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

[Atheist Mormon]

31 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

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

Dear Glenn, not only I'd eat the my words, I'd even eat some cockroaches which I hate so much..... 

[ALarson]

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Published by whom? 

Josiah Quincy published his own journals in 1884.

(Figures of the Past from the Leaves of Old Journals, By Josiah Quincy)

.

Edited July 11, 2016 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

4 hours 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?

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V03N02_43.pdf  I c/p'd this section of the link, I don't know if it is an answer or not as to how JS was able to get it right, my main reason for linking this is to show that he studied Hebrew. 

"HEBREW IN THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM Joseph's most ambitious use of Hebrew is found in the Book of Abraham and in the King Follett Discourse. We look first into the Book of Abraham. From July, 1835, into the winter of 1836, the Journal keeps referring to Egyptian mummies and papyri. The full story of how Michael Chandler's Egyptian mummies, rolls, and papyri came into the possession of the Mormons is related by Oliver Cowdery in the Messenger and Advocate for December, 1835, in an article entitled "Egyptian Mummies," and in the Journal (11:235, 348-351). Suffice it to say here that, according to these accounts, when Joseph Smith identified some of the symbols at sight, Mr. Chandler was satisfied that he had at last come to the one person able to decipher, translate, and interpret his hieroglyphics. The Saints, for their part, were happy to purchase "the mummies and papyrus." "With W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes," Joseph writes, "I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy, found that one of the scrolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. . . . Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." So, from October, 1835, through the winter of 1835-1836, while diligently studying Hebrew, as we have seen, Joseph was also working on these papyri. On January 30, 1836, Joseph notes in his Journal: "Mr. Seixas, our Hebrew teacher, examined the record, and pronounced it to be original beyond all doubt." Finally, in the spring of 1842, in Times and Seasons, appeared the Book of Abraham. In Cowdery's words, it utters knowledge about "the history of the creation, the fall of man, and more or less the correct ideas of the Deity." When Joseph Smith was educing the Book of Abraham from the papyri, he could not possibly have made use of Jean Champollion's Precis (1823, 1828), and there was no other comparable teacher of Egyptology in print in 1835-1836. Accordingly, Robert C. Webb, in his book Joseph Smith as a Translator (1936), attributes Joseph's Book to divine illumination and postulates the infallibility of Joseph's knowledge of "reformed Egyptian" and of Hebrew in this Book as well as in the Book of Mormon. "Reformed Egyptian," Webb is sure, is later Egyptian written by an Israelite who, while writing in it, "must have been thinking in the forms of a language purely Semitic, and using Egyptian words precisely as he would have used corresponding words in his own vernacular" (p. 79). And by ingenious zigzag from form to form, Webb unfailingly attains the preestablished outcome. Unprecedented words and idioms, however linguistically dubious, are shown to be linguistically authentic, in the very nature of things. The particular assumption a priori behind Webb's method, I think, is clear. Is it obligatory for the faithful to validate every writing which Joseph Smith presented to them ex cathedra} Today, learned specialists in the Church are confidently employing their science to verify the far reaches of Joseph's revelations in the eyes of the world's science. ZUCKER: Joseph Smith As a Student of Hebrew 151 Now I don't know anything about Egyptology; but, when I think of how much preparation it took for Champollion to come the short distance he did with all his perceptiveness, I am skeptical, a priori, of Joseph's competence in it. Perhaps, it all comes down finally to one a priori thesis and its train of consequences as against another. At all events, frankly, I am thinking about Joseph Smith from the point of view of one who regards him with respect and admiration as a genius, but as one inspired only as all geniuses of the spirit are. I wish not to be dogmatic — candidly surmising where I can't be certain. We continue with the search for effects of Joseph's Hebrew study discernible in astronomical and cosmological names, names of "strange gods" and Facsimiles 1 and 2, all of which are found in the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham. As we know, this Book, in Webb's opinion "is an actual translation from the Egyptian as written by an Israelite" (pp. 75-76); and he moves the Hyksos rule higher, to 2250-1750, so as to place Abraham in the middle of it. Names like Korash, Mahmackrah, and Shagreel, he states, are Hebrew. Of the three, only Korash sounds Hebrewish. The "Hebrew" which Webb transliterates as "Shagreel," a pupil of Seixas would transliterate as "Sha-gna-ra (ray)-el"; "el," of course, is Hebrew. Webb asserts, too, that Shinehah, Olea, and Kolob are Hebrew as truly as are Kokaubeam, Hah-ko-kaubeam, Kokob, and Raukeeyang. Three of these last four words are transliterated virtually in the Seixas way. All four are given their Hebrew meanings: stars, the stars, a star, firmament or expanse. Another such word is Shaumahyeem (exactly the Seixas pronunciation), heavens, in the sense of Genesis I; Shaumau is an invented singular, unknown to the Bible. Kolob, the name of the greatest of all the Kokaubeam, may be a variant of Kokob. Olea, a name for the moon, may be an invented variant for a Hebrew word for "moon," yau-ra-akh, the same as the vowels of Adonai were transposed into the word Jehovah. The more poetical word for "moon," le-vanah, the White One, turns into the name Libnah for one of the idolatrous gods. The name Jah-oh-eh for the earth ("Explanation," Facsimile 2), which applies literally the time-idea of Psalm 90:4, could be an inversion of the vowels of Ye-ho-vau (Jehovah) in Seixas' translation (p. 15). This inversion has theological significance. One word remains: gnolaum (3:18) — "Yet these two spirits . . . shall have no beginning .. . no end, for they are gnolaum, or eternal." This, again, is an exact Seixas transliteration; however, the Hebrew word is not an adjective but a noun, which in the plural may act as an adverb. The phrase "an everlasting covenant" (Doctrine and Covenants 45:9) is taken from Genesis 17:13, where gnolaum, in the English idiom "everlasting," is, in the Hebrew idiom, a noun, "eternity." How does Joseph use the Hebrew term-name Elohim or Eloheem, God? In translating "Elohim" in Exodus 22:28, he changed the King James "the gods" to "God." The Revised Version (R. V.), followed by the standard Jewish translation of 1917, changed "the gods" to "the judges." Joseph was a strict monotheist then. Likewise, in the Book of Moses, he positively, militantly makes "God" singular in recounting the creation of the universe and does not at all depart from monotheism in the first three chapters of the Book of 521 DIALOGUE: A Journal of Mormon Thought Abraham nor in the Explanations of the three Facsimiles. But, in the fourth and fifth chapters of this later book, Joseph is triumphantly positive that Eloheem means "the Gods." "The Gods organized the lights in the expanse of the heaven"; "the Gods took counsel among themselves and said, Let us go down and form man in our image." Now, in the Hebrew we find: "And God said [singular], Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. . . . And God created [singular] man in His image." With the exception of "let us make," the verbs which go with "God" (Eloheem) are singular throughout Genesis 1. The same is the situation in Genesis 3:22: "And the Lord God said [singular], Behold the man is become as one of us .. . "; and in Genesis 11:6-8: "Go to, let us go down," says the Lord (singular). "The gods" (plural) in Genesis 35:7 (A. V. "God") are the same as "the angels of God" (so A. V.) in 28:12. Seixas's Manual invariably treats the Eloheem of the Israelites as singular, although the word is plural in form; and he explains the plural form as "a pluralis excellentiae, used by way of eminence" (pp. 85, 94). Professor Seixas was not to blame if, on learning that Eloheem is plural, Joseph "concluded that the Bible had been carelessly translated," even though Parley Pratt thought so. It is also doubtful that the Professor led Joseph to "conclude that God must have made the heavens and the earth out of materials He had on hand." (See Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, p. 171.)"

Edited July 11, 2016 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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.

My comments had nothing to do with evolutionary biology, but only with ancient Egyptian concepts, so your reply here is a non sequitur.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V03N02_43.pdf  I c/p'd this section of the link, I don't know if it is an answer or not as to how JS was able to get it right, my main reason for linking this is to show that he studied Hebrew. 

.........................................................................................   

The words I go over in the post you are replying to are ancient Egyptian words, not Hebrew, and Joseph had no way of knowing anything about ancient Egyptian language.  The decipherment of that language had only just begun in Joseph's day, and (as Prof Zucker himself points out) there was no way Joseph could have known anything about that., or about Egyptology --except by revelation.

Prof Zucker (then a Jewish professor of English at the Univ. of Utah, and now deceased) wrote a nice article on Joseph and his fellows in the School of the Prophets studying Hebrew under a Jewish teacher back in Kirtland, Ohio, but Zucker got a number of things wrong in his article -- I wrote a letter to him about it at that time, and he sent me a very nice reply.

[Johnnie Cake]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My comments had nothing to do with evolutionary biology, but only with ancient Egyptian concepts, so your reply here is a non sequitur.

My point exactly...sorry I'm not as articulate as you Robert.  My comments had nothing to do with evolution either...only to point out that Egyptians could not have known when this picture was drawn on the papyri that snakes once had legs but had evolved beyond them.  Who ever drew that picture conceived it from some other source...Egyptian mythology, imagination or elsewhere...but not from a knowledge of evolution.  But Joseph took the Egyptian drawing literally...believing that snakes once had legs and walked prior to the fall...which in my opinion is just bizarre

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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? 

nope...but since you are the one trying to make a point, the burden is on you to show they were never altered.  You shifting the burden says it all

[Johnnie Cake]

2 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

nope...but since you are the one trying to make a point, the burden is on you to show they were never altered.  You shifting the burden says it all

What about the recollections of Quincy are you questioning?  I don't understand why you doubt the recollections of these men?  LDS apologist quote other portions of Quincy's book when it supports their premises...its good enough for them...why not you?

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

nope...but since you are the one trying to make a point, the burden is on you to show they were never altered.  You shifting the burden says it all

There is no evidence whatsoever than Josiah Quincy's journal, Charlotte Haven's letter, or Charles Adam's diary were altered (all recorded by them contemporaneously with their visits to Nauvoo).  

You have no evidence that that they were lying or that their writings have been altered.  

So no, the burden of proof is not on me when it's you making the accusations.  

.

Edited July 11, 2016 by ALarson

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

My point exactly...sorry I'm not as articulate as you Robert.  My comments had nothing to do with evolution either...only to point out that Egyptians could not have known when this picture was drawn on the papyri that snakes once had legs but had evolved beyond them.  Who ever drew that picture conceived it from some other source...Egyptian mythology, imagination or elsewhere...but not from a knowledge of evolution.  But Joseph took the Egyptian drawing literally...believing that snakes once had legs and walked prior to the fall...which in my opinion is just bizarre

I don't know what Joseph believed about legged snakes, any more than I know whether he believed in the winged, flying serpents in Exodus or I Nephi, or dragons and satyrs mentioned elsewhere in the Bible and BofM.  Perhaps he took them literally, or perhaps he saw them as symbolic, as specifically in D&C 77:2-4. He may have been speaking figuratively as in Genesis, and as we often do during esoteric ordinances in the temple.  You are perhaps missing the point, Johnnie.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

There is no evidence whatsoever than Josiah Quincy's journal, Charlotte Haven's letter, or Charles Adam's diary were altered (all recorded contemporaneously to their visits to Nauvoo).  You have no evidence that that they were lying or that the records were altered.  

So no, the burden of proof is not on me when it's you making the accusations.  

Is CountryBoy questioning the credibility of the sources?  I don't understand?  Quincy's book is credible enough for LDS apologists and the church publications like a ensign...they just leave out the parts in my OP...so whats the problem

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There is no evidence whatsoever than Josiah Quincy's journal, Charlotte Haven's letter, or Charles Adam's diary were altered (all recorded contemporaneously to their visits to Nauvoo).  You have no evidence that that they were lying or that the records were altered.  

So no, the burden of proof is not on me when it's you making the accusations.  

I have made no accusations.  I simply asked you to show what you submit is accurate and unaltered.  Instead, you dodge, shift the burden and try to change the dynamics by falsely claiming I made accusations.

Again, that says all I needed to know.

Dismissed

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Is CountryBoy questioning the credibility of the sources?  I don't understand?  Quincy's book is credible enough for LDS apologists and the church publications like a ensign...they just leave out the parts in my OP...so whats the problem

I'm not sure what he's doing.  But he's coming off as being very desperate here.

He not only is questioning Josiah Quincy's credibility, but also other witnesses who recorded similar experiences in Nauvoo while viewing the mummies and papyri with absolutely nothing to back up his accusations. Pretty bizarre.

[UtahTexan]

34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure what he's doing.  But he's coming off as being very desperate here.

He not only is questioning Josiah Quincy's credibility, but also other witnesses who recorded similar experiences in Nauvoo while viewing the mummies and papyri with absolutely nothing to back up his accusations. Pretty bizarre.

Lol....the ultimate stages of a lost battle.

When asked for references and proof to back up a claim, the loser:

1. Dodges the question

2. Shifts the burden

3. Makes claims that are not true ie. claiming I made accusations

4. Talks about the one who prevailed instead of to him

5. Makes claims of desperation where none exists

6. Never answers the questions that so baffled him the first place

You have done all the stages, Larsen.  Congrats.

I had no idea asking for evidence and proof would upset you so.  I apologize.

Do not make this personal.

[Calm]

What would you accept as evidence, CB?

[Johnnie Cake]

5 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Lol....the ultimate stages of a lost battle.

When asked for references and proof to back up a claim, the loser:

1. Dodges the question

2. Shifts the burden

3. Makes claims that are not true ie. claiming I made accusations

4. Talks about the one who prevailed instead of to him

5. Makes claims of desperation where none exists

6. Never answers the questions that so baffled him the first place

You have done all the stages, Larsen.  Congrats.

I had no idea asking for evidence and proof would upset you so.  I apologize.

I'm trying to understand your question. What exactly are you asserting?

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

I had no idea asking for evidence and proof would upset you so.  I apologize.

Hey, no worries.  I'm not sure why you think I'm upset.  I think we're all just trying to figure out what you want here.

We have written records from several witnesses who all state that they had similar experiences in Nauvoo while viewing the mummies, papyri, etc.  They were all written contemporaneously by these 3 different people.

Which of these do you suspect were altered?  Or do you believe they may have lied, and if so who?

If your answer is "none of them", then we agree   

If not, please elaborate!  Thanks.

.

Edited July 11, 2016 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Hey, no worries.  I'm not sure why you think I'm upset.  I think we're all just trying to figure out what you want here.

We have written records from several witnesses who all state that they had similar experiences in Nauvoo while viewing the mummies, papyri, etc.  They were all written contemporaneously by these 3 different people.

Which of these do you suspect were altered?  Or do you believe they may have lied, and if so who?

If your answer is "none of them", then we agree   

If not, please elaborate!  Thanks.

.

 

13 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm trying to understand your question. What exactly are you asserting?

I guess this is a concept that a lawyer might use to keep the witness on their toes.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess this is a concept that a lawyer might use to keep the witness on their toes.

If so, it's not working in this case 

[UtahTexan]

36 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If so, it's not working in this case 

it actually is.  You still have not answered.  I am not gonna re ask.....I have no desire to start your cycle again

[Glenn101]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Hey, no worries.  I'm not sure why you think I'm upset.  I think we're all just trying to figure out what you want here.

We have written records from several witnesses who all state that they had similar experiences in Nauvoo while viewing the mummies, papyri, etc.  They were all written contemporaneously by these 3 different people.

Which of these do you suspect were altered?  Or do you believe they may have lied, and if so who?

If your answer is "none of them", then we agree   

If not, please elaborate!  Thanks.

.

I don't know that any of the people lied, but the reports from Charlotte Haven and Josiah Quincy varied some as to the details. Six for Charlotte and four for Josiah.  "King Onitus and his royal household," on the mummies for Charlotte. Pharaoh Necho for Josiah. Fair to mention that the source for Charlotte was Lucy Mack Smith rather than Joseph. The excerpt from Francis Adams' diary is rather sparse on details. About the only thing of substance he said pretty much confirms that there were four mummies (also confirmed by other sources) at the time he and Josiah visited and that his mother would usually receive a quarter of a dollar for showing the items.

There are some problems with the Quincy account though. One problem is that we do not know if the diary entries "ten closely written pages" were written contemporaneously with his visit. It is my understanding that those diaries have not been recovered and not all of the letters to his friends about the event that he used for his sources have been recovered.

There is one part that is pretty surely inaccurate though. And that is the price paid for the papyri and the mummies. He says that the price was six thousand dollars paid for by Lucy Mack Smith. All of the other sources I have place the amount paid as 2400 dollars put up by Joseph Coe and Simon Andrews with the rest obtained by Joseph Smith via contributions.

I will provide references if a CFR is requested, but the information is readily available on the internet.

However, it light of that information, I would not think that those recollections by Josiah Quincy are something that one would really want to use as evidence that Joseph was a liar.

Glenn

 

 

[UtahTexan]

28 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I don't know that any of the people lied, but the reports from Charlotte Haven and Josiah Quincy varied some as to the details. Six for Charlotte and four for Josiah.  "King Onitus and his royal household," on the mummies for Charlotte. Pharaoh Necho for Josiah. Fair to mention that the source for Charlotte was Lucy Mack Smith rather than Joseph. The excerpt from Francis Adams' diary is rather sparse on details. About the only thing of substance he said pretty much confirms that there were four mummies (also confirmed by other sources) at the time he and Josiah visited and that his mother would usually receive a quarter of a dollar for showing the items.

There are some problems with the Quincy account though. One problem is that we do not know if the diary entries "ten closely written pages" were written contemporaneously with his visit. It is my understanding that those diaries have not been recovered and not all of the letters to his friends about the event that he used for his sources have been recovered.

There is one part that is pretty surely inaccurate though. And that is the price paid for the papyri and the mummies. He says that the price was six thousand dollars paid for by Lucy Mack Smith. All of the other sources I have place the amount paid as 2400 dollars put up by Joseph Coe and Simon Andrews with the rest obtained by Joseph Smith via contributions.

I will provide references if a CFR is requested, but the information is readily available on the internet.

However, it light of that information, I would not think that those recollections by Josiah Quincy are something that one would really want to use as evidence that Joseph was a liar.

Glenn

 

 

They already knew, I suspect...hence the dancing around my questions and the steps they displayed when losing an argument

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

They already knew, I suspect...hence the dancing around my questions and the steps they displayed when losing an argument

Except that after reading through this thread and Glenn's post, he doesn't address what you were claiming (but nice try piggybacking onto his post):

You posted:

"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?"

Also, Glenn does not address all the points that are actually the same in all the accounts.  Each may have remembered different information or been given different information.  

One thing they all state (iirc) is that they were told the scroll contained the writings of Abraham.

Edited July 12, 2016 by JulieM

[JulieM]

Glenn, you can see above that Josiah published his own journals.  So, I'm not sure you are accurate with what you remember about them not being recovered. 

Do you have more information on that?

I agree with much of the rest of your post though. 

[Glenn101]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Except that after reading through this thread and Glenn's post, he doesn't address what you were claiming (but nice try piggybacking onto his post):

You posted:

"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?"

Also, Glenn does not address all the points that are actually the same in all the accounts.  Each may have remembered different information or been given different information.  

One thing they all state (iirc) is that they were told the scroll contained the writings of Abraham.

The the report that Joseph claimed that one of the scrolls contained the writings of Abraham is hardly a point of dispute. My only point was that there are known problems with some of the details with Josiah Quincy's account that can be verified from other sources. That could have been that Josiah was fed the incorrect information, or he embellished his account somewhat. That has been known to happen here and there. Just ask Dr. Purple.

Glenn