An apologetic site on steroids - is the scroll of Amenhotep a real thing?

[jfro18]

I came across this site yesterday after a dude that was flaming ex-mormons on Twitter posted it. I read through a bit and it is absolutely insane... it takes the apologetics of FAIR and the LDS Essays and just gaslights the living hell of out them.

The site is at http://www.conflictofjustice.com/

Their latest article is trying to prove the Book of Abraham true - I tried to get through most of it before bed last night, but couldn't get over his insistence that the scroll of Amenhotep was there and the source material.

I've come across that argument before, but it is there *anything* to the idea of this scroll beyond a few second hand accounts and wishful thinking? I know my wife reads these things sometimes and I'm sure if I ever bring up the BoA again that she will reply with this.

Man try reading their (multiple) critiques of the CES Letter - it is like Fox News amped up on InfoWars supplements.

[hiding in plain sight]

Even though this is bit of a long read, it looks like the initial part of his argument is trying to give the old tried and true "we don't have the scrolls", so you can't disprove the BOA. So just shut up and move along. Argument.

Claim #1 - Out of the four scrolls in Joseph Smith’s Egyptian collection, we know that Joseph Smith used the missing Amenhotep scroll as his basis for the Book of Abraham text, based on witness descriptions.1

Even though I think there are plenty of arguments to engage in this position. We do have facsimile #1. It and facsimile 3 are traditionally contained in scrolls just like the ones that we do have in church custody. The BOA actually talks about facsimile #1 being connected to the text being translated. etc.

But I don't think that is even the big point, so I am not sure whether or not it would be worth arguing about. Because we do have all of the facsimile's with Joseph's translations. And none of it is accurate. Even when apologists try and make a bullseye, you have to do it standing on your toes and squinting. Joseph clearly had zero ability to translate. Which is verifiable with what we do have and we don't have to chase down elusive lost long scrolls as the source.

And then we should push back on his approach of intentionally holding back. Here is his advice about not making too many strong statements because too much detail opens them up for being shown a fraud. To me, this advice smacks of an intention for deception and just wanting to be right. Instead of wanting to find the truth.

Claim #2 - There is a good reason missionaries don’t like to delve into “deep” subjects like Kolob and Adam-God Theory. It is because there is so much speculation out there, so much falsehood pushed by fake Mormons, and so much we simply don’t know. It is dangerous to take a solid position because the slightest falsehood can lead to huge misconceptions. It makes an opponent so much easier to tear you down when you trying to support a lot of weak positions. The (false) claim that Joseph Smith used the seer stones to translate the gold plates can lead to a hundred other skeptical concerns, and suddenly faith in the Book of Mormon becomes untenable.

Finally, his true colors come out in his advice #13.

Advice #13 - Feel Free To Ridicule Antimormons

If I had a family member trying to use this guys research to support the BOA, I would stick at home on these areas and not get lost in the wall of words trying to distract from the main truths.

1) What we do have does not reflect a real and true translation of Egyptian into english.

2) The text of the BOA could not have been written by Abraham and be a direct translation because it contains anachronishsm that Abraham would never have known.

Abraham 1:1 Starts with "In the land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my fathers, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence;"

Here is the problem. The chaldeans didn't exist as a people until about the year 1,000 BC until 600 BC. Well after the life of Abraham.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldea

The reason Joseph picked up the people chaldeans, is because it is found in the bible in context with Abraham. But this is a known and natorious anachronism in the bible as well.

https://claudemariottini.com/2006/02/28 ... -bulkeley/

Good luck.

The more words people use, I find that more they are trying to take a simple argument and make it so complicated, that people will just give up and walk away.

But we have the truth on our side and should never feel bullied by people like this.

[Archimedes]

Wasn't there some carbon dating done that showed the papyrus was a few thousand years too young to have been written by Abraham, in his own hand.?

[hiding in plain sight]

Wasn't there some carbon dating done that showed the papyrus was a few thousand years too young to have been written by Abraham, in his own hand.?

Yes. The papyri we have date to somewhere around the time of Christ.

The two apologetic arguments to counter this are the one in the article in the OP. "We don't have the right scrolls".

Plus a second argument that whatever Abraham wrote down, was copied by other people over time and so we have his words, but they date to a later date because they are version 7 from the original.

[Archimedes]

Well that doesn't get you past the "by his own hand..." statement by the Prophet.

I don't think the argument that "we don't have the right scroll(s)" passes the smell test. We have JS's notes next to characters from the scroll fragments we have. Parts of the scrolls we have actually appear in the P of GP, in the Facsimiles.

We have the scrolls that JS used. Maybe not all of them but enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that JS was a crappy translator and the P of GP is not what he said it was.

Apologists can twist all they want but this Book of Abraham thing is a smoking gun when it comes to JS's credibility.

[jfro18]

We have the scrolls that JS used. Maybe not all of them but enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that JS was a crappy translator and the P of GP is not what he said it was.

Apologists can twist all they want but this Book of Abraham thing is a smoking gun when it comes to JS's credibility.

Yep. And I believe the church still has the other scroll which Joseph declared was the Book of Joseph, don't they?

I truly wish Joseph had lived long enough to translate the Book of Joseph and the Kinderhook plates. I really believe that had he not been killed that he would've eventually hung himself for even the more devout members to see with the kinds of crap he was pulling out of these things.

[Archimedes]

I'm pretty sure you are right. It must not have occurred to JS that someday in the future real archaeologists would really be able to translate the ancient documents he purchased. Or at least he wasn't thinking that far ahead.

I don't see any way around this one for the apologists. But I certainly would never want to ridicule them.

[slavereeno]

Holy freaking heck!

His analysis to me was exactly like the song 'Ya Got Trouble' in The Music Man,

Trouble with a capital "T"
And that rhymes with "P" and that stands for pool!

Now lets see what was Harold Hill in that musical? Oh right, a con-man!

That piece on "how to deal with anti-mormons" was disturbing in general, its like a playbook from flat earthers.

One thing that really makes Antimormonism effective is if it connects issues into a web of narratives. One issue leads to another in bolstering a narrative, and that narrative leads to another narrative. Pro-Mormon blogs tend to tackle issues independently and fail to make important connections.

I would have to agree with this one, the issues paint a very clear picture of Joseph Smith as a con-man and when you start seeing that pattern it hits you like a ton of bricks, but to stay faithful you need to start with the assumption that Joseph Smith was a true profit then find enough crazy in each issue to try to justify that assumption. The problem for apologists, is that often times the explanations are mutually exclusive, so they really can't tie them together!

He's funny though, he thinks there was a urim and thumim,

[jfro18]

One thing that really makes Antimormonism effective is if it connects issues into a web of narratives. One issue leads to another in bolstering a narrative, and that narrative leads to another narrative. Pro-Mormon blogs tend to tackle issues independently and fail to make important connections.

I would have to agree with this one, the issues paint a very clear picture of Joseph Smith as a con-man and when you start seeing that pattern it hits you like a ton of bricks, but to stay faithful you need to start with the assumption that Joseph Smith was a true profit then find enough crazy in each issue to try to justify that assumption. The problem for apologists, is that often times the explanations are mutually exclusive, so they really can't tie them together!

He's funny though, he thinks there was a urim and thumim,

This is 100% true. Apologists always try to take things one issue at a time - they know that it's easier to swat away one thing at a time than to try and unwind a narrative that shows what a con-man Joseph Smith was.

And those 'so-called' anti-Mormons try to paint the picture with everything to show you that it's not just one thing, it's a ton of very important things.

That site is incredibly obnoxious and really just factually terrible. I would love to know what my wife thought after reading some of it... but I saw her reading it and I'm not sure she wanted me to, so I can't say anything about it. His section about the translation says there was no 'seer stone' used and only the Urim/Thummim which even the church has backtracked from in the essay. Same with Book of Abraham - the essay doesn't even go to the lengths this dude goes to in order to muddy the waters. And she knows he used a seer stone, so maybe... just maybe when she sees that she realizes how difficult it is to defend this stuff without outright lying.

Anyway - I just picture Alex Jones writing this stuff pounding the desk. He's even angrier than the stereotypical exmo is.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

I find it entertaining that this "teancum" character says he A/B tests his arguments on anti-mormon forums. I would love to know who this is.

[Palerider]

I get really tired of the "anti-mormon" term being used as a pejorative and a scare tactic for TBMs. It's very similar to the tool Joseph used when he would smear anyone who dared to call him out on his deceptions.

His tactic was to immediately call them adulterers. Especially women who had spurned his advances and decided to go public. He would socially ruin them. All for the Lord of course.

Apologists and TBMs now suffer from the very condition described in the BofM. They simply believe after the traditions of their fathers. Can't let Grandpa's sacrifice for the church to have been in vain. Stay believing no matter how bad it gets.

Yes, I prefer being called a "pro-truth seeker" rather than an anti-mormon. But for apologists and church leadership it isn't about truth and an unbiased view of the facts. It's all about Grandpa....

[dogbite]

Just assume the BOA is authentic.

It says in part

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

Phelps, B Young, and John Taylor all taught that Egyptus was black. Supporting the view that the Blacks could not have the priesthood. Joseph Smith taught it as well. Moses 7:8 says

8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

This isethe Canaanite curse preserved as mentioned by Abraham.

Which then must be reconciled with the race and the priesthood essay.

It seems clear that Joseph Smith thought the Africans all descended from the cursed Canannites after the global flood.

So is the Pearl of Great Price accurate scripture in spite of the denial of the doctrinal essay? Or is the essay a lie?

[Archimedes]

Well, of course there were Caananites in the land, it was right there on the scrolls:

Book of Abraham Facsimile 3:



Everybody else is White, the Caananite is obviously indicated by the color of the individual in Figure 6, see below:


Fig. 1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.

Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.

Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.

Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.

Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court.

************************************************************************************************************************
I'm sorry, but I MUST ridicule the apologist, now. Bwa Hahahahahahahahah

[slavereeno]

So is the Pearl of Great Price accurate scripture in spite of the denial of the doctrinal essay? Or is the essay a lie?

Oh NO, we don't compare more than one issue at a time! It doesn't work that way. Lets discuss why the essay is inspired as one conversation, then take a break and discuss why the PoGP is also inspired.

[dogbite]

Lots of politics as doctrine on that site.

[Hagoth]

Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.

This is one of my favorites. What Joseph Smith mistook for the signature of Abraham is actually a snack tray.

[Hagoth]

Claim #1 - Out of the four scrolls in Joseph Smith’s Egyptian collection, we know that Joseph Smith used the missing Amenhotep scroll as his basis for the Book of Abraham text, based on witness descriptions.1

So how do we "know" this? He's talking of course about the Long Scroll theory, which the Gospel Topic essay claims is supported by “eyewitnesses.” It turns out that the long scroll able comes from a single third-person, third-generation account by Hugh Nibley concerning something that his uncle claimed to have heard from Joseph Smith’s nephew George A. Smith many decades earlier. George A. Smith is rumored, by Nibley via his uncle, to have claimed that he saw a long scroll in the Nauvoo Mansion when he was five years old. Nibley’s uncle heard the story recounted by Smith 63 years after the fact. So this is a retelling of a retelling of a retelling of a 63-year old childhood memory by a man who is a well established teller of tall tales. It is hard to imagine a less reliable source.

So all of the "eyewitnesses" are George A. Smith. George A. Smith is the source for the milk strippings story, and he was the guy who worked the St. George members into a frenzy for the Mountain Meadows Massacre by claiming that the members of the Banker-Francher wagon train had been poisoning Mormon wells, that they were the murderers of Parley P. Pratt, and that they had the very gun that was used to kill Joseph Smith and they were heading to Salt Lake to use it on Brigham Young.

What isn't often mentioned is that Hor's owned another copy of the Book of Breathings that ended up in the Louvre's collection ( Louvre Papyrus 3284) Calculations made from the spacing of damage along the edge of the scroll (the spacing gets smaller as you get nearer the the center of the roll) suggest that only something like 55 cm is missing, which is just the right size for the missing Facsimile 3 illustrations. This is borne out by comparison with the Louvre copy, which still contains that image.

Additionally, a long scroll makes no sense because these scrolls had to be small enough to be gripped by the mummy’s hand to be accessible to him in the afterlife. A longer scroll would have defeated its own purpose and would have defied the well-attested fact that these scrolls actually came from the mummy’s hands.

[slavereeno]

So how do we "know" this?

This is a great analysis, thanks Hagoth

[Archimedes]

Good one Hagoth. I guess ridiculing the Apologist can wait since logic and facts work so much better.

I have always thought it was strange that 1800s racial views got embedded in the interpretation of Facsimile 3.

[Hagoth]

Here's another interesting thing about Facsimile 3.

Notice that the Anubis character who is misrepresented by Joseph as a slave still has Anubis' ears on the top of his head. If you look at the printing block you can see that it also once had Anubis' snout, but Joseph had the printmaker remove it. Apparently he had a "translation" in his head that didn't fit well with the dog-headed character on the original so he had it changed. You can tell something was removed from the front of this character's head by the very deliberate vertical tool marks that left the head with no snout but with a weird flat face:

AnubisSnout.JPG (64.52 KiB) Viewed 11219 times

Too bad the original fragment was lost.