Non LDS Egyptologist agrees with Joseph Smith

[Lstinthwrld]

Look at the edit time. It was there. But moving on Instead of dodging the issues I brought up vort make some valid points not generalizations please.

[Lstinthwrld]

Beefche I am not angling at anything here. When I saw this thread I was actually hopeful that something good maybe even solid would have been presented in the article. I am so sick of living in a world where science has taken all the magic and wonder out of it. But at the same time I cannot pull blinders on and go "I believe even though there is absolutely no way this can be." I want some religious leader to be right in their claims so bad it keeps me up at night. And why not Joseph Smith. Man if this you tube guy had had an argument and and it was actually represented as he presented it in the article I would have called one of the Elders and scheduled a dunking this weekend. I am more disappointed then anything else.

[Vort]

Vort said: Make sure you can substantiate your allegations, not just reproduce the specious lists that many Mormon-haters have generated and promulgated through the years.

Wow, this should be interesting. Vort says to not quote Mormon haters and you said he called you one.

No, Lstinthwrld is right. My original wording was something like, "your fellow Mormon-haters". I changed it because it did seem to imply that Lstinthwrld was a Mormon-hater, which was not my intent. Though with his recent venom, I'm starting to wonder...

[Vort]

Vort did. And since I have established that I don't believe what he very ignorantly assumed I did I would like him to back up his argument without reverting to bashing.

Nonsense, Lstinthwrld. You wrote:

This is the main problem the non mormon world has with the mormon church.

Now, remember what you're responding to: Kerry Shirt's claim that the antiMormons have been proven wrong by a non-LDS, certified expert in something they have been claiming for many decades. That is the context for your remarks. My response:

Let's see if I understand you correctly. The non-Mormon Christian world, which by and large believes in --

• ex nihilo creation
• an earth that is about 6,000 years old since its creation
• a flood inundating the entire globe for a year less than 5,000 years ago
• the falsity of organic evolution
• all of the various science-defying miracles of the Bible

-- this world's problem with Mormonism is that we aren't scientific enough?

I don't think so.

My response made perfect sense in context. If you were changing the context, then it's incumbent on you to point that out.

In any case, I reject your characterization. Even outside antiMormon Christendom, "the world's problem with Mormonism" is not that we aren't scientific enough for them. That's nonsense. If you insist it is, then please provide evidence that this is in fact "the world's problem with Mormonism".

Or did you perhaps mean that it is your "problem with Mormonism"?

[Lstinthwrld]

Now I never said the nonmormon christian world. You are the one adding context where none was implied.

I have no problem with mormonism.

If people need a system of dogmatics based on an unknowable unprovable "supreme being" to be better people and it works and they are made better for it excellent! I am happy you all found fulfillment.

To be perfectly clear with you I find the christian world view that you outlined to be pure unadulterated ignorance. And what makes it worse is some of these people are very intelligent and they have allowed themselves to be lead down this road of chosen ignorance because they find it more comfortable to let their thinking be done for them.

I never said the worlds problem with mormonism is that they arent scientific enough. Science and religion arent even on the same planet much less the same discussion. Most of the issues with mormanism that the world at large has with it is the absurd claims it makes with no dogmatic or theological or even appolegetic support. Forget archeology or any thing else. No way that is going to happen. Oh wait the geneticist that the church had doing DNA on the native peoples in the Americas left the church over his findings that there is no Semitic DNA present. Plenty of eastern oriental. Or how about that the book of morman actually expects us to believe that there was an iron or even bronze age culture here that built a temple like in Jerusalem in ten years? A no iron/bronze age anything has been found here much less a temple like Jerusalem. And the time line? Come on. The standard answer will of course apply here that I am not a mormon and haven't received my testimony so I cant understand right? I have no problem being wrong just tell me without a bunch of esoteric nonsense and if you are right I will admit it.

Now if the only thing that Mr. Shirt was trying to say in this video is that the figure is not Osiris but only someone being resurrected and becoming Osiris like then he did that. OK Where is all the cause for all the hoopla? The author didn't say Joseph Smith correctly translated anything. And lets be clear the author of this essay is expressing his opinion. To date he is the only one of his peers supporting his theory. So I ask once again with everything the essay says and does not say....what is the cause for all the hoopla?

[Lstinthwrld]

I need to apologize to everyone here but most especially to the individuals that I may have offended by my previous posts. There are parts of it that are just plain rude and offensive. I have no excuse other than to say I suppose it illustrates the lack of peace and fulfillment in my own soul. I firmly believe that when one person lashes out at another it the result of personal deficits of the offender rather than anything that can be said to be the fault of any other person. The fourteenth Dalai Lama says that no one can make you mad but you. So I am sorry I have behaved inappropriately and I will do my best to not repeat this mistake. There is absolutely no excuse for meanness.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Lstinthwrld

[RipplecutBuddha]

Please allow me to put in my two cents on the issue of the OP, and not the most recent discussion. (I had no part in it and I wish to let it be what it is.)

After having studied Egyptology for a few years, (armchair study, mind you, not in school) and also after having studied what Hugh Nibley has said regarding the profession, let me say this.

Whenever mankind uses his own best tools to gain truth about something, there are going to be holes in the information, and wide gaps of disagreements between competent fellow experts.

Put another way, Egyptian history is an immensely complex field of study, and even among the best experts, there will be wide differences of opinion. It's been that way since the beginning of written history, and the study of it, and it will continue to be that way so long as mankind remains limited and falliable in his very nature.

Now, applying that to this discussion, it should come as no surprise that a non-Mormon archaeologist agrees in a very limited area with what Joseph Smith stated. Does this prove Joseph Smith was a prophet? Not at all, just that someone reached the same conclusion through a different path of study. It was bound to happen eventually.

My problem comes with people relying upon such 'proofs' to defend the LDS Church and its doctrines.

The LDS Church requires no such proof or evidence to support its doctrines. The proof of the LDS Church can be found in the same place it has always been found, in the performing and accepting of the doctrines. Jesus himself set the standard "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

The gospel of Jesus Christ is built upon the principle of faith, not proof. Only through utilizing our faith can we ever determine for ourselves whether or not the LDS Church is true.

It is useful to see how scientific examinations are beginning to verify what the LDS Church has been saying all this time, but we will never reach a point that allows us to simply point to some scientifically accepted fact as proof we are right. Many books have already been written about facts found in the Book of Mormon that weren't known by anybody, much less Joseph Smith, when it was published in 1830. The discussion has not changed because of them.

For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who do not believe, no proof is sufficient.

We must each find our own way to God. We must each approach God on our own, in prayer to find the truth we are seeking when we ask 'is the LDS Church the true church of Jesus Christ?'. It cannot be deduced by mathematical process, it cannot be revealed by studying the stars, and it cannot be exposed by digging into our own history. It can only be revealed to us by the power of God through the Holy Ghost in answer to prayer. It has always been that way, and it will remain that way to the last days.

[beefche]

Lst, thank you for offering the apology and I accept it wholeheartedly.

I do have a question and I'm seriously not trying to bash. I just have always wondered. Perhaps you can help me understand. You said:

If people need a system of dogmatics based on an unknowable unprovable "supreme being" to be better people and it works and they are made better for it excellent! I am happy you all found fulfillment.

To be perfectly clear with you I find the christian world view that you outlined to be pure unadulterated ignorance. And what makes it worse is some of these people are very intelligent and they have allowed themselves to be lead down this road of chosen ignorance because they find it more comfortable to let their thinking be done for them.

I never said the worlds problem with mormonism is that they arent scientific enough. Science and religion arent even on the same planet much less the same discussion.

Why is it that some people think that religion is unintelligent? Why can't science and religion go hand in hand? If that were true, then why are there scientists who are staunch Christians?

I am not a scientist (I barely understand basic physics). But, it isn't surprising to me that science and religion can co-exist. Are there dumb people who have religion in their lives? Absolutely. Are there highly intelligent people who have religion in their lives? Absolutely. But the same hold true to atheism or agnosticism.

[Moksha]

I appreciate seeing Kerry Shirt's videos about the FAIR Conference. It is like Daniel Boone coming from his cabin to the Sandy Expo after whitling and reading books all winter.

Here is one of him driving to Sandy, Utah from his cabin:

Wish he would stay a bit longer and add his video artistry to the Sunstone Conference just after the FAIR Conference.

:)

[Lstinthwrld]

Hello beefche I simply meant by that statement that science does not support religion and religion does not support science. I believe religion to be very intelligent. Just look at the schools of dogmatics and apologetics. These are very valid disciplines and taught at the university level. You can not be stupid/unintelligent to participate in either.

My problem in this regard is with what I refer to as the lemmings that don't look deeper and try to find out exactly what the church organizations they belong to believe and promote. While I personally believe religion to be intelligent there is the cult aspect of people believing whatever they are told and propagating idiocy. These are the people that give religion a bad name.

While there are religious (not just those of the christian persuasion) scientists they are the extreme minority. Science is, to state the glaringly obvious based on reason. Religion is based on faith. They do not make good bedfellows. And as I am starting to realize (in no small part because of this very forum) they should not be. Faith is not a reasonable thing. And how can it be? Faith is based on personal truths. And sometimes these are not universal ones. Religion and spirituality I believe have to be personal.

After all its personal salvation we are all trying to work out.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Lstinthwrld

[Honorentheos]

I think there is value in looking further beyond Kerry Shirt's video to the actual information shared by Bell.

These are the major points I think were made from watching Shirts then reading the actual article shared above:

Point 1 - The broadly accepted critisism of the BoA that centers on Joseph Smith's reproductions of facimilie 1 is that he "ignorantly" failed to realize the scene being portayed was of the conception of Horus by replacing what should have been the wing of Isis Kestrel with the upraised hand of the figure on the couch, Osiris; failed to realize that the figure that he called a preist was actually Anubis resurrecting Osiris; and that these vignettes are common - so common that JS looks the fool for missing this. This was included in the book, "By His Own Hand" by Charles Larsen. This crisism goes back to the 1800's following the first review of the facimilies by Theodule Devoria at the Lourve in Paris (1860).

Point 2 - Lanny Bell provides information that indicates (see link above) that not only is this not a common scene, but that the reproduction in Charles Larsen's book is almost certainly wrong.

Point 3 - Lanny Bell's first point is that there is no such thing as an "iconographic canon" where this scene should be immediately recognizable with each figure in the same place doing the same thing in every instance (see page 27, Bell reference) that he "clearly states" that the remnaints above the prone figure are not Isis but rather the figures right hand (page 28), and he uses other sources to produce his own reconstruction, found on page 30. This consists of Anubis with an outstreched arm holding a jar, the figure on the couch with both arms raised over his head (welcoming the returning ba, with the "striding legs" representing resurrection) and Isis kestrel over his head.

Point 4 - This needs to be quoted directly "To summarize the overal resuilts of this investigation so far: the conclusions reached by Deveria in 1859, based on his personal examination of copies of the Facsimilies 1-3 of "The Book of Abraham," anticipate in detail most of the observations of the seven Egyptologists who - along with on Semiticist, John (Punnett) Peters - contribute to F.S. Spalding's 1912 inquiry, as well as the Egyptologists who have discussed the Joseph Smith "Breathing Permit" since 1967...the consistency of the results attained by three generations of Egyptologists, working intermittenly and more or less independently over a period of nearly a century and a half, is striking."

Point 5 - On speaking on JS's place in American Egyptology, he says, "Smith's approach to the translation of the ancient Egyptian documents rank him squarely in the tradition of the esoteric interpretation of heiroglyphics, dating back to Athanasius Kircher who maintained that the heirgloyphs "were purely symbolic". Bell then proceeds to give a short description of what followed this trend by the statement, "Kircher's opinion prevailed throughout most of the first half of the 19th century,..." You can google Kircher to see the contibution he made to the field, which appears substantial in the propogation of interest if not many facts.

As to what this means - It's interesting that the IRR asked Bell to study this, reviewed his work, and supported his publication though they are the general source for Larsen's book as well. Why? Because good science is dispassionate about established positions and passionate about establishing truth. Bell shows the flaws in Larsen's writings and makes a case for something different. Is it correct? We can't be sure. But whatever it is, it represents the search for answers. And this search is moving us, over the last "century and a half" away from this explaination of Fascimilie 1 -

Facsimile No. 1

1. The Angel of the Lord /= Isis Kestrel

2. Abraham fastened on the alter /= Resurrection of Hor-Osiris

3. Idolatrous priest of Elkenah /= Anubis

4. Alter for sacrifice /= lion couch

Conclusion - Bell is not weighing in as being in favor of JS. He is pointing out the errors in the reproduction produced in Larsen's book and believed by others in terms of the wing vs. hand, but in general agrees the scene is not of Abraham but of Osiris, Isis, and Anubis. JS made a possibly correct assertion of where the hands should be, but this is inconsequential in terms of what he had wrong.

Basically, Bell is polite in ignoring JS in his paper almost completely in favor of discussing facts

[Moksha]

Hey Honorentheos, you are as always a well informed voice from the past. :)

[Justice]

In light of your gracious apology, I will only comment on the following, because I believe it is the heart of your argument, even if you don't believe me:

If people need a system of dogmatics based on an unknowable unprovable "supreme being" to be better people and it works and they are made better for it excellent! I am happy you all found fulfillment.

Your error is that you think it is unknowable. Unknowable and unprovable are 2 VERY different things.

While Moroni (the angel that delivered the gold plates to Joseph Smith) was abridging the record of the people of Ether, he recognized a faulty behavior of theirs. Watch closely (and please read slowly, understanding each word before you move on):

Ether 12:

1 And it came to pass that the days of Ether were in the days of Coriantumr; and Coriantumr was king over all the land.

2 And Ether was a prophet of the Lord; wherefore Ether came forth in the days of Coriantumr, and began to prophesy unto the people, for he could not be restrained because of the Spirit of the Lord which was in him.

3 For he did cry from the morning, even until the going down of the sun, exhorting the people to believe in God unto repentance lest they should be destroyed, saying unto them that by faith all things are fulfilled—

4 Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God.

5 And it came to pass that Ether did prophesy great and marvelous things unto the people, which they did not believe, because they saw them not.

Now, for one of the most powerful verses found anywhere in scripture:

6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.

Let's break this down:

faith is things which are hoped for and not seen

I'd like for you to read this as many times as it takes to sink in.

Faith is:

things which are hoped for and not seen

or

things which you desire but have not take place yet, or have not been realized

The greatest hope in the world is that there is a God, and that there is life after death... otherwise, hope is nothing. Hope is that death has no victory. A man who does not hope for a life after death is most miserable indeed.

We hope in a life after death, meaning we hope there is a God.

So, we read His word to see if it's true. If we sincerely desire (hope) it to be true, we exercise faith in it.

What does that mean?

Simply put it means we do what He says in the hopes He lives and is real.

dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith

If you dispute you can't even hope. Hope conquers all dispute. Why would you want to dispute that there is life after death? Because you can't see it? OF COURSE you can't, you haven't died yet!

dispute not because ye see not

If you hope God is real and do what He says, desiring it to be true...

...your faith will be tried and tested.

Once it is tried (more words from Moroni)...

Moroni 10:

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Stop doubting and hope.

Back to Moroni's words in Ether, later in the same chapter (12):

23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;

24 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.

25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.

26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;

27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Justice

[Lstinthwrld]

No the reason for my debate of this issue is the assumptions Shirts erroneously made in defense of JS translation. He said that anyone faliliar with the issue would be aware of the thunderclap that just sounded. Well all I heard was a rather weak fart.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Lstinthwrld

[Justice]

I didn't think you would believe me.

[Lstinthwrld]

It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe you.

[Justice]

Your error is that you think it is unknowable.

No the reason for my debate of this issue is...

If you thought it was knowable, the debate would be over, or significantly changed. You stated it was unknowable. I am telling you it is... because I know.

[Honorentheos]

Likewise, Moksha. I hope all is well with you and your daughter. It's been a while since we've bumped into one another.

[Honorentheos]

Unknowable and unprovable are 2 VERY different things.

With all due respect, this is illogical. Even in the first person context (I know I love my wife but can not prove it to anyone else, just offer evidence, - as an example) it remains unknowable to everyone else, including your wife, and unfortunately even for you. It becomes transitory, undefinable, and non-transportable to others or to you in other points of time. Each feeling of love, to be understood as differing from a statement of love, is unique to the time it is felt.

Likewise, each experinece of the Divine becomes unique to the individual in question as well as to that point in time.

In the end, all one can conclude is that something was felt, that something happened, and one has a strong belief of what that was, but that is all.

If it's not proveable, its not knowable. It could be hopeful, or engendering hope in a person, but to confuse hope with knowledge is to be in the wrong classroom after the bell for class to begin has already rung.

Which isn't a bad thing. Its simply that Love is a subjective term. A person's relationship with the Divine is subjective and despite some similarities it is ultimately unique and non-transportable. If it bears fruit in the form of hope or kind acts, its a good thing.

[Justice]

Did you read the scriptures I posted? I think you and I are speaking from different angles or points of reference.

It is knowable. The pattern has been declaired by God. He has told us how every sinlge person that has ever been born can come to know of His exitence for themselves. It starts with hope, it does not end there.

However, there is no physical proof of God's existence, so as you have rightly explained, we come to know Him personally. Each must take the steps He prescribed to come to that knowledge. There is no piece of evidence I can show you or hand you that will prove that God exists.

But, if the path the scripture outlines is followed, then all may come to know for themselves.

From this perspective, He is knowable but unprovable.

Are we to assume since there is no physical proof for His existence that no one can know He lives? This is the illogical path I was warning against, and what scriptures say is a false notion.

I am not always the best at explaining myself. Perhaps I have expressed my view more clearly now.

He must reveal Himself to us in order for us to know He lives. In order for this to happen we have to follow the steps He outlined (as I posted earlier).

[Jamie123]

I read Charles Larson's book a few years ago, and I was grateful for it as none of the Mormon sisters/elders I'd spoken to before then knew anything to speak of about the BOA controversy. But even then I thought there were a few holes in Larson's arguments. For instance, there's no proof that the Egyptian letters on the BOA MS were put there by Joseph Smith at all, and not some well-meaning but hopelessly misguided individual who came across the papers years later. Also the last chapter of Larson's book shows it's an anti-Mormon polemic and not a true work of scholarship.

Having said that, this guy (in the video) seems to be making an awful fuss about one very small victory. It's not like this is the first chink ever discovered in Larson's armor.

[Lstinthwrld]

I have also recently heard that this isn't even supposed to be the BoA papyrus anyway. That it is just one in the collection that they bought. If that's the case it makes it all moot anyway.

And yes I stand by "unknowable and unprovable"

[Elohel]

Meh, it's the Spirit that converts, not facts. Why does, at times, this thread feel like it drives the Spirit away?

Oh well...damage done.

[Justice]

And yes I stand by "unknowable and unprovable"

Without sounding obvious...

The reason you don't know is because you don't know. You've heard the saying, "you don't know what you don't know?" Well, it sounds ignorant to say, but the fact is when you're dealing with things of the spirit, since it is unprovable, only those who have followed God's instructions come to know.

So, to those who have not done so, and therefore don't know, obviously it seems unknowable. But, I assure you as one who knows, it is knowable. I even posted the scriptures outlining how you can come to know. I offer no proof, just the evidence of God's word. It takes faith or it can't be knowable.

[Lstinthwrld]

Without sounding obvious...

The reason you don't know is because you don't know. You've heard the saying, "you don't know what you don't know?" Well, it sounds ignorant to say, but the fact is when you're dealing with things of the spirit, since it is unprovable, only those who have followed God's instructions come to know.

So, to those who have not done so, and therefore don't know, obviously it seems unknowable. But, I assure you as one who knows, it is knowable. I even posted the scriptures outlining how you can come to know. I offer no proof, just the evidence of God's word. It takes faith or it can't be knowable.

I once heard that in order to have faith you must suspend reason in order to believe in the absurd. I have no use fro the absurd.

Since you "assure me as one who knows" what do you know? Show me what you know so that I can know as well.