NOM

The December 2018 issue of the "Ensign" trots out a dead horse that just insists on being beaten yet again:

The Book of Abraham, Revelation, and You

This article is written by an archaeologist who is as applauded by the LDS apologist community as much as he is derided by the archaeologist community, Kerry Muhlestein. He continues to be Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University which is good for him since no other accredited institution would accept his research based on a profound misinterpretation of the Book of Abraham.

This article spends a lot of time answering the wrong questions and even more time assuring us that your personal revelation about the book of Abraham is way more valid than anything stated on the matter by researchers like Dr. Robert Ritner or any other person who depends on actually being able to read Egyptian. I almost feel bad pointing out this article except that some well meaning friend of relative may decide to wish you a Merry Smithmas by means of some really flimsy apologetics.

He's not an archaeologist.

His degree is in psychology. He has a master's in egyptology. He is employed in the religious studies department.

He's a hack.

This is literally all you need to know about what a complete hack Kerry Muhlestein is:

“I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, and anything else that we get from the restored gospel, is true,” he said. “Therefore, any evidence I find, I will try to fit into that paradigm."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... tml?pg=all

jfro18 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 02, 2018 10:05 pm This is literally all you need to know about what a complete hack Kerry Muhlestein is:

“I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, and anything else that we get from the restored gospel, is true,” he said. “Therefore, any evidence I find, I will try to fit into that paradigm."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... tml?pg=all

WOWWWWwww.....

Just to hear someone actually admit that's the way they're approaching what should be a logical study is kind of mind blowing.

I've learned in my life that there are people out there who are much, much more learned than I am but they can still be mental flakes. Therefore one can dismiss their "studyied opinions" without fear.

Or maybe, as has already been inferred, he just really needs the job.

I read the Ensign article as well as the "references" cited in the ensign article. Its really just the same old apologetics, making rube-goldberg connections where there are none. It seems as though the church is now embracing them openly in the Ensign here though...

Both of the references cited are articles that Muhlestein himself wrote. So he supports his assertions with other assertions he's made. If you follow some of the references in the papers he references, its just more of his own stuff. I got annoyed that I went three levels deep and I am still not getting outside support for his assertions.

In the supporting document, he makes the claim that there were executions in Egypt. Duh. Then he says that because there was a conflation of religion and matters of state in Egypt at the time that those executions were religious or "ritual killings". Since they were ritual killings they were essentially human sacrifices. Then he goes on to say that other ritualistic sacrifices of animals in Egypt at the time constituted killing an animal with a knife then burning it, so for sure human sacrifice would have been the same, and presto!, Bob's your uncle, and Joseph Smith called it and drew the goofy lion couch picture correctly! Therefor he is a prophet. After that he drags out Olishem again, so as to beat the hell out of this dead horse. He also says that since there are still millions of followers of Joseph Smith that also proves he is right. I see the following fallacies used, but there may be more: Bandwagon, Kettle Logic, Equivocation and Composition and Division. Or at least that's my 5 minutes best stab at it.

But I think I can do the same with Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

If I assume that the tale of Goldilocks and the Three Bears is a true account of actual events, Its clear that Southerly received this by revelation. Its been suggested by detractors from Southerly's work that bears don't talk, eat porridge or sleep in beds. During the time of the Three Bears there is sufficient evidence that some individuals where unable to secure raiment to properly clothe themselves. These people were "bare" we can conclude that Southerly was actually talking about three nudists or "Bares" who found an intruder in their cottage. Modern Websters dictionary lists in its definition that Goldilocks can sometimes be used as a term that describes someone who does not like extremes, just like the Goldilocks in the historical account given by Southerly. This evidence supports my assertion that Southerly was in fact a Prophet of God and that Goldilocks and the Three Bears is in fact God's revealed word. If you convince yourself its true beforehand and then pray with faith, you will confirm that bias as I did.

Gah! I started typing up my thoughts on this article and it just made me too angry. Everything in that article is straw-man arguments, and denigrating those who do actual research.

slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:01 am Both of the references cited are articles that Muhlestein himself wrote. So he supports his assertions with other assertions he's made. If you follow some of the references in the papers he references, its just more of his own stuff. I got annoyed that I went three levels deep and I am still not getting outside support for his assertions.

I did the same. There is no outside support for his assertions. No credible Egyptologist would touch his stuff.

But I think I can do the same with Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

If I assume that the tale of Goldilocks and the Three Bears is a true account of actual events, Its clear that Southerly received this by revelation. Its been suggested by detractors from Southerly's work that bears don't talk, eat porridge or sleep in beds. During the time of the Three Bears there is sufficient evidence that some individuals where unable to secure raiment to properly clothe themselves. These people were "bare" we can conclude that Southerly was actually talking about three nudists or "Bares" who found an intruder in their cottage. Modern Websters dictionary lists in its definition that Goldilocks can sometimes be used as a term that describes someone who does not like extremes, just like the Goldilocks in the historical account given by Southerly. This evidence supports my assertion that Southerly was in fact a Prophet of God and that Goldilocks and the Three Bears is in fact God's revealed word. If you convince yourself its true beforehand and then pray with faith, you will confirm that bias as I did.

LOL

I for one would like to thank Kerry. About 3 years ago. The nail in my spiritual coffin came after spending three days reading everything I could about the BoA. And it was Kerry's weak (and from what I remember positively deceptive rendering) that convinced me the BoA was indefensible Q.E.D.

Kerry, is up there with John Dehlin and Hanns Mattsen. God bless his soul.

slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:01 am But I think I can do the same with Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

If I assume that the tale of Goldilocks and the Three Bears is a true account of actual events, Its clear that Southerly received this by revelation. Its been suggested by detractors from Southerly's work that bears don't talk, eat porridge or sleep in beds. During the time of the Three Bears there is sufficient evidence that some individuals where unable to secure raiment to properly clothe themselves. These people were "bare" we can conclude that Southerly was actually talking about three nudists or "Bares" who found an intruder in their cottage. Modern Websters dictionary lists in its definition that Goldilocks can sometimes be used as a term that describes someone who does not like extremes, just like the Goldilocks in the historical account given by Southerly. This evidence supports my assertion that Southerly was in fact a Prophet of God and that Goldilocks and the Three Bears is in fact God's revealed word. If you convince yourself its true beforehand and then pray with faith, you will confirm that bias as I did.

Someone needs to do a fan-fic sequel to the BOA where Abraham gets super powers and call it: The Return of Abraham. Or maybe he was really just a sexy vampire in disguise all along. Both of these ideas are better that the original BOA.

I know the sample size is small since many don't advertise the info, but from the 'apologists' that have eventually left the church, it seems like the Book of Abraham is what kills it for them more than anything else.

And it makes sense- we have the source material. I don't even know how anyone could argue this is not the source material for the Book of Abraham:






Seriously how do you pretend we do not have the source for the Book of Abraham?

Muhelstein hauls out the new apologetic go-to when he names a section When There Are No Answers. It's becoming all to evident that this is code for "when we don't like the answers."

slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:01 am If I assume that the tale of Goldilocks and the Three Bears is a true account of actual events, Its clear that Southerly received this by revelation. Its been suggested by detractors from Southerly's work that bears don't talk, eat porridge or sleep in beds. During the time of the Three Bears there is sufficient evidence that some individuals where unable to secure raiment to properly clothe themselves. These people were "bare" we can conclude that Southerly was actually talking about three nudists or "Bares" who found an intruder in their cottage. Modern Websters dictionary lists in its definition that Goldilocks can sometimes be used as a term that describes someone who does not like extremes, just like the Goldilocks in the historical account given by Southerly. This evidence supports my assertion that Southerly was in fact a Prophet of God and that Goldilocks and the Three Bears is in fact God's revealed word. If you convince yourself its true beforehand and then pray with faith, you will confirm that bias as I did.

This opens the door for another apologetic, "alternatively..."

Alternatively those raiment-deficient individuals might have resorted to the wearing of bear skins. In such a case it is easy to image that they were mistaken by a young, innocent, and frightened Goldilocks for actual bears.

jfro18 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 02, 2018 10:05 pm This is literally all you need to know about what a complete hack Kerry Muhlestein is:

“I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, and anything else that we get from the restored gospel, is true,” he said. “Therefore, any evidence I find, I will try to fit into that paradigm."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... tml?pg=all

Faith= Bias.

Look--everyone with the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity eventually realizes this is all bogus, even if it takes years to deprogram. Meanwhile the others cling to some pre E.A.W.Budge Egyptian fantasy world. Don't dig past that mysterious veneer--you'll find out things you don't like...

I'm an amateur linguist and Egyptology is one of my hobbies. So there isn't any way words from someone like Muhlestein (or previous stuff by Gee) will cause me to make some kind of mystical transition to a fairyland and disregard all of the language and culture and history that is emerging as real anthropologists continue to understand Egypt's past. There is little to no Abraham there there.

When things get hot and heavy with the Book of Abraham I like to remind people that we also have the Book of Joseph papyrus. The apologists have been careful to leave that one swept under the rug, possibly because Joseph never did a translation that became canonized. But critics haven't done much with it either. But many of the BoA apologetics are weakened even further when you add the Book of Joseph (Ta-shert Min papyrus) to the mix. There is no missing scroll argument here, for one thing. The Joseph scroll reinforces many of the problems with the Abraham scroll: it has been translated and says nothing about Joseph, it comes from the time of the Hor scroll, not the time of Joseph, it is a similar fully-egyptian funerary scroll, not a book of scripture, etc. No prophet has been able, or even attempted, to produce a Joseph narrative from it, so it further raises the question of modern prophetic power. Neither church leaders nor apologists will touch the Ta-shert Min scroll with a ten cubit pole. I would like to see critics give it a bit more attention.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:47 am But many of the BoA apologetics are weakened even further when you add the Book of Joseph (Ta-shert Min papyrus) to the mix. There is no missing scroll argument here, for one thing. The Joseph scroll reinforces many of the problems with the Abraham scroll: it has been translated and says nothing about Joseph, it comes from the time of the Hor scroll, not the time of Joseph, it is a similar fully-egyptian funerary scroll, not a book of scripture, etc. No prophet has been able, or even attempted, to produce a Joseph narrative from it, so it further raises the question of modern prophetic power. Neither church leaders nor apologists will touch the Ta-shert Min scroll with a ten cubit pole. I would like to see critics give it a bit more attention.

What the Hell? I just learnt something new, again. I found a description of this on thoughtsonthingsandstuff. Its as if all the papyrus got moved and none of it was really "lost" in the Chicago fire. Aplolgists must have been masters of "the dog ate my homework" in high school.

Its worse than that, its more like they turn in a paper and get a C- then go to the teacher and say, "That was only my rough draft, the real paper was an A+ paper but it got burned up when my house caught fire. Please give me the A+ my paper deserves." After all the teacher can't prove the other phantom paper wasn't an A+ paper.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:47 am But many of the BoA apologetics are weakened even further when you add the Book of Joseph (Ta-shert Min papyrus) to the mix. There is no missing scroll argument here, for one thing. The Joseph scroll reinforces many of the problems with the Abraham scroll: it has been translated and says nothing about Joseph

There is an apologist video floating around that earnestly touts the importance of the Book of Joseph Scroll. A close family member was watching it when I was around at a family dinner and said I would find it interesting. I did, but not for the reasons suspected.

The video was a presentation by Bruce L. Porter, an apologist more closely aligned with Rod Meldrum of the "Book of Mormon Heartland Geography" rather than with the FairMormon crowd. Apparently, this Ta-shert Min scroll was examined by Hugh Nibley who claimed it contained details of the endowment as known by ancient Egyptians. Hugh apparently held it in high regard, but seemed reticent to translate it for public consumption because it contained sacred details of the temple.

In other words, it's another funerary scroll. Bruce Porter went over the aspects of the scroll as they held a parallel to the modern LDS temple endowment ordinance. Bruce spoke of it in glowing terms, but I would be far more interested in having a non-LDS Egyptologist translate it. Note that neither Bruce Porter, nor Hugh Nibley are actual Egyptologists. My fervent believing relative was confused about why I was not deeply impressed with this information.

I learn so much from this site. Never heard of this scroll before. Not surprised it’s more lies from JS and the church. What is surprising to me is how many people DO believe Hugh and Kerry and Daniel. What’s the difference between them and us? Or is the shelf break just unique for everyone? This is a genuine question. Every time I learn some new fraud I share it with my husband. Doesn’t matter. He still believes.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:47 am When things get hot and heavy with the Book of Abraham I like to remind people that we also have the Book of Joseph papyrus. The apologists have been careful to leave that one swept under the rug, possibly because Joseph never did a translation that became canonized. But critics haven't done much with it either. But many of the BoA apologetics are weakened even further when you add the Book of Joseph (Ta-shert Min papyrus) to the mix. There is no missing scroll argument here, for one thing. The Joseph scroll reinforces many of the problems with the Abraham scroll: it has been translated and says nothing about Joseph, it comes from the time of the Hor scroll, not the time of Joseph, it is a similar fully-egyptian funerary scroll, not a book of scripture, etc. No prophet has been able, or even attempted, to produce a Joseph narrative from it, so it further raises the question of modern prophetic power. Neither church leaders nor apologists will touch the Ta-shert Min scroll with a ten cubit pole. I would like to see critics give it a bit more attention.

Do we know if the church has this scroll and how are we sure it's the Ta-shert scroll?

I am planning on doing a series of pages about the BoA and have some great material that I'm going to be incorporating into it... the Book of Joseph stuff would fit nicely but I honestly don't know much about it.

And last... what is the argument about the manuscript matching the papyrus from an apologetic view (of the images I added above)? People keep screaming we don't have the source material but those pages are pretty clear to the contrary.

slavereeno wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:50 am

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:47 am But many of the BoA apologetics are weakened even further when you add the Book of Joseph (Ta-shert Min papyrus) to the mix. There is no missing scroll argument here, for one thing. The Joseph scroll reinforces many of the problems with the Abraham scroll: it has been translated and says nothing about Joseph, it comes from the time of the Hor scroll, not the time of Joseph, it is a similar fully-egyptian funerary scroll, not a book of scripture, etc. No prophet has been able, or even attempted, to produce a Joseph narrative from it, so it further raises the question of modern prophetic power. Neither church leaders nor apologists will touch the Ta-shert Min scroll with a ten cubit pole. I would like to see critics give it a bit more attention.

What the Hell? I just learnt something new, again. I found a description of this on thoughtsonthingsandstuff. Its as if all the papyrus got moved and none of it was really "lost" in the Chicago fire. Aplolgists must have been masters of "the dog ate my homework" in high school.

Its worse than that, its more like they turn in a paper and get a C- then go to the teacher and say, "That was only my rough draft, the real paper was an A+ paper but it got burned up when my house caught fire. Please give me the A+ my paper deserves." After all the teacher can't prove the other phantom paper wasn't an A+ paper.

I actually had a student this quarter argue that because of their "intellectual effort" their F paper that didn't meet the requirements deserved at least a C+. So...