Facsimile 3

[James Clifford Miller]

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?

Good point, Cinepro. One wonders why e-mc2 answered the way he did. Is it because he completely missed the point, or because he caught the point and was concerned other might see it was valid? I guess we'll never know.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@Cox.net

[James Clifford Miller]

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.

Well, Dale, I don't know about "refute," but Kerry himself says some Egyptologists disagree with his research. So much for your "his research was so true, no Egyptologist could take issue with it" line.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

[e=mc2]

Miller:

So much for the "his research was so true, no Egyptologist could take issue with it" line.

Kerry:

I have ***never*** said this. Please be careful how you misuse my arguments. There is not any argument that someone somewhere cannot take issue with. Yer strawman just got blown away..........

[e=mc2]

Miller:

Good point, Cinepro. One wonders why e-mc2 answered the way he did. Is it because he completely missed the point, or because he caught the point and was concerned other might see it was valid? I guess we'll never know.

Kerry:

Aw, go ahead and just read my mind and use that as evidence for whatever pet theory you make up. That's what Brodie did with Joseph........Miller can also do the same with Shirts. Why not? It might make a best seller!!!!!!!!! Oooooooooooo!

[James Clifford Miller]

Miller:

So much for the "his research was so true, no Egyptologist could take issue with it" line.

Kerry:

I have ***never*** said this. Please be careful how you misuse my arguments. There is not any argument that someone somewhere cannot take issue with. Yer strawman just got blown away..........

No, Kerry, I was paraphrasing Dale on Jan 24 who wrote:

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.

As for you, I thought you said there WERE Egyptologists who diasgreed with your research, but perhaps I misunderstood. On January 24, you wrote:

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.

I interpreted this to mean you said there are Egyptologists who disagree with your research. Did you mean something else?

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

[gtaggart]

Mr. Miller, I'm having trouble understanding the point you're trying to make with Kerry.

First, you wrote:

So much for the "his research was so true, no Egyptologist could take issue with it" line.

With that, you appear to imply that Kerry has said that "no Egyptologist could take issue with" his work.

Kerry responded:

I have ***never*** said this. Please be careful how you misuse my arguments. There is not any argument that someone somewhere cannot take issue with. Yer strawman just got blown away..........

That is, Kerry said that he never said that "no Egyptologist could take issue with" his work.

To that you reponded:

I interpreted this to mean you said there are Egyptologists who disagree with your research.  Did you mean something else?

In that last quote of yours, what does "this" refer to? I'm really confused about what your point is. Kerry's point, on the other hand, is clear to me: He never said "no Egyptologist could take issue with" his work. Are you saying that he did? If so, can you show us where?

[James Clifford Miller]

Mr. Miller, I'm having trouble understanding the point you're trying to make with Kerry. 

First, you wrote:

So much for the "his research was so true, no Egyptologist could take issue with it" line.

With that, you appear to imply that Kerry has said that "no Egyptologist could take issue with" his work.

Kerry responded:

I have ***never*** said this. Please be careful how you misuse my arguments. There is not any argument that someone somewhere cannot take issue with. Yer strawman just got blown away..........

That is, Kerry said that he never said that "no Egyptologist could take issue with" his work.

To that you reponded:

I interpreted this to mean you said there are Egyptologists who disagree with your research.

[e=mc2]

I also think you misunderstood Dale. He said no Egyptologist so far has refuted my research on my DVD's. I betchta though, that were they to take some time with them, they would That's the nature and beauty of scholarship. Always give em a target to tilt at the former great Egyptologist Gardiner said. That's all I am doing. Just rummaging through some things and sharing what I find interesting so the boys can blast me to Kingdom come....... Course, I blast back...........

[Dale]

Disagreeing & refuting are two different things. If I was aware of an attempted refutation to consider I would ponder what was said. The thing I have learned about scholarship it's apologetic for a position as much as any religious apologetic.

[e=mc2]

AGREED entirely! They are different things. I expect disagreements, but I look rather forward to the refutationals......

[Dale]

I think Paul Osbourne has had some e-mails with Egyptologists that disagreed with him. But I am not aware of any critic of the Book of Abraham that has published an article rebutting Kerry Shirts. Maybe he has had conversations with Egyptologists who disagree with him. But he remains convinced of his position.

-------------

Mormonism Researched Ministry has a future response to FAIR's Mormonism 201 Project sections on the Pearl of Great Price planned. The last time I look it was "To be posted." I cannot expect FAIR to respond, or even consider responding until they get something up.

Brent Metcalfe has a book that may attempt to rebut John Gee on the missing papyrus thery. I am like Paul Osbourne doubting John Gee's conclusions. But I will read what he says in response with interest.

I see these two upcoming challenges to LDS apologetic is something I see may spark some new Boook of Abraham apologetic. The facimile issue I am satisfied has been handled as perfectly as possible. Perhaps a few flaws here & there, but it is survivable.

[e=mc2]

Not only survivable, but moving steadily forward I would propose. After all, I am presenting again at Sunstone on the *other* correct things Joseph Smith identified in our facsimiles for this coming up August, on Sunstone's invitation. I am rather excited, because I already have the topic, and a wonderful 8 months to really plow through some materials and make the presentation stellar. And it's not just myself who is steadily moving forward with it either, I might add. Other LDS scholars are working on various projects on the BofAbr that I am mightily interested in seeing.

[Dale]

I do not think the crtics can say Joseph Smith was a lucky guess. They have the responsibility to dig into Egyptology & prove the research wrong if they really feel it's misleading.

[James Clifford Miller]

I do not think the crtics can say Joseph Smith was a lucky guess. They have the responsibility to dig into Egyptology  & prove the research wrong if they really feel it's misleading.

I'm not aware of any "lucky" guesses by Joseph Smith. Perhaps you can refresh our memories?

And not only do critics have the responsibility to dig into Egyptology -- they HAVE DUG INTO IT! Perhaps you just missed these [a tip of the Miller hat to Cinepro for locating these well-researched, published articles):

The breathing permit of hor 34 years later

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docvie...ue&CISOPTR=8716

Knowing Brother Joseph Again: The Book of Abraham and Brother Joseph as Translator

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docvie...e&CISOPTR=23391

Thompson, Stephen E.,

[Dale]

James if you are familiar with Kerry Shirts writings then your memory would already be fresh. Go to his website which FAIR links to & show me Joseph smith had no lucky guesses. If his research is so bad show me you have spent more than five minutes with the stuff . Five minutes at his website is hardly evidence it's wrong. Surprise me prove he has no evidence to believe in the Book of Abraham by showing me you have made an in-depth study of such purported evidence.

I do mean this as a well meaning challenge. I like to see once in awhile whether the critic has read the material in depth, or is just glancingly familiar with it. Perhaps you do not have time to do it now but here we have or quandry. You say such research is bad I think it's valid & the only way to convince me it's bad is to present stronger evidence than he did. Is it a seemingly insurmountable predicament that prevents me from sharing your opinion on his research at this time. Perhaps the gulf between us is bridgeable, but I need some solid resesarch that demonstrates that this research is wrong.

Nothing wrong with refusing my challenge. I will take that as a gentlemanly "I don't know" kind of answer between two posters. But if you don't know it may be right, and you should eventually re-consider the truth of the Book of Abraham.

[e=mc2]

Miller:

Thompson, Stephen E.,

[Dale]

James I already have been exposed to these critics. To me they dig in just a little, but just not enough to cause me to agree with them. I read both sides & form my own opinions about things. Plus they have been answered.

[David Bokovoy]

Obviously, I ran out of time last week, however, I wanted to respond to these posts from Lady Sundancer and James Miller:

Where in the explanation of Facsimile does it say that "King Pharaoh" made Abraham either a king or a god?

There is nothing, I repeat, nothing there to suggest "enthronement". The concept of Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh

[e=mc2]

And yer gonna have MANY Egyptological sources on this idea of apotheosis once me ole Sunstone paper "re-arrives in North Armorica."

Lord "Apologies to James Joyce" Kerry

[LadySundancer]

Obviously, I ran out of time last week, however, I wanted to respond to these posts from Lady Sundancer and James Miller:

Where in the explanation of Facsimile does it say that "King Pharaoh" made Abraham either a king or a god?

There is nothing, I repeat, nothing there to suggest "enthronement". The concept of Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh

[Donald]

it looks like a coronation....of "cosmic" proportions? BTW, what does it mean to be a [I]translator?

[Dale]

Facimile 3 was an illustrated adopted to complement another story. Whether done out of imagination, or inspiration may be a point of disagreement.

[Donald]

Facimile 3 was an illustrated adopted to complement another story. Whether done out of imagination, or inspiration may be a point of disagreement.

It was inspiration.

[Dale]

The names of the figures above the hands had nothing to do with the characters above the figures of Facimile 3. But Joseph Smith could have seen english names in the viscinity of those characters & assumed that's what the characters had to do with. So I would admit he mistranslated the conventional meanings in favor of complementing his translation.

[David Bokovoy]

LSD,

Nonsense. The description under F3 is as follows...

There is nothing there to suggest that Abraham is becoming a God. Unless, of course, you rewrite the interpretation given by the Prophet.

Unfortunately, with my limited abilities, I can only rewrite my posts so many different ways in a futile attempt to help you understand.

Please note that I specifically used the word