Jump to content

Kinderhook Plates Discovery damages BOA Missing Scroll and Catalyst Theories


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It must be dreadful for you to have to spend so much time on a forum with people who believe, defend, and even love things that you know to be morally wrong.

I'm unsure which percentage of us just aren't as morally developed as you and which percentage of us had no conscience to begin with, but I apologise for being someone with either a) a poorly developed sense of morality or b) no conscience at all!

Though in my case, it may well be a bit of column A mixed with a bit of column B. :(

Same reason you’re here hanging with the eugenicists. 🤷‍♂️

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

We have the facsimiles and we have Joseph Smith's detailed "translation" of them. You don't have to have the complete detailed record to determine that the translation is way wrong, made up wrong.  Apologist seem to want to skip over that inconvenient fact. So what is the spin on this one?  JS blew the translation of all the papyrus that we have, but all the rest (the stuff we don't have) he translated correctly?  It wasn't written by the hand of Abraham.  It is a 2nd century Egyptian funeral text.  

No, we don't have a translation of any of the text in the facsimiles, only interpretations of the iconography which is subjective but holds some validity.

Papyrus doesn't last forever, it gets recopied. If the Papyrus dates 1500 years after the time Abraham would have lived, all that means is that it was originally written "by the hand of Abraham", recopied several times over centuries, and that phrase in the text would be reproduced in all subsequent copies.

Even though the facsimiles are not presumed to be unique drawings, it was common practice to barrow images to illustrate your own writings, there are some weird properties on the facsimiles. If Facsimile 1 was only ever part of a funeral text, why is the dead man alive and in a praying position? Other funeral lion couch scenes do not depict a live individual.

 

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

No, we don't have a translation of any of the text in the facsimiles, just interpretations of the iconography which is subjective but holds some validity.

Papyrus doesn't last forever, it gets recopied. If the Papyrus was made 1500 years after the time Abraham would have lived, then that means it would have been originally written "by the hand of Abraham", and that phrase in the text could properly be reproduced in all subsequent copies.

Even though the facsimiles not presumed to be unique drawings, it was common practice to barrow images to illustrate your own writings, there are some weird properties on the facsimiles. If Facsimile 1 was only ever part of a funeral text, why is the dead man alive and in a praying position? In other funeral lion couch scenes do not depict a live individual.

 

Here are the translations right from church sources. Here is a quick example: "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God."  The full descriptions are in these links.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fscriptures%2Fpgp%2Fabr%2Ffac-2%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D0384F7D69693E47C-6B4D61A2748C5101|MCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1653022285

 

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-book-of-abraham/facsimiles-2-3-abraham-4-5?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fmanual%2Fthe-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018%2Fthe-book-of-abraham%2Ffacsimiles-2-3-abraham-4-5%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D0019AC686F728043-4ACD32ADA6536CF8|MCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1653022319

Now, compare JS's version to what here what Egyptologist say the facsimiles are:

Quote

Cuts 1 and 3 are inaccurate copies of well known scenes on funeral papyri, and cut 2 is a copy of one of the magical discs which in the late Egyptian period were placed under the heads of mummies.

 Arthur Cruttenden Mace, Assistant Curator in the Department of Egyptian Art in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.

It is not even close.  It was not a translation.  No kolob, no Abraham.  Just a common second century funeral document.

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Here are the translations right from church sources. Here is a quick example: "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God."  The full descriptions are in these links.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fscriptures%2Fpgp%2Fabr%2Ffac-2%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D0384F7D69693E47C-6B4D61A2748C5101|MCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1653022285

 

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-book-of-abraham/facsimiles-2-3-abraham-4-5?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fmanual%2Fthe-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018%2Fthe-book-of-abraham%2Ffacsimiles-2-3-abraham-4-5%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D0019AC686F728043-4ACD32ADA6536CF8|MCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1653022319

Now, compare JS's version to what here what Egyptologist say the facsimiles are:

 Arthur Cruttenden Mace, Assistant Curator in the Department of Egyptian Art in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.

It is not even close.  It was not a translation.  No kolob, no Abraham.  Just a common second century funeral document.

 

Ehh... Once again, there is no translation of any of the hieroglyphs in the Facsimiles. Those are all interpretations of just the subjective iconography. Joseph only ever points out the hieroglyphs, yet never tries to translate them. Some argue that Joseph's interpretation of the iconography was wrong (not translations). It was very common for vignettes to appear on different rolls, as templates of sorts, for different stories, and the image could represent anything the writings its linked with indicates.

Facsimile 2 fig 6 is absolutely 100% correct. Figure 5 is a cow, and Joseph Smith said the Egyptians used it to represent the Sun. Egyptologists recognize it as a cow as giving birth to the Sun.  Figure 3 says "represents God sitting upon his throne", and the image is of the Egyptian God Min. The figure was indeed an image of a God, its not a courtier of the king, and is not a member of the royal family, nor is it a high official, or the king himself for that matter; It is God. These items are iconographicly correct.

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

If figure three was not there how could he interpret it. The facsimile was damage. Insert a scene from another piece  of papyri. In all the examples i have seem in the colour plates in Tamis Mekis' book they all have the man in a boat and a scarab (insect) In Mekis' book 22 and 23 seem to have more than two heads. The "dove" in figure 7 seems to display legs and in some instance a penis. I think the catalyst is the way to go. 

In the instances of Facsimiles 1 and 2, we have known for many years what the standard content of those illustrations would be, so there is no actual mystery about what they contain and mean.  The damage to them makes no difference.  The standard Egyptological interpretations remain the same.  In all instances, the way to go is with standard Egyptological interpretation.  If such interpretations coincide with the explanations by Joseph, that tells us what we want to know.  Have you even bothered to read what the Egyptologists have said about them for the past half-century?  Or are you just reading what the anti-Joseph crowd has said?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In the instances of Facsimiles 1 and 2, we have known for many years what the standard content of those illustrations would be, so there is no actual mystery about what they contain and mean.  The damage to them makes no difference.  The standard Egyptological interpretations remain the same.  In all instances, the way to go is with standard Egyptological interpretation.  If such interpretations coincide with the explanations by Joseph, that tells us what we want to know.  Have you even bothered to read what the Egyptologists have said about them for the past half-century?  Or are you just reading what the anti-Joseph crowd has said?

Tamis Mekis in his book on the hypocephalus does not write  as an anti-mormon.He quotes Gee and Rhodes in his bibliography. He is just discussing the hypocephalus. Don't you think it strange that most of the examples of the hypocephalus in book located in the various museums are often alike. Please read his discussion on he two headed figure (2 in fac 2). 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

Tamis Mekis in his book on the hypocephalus does not write  as an anti-mormon.He quotes Gee and Rhodes in his bibliography. He is just discussing the hypocephalus. Don't you think it strange that most of the examples of the hypocephalus in book located in the various museums are often alike. Please read his discussion on he two headed figure (2 in fac 2). 

The similarties among hypocephali have been well known for over a hundred years.  There are no surprises there.  Facsimile 2 is merely one more hypocephalus.  There is nothing unique about them.  I wrote a detailed commentary on the subject back in 1975.  Mike Rhodes wrote a short translation-commentary a bit later.  What is it that you don't get about hypocephali?

I have yet to see the anti-Joseph crowd deal with standard Egyptological interpretation of Facsimile 2.   Are they afraid of the consequences?

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hy4https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FAVPHV-57cKhyfGDYff0fKPLkm3K6KQZgmEaQRxzNFI/edit

Do you believed the black figure is a slave. ? It seems there is evidence that the nose has been chisled out. Note the position of the of legs and the slave the waiter a which shows the deceased is being brought before Osirus.

Another interesting feature of facimile 1  are the hands. Was there two hands or one hand and the wing of another bird.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FAVPHV-57cKhyfGDYff0fKPLkm3K6KQZgmEaQRxzNFI/edit

Hands were drawn with the fingers of equal length.  

 

Edited by Tweed1944
correct spelling
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It must be dreadful for you to have to spend so much time on a forum with people who believe, defend, and even love things that you know to be morally wrong.

I'm unsure which percentage of us just aren't as morally developed as you and which percentage of us had no conscience to begin with, but I apologise for being someone with either a) a poorly developed sense of morality or b) no conscience at all!

Though in my case, it may well be a bit of column A mixed with a bit of column B. :(

I’ve never met anyone who loves and defends those things I find morally wrong. Maybe you’re the first. 😉

Link to comment
10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Same reason you’re here hanging with the eugenicists. 🤷‍♂️

Funny how it’s fine to call people baby-killing eugenicists but not OK to express any moral misgivings about anything even peripheral to the LDS church. 

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Funny how it’s fine to call people baby-killing eugenicists but not OK to express any moral misgivings about anything even peripheral to the LDS church. 

Is it funny that random LDS people react to your misgivings... about the LDS Church... in an LDS apologetics forum?  If comedy is all about being surprised, then I guess its not funny.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It must be dreadful for you to have to spend so much time on a forum with people who believe, defend, and even love things that you know to be morally wrong.

I'm unsure which percentage of us just aren't as morally developed as you and which percentage of us had no conscience to begin with, but I apologise for being someone with either a) a poorly developed sense of morality or b) no conscience at all!

Though in my case, it may well be a bit of column A mixed with a bit of column B. :(

On further reflection, I can see how you read what I wrote that way. Perhaps I should have said I couldn’t rationalize things that bothered my conscience. That is neither a claim to moral superiority on my part nor a blanket condemnation of those who “love and defend” Mormonism. What bothers my conscience does not bother others, and vice versa. 

I apologize for inartfully expressing myself in an offensive way. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hy4https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FAVPHV-57cKhyfGDYff0fKPLkm3K6KQZgmEaQRxzNFI/edit

Do you believed the black figure is a slave. ? It seems there is evidence that the nose has been chisled out. Note the position of the of legs and the slave the waiter a which shows the deceased is being brought before Osirus.

Another interesting feature of facimile 1  are the hands. Was there two hands or one hand and the wing of another bird.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FAVPHV-57cKhyfGDYff0fKPLkm3K6KQZgmEaQRxzNFI/edit

Hands were drawn with the fingers of equal length. 

According to non-LDS Egyptologist Lanny Bell, careful analysis shows that there are two hands of the guy on the couch (Osiris-Abraham), rather than a second bird wing.  Bell says:

Quote

Let me state clearly at the outset my conviction that the questionable traces above the head of the Osiris figure are actually the remains of his right hand; in other words, Joseph Smith was correct in his understanding of the drawing at this point. Ashment 1979, pp. 36, 41 (Illustration 13), is very balanced in his analysis of the problem, presenting compelling arguments for reading two hands; Gee 1992, p. 102 and n. 25, refers to Michael Lyon in describing the "thumb stroke" of the upper (right) hand; cf. Gee 2000, pp. 37-38; and Rhodes 2002, p. 19, concludes: "... a careful comparison of the traces with the hand below as well as the tip of the bird's wing to the right makes it quite clear that it is the other hand of the deceased."...An important clue is provided in the orientation of the thumbs of the upraised hands toward the face. This is the expected way of depicting the hands of mourners and others when they are held up to (both sides of) their heads or before their faces.  https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director/Book_of_Abraham_Concerns_%26_Questions

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Is it funny that random LDS people react to your misgivings... about the LDS Church... in an LDS apologetics forum?  If comedy is all about being surprised, then I guess its not funny.

You must be new here.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Calm said:

When they do historic research and analysis, yes, I am critical at times of their methods. 

Are you skeptical of them when they get things wrong and they believed they knew they were right? outside of "historic research and analysis"? such as believing they got it from God? 

Edited by The Unclean Deacon
Link to comment
10 hours ago, DonBradley said:

Sure. What do they say in that episode?

Vogel uses the actual manuscripts and makes it clear that there is no way to remove Abraham Vs 12 and 14as if they are a later add-in as Skousen suggests.   One must deal with Abraham 1:12, 14 honestly and head on.

And Reels point about how did Joseph know figures are called by the Chaldeans "Rahleenos" meaning "hieroglyphics

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

On page 5 I asked if anyone here could come up with a work around for how Joseph knew the figures are called by the Chaldeans "Rahleenos" meaning "hieroglyphics?

Did I miss where someone addressed that?  I wrote this post hoping we could deal with the issues against the two theories and this point matters to me as it pinpoints the very logical failings in why those two theories are problematic.  Hoping maybe folks simply missed it as the conversation went on.

 

Edited by The Unclean Deacon
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It must be dreadful for you to have to spend so much time on a forum with people who believe, defend, and even love things that you know to be morally wrong.

I'm unsure which percentage of us just aren't as morally developed as you and which percentage of us had no conscience to begin with, but I apologise for being someone with either a) a poorly developed sense of morality or b) no conscience at all!

Though in my case, it may well be a bit of column A mixed with a bit of column B. :(

That is ok.  We forgive you. 😁

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

Are you skeptical of them when they get things wrong and they believed they knew they were right? outside of "historic research and analysis"? such as believing they got it from God? 

I don’t automatically accept things as truth that are not spiritually or logically confirmed for me, if that is what you are asking.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 5/19/2022 at 10:06 PM, sunstoned said:

Here are the translations right from church sources. Here is a quick example: "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God."  The full descriptions are in these links.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fscriptures%2Fpgp%2Fabr%2Ffac-2%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D0384F7D69693E47C-6B4D61A2748C5101|MCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1653022285

 

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-book-of-abraham/facsimiles-2-3-abraham-4-5?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fmanual%2Fthe-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018%2Fthe-book-of-abraham%2Ffacsimiles-2-3-abraham-4-5%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D0019AC686F728043-4ACD32ADA6536CF8|MCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1653022319

Now, compare JS's version to what here what Egyptologist say the facsimiles are:

 Arthur Cruttenden Mace, Assistant Curator in the Department of Egyptian Art in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.

It is not even close.  It was not a translation.  No kolob, no Abraham.  Just a common second century funeral document.

 

Even under the worst case position it proves nothing.  There is no evidence the source text of Abraham chapters 1 through 5 (which is the book of Abraham that I care about) are those facsimiles.  Joseph said that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.  He could have simply given a new meaning to those figures without any real inspiration as all.  Not everything that Joseph attempts to translate has to be some divine source behind it.  It very well could be that the entire manuscripts that Joseph used were copied by a scribe from earlier documents and the scribe just threw those facsimiles in with it.  Unless or until we get ALL of the source material that Joseph used, the whole matter is based on speculation.  I can believe the Book of Abraham (Chapter 1 through 5)  is correct but the facsimiles part he did is wrong because one is not dependent on the other.  You can believe other things and that is fine.  I just don't see how you can prove a position from material that currently does not exist for you to examine. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Even under the worst case position it proves nothing.  There is no evidence the source text of Abraham chapters 1 through 5 (which is the book of Abraham that I care about) are those facsimiles.  Joseph said that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.  He could have simply given a new meaning to those figures without any real inspiration as all.  Not everything that Joseph attempts to translate has to be some divine source behind it.  It very well could be that the entire manuscripts that Joseph used were copied by a scribe from earlier documents and the scribe just threw those facsimiles in with it.  Unless or until we get ALL of the source material that Joseph used, the whole matter is based on speculation.  I can believe the Book of Abraham (Chapter 1 through 5)  is correct but the facsimiles part he did is wrong because one is not dependent on the other.  You can believe other things and that is fine.  I just don't see how you can prove a position from material that currently does not exist for you to examine. 

This is a pretty complicated view.  If it works for you then great.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Even under the worst case position it proves nothing.  There is no evidence the source text of Abraham chapters 1 through 5 (which is the book of Abraham that I care about) are those facsimiles.  Joseph said that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.  He could have simply given a new meaning to those figures without any real inspiration as all.  Not everything that Joseph attempts to translate has to be some divine source behind it.  It very well could be that the entire manuscripts that Joseph used were copied by a scribe from earlier documents and the scribe just threw those facsimiles in with it.  Unless or until we get ALL of the source material that Joseph used, the whole matter is based on speculation.  I can believe the Book of Abraham (Chapter 1 through 5)  is correct but the facsimiles part he did is wrong because one is not dependent on the other.  You can believe other things and that is fine.  I just don't see how you can prove a position from material that currently does not exist for you to examine. 

And yet, the church continues to publish the facsimiles as part of the Book of Abraham. Seems someone in Salt Lake didn't catch your more nuanced interpretation.

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...