Facsimile 3

[Dale]

I agree their's much apocryphal evidence for the main text.

And even with his facimilies Kerry Shirts has demonstrated Joseph had a lot of Egyptology that supports aspects what he said. To me if this was a fraud writing no Egyptology should support an one thing he said.

[e=mc2]

Miller:

Thank you for the admission.

Kerry:

Sure, but I also acknowledged and demonstrated that it doesn't have to be part of the explicit explanation, as it was the background which was taken for granted. The throne theophany and divinization of Enoch into the "Little YHWH" is not in the scriptures either, but that doesn't mean he wasn't divinized into a God. He clearly was so. It is the unsaid and unwritten knowledge, not the written knowledge that we know a lot of these ideas..........

[e=mc2]

Osteotome:

On a side note of JS translation of the Bible it's interesting in his account of Enoch as found in Moses 6-7, he mentions the names Mahija and Mahujah. Early Critics assumed these to be renditions of Mehujael Enoch's grandson as noted in Genesis 4:18; Again From Nibley's Abraham in Egypt we find that Mahujah is a central figure in the oldest Book of Enoch that has been found (Qumran cave 1 1976).

The name Mahujah is only found again in this oldest Book of Enoch and in Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible aka Moses 6, 7.

Kerry:

Hey! I gave this as part of my Priesthood lesson today, and they rather liked it immensely! They were quite thrilled at the ideas from the J.S. Book of Enoch in the Moses revelation..............kinda fun that!

[DonBradley]

Can you prove that figure one does not represent

[Confidential Informant]

Can you prove that figure one does not represent “Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne”?

Can you prove that the scene does not represent Abraham “reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court."

David,

Can you prove these items do not, respectively, represent Hela sitting upon the throne of Venus, expounding the principles of fileting fish? Does your inability to disprove this lend any credence to the idea that they do, in fact, represent those things? It is difficult to imagine a weaker argument than that from the absence of disproof, especially where multiple, hidden meanings are being invoked.

Don

But as Kevin Barney has recently showed, it was not uncommon for ancient to Jews to take Egyptian ideas and imagery and conform them to Jewish ideas and teachings.

C.I.

[Dale]

The only difficulty is we can't prove that an ancient Egyptian did that in this case rather than Joseph Smith doing it. At this point we cannot prove the presence of a literal record of Abraham on the missing papyrus, and definitely not on the found papyrus under dispute. Still it's possible for Joseph Smith under inspiration to do what C.I. said because Jesus was a Jew & would not necessarily object.

[James Clifford Miller]

Good ole Brother Miller asketh:

Where in the explanation of Facsimile does it say that "King Pharaoh" made Abraham either a king or a god? Your quotes seem to discuss making someone a king or a god. There's nothing at all like that in the explanation in the PoGP.

Kerry:

It's not in the explanation, it's in the ancient theology of the Jews with Enoch, Ezekiel, etc. as well as the Book of Revelation. It is the knowledge of the ancient Egyptians, that to be on the king's throne IS to be DIVINE.

You apologists keep claiming, "Smith was spot on with his portrayal in Facsimile 3" but when it comes right down to it, Smith said nothing of Osiris or Maat or a de-snouted Anubis (despite the labels right over their heads) and he couldn't even get the genders right on the figures, something Nibley said was so easy even a three-year old could do it [1]. All of your claims about ancient theology of the Jews with Enoch, Ezekiel, and the ancient Egyptions? None of that came from Smith. It all came from Nibley and his fellow apologists. How come you accept Nibley's and the other apologists' stuff over what Smith said? I'd think Smith would carry more weight.

James Clifford Miller

millerjames@cox.net

footnote

[1] http://www.boap.org/LDS/Hugh-Nibley/TrFac.html You have to move your cursor clear to the bottom to read this.

[James Clifford Miller]

I'm sorry if this has already been covered but how do the BOA critics brush aside the text of the BOA??  I'm sorry but I don't have all my references here but I remember how Nibley compared the text of Joseph Smith's BOA with other found texts of BOA and they were very similar??  The reference was Nibley's Abraham in Egypt.

There are no "other found texts of BoA" except for the ones Smith wrote. If you think there are, please document them.

What Nibley does is to draw parallels between what he perceives as general and background themes in Smith's BoA text and really obscure ancient texts. Not everyone agrees with what Nibley considers themes, let alone parallel themes. Some people find Nibley's parallels unsupportable and undefendable. More importantly, Smith never once mentions Nibley's parallels. For that matter, neither do contemporary LDS Church leaders. I suggest that this speaks volumes.

From Nibley's Abraham in Egypt we find that Mahujah is a central figure in the oldest Book of Enoch that has been found (Qumran cave 1 1976).

Please document when the LDS Church made the Dead Sea Scrolls part of official LDS scripture. If you cannot document that the LDS Church has made the Dead Sea Scrolls part of official LDS Scripture, why do you accept it as such?

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

[e=mc2]

Good ole Bro. Miller sayeth:

You apologists keep claiming,

Kerry:

That's cause you critics, some of you anyway, STILL don't get it, so we patiently continue to persist in helping you out.......

Miller:

"Smith was spot on with his portrayal in Facsimile 3" but when it comes right down to it, Smith said nothing of Osiris or Maat or a de-snouted Anubis (despite the labels right over their heads) and he couldn't even get the genders right on the figures, something Nibley said was so easy even a three-year old could do it [1]. All of your claims about ancient theology of the Jews with Enoch, Ezekiel, and the ancient Egyptions? None of that came from Smith. It all came from Nibley and his fellow apologists.

Kerry:

Actually I didn't have Nibley in mind, but rather the Biblical scholars who have shown this throne idea..............but come ta think of it, Nib DID say it also, and you STILL don't flippin get it yet!

[James Clifford Miller]

It is the unsaid and unwritten knowledge, not the written knowledge that we know a lot of these ideas..........

The above is what's called a "contradiction in terms." If you apologists want to make written statements like that, that's fine with me because then we critics can quote you.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

[James Clifford Miller]

I agree their's much apocryphal evidence for the main text.

And even with his facimilies Kerry Shirts has demonstrated Joseph had a lot of Egyptology that supports aspects what he said. To me if this was a fraud writing no Egyptology should support an one thing he said.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that non-LDS Egyptologits support anything Smith said. Please document one single non-LDS Egyptologist who supports Smith's text or facsimile explanations.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

[e=mc2]

Miller:

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that non-LDS Egyptologits support anything Smith said. Please document one single non-LDS Egyptologist who supports Smith's text or facsimile explanations.

Kerry:

I have SEVERAL in my Sunstone presentation who presented the information in Facsimile 3 in the *exact* same words, terms, and conditions as what Joseph Smith said it represented. It will be out either in March or May.

[Platypus Man]

From Nibley's Abraham in Egypt we find that Mahujah is a central figure in the oldest Book of Enoch that has been found (Qumran cave 1 1976).

Please document when the LDS Church made the Dead Sea Scrolls part of official LDS scripture. If you cannot document that the LDS Church has made the Dead Sea Scrolls part of official LDS Scripture, why do you accept it as such?

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

That's a strawman if I have ever seen one. I think you missed, or refused to aknowledge, the point that Osteotome was making. Do we also have to deem archeological papers as doctrinal cannon if we wish to use them in support of the Book of Mormon? Does this same rule apply to those that publish in Biblical Archeology?

[Paul Osborne]

From Nibley's Abraham in Egypt we find that Mahujah is a central figure in the oldest Book of Enoch that has been found (Qumran cave 1 1976).

Please document when the LDS Church made the Dead Sea Scrolls part of official LDS scripture. If you cannot document that the LDS Church has made the Dead Sea Scrolls part of official LDS Scripture, why do you accept it as such?

James Clifford Miller

I didn't hear anyone mention that it was scripture. It is however evidence of what may well have heppened in ancient history, however true it may be.

I find lots of things in Josephus to be truly helpful in understanding the scriptures and giving missing pieces to things I've always wondered about.

Paul O

[Donald]

Abraham teaching principals of astronomy.....I wonder if that would include information about a "veil" that seperates us (the human family) in the cosmos from our original home....our place in the vast cosmos.....one can only suppose what further light and knowlege he might be teaching about "astronomy" at the veil....it sometimes looks like a celebration to me....or a homecoming....almost.

[USU78]

Here is a depiction of the Egyptian judgment scene:

Note Anubis' position beneath Maat's scales, with Thoth, the gods' scribe, in baboon guise recording the weighing of man's heart against Maat's feather. Note the hands especially and compare them with Anubis' hand position in Facsimile 3:

Any student of Leviticus will appreciate that ancient priests' gestures, as well as their costume, body position and words, all are meant to convey subtle and complex messages.

Now, David has put forth with some authority the meaning behind the body position and had positioning of Maat/Prince of Pharaoh in Facsimile 3 as a presentation of man [an official in Pharaoh's court] at the throne. He has not [as it was outside the main thrust of his short article] gone into the function of Anubis in the scene. I'm not sure what it is myself, but the fact that Maat is doing the presenting, and Anubis appears to be coaxing [or is it presenting or supporting?] man indicate that Anubis, his job in the judgment complete, has turned over man to Maat for presentation to the great judge, Abraham/Osiris, as Pharaoh/Isis, mistress of the resurrection, looks on.

I could be way off base here [correct me if I am, Kerry], but this facsimile appears to this kid to be far more important than I'd ever thought. It's Act III in a 3-act drama of judgment, with the weighing scene being Act II after the embalming scene.

[James Clifford Miller]

Here is a depiction of the Egyptian judgment scene:

Note Anubis' position beneath Maat's scales, with Thoth, the gods' scribe, in baboon guise recording the weighing of man's heart against Maat's feather. Note the hands especially and compare them with Anubis' hand position in Facsimile 3:

Any student of Leviticus will appreciate that ancient priests' gestures, as well as their costume, body position and words, all are meant to convey subtle and complex messages.

Now, David has put forth with some authority the meaning behind the body position and had positioning of Maat/Prince of Pharaoh in Facsimile 3 as a presentation of man [an official in Pharaoh's court] at the throne. He has not [as it was outside the main thrust of his short article] gone into the function of Anubis in the scene. I'm not sure what it is myself, but the fact that Maat is doing the presenting, and Anubis appears to be coaxing [or is it presenting or supporting?] man indicate that Anubis, his job in the judgment complete, has turned over man to Maat for presentation to the great judge, Abraham/Osiris, as Pharaoh/Isis, mistress of the resurrection, looks on.

I could be way off base here [correct me if I am, Kerry], but this facsimile appears to this kid to be far more important than I'd ever thought. It's Act III in a 3-act drama of judgment, with the weighing scene being Act II after the embalming scene.

Any student of Leviticus will appreciate that ancient priests' gestures, as well as their costume, body position and words, all are meant to convey subtle and complex messages.

But none that Joseph Smith made.

While we're on the subject, can you apologists find any LDS GAs in the last fifty years who have presented any of your nibleyesque parallels?

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

[Dale]

Are there any LDS general authorities who did believe his Hugh Nibley type parallels were unsound?

I do not know of any non-Mormon Egyptologist who has refuted Kerry Shirts research on his website. Any Egyptologist would not argue against the truth. Maybe this is why the critics can't get Egyptologists to refute this type of research. It's sound research.

[e=mc2]

Good ole Brother Miller:

While we're on the subject, can you apologists find any LDS GAs in the last fifty years who have presented any of your nibleyesque parallels?

Kerry:

What difference would that make? I know of no GA's for the last 185 years who ever had near the command of sources or languages that Nibley had. I suspect it will be this way for many decades to come.................

[e=mc2]

Dale:

I do not know of any non-Mormon Egyptologist who has refuted Kerry Shirts research on his website. Any Egyptologist would not argue against the truth. Maybe this is why the critics can't get Egyptologists to refute this type of research. It's sound research.

Kerry:

I can assure you there are Egyptologists who disagree with my research. In fact, I am going to be very interested in seeing if any respond to my Sunstone article. It's going to take some folk by complete surprise. And that's the point. I hope they don't blather on and on about what an amateur non-Egyptologist I am, and will instead focus on the subject of the Facsimile 3 identifications as I have. We want discussion, we enjoy discussion, we invite discussion, and hence Sunstone is bringing the Book of Abraham back into it for some good ole hoe down, foot stompin, dancin discussion!

[Paul Osborne]

We want discussion, we enjoy discussion, we invite discussion, and hence Sunstone is bringing the Book of Abraham back into it for some good ole hoe down, foot stompin, dancin discussion!

Anything I might say or add will be friendly and upbeat, not wanting to put you down or anything like that. You know I'm particularly sensitive about Facsimile No. 3 and simply like to approach things in a manner I feel is an honest perspective but allowing for multiple views.

Have a great day!

Paul O

[e=mc2]

But of course Paul! I feel the same way. I suspect when you read my Sunstone paper you will be in agreement, since you pretty much see it the way I do.......

[USU78]

Any student of Leviticus will appreciate that ancient priests' gestures, as well as their costume, body position and words, all are meant to convey subtle and complex messages.

But none that Joseph Smith made.

Fact is, we have very little to go on about what connections JSJr did and did not make or how he came to the conclusions about Facsimile 3 that he did. Some find hints in the Kirtland papers that have become the Grammar, about which Paul O. is so excited.

JCM assumes, apparently, it is knowable how and why JSJr came to his conclusions from the conclusions themselves.

I make no such assumptions myself, but seek ever to learn more and more as information comes to light from Egyptology or wherever.

My opinion is that Facsimile 3 is a very important document, perhaps even more important than the hypocephalus facsimile, because of its importance from a Temple perspective. The post-Judgment presentation at the Throne depicted in Facsimile 3, at which the judges, Maat and Anubis, present the initiate to be inducted into the presence of Isis and Osiris, is not a simple nor is it a trivial matter. We cannot simply assume stupidity in the Egyptians, even at the moment of arguably their greatest humiliation at the time our papyri date to. Even without the connection to Mormonism and therethrough to greater Christianity, Facsimile 3 would have great meaning for all of us and we would be remiss if we ignored that meaning.

JCM does poorly, in his quest to trivialize and debunk Mormonism, to ignore a profound and great people, perhaps the greatest the world has seen.

[cinepro]

What difference would that make? I know of no GA's for the last 185 years who ever had near the command of sources or languages that Nibley had. I suspect it will be this way for many decades to come.................

You mean other than the dozens of prophets, seers and revelators that have been leading the Church since 1830. Other than them, right?

Also, can anyone explain what a black person is doing in the temple ceremony?

[e=mc2]

Looks ta me like he is sorta standing there..............