User:InProgress/Website reviews/BA

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

FAIRMORMON'S VIEW OF THE CRITICS' CONCLUSIONS

The positions that the MormonThink article "The Book of Abraham" appears to take are the following:

• The critics conclude that the Book of Abraham cannot be scripture, and that as a result, the Church is false as well because it canonized it.
• The critics conclude that no LDS Egyptologist is as qualified to comment on the Book of Abraham as non-LDS Egyptologists, simply because they are LDS. (This is an example of "ad hominem fallacy"—An assertion that somebody's claim is wrong because of something about the person making the claim. In this case, if an Egyptologist is LDS, they must be unqualified to comment on the Book of Abraham papyri)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
A FACSIMILE FROM THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM No. 3 Critic's comment: Even the most avid Mormon apologists in modern times have had a difficult time dealing with the obvious fact that figures 2 and 4 above are female figures, yet labeled by Joseph as Pharaoh and his son. Joseph's claims for this illustration were challenged as early as 1856.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  If critics believe that Joseph was intelligent enough to create the Book of Mormon, then they cannot assume that he is unintelligent enough to mistake women for men. There has to be a reason he did this, and we simply don't know what it is yet.

Additional information

• Facsimile 3—The following are common criticisms associated with Facsimile 3: 1) The scene depicted is a known Egyptian vignette which some Egyptologists claim has nothing to do with Abraham, 2) Joseph indicated that specific characters in the facsimile confirmed the identities that he assigned to specific figures, 3) Joseph identified two obviously female figures as "King Pharaoh" and "Prince of Pharaoh." (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Figure Number 7 Evaluation of Joseph Smith's Translation of Facsimile No. 2 Text. Of particular note is Fig 7 (bottom right shown upside down). Joseph said it represents God sitting upon his throne. Egyptologists say that this is the god "Min." Min is an "ithyphallic god," that is, a sexually aroused male deity. His erect penis is clearly shown. It's interesting to note that in some earlier editions of the BOA the church erased the penis so it wouldn't look pornographic. It has since been restored in our current versions. But isn't it somewhat disturbing that Joseph would say that this pagan god with his exposed penis is our Heavenly Father?

FairMormon commentary

• It is no more disturbing than assigning obvious female figures male names. Joseph was obviously using the facsimiles to illustrate a concept, and he used the existing figures.
• "The Church" didn't erase anything—the facsimiles were transferred to woodcuts in order to print them in the newspaper. A number of additions and changes were made in order to make them more presentable, including filling in missing sections with characters and figures taken from elsewhere in the facsimiles.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Our comment: It should be noted that not all nonMormon Egyptologists agree that there should be a second bird in the middle of the facsimile. Dr. Lanny Bell supports the idea that the figure on the table is indeed holding up two hands. However, no nonMormon Egyptologists believe Anubis (the priest as identified by Joseph) was holding a knife or that he had a man's head instead of a Jackal's head.

FairMormon commentary

• Joseph identified the figure portrayed as holding the knife as a priest—in this he was correct. The head of the priest may have indeed been the jackal head associated with Anubis, but it doesn't really change anything. When the facsimile was prepared for publication in the newspaper, missing sections were filled in by the individual who created the woodcuts.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Joseph's Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar. There is a set of documents that the church has always had in its possession commonly referred to as the "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" by Joseph Smith. Most of us remember hearing a little bit about it growing up in the church but not really knowing what it was. It was only briefly and rarely mentioned in church. With the discovery of the missing papyri in 1966, critics claim that these documents show a definite link between the papyri and the actual text of the Book of Abraham.

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The Book of Abraham supports the concept of polygamy as Abraham took another wife as directed by the Lord. Perhaps what's even more significant is that God actually instructs Abraham to lie about it. God tells Abraham that he must lie to the Egyptians and tell them that his wife is really his sister so they wouldn't take her from him (Abraham 2:22-25). This is the only scriptural reference that we know of where God instructs someone to lie.

FairMormon commentary

• The Bible tells us that Moses did what God told him to do. Is it so surprising that Abraham might have been told something similar to prevent death to the righteous? The Bible record tells us that God blessed Abraham despite his action. The Book of Abraham simply makes it clear that Abraham did not choose this path on his own, but like Moses was obeying a direct command from God, who may grant exceptions to His Laws if He pleases.

Additional information

• Why would Abraham lie?—Critics ask, "Why God would encourage Abraham & Sarah to lie in Abraham 2:24? Isn't lying a sin according to the 10 commandments? Why did God tell Abraham and Sarah to lie when 2 Nephi condemns liars to hell?" (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Point: If it wasn't for the Book of Abraham, it is possible that two of the most controversial and objectionable doctrines of the LDS church (polygamy and denying the priesthood to blacks) would not have happened or have been as prominent as they were. Polygamy was already in practice by Joseph but perhaps it would not have been so prominently practiced by the members if there was no Book of Abraham to support the practice. It's also interesting to note that eventually the LDS church abandoned both of these doctrines, which were at one point taught as eternal principles.

Author's source(s)

• By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus by Charles M. Larson p 20-22.

FairMormon commentary

• The claim that polygamy might not have occurred without the Book of Abraham is bizarre—The Bible contains the most prominent examples of the practice of polygamy. Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants discusses it as well. Why would the Book of Abraham play such an important role in whether or not the doctrine was implemented?
• The denial of priesthood to blacks was never taught as an "eternal principle." There is no revelation associated with the institution of the priesthood ban, and all explanations by Church leaders that attempted to provide a reason for the ban were later repudiated when the ban was lifted.

Additional information

• Blacks and the priesthood—Members of African descent were restricted from holding the LDS Church's lay priesthood until 1978. Understanding the priesthood ban is difficult, because the historical record is not entirely clear about the ban's institution. There is no contemporary, first-person account of the ban's implementation. Critics with an agenda, as well as sincere seekers with a laudable abhorrence of racism have used this fact to portray the former (or present) Church and its members as racist. Critics argue that God would not allow His church to ever deny blessings or privileges based on race. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Comment: One of the most significant things that any church does is to canonize scripture. The LDS church canonized the Book of Abraham by unanimous vote of the first presidency and the quorum of the 12 in 1880. If the LDS church made a mistake by canonizing the Book of Abraham then that mistake is so serious that the LDS Church that existed, since at least 1880, cannot possibly be God's true church, regardless of whether or not anything that happened in its history prior to this time was indeed divinely inspired.

FairMormon commentary

Quotes to consider

•   The author is begging the question:  —Critics will often assume what they are trying to prove in how they frame questions or describe issues.
  The critics assume that the Book of Abraham cannot be scripture. Based upon their conclusion, the lead the reader to the conclusion that the Church must be false as well.
• The Book of Abraham is still part of the canon. The real issue is whether or not the Book of Abraham is scripture.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The Book of Joseph. Joseph, in describing the papyri, said that one of the scrolls contained the writings of Abraham and the other the writings of Joseph of Egypt. Much of the papyri referred to as the Book of Joseph was rediscovered and is now the church's possession. It also has been examined by Egyptologists and identified as the Egyptian Book of the Dead for the lady Ta-shert-Min, daughter of Nes-Khensu" and has nothing to do with Joseph of Egypt.

Author's source(s)

• An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. pgs 25-35, Grant Palmer

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Had Joseph Smith actually translated the papyri, he would have referred to the figures as the four sons of Horus and given their actual names of Imset, Hapt, Qebe-senuwef and Duwa-mutef. This would have stood as a powerful witness to the truthfulness of the BOA and to Smith's prophetic role but Joseph gave incorrect non-Egyptian names....Daniel Peterson in his article News from Antiquity makes the following bold statement in an effort to show how Joseph was somehow correct when he identified the 4 gods as real Sumerian gods even though he got the names wrong and that they were not Egyptian gods....Peterson does not show the proof in the article. He merely lists a footnote. The footnote (#5) only states “See Lundquist, “Was Abraham at Ebla?” p. 232; Tvedtnes and Christensen, Ur of the Chaldeans, pp. 32–33.” This is totally unacceptable. If you are going to make bold claims that challenge established views, then you can't simply write "See this book and that book" in the footnotes and expect to be taken seriously, especially when the sources you cite are not widely available. The reason he did this is clear.....Our Comment: This shows the importance of actually looking at the footnotes and the research that writers use to support bold claims. In light of Thompson's comments on Lunquist's flawed reasoning, Daniel Peterson's comments about Joseph correctly identifying the four gods is not to be taken as evidence supporting Joseph.

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The name Egyptus Where does the word "Egyptus" come from? It's the Greek name for Memphis which was called, at that time, Het Ka Ptah--"home of the Ka of Ptah." Just like the Hebrew "Yeshua" became "Jesus" to the Greeks, "Het Ka Ptah" became "Aigyptus" which became "Egyptus." If you go to Egypt today they don't call it "Egypt."

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The content of the Book of Abraham is essentially one hundred percent accounted for by Joseph Smith’s use of five, nineteenth-century sources....Abraham 1; Facsimile #1, #3: Abraham’s biographical information in Abraham 1 and Smith’s claim of what these two Facsimile pictures portray comes from The Works of Flavius Josephus. Smith owned an 1830 edition of this book. Smith’s detailed explanations for the individual Egyptian characters on these two Facsimiles in the Book of Abraham have been thoroughly discredited by Egyptologists.

Author's source(s)

• Grant Palmer, An Insiders View of Mormon Origins, chapter 1

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The content of the Book of Abraham is essentially one hundred percent accounted for by Joseph Smith’s use of five, nineteenth-century sources.... Abraham 2, 4-5: Eighty-six percent of the verses in these three chapters came from Genesis, 1, 2, 12, and 11:28-29. This material came from a 1769 edition or later printing of the KJV, including its errors.

Author's source(s)

• Grant Palmer, An Insiders View of Mormon Origins, chapter 1

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The content of the Book of Abraham is essentially one hundred percent accounted for by Joseph Smith’s use of five, nineteenth-century sources....Abraham 3; Facsimile 2: The text of Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2 has some remarkable resemblances to the astronomical concepts, phrases, and other motifs found in Thomas Dick’s, Philosophy of a Future State. Smith owned an 1830 copy of this book.

Author's source(s)

• Grant Palmer, An Insiders View of Mormon Origins, chapter 1

FairMormon commentary

• Many of the ideas promoted by Thomas Dick were common Protestant beliefs and were therefore available without having to read Dick’s work. Joseph Smith never made any public or written statements indicating that he was aware of or that he had ever read Dick’s book. The only evidence that even suggests the possibility is circumstantial and is based upon the appearance of several passages from A Philosophy of a Future State in the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate.
• More importantly, Joseph Smith rejected or contradicted many of the ideas put forth by Dick in A Philosophy of a Future State. Fawn Brodie is the one that originally raised this claim. It is therefore unlikely, contrary to Fawn Brodie’s speculation, that Joseph had been “recently reading” Dick’s work and that it made a “lasting impression” upon the Prophet.

Additional information

• Philosophy of a Future State by Thomas Dick—Critics claim that Joseph Smith's theology as described in the Book of Abraham was influenced by Thomas Dick's book The Philosophy of a Future State. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The content of the Book of Abraham is essentially one hundred percent accounted for by Joseph Smith’s use of five, nineteenth-century sources....Abraham 3; Facsimile 2: Thomas Taylor’s 1816 book, The Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato, especially volume 2, also has most of the motifs in Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2. Dick and Taylor both contain a number of exact phrases found in Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2. Importantly, Smith’s Newtonian astronomy concepts, mechanics, and model of the universe that he borrowed from these Newtonian books have been thoroughly discredited by Einstein’s twentieth-century model of the universe.

Author's source(s)

• Grant Palmer, An Insiders View of Mormon Origins, chapter 1

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The content of the Book of Abraham is essentially one hundred percent accounted for by Joseph Smith’s use of five, nineteenth-century sources....Strange names: The few Hebrew names and phrases found in the Book of Abraham reflect Smith’s study with Hebrew scholar Joshua Seixas during the winter of 1835-36, in Ohio.

Author's source(s)

• Grant Palmer, An Insiders View of Mormon Origins, chapter 1

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's response. The preface to every copy of the canonized Book of Abraham makes it very clear that that it was actually written by Abraham upon papyrus.

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's response. The problem is that a critical part of the Book of Abraham text is focused on Abraham almost being sacrificed by the Egyptians. The text in the Book of Abraham refers to the facsimile. If you take away the knife then you take away the story. We wonder how the Book of Abraham might be different if facsimile 1 was complete when given to Joseph and if it did not show the knife that Egyptologists believe was not there originally.

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
How do the LDS Egyptologists credentials compare to the nonLDS Egyptologists? The two current most prominent Egyptologists on each side of the BOA issue are LDS Egyptologist Michael Rhodes and nonLDS Egyptologist Robert Ritner. Who would you believe is more qualified to answer the question as to the correct interpretation of the facsimiles and of the Egyptian papyri?

FairMormon commentary

• The critics provide a list of LDS and non-LDS individuals, with the invitation to "see for yourself" whether or not they are qualified to comment on the Book of Abraham. Note the individuals selected and the critics' comments regarding their publications. Also note how the LDS list has been set up to diminish the credentials of the LDS researchers, and even includes some individuals that do not believe in the truth claims of the Church, including one exposed fraud (Dee Jay Nelson).
• Non-LDS
  • Robert Ritner—Critics' comment: "nonLDS Professor of Egyptology....Author of the paper 'The Breathing Permit of HOR' Among The Joseph Smith papyri."
  • Klaus Baer—Critics' comment: "Associate Professor of Egyptology....Wrote article for Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968."
  • De M. Theodule Deveria: Critics' comment: "...the first Egyptologist to examine the facsimiles."
  • Lanny Bell—Egyptologist that wrote a review of The Ancient Egyptian "Books of Breathing," the Mormon "Book of Abraham," and the Development of Egyptology in America."
• LDS
  • Hugh Nibley— Critics' comment: "He was a scholar but not an Egyptologist when he was asked to examine the papyri. Since that time he became very interested in Egyptology....He published many articles in the church magazine The Improvement Era regarding the papyri." Actually, contrary to the critics' claim, Nibley studied Egyptian at University of Chicago prior to the discovery of the papyri in the New York Metropolitan Museum.
  • Michael Rhodes—Critics' comment: "Graduate work in Egyptology....Author of Ensign article....From his web site click on his resume and see how he spent most of his career (in the Air Force)." Note the ad hominem claim that Rhodes' career in the Air Force somehow diminishes his ability to perform work in Egyptology. While listing an unnamed "Ensign article," the critics fail to note that Rhodes has published a translation of the Joseph Smith papyri.
  • John Gee— Critics' comment: "FARMS Egyptologist....He has written many articles for FARMS." The critics credit Gee as a "FARMS Egyptologist" while ignoring the fact that he holds a Ph.D. in Egyptology from Yale University.
  • Michael Marquardt— Critics' comment: "LDS Historical researcher."
  • Edward H. Ashment— Critics' comment: "LDS Egyptologist that disagrees with his colleagues at FARMS about their theories on explaining Joseph's translation of the papyri."
  • Dee Nelson— Critics' comment: "Church member that was one of the first to examine the papyri. He claimed to have a background in Egyptology but was later exposed for misrepresenting his credentials. However, his initial examination of the papyri was correct in that he concluded it was an Egyptian funeral document having nothing to do with Abraham."
  • Stuart Ferguson— Critics' comment: "LDS archeologist....After reports came out that the Joseph Smith papyri was nothing more than common Egyptian funeral documents he lost his testimony." Ferguson shouldn't even be on this list. His interest was Book of Mormon archaeology, not the Book of Abraham.
  • Stephen E. Thompson—Egyptologist and scholar." (NOTE: MormonThink links to an anti-Mormon website for Thompson's biography)
  • Jeff Lindsay & Kerry Shirts—Critics' comment: "Not Egyptologists, not scholars. These guys are just average members with no more authority or credibility than other members."

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary