Jump to content

OGHoosier

Members
  • Content Count

    505
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OGHoosier

  1. This thread strays awfully close to politics, but nevertheless I'll jump in. I decline your challenge because I agree. The Book of Mormon does not support "unregulated capitalism" as you put it (though I would also scoff at the idea that "unfettered capitalism" exists anywhere in the world in our days). Indeed, the scriptures seem to endorse an all-things-in-common model, though only when conducted under the auspices of the Holy Priesthood. In context, however, 50 years ago when all those talks were being given, the face of socialism was its most successful spin-off, Marxism-Leninis
  2. Again, not sure I understand. The traditional options are as follows: 1) Given that Egyptian vignette drawings don't always have to stick by the text that references them, the facsimiles could have been drawn to accompany the Book of Abraham text elsewhere on the papyri. This is the missing-papyrus or missing-scroll theory. 2) Joseph never had a Book of Abraham papyrus in his hands, he translated it like the papyrus of John from D&C 7. The facsimiles from the Joseph Smith Papyri were representative of/similar to/perhaps derived from the vignettes on the Book of Abraham original t
  3. I'm on board with this. Case in point: my family and I visited Florence, Italy, last year, and my dad and I took a tour of the Palazzo Vecchio, kind of the capital building of Renaissance Florence. They have a statue of David holding the severed head of Goliath outside. The tour guide told us that the meaning of the statue, as described by the city's commentators, changed every time the city changed hands. Florence went back and forth between republican rule and the Medicis, so when the Medicis were in power the statue was said to symbolize the Medicis triumphing against the maddened rep
  4. I don't think I understand the question. Nobody has said that the Book of the Dead is the Book of Abraham. All Egyptologists, in the Church and out of it, are in agreement on that. The argument as I understand it is: did the Book of Abraham text come from another part of the papyri? Or did Joseph just receive it by revelation, independent of the papyri connection? How do the facsimiles fit in? Were they simply repurposed for Joseph's translation or were they connected with the Book of Abraham urtext? Nobody that I know of is denying that Facsimile 1, say, is surrounded by the
  5. Seems legit. Real helpful, I know. And like we've been talking about in the Ritner thread, symbols have meaning in the eye of the beholder. But this seems like a valid interpretation.
  6. The stench of a decomposing thread, long dead. I don't find it that offensive actually. Good thoughts to be had.
  7. To some, it is acceptable. My hangup with the historicity is that Joseph said he talked with these people as angels. I believe that Joseph wasn't lying; perhaps God sent angels named Moroni and etc. to give him instructions and they were responsible for helping with the creation? It's a possibility, I suppose, though I do not personally adhere to it. That being said, I can't speak for what God is capable of doing/not doing, so I don't usually place limits on Him in my personal evaluations. I suppose that's a built-in bug/feature in me: I don't assume that I know what God would consider to be r
  8. Well, what was the point of the papyri in the first place? What is the point of any symbol? Does any symbol represent reality in anything stronger than an arbitrary sense? Who gets to define the meaning of a symbol? These are questions that bear on how we interpret the case of the Joseph Smith papyri. What was the point of the papyri? Symbolic instructions regarding return to the presence of Deity within the Egyptian religious system. Is the only acceptable "translation" a direct rendering of what the Egyptians thought? Why do they deserve to have a monopoly on meaning? The ancients did
  9. Mine could be wrong too. If I recall correctly, his discussion of Book of Mormon bricolage in The Pearl of Greatest Price was primarily about Nephi's use of Isaiah, which represents a form of bricolage. I don't recall him talking about Joseph Smith using it. He had some remarks on bricolage, so I'm told, in the New Perspectives on Translation conference at FaithMatters. I have yet to fully watch it, so I could be wrong.
  10. If I have Terryl correctly, he thinks that Joseph used bricolage on the facsimiles and for the Book of Abraham in general. It doesn't necessarily extend to all Restoration scripture.
  11. Are you precisely sure that's how they'd frame it? Also known as scholastic humility.
  12. Except that he's like the only person I know of that has a problem with Rhodes' translation. Rhodes' translation of the papyri is otherwise highly regarded. It looks like he's seeing shadows whenever he even vaguely glances in the direction of a Mormon, which doesn't bode well for his commentary.
  13. Wishes are for horses and "thought of" ultimately equates to "didn't." This doesn't do anything to lessen the impression that Ritner is an excellent Egyptologist with an anti-Mormon chip in his shoulder so big that Khufu modeled his Pyramid on it.
  14. I'm watching Mark Ashhurst-McGee's speech at FairMormon right now and it demonstrates pretty aptly why Dehlin's reservoir of credibility has been pretty exhausted. I highly recommend it.
  15. It appears to already have numbers on it, and also the priest is standing on the other side of the lion couch as opposed to in-between the kion couch and the legs of Abraham. We're probably looking at a print of the Hedlock reconstruction.
  16. I'd give you rep points if I could, but I can't, so this will have to do.
  17. May I offer a friendly critique about the parallels from the second conspiracy? 1. "The second conspiracy was carried out by people associated with the first." This is true. I would say the central character of Helaman 1-2 is neither Gadianton nor Helaman III, who only appear in the second chapter. Nor is it any of the sons of Pahoran or the Lamanites. Rather, I'd say it's Kishkumen the assassin, the bridge between the events. Gadianton only comes on the scene in time for the second conspiracy, as is made clear by Helaman 2:4. It's a bit of a complication to the parallel but not too big.
  18. The charity floweth from your judgement as milk and honey in Eden.
  19. I can't speak about Ritner's case. All I can say is, tough. Clearly it hasn't imperiled his work. As for Baer's observation, I don't think it's particularly incriminating. Correct me if I"m wrong, but that just means that the lacunae were already missing when the papyri were glued to the backing. That's not really incriminating. They could have flaked off in the intervening period between their transfer from Chandler to Smith and their backing on paper. In fact, it makes sense, as the deterioration of the papyri would provide an excellent motivation for putting them on backing paper.
  20. Is that a reconstruction of JSP Facsimile 1 or a separate instance put forward by Ritner?
  21. This is essentially untrue. It is Dehlin who asks the questions and curates the discussion. He decides the table rules and what makes it on air. That's like saying that a debate has zilch to do with the moderator. I also love the appeal to authority inherent in your "actual expert in the room" shtick. Nibley didn't have a degree in Egyptology but to say he was uninformed is laughable. If an accredited degree is the only thing that can confer upon one the dignity of "expert", then you've just turned it into a pay-to-play scheme undeserving of particular respect. Dan Vogel only has a B.A.
  22. Depends on the jury. Isn't the point of having a jury that people look at things in different ways, can see the same things and come to different conclusions? That's why there's 12 of them, not just 1. There's a whole phase of a trial process called jury selection, where the lawyers filter the jurors prior to empanelation to ensure that the jury will be more likely to hear their case fairly/favorably. You, as a juror, might side with the prosecution. Others, like Kevin Christensen, might see things differently. Now, as to what Bro. Christensen said: the fact that you think there's nothin
  23. If so, these are going to be some crazy years coming up. Then again, we're pretty sure they will be anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...