tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39163345623847804522024-03-25T00:24:30.286-06:00Mormon Puzzle PiecesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-25986458206675421312024-01-24T06:51:00.015-07:002024-01-25T11:18:47.768-07:00Apologetic Logic<p><i> “it is not valid to argue that something does not exist because it does not correspond to what we expect”</i> - Dr. John Gee, Egyptologist</p><p>Click to enlarge images in this post.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZsLx3E32moMgweW7A2KQTMVg3DcXOzokMMglX04oJROFtytftUhGl6YxPR75_kXAMjejawoY68FrjGM1ktR7b6rPtiUSpBC938b19i3C1gNRCv60V_JhdUcdLSJw-Df29sr7OMrhOUy0D7yYvHoBEyL3sJ0I8BKFWtH9ou0LE5hN29sOa4KMvE0QPWDI/s3982/compilation.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2807" data-original-width="3982" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZsLx3E32moMgweW7A2KQTMVg3DcXOzokMMglX04oJROFtytftUhGl6YxPR75_kXAMjejawoY68FrjGM1ktR7b6rPtiUSpBC938b19i3C1gNRCv60V_JhdUcdLSJw-Df29sr7OMrhOUy0D7yYvHoBEyL3sJ0I8BKFWtH9ou0LE5hN29sOa4KMvE0QPWDI/s320/compilation.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>The first possibility depicted in the above image is what some people expect and assume to be the case even though the character on the right does not match the character to the left of it. The second possibility is backed by actual evidence, which we see when the possibility is allowed to play out instead of being arbitrarily taken off the table. More on this later. </p><p>The human mind is a funny thing. </p><p>It can be quite narrow and stubborn, and can easily mistake its own assumptions and intuitions for reason and logic. </p><p>We tend to discard possibilities based on how well they align with our expectations, and when we do so it can "feel" like we are being logical. But that's not logic. That's why I think it's important to steelman every possible apologetic and then attempt to logically deduce ruling it out, and if we can't logically deduce that the possibility can be ruled out, then it's important to leave it on the table and allow it to play out. That doesn't mean every possibility should be seen as true; it just means every possibility that can't be logically ruled out needs to be played out, as that's the only way we can see where it leads. </p><p>Consider, for instance, the parable of Johnny.</p><p>Johnny was a clever boy, and pretty good at chess. His parents hired a chess master to give Johnny private lessons. One day, Johnny and his friend Alec thought of a fun prank to play on the chess coach. They set up a hidden camera so Alec could see the chess board from a different room and could input the position as he saw it on the board, to an advanced chess engine. Alec could then tell Johnny where to move, through a bluetooth earpiece. </p><p>The boys thought the chess master would be very impressed by the moves. But it didn't go that way. </p><p>"No, you don't want to move there, because I'll be able to take your bishop! Johnny, you need to look for potential threats before you make moves! Take that move back and try again." "No, no, don't do that. It will weaken your pawn structure!" "You missed an opportunity to develop your knight! Let's take that move back" etc. </p><p>Johnny and Alec were both growing frustrated. But what they didn't realize is that the tutor was relying on pattern recognition, while the engine was playing out possibilities that humans would dismiss. </p><p>And not only was the tutor relying on pattern recognition when it came to pieces on the board, but also when it came to Johnny himself, because the tutor did not expect Johnny to make moves that are beyond any human level. The tutor had limitations in his mind as to what moves Johnny was capable of making, so, for him, the possibility that Johnny's odd looking moves should be played out wasn't on the table. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyL1J1q9gIuvwYAUdjkvz7hXrTAZ-rTEaWSOqCa925lxx2-sjeXolBskMDL1Nlvbnbc6eKG4GYNJcUWIcP8yg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><p>It's true we only have a certain amount of time and we can't personally play everything out. But rejecting something you have not played out, and campaigning for others to reject it too, is not logical (unless you literally use logic to rule it out through deduction, or identify and disclose premises which you personally believe are true and you demonstrate those premises are inherently in conflict with the possibility, and you openly state that this conflict is your reason for rejecting the possibility). </p><p>What does playing it out mean? You get to play either side, but you have to leave it on the table so the other side can come back and respond. That's if you choose to play at all, which you don't have to. </p><p>Let's illustrate. I hate to criticize the beloved onomasticon, but since individual Book of Mormon Onomasticon entries are relatively anonymous, and I want to keep this discussion about substance and not criticize individuals if I don't have to, I will use an onomasticon entry to demonstrate. </p><p>Under cureloms, the <a href="https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php?title=CURELOMS" target="_blank">onomasticon</a> states, "Whatever fauna CURELOMS were..."</p><p>We can see here an assumption that cureloms were fauna rather than flora or something else. As well-meaning as that assumption might be, is it logical? No. It is not a logical deduction or assumption. The writer seems to be confusing their intuition with reason. This would be the case regardless of what credentials they have. </p><p>The entry goes on to state, "three criteria affect their identification ... whatever etymology is proposed, it must meet these three criteria."</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4r9hFkses5dHipleimvTgWwOVZo9oHpeR5VJ495XI3UyGtl6Nqh74QtZO48hONeeUx1PerSSZzLh0yTfDnOSKI7HJkQ8yuSs_qLMis8Uvzpgsm8587m5PzBjR4gsU-78gK7tyM9Yw4G-7W11rouzI0COxfHht9fIR5NZBGomYAd9HUYoUU_iTqtJ8nNQ/s1510/Screenshot%202024-01-15%20024213.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="657" data-original-width="1510" height="139" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4r9hFkses5dHipleimvTgWwOVZo9oHpeR5VJ495XI3UyGtl6Nqh74QtZO48hONeeUx1PerSSZzLh0yTfDnOSKI7HJkQ8yuSs_qLMis8Uvzpgsm8587m5PzBjR4gsU-78gK7tyM9Yw4G-7W11rouzI0COxfHht9fIR5NZBGomYAd9HUYoUU_iTqtJ8nNQ/s320/Screenshot%202024-01-15%20024213.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>We can see the possibilities are further being pruned, without logical deduction being laid out to the reader. </p><p>The three proposed criteria are as follows: "1) they were especially useful to the JAREDITES; 2) they were indigenous to JAREDITE America; and, 3) it must be assumed, Joseph Smith did not have an English translation for them or he would have rendered it in English."</p><p>So, it "must" be assumed Joseph Smith did not have an English translation? Are we to believe there are no other possible reasons why Joseph did not render it into English? The Lord's ways are higher than our ways. And we must also accept that they were without a doubt indigenous to Jaredite America? I mean, it seems likely, but does not appear to be a logical deduction. </p><p>Admittedly, the first criteria does seem deducible from the text. So let's start there. </p><p>And let's put flora on the table, allowing it to be played out. Different lines of possibility can be played out (like chess), but let's consider one with premises which don't seem extremely controversial. </p><p>P1. An association between Jaredites and Olmec-related areas is plausible</p><p>P2. Premise 1 implies that the things which were especially useful to known Olmec area-related people would plausibly have been especially useful to the Jaredites</p><p>P3. We can identify some things which were especially useful to known Olmec area-related people</p><p>4. Therefore, we can identify some things which plausibly were especially useful to the Jaredites </p><p>Okay let's go down a secondary line within the main line and see where it leads. </p><p>The word "Olmec" actually means something akin to "Rubber People." Rubber was something "especially useful" to Olmec-area-related people. </p><p>As I understand it, people made rubber using latex from rubber trees. </p><p>Therefore, rubber trees were especially useful, thus plausibly especially useful to the Jaredites. </p><p>Another observation is that the verse which mentions cureloms repeats the wording "elephants and cureloms and cumoms," which may indicate that the three go together. Associating trees with elephants would make sense, since as they aged and no longer produced as much, they may have needed to be cleared. And elephants can be very useful for that.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFtiy-tv68po9dDjkLGq63oxRVbALialEYUfSSHl0i60dBWQElZc2maa7uAxvEYACz8FflXONMj21VeWHxCjYelewya-3VRTYmsDGLk_eRUQC0qmXTandPQf1gBMpwtQjdS0Pv4WeA3jVjVt9zKBRDvjPlBG6pKHS5zVFfzAQnzDCmKcZpTf6xjB5ACtI/s507/elephant.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="507" data-original-width="417" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFtiy-tv68po9dDjkLGq63oxRVbALialEYUfSSHl0i60dBWQElZc2maa7uAxvEYACz8FflXONMj21VeWHxCjYelewya-3VRTYmsDGLk_eRUQC0qmXTandPQf1gBMpwtQjdS0Pv4WeA3jVjVt9zKBRDvjPlBG6pKHS5zVFfzAQnzDCmKcZpTf6xjB5ACtI/s320/elephant.jpg" width="263" /></a></div><p>Okay, it seems plausible that the word cureloms could therefore refer to a type of tree. Now, some have suggested Sumerian as a candidate Jaredite language. So, let's look at one possible Sumerian-based Jaredite construction for the word "curelom." I would propose the word "kirilam" as something the Jaredites may have crafted out of Sumerian words:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimK7g2OFiBwqQktUfnIvQhM23_zO-jPbj0M9j2h5yxMl-LhYwe8xgjrxtV1D49rYArWi-SzJOZhZyUQknlRx23gKJ2CsmrkkdAfnx4wgdkZI7LuSRH8IMQ4Qp9Dt1Uwp2wgF-voM6qF5Q40kc3D7HJqyrZFqwB6Y6KlTfnvCf902EVs9W_7KkZ1C35yGs/s933/kirilam.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="208" data-original-width="933" height="71" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimK7g2OFiBwqQktUfnIvQhM23_zO-jPbj0M9j2h5yxMl-LhYwe8xgjrxtV1D49rYArWi-SzJOZhZyUQknlRx23gKJ2CsmrkkdAfnx4wgdkZI7LuSRH8IMQ4Qp9Dt1Uwp2wgF-voM6qF5Q40kc3D7HJqyrZFqwB6Y6KlTfnvCf902EVs9W_7KkZ1C35yGs/s320/kirilam.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>So, the assumption that cureloms were animals may "feel" logical, but in reality it mistakes biases and expectations for logic. </p><p>Avoiding that mistake is something we can all work on.</p><p>-----</p><p>Okay, now I would like to address the image I placed at the top of this post. </p><p>On one hand, the image shows a gradual change in the shape of the character, from the Hor papyrus to the W.W. Phelps Book of Abraham manuscript (although the image shows this happening in more or less reverse order). By tracing the character back to the Book of Breathings, we can identify the character and what it means. It is a determinative meaning "great," among a few other things that are really special about it. </p><p>On the other hand, we see at the top of the image an alternate possible provenance for the character. Advocation of this alternate idea does not coincide with actual evidence, but does coincide with a timeline which is threatened by the evidence-based provenance. In other words, the order in which the Alphabet/GAEL/BOA documents were prepared is an issue, and the evidence of the evolution of the character from one document to the next conflicts with what some of our friends want to maintain was the order in which the documents were produced. </p><p>Of course, both explanations should remain on the table and our friends can attempt to defend the alternate provenance, but, unfortunately, some of our friends try to shut down other explanations rather than allowing those explanations to play out. </p><p>For instance, I shared a particular apologetic argument about 4 years ago, and it relies on the evolution provenance of the character shown in the image, as I was just talking about. Because my argument relies on that provenance, certain folks have simply taken the argument off the table as though it doesn't exist, because the argument threatens the timeline they maintain for Joseph Smith and his scribes creating the various documents. </p><p>I am going to present that argument, in part, further below. </p><p>Now, although our friends may reject the evidence-based explanation, the question remains of what type of reasoning would lead anyone to propose that Papyrus Louvre 3284 set of characters in the first place. And you might wonder what my response would be to their reasoning. That's perfectly fair. </p><p>Basically, the oldest extant Book of Abraham manuscripts have characters drawn in the left margins, with the English text on the right. Those characters come primarily from a particular section of the Hor Book of Breathings. So, some have argued that Joseph Smith and/or his scribes believed those characters were the Egyptian text of the Book of Abraham and that was the reason those characters are lined up with the English text. If true, that would mean they got it wrong. </p><p>In any event, the Phelps manuscript was produced separately from the others. And I don't believe the placement of characters in the left column on the Phelps manuscript was part of the same project in which unknown person(s) drew characters on other manuscripts. Even though the manuscripts all have characters in the margins. I believe Phelps added the characters to his margins, but someone else years later added characters to the other manuscript margins. Thus, the adding of characters to margins would be two separate projects. There are different ways this could have happened. For instance, William Smith may have done this when he was aligning himself with James Strang, or when he was travelling around trying to sell the mummies and papyri, drawing the characters as evidence attempting to make the papers and artifacts more appealing as the "source of the Book of Abraham." Also, a lot of these same characters from that section of the Book of Breathings were used to fill lacunae in Facsimile 2, which is significant because this likely means they were copied on a piece of paper for the printer to use and perhaps labeled something like "these are the characters for the Book of Abraham," which the printer would have understood (from in-person conversation) as telling him those were the characters to use to fill in the lacunae, but which someone years later may have misunderstood as meaning that those characters were the source of the Book of Abraham. And someone like William Smith, with access to these documents, may have added a few additional characters as well, in case anyone wondered what had once filled the torn areas of the papyrus. </p><p>However, once again, some have assumed the Phelps margin characters were part of the same project as the other margin characters. That's the first assumption which leads some of our friends to turn to Papyrus Louvre 3284. There's a big lacunae in the Hor Book of Breathings which contains these characters, and Papyrus Louvre 3284 is a parallel text to the text of the Hor Book of Breathings, so it can tell us with some certainty which characters belong in the torn areas. If one believes Phelps was just copying from that section of the papyrus, and if one believes he copied a character which is now torn off and has thus become part of the lacunae, one could then surmise that the character he copied was actually the same as the next set of characters on Papyrus Louvre 3284. Even though the two bear no resemblance. </p><p>That may have been hard to follow, but the jist of it is that they assume that what Phelps did with his characters in the margin was part of the same project as characters drawn in other manuscripts (which need not be the case, because the Phelps manuscript came first and is much more formal about the characters, which is consistent with someone else doing a copycat attempt at a future date), and they assume Phelps got his third character (out of three) from a spot which is now completely torn off from the papyrus, and they turn to a parallel text to determine what the next character would have been and they assume that was the character Phelps copied even though it bears no resemblance and they have no evidence that it was the character Phelps copied. The reality is that even if the characters were visible for Phelps on the Hor papyrus, there is no evidence that Phelps derived his character from those characters. </p><p>What makes their claim even more curious is that our friends who advocate for the Papyrus Louvre 3284 possibility simultaneously propose that the characters in the margins were NOT copied strictly in order from the papyrus but that whoever drew them was jumping around and using characters out of sequence. So why would anyone insist that Phelps used this one character in sequence when it doesn't even match? Again, their reason is apparently an attempt to preserve the timeline of document production which is threatened by the evidence-based scenario, which is why they exclude the evidence-based scenario. </p><p>.......................</p><p>Okay, now let's move on to my argument. </p><p>Here is the Phelps manuscript: </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieXyMjP5Mc60BMGJa-DzwiaDG4WnSi-oUzdb4W_44PtN2-jLk-LhI5eyFLUyjNKSgXppSVMPj5e6hE3HD0ZmQY9_xbRm4JnJlfgtmOPbckvRjBtb2cJzPzH4dwUDzEr8t3EK8JlESdUi0Z9pH1rcpryHvr8NNRzF8fNZtdeEpAy6HgJoH6IuT76eMjiNk/s737/1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="718" data-original-width="737" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieXyMjP5Mc60BMGJa-DzwiaDG4WnSi-oUzdb4W_44PtN2-jLk-LhI5eyFLUyjNKSgXppSVMPj5e6hE3HD0ZmQY9_xbRm4JnJlfgtmOPbckvRjBtb2cJzPzH4dwUDzEr8t3EK8JlESdUi0Z9pH1rcpryHvr8NNRzF8fNZtdeEpAy6HgJoH6IuT76eMjiNk/s320/1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p>You will notice it has three characters in the margin, which I highlight in red below.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGT2B9_HTHXPIDDwFa8jwtSviS2GG8I7RjkAUTLo6qtE8k5eGlUbW7uc5bxTPUkeP_eNvWRD59Ye1DdyESMw9nhwd2TB4FUF5V24hQDUG0nO5JFVVtmfKmIIDqI2ra_P8Ch6P8Am7kdlNA1fAiRYOvRHqFaVcHd_i9BqFY1oIX9Xo9ZGNKnq5tumG_uRM/s737/2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="718" data-original-width="737" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGT2B9_HTHXPIDDwFa8jwtSviS2GG8I7RjkAUTLo6qtE8k5eGlUbW7uc5bxTPUkeP_eNvWRD59Ye1DdyESMw9nhwd2TB4FUF5V24hQDUG0nO5JFVVtmfKmIIDqI2ra_P8Ch6P8Am7kdlNA1fAiRYOvRHqFaVcHd_i9BqFY1oIX9Xo9ZGNKnq5tumG_uRM/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>The first two characters are pinned to letters in the English text, which I highlight in blue:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPtW9Ctub7n1_HWlyIKkcLT73QHKRiEgXxoESovIsHHU913n5CmRtXML89OhSPaVpnY-vUInnp8ZEcr7XDnsUOSx2eaMbRAntUopOfjsumn9XgFn6QEhdCrOGRv-4rFo1yanf2Id4-PPUZ0clTNm86LVDycqJo00YcbD3DlwDu4-Ct4a2ju5pz6vhn87M/s423/3.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="367" data-original-width="423" height="278" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPtW9Ctub7n1_HWlyIKkcLT73QHKRiEgXxoESovIsHHU913n5CmRtXML89OhSPaVpnY-vUInnp8ZEcr7XDnsUOSx2eaMbRAntUopOfjsumn9XgFn6QEhdCrOGRv-4rFo1yanf2Id4-PPUZ0clTNm86LVDycqJo00YcbD3DlwDu4-Ct4a2ju5pz6vhn87M/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>To simplify things, let's focus on the characters and the letters in the English text which are pinned to characters:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgasTqKfEp80ZFd5tTWUUgrF-VtS-ZSbRI03fsLnJp2n7X7OW9pvkJIZVhtqo2zeUvFOHJhRco6yx5f78lbFgvDZylC3AGzGjxF6MdOUOIqqUgAR8TZ4l3CNU6hzqVmoF-8Kb4h2mGqTBPZcf21O3xUh8XRQFEVJ43piOXRzymtKsWgoJ_rHtqo5JWy25M/s423/4.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="367" data-original-width="423" height="278" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgasTqKfEp80ZFd5tTWUUgrF-VtS-ZSbRI03fsLnJp2n7X7OW9pvkJIZVhtqo2zeUvFOHJhRco6yx5f78lbFgvDZylC3AGzGjxF6MdOUOIqqUgAR8TZ4l3CNU6hzqVmoF-8Kb4h2mGqTBPZcf21O3xUh8XRQFEVJ43piOXRzymtKsWgoJ_rHtqo5JWy25M/s320/4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>Now, to simplify even further, let's transliterate the Egyptian characters so everything will be English:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirJ3iyAxXMu0p2YNFmjRoDOG8GcIMYgmKEkzbB5Dn9teCrw7lGSIgCtUWuWHsVOwHrpZvCm8ElQmmJgHXxsHyFEQnDfEAuhZXGrwL6dcsgC6ts2M0e1i9viD1uWnWviJHBo94MyBnuBL0XSN9nfAUtgHj0wK9ljkjwMgzDatmONvV5NMbxKYlh92H7GMU/s1600/gfas.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="1600" height="100" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirJ3iyAxXMu0p2YNFmjRoDOG8GcIMYgmKEkzbB5Dn9teCrw7lGSIgCtUWuWHsVOwHrpZvCm8ElQmmJgHXxsHyFEQnDfEAuhZXGrwL6dcsgC6ts2M0e1i9viD1uWnWviJHBo94MyBnuBL0XSN9nfAUtgHj0wK9ljkjwMgzDatmONvV5NMbxKYlh92H7GMU/s320/gfas.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0FjS9VAEEnU7kMJlBgXv-d_k3GwD0m7YyeyclPz97NLdb4w2-6ojGuP_A1ksf5tA8kZCOzOHIsVubP6oMfdtsZjXlHVlV1Cwrg2l9PBRjuNGl0eTgPdVJcFRtUmz1MuxuzFdwXyJEHDISa6ISiaKVF5FdnvHkalIZUGDCbradd76vz6Py0_TtxYPAkmg/s423/5.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="367" data-original-width="423" height="278" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0FjS9VAEEnU7kMJlBgXv-d_k3GwD0m7YyeyclPz97NLdb4w2-6ojGuP_A1ksf5tA8kZCOzOHIsVubP6oMfdtsZjXlHVlV1Cwrg2l9PBRjuNGl0eTgPdVJcFRtUmz1MuxuzFdwXyJEHDISa6ISiaKVF5FdnvHkalIZUGDCbradd76vz6Py0_TtxYPAkmg/s320/5.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>Now, consider the fact that the first and second character are both used in transliterating the third character:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSAzYzo-oCHWSfgtZkYgWIht9bVmFfDDWcK6rLubWqORqa7xl30twJBcdUF4LH3SSJHCRBjXGGD1vfwk8SPIKMME7p3gjpT-bzwjbiS2cE30hZ0Y1okkc9igt3A5TWIKOL6y7TIX8ywW2blP7p2vBA5j1b7GKZdVMvSsviOB3_ByumKRpM6ybT0mzr7lE/s328/6.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="328" data-original-width="74" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSAzYzo-oCHWSfgtZkYgWIht9bVmFfDDWcK6rLubWqORqa7xl30twJBcdUF4LH3SSJHCRBjXGGD1vfwk8SPIKMME7p3gjpT-bzwjbiS2cE30hZ0Y1okkc9igt3A5TWIKOL6y7TIX8ywW2blP7p2vBA5j1b7GKZdVMvSsviOB3_ByumKRpM6ybT0mzr7lE/s320/6.jpg" width="72" /></a></div><p>And the other letter which is needed is tagged:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrnD68wNd1TPTac2uk09QsnIylPPbj_lLLR63qjjoaqK1hiBbaVQT1-4R_oLy_S_4lq_pcLKuel2yblNyONPbZzWV7jfQEmrin4Bl5DvYiysDFeneRAabEJeIrY-XXlTeFdfNvKrWWBDj7_o_FpNXhuQ9pK7VkBQZg8TKH0aiqcyJKDclwbTUlHlKzDqg/s327/7.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="327" data-original-width="245" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrnD68wNd1TPTac2uk09QsnIylPPbj_lLLR63qjjoaqK1hiBbaVQT1-4R_oLy_S_4lq_pcLKuel2yblNyONPbZzWV7jfQEmrin4Bl5DvYiysDFeneRAabEJeIrY-XXlTeFdfNvKrWWBDj7_o_FpNXhuQ9pK7VkBQZg8TKH0aiqcyJKDclwbTUlHlKzDqg/s320/7.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><p>If you are skimming or not paying attention, start to follow the significance of each detail here. </p><p>There are a number of convergences which add up and support each other, which are about to be pointed out. </p><p>iaw actually means "oldest official," which is a dominant theme in the Phelps manuscript, in reference to patriarchy:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR2dT3QVQEkdu9PRxb52E1fafDoarJTFuXCG2_BYX-dJGR-5tLsqtigfMdmL7jloIYqRpAA2wjBqVIREOkA4QUU06DqKIqsaifI18XaSziqCuLRejv-wPs_GXCAx0Y6Q9hSy_3OCH5arRfkHGoAamw2yC3_wpqoQ55y5FYv2dUyMiNICnTuvZ81kI_vGI/s804/8.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="154" data-original-width="804" height="61" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR2dT3QVQEkdu9PRxb52E1fafDoarJTFuXCG2_BYX-dJGR-5tLsqtigfMdmL7jloIYqRpAA2wjBqVIREOkA4QUU06DqKIqsaifI18XaSziqCuLRejv-wPs_GXCAx0Y6Q9hSy_3OCH5arRfkHGoAamw2yC3_wpqoQ55y5FYv2dUyMiNICnTuvZ81kI_vGI/s320/8.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><p>And as I pointed out, the first two characters, plus the "a" which the Phelps manuscript associates with them, transliterate the third character. But it doesn't stop there. That third character also transliterates as wr, which means great, and is lined up right across from the word great!</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzm15Hsd2IxhoEmIO5GTs3mCmxHviCpXyqVpBvmTTbMTUrp_uf96n9gRUJ-q4XAjXni8GoAtFc4OSgjOwSuTptMER9zB2pWRNHHaAj1fsQlge3Z03KEV6lLeCrdnYCrrzG9O2eWx988iKzT-9SKuzfxmYdMBXnINEyyhCcKTTwC-n2yLoLdAIWKZpRc7A/s1600/9.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="469" data-original-width="1600" height="94" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzm15Hsd2IxhoEmIO5GTs3mCmxHviCpXyqVpBvmTTbMTUrp_uf96n9gRUJ-q4XAjXni8GoAtFc4OSgjOwSuTptMER9zB2pWRNHHaAj1fsQlge3Z03KEV6lLeCrdnYCrrzG9O2eWx988iKzT-9SKuzfxmYdMBXnINEyyhCcKTTwC-n2yLoLdAIWKZpRc7A/s320/9.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>Now, you might wonder, "what about the s?" I haven't forgotten that. If we put the s instead of the a between the iw, we get isw, which takes us to the same hieroglyph we would get if we put the a after the w rather than before it, i.e. "iwa" which means "inherit." </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG3Nu9Y96qcSPFHBxzQVhBLPWmweh5evkU5ME0eFlKmhGifDQ1m-6Q5qM1xsw4l69n5SqUtZLMK5LHP8YTgVPncOaGkzwcXhO-95BHD9-JzbzbOSVSnrZSIiM4Cy4xe3OYNQ2tHAcoz1Y2ZyPOKjPAQo_Xz-BxYqPjrwBgkq6o3gcRkDdmHIr82xsmRtU/s473/9aa.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="243" data-original-width="473" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG3Nu9Y96qcSPFHBxzQVhBLPWmweh5evkU5ME0eFlKmhGifDQ1m-6Q5qM1xsw4l69n5SqUtZLMK5LHP8YTgVPncOaGkzwcXhO-95BHD9-JzbzbOSVSnrZSIiM4Cy4xe3OYNQ2tHAcoz1Y2ZyPOKjPAQo_Xz-BxYqPjrwBgkq6o3gcRkDdmHIr82xsmRtU/s320/9aa.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">Think about that. isw is the same hieroglyph as iwa. Both take us directly to the same hieroglyph. And that hieroglyph means "inherit," which is exactly what Abraham is talking about in his scripture. </span></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikSSADLnuDdfImqIVCSa3z36_C-D0XeQGR2ZV2iKzXjTxVRT39-fw9_wu50Rps9eXz-p3EFmADYOfMdJVy4pWXufhbL_lUrGX9GADJ7RqngvOiywaUdRJMNEObpm7szzzrp7l0WeXgeuUQsDeolzFexKW09ZcQwjSenXa7w7bjKbNBissiKGvfaMkv1VU/s1446/9a.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1388" data-original-width="1446" height="307" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikSSADLnuDdfImqIVCSa3z36_C-D0XeQGR2ZV2iKzXjTxVRT39-fw9_wu50Rps9eXz-p3EFmADYOfMdJVy4pWXufhbL_lUrGX9GADJ7RqngvOiywaUdRJMNEObpm7szzzrp7l0WeXgeuUQsDeolzFexKW09ZcQwjSenXa7w7bjKbNBissiKGvfaMkv1VU/s320/9a.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p>Now, what to make of the system of tagged numbers/letters? The "i" is tagged with a 1, which is consistent with it only occupying one position, as it does in all three transliterations. The "w" and "a" and tagged with a 2, consistent with them occupying two positions (they invert positions for iwa and iaw), and the "s" is tagged with a 1, consistent with the s only occupying one position, with no inverting. The Egyptian "i" is tagged to the English "i," perhaps to involve a more generic "i" than the reed leaf. Understanding it this way gives us iwa, iaw and isw. </p><p><b>Study out the following image to understand how involved and amazing these convergences are.</b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2pM4c7U-Uw3MGEmPZxXkrwW_yGiPIE-Ogo01_0ZDISs4Dm-XJAhVCO94hcpYGCAckCcax-1cbWbxoFhvlEI57kTDiLLYXYsSBCu0P3UOFD2ZMlLEUt9WuHvqbCat-0ahxtF4KvUBp53v7TdYhYiRw1a5iBp-dVICkQo2y0C5epZ-uX25K-wKqcRXby0c/s3984/10.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1612" data-original-width="3984" height="129" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2pM4c7U-Uw3MGEmPZxXkrwW_yGiPIE-Ogo01_0ZDISs4Dm-XJAhVCO94hcpYGCAckCcax-1cbWbxoFhvlEI57kTDiLLYXYsSBCu0P3UOFD2ZMlLEUt9WuHvqbCat-0ahxtF4KvUBp53v7TdYhYiRw1a5iBp-dVICkQo2y0C5epZ-uX25K-wKqcRXby0c/s320/10.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>And to top everything off, the iaw/wr character was taken from the name Osorwer, meaning “Osiris is great.” It’s the “great” part. Anyway, Osorwer was a High Priest and the father of Hor, and the one whom Hor inherited his Priesthood through in the Egyptian religion. So, a clear parallel with Abraham’s words in the Phelps manuscript, inheriting high priesthood down through fathers. This may have been what caught Joseph’s attention in the first place with the character. </p><p>As you can see, the Phelps manuscript has very strong evidence of authentic Egyptian transliteration. </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-37580387507004685362023-12-05T05:00:00.012-07:002024-01-29T06:00:30.145-07:00Egyptian Alphabet: Initial Results Of Greek Influence Hypothesis<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfNVOmO9eSBZyh3U5Jrnd8AxleVgpO2ilQRw9e-jBB-mg3SXHQoXDyrBdu53AsnSXMurCms7Ic4d1fqwVT9PLWnmx_RnMD82uwcltRwYyqPy89MdsnDfR3I4sATztjMgN34EyG0qnW38KFfslVNS7VnOlg8zjrEeww17Nsb9iWC6jPgWVK4oOneHKcQU8/s745/Screenshot%202023-12-03%20134028.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="609" data-original-width="745" height="262" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfNVOmO9eSBZyh3U5Jrnd8AxleVgpO2ilQRw9e-jBB-mg3SXHQoXDyrBdu53AsnSXMurCms7Ic4d1fqwVT9PLWnmx_RnMD82uwcltRwYyqPy89MdsnDfR3I4sATztjMgN34EyG0qnW38KFfslVNS7VnOlg8zjrEeww17Nsb9iWC6jPgWVK4oOneHKcQU8/s320/Screenshot%202023-12-03%20134028.png" width="320" /></a></div><p>I would love to see some specific, thoughtful criticism. So far, the only negative responses people have raised to me about this project have been with a broad brush and seem to be based on assumptions they make due to the lack of trappings they would expect to see in a formal analysis. However, the evidence I'm gathering is informal and preliminary to any advanced academic undertaking which may or may not ultimately result, so the objections people have raised are not really apt. </p><p>For instance, multiple people have said they dismiss my work because my transliterations aren't correct. However, these people fail to realize that Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet misspells numerous words <i>in English</i>, so if we are to evaluate any potential Greek transliterating he may have been doing, we can't hold it to a higher standard than his English. That's why the results I return are from a wide net, although many people jump to the conclusion that a wide net equals cherry picking, which is just not the reality. </p><p>People also <i>assume </i>that potential Joseph Smith Greek transliterations should be expected to perfectly match, rather than merely be associated with, the descriptions provided in the Egyptian Alphabet. However, that's their arbitrary preference and should not be projected onto Joseph Smith. For instance, if different descriptions were "mowing lawns," "looking at the sky" and "walking in winter," and the respective transliteration results came back as "green," "blue," and "white," common sense would tell us there's a likely association between the descriptions and the transliterations, but people who aren't able or willing to see beyond the surface will, with a broad brush, dismiss any association as imagined. </p><p>Even without knowing exactly how Google Translate is glossing out its results, the results are still very useful. But people have to actually think. If the description is "Brigham Young," and there's a Google Translate result of "wagon," is that closer than a random word like "dog?" Yes of course. And that's the point of the evidence. If we consistently return results which are more closely related than random expectations, we can become quite confident that the results are not random. </p><p>One of Joseph Smith's descriptions is about something "seen" underwater, and the Google Translate result came back as "see." Obviously that's positive evidence, even without knowing how Google Translate glossed it out. </p><p>So it's a matter of evaluating each of the examples against a null hypothesis of random or, most often, no result at all. I have yet to see any serious engagement with the evidence, which will hopefully change. </p><p>Moreover, the threshold that needs to be met is just plausibility. The whole controversy around Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet has been about the assumption that it represents Joseph Smith's ability to translate regular Egyptian. But there's no proof that that's what Joseph Smith was even trying to do, and if it appears that other languages are involved (Reformed Egyptian, Greek, Hebrew, etc.) then the assumption grows weaker and the case against Joseph Smith becomes baseless. </p><p>If you've read my <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2023/11/joseph-smiths-egyptian-alphabet.html" target="_blank">initial post</a> and the <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2023/11/on-joseph-smith-being-right-about-mon.html" target="_blank">follow-up</a>, you probably have some pretty good context for understanding the following data, including the limitations of this experiment until we can trace down exactly what glosses Google Translate is basing its results on. Although, if the results are ultimately confirmed, that could greatly change the lens through which we evaluate Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet. </p><p>This post will walk you through the results I have so far. I want to emphasize that we should not expect the names of every entry in the Egyptian Alphabet to yield a result here, because other languages than Greek and English might also be involved, and we are not testing for those. We don't know how many entries are intended to relate to Greek. It's a question of how much cumulative evidence points to some sort of Greek connection. There's a pattern of meaningful results, and each result strengthens that pattern. </p><p>Also, it's possible that some of the Egyptian Alphabet entries are contractions which don't play out in the real world of linguistics but which involve real words and which play out for the Egyptian Alphabet's internal purposes, similar to how Joseph Smith combined the real word "more" with the real word "mon," even though one was modern English and one was Ancient Egyptian. In other words, the fact that he took liberties does not negate the fact that his claim about the ancient language is defensible, as I explained in a <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2023/11/on-joseph-smith-being-right-about-mon.html" target="_blank">previous post</a>. </p><p>Now, a word is in order about my transliteration methodology. </p><p>The testing process itself is not concerned with how Joseph Smith would have access to Greek. And it is not our job to correct Joseph Smith's methodology. The purpose of my methodology is not to fully identify and understand Joseph Smith's own methodology, but to cast a net large enough to capture any potential Greek transliterating Joseph Smith may have been doing, even if we don't understand all the nuances of his methods. </p><p>For instance, we see the letter B at the start of the word Beth in the Egyptian Alphabet. It might be tempting to think, "well, in Greek B is represented with the digraph μπ, so that's how Joseph Smith would have transliterated it into Greek." However, that's only one possibility. </p><p>Another possibility is that Joseph Smith intended the word Beth to refer to a single Greek letter, e.g. Beta. It's true that Beta has a V-sound in modern pronunciation, but we can't assume that Joseph intended it to sound like an English, rather than Greek, B. Similarly, when we see the letter P, such as in the second entry of the Egyptian Alphabet, "pha-e," we can't just assume it's supposed to sound like the English letter P, but it may be a trilled R like the Greek letter rho. </p><p>Yet another possibility is that each letter in Beth corresponds with a single Greek letter, meaning that Beth would transliterate into four different Greek letters. </p><p>Or, he could be going strictly by sound and it would be our job to piece together the small variety of ways the word "Beth" as it sounds in English could be transliterated into Greek, regardless of how many or how few letters are involved. </p><p>And at least one other possibility exists, which is that Joseph Smith was using a combination of methods, and changing them as he felt like doing so, without instructing us. In the case of Beth for instance, Joseph Smith may have intended the letter B to directly represent the Greek letter Beta, while the E is supposed to be sounded out as the long-e of Upsilon (not Epsilon) and the last two letters of Beth, th, sound out together as Theta. And indeed this gives us the Beta-Upsilon-Theta transliteration which yields a very relevant English result in Google Translate. </p><p>As one last note on my methodology for now, I want to stress that I'm not cherry-picking. The key here is that as I keep casting out the net, I'm not retrieving lots of other results and arbitrarily discarding them. Some, yes, but not many. Usually no English result materializes with any particular transliteration, and if a result in English does materialize, what pops up is something either relevant or inconsequential like the word "the." </p><p>Alright, what follows are the results (see appendix, below, for Google Translate screenshots).</p><p><b>ah the first being who exercises Supreme power</b></p><p>The name here is ah. Ah is the sound of Alpha, the first letter of the Greek alphabet. The description, "the first being who exercises Supreme power," seems like a reference to Deity. Alpha is part of the title for God, "Alpha and Omega." Alpha also represents the first of anything, therefore matching the words of the description, "the first being." So, right off the bat we have reason to believe that Greek is involved, here. </p><p><b>Ah-bra-oam. The father of many nations, a prince of peace, one who keeps the commandments of God, a patriarch, a rightful heir, a high priest</b></p><p>The name here is Ah-bra-oam. The whole description is about works, so it's fascinating that when I rendered it into Greek and entered it into Google Translate it gave the word "Works."</p><p><b>Ahnaios God without begining or end</b></p><p>The name here is Ahnaios. This might be confusing, because the Joseph Smith Papers website transcript has this as "Ahmeos," but they apparently made an error in this case. Looking at the word as written by Joseph Smith, it is clearly "Ahnaios," not "Ahmeos." The JSPP website also shows a word crossed out in the transcript here, where the actual document does not show a word crossed out. </p><p>As we parse this out, it seems likely to be a contraction, because Joseph Smith has already associated "ah" with the description, "the first being who exercises Supreme power," indicating God, and this seems confirmed by the fact that Ahnaios starts with "ah," and the corresponding description associated with Ahnaios starts with "God." </p><p>So if we break down "ah" and "naios" as two separate parts, what is the meaning for the naios part? I transliterated it and searched in Google Translate and the result came back, "Temple." There's plenty of room for a match here, considering the temple's extensive symbolism, and it's remarkable that such a relevant result would come back at all.</p><p><i>While keeping the result of "temple" in mind</i>, consider how it relates to the next entry we will cover. </p><p><b>Ebethcha the greatest place of hapiness where God resides the Celesstial Kingdom</b></p><p>The name here is Ebethcha. Here, it's talking about the absolute greatest place of happiness, and the Google Translate result is "Get in," which of course means to "enter." This is actually very significant because from a temple perspective the idea of the Celestial Kingdom, "where God resides," is symbolically depicted in a Celestial Room, and has very significant connotations with the invitation to "enter" (or "get in"). This match is actually very remarkable and substantive in meaning, despite the informal verbiage of the Google Translate result. </p><p><b>Kah tou man the name of a royal family in female line</b></p><p>The name here is Kah tou man. I discuss this at length in a <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2023/11/joseph-smiths-egyptian-alphabet.html" target="_blank">previous post</a>, but the Google Translate result is "Mrs. Min." Like the Egyptian Alphabet entry, then, the Google Translate result is making a very specific female reference. Every woman referred to in that "female line" would be a "Mrs." The significance of this in the big picture is not stated, but the odds of Google Translate randomly returning such a specific result seem very low.</p><p><b>Iota the eye or to see or sight sometimes me myself</b></p><p><b>Iota tou-es Zip-Zip the land of Egypt first seen under <water></b></p><p><b>Sue Eh ni what other person is that or who</b></p><p>These three consecutive entries in the Egyptian Alphabet go together, as pretty powerful evidence, as I explained and unpacked in <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2023/11/joseph-smiths-egyptian-alphabet.html" target="_blank">a previous post</a>. Even the simple fact that Iota is a Greek letter and Tau is a Greek letter is enough to lend plausibility to a Greek connection, but I would encourage you to read the analysis in the <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2023/11/joseph-smiths-egyptian-alphabet.html" target="_blank">other post</a>. </p><p><b>ho-ee-oop young unmarried man a pri[n]ce</b></p><p>The name here is ho-ee-oop. The description gives us the distinction of "a prince," and the Google Translate result gives us "Your Honor." Now, I realize that one might be more inclined to think of a judge than a prince when hearing "your honor," however the exact conventions are not the primary issue here, since we don't know how Google Translate is glossing this out. The fact Google Translate returned a reference to honor/authority being held by an individual and that the description also references honor/authority being held by an individual seems quite significant. </p><p><b>ho-ee oop hah Crown of a prince or King</b></p><p>The name here is ho-ee oop hah. This is similar to ho-ee-oop. But the Google Translate result is "The Hour." This is very interesting actually, as it brings to mind Christ repeatedly saying that his hour had not yet come, then at the Last Supper we are told "his hour had come" (John 13:1) and then Jesus prays, saying "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you" (John 17:1). Glorify = crown, as Hebrews 2:9 tells us Jesus was "crowned with glory and honour" in the context of his death, i.e. Christ's death being the very symbolism of the Last Supper, in which Christ also declares the hour has come. So this is a context in which "Honor" (see my analysis of "ho-ee-oop," above), and "The Hour" and "Crown of a prince or King" all come together and make sense. </p><p><b><Zi> Virgen unmaried or the pri[n]ciple of vi[r]tue</b></p><p>The name here is Zi. My rendering allows the Z to stand for the Greek letter zeta, and the i to stand for the Greek letter eta, in which case Google Translate gives the result, "she lives." That's very interesting when talking about a vigin and virtue, etc. Google Translate wasn't forced to return any result at all, but it returned something quite relevant. I discuss this entry at greater length in <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2023/11/on-joseph-smith-being-right-about-mon.html" target="_blank">a previous post</a>.</p><p><b>Zie oop hah An unmaried woman and a vi[r]gin pri[n]cess</b></p><p>The name here is Zie oop hah. The Joseph Smith Papers Project suggests the "Zie" may be "Zii," which I tried and got the Google Translate result "living well." This of course could describe a chaste and/or royal life, from the Egyptian Alphabet description, but I also suspect some wordplay here, based on John, chapter 4. The first little convergence I find interesting is the woman at Jacob's Well who declared to Jesus she had no husband (4:17), because the Egyptian Alphabet description says "an unmaried woman." Of course, she's not the virgin princess, but I'll get to that part in a moment. Jesus was talking with her at a well, discussing living waters, and Jesus promised the ability to give "a spring of water welling up to eternal life" (4:14, NIV), i.e. describing a "living well." The well where Jesus spoke to the woman was Jacob's Well, which converges with the "virgin princess" part, as Jacob's mother Rebecca is introduced to us in the Bible as a virgin at a well (i.e. "...when a virgin cometh forth to draw water..." Gen. 24:43) and Midrash identifies Rebecca's father, Bethuel, as a king (Numbers Rabbah 14:11), which would make her a princess, thus a virgin princess at the time of her introduction at the well, thus tying together the Egyptian Alphabet description of Zi (virgin, principle of virtue, etc.) with the Google Translate result for Zi (She lives) and the description of Zie oop hah (unmaried woman, virgin princess) and the Google Translate result for Zie oop hah (living well). </p><p><b>Aleph in the begining with God the Son or <first born></b></p><p>The name here is Aleph. Although Aleph is not a Greek letter, it is related to the Greek letter Alpha. Aleph is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and has strong allusions to God in Judaism. </p><p>In Chabad, the shape of the Aleph is symbolic of God and man's unity with God. The character associated with Aleph in the Egyptian Alphabet has the characteristics representing God and man's unity with God, matching the description given by Joseph Smith of being "with" God. See the slide, below. The original shape is thought to be derived from an Egyptian hieroglyph depicting an ox head. If Joseph Smith is showing a Nephite "Reformed Egyptian" version, they may have left off the bottom YUD. For more on the Reformed Egyptian connection to the Egyptian Alphabet, see Dr. Michael Hubbard Mackay's <a href="https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-secular-binary-of-joseph-smiths-translations/" target="_blank">comparison between Reformed Egyptian characters and characters in the Egyptian Alphabet</a>. For clarification and expansion of this argument, see the following slide:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIcxnX538Q55cvhUil5yShlP8yyeXPceKkc1oI6NKT6MrJNCUI8pcHkfPBUYtGCqCiHP-4wu-tMwqIMTRhbtX1xT007_buygK1gTItqJ1FM6I_jx4FdXySPpBK3ZOPsWfTMWCDg4qc6RHbQLiCIB0APfErzd2AE_Uhnjm-o28Qd5ZXNOeQV0Lv23Wo6B4/s2130/Aleph%20argument.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2130" data-original-width="1962" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIcxnX538Q55cvhUil5yShlP8yyeXPceKkc1oI6NKT6MrJNCUI8pcHkfPBUYtGCqCiHP-4wu-tMwqIMTRhbtX1xT007_buygK1gTItqJ1FM6I_jx4FdXySPpBK3ZOPsWfTMWCDg4qc6RHbQLiCIB0APfErzd2AE_Uhnjm-o28Qd5ZXNOeQV0Lv23Wo6B4/s320/Aleph%20argument.jpg" width="295" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p>I have only analyzed about half of the Egyptian Alphabet entries, most of which have yielded results. The last thing I want to do for now is just touch on some of the Beth entries. </p><p><u>The Beth entries</u></p><p><b>Beth mans first residence frui[t]ful garden A great valy a place of hapiness 1 times </b> </p><p>This sounds like the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden had set boundaries and rules, it was a district. What if I told you that Google Translate returned the word "district" when I rendered Beth to Greek and entered it? </p><p>Webster's 1828 dictionary says this about the word "district": "Properly, a limited extent of country; a circuit within which power, right or authority may be exercised, and to which it is restrained; a word applicable to any portion of land or country, or to any part of a city or town, which is defined by law or agreement."</p><p>Consider those words: "a limited extent of country ... within which power, right or authority may be exercised, and to which it is restrained..." The word "district" directly describes the Garden of Eden. </p><p>The Egyptian Alphabet has a theme of being underwater ("beneath or under water," "the land of Egypt first seen under <water>") and some of the Beth translation results are very in line with that theme. </p><p>There is "abyss," "deep," dive," "dry," and even "submarine" which literally means underwater. The fact that these are established themes within BOTH the document and the translation results indicates a level of convergence that really defies coincidence. Although this is pending verification of the Google Translate glosses, the fact that Google Translate would return these results at all is remarkable. </p><p><u>Conclusion</u> </p><p>The results here are not what anyone would have likely expected. These results reinforce my hypothesis, although I'm hoping for well thought out critical feedback from readers. </p><p>I'm very interested in hearing substantive appraisals of the evidence, including evidence-based alternate explanations anyone might have. </p><p><u>Results, etc. (Appendix)</u></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdk1voSBQrWcypfUSYlVvNrwuwGP1loNhgoRh53YXLEphxvRUy2Har1heliuFQr-i5ggER5n_ePkmjBRsongE9w6dJpwX7dlFZpk-rh2ydY6J_-w1wA48QKbJL7W2CGw0lVQIx3BUhKB_los_vx3OuGlqTUkjZpbwFGVfKSOhSKQiKCU2oecv4YJ-PXdM/s1073/Abraham.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="461" data-original-width="1073" height="137" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdk1voSBQrWcypfUSYlVvNrwuwGP1loNhgoRh53YXLEphxvRUy2Har1heliuFQr-i5ggER5n_ePkmjBRsongE9w6dJpwX7dlFZpk-rh2ydY6J_-w1wA48QKbJL7W2CGw0lVQIx3BUhKB_los_vx3OuGlqTUkjZpbwFGVfKSOhSKQiKCU2oecv4YJ-PXdM/s320/Abraham.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7ltZlgoE4v7PRSYDIRZym-EiQ6iF3gq9Xx-ARAhdOntkv9GNL88TCxXworajW4o3uYzfhsztujrrZ11t-7zlm9hC9MXQRG92KoQrtQi4x1D0K_4NfvtjlNKRt4ZMIcmJWUWba7tOkc82aqmSk4K3vdyauo410X8XTGpNkxSZfkZ65HB7PpRRz3ptVnjs/s1082/Beth.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="453" data-original-width="1082" height="134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7ltZlgoE4v7PRSYDIRZym-EiQ6iF3gq9Xx-ARAhdOntkv9GNL88TCxXworajW4o3uYzfhsztujrrZ11t-7zlm9hC9MXQRG92KoQrtQi4x1D0K_4NfvtjlNKRt4ZMIcmJWUWba7tOkc82aqmSk4K3vdyauo410X8XTGpNkxSZfkZ65HB7PpRRz3ptVnjs/s320/Beth.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWXr0RBUxh8ocf9gCmZGWXlDRiaFZpwtBgnsdm7PcZQ_0BpVJFQQY5kQ6qihWD9YQgT4buQrYA8yzQewbX4_t4TwTKFRByxMYRSuhqqECGC4qGokZS-g2AAnP6_SqpTCwn1UpYv2OGZQA_5DJbInP-p9GDmaTXNPBwKR6zsR4_iJse6oRtulGg830mFag/s1056/get%20in.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="367" data-original-width="1056" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWXr0RBUxh8ocf9gCmZGWXlDRiaFZpwtBgnsdm7PcZQ_0BpVJFQQY5kQ6qihWD9YQgT4buQrYA8yzQewbX4_t4TwTKFRByxMYRSuhqqECGC4qGokZS-g2AAnP6_SqpTCwn1UpYv2OGZQA_5DJbInP-p9GDmaTXNPBwKR6zsR4_iJse6oRtulGg830mFag/s320/get%20in.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuGHCe1B1pqaagDC-14tFuAGq2zrhlb4j-e1mD6GUOQldbjYsm_tUaCR3QUFZz6zTKsEwO5P_bjFhPxvh8Jj1IT5Td5xNaNfgjr9tR-0a_B6TuZVKVu3JWe7FU_FtFhlp4BMSYl3xrufgGWp-IHa9m9WVVwq-ZYBpQqSO5R5dYAfX9-fDUcav_SLG8364/s1057/Living%20Well.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="473" data-original-width="1057" height="143" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuGHCe1B1pqaagDC-14tFuAGq2zrhlb4j-e1mD6GUOQldbjYsm_tUaCR3QUFZz6zTKsEwO5P_bjFhPxvh8Jj1IT5Td5xNaNfgjr9tR-0a_B6TuZVKVu3JWe7FU_FtFhlp4BMSYl3xrufgGWp-IHa9m9WVVwq-ZYBpQqSO5R5dYAfX9-fDUcav_SLG8364/s320/Living%20Well.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLft-ZO9y5dJfLYmyHre-Ow5SbUGKBkI0Mm0O02v45CApGwPyHenXC3Ub9cGC8LGktnx2bBHJl0O4VwzhwvksQHDTdoSfyLvgkDddVSgVqrTmlj5Vaih4cGAXUzawU9CDAlNwcPNECLIk2oxTrrMb3rGXJp_ZrE8QrSfZmL41vkjeTG89EMhaqSokN3ok/s1050/Mrs%20Min.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="475" data-original-width="1050" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLft-ZO9y5dJfLYmyHre-Ow5SbUGKBkI0Mm0O02v45CApGwPyHenXC3Ub9cGC8LGktnx2bBHJl0O4VwzhwvksQHDTdoSfyLvgkDddVSgVqrTmlj5Vaih4cGAXUzawU9CDAlNwcPNECLIk2oxTrrMb3rGXJp_ZrE8QrSfZmL41vkjeTG89EMhaqSokN3ok/s320/Mrs%20Min.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFNocCydWcxy_IosKeNP26D0BCmi0ZSYl5_r-BdMQj8GlHyfCYzrlV2z6YXnqiBdT6QK5dvynwDran7kmtZ2Hq8bS1aAvnDatOIh90iNnleUmdKUAEUQIRELBCVz7vJGBwueqKDRfxmWA74IufZLenDe5xZB04zX8wv_wqwVfn5dWbpBNNJb40jC7Hb9A/s1093/see.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="470" data-original-width="1093" height="138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFNocCydWcxy_IosKeNP26D0BCmi0ZSYl5_r-BdMQj8GlHyfCYzrlV2z6YXnqiBdT6QK5dvynwDran7kmtZ2Hq8bS1aAvnDatOIh90iNnleUmdKUAEUQIRELBCVz7vJGBwueqKDRfxmWA74IufZLenDe5xZB04zX8wv_wqwVfn5dWbpBNNJb40jC7Hb9A/s320/see.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifvD8LVMRXHN8w67kyHszaN62rpp4hkjLUMx4FOQLWLFkpNyZZznF5SqPRYMbu6DYpr7tIzsK-SO4jmiCFD0knwISwk-uoLjidycugErKZOx8LxO9sgThuUC4WfFv9sVU2RUist9yjfnYCCiq2jG3bYmYWBHPCIjqFL9b_YN7E6FZHNOddpKR5qtPKsBc/s1062/She%20lives.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="417" data-original-width="1062" height="126" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifvD8LVMRXHN8w67kyHszaN62rpp4hkjLUMx4FOQLWLFkpNyZZznF5SqPRYMbu6DYpr7tIzsK-SO4jmiCFD0knwISwk-uoLjidycugErKZOx8LxO9sgThuUC4WfFv9sVU2RUist9yjfnYCCiq2jG3bYmYWBHPCIjqFL9b_YN7E6FZHNOddpKR5qtPKsBc/s320/She%20lives.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo6wT4dw4xFL_EVBkik9FQSMP3AtVWMg48n5WWKiX9jTrv-IAURu3iyxTrILUhVSI5U2NM1YC986nDdc0w60qdn5WJ4aOAKYBKjOshLsb6Th9rM2T-tv4WV87-sG0hpyOKduRcsr6ey-obY3PBkf5z_tOq2n0n5_vD1ynzpRAmIzKjtUAlcLUOIicH4W0/s1062/temple.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="462" data-original-width="1062" height="139" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo6wT4dw4xFL_EVBkik9FQSMP3AtVWMg48n5WWKiX9jTrv-IAURu3iyxTrILUhVSI5U2NM1YC986nDdc0w60qdn5WJ4aOAKYBKjOshLsb6Th9rM2T-tv4WV87-sG0hpyOKduRcsr6ey-obY3PBkf5z_tOq2n0n5_vD1ynzpRAmIzKjtUAlcLUOIicH4W0/s320/temple.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2vT-jjnOqjKHflM80vHYueRpgCQc3iinoPnvgy8n8kGY6OsOs5SsLuF8h2zCUQhr8V-49MAfoxDk96n8WSCkJriBmCRVxs0EPiusBld68PIoExlcIWHmWPs2QEEVtXG-nZXW45PVGng9-gJTw_BoCEr27Z7XW5o8lDoHC_vnh7cH2bP2tQA3REn-ykME/s1043/The%20Hour.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="456" data-original-width="1043" height="140" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2vT-jjnOqjKHflM80vHYueRpgCQc3iinoPnvgy8n8kGY6OsOs5SsLuF8h2zCUQhr8V-49MAfoxDk96n8WSCkJriBmCRVxs0EPiusBld68PIoExlcIWHmWPs2QEEVtXG-nZXW45PVGng9-gJTw_BoCEr27Z7XW5o8lDoHC_vnh7cH2bP2tQA3REn-ykME/s320/The%20Hour.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ4onxIOFO6PwNWN17UIsBltNiDODHaaJMyB5f8viHfs3cH4S90tZ9-Age9XlXRuOhtR9wQ7WysDykTjmrDRRC4EuEkYlKqFAPO0n7UyUK4g2ZNNrIkx1U5psBRGlWs53EIVxExmKHRs1ggySyJL297C1gHe7-3bObnLJUhGF3Fk1H5GE_S4sTzjHzUqo/s1120/Untitled.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="526" data-original-width="1120" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ4onxIOFO6PwNWN17UIsBltNiDODHaaJMyB5f8viHfs3cH4S90tZ9-Age9XlXRuOhtR9wQ7WysDykTjmrDRRC4EuEkYlKqFAPO0n7UyUK4g2ZNNrIkx1U5psBRGlWs53EIVxExmKHRs1ggySyJL297C1gHe7-3bObnLJUhGF3Fk1H5GE_S4sTzjHzUqo/s320/Untitled.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3VUACPsXQrC-Icv9dfQKwem1SZWMEQdsJ7COyNt9JVaxwRUh7CCmMdCmDGJDXwW7jT1pnFAGoUqOcFrTFLng0tE2bBeZyeG12YoU2E7z9N56CKg6tRUOsLOkQQJNFRupVQMeVSq7n9X4n5-uEYwN7CJr4WWTKl_i0Yp6ztWH1EUDfAMIYzK7Tr5MJZJE/s1063/You.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="462" data-original-width="1063" height="139" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3VUACPsXQrC-Icv9dfQKwem1SZWMEQdsJ7COyNt9JVaxwRUh7CCmMdCmDGJDXwW7jT1pnFAGoUqOcFrTFLng0tE2bBeZyeG12YoU2E7z9N56CKg6tRUOsLOkQQJNFRupVQMeVSq7n9X4n5-uEYwN7CJr4WWTKl_i0Yp6ztWH1EUDfAMIYzK7Tr5MJZJE/s320/You.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiprWcAT-6GHJLpeKeJWfa5MltyhYKbKNjKzMP_4lMjSv4zG4LPCHgnUmxKq53TsgWYsy6LXATrIyH_rTtNLMXDgK6p9G9kpUHttMvVlGOWwCbMEglK6NpmPpsqlNxfK7x191Ho2r1VlOUQrd3Qxpjhhd87xkFn4Dzh19vbQYmsmOtjAjGs_FVMFX8-Kl4/s1067/your%20honor.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="462" data-original-width="1067" height="139" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiprWcAT-6GHJLpeKeJWfa5MltyhYKbKNjKzMP_4lMjSv4zG4LPCHgnUmxKq53TsgWYsy6LXATrIyH_rTtNLMXDgK6p9G9kpUHttMvVlGOWwCbMEglK6NpmPpsqlNxfK7x191Ho2r1VlOUQrd3Qxpjhhd87xkFn4Dzh19vbQYmsmOtjAjGs_FVMFX8-Kl4/s320/your%20honor.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-44652848773657239572023-11-20T04:50:00.000-07:002023-11-20T04:50:19.228-07:00 On Joseph Smith Being Right About "mon" Meaning Good, And The Egyptian Alphabet<p>I recently set out to test a potentially significant hypothesis, <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2023/11/joseph-smiths-egyptian-alphabet.html" target="_blank">as introduced in my last post</a>. Preliminary results are looking good for the hypothesis.</p><p>However, it looks like my last post was not easy for people to understand. </p><p>To help orient the reader, I would like to provide a quick bit of background on the documents in question, and explain Joseph Smith being correct about the word "mon" as an example of how I think the documents work. </p><p>For those who aren't familiar with the situation, Joseph Smith and his scribes created some Egyptian Alphabet documents but left us with no explanation as to what exactly they were. Scholars have dismissed the contents of these documents in the past as made-up words with no real meaning, and some scholars have pointed to them to claim Joseph Smith was a fraud. </p><p>One of the documents is in Joseph Smith's handwriting, and may be the only one he was directly involved with. W.W. Phelps was very interested in languages and may have tried to extrapolate more than what Joseph Smith had told him. </p><p>For a while, I have suspected the characters in the Egyptian documents are logograms, perhaps of Reformed Egyptian, and that the descriptions accompanying the characters constitute a list of connotations which the Nephites or someone else attached to those characters. </p><p>This idea came to me while I was researching Joseph Smith's famous letter (penned by W.W. Phelps) which claims the word "Mormon" means "more good," if seen as a modern contraction between the English word "more" and the Egyptian word "mon," meaning "good." The letter places the Egyptian in the context of Nephite usage. So, I thought to myself, what if the Egyptian word "mon" (mn) has a meaning which the Nephites took and then added additional connotations to, so that when we see the literal meaning of the Egyptian word showing up in the Book of Mormon, it is accompanied by specific added connotations which match Joseph Smith's claim? </p><p>In Egyptian, "mn" means to remain, endure, to be set in place, etc. (used in the word for monument, for example). </p><p>This means we can potentially test Joseph Smith's claim. And when we do, it looks very good for Joseph Smith.</p><p>Because we know what "mn" means in Egyptian, we can find, within the text of the Book of Mormon, words which, on their face, match the Egyptian meaning of "mn." From there, we can identify the connotations Nephites attached to those words. </p><p>Mosiah 5:15 equates being "steadfast and immovable" with "always abounding in good works." There we go. "steadfast and immovable" matches the literal definition of "mn," and the Nephites add to it connotations of "good." Paul also made this connection (in Greek), so the conceptual origin may have been in the Ancient Near East, before the Lehites left Jerusalem. </p><p>Since "steadfast and immoveable" captures the meaning of the Egyptian "mn" (which is represented by the senet board hieroglyph), we can picture a Nephite Alphabet showing the senet board hieroglyph (or a modified version of it) accompanied by the description: "always abounding in good works." </p><p>And thus Joseph Smith is vindicated. We can verify this by the fact that if we wanted to translate the Book of Mormon into ancient Egyptian, we could even use "mn" in Mosiah 5:15, using its actual Egyptological meaning, and it would also mean good. Joseph Smith had no personal way of knowing that, but it's a bullseye. </p><p>So, that's how I suspect the alphabet works. The problem I've faced is that I hadn't accounted for the "names" which accompany the characters in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet. They seem mostly like strange made-up words. </p><p>Here's where my new hypothesis comes in. I think it might be a phonetic alphabet, which references other languages. In some cases it has name for letters (like Iota and Tau), and in other cases it sounds them out or represents a foreign letter with a letter in the English alphabet.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_UcZAS3sTTet8e3ZI35YrKM3_8mDFmA00Im5E4bmSsEmeGE7ucwiaDu6HPwkmSPGirF5UOjau1SiZ770WAMR3iblPrwBMbWvLiKz6NLcNZirX9qMdamvMZF2_8wrtdJDwbhVFUCOnBqJN9Wkhot3f5Tg42beHTlSUpd15N77UqXm7wyNFMePAL6QwrVA/s636/PSTR-2374__46681.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="636" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_UcZAS3sTTet8e3ZI35YrKM3_8mDFmA00Im5E4bmSsEmeGE7ucwiaDu6HPwkmSPGirF5UOjau1SiZ770WAMR3iblPrwBMbWvLiKz6NLcNZirX9qMdamvMZF2_8wrtdJDwbhVFUCOnBqJN9Wkhot3f5Tg42beHTlSUpd15N77UqXm7wyNFMePAL6QwrVA/s320/PSTR-2374__46681.jpg" width="252" /></a></div><p>For reasons stated in my previous post, I decided to use Greek to gloss out the letters and their meanings. </p><p>I don't know Greek. And I don't think Greek is the only language involved here. And ancient Greek is not fully understood by scholars. But I'm just trying to see if some plausible results show up. Because then we could start looking into other languages and do a deep dive into the theory. </p><p>I am using Google Translate, and it has been returning relevant, specific results which align with the descriptions in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet. </p><p>The results are not likely to be found in a Greek dictionary, but that's irrelevant. Google Translate is casting a wide enough net to capture glosses (compensating for Joseph Smith's imperfect renderings) and return non-random matches. </p><p>Of course, word association can lead to false positives. But random combinations of Greek letters rarely bring any results, let alone directly relevant results. Joseph Smith fares far better than random letter combinations.</p><p>When more than one Greek letter seems a plausible match for Joseph Smith's phonetic alphabet, I try each of them out. But that does not mean I could just keep trying until I got what I wanted. The key here is how rare it is for Google Translate to return any translated result. It is not as though it gives me lists of words to choose from.</p><p>I'm probably already confusing everyone, so let me show a really short example. </p><p>Walkthrough: </p><p>First, we look at an entry in the Egyptian Alphabet (the Alphabet document in Joseph Smith's own handwriting):</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR6BNbE__i1FAyuFh5GBBT9ml7B59dZ_hXiApoErMYEHcJSIoHrMN3XUn4J0EleHOkWdZ-M6G4Ss3LbfrhdMcJTSmF0rPzIL8yyWKXl-0TQPqJLBL0j31yJiZqz3h1ck6-9dpBWAfbELvm8aOKP34LcLOAiHbp726QYyqakyGAaFj2MAmBr5ug3pAdz6c/s1352/zi.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="127" data-original-width="1352" height="30" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR6BNbE__i1FAyuFh5GBBT9ml7B59dZ_hXiApoErMYEHcJSIoHrMN3XUn4J0EleHOkWdZ-M6G4Ss3LbfrhdMcJTSmF0rPzIL8yyWKXl-0TQPqJLBL0j31yJiZqz3h1ck6-9dpBWAfbELvm8aOKP34LcLOAiHbp726QYyqakyGAaFj2MAmBr5ug3pAdz6c/s320/zi.png" width="320" /></a></div><p>We can see that the entry has a character in the column on the left. Then it has the strange word, "Zi." Then it says, "Virgin unmarried or the principle of virtue." </p><p>This brings to mind Mark 5:30: "And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?" </p><p>What does it mean that virtue had gone out of him? And that His virtue, in turn, healed the woman who touched his clothes? There is certainly an important principle here, the principle of virtue. A special healing power. </p><p>Second, let's take a closer look at the strange word, "Zi."</p><p>We see two letters there. What if the Z stands for the Greek letter zeta, and the i stands for the Greek letter eta? If we combine the two letters, could that maybe spell something meaningful, according to Google Translate's net that it casts out?</p><p>Sure enough, we come back with an interesting result:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAchI41SxQ9_AbW3s4QOQ8E7EY7hJG8uVU3c6OwoINMV7f925to75coKAtIGY_sCow0XgvVbf2P2q0tVf4WKMcBb83w-rX87IKaWsnvbRZTL0UZZoMzriqBO7K69zIkKv2cYzkioa6Ce_cYz1NrSF55YsVwLkZLR9kWMvupjYJxwBeWMW_r9Zn1ADV1nE/s1062/zi%202.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="417" data-original-width="1062" height="126" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAchI41SxQ9_AbW3s4QOQ8E7EY7hJG8uVU3c6OwoINMV7f925to75coKAtIGY_sCow0XgvVbf2P2q0tVf4WKMcBb83w-rX87IKaWsnvbRZTL0UZZoMzriqBO7K69zIkKv2cYzkioa6Ce_cYz1NrSF55YsVwLkZLR9kWMvupjYJxwBeWMW_r9Zn1ADV1nE/s320/zi%202.png" width="320" /></a></div><p>She lives. That sounds like the principle of virtue we were just discussing. What are the odds that it would come back with something relevant like that? It could have said anything, or most likely not given any translation at all, if it were random. </p><p>Are you starting to get the idea of how this works?</p><p>Okay, now let's jump to something more advanced. The last, and probably most important entry in the Alphabet document is Ah-bra-oam. "The father of many nations, a prince of peace, one who keeps the commandments of God, a patriarch, a rightful heir, a high priest." </p><p>The whole description is about works. So would it surprise you that when I rendered it into Greek and entered it into Google Translate it gave the word "Works?" </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiP5cNtxIFPr-bKRnpvuyqMwbRVHyVz8N3CxjBP999BWe-_bpZiLYomborL-f4GDNF-7asrDevGOjCIA6mUSJVqxyGlBldWjBHChwnXTfHTKKPQlqcxMFt53DrEDarcsQ_y96thYg2-U4BJlY0vZoYbcp6Bnj7dCu8D4WcsrY94JcPVgmT7dZfzRgZcvvE/s1073/Abraham.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="461" data-original-width="1073" height="137" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiP5cNtxIFPr-bKRnpvuyqMwbRVHyVz8N3CxjBP999BWe-_bpZiLYomborL-f4GDNF-7asrDevGOjCIA6mUSJVqxyGlBldWjBHChwnXTfHTKKPQlqcxMFt53DrEDarcsQ_y96thYg2-U4BJlY0vZoYbcp6Bnj7dCu8D4WcsrY94JcPVgmT7dZfzRgZcvvE/s320/Abraham.png" width="320" /></a></div><p>Very interesting evidence.</p><p>Next, a lot of the entries involve the word "Beth." Let's look at Beth. </p><p>The Alphabet says: "Beth mans first residence frui[t]ful garden A great valy a place of hapiness 1 times"</p><p>Sounds like the Garden of Eden, right? The Garden of Eden had set boundaries and rules, it was a district. What if I told you that Google Translate returned the word "district" when I rendered Beth to Greek and entered it? </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZL88bEZotuPiArmlhKvgFKpVwvs49nFxuNlS8Vp7O2DaIZsGN0bO0lMUQIW7m2Yyp5pG_8ct5583ROpmdRSGneIH8igcEtt6bu5TJrdNkx9tk3NXYiFJLExGgKZWGXSZIwajQVBvKElqe8EqU5r6V2tf6eGyj22Sf_bqzPmKlmae39TgyW8Q9a7pSvPw/s1102/district.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="483" data-original-width="1102" height="140" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZL88bEZotuPiArmlhKvgFKpVwvs49nFxuNlS8Vp7O2DaIZsGN0bO0lMUQIW7m2Yyp5pG_8ct5583ROpmdRSGneIH8igcEtt6bu5TJrdNkx9tk3NXYiFJLExGgKZWGXSZIwajQVBvKElqe8EqU5r6V2tf6eGyj22Sf_bqzPmKlmae39TgyW8Q9a7pSvPw/s320/district.png" width="320" /></a></div><p>Webster's 1828 dictionary says this about the word "district": "Properly, a limited extent of country; a circuit within which power, right or authority may be exercised, and to which it is restrained; a word applicable to any portion of land or country, or to any part of a city or town, which is defined by law or agreement."</p><p>Consider those words: "a limited extent of country ... within which power, right or authority may be exercised, and to which it is restrained..." The word "district" directly describes the Garden of Eden. </p><p>Now, after having read this post, <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2023/11/joseph-smiths-egyptian-alphabet.html" target="_blank">you can go back and read the previous post</a> and hopefully get more out of it. </p><p><i>One final note for now</i>. The Egyptian Alphabet entries are inter-connected in a way I haven't figured out yet. </p><p>There is a theme of being underwater ("beneath or under water," "the land of Egypt first seen under <water>") in the Alphabet document, and some of the Beth translation results are very in line with that theme. </p><p>There is "abyss," "deep," dive," "dry," and even "submarine" <i>which literally means underwater</i>. The fact that these are established themes within BOTH the document and the translation results indicates a level of convergence that really defies coincidence.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigu57acJ33rvvES_ENwmgE6wlFk0A-jdAz-Dp5YAlO4bULS-EdRu5BQXfRordOcP1t_-njwQ-yfJpnZuhwWHMPn4xRus8tqdfjJQRi7Nl600EJ54K2AoJ6-n3YaRGioX-SlboB9OKzBj262aslAy0GBOOjAGVdcks97lsVhBtGfNUguOWr0kyJagVSuWw/s1065/abyss.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="452" data-original-width="1065" height="136" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigu57acJ33rvvES_ENwmgE6wlFk0A-jdAz-Dp5YAlO4bULS-EdRu5BQXfRordOcP1t_-njwQ-yfJpnZuhwWHMPn4xRus8tqdfjJQRi7Nl600EJ54K2AoJ6-n3YaRGioX-SlboB9OKzBj262aslAy0GBOOjAGVdcks97lsVhBtGfNUguOWr0kyJagVSuWw/s320/abyss.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJMdgF3TcS4yeZ2v8oXkMPckyat-HnHRnrd0W-1RKwU3XlK3Jb85svkWNT8hMRCjnHwEkMtpzrVdQztR4Pklrm86yy_pwCXJ42FaZF4HB78-IRo2wg3_Tr-7OZrgzdHOXRgNLhCwTAKTQZbxj97Ok8HXNnczy0_lKZa3sUORWwv8MVXxFUlh72NOBaxWQ/s1073/deep.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="472" data-original-width="1073" height="141" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJMdgF3TcS4yeZ2v8oXkMPckyat-HnHRnrd0W-1RKwU3XlK3Jb85svkWNT8hMRCjnHwEkMtpzrVdQztR4Pklrm86yy_pwCXJ42FaZF4HB78-IRo2wg3_Tr-7OZrgzdHOXRgNLhCwTAKTQZbxj97Ok8HXNnczy0_lKZa3sUORWwv8MVXxFUlh72NOBaxWQ/s320/deep.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb3Eb6_LBzZQ8E84pBWrd0rNUfVErdESdsKTC7AgFC0IEHqc3mvzZCDDMEhstRLW2L24Ri-pBSZxtpmGgptB5hBkm_UlI9C3h0hnNQ9fQY49BjmF7fKnbc94LXmuLYMCP8Sh2BhqdWOVr_kjCeZ-ZA0hOqXBsTIJte-6IAwdeuUPq2Ohxn9lrS18ZnQjg/s1052/dive.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="482" data-original-width="1052" height="147" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb3Eb6_LBzZQ8E84pBWrd0rNUfVErdESdsKTC7AgFC0IEHqc3mvzZCDDMEhstRLW2L24Ri-pBSZxtpmGgptB5hBkm_UlI9C3h0hnNQ9fQY49BjmF7fKnbc94LXmuLYMCP8Sh2BhqdWOVr_kjCeZ-ZA0hOqXBsTIJte-6IAwdeuUPq2Ohxn9lrS18ZnQjg/s320/dive.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge4EnLUdhUd9btgNHM5iWvwIp4n_Ozq9ljUnnlrJx09IQdANJLxTjrw_YDq3tbi8yxzs40jpGY6-yS_zR8x6PE5Xqs2aGjQDWPbil9gTpw2-emBucbpf93mVTj2hfxZ3ukP3IO_rcifxbPTw0s4AZ-k1OFN7WNLrC9GRI4IO1JLDpkfgXh7NI6qp69jLk/s1066/dry.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="473" data-original-width="1066" height="142" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge4EnLUdhUd9btgNHM5iWvwIp4n_Ozq9ljUnnlrJx09IQdANJLxTjrw_YDq3tbi8yxzs40jpGY6-yS_zR8x6PE5Xqs2aGjQDWPbil9gTpw2-emBucbpf93mVTj2hfxZ3ukP3IO_rcifxbPTw0s4AZ-k1OFN7WNLrC9GRI4IO1JLDpkfgXh7NI6qp69jLk/s320/dry.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbSx8bs7FDtoqmjvW_HVdKuC-p4g5vf5uoUn7cSpzAIc5bXitvqIhMM5nN_ny-cdVH61Q6SiG-mZWd0R_gzyvzbwId5aatnZMH-J_ZH6SipebO62HKrW8FoepoA1aw-XCOHz46l1_-fB2MX61hPs_GfqluocPuM9roQ05Sob-sPoUIg4g9v750qHRazvQ/s1058/submarine.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="482" data-original-width="1058" height="146" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbSx8bs7FDtoqmjvW_HVdKuC-p4g5vf5uoUn7cSpzAIc5bXitvqIhMM5nN_ny-cdVH61Q6SiG-mZWd0R_gzyvzbwId5aatnZMH-J_ZH6SipebO62HKrW8FoepoA1aw-XCOHz46l1_-fB2MX61hPs_GfqluocPuM9roQ05Sob-sPoUIg4g9v750qHRazvQ/s320/submarine.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-86271703913602397392023-11-15T11:39:00.004-07:002023-11-17T03:23:57.424-07:00Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet, Revisited!<p> I had never put much stock in Henry Caswall or the "Greek Psalter" incident, in which Joseph Smith allegedly identified a Greek Psalter as a document relating to Reformed Egyptian. </p><p>But what if, instead of an alleged scandal, we consider it a potential clue? After Greece conquered Egypt, the Greek language could be considered an Egyptian language. And, long before that, Greek letters had actually evolved from Egyptian hieroglyphs. And who knows what potential role Reformed Egyptian and Hebrew may have in this discussion. The Egyptian Alphabet could involve all of these, and more. </p><p>As I was ruminating, I remembered that Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet has a partial entry for Hah-dees, and Hades is a legitimate ancient Greek word. And the Egyptian Alphabet includes words like "Iota" and "Tau," which are letters of the Greek alphabet. And, moreover, the Book of Abraham itself changed a more Egyptian name as originally written in a manuscript, Zeptah, to a more Hellenized name, Egyptus. </p><p>So, I decided to take a cursory look at the Egyptian Alphabet (there are three documents, but I'm only looking at the one in Joseph's handwriting - see note at bottom of this post), and look for references to the Greek letter Tau. </p><p>The breakdown of the name Katumin in the Alphabet, as "Kah Tou man" seems to potentially reference the letter Tau. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwEEd_dJ66l5psyqY_P9D7N4SQoU3pbbMMr6lpHeTdGVjrBNdM009RcbXP9bG_k3V7lJxNSScr8wnRgxgiS-vJMD4Fg25A3C43Uhlfc4viRqT16qQKh0nFVrbSONKGJ1JAOUBQaXJ1uczv7ikSAj4SepOs8E1hS0hdphDk-djcNV_wPON3gH6HUJP7ucI/s1742/Kah%20Tou%20man.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="120" data-original-width="1742" height="22" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwEEd_dJ66l5psyqY_P9D7N4SQoU3pbbMMr6lpHeTdGVjrBNdM009RcbXP9bG_k3V7lJxNSScr8wnRgxgiS-vJMD4Fg25A3C43Uhlfc4viRqT16qQKh0nFVrbSONKGJ1JAOUBQaXJ1uczv7ikSAj4SepOs8E1hS0hdphDk-djcNV_wPON3gH6HUJP7ucI/s320/Kah%20Tou%20man.png" width="320" /></a></div><p>I substituted the letter Tau in place of the word "Tou," and rendered the name in Greek letters in Google Translate. The result is pretty interesting. The Kah Tou man entry in the Egyptian Alphabet says, "the name of a royal family in female line" and the Google Translate result actually came back as "Mrs. Min". </p><p>Now, I don't know Greek. And I suspect Google Translate is performing some sort of gloss. But <i>something</i> made it return this result. Perhaps Joseph Smith is using an obscure Greek dictionary which Google is picking up on, I don't know. </p><p>The word Mrs. refers to a female, which places our Kah Tou man in a female line, just as the entry says. You can try your own search with the letters: κα τ μιν </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKoaraWJFJU22QGF0MD0uiTMiXkibCQ7DxfxgXNheiutNdWBIyBk3d5drqvxgVexHMjWG20R-sqljjsFlW71Oybfp1dPEJjCnEdLHn-TWpg6YL_du_xRkPPvbbCIvzCKRbRFta3Xi5w5kWsPYTcZmiapUt2Z_1snZIBNZgijlUaKDKLIOOrFrcJQV2mI0/s1050/Mrs%20Min.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="475" data-original-width="1050" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKoaraWJFJU22QGF0MD0uiTMiXkibCQ7DxfxgXNheiutNdWBIyBk3d5drqvxgVexHMjWG20R-sqljjsFlW71Oybfp1dPEJjCnEdLHn-TWpg6YL_du_xRkPPvbbCIvzCKRbRFta3Xi5w5kWsPYTcZmiapUt2Z_1snZIBNZgijlUaKDKLIOOrFrcJQV2mI0/s320/Mrs%20Min.png" width="320" /></a></div><p>The next few entries after that one center on men and women being married or unmarried, which is also directly relevant to the title "Mrs."</p><p>Now, what about it being a lineage? This becomes even more interesting. I noticed while perusing witness statements, on the Mormonr website, that an anonymous contributer to the New-York Tribune made an odd reference in 1841 to Joseph Smith mentioning "Daughters of Sharon." Said the source: "...he showed me the Egyptian mummies, of which he has four, i.e. the ancient Kings of Egypt, and the Daughters of Sharon, so it is revealed to him, he says..." So, among Joseph Smith's mummies was a Daughter or Daughters of Sharon? What is that supposed to mean? Well... Ta-Sherit-Min, the name of one of Joseph's mummies, translates through Greek to an English rendering, "Shenmins," which sounds a lot like "Sharon." And, guess what? It means "daughter of Min." So, we have a Mrs. Min and a daughter of Min, which makes a lineage. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2eJhz3lL2uZCOKx4YmWhgX-AXjvGtJFDqdtxGZaMRijZRo5iaWcS2_aTu8XzGYIjSoFeGhNLEL_EIiCcgMi1T2S9tosXAU7S_7JrpzzcBZyGTFNsGNK974_QFEYkoe4szbGI1Taqc0bWWA4rV9bDHFCqL-ybTcg_n5qs_cFt1foA9qBwC9D7_HzxdjDk/s803/daughter%20of%20Min.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="45" data-original-width="803" height="18" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2eJhz3lL2uZCOKx4YmWhgX-AXjvGtJFDqdtxGZaMRijZRo5iaWcS2_aTu8XzGYIjSoFeGhNLEL_EIiCcgMi1T2S9tosXAU7S_7JrpzzcBZyGTFNsGNK974_QFEYkoe4szbGI1Taqc0bWWA4rV9bDHFCqL-ybTcg_n5qs_cFt1foA9qBwC9D7_HzxdjDk/s320/daughter%20of%20Min.png" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwlCHql5hRIEWbhRc0BgQUhR8fHN7jXGAcNlHpxxFwqezqYM5M1AfERq9cGZ_VkhqfpwHs-aJdRcFvb7f5YQuIrXt3yGsncBRS3T_rjbaiPwTgZigbPgXNIb3BwyPYmV84T56dv3TAKY6aeQEU12DLAwRJSVIO1Yk4jsGSWKDBpqKaweTH69HpSzD8Owk/s1056/Shenmins.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="456" data-original-width="1056" height="138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwlCHql5hRIEWbhRc0BgQUhR8fHN7jXGAcNlHpxxFwqezqYM5M1AfERq9cGZ_VkhqfpwHs-aJdRcFvb7f5YQuIrXt3yGsncBRS3T_rjbaiPwTgZigbPgXNIb3BwyPYmV84T56dv3TAKY6aeQEU12DLAwRJSVIO1Yk4jsGSWKDBpqKaweTH69HpSzD8Owk/s320/Shenmins.png" width="320" /></a></div><p>So, to reiterate, Joseph's anonymous guest, who wouldn't have understood the nuances of ancient Egyptian mythology or the Book of the Dead, left Joseph's company with an association formed in her mind between at least one female mummy and a name sounding similar to the ACTUAL name of the mummy, a name which literally means "daughter of Min," while the guest remembers "daughters of Sharon." Oh, and the reference to royalty? Well that's not literal but mythological (the funerary papyri declares the dead, including Ta-Sherit-Min, to be the King, Osiris), although we shouldn't expect Joseph's guests to have understood the difference. Nevertheless, in the context of the mythology discussed in the papyri, they are kings. </p><p>Well, that was a very interesting start to things. </p><p>Moving on, we find Tau again in "Iota Tau-es Zip Zi(p)." Using Iota and Tau as precedent, it seems likely that capitalized words are names for letters, while lower-case words are just letters. So this would give us Iota (I) Tau (T) es (es) Zip (Z) Zip (Z) or ITesZZ, i.e. ἰτησ ζζ</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy34MHrNtpfRPXuf3rOyoCY6eVWmFlAqO0DA5r4NZCcCirKfVn8FIU2jFMWvpJFC5HVj1o9fBKH86O_JzbyPvE-srgM-t-Rg5sd0nf9jnr8UL-uskRd_BdFvKE1VWWkf0FCLwxWC9IpR8bHqVHF3XCQ1YXUAi9WM3jiqaif_A-fFX5ewbSn3TEwDmfTfE/s1528/Iota%20Tou%20es%20Zip%20Zip.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="195" data-original-width="1528" height="41" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy34MHrNtpfRPXuf3rOyoCY6eVWmFlAqO0DA5r4NZCcCirKfVn8FIU2jFMWvpJFC5HVj1o9fBKH86O_JzbyPvE-srgM-t-Rg5sd0nf9jnr8UL-uskRd_BdFvKE1VWWkf0FCLwxWC9IpR8bHqVHF3XCQ1YXUAi9WM3jiqaif_A-fFX5ewbSn3TEwDmfTfE/s320/Iota%20Tou%20es%20Zip%20Zip.png" width="320" /></a></div><p>When we put that into Google Translate, we get the word "see." This is interesting for a couple reasons. The Alphabet entry for "Iota Tau-es Zip Zip" actually says "The land of Egypt first seen under water," so we get the word "see" as if it's being used in a sentence instead of being defined. But also, the entry right above it is for Iota, and it says "The eye or to see or sight sometimes me myself." </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRysOUpOub6zaNU-hdPQTwUrF-x7BV4OrPfnbn5xrmoXuO-L5-elArQAa5-f9GQORD3iFmB7zKAitn87X3Xb0uiHFBBTnystOgom7fcSU1Pu4b0vRNv_CtZgG1U1RFD5wyVDMTKMachm7dBauX8WPBU3aMOko1xJYfr1qqSGReiWvFXteW1LFn9bnbX60/s1093/see.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="470" data-original-width="1093" height="138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRysOUpOub6zaNU-hdPQTwUrF-x7BV4OrPfnbn5xrmoXuO-L5-elArQAa5-f9GQORD3iFmB7zKAitn87X3Xb0uiHFBBTnystOgom7fcSU1Pu4b0vRNv_CtZgG1U1RFD5wyVDMTKMachm7dBauX8WPBU3aMOko1xJYfr1qqSGReiWvFXteW1LFn9bnbX60/s320/see.png" width="320" /></a></div><p>So the Iota entry tells us Iota can be used in the context of seeing, and in the context of "Me, Myself." But what's interesting is the Alphabet then proceeds to use Iota as a dot in the next two entry characters, "Iota Tau-es Zip Zip" and "Sue Eh ni," using those entries to illustrate Iota in both of the two contexts mentioned in the Iota entry! </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipXkpBfz2XPXb4xJLfIGpFHaIyU_ghOzxCgUUs0YSxutvJ7ZlHweiq9hr6_r3V-tvDl2NELk3nUYEWN5Y8-CF-l8B_364SPKhTaKaKkYpfln4zWy39_YjvttIamjp6dU5CGliJw_4E_sKqZsQQPHl5qhDI6XhG9MqLDWeLaVXcUGt9RuBiJBv6lVTJUPA/s1706/Three.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="261" data-original-width="1706" height="49" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipXkpBfz2XPXb4xJLfIGpFHaIyU_ghOzxCgUUs0YSxutvJ7ZlHweiq9hr6_r3V-tvDl2NELk3nUYEWN5Y8-CF-l8B_364SPKhTaKaKkYpfln4zWy39_YjvttIamjp6dU5CGliJw_4E_sKqZsQQPHl5qhDI6XhG9MqLDWeLaVXcUGt9RuBiJBv6lVTJUPA/s320/Three.png" width="320" /></a></div><p>We'll get to "Sue Eh ni" in a moment, but first let's get back to "Iota Tau-es Zip Zip," because the character that is drawn actually incorporates the letter Tau, but reversed. Tau is combined with the Iota dot. The name says "Iota Tau..." and actually gives us a character combining Iota and Tau (the Iota used in the Egyptian Alphabet is not the letter itself, but is a "jot," translated from Greek in Matthew 5:18, originally the Hebrew yodh). </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKDxWZOKeZy8Uo1MWPX4p6FF5QGXkpKR8nn5BoCqYMjqnnqsYu4k4Ik6Lq5Q_IlEAWK2B88M0cA3NjdMR6ZZGgFshiO3WbWi7j1cYxmU0vdR05g7bvQZeyz8T835CeWxbMpyx5LlSvt2BgdgetolT3VCexJenZhrIGhDA40xAanfWnyqHUNmMjO5F_2e4/s1120/Untitled.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="526" data-original-width="1120" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKDxWZOKeZy8Uo1MWPX4p6FF5QGXkpKR8nn5BoCqYMjqnnqsYu4k4Ik6Lq5Q_IlEAWK2B88M0cA3NjdMR6ZZGgFshiO3WbWi7j1cYxmU0vdR05g7bvQZeyz8T835CeWxbMpyx5LlSvt2BgdgetolT3VCexJenZhrIGhDA40xAanfWnyqHUNmMjO5F_2e4/s320/Untitled.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>Okay, now the next entry, Sue (S) Eh (E) ni (ni) = SEni, ΣΕνι presents us with an upside-down Greek letter, Gamma, with the Iota dot on it, and an apparent question, i.e. "what other person is that or who." </p><p>When I enter SEni in to translate, a coherent answer comes back: "You." </p><p>Once again, I don't know what resulted in this gloss, and I don't know Greek. But there's a pattern developing of meaningful results, and each result strengthens that pattern. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw3CGEiEKJrxlxJTSHe8XPSEocXr_RyTlBQfpl5BvtHE8kCt5r8WZPR8sqFvDouztSjJ_AF0pNYsMUzIY_9hAWH0IaxO8epmtvWUTAGLPCxvqho0-QhrAyh2SCa24KcJjpbSwY_5XdjcEphviAVqAInVRs3RgJPZkGDtAmyXw1DhPC8Bi7Ik3ylAx41OE/s1063/You.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="462" data-original-width="1063" height="139" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw3CGEiEKJrxlxJTSHe8XPSEocXr_RyTlBQfpl5BvtHE8kCt5r8WZPR8sqFvDouztSjJ_AF0pNYsMUzIY_9hAWH0IaxO8epmtvWUTAGLPCxvqho0-QhrAyh2SCa24KcJjpbSwY_5XdjcEphviAVqAInVRs3RgJPZkGDtAmyXw1DhPC8Bi7Ik3ylAx41OE/s320/You.png" width="320" /></a></div><p>What are the odds that such a relevant, coherent answer would come back to such a specific question? Who are you, to you? To you, you are "me, myself." It's like a riddle. First it says "me, myself," then asks "what other person is that or who" and then answers "You." </p><p>I wish I had more time to research, but I will continue slowly hacking away at the Book of Abraham from different angles. I would do this all day if I could. Hopefully more people will get involved in putting together the puzzle. </p><p>----</p><p>Note: We can't hold Joseph accountable for everything everyone around him does. For instance, I <a href="https://meditationsandmeaning.blogspot.com/2020/05/meditations-on-vogel.html" target="_blank">previously demonstrated that what happened in the Phelps manuscript was legitimate</a>, but characters in the margins of other manuscripts appear to be some sort of copycat job, possibly by William Smith when he had the Egyptian materials and was trying to drum them up (since these are many of the same characters used to fill in lacunae in Facsimile 2, I suspect Joseph had copied characters for Reuben Hedlock, the engraver, and Joseph had labeled them something like, "use these to fill in the empty Abraham spots," and that piece of paper later ended up in the Egyptian and Abraham related materials, which could easily be mistaken as instructions for filling in what might appear to some as "missing" margin characters, resulting in the confusion surrounding the issue).</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-23385564957625969522023-11-01T10:49:00.007-06:002024-02-04T17:21:19.431-07:00The Restoration Theory<p>Where I left off <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2023/05/bastet-book-of-abraham-and-restoration.html" target="_blank">in my last post on the subject</a>, the reader may have felt a little overwhelmed by all the ideas and info. </p><p>The Restoration Theory is an alternative to the Missing Roll and Catalyst theories. </p><p>To simplify, I’m proposing that the Hor vignettes/facsimiles did not originate with Hor, and, moreover, they were originally drawn by Egyptian-Jews, for a non-funerary purpose. You might recognize the Jewish influence idea from the Semitic Adaptation Theory, although the Jewish role is a little different in my theory. I'm proposing the figures in the vignettes, despite being outwardly recognizable Egyptian characters, were used by the Egyptian-Jews to represent different characters. I'm proposing that their original purpose was to accompany the Book of Abraham (this is in Ptolemaic times), probably on a wall in the temple of Onias, and Joseph Smith was thus able to use the vignettes, which were physically on the papyrus, as a window through which he accessed the original text. Because he was penetrating something that was physically on the papyrus, this falls under the umbrella of translating the papyrus, making statements to that effect true. </p><p>And I’m saying there’s actual evidence to support this theory. Because, we would expect/predict different things about the vignettes, based on what purpose they originally were intended to serve, and we can assess how well they align with expectations. </p><p>By analogy, suppose a certain restaurant serves only Mexican food, but a friend claims he used to get Greek food from there all the time. Is your friend lying? You come up with a theory that the restaurant originally served Greek food. You discover the owners are Greek, and the basement has Greek recipes, and old pictures on the wall show people eating what appears to be Greek food. All of that is evidence in favor of your theory. </p><p>Okay, so how did the illustrations end up in Hor's Book of Breathings? Well, for one thing, Hor's "Book of Breathings Made By Isis" is the oldest known and possibly the very first of the "made by Isis" genre. So, if Hor invented the genre, he would have had liberty as well as an apparent desire for novelty, so we shouldn't be surprised to see him look for and find something unique and then adapt it to his purposes. </p><p>The Restoration Theory is of course inspired by the Semitic Adaptation theory, but instead of proposing that a Jewish scribe took Egyptian funerary scenes and assigned new meaning to them, the Restoration Theory proposes that the scenes originally had Jewish meaning and Hor took them and assigned new meaning to them. This means we would expect the illustrations to be distinguishable from vignettes originally made for funerary papyri, rather than adapted for funerary use, which I’m proposing Hor did. </p><p>Under this theory, we don't need to account for any characters Hor had his scribes write on the vignette for Facsimile 3. Joseph Smith is likely giving us what was originally written on the original version of the illustration. And part of the reason why the characters on Facsimile 3 are so illegible may be because Joseph Smith partly restored what was originally written, purposefully leaving hybrid characters, sort of like scratching out Hor's changes. Of course, if the illustration was originally a larger scene on a temple wall, a lot more could have been written and we wouldn't expect Joseph to be able to carry it over to a small papyrus version of the scene. </p><p>This also means we don't need to reconcile why a Jewish redactor would append a Book of Abraham onto an Egyptian funerary text, since the vignettes themselves were the window into the text. </p><p>This also means we can look at the witness statements through a new lens. For instance, Joseph Smith III said that the papyrus from which his father was said to have translated the Book of Abraham was found “with other portions” in a roll, singular. This seems to either suggest that multiple different documents bundled together can be considered a roll, or that on one single piece of papyrus there was both the content from which Joseph translated the Book of Abraham, and also unrelated content (i.e. the text of the Book of Breathings?).</p><p>This may also help us understand the reference to Abraham's own hand. In light of apocryphal stories of Abraham which had circulated anciently, when Joseph restored Abraham's original version it would be fair to make that distinction by pointing out that the version he is giving us is the one written by Abraham's own hand. Or, alternatively, if the Ptolemaic version was faithful to Abraham's original, or claimed to be, it would be fair to point that out by saying it is purporting to be the version written by Abraham's own hand. At no point did Joseph claim that Abraham had touched the papyrus (assumptions of others notwithstanding).</p><p>Now, let's take a look at some of the evidence.</p><p>As others have pointed out, although this is rarely talked about enough, Joseph Smith received the only lion couch scene in the world where the figure on the couch is in the prayer position. Early critics tried to say the top hand is a bird wing, but that has proven not to be true, as the dots are not dapple marks but are the remnants of finger lines after ink flaked off. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfDZSmWdoPbDH-kJrtl8itzSrtxyPjRJDJLEUIna41rD-7w0L6yvqj4wLW9FA7DL0h8JanFaraWfShrJ6TAkaxhf6TfGVV2zZD0jnkPvhPoVmAiqTeRyglVf-nFAYHU68Zu3aVVNRwEi2eFjc-TkxHHG2IU8Kblk5q1nDfqXxyh1TXRSGcplfv_AxIS7U/s1277/prayer.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="856" data-original-width="1277" height="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfDZSmWdoPbDH-kJrtl8itzSrtxyPjRJDJLEUIna41rD-7w0L6yvqj4wLW9FA7DL0h8JanFaraWfShrJ6TAkaxhf6TfGVV2zZD0jnkPvhPoVmAiqTeRyglVf-nFAYHU68Zu3aVVNRwEi2eFjc-TkxHHG2IU8Kblk5q1nDfqXxyh1TXRSGcplfv_AxIS7U/s320/prayer.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /></div>Unexpected presence of the goddess <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2023/05/bastet-book-of-abraham-and-restoration.html" target="_blank">Bastet</a> on Facsimile 3. This leads us right to Bubastis, and the Jewish temple of Onias. Claims that the printing plate shows that an Abubis snout was originally on the facsimile are misguided. The sharp cut and the area where lead was dug out are not in the shape of an Anubis snout. And I’ve demonstrated that the cut was made after that area was already cut lower than the printable portions. <div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS9NAUyrgbXuJZ_gSnEfCIELchWv6qkVqmKXdj6mvmc-3xUQxnB7pXL-k4I5IC6RRSq9v0Fr9U10d72i3TRus5OGF7C4G-ffnEfLaoeheVMoDK2L1GzTXot-TDub9Nke5OubVGvFXdS_mNwDR-FNHdMtiFhbPw0k7lRj6bpy5TXWzzzOGZtiLejGsEsZs/s1920/Bast%20Anubis.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="788" data-original-width="1920" height="131" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS9NAUyrgbXuJZ_gSnEfCIELchWv6qkVqmKXdj6mvmc-3xUQxnB7pXL-k4I5IC6RRSq9v0Fr9U10d72i3TRus5OGF7C4G-ffnEfLaoeheVMoDK2L1GzTXot-TDub9Nke5OubVGvFXdS_mNwDR-FNHdMtiFhbPw0k7lRj6bpy5TXWzzzOGZtiLejGsEsZs/s320/Bast%20Anubis.png" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Unexpected <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2022/03/abraham-in-egypt.html" target="_blank">Abraham in Egypt</a> - the name Abraham is literally spelled out on the vignette. This is not like seeing things in the clouds where an unlimited number of shapes are possible, but these are actual distinct shapes representing Upper Egypt and the spelling, in order, of the name Abraham. </div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtx8sCqmssgL9nfFjzdEfiazvoE3jnLfcZi4R9ZMoE_mxTtFE2lUzNvYSS-lQ9km2NIBJIJqK2Uj_Tc6k6ti9osXnmX2x_GZXPPn1mg6N4Pz78vKG_D3Yo-InvyYaUbWU3eOgL7UI8UpRyU4sNXOiD8kF4RTz0i5pHXccyFwLbug8ERiK5vKmGec5Knws/s1766/Untitled.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="987" data-original-width="1766" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtx8sCqmssgL9nfFjzdEfiazvoE3jnLfcZi4R9ZMoE_mxTtFE2lUzNvYSS-lQ9km2NIBJIJqK2Uj_Tc6k6ti9osXnmX2x_GZXPPn1mg6N4Pz78vKG_D3Yo-InvyYaUbWU3eOgL7UI8UpRyU4sNXOiD8kF4RTz0i5pHXccyFwLbug8ERiK5vKmGec5Knws/s320/Untitled.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div><a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2022/02/rfm-and-creme-de-la-creme.html" target="_blank">Unexpected elaborate falcon on standard </a> this is not expected to be there, nevertheless the evidence is strong. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dy4UsQXuB0VcFgEV0ODPphBV1HEKN7UfObca7c-wWIibssJxz1BFy0_xpWofqNmsrCG5gqaB0oKxeWBCuS7Hw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-37067496136254552652023-06-25T22:20:00.002-06:002023-06-25T22:21:26.509-06:00The Meaning Of Life, Scholars Like Robert Boylan, and My Best Friend Austin<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7EZ2KkjPhJ_qpM0ofsVMDr_7SmR4SjuClZAzrUFmfBRiwCNMm-0h941LquYGlmpliYA5XYU3LeT1zlGZ4_THUwdB_lmc3QOkTa48B5wElF7rWj5q0wDz15W4vBCJyh13kQJrvQd_GJ2808dIaISMUbbQtMfun2jzUhBpj-9nxGQGVzJTXhzMEQMGn3b8/s1280/That%20may%20look%20like%20a%20lot%20of%20books,%20but%20Robert%20eats%20those%20before%20breakfast.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7EZ2KkjPhJ_qpM0ofsVMDr_7SmR4SjuClZAzrUFmfBRiwCNMm-0h941LquYGlmpliYA5XYU3LeT1zlGZ4_THUwdB_lmc3QOkTa48B5wElF7rWj5q0wDz15W4vBCJyh13kQJrvQd_GJ2808dIaISMUbbQtMfun2jzUhBpj-9nxGQGVzJTXhzMEQMGn3b8/s320/That%20may%20look%20like%20a%20lot%20of%20books,%20but%20Robert%20eats%20those%20before%20breakfast.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p style="text-align: center;">That may look like a lot of books behind Robert Boylan, but he can eat all those before breakfast.</p><p>This post is going to read like a free-flow of thought, a bit of a ramble, but if you follow along and don't skim, you should be rewarded with some interesting thoughts. </p><p>I'm not a huge fan of debates in general, but it does say something that the prominent LDS scholar Robert Boylan, whom I count as a friend, has a difficult time finding people who are willing to debate him. <a href="https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">If you look through his blog, Scriptural Mormonism</a>, you'll understand why prominent Protestant scholars (let alone your local Pastor) will find every excuse in "the book" to avoid talking about "The Good Book" with him. </p><p>When it comes to apologetics, I'm more of an armchair guy than a scholar but I come up with ideas other people don't come up with, and I put those ideas "out there" in the hopes that people will consider them. Some aren't fans of my style because I leave ideas on the table which they don't know what to do with. But although I may be one of the "weak things" of the world, sometimes that's what God uses.</p><p>(As an aside, in an odd way I have the same problem as Robert, i.e. trying to get people to engage rather than dismissing from a distance). </p><p>Engaging is not simply responding. It entails taking time to understand and steelman, then respond, THEN listen and wait for the counter-response, and start the process over, attempting to provide clarification and find mutual agreement on where the disagreements lie. </p><p>And it's beautiful when we can actually see it work.</p><p>However, apologetics and criticisms are both limited by certain realities. </p><p>For one thing, they are 90% about history, and history is deeply flawed. People tend not to realize how deeply flawed it is, because people from the past aren't here to correct us. </p><p>Misunderstandings happen all the time in our own daily lives, but when people are dead they are no longer able to clarify. Misunderstandings get set in stone, and we don't account for the fact that much of what we read, be it in a journal scrap someone wrote when angry, or a passing reference in a newspaper from 200 years ago, penned by a busy journalist, do not reflect reality. Many misunderstandings got cleared up before making their way into the historical record, but many did not. And we don't know how many that is. </p><p>Try this thought experiment. Imagine you die, and 100 years from now the only thing people know about you is what others wrote on social media when mentioning you. How accurate would that picture be of you? </p><h4 style="text-align: center;">My Best Friend </h4><p>Yesterday I attended the Memorial Service of my best friend, Austin. A celebration of his life, by those who knew and loved him. And although only true things were said about him, there is no way anyone would have even close to an accurate understanding of him and his life if they were basing their understanding on the service rather than knowing him intimately and having hundreds of hours of deep conversation. And that's okay. </p><p>But the same problem faces us with history. </p><p>A good example is <a href="https://meditationsandmeaning.blogspot.com/2020/05/meditations-on-vogel-appendix-how.html" target="_blank">the Kinderhook Plates</a>. I've tried to make this point for years, and I'm grateful that at least LDS Scholar/Philosopher Blake Ostler told me that he thinks my analysis is very good. That's pretty much the only feedback I've received from anyone, though. </p><p>But the point here isn't about the Kinderhook Plates specifically, but how much we don't and can't know, generally. </p><p>The work of grief is so hard. But the growth and learning that can come from it is incalculable. And I'm grateful I was able to know him as deeply as I could have in this life. And yet I'll still be surprised when I get to the other side and learn how many misconceptions I've had, even about him. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwC_poDVBpiBxcVdumOG-N9PgEKuu8JdCPtRneNOOYOQI6ZsrCZ-5ZUNnXe68ESQeXHa99QLxsLPxtuvrP6Vw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">We don't know what misconceptions we have. Compounding this further, many answers are intentionally put out of our reach by God. We aren't supposed to have them. </span></div><h4 style="text-align: center;">The Meaning Of Life</h4><p style="text-align: justify;">After the Memorial Service, I went with some friends to a favorite spot, a particular restaurant where Austin and I had been to countless times. </p><p>Right as we sat down, before we even ordered our food, in light of my best friend's death one of my friends said, "Ryan, what is the meaning of life?"</p><p>I thought for just a second, then I answered, "It's not what meets the eye. There's more going on than we know."</p><p>I used the analogy from the first Harry Potter film, where the bad guy was trying to get the Sorcerer's Stone, but he was stumped. He was standing in front of a mirror which contained the stone, but he couldn't figure out how to obtain the stone from the mirror. You see, the mirror had been enchanted so that one could only obtain the stone if they were not seeking it and didn't want it. </p><p>What is it that we are seeking knowledge for? Is it to build a Tower of Babel to get us to heaven? Or is it because we want to know God? </p><p>Knowledge comes forth "in the own due time of the Lord." Otherwise, we would not be able to exercise and strengthen our faith. What a wonderful time we live in, 200 years are marked from the time God the Father introduced His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, to a 14-year-old named Joseph Smith, in a Sacred Grove. As our living Prophet has declared, big things are coming, and we are so fortunate to be able to live through this marvelous time and help prepare the world for the Second Coming.</p>As that 14-year-old showed, even prophets are here to learn and are experiencing a mortal probation. God never pronounced that prophets (or parents!) are perfect, but that they have a place in His plan, pointing His flock to Him. God's plan is perfect, but is intended to be implemented by imperfect people, in a setting of powerful opposing forces. On one hand, perfection. On the other hand, purposeful imperfection.<br /><br />By understanding that there is a purpose to imperfection, we can accept a "precept upon precept" approach, expecting some answers will come now, others later. This, the Gospel predicts. If we understand the fall of man and the Atonement, along with the role of faith and repentance, it only makes sense that we would struggle with challenges.<br /><br />If one accepts D&C 76:1-10, it shapes the possibilities one is willing to pursue. This approach does not preclude scholarship, although the scholarly research operates within parameters. Those who think unkindly of this approach might not be aware of ways in which their dismissal of such evidence affects their own scholarship. When dismissing claims which point to Joseph Smith being a true Seer, one must be aware and upfront about whether or not they are imposing their own prejudices and thereby restricting the scope of their own scholarship. We may tend to think our own biases are just obvious facts. And that can lead to premises which we have not taken time to formally consider. We may also tend to think this is only a problem other people have which we don't have. We think our own opinions, of course, are always the best. That's why we hold them.<br /><br />Differences in ways of viewing information may be unavoidable, because some assumptions may be required prior to the application of logic. Each individual's intuition plays a role in determining which assumptions they will make. It is important to remember that intuitions lead to assumptions which lead to premises which only then do we apply logic to. It is helpful to be aware of our intuitions and how they cause us to favor our chosen assumptions over alternate assumptions.<br /><br />The existence of intellectual challenges is expected in LDS doctrine. These, along with other challenges, are even central to the Gospel; the Atonement of Jesus Christ being the greatest challenge and the centerpiece of the Gospel. We might not realize it but our challenge, our yoke, is mitigated through the Atonement, so that our challenge is limited to only what is necessary for our growth and our exercise of agency.<br /><br />In an LDS view, we intentionally left a Heavenly home and intentionally had our knowledge of reality temporarily erased from our memory. We are meant to search. This is the intended context of our earth experience. Knowing this is the intended context helps us understand why God does not usually make Himself known through our external senses, but speaks instead to our hearts. Even when we are mentally and physically in a state of tumult, the veil allows us to choose for ourselves whether and how we will search out and follow that voice.<br /><br />This unique LDS concept, of us choosing to come to earth with a "veil" over our minds, offers a theological explanation for the question our atheist friends pose: "if there is a God, why doesn't God just prove it is so?" From the LDS point of view, with the veil being part of the plan, the question can be answered with a question: "what would be the purpose of a veil that blocks our knowledge, if God were to simply turn around and reveal all that knowledge?" Instead, this world is intended to house varying degrees of understanding. Precious spirits are born into a variety of circumstances. Half of the world's population worships the God of Abraham, and over half of that group worship Jesus Christ as their Savior - and, among those Christians, a variety of interpretations and understandings exist. The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is itself far from completely revealed. Much more is to come.<br /><br />We may at times wonder why sacrifice is necessary, and why God does not just give us the end result without the struggle. I suspect it might not be logically possible to know what suffering feels like without feeling it. The intellectual side we might be able to comprehend through reason, but the human side we might only be able to comprehend through experience. I believe this underlies the struggle in the war in heaven.<br /><br />In accordance with God not generally revealing Himself directly to the world's physical senses, the purpose of life is not to figure out God with our intellect, again like the Tower of Babel, trying to reach Heaven with human reasoning instead of God. What sense would it make for God to test our intellect? That is not the purpose for our coming here. Christ never required from us the wisdom of man. He chose a 14-year-old boy. He chose fishermen. He never said anyone must be "scholarly enough" to get into heaven. He's not impressed with our intellects. He said one must become as a little child. The idea behind coming to this earth is to give us opportunities to choose and to experience. As we are surrounded by a fog, God's voice speaks to our heart, a voice our spirit recognizes even though it doesn't remember why.<br /><br />Even if we don't intellectually know that the voice is God, we hear it in our souls. The test of this life is to use our agency to determine how important that voice is to us. When we hear His voice and want to be closer to Him, even though we can't see Him, that is faith.<br /><br />I believe that when we pass through the veil, and greet those who have gone before, we will see that Joseph Smith is sweet and kind and gentle, just as so many who knew him in life attested.<br />For now, there is a great deal of disagreement on what to believe. Why does God not just tell us in objective, scientific terms? Because the reason for believing matters. <div><br /></div><div>God does not just want people to believe, but to believe for the right reason. As Jesus said in Matthew 11:25, "I thank thee O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." See also Matthew 13:10-13.<br /><br />So, then, what do we make of challenges like the arguments against the things God tells us and we know to be true? <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1998/08/the-faith-of-a-child?lang=eng">Childlike faith</a>, based on staying close to Heavenly Father, is paramount in dealing with issues we don't understand. </div><div><br /></div><div>But it is also understandable for people to want answers along the way, in the same way that knowing how some magic tricks are performed can give us a lens through which to interpret illusions we don't yet know the answers to. If you look at the best magic tricks in the world, not knowing how they are performed, they might seem to have no plausible explanation. But once you learn how a trick is done, it may no longer even be interesting. It may even seem like it should have been obvious and you may even be astounded by the fact that you were previously unable to see it. Such, I believe, will be the experience of each of us when we stand before God and see what was really going on and how many misconceptions we all had when we were on earth. And why it was necessary for it to be that way and why we chose before coming to earth for it to be that way.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-5860142381729549002023-05-12T06:12:00.009-06:002024-02-05T06:13:19.615-07:00Bastet, The Book Of Abraham, And The Restoration Theory<p>Intuitively, you might <i>feel </i>like the Egyptian goddess Bastet (Bast) shouldn't have anything significant to do with the Book of Abraham. </p><p>But, like a game of chess, you can't declare an outcome based on prior assumptions. Computer chess engines are showing us the importance of this principle. You have to wait until there's a mate demonstrable. Otherwise, you have to allow room for possibilities to play out. </p><p>So, let's play this out. </p><p>First, Figure 6 in Facsimile 3 more closely resembles the goddess Bastet than it resembles any other deity. </p><p>I'm not saying it perfectly matches any particular image of Bastet, but if we consider how different the various depictions of Bastet are from each other, we see a range which is big enough to house Figure 6. But we see no such range with Anubis. If we simply look at the figure 6 image, <i>without bringing any assumptions to the table</i>, this figure should be identified as Bastet. Consider the front of the face. Consider the length of the ear sticking up. Consider the round, rather than flat head. And, again, consider the range that simply doesn't exist for Anubis. Anubis is very standardized. But Bastet has essential features, which Figure 6 is able to match. Although, admittedly, the body of Figure 6 is a bit androgynous.</p><p>Now, you might be thinking Figure 6 originally had a snout, like Anubis. <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2023/05/did-figure-6-of-facsimile-3-have-snout.html" target="_blank">I address that in an earlier blog post, here</a>. </p><p style="text-align: center;">Click Image To Enlarge</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-s4a8vi-TfDrmiWEvaKBVzGTyNZC2Ujb3--YTAMXd5suWXV0zmi28JgG6ciuaUaZs-kpsWDm13m3eFdJCtkEOq6Mi0Y2j3K4Guz2OQx17uXGoUEut71XDcdwZ-fx-GSD0xiPsPwYSHUKy3KARh3pNIUvjnq7feNbBxA0-uI8iofzihHA44_VvYa2z/s1920/Bast%20Anubis.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="788" data-original-width="1920" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-s4a8vi-TfDrmiWEvaKBVzGTyNZC2Ujb3--YTAMXd5suWXV0zmi28JgG6ciuaUaZs-kpsWDm13m3eFdJCtkEOq6Mi0Y2j3K4Guz2OQx17uXGoUEut71XDcdwZ-fx-GSD0xiPsPwYSHUKy3KARh3pNIUvjnq7feNbBxA0-uI8iofzihHA44_VvYa2z/w400-h164/Bast%20Anubis.png" width="400" /></a></div><p>Okay, so what relevance could Bastet have to Abraham?</p><p>Well, contemporary with the time-range of the verifiable Joseph Smith Papyri, the Jewish temple of Onias was built. And it was put right in the worship center of Bastet. In fact, it was built on an old temple of Bastet. </p><p>Yes, the Jewish temple was built right on top of a temple of Bastet which was no longer in active use. </p><p>Within the city of Bubastis, where Bastet reigned supreme, we are talking about an actual temple to Bastet. That's where the Jewish temple was built. For the Jewish population which moved to the city because of the temple, Bastet was part of daily life. Images of Bastet abounded everywhere, and people <a href="https://carnegiemnh.org/why-were-cats-mummified-in-ancient-egypt/" target="_blank">had cats and mummified them</a>. </p><p>As Onias <a href="http://cojs.org/172-b-c-e-synagogues-egypt/" target="_blank">said </a>to King Ptolemy: "Wherefore I beg you to permit me to cleanse this temple, which belongs to no one and is in ruins, and to build a temple to God the Most High in the likeness of that at Jerusalem."</p><p>He was talking about a temple of Bastet, which he transformed into a Jewish temple. </p><p>The <a href="http://cojs.org/172-b-c-e-synagogues-egypt/" target="_blank">reply</a> from Ptolemy and Cleopatra II: "We have read your petition asking that it be permitted you to cleanse the ruined temple in Leontopolis in the Nome of Heliopolis, called Bubastis-of-the-Fields. We wonder, therefore, whether it will be pleasing to God that a temple be built in a place so wild and full of sacred animals. But since you say that the prophet Isaiah foretold this long ago, we grant your request if this is to be in accordance with the Law, so that we may not seem to have sinned against God in any way."</p><p>Most of the Cleopatras were associated with (and even identified as) Isis, even taking on her epithets like "mother of the god." For example, see <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/42678882" target="_blank">here</a>. This may be a clue for interpreting Facsimile 3. Ptolemy VI came to the throne as a small child, and his mother, Cleopatra I, reigned in his behalf until her deathbed. The two of them could therefore be candidates for the King and Prince in Facsimile 3, then. Cleopatra I even had the epithet found in the first column of text in Facsimile 3, i.e. "mother of the god." The question of why Joseph Smith would refer to the figure as a male is also answerable if the figure is Cleopatra I, because she was ruling as King <i>on her son's behalf</i> which means she represented him and he was male. </p><p>This may also help explain the seemingly redundant "King Pharaoh," in Joseph Smith's explanation, because in Egypt a Pharaoh could be either male or female. As for why they would be relevant to Onias, he may have been paying homage to them, through adapting the figures. Also worth noting is that Lenaeus, a Syrian slave, was appointed as a special regent to Ptolemy VI. This slave might be a candidate for Figure 6, adapted through use of the image of Bastet (also a potential play on words, Lenaeus and Leontopolis). </p><p>If you are not familiar with adaptation of images like this, Robert Ritner <a href="https://youtu.be/AG3Or8SMYh0?t=1639" target="_blank">here</a> discusses an example of the image of Isis being used to represent the Virgin Mary. Also of great interest is <a href="http://www.blakeostler.com/docs/Abraham.pdf" target="_blank">this piece</a> from Blake Ostler and <a href="https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/barney/2019-10-23/08_kevin_l._barney_the_facsimiles_and_semitic_adaptation_of_existing_sources.pdf" target="_blank">this piece</a> from Kevin Barney. </p><p>But, you may also ask, "doesn't the Facsimile have the name of Anubis written on it?" Actually, no. <a href="https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8598&context=etd" target="_blank">To quote Quinten Barne</a>y from his master's thesis: "Thus, the arms, the presence of determinatives, and absence of the glyph suggest that this column does not read 'Anubis' so easily." But even if it is intended to read as Anubis, it does not identify the figure as Anubis and could easily just be Hor's preference for what he wanted the text to say. See <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-restoration-theory.html" target="_blank">this follow-up post</a>. </p><p>A quote from the late Egyptologist Robert Ritner may also tie things together. Dr. Ritner came to believe that the extant vignette from the Hor Book of Breathings was quite special and was copied from a scene on a temple wall. </p><p>Dr. Ritner discusses his theory <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H70IdpLHhZE&t=1688s" target="_blank">here</a></p><p>Let's assume Dr. Ritner was correct. </p><p>That would mean, in his words, "what we've got here is like a Kodak moment that's been taken of a now lost temple, and I think that makes this papyrus extremely valuable..." Ritner said he intended to announce this discovery at a future meeting with his colleagues, which evidently never happened due to his failing health.</p><p>Suppose, then, that these vignettes on the Hor roll came from the Jewish temple, as reliefs adapted for Jewish purposes. Then suppose that Hor had some of the writing changed to accommodate his own purposes. By the time Hor's roll came into Joseph Smith's hands, the vignette was likely spotted with small lacunae, so Joseph Smith appears to have had the extant writing collapsed/redacted together on the facsimile, in order to make it appear tidy in the facsimile columns. </p><p>The portion of the writing which appeared on the temple wall, rather than being added by Hor, might be expected to have been more elaborate, hence the intricate details of the extant Falcon of the Standard glyph in place of the missing spelling of Isis. Joseph Smith may have been referring to the original in his explanation. The name Isis or Cleopatra, for instance, may have originally appeared but been lost like the other half of the Falcon on the Standard glyph. And, correspondingly, smooshed together in the facsimile. </p><p>Now, how would these scenes have made their way to Hor in the first place? Well, Marc Coenen speculated, in Robert Ritner's book on the Joseph Smith Papyri, that Hor's family may have collected a variety of papyri and stored them in a family vault. To quote Coenen (p. 65, HC), "Given the impressive number of papyri preserved for this priestly family, one wonders if they might have a common provenance and originate from a family vault, which at some time during the early nineteenth century was discovered only to have its contents plundered and scattered all over the world." </p><p>Some might wonder why Hor would want anything to do with Facsimile 1, which appears to call the Egyptian religion idolatrous? See my post on <a href="https://meditationsandmeaning.blogspot.com/2020/05/meditations-on-vogel-appendix-i-human.html" target="_blank">human sacrifice, to see how I deal with that issue</a>. To that I would add that in Abraham's early life, Egypt may have been in the First Intermediate period, where different people claimed to be Pharaoh. The "idolatrous" pharaoh may play into that. Abraham does distinguish Onitah as being of a true lineage. But read the post and it will make more sense. I identify who I think historically Abraham may have been referring to. Read carefully. </p><p>Now, I'm undoubtedly leaving some loose ends and unanswered questions, which can be dealt with as they arise. But for now, all of this leads me to a theory.</p><h3 style="text-align: center;">The Restoration Theory</h3><p>1) Abraham wrote a history, on papyrus</p><p>2) Joseph of Egypt redacted that history, focusing on Abraham's experiences with Egypt</p><p>3) Joseph of Egypt gave the redacted history to Pharaoh, who kept it in his court, until it eventually went into storage</p><p>4) When Onias became friends with Ptolemy, and Ptolemy helped him build his temple and celebrated it, Ptolemy gave him, among other things, the roll which Joseph of Egypt had written which contained the teachings of Abraham</p><p>5) The beginning of Joseph's record contained a vignette depicting Abraham being sacrificed on an altar. However, since it was on the very outside of the roll, it had deteriorated over the centuries and was by then in tatters</p><p>6) Using the description of it in Abraham 1:12-14, which Joseph of Egypt had written in reference to his original vignette, Onias restored it, by adapting contemporary Egyptian symbols to represent the elements which Joseph of Egypt described on the roll, and Onias put it as a relief on the temple wall, as well as being an adapted relief honoring Ptolemy and showing appreciation for his help with the temple and the roll of Abraham (Facsimile 3). The figure of Abraham in Facsimile 3 may very well be symbolic of the teachings of Abraham which Pharaoh had allowed to stay in his court for a time. </p><p>7) Copies of the vignettes made their way to Hor's family vault, possibly alongside a copy of the text of Abraham's record (or, since Hor's family was one of the most powerful and well-connected in Egypt, he may have even obtained the original). </p><p>8) Hor, when deciding what to be buried with, liked the vignettes and adapted them to his purposes. Hor wanted his Book of Breathings to be special, because it was probably the first ever "Book of Breathings made by Isis" and the depiction of Cleopatra as Isis would have been very special and honorific for a Book of Breathings <i>made by Isis</i>. </p><p>9) It's not necessary to say that Hor was buried with the text of the Book of Abraham (although number 10, below, addresses that possibility), because the vignettes would have been derived from the Onias Temple where they would have been originally on a relief alongside the text of the Book of Abraham, which means that Joseph Smith, by penetrating through the vignettes on the Hor roll, would have been led to the text of the Book of Abraham (although of course it would have been difficult for him to explain this to anyone, but is similar to how he translated texts like the Book of Moses by penetrating what was in front of him and being led to a text which was not in front of him). Remember, Abraham 1:14 says clearly that the fashion of the figures (i.e. vignettes) signifies hieroglyphics. While keeping the word "hieroglyphics" in mind in reference to the vignettes, consider the words of Warren Parrish: "I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphics as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from Heaven." Hieroglyphics being a reference both to the vignettes and a reference to what it was Joseph was translating from, certainly lends plausibility to the idea that Joseph was penetrating the vignettes and being taken through them to the text of the Book of Abraham, without the text needing to be on the papyrus he owned. </p><p>10) If the text of the Book of Abraham was buried with Hor and in the possession of Joseph Smith (which again is not necessary, as explained in number 9), here's a way it may have happened: Because they were related and derived from the same source, Hor had bound together Abraham's record with the Book of Breathings, in the same linen (creating a "roll" - remember, Joseph Smith's eyewitness contemporaries wouldn't have known what constituted a "roll" and, like a newspaper "roll," they may have thought it was okay for a papyrus roll to have different parts, thinking what made it a roll was that the parts came wrapped together. Just as they would not have known what the word "long" means in "long roll," they also wouldn't have known what the second word, "roll," means in "long roll") Eventually, the roll came to Joseph Smith. Sometimes people would refer to it as one roll, other times as two rolls. But it was the record of Joseph and the teachings of Abraham. Joseph Smith penetrated through any changes Hor may have made, and Joseph Smith put into his own words the interpretations of Onias (who may have had himself, rather than Hor, featured as Figure 5, and Joseph's mother may have confused the name Onias with King Onitah/Onitas as well as complications arising from Osiris being king and the Hor papyrus declaring that Hor is Osiris and thus king) </p><p>The key connecting it all is that we have a depiction of Bastet on Facsimile 3, <i>which can't be easily explained through conventional means</i>, and remnants of an elaborate Falcon on the Standard <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2022/02/rfm-and-creme-de-la-creme.html" target="_blank">which isn't "supposed" to be there</a>. </p><p>UPDATE:<a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-restoration-theory.html" target="_blank"> I've written a follow-up to this post, and you can read it here.</a> </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-70278208437277950362023-05-11T12:30:00.005-06:002023-05-22T12:08:23.530-06:00Did Figure 6 Of Facsimile 3 Have A Snout? Why I Don't Believe So. <div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeZh-Qkm4bhYj9w0VTzk-OszCsvZ-oXiOgcCGnmqFjDQKzVfYr_vTr74oo8zl90sL5xDT_0lsgXFY8eNQsk1xYh0nuxUTuNmfxtc9BETpEpzzxK5Mg01Uhpl92T2IbQgQUWLmX7DYppnmdwEuLBFwjx-rUe6MIjHpTorzldFM1J-mnFlkDX0jVr0uF/s1037/1.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="387" data-original-width="1037" height="119" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeZh-Qkm4bhYj9w0VTzk-OszCsvZ-oXiOgcCGnmqFjDQKzVfYr_vTr74oo8zl90sL5xDT_0lsgXFY8eNQsk1xYh0nuxUTuNmfxtc9BETpEpzzxK5Mg01Uhpl92T2IbQgQUWLmX7DYppnmdwEuLBFwjx-rUe6MIjHpTorzldFM1J-mnFlkDX0jVr0uF/s320/1.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">An independent scholar on the Book of Abraham, Paul Osborne, proposed in recent years that the printing plate for Facsimile 3 of the Book of Abraham was altered in such a way as to indicate that the figure originally had an Anubis-like snout. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><div>Looking at the lead printing plate, we can see that something of a snout-like shape is indeed present. I think Osborne's argument may indeed indicate that <i>something</i> has happened. </div><div><br />His argument does face a couple hurdles, however. </div><div><br />To my understanding, Facsimile 3 was printed only once during Joseph Smith's lifetime. Since that printing, the plate has seen a number of alterations and has gone through a number of different hands.</div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The original 1842 Facsimile 3 in The Times And Seasons looks different than it looks in today's scriptures, and looks different than the printing plate. Some of these alterations may have been intended to smooth over the appearance, but may have had the effect of chopping off important details. I noticed this when exploring evidence of an extant Falcon on the Standard glyph at the top of the first column (a glyph which would be very unexpected, especially in such an intricate form, but which fits with a larger theory I've been working on). </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, the printing plate does not provide us with a snapshot of how Joseph Smith prepared it for publication. Instead, it provides us with an unknown number of layers of tampering, potentially over a period of decades.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">At some point, someone may have toyed with the idea of what a snout would look like on Figure 6, perhaps having heard that the figure is "supposed" to have one. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In such case, they may have cut into the metal in order to see what it would look like. In support of this theory, we see what looks like an attempt to draw fangs and a mouth, which should not be dismissed, for the same reason the snout itself should not be dismissed. The relevance is not just that it's a snout shape, but that the shape is directly next to the head of the figure. If this shape were located somewhere random on the printing plate, it would be kind of an odd shape but it wouldn't be identified as a snout. Likewise, the mouth and teeth marks are located where someone might expect a mouth to be on a dog's snout. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Fangs would almost certainly have not been on an actual Anubis vignette, but they are consistent with what someone might draw if they didn't know better but had heard the claim that a dog snout was supposed to be there, and decided to experiment. This is similar to my argument that the glyphs in the margins of the Book of Abraham manuscripts were drawn by someone at a later date (except for the Phelps manuscript, which I have shown is a legitimate exercise in Egyptian). What I suspect happened in the case of the margin characters is that Joseph Smith had copied for Hedlock some characters to draw from in making Facsimile 2 and he labeled the sheet of paper something like "For Book of Abraham," which Hedlock would understand the context of but which a different person coming across the sheet of paper years later amongst the other materials would mistake easily as meaning the characters from which the Book of Abraham was translated. The evidence that the snout on the printing plate was altered by a later curious person lends support to my idea of a person tampering with the manuscripts. The ideas support each other. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, the snout is not likely the work of anyone copying what was on an actual papyrus, but, instead, the work of someone who had been told that a dog snout belonged there. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Moreover, the image does not look like Anubis. Anubis has a flat head rather than a round head and when he has a human body he always wears a headdress. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The shape of the head would be inconsistent with every ancient depiction of Anubis, including the proposed Anubis on this very same papyrus roll, in the lion couch vignette. If the standing figure in the lion couch vignette is Anubis, then a snout of that shape would still be visible on the extant portion, below the lacunae. The snout of Anubis is supposed to protrude out flat from his face, and doesn't point downward unless he is bending over. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z46wktUteWI" width="320" youtube-src-id="z46wktUteWI"></iframe></div><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-46976235923319088822022-06-10T07:31:00.006-06:002022-06-10T10:51:58.754-06:00More Than 1 Facsimile 1?<p>More than one? It might seem out of the question, black and white. It might seem like an open and shut case. But the fact is, the issue has never been explored. How can it be open and shut when it was never actually opened in the first place? </p><p>In 1967, the Book of Breathings of a Priest named Hor, among other papyri, was returned to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And only then could we see there was a big hole (lacunae) in the Hor papyrus, ripping out the section of the extant vignette which corresponds to where the knife is drawn in Facsimile 1 and where the head is drawn on the standing figure. Those had been the most controversial parts of the facsimile, so it looked too convenient for the head and knife to be showing up in Facsimile 1.</p><p>Due to the obvious similarity between the facsimile and the recovered vignette on the Hor roll, everyone assumed the source had been found. And scholars were so busy trying to make sense of the flood of questions which the 1967 find brought in, that I don't think anyone had the time or inclination to even think about whether it was one and the same vignette. </p><p>Still, some things were hard to explain. Like the fact that eyewitnesses said they saw a man holding a knife, depicted on the papyrus. How could they have seen that when the man’s hands are torn out by the lacunae on the extant vignette?</p><p>Many lion couch scenes were drawn anciently. Each one was unique. So, could there have been more than one rendering of the scene depicted in Facsimile 1? I would suggest that this question actually does merit investigation and thoughtful analysis. </p><p>Consider the implications. If it <i>were</i> the case that a very similar vignette was on the non-extant papyrus containing the Book of Abraham, that could account for Abraham 1:12-14, and also account for the evident confusion which led people to draw characters from the Hor papyrus in the margins of the Parrish and Williams manuscripts of the Book of Abraham (the Phelps manuscript, on the other hand, which is the only one which actually labels a column for characters, demonstrates legitimate Egyptology, <a href="https://meditationsandmeaning.blogspot.com/2020/05/meditations-on-vogel.html" target="_blank">as I explained here</a>).</p><p>So that would kill two huge birds with one stone.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Enter Ritner</b></p><p>Let’s talk about how it could have happened. Hor was an interesting case. He had both a Book of Breathings and a Book of the Dead made and buried with him. You might ask, why would he want both? Well, he was sparing no expense. He was prominent and wealthy and was probably buried with a number of other things as well.</p><p>And this is where it gets really interesting. Dr. Robert Ritner came to believe that the extant vignette from the Hor Book of Breathings was quite special and was copied from a scene on a temple wall. </p><p> <a href="https://youtu.be/H70IdpLHhZE?t=1688" target="_blank">Dr. Ritner discusses his theory here</a></p><p>Let's assume Ritner was correct. </p><p>That would mean, in his words, "what we've got here is like a Kodak moment that's been taken of a now lost temple, and I think that makes this papyrus extremely valuable..." Ritner said he intended to announce this discovery at a future meeting with his colleagues, which evidently never happened due to his failing health. </p><p>And that means there was more than one Facsimile 1, in the sense that there was more than one rendering anciently of the specific scene we see in Facsimile 1. </p><p>And the vignette in the Hor Book of Breathings is <u>not the original</u>. </p><p>It also means the scene on the wall was special to Hor for some reason. He wanted a copy or copies of it. </p><p>How many copies? Well, this is the man who had both a Book of Breathings and a Book of the Dead made for himself. So if he's going to commission a scribe to travel to a temple and sit in front of a wall and draw a special scene that's on the wall, why not send more than one scribe and have them each make a copy? Doesn't it make sense that if he was going to go to such unprecedented effort to get this particular scene, that there was something special about this situation?</p><p>And what would the result be? The scribes would be rendering an image carved on a wall into a form that's fit for papyrus. Each scribe may have their own style, deciding what to leave out, what to embellish, what to change. </p><p>So we would expect each copy to look similar but to be distinctly different. It's like if you and a friend each draw a picture of the same tree, we would expect your pictures to look similar but different when compared to each other. </p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Different Drawings</b></p><p>The issue is not just that there are differences. </p><p>The issue is that nothing at all is copied the same. </p><p>It's hard to imagine Hedlock looking at the vignette while copying it and not getting a single line the same. Yet, he had to be looking at whatever he was copying, in order to copy it. </p><p>It's like two different artists with different styles. Below are a few close-up comparisons, to show what I mean.</p><p>The next step in investigating this would be to break down the stylistic differences in Facsimile 1 and determine if they are real Egyptological variations, because Hedlock, the engraver, would have had no way of knowing how to correctly alter the image (and it seems doubtful he would have felt at liberty to turn it into his own drawing by making up details rather than attempting to copy the ancient document).</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixe74ETm0fQwVE5Emw99WAMvKvrVJvm3N-l9GnH9uYFUAaqWkhEAx6MzF02QmW23CDx8OY49crAZBCboW_Mk6QPXuejuVQcvDKCXAFvepsEXWjOkD31dsiDH7veudCN2_rcnPVFos65FXFPROJKLpj9HKD2amSlVgTKNEoCRARzl6Brs46xXa8A9q3/s979/1a.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="741" data-original-width="979" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixe74ETm0fQwVE5Emw99WAMvKvrVJvm3N-l9GnH9uYFUAaqWkhEAx6MzF02QmW23CDx8OY49crAZBCboW_Mk6QPXuejuVQcvDKCXAFvepsEXWjOkD31dsiDH7veudCN2_rcnPVFos65FXFPROJKLpj9HKD2amSlVgTKNEoCRARzl6Brs46xXa8A9q3/s320/1a.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxO6DfZqm9vXuh7Lt3qzq1OetiQB5NPo9hIGFPVGgnuQs0eyECOsddZ4V3T6pzXvj5ytnMSzR8bxxKidiaMuWbdiHhXv2pG9suX3JpRbov2n6iTGoWGiB82129roulM6YRrIOS8MNKlsONdmHhpnqHOh8n-laS6ae6si0fxIjyJBy-i5lhUYKI4bDu/s850/2b.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="687" data-original-width="850" height="259" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxO6DfZqm9vXuh7Lt3qzq1OetiQB5NPo9hIGFPVGgnuQs0eyECOsddZ4V3T6pzXvj5ytnMSzR8bxxKidiaMuWbdiHhXv2pG9suX3JpRbov2n6iTGoWGiB82129roulM6YRrIOS8MNKlsONdmHhpnqHOh8n-laS6ae6si0fxIjyJBy-i5lhUYKI4bDu/s320/2b.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieiR5mAarZpka1WaqEpQIUWqn_l1F4mLZMr9i0WrWLG-cNZ87z5WUlZoULgKVRQEMSGWWd-YoPCQlhyfUHD5LuR3bMXtfvoyUTLAcsU7diwDxcCoiFWcYI31ogkQo34xxjcJoETyr1fH8LnUYcBxn_DGS1Gs__ZbP7cCfac17D8yQImGrXNRXoqQ7_/s1216/7b.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="749" data-original-width="1216" height="197" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieiR5mAarZpka1WaqEpQIUWqn_l1F4mLZMr9i0WrWLG-cNZ87z5WUlZoULgKVRQEMSGWWd-YoPCQlhyfUHD5LuR3bMXtfvoyUTLAcsU7diwDxcCoiFWcYI31ogkQo34xxjcJoETyr1fH8LnUYcBxn_DGS1Gs__ZbP7cCfac17D8yQImGrXNRXoqQ7_/s320/7b.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS7lUY83Sm6Swb65sHH9corGx6-bZo1XKhFMbzpo3JeMdlT9fsDdu8PICv5DE7irXr6CGd62GWpTCdwwDViSI66k20JL8NJBnCdDxTkl98EGUY_y9-nhI5BsAeXXm-rarNjKTxguML5HbDCUdeL-kEjLGOYbhtIXupmIT4xdTgIeMNS_qDxFRflbM_/s767/8c.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="767" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS7lUY83Sm6Swb65sHH9corGx6-bZo1XKhFMbzpo3JeMdlT9fsDdu8PICv5DE7irXr6CGd62GWpTCdwwDViSI66k20JL8NJBnCdDxTkl98EGUY_y9-nhI5BsAeXXm-rarNjKTxguML5HbDCUdeL-kEjLGOYbhtIXupmIT4xdTgIeMNS_qDxFRflbM_/s320/8c.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM55jV6XvcsoFfo7E5tWQNKXboDVobRLWur_vJeaWzfhN3U_ctR-hnj0sf6Rwsxmkk2qre0MeNEFx05yY5FAusZu4MUxzqlrQyfIh9JK_aZ2pSjCYZ1oW7omF2-_Xfhp3cozL8lVchJlIuwZq1AtE6J8jGcSZfaaFStNI7dp9yULaTB2khTn1xw6pH/s607/9.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="310" data-original-width="607" height="163" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM55jV6XvcsoFfo7E5tWQNKXboDVobRLWur_vJeaWzfhN3U_ctR-hnj0sf6Rwsxmkk2qre0MeNEFx05yY5FAusZu4MUxzqlrQyfIh9JK_aZ2pSjCYZ1oW7omF2-_Xfhp3cozL8lVchJlIuwZq1AtE6J8jGcSZfaaFStNI7dp9yULaTB2khTn1xw6pH/s320/9.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1LF2cwlt1IC-klTgjdh7X648DOan_Qn6iBziqejiGQEMb4x31pzgoe9qmMgtS8M0kzXOJu_bRvwDFbatFT4sAG-ALCZyDVP0A2SpoTWRw2jtHxjygnsuo7Yt4EgHC4thcbMIE_qez2UYzUd6Z8jaegUaIUXPb8-cWkQGQoxnXpnQu1Kt5CuSE-DnC/s493/10a.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="387" data-original-width="493" height="251" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1LF2cwlt1IC-klTgjdh7X648DOan_Qn6iBziqejiGQEMb4x31pzgoe9qmMgtS8M0kzXOJu_bRvwDFbatFT4sAG-ALCZyDVP0A2SpoTWRw2jtHxjygnsuo7Yt4EgHC4thcbMIE_qez2UYzUd6Z8jaegUaIUXPb8-cWkQGQoxnXpnQu1Kt5CuSE-DnC/s320/10a.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyIuhwNJHh1kDZdi6X_e9MzhYd_rXsr_UtwiFNeTgT6kXg53UBV_RFWcjzU_-vzsu8Q9HWdoiNAHOOKJOXpzt41vqDiZJAoMYM7ulhBzakffcQVF8kW0jMtVj_qtxyzWNyO6F1PjYL7F8Ne67DijbKHhko9zMAjQ0fW2m-G65lUbPkBh2R-9l-hWZu/s872/18b.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="460" data-original-width="872" height="169" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyIuhwNJHh1kDZdi6X_e9MzhYd_rXsr_UtwiFNeTgT6kXg53UBV_RFWcjzU_-vzsu8Q9HWdoiNAHOOKJOXpzt41vqDiZJAoMYM7ulhBzakffcQVF8kW0jMtVj_qtxyzWNyO6F1PjYL7F8Ne67DijbKHhko9zMAjQ0fW2m-G65lUbPkBh2R-9l-hWZu/s320/18b.png" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-74910516132006932142022-03-23T10:04:00.000-06:002022-03-23T10:04:00.227-06:00Abraham In Egypt<p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcD8gWJun0RziIgr7D1fH5AmnBMPo_xwguIV2iC93WJcIt57H4BlpRv8UPTP_Y82zSrIWDRHHegNt9GYqCZcFh-sK_b9REoVJmRJ-ZM3Fa2IJUGPt7VENCtD5HvfRC6TGB-0HH15JHse059N6RZ8nhaHyHkcT40Umt-hq5wgWndIHb9QJ1gE5X9A1r/s683/Screenshot 2022-03-23 055704.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="683" data-original-width="355" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcD8gWJun0RziIgr7D1fH5AmnBMPo_xwguIV2iC93WJcIt57H4BlpRv8UPTP_Y82zSrIWDRHHegNt9GYqCZcFh-sK_b9REoVJmRJ-ZM3Fa2IJUGPt7VENCtD5HvfRC6TGB-0HH15JHse059N6RZ8nhaHyHkcT40Umt-hq5wgWndIHb9QJ1gE5X9A1r/s320/Screenshot%202022-03-23%20055704.png" width="166" /></a></p><div style="text-align: left;">Offering table, depicting Abraham in Egypt </div><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>A huge thank you to the philosopher and scholar, Blake Ostler, for informing me of this remarkable evidence. He told me about this after I shared a post regarding the alleged signature of Abraham on Joseph Smith’s papyri. This is by far the best candidate for anything Joseph Smith might have pointed to (if such occurred).</i></span></p><p class="p1" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;">An Egyptologist named Bricarello, who was working at the famous Egyptian Museum in Turin, Italy, told Blake Ostler that the name of Abraham is spelled out on the offering table, alongside the lotus (in the lion couch scene on Joseph Smith’s papyri). </span></p><p class="p2" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 29px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;"></span><br /></p><p class="p1" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;">I haven’t seen Brother Bricarello’s analysis (he had joined the Church), but I took a closer look at the figure, and the spelling becomes quite clear once we take some time to compare characters. </span></p><p class="p2" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 29px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;"></span><br /></p><p class="p1" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;">For many years, we have known the lotus depicted on the offering table represents Upper Egypt (Joseph Smith would have had no personal way of knowing this, of course). But now the evidence becomes exponentially more remarkable as we realize the name Abraham is literally in the symbol of Egypt, making it Abraham IN Egypt, just as Joseph Smith told us. </span></p><p class="p2" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 29px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;"></span><br /></p><p class="p1" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;">The explanation “Abraham in Egypt” always seemed odd. I mean, even if Joseph Smith had been a fraud (which he wasn’t), there would be no apparent reason for coming up with that description. And yet it fits. </span></p><p class="p2" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 29px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;"></span><br /></p><p class="p1" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;">As we gain more knowledge, all of the other things that don’t “make sense” to our fragile mortal minds will start to be illuminated. It will be like learning how every magic trick in the world is performed, and the only thing we will be left to wonder is how we were ever fooled. </span></p><p class="p2" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 29px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;"></span><br /></p><p class="p1" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;">The first sound in Abraham is pronounced differently in Hebrew than it is in Arabic, neither of which pronounces it as an “A” like we do in English. Fittingly, the scribe here gives us a flowering reed hieroglyph (reed “leaf”) with a light “i” sound. </span></p><p class="p2" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 29px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;"></span><br /></p><p class="p1" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;">Next, the scribe gives us a “b” - which is the foot hieroglyph. </span></p><p class="p2" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 29px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;"></span><br /></p><p class="p1" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;">This is followed in correct order, with the “r” - as the mouth hieroglyph. </span></p><p class="p2" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 29px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;"></span><br /></p><p class="p1" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;">Lastly, we have a special hieratic form of “m.” Different scribes draw it differently, so I provide an example of how the scribe drew it in the text of this same papyrus. </span></p><p class="p2" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 29px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;"></span><br /></p><p class="p1" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;">So we have “ab-ra-am,” Abraham. </span></p><p class="p2" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-size: 23px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 29px;"><span class="s1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: center;">click to enlarge image</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7a9NMz7lG4XxfNHLELerWP5r0o0qJwwlCAZQjEpTuX8VQLApjbNDTGMT7p9cTkUCcPtX1PgF0nBCkkucK5ehjowXGaYFrG-H6Vpig3igKw99UILuttXVfEnGv5o5wpPdtD2N4fzkw1USeOIVR8K99qAaYpXu8cOGGtYYjnYpc546I647Wl8_Qg0Vp/s1094/Screenshot 2022-03-23 055704 - Copy2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="858" data-original-width="1094" height="251" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7a9NMz7lG4XxfNHLELerWP5r0o0qJwwlCAZQjEpTuX8VQLApjbNDTGMT7p9cTkUCcPtX1PgF0nBCkkucK5ehjowXGaYFrG-H6Vpig3igKw99UILuttXVfEnGv5o5wpPdtD2N4fzkw1USeOIVR8K99qAaYpXu8cOGGtYYjnYpc546I647Wl8_Qg0Vp/s320/Screenshot%202022-03-23%20055704%20-%20Copy2.png" width="320" /></a></div>Any mistakes I may have potentially made in this post are my own, and do not reflect on Brother Bricarello’s Egyptological analysis.<div><br /></div><div>For more on the reed leaf, see <a href="https://youtu.be/xxdyNMFxwCA" target="_blank">here</a></div><div><br /></div><div>For more on the foot, see <a href="https://youtu.be/6Gy4cFQcvjc" target="_blank">here</a></div><div><br /></div><div>For more on the mouth, see <a href="https://youtu.be/dlnfiYToCfw" target="_blank">here</a></div><div><br /></div><div>For the identification of the hieratic “m” as drawn by the scribe, note that Robert Ritner and others translate the shape, when it appears in the text, as “m” in their translations of the Hor Book of Breathings. <br /><div><br /></div><div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /><p><br /></p><p> </p></div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-1596020420045953152022-02-23T07:46:00.000-07:002022-02-23T07:46:41.834-07:00A Letter On Consciousness <p><i>The following letter is a recent reply I wrote to a friend in an ongoing discussion we had on consciousness. In this reply, I was able to clarify many of my views on this topic - a topic which can be very difficult to communicate about. </i></p><p>Dear (friend),</p><p>Thank you for your thoughtful response on reddit, regarding consciousness. I always find your intellectual honesty refreshing in this world. </p><p>An underlying concern I have in our ongoing discussion on consciousness is that I know it can be difficult to keep in mind that even though supernatural explanations are not accessible to science, that does not mean other explanations - especially problematic explanations - can be logically deduced as a result of the supernatural possibilities being absent from the view of science. </p><p>This is not to say that available evidence can’t lead to inferences. You don’t need any lectures from me on science, but it’s been a while since we’ve delved deep into the topic and I want to make sure that I make clear my stance. I feel like sometimes people take liberties when it comes to consciousness. I’m saying it’s important to evaluate evidence on its own merits, not through a lens of necessity. The old saying, “necessity is the mother of invention” should be avoided as far as the science aspect of our discussion goes, because, I think we would probably agree, science is inductive and is not a list where options can be narrowed down to arrive at truth. </p><p>When looking for answers on the topic of consciousness, not everyone realizes the special place it holds in our sojourn of truth-seeking. It can’t be assumed to be “natural” - and is neither predicted nor accounted for in any naturalistic model of existence. Importantly, this should not be seen as a “gap” in naturalism, because calling it a gap supposes that a framework exists and that details just need to be filled in. That is false and in fact consciousness defies naturalist models. </p><p>With consciousness, we are not talking about a detail but the very substrate through which all our presumed knowledge comes, and which nothing is known to exist outside of. So powerful is this that it could even be a trump card logically, in that brain is not known to exist outside conscious experience. Of course, we both believe brain exists and for all practical purposes our discussion assumes brain exists. But the point stands that we are not dealing with an ordinary topic. </p><p>We have to be careful about unwarranted and unjustifiable assumptions about the way things “should” be, and attempt to analyze things the way they are. For instance, one correlation between brain and consciousness is that people don’t usually remember experiencing consciousness after a period of being “knocked unconscious.” I realize that your approach is able to predict this lack of memory, however I don’t think it is as powerful as one might suppose. Does a lack of memory show that consciousness did not exist during a given time? No. For example, a while ago a drunken man cried to me about the emotional pain he was in and we had a heartfelt talk, but the next day he didn’t remember any of the encounter. I naively assumed he would remember, because, after all, he experienced pretty painful emotions. Does the fact that he didn’t remember mean he had not felt those emotions? Of course not. </p><p>Whatever complexities surround consciousness, the fact we don’t know anything about the framework is cause for pause and humility and recognition of the fact that we can’t draw conclusions as we could in a closed system - i.e. because consciousness is not explainable in a system of knowledge available to us, it tells us there is more to reality than we are aware - and that quite plausibly it could be a lot. I realize that your approach seeks to minimize this by supposing that what is unknown is limited to details about the nature of matter. I don’t find that limitation to be warranted or sustainable. I hope to elucidate my reasoning in this response. </p><p>To begin with, I don’t think you have demonstrated that tension necessarily exists between correlations you cite and the belief that consciousness exists outside physical structures (for instance, I believe in spirits and a veil which prevents me from remembering eons of consciousness I experienced before my physical body. If the type of tension you seem to imply were actually necessary, I would have to reconcile my beliefs with the correlations - but no such tension exists - i.e. my religious beliefs do not contradict any scientific observation). </p><p>Which is all the more reason to just start with “consciousness exists” and from there talk, cautiously but thoroughly, about the implications of correlations. </p><p>While there is intractable tension between consciousnesses and naturalism, there seems to be no necessary tension if we hypothesize the relationship between brain and consciousness as similar to a glove and a hand. It doesn’t explain consciousness but it explains why we would expect correlations, i.e. consciousness, respected as a thing in its own right with potentially a framework unknown to science, allows us to postulate useful interaction between consciousness and brain - whereas treating consciousness as a physical structure of the brain does not allow for meaningful interaction between them (more on this in a bit).</p><p>A hand controls a glove, and a hand feels things through the glove, as they say, except the hand is not actually feeling anything either, and is itself being controlled. The hand is itself like a “glove,” for the brain, and the brain in turn takes on the role of the hand in this relay, but the question is, is the brain actually feeling anything either, or is it - like the hand - just another glove in the relay? </p><p>This is an example of where my opening statements are quite relevant. It’s important to keep in mind that just because science can’t explore certain options, it does not mean they are ruled out logically, and does not mean other ideas, especially intractable ones, can be deduced and advanced just because there is a dearth of options within the limited scope of science. </p><p>Our ability to observe the relay stops right after it is handed off to the brain, so we can’t really see what the brain does with it - we can’t watch the relay reach a conscious point, but we know it does. That’s a limitation of science, and it doesn’t mean we can assume the relay ends. It just means science doesn’t know how the relay gets to consciousness. </p><p>I mean, what if all we could observe was the outer glove that’s on the hand? Would we assume consciousness was created by the glove, or define consciousness as the woven patterns in the fabric of the glove? I assume not. And we wouldn’t apply that thinking to the hand, either, if the hand was the limit of our ability to observe. No matter how strong the correlation. So, we shouldn’t apply that reasoning to the brain. </p><p>You suggest we can use chemicals to influence the experience at the point of the brain. But we could also do things at the point of the hand or outer glove - set it on fire, expose it to poison ivy, novocain on half the hand, use tape or glue - all of which could likewise “cause” changes in the feeling that gets experienced. But that doesn’t mean the glove/hand creates the conscious experience (even if it were all we could observe and correlate with conscious thought). It would just mean (imply) a change in the content that gets relayed, and would tell us nothing about the end user or the point of consciousness in the relay. </p><p>Now, in terms of your argument as presented most recently, what you seem to be addressing primarily is my claim that the most basic starting point for dealing with consciousness is simply saying consciousness exists. As I understand it, your current position is that the most basic starting point for dealing with consciousness is to declare that consciousness exists as part of physical structures, as though the physical structure claim is not an add-on but is inherent in any mention of consciousness. However, I would argue that it is demonstrably an add-on. Our own respective direct observation of consciousness predated and did not rely on you or me knowing about the existence of physical structures which you currently maintain create consciousness. You were in a position to begin to deal with consciousness (had a sense of self, knew about feelings, etc.) before you even knew about the physical structures. Therefore, those physical structures cannot be the most basic starting point for dealing with consciousness. Consciousness started as a thing in its own right. </p><p>And it’s not just chronology, but the concept also. Observing physical structures does not and cannot help anyone learn that consciousness is a thing. One must first realize that consciousness is a thing, by observing it directly, before one can associate it with other things (and a small child who skins their hand might indeed associate the pain with the hand and not with the brain, because the hand is all they can observe in the relay. The same category error people make when projecting conscious experience like pain on the brain). Therefore, the physical structure claim is an add-on and you have a burden of proof. </p><p>I don’t have a good answer as to how one would prove that consciousness must exist “as part of x,” since brain and consciousness are fundamentally different and separate observations. Consciousness of course is totally distinct as an observation (even given the fact that it is the substrate through which we observe and infer the existence of physical structures).</p><p>Now this alone does not, I think, make it impossible to prove that “consciousness must exist as part of x,” but any so-called “proof” would have to be unaffected by the discovery of a mysterious entity which the brain relays data to. Let’s say for instance that some new camera comes along that can capture images of the previously undiscovered objects - about which little is known but they are drawn to brains at a certain point of development in the womb and they sit on them like a cloud and exhibit behavior patterns which correlate with brain patterns and subjective experiences. We each have one and it stays with us from the womb until death. It does not come from the brain but is drawn to it. What would your reaction be to this discovery? If people started saying this thing might be our conscious experience, would you be able to stand up and say, “No, I’ve already proven that conscious experience exists as part of physical brain structures, and here’s my proof…” What would that proof look like? How would you justify calling it a proof? </p><p>Now, you did describe your belief as a hypothesis, which doesn’t seem like a strong word, but you also suggest that it should be accepted as a default starting point for consciousness. </p><p>Your approach has seemed to be about trying to demonstrate through correlation that consciousness emerges somehow from brain. However, I don’t see how that could be an inference from the correlations, since it does not at all explain the correlations (or vice-versa), so it appears you ruled out options that don’t fit science, and ended up with something that isn’t really relevant to the correlations. In other words, taking the consciousness, that is known to exist, and assigning it to physical structures, does nothing to bridge the gap between people experiencing consciousness and people talking about experiencing consciousness. It even makes the situation worse because it shackles consciousness with the limitations of matter, meaning it can only act in a way that says it is matter, which covers up the fact that it is a conscious experience, rendering it unable to make itself known as a conscious experience, which is the very thing it is required to do in order to achieve the correlations. So it creates an intractable problem and doesn’t make any progress towards explaining or solving anything. </p><p>Consciousness has to have the ability to cause the brains of witnesses to make their bodies move in a way that outwardly communicates and bears witness to the reality of the conscious experience. But collective human wisdom can’t begin to explain objectively what conscious experience is like, even though we actually already know what it is like. So it doesn’t make sense that little mechanistic chemical brain processes, with no way of knowing anything, let alone what subjective experience is like, would encounter a neuron permutation with neurochemicals that somehow communicates what conscious experience is like. It only makes sense as a relay of data *to a conscious user and from a conscious user*, not as an identifier of conscious experience existing as part of physical structures. Everything about neurons is about relaying or strengthening/weakening relay signals, in order to accomplish tasks. </p><p>Okay, so what about emergence? Well, my understanding is that, as far as matter is concerned, emergent properties are tidy descriptions, for our convenience, of the way particles/structures move and interact in relation to each other, and the related forces that affect their movement. Conscious experiences, like pain, the color red, the taste of cake, etc. would be complete novelties to that framework. So I feel like attempts to explain consciousness with emergence fail because they are smuggling consciousness into an explanatory framework which is for something totally different. What would be the reasoning behind lumping the taste of cake in with a bunch of descriptions of matter moving around? I realize that talking about the taste of cake involves movement of the body, and thus movement of matter, but that stems from the actual sensation of the conscious experience, which is not a description of matter moving. So the movement of matter in that way could be said to emerge from the conscious experience, which is the opposite of conscious experience emerging from matter. The conscious experience itself is invisible, totally undetectable to science. There is no movement of matter to explain in conjunction with the actual conscious experience. </p><p>As far as I can tell, the reasoning behind the emergence idea is something like this:</p><p>1 - Some things can emerge from matter </p><p>2 - Consciousness is a type of thing</p><p>3 - Therefore, consciousness can probably emerge from matter </p><p>I can see how it might at first appear plausible. But upon closer inspection, it’s more like saying “things come from factories, and consciousness is a thing, so consciousness may have come from a factory.” In other words, a non-explanation:</p><p>1 - Some things that are fundamentally different than consciousness can emerge from matter</p><p>2 - Consciousness is a thing that we are totally unable to comprehend the nature of</p><p>3 - Therefore, consciousness can probably emerge from matter (?!) and this is the default explanation (?!) </p><p>I realize the brain is like a big black box, so it’s easy to see how people can assume it’s capable of everything that gets projected onto it. But it really does make more sense as a relay device than as an end user. Relaying things is literally what neurons do, and is all they are known to do, as alluded to earlier. This can serve as “hardware” like a computer, and obviously gets put to use. But if you take consciousness out of the equation, computers have no value. A conscious end user is required. It can get confusing because a computer can be programmed to act like an end user. But the reason people assume computers can potentially think consciously is because people extrapolate that from the belief that brains can do it. But computers can’t ever do anything that would make the concept of consciousness helpful in explaining their behavior. If a computer talks about consciousness, for example, we can trace that behavior back to the programming and see that it does not reflect any actual experience the computer is having (this should also hold true if people attempted to use a computer to emulate a human brain, i.e. we should be able to trace everything the emulated brain does to the binary code, ultimately, and thus explain it all without room for consciousness to play a role). </p><p>I realize I may be beating a dead horse, but the burden of proof for your add-on is heavy. The idea that consciousness exists as part of physical structures makes all information about the subjective experience benign, unable to have any effect, meaning we would not be able to talk about it. Something else, a brain process outside the conscious experience, would have to be impacted by it in a physical way that somehow communicates that it is a conscious experience - but there does not seem to be any possible way to represent subjective experience in objective ways. I mean, imagine tasting a new food for the first time. The body relays patterns to the brain, which then creates a physical structure which houses the subjective experience of the taste? Okay, then your friend asks you to describe the taste. So you think about the flavor, but how? How do you communicate to yourself about the flavor as you are thinking how to describe it, when the experience of the taste is a physical structure that the mechanical chemical processes of your brain has no way of understanding? And this is even granting that the physical structure is a conscious experience, which itself doesn’t make any sense - and from there does nothing to account for the correlation. So, saying that a subjective experience is a physical object is not only not an explanation but creates an intractable problem. </p><p>In contrast, the idea that the framework of consciousness is able to impact brain activity, is not intractable. Physical objects can be moved. We already know they can be, so the exact mechanism - while unknown - does not create a special problem, because the brain is simply acting as a relay device. </p><p>But why is my explanation not an add-on with a heavy burden of proof? The impact of consciousness on the brain, while it raises questions and has implications, is not some unwarranted conjecture but is an inference from the fact that 1) we have conscious experiences and 2) we then use our brain to have our body talk about the experiences. That allows a direct inference of a relay between consciousness and brain and body. I’m not adding anything that isn’t inferred. </p><p>And, again, the correlations you point to can be accounted for by the general idea of relay, while they can’t be accounted for by adding the idea that subjective experiences are physical objects (because your proposal fatally cripples the ability of conscious experience to participate in the inferred relay, without being helpful in any way). </p><p>Let’s break each category down:</p><p>1 - Individual organism development. I’d like to use an analogy that I used back when we first started discussing consciousness. Since you have never met me in person, your experience of me has only ever been online. It started with some comments on reddit, then expanded from there. Your experience of “me” has changed over time, correct? And it has all been correlated with the internet. Every interaction. Does this indicate the internet created me? Of course not. And this is obvious to you because you independently know the relationship between people and the internet. But even though we don’t have that luxury with regards to consciousness and the brain, so it isn’t as obvious, the analogy still demonstrates that if correlations don’t justify the claim that people emerge from the internet, then correlations likewise don’t mean consciousness emerges from brain. Especially in light of the intractable problems. </p><p>2 - Neuro-biological correlates. Again, like my usage of the internet. Electrical influences can alter your experience of me. Autocorrect, power outages, connection speed fluctuation, screen resolution, etc. but you still aren’t tempted to think the internet creates me. </p><p>3 - Injury data and ablation experiments. If you were to block me on social media, it would change your experience of me. Or if you were to create a fake account and I didn’t know it was you I was interacting with, that would also change your experience of me. If you sent me a file that contained a virus and the virus made it so I could only use half the keys on the keyboard at times and the other half at other times, that would change your experience of me, etc. </p><p>4 - Activity/inactivity of the brain. Activity/inactivity of electrical equipment correlates with your experience of me. We never contact each other when our equipment is off. </p><p>5 - Evolutionary correlates. Society went from having no access to the internet, to having email, then message boards, then more advanced social media, smart phones, videos, etc. The experience people have of each other online has changed a lot over the years. </p><p>.. </p><p>In this message, I believe I have supported each of the following:</p><p>1 - Consciousness exists.</p><p>2 - The existence of consciousness implies the existence of a framework for consciousness.</p><p>3 - From correlations we can infer the existence of a relay between brain and consciousness.</p><p>4 - Number 3 indicates that the framework for consciousness is conducive to the relay with brain, but that may be the only thing we know about it.</p><p>5 - Conjecture about consciousness being a brain structure creates an intractable and unnecessary problem and is not an explanation at all. Nothing about it makes it any sort of candidate for being the framework of consciousness. One might understandably intuit that it gets us closer to answers, because it puts consciousness close to the “action” (i.e. declaring consciousness to be literally part of the brain structures), but proximity doesn’t bestow understanding or explanatory power, and in this case hides consciousness inside a physical structure for no reason, thereby limiting it to the properties of a physical structure (and thereby preventing the subjective merits of consciousness from having any effect, which is highly problematic and irreconcilable with the fact that we talk about consciousness and therefore it does have effects).</p><p>6 - Speaking of consciousness as a thing in its own right is not adding conjecture or unnecessary speculation, but is simply acknowledging the fact of consciousness existing, *without* adding conjecture. This may be confusing when people are attached to their own conjecture to such an extent that when their conjecture is taken away they may *feel* as though conjecture is being added even though the opposite is the case.</p><p>7 - The only apparent reason to add conjecture about consciousness being a brain structure would be to try to anchor consciousness to a naturalistic worldview (naturalistic assumptions, either methodological or ontological).</p><p>..</p><p>In closing, it may be helpful to touch on a larger philosophical framework for our discussion. </p><p>I asked you a while ago, and we briefly discussed, the following question:</p><p>Is there a logical way to determine which of the following statements is more likely to be true, and how much more likely it is to be true?</p><p>1 - Humans know about the vast majority of the types of things that exist</p><p>2 - Humans know about only a tiny fraction of the types of things that exist</p><p>We seemed to agree that it would be difficult to logically favor one over the other. Assuming this means that 2 should be treated as equally plausible, it seems to me that we should not approach the world with a philosophical bias towards 1. </p><p>Now take it a step further. Imagine a boy has lived his entire life in an opaque box floating through space and knows nothing outside of it. He survives because a special symbiotic bacteria lives on him and keeps him hydrated and nourished. If that boy were to ask himself the above question (maybe not with words, but applying it to himself), what would be the most logical way for him to answer? Would 2 not make the most sense? </p><p>Our situation is not identical to that of the boy, because we have a workable explanation for where our bodies came from, and he doesn’t. But, like him, nothing in our box can explain where we came from. What are “we?” We are experiencers of consciousness. </p><p>Like the box, the contents of this conscious substrate is all we know. All our observations and inferences are on “this side of” the box. And nothing in the box can explain where the substrate itself is from or what it is.</p><p>If the boy can logically base his answer on reasoning which is similar to reasoning we can apply in our own case, then that has implications for us, and we may want to identify thresholds and principles, perhaps allowing us to apply Bayesian reasoning to the question at hand. </p><p>I find it highly unlikely that any significant amount of what exists would be available to us for our review and observation as we float around on the pale blue dot. But other people however might think that the limits to what we can discover are a good indication (or a marker?) of us running up against the extent of what “is.” </p><p>I think one of the reasons for the different intuitions may be different assumptions about how much we can comprehend and imagine, relative to what could ultimately be comprehended and imagined. </p><p>As you might know, the U.S. Patent Office shut down at one point (1830) because some people believed that humans had already figured out everything of significance that could be invented. Now, I can see how that might have seemed to make sense. People could look out into the world and see all the familiar things repeated over and over - trees, rocks, rivers. New things were not really part of their everyday lives. </p><p>I see an analogy between that and people who look out into the universe and think we’ve got a pretty good grasp on things. </p><p>Without knowing what is possible, we can fall into the trap of a beginning chess player who learns how to do a 4 move checkmate and can beat all their friends with it - so they think they are a pretty good chess player. I think that sometimes academic credentials can provide that false sense of security (which is not to disparage academic achievement, but to recognize that it is of a significance that is tentative and relative).</p><p>Along similar lines, it may have once seemed like an obvious default for people to assume the earth was the center of the universe and that the burden was to prove otherwise. But that’s based on a fallacy. Similarly, I think it’s a mistake to assume that the true nature of existence is something we can comprehend. That’s putting the cart before the horse and putting our ego at the center of the universe. </p><p>Science is a great tool relative to what we can access and comprehend, but it’s perhaps like an ant crawling around the White House. The ant can see the paint, and dust, crumbs, etc. and the ant is very good at finding things. But it has zero comprehension of the fact that the President is inside the Oval Office, addressing the world via satellite. It can’t even begin to understand any of that. </p><p>Returning to the boy in the box, we can use the box as an analogy for the universe. Just because we are inside this thing, does that mean there is nothing outside of it? Or even that most things - almost everything, even - aren’t likely to be outside of it? If things can be outside, what are the odds that most things would be in here with us instead of out there? If nothing can be outside, then why not? See, we talk about the idea of a multiverse, partly because of implications of string theory but also because we are familiar with the idea of a “universe,” and we think there might be other things “like this” out there existing. But why do we assume things have to be inside a universe just because we are? It’s a little like if the boy in the box wonders if other boxes might exist. A box is all he knows, so he might find it hard to think outside of it. Just like it might be hard for us to envision other things. </p><p>Of course, I’m not saying that existence is a free for all where we assume that anything we imagine must exist. But this is why it is so significant that consciousness is beyond our comprehension and yet we know it is real. It gives us a taste of something that is outside the laws of physics. Science can’t grapple with it. The key is to accept that fact and to consider the implications that it points to. It’s like a hidden clue that’s right in front of us that tells us there’s a lot going on and points us to 2 if we don’t try to force it into 1. </p><p>If we allow consciousness to point us to 2, which it naturally and logically does, we can reasonably posit other conscious beings and thus posit the pairing of our consciousness with our body as a meaningful act initiated by a conscious being. In fact, I think intentional pairing is not just idle speculation but a valid inference. </p><p>In which case LDS theology makes sense of the fact that the being is not revealing itself to objective measures, and of the concept of faith as a consciousness based connection (see https://youtu.be/Pa4J8zivN-w for instance, on the logic of faith). </p><p>Spiritual witness is much harder to criticize when we realize that we don’t know what consciousness is. If we dwelt with God for eons, and He allows us to recognize and remember His voice, even if we don’t remember details of the experiences, faith makes perfect sense. Underneath the noise from the brain is that underlying connection, still intact. Rather than a feeling that one tries to sort out the significance of, it’s an underlying knowledge of things as they are, but with details hidden from view. And it leaves open plenty of room for people to have different purposes in their lives, God speaking to each person’s understanding, etc. </p><p>Thank you for continuing this discussion as time and interest permit. I hope we ultimately reach greater resolution.</p><p>As always, my friend, I welcome and look forward to any pushback/feedback. Sorry this message is so verbose!</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-1624853892211993102022-02-02T07:51:00.018-07:002024-02-07T10:05:43.061-07:00RFM and the Crème de la Crème<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiCSXTCeaGjWbWGxJN6_IMYjcO5BpmC2eiLgOKfKTqXytSR5GQQz8o83ctQoP--0rrfKZYERiHyZVw9mr1pl_KLcHTnfUBeoPRqKiaDuYaXkF7ML_TaI5gEYyZ2bj6a0xbIWG1Tz24XZtWZbZzMWH6uRlFF1Rur9BM68xlfOXflHypetPL8PaDmUBVZ=s823" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="816" data-original-width="823" height="317" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiCSXTCeaGjWbWGxJN6_IMYjcO5BpmC2eiLgOKfKTqXytSR5GQQz8o83ctQoP--0rrfKZYERiHyZVw9mr1pl_KLcHTnfUBeoPRqKiaDuYaXkF7ML_TaI5gEYyZ2bj6a0xbIWG1Tz24XZtWZbZzMWH6uRlFF1Rur9BM68xlfOXflHypetPL8PaDmUBVZ=s320" width="320" /></a></div><p>The reason I focus so heavily on Book of Abraham issues is because a lot of people have concerns on that topic and aren't satisfied with some of the answers available. Real answers require detective work, and pretending we have answers where we don't actually stifles progress because people don't see a need for answers until it's too late and they are confronted with information showing issues exist where they had been led to believe problems were already resolved. That sets people up for bitterness and feeling betrayed by apologetics. Real answers require that we are in the process of discovering bits and pieces and that that's okay. </p><p>So I wanted to start slowly but at the top - with the biggest challenge. This is sort of the David vs. Goliath approach, you might say - i.e. if one were to address a random facet of the Book of Abraham issues, then people say it doesn't matter because it's only one small piece of a larger puzzle. BUT if you take on the Goliath of the bunch, that can show people that every challenge can be addressed - and people are hopefully then willing to give you an opportunity to do so (although in the case of the Philistines, they fled after Goliath fell - and who can blame them).</p><p>Now, I'm just here to give it my best shot - or slingshot - and I'm sure my answer won't satisfy every single person. And that's okay. </p><p>The first thing to do was to identify Goliath. So I enlisted the help of our friendly neighborhood RFM, a particularly bright former apologist who currently sees things through a more critical lens. RFM has always been very courteous towards me, in our limited interactions, and I want to publicly thank him for that, because he's just a good person with whom I happen to disagree.</p><p>So I asked RFM if he could elucidate what exactly the smoking gun looks like to him, with regards to the Book of Abraham, and told him that the reason I was asking is because I would like to dissect it on my blog and attempt to show reasonable doubt.</p><p>RFM kindly replied, as follows (he said I could quote him when I make this post):</p><p></p><blockquote>I feel that Egyptology has advanced to the point where it is clear that Joseph Smith was unable to translate Egyptian. This is pretty indisputable from Facsimile Three alone where Joseph translates the hieroglyphs above the figures incorrectly. This has been known for a long time because we have had the facsimiles with us since their initial publication in 1842. The 64-dollar question is, "What is the king's name?" This is so devastating to apologists that they have had to come up with an argument that Joseph Smith wasn't responsible for the translations of the figures in Facsimile 3. I think this is the main point. It gets rid of all arguments about missing scrolls, etc. I would call the interpretations in Facsimile 3 the smoking gun on the Book of Abraham.</blockquote><p></p><p>Okay. So this is the crème de la crème of anti-Mormon criticism. If we take all the issues, Book of Abraham is at the top, and the Facsimile 3 translations are at the top of that, and the very top king of the hill is the 64-dollar question, "What is the king's name?" </p><p>I thought about this off and on through the holidays, but didn't get a chance to really focus. Fortunately, I ended up in the hospital in early January and had a lot of time to stare at Facsimile 3 while sitting in my hospital bed. Finally, a chance to think. And read the scriptures and seek inspiration.</p><p>One nurse in the ICU wasn't too happy about me taking off the oxygen monitor from my finger (which I did because it impeded my use of the laptop). But, first world problems, as they say. </p><p>Now, a lot of people don't realize that the Egyptologist translations of Facsimile 3 characters are largely translations of other papyri. In other words, they aren't really translating what is there. I didn't realize this until I read Quinten Barney's <a href="https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8598&context=etd" target="_blank">thesis</a>, and then I confess that I saw a certain irony in people making fun of Joseph Smith for the way he used the word "translation," when they rely on Robert Ritner having translated things that weren't even on the item that he was translating. Ritner was a great Egyptologist, but it's funny that the tools of Egyptology treat the word "translation" so loosely even as some people mercilessly mock Joseph for the same thing, while saying that the Egyptological translations of the characters are an example of what real translation looks like. I wrote a response to Ritner, but I just want to say that he seemed like a really good person and I am glad he got involved in the Abraham discussion. Criticism I offer of his methods is not intended to be personal but just reflects the fact that Joseph Smith-related issues are more involved than he in some cases treated them. </p><p>Okay, now that we have identified Goliath, let's size him up. Joseph Smith said that the name of the king is given in the characters. No matter how you dice it, that sounds very straight-forward. Unlike the figures themselves, which could be adapted (like how Christians adapted images of Isis to depict Mary, or how Egyptians adapted images of Semitic deities), we would expect that the characters are going to be pretty explicit. And that makes it a true test. Whereas most arguments against Joseph Smith are based on testimony of people who could be mistaken or lying, or on incomplete context, we seem to have a clear test with the 64-dollar question. That's what makes it Goliath. </p><p>So, what do the characters say? Well, the first character has been a bit of a mystery but I think it looks like one in particular and that's what I would like to talk about first. </p><p>My theory posits the seemingly reasonable idea that Reuben Hedlock, the printer, was drawing something that was on the papyrus. And since the papyrus is damaged, which I don't think anyone disputes, it seems like the most obvious explanation for why the character looks the way it does is that the character is damaged - because the papyrus is damaged. We have plenty of examples of that with characters on this papyrus. The illustration itself is missing, but there are plenty of "extant missing parts" of the roll (as opposed to the "missing" missing parts, you might say). </p><p>Okay, so we are left with a Cinderella slipper, or a fingerprint, and if we try to see if it fits any hieroglyph, it looks to me like it fits exactly one: falcon on the standard. </p><p>The foremost Egyptologist on the falcon (Horus) on the standard, Racheli Shalomi-Hen, <a href="https://www.academia.edu/8258176/Kings_as_Gods_in_the_Early_Egyptian_Writing_System" target="_blank">explains</a> the consistent association between falcon on standard and the king: </p><p style="text-align: center;">click to enlarge </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgnBMfDInZE249mzkjxPWxQtei7nqG1MwLS4IPVKHLFQ5Rc8bF2Tb2evqDhWk8Hj5AEMPaYnC7_j6Pc_CwVvoADPbmA-gM_qvd8XDzarQeimEA5QbxqsliWtjrahIb-o4MZcAVq50h-KlwF7vdwWs_zEMe-9dRRNwVo3lEpw3WJsnJWhlifX_3DReOx=s1023" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="336" data-original-width="1023" height="105" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgnBMfDInZE249mzkjxPWxQtei7nqG1MwLS4IPVKHLFQ5Rc8bF2Tb2evqDhWk8Hj5AEMPaYnC7_j6Pc_CwVvoADPbmA-gM_qvd8XDzarQeimEA5QbxqsliWtjrahIb-o4MZcAVq50h-KlwF7vdwWs_zEMe-9dRRNwVo3lEpw3WJsnJWhlifX_3DReOx=s320" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEic5Ch2KJI0YHxhB0s5PUlKVR39UlswrVtlmgxJuQPkQKG23Ekfih9HxJDximW1yxn1uUbzxWMCzF_tRUidd4LIo7axehANT4jNc_fP3b32x6V2srgdBUZ-1EBEdHDPCb1p8zdUcTcbvSONPQY5IWMFwqWtAjDtHXCU7xQ-1BS4SIXxLVJWn9g3AMOz=s1143" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="487" data-original-width="1143" height="136" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEic5Ch2KJI0YHxhB0s5PUlKVR39UlswrVtlmgxJuQPkQKG23Ekfih9HxJDximW1yxn1uUbzxWMCzF_tRUidd4LIo7axehANT4jNc_fP3b32x6V2srgdBUZ-1EBEdHDPCb1p8zdUcTcbvSONPQY5IWMFwqWtAjDtHXCU7xQ-1BS4SIXxLVJWn9g3AMOz=s320" width="320" /></a></div><h2 style="text-align: center;">The Evidence </h2><p>I am presenting the evidence through the use of slides, since most of the evidence takes the form of visually similar features. </p><p>The downside to presenting the evidence this way is that the reader has to pay close attention to what the slides are showing. But the upside is that the evidence should be easy to follow if the reader does pay attention. </p><p>I think you should be able to click to enlarge each of these. </p><p>The first slide shows two classic examples of what falcon on the standard should look like, and visually compares them with the extant character. I hope that makes sense. To put it another way, we’re seeing if the Cinderella slipper at least looks like a fit. The other slides which follow will show more definitively how the slipper is a custom-made match. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgXBKj39R9ZOHMCyciMcr-UuQGk1n0fHYqWmPZ6tDGosYKmVOrwRTuMxfU1WbAhpg4GsrEw_Hi0Pu0XxBHbucDnmWg8IPQTe6IJ2p6itYuqQtdPdZdRa3ezyxyqypZP0cnv3SVwZTkq-RRLGU0KyhAItWHee7sJj-COeCEs0v9NFuTggezJ1xraaa07=s1120" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="873" data-original-width="1120" height="249" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgXBKj39R9ZOHMCyciMcr-UuQGk1n0fHYqWmPZ6tDGosYKmVOrwRTuMxfU1WbAhpg4GsrEw_Hi0Pu0XxBHbucDnmWg8IPQTe6IJ2p6itYuqQtdPdZdRa3ezyxyqypZP0cnv3SVwZTkq-RRLGU0KyhAItWHee7sJj-COeCEs0v9NFuTggezJ1xraaa07=s320" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>Hopefully you can see what I did there, and will take some time to look over that image and determine whether or not you think falcon on the standard can at least potentially wear that slipper. </div><div><br /></div><div>Next, let’s have a look at a falcon, to see what the parts of the body “in context” are, which you will see depicted soon thereafter. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhT5doM9bcEmgKbLrNOHcRjkeUuf98I45n4WqdSX5xG7pWvRAu-eoLQlHkG-f5vGKoWL4BDkACeDy1dKdCS71R3K7kEhhoNE4d8SfGdLAskbVcgLWinlosxWI4ZJuvUiZOp9cx4SkfRXbNJnrHGEsOo2SrrpFc-2qFI3HmTBMc1_LDMYMgOTRqM3Ke8=s1280" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="1280" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhT5doM9bcEmgKbLrNOHcRjkeUuf98I45n4WqdSX5xG7pWvRAu-eoLQlHkG-f5vGKoWL4BDkACeDy1dKdCS71R3K7kEhhoNE4d8SfGdLAskbVcgLWinlosxWI4ZJuvUiZOp9cx4SkfRXbNJnrHGEsOo2SrrpFc-2qFI3HmTBMc1_LDMYMgOTRqM3Ke8=s320" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Okay, so next let’s look at a piece of evidence which should be very clear. The first picture on the slide shows, on the left, the tip of the character from the papyrus, juxtaposed right up against the corresponding tip of an actual falcon on standard. You’ll notice they are almost exactly the same shape and that they uniquely curve. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">After that, the slide shows an interesting feature on the falcon on standard, which can be seen right next to the tip - and the slide shows how, yet again, the character on the papyrus has a corresponding match. So, the finer points of evidence are starting to build up. Below that, larger pictures of the images are provided so that the reader can have greater context. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhCkk2Boqr1mgEzdFQYgLN5faocyLpxQhxDGQYE3zDdQ4yUxmYFLiYCHhp9tJwxgOilZmFSvoWpPUI9UMKRo6ALkRV1g8hBXDWZuDp6C6saQsLtfZbDOVVVGSSqqM2NiHnVai27vRdi2dFXM9K8-VZO_8lgfim2nV06w47soIyUK_vi64zffKhj10Mk=s1454" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1102" data-original-width="1454" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhCkk2Boqr1mgEzdFQYgLN5faocyLpxQhxDGQYE3zDdQ4yUxmYFLiYCHhp9tJwxgOilZmFSvoWpPUI9UMKRo6ALkRV1g8hBXDWZuDp6C6saQsLtfZbDOVVVGSSqqM2NiHnVai27vRdi2dFXM9K8-VZO_8lgfim2nV06w47soIyUK_vi64zffKhj10Mk=s320" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The key is that the line on the far side not only slants at about the same angle, but the very far tip comes out and turns sharply, all with the same approximate proportions. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Importantly, you will notice that the little torn off section in the upper left (which looks like it is supposed to fit inside the basket directly below it) has the line protruding vertically from the top of it. But it also has a second line, which veers off to the right. What could that second line be? Well, in many falcon on the standard glyphs, the front claw of the falcon extends all the way to that point. So, it seems to be the front claw, which is just one more convergence. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Next, I make the case that the extra piece discussed in the above slide does in fact belong as part of the larger character. And I discuss some of the implications of that. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgCz5rVSQHL-V8Rjvqwe58bOb1id-67RYGbYy1X8IvzuamLru4a2qUFBUyzmC9pF_OLwQefXQ8mMW1Vi5vRbgJRfO5QJgC1k21wFuTSuakXa-xQQixWBCUE6VhD2dIC1_409biSCtt9zNsKFi1xD8hnGv6Amk8uSpHRrR-1_qggMEmhjpe10UYxOxmz=s1728" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1488" data-original-width="1728" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgCz5rVSQHL-V8Rjvqwe58bOb1id-67RYGbYy1X8IvzuamLru4a2qUFBUyzmC9pF_OLwQefXQ8mMW1Vi5vRbgJRfO5QJgC1k21wFuTSuakXa-xQQixWBCUE6VhD2dIC1_409biSCtt9zNsKFi1xD8hnGv6Amk8uSpHRrR-1_qggMEmhjpe10UYxOxmz=s320" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhEL2lVh7hqouHnZ7COmfVXyAAmpHtfSVNYVGMeE8oTD3gd3m55yYFCqmVP7iLquMmjmL4sH_1vUNQ6c31vwo0P8jDBf3uw4LNLRa6dri15cE7P9FAxYESH3u_q7OVTQ6bY9JQZHSYl6szi3hOgBSouxyfuGwyfREHyjB0dgJq-WFXYyhafwR9a0lkW=s1206" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1100" data-original-width="1206" height="292" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhEL2lVh7hqouHnZ7COmfVXyAAmpHtfSVNYVGMeE8oTD3gd3m55yYFCqmVP7iLquMmjmL4sH_1vUNQ6c31vwo0P8jDBf3uw4LNLRa6dri15cE7P9FAxYESH3u_q7OVTQ6bY9JQZHSYl6szi3hOgBSouxyfuGwyfREHyjB0dgJq-WFXYyhafwR9a0lkW=s320" width="320" /></a></div><div>The claw comes next, which is found on the papyri character exactly as it is found on the falcon on standard examples. This is just a fine point and such a delicate little mark found in just the right spot, precisely. To me it is very powerful evidence and I’d be interested to know how anyone would be able to see it as anything other than a precise convergence.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgfbA8Gsxb3Gy8WvUIZ6fLg9ta5f3ZDjDT7Np2s7WJZDXOikA-74eZUXdEAOQpNkllXTH1ZUs9rTzL1OZAZcots1os1LHyu9WBwDk5Lj152LfXW3Yx73xz3g2iIbeQAu2xNuR4thlt625N9OLqThMSebsgahW-VnG3I3HCAwHHJxDqutH28UGrSEx5H=s1174" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1174" data-original-width="972" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgfbA8Gsxb3Gy8WvUIZ6fLg9ta5f3ZDjDT7Np2s7WJZDXOikA-74eZUXdEAOQpNkllXTH1ZUs9rTzL1OZAZcots1os1LHyu9WBwDk5Lj152LfXW3Yx73xz3g2iIbeQAu2xNuR4thlt625N9OLqThMSebsgahW-VnG3I3HCAwHHJxDqutH28UGrSEx5H=s320" width="265" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">For more on the claw, see the appendix.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">Again we have another interesting convergence showing that what we would expect to be in a precise spot actually shows evidence of being there. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgLv4UrcdmbwfBu93xuGBdmOnrlQGp-8gu018DumWHi8OsJeoPUQt8ywa2eynb-6Hdq_0zebaM1AyBDZvm5I9iP1nr_VCPFe3-fwbBL7l79_YIxvA6znN2oZxhpBGUmLf5Xa_8it6CX-OuGmE3QmieYPZEdeQEyfjzHOOe-kZ788C0eNamsqK4zF8Iu=s1080" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1012" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgLv4UrcdmbwfBu93xuGBdmOnrlQGp-8gu018DumWHi8OsJeoPUQt8ywa2eynb-6Hdq_0zebaM1AyBDZvm5I9iP1nr_VCPFe3-fwbBL7l79_YIxvA6znN2oZxhpBGUmLf5Xa_8it6CX-OuGmE3QmieYPZEdeQEyfjzHOOe-kZ788C0eNamsqK4zF8Iu=s320" width="300" /></a></div>The next slide shows that confusion can be cleared up over the appearance of wing feathers. A break in the line causes ink to push forward and get in the way of seeing leg feathers. But the leg feathers are there, and that is one more solid piece of evidence showing that the character is falcon on standard. <br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjx7vqWOhBEbAGLcNQXs8UcTDPMQOcIrc8wu1NmO4tHmv48WtaYnRiGIWLjecNsdPCfBxaGI2ky18xVP6UfGH-f4-jLRsxb4sGVID6jMGcXBGbk_espTSwQ1AS8xRZoUkI6yjQAqpP7M5EBsstJMwHlnPUR1eimXk487jBhqaX5WdDfWOhL9BIsgtgE=s1276" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1276" height="301" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjx7vqWOhBEbAGLcNQXs8UcTDPMQOcIrc8wu1NmO4tHmv48WtaYnRiGIWLjecNsdPCfBxaGI2ky18xVP6UfGH-f4-jLRsxb4sGVID6jMGcXBGbk_espTSwQ1AS8xRZoUkI6yjQAqpP7M5EBsstJMwHlnPUR1eimXk487jBhqaX5WdDfWOhL9BIsgtgE=s320" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>When I first posted this, I left out the tail feathers slide. It's one more convergence on top of everything else:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiMG4W2wCCxJY9LxyhrYWYdtytX8VbUV692chOB9xp-0k9nQP_dwMFukfIqErdnBmUHFBX03SYeebq_sI2Q9jGlb4ou3KO9bPO1QDm9uN0i6LhetFbvFvwOSr6Ma8OeCgNXspyz2XUzV6TEx5E56JOysCLXlDL7wpzLqh4wxy_qwNovlDxXwqfoCe_b=s567" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="554" data-original-width="567" height="313" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiMG4W2wCCxJY9LxyhrYWYdtytX8VbUV692chOB9xp-0k9nQP_dwMFukfIqErdnBmUHFBX03SYeebq_sI2Q9jGlb4ou3KO9bPO1QDm9uN0i6LhetFbvFvwOSr6Ma8OeCgNXspyz2XUzV6TEx5E56JOysCLXlDL7wpzLqh4wxy_qwNovlDxXwqfoCe_b=s320" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>Facsimile 3 has a falcon drawn in the text underneath the main scene. Although this falcon would naturally have a variety of different features than a falcon on standard, the scribe should have some idiosyncrasies we would expect to find in both falcons. This one turns a weakness into a strong convergence:<div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8hNO2IvO9A0q1XqC17XLKoAvJVa1FNjr4CFSMGKHU8_0y_-_FgDzez9Pi6aP4-n57LfJmv_PZOFyaff2qwHODTcpQ-3byp1lZfNupjnJ4ahIAC18o99o2Trd6zNZyA9wW-5Gcg4YGJzKTy1FB26hqaIudKR9rqKzL1rVmOS4iW4_ryuKecagK_jnZ5GA/s1355/falcon%20leg.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1355" data-original-width="973" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8hNO2IvO9A0q1XqC17XLKoAvJVa1FNjr4CFSMGKHU8_0y_-_FgDzez9Pi6aP4-n57LfJmv_PZOFyaff2qwHODTcpQ-3byp1lZfNupjnJ4ahIAC18o99o2Trd6zNZyA9wW-5Gcg4YGJzKTy1FB26hqaIudKR9rqKzL1rVmOS4iW4_ryuKecagK_jnZ5GA/s320/falcon%20leg.jpg" width="230" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>To bring everything together now, consider the size, shapes and proportions:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggYlFucToL8iWvEXUBKK2AnBb60SB1p_sYqxJYbUwXaAisPq3aMIfATi1Wx4V0n2ft54nyg0dEG-twuDmaanV4GnolBHch-lb3YNBkUv8iDbcS3HTFI6nc0J26Sg2vBpn4ZtVgWuw1D8Mf6mrHvhmLlEidbGcIkKpvRPmTrnhvk1v8sOI_RuT_eX-MvE4/s2125/Size,%20Shapes%20and%20Proportions.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2125" data-original-width="1918" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggYlFucToL8iWvEXUBKK2AnBb60SB1p_sYqxJYbUwXaAisPq3aMIfATi1Wx4V0n2ft54nyg0dEG-twuDmaanV4GnolBHch-lb3YNBkUv8iDbcS3HTFI6nc0J26Sg2vBpn4ZtVgWuw1D8Mf6mrHvhmLlEidbGcIkKpvRPmTrnhvk1v8sOI_RuT_eX-MvE4/s320/Size,%20Shapes%20and%20Proportions.jpg" width="289" /></a></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>Now, that’s the evidence. It adds up, and together seems very strong to me. If I am right about it being falcon on standard, then I think there are some strong implications. It seems to prove that the scribe was in fact adapting the illustration for a unique purpose. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2023/05/bastet-book-of-abraham-and-restoration.html" target="_blank">See how this post fits in with my new "Restoration Theory."</a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Appendix: Additional Notes On The Claw</span></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Click Images To Enlarge</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJ072CfSZbhCllkYl2cqbE1EjpwxaO0GTl8opBlCMEtgUS7tiYBenP0mQ1rf9IY7V7lPKwjwDMtfX4zSI-ZsW-A_beipEaCW85gbIzRCcz-wu1wdvbk0UW97BO3fc4JtDwvvtBiK14VS0fTJgOqOmGfxuB_DB0d-e9vnHE-ddvSW5X8ddrkwXZmtDfjeI/s3135/claw%20example.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1476" data-original-width="3135" height="151" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJ072CfSZbhCllkYl2cqbE1EjpwxaO0GTl8opBlCMEtgUS7tiYBenP0mQ1rf9IY7V7lPKwjwDMtfX4zSI-ZsW-A_beipEaCW85gbIzRCcz-wu1wdvbk0UW97BO3fc4JtDwvvtBiK14VS0fTJgOqOmGfxuB_DB0d-e9vnHE-ddvSW5X8ddrkwXZmtDfjeI/s320/claw%20example.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ7sVSb0uk2R506C3uP0447sJbzSPrd3BuRIQOHd0JTwxrscwGAsS7F5s-0WJviF_t6jBT5EskNnTMi17EQppg763fI8NjSTeSAFYvCyuF8X-PYwMil0dRC1oTPtXqr3yXNrl-3q1FHO01eLJAXMzePEuWwRVKIOzsQK6m4d_q0d0Rb0KEY3UfE_jx/s1508/344298861_223490083754917_5442102962351477680_n.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="876" data-original-width="1508" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ7sVSb0uk2R506C3uP0447sJbzSPrd3BuRIQOHd0JTwxrscwGAsS7F5s-0WJviF_t6jBT5EskNnTMi17EQppg763fI8NjSTeSAFYvCyuF8X-PYwMil0dRC1oTPtXqr3yXNrl-3q1FHO01eLJAXMzePEuWwRVKIOzsQK6m4d_q0d0Rb0KEY3UfE_jx/s320/344298861_223490083754917_5442102962351477680_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9DSLWNBa8WE077A5UPhRj6bpAdFPUttVtxFCDxMCoiuu851ecfFtkxSquCWioajbwAa8AgstWkjNqZbduy5gLiF5CgOWpi6Gez3GQC5OuTzuHKAmcfQl8cfFfHhRGtBR7emclDHrBwb97Ee8zXQ6bwDVn0x1LQUbWcqr5g7caW6UNpsITjs6IVXLh/s1298/Screenshot%202023-05-13%20132150.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1006" data-original-width="1298" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9DSLWNBa8WE077A5UPhRj6bpAdFPUttVtxFCDxMCoiuu851ecfFtkxSquCWioajbwAa8AgstWkjNqZbduy5gLiF5CgOWpi6Gez3GQC5OuTzuHKAmcfQl8cfFfHhRGtBR7emclDHrBwb97Ee8zXQ6bwDVn0x1LQUbWcqr5g7caW6UNpsITjs6IVXLh/s320/Screenshot%202023-05-13%20132150.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDRIza-nIe92XUaFfAs8NVQXV1Dgl5XLLN4RMIz6YNGajkSJS5WeDQ_mBfuApqAEAX0KJfiLI9NG_NVLvH9USnr7Tu26ptJ8wbz0n6tbpq24mH350aIKoZnBRVtvKa7u-V90ilHriXmA2yU-FK2qvQLXaP3vz1FuylUf__8QNkYbxyvEGBI6tdTCBd/s1678/Screenshot%202023-05-13%20134600.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="798" data-original-width="1678" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDRIza-nIe92XUaFfAs8NVQXV1Dgl5XLLN4RMIz6YNGajkSJS5WeDQ_mBfuApqAEAX0KJfiLI9NG_NVLvH9USnr7Tu26ptJ8wbz0n6tbpq24mH350aIKoZnBRVtvKa7u-V90ilHriXmA2yU-FK2qvQLXaP3vz1FuylUf__8QNkYbxyvEGBI6tdTCBd/s320/Screenshot%202023-05-13%20134600.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-58203903147858492602022-01-11T07:10:00.000-07:002022-01-11T07:10:23.674-07:00The Burden Of Proof<p><span style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">To the extent that our critic friends attempt to disprove something, the burden of proof is on them. Likewise, to the extent a believer attempts to prove something, the burden of proof is on the believer. And so forth.</span></p><span style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">For instance, if the believer asserts that details in the text of the Book of Abraham correlate with details in other ancient stories about Abraham, and cites this as evidence that the Book of Abraham is authentic, the critic can counter this if they can show that contemporary sources of that information were likely available to Joseph Smith. The critic does not need to prove that Joseph used those contemporary sources, only that it is plausible that Joseph used them, in order to show that the believer's deductive argument is not sound (of course, if enough examples pile up, and if the only plausible sources are obscure, the critic may need to account for how Joseph could have acquired the sources and had time to study them, etc., and that could potentially affect the plausibility which the critic needs to show). </span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">However, this goes both ways.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">For instance, if the critic asserts that believers can never theorize a "loose" translation of the Book of Mormon, because David Whitmer described the process by saying Joseph would see English words appear and then read them out loud, believers can counter this by pointing out that the burden is on the critic to demonstrate that Whitmer's understanding is not only reliable but is incompatible with a loose translation.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">When either believer or critic is cornered like this, they may find it tempting to simply say that their conclusion is clearly the only logical one. Ironically, when they say something like this, they are actually appealing to intuition rather than to logic. I think this is the point where constructive communication often breaks down.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">In the loose translation case, the critic could demonstrate reliability by pointing out that Martin Harris, apparently independently, provided a somewhat similar, though not identical, description of the translation process. However, neither man claimed to know why each specific set of words would appear, rather than different sets of words. We can't assume they had a complete understanding. Even Oliver did not understand. In D&C 9, the process seems to involve studying it out in his mind and then finding out if the wording he has come up with is acceptable to God.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">We don't know what Joseph experienced during the translation process. We don't know if he even remembered all of it, or if it was like a dream he only recalled faint bits and pieces of. And, importantly, we don't know what criteria God used for approving Joseph's translation. Given that human language is inherently flawed, God may have approved Joseph's word choices based on how well they reflected Joseph's best efforts, rather than how close to "perfection" they came (see Ether 12:25-26). So, Joseph could have plausibly chosen the wording and then, if God approved, the wording would appear for him to read.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Some critics might say there wasn't enough time for Joseph to choose words. But, again, it is their burden to demonstrate this. Neither Harris nor Whitmer specified, and although we could get into calculations of how many pages were translated in certain amounts of time, and how long it might take a scribe to write each sentence, and so forth, ultimately it is not the believer's burden. Still, this may be a good opportunity to illustrate how intuition can be flawed. Since Joseph performed his translation through the gift and power of God, time is somewhat moot. An</span><span style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><a data-auth="NotApplicable" href="https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-spectacles-the-stone-the-hat-and-the-book-a-twenty-first-century-believers-view-of-the-book-of-mormon-translation/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #888888; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">Interpreter article</a><span style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-size: 13.2px;">by Roger Nicholson reports this insight from Matthew B. Brown: “Joseph Smith reportedly said in 1826, while under examination in a court of law, that when he first obtained his personal Seer stone he placed it in his hat, and discovered that time, place, and distance were annihilated; that all intervening obstacles were removed, and that he possessed one of the attributes of Deity, an All-Seeing Eye." Brown goes on to note that Brigham Young confirmed this view: "When Joseph had a revelation he had, as it were, the eyes of the Lord. He saw as the Lord sees.”</span></span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">At this point, a critic might characterize a believer's reliance on "loose translation" as an argument from absence unless the believer can prove it. But, again, context does matter here. If a believer is responding to a critic's attempt to disprove, then the believer is free to stipulate something like loose translation, given that it is at least plausible, because the burden of proof is on the critic. However, if a believer makes an argument trying to prove something about the Church, but the argument is only sound if loose translation is true, then no matter how valid the argument is, it will only hold weight against the critic to the extent the believer is able to provide evidence that a loose translation model is viable.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">To illustrate this, imagine you own a bank, and you only share the vault combination with the manager. One day, a large sum of money is missing from the vault. Would it be logical to accuse the manager of either stealing it or sharing the combination with someone else? Seemingly so. But what if someone claims that the Great Pumpkin could have stolen it without unlocking the vault? Doesn't matter, right? Because, even though it is being offered in defense, the Great Pumpkin explanation has not been shown to be plausible. However, what if someone points out that there's a huge hole in the wall of the vault, cut from the outside? Would your deductive case against the manager still hold up unless the manager is able to actually prove that the burglar came in through the hole? Or, would the mere existence of the hole blow a hole in the deductive argument against the manager? The manager would <i>not</i> need to show that the burglar actually came in through the hole. </span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Now, as an aside, what's the difference between believing in God and the Great Pumpkin? Well, where does one's knowledge of God come from, and where does one's knowledge of the Great Pumpkin come from? The difference is revelation.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">In all the world, only the God of Abraham has left not just written stories or myths but documents that actually detail His ongoing interactions with man, recorded by the very societies of people (a "chosen people") who experienced the events, like a journal, as these events unfolded over hundreds and thousands of years. This same God promises to speak directly to us individually, and millions of people bear record that He has done so. Believing because of revelation is not blind faith. I saw an article saying “blind faith in religion” destroys critical thinking. I think these people may be confusing their personal intuition with objective logic. Can they calculate the probability of a personal God existing? I don’t think so. With science mostly now believing in a multi-verse, where infinite things are possible, including things which defy our laws of physics, and with infinite unknowns and inherent limits on man’s ability to comprehend, there’s no way to objectively calculate the probability of a personal God existing. What we can deduce however is that if a personal God exists, that being is choosing to not reveal Himself to us in a scientific, objective fashion. That does not mean He is not revealing Himself, however. Why would anyone think such a being would be incapable of revealing Himself to individuals, making Himself known on His terms? The default position is not “no God.” The default position should simply be, “we humans ought to be humble about how little we know - we can’t even comprehend what space, time, energy, matter or consciousness are - we can only observe aspects of how they interact. The fact that intelligence exists is inductive evidence that more intelligence can exist. The fact that matter, time, energy, consciousness, etc. exist is inductive evidence that other forms of these things can exist other than the forms we have been exposed to in our limited ability to observe reality.”</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-77542887587523883832020-09-10T08:46:00.010-06:002022-01-11T07:11:53.489-07:00LDS Simulation Theory<p>In the following video, Neal deGrasse-Tyson discusses the probability that we are living in a simulation. He ends up calling it a 50/50 chance (<a href="https://youtu.be/pmcrG7ZZKUc" target="_blank">if the video fails to load, you can watch it here</a>):</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pmcrG7ZZKUc" width="320" youtube-src-id="pmcrG7ZZKUc"></iframe></div><p>I would like to point out some similarities between the simulation idea and the LDS concept of "mortal probation."</p><p>First, both ideas accept the plausibility of beings existing which are far more advanced than ourselves.</p><p>Second, both ideas posit that these advanced beings created a controlled set of circumstances which they could monitor, observe and adjust as they desire (through a veil or advanced technology, respectively). </p><p>Third, in both cases conscious beings are placed into the controlled circumstances and allowed to act out lives.</p><p>Fourth, in both cases the advanced beings intentionally limit the amount of knowledge available to the conscious beings who are acting out lives under the controlled circumstances. They are intended to act with limited knowledge.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now, some questions arise, here.</p><p>First, there are ethical questions. The simulation idea faces the ethical problem of creating conscious beings and then making them suffer. The mortal probation idea, however, does not face this problem because it says the conscious beings chose and prepared to enter the controlled circumstances, in advance, in order to gain understanding prerequisite to special rights and privileges, such as the ability to form special family bonds in eternity and the right to serve others as a parental leader within those family connections.</p><p>Second, the question arises as to why our knowledge is limited. The mortal probation paradigm answers this naturally, because the "veil," which keeps our knowledge limited, does not block our relationship with God, even though we don't remember the details of it. What this means is that we can and do communicate with God, whether we know it or not. God entices us to make certain choices, while other factors entice us to make different choices, and we decide what we will do. Our knowledge therefore is limited in order to allow for this special process. In the First Estate, we chose based on greater knowledge. In this probationary period, we exist in a world of confusion and ignorance and we still feel God and we choose based on a direct relationship with God, without our memories of God, and that is called faith.</p><p>Third, there's the question of consciousness. The simulation theory assumes consciousness can be produced with software. This assumption is based on the idea that a neural network can be emulated with different substrates. However, this relies on the assumption that neural networks can actually create consciousness in the first place, which is problematic because consciousness is categorically different from anything in the empirical model of existence. It is a mistake to think we have deduced that the brain creates consciousness. For instance, it is true that someone can be "knocked unconscious" from the perspective of brain activity, but this does not mean the person is actually not conscious during that period. Instead, it only means the person does not remember later being conscious during that period. This fits perfectly with the concept of a veil of forgetfulness. In this context, brain patterns can be seen as perhaps a language through which the mortal body communicates with the spirit body. </p><p>In its proper context, consciousness is inductive evidence that the empirical model of existence is as a metaphorical bubble. Consciousness is akin to a ray of light shining into that bubble, indicating to us that things exist outside the bubble. </p><p>Fourth, both simulation theory and the idea of a mortal probation require and implicate the idea of Intelligent Design. <a href="https://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2014/03/intelligent-design.html">To read my post on Intelligent Design, click here</a>. </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-89243037532037432292020-08-02T17:13:00.002-06:002020-08-02T17:43:39.930-06:00Did Oliver Cowdery Really Claim There Was A "Book of Joseph?" My theory, as explained in my <a href="https://meditationsandmeaning.blogspot.com/2020/05/meditations-on-vogel.html" target="_blank">response to Dan Vogel</a>, is based on a careful reading of witness statements. In the Fourth Meditation, I go through each of the primary witness statements and discuss their implications. It appears Joseph of Egypt wrote a record containing some of Abraham's writings, and from this Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham. The account from Joseph Smith III is particularly interesting, because he recounts what happened specifically to the papyrus containing the writings of Abraham, as opposed to the papyri collection as a whole. Significantly, he implies that when Joseph Smith found the papyrus it was in a roll containing another papyrus (it was bound together with the Book of Breathings?) and he also states clearly that it was sold by William Smith (as noted in my response to Vogel, the bill of sale for the papyri collection does not include the papyrus containing Abraham's writings).<br />
<br />
For purposes of this post, I'm focusing on Oliver Cowdery's statements.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtXXPkEKFc_uafebMYjC2kR-IM5kCgCCL3Yc0WMMD5xtMlhz6qF1-SNH9jCJGf9Zme5YvqWKuvDB6zWW9iRKsq1yAUY7XMQCGhyphenhyphencUKkcS6JL9y1NL68GNzWIrhmG0M7Yru5_gvtShyphenhyphenQmI/s1600/Oliver-Cowdery.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="393" data-original-width="600" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtXXPkEKFc_uafebMYjC2kR-IM5kCgCCL3Yc0WMMD5xtMlhz6qF1-SNH9jCJGf9Zme5YvqWKuvDB6zWW9iRKsq1yAUY7XMQCGhyphenhyphencUKkcS6JL9y1NL68GNzWIrhmG0M7Yru5_gvtShyphenhyphenQmI/s320/Oliver-Cowdery.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
According to Vogel, "Cowdery gave a detailed description of the record of Joseph that leaves no doubt that he was referring to Ta Sherit Min's Book of the Dead ... Joseph Smith therefore identified Ta Sherit Min's scroll with the record of ancient Joseph, just as he had identified Hor's scroll with the Book of Abraham."<br />
<br />
Oliver Cowdery's letter, printed in the Messenger and Advocate (December 31, 1835), was actually two letters to a man named William Frye, which an editor took excerpts from and pieced together to publish as one letter.<br />
<br />
These letters are not actually in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery. They were copied by other people (James M. Carrel and possibly an additional person) and stored in at least one <a href="https://catalog.huntington.org/search/?searchtype=l&SORT=D&searcharg=mssHM+63646-63653" target="_blank">letterbook</a>. One page that I know of from one of the letters is currently <a href="https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/certificate-from-michael-chandler-6-july-1835/1#historical-intro" target="_blank">available</a>. I suspect the Joseph Smith Papers Project will acquire and publish the other parts of the letters.<br />
<br />
The two most important words, "Joseph's Record," appear in parentheses in the Messenger and Advocate article. As a simple matter of fact, we might never be able to track down who wrote this. I'm not basing my argument on that, but it is a matter of fact. The words may have been in the original letter, which we no longer have. Or, they may have been added by the person who copied Oliver's letter. Or, as far as I currently know, they may have been added by the editor of the Messenger and Advocate.<br />
<br />
Let us first consider what it would mean if Cowdery himself inserted this, and then address some complexities. People have assumed Cowdery was referring to Joseph of Egypt. However, as I will argue, the context would indicate he was referring to Joseph Smith.<br />
<br />
Being in parentheses, the words "Joseph's Record" are clearly intended to be a clarification. If we can identify a reason why Cowdery would think it necessary to add a clarification in this exact spot, it may help us paint a more accurate picture.<br />
<br />
What, then, is the most likely explanation for why Cowdery would find it necessary to insert a clarification in this exact spot? Was there something in the text which made it necessary?<br />
<br />
Cowdery had just told us that Enoch wrote a record. And Cowdery had been giving us details about it, saying it was a history and that Enoch placed this history into pillars, and Cowdery told us they were still around in Josephus's day.<br />
<br />
My explanation, based on the text: when he tells us they were around in Josephus's day, Cowdery says, "his," then inserts in parentheses, "Josephus," clarifying that he was talking about Josephus as opposed to Enoch. Then he says, "the inner end of the same roll" and realizes the reader might think he is still referring to Enoch's record, because he uses the phrase "the same," which is significant because the last record he had mentioned had been Enoch's (and, presumably, Enoch had written on rolls). Cowdery, a teacher aware of proper grammar, thus sees a need to let the reader know that he is no longer talking about Enoch's record but is again talking about Joseph Smith's roll which he had been describing before he entered a tangent on Enoch's record.<br />
<br />
<i>In other words, within the space of ten words he felt a need to clarify not only that he was <u>not</u> talking about Enoch, but also a need to clarify that he was <u>not</u> talking about Enoch's record.</i><br />
<br />
So, in both parentheses, he clarifies that he is not talking about Enoch, and in those parentheses clarifies that he is instead talking about Josephus and Joseph Smith, respectively. Specifically, in the case of Joseph Smith, that he is again talking about one of Joseph's Egyptian records, i.e. "the same" one he had been describing just prior to talking about Enoch's record, which is why he wrote, "the same," before realizing that the last record he had mentioned was Enoch's.<br />
<br />
Since Cowdery's reader, William Frye, would have already understood that what Cowdery had been describing was one of Joseph Smith's Egyptian records, it makes sense for Cowdery to refer back to Joseph Smith. It would make much less sense for Cowdery to refer "back" to Joseph of Egypt in Cowdery's contrast with Enoch, because Cowdery had not claimed that the drawings he had been discussing were on Joseph of Egypt's record, so there is nothing to refer "back" to. Instead, Cowdery couched his descriptions in the context of characters which Michael Chandler had asked Joseph to translate. That is the roll from Joseph Smith's collection which he had been discussing.<br />
<br />
Cowdery begins his analysis of that record, the record Chandler had asked Joseph to translate a small part of, stating: "the language in which this record is written is very comprehensive, and many of the hieroglyphics exceedingly striking..."<br />
<br />
It is likely that Joseph's "translation" for Chandler was just his initial impressions of the vignettes, identifying a serpent and so forth, which is the only way to account for Chandler's claim, if truthful, that Joseph's interpretation matched the interpretations of other people he had talked to.<br />
<br />
Chandler, having something to sell, and not likely believing Joseph could actually translate, may have set it up as a softball for Joseph Smith, to avoid putting him on the spot, while using it as an opportunity to generate enthusiasm. If this had been Chandler's plan, I imagine he would have followed through regardless of what Joseph said about them. The consideration here is that Oliver segues the Chandler episode into describing those vignettes.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Further complicating the issue at hand is the fact that Oliver's two letters to Frye were in reply to a letter from Frye to a woman named Elisha Groves, in which Frye apparently asked numerous questions. Cowdery was replying in her behalf. So, Oliver's statements in the letters do not stand on their own but are in <i>response</i> to a series of questions. However, we no longer have Frye's letter and we do not know what specifically he asked or how his phraseology may have affected Cowdery's wording.<br />
<br />
Therefore, Cowdery's letters are, by definition, out of context.<br />
<br />
The Messenger and Advocate printed Oliver's letters but Oliver did not write them as letters to the newspaper. Since Oliver's statements in those letters were answers to questions on content raised in Frye's letter, and since the editor would not have been aware of that content, this could lead to misunderstanding. For instance, Frye may have asked about the contents of Joseph Smith's record which he translated for Chandler, which would explain why Oliver in response may have mentioned Joseph by his first name only, which Frye would understand in the context of his question, but which may cause someone else, looking at only one side, to misunderstand the reference. Another observation worth noting is that the words "Joseph's" and "Josephus'" sound and look almost identical, and here we have both words appearing in parentheses in a short sequence of words. The presence of "Josephus" without a last name may have made the word "Joseph's" flow naturally without a last name as well, in addition to the aforementioned fact that Cowdery was likely replying in a context Frye had already established regarding Joseph Smith, and thus no need for a last name.<br />
<br />
Also, Joseph of Egypt can be expected to be referred to with qualifying language such as "Joseph of Egypt," "the Patriarch Joseph," etc. unless it is already firmly established. And in this case, it was not established at all, let alone firmly established. While, in contrast, Joseph Smith was often referred to simply as "Joseph" by early Saints.<br />
<br />
Now, regarding the copy of Cowdery's letter. First we should point out that some types of alterations were considered acceptable.<br />
<br />
Consider the copy, in that letter, of Michael Chandler's certificate. Following convention, the word "signed" is placed in parentheses. There is nothing dishonest about this, however the word "signed" almost certainly did not appear in Chandler's actual certificate. It is added in an attempt to clarify for the reader, following accepted conventions.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg62xVrOrs5JEwKTdlc9WXzMaJlNQnqRXD6_Qp73wcF0Vsg_6PqeYeoqvtNpR2rSdta99aP8BFafOULdszeL1B42onMZiQ-piRQRQH8bB1FCMoL4Bn1saKIfplZVMOfEyZzTOxO7wlAKTo/s1600/from+cowdery+letterbook2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="1202" height="89" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg62xVrOrs5JEwKTdlc9WXzMaJlNQnqRXD6_Qp73wcF0Vsg_6PqeYeoqvtNpR2rSdta99aP8BFafOULdszeL1B42onMZiQ-piRQRQH8bB1FCMoL4Bn1saKIfplZVMOfEyZzTOxO7wlAKTo/s320/from+cowdery+letterbook2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
This example does not create uncertainty, because it is a clear-cut use of the convention, and the person copying Chandler's certificate understood that Michael Chandler was not merely writing his name but was signing a document.<br />
<br />
However, editors and copyists do not always understand intent so clearly, and liberties they take can misrepresent source material.<br />
<br />
If one wants to say that Cowdery's use (or possibly the copyists's use) of the words "Joseph's record" is unrelated to the description of Enoch's record, one would need to provide a better explanation for why Cowdery would feel a need to interrupt the flow of his letter to insert those words.<br />
<br />
If Oliver supposedly thought the Ta-sherit-Min roll was written by Joseph of Egypt, that doesn't comport with him indicating that it is obvious from the illustrations that the people who drew them had an understanding of the gospel - because, of course, Joseph of Egypt had an understanding of the gospel. That should go without saying, hardly a new revelation worth reporting on. And, Cowdery speaks of it being written by "persons," plural, which contradicts the notion that Joseph of Egypt personally wrote it.<br />
<br />
Contra these problems, Oliver's only clear, explicit mention of Abraham and Joseph describes "the writings of Abraham and Joseph" as "this record," implying the text was on a single roll. Moreover, he started with a plural reference when referring to "the Egyptian records," but changed to referring to "this record," singular, right after he referenced "the writings of Abraham and Joseph." This indicates he understood there were multiple Egyptian records in the papyri, but one record containing "the writings of Abraham and Joseph":<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">Upon the subject of the Egyptian records, or rather the writings of Abraham and Joseph, I may say a few words. This </span><b style="background-color: #fff2cc;">record</b><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"> is beautifully written</span><span style="background-color: #f4cccc;"> <i>[Not "both writings are beautifully written"]</i> </span><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">on papyrus </span><i style="background-color: #f4cccc;">[Not "both on papyrus"]</i><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"> with black, and a small part, red ink or paint, </span><i style="background-color: #f4cccc;">[Not "both with black, and a small part, red ink]</i><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"> in perfect preservation. </span><i style="background-color: #f4cccc;">[Not "both in perfect preservation"]</i><i style="background-color: #fff2cc;"> </i><span style="background-color: white;">[Emphasis added]</span><br />
<br />
It might seem strange for him to describe the writing as being in "perfect preservation," but this of course is relative to the various torn fragments Chandler provided, and may simply mean that the text inside the roll was still intact. This is similar to how the words "long roll" in Charlotte Haven's account are relative.<br />
<br />
Very significantly, as shown above, Oliver then enforces the idea of the writings of Abraham and Joseph being on a single roll, by describing the writing of both patriarchs at the same time as beautifully written, with black and red ink, in perfect preservation. If he were indeed referring to two separate records, we would expect him to say "both are beautifully written," "both are written with black and red ink," "both are in perfect preservation," etc. So, he not only refers to them explicitly as a single record, but continues describing them as though they are a single record. It's true the Ta-sherit-Min roll is also written with red and black ink, but that was extremely common, and the point here is how Cowdery referenced the writings of Abraham and Joseph of Egypt as a single record and continued doing so.<br />
<br />
I believe Joseph's investigation into Egyptian mythology, as evinced in his Egyptian Alphabet, was, in part, an attempt to explore the true gospel roots of Egyptian theology, going back to Ham. It is in this context that I understand Oliver feeling at liberty to also speculate into Egyptian theology regarding Eve, Enoch, etc. Oliver made no attempt to attribute his speculations to Joseph Smith.<br />
<br />
For all we know, Frye may have even asked in what ways the papyri demonstrated an Egyptian understanding of the gospel.<br />
<br />
Remember, Joseph translated a portion of the Egyptian funerary papyri. So, the reality is probably more complex than the black-and-white thinking that "Oliver said something, so Joseph must have thought exactly the same thing," In reality, during the tumultuous Kirtland era, Joseph apparently didn't even have a chance to finish translating the Book of Abraham. He had to set it aside and return to it years later. I think his limited time for interaction with the material, let alone educating others on the finer points, would have left plenty of room for people to speculate.<br />
<br />
Things which on paper may seem to be obviously true do not always play out in real life. To make this relatable, I would like to use Dan's videos as an example.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<u>Why We Can't Assume Joseph's Scribes Represent His Thinking </u></div>
<br />
Throughout most of the series, Dan refers to and portrays Brian Hauglid as an apologist. But before Dan even produced his videos, Hauglid had in fact undergone a transformation and no longer held to the views he had held as an apologist.<br />
<br />
Of course, we would not, even on paper, expect Dan to automatically know this. The problem is that one of Dan's best friends, who Dan specifically acknowledges as one of two people who provided critique for his videos, was, in turn, specifically singled out by Hauglid as someone who could attest to his transformation.<br />
<br />
Moreover, we could assume, on paper, that this friend of both men was watching the videos as they came out, in addition to providing critique beforehand.<br />
<br />
Yet new videos kept coming out, repeatedly portraying Hauglid as an apologist.<br />
<br />
Today, Dan has a note in the videos he posted up to that point, which reads:<br />
<br />
"I<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">n a recent Facebook response, Brian Hauglid, one of the BYU 'apologists' featured in my Book of Abraham videos, clarified his current position and now wishes to disassociate himself from the views of John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein. As an endorsement of these videos and a service to Hauglid, I post a portion of his statement here:</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“'For the record, I no longer hold the views that have been quoted from my 2010 book in these videos. ... In fact, I'm no longer interested or involved in apologetics in any way. I wholeheartedly agree with Dan’s excellent assessment of the Abraham/Egyptian documents in these videos. ... One can find that I've changed my mind in my recent and forthcoming publications. The most recent JSP Revelations and Translation vol. 4, The Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts (now on the shelves) is much more open to Dan’s thinking on the origin of the Book of Abraham.'” (Brian Hauglid, Facebook, 8 Nov. 2018)"</span><br />
<br />
I can understand why Dan would publicize the change. In fact, when Hauglid made Dan aware on the public facebook comment, Dan responded by saying, "While I appreciate and empathize and welcome your clarification, I sincerely hope it doesn't cause you too much personal grief. I have taken the liberty to post a portion of your statement in the written description of each video. Best wishes." To which Hauglid responded, "Many thanks Dan." The mutual friend commented, saying in part, "I do regret that those viewing my friend Dan's videos may assume that you maintain the same intellectual posture as in a few of your previous publications. I can affirm that you don't." This mutual friend, who had been singled out by both of them, also posted a comment linking to a podcast in which Hauglid had discussed his transformation several years earlier.<br />
<br />
The point is that, on paper, a person who is singled out as uniquely able to attest to something may be expected to set others straight on it, <i>especially</i> if they are also singled out as having critiqued the very thing which stands in need of the exact correction they are uniquely able to offer.<br />
<br />
But in real life, things don't always go as we would expect on paper.<br />
<br />
I'm comparing Brent Metcalfe to Joseph Smith, so please do not get the impression that I am in any way putting Metcalfe down. In fact, the point I'm making relies on the reality that Metcalfe is highly intelligent and detail-oriented. If he were supposed to be someone who was fumbling around, my point wouldn't stand.<br />
<br />
If something like that can happen to Metcalfe, then what about a farmer-turned-Prophet on the American frontier who had ancient papyri thrown into his lap at a time when persecutions were raging, major projects were underway, and everyone he knew had questions and wanted answers about everything in life?<br />
<br />
Even in Nauvoo, when those working on his history were reading it to him for approval, we can't assume he was hovering over every detail and ensuring every nuance of phraseology could not be misconstrued a century later. Instead, he was probably distracted by a dozen other thoughts, having sections summarized for him instead of read verbatim, requesting that the writers add color and simplify language for readability, etc.<br />
<br />
We can't say, "Joseph would have corrected that."<br />
<br />
And when it comes to the papyri, if Joseph had special understanding of the Egyptian theology, how was he supposed to convey that to others in a way they would understand? If his own understanding was line upon line, then all the more so for his fellow frontiersmen.<br />
<br />
If, for instance, Joseph mentioned the Garden of Eden story contained on the Abraham roll, and Oliver asked about the snake on the Ta-sherit-Min roll, Joseph may have very well just told him he is free to interpret it how he'd like, rather than getting into details on Egyptian theology that he himself was in the process of discovering.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-2979691038393689822020-01-07T23:48:00.000-07:002015-07-29T02:58:50.844-06:00Apologetics, Pizza and Philosophy<div class="MsoNormal">
I was twelve years old. Our Deacon’s Quorum adviser told us there was enough pizza for each of us to have four slices, including the boy who would be arriving late.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Being overweight and not wanting to be accused of eating more than my share, I took only three pieces. My strategy was to very slowly pick at the pieces of pizza as we watched the video. And that’s what I did. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When the late boy arrived, there was no pizza left. He was not too happy about that. Then one of the boys, with great indignation, said that he had seen me take 9 pieces of pizza – a whopping 9 pieces! He had been watching me, he said, and counting how much pizza I took.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I knew I had only taken three pieces, but the evidence was stacked against me: I was known for eating a lot of food, the pizza was in fact gone, or missing, and to top it off there was an eyewitness who claimed to have seen me take it. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I denied the charge, but to no avail. I wanted to get to the bottom of it, but before I could, the Quorum adviser chimed in and told us that we were not to say another word about it. Perhaps he thought he was doing me a favor. Perhaps he thought I had taken the pizza and he was sparing me embarrassment. But quite the opposite was true – I wanted justice, and I wasn’t getting it. The prosecution had its day and I was not allowed to cross-examine. I wasn’t allowed to clear my name.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And thus the evidence of what really happened was hidden away. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now let’s say that in a hundred years from now someone decides to write a biography of my life. Somehow they dig up an old journal from one of the boys who had been at the pizza night with me, and the journal states as a fact that I took 9 pieces of pizza when I was only entitled to 4 pieces, that I had even been seen doing it and yet I turned around and lied about it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now suppose the historical biographer factors that into a narrative of what I was like as a child. The biographer would perhaps be praised for conducting such exhaustive research into my early years, and he would probably be considered thorough and objective. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But the historian would be wrong, and his narrative would be tainted.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rather than being the type of boy who would steal pizza and lie about it, I was a boy who took one slice less than he was entitled to and ate my pizza slowly over the course of two hours.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The boy who accused me was not known to lie, and I’m not accusing him of lying, I’m accusing him of being wrong.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But, you might ask, how could he be wrong about something so straight-forward as watching me take pizza out of a box and put it on my plate? Isn’t it just his word against mine?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, let’s suppose I go to a magic show and afterwards I tell you that I saw a tiger turn into a house-cat. Are your only options to either believe me or to think I’m lying? Of course not. Most likely, what I actually saw is not what I thought I saw. I probably drew a false inference from what I saw, and I then claimed to have seen the thing which I had actually only inferred and not seen. For instance, I may have seen a tiger on stage and then seen the tiger momentarily covered up, then the cover was removed and I saw a housecat. I then inferred that the tiger turned into the housecat. Due to the imperfection of language, my statement that “I saw a tiger turn into a housecat” does not convey the factual substance of what I actually saw, but only conveys the conclusion I reached.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Likewise, due to the imperfection of language, my accuser’s claim to have seen me take 9 pieces of pizza does not tell us what he actually saw. It tells us his conclusion rather than giving us factual evidence with which to reach our own conclusions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
His inference hides evidence.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This puts us in a position where if we are to believe his account we must not merely trust that he is honest but must also trust his judgment in place of our own. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This hidden evidence prevents us from finding the truth.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For instance, he may have seen me pull 3 pieces of pizza from the box and put them on my plate – something which I freely admit that I did. But then the lights went down and the video came on. He may have seen me stand up at some point and walk over to the table where the food and drinks were made available. I may have refilled my cup with soda then sat back down with the same 3 pieces of pizza on my plate, creating the illusion that I had taken a second helping of pizza. A while later, he may have glanced over at me and still seen 3 pieces - from which he inferred that I had gone back for thirds and a total of nine pieces.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That’s a plausible explanation. I don’t know for certain that it transpired that way, but the burden of proof is on the accuser. That’s because he’s the one making a claim.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yes, I am also making a claim by saying that I had only 3 pieces, but neither side is disputing that I took those 3 pieces – the question is whether I took an additional six. The accuser says I did, and is therefore creating a burden of proof for himself. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yes, another thing I did was lay out for you a scenario whereby my accuser may have been tricked by an illusion and made a false assumption. But that scenario doesn’t need to be proven. The purpose of the scenario is to demonstrate that we don’t have enough data to decide whether or not his inference was valid. To serve its purpose, the scenario need only be plausible, which it is. But I don’t need to even present a scenario such as that in order for my point to be valid. The scenario only illustrates that evidence is hidden from our view, and this is denying us the ability to judge for ourselves.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The larger issue here is that we need to differentiate between objective evidence and inferences drawn by others. We don’t have the luxury of cross-examining the witnesses of history or allowing the accused to speak in their own defense.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Like a magician’s stage, the past has many secrets which are out of view. The best available data is not always enough to draw a conclusion, and can in fact be highly misleading. Our desire to know a detail of history is not sufficient cause for pretending that we do in fact know it. Sometimes the evidence is there, other times it is not.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="color: #f3f3f3; font-size: small; text-align: center;">As knowledge shines forth in the Last Days, the Lord lights my path of faith with His Spirit.</i></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-4033840311514639502019-10-20T18:45:00.005-06:002023-08-19T19:32:31.754-06:00Explaining “Wherefore” And “Therefore”<div class="MsoNormal">One argument sometimes raised by critics makes use of what is, on its own, a fascinating scholarly appraisal. The argument interprets that scholarship in a way that creates the appearance of authorship problems for the Book of Mormon.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">However, upon investigation of the facts themselves, this actually turns into remarkable evidence of Joseph Smith's authenticity as translator. The facts center on the location and frequency with which some words appear in the Book of Mormon. For instance, a shift between the interchangeable words
“wherefore” and “therefore” occurs in the Book of Mormon <a href="file:///C:/Users/Taco/Desktop/Simple%20Faith.doc#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> (and at the same time in the Doctrine and Covenants, which bolsters my point although I don’t dive into it here). The books of Ether, <st1:city>Moroni</st1:city>, 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, Jacob, Enos,
Jarom, Omni and Words of Mormon display a strong preference for the word
“wherefore,” while the books of Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, 3 Nephi, 4 Nephi and
Mormon display a strong preference for the word “therefore.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here are the books, in the most likely order of translation:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-table-layout-alt: fixed;">
<tbody>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 0;">
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 69pt;" valign="bottom" width="92"><div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 0.5in;" valign="bottom" width="48"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 129.75pt;" valign="bottom" width="173"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
<br />
<b>Wherefore</b><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 130.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="174"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
<br />
<b>Therefore</b></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 69pt;" valign="bottom" width="92"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
Mosiah<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 0.5in;" valign="bottom" width="48"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 58.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="78"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: right;">
1<o:p></o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 71.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="95"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
1%<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 53.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="71"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>123<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 77.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="103"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>99%</b></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 2;">
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 69pt;" valign="bottom" width="92"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
<st1:city>Alma</st1:city><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 0.5in;" valign="bottom" width="48"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 58.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="78"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
3<o:p></o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 71.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="95"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
1%<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 53.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="71"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>291<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 77.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="103"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>99%</b></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 3;">
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 69pt;" valign="bottom" width="92"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
Helaman<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 0.5in;" valign="bottom" width="48"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 58.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="78"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0<o:p></o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 71.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="95"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0%<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 53.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="71"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>63<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 77.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="103"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>100%</b></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 4;">
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 69pt;" valign="bottom" width="92"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
3 Nephi<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 0.5in;" valign="bottom" width="48"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 58.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="78"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
3<o:p></o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 71.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="95"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
3%<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 53.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="71"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>97<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 77.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="103"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>97%</b></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 5;">
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 69pt;" valign="bottom" width="92"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
4 Nephi<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 0.5in;" valign="bottom" width="48"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 58.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="78"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0<o:p></o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 71.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="95"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0%<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 53.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="71"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>5<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 77.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="103"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>100%</b></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 6;">
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 69pt;" valign="bottom" width="92"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
Mormon<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 0.5in;" valign="bottom" width="48"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 58.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="78"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0<o:p></o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 71.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="95"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0%<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 53.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="71"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>22<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 77.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="103"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>100%</b></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 7;">
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 69pt;" valign="bottom" width="92"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
<b>Ether</b><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 0.5in;" valign="bottom" width="48"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 58.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="78"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>63<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 71.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="95"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>70%</b><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 53.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="71"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>24<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 77.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="103"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>30%</b></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 8;">
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 69pt;" valign="bottom" width="92"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
<st1:city>Moroni</st1:city><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 0.5in;" valign="bottom" width="48"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 58.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="78"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>38<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 71.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="95"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>100%</b><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 53.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="71"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0<o:p></o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 77.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="103"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0%</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 9;">
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 69pt;" valign="bottom" width="92"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
1 Nephi<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 0.5in;" valign="bottom" width="48"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 58.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="78"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>97<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 71.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="95"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>88%</b><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 53.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="71"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
13<o:p></o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 77.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="103"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
12%</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 10;">
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 69pt;" valign="bottom" width="92"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
2 Nephi<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 0.5in;" valign="bottom" width="48"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 58.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="78"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>137<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 71.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="95"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>83%</b><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 53.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="71"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
28<o:p></o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 77.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="103"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
17%</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 11;">
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 69pt;" valign="bottom" width="92"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
Jacob<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 0.5in;" valign="bottom" width="48"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 58.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="78"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>52<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 71.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="95"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>98%</b><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 53.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="71"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
1<o:p></o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 77.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="103"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
2%</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 12;">
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 69pt;" valign="bottom" width="92"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
Enos<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 0.5in;" valign="bottom" width="48"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 58.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="78"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>6<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 71.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="95"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>100%</b><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 53.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="71"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0<o:p></o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 77.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="103"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0%</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 13;">
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 69pt;" valign="bottom" width="92"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
Jarom<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 0.5in;" valign="bottom" width="48"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 58.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="78"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>3<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 71.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="95"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>100%</b><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 53.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="71"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0<o:p></o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 77.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="103"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0%</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 14;">
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 69pt;" valign="bottom" width="92"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
Omni<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 0.5in;" valign="bottom" width="48"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 58.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="78"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>6<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 71.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="95"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>100%</b><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 53.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="71"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0<o:p></o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 77.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="103"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0%</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 8.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 15; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 105pt;" valign="bottom" width="140"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
Words of Mormon<b><o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 58.5pt;" valign="bottom" width="78"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>4<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 71.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="95"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<b>100%</b><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: AR-SA;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 21pt;" valign="bottom" width="28"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 53.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="71"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0<o:p></o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: white; background: white; height: 8.75pt; padding: 0.75pt; width: 77.25pt;" valign="bottom" width="103"><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0in; mso-hyphenate: auto; mso-line-height-alt: 8.75pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
0%</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"> Essentially, some critics cite this
as evidence against Joseph’s claim to have translated the Book of Mormon,
saying it shows evidence of multiple English authors.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I can understand
why it would look that way. I don’t expect to see sudden shifts in people’s use
of words. It’s not as though Joseph suddenly discovered the word “wherefore”
and decided to start using it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But let’s look
deeper, for hidden evidence.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The argument
against Joseph implies that the shift in wording began at the very beginning of
the Book of Ether. This creates the illusion that the shift corresponds with a
new book starting, and not with the substance of anything being said in the
text.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In reality, the
first few chapters of Ether show a preference for the word “therefore.” The
shift doesn’t happen until after some very significant verses at the end of
chapter 4 and through chapter 5. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To understand the
significance of these verses, let’s back up for a moment and treat Joseph’s
story of the plates as objectively true. The reason for doing this is to help
us ascertain the implications of his story if it is indeed true. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Joseph says he was
introduced to the Book of Mormon by <st1:city>Moroni</st1:city>, who had lived on the earth
hundreds of years ago. It was <st1:city>Moroni</st1:city> who instructed Joseph in the
specifics regarding the work he was to perform. Before Joseph ever began
translation of the plates, he went through a process of preparation which we
don’t know much about. <st1:city>Moroni</st1:city> was Joseph’s friend and mentor.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now imagine when
Joseph was translating and reached Mormon chapter 8 and finally began the part
written by his mentor. If I was in Joseph’s shoes, I would have thought that
was pretty neat. But it gets even more significant, because <st1:city>Moroni</st1:city> was writing directly to us in
our day. He wasn’t keeping a record to be handed down, he was writing something
to be hid away and saved for us.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now consider
Ether 4:17-18, which is a message from God being quoted by <st1:city>Moroni</st1:city> from memory. These verses state
that because we have received the record we may know the work of the Lord has
commenced in our day and we are thus commanded to repent and be baptized.
Unlike the previous times when baptism was mentioned in the Book of Mormon,
this is not merely a record of other people in a past age being commanded to be
baptized, but is a commandment being issued directly to us in our day.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If there was any
doubt in Joseph’s mind that this commandment was being issued to him, that
doubt should have been wiped away by the time he finished the next few verses.
In them, <st1:city>Moroni</st1:city> speaks directly to Joseph
himself about what he can translate and who he can show the plates to.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Prior to the
commandment to be baptized, Ether contains 13 instances of the word “therefore”
and 7 instances of the word “wherefore.” After the commandment, Ether contains
only 11 instances of “therefore” but has 54 instances of “wherefore.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now consider the
words of Joseph’s mother:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.45pt; mso-line-height-alt: 10.0pt;">
One morning … they sat down to their usual
work when the first thing that presented itself to Joseph was a commandment
from God that he and Oliver should repair to the water and each of them be
baptized.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.45pt; mso-line-height-alt: 10.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.45pt; mso-line-height-alt: 10.0pt;">
(From <i>The Revised and Enhanced History of Joseph Smith By His Mother, </i>Chapter
27)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.45pt; mso-line-height-alt: 10.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The only verse in
the Book of Mormon which directly fits this description is Ether 4:18, and that
fits the timeline of where Joseph would have been in translation at the time of
his baptism.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Taco/Desktop/Simple%20Faith.doc#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now consider the
impact Joseph says his baptism had on him: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.45pt; mso-line-height-alt: 10.0pt;">
Immediately on our coming up out of the
water after we had been baptized, we experienced great and glorious blessings …
Our minds now enlightened, we began to have the scriptures laid open to our
understandings, and the true meaning and intention of their more mysterious
passages revealed unto us in a manner which we never could attain to previously,
nor ever before had thought of.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.45pt; mso-line-height-alt: 10.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.45pt; mso-line-height-alt: 10.0pt;">
(From <i>Joseph Smith History</i>, 1:73-74)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.45pt; mso-line-height-alt: 10.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Joseph explains
his eyes were opened. He had a new reverence and understanding.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is key: before Moroni commanded Joseph to be baptized, in Ether, each time Joseph used the word “wherefore,” sacred subject matter was being addressed in the Book of Mormon. In particular, God speaking to man. But after that commandment to be baptized, Joseph expands the use of “wherefore” dramatically, as if he now realizes that it is unnecessary.This matches the claim that he saw the scriptures in a totally new light after being baptized. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thus we see that
the shift from “therefore” to “wherefore” is not at all problematic for the
Book of Mormon, and actually lends powerful credibility to Joseph’s story.
Especially since the evidence was hidden and obviously not intended as
subterfuge. </div>
<br />
<div>
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="ftn1">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Taco/Desktop/Simple%20Faith.doc#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> The distribution of the words is a scholarly appraisal made by Brent Metcalfe, which is not in itself anti-Mormon, of course. There are two instances in the Book of
Mormon where “wherefore” is used to pose a question. Other than those
instances, the words are interchangeable in meaning.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Taco/Desktop/Simple%20Faith.doc#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Elden Watson constructed a thorough
timeline, in which he readily admits he wanted Joseph’s baptism to correspond
with a verse in 3 Nephi after Christ visited <st1:country-region>America</st1:country-region>
– thus Watson adjusted the estimated number of pages translated per day in
order to make that fit. Removing Watsons’ adjustment places Joseph in Ether.
Watson's timeline is available on the internet at eldenwatson.net/BoM.htm</div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-42345175803229935462017-06-09T15:29:00.001-06:002021-03-14T14:45:29.512-06:00Second Nephi Six Taken in Context This is a great guest post from Andy Norman:<br />
<br />
<br />
2nd Nephi 6 is a great example of how you can miss deeper meaning by not looking at the context.<br />
<br />
Taken at face value it’s about the prophecy and explanation of the great help that the gentiles will be to the House of Israel in restoring them to their native lands.<br />
<br />
On second look, in context, it actually doesn’t make sense that Nephi desired Jacob to speak about this passage. <br />
<br />
One could sit and argue with the fact that it was written for our generation, I would argue that there’s many times Nephi writes just to us. In this case Jacob is talking to the Nephites.<br />
<br />
Consider the following when thinking about why Nephi would ask Jacob to expound on this passage:<br />
<br />
1) Nephi knows that he’s in his land of promise<br />
<br />
2) The people he’s speaking to will not be assisted by the gentiles in returning home<br />
<br />
3) He knows that the generation he’s speaking to will all live and die in the land they’re in (see 2nd Nephi 1:5)<br />
<br />
Let’s take a step back and take a second look at the audience to whom Jacob is speaking.<br />
<br />
Brant Gardner points out that 2nd Nephi 5:6, Nephi recounts all who went with him and identifies literally every person that has been pointed out to us previously in 1st Nephi except Laman, Lemuel, and the Sons of Ishmael. He then adds, "...and all those who would go with me"<br />
<br />
Also we know that Sherem said "Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you;" If we assume that the Nephites were just Nephi’s brothers and Zoram, then Sherem would have been Jacob’s nephew and his line about seeking much opportunity seems overly rhetorical and silly.<br />
<br />
If instead, we look at the Nephites as a mix of 1) Nephi’s immediate family and 2) the indigenous population, then the picture changes.<br />
<br />
While we can’t say for certain, it would make sense that Nephites might have considered themselves superior to the indigenous population since they were the House of Israel and the locals were gentiles. My suspicion is also based on the fact that the Mulekites were explicitly mentioned later on, while these locals were only implicitly mentioned. Additionally, the Judaic view of the Samaritans also sheds light on how those who mixed with the local population would have been viewed by those who "stayed pure."<br />
<br />
So now in context, Jacob’s audience would be actually two bodies of people who very realistically may not have been mixing well since the second group were gentiles.<br />
<br />
Suddenly the passage he reads and expounds on has a different spin. <br />
<br />
1) Had we stuck around Jerusalem, we still would have been scattered among the gentiles anyways.<br />
<br />
2) Being of the House of Israel does not mean you’re righteous. Those Israelites that did return were hard hearted and killed their god.<br />
<br />
3) Killing their god will cause them to get scattered again and severely humbled at which point it’s the righteous gentiles who will gather and foster the House of Israel <br />
<br />
4) The righteous gentiles will be saved<br />
<br />
With this background, we see that this is a great way for Jacob to show both groups that they are equally important in the sight of God and while they may have different promises, in the end they both need each other.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-67550268398110650262016-10-19T10:18:00.002-06:002016-10-19T13:13:10.559-06:00The Parallel Books of Nephi<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Andrew Norman shared with me a very interesting observation he made, and he has granted me permission to post his thoughts here on my blog, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix1jJGtoLIN5Hu0qGbGTbLQd0LHqPnLHaq7Ls0oNd61uKhiZQAp87E_ow3IxhUqxh85JJCd_LtbOH4LjHCQaImMEkW728Vuah_JEd5kz10hdEhy2Pk_Ry3RfMRpyIXFPFxLERSgbit84A/s1600/BookofMormon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix1jJGtoLIN5Hu0qGbGTbLQd0LHqPnLHaq7Ls0oNd61uKhiZQAp87E_ow3IxhUqxh85JJCd_LtbOH4LjHCQaImMEkW728Vuah_JEd5kz10hdEhy2Pk_Ry3RfMRpyIXFPFxLERSgbit84A/s320/BookofMormon.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; text-align: center; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The
Parallel Books of Nephi</span></span></span></div>
<div lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; text-align: center; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">By
Andrew Norman</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">What's
a bifid structure?</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">In
order to understand a bifid structure you have to understand
parallelisms in Hebrew. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Hebrew
will use two statements in order to convey more meaning or a
different meaning than what each statement alone would mean. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Consider
the following:</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Mosiah
3:25-26</span></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">therefore
they have drunk damnation to their own souls.</span></span></span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Therefore,
they have drunk out of the cup of the wrath of God</span></span></span></blockquote>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Some
Hebrew prophets would take this even further by writing their book
and then halfway though writing a second half that mirrors ideas and
concepts in the first half.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Consider
the Book of Ezekiel</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Chapters
1-23</span></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The
Vengeance of the Lord against his People</span></span></span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The
name of Ezekiel 1:3</span></span></span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">His
commission 3:25-27</span></span></span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Dumbness</span></span></span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Devine
glory forsakes the temple 8-11</span></span></span></blockquote>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Chapters
24-48</span></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The
vindication of the Lord through his People</span></span></span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The
name of Ezekiel 24:24</span></span></span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">His
commission 33:1-9</span></span></span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Release
from Dumbness</span></span></span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Divine
glory returns to sanctify the land 43:1-5</span></span></span></blockquote>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">(RK
Harrison Introduction to the Old Testament 848-49)</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Here
is an example of why Nephi would use this style of writing. Compare
1 Nephi 21 with 2 Nephi 30. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">In
1 Nephi 21, Nephi is quoting Isaiah who uses powerful imagery of
people imprisoned in the dark and then being liberated. By writing a
parallel chapter in 2 Nephi 30, he's able to build off Isaiah's
imagery when describing the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and
it's helping the Gentiles and House of Israel being restored.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">A
final note before getting started is that Nephi does a great job
using mile markers of two verses that use almost identical words or
themes to help you keep pace between the two books. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Below
is the pairing of theme in First Nephi (1N) coupled with the matching
theme in Second Nephi (2N). </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">In
some cases I use the notation with verses using a .5 e.g. 1N1:19.5
which is used to indicate that it's in the second half of the verse.</span></span></span></div>
<div lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; text-align: center; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Nephi's
Bifid Structure:</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N1:1
Nephi highly favored of the Lord, having had a great knowledge of the
goodness and the mysteries of God</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US">2N1:1
Rehearsed unto them, how great things the </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><u>Lord
had done for them</u></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US">
in bringing them out of the land of Jerusalem.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: small;">1N1:6-18
Lehi’</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US">s Vision and
Destruction of Jerusalem</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: small;">2N1:4
Lehi’</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US">s Vision of destruction
of Jerusalem</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N1:19
Testified of Wickedness and Abominations (repent)</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N1:13-32
Tells sons to Repent</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US">1N1:19.5
Expounded of </span></span><span style="font-size: small;">…</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US">the
things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in
the book, manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the
redemption of the world.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N2
Explanation of the need for Christ</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N2:1
Lehi commanded to depart</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N3
Joseph taken to Egypt and blessed by Lord</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N2:16,
Nephi Prays and heart softened</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N12:12
Lehi spoken according to the feelings of his heart and spirit of the
Lord</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N2:18.5-20
Brothers anger Nephi, Prays and is given blessings of the lord</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N4:13-35
Brother angry at Nephi, psalm of Nephi</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N2:21-24
Brothers will be cut off for not keeping commandments</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N5:6
Nephites leave and take all religious artifacts</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N3
Goes to get Brass Plates & Sword of Laban</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N5:10,
14 Teaches from Law of Moses from Brass plates and makes Swords from
Sword of Laban</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US">1N6
Describes what</span></span><span style="font-size: small;">’</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US">s
on his plates</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N5:30
Makes new plates</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N7:13-15
Jerusalem will be destroyed and why</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N6:1-15
Jacob tells of Jewish history and Babylonian exile.</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N7:16-18
Nephi bound and released</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N6:16
Lawful Captive delivered</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: small;">1N8
Lehi’</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US">s dream</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N7:10-11
Walk in darkness (because of pride)</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N8
Isaiah talking about leaving sins behind and turning to God and being
clothed in glory and enthroned</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N9:3
Small plates for the ministering unto the people</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="ru-RU">2N9:1
Jacob</span></span><span style="font-size: small;">’</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US">s
speech to the Nephites</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N10:3
Jews taken captive and brought back</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="sv-SE">4
Jesus</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">7-10
John the Baptist and Baptism</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">11
Resurrection and purpose of Gentiles (12 Olive Tree Branches)</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="it-IT">13
scattering</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">14
Gathering of Israel/ Grafting</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N9:2
Jews restored</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="sv-SE">5
Jesus</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">23
Baptism</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="fr-FR">10:3
Crucifixion </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">8
Gentiles gathered and counted with House of Israel</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N10:17
Nephi desires to see</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="nl-NL">11:2
Nephi Sees</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>I
went in depth on comparing 1N11 with 2N12 because the number of
parallels was so striking.</b></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N
11</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<ul>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(a)
1n11:1 High Mountain</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(b)Tree
of Life (Asherah found in Ephriamite temples) is love of Christ
(could imply an equivalence of the temple with the love of Christ)</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(c)
24 People worship of Christ</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(d)
25 Iron Rod</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(e)
26 Condescension of God</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">27
Bapt by John</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(f)
28 Ministers to people</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(g)
and I beheld that they cast him out from among them.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">Twelve
Followers</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">Angels
administering to men</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(h)
People afflicted with Devils and disease being healed by Christ</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">32:
Christ judged by man</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">33
Crucified (could this be because you sacrifice humans to idols?)</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">34:
Fight against the apostles</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(i)
35: Large and Spacious building Wisdom</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(i)
36: And it came to pass that I saw and bear record, that the
great and spacious building was the pride of the world; and it fell,
and the fall thereof was exceedingly great. And the angel of the
Lord spake unto me again, saying: Thus shall be the destruction of
all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against
the twelve apostles of the Lamb.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N
12</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<ul>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N12:2
(a)High Mountain</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(b)Lord’s
House</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(c)
3:And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the
mountain of the Lord…</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(d)
and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for
out of Zion shall go forth the law</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span lang="en-US">Law
= Scriptures</span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<ul>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span lang="en-US">(e)
and the </span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>word</b></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span lang="en-US">
of the Lord from Jerusalem</span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.19in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.19in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span lang="en-US">John
1:1 … </span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span lang="en-US"><i>and
the word was God </i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span lang="en-US">(The
implication here is that the scriptures from Zion/America and that
Christ is from Jerusalem</span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<ul>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(f)
4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many
people and [Swords to plowshares or peace]</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span lang="en-US">(g)
5 O house of Jacob, come ye and let us walk in the light of the
Lord; yea, come, for ye have all gone astray, every one to his
wicked ways</span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(h)
6:Turning to false gods</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">7-8:Idolitry</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">(i)
9-22 Vanity-Humbling by Lord</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N12:2
Wars and slaughter</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N3&4
War torn and remnants left behind</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N12:3
Numerous Cities</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N15:8
Wo to join house to house (huge cities)</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N12:5
Destruction of the land</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N5
Destruction of Vineyard but vs 24 and 25 mention destruction of the
people</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N12:10
The twelve are cleansed through Christ and sent out</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N16
Isaiah ritually cleansed and sent out</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N12:11-12
The four generations after Christ and then destructions</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N7
Ahaz is told his kingdom would be safe but destruction would come
(see vv 18-25) which was four kings from sign of the virgin birth</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N12:19
Nephites destroyed by not relying on Lord</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N18
Rely on the Lord to be safe. Ephraim wiped out.</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N13
Start of the Gentiles Kingdoms and church</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N9:11-12
Lord raises up Syria and Philistines ready to devour Israel</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N13
Gentiles to new world, scatter the Lamanites</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="it-IT">2N10
Assyrian Conquests</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N13:12-36
Gentiles Humble Themselves, Mercy to Gentiles, BoM with Bible</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N11
Sprig of Jesse, peace, Righteous Ruler</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N13:33-37,
Zion Blessed</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N12
Song of the return to Zion</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N14:3
Pit filled with those that dug it</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N14:15
Lucifer put in the pit</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N14:1-2
Gentiles numbered with House of Israel, blessed in promised land
forever, no more to be confounded</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N13:3
Sanctified and Mighty called out before destruction of Babylon.</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">1N14:16
Wars and Rumors of Wars</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;">2N14:29
More war with Palestine</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N15:2
Brothers can’<span lang="de-DE">t understand Lehi</span>’s
revelations</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N25:1
Nephi’s people can’t understand Isaiah</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N15:12
Lehi compared Israel to Olive tree by Spirt of the Lord</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N25:11
Nephi: And now I speak because of the Spirit which is in me</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N15:12
House of Israel Restored by Gentiles, Wicked rejected (VV 7 olive
tree branch)</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N25:12
And notwithstanding they have been carried away they shall return
again, and possess the land of Jerusalem; wherefore, they shall be
restored again to the land of their inheritance.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N15:13
Lehites dwindle in unbelief</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N25:12.5
Reject Christ because of hard hearts</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N15:13.5
-20 Lehites receive gospel from Gentiles and Jews restored</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N25:
17 And the Lord will set his hand again the second time to restore
his people from their lost and fallen state. Wherefore, he will
proceed to do a marvelous work and a wonder among the children of
men.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">&
2N25: 18 Wherefore, he shall bring forth his words unto them, which
words shall judge them at the last day, for they shall be given them
for the purpose of convincing them of the true Messiah</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span lang="en-US"><i><b>Note:
I can</b></i></span><i><b>’</b></i><span lang="en-US"><i><b>t find
parallels in the text in order that allows the following two examples
in 1Nephi so I paired them with what I could find that seemed logical
and was before the mention of Moses and the serpents since that was a
direct mile marker for me:</b></i></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; margin-left: 0.5in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N16
Travel through wilderness and call to build boat</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; margin-left: 0.5in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N25:9
God warns before destruction</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; margin-left: 0.5in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; margin-left: 0.5in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span lang="en-US">1N17:23-40
Recalls God</span>’<span lang="en-US">s power with Exodus</span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; margin-left: 0.5in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N25:10-19
Exiled, Christ, Scatter Restored</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N17:41
Moses and Serpents</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N25:20
Moses and Serpents</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="bookmark"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N17:<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "palatino linotype" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 13pt;">
</span></span></span>45 Ye are swift to do iniquity but
slow to remember the Lord your God. Ye have seen an angel, and he
spake unto you; yea, ye have heard his voice from time to time; and
he hath spoken unto you in a still small voice, but ye were past
feeling, that ye could not feel his words; wherefore, he has spoken
unto you like unto the voice of thunder, which did cause the earth to
shake as if it were to divide asunder</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="bookmark1"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N25:<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "palatino linotype" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 13pt;">
</span></span></span>28 And now behold, my people, ye are
a stiffnecked people; wherefore, I have spoken plainly unto you, that
ye cannot misunderstand. And the words which I have spoken shall
stand as a testimony against you; for they are sufficient to teach
any man the right way; for the right way is to believe in Christ and
deny him not; for by denying him ye also deny the prophets and the
law.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="bookmark2"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N17:<span style="color: #0091bc;"><span style="font-family: "palatino linotype" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 13pt;">
</span></span></span> 55 And now, they said: We know
of a surety that the Lord is with thee, for we know that it is the
power of the Lord that has shaken us. And they fell down before me,
and were about to worship me, but I would not suffer them…</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N25:29.5
wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your
might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye
shall in nowise be cast out.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N17:55.5
and honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the
land which the Lord thy God shall give thee.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="bookmark3"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N25:<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "palatino linotype" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 13pt;">
</span></span></span>30 And, inasmuch as it shall be
expedient, ye must keep the performances and ordinances of God until
the law shall be fulfilled which was given unto Moses.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N17:42 And
they did harden their hearts from time to time, and they did revile
against Moses, and also against God; nevertheless, ye know that they
were led forth by his matchless power into the land of promise.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N25:24-26
Moses points us to Christ who gives us a remission of our sins.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N18:11
Nephi Bound</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N26:10
Destruction of Nephites by brothers</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N18:16
Nephi prays and is released</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N26:15
Prayers of the faithful are heard</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N18:23-1N:19
Land in promised land and makes plates</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N26:16,17
Restauration to Lamanites, Sealed book</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N19
Nephi commanded to build a book and put more important doctrine in it</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N27
Coming forth of the Book of Mormon and sealed portion</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N20
Apostasy </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N28
Conditions of churches in apostasy</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N21
Light to gentiles and House of Israel</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N30
Gentiles converted and counted with House of Israel</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N22:2
Manifest by Spirit</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N31
How to get Holy Ghost</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N22:29
for I durst not speak further</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N32:7
the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1N22:30-31
I would that ye should consider that the things which have been
written upon the plates of brass are true; and they testify that a
man must be obedient to the commandments of God.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2N33:11<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "palatino linotype" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 13pt;">
</span></span></span>And if they are not the words of Christ,
judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory,
that they are his words</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" lang="en-US" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.14in; orphans: 2; page-break-after: auto; page-break-inside: auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-30234995013423161452016-10-15T06:09:00.002-06:002016-10-16T20:41:45.736-06:00Don't Be Overwhelmed By "Big List" Arguments<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFrBhdmMUl_W_CnYZSzXBR9MqaWhBhVvuppygf7byCZFteLU4Rg2ri9Mg6O2tvsKXu8cXejstHAzA1ZB6UmOsVAGDPb-W_63yVzRbEXMsfb2KQmBRT4avOPE_-Luy4FRQx2IgquMoCpn8/s1600/Big+List.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="286" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFrBhdmMUl_W_CnYZSzXBR9MqaWhBhVvuppygf7byCZFteLU4Rg2ri9Mg6O2tvsKXu8cXejstHAzA1ZB6UmOsVAGDPb-W_63yVzRbEXMsfb2KQmBRT4avOPE_-Luy4FRQx2IgquMoCpn8/s320/Big+List.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things."</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
2 Nephi 2:11</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
was enticed by the one or the other."</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
2 Nephi 2:16</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So, we find ourselves on a spinning rock, racing through space around a giant, exploding ball of gas. And we try to figure out the meaning of it all. We debate, we philosophize, we observe, we hypothesize.<br />
<br />
Some of us believe that being on earth is part of a plan. We believe the earth was prepared for us to live on, and that we chose to come here. We believe that we came here to have experiences, some of which would be difficult, and also to make choices... some of which would likewise be difficult. And we believe that in order to truly make choices for ourselves, and to have an opportunity to choose the right, we need to be enticed to do things which are wrong and which we would not otherwise do.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Fortunately, God entices us to have faith, hope, and charity. The opposition however entices us to doubt, to fear, and to look at other people as either objects to be used or as creatures of no importance, instead of looking at others with charity. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Sometimes opposition comes in the form of appetites. Sometimes it comes in the form of pride. Sometimes it comes in the form of intellectual puzzlement. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
All of this opposition is to be expected. As a matter of doctrine. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Unfortunately, some people fall into the trap of feeling overwhelmed in the face of large aggregate opposition. And, once overwhelmed, people can lose sight of the divine concepts of faith, hope and charity. For instance, the fact that there is so much suffering in the world might cause some people to struggle with hope (<a href="http://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-problem-of-evil.html" target="_blank">see this post on the problem of evil</a>). Or, the prevalence of loose moral standards in the world can cause confusion about how God wants us to view each other. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Of particular interest to this post however is the fact that the large aggregate number of "big list" concerns, or lengthy compiled lists of concerns regarding Church leaders and doctrines, can seem overwhelming, even when each individual concern has plausible answers which fit within a consistent paradigm. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The fallacy which makes such big lists seem overwhelming comes in not recognizing that the gospel requires opposition, and therefore the sheer number of arguments which critics have come up with neither proves nor disproves anything. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Here the critic may cry foul, claiming that I am dismissing the strength of the individual arguments on their lists. But clearly I am not doing that. Each argument should be taken on it's own merits, and their arguments usually do involve some inductive evidence, which they are welcome to try to connect to build a case, but their interpretation of that evidence usually relies on assumptions which are deductive in nature. In other words, the inductive evidence they present does not clearly point where they want it, so they typically make deductive assumptions. Keep in mind that the plausible answers put forth by apologists need not be proven in order to effectively counter critical deductive arguments (see <a href="http://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-apologetic-proof-paradox.html" target="_blank">the Apologetic Proof Paradox</a>). </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The fallacy typically manifests when a critic realizes a given argument on a big list is not as strong as they had thought, and then resorts to pointing out how big the aggregation of all critical arguments against the Church is, trying to use the number of arguments as a reason for invoking Occam's Razor, while supposing that if the Church were true then it wouldn't be possible for so many critical arguments to exist. Again, the fallacy is in not realizing that the existence of such opposition is expected and even required in the very gospel paradigm which they suppose the existence of the aggregation disproves.<br />
<br />
What this means is that God intentionally allowed history to unfold in such a way that enough uncertainty and confusion would exist to allow the adversary to formulate a wide variety of clever arguments against the Church. Were it not so, where would the opposition be? </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The doctrine of opposition in all things is not an ad-hoc formulation or in any way spurious. It is integral to the plan of salvation and runs throughout all of scripture, from Lehi's dream to Joseph Smith in the Liberty Jail; from Adam exiting the Garden of Eden, to Pharisees contending with Jesus himself, and ultimately Christ's very atonement, crucifixion and overcoming of all things. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Pointing to the amount of opposition does not constitute a viable argument. Yet critics resort to this quite often. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-76927506467921000732016-10-03T05:11:00.001-06:002024-01-18T02:46:02.720-07:00Abraham, Human Sacrifice, and Conspiracy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaQjMAX_1TmP7koCm-xnmblkgZeNnY_vV3qDyU8cZ97wfiCFceVvlr6goc4ctiLUC_wQzZGVINfrsoyn3383pSoDcx6kUSRIpUVn55K-nRsPBcT4SRKTXx_RrLvot8QdjHMCKfbQlR380/s1600/Abraham+Sacrifice.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaQjMAX_1TmP7koCm-xnmblkgZeNnY_vV3qDyU8cZ97wfiCFceVvlr6goc4ctiLUC_wQzZGVINfrsoyn3383pSoDcx6kUSRIpUVn55K-nRsPBcT4SRKTXx_RrLvot8QdjHMCKfbQlR380/s320/Abraham+Sacrifice.jpg" width="245" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Human Sacrifice: What Did Abraham Say?</div>
<br />
Some controversy has surrounded Abraham's claim about human sacrifice. Critics point out that most scholarship indicates human sacrifice was not known in Egypt during Abraham's lifetime.<br />
<br />
But let's look a little more closely at what Abraham said about human sacrifice.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Now, at this time it was the custom of the priest of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to offer up upon the altar which was built in the land of Chaldea, for the offering unto these strange gods, men, women, and children. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Abraham 1:8</blockquote>
At first, it might look like Abraham is calling human sacrifice a widespread practice throughout Egypt. But that's not what he said. Let's consider a couple questions.<br />
<br />
First, is Abraham talking about the office of "priest of Pharaoh," and thus referring to a line of different people who have occupied that position, or is Abraham instead referring to a specific individual person who was "the priest of Pharaoh?" I would argue that Abraham is referring to a specific individual - the individual whose death is accounted for in verse 20. And since that priest was dead by the time Abraham wrote this in his memoir, Abraham does not tell us that it "is" the custom of the priest of Pharaoh, but instead tells us that it "was" the custom of the priest of Pharaoh. Abraham is speaking of human sacrifice in past-tense, implying it is no longer an issue.<br />
<br />
If it was still an issue at the time of his writing, we would expect Abraham to introduce human sacrifice by saying, "Now, it <i>is</i> the custom..." instead of "Now, at this time it <i>was</i> the custom..."<br />
<br />
Second, why does Abraham refer to it as a custom "of" instead of "for" the priest? If human sacrifice was a custom of Egypt, and the priest was merely performing his duties, we should expect Abraham to say it was a custom "for" the priest of Pharaoh, not "of" the priest of Pharaoh. But Abraham specifically tells us it was the custom of the priest, i.e. the priest's own personal custom or modus operandi. For instance, we would say it is customary that the President of the United States lives in the White House. But whose custom is it? It is a custom "of" the United States, and a custom "for" the President to do. But if a particular President has something they do which is not otherwise customary, we would call it a custom of their own. For instance, Ronald Reagan liked to give jars of jellybeans to visitors, so we could say "it was the custom of<i> </i>the President to give out jellybeans," but that does not imply that other Presidents gave out jellybeans. <br />
<br />
Now, it's true that in verse 11 Abraham says that the priest performed human sacrifices "after the manner of the Egyptians." However, this seems to be a reference to the ritualistic details involved, and not a reference to the fact that humans were the ones being sacrificed. Most likely, this means the priest performed the human sacrifices in a manner ceremonially similar to Egyptian animal sacrifice.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
A Conspiracy Theory: Searching For Onitah</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
22 And it came to pass that they did have their signs, yea, their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant, that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother, nor by those who did belong to his band, who had taken this covenant. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
23 And thus they might murder, and plunder, and steal, and commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness, contrary to the laws of their country and also the laws of their God. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
24 And whosoever of those who belonged to their band should reveal unto the world of their wickedness and their abominations, should be tried, not according to the laws of their country, but according to the laws of their wickedness, which had been given by Gadianton and Kishkumen. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Helaman 6:22-24</blockquote>
From what Abraham has told us, this priest of Pharaoh was a particularly bad person. What more do we know about him? There's a good chance that the title "priest of Pharaoh" refers to the position of vizier. The vizier basically ran the government. He could command forces and he could travel far and wide.<br />
<br />
And, of course, Abraham tells us the priest of Pharaoh was also the priest of Elkenah. And in verse 7 it appears that it was in his capacity as priest of Elkenah that he was sought after to take away Abraham's life. But if we are talking about the vizier, then it's difficult to see how he could have any additional functioning positions in the government, since they would all be irrelevant in comparison with his vizier position.<br />
<br />
And this is where the conspiracy theory comes in. What if the priest of Elkenah was part of a secret combination? What if the name "Elkenah" is one of the secret words, as described in Helaman 6:22? What if Abraham was tried, "not according to the laws of their country, but according to the laws of their wickedness," as described in Helaman 6:24?<br />
<br />
Let's hold that thought.<br />
<br />
Who was Onitah? He is described in verse 11 as "one of the royal descent directly from the loins of Ham." Yet, despite him being a royal figure, his daughters were killed by the priest of Pharaoh. Or, perhaps they were killed precisely because Onitah was a royal figure, which made them a threat.<br />
<br />
If Abraham is telling us that Onitah was a previous Pharaoh, we can conceivably find him by his name. He was contemporary with Abraham, which places him at about 2000 B.C. As we look through the list of Pharaohs, we see throne names like "Sehetepibre," "Kheperkare," "Sankhtawyef," etc. None of those names really resemble "Onitah." But one name on the list is harder to rule out, and that is Nebta (a short form of Neb-tawy-re, also knows as Mentuhotep IV). Nebtawy means "Lord of the two lands," and is a title which can be applied to all of the Pharaohs, however Mentuhotep IV used it not merely as a title but as his actual name. In fact, as a Pharaoh he had five names, and he used "Nebtawy" for three of his five names! And, interestingly, the fourth name, "Netjeru nebu," is also harder to rule out, which gives pause when one considers how easily the other Pharaohs can be ruled out.<br />
<br />
If we drop the O in Onitah for the sake of comparison, we get Nitah vs. Nebta (or Nitah vs. Netje, if we use the Golden Horus name), which is actually pretty close, although not a guaranteed match. However, we have some leeway, considering how much is still not known about the pronunciation of Middle Egyptian language and how much is not known about the methods Joseph Smith and his scribes employed when rendering a word into English as "Onitah." We can't rule out Joseph Smith dropping the b arbitrarily, or the existence of unwritten vowels and other unknown sounds inherent in the Egyptian name (which might not be an exact match for the "O" sound, but O might have been a decent rendering of the sound in English).<br />
<br />
Nebtawy-re (Mentuhotep IV) reigned from 1998-1991 B.C., which is the right timeframe.<br />
<br />
Nebtawy-re (Mentuhotep IV) is thought to have died childless, which is consistent with Onitah's daughters being killed by the priest of Pharaoh.<br />
<br />
Nebtawy-re (Mentuhotep IV) is assumed by some Egyptologists to have been killed and deposed by his vizier, Amenemhat. <br />
<br />
This vizier, Amenemhat, was not of royal lineage, even though he obtained the throne. If he is the same vizier whom Abraham referred to as the priest of Pharaoh, it makes sense that Abraham continued referring to him only in his role as vizier ("priest of Pharaoh") instead of as Pharaoh, since as Abraham explains, in verse 20, "Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood," and Amenemhat had no royal blood. Notice Abraham does not say there was mourning on the part of Pharaoh, the king, but only in the “court” of Pharaoh. This reference to those of the court, without mentioning the king specifically, is consistent with the idea that the king himself, Amenemhat I, was the one killed. Abraham goes on to state that while "this king of Egypt" was descended from Ham, he was in the same category as "all the Egyptians" and of Canaanite blood (verses 21-22), as opposed to Abraham's description of Onitah being "one of the royal descent directly from the loins of Ham." <br />
<br />
Nebtawy-re (Mentuhotep IV) has never been found, neither his mummy nor burial place, which is consistent with him being killed and deposed.<br />
<br />
Nebtawy-re (Mentuhotep IV) was not memorialized and was not included on the official king lists in Abydos, which is also consistent with him being killed and deposed.<br />
<br />
Amenemhat was also killed, unexpectedly, which is consistent with Abraham 1:20 ("and smote the priest that he died").<br />
<br />
Amenemhat moved the capital of Egypt far to the north, where he sought to restore the "old ways" of Egypt, and to link himself to the early rulers.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-77563954924295117992016-09-30T23:09:00.001-06:002019-12-22T17:26:02.888-07:00Kinderhook, GAEL and the Hor Book of Breathings<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqLUhs0FlmK02AC725nmNBYqnmYdjyYiQt5xUu2ibZK5CZS8Qgt7-xTRegOGpDygEBwWblm_Y-Flp15q8fb4HfpH2Fri105DDczAIFVRscybZdLF-Rqyd40WPgxL4Oy81tYUkbJ3AiIz0/s1600/joseph-smith-writing-kilbourn_193866_inl-520x245.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqLUhs0FlmK02AC725nmNBYqnmYdjyYiQt5xUu2ibZK5CZS8Qgt7-xTRegOGpDygEBwWblm_Y-Flp15q8fb4HfpH2Fri105DDczAIFVRscybZdLF-Rqyd40WPgxL4Oy81tYUkbJ3AiIz0/s320/joseph-smith-writing-kilbourn_193866_inl-520x245.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In his excellent 2011 FAIR Mormon presentation, Don Bradley effectively neutralized the Kinderhook Plates argument against Joseph Smith. I invite the reader to <a href="https://youtu.be/XQ1eoW7-q9k" target="_blank">view his presentation</a>, because it provides a great deal of relevant background information. <br />
<br />
Bradley used the following visual to illustrate the similarity between William Clayton's description of Joseph Smith's alleged translation of the Kinderhook Plates, and Joseph's description accompanying the GAEL's ho-e-oop-hah:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4PMb30RT8-YTrq8vfxyTPJ9FYaxM9rtciQ68KaxeYEGNf6Bfti4aheSSzRxRKxkvsC_vuqnJxO2-CM3vgMaChyphenhyphenDc0x9j8ZDg1LcTmAWkx9k0z9wtgpPsz5LPXKsjJooow9P90G9TIcy0/s1600/Bradley+Kinderhook.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="244" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4PMb30RT8-YTrq8vfxyTPJ9FYaxM9rtciQ68KaxeYEGNf6Bfti4aheSSzRxRKxkvsC_vuqnJxO2-CM3vgMaChyphenhyphenDc0x9j8ZDg1LcTmAWkx9k0z9wtgpPsz5LPXKsjJooow9P90G9TIcy0/s320/Bradley+Kinderhook.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
While the descriptions are not identical, we might reasonably allow room for Clayton's own interpretation and deduction.<br />
<br />
Now, I would like to build on Bradley's comparison, by considering an additional document: the Hor Book of Breathings. It was in Joseph Smith's possession and on display in his house as part of his papyri collection, possibly even at the same time as the Kinderhook Plates, and as Bradley points out from Pratt's letter, a large number of people had compared the characters on the Kinderhook Plates with the characters on the papyri, many of which were copied from the papyri to the GAEL. So, the papyri is of direct relevance here.<br />
<br />
It would be easy to get caught up in the fact that the Egyptian meaning of the boat-like character does not match the description Joseph associated with it in the GAEL, and to thereby deduce that Joseph did not derive said description from the Egyptological meaning of that character. This is well and good, however the fact that the character and description were not derived from each other does not mean the character and the description could not have both been derived from the same source - namely, the papyri. In fact, the papyri would seem to be the default candidate for such a source.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
Ho-e-oop-hah: A Description Of Hor?</div>
<br />
Let's compare what the Hor Book of Breathings papyrus says (Michael Rhodes translation), with the content of the GAEL's ho-e-oop-hah description.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Ho-e-oop-hah</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Honor by birth </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Hor Papyrus</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hor, justified, the son of one of like titles, master of the secrets, god’s priest, Usirwer, justified, born of the house wife, the musician of Amon-Re, Taykhebyt</blockquote>
Explanation: The description of Hor being the son of a man and woman of high honor and distinction directly indicates "honor by birth."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Ho-e-oop-hah</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Kingly power by the line of Pharaoh </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Hor Papyrus</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You are on the throne of Osiris </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...established upon your throne in the Sacred Land<br />
<br />
May you, Osiris, Hor, abide at the side of the throne of his greatness</blockquote>
Explanation: Osiris is the dead Pharaoh. The idea was that a living Pharaoh would become Osiris after death, as would his successor, and so on. Becoming Osiris was reserved only for Pharaohs, for a long time. Eventually, other elites were allowed to also become Osiris. Thus, Hor is essentially being adopted into the line of Pharaoh, in order to become the dead Pharaoh, Osiris. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Ho-e-oop-hah</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Possession by birth </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Hor Papyrus</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hor, justified, the son of one of like titles, master of the secrets, god’s priest, Usirwer, justified, born of the house wife, the musician of Amon-Re, Taykhebyt</blockquote>
Explanation: Rhodes explains in footnote 3: "In the Greco-Roman period sa mi nn means that the son was of similar priestly rank, not necessarily having the exact same titles." Hor was not merely a lay priest, but was a Prophet, and "possessed" his rights of a priest by virtue of his birth. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Ho-e-oop-hah</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
One who reigns upon his throne universally </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Hor Papyrus</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You are the Great God, foremost among the gods</blockquote>
Explanation: Not merely the sentence I chose, but the entire Hor Papyrus, is about Hor becoming the Great God, Osiris. He certainly reigns upon his throne universally. The same could not be said of any earthly ruler.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Ho-e-oop-hah</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Possessor of heaven and earth </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Hor Papyrus</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Your soul is living in heaven every day </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
May you go forth to the earth every day</blockquote>
Explanation: The Hor Papyrus is a match for both the heaven and the earth themes<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Ho-e-oop-hah</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...and the blessings of the earth</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Hor Papyrus</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
May you assume again your form on earth among the living </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Your flesh is on your bones, made like your form on earth </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
May your soul make for you invocation offerings of bread, beer, beef and fowl, libations and incense during the course of every day </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
May you drink with your throat. May you eat with your mouth. </blockquote>
Explanation: Not only is Hor able to live in heaven and on earth, but Hor is able to enjoy the earth with his earthly senses<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
How Clayton Makes The Book of Breathings Relevant </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Clayton's Journal</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
They contain the history of the person with whom they were found </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Hor Papyrus</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Osiris, God’s father, priest of Amon-Re, king of the gods, priest of Min, who massacres his enemies, priest of Khonsu, who is powerful in Thebes . . . Hor, justified, the son of one of like titles, master of the secrets, god’s priest, Usirwer, justified, born of the house wife, the musician of Amon-Re, Taykhebyt.</blockquote>
Explanation: The Hor Papyrus actually does contain the history of the person with whom it was found<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Clayton's Journal</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The plates were on the breast of the skeleton </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Hor Papyrus</b>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
the Osiris Hor, justified born of Taykhebyt, justified, after his two hands have been clasped to his heart. The Document of Breathing which <isis> made shall (also) be buried, which is written on both the inside and outside of it, (and wrapped) in royal linen, being placed under his left arm near his heart</isis></blockquote>
Explanation: The Hor Papyrus actually was on the breast of the deceased<br />
<br />
William Clayton made the Book of Breathings directly relevant to the Kinderhook Plates, in his journal entry, by claiming the Kinderhook Plates were on the breast of a skeleton. They actually were not, but the Book of Breathings was - on the breast of a mummy. Moreover, such Egyptian funerary documents are the only genre of document in the world which gets placed on a deceased person's breast. So Clayton was not only saying something which applies to the Book of Breathings, but he was in fact saying something which essentially applies <i>only</i> to the Book of Breathings and to similar Egyptian funerary texts.<br />
<br />
The question is, where along the line did Clayton come to believe the Kinderhook Plates were on the breast of a skeleton? It's possible that Clayton had concluded on his own that the Kinderhook Plates were an Egyptian funerary text similar to the papyri, and thus assumed that the Kinderhook Plates were on the breast of a skeleton, just as the papyri had been. Or it's possible that a random person made that assumption and passed it along to Clayton. The problem with that explanation, however, is that nothing about the actual find would have associated the Kinderhook Plates with Egypt. In the first place, they were plates. That brings to mind the Book of Mormon, not the papyri. Second, they were found in an Indian mound. That again brings to mind the Book of Mormon, not the papyri. And third, they were found in the American heartland - which brings to mind a wandering Nephite, not a wandering Egyptian. It's true that a few scattered bones were also found, along with miscellaneous other items, but nothing pointing to Egypt.<br />
<br />
The only known factor which points to Egypt in this situation is the GAEL's ho-e-oop-hah description. Which makes it probable that the way Clayton came to believe the Kinderhook Plates were on the breast of a skeleton was by talking with Joseph Smith. But this does not necessarily mean Joseph Smith himself made that assumption. It could instead mean that Clayton made the assumption based on statements Joseph made about the papyri.<br />
<br />
The fact that Clayton spoke with Joseph does not mean Clayton perfectly understood everything regarding the papyri. To begin with, Clayton was not present during the initial excitement surrounding the papyri. The papyri arrived in 1835, while Clayton did not join the Church until 1837, and he emigrated to America in 1840, when the papyri was not a primary focus.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
Difference Between Joseph Smith And William Clayton</div>
<br />
Consider when Joseph showed Clayton the boat-shaped character on the GAEL, and compared it with the boat-shaped character on the Kinderhook plate, how differently the two men might have interpreted the situation. To Joseph, the matching characters may have represented an encouraging sign of authenticity, meriting further inquiry. While to the excited Clayton, the matching characters, along with the description in the GAEL, may have represented a clear translation.<br />
<br />
Evidence of this difference between Joseph Smith and William Clayton is in the letter Bradley pointed out from "A Gentile," who confirms that Joseph found characters that matched, but goes on to say that Joseph "therefore will be able to decipher them." The future-tense seems to indicate that Joseph had not moved from authentication to translation. And this was a full week after Clayton's May 1 journal entry. That Joseph had not translated is also supported by Wilber Fugate's claim that Joseph "would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England." Also, this is consistent with the Willard Richards account of Joseph exhibiting the Kinderhook Plates on May 7, which does not indicate any actual translation.<br />
<br />
I realize I'm implying some confusion on Clayton's part, so let's consider just how plausible it is that a person in Clayton's shoes might get confused about ancient records. Don Bradley may have helped answer this already, when the FAIR Mormon audience seemed to accept Bradley's casual suggestion that "A Gentile" had confused the Book of Mormon with the Book of Abraham - and that "A Gentile" did so in a prepared letter to a major newspaper, which we might imagine "A Gentile" had put some thought into. If we can easily allow for that, then can we not allow for Clayton to make a false assumption? As for critics who might suggest that the FAIR Mormon audience granted too much plausibility to the idea of "A Gentile" being confused, I would remind them that the recovered Kinderhook Plate had sat in a museum, falsely labeled as one of the Gold Plates from the Book of Mormon! Confusion does happen.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-66275014359205351972016-09-28T22:18:00.002-06:002019-12-16T01:41:39.804-07:00"Purporting to be the writings of Abraham"<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">
The header for the original 1842 printing of the Book of Abraham reads:</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A TRANSLATION<br />
Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">
First, we need not suppose that the word "translation" confines Joseph Smith to what is literally on the papyrus. It is well known that Joseph used the word "translation" in a much broader sense than we typically do today.<br />
Second, the word "purporting" indicates there is more going on than meets the eye. Here we have a situation where the words “purporting to be” are inserted to indicate something, yet the word “purporting” has negative connotations. That word was only used in the <i>Times and Seasons</i> in reference to things that had not been verified as true, and usually it was used as a means of denying the authenticity of the items in question.</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">
For instance, the December 1, 1842 edition contains the following excerpt, which uses the word to cast doubt on a “lost book,” which parallels the Book of Abraham:</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We have lately seen a pamphlet, written, and published by James C. Brewster; purporting to be one of the lost books of Esdras; and to be written by the gift and power of God. We consider it a perfect humbug, and should not have noticed it, had it not been assiduously circulated, in several branches of the church.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">
Another example (out of several which exist) is found in the September 2, 1844 edition:</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Whereas Elders James J. Strang and Aaron Smith have been circulating a "revelation." (falsely called) purporting to have been received by Joseph Smith on the 18th of June, 1844: and through the influence of which they have attempted and are attempting to establish a stake, called Voree, in Wisconsin Territory, thereby leading the saints astray: therefore, the said James J. Strang and Aaron Smith are cut off from the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this 26th day of August, 1844.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">
So, what should we make of the use of the word “purporting” in the Book of Abraham header? Well, we know Joseph is not trying to cast doubt on the authenticity of Abraham's writings which he translated. But he does seem to be casting doubt on the idea that the ancient records in his possession are themselves the plain writings of Abraham. </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-37398450465833066932016-09-28T20:43:00.003-06:002022-03-06T08:05:59.237-07:00Regarding the Alleged Handwriting of Abraham<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
The Book of Abraham puzzle is cluttered with a lot of assumptions. One of these is the idea that Joseph Smith claimed Abraham personally held and wrote on the papyrus which Joseph Smith had in his collection. <br />
Most LDS apologists seem content with just chalking it up to Joseph Smith not knowing any better, and attributing it to Joseph Smith's secular efforts to understand the papyri's relationship to the inspired Book of Abraham translation.<br />
That's all well and good if it's true. But I don't think we should just assume that it's true. Such an assumption, if false, could taint our overall understanding of the Book of Abraham issues, possibly making it more difficult for us to find real answers to Book of Abraham challenges.<br />
So, let's have a look at the cases where Joseph allegedly claimed that Abraham personally wrote on the papyrus.<br />
<br />
I know of five such cases. One is in the handwriting of Willard Richards, possibly dictated by Joseph Smith, and the others include Josiah Quincy, Charles Adams, an anonymous person referenced in the National Intelligencer, and someone referenced in Supplement to the Courant. Let's look at these individually, starting with the most well-known example.</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
Josiah Quincy</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"And now come with me," said the prophet, "and I will show you the curiosities." So saying, he led the way to a lower room, where sat a venerable and respectable-looking lady. "This is my mother, gentlemen. The curiosities we shall see belong to her. They were purchased with her own money, at a cost of six thousand dollars;" and then, with deep feeling, were added the words, "And that woman was turned out upon the prairie in the dead of night by a mob." There were some pine presses fixed against the wall of the room. These receptacles Smith opened, and disclosed four human bodies, shrunken and black with age. "These are mummies," said the exhibitor. "I want you to look at that little runt of a fellow over there. He was a great man<br />
in his day. Why, that was Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt!" Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us. They were preserved under glass and handled with great respect. "That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful," said the prophet. "This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the creation, from which Moses composed the first book of Genesis." The parchment last referred to showed a rude drawing of a man and woman, and a serpent walking upon a pair of legs. I ventured to doubt the propriety of providing the reptile in question with this unusual means of locomotion.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
This account of a visit to Nauvoo, which took place shortly before Joseph's Martyrdom, was published in 1883 and compiled from Quincy's journal entries and letters written in 1844. Quincy was certainly not acting as a scribe for Joseph during the visit, and it is doubtful that, by the time Quincy sat down to compose his journal entries and letters concerning the variety of experiences he had at Nauvoo, that he actually recalled the words which Joseph had said. Rather, he seems to be caricaturing the types of things which were said, in order to convey the general spirit of his experience. For instance, he says Joseph Smith's mother purchased the papyri, which is not true, and that the price was 6,000 dollars, which is also not true. Here it looks like Quincy combined two separate ideas - that the papyri had been purchased and that Joseph's mother owned them – into a single claim. And, he did so without attention to the finer details. </div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
Quoting Joseph's exact words was evidently not Quincy's concern, since, in his words, "the blasphemous assumptions of Smith seemed like the ravings of a lunatic."<br />
Are the "ravings of a lunatic" significant enough to remember word-for-word? He even compared Smith to inmates at an insane asylum, "victims of the sad but not uncommon delusion that each had received the appointment of vicegerent of the Deity upon earth." Quincy does not seem to hold this against Smith personally, but rather is taking pity on him, while at the same time marveling that such a man could accomplish all that Joseph Smith had accomplished.</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
Moreover, Quincy's journal entry is less reliable because it was apparently rewritten decades later to make it more suitable for publication. In his introduction, Quincy states:</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... a friend, who had read my journals with interest, offered me his most valuable aid in what may be called the literary responsibilities of the undertaking. My narratives have gained in grace of expression as they passed beneath the correcting pen of my obliging critic, and I am confident that a stern exercise of his right of curtailing reflections and omitting incidents has been no less for the reader's advantage.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
We might reasonably suppose that any of Joseph Smith's detailed, clarifying remarks, which Quincy may conceivably have originally written down, would have been edited out as part of that "stern exercise of his right of curtailing reflections and omitting incidents..." </div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
In further support of this view is the included statement, "This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the creation, from which Moses composed the first book of Genesis." Since this was May of 1844, Joseph had long since already translated both the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham. But Quincy and his friend appear not to realize that the Book of Moses had in fact come from a translation of the Bible, not from a translation of the papyri, so in print it ended up in a narrative of the papyri - and this is perhaps the type of liberty which Quincy calls the “grace of expression” in the introductory excerpt to his book, cited above.</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
Charles Francis Adams</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
He [Joseph Smith] then took us down into his mother's chamber and showed us four Egyptian mummies stripped and then undertook to explain the contents of a chart or manuscript which he said had been taken from the bosom of one of them. The cool impudence of this imposture amused me very much. "This," said he, "was written by the hand of Abraham and means so and so. If anyone denies it, let him prove the contrary. I say it." Of course, we were too polite to prove the negative, against a man fortified by revelation.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
Perhaps the most telling words in the Adams account are “so and so.” Like Quincy, Adams is clearly not interested in what Smith was saying, but is “amused” at what he calls an “imposture.” Adams believes that he (and Quincy) could have proven the “so and so” wrong, but were simply too polite to do so – and yet he still declines to do so in even his journal entry, where politeness is no longer at issue, which perhaps means that he had forgotten what the “so and so” was. In any event, it appears Joseph simply explained how the Book of Abraham came down to us, and that Adams took away very few of the details.</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white;">
<div style="color: #212121;">
Joseph Smith</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #212121;">A considerable quantity of the matter in the last paper was in type before the establishment came into my hands.— Some of which went to press without my review or knowledge and a multiplicity of business while entering on the additional care of the editorial department of the Times and Seasons must be my apology for what is past.—</span></div>
<span style="color: #212121;"> </span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In future I design to furnish much original matter which will be found of inestimable advantage to the saints,—& all who desire a knowledge of the kingdom of God,—and as it is not practicable to bring forth the new translation of the Scriptures & various records of ancient date & great worth to this generation in the usual form by books I shall permit specimens of the same in the Times & Seasons as fast as time and space will admit,—so that the honest in heart may be cheered and comforted and go on their way rejoicing,— as their souls become exposed.—& their understanding enlightened by a knowledge of God's work through the fathers in former days as well as what He is about to do in latter days to fulfill the words of the fathers.— </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the present no. will be found the commencement of the Records discovered in Egypt some time since as penned by the hand of Father Abraham which I shall outline to translate & publish as fast as possible till the whole is completed and as the saints have long been anxious to obtain a copy of these records those [who] are now taking this Times Seasons will confer a special favor on their brethren who do not take the paper by informing them that they can now obtain their hearts.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
This was a rough draft of a statement which was in the process of being prepared for the Times and Seasons, in the handwriting of Willard Richards on behalf of Joseph Smith. This unpublished statement was written before the publication of the Book of Abraham, when Joseph was perhaps still deciding how to explain the relationship between the record of Abraham and the papyri without detracting from the message of the scripture. </div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
One of the routine duties of Joseph's scribes was to adjust his grammar and phraseology to conform to professional standards. In the process of them performing that duty, some meaning can however be lost. </div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
Richard Bushman illustrates how William Clayton as scribe was “more alert to doctrine” than Willard Richards, citing differences in how they recorded a statement made by Joseph Smith on April 2, 1843:</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Richards recorded one famous epigram as “The earth in its sanctified and immortal state will be a Urim & Thummim for all things below it in the scale of creation, but not above it.” Clayton elaborated the sentence to read “The earth when it is purified will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim & Thummim whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom on all kingdoms of a lower order will be manifest to those who dwell on it.”</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
We might contrast the unpublished statement written by Richards for Joseph Smith, with the introductory note which ended up on the Book of Abraham when it was finally published. The note does not say the papyrus Abraham wrote on was the same papyrus Joseph Smith purchased, or even a papyrus roll that still exists, or anything of the like.<br />
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
The header for the original 1842 printing reads:</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A TRANSLATION<br />
Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
First, we need not suppose that the word "translation" confines Joseph Smith to what is literally on the papyrus. It is well known that Joseph used the word "translation" in a much broader sense than we typically do today.<br />
Second, the word "purporting" indicates there is more going on than meets the eye. Here we have a situation where the words “purporting to be” are inserted to indicate something, yet the word “purporting” has negative connotations. That word was only used in the <i>Times and Seasons</i> in reference to things that had not been verified as true, and usually it was used as a means of denying the authenticity of the items in question.</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
For instance, the December 1, 1842 edition contains the following excerpt, which uses the word to cast doubt on a “lost book,” which parallels the Book of Abraham:</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We have lately seen a pamphlet, written, and published by James C. Brewster; purporting to be one of the lost books of Esdras; and to be written by the gift and power of God. We consider it a perfect humbug, and should not have noticed it, had it not been assiduously circulated, in several branches of the church.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
Another example (out of several which exist) is found in the September 2, 1844 edition:</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Whereas Elders James J. Strang and Aaron Smith have been circulating a "revelation." (falsely called) purporting to have been received by Joseph Smith on the 18th of June, 1844: and through the influence of which they have attempted and are attempting to establish a stake, called Voree, in Wisconsin Territory, thereby leading the saints astray: therefore, the said James J. Strang and Aaron Smith are cut off from the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this 26th day of August, 1844.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
So, what should we make of the use of the word “purporting” in the Book of Abraham header? Well, we know Joseph is not trying to cast doubt on the authenticity of Abraham's writings which he translated. But he does seem to be casting doubt on the idea that the ancient records in his possession are themselves the plain, uncorrupted writings of Abraham. </div>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
</div>
<div align="center" class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
National Intelligencer</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
To the disgrace of the age this wicked imposture flourished. As a specimen of its grossness, we may mention a fact, stated by an extremely respectable gentleman of this city, as one within his personal knowledge. Being on a tour to the West, he visited Nauvoo from curiosity. In the temple he was shown a collection of curiosities, and among them were one or two mummies, which had been imported from Egypt by Joe Smith. The attention of the visitor was called by Smith to the mummy clothes and the writing upon them. "There," said Smith, "that's the hand writing of the patriarch Abraham, and I am the only man that can read it," which he then proceeded to do!</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
This article was a piece of anti-Mormon propaganda, arguing against statehood for “Deseret.” Aside from that, the article may have simply been referring to Josiah Quincy:</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<br /></div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
Quincy: "That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful,"”</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
Intelligencer: "that's the hand writing of the patriarch Abraham...”</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<br /></div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
Quincy fits the description of an “extremely respectable gentleman,” who had been “on a tour to the West,” and “visited Nauvoo from curiosity.” He was also “of this city,” meaning Washington, D.C., where the Intelligencer was published, in the sense that his father, Josiah Quincy III, became a United States Congressman two years after the younger Quincy was born, and served for eight years in Washington, D.C. </div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
Supplement to the Courant</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The embalmed body that stands near the centre of the case, said he, is one of the Pharaohs, who sat upon the throne of Egypt; and the female figure by its side, was probably one of his daughters. It may have been the princess Thermutis, I replied, the same that rescued Moses from the waters of the Nile. It is not improbable, answered the prophet; but my time has not yet allowed me fully to examine and decide that point. Do you understand the Hebrew language, said he, raising his hand to the top of the case, and taking down a small Hebrew Grammar of Rabbi Sexias. That language has not altogether escaped my attention, was the reply. He then walked to a secretary, on the opposite side of the room, and drew out several frames covered with glass, under which were numerous fragments of Egyp-tian papyrus, on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical characters had been imprinted. These ancient records, said he, throw great light upon the subject of Christianity. They have been unrolled and preserved with great labor and care. My time has hitherto been too much taken up to translate the whole of them, but I will show you how I interpret certain parts. There, said he, pointing to a particular character, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham. It is indeed a most interesting autograph, I replied, and doubtless the only one extant. What an ornament it would be to have these ancient manuscripts hand-somely set, in appropriate frames, and hung up around the walls of the temple which you are about to erect in this place. Yes, replied the prophet, and the translation hung up with them.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
The first thing I want to address is a recurring theme, an example of which we find here, of Joseph telling people that one of the mummies was a “pharaoh” or a “king.”</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
The details of the accounts differ and provide contradictory information, but among these accounts is even an 1846 statement attributed to Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, by someone known as “M.”</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[Lucy Mack Smith] produced a black looking roll (which she told us was papyrus) found on the breast of the King, part of which the prophet had unrolled and read; and she had pasted the deciphered sheets on the leaves of a book which she showed us.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
It's possible that “M” could be relying on someone in addition to Lucy for this information, but it sounds like Lucy is talking about the Book of Breathings papyrus, and that she explained something about it being found on the breast of “the king.” It was, in fact, found on the breast of Hor, who was a priest but not a king. The only way Hor could be called a king is either by mistake or in the context of the Book of Breathings content, which tells Hor that he has become Osiris (a king and god) and tells him, “you are on the throne of Osiris.”</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
Osiris was believed by Egyptians to have been the first king/pharaoh of Egypt, as well as a god and king of the afterlife. We wouldn't expect people to understand or remember a detailed explanation from Joseph regarding these matters, but they would certainly remember the word “king,” leading to people thinking, “Joseph said the mummy was a pharaoh.” </div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
And it's important to keep in mind that Joseph and his mother were showing people the Egyptian papyrus, not the English translated Book of Abraham. So in that context, it would be natural for Joseph to speak of the Book of Breathings in a similar fashion as how he addressed it in response to William Clayton's questions on the plates found in Kinderhook, Illinois, <a href="http://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2016/09/kinderhook-gael-and-hor-book-of.html" target="_blank">according to my theory on the Kinderhook Plates</a>.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
The second, but primary, issue I wish to discuss here is the word “signature,” in this visitor's reference to Joseph mentioning the signature of Abraham.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
Webster in 1828 defined “signature” in the first entry as:</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1. A sign, stamp or mark impressed. The brain being well furnished with various traces, signatures and images. The natural and indelible signature of God stamped on the human soul.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
The relevant definition for “mark,” is “any note or sign of distinction.”</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
The relevant definitions for “stamp” are:</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
3. To impress; to imprint; to fix deeply; as, to stamp virtuous principles on the heart.<br />
4. To fix a mark by impressing it; as a notion of the Deity stamped on the mind.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
All of these are useful to us, but the first word Webster used, in the first definition for “signature,” is “sign.” In turn, the first definition he gives for “sign” is:</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1. A token; something by which another thing is shown or represented; any visible thing, any motion, appearance or event which indicates the existence or approach of something else. Thus we speak of signs of fair weather or of a storm, and of external marks which are signs of a good constitution.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
Joseph, then, was perhaps not pointing to any instance of Abraham having actually personally written on the papyrus, but instead to something on the papyrus which signifies Abraham, i.e. “something by which another thing is shown or represented.”<br />
Most likely, Joseph's reference to a signature was part of a larger explanation, as it seems unlikely that Joseph would have just out of the blue pointed to a certain character and said it was the signature of Abraham, but the image of him pointing at the papyrus is what stood out in the visitor's memory.</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
Of course, the visitor goes on to call it an “autograph,” indicating the visitor's own, perhaps limited, understanding of Joseph's explanations. Joseph evidently declined to comment on the visitor's use of the word “autograph,” but focused on the visitor's remark about the external beauty of the papyri, using it as an opportunity to turn the conversation towards the English translation of the Book of Abraham: “Yes, replied the prophet, and the translation hung up with them.”</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
It's hard to imagine what it must have been like to be in Joseph's shoes, having a great understanding of heaven and God, and so many other things, yet leading people who themselves have great variance in their levels of understanding. I am reminded of the scriptures:</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
<br /></div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now (John 16:12).</div>
<div class="x_MsoBodyText" style="background-color: white;">
<div style="color: #212121;">
<br /></div>
<span style="color: #212121;">0 Behold, ye are little children and ye cannot bear all things now; ye must grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth (D&C 50:40).</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-11094552214256501252016-09-23T15:36:00.002-06:002019-12-22T17:26:50.264-07:00The Kinderhook ConnectionI hope you will first read or watch Don Bradley's excellent 2011 FAIR Mormon presentation on the Kinderhook plates, before considering my theory.<br />
<br />
Assuming everyone is up to speed on the essential facts surrounding the Kinderhook plates, let's look at my theory.<br />
<br />
First, a question. What was the source of the content for the ho-e-oop-hah description contained in the GAEL? I would suggest the prime candidate is the very document Joseph had in his possession and had focused some attention on: the Hor Book of Breathings. I would also suggest that this association is what caused William Clayton to mistakenly claim the Kinderhook Plates were found on the breast of a skeleton, and that Clayton may have been confused by what Joseph told him, i.e. three documents were being discussed - Kinderhook Plates, GAEL, and Book of Breathings - but the Kinderhook Plates and Book of Breathings would not have been called by the names we know them by today. Instead, they were likely referred to with similar words like "record," "characters," "symbols," "history," "artifact," "discovery," "ancient," "Egyptian," etc. and Clayton may have conflated some details.<br />
<br />
As we can see in the following image, the Hor Book of Breathings contains all the content of the ho-e-oop-hah description (click to enlarge):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2vcNZyVr0fL3wU6UvI8vjfwILjnvcs7LcnA6DL7ubgmWEyi3FhF-oUZzHjTbQ9RGR8au4fBy-ZA5Tl_QPE5sp2jKiCIauRal1Nxj0Tsuo7qkk30UPrwJZeeexeMvzbAeCsMdoVta6TYI/s1600/Kinderhook+Connection.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="198" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2vcNZyVr0fL3wU6UvI8vjfwILjnvcs7LcnA6DL7ubgmWEyi3FhF-oUZzHjTbQ9RGR8au4fBy-ZA5Tl_QPE5sp2jKiCIauRal1Nxj0Tsuo7qkk30UPrwJZeeexeMvzbAeCsMdoVta6TYI/s320/Kinderhook+Connection.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I have not been able to find any record of Clayton ever mentioning the papyri. He was certainly aware of the papyri, however he missed out on the initial excitement. The papyri arrived in 1835; Clayton joined the Church in 1837, and emigrated to America in 1840, when the Saints had many other concerns and the papyri was not a primary focus. It's quite possible Clayton did not know many of the details.<br />
<br />
Okay, so William Clayton very likely based his personal journal entry, about Joseph Smith translating a portion of the Kinderhook Plates, on a discussion he had with Joseph Smith himself, regarding the GAEL's boat-like "ho-e-oop-hah" and the description associated with it.<br />
<br />
However, Clayton's journal entry does not completely add up. Clayton said the plates were on the breast of a skeleton, which is wrong. Clayton said the plates were found in Adams County, which is wrong. Clayton said the skeleton was "nine foot high," which is wrong. So at the very least, we know Clayton was not being a stickler for accuracy in this particular situation. He was excited about the discovery of the plates, and maybe in his personal journal he took the liberty of jotting down tentative info as though it were fact.<br />
<br />
So, I don't take for granted that Clayton's portrayal of Joseph conducting a Kinderhook Plate translation is strictly matter-of-fact and without any assumptions or misunderstandings on Clayton's part. For instance, Clayton wrote that Joseph Smith said the plates "contain the history of the person with whom they were found." But did Joseph really claim to know that to be a fact? Joseph could not have known it through divine revelation, since the Kinderhook Plates were, after all, a hoax. And he couldn't have known it from the ho-e-opp-hah GAEL entry, since the GAEL entry makes no claims about documents being found with anyone. The plates were just a physical object which in theory could have been found with anyone. Nephi had brass plates too, but the writing on them was not about him. Moreover, Joseph knew from his personal experience with buried plates that the reasons for burying plates can be complicated.<br />
<br />
When Joseph showed Clayton the boat-shaped character on the GAEL, and compared it with the boat-shaped character on the Kinderhook plate, it's easy to see how differently Joseph and Clayton might have interpreted the situation. To Joseph, the seasoned translator, the matching characters may have represented an encouraging sign of authenticity, meriting further inquiry. While to the excited Clayton, the matching characters, along with the description in the GAEL, may have represented a clear translation. Evidence of this difference between Joseph and Clayton is in the letter from "A Gentile," who confirms that Joseph found characters that matched, but goes on to say that Joseph "therefore will be able to decipher them." The future-tense seems to indicate that Joseph had not moved from authentication to translation. And this was a week after Clayton's journal entry. This is also supported by Wilber Fugate's claim that Joseph "would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England." Also, this is consistent with the Willard Richards account, which does not indicate anything so eventful.<br />
<br />
So, just how plausible is it that a person could be confused about ancient records? Well, Bradley may have helped answer this question already, when the FAIR Mormon audience seemed to accept Bradley's casual suggestion that "A Gentile" had confused the Book of Mormon with the Book of Abraham - and that "A Gentile" did so in a prepared letter to a major newspaper, which we might imagine "A Gentile" put some thought into. As for critics who might suggest that only a FAIR Mormon audience would accept the plausibility of anyone confusing artifacts, I would remind them that one of the actual Kinderhook Plates sat in a museum, falsely labeled as one of the Gold Plates from the Book of Mormon!<br />
<br />
Which leads us back to Clayton saying Joseph talked about the plates having a history of "the person with whom they were found" and Clayton saying the plates were "on the breast of the skeleton," none of which makes sense in the context of the fraudulent Kinderhook Plates, but makes perfect sense if we are talking about the Book of Breathings.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0