How Could Joseph Be So Wrong...and Yet Right?

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Remembering a book by a psychologist that wrote a book about Joseph's growing up with an alcoholic father, and losing their home. They were desperate for money, and having to rent homes or just the hardship of living house to house and not being able to afford things. I think that early on the Smith's were doing what they could to survive, and maybe these mummies was one way they could. 

Yeah, I can definitely see that Joseph and his mother wrote up a story about the mummies to make it an interesting endeavor for people who paid a price to see them.  It'd be odd if that story changed, but it could happen I suppose. 

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yeah, I can definitely see that Joseph and his mother wrote up a story about the mummies to make it an interesting endeavor for people who paid a price to see them.

Well, there have been 3 statements quoted here that were written by witnesses who support this may have been the case (all contemporaneous statements).  What we don't know is how much Lucy added or embellished to make it even more interesting.  Some of the statements are the same though (her's and Joseph's).  I tend to believe that she did get most of what she stated from Joseph and then just repeated it. .

.

Edited July 11, 2016 by ALarson

[Johnnie Cake]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, there have been 3 statements quoted here that were written written by witnesses who support this may have been the case (all contemporaneous statements).  What we don't know is how much Lucy added or embellished to make it even more interesting.  Some of the statements are the same though (her's and Joseph's).  I tend to believe that she did get most of what she stated from Joseph and then just repeated it.  

.

I understand that today we live in a world where fanciful claims require some form of evidentiary back up...obviously that was not the case in Joseph's day.  Mother Smith's claim that the leg of one of the mummies was from the daughter of a pharaoh is a case in point.  Imagine if someone made that claim today...the claim would be dismissed outright...but in Smith's day...there seemed to be a willingness to suspend skepticism and just believe outlandish claims with out any evidentiary support.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

However to be fair...in the Greek Psalter incident in which Smith incorrectly identified the Greek Psalm as a Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics...apostle William Richards said "Sometimes Mr. Smith speaks as mere man. If he gave a wrong opinion respecting the book, he spoke as a mere man." So evidently not everything that came out of Smith's mouth was taken all the times...only those claims that could not be discredited.

According to some accounts Smith used his Seer Stone in his hat to divine what the Greek Psalter was...unfortunately the Stone was mistaken.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It was published some 40 years later from his diary which were contemporaneous  to the visit.

Yes, and Brodie was very selective in what she quoted.  Here is something else Quincy said:

Quote

It is by no means improbable that some future text-book, for the use of generations yet unborn, will contain a question something like this: What historical American of the nineteenth century has exerted the most powerful influence upon the destinies of his countrymen?  And it is by no means impossible that the answer to that interrogatory may be thus written: Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet.  And the reply, absurd as it doubtless seems to most men now living, may be an obvious commonplace to their descendants.  History deals in surprises and paradoxes quite as startling as this.  The man who established a religion in this age of free debate, who was and is to day accepted by hundreds of thousands as a direct emissary from the Most High – such a rare human being is not to be disposed of by pelting his memory with unsavory epithets.  Fanatic, impostor, charlatan he may have been; but these hard names furnish no solution to the problem he presents to us.  Fanatics and impostors are living and dying every day, and their memory is buried with them; but the wonderful influence which this founder of a religion exerted and still exerts throws him into relief before us, not as a rogue to be criminated, but as a phenomenon to be explained.  Quincy, Figures of the Past (1882/1883/1926), 376.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and Brodie was very selective in what she quoted.  Here is something else Quincy said:

 

Thanks for your comments Robert,  I'm guessing you haven't read the entire thread...which is understandable considering you being a busy man and all...but I did share this Quincy quote earlier in the thread

[stemelbow]

49 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, there have been 3 statements quoted here that were written by witnesses who support this may have been the case (all contemporaneous statements).  What we don't know is how much Lucy added or embellished to make it even more interesting.  Some of the statements are the same though (her's and Joseph's).  I tend to believe that she did get most of what she stated from Joseph and then just repeated it. .

.

I wouldn't doubt it either.  Particularly as he got older Joseph seemed like he enjoyed people listening to his authoritative sounding stories.  I wouldn't doubt he got carried away and took liberties left and right in the process. 

[Johnnie Cake]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I wouldn't doubt it either.  Particularly as he got older Joseph seemed like he enjoyed people listening to his authoritative sounding stories.  I wouldn't doubt he got carried away and took liberties left and right in the process. 

Everyone enjoys a good story...and I don't fault Joseph for telling a good yarn now and then...we all do that...but for me he crosses a line when he tells a yarn and then passes it off as fact and reality...that he did this regularly throughout his life is what causes me consternation...

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Josiah Quincy, grand son of John Quincy Adams visited Joseph Smith in Nauvoo . Quincy recorded the visit in his diary. These are his recollections as quoted in Brodies biography of Smith...

Here is a list of false claims made by Smith:

01. That the mummy in possession of Smith was a Pharaoh

02. That the papyri held the handwriting of Abraham

03. That the papyri held the autograph of Moses

04. That the papyri contained the handwritting of Aaron

05. That the papyri was the earliest account of the creation from which Genesis was composed (the papyri had nothing to do with the Hewbrew creation story)

06. That snakes ever had legs

In fact not a single claim made by Smith is true.  Knowing this, how exactly am I to believe his other claim regarding the Book of Abraham? He made 6 claims and didn't make a single true claim, why should I believe his 7th claim regarding the words he dictated?

How convenient for you that we do not have his mummies today, and that they cannot therefore be evaluated by Egyptologists.  The same applies to many of the papyri, which we do not have now.  All your negative judgments are based on the surviving papyri fragments, but we know that there were additional papyri and fragments.  Moreover, it has already been graphically demonstrated that snakes could sport legs.  In fact the dove (typically an Egyptian bird-serpent) displayed in Fac 2:7 is interpreted by Joseph as "the sign of the Holy Ghost . . . in the form of a dove."

As I have pointed out many times since 1975, this figure in 2:7 is interpreted in standard Egyptology as the god Nehebkau -- whom Egyptologist Miriam Lichtheim defined as “a divinity in serpent form who is in the retinue of Re and serves as a guardian,” in her comments on Pyramid Utterance 263.  Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, I:34-35 n. 2.  In Coffin Texts contemporary with Abraham, the Nhb-kЗw is a nʿw-serpent – a taker away of power and a bestower of powers, with authority from the Great Ennead of Atum, i.e., the Divine Council.  See R. O. Faulkner on Coffin Texts 85-88 [II, 51-54]; Shorter, “The God Nehebkau,” JEA, 21 (1935), 46–47.  Indeed, in the 6th Dynasty Autobiography of Weni from Abydos, one finds a god can command, while his kЗ will declare and promulgate that command – the very function fulfilled biblically by the “Holy Ghost” (see Cairo Museum 1435, lines 48-50, as translated by Miriam Lichtheim).   In fact, the kЗ-element of Nehebkau means variously "ghost, phantom, spirit, soul, genius, essence, hyper-physical-vital-force," etc.  E. A. W. Budge said:

Quote

The word ka means “image”, the Greek εἴδωλον (compare Coptic κω . . .).  The ka seems to have been the “ghost”, as we should say, of a man, . . his abstract personality, to which, after death, the Egyptians gave a material form.  Budge, Book of the Dead; The Papyrus of Ani (1895/1967), 247 n. 1.

If Joseph was so wrong, how could he get it so right?

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Everyone enjoys a good story...and I don't fault Joseph for telling a good yarn now and then...we all do that...but for me he crosses a line when he tells a yarn and then passes it off as fact and reality...that he did this regularly throughout his life is what causes me consternation...

I say forget about it. You'll never know what he was thinking or doing.  maybe he thought his prophetic gift was such that his stories were true, in his mind.  While I can hear my co-workers own story and assume the parts of exaggeration, I don't really know.  Are they exaggeration, are they true, is it just because of his perception (meaning did he really view the events that way)?  Beats me.  Maybe in the case, Quincy made up what Joseph said, and reported as such because he had his own little reason for doing so.  But, it feels likely they (he and Lucy and others perhaps) helped make the stories sound credible and a little more exciting so they'd get more people to come and see the mummies.  I went to the http://www.undergroundtour.com/ in Seattle a couple of weeks ago.  I'm sure they strive for good accurate info, but some of it seemed at least debatable.  But it keep their tour attractive I'm sure they have to do that some.  I mean it's a far cry from making up stories about ancient mummies, but it tells me something about the possibility. 

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thanks for your comments Robert,  I'm guessing you haven't read the entire thread...which is understandable considering you being a busy man and all...but I did share this Quincy quote earlier in the thread

Sorry about that, Johnnie.  My bad.

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How convenient for you that we do not have his mummies today, and that they cannot therefore be evaluated by Egyptologists.

I have read that the church is in possession of 2 of the mummies (the others being destroyed in the 1871 Chicago fire).  I'll try to find where I read that, but does anyone know more about this?

Edited to add:

In doing some searching, it seems some have speculated that the church has 2 of the mummies (the other 2 were destroyed in the fire), but I also found other's research shows that the fate of the 2 remaining mummies is "unknown".  If anyone knows more, I'd be interested in reading their findings and thoughts!

.

Edited July 11, 2016 by ALarson

[Johnnie Cake]

38 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How convenient for you that we do not have his mummies today, and that they cannot therefore be evaluated by Egyptologists.  The same applies to many of the papyri, which we do not have now.  All your negative judgments are based on the surviving papyri fragments, but we know that there were additional papyri and fragments.  Moreover, it has already been graphically demonstrated that snakes could sport legs.  In fact the dove (typically an Egyptian bird-serpent) displayed in Fac 2:7 is interpreted by Joseph as "the sign of the Holy Ghost . . . in the form of a dove."

As I have pointed out many times since 1975, this figure in 2:7 is interpreted in standard Egyptology as the god Nehebkau -- whom Egyptologist Miriam Lichtheim defined as “a divinity in serpent form who is in the retinue of Re and serves as a guardian,” in her comments on Pyramid Utterance 263.  Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, I:34-35 n. 2.  In Coffin Texts contemporary with Abraham, the Nhb-kЗw is a nʿw-serpent – a taker away of power and a bestower of powers, with authority from the Great Ennead of Atum, i.e., the Divine Council.  See R. O. Faulkner on Coffin Texts 85-88 [II, 51-54]; Shorter, “The God Nehebkau,” JEA, 21 (1935), 46–47.  Indeed, in the 6th Dynasty Autobiography of Weni from Abydos, one finds a god can command, while his kЗ will declare and promulgate that command – the very function fulfilled biblically by the “Holy Ghost” (see Cairo Museum 1435, lines 48-50, as translated by Miriam Lichtheim).   In fact, the kЗ-element of Nehebkau means variously "ghost, phantom, spirit, soul, genius, essence, hyper-physical-vital-force," etc.  E. A. W. Budge said:

If Joseph was so wrong, how could he get it so right?

Convenient for me or for the church?  Irrespective I'm not looking tfor a *** for tat discourse...its just unfortunate that we don't have them.  As for the walking snake...evidence of snakes with legs is from the fossil record and date back millions of years before the human species had even evolved.  I seriously doubt one can link an Egyptian myth drawing from about the year 200 BC found on the papyri to the actual fact that some members of the snake species once had legs.  It more likely falls in with the same myths that gave us horses with wings & horns and Lions with wings than that the Egyptians were drawing from a knowledge that some snakes once had legs...wouldn't you agree?.  Evolution was an unknown science to the Egyptians.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I have read that the church is in possession of 2 of the mummies (the others being destroyed in the 1871 Chicago fire)....

I thought they knew where the mummies came from originally or was that just the sales pitch of the guy who sold them? (not specifically directed to AL, probably more appropriate for RS  ).

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I thought they knew where the mummies came from originally or was that just the sales pitch of the guy who sold them? (not specifically directed to AL, probably more appropriate for RS  ).

This is what Marquardt wrote ("Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papers: A History"):

 

Quote

 

During the years 1817 to 1822, an unspecified number of Egyptian mummies and other artifacts came into the possession of Giovanni Pietro Antonio Lebolo (b. 1781). Lebolo was an associate of Bernardino Drovetti (1776-1852), France’s Consul General to Egypt from 1803 to 1814. For several years, Lebolo had assisted Drovetti in looking for ancient Egyptian relics. When Lebolo returned to Italy in 1822, he took with him a collection of at least eleven mummies and some additional artifacts. The mummies had been found in catacombs near Thebes, about 400 miles south of the Mediterranean Sea on the Nile River. In 1830, Lebolo died in Castellamonte, Piedmont (now Italy). The eleven mummies and various antique objects were subsequently sent to New York City with instructions that they be sold and that the proceeds benefit Lebolo’s heirs.¹

Lebolo’s eleven mummies may constitute the largest shipment of Egyptian mummies to America up to that time. Only a small number of public exhibits of mummies had been previously reported in major American cities. A man named Michael H. Chandler (1797-1866) reportedly secured Lebolo’s mummies in early 1833 and started to exhibit them, beginning in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, though to date there has been no independent confirmation of this.² What can be documented is that from early April to June 1833, the mummies and some papyri were displayed in the Masonic Hall and the Philadelphia Arcade. Adults were charged 25 cents, children 12½ cents. An early advertisement read:

The largest collection of EGYPTIAN MUMMIES ever exhibited in this city, is now to be seen at the Masonic Hall, in the Ches[t]nut Street above Seventh. They were found in the vicinity of Thebes, by the celebrated traveler Antonio Lebolo and Chevalier Drovetti, General Council of France in Egypt. Some writings on Papirus [Papyrus] with the Mummies, can also be seen, and will afford, no doubt, much satisfaction to Amateurs of Antiquities.³

Next on the mummies’ tour was Baltimore, Maryland, from mid-July to mid-August 1833. By this time, however, the eleven mummies had been reduced to six. Two had been sold to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia; another was reported to have been stripped of its wrappings in New York.⁴ In December 1833, Dr. Samuel George Morton conducted a dissection of the two mummies sold to Philadelphia’s Academy of Natural Sciences. The following certificate was issued by a group of medical doctors:

Having examined with considerable attention and deep interest, a number of Mummies from the catacombs, near Thebes, in Egypt, and now exhibited in the Arcade, we beg leave to recommend them to the observation of the curious inquirer on subjects of a period so long elapsed; probably not less than three thousand years ago. The features of some of these Mummies are in perfect expression. — The papyrus, covered with black or red ink, or paint, in excellent preservation, are very interesting. The undersigned, unsolicited by any person connected by interest with this exhibition, have voluntarily set their names hereunto, for the simple purpose of calling the attention of the public to an interesting collection, not sufficiently known in this city.

JOHN REDMAN COXE, M.D.
RICHARD HARLAN, M.D.
J. PANCOAST, M.D.
WILLIAM P.C. BARTON, M.D.
E. F. RIVINUS, M.D.
SAMUEL G. MORGAN [MORTON], M.D.

I concur in the above sentiments, concerning the collection of Mummies in the Philadelphia Arcade, and consider them highly deserving the attention of the curious.

W. E. HORNER, M.D.⁵

The traveling exhibition, featuring the remaining six Lebolo mummies–by now, clearly in Chandler’s possession–continued to Lancaster, then to Harrisburg, and on to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. By the end of 1833 and into 1834, the relics were on display in Cincinnati, and in January and February 1834 they were at the Louisville Museum in Kentucky. Before leaving Louisville, Chandler sold two more of the mummies, this time to the Louisville Museum.⁶

Early the next year, Chandler was in Ohio. In February 1835, his exhibit was in Hudson, and by March had reached Cleveland, some twenty miles north. A description of Chandler’s remaining four mummies appeared in the nearby Painesville, Ohio, Telegraph. There were three female mummies and one male mummy. Rolls of writings were associated with three of them. Of particular interest is the male mummy: “No. 3. — Height 4 ft. 4½. — Male, very old, say 80; arms crossing on the breast, each hand on its opposite shoulder; had a roll of writing as No. 1 & 2; superior head, it will compare in the region of the sentiments with any in our land; passions mild.”⁷

A Cleveland newspaper–reporting that the mummies were three males and one female–described the writing found in “the arms of the old man” to measure in length “10 or 12 inches, and 3 or 4 [inches] in width.” Continuing, the article said, “The characters are the Egyptian hyeroglyphics; but of what it discourses none can tell.”⁸ The publication of these two newspapers accounts shows the difficulty in identifying the gender, age, and condition of the four mummies. This problem continued throughout the years by those who examined the mummies.

As the Cleveland newspaper noted, no one in America at this time could provide a reliable English translation of these or any other Egyptian hieroglyphs. Books such as J. G. H. Greppo’s Essay on the Hieroglyphic System of M. Champollion, Jun. (Boston, 1830) contained some rudimentary ideas. Jean-François Champollion (1790-1832), a young French scholar, helped to decipher the Rosetta stone, which contained the same text written in hieroglyphs, Demotic, and Classical Greek.⁹ But at his death, he left his important works on translation to be published posthumously in Paris. His ground-breaking books Grammaire égyptienne [Egyptian Grammar] (1836) and Dictionnaire égyptienne [Egyptian Dictionary] (1841) together with the studies of other scholars led eventually to the successful decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs.

 Acquiring the Egyptian Papers

On June 30, 1835, Chandler’s tour arrived with its four mummies and rolls of papyri in Kirtland, Ohio, headquarters of the Church of the Latter Day Saints (later Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Joseph Smith Jr. (1805-44), the twenty-nine-year-old prophet-president of the five-year-old Church, was shown the Egyptian artifacts.

 

http://signaturebooks.com/excerpt-the-joseph-smith-egyptian-papyri-a-complete-edition/

Edited July 11, 2016 by ALarson

[Atheist Mormon]

18 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Actually we do not know that Joseph said that the papyri were written by Abraham. If you would read the introduction to the Book of Abraham series in the times and seasons, you will see that it says "A translation Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” 

And the facts are that we very apparently do not have all of the papyri that Joseph Smith had in his possession so one cannot say with any certainty that Joseph fibbed about that either.

This debate has been done and redone many times. I'll just drop off now because everything will just be a repetition of multiple repititions.

Glenn

Actually there's no other strong evidence of "make believe" part of the Church History than this one. If one still believes the truthfulness of Papyri Joseph translated there's no reason to research other episodes and validate their accuracy.  

[cinepro]

18 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

and you have evidence that he wrote exactly what was said without anything added and that it underwent no changes over 40 years and was published exactly like it happened?

Of course it wouldn't be exactly the same.  We would expect that the recollection recorded in the 1840s would be his initial, unformed impressions.  Only after a decade or two (or four) would Josiah have been able to properly understand the importance of what Joseph and Lucy Smith had said, and what it meant to him personally.  When finally publishing the story for the world, he would be able to share the entire story, including things he may have left out of the initial record, and provide a more fully formed picture of the experience that incorporated everything that happened.

So obviously the version from the 1880s should be considered the most accurate and reliable account.

[UtahTexan]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, Charles Adams (who was with John Quincy when they visited Joseph) makes a similar statement): 

 

that did not answer my questions.

And the fact two people said similar things proves nothing.  More than two people say smoking does not cause cancer....so?

[UtahTexan]

58 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Of course it wouldn't be exactly the same.  We would expect that the recollection recorded in the 1840s would be his initial, unformed impressions.  Only after a decade or two (or four) would Josiah have been able to properly understand the importance of what Joseph and Lucy Smith had said, and what it meant to him personally.  When finally publishing the story for the world, he would be able to share the entire story, including things he may have left out of the initial record, and provide a more fully formed picture of the experience that incorporated everything that happened.

So obviously the version from the 1880s should be considered the most accurate and reliable account.

really?  If it is quoted and taken directly from the quote, it would be the same.

And my questions still have not been answered.

But, again, I can come to your house and prove negative things about your family.....but to what end?

[Jeanne]

Joseph does not lie.  He just tells little fibs.

[Buckeye]

19 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

really?  If it is quoted and taken directly from the quote, it would be the same.

And my questions still have not been answered.

But, again, I can come to your house and prove negative things about your family.....but to what end?

You missed the point of Cinepro's comment. He was giving the same treatment to the Quincy quote that many apologetics give to Joseph Smith's account of the first vision: i.e., portraying the latest version as more accurate than earlier accounts. In doing so, Cinepro wasn't so much supporting the accuracy of Quincy's quote as demonstrating the unreliability of the official version of the first vision (the latest version, canonized in the POGP,)and also showing how LDS apologetics often reverse arguments when it suites their interests.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Actually there's no other strong evidence of "make believe" part of the Church History than this one. If one still believes the truthfulness of Papyri Joseph translated there's no reason to research other episodes and validate their accuracy.  

I know I said that I was dropping out, but I had to respond to this. I wish I could tell you that one of these days I am going to see you eat those words, but I am too busy getting this consarned beam out of my eye.

 

Glenn

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

that did not answer my questions.

And the fact two people said similar things proves nothing. 

Two people recorded similar experiences regarding their visit together with Joseph Smith.  They recorded this at the time of their visit (1844) in their own personal diaries..  Do you believe both Josiah Quincy and Charles Adams were lying?  If so, what evidence do you have that they lied?

We also have another very similar account from another contemporary source.  

Are all 3 lying?

 

Edited July 11, 2016 by ALarson

[UtahTexan]

22 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

You missed the point of Cinepro's comment. He was giving the same treatment to the Quincy quote that many apologetics give to Joseph Smith's account of the first vision: i.e., portraying the latest version as more accurate than earlier accounts. In doing so, Cinepro wasn't so much supporting the accuracy of Quincy's quote as demonstrating the unreliability of the official version of the first vision (the latest version, canonized in the POGP,)and also showing how LDS apologetics often reverse arguments when it suites their interests.

No, I did not miss his point.  I simply said my questions have not been answered....perhaps because they do not know the answers....perhaps because the answers do not help them.

My point, though, remains.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

No, I did not miss his point.  I simply said my questions have not been answered....perhaps because they do not know the answers....perhaps because the answers do not help them.

My point, though, remains.

What exactly is your point?  

We have 3 statements from contemporary witnesses that are very similar (recorded at the time of their visit). 

Do you have any evidence that they have been altered?