Robert Ritner and Facsimile 3

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Just find me ONE peer reviewed article published in a scholarly journal by a real Egyptologist (LDS need not apply) who supports JS' interpretation!

You realise what a dumb argument you are making here.

I will only believe what you say as long as you show me and LDS egyptologist that will support your view, LDS1973.

Basically what you are saying is that because the person is LDS is must be false.

[David Bokovoy]

David,

Before I reply, I'd like to better understand your position. You havenâ??t told us what you actually think the Book of Abraham is. Is it a record of a historical Abraham? Is it inspired pseudepigraphy set in ancient Mesopotamia? Is it an inspired nineteenth century production that parallels ancient Mesopotamian religion because ancient Mesopotamian religion was inspired too? Something else I haven't thought of?

Best,

-Chris

I see no reason that I should not believe in a historical Abraham who came out of southern Mesopotamia and entered the land of Canaan.

I believe Abraham existed and that the biblical account, though lacking in historicity, provides a basic summary of his life and interactions with deity. There is no historical evidence that Abraham ever left a written record.

So what precisely do I make of the BofA?

I don't know, Chris. It all depends upon the day.

Other than the fact that I accept the book as an authentic scriptural guide containing profound religious truths regarding God, man, and the universe, I really don't know what to make of it. And as a religious believer, I embrace that uncertainty.

I'm convinced that Mesopotamian literary forms, religious views, and mythology had an enormous impact upon the Bible.

For example, Genesis 1 has been influenced by Babylonian creation imagery; the Eden story takes place in southern Mesopotamia and appears, from my view, to have been directly influenced by the Epic of Gilgamesh; the flood story derives from Mesopotamia; the story of Babel presents a biblical polemic concerning Babylonian worship; Abraham traces his familial origins to southern Iraq; the Covenant Collection in the book of Exodus derives from the Code of Hammurabi; the book of Deuteronomy stems from Assyrian Vassal Treaties, etc., etc.

I believe that Mesopotamian religion was on some levels inspired and in many ways, probably not all that different from basic Israelite theological concepts. I believe that some (but certainly not all) of the religious views from Mesopotamia regarding temple worship, apotheosis, and the divine council of deities reflect an inspired authentic view of the universe.

Hence, when as a student of the Bible and the ancient Near East, I take that ancient world vision and apply it to LDS scripture and the doctrines of the Restoration, I walk away with profound religious insights that I find spiritually uplifting and incredibly helpful in my life.

[Chris Smith]

Hi, David!

Thanks for the clarification; that helps a little, although it's still difficult to have a conversation about a view of the Book that isn't clear even to the one who holds it. I'll do my best.

I should begin by stating my own view that there probably was not a historical Abraham, or if there was, that the information related in Genesis about his life probably is not especially accurate. It is not that I see an overwhelming weight of evidence against the existence of a historical Abraham, but rather that the account of his life was written so long after the murky pre-history it purports to relate that I don't particularly see why the account should be trusted.

As for the inspiration of the Book of Abraham, you might be surprised to learn that I am not averse to the view that it reflects an inspiration of sorts. As a pluralist, I believe that the divine inhabits and is accessible to us all, perhaps embedded archetypally deep within our subconscious minds. These Jungian archetypes, which the great psychologist referred to collectively as the image of God, are brought to conscious awareness by art and myths and dreams. Such symbolic expressions enable us to give shape to impulses that are otherwise beyond the reach of our understanding. I believe this is part of the reason that similar religious ideas recur across vast distances of space, time, and culture. (Of course, another reason is simply that such ideas are more virulent than generally realized, and are frequently nursed and remembered in obscure texts and arcane traditions even after they have fallen out of popular favor; here they patiently wait until the time is right for them to reassert themselves.) In my view, of course, the Book of Abraham and ancient Mesopotamian religion are not inspired in the sense that they contain any propositionally true messages. Nor does their being "inspired" productions in the pluralists' understanding of the term assuage the prophet's culpability for any deliberately fraudulent claims he may have made about his ability to read ancient hieroglyphic script. Nor, frankly, does my pluralist understanding of inspiration allow that Joseph Smith knew any more about ancient Mesopotamia than he did about ancient Egypt. But it does mean this: that I can appreciate the text and its mythic symbols, even as I express my profound skepticism concerning your conclusions about its connections to the ancient world.

Joseph believed that he had in his possession â??the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrusâ? (see History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 248-351).

Hence, Joseph did not assume that he was reproducing an ancient Egyptian understanding of texts such as facsimile 3, Joseph believed that he was restoring the way Abraham used these documents to restore Abrahamâ??s life history and theological views.

The prophet's comments suggest that Abraham himself authored the facsimiles, and that they were designed to depict scenes from Abraham's life. The prophet's comments also suggest that he thought Abraham had labeled the facsimiles in fairly conventional Egyptian hieroglyphic script, and that the prophet's interpretations of these texts reflected both the Egyptological meaning and the intent of the author, Abraham.

I'm glad to see you grant, at least, that Joseph claimed he could correctly interpret the hieroglyphics. In addition to Mortal's instructive quotations, I will merely point out that Joseph's bound Alphabet and Grammar was of "the Egyptian Language," not "the Abrahamic Recontextualization of the Egyptian Language."

So when Joseph Smith recontextualizes an Egyptian presentation scene to depict Abraham as the enthroned god/king in facsimile no. 3, Joseph has created an undeniable link between ancient Near Eastern and biblical views regarding enthronement and human deification that reflects Josephâ??s revelation regarding Abrahamâ??s present glorified state: â??[Abraham] hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throneâ? (D&C 132:29).

The link you perceive is hardly "undeniable". Joseph Smith does not identify this as a presentation scene, of either the Egyptian or Mesopotamian variety. He expresses no awareness that it is a stock Egyptian scene or that it has Mesopotamian roots, and he certainly does not claim that its Mesopotamian roots are reflected in his interpretation of the vignette. Your analysis tells us what the theological meaning of the vignette might be if the significance of these factors is admitted, but it does not in and of itself establish that said significance should be admitted. A more likely backdrop for the prophet's interpretation, given what he actually says in his explanations of the Facsimile, is Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapters 7 and 8. We know from Cowdery's letter to William Frye that he was reading Josephus in conjunction with the interpretation of the vignettes on the papyri.

I agree with you that the vignette as Joseph interpreted it is a classic, ironic role-reversal. Abraham comes to the king of Egypt, who claims priesthood from Ham, and pharaoh implicitly recognizes Abraham as the true priest and king. I also agree with you that Joseph saw Abraham's enthronement in the court of pharaoh as symbolically presaging his final, eternal enthronement. But this all seems to me to be suggested by a combination of Josephus, the vignette itself, and Joseph's developing theology during this period. I see no need to posit that the prophet miraculously accessed ancient Mesopotamian presentation motifs in order to arrive at his interpretation. Saying that the prophet's views of deification mirror ancient Mesopotamian religion because ancient Mesopotamian religion in these respects was true is one thing. But saying that the prophet actually had miraculous access to ancient Mesopotamian concepts (despite apparently not having had the same access to ancient Egyptian ones) is quite another. It seems to me that your view multiplies complexities that need not be multiplied.

As a sidenote, the passage you cite from D&C 132 actually provides support for Susan Staker's suggestion that the narrative of God commanding Abraham to lie about his marital relations was designed to justify the prophet's ongoing deception concerning Nauvoo polygamy. This D&C section, which is of course the famous polygamy revelation, genealogically links Joseph Smith to Abraham and promises that the exaltation and increase of seed promised and given to Abraham will be available to Joseph also, if Joseph will obey the commandments. It then argues,

God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it. Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

On another board you referred to polygamy as a "mistake". It seems to me that your cardinal text for linking Facsimile 3 to deification is thoroughly implicated in that mistake.

I would like to encourage you, and anyone else who is reading this, to think of the Book of Abraham and the facsimile explanations as inspired nineteenth-century productions rather than insisting on some ancient context. Certainly much of the mystique of Restoration theology comes from the way that it is wrapped in stories about antiquity, and I can understand the reluctance to risk losing that mystique. But when the texts are approached with a "second naivete", as sacred stories and symbols rather than as genuine histories, I believe it is possible to retain the mystique. It may seem that the mystique must be fundamentally changed, from a mystique of history to a mystique of poetry. But in truth, it is merely recognized for what it really is: it has been poetry all along.

Best,

-Chris

[David Bokovoy]

On another board you referred to polygamy as a "mistake". It seems to me that your cardinal text for linking Facsimile 3 to deification is thoroughly implicated in that mistake.

Just a quick clarification for now.

Regarding polygamy, I said:

Well off course he does [have a lot to answer for]. And donâ??t we all?!!

At least the one thing that both critic and defender of the Prophet Joseph can agree upon is that Joseph believed with his entire soul that God had chosen Joseph as a prophet, responsible for restoring ancient scriptural traditions and practices.

Obviously he made mistakes in his efforts. Joseph himself regularly admitted as much.

Yet whether one agrees or not with the Prophetâ??s restoration of the biblical practice of plural marriage, as Danel Bachman convincingly illustrates in his M.A. thesis written at Purdue, thereâ??s no question that Josephâ??s religious views stood at the heart of the restoration rather than an abusive sex drive.

And

Iâ??m willing to acknowledge the fact that Josephâ??s actions with Fanny, together with the restoration of plural marriage itself, might have been a mistake.

I see no reason to defend plural marriage. Iâ??m not a fan of the system.

Again, whether or not the institution of plural marriage and Josephâ??s actions went to "hell in a handbasket" will never change the fact that in Josephâ??s mind he had clearly been called of God to restore the biblical practice.

[John Williams]

Which Egyptians? Egyptian Semites? Egyptian Jews? Egyptian Nubians? Egyptian Libyans? Egyptian Greeks?

The correct answer, it appears, is Mesopotamian Egyptians.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Chris,

So let's address your well thought out (although quite lengthy) comments a bit at a time.

Thanks for the clarification; that helps a little, although it's still difficult to have a conversation about a view of the Book that isn't clear even to the one who holds it. I'll do my best.

My view is clear at a foundational level, however, many of the concepts connected with my understanding are admittedly in a state of flux.

The link you perceive is hardly "undeniable". Joseph Smith does not identify this as a presentation scene, of either the Egyptian or Mesopotamian variety.

This point is irrelevant to my position. The connection between the Mesopotamian and Egyptian presentation scenes and LDS/biblical theology occurs via Josephâ??s identification of the enthroned deity as Abraham.

He expresses no awareness that it is a stock Egyptian scene or that it has Mesopotamian roots, and he certainly does not claim that its Mesopotamian roots are reflected in his interpretation of the vignette.

Of course not, which is why I feel so impressed by the connection. The Egyptian scene, together with its Mesopotamian roots, creates an undeniable link between LDS temple worship, deification, and Near Eastern tradition beyond what the Prophet himself was even aware of at the time.

I doubt he even recognized from an ancient Near Eastern perspective how incredibly profound the connection is between the astrological imagery at the beginning of chapter three and the story of the Divine Council at the conclusion of the chapter. But in my mind, the fact that Joseph expresses no awareness of these links actually strengthens the argument for divine inspiration.

Your analysis tells us what the theological meaning of the vignette might be if the significance of these factors is admitted, but it does not in and of itself establish that said significance should be admitted.

And why, pray tell should we ignore ancient Near Eastern connections between the Book of Abraham and LDS theology? Simply because you do not believe the Prophet Joseph was inspired of God?

A more likely backdrop for the prophet's interpretation, given what he actually says in his explanations of the Facsimile, is Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapters 7 and 8. We know from Cowdery's letter to William Frye that he was reading Josephus in conjunction with the interpretation of the vignettes on the papyri.

The fact that Joseph Smithâ??s interpretation of facsimile 3 appears to have been influenced by Josephus' story of Abraham does not negate the Near Eastern connection between the Prophetâ??s reading of the facsimile and Abrahamâ??s enthronement/deification in LDS theology.

I agree with you that the vignette as Joseph interpreted it is a classic, ironic role-reversal. Abraham comes to the king of Egypt, who claims priesthood from Ham, and pharaoh implicitly recognizes Abraham as the true priest and king. I also agree with you that Joseph saw Abraham's enthronement in the court of pharaoh as symbolically presaging his final, eternal enthronement.

Excellent. Then youâ??re on youâ??re way to understanding what I mean by an undeniable link.

But this all seems to me to be suggested by a combination of Josephus, the vignette itself, and Joseph's developing theology during this period.

Ok.

I see no need to posit that the prophet miraculously accessed ancient Mesopotamian presentation motifs in order to arrive at his interpretation.

I donâ??t believe that he did. Joseph accessed ancient Israelite concepts that are made clearer for us as interpreters via a proper historical understanding of the Mesopotamian influence upon biblical theology and facsimile 3.

Saying that the prophet's views of deification mirror ancient Mesopotamian religion because ancient Mesopotamian religion in these respects was true is one thing.

Simply because ancient Mesopotamian views regarding deification involved enthronement and sacred marriage does not mean that I believe that the Prophetâ??s views on these issues â??mirrorâ? ancient Mesopotamian religion. Though they do reflect some important elements of the Near Eastern system.

But saying that the prophet actually had miraculous access to ancient Mesopotamian concepts (despite apparently not having had the same access to ancient Egyptian ones) is quite another.

Again, I donâ??t believe that he accessed either Egyptian or Mesopotamian religion per se, I believe Joseph accessed ancient religious truths attested in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Israelite traditions.

It seems to me that your view multiplies complexities that need not be multiplied.

Not really. Itâ??s only too complex if you assume Joseph Smith was not inspired.

As a sidenote, the passage you cite from D&C 132 actually provides support for Susan Staker's suggestion

I donâ??t have a problem with seeing a historical connection between Josephâ??s attempt to hide his plural marriage practices and the BofA.

[David Bokovoy]

The correct answer, it appears, is Mesopotamian Egyptians.

Close, my Brother. The correct answer is Semitic Egyptians.

[Chris Smith]

Hi David,

It appears that on some counts we may simply have to agree to disagree. I won't drag this discussion on too much longer, but I would like to respond to at least a couple of your points.

The Egyptian scene, together with its Mesopotamian roots, creates an undeniable link between LDS temple worship, deification, and Near Eastern tradition beyond what the Prophet himself was even aware of at the time.

My point is simply that if the prophet was unaware of it and does not make it explicit, he can hardly be given credit for having revealed it. Morgan Robertson was not trying to predict the sinking of the Titanic when she wrote her 1898 novel about a giant ship called the Titan striking an iceberg and sinking. Had she billed her book as a prediction, we might be inclined to label her a prophet on account of her success. Instead, her novel is remembered as one of history's most remarkable coincidences.

I doubt he even recognized from an ancient Near Eastern perspective how incredibly profound the connection is between the astrological imagery at the beginning of chapter three and the story of the Divine Council at the conclusion of the chapter.

This may, as I suggested in my previous post, be the result of reading Josephus in connection with the papyrus vignettes and the prophet's developing theology. Book 1, Chapter 7 of Antiquities says of Abraham,

He was a person of great sagacity, both for understanding all things and persuading his hearers, and not mistaken in his opinions; for which reason he began to have higher notions of virtue than others had, and he determined to renew and to change the opinion all men happened then to have concerning God; for he was the first that ventured to publish this notion, That there was but one God, the Creator of the universe; and that, as to other [gods], if they contributed any thing to the happiness of men, that each of them afforded it only according to his appointment, and not by their own power. This his opinion was derived from the irregular phenomena that were visible both at land and sea, as well as those that happen to the sun, and moon, and all the heavenly bodies, thus:â??"If [said he] these bodies had power of their own, they would certainly take care of their own regular motions; but since they do not preserve such regularity, they make it plain, that in so far as they co-operate to our advantage, they do it not of their own abilities, but as they are subservient to Him that commands them, to whom alone we ought justly to offer our honor and thanksgiving."

Here the hierarchy of gods is assumed to function in the same way as the hierarchy of celestial bodies. A similar idea, called by Bishop Butler the "analogy of nature", characterized nineteenth century natural theology.

And why, pray tell should we ignore ancient Near Eastern connections between the Book of Abraham and LDS theology? Simply because you do not believe the Prophet Joseph was inspired of God?

By all means, make your ancient Near Eastern connections. I am simply objecting to certain inferences about the meaning and significance of those ancient Near Eastern connections.

Best,

-Chris

[Mortal Man]

This may, as I suggested in my previous post, be the result of reading Josephus in connection with the papyrus vignettes and the prophet's developing theology. Book 1, Chapter 7 of Antiquities says of Abraham,

Very interesting Chris.

He was a person of great sagacity, both for understanding all things and persuading his hearers, and not mistaken in his opinions; for which reason he began to have higher notions of virtue than others had,

I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge,

and he determined to renew and to change the opinion all men happened then to have concerning God; for he was the first that ventured to publish this notion, That there was but one God, the Creator of the universe;

My fathers, having turned from their righteousness, and from the holy commandments which the Lord their God had given unto them, unto the worshiping of the gods of the heathen, utterly refused to hearken to my voice; For their hearts were set to do evil, and were wholly turned to the god of Elkenah, and the god of Libnah, and the god of Mahmackrah, and the god of Korash, and the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt; Therefore they turned their hearts to the sacrifice of the heathen in offering up their children unto these dumb idols

and that, as to other [gods], if they contributed any thing to the happiness of men, that each of them afforded it only according to his appointment, and not by their own power.

I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.

This his opinion was derived from the irregular phenomena that were visible both at land and sea, as well as those that happen to the sun, and moon, and all the heavenly bodies, thus:â??"If [said he] these bodies had power of their own, they would certainly take care of their own regular motions; but since they do not preserve such regularity, they make it plain, that in so far as they co-operate to our advantage, they do it not of their own abilities, but as they are subservient to Him that commands them, to whom alone we ought justly to offer our honor and thanksgiving."

Fig. 1. Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time.

Fig. 2. Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham,

Fig. 5. Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.

[Mortal Man]

I would like to encourage you, and anyone else who is reading this, to think of the Book of Abraham and the facsimile explanations as inspired nineteenth-century productions rather than insisting on some ancient context. Certainly much of the mystique of Restoration theology comes from the way that it is wrapped in stories about antiquity, and I can understand the reluctance to risk losing that mystique. But when the texts are approached with a "second naivete", as sacred stories and symbols rather than as genuine histories, I believe it is possible to retain the mystique. It may seem that the mystique must be fundamentally changed, from a mystique of history to a mystique of poetry. But in truth, it is merely recognized for what it really is: it has been poetry all along.

Okay. But suppose you apply the same skepticism to the Gospels and conclude that they were written far too late and contain far too many contradictions to be trusted as actual historical accounts of the resurrection? Suppose the resurrection is an inspired middle-first-century production. If we approach it with a "second naivete", as a sacred story and symbol, rather than an actual event, does it still retain its mystique? Is the poetic mystique of a fictional life after death just as good as an actual life after death?

[Chris Smith]

Okay. But suppose you apply the same skepticism to the Gospels and conclude that they were written far too late and contain far too many contradictions to be trusted as actual historical accounts of the resurrection? Suppose the resurrection is an inspired middle-first-century production. If we approach it with a "second naivete", as a sacred story and symbol, rather than an actual event, does it still retain its mystique? Is the poetic mystique of a fictional life after death just as good as an actual life after death?

Hi, Mortal Man,

Many excellent theologians have concluded that the resurrection was not a historical event. Most of these, like Marcus Borg, Hans Kung, and Karl Rahner, mean by that simply that Jesus was not physically raised from the dead and the tomb was not really empty; they still affirm some sort of "spiritual" afterlife, of which the resurrection story may be a symbol. Thus for example John Hick, who holds that the post-resurrection appearances are later, creative developments within the tradition, writes, "So for me Easter is a joyful symbol of a central element of the gospel, God's gift of renewal, of ever new beginnings, of rebirth, of life transcending death. That it comes at spring time when nature is renewing itself is a happy coincidence. But Easter is our Christian symbol of hope, of the ongoing fact of new life, of freedom from the grip of the past, of openness to the future, to new possibilities, ultimately openness to the Kingdom of God and an intimation of life beyond death."

There have been a few who call themselves Christians, however-- and I am among them-- who do not particularly believe in an afterlife and yet find the resurrection to be a metaphorically powerful. The Apostle Paul used the resurrection to symbolize the transformation that occurs within the believer when he or she "dies" to sin and self and "rises" a new creation in Christ. On the other side of this metaphorical death and resurrection is a wholeness that is not available while the self remains the center of existence. Paul Tillich argued that Jesus Christ's particularity lay in the fact that he crucified all that was particular in himself. This is the selfless example he sets for those who call him Rabbi. The story of the resurrection offers the hope that beyond the sacrifice of self there is new and better existence. It symbolizes the possibility of rebirth and renewal.

Granted, not all stories are created equal. There are some that, when you strip away their historical meaning, are not sufficiently rich or archetypal to continue to be meaningful. But in my opinion, these are not the stories that found religions. Successful religious stories tend to be meaningful at many levels and to be rich in symbol and evocative of meditative reflection. They connect with us at some level below our conscious awareness, and help us give voice to the deepest impulses of our nature.

Best,

-Chris

[Bill Hamblin]

What David is suggesting is part of the broader theory that the BOA represents what is known to scholars as "iconotropy," which is when one culture reinterprets the images and mythos of another culture, merging them with their own.

Kevin L. Barney, â??The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources,â? in John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid (editors), Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 2006), 107â??130.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham_papyri:FAQ

Iconotropy is a form of syncretism. The classic example in the Bible is the worship of the Lord as a golden calf in Exodus.

We know, in fact that Egyptian magicians iconotropically linked Abraham with lion-couch scenes, just as in the interpretation of facsimile 1.

Iconotropy is an extraordinarily common phenomena; indeed, I would argue that most popular interpretations of ancient iconography is fundamentally iconotropic.

Another classic example is the conflation of the Egyptian Thoth with Greek Hermes, Jewish Enoch, Rabbinic Metatron and Muslim Idris.

A fascinating fictional example of this phenomena can be found in Robert Graves' idiosyncratic novel King Jesus (Ch 19, "King Adam" p 215-6) which Jesus and a priestess of the Mother Goddess have a contest, each interpreting the same series of iconographic panels in entirely different ways.

[LifeOnaPlate]

There have been a few who call themselves Christians, however-- and I am among them-- who do not particularly believe in an afterlife and yet find the resurrection to be a metaphorically powerful. The Apostle Paul used the resurrection to symbolize the transformation that occurs within the believer when he or she "dies" to sin and self and "rises" a new creation in Christ. On the other side of this metaphorical death and resurrection is a wholeness that is not available while the self remains the center of existence. Paul Tillich argued that Jesus Christ's particularity lay in the fact that he crucified all that was particular in himself. This is the selfless example he sets for those who call him Rabbi. The story of the resurrection offers the hope that beyond the sacrifice of self there is new and better existence. It symbolizes the possibility of rebirth and renewal.

A new and better existence you and I will never know (if you're correct), to be sure.

[Mortal Man]

That it comes at spring time when nature is renewing itself is a happy coincidence.

Sadly, Australians are out of luck.

The Apostle Paul used the resurrection to symbolize the transformation that occurs within the believer when he or she "dies" to sin and self and "rises" a new creation in Christ. On the other side of this metaphorical death and resurrection is a wholeness that is not available while the self remains the center of existence.

Didn't Paul also say "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." -- 1 Corinthians 15:19 (KJV)?

Paul Tillich argued that Jesus Christ's particularity lay in the fact that he crucified all that was particular in himself. This is the selfless example he sets for those who call him Rabbi. The story of the resurrection offers the hope that beyond the sacrifice of self there is new and better existence. It symbolizes the possibility of rebirth and renewal.

On the other hand, Ayn Rand made a pretty good case for selfishness. Did you ever read The Fountainhead?

Successful religious stories tend to be meaningful at many levels and to be rich in symbol and evocative of meditative reflection. They connect with us at some level below our conscious awareness, and help us give voice to the deepest impulses of our nature.

In order to engage in meditative reflection of all the rich symbols and meaning, don't we first have to exist? How exactly does anything matter once we are snuffed out? I see what you are saying but I simply cannot relate to it at all, perhaps that is a limitation of my selfish nature. But even if I were completely selfless, how could I help anybody or connect with the deepest impulses of my nature if I didn't exist? I just can't get comfortable with the idea of oblivion. In contemplating nonexistence, I feel nothing but despair.

If an asteroid obliterated human life on this planet, then what would have been the point of the whole enterprise?

[mfbukowski]

And here is a better question: Why would JS risk his fraud by providing us with another fraud? And if it were a fraud, he must have known that someone with some expertise would expose him? Seems like a big risk to me, if I were a fraudster. I would have found it much more relaxing just to let sleeping dogs sleep, and continue with the original BoM fraud.

Unless of course, it wasn't a fraud.

I think this argument takes on new strength when we consider the case of the Anthon manuscript. Joseph had already been "burned" once by releasing raw manuscripts, and if he was a fraud, he would have never done it again. Stupid he wasn't!

[Chris Smith]

Mortal Man and LoaP,

I'm not talking about committing suicide. I'm talking about Jesus' death and resurrection as a metaphor for surrendering self-centeredness and replacing it with other-centeredness. This is a "death" to the self in a metaphorical sense that initiates a new and better life (without literally dying).

Bill,

I don't think David is defending the Semitic adaptation theory a la Barney.

Best,

-Chris

[mfbukowski]

Let's take a look at what Joseph actually said concerning the facsimilies.

"Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians."

"...the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau..."

"...which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh..."

"...called by the Egyptians Oliblish..."

"...also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand..."

"...Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun"

So if I understand you correctly, in order to move beyond a perfunctory understanding of the facsimilies, we must realize that by "Egyptians" JS meant "Mesopotamians" and by "translation" he meant "recontextualization" and by "called in Egyptian" he meant "called in Hebrew"? And when he points to a specific hieroglyph on the papyrus and says, "There, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham," what he really means is "These are signature papyri of the deified Abraham who caused this breathing permit to be encoded with secret temple rites from the ancient Sumerians"?

I am working my way through this thread, so I hope this is not out of context too much where it ends up, but I have no problem with the idea that Joseph himself believed that the "translation" he received by inspiration was in fact a literal translation. He was mistaken. What he received was so much more profound than a translation he really had no idea of the depth. To me, these statements confirm his prophethood. He literally had no clue what he was saying, and it wasn't from him.

[Mars]

Chris,

For the record I really enjoy your critiques of the Book of Abraham. I think you state yourself very well, and I'm never put off by the implied tone of your comments even though they directly challenge my beliefs.

[Chris Smith]

Thanks, Mars!

[Bill Hamblin]

Mortal Man and LoaP,

I'm not talking about committing suicide. I'm talking about Jesus' death and resurrection as a metaphor for surrendering self-centeredness and replacing it with other-centeredness. This is a "death" to the self in a metaphorical sense that initiates a new and better life (without literally dying).

Bill,

I don't think David is defending the Semitic adaptation theory a la Barney.

Best,

-Chris

I didn't say he was (though I don't think he would necessarily reject it--he can clarify if he wants). I said he is arguing is that JS's interpretations of the Facsimiles is fundamentally iconotropic, as is Barney's. Indeed, I would argue that both critics and defenders believe that JS's interpretation is iconotropic. The difference is that believers maintain it is an ancient/revealed icontropic interpretation, while critics claim it is Joseph's inconotropic interpretation derives fundamentally from his imagination.

[mfbukowski]

Okay. But suppose you apply the same skepticism to the Gospels and conclude that they were written far too late and contain far too many contradictions to be trusted as actual historical accounts of the resurrection? Suppose the resurrection is an inspired middle-first-century production. If we approach it with a "second naivete", as a sacred story and symbol, rather than an actual event, does it still retain its mystique? Is the poetic mystique of a fictional life after death just as good as an actual life after death?

Billions believe in the Koran. Is it fiction? Or should they care?

[John D the First]

What I find compelling here is the convergence of cores. Joseph Smith claimed to have been called by God to restore the religion followed by the Biblical people. A core of Biblical religion, human deification, is a core of the religion Joseph Smith claimed he was restoring.

[Mortal Man]

Mortal Man and LoaP,

I'm not talking about committing suicide. I'm talking about Jesus' death and resurrection as a metaphor for surrendering self-centeredness and replacing it with other-centeredness. This is a "death" to the self in a metaphorical sense that initiates a new and better life (without literally dying).

I'll go along with that 100%. But to me, the value of other-centeredness shrinks to zero if you divide the time we spend in this life by the infinity of non-existence. If there is nothing after death, then this life is a cruel joke.

Chris,

For the record I really enjoy your critiques of the Book of Abraham. I think you state yourself very well, and I'm never put off by the implied tone of your comments even though they directly challenge my beliefs.

Ditto.

[mfbukowski]

I'm talking about Jesus' death and resurrection as a metaphor for surrendering self-centeredness and replacing it with other-centeredness. This is a "death" to the self in a metaphorical sense that initiates a new and better life (without literally dying).

I agree. To me it is two sides of the same coin. If we live a life based on transformation of the self into a new Christ-being, death is itself transformed into something not to be feared. The unknown is the unknown. This is why we are to live by faith.

[Hermes]

Another classic example is the conflation of the Egyptian Thoth with Greek Hermes, Jewish Enoch, Rabbinic Metatron and Muslim Idris.

you rang?