So, The BOA Is A Bunch Of Baloney Eh?

[William Schryver]

Alas, another example of the futility of arguing these things on a message board â?¦

Nevertheless, I will persevere for at least one more post.

CK writes:

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.

Many of us have seen the pages from the GAEL to which CK refers. It represents, to say the least, something less than the â??unfoldingâ? of a system of astronomy. Especially when considered juxtaposed to this partial extract from Abraham 3:

1 AND I, Abraham, had the Urim and Thummim, which the Lord my God had given unto me, in Ur of the Chaldees;

2 And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord's time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

5 And the Lord said unto me: The planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that which is to rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest in point of reckoning, for it moveth in order more slow; this is in order because it standeth above the earth upon which thou standest, therefore the reckoning of its time is not so many as to its number of days, and of months, and of years.

6 And the Lord said unto me: Now, Abraham, these two facts exist, behold thine eyes see it; it is given unto thee to know the times of reckoning, and the set time, yea, the set time of the earth upon which thou standest, and the set time of the greater light which is set to rule the day, and the set time of the lesser light which is set to rule the night.

7 Now the set time of the lesser light is a longer time as to its reckoning than the reckoning of the time of the earth upon which thou standest.

8 And where these two facts exist, there shall be another fact above them, that is, there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still;

9 And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord's time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

10 And it is given unto thee to know the set time of all the stars that are set to give light, until thou come near unto the throne of God.

11 Thus I, Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face, as one man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which his hands had made;

12 And he said unto me: My son, my son (and his hand was stretched out), behold I will show you all these. And he put his hand upon mine eyes, and I saw those things which his hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof.

13 And he said unto me: This is Shinehah, which is the sun. And he said unto me: Kokob, which is star. And he said unto me: Olea, which is the moon. And he said unto me: Kokaubeam, which signifies stars, or all the great lights, which were in the firmament of heaven.

14 And it was in the night time when the Lord spake these words unto me: I will multiply thee, and thy seed after thee, like unto these; and if thou canst count the number of sands, so shall be the number of thy seeds.

15 And the Lord said unto me: Abraham, I show these things unto thee before ye go into Egypt, that ye may declare all these words.

16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.

17 Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; and there is nothing that the Lord thy God shall take in his heart to do but what he will do it.

Now this is something approximating an â??unfolding.â? Abraham is having the Lordâ??s system of astronomy unfolded to him, and it is logical to assume that, as he translated this, Joseph Smith underwent a similar experience.

I challenge CK to demonstrate that anything in the GAEL comes close to the â??unfoldingâ? nature of the preceding verses.

CK continues:

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.

In the first place, I most certainly did not suggest that Joseph Smith â??recommencedâ? his 1842 translation at chapter 4, only that it was more logical to assume that he began there than to say he commenced at 2:19. We donâ??t have any extant origin for anything after 3:26. That is actually the strongest argument that the translation of 3:27 to the end occurred at a different time and place than the earlier segment.

I cannot find the plurality gods taught anywhere in the BoA prior to chapter 4.

Again, I rebut his argument by quoting directly from chapter 3:

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

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.

Iâ??m not sure what you mean by the â??second installmentâ? of Ms. #4. According to the inventory of the Joseph Smith Egyptian papers, the Church has all of the extant 9 pages of Ms. #4, written on the recto and verso. It is in the hand of Willard Richards and covers from Abr. 1:1 â?? 3:26 (with the exception of [if I recall correctly] 1:9 â?? 1:12.)

[Chris Smith]

Will,

Mind if I ask you a question? Are you talking to me, or are you talking to the studio audience? Because you continually refer to me in the third person, and it comes across as tremendously condescending.

Here is a rough transcript of a portion of the second part, fifth degree from the bound Grammar and Alphabet:

Jah-oh-eh The earth under the governing power of oliblish, Enish go on dosh, and Kai e van rash, which are grand Key or in other words, the governing power, which governs the fifteen fixed stars (twelve [unclear words]) that belong governs the earth, sun & moon, (which have their power in one) with the other twelve moving planets of this system. Oliblish - Enish go on dosh, and Kaii ven rash, are the three grand central powers that govern all the other creations, which have been sought out by the most aged of all the fathers, since the beginning of the creation, by means of the Urim and Thummim: The names of the other twelve of the fixed stars are: Kolob, Limdi, Zip, Vusel, Venisti, Waine, Wayoh=ox=oan, oansli, Shible, Shineflis, flis, os. The Egyptian names of the fifteen moving planest are: Oanisis, Flosisis, floese: Abbesels, Eleash, Subble, Slundlo, Carroam, Crashmakraw, obblesisim, Izinsbah, missel [p.24] Nahmesile, Oheeoopzah, Zool

Flo-ees The moon, the earth and the sun in their annual revolutions

Flos isis The highest degree of light, because its component parts are light. The governing principle of light Because God has said Let this be the centre for light, and let there be bounds that it may not pass. He hath set a cloud round about in the heavens, and the light of the grand governing of 15 fixed stars centre there - and from there its is drawn by the heavenly bodies according to their portions; according to the decrees that God hath set, as the bounds of the ocean, that it should not pass over as a flood, so God has set the bounds of light lest it pass over and consume the planets.

Kli flosisis signifies Kolob in its motion, which is swifter than the rest of the twelve fixed stars; going before, being first in motion, being delegated to have power over others to regulate others in their time, for example, one cubit of times signifies three days Therefore that which is appointed to run three days, runs one cubit according to the measure of time in cubits a cubit of motion is increased or lessened according to the sign of the degrees

Veh Kli flos-isis it signifies less power than the fourth fixed governing star but greater power than the sixth governing fixt [fixed?] star, in consequence of its slowness of motion

Now, whereas chapter 3 narrates the unfolding of the system to Abraham, the information given above actually is the system, and it appears to have been unfolded to JS and his scribes during the course of their efforts on the Egyptian alphabet:

"This after noon labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with bro. O. Cowdery and W.W. Phelps: The System of astronomy was unfolded."

We know that Joseph and his scribes made the hypocephalus an object of study, since the KEP contains a hand-drawn copy of it. We also know that there are three loose-leaf Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts (3, 4, and 5) that appear to have been produced simultaneously. One is in the hand of Oliver Cowdery, another of W.W. Phelps, and another of Joseph Smith. All three manuscripts transcribe some of the names above, including Jah-oh-eh, Flo-ees, and Flos-isis. Only MS 5 gives the meanings for these words: "(-earth &c)", "(Moon)", and "(Sun)", respectively. It is precisely at this point that the effort to transliterate and interpret the Egyptian characters in all three loose-leaf manuscripts ends. However, the bound Grammar and Alphabet appears to be a composite and expansion of information from the three loose-leaf manuscripts. Written in the hand of W.W. Phelps, it was perhaps an effort to produce a more comprehensive version of what they had learned during the production of the other three "Egyptian alphabet" documents. It may even be that the unfolding of the system of astronomy is what prompted them to start work on the larger volume; they didn't leave themselves enough room on the Egyptian alphabet manuscripts to do justice to their newfound knowledge about Egyptian astronomy.

In any case, I find it difficult to imagine that the above-quoted diary entry could mean that on this day Joseph Smith translated chapter 3 of the Book of Abraham. There is no mention of a translation effort.

-CK

[Chris Smith]

Iâ??m not sure what you mean by the â??second installmentâ? of Ms. #4. According to the inventory of the Joseph Smith Egyptian papers, the Church has all of the extant 9 pages of Ms. #4, written on the recto and verso. It is in the hand of Willard Richards and covers from Abr. 1:1 â?? 3:26 (with the exception of [if I recall correctly] 1:9 â?? 1:12.)

Manuscript 4 was written in 2 installments. The inventory is apparently based on Nibley's 1971 chart, which omitted some information for the sake of brevity. My information comes a PM conversation with Brent Metcalfe a while ago. I'll PM you the details, cause I don't want to let Brent's cats out of the bag.

See also the last 2 posts in the pundits thread.

-CK

[Jan]

Will,

Mind if I ask you a question? Are you talking to me, or are you talking to the studio audience? Because you continually refer to me in the third person, and it comes across as tremendously condescending.

I don't speak for Will, but I think what he was doing was putting your name in front of your quotes so readers would know who he was quoting. Ideally, the person and post being quoted is in the title bar of the quote (like above in my post), but when it's not, people will typically add it immediately preceding the quote.

I don't think he meant any condescension.

Jan

[William Schryver]

CK:

Mind if I ask you a question? Are you talking to me, or are you talking to the studio audience? Because you continually refer to me in the third person, and it comes across as tremendously condescending.

Well, upon reflection, I suppose Iâ??m speaking to both you and the â??studio audience.â? As I have reviewed my posts on this thread, I find that I do a little of both â?? each approach as unconscious as the other. Why you find it â??condescendingâ? is a question I cannot answer. Personally, I find my comments far less objectionable that these made earlier in the thread by yourself:

At the time Joseph Smith wrote this text, he was living in a state of sin. â?¦ I believe he will go to hell for the things he did at Nauvoo, and the Book of Abraham will follow him there.

John Gee is a Book of Abraham apologist whose work frequently borders on absurdity.

So I guess itâ??s all in the eye of the beholder.

In any event, I have intended no offense. Truth be known, I consider you to be a remarkably articulate young man, as much so as anyone who posts on this message board. Your grasp of the language belies your actual age. You are certainly an anomaly, in that respect, among your generational peers.

But, on to the fray ...

As to your replies vis-

[Chris Smith]

CK:

Well, upon reflection, I suppose Iâ??m speaking to both you and the â??studio audience.â? As I have reviewed my posts on this thread, I find that I do a little of both â?? each approach as unconscious as the other. Why you find it â??condescendingâ? is a question I cannot answer.

I suppose if I had to put words to it, it's like making eye contact with someone when having a conversation with him. I understand your reservations about the comments I made about Joseph Smith and about John Gee's work earlier in the thread. To be fair, they were condescending. I believe that my negative feelings toward both are justified, but in the future I will make an effort to keep my negative feelings to myself (or at least to express them in a less offensive way). I ask that you reciprocate by making an effort to avoid third-person proclamations about me. I believe that these steps will lead to a more constructive dialogue.

In any event, I have intended no offense. Truth be known, I consider you to be a remarkably articulate young man, as much so as anyone who posts on this message board. Your grasp of the language belies your actual age. You are certainly an anomaly, in that respect, among your generational peers.

I appreciate the sentiment. I also consider you a very intelligent fellow, I respect you a lot, and I appreciate having you as a more-than-capable foil for the conclusions I am drawing.

You apparently edited the quote in order to reinforce the idea of a definite link between the two activities (working on the alphabet, and having the â??system of astronomy â?¦ unfoldedâ?), when none is definitively implied in the original diary entry.

I did not edit the quote, and I am a little irked that you think I would have intentionally done so. I made the mistake of relying on Michael Marquardt's transcription of it in The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers, page 2. I do have the Faulring edition of Joseph's diaries on my New Mormon Studies CD, but unfortunately it is difficult to use and doesn't contain all the pertinent entries. In the future I will double-check my quotes when possible. So if any more mistakes crop up in diary entries I quote, I apologize in advance.

That said, I believe that the link between the work on the Alphabet and the unfolding of the system of astronomy is quite apparent from the diary. Certainly we'd have to read a lot into it to conclude that the unfolding of the system of astronomy occurred in connection with something other than the Egyptian Alphabet. B.H. Roberts apparently agreed. He explicitly connected the two in his rendering in HC 2:286:

This afternoon I labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with brothers Oliver Cowdery and W.W. Phelps, 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.

As for your treatment of the diary entries, I believe you have committed the very error for which the eminent Ben McGuire rebukes the IRR:

Effectively, we have several entries over a two-month span indicating that some translation was going on of the ancient records. However, with the exception of the first one (and only indirectly there), they are not linked to the Book of Abraham. There is in fact, only one specific entry which links the translation process to the Book of Abraham apart from the reference given above.

...

The implication given by Dr. Larson is that when Josephâ??s journal speaks of translation, it must refer exclusively to the translation of the Book of Abraham, yet this clearly is not the case. There are a number of documents in the possession of the LDS Church that bear some significance to the Book of Abraham and the papyri owned by Joseph Smith. The documents are collectively referred to as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers (hereafter designated as KEP). I have included a basic summary of these documents in the endnotes.18 Of singular importance to this discussion is KEP #6, entitled â??Valuable Discovery.â? It is also the only document among the KEP that bears the signature of Joseph Smith. There are two significant aspects of his â??notebookâ? used by Joseph Smith. The first is that it contains (among other things) mounted pieces of

papyri, and drawings of the contents of the papyri.

...

The second item of significance is that there are included in this notebook translations and commentary that have absolutely nothing to do with the Book of Abraham. For example, two pages contain no references to anything resembling the Book of Abraham, but instead reveal some details about the life of a certain â??Katumin, Princess, daughter of On-i-tos [On-i-tasâ??variant spelling]â?¦â? Along with this are the dozens and dozens of unique names and words that are contained within this and the other documents in the KEP collection that never made it into the Book of Abraham. This makes us question, first of all, the underlying assumption that whenever translation is mentioned in Josephâ??s journal that it must relate to the Book of Abraham (and/or the Book of Joseph). If this is the case, it might well be postulated that much (if not most or all) of this description of a mechanical translation process probably describes this additional material and not the contents of the Book of Abraham.

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LBOA.pdf

I suspect that many of the references to translating "Egyptian records" and "Egyptian characters" refer to the GAEL and other manuscripts. It is very difficult to tell which document was translated when, except when more specific information is given (i.e. that they worked on the Egyptian alphabet, or that a system of astronomy was unfolded, or that JS translated for the tenth number of the T&S).

With respect to JS, Sr. you wrote,

And although California Kid has now chosen to drop the subject, my previous posts (which demonstrate that the doctrines embodied by the 3rd chapter of Abraham were clearly being spoken of in Kirtland no later than July 1836) are another persuasive evidence of the interpretation I and others place on the historical record â?? a record which manifestly records numerous translating sessions for a prophet who had already exhibited an extraordinary capacity for dictating huge volumes of text in a very, very short period of time.

You dropped that subject, my friend. I was the last one to comment on it, at 10:19 AM boardtime.

I will comment further when I have more time. For the moment I have other obligations.

-CK

[_Frost]

[long off-topic post deleted]

Frost, please confine your posts to the scope of the opening post and the limits that the originator of the thread sets out during its course. Thank you. ~mods

[William Schryver]

CK,

You suggest (and apparently cite the sentiments of Ben McGuire to support your assertion) that the references in Joseph Smithâ??s diary to â??translationâ? do not necessarily refer to translation of the Book of Abraham. This is the first time I have encountered this particular tack. Frankly, it astounds me, and therefore I will review the various entries, especially since I have identifed additional instances (as cited in the Faulring book) of translation episodes which clearly refer to the Book of Abraham.

The earliest reference to â??translationâ? occurs in July 1835:

I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham â?¦a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them.

Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts, 2:, p.236

On July 19, 1835, we read the next reference to the record of Abraham:

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.

Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts, 2:, p.238

Note that specific reference is made to working on â??an alphabetâ? and a â??grammar.â?

Between July 19 and October 1, 1835, there is no reference of which Iâ??m aware to work occurring on either the alphabet and grammar or a â??translation.â? However, we know that at least the first three verses of chapter 1 were translated prior to September, because they appear in the preface to a patriarchal blessing given to Oliver Cowdery at that time. Brian Hauglid located the document in the church archives, and will make specific reference to it in a forthcoming publication.

Finally, on October 1st, we read (as cited previously):

This afternoon I labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with Brothers Oliver Cowdery and W. W. Phelps, 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.

(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts, 2:, p.286)

October 7th, we read (again, as cited above):

This afternoon recommenced translating the ancient records.

Scott H. Faulring, The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 38

Significantly, the entry mentions neither â??alphabetâ? or â??grammar,â? but specifically the â??records.â?

Indeed, we never hear again of any work being performed on an â??alphabetâ? or â??grammar.â? From this point on, we only find references to â??translationâ? of â??the records.â?

But, as mentioned above, this early period of October 1835 is the period during which Frederick G. Williams was serving as a scribe for Joseph Smith. It is the Williams Ms. #2 that is clearly the earliest of the KEPA manuscripts. But Williams was apparently not the best scribe in the world (his poor handwriting suggests one reason why) and therefore, on October 29, 1835, we read:

Brother Warren Parrish commenced writing for me.

Scott H. Faulring, The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 41

Parrishâ??s initial duties were to correct and render â??up-to-dateâ? Joseph Smithâ??s journal. Then, on November 14, 1835, Joseph Smith received a revelation in behalf of Warren Parrish, which reads in part:

He shall see much of my ancient records and shall know of hidden things and shall be endowed with a knowledge of hidden languages. And if he desires and shall seek it at my hand, 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. It shall be said of him in a time to come, â??Behold Warren the Lordâ??s Scribe, for the Lordâ??s Seer whom he hath appointed in Israel.

Scott H. Faulring, The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 59

On November 19, 1835, we read:

I â?¦ spent the day in translating the Egyptian records.

Scott H. Faulring, The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 66

Note, they are now translating the â??records.â?

The following day, we read this significant entry:

We spent the day in translating and made rapid progress.

Scott H. Faulring, The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 66

Rapid progress is now being made! And why not, he has a dedicated scribe for the work instead of a doctor doing it on the side.

November 24, 1835:

In the afternoon we translated some of the Egyptian records.

Scott H. Faulring, The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 67

November 25, 1835:

Spent the day in Translating.

Scott H. Faulring, The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 67

So, we are seeing a concerted effort to finally translate the records. The work on an â??alphabetâ? and â??grammarâ? is past. Joseph is making â??rapid progressâ? with the work, so much so that on December 16, 1835 we read:

Returned home. Elder McLellin, Elder B Young and Elder J Carter called and paid me a visit with which I was much gratified. I exhibited and explained the Egyptian Records to them and explained many things to them concerning the dealings of God with the ancients and the formation of the planetary System. They seemed much pleased with the interview.

Scott H. Faulring, The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 78 (emphasis mine)

The â??dealings of God with the ancients and the formation of the planetary system!â? This isnâ??t a description of a grammar and alphabet. This is plainly a description of something of far greater substance and meaning! Only a die-hard critic can look at this language and conclude that Joseph Smith was showing these men the mysterious and befuddling pages of the GAEL and have them be â??much pleasedâ? afterwards.

Letâ??s now move forward to January 30, 1836, where we read:

â?¦ waited upon several visitors and showed them the record of Abraham.

Scott H. Faulring, The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 127

The translation has progressed, and now Joseph is displaying something substantive enough that he terms it the record of Abraham.

Again, on February 3, 1836, we see this new manner of terminology being employed:

â?¦ received many visitors and showed the records of Abraham.

Scott H. Faulring, The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 128

It is no longer â??the Egyptian recordâ? or the â??record of the ancients.â? It is now the records of Abraham.

The shift in terminology is significant!

But even at that, the work continued, for once again, on February 22, 1836, we read:

I spent the afternoon translating with my scribe, Elder W Parrish, at his house.

Scott H. Faulring, The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 135

I simply cannot understand how critics can make the argument that no real progress was made on the translation of the Book of Abraham during late 1835 and early 1836. The historical record is so clear. There are no fewer than SEVEN SEPARATE TRANSLATION EPISODES, most occupying the entire day in question! And Joseph Smith, who would know something about â??rapid progressâ? when it comes to translation, specifically characterizes at least one of those days as having such successful results.

Why, then, is it so hard for the critics to accept the argument that a little over seven pages of printed text (Abr. 1:1 â?? 3:26) was produced during this period of time?

I cannot understand it, but I anticipate that arguments will be made to that effect.

[Bob Bennett]

Frost:

But when there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, and the Smithsonian can testify (unless they are all demon-possessed...), we have a problem.

Could a more uninformed statement be written? What, precisely, has the Smithsonian written recently regarding the Book of Mormon? How much interaction have the Smithsonian writers (whomever they are) had with Book of Mormon scholars? Who at the Smithsonian is qualified to address the textual claims of the Book of Mormon? Has the Smithsonian addressed the objections to its original woefully inadequate statement regarding the Book of Mormon, the author of which was clearly ill-informed about Book of Mormon scholarship and the statements made in the text? (Hint: the answer rhymes with 'go'). Why do people continue to make the statement: 'there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon'? Do they even understand the meaning of the word 'evidence'? (Second hint: it is not synonymous with 'proof'). Are there really no cities in Mesoamerica dating to the time of the Book of Mormon? Is there really no evidence of cement in Mesoamerica? No evidence that the people of that time had a system of writing? No evidence of walled cities? No evidence of an Old World NHM? While these don't represent 'proofs', it is difficult to argue that they don't even constitute 'evidence' - obviously not convincing evidence for many people, but evidence nonetheless. What, pray tell, would constitute 'archaeological evidence'? Is the only thing that counts a signpost reading 'Welcome to Zarahemla'?

[Bob Bennett]

Frost again:

without going into tedious details, I think those huge gaps are the biggest argument against Mormonism.

Well, as they say, the devil is in the details. I think you have messed up on most of the details regarding Mormonism. Perhaps if you paid attention to them, you wouldn't get it so consistently wrong.

It just so happens, too, that the errors of the King James Bible pop up in the BOM as well, and that's how we can safely conlude JS did some plaguerism.

I've always been curious about the claim of plagerism. When Nephi, Jacob and Christ say that they are quoting Isaiah, how is this plagerism? Is it plagerism any time anyone quotes scripture? When Christ recites much of the sermon on the mount at the temple in Bountiful, is he guilty of plagerizing himself? If Joseph Smith uses the same wording as the KJV in translating Christ's sermon, how is that plagerism?

Besides, I've been reading the Bible my entire life, and any passage I have read from the BOM has never possessed that sense of Truth, but perhaps I'm being too subjective with that.

Remove the word 'perhaps' and I will agree with you. I've been reading both the Book of Mormon and the Bible for over 40 years, and I find them to both be the word of God. So do you find even Joseph Smith's (alleged) plagerism of the Bible not possessed [of] that sense of Truth?

I must admit, however, that the first 10 chapters of 1 Nephi I have read have been extremely awkward an uncanny. Kill Laban to get Lehi's records? Maybe I missed it, but what was so significant about that? Lehi should have had them to begin with...it just sounds way too contrived already.

Yes, you did miss it. Why would Lehi necessarily have possession of a set of brass plates? Do you imagine everyone in 600 BC Jerusalem had such a set of scriptures? It's amazing that what you find so 'extremely awkward and uncanny' (not sure what the 'uncanny' reference even means), a rather remarkable scholar, an expert in the history of the Middle East by the name of Hugh Nibley, found so accurate a depiction of 7th century BC Israel that he wrote a couple of books about it.

You really should study something besides the run of the mill anti-Mormon screed before posting here on a topic about which you clearly know very little.

[Chris Smith]

http://www.irr.org/mit/BOA-diary-statements.htm

Will,

Why, then, is it so hard for the critics to accept the argument that a little over seven pages of printed text (Abr. 1:1 â?? 3:26) was produced during this period of time?

If it is demonstrated that JS had translated through 3:26 rather than 2:18 by early 1842, I won't mind too much. It's not that big a deal; I've been wrong before, and I expect to be wrong again many more times. But you will recall that John Gee wants to have a very large portion of the Book of Abraham-- the entire extant text, in fact-- translated by the end of July 1835 (Guide, p. 4). That is a suggestion I find highly problematic, and it is what I have principally been arguing against. I suspect that the reason he proposes it is so that he can entirely discount the "working papers" hypothesis without a second thought.

Having said that, my opinion at present is that the evidence is in favor of Joseph having stopped prior to 2:19 in 1835, and having never progressed beyond this point until 1842. You do a good job of making the case for his having spent a lot of time "translating" something in November 1835 and February 22, 1836. During this time Parrish seems to have served as his principal scribe, as evidenced in the Nov 19 diary entry. Phelps is not mentioned any more in connection with the Egyptian records, and may already have been incapacitated by illness. I suspect you are right that the aformentioned something was-- at least primarily-- the Book of Abraham. But I still don't think we are required to have the BoA translated past 2:18.

I needn't remind you that the jury is still very much out on whether MSS 2 and 3 were simultaneously dictated or are visual copies. Unfortunately, I think your reading of the historical evidence is largely dependent on the latter theory. Below I have offered a working theory on how to match manuscripts to diary entries if the simultaneous dictation theory is correct:

July 5, 1835 â?? â?¦with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the scrolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt â?? more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth

Mr. Chandler was told that his writings could be deciphered, and very politely gave me privileges of copying some four or five different sentences or separate pieces, stating at the same time, that unless he found someone who "could give him a translation soon he would carry them to London." ... Being solicited by Mr. Chandler to give an opinion concerning his antiquities, or a translation of some of the characters, Brother J. [Joseph] gave him the interpretation of some few for his satisfaction. For your gratification I will here annex a certificate which I hold, from under the hand of Mr. Chandler... [the certificate is dated July 6th, 1835] - Dec 25 letter of Oliver Cowdery (http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/Letters-cowdery.html)

These two references clearly refer to the same thing: translation of several lines of characters, perhaps from different "pieces" of papyrus. I think this refers to KEPE 3, 4, and 5, in the handwriting of Oliver, Joseph, and Phelps.

late July 1835 â?? 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.

The mention of "grammar" indicates that this must have been the bound volume. There is no grammar in the aforementioned alphabet manuscripts.

October 1 â?? This after noon labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with bro. O. Cowdery and W.W. Phelps. The System of astronomy was unfolded. (expanded in 1841 to say, â??This afternoon I labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with Brothers Oliver Cowdery and W. W. Phelps, 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.â? - â?Manuscript History of the Church,â? Book B-1, p. 622)

Here we have a reference to the pages in the GAEL that refer to astronomy, notably the second part of the fifth degree. Possibly on this day they also drew the picture of the hypocephalus.

October 3, 1835 â?? "In the afternoon I waited on most of the Twelve [apostles], at my house, and exhibited to them the ancient records, and gave explanations. This day passed off with the blessing of the Lord."

Perhaps the explanations Joseph gave were some of the ones mentioned by Cowdery in his December letter (i.e. Enoch's pillar, Satan tempting Eve, etc.).

October 7 - This afternoon recommenced translating the ancient records.

Perhaps on this day Joseph translated the first three verses of the BoA with Phelps as scribe.

November 19, 1835: "Went in company with Doc[tor Frederick] Williams and my scribe [Warren Parrish?] to see how the workmen prospered in finishing the House [Kirtland Temple]. The masons on the inside had commenced put[t]ing on the finishing coat of plastureing [sic] â?¦. I returned home and spent the day in translating the Egyptian records. This has been a pleasant day."

It is perhaps suggestive that JS was out with Parrish and Williams that morning. Might they have come back and produced manuscripts 2 and 3? If so, then they might have continued the next day:

November 20 - We spent the day in translating and made rapid progress.

November 25 might be when they translated the Katumin passage, and Nov. 26 might be when they transcribed KEPE 9:

November 25 - Spent the day in Translating.

November 26, 1835 â?? "At home. We spent the day in transcribing Egyptian characters from the papyrus. I am severely afflicted with a cold.

All of this is just my guess, but the point is that I think there are more than enough papers to account for most or all of the diary entries, especially if manuscripts 2 and 3 do in fact prove to have been simultaneously dictated.

However, we know that at least the first three verses of chapter 1 were translated prior to September, because they appear in the preface to a patriarchal blessing given to Oliver Cowdery at that time.

That's really cool. Thanks for the info! This vindicates a theory I have been toying with as to the date of the early part of MS 1, reflected in the working theory I gave above-- which, by the way, I formulated prior to reading this statement of yours.

Translation manuscripts 2 and 3 start rather abruptly at Abraham 1:4. Translation manuscript 1 has Phelps' handwriting for verses 1-3 and Parrish's for the rest of the manuscript. Since Phelps is never again mentioned in connection with the Egyptian records after Parrish was brought on as scribe, my hypothesis is that verses 1-3 of manuscript 1 were translated using the GAEL as "working papers" in July or October, then manuscripts 2 and 3 picked up the translation at verse 4 in mid-November, and then later Parrish transferred 1:4-2:18 from manuscript 3 over to manuscript 1, completing Phelps' initial work on that manuscript.

on December 16, 1835 we read:

Returned home. Elder McLellin, Elder B Young and Elder J Carter called and paid me a visit with which I was much gratified. I exhibited and explained the Egyptian Records to them and explained many things to them concerning the dealings of God with the ancients and the formation of the planetary System. They seemed much pleased with the interview.

The â??dealings of God with the ancients and the formation of the planetary system!â? This isnâ??t a description of a grammar and alphabet. This is plainly a description of something of far greater substance and meaning! Only a die-hard critic can look at this language and conclude that Joseph Smith was showing these men the mysterious and befuddling pages of the GAEL and have them be â??much pleasedâ? afterwards.

He wasn't showing them any of the KEP, let alone the GAEL. He was showing them the "Egyptian Records," i.e. the papyri. No doubt (as was his custom) he focused on an explanation of the images: the hypocephalus, for one. Compare the entry for Dec 12:

December 12, 1835 â?? "At home. Spent the forenoon in reading. At about 12 oâ??clock a number of young persons called to see the Egyptian records. I requested my Scribe [Warren Parrish] to exhibit them. He did so. One of the young ladies who had been examining them was asked if they had the appearance of Antiquity. She observed with an air of contempt that they did not. On hearing this I was surprised at the ignorance she displayed and I observed to her that she was an anomaly in creation for all the wise and learned that had ever examined them without hesitation pronounced them ancient. I further remarked that it was downright wickedness, ignorance, bigotry, and superstition that caused her to make the remark and that I would put it on record. I have done so because it is a fair sample of the prevailing spirit of the times showing that the victims of priestcraft and superstition would not believe though one should rise from the dead."

Egyptian records here clearly refers to the papyri. And on Dec 23:

December 23, 1835 â?? "In the forenoon at home studying the Greek language. Also waited upon the brethren who came in and exhibiting to them the papyrus.

I simply cannot understand how critics can make the argument that no real progress was made on the translation of the Book of Abraham during late 1835 and early 1836.

The critics believe that the BoA was translated from 1:1 (I would say instead 1:4; see above) to 2:18 during this period. This does not constitute "no real progress."

-CK

[PacMan]

CK:

That's the closest thing I can find to a growl. I understand things take time. Just understand that I am now officially harrasing you to hurry...just to satiate my impatience! If you are going to wait for your paper, at least try to hit a couple of the points for my benefit.

And if you were to post the couple of pages we were referring to, I don't have these one's in print.

Thanks,

PacMan

Frost,

Go away. You are incoherent, and have proven you are unwilling to even attempt at focusing on the topic, saying nothing of your scholarship.

[Chris Smith]

Pacman,

You asked how the parts of the character match up with the larger character. I don't have a lot of time right now, but one quick point is that the sounds that are associated with the cut-up character pieces correspond to the sounds of the chracter as a whole. The character is Za Ki-oan hiash. We have the oan element in Zub zool oan. We have a Ki element, a Hi element, and and an Ash element, and then a couple other pieces that don't appear to be reflected in the larger character's transliteration. You will notice that in the loose-leaf alphabet documents, this character is translated "land of the Chaldeans." I think that when they expanded the project in the GAEL, they tried to understand the nuances of the character's basic meaning by dissecting it and matching up its component parts with characters from the loose-leaf Egyptian alphabet. The correspondences they find aren't aesthetically perfect, but they work.

Remind me again on Saturday and I'll post some pictures.

As for the narrative problem you identified, notice that when the GAEL lists the "parts of speech" that should be supplied by the reader, it lists "verbs" as one of them. I agree that this system seems unrealistically ambiguous and imprecise, but I believe that very quality was one of its strengths in terms of what JS was doing: it left him some flexibility in offering his final BoA translations.

It is interesting to think about this system in terms of the myths and ideas that existed in American culture at the time about Egyptian hieroglypic script.

The concept of ideographic writing is a most seductive notion. There is great appeal in the concept of written symbols conveying their message directly to our minds, thus bypassing the restrictive intermediary of speech. And it seems so plausible. Surely ideas immediately pop into our minds when we see a road sign, a death's head label on a bottle of medicine, a number on a clock...

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the English term "ideographic" was first used in 1822 to describe Egyptian writing. The French term "id

[_Frost]

Frost:

Could a more uninformed statement be written? What, precisely, has the Smithsonian written recently regarding the Book of Mormon? How much interaction have the Smithsonian writers (whomever they are) had with Book of Mormon scholars? Who at the Smithsonian is qualified to address the textual claims of the Book of Mormon? Has the Smithsonian addressed the objections to its original woefully inadequate statement regarding the Book of Mormon, the author of which was clearly ill-informed about Book of Mormon scholarship and the statements made in the text? (Hint: the answer rhymes with 'go'). Why do people continue to make the statement: 'there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon'? Do they even understand the meaning of the word 'evidence'? (Second hint: it is not synonymous with 'proof'). Are there really no cities in Mesoamerica dating to the time of the Book of Mormon? Is there really no evidence of cement in Mesoamerica? No evidence that the people of that time had a system of writing? No evidence of walled cities? No evidence of an Old World NHM? While these don't represent 'proofs', it is difficult to argue that they don't even constitute 'evidence' - obviously not convincing evidence for many people, but evidence nonetheless. What, pray tell, would constitute 'archaeological evidence'? Is the only thing that counts a signpost reading 'Welcome to Zarahemla'?

recurring argument. "they're wrong! they're uninformed! they don't know what they're talking about!" it...well...it's really annoying. but my objection is probably annoying, too...

behold...Smithsonian: http://www.godandscience.org/cults/smithsonian.php

but...my post was off topic?! what?! I thought it was very much so ON topic...*sigh* whatever.

[Hammer]

Actually it is worse than baloney.

Because it is impossible to swallow & digest.

put up or shut up.

[PhilipTraum]

http://www.godandscience.org/cults/smithsonian.php

but...my post was off topic?! what?! I thought it was very much so ON topic...*sigh* whatever.

Well, this thread is about the Book of Abraham, so citing the Smithsonian's objections to the BoM's historicity is indeed beside the point.

And as an aside, just trust me when I tell you to not get involved in this hair-splitting discussion. These people are professional pedants -- they lost me at "hypocephalus"...

[William Schryver]

CK:

Having said that, my opinion at present is that the evidence is in favor of Joseph having stopped prior to 2:19 in 1835, and having never progressed beyond this point until 1842. You do a good job of making the case for his having spent a lot of time "translating" something in November 1835 and February 22, 1836. During this time Parrish seems to have served as his principal scribe, as evidenced in the Nov 19 diary entry. Phelps is not mentioned any more in connection with the Egyptian records, and may already have been incapacitated by illness. I suspect you are right that the aformentioned something was-- at least primarily-- the Book of Abraham. But I still don't think we are required to have the BoA translated past 2:18.

My time is once again very limited, so I probably wonâ??t be able to continue this current discussion much further â?? at least for awhile.

Still, I wanted to respond briefly to a couple of your statements.

You accede to the fact that Joseph Smith and Warren Parrish spent a considerable amount of time during November 1835 and at least on February 22, 1836. You also acknowledge that they were evidently â??translatingâ? something. In this I obviously concur.

I will only follow up (and thereby strengthen my argument that they were translating the text of the Book of Abraham) by noting that Warren Parrishâ??s handwriting only appears in KEPA Ms. #3, and a small portion of KEPA Ms. #1. Parrishâ??s handwriting (with one possible minor exception) is not found in any other documents contained in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. He and Joseph Smith were manifestly never working on anything to do with an alphabet or grammar â?? at least there is no extant evidence of any such thing having occurred. Whether the extant Ms. #3 dates to November 1835 (and represents original translation papers) is entirely a different issue, and one that, in my estimation, can be and will be disproven. We, of course, discussed this very issue at great length in the thread in the Punditâ??s Forum. I am utterly confident that the professional textual analysis currently being performed on the KEP will confirm my contention that Ms. #3 is a copy, either of KEPA Ms. #2, or of a non-extant Ms. #Q. You seemed persuaded to that conclusion at one point in time, but apparently have changed your mind since. I predict that you, if you can maintain your objectivity in the matter, will ultimately be persuaded that your initial conclusion was correct. I am also confident that it can and will be established that the Frederick G. Williams' KEPA Ms. #2 predates the commencement of Warren Parrishâ??s employment as a scribe for Joseph Smith.*

Therefore, we are left with the question as to what Joseph Smith and Warren Parrish were working on during those numerous lengthy translation sessions?

As you said, they had to have been doing something. And if they were not working on anything to do with a grammar and alphabet, and if they were not working on 1:1 â?? 2:6, then what were they doing? I maintain that they were working on later chapters of the translation. How far they progressed is impossible to determine given the presently available evidence. But whatever it was they were â??translating,â? it follows that the KEPA manuscripts could simply not be the record of it. Therefore, there must be some other explanation for the extant KEPA manuscripts other than that advanced by the critics.

--------------------------------------------------

* (In suggesting this, I am quite cognizant of the handful of common emendations present in both these manuscripts. I am also aware of a new theory being advanced that seeks to explain this seeming mystery, and which, in conjunction with the numerous evidences of visual copying errors present in Ms. #3, will establish it (Ms. #3) as a definite product of visual copying. I must, however, refrain from â??stealing the thunderâ? of those whose theory this is â?? and besides, I am not well-enough versed in its particular details to do it justice.

Of course, I have already given what I believe to be conclusive evidence that Williamsâ?? Ms. #2 is a visual copy of an earlier manuscript â?? regardless of when it was produced. And the current professional text-critical analysis is producing the same conclusion.)

[Chris Smith]

Will,

Well, we shall see. This has been a very pleasant discussion. Thanks,

-CK

[Noggin]

I never cease to be amazed by the hubris with which critics of the LDS church pronounce as firm and settled

perspective, perspective now. Hubris is in the eye of the beholder. Schryver, as if the Mormon faith pronounces nothing as firm and settled. please. Have you forgotten the (your) chatter about all other non-LDS creeds being an abomination to god and whatnot? And you all declare it with such fervor! No antagonistic approach there!

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.

How are Gee's views on the connection to egyptian writing and the Book of Abraham received by his non LDS egyptologist peers? I am guessing that they think his views on that are, well, absurd.

Noggin

[Theophilus07]

Frost:

Could a more uninformed statement be written? What, precisely, has the Smithsonian written recently regarding the Book of Mormon? How much interaction have the Smithsonian writers (whomever they are) had with Book of Mormon scholars? Who at the Smithsonian is qualified to address the textual claims of the Book of Mormon? Has the Smithsonian addressed the objections to its original woefully inadequate statement regarding the Book of Mormon, the author of which was clearly ill-informed about Book of Mormon scholarship and the statements made in the text? (Hint: the answer rhymes with 'go'). Why do people continue to make the statement: 'there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon'? Do they even understand the meaning of the word 'evidence'? (Second hint: it is not synonymous with 'proof'). Are there really no cities in Mesoamerica dating to the time of the Book of Mormon? Is there really no evidence of cement in Mesoamerica? No evidence that the people of that time had a system of writing? No evidence of walled cities? No evidence of an Old World NHM? While these don't represent 'proofs', it is difficult to argue that they don't even constitute 'evidence' - obviously not convincing evidence for many people, but evidence nonetheless. What, pray tell, would constitute 'archaeological evidence'? Is the only thing that counts a signpost reading 'Welcome to Zarahemla'?

It is interesting to watch LDS apologist trends, of which two related ones are evident in the post above.

One of these interesting trends is to try to have your cake and eat it, too with regards to evidence. The LDS apologists redefine "evidence" to mean unproven and unsupported possibilities where anything is possible and to imply that this "evidence" conclusively proves the apologist position, while begrudgingly admitting that it does not (but should). I suggest we critics give this approach the acronym "HCJSHK", "How Could Joseph Smith Have Known ... ." The presence of cities in Mesoamerica is evidence of cities in Mesoamerica, but not proof they were built by either Knights Templar or Nephites. How could Joseph Smith have possibly known there were cities in Mesoamerica? -- Well, how tough a guess is that? How could Joseph Smith have possibly known Mesoamericans engaged in warefare? Well, what human societies don't? And how about those guesses where Smith completely blew it, like horses, steel swords and elephants? Evidently tough enough guesses that he didn't get it right. The improbable LDS apologist arguments that horses were tapirs and similar reasonings are sufficiently unpersuasive that they may well prove counterproductive.

What would constitute real "archaeologic evidence"? Yes, though offered above through sarcasm, a "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign would indeed suffice, and in fact a great many such Old World inscriptions have given historians much evidence to work with. For real life examples, we can turn to actual archaeological evidence which suggest that at least some of the OT reflects reality, such as the 13th century BC Merneprah stela in Egypt, the Mesha and Tel Dan stelae in Israel, and the Assyrian records and inscriptions which describe battles with Israel and name Israeli kings and cities by name. Yes, the equivalent of "welcome to Zarahemla" signs DO exist in the real world.

The second apologist trend is to baldly claim that the latest John Sorenson research "proves" the BoM's historiocity so conclusively that any critic's sources which predate Sorenson's published works are out-of-date and have been demolished. Not claimed by the referenced poster, but implied by others (wink, wink) is that because of the latest John Sorenson research, the Smithsonian, Dr. Michael Cole, and any other reputable, authoritative source has reversed its or his critical position on the BoM. But Dr. Sorenson published this "evidence" in LDS apologist publications and not in peer-reviewed academic journals so other Mesoamerican anthropologists may not even have read the apologist writings. I say, if his "evidence" is so strong and compelling, put it in the normal peer-reviewed academic journals. And until an apologist comes up with documentation that Dr. Cole has accepted the BoM's historiocity, I'm not going to believe it. As far as the Smithsonian using the BoM as a guide to its research or reversing its previously stated position as a result of Dr. Sorenson's research, I must ask for adequate documentiation. Otherwise, I respectfully decline to disbelieve it.

So, Bob Bennett, please be on notice that I have formally requested documentation to the claims and implications that Dr. Sorenson's research has coverted Dr. Cole or caused the Smithsonian to recant its opposition to BoM claims. Under the rules of this forum, you are now formally obligated to provide such documentation.

Theophilus07

[flavo]

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liarsâ??their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

I do not presume to know where Joseph Smith will be in the afterlife. But it is my belief that he will be in hell. People who manipulate others by claiming divine revelation hurt too many people for me to feel justified mincing words.

-CK

Like Moses, Noah, Abraham, Peter, etc. etc.