply regarded as a form of Amun-Ra (representing the generative or productive power in nature, same as in Fac 2:3).  Horus the Falcon was also often identified with Min – especially during the Middle Kingdom, i.e., during the Abrahamic period (Sinuhe, B, 209).  In a Hymn to Min, for example (Louvre C 30, obverse), Min is called “Arm-raising Horus,” “Tall-plumed son of Osiris,” “Horus strong-armed,” “Sovereign of all the gods!”  There is little difficulty in judging Joseph correct on that account alone.  But what about his embarrassing ithyphallic nature?  Jews in late antiquity are known to have used phallic emphasis in some representations of their God, YHWH.**  The Jews also depicted YHWH as the Sun-god Helios (synagogue floor, below).

*  P. Montet, Lives of the Pharaohs, 50; Min was earlier described as supreme in some contexts, e.g., as head of the Ennead in Pyramid Text 1928; cf. 255-256.

**  J. Campbell, The Masks of God, III: Occidental Mythology, 273-276.

the-sun-god-in-the-synagogue-1-150x164.jpg

In other words, Joseph's explanations were right on target and in line with Jewish understanding in late antiquity.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

If the KEP was a "cipher-key" why would they consider publishing it? Or why would it be something Joseph thought useful to translate a portion of the Kinderhook plates?

Nibley and some others have thought that maybe Joseph and  his colleagues were naively attempting to back-engineer a key to Egyptian based on his translation.  The technique failed and was not published.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I have read Harrell's book and I like it very much.  Is there something about Harrell's book that would support your points about the Lectures on Faith not being representative of LDS theology historically speaking.  I find your other comments to "the narrator" confusing as well on this topic as it seems like you're trying to say that you agree with the link he shared from the church's web site that says the Lectures on Faith "represent perhaps the earliest attempt to formulate a systematic Latter-day Saint theology", but you  also seem to still be defending your earlier comments to me that "I do not think that the Lectures ever represented LDS theology."   Which is correct?  Did they represent LDS theology at the time they were created in 1835 or not as you seem to be arguing? 

I have no quarrel with that Essay, nor with the notion that some people have that the LOF represented LDS theology at that time.  Some people do feel that way.  I do not.  LOF represents the theological understanding of Sidney Rigdon, who was trained in Protestant theology before he became LDS. I do not believe that everyone has to agree with me, or see things my way.  Unlike you, I accept a variety of POVs.

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm asking if the apologetic scholarship of Gee and Muhlestein has been subject to publication and peer reviewed critique.  Are you suggesting that we should accept everything that a scholar produces just because some of their other works have been reviewed and passed muster?  It absolutely matters what the quality of the scholarship is like.  I completely agree, the strength of the evidence is what I am committed to follow.  I am only questioning their apologetic BoA arguments, not the entirety of their work. 

You seem unable to separate logic and reason from apologetics, and you do not accept good quality scholarship unless it agrees with your apriori views.  That can't be good.

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I thought you had already read his somewhat infamous quote, from other threads on this message board.  Here it is again, along with a blog post that has some other comments and thoughts on the topic.  

https://proveallthingsholdfasttogood.wordpress.com/book-of-abraham-apologist-brian-hauglids-transformative-journey/

It sounds like Hauglid's revised perspectives will become more clear as forthcoming publications arrive.  But until then, it sounds like the paradigm shift he's had in recent years undercuts some of his positions published in 2010.  

I haven't seen any apologetic comments in his 2010 book (which I cited), so am not sure what he is disavowing in it.  The scholarship seems straightforward to me, and it is the same work he has been doing in the Joseph Smith Papers Project.  Perhaps Hauglid has been overcome by emotion.  Difficult to know why.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm asking if the apologetic scholarship of Gee and Muhlestein has been subject to publication and peer reviewed critique. 

That is the problem with your whole point of view!

For apologetic scholarship to be "peer reviewed" the peers would have to be apologists and the question would be how well the apologetic position was defended!

What you are suggesting is analogous to looking through a telescope to find God and then concluding He does not exist because he cannot be found through "peer-reviewed" astronomy.

That kind of puts you in the role of Cardinal Bellarmine defending the "science" of his day, and with peer review concluding that the sun must obviously orbit the center of the universe, the earth.

That WAS the "scholarship" of the day.  

And the irony was that it was Galileo who correctly understood the bigger picture- and the error being made perfectly when he said "Scripture is about how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go!"

We still have not learned Galileo's simple point, apparently.   Heck it has only been 400 years.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Are you saying that the erect penis is an embarrassing error in his translation?  That doesn't make much sense.  Perhaps you could clarify.

Fac 2:7 is partly explained by Joseph as "God sitting upon his throne."  An ithyphallic falcon-wing-backed god is indeed seated up his throne, holding a flail over his right shoulder.

Egyptology says that this god was Min, god of vegetation and procreation, primarily at Coptos and Akhmim-Panopolis (both nome capitals), but also at Thebes and Hermonthis.  He was Lord of the Eastern Desert (esp. Wadi Hammamat), god the hill countries (Sinuhe, B, 209), and ruler of Bowmen (‘Iwntyw, the people of the south-eastern deserts and Nubia).  Min was a fully developed sky and fertility-god already in ancient times.  His double or multiple arrow-thunderbolt was known already in the pre-Dynastic Gerzean period, and he was also known as the god of emmer-wheat (bdt).  He was present at the ancient hoeing ceremony, as well as at the reaping or harvest festival in which wheat was laid before the Bull of the Sky sacred to him.  He carried his flail in his right hand.

However, Min was merely a form of the supreme Egyptian god Amun (in Hebrew as ‘Amon in II Kings 21:18-26, Jeremiah 46:25, Proverbs 8:30, Nahum 3:8, Isaiah 65:15-16), Min-Amun,* who was especially prominent in the Sed-festival, or simply regarded as a form of Amun-Ra (representing the generative or productive power in nature, same as in Fac 2:3).  Horus the Falcon was also often identified with Min – especially during the Middle Kingdom, i.e., during the Abrahamic period (Sinuhe, B, 209).  In a Hymn to Min, for example (Louvre C 30, obverse), Min is called “Arm-raising Horus,” “Tall-plumed son of Osiris,” “Horus strong-armed,” “Sovereign of all the gods!”  There is little difficulty in judging Joseph correct on that account alone.  But what about his embarrassing ithyphallic nature?  Jews in late antiquity are known to have used phallic emphasis in some representations of their God, YHWH.**  The Jews also depicted YHWH as the Sun-god Helios (synagogue floor, below).

*  P. Montet, Lives of the Pharaohs, 50; Min was earlier described as supreme in some contexts, e.g., as head of the Ennead in Pyramid Text 1928; cf. 255-256.

**  J. Campbell, The Masks of God, III: Occidental Mythology, 273-276.

the-sun-god-in-the-synagogue-1-150x164.jpg

In other words, Joseph's explanations were right on target and in line with Jewish understanding in late antiquity.

Or seeing the figure from a purely naive point of view in a catalyst theory context,  the figure can be seen as performing a temple gesture including both a compass and square in his uplifted left "arm" and his right "arm" extended in front of him, forming a square with his unseen elbow and with a verbal inscription explaining the gesture in that context.

In my knowledge of human anatomy which is limited, penises do not come out of the center of the belly.  ;)

http://www.scottwoodward.org/scripture/PGP_Abraham_facsimile2_interpretation.html

Figure 7c

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

In my knowledge of human anatomy which is limited, penises do not come out of the center of the belly

Nor are they as long as depicted in some Egyptian art, so I wouldn't assume that inaccuracy invalidates the interpretation.

There are plenty of Egyptian artworks from a quick googling that have seated figures with obvious hands in that exact location, often holding something, often shown with the arm coming down across the body and with the second arm at times, so if position was the only reason, I think there would be a good argument that it might be an arm.

What I note though is that all the other arms in the facsimile (save the one at the top that is in more detail overall), including the uplifted one on the relevant body, are drawn as single lines, like stick men.  Whatever is coming out of the stomach area is not drawn in the same fashion and therefore is likely something different.  I am guessing a phallus is seen as likely given all the Egyptian phallus figures I saw on google (standing unfortunately, so not exact comparison) had the phallus at a right angle to the upright body, so I assume there is something significant associated with that.  A quick scan of Greek phallus figures shows them more diagonal, so the right angle seems intentional to me and why it would have to be placed higher than natural to be seen on a seated figure.

Pure guesswork, I have not followed the conversation elsewhere to see if my note is noteworthy and since google provides limited images, tends to repeat the same ones, there is no way I even managed to get a hint of an 'average' of representations.

edit:  otoh, in figure three above the lower arm appears to be drawn with two lines, rather than one, but it is still rather smooth/freeform as opposed to the more precise nature of figure 7, perhaps the extra line in fig. 3 is something being held.

-----

The color image was done by J Tobler.  Who is he and why would we assume his interpretation is accurate?  Michael Rhodes, who is an authority on this, describes it as "A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk's tail" which seems to be ignored by Brother Woodward by choosing Brother Tobler's version, though he states "The color images provided below, while not always accurate, may help in visualizing each figure".

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Can't add this to the above:

add edit:  Tobler puts what looks like modern garments on one of the female gods who is most likely naked or possibly wearing something down to the ankle given the line there.  Looking back now I noticed that, he is putting all the human figures into modern garment (short or cap sleeves and knee length) with a green apron, which is nothing like I have seen in Egyptian art (not that I have studied it deeply, but have been casually perusing it due to getting into mythology since elementary school) and as far as I can tell that clothing choice  is purely a figment of Brother Tobler's imagination.

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Nor are they as long as depicted in some Egyptian art, so I wouldn't assume that inaccuracy invalidates the interpretation.

There are plenty of Egyptian artworks from a quick googling that have seated figures with obvious hands in that exact location, often holding something, often shown with the arm coming down across the body and with the second arm at times, so if position was the only reason, I think there would be a good argument that it might be an arm.

What I note though is that all the other arms in the facsimile (save the one at the top that is in more detail overall), including the uplifted one on the relevant body, are drawn as single lines, like stick men.  Whatever is coming out of the stomach area is not drawn in the same fashion and therefore is likely something different.  I am guessing a phallus is seen as likely given all the Egyptian phallus figures I saw on google (standing unfortunately, so not exact comparison) had the phallus at a right angle to the upright body, so I assume there is something significant associated with that.  A quick scan of Greek phallus figures shows them more diagonal, so the right angle seems intentional to me and why it would have to be placed higher than natural to be seen on a seated figure.

Pure guesswork, I have not followed the conversation elsewhere to see if my note is noteworthy and since google provides limited images, tends to repeat the same ones, there is no way I even managed to get a hint of an 'average' of representations.

edit:  otoh, in figure three above the lower arm appears to be drawn with two lines, rather than one, but it is still rather smooth/freeform as opposed to the more precise nature of figure 7, perhaps the extra line in fig. 3 is something being held.

-----

The color image was done by J Tobler.  Who is he and why would we assume his interpretation is accurate?  Michael Rhodes, who is an authority on this, describes it as "A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk's tail" which seems to be ignored by Brother Woodward by choosing Brother Tobler's version, though he states "The color images provided below, while not always accurate, may help in visualizing each figure".

"Accuracy" is irrelevant here, since I am not sure what it would mean is such a context , in assuming to interpret the figures at "face value" as someone who knows NOTHING about Egyptology, a frontier American, unschooled and uneducated person in the early 19th century might see them.

Again I am quoting this in support of a catalyst theory position, assuming that Joseph was the above-described observer, who use this exact image to create at least one of the signs used in the temple. 

There are many reasons to wonder about this particular sign and its particular use in our temples. 

Of course we can't go into it in this venue, but have you ever thought about the incongruity of this sign having anything to do with the Aaronic priesthood in the way that it is used in the temple? Why is it used as it is, when it is used? 

And it is used at an important point in the temple ceremony which certainly has nothing to do with the Aaronic priesthood. I have asked several Temple presidents why that sign is used at that point and none of them could answer.

We discuss the issue as temple workers and no one has an answer. Many are doctors lawyers and professors very familiar with the issues in this thread, who can only discuss these things freely in the Temple and still no one has an answer

When I first looked at facsimile two, this was the immediate association I made between the figure on the facsimile and it's apparent use in the temple. It seemed clear to me that the image on the facsimile was a representation of the temple sign, and of course as such it had nothing to do with a phallus.

Later I found a similar better illustration of my concept in Scott Woodward's website and that is where the illustration came from.

I simply use that illustration to allow others to see the facsimile image the way I first saw it. I know nothing more about the illustration than what appears on the Woodward site.

But I am very confident that no one like the person I described in the first paragraph would possibly have seen that object as a phallus.

On the other hand I think that he would have seen it precisely as Joseph noted as the meaning of that image.

For me this is all strong evidence for the catalyst theory.

Joseph was simply a naive observer making interpretations as inspired to tie all the theology together, well thinking he was translating a book by the power of God.

And my personal opinion is that is exactly what he did and what it is.

This is the sort of question that is commonly found in philosophical theories about aesthetics. For me the stick arms are drawn that way precisely to show them to be a compass and a square instead of a hand and arm. The arm and the hand ARE the compass and square. That is what is being portrayed.

The other arm must be drawn differently because it is difficult to portray curled fingers on a stick arm, there must be some thickness to the arm/hand to illustrate even a semblance of fingers.

How important is the artist's intention in interpreting the image?

Once made public an image becomes part of the culture and takes on a life of its own, as each of us incorporates it into our perception of the cultural world in which we live.

I mean what did you think of an image of can of soup in the metropolitan museum? How relevant was the artist intention to putting that image in that context?

I see the interpretation of the facsimiles in the same way. Everyone has their own idea, but none of them seem to be anything close to "accurate", to the point where one might even question what that word means in this context.

These kinds of issues seem to be almost invented precisely to cause discussion about the very nature of art and religion itself. And that is really how I see the discussion.

It is a catalyst itself for contemplating such issues. It is a created teaching moment.

Around and around it goes where it stops no one knows.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Or seeing the figure from a purely naive point of view in a catalyst theory context,  the figure can be seen as performing a temple gesture including both a compass and square in his uplifted left "arm" and his right "arm" extended in front of him, forming a square with his unseen elbow and with a verbal inscription explaining the gesture in that context.

In my knowledge of human anatomy which is limited, penises do not come out of the center of the belly.  ;)

http://www.scottwoodward.org/scripture/PGP_Abraham_facsimile2_interpretation.html

Figure 7c

Good point, Mark.  Hadn't noticed it before.  I was to busy looking at it from an Egyptological POV.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...