I don't believe the Book of Abraham or Alphabet and Grammar are true translations of anything. When I said you missed the "most pertinent point", all I meant was that your rebuttal to Charles was pretty far afield of the specific theory he's defending.
I do think there are some inaccuracies in the statements you've been making, and that you're relying on some pretty outdated sources, but I don't feel greatly motivated to reply in detail. At the very least, in future polemics I recommend you rely on the more current Egyptological attack on the BoA available here:
www.utlm.org/other/robertritnerpapyriarticle.pdf
Peace,
-Chris
Edited by Chris Smith, 11 October 2009 - 04:14 PM.
"I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently,
on the faults of other people's religions, he is in a bad condition." -C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209).
There are three references in the LDS History of the Church (cited hereafter as DHC) for the year 1835 which mentions the Grammar and Alphabet. They are as follows:
1. "The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients." (DHC Vol. 2:238 for July 1835; written in the year 1843)
2. "This after noon labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with bro. O. Cowdery and W. W. Phelps: the System of astronomy was unfolded." (Diary of Joseph Smith, October 1, 1835, p.3; also in DHC Vol. 2:286)
In 1843 the diary notation was expanded adding: "and during the research, the principles of astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients unfolded to our understanding, the particulars of which will appear hereafter." ("Manuscript History of the Church," Book B-1, p. 622; also DHC Vol. 2:286)
3. "exhibited the alphabet of the ancient records to Mr Holmes and some others" (Diary of Joseph Smith, November 17, 1835, p. 45; DHC Vol. 2:316)
It is interesting that on October 1, 1835 Joseph Smith mentioned his scribes - Oliver Cowdery and William W. Phelps. Oliver Cowdery's handwriting does not appear in the bound Grammar and Alphabet but he wrote Egyptian MS. No. 5 and his handwriting appears on a page of Joseph Smith's Egyptian MS. No. 4 and in one small notebook (Egyptian MS. No. 6). The other scribe William W. Phelps wrote most of the Grammar and Alphabet (Egyptian MS. No.1), Egyptian MS. No. 2, Egyptian MS. No. 3 and Egyptian MS. No. 7. William W. Phelps' handwriting also appears on Translation Manuscript No.1 (first half of page 1) and Translation Manuscript No. 2 of the Book of Abraham. These two scribes wrote for Joseph Smith soon after the mummies and papyri were purchased. Significantly the DHC records the following:
". . . with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics. . . ." (DHC 2:236 for July 1835; written in 1843; italics mine)
There is also one mention of translating in October 1835 as follows:
"this afternoon recommenced translating the ancient records." (Diary of Joseph Smith, October 7, 1835, p. 7; also in DHC 2:289)
Warren Parrish was appointed a scribe to Joseph Smith on October 29, 1835 as the following from the Diary of Joseph Smith makes explicit under that date:
"Br Parish commenced writing for me at $15.00 pr month" (Diary of Joseph Smith, October 29, 1835, p. 10; also DHC 2:293)
On November 14, 1835 the calling of Warren Parrish as scribe was mentioned in a revelation to Joseph Smith which stated in part:
". . . he shall see much of my ancient records . . . . he shall be privileged with writing much of my word, as a scribe unto me for the benefit of my people, therefore this shall be his calling until I shall order it otherwise in my wisdom and it shall be said of him in a time to come behold Warren the Lords Scribe, for the Lords Seer. . . ." (Diary of Joseph Smith, November 14, 1835, p. 36; also DHC 2:311)
Quote
When I said you missed the "most pertinent point", all I meant was that your rebuttal to Charles was pretty far afield of the specific theory he's defending.
And I asked you to elaborate, as I also asked him when he said I was wrong, but failed top quote anything specific as being wrong.
Quote
I do think there are some inaccuracies in the statements you've been making, and that you're relying on some pretty outdated sources, but I don't feel greatly motivated to reply in detail.
Then we must conclude you are in fact incorrect.
Quote
At the very least, in future polemics I recommend you rely on the more current Egyptological attack on the BoA available here:
www.utlm.org/other/robertritnerpapyriarticle.pdf
Peace,
-Chris
I have as much accurate data as I need to know what I'm talking about and I quote the sources for you to scrutinize if you chose to. If you don't wish to enlighten me on where you feel I'm incorrect, then please don't make a claim you cannot back up with data.
I can’t face the cold grey cold
You can’t play nursemaid and be the crazy patient
I have as much accurate data as I need to know what I'm talking about and I quote the sources for you to scrutinize if you chose to. If you don't wish to enlighten me on where you feel I'm incorrect, then please don't make a claim you cannot back up with data.
Don't get snippy with Chris. He's actually trying to help you.
Edited by structurecop, 11 October 2009 - 06:11 PM.
That's idiot. Seriously. Just sop.-- Anonymous
"With respect to people feeling that whatever the brethren say is gospel, this tends to undermine the proposition of freedom of speech and thought..." -- Hugh B. Brown "We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father." -- Times and Seasons 3 (15 November 1841)
Anyone familiar with the rudiments of W. W.'s life would know why he would name his daughter Mehitabel -- you clearly didn't.
Moving on...
William Schryver, on 11 October 2009 - 02:00 PM, said:
Chris,
One question I would like to pose is this:
Other than your (debatable) assertion that it is similar to what you believe Joseph Smith had done with the document he had Martin Harris take to Charles Anthon, what textual evidence from the page below do you believe ties the highlighted portion to Joseph Smith?
Seriously?
Perhaps this will suffice: all but the last transliteration (third column from the left) and their English translations (to the right) owe their inspiration to a then unpublished revelation that Joseph Smith issued ca. March 1832.
Brent Metcalfe, on 11 October 2009 - 07:50 PM, said:
Hi Will,
Anyone familiar with the rudiments of W. W.'s life would know why he would name his daughter Mehitabel -- you clearly didn't.
Moving on...
Seriously?
Perhaps this will suffice: all but the last transliteration (third column from the left) and their English translations (to the right) owe their inspiration to a then unpublished revelation that Joseph Smith issued ca. March 1832.
The words "owe their inspiration to" are wiggle words of the highest order. Care to elaborate? And what "then unpublished revelation" are you referring to? Thanks.
Everybody liked better to conjecture how the thing was, than simply to know it; for conjecture soon became more confident than knowledge, and had a more liberal allowance for the incompatible. George Eliot, "Middlemarch"
The English used the word corn to describe grains like wheat, rye, barley, and oats. They used the term Indian corn or turkey wheat when speaking of what Americans now call corn. A Closer Look: True Stories from the Mayflower. "U.S. News and World Report," November 20, 2006, page 28.
Brent Metcalfe, on 11 October 2009 - 07:50 PM, said:
Hi Will,
Anyone familiar with the rudiments of W. W.'s life would know why he would name his daughter Mehitabel -- you clearly didn't.
Moving on...
Seriously?
Perhaps this will suffice: all but the last transliteration (third column from the left) and their English translations (to the right) owe their inspiration to a then unpublished revelation that Joseph Smith issued ca. March 1832.
I never knew, and hardly could have imagined, until your revelatory post above, that "Mehitabel" was the name of Mehitabel Phelps's grandmother. It certainly isn't something that could be found via a simple Googlesearch, now is it?
I certainly never knew, and hardly could have imagined (until Chris's recently published paper), that (at least according to you and Chris) this letter by W. W. Phelps proves that Joseph Smith himself had formulated this curious "grid system" for breaking down the meaning of the characters of ancient languages.
In fact, if I were reduced to listing all those things I don't know, but which you do, heaven only knows how long this post would grow ...
Thank goodness you came along tonight with sufficient generosity to disabuse me of at least a portion of my abject ignorance. My gratitude knows no bounds.
Edited by William Schryver, 11 October 2009 - 08:59 PM.
Lurks in shadows unlit by the fiery gaze of the SCMC
Banned
2,098 posts
Posted 11 October 2009 - 08:30 PM
cdowis, on 11 October 2009 - 05:23 PM, said:
There are those in this forum who have no interest in conversing with a crude, ignorant person such as myself.
Just curious whether there is anyone willing to address the questions and issues I posted.
Hi cd,
I'd be happy to address your questions and issues. Although, with Chris and Brent in the room, I may be overruled.
cdowis, on 11 October 2009 - 05:18 AM, said:
1. One theory is that these two texts are related, that the BOD is the basis for the BOA. Tvedtnes' gives a reasonable basis for that theory. Thus, JS played an active role in the KEP. I have refined this theory with some of my own ideas. It is interesting because it is a relatively simple to test. I have detailed this test elsewhere.
I'm not sure if you're asking a question here. By "BOD" are you referring to the Document of Breathings or the Book of the Dead?
Quote
2. The apologetic position, as I call it, is that these two texts are completely unrelated, just the results of some exercise in translation conducted by the scribes with little or no imput from JS.
That was Nibley's assertion. There are many apologetic theories for the papyri and the KEP. As far as I can tell, the most popular apologetic explanation for the BoA is the "Missing Papyrus Theory" combined with the "Scribes Did It Theory" for the KEP.
Quote
The scribes either grabbed some Egyptian text at random, without consulting JS, or JS deliberately gave them the wrong Egyptian scroll. There is another Egyptian scroll from which the BOA text is drawn.
Yup, that's probably the main apologetic position.
What they don't teach in Sunday school "We take off into the cosmos, ready for anything - - solitude, hardship, exhaustion, death. We're proud of ourselves. But when you think about it, our enthusiasm's a sham. We don't want other worlds; we want mirrors." -- Gibarian
The words "owe their inspiration to" are wiggle words of the highest order. Care to elaborate? And what "then unpublished revelation" are you referring to? Thanks.
Greg,
"owe their inspiration" = "very well could be" = "it is likely" = "most probably" = "very possible" = etc.
If you'd like more examples of this amazingly versatile literary device, I recommend a thorough reading of Dan Vogel's seminal work in this area: Joseph Smith - The Making of a Prophet.
William Schryver, on 11 October 2009 - 08:24 PM, said:
I certainly never knew, and hardly could have imagined (until Chris's recently published paper), that (at least according to you and Chris) this letter by W. W. Phelps proves that Joseph Smith himself had formulated this curious "grid system" for breaking down the meaning of the characters of ancient languages.
I don't think I ever made that claim for this particular letter. Especially not in isolation. (I don't generally use the word "proves" or its variations, since it implies a level of certainty that is rarely to be had in historical studies.)
Peace,
-Chris
P.S. Brent, are you saying that the characters were part of the March 1832 Adamic revelation?
Edited by Chris Smith, 11 October 2009 - 08:53 PM.
The "Mehitabel" that I was referring to was W. W.'s mother -- that is, young Mehitabel's grandmother, not her "great-grandmother" as you suggest.
And above all, it is abundantly clear that you are completely unaware of the fact that much of the content of W. W.'s missive to Sally on the "pure language" owes its inspiration to a revelation that Joseph issued ca. March 1832.
Hi Greg,
Since I evidently have nothing new to add to Will's knowledge, I'm sure that he'll be able to provide the source within the next few minutes.
Brent Metcalfe, on 11 October 2009 - 07:50 PM, said:
Hi Will,
Anyone familiar with the rudiments of W. W.'s life would know why he would name his daughter Mehitabel -- you clearly didn't.
Moving on...
Seriously?
Perhaps this will suffice: all but the last transliteration (third column from the left) and their English translations (to the right) owe their inspiration to a then unpublished revelation that Joseph Smith issued ca. March 1832.
Furthermore, it wasn't really me, but only someone who looks like me and talks like me who was talking much earlier today about these things with one of our common acquaintances. Because, you see, discovering the reason a word like "Mehitabel" would appear in a letter by W. W. Phelps is probably a challenge that only few in the world would be able to meet.
Brent Metcalfe, on 11 October 2009 - 08:51 PM, said:
Hi Will,
The "Mehitabel" that I was referring to was W. W.'s mother -- that is, young Mehitabel's grandmother, not her "great-grandmother" as you suggest.
And above all, it is abundantly clear that you are completely unaware of the fact that much of the content of W. W.'s missive to Sally on the "pure language" owes its inspiration to a revelation that Joseph issued ca. March 1832.
Hi Greg,
Since I evidently have nothing new to add to Will's knowledge, I'm sure that he'll be able to provide the source within the next few minutes.
William Schryver, on 11 October 2009 - 09:03 PM, said:
Furthermore, it wasn't really me, but only someone who looks like me and talks like me who was talking much earlier today about these things with one of our common acquaintances. Because, you see, discovering the reason a word like "Mehitabel" would appear in a letter by W. W. Phelps is probably a challenge that only few in the world would be able to meet.
With all the sincerity and erudition that I can muster: Huh?
0
This topic is locked
