So, The BOA Is A Bunch Of Baloney Eh?

[Oprichnik]

Ok. now I'm up to speed, but still don't have anything more than from before. However, before I start, . WHO WAS TAKING CARE OF THAT MANUSCRIPT??????? Beowulf's in better condition, and it got caught in a fire!! Oh well. Egyptian papyri are fairly rare, and it's a blessing that it's in the condition it is.

I know the tale of the BoA up until the Chicago fire. Refer to Marvelous work and wonder for that. I did NOT, however, know of the manuscript's apparent survival. I guess that is a tale I would need more on. My first question is, what is the provenience of the manuscript? (I am a history major, BTW. We have basic archaeological training.) In other words, who found it, when, and where? Second, can we place it in Joseph's possession? I will be the first to admit that it looks fairly similar, and I do remember the thought of "How terribly convenient that not one ORIGINAL text survived the Restoration" go through my head when I read the account in work and a wonder. The BoA was supposed to have been destroyed, the BoM was reburied somewhere, and the D&C, well, documenting revelations is still a touch difficult. I guess we're supposed to take this all on faith and faith alone.

[Sargon]

Gen 20:10 And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?

Gen 20:11 And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God [is] not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.

Gen 20:12 And yet indeed [she is] my sister; she [is] the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

Sarai really was Abraham's sister.

The real liar is Nephi, pretending to be Laban.

Sargon

[Chris Smith]

Ok. now I'm up to speed, but still don't have anything more than from before. However, before I start, . WHO WAS TAKING CARE OF THAT MANUSCRIPT??????? Beowulf's in better condition, and it got caught in a fire!! Oh well. Egyptian papyri are fairly rare, and it's a blessing that it's in the condition it is.

Hi Oprichnik,

The papyrus appears to have been pretty severely damaged by Michael Chandler, the antiquities dealer who sold them to JS. He tore them out of their containers while searching for valuables, apparently. Joseph Smith later had the some of the manuscript fragments glued to paper backing for preservation.

I know the tale of the BoA up until the Chicago fire. Refer to Marvelous work and wonder for that. I did NOT, however, know of the manuscript's apparent survival. I guess that is a tale I would need more on. My first question is, what is the provenience of the manuscript? (I am a history major, BTW. We have basic archaeological training.) In other words, who found it, when, and where? Second, can we place it in Joseph's possession? I will be the first to admit that it looks fairly similar, and I do remember the thought of "How terribly convenient that not one ORIGINAL text survived the Restoration" go through my head when I read the account in work and a wonder. The BoA was supposed to have been destroyed, the BoM was reburied somewhere, and the D&C, well, documenting revelations is still a touch difficult. I guess we're supposed to take this all on faith and faith alone.

The answer to whether we can put this manuscript in Joseph's possession is "yes." For one thing, the paper backing has drawings of the Kirtland temple on the back. I don't recall the details of who found the papyri, or exactly when, though I do recall it was found in Thebes. For further information, I recommend you pick up The Story of the Book of Abraham: Mummies, Manuscripts, and Mormonism by H. Donl Peterson. It is the latest and most comprehensive statement on the journeys of the papyri.

-CK

[Oprichnik]

Thanks CK. I will look that book up.

[PacMan]

Theo,

Darn that Baum! Yes, even PacMan can misunderstand one's position...must be all that reading of "The Wiz..." I've beein doing lately.

Thinking,

Tu Quoque DOES apply, simply because we're talking about God contradicting his own commandments. All the same, I think your argument is down the tubes simply because it's an argument with no real holding.

PT:

Thanks!

CK:

Love getting back to it... First of all, my statement against Ritner is true. He IS wrong. His history is bad, and I've got the Library of Congress to prove it as soon as I finish up my 10+ (tremendously boring) paper. But, recall back from our discussions. I've pointed out now on multiple times the differences from the manuscript and the GAEL. The treatment of the characters can not be considered consistant...simply because Egyptian itself is NOT consistant. While the funadmentals of Egyptian were found in it's phonetic alphabet, it still also used characters representative of ideas found intrinsically in themselves. Japanese or Korean would be modern example of the same. Now, what you have done with your example is you've torn it to shreads. You've taken the basic elements of translation and turned it against the very theory you've defended. As I've explained on multiple occasions before, descriptive translation is very different from a narrative text. The "definition" of "Kiah broam-kiah is one consice thought. It is simply descriptive. It does NOT however offer a narrative text, nor does any other such example in the manuscript or the GAEL. Independently, they have signification and combining those significations can change the meaning, but at no time to they EVER offer hundreds of words of narrative text. What am I talking about? Chinese charaters are an excellent example. They consist of components with individual meanings. When combined they form additional meanings, but do NOT offer narrative text. This notion is ludicrous, and completley unfounded and MUST be seperated from descriptive translations which are something of a completely different nature. The very fact that these descriptions are not at all like the narrative text of the BoA is proof that we're looking at two very different animals.

Now, the very least I can say is I don't know why they're there. OF COURSE they were used as markers...but to what extent? There is no evidence in the GAEL included example of narrative translation coming from these characters...only descriptive. As such, they do NOT follow the BoA manuscript in this fashion. And why don't they exist? Because Joseph and his scribes likely new that a single character wouldn't produce long lengths of narrative texts. Now if I were to make and Okhm's guess, it'd be because they put it there to look nice. Some people doodle unicorns, and others flowers. Leave it to these guys to copy Egyptian. Prove that one wrong!

PacMan

[William the Conqueror]

Theo,

Darn that Baum! Yes, even PacMan can misunderstand one's position...must be all that reading of "The Wiz..." I've beein doing lately.

Thinking,

Tu Quoque DOES apply, simply because we're talking about God contradicting his own commandments. All the same, I think your argument is down the tubes simply because it's an argument with no real holding.

PT:

Thanks!

CK:

Love getting back to it... First of all, my statement against Ritner is true. He IS wrong. His history is bad, and I've got the Library of Congress to prove it as soon as I finish up my 10+ (tremendously boring) paper. But, recall back from our discussions. I've pointed out now on multiple times the differences from the manuscript and the GAEL. The treatment of the characters can not be considered consistant...simply because Egyptian itself is NOT consistant. While the funadmentals of Egyptian were found in it's phonetic alphabet, it still also used characters representative of ideas found intrinsically in themselves. Japanese or Korean would be modern example of the same. Now, what you have done with your example is you've torn it to shreads. You've taken the basic elements of translation and turned it against the very theory you've defended. As I've explained on multiple occasions before, descriptive translation is very different from a narrative text. The "definition" of "Kiah broam-kiah is one consice thought. It is simply descriptive. It does NOT however offer a narrative text, nor does any other such example in the manuscript or the GAEL. Independently, they have signification and combining those significations can change the meaning, but at no time to they EVER offer hundreds of words of narrative text. What am I talking about? Chinese charaters are an excellent example. They consist of components with individual meanings. When combined they form additional meanings, but do NOT offer narrative text. This notion is ludicrous, and completley unfounded and MUST be seperated from descriptive translations which are something of a completely different nature. The very fact that these descriptions are not at all like the narrative text of the BoA is proof that we're looking at two very different animals.

Now, the very least I can say is I don't know why they're there. OF COURSE they were used as markers...but to what extent? There is no evidence in the GAEL included example of narrative translation coming from these characters...only descriptive. As such, they do NOT follow the BoA manuscript in this fashion. And why don't they exist? Because Joseph and his scribes likely new that a single character wouldn't produce long lengths of narrative texts. Now if I were to make and Okhm's guess, it'd be because they put it there to look nice. Some people doodle unicorns, and others flowers. Leave it to these guys to copy Egyptian. Prove that one wrong!

PacMan

It is simply descriptive. It does NOT however offer a narrative text, nor does any other such example in the manuscript or the GAEL. Independently, they have signification and combining those significations can change the meaning, but at no time to they EVER offer hundreds of words of narrative text.

*******************************************************************************

Now what you state sounds similar to Paul Osborne's explanation for I believe he says there is a spiritual meaning to the manuscript which is completely different from the normal -Book of Breathing or the Dead -meaning.

That is with the spiritual spectacles and the seer's stone one could get a completely different meaning from what the text states. Now that is similar to the bible code which was touted in the late 90s. (They even produced a movie-The Omega Code.) That is by taking the hebrew letters in a diagonal with some space skipping, one could read about Adolf Hitler, the death of John Kennedy, Joseph Stalin, and many more historical (future?) characters and events. However it was thoroughly debunked by using the same technique on any english (language) novel and coming up with the same individuals and events.

[PacMan]

Now what you state sounds similar to Paul Osborne's explanation for I believe he says there is a spiritual meaning to the manuscript which is completely different from the normal -Book of Breathing or the Dead -meaning.

That is with the spiritual spectacles and the seer's stone one could get a completely different meaning from what the text states. Now that is similar to the bible code which was touted in the late 90s. (They even produced a movie-The Omega Code.) That is by taking the hebrew letters in a diagonal with some space skipping, one could read about Adolf Hitler, the death of John Kennedy, Joseph Stalin, and many more historical (future?) characters and events. However it was thoroughly debunked by using the same technique on any english (language) novel and coming up with the same individuals and events.

Hooold on. I do NOT share Paul's theories. What I have established in narrative versus descriptive translations isn't a theory...it's actuality. When you refer to proper nouns, it does little good to simply state them. Description is necessary and added by the translator for understanding, where it would otherwise be understood by "native" listeners. What the GAEL establishes is descriptive translation, but NO example of narrative translations. It does NOT prove that the scribes and Joseph believe a single character could be interpreted into hundreds of coherent, narrative text. The differences are stark, and when one recognizes it, it throws the whole theory of adjacent characters into a tale spin. It doesn't work because the two examples are completely, and utterly different.

Now, getting into the "weirder" theories, the one I find neat (but fairly untenable) is Devolution...essentially that the Book of the Dead was originally FROM the teachings of Abraham, etc., and were adulterated with changed meanings through the ages, and thus "devolved." I.E. Images supposed to be Abraham were later lost into the mythology and identified as a pagan god.

What credits the idea is Josephus's claims that it was Abraham that taught the Egyptians astronomy, mathematics, etc., etc. The God Toth, I believe, also known as Mercury once the Roman influenced inculcated itself in Egypt, is whom it is believed that brought them writing, etc. Could this be a representation of Abraham? Dunno...but if Josephus was right, then his influence is deeply rooted in every aspect Egyptian...including the Book of the Dead. This idea that Egyptian mythology remained consistent is really ridiculous considering...well, all cultures have evolved dramatically over time, and many in just a few short years.

PacMan

[questioner]

I hold the Book of Abraham to the same standard that I would hold any translation. I don't get why people bend over backwards to make exceptions for the BOA translation. The facsimiles in the BOA alone indicate that Joseph could not translate Egyptian into English.

I would hold others to the same standard that I hold Joseph Smith. For example, lets say that Pat Robertson claimed he could translate something from Egyptian to English. In this hypothetical situation, lets assume that he is given a common Egyptian burial scroll. Robertson claims that through the power of the Lord he was able to translate the record and that it prophecies of Jesus' crucification. Egyptologists counter the claim and state that it is an Egyptian burial scroll. As a response Robertson's followers claim that the record wasn't translated in what we would consider a normal translation, the Egyptologist had something against Robertson followers, etc. Who would you side with in this situation? Why hold Joseph to a different standard?

I think that the BOA debate has nothing to do with translation. I think that most unbiased observers would see what we all probably see in my fake Pat Robertson example, a botched attempt at translating. I think that for many believers the debate is really about whether on not Joseph is a prophet or a fraud. The believe he is a prophet and therefore the BOA is translated in a different fashion, is a symbolic interpretation of the scrolls, etc. I don't think he is a prophet, so I treat him the same as I would anyone else.

[Thinking]

Tu Quoque DOES apply, simply because we're talking about God contradicting his own commandments.

Tu Quoque applies if I am judging God. But of course I am not judging God, I am judging a book.

All the same, I think your argument is down the tubes simply because it's an argument with no real holding.

"God cannot lie" is not a commandment but a statement of fact.

Using simple deductive reasoning:

If the BoA is true, then God can lie (or command someone to lie).

God cannot lie. (from Bible & LDS scriptures)

Therefore, the BoA is not true. (Modus Tollens, aka Denying the Conclusion)

[Log]

Where did God command anyone to lie - and, lest we be forever equivocating, to lie means To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive, or with an immoral design - because, I'm just not seeing it.

[Thinking]

Where did God command anyone to lie - and, lest we be forever equivocating, to lie means To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive, or with an immoral design - because, I'm just not seeing it.

"Scripturally, anything that in its nature is untrue and is therefore designed to deceive is a lie." (Bruce R. McConkie)

Abraham's statement that Sarai was his sister was designed to make Abimelech think that she was not his wife (Genesis 20:11).

Suppose I am at the mall with my wife. We split up because she wants to look for my birthday present. I see a woman from work who does not know anything about my personal life, and is attractive. She wonders who the woman is with whom I was shopping. I reply that she is an old college friend who is buying a present for her husband. It's true that we went to college together and we were friends before we started dating. Am I lying? Yes, because I am withholding from her the most relevant part of our relationship.

[Chris Smith]

Pacman,

Do you have a copy of the GAEL? Take a look at page 2. Here the first character from the margin of translation mansucript 1 is broken down into a number of parts, including combinations of parts:

Translations are given for each part, including "place of happiness," "see," "fathers," and "greatest place of happiness." In the translation MS there is also another character that, together with this one, corresponds to the first paragraph of text. That is the character that in the fifth degree signifies Abraham, "the father of many nations, a prince of peace, one who keeps the commandments of God, a patriarch, a rightful heir, a high priest." Now notice how when you put these two characters together they account for most of the information in the corresponding paragraph in the translation MSS:

"In the land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my fathers, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence; And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness..."

When you realize that "connecting parts of speech" are to be supplied according to the rules found in the GAEL on pages 1 and 2, there should be no question that according to the GAEL it is quite natural to derive the above-quoted "narrative" BoA paragraph from these two Egyptian characters. I believe Nibley was right to suggest that Joseph Smith treated Egyptian as a sort of "super-cryptogram"; however, I see no way to vindicate his interpretations in this regard.

-CK

[grego]

And speaking of hubris â?¦ here we have 21-year-old California Kid, barely out of puberty, disparaging the work and intelligence of a bona fide Egyptologist, graduated with honors from Yale University, published in numerous journals, and trained in the specific area of the Greco-Roman era of Egyptian language and history. There is something that â??borders on absurdityâ? here, but it is not the work of Dr. John Gee.

If he can, let him; if he succeeds, so be it.

-=-=-=

Perhaps someone would like to comment on Confucious and others' writings. Three words, three pages of explanation and the story behind it. Or the translation on my bookshelf of Dante--it's ok, but the very nice commentary makes it great.

[PacMan]

CK,

That is what we would call components in other languages. What I believe you are proving is exactly that...which I agree. I think they believed that some individual strokes could be broken down into significations. Recall however, what I said about nouns. Nouns were and often are characterized by their own representation and not necessarily spelled out phonetically. Moreover, even using these two characters there is a great degree of missing information that would necessarily constitute a narrative translation. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, I don't know that the argument is making headway. If you could give a fuller explanation, I'd appreciate it, because right now I have yet to see how my seperations (which have gone mainly undealt with) are invalid.

PacMan

[PacMan]

If the BoA is true, then God can lie (or command someone to lie).

Reductio ad absurdum, at it's finest! Thank you for proving the point!

PacMan

[Chris Smith]

CK,

That is what we would call components in other languages. What I believe you are proving is exactly that...which I agree. I think they believed that some individual strokes could be broken down into significations. Recall however, what I said about nouns. Nouns were and often are characterized by their own representation and not necessarily spelled out phonetically. Moreover, even using these two characters there is a great degree of missing information that would necessarily constitute a narrative translation. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, I don't know that the argument is making headway. If you could give a fuller explanation, I'd appreciate it, because right now I have yet to see how my seperations (which have gone mainly undealt with) are invalid.

PacMan

Pacman, I don't know what you mean by your separations. In any case, probably what you are missing is this: "When you realize that 'connecting parts of speech' are to be supplied [by the reader] according to the rules found in the GAEL on pages 1 and 2, there should be no question that according to the GAEL it is quite natural to derive the above-quoted 'narrative' BoA paragraph from these two Egyptian characters." You will recall from our previous conversation that up to 625 "connecting parts of speech" might need to be supplied for a single character. Using this method, one could easily create a narrative text from a series of nouns. Certainly there would be a great deal of ambiguity in the translation process, but I suspect JS preferred it that way.

-CK

[William the Conqueror]

And speaking of hubris â?¦ here we have 21-year-old California Kid, barely out of puberty, disparaging the work and intelligence of a bona fide Egyptologist, graduated with honors from Yale University, published in numerous journals, and trained in the specific area of the Greco-Roman era of Egyptian language and history. There is something that â??borders on absurdityâ? here, but it is not the work of Dr. John Gee.

noel00:

Yawn ...

It must be bedtime again. Now where's that nightmare medication ..............

'A poor yet wise lad (CK) is better than an old and foolish king ( J. Gee) who no longer knows how to receive instruction.' Ecclesiastes 4:13 paraphrased

Mr. Schryver,

You are all straw, without a brain. Maybe the Wizard can fix you up.

'I could while away the hours, Conferrin' with the flowers, Consultin' with the rain

And my head, I'd be scratchin', While my thoughts were busy hatchin', If I only had a brain.'

[William Schryver]

One of California Kidâ??s pet arguments these days is to suggest that the idea of a plurality of gods was not taught until Nauvoo, circa 1842 â?? thereby reinforcing his contention that the latter portion of the Book of Abraham was not translated until March 1842. Since, according to his theory, the doctrine originates in the Nauvoo period, and therefore makes its formal appearance in Joseph Smithâ??s production of the portion of the BoA that follows 2:19, he then attempts to disprove the notion that a significantly greater amount of the Book of Abraham was translated during the Kirtland period.

Interestingly enough, on another thread (â??I Donâ??t Knowâ?) discussing the peculiar LDS doctrine of human deification, Kawika Dave produced a very interesting quote from a 1982 Ensign which very convincingly disproves California Kidâ??s theory. (I say â??California Kidâ?, but I am quite aware that it is a theory which originates with Brent Metcalfe and his particular interpretation of KEPA Ms. #4.)

Here is an extract from the citation K. Dave provided:

In her biography of her brother, Eliza R. Snow explains the circumstances which led Lorenzo Snow to pen the famous couplet: â??Being present at a â??Blessing Meeting,â?? in the Temple, previous to his baptism into the Church; after listening to several patriarchal blessings pronounced upon the heads of different individuals with whose history he was acquainted, and of whom he knew the Patriarch was entirely ignorant; he was struck with astonishment to hear the peculiarities of those persons positively and plainly referred to in their blessings. And, as he afterwards expressed, he was convinced that an influence, superior to human prescience, dictated the words of the one who officiated.

â??The Patriarch was the father of Joseph, the Prophet. That was the first time Lorenzo had met him. After the services, they were introduced, and Father Smith said to my brother that he would soon be convinced of the truth of the latter-day work, and be baptized; and he said: â??You will become as great as you can possibly wishâ??EVEN AS GREAT AS GOD, and you cannot wish to be greater.â?? â? (Eliza R. Snow, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, Salt Lake City: Deseret News Co., 1884, pp. 9â??10.)

Lorenzo Snow was baptized a short time later and began his service in the Church. In the spring of 1840 he was called to serve a mission in the British Isles. Before his departure he was in the home of a Church member who was preaching a sermon on the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. (See Matt. 20:1â??16.) According to Elder Snow, â??While attentively listening to his explanation, the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon meâ??the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me, and explains Father Smithâ??s dark saying to me at a blessing meeting in the Kirtland Temple, prior to my baptism. â?¦

â??As man now is, God once was:â?

â??As God now is, man may be.â?

â??I felt this to be a sacred communication, which I related to no one except my sister Eliza, until I reached England, when in a confidential private conversation with President Brigham Young, in Manchester, I related to him this extraordinary manifestation.â? (Eliza R. Snow, pp. 46â??47; italics added. Brigham Young was President of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time.)

So, what we have here is an account that the father of Joseph Smith was speaking of this doctrine in the Kirtland Temple prior to the time Lorenzo Snow was even baptized a member of the church.

When was Lorenzo Snow baptized? June of 1836 in Kirtland, OH. Therefore we have a piece of evidence that, no later than mid-1836, the doctrine of human deification (and by extension, of course, the plurality of gods) was being taught in Kirtland at that period. This, in my estimation, strongly disputes the doctrinal evolution theory that undergirds the arguments that swirl around the contention that the latter portion of the current Book of Abraham was produced in March 1842. It also reinforces the argument, espoused by John Gee and several others, that the Book of Abraham was translated considerably further than 2:18 during the latter half of 1835.

[Chris Smith]

Hello, Will. First of all, it's good to have you in the discussion. Secondly, I don't believe that the theory of doctrinal evolution undergirds my objections to Gee's argument. I'd say that my strongest single piece of evidence against Gee's argument is that on March 8th Joseph "recommenced translating" the Book of Abraham for the "tenth number of the Times and Seasons," which happens to be the number in which the second installment appeared. Taken altogether, I think the historical evidence points unquestionably to the BoA having been completed only up to 2:18 in 1841.

Having said that, I disagree with your assessment. You will notice that "Father Smith" refers to Joseph Smith, Sr., and that his statement in a patriarchal blessing does not necessarily indicate anything about Joseph Smith, Jr.'s theology during that period. I am quite familiar with the Ensign article you quoted from, as I have occasionally used it to show people that the Lorenzo Snow couplet was not something he presented as mere opinion. Here is the next portion of the article:

President Snowâ??s son LeRoi later told that the Prophet Joseph Smith confirmed the validity of the revelation Elder Snow had received: â??Soon after his return from England, in January, 1843, Lorenzo Snow related to the Prophet Joseph Smith his experience in Elder Sherwoodâ??s home. This was in a confidential interview in Nauvoo. The Prophetâ??s reply was: â??Brother Snow, that is a true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you.â?? â? (LeRoi C. Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, p. 656.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: â??God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! â?¦ It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.â? (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, pp. 345â??46.)

Once the Prophet Joseph had taught the doctrine publicly, Elder Snow also felt free to publicly teach it, and it was a common theme of his teachings throughout his life. About ten years before his death, while serving as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, President Snow incorporated his original couplet into a longer poem.

Lorenzo Snow didn't tell JS about his vision till 1843, at which time JS affirmed it. The article actually indicates that JS had not preached the plurality of gods doctrine up until this time, since Lorenzo Snow didn't feel comfortable talking about it until the King Follett Discourse of 1844.

I personally think JS had the stirrings of a doctrine of divinization and plurality of gods already in 1839. In that year he promised further disclosure on the subject of "whether there be one God or many."

-CK

[William Schryver]

Hello, Will. First of all, it's good to have you in the discussion. Secondly, I don't believe that the theory of doctrinal evolution undergirds my objections to Gee's argument. I'd say that my strongest single piece of evidence against Gee's argument is that on March 8th Joseph "recommenced translating" the Book of Abraham for the "tenth number of the Times and Seasons," which happens to be the number in which the second installment appeared. Taken altogether, I think the historical evidence points unquestionably to the BoA having been completed only up to 2:18 in 1841.

Having said that, I disagree with your assessment. You will notice that "Father Smith" refers to Joseph Smith, Sr., and that his statement in a patriarchal blessing does not necessarily indicate anything about Joseph Smith, Jr.'s theology during that period. I am quite familiar with the Ensign article you quoted from, as I have occasionally used it to show people that the Lorenzo Snow couplet was not something he presented as mere opinion. Here is the next portion of the article:

Lorenzo Snow didn't tell JS about his vision till 1843, at which time JS affirmed it. The article actually indicates that JS had not preached the plurality of gods doctrine up until this time, since Lorenzo Snow didn't feel comfortable talking about it until the King Follett Discourse of 1844.

I personally think JS had the stirrings of a doctrine of divinization and plurality of gods already in 1839. In that year he promised further disclosure on the subject of "whether there be one God or many."

-CK

Two comments:

1. I'm not sure why you think the "recommenced translating" reference necessarily implies that Joseph Smith was about to commence at 2:19. It can just as easily mean that he was about to "recommence" at chapter 5, or even beyond. The Book of Abraham ends in medias res, strongly suggesting that there was more yet to come that was either never translated, or which never made it into print and was subsequently lost. KEPA Ms. #2 (F. W. Williams) also ends in mid-sentence. We don't know how much further it continued, either. You can assert that this "recommenced translating" reference means that he was picking up at 2:19, but it falls considerably short of conclusive evidence, except in the eyes of those who are already certain they know what happened.

2. I had no illusions, when I made my previous post, that you were going to acquiesce to its implications. I will only note that your suggestion that Joseph Smith, Sr. was teaching a doctrine of his own formation during the Kirtland period is quite difficult to believe. The fact is that the doctrine perfectly blends in with the theology suggested in Abraham 3, and corresponds to the earlier period during which the Book of Abraham is known to have been in process of translation. The conclusion follows rather effortlessly, if you ask me. To suggest that Father Smith was in the habit of doctrinal innovation at the time is just silly, especially in terms of a doctrine so utterly foreign to his culture and tradition.

Believing readers will see in this evidence a support for the argument that Joseph Smith was first exposed to this doctrine, through the Book of Abraham, during the period of 1835-36.

[Chris Smith]

Will,

Father Smith needn't have been preaching any doctrine at all. He need only have given a patriarchal blessing that contained an exaggerated promise of greatness.

I'm not sure why you think the "recommenced translating" reference necessarily implies that Joseph Smith was about to commence at 2:19. It can just as easily mean that he was about to "recommence" at chapter 5, or even beyond.

It can't have been beyond chapter 5, since it says that he was translating for the tenth number of the Times and Seasons. That means that whatever he was translating was intended for publication on March 15th, in the second installment. He also indicated in a letter to the T&S that he would continue to translate and publish more of the BoA, indicating that he was translating as he went along. The first issue of the Times and Seasons ended at 2:18, which is exactly where both Manuscript 1 and the first installment of Manuscript 4 end (the latter of which seems to have been copied from the former). There is no reason to suppose that more of the BoA existed at that time. But even if, for some reason, we insist that there must have been, we should recall that it cannot have been much more, for the reason I mentioned above. Just FYI, on March 9 JS continued his translation effort: "in the afternoon continued the translation of the Book of Abraham." I think it is fair to assume that this was a continuation of his previous day's labors for the tenth number of the T&S.

-CK

[PacMan]

CK:

The issue that I'm having with your evidence, is that it is but a sputtering of the narrative text, and not just that, but a sputtering of isolated words found in the text. They themselves do not only not represent a consistant thought, but don't even include sufficient material for the "parts of speech" to fill in the gaps. It is not consistant throughout the Egyptian papers, and again, is much more descriptive that it is ever narrative, often including grammatical notes having nothing to do with actual definitions and meanings. If every noun, adjective and verb were included in the KEP, then I think you'd be on to something. Agreeably, pronouns, adverbs, etc., needn't be included for the jist to be coherent, and could feasibly be "filled-in." But the vast amount of information that is simply lacking from these disections screams to me that it is impossible that they derived the narrative manuscript from the adjacent characters via your proposition. This goes far beyond keeping the translation ambiguous, but outright incoherent and completely unsystematic. Moreover, even those included words do not follow the flow of the text: for example, "to see" comes in a completely different stanza previous to "place of happiness," which comes after "to see" in these so-called 'degrees.' I don't see it adding up. Now could one of the scribes, etc., believed this was the method? Sure...but I don't think it is clear it was the way Joseph translated it. I think it may have been some failed individual attempt.

Also, I'm having a hard time seeing how these segments match up with the adjacent characters and the text. If you could post those pics, I'd appreciate it.

Now, what I think is another interesting conversation is the 'chicken or the egg.' I think it's obvious that the narrative came first, and then it was disected later by the scribes. The KEP stops far short of completing the work, so the strict translation fell short of catching up to the revelation. That being said, I find it difficult in some respect that Joseph would make it up, and then go back and bash out meanings iota by iota.

PacMan

[William Schryver]

CK:

Father Smith needn't have been preaching any doctrine at all. He need only have given a patriarchal blessing that contained an exaggerated promise of greatness.

No one suggested that he was â??preachingâ? doctrine to Lorenzo Snow, only that his statement to Snow presupposes the doctrine of human deification and a plurality of gods. Simple as that. It is not in the context of a patriarchal blessing. You apparently didnâ??t examine the quote very carefully. Father Smith wasnâ??t giving a blessing to Snow at the time â?? it was simply during a conversation they had after Snow had listened in on some blessings being given, and after he had been introduced to the father of the Prophet.

It can't have been beyond chapter 5, since it says that he was translating for the tenth number of the Times and Seasons.

This is a non sequitur. So what if they published only 1:1 â?? 2:18 in the ninth number? That doesnâ??t mean that 2:19 and beyond wasnâ??t already in existence! That is merely your assumption and an assertion made without evidence â?? in fact, it is an assertion made contrary to several pieces of evidence that suggest that chapter 3 had been translated during the Kirtland period, one of which I cite above (which refers to doctrines revealed at the end of chapter 3), the other being the numerous references to the â??system of astronomyâ? having been revealed during that same period of time (1835). Your assertion that the â??system of astronomyâ? refers only to Facsimile #2 is simply the criticâ??s way of studiously avoiding the implications of the evidence. The explanations for Facsimile #2 do very little to â??unfoldâ? a â??system of astronomy,â? whereas Abraham 3 does much, and is a much more plausible candidate for being the source of the statements made in 1835 regarding the understanding of the cosmology of the â??ancientsâ? having been revealed to Joseph Smith.

Indeed, it is far more logical to suggest that Joseph Smith commenced â??translatingâ? the Genesis-related portions (chapter 4 and beyond) in 1842. The beginning of chapter 4 commences a whole new train of thought in the text. Abraham 1 â?? 3 are one distinct section to themselves; chapters 4 â?? 5 are clearly something different.

And, again, you donâ??t treat upon my observation that chapter 5 ends in media res. What was to follow? Perhaps that was the portion that Joseph translated next, and for whatever reason, it was determined to not print it at the time, and instead they simply printed the remainder of the pre-1842 translation. We donâ??t know, of course. Where are the â??translation documentsâ? for 3:27 to the end? No one knows. We have no original documents for the text beyond 3:26. This is intriguing and mystifying, and suggests that that portion of the translation occurred at a different time and place from the earlier part.

The bottom line is that neither you nor Metcalfe have provided any persuasive evidence that leads us to believe that Joseph Smith â??recommencedâ? translation in March 1842, beginning at 2:19, especially in light of the numerous indications otherwise.

[Chris Smith]

Will,

My contention is not that the unfolding of the system of astronomy refers to facsimile 2. My contention is that it refers to the relevant portions of the Egyptian Alphabet, from which the explanation of facsimile 2 was constructed in 1842. The use of Hebrew words whose transliterations appear to be borrowed or modeled on Seixas' is another indication that chapter 3-- and the finalized version of the facsimile 2 explanation-- was produced sometime after 1835. I'm not sure how you can conclude that the explanation does less than chapter 3 to unfold a system of astronomy. There are a lot of details given in the explanation that simply aren't given in chapter 3. Chapter three records a revelation from God to Abraham in which he provides some astronomical facts and assigns spiritual meanings to each of them; the astronomical data provided there are far from comprehensive. I don't think "the system of astronomy was unfolded" could describe the translation of chapter 3. And even if it could, I don't see why we should posit that it did, given that we have a perfectly good candidate for the referent in the Egyptian alphabet.

It is curious that you should use JS Sr's promise as evidence that in 1835 JS knew of a plurality of gods, but then you suggest that JS "recommenced" his 1842 translation at chapter 4. I cannot find the plurality gods taught anywhere in the BoA prior to chapter 4. Chapter 3 does speak of some "noble and great ones" who are chosen to be rulers and who will be given glory, but the doctrine of deification is not any more explicit here than in, say, sections 76 or 88 (1832). Section 76, in fact, says of those in the Church of the Firstborn that "he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion." It is unclear here whether he makes them equal to each other or to himself, but I don't see why Father Smith might not have taken it in the latter sense.

And, again, you donâ??t treat upon my observation that chapter 5 ends in media res. What was to follow? Perhaps that was the portion that Joseph translated next, and for whatever reason, it was determined to not print it at the time, and instead they simply printed the remainder of the pre-1842 translation. We donâ??t know, of course. Where are the â??translation documentsâ? for 3:27 to the end? No one knows. We have no original documents for the text beyond 3:26. This is intriguing and mystifying, and suggests that that portion of the translation occurred at a different time and place from the earlier part.

We have only pages 7 and 8 from the second installment of manuscript 4. The fact that pages 1-6 are missing as well as 9 and following suggests that the pages are simply lost, and that there are no implications of the sort you try to draw above.

I have no idea what was to follow chapter 5, except that it seems it was going to involve Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptians. I don't know why it's important for this particular question, though.

The bottom line is that neither you nor Metcalfe have provided any persuasive evidence that leads us to believe that Joseph Smith â??recommencedâ? translation in March 1842, beginning at 2:19, especially in light of the numerous indications otherwise.

I'm not sure why you think I gleaned this from Metcalfe. I don't recall seeing Metcalfe comment on this issue either on this board or in any publication or communication to me. These conclusions are my own, though if you can provide a link to Brent's iteration of them I would be interested in reading it.

There is positively no reason to believe that JS had translated past 2:18 as of March 1, 1842. As for the "numerous indications otherwise," perhaps you could fill us in.

-CK

[Chris Smith]

Pacman,

I have an answer to your question, but it involves in drawing from several different documents, which will require a lot of image-splicing. It will eventually be a part of the article I'm putting together. So I think I will request a moratorium until I have finished assembling all my notes and disparate bits of data into a coherent and comprehensive treatment of the subject. Hopefully you don't mind.

-CK