Please Criticize "by His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" By Charles Larson

[krose]

However, I do clearly remember my impressions of it at the time I read it and my impressions afterwards as I started to understand how deceptive it really was. For some reason, I happened to read it at a time when I was somewhat fragile in my faith, and I was also being hit by some other challenges. Once everything got back in order, I found that I was much stronger, both spiritually and temporally, and I understood that it had been a pruning time for me. I found it interesting that the Lord allowed me to read the book, getting all my fears out on the table, and then showed me how deceptive those fears were - in the context of this book.

So, in one respect, the book holds a special place in my heart - as clear evidence of the deceptiveness of anti-Mormons in working against the Church. In this case, the deceptiveness was in the specific approach used - along with, as I have noted before, the very selective nature of what Larson presented, despite the claimed unbiased approach of considering all aspects of the BofA.

That's interesting. Your personal situation when encountering such things obviously makes a lot of difference.

After reading Ferguson's story and the Larson book, followed by Gee's review and as much of Nibley's BoA-related material as I could take, I concluded that it was a pretty clear win for the BoA critics. Of course I had no emotional attachments to it at the time, no faith to threaten or buttress. I had already decided that religions and deities were probably human creations a few years before I learned about any of the "problems" with Mormonism. The "anti" materials that I read later, such as the Tanners' works and BHOH, just served as further confirmation of that decision. And the arguments of hidden meanings, missing scrolls, and "how could JS have known..." are interesting, but not convincing when weighing the sides.

[MormonMason]

Off the top of my head there is the misleading claim made on pages 105 and 108, where Larson says:

Possibly a trace of a boat showed in the space where Figure 3 is. Two boats--a small one above a larger one--belong here; but not knowing this Joseph copied the boat figure found at the bottom of Papyrus Joseph Smith IV (see comparison on p. 105). This, however, is a drawing of the sun-god in his solar bark, and is improper for a hypocephalus.

While the part about the copying from the papyrus described above was very likely, Larson's claim about such a thing as having Ra the sun-god in a boat as being inappropriate is incorrect.

Here is the top right quadrant of British Museum Hypocephalus BM36188 for comparison.

As can be seen, there is only one boat there and the person sitting in it is the sun-god Ra'. There are other examples of other drawings being placed there which have only one boat with a scarab beetle in it as well as other examples. Perhaps this claim on Larson's part was one of ignorance rather than deliberate deception, however, but having copies of texts available to him, his argument did not appear to change from the original edition to the revised edition and I am inclined to lean toward the interpretation that he was being deliberately misleading.

[krose]

As far as an emotionally loaded term. I really dont fell anything when I hear or read the term "anit mormon". Do you?

I'm not necessarily offended by the term, if that's what you mean. But it is definitely meant as a pejorative. If he had used the word "critic" in place of every "anti-Mormon," the article would have had a different feel, I hope you agree.

It's kind of like when combatants in the abortion debate refer to an opponent as "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice," or "anti-choice" instead of "pro-life." It's a low-level debating device to cast an opponent in an unfavorable light by labeling them with a term they would not use for themselves, even though you can argue that it's accurate. It's not a huge issue, just a bit silly and unnecessary, and makes it less likely that such writings will be taken seriously by a dispassionate observer (but then this is written for a very specific inside audience, isn't it?).

[MormonMason]

Another example of incorrect information off the top of my head is page 174, which claims:

It was written in hieratic script, a cursive adaptation of hieroglyphic writing that first appeared around 600 BC--at least a dozen centuries too late to have been used by Abraham.

There have been at least two editions of this work by Larson and this comment has gone unchanged as it is integral to part of his argument.

Budge (I know, out of date but still pertinent to this issue) stated that the Prisse papyrus dated to around 2600 BC, and this papyrus was written in Hieratic. (See Budge, Egyptian Language, 7-8 ). Gardiner claims that Hieratic became a regular occurrence in religious texts during the XXI Dynasty (see Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 10), which started c. 1070 BC, and that it was regularly used in even the earlier XVIII Dynasty in literary papyri.

Hieratic would hardly have first appeared in 600 BC when it can be found on papyri as old as 2600 BC or even earlier. This information was available to Larson at the time he wrote BHOHUP. Gardiner is referenced by Larson on p. 155 of BHOHUP so there is no doubt he would have known this information had he cared about accuracy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not necessarily offended by the term, if that's what you mean. But it is definitely meant as a pejorative. If he had used the word "critic" in place of every "anti-Mormon," the article would have had a different feel, I hope you agree.

As far as what you are saying. Critic would make a better choice of words. As anti mormon does get flinged around a bunch and is more like a buzz word. Say like "going green" Lol Sorry couldnt resist.

[Pahoran]

The first thing that struck me after reading the Gee review, "A Tragedy of Errors," was: how many times can a person use the term "anti-Mormon" in one document?

Sixteen. I counted.

Can you point out, please, one instance where "anti-Mormon" is inappropriate or incorrect?

Your attempt to make Gee an offender for a word is noted. It failed. Move on.

Here's something to move on to: Larson chose the title of his book as a dig, but it relies upon the old anti-Mormon canard that "by his own hand upon papyrus" represents Joseph's description of the contents of the actual papyri in his possession. In fact, as has been known to authentic Book of Abraham scholars for at least 20 years before Larson's polemic, it is actually part of the translated text, and is a colophon--a rather typical Egyptian literary device--attesting to the authorship of the document, not a claim that the present bit of papyrus is an autograph.

How out of date was his "up to the minute" er, stuff?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Chris Smith]

How about this: there are literary motifs in the Book of Abraham that are identical to those found in certain ancient Abrahamic texts, and those uniquely ancient Jewish motifs were completely and totally unknown to Joseph Smith throughout his entire life.

Uh huh. Which motifs, how "ancient", and what do you mean by "identical"?

Or if you recognize that transliteration systems in Joseph Smith's day are quite different than modern.

The Uri by Haran and Olishem is one of a few different candidates for Ur of the Chaldees, but the absence of a very unique and period specific name for a city does not at all preclude the identification of the local Uri with that mentioned in the Bible as "Ur of the Chaldees."

Where are you locating "Olishem" and how far is it from Haran and "Uri"?

Correction: There were no people in southern Mesopotamia with that name until about 1000 B.C. They existed for quite some time prior to that in Syria, which is where Olishem is. Make sure your criticism is less baseless than the argument you're criticizing.

This just screams for a great big CFR.

Interpretations or translations?

If you can explain to me how one "interprets" the hieroglyphic characters for the name "Anubis" as "Shulem", maybe I'll concede this point.

I disagree. I believe it's the other way around.

Can you back this up?

So what does that say about the relationship of the text of the JS Papyri to the drawings right next to them? Does proximity dictate a relationship or not?

There is a relationship in the magical papyrus. The text explains how to prepare the image and how to use it in the spell. Its function there does not, however, appear to be to illustrate the text. By contrast, the Hor papyrus clearly uses its images as illustrations.

-Chris

[LifeOnaPlate]

It is funny that the very title of the book bespeaks a well-repudiated criticism.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sixteen. I counted.

Can you point out, please, one instance where "anti-Mormon" is inappropriate or incorrect?

Your attempt to make Gee an offender for a word is noted. It failed. Move on.

Here's something to move on to: Larson chose the title of his book as a dig, but it relies upon the old anti-Mormon canard that "by his own hand upon papyrus" represents Joseph's description of the contents of the actual papyri in his possession. In fact, as has been known to authentic Book of Abraham scholars for at least 20 years before Larson's polemic, it is actually part of the translated text, and is a colophon--a rather typical Egyptian literary device--attesting to the authorship of the document, not a claim that the present bit of papyrus is an autograph.

How out of date was his "up to the minute" er, stuff?

Regards,

Pahoran

Finally ( I should mention that mormon mason has brought to the table some good arguments) here is a great arguement. Clearly Larson failed to realise this.

[soren]

I mean this sincerely: how much of the Book of Mormon have you read?

That's a fair question. From beginning to end, I've read the whole thing twice. If I counted the times I have read different parts, it would add up to several more complete readings, but I couldn't guess how many.

I have never read By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus.

[maklelan]

Uh huh. Which motifs, how "ancient", and what do you mean by "identical"?

Throne theophanies, Abraham being taken to see God by an angel, ancient cosmologies, specific eschatalogical themes.

As ancient as Abraham, and not as ancient as medievel.

The elements of the motif are identical.

Where are you locating "Olishem" and how far is it from Haran and "Uri"?

I am locating Olishem exactly where the site is located, which is in northwestern Syria (I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen K

[LifeOnaPlate]

That's a fair question. From beginning to end, I've read the whole thing twice. If I counted the times I have read different parts, it would add up to several more complete readings, but I couldn't guess how many.

Any favorite selections?

Observation: Chris Smith likes the word "clearly."

[Chris Smith]

Throne theophanies, Abraham being taken to see God by an angel, ancient cosmologies, specific eschatalogical themes.

As ancient as Abraham, and not as ancient as medievel.

The elements of the motif are identical.

I suppose to really test this hypothesis you'd need a list of the elements of each of these motifs, the time frame during which the motif was used, and criteria for determining whether elements in the BoA fit the bill.

I am locating Olishem exactly where the site is located, which is in northwestern Syria (I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen K

[Chris Smith]

Any favorite selections?

Observation: Chris Smith likes the word "clearly."

What's with the one-line sucker punches, man?

[structurecop]

That's why I don't have a car.

I thought you don't have a car because it got stolen.

[LifeOnaPlate]

What's with the one-line sucker punches, man?

How is that observation a "sucker punch?" I was pointing out you often use the term, sometimes it seems almost hyperbolically, and people have mentioned it before, causing you, iirc, to back off from the "clearly" position on that particular topic.

[Pahoran]

Can you point out, please, one instance where "anti-Mormon" is inappropriate or incorrect?

Already answered. Read post #28 above if you really care (I'm sure you don't).

Your surety is wrong, of course.

Here is the entirety of the text of your post #28:

I'm not necessarily offended by the term, if that's what you mean. But it is definitely meant as a pejorative. If he had used the word "critic" in place of every "anti-Mormon," the article would have had a different feel, I hope you agree.

It's kind of like when combatants in the abortion debate refer to an opponent as "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice," or "anti-choice" instead of "pro-life." It's a low-level debating device to cast an opponent in an unfavorable light by labeling them with a term they would not use for themselves, even though you can argue that it's accurate. It's not a huge issue, just a bit silly and unnecessary, and makes it less likely that such writings will be taken seriously by a dispassionate observer (but then this is written for a very specific inside audience, isn't it?).

I fail entirely to see you citing an instance where the term "anti-Mormon" was inappropriate. Larson's tome was unquestionably an anti-Mormon book. IRR is unquestionably an anti-Mormon organisation. Nobody questions that Floyd McElveen is (was?) an anti-Mormon; and so on, for all of the instances in the article. All you do is whine about the term being "pejorative"--nothing at all about its being inaccurate in any way--and suggesting that the article would have a different "feel" if Gee had brown-nosed to the anti-Mormon "community" of shared resentments by using the euphemism "critic" instead.

But no, you failed to show an instance where it was inappropriate.

Your attempt to make Gee an offender for a word is noted. It failed. Move on.

Thank you for the advice, Grand Wizard, but I already have.

A remarkable insult from someone who professes concern about the use of "pejorative" terms that people "would not use for themselves." Well, that's Imperial Wizard to you, and I note that you have not chosen to address Larson's error about the Book of Abraham colophon.

Instead you chose to play distraction tactics.

I wonder why?

Regards,

Pahoran

[krose]

Hmmmm.................like "anti-Mormon", "Grand Wizard" is an emotionally loaded term generally reserved for thugs wearing white sheets.

Are you trying to imply something you're ashamed to state outright, Krose, or are you having trouble enunciating around your tennis shoe?

Infer what you wish. My default position is to be polite in conversations, but I see no need to waste politeness on certain people who have already shown themselves to be bereft of civility.

[selek]

Infer what you wish. My default position is to be polite in conversations, but I see no need to waste politeness on certain people who have already shown themselves to be bereft of civility.

Yet for all your "default" position, it was you who resorted to a thinly veiled accusation of racism in lieu of an argument.

My, how civilized.

[krose]

Yet for all your "default" position, it was you who resorted to a thinly veiled accusation of racism in lieu of an argument.

"Accusation of racism?" What in the world are you going on about?

[Pahoran]

Infer what you wish. My default position is to be polite in conversations, but I see no need to waste politeness on certain people who have already shown themselves to be bereft of civility.

So you have so little politeness at your disposal that you see a need to ration it, so as not to "waste" any? I see.

In any event, the record shows that you started the insults in this thread. I said nothing to insult you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[selek]

"Accusation of racism?" What in the world are you going on about?

"Grand Wizard" is a title in a certain notorious racist group to whom I referred when I called you on it. It was you who addressed Pahoran by that title, and then invited me to infer what I wished.

Although you chose to quote my post, it was later deleted (along with your offending statement).

Perhaps you might consider reading my posts instead of dismissing them, as context seems to be crucial to reasonable and intelligent conversation.

Nonetheless, the mystery of the vanishing posts seem to indicate that the mods are displeased, so I won't trouble myself with you further (at least your most recent act of incivility).

[krose]

I fail entirely to see you citing an instance where the term "anti-Mormon" was inappropriate.

Yes, the failure was entirely yours. I can't believe I'm still involved in this silly conversation, but I'll give it one more shot. Your first mistake is in assuming that I said the use of this particular term was either inappropriate or inaccurate. I said neither. My sole reason for pointing it out was that Gee used it a lot, and that the term is only meant to bash. It's an unnecessary use of a pejorative, like calling someone "anti-choice." But I already explained that.

Instead you chose to play distraction tactics.

No, that conversation was over before you felt the need to contribute. You should have seen that.

That said, I have no interest in mounting a defense of Larson's book (including its title), and I don't intend to. I don't know where you got that idea. But if you have a valid reason to discount the book's main premise, which is that the papyri that Smith allegedly translated are those that were found in 1966, and that they have nothing to do with Abraham, I will read your reasoning.

[krose]

"Grand Wizard" is a title in a certain notorious racist group to whom I referred when I called you on it.

What? Isn't it the guy in charge of the Harry Potter school? My mistake then.

Since I have no idea of the race of any other poster, what would be the point of any race-based insult? That's absurd.

[Pahoran]

Yes, the failure was entirely yours. I can't believe I'm still involved in this silly conversation, but I'll give it one more shot. Your first mistake is in assuming that I said the use of this particular term was either inappropriate or inaccurate. I said neither.

Let's see.

You didn't say that Gee's use of the term was either inappropriate or inaccurate--

but the failure to spot where you said what you didn't say is entirely mine.

Silly me; I thought when I asked you if you could point to an inappropriate or incorrect use of the term, and you referred me to your post 28 as answering the question, that you actually intended to answer it.

My sole reason for pointing it out was that Gee used it a lot, and that the term is only meant to bash.

I don't agree.

It is a reasonable and accurate identifier of a viewpoint and an agenda.

Larson has it. IRR has it.

The fact that those who have it usually prefer to dissemble this fact does not mean that it isn't a reality.

It's an unnecessary use of a pejorative, like calling someone "anti-choice." But I already explained that.

Yes, I saw your laboured rationalisation.

No, that conversation was over before you felt the need to contribute. You should have seen that.

Oh, the conversation was over, was it?

IOW, once you think you've said all there is to say, everyone else should simply butt out and let you have the last word, is that it?

Why? Because you say so?

That said, I have no interest in mounting a defense of Larson's book (including its title), and I don't intend to. I don't know where you got that idea. But if you have a valid reason to discount the book's main premise, which is that the papyri that Smith allegedly translated are those that were found in 1966, and that they have nothing to do with Abraham, I will read your reasoning.

Oh, how very patronising of you. Should I be grateful? Tug the forelock, perhaps, or would you prefer me to genuflect?

Your attempt to narrow the focus of this thread is noted. It, too, has failed. Here is what the OP says about the scope of the thread:

JWhitlock seems to believe that this book is full of deceit and dishonesty, inaccuracy, and all that fun stuff.

I'd like to know, with some specifics, please, where the deceit, dishonest, and inaccuracy in that book lie.

Let's please confine ourselves to the subject of the Book of Abraham and Larson's arguments with respect to the BoA, and ignore the IRR bit at the end which says something like "Ok, now that you know that the Mormon Church isn't true, we invite you to come learn the really, honest-to-goodness, actually true flavor of Christianity that we believe over here."

My argument addressed an inaccuracy of the book, and a failure to engage responsible LDS scholarship on the Book of Abraham. It is on-topic and within scope. If, for whatever reason, you prefer not to address it, that is entirely up to you. Do not fear that I shall wilt for the lack of your magnanimous condescension.

Regards,

Pahoran