My first Book of Abraham Podcast

[EdGoble]

https://pleaseleaveamessage.simplecast.com/episodes/37

This is my first Podcast with Richard McLean about the Book of Abraham and other subjects.

Sorry, I don't hang out here much anymore, but I thought I would post this.

Thanks.

Ed

[larsenb]

https://pleaseleaveamessage.simplecast.com/episodes/37

This is my first Podcast with Richard McLean about the Book of Abraham and other subjects.

Sorry, I don't hang out here much anymore, but I thought I would post this.

Thanks.

Ed

I'm finishing up listening to this now, and will be delving into it more. So Norton has discovered the relational meaning of Joseph Smith's 'Egyptian Alphabet', but where did Joseph get the actual content of the Book of Abraham? Direct revelation, or where . . . .albeit somehow keyed to the relational alphabet? What does Norton say about that?

There's quite a controversy boiling over John Gee's and Jeff Lindsay's reaction to and critique of the most recent Jospeh Smith Papers Volume 4, dealing with the Book of Abraham, edited by Jensen/Hauglid. There's a critique by Kelan of a Church article that seems rather devastating.

[EdGoble]

https://pleaseleaveamessage.simplecast.com/episodes/37

This is my first Podcast with Richard McLean about the Book of Abraham and other subjects.

Sorry, I don't hang out here much anymore, but I thought I would post this.

Thanks.

Ed

I'm finishing up listening to this now, and will be delving into it more. So Norton has discovered the relational meaning of Joseph Smith's 'Egyptian Alphabet', but where did Joseph get the actual content of the Book of Abraham? Direct revelation, or where . . . .albeit somehow keyed to the relational alphabet? What does Norton say about that?

There's quite a controversy boiling over John Gee's and Jeff Lindsay's reaction to and critique of the most recent Jospeh Smith Papers Volume 4, dealing with the Book of Abraham, edited by Jensen/Hauglid. There's a critique by Kelan of a Church article that seems rather devastating.

Norton? No. that is Me that did this with the Hor papyrus. I am speaking of what I found. Norton is some other guy that happened to be on this podcast. Please don't get us mixed up. I am the one that did the presentation on the BOA.

This doesn't change the fact that a papyrus that Abraham wrote contains the original text. We don't have it. Take your pick about an explanation of how Joseph Smith got it. He could have had another missing papyrus, or he got it by revelation. take your pick. This explanation is regarding the relation of the Hor papyrus symbols to the text.

Who is Kelan and where can I find his article. thanks

Ed

[larsenb]

https://pleaseleaveamessage.simplecast.com/episodes/37

This is my first Podcast with Richard McLean about the Book of Abraham and other subjects.

Sorry, I don't hang out here much anymore, but I thought I would post this.

Thanks.

Ed

I'm finishing up listening to this now, and will be delving into it more. So Norton has discovered the relational meaning of Joseph Smith's 'Egyptian Alphabet', but where did Joseph get the actual content of the Book of Abraham? Direct revelation, or where . . . .albeit somehow keyed to the relational alphabet? What does Norton say about that?

There's quite a controversy boiling over John Gee's and Jeff Lindsay's reaction to and critique of the most recent Jospeh Smith Papers Volume 4, dealing with the Book of Abraham, edited by Jensen/Hauglid. There's a critique by Kelan of a Church article that seems rather devastating.

Norton? No. that is Me that did this with the Hor papyrus. I am speaking of what I found. Norton is some other guy that happened to be on this podcast. Please don't get us mixed up. I am the one that did the presentation on the BOA.

This doesn't change the fact that a papyrus that Abraham wrote contains the original text. We don't have it. Take your pick about an explanation of how Joseph Smith got it. He could have had another missing papyrus, or he got it by revelation. take your pick. This explanation is regarding the relation of the Hor papyrus symbols to the text.

Who is Kelan and where can I find his article. thanks

Ed

I thought I screwed up on that . It said you were a "Guest Host" with Richard B McLean as the actual host, and I assumed that Robert Norton was the one being interviewed. So you were the one w/the rather soft voice, then at the end "your" voice changed and "you" were telling us about "your" art work and how "you" blew up your parental trailer home w/a shot gun (good story!), Format could have been a bit clearer. I was just breezing through it.

Here is the thread covering this John Dee controversy on Mormon Dialogue and Discussion: John Gee: "The Joseph Smith Papers Project Stumbles", at: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/721 ... -stumbles/. The Kelan critique of a particular lds.org article on the Book of Abraham controversy is first broached by: aussieguy55 on page 4 of the thread: "Interesting paper on the gospel topic essay on the Book of Abraham, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Log ... eGrdc/edit ".

He posted Kelan's article again on page 5. My 2nd comment made a mistake, thinking he had used a different link in his 2nd post. I'm losing it.

NOBODY cared to respond to my questions posed about Kelan's article, which I find quite strange. Yesterday, I opened a thread on the new evidence against the NIST Bldg 7 9/11 report from UAF. 5 people responded, one somewhat positive, then they closed the thread down. I have no reason why they did this.

My sense is that there are some really brittle people on this forum. With people such as Robert Smith contributing there, I thought it would be more open-minded and scholarly. I'm blarsen on that forum

[EdGoble]

Sorry about the format. It was the other guy, not me, that had the story about the shotgun thing. That was not me. Yes I guess the format could have been clearer.

[larsenb]

Let me what you think of the Kelan article/critique, if you get the time.

[creator]

Ed, I am no Egyptologist, but I do think you made some good points about the Book of Abraham translation. I also like what you said about our "virtual reality" (the Matrix is real), and I also liked your points about Book of Mormon evidences, and your reason for why you are researching these things.

[EdGoble]

Let me what you think of the Kelan article/critique, if you get the time.

I will. I am focused on a job search (not unemployed but searching for a better situation) and I'm kind of sick this week, so I will try to get to it on the weekend.

However, I would ask a special favor of you since you are on the MDD board. I am no longer on there and disabled my login, since I was treated so badly, including by Brother Smith that you mention, who was one person I especially hope I never cross paths with again.

Would you please post my podcast URL on the MDD board? No pressure, but it would be nice to at least get it on there for interested persons to hear.

thank you.

[jmack]

https://pleaseleaveamessage.simplecast.com/episodes/37

This is my first Podcast with Richard McLean about the Book of Abraham and other subjects.

Sorry, I don't hang out here much anymore, but I thought I would post this.

Thanks.

Ed

I'm finishing up listening to this now, and will be delving into it more. So Norton has discovered the relational meaning of Joseph Smith's 'Egyptian Alphabet', but where did Joseph get the actual content of the Book of Abraham? Direct revelation, or where . . . .albeit somehow keyed to the relational alphabet? What does Norton say about that?

There's quite a controversy boiling over John Gee's and Jeff Lindsay's reaction to and critique of the most recent Jospeh Smith Papers Volume 4, dealing with the Book of Abraham, edited by Jensen/Hauglid. There's a critique by Kelan of a Church article that seems rather devastating.

Norton? No. that is Me that did this with the Hor papyrus. I am speaking of what I found. Norton is some other guy that happened to be on this podcast. Please don't get us mixed up. I am the one that did the presentation on the BOA.

This doesn't change the fact that a papyrus that Abraham wrote contains the original text. We don't have it. Take your pick about an explanation of how Joseph Smith got it. He could have had another missing papyrus, or he got it by revelation. take your pick. This explanation is regarding the relation of the Hor papyrus symbols to the text.

Who is Kelan and where can I find his article. thanks

Ed

I thought I screwed up on that . It said you were a "Guest Host" with Richard B McLean as the actual host, and I assumed that Robert Norton was the one being interviewed. So you were the one w/the rather soft voice, then at the end "your" voice changed and "you" were telling us about "your" art work and how "you" blew up your parental trailer home w/a shot gun (good story!), Format could have been a bit clearer. I was just breezing through it.

Here is the thread covering this John Dee controversy on Mormon Dialogue and Discussion: John Gee: "The Joseph Smith Papers Project Stumbles", at: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/721 ... -stumbles/. The Kelan critique of a particular lds.org article on the Book of Abraham controversy is first broached by: aussieguy55 on page 4 of the thread: "Interesting paper on the gospel topic essay on the Book of Abraham, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Log ... eGrdc/edit ".

He posted Kelan's article again on page 5. My 2nd comment made a mistake, thinking he had used a different link in his 2nd post. I'm losing it.

NOBODY cared to respond to my questions posed about Kelan's article, which I find quite strange. Yesterday, I opened a thread on the new evidence against the NIST Bldg 7 9/11 report from UAF. 5 people responded, one somewhat positive, then they closed the thread down. I have no reason why they did this.

My sense is that there are some really brittle people on this forum. With people such as Robert Smith contributing there, I thought it would be more open-minded and scholarly. I'm blarsen on that forum

Yea I've been following that thread at MDaD, pretty insane that we're seeing this very public blowup. It's been brewing and really heated up when the Maxwell institute was taken over by one faction from another. I saw your thread on building 7. They don't allow any political or remotely political stuff, that is unless you are one of the special people there, then there's leeway. And they don't like conspiracy stuff. You gotta watch yourself cause they ban for good. I'd say half the members here couldn't last a week.

[larsenb]

I'm finishing up listening to this now, and will be delving into it more. So Norton has discovered the relational meaning of Joseph Smith's 'Egyptian Alphabet', but where did Joseph get the actual content of the Book of Abraham? Direct revelation, or where . . . .albeit somehow keyed to the relational alphabet? What does Norton say about that?

There's quite a controversy boiling over John Gee's and Jeff Lindsay's reaction to and critique of the most recent Jospeh Smith Papers Volume 4, dealing with the Book of Abraham, edited by Jensen/Hauglid. There's a critique by Kelan of a Church article that seems rather devastating.

Norton? No. that is Me that did this with the Hor papyrus. I am speaking of what I found. Norton is some other guy that happened to be on this podcast. Please don't get us mixed up. I am the one that did the presentation on the BOA.

This doesn't change the fact that a papyrus that Abraham wrote contains the original text. We don't have it. Take your pick about an explanation of how Joseph Smith got it. He could have had another missing papyrus, or he got it by revelation. take your pick. This explanation is regarding the relation of the Hor papyrus symbols to the text.

Who is Kelan and where can I find his article. thanks

Ed

I thought I screwed up on that . It said you were a "Guest Host" with Richard B McLean as the actual host, and I assumed that Robert Norton was the one being interviewed. So you were the one w/the rather soft voice, then at the end "your" voice changed and "you" were telling us about "your" art work and how "you" blew up your parental trailer home w/a shot gun (good story!), Format could have been a bit clearer. I was just breezing through it.

Here is the thread covering this John Dee controversy on Mormon Dialogue and Discussion: John Gee: "The Joseph Smith Papers Project Stumbles", at: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/721 ... -stumbles/. The Kelan critique of a particular lds.org article on the Book of Abraham controversy is first broached by: aussieguy55 on page 4 of the thread: "Interesting paper on the gospel topic essay on the Book of Abraham, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Log ... eGrdc/edit ".

He posted Kelan's article again on page 5. My 2nd comment made a mistake, thinking he had used a different link in his 2nd post. I'm losing it.

NOBODY cared to respond to my questions posed about Kelan's article, which I find quite strange. Yesterday, I opened a thread on the new evidence against the NIST Bldg 7 9/11 report from UAF. 5 people responded, one somewhat positive, then they closed the thread down. I have no reason why they did this.

My sense is that there are some really brittle people on this forum. With people such as Robert Smith contributing there, I thought it would be more open-minded and scholarly. I'm blarsen on that forum

Yea I've been following that thread at MDaD, pretty insane that we're seeing this very public blowup. It's been brewing and really heated up when the Maxwell institute was taken over by one faction from another. I saw your thread on building 7. They don't allow any political or remotely political stuff, that is unless you are one of the special people there, then there's leeway. And they don't like conspiracy stuff. You gotta watch yourself cause they ban for good. I'd say half the members here couldn't last a week.

jmack, thanks! You've said about what I've concluded. I actually read their guidelines after they locked the thread, and saw their ban on things political. Problem with that is, I was posting engineering/scientific information; with implications political enough, but also covering a broad range of issues, both sociological, religious, you name it.

They haven't replied to my request to know why the thread was locked. I'm thinking of opening a new thread to at least answer my critics. Probably get me banned for good. Oh, well.

[larsenb]

Let me what you think of the Kelan article/critique, if you get the time.

I will. I am focused on a job search (not unemployed but searching for a better situation) and I'm kind of sick this week, so I will try to get to it on the weekend.

However, I would ask a special favor of you since you are on the MDD board. I am no longer on there and disabled my login, since I was treated so badly, including by Brother Smith that you mention, who was one person I especially hope I never cross paths with again.

Would you please post my podcast URL on the MDD board? No pressure, but it would be nice to at least get it on there for interested persons to hear.

thank you.

I hope your situation improves.

Yes, I can do that. In fact, I'll post it on the John Gee thread . . . .at least before I get banned (see my post just before this one). Though, as I recall, they consider it a violation to post web site URLs, per se. I'll at least post your podcast interview, and will think about adding your URL.

So Robert Smith treated you badly? Too bad for that and disappointing. I assume he doesn't think well of the JS Egyptian 'alphabet'.

[larsenb]

. . . . . Would you please post my podcast URL on the MDD board? No pressure, but it would be nice to at least get it on there for interested persons to hear.

thank you.

Done.

Here is my post:

"Here's a podcast where a fellow named Ed Goble (related to Clark?) is being interviewed on his views of JS's Egyptian 'Alphabet' located here: https://pleaseleaveamessage.simplecast.com/episodes/37 and which may be of interest to some of you here. He gives further explication of his views here: https://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/

I'm just getting interested again in this whole Book of Abraham topic, and have no point of view on Goble's information . . . yet.

Still surprised that no one has replied to my questions about the Kelan article, etc. There seems to be a 'collective conscious' to this board that I don't quite understand yet."

[larsenb]

Ed, I am no Egyptologist, but I do think you made some good points about the Book of Abraham translation. I also like what you said about our "virtual reality" (the Matrix is real), and I also liked your points about Book of Mormon evidences, and your reason for why you are researching these things.

Brian, I just wanted to say, due to recent experiences on the MDD board, I've really come to appreciate how you allow relatively free-ranging expression/topics on this board. Good job . . . . now if I could only bring myself to contribute more . . . .

[EdGoble]

. . . . . Would you please post my podcast URL on the MDD board? No pressure, but it would be nice to at least get it on there for interested persons to hear.

thank you.

Done.

Here is my post:

"Here's a podcast where a fellow named Ed Goble (related to Clark?) is being interviewed on his views of JS's Egyptian 'Alphabet' located here: https://pleaseleaveamessage.simplecast.com/episodes/37 and which may be of interest to some of you here. He gives further explication of his views here: https://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/

I'm just getting interested again in this whole Book of Abraham topic, and have no point of view on Goble's information . . . yet.

Still surprised that no one has replied to my questions about the Kelan article, etc. There seems to be a 'collective conscious' to this board that I don't quite understand yet."

From my perspective, yes he treated me badly. The interpreter crowd are not friends of mine, and their rejection of me and my work has nothing to do with quality of my research (as I see it), but rather their careful coordination and control of whose views are to have credibility according to their subjective criteria or whims, whatever the case may be. Establishments are what they are. If I am wrong about that, then I am wrong. But history will be the ultimate judge of what really happened here, and why my voice was not heard, when all is known. History will show a concerted effort to suppress and minimize what I have produced. At least what I produced is on record for the future. Perhaps someone will vindicate me someday if I am right, but vindication will not come today. I have no friends in high places.

[larsenb]

. . . . . Would you please post my podcast URL on the MDD board? No pressure, but it would be nice to at least get it on there for interested persons to hear.

thank you.

Done.

Here is my post:

"Here's a podcast where a fellow named Ed Goble (related to Clark?) is being interviewed on his views of JS's Egyptian 'Alphabet' located here: https://pleaseleaveamessage.simplecast.com/episodes/37 and which may be of interest to some of you here. He gives further explication of his views here: https://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/

I'm just getting interested again in this whole Book of Abraham topic, and have no point of view on Goble's information . . . yet.

Still surprised that no one has replied to my questions about the Kelan article, etc. There seems to be a 'collective conscious' to this board that I don't quite understand yet."

From my perspective, yes he treated me badly. The interpreter crowd are not friends of mine, and their rejection of me and my work has nothing to do with quality of my research (as I see it), but rather their careful coordination and control of whose views are to have credibility according to their subjective criteria or whims, whatever the case may be. Establishments are what they are. If I am wrong about that, then I am wrong. But history will be the ultimate judge of what really happened here, and why my voice was not heard, when all is known. History will show a concerted effort to suppress and minimize what I have produced. At least what I produced is on record for the future. Perhaps someone will vindicate me someday if I am right, but vindication will not come today. I have no friends in high places.

A tough position to be in. Its hard for me to see Daniel Peterson being part of this, though. I've always enjoyed most of his written output and have talked to him a bit during a recent BMC conference (picking up from the BMAF conferences).

There was actually reasonable reaction to my post on MDD citing your work.

[EdGoble]

Ed, I am no Egyptologist, but I do think you made some good points about the Book of Abraham translation. I also like what you said about our "virtual reality" (the Matrix is real), and I also liked your points about Book of Mormon evidences, and your reason for why you are researching these things.

thanks Brian. I appreciate it.

[EdGoble]

Let me what you think of the Kelan article/critique, if you get the time.

Hi again larsenB,

I read through a lot of the Kelan article. My reaction to this is the same as my reaction always has been to works such as By His Own Hand on Papyrus by Charles Larson, or Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri by Robert Ritner, or even the CES Letter. We can congratulate the authors for their attention to a lot of detail where they try to bombard us with so much technical detail about how things are supposedly "false", that as the author Kelan said, to quote, you have to "come up for air" sometimes. The importance of evidence is not lost on the authors of these materials. And sometimes they are very right about technical details.

But it is not the rightness of technical details that is all that impressive. It is whether they have focused so much on technical details that they are lost on things that really matter. that is where they fail. Because for some reason, they assume that all parties that are on the Church's side are agreed on all details, just because something is put out as authoritative by the Church, that is in fact ghost written by flawed apologists.

I am in fact not in agreement on all the details and claims made in the Church's apologetic production, just because I am a member of the Church. In fact, I am agreed on a great number of facts and details put out by the critics.

And by that, I mean, the fact is, it doesn't matter so much that a critic can be right to a great degree by bombarding us with a bunch of stuff that is true. That is not very impressive to me, because I actually agree with the great majority of facts that the critics are presenting. It is their interpretation of what those facts mean that is the issue with me. And so, by that, I mean that a lot of things are both true at the same time. For example, it is both true that Thomas Dick's Philosophy of a Future State contains items that resemble contents of the Book of Abraham, but it is also true that it is an authentic fact that Abraham also actually knew these things. But the same type of things exist for the Book of Mormon too about many things that Joseph Smith knew from his environment, that primed him for it. For example, the theories about the moundbuilders that they were the Lost Ten Tribes from Joseph smith's environment. Just because this stuff was in his environment did not stop the facts in the Book of Mormon from being true. So, the truth can actually be surprising sometimes that two things can be true at the same time. The critics bombard us with this stuff and then feed us the assumption that there is only one possibility, that Joseph Smith copied stuff from his environment. Even if he did, it doesn't mean that what he produced is not true. In fact, I embrace the fact that sometimes things from the environment are there in fact for the very purpose of priming him to receive revelations, and that people in his environment also were receivers of revelation and inspiration to make sure that those very things would be there for the prophet to be primed at the time he needed to be.

Secondly, the other common claim from the critic is that, just because it is technically true that Joseph Smith didn't get technical things right about the identification of the papyri that he was dealing with, that therefore was in fact no ancient source that once contained the information that he produced. Those things are not indicative that there was no ancient source that Joseph Smith reproduced.

In fact, what I am saying is that revelation many times does not actually resemble the parody of it that the critics would have us believe. For example, just because Joseph Smith had certain assumptions about his sources doesn't invalidate the end product that he produced as being a reproduction of authentically ancient material. It is the end product that ought to be put under the microscope, not Joseph Smith's assumptions about it, which in fact may be outright wrong, or incomplete. In this case, Joseph Smith's assumptions about the Hor Papyrus as being an autograph of Abraham is not technically correct. That is a fact. Joseph Smith did not understand technical details about it. Today we do, and both the critics and the apologists know this very well. We know very well that the Papyrus does not contain the Book of Abraham. What Joseph Smith was NOT wrong about was that there is an association between the symbols and the content of the Book of Abraham, and that that relationship is ancient. THIS is what my research shows. In other words, with modern research, we come to know in sharp focus HOW the Hor Papyrus has a linkage to the Book of Abraham, and that it does not CONTAIN the contents of the message of the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith assumed too much about the identity of the papyrus. In other words the Holy Ghost used Joseph Smith, regardless of Joseph Smith's partially true or partially false assumptions about the identity of the thing he was working with. In other words, Joseph Smith knew things only partially, but the Holy Ghost used him anyway. And the Holy Ghost knew things fully. Therefore, Joseph Smith is still a vessel of receiving information from the Holy Ghost notwithstanding his failings or partial understandings, and notwithstanding what was in Joseph Smith's environment.

Therefore, as Church members, we still have enough evidence to indicate that we ought to to be grateful to Joseph Smith, that he is a conduit, notwithstanding he is human and fallible and not omniscient. And we ought to be grateful that the Holy Ghost still used him as a conduit anyway. And furthermore, we ought to be grateful that the Holy Ghost is the entity that is omniscient that worked with Joseph Smith as a tool. We ought to be grateful that there is an element in the equation that is indeed omniscient, in spite of the limitations of the conduit. Therefore, as Church Members, we ought to also be grateful to ALL researchers (including the critics) for bringing further facts to light about the matter. Because, as Church members, we aren't necessarily as interested in apologetics and being bamboozled by apologists when they make false or incorrect claims, and we are not even necessarily interested in Church sponsored claims when they are not entirely correct coming from apologists that are commissioned by the Church to produce something. We are interested in all truth, regardless from whence it comes. Therefore, we ought to be grateful to the critics when they bring truth to light, but we intend to circumscribe all truth into one great combination of truth. Therefore, we ought to be willing to recognize by the Holy Ghost when truth comes from critics, or from apologists, or from whatever source. Therefore, I am not interested in defending things even in the Church essay when the Church essay presents facts that aren't precisely correct. Ultimately, I am interested in coming to an understanding of truth as a whole. And if Joseph Smith only knew the truth partially, then I am undisturbed when facts come to light that show more of the truth. But that doesn't invalidate the parts of the truth, or even partial truths that Joseph Smith did in fact know.

Therefore, I say, I am as grateful for the facts presented in Kellan's article as I am from the By His Own hand on Papyrus book, or Ritner's book. I am just not impressed by Kellan's interpretations of those facts, and I say, none of those facts invalidate my research the least bit.

In other words, I am still asserting and am unswayed from the conclusion that the Hor Papyrus has a role where it is related to the Book of Abraham symbolically by the relational things of its ancient usage of its symbols, but it does not CONTAIN the text. And therefore, the contents are reproduced from a non-extant ancient source. The Holy Ghost knew this, but Joseph Smith didn't have to know these details to complete his work. And I am undisturbed by the fact that Joseph Smith didn't have to know all things or all technical facts of a matter to actually have performed his work, and the fact that we can come to know facts that Joseph Smith did not know is a testimony that the Holy Ghost continues to reveal important facts and does things incrementally according to our needs. Apologists need to strive to have their interpretations of things actually harmonize with known facts, rather than making crap up or outright lying or misrepresenting facts the way they do sometimes, because when they do that, they do damage to the cause. And this can be especially damaging when the Church relies on the "expertise" of apologists like that. I for one strive to have interpretations that harmonize with the evidence.

Thanks.

[oneClimbs]

Ed, I've read every single one of your posts and articles on the Book of Abraham and I love your perspective. I really think you are on to something and that your work is very underrated. I appreciate you taking the time to put your research together in a way that meets academic standards because while it must be a huge pain to do so, those standards are there to bring order to what could be a chaotic mess.

Even putting my own ideas into posts on my blog forces me to really think about things and distill ideas into something more concise and approachable.

I look forward to listening to your podcast and thanks again for all that you do. I think there are many like me that are quiet lurkers who are profoundly grateful to your contributions.

[larsenb]

Let me what you think of the Kelan article/critique, if you get the time.

Hi again larsenB,

I read through a lot of the Kelan article. My reaction to this is the same as my reaction always has been to works such as By His Own Hand on Papyrus by Charles Larson, or Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri by Robert Ritner, or even the CES Letter. We can congratulate the authors for their attention to a lot of detail where they try to bombard us with so much technical detail about how things are supposedly "false", that as the author Kelan said, to quote, you have to "come up for air" sometimes. The importance of evidence is not lost on the authors of these materials. And sometimes they are very right about technical details.

But it is not the rightness of technical details that is all that impressive. It is whether they have focused so much on technical details that they are lost on things that really matter. that is where they fail. Because for some reason, they assume that all parties that are on the Church's side are agreed on all details, just because something is put out as authoritative by the Church, that is in fact ghost written by flawed apologists.

I am in fact not in agreement on all the details and claims made in the Church's apologetic production, just because I am a member of the Church. In fact, I am agreed on a great number of facts and details put out by the critics.

And by that, I mean, the fact is, it doesn't matter so much that a critic can be right to a great degree by bombarding us with a bunch of stuff that is true. That is not very impressive to me, because I actually agree with the great majority of facts that the critics are presenting. It is their interpretation of what those facts mean that is the issue with me. And so, by that, I mean that a lot of things are both true at the same time. For example, it is both true that Thomas Dick's Philosophy of a Future State contains items that resemble contents of the Book of Abraham, but it is also true that it is an authentic fact that Abraham also actually knew these things. But the same type of things exist for the Book of Mormon too about many things that Joseph Smith knew from his environment, that primed him for it. For example, the theories about the moundbuilders that they were the Lost Ten Tribes from Joseph smith's environment. Just because this stuff was in his environment did not stop the facts in the Book of Mormon from being true. So, the truth can actually be surprising sometimes that two things can be true at the same time. The critics bombard us with this stuff and then feed us the assumption that there is only one possibility, that Joseph Smith copied stuff from his environment. Even if he did, it doesn't mean that what he produced is not true. In fact, I embrace the fact that sometimes things from the environment are there in fact for the very purpose of priming him to receive revelations, and that people in his environment also were receivers of revelation and inspiration to make sure that those very things would be there for the prophet to be primed at the time he needed to be.

Secondly, the other common claim from the critic is that, just because it is technically true that Joseph Smith didn't get technical things right about the identification of the papyri that he was dealing with, that therefore was in fact no ancient source that once contained the information that he produced. Those things are not indicative that there was no ancient source that Joseph Smith reproduced.

In fact, what I am saying is that revelation many times does not actually resemble the parody of it that the critics would have us believe. For example, just because Joseph Smith had certain assumptions about his sources doesn't invalidate the end product that he produced as being a reproduction of authentically ancient material. It is the end product that ought to be put under the microscope, not Joseph Smith's assumptions about it, which in fact may be outright wrong, or incomplete. In this case, Joseph Smith's assumptions about the Hor Papyrus as being an autograph of Abraham is not technically correct. That is a fact. Joseph Smith did not understand technical details about it. Today we do, and both the critics and the apologists know this very well. We know very well that the Papyrus does not contain the Book of Abraham. What Joseph Smith was NOT wrong about was that there is an association between the symbols and the content of the Book of Abraham, and that that relationship is ancient. THIS is what my research shows. In other words, with modern research, we come to know in sharp focus HOW the Hor Papyrus has a linkage to the Book of Abraham, and that it does not CONTAIN the contents of the message of the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith assumed too much about the identity of the papyrus. In other words the Holy Ghost used Joseph Smith, regardless of Joseph Smith's partially true or partially false assumptions about the identity of the thing he was working with. In other words, Joseph Smith knew things only partially, but the Holy Ghost used him anyway. And the Holy Ghost knew things fully. Therefore, Joseph Smith is still a vessel of receiving information from the Holy Ghost notwithstanding his failings or partial understandings, and notwithstanding what was in Joseph Smith's environment.

Therefore, as Church members, we still have enough evidence to indicate that we ought to to be grateful to Joseph Smith, that he is a conduit, notwithstanding he is human and fallible and not omniscient. And we ought to be grateful that the Holy Ghost still used him as a conduit anyway. And furthermore, we ought to be grateful that the Holy Ghost is the entity that is omniscient that worked with Joseph Smith as a tool. We ought to be grateful that there is an element in the equation that is indeed omniscient, in spite of the limitations of the conduit. Therefore, as Church Members, we ought to also be grateful to ALL researchers (including the critics) for bringing further facts to light about the matter. Because, as Church members, we aren't necessarily as interested in apologetics and being bamboozled by apologists when they make false or incorrect claims, and we are not even necessarily interested in Church sponsored claims when they are not entirely correct coming from apologists that are commissioned by the Church to produce something. We are interested in all truth, regardless from whence it comes. Therefore, we ought to be grateful to the critics when they bring truth to light, but we intend to circumscribe all truth into one great combination of truth. Therefore, we ought to be willing to recognize by the Holy Ghost when truth comes from critics, or from apologists, or from whatever source. Therefore, I am not interested in defending things even in the Church essay when the Church essay presents facts that aren't precisely correct. Ultimately, I am interested in coming to an understanding of truth as a whole. And if Joseph Smith only knew the truth partially, then I am undisturbed when facts come to light that show more of the truth. But that doesn't invalidate the parts of the truth, or even partial truths that Joseph Smith did in fact know.

Therefore, I say, I am as grateful for the facts presented in Kellan's article as I am from the By His Own hand on Papyrus book, or Ritner's book. I am just not impressed by Kellan's interpretations of those facts, and I say, none of those facts invalidate my research the least bit.

In other words, I am still asserting and am unswayed from the conclusion that the Hor Papyrus has a role where it is related to the Book of Abraham symbolically by the relational things of its ancient usage of its symbols, but it does not CONTAIN the text. And therefore, the contents are reproduced from a non-extant ancient source. The Holy Ghost knew this, but Joseph Smith didn't have to know these details to complete his work. And I am undisturbed by the fact that Joseph Smith didn't have to know all things or all technical facts of a matter to actually have performed his work, and the fact that we can come to know facts that Joseph Smith did not know is a testimony that the Holy Ghost continues to reveal important facts and does things incrementally according to our needs. Apologists need to strive to have their interpretations of things actually harmonize with known facts, rather than making crap up or outright lying or misrepresenting facts the way they do sometimes, because when they do that, they do damage to the cause. And this can be especially damaging when the Church relies on the "expertise" of apologists like that. I for one strive to have interpretations that harmonize with the evidence.

Thanks.

Ed, extremely thoughtful and on-the-money commentary. Thanks. You echo some of the thoughts I've had but explicate them very well, especially in terms of the Book of Abraham. I asked for something like this from the denizens of MDD, but had to come here to get an actual and intelligent reply to what Kellan had written.

Maybe I can reproduce it on the MDD John Gee thread?? Or if you care to open up a new account, you could. In fact, you may want to replicate it on your blogspot.

[EdGoble]

Ed, extremely thoughtful and on-the-money commentary. Thanks. You echo some of the thoughts I've had but explicate them very well, especially in terms of the Book of Abraham. I asked for something like this from the denizens of MDD, but had to come here to get an actual and intelligent reply to what Kellan had written.

Maybe I can reproduce it on the MDD John Gee thread?? Or if you care to open up a new account, you could. In fact, you may want to replicate it on your blogspot.

Yes, please post it on MDD if you would, when you get a chance.

Here is my post on my blog where I reproduced it:
https://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blog ... -book.html

[larsenb]

Done. It's on MDD . . . unless they remove it for some reason.