Can someone explain to me the big fuss with the Kirtland Egyption Papers?

[lostindc]

I read some of MASH's book Shaken Faith Syndrome and came across the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and how they were apparently not translated correctly. Can I get a layman's synopsis of this issue?

[lostindc]

I read some of MASH's book Shaken Faith Syndrome and came across the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and how they were apparently not translated correctly. Can I get a layman's synopsis of this issue?

Notice how I wrote out MAsh's name, I think he should have just the M*A*S*H logo as his username, disucss

[Rommelator]

This is a very controversial issue amongst Mormons and non-Mormons alike, as it has some serious implications (both pro and con) for the Book of Abraham's authenticity. It has also been the topic of many threads on this board.

Here is a good synopsis of the LDS view of the KEP with additional links.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers

[lostindc]

This is a very controversial issue amongst Mormons and non-Mormons alike, as it has some serious implications (both pro and con) for the Book of Abraham's authenticity. It has also been the topic of many threads on this board.

Here is a good synopsis of the LDS view of the KEP with additional links.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers

thanks,

from what I read it looks like Joseph and a group of others took a crack at translated that particular document and it does not match up to whatever expectations...

[cinepro]

I read some of MASH's book Shaken Faith Syndrome and came across the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and how they were apparently not translated correctly. Can I get a layman's synopsis of this issue?

If you are a believing LDS and were truly not familiar with the KEP before reading "Shaken Faith Syndrome", you may be illustrating one of the dangers of such a book.

Wikipedia has about the simplest overview I think you'll find:

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers (KEP) are a collection of documents written by early Mormon leaders including Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, W.W. Phelps, Warren Parish, Willard Richards, and Frederick G. Williams, during the the Kirtland period of early Mormonism (early to mid 1830s).

The papers are a source of controversy, since they contain material related to the Book of Abraham, including the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, and portions of text found in the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyri. Critics argue his translations bear little resemblance to the transliteration of the characters from the papyri fragments.

Jerald and Sandra Tanner, critics of the LDS church, obtained an unauthorized copy of a microfilm strip containing images of the documents in 1966, and published them as Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar. Critics of the LDS church often cite the Kirtland Egyptian Papers as evidence that Joseph Smith, Jr. was a fraud, since it contains what they claim is a character by character translation of the Egyptian from the papyri that is associated with the text of the Book of Abraham.

In 1971, images of ten of the documents were published in BYU Studies in an article by Hugh Nibley entitled; "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers"[2] [1]

Egyptologist I. E. Edwards, stated that the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar was "largely a piece of imagination and lacking in any kind of scientific value."[3]

Hugh Nibley commented that the only grammar in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers was "only a page-and-a-half long, of no practical value whatever and never employed in any translation."[4]

[Chris Smith]

Lostindc,

The long and short of it is that the Book of Abraham translation manuscripts reveal that the Book of Abraham is a "translation" of an Egyptian funerary text that turns out to have nothing to do with Abraham. The Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, which is also part of the KEP, provides elaborate translations and transliterations of Egyptian characters that in most cases are not even close to the Egyptological readings. Most apologists therefore feel obliged to find ways to reinterpret or to dismiss these documents so as to avoid their rather unpleasant implications. The result is the "big fuss" to which you referred in your thread title.

See here or here.

Best,

-Chris

[Benjamin McGuire]

Chris writes:

The long and short of it is that the Book of Abraham translation manuscripts reveal that the Book of Abraham is a "translation" of an Egyptian funerary text that turns out to have nothing to do with Abraham.

Actually, the term "translation manuscripts" is a term created by assumption (as Chris knows). And the question of chronology has never been adequately established. Which came first? The BoA or the so called "translation manuscripts"? And this question is at the heart of the fuss over the KEP.

Ben M.

[ttribe]

If you are a believing LDS and were truly not familiar with the KEP before reading "Shaken Faith Syndrome", you may be illustrating one of the dangers of such a book.

So, the publication of books like "Shaken Faith Syndrome", which addresses many of the issues critics have been raising for years head-on, is "dangerous"? On the other hand, if we don't engage in such publications we are "hiding" the truth, right? So, again we are damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[cinepro]

So, the publication of books like "Shaken Faith Syndrome", which addresses many of the issues critics have been raising for years head-on, is "dangerous"? On the other hand, if we don't engage in such publications we are "hiding" the truth, right? So, again we are damned if we do, damned if we don't.

I didn't say there were no helpful uses for the book. Certainly, it's good to have a well-presented apologetic resource that can be given to LDS and save them from spending countless hours wading through the internet looking for the crucial bit of info that they need.

But the danger is that someone might just have a concern with one or two issues, and then have several others they were totally unaware of dropped at their feet.

[ttribe]

I didn't say there were no helpful uses for the book. Certainly, it's good to have a well-presented apologetic resource that can be given to LDS and save them from spending countless hours wading through the internet looking for the crucial bit of info that they need.

But the danger is that someone might just have a concern with one or two issues, and then have several others they were totally unaware of dropped at their feet.

Then what shall we do with this quandary, oh wise cinepro?

[cinepro]

Then what shall we do with this quandary, oh wise cinepro?

If I knew, I wouldn't be cinepro.

[Deborah]

From what I have heard discussed by BYU scholars, it appears the Book of Abraham was translated from docs that have since been lost or destroyed. The Egyptian papers we have may be something entirely different. But that is just what I've heard and given the state of the church at that time it makes sense to me.

[cinepro]

it appears the Book of Abraham was translated from docs that have since been lost or destroyed.

Depending on the degree that we expect the Egyptian writing on the source documents to match up to the translated Book of Abraham, that would logically be true.

[ttribe]

If I knew, I wouldn't be cinepro.

Ahhh, but you are the "resurrected" (read - unbanned) cinepro who is now one with the Force (as evidence by your post-death Yoda avatar) and has access to all things of "the future, the past, old friends long gone...." Hence, my question.

[robuchan]

I didn't say there were no helpful uses for the book. Certainly, it's good to have a well-presented apologetic resource that can be given to LDS and save them from spending countless hours wading through the internet looking for the crucial bit of info that they need.

But the danger is that someone might just have a concern with one or two issues, and then have several others they were totally unaware of dropped at their feet.

I agree with cinepro. I started researching FARMS and other sites to answer various questions, as a fiercely loyal LDS. Before long I'd read about Book of Abraham, multiple First Vision accounts, BOM historicity, Lamanite DNA, polyandry, peepstones, witnesses seeing physical objects with spiritual eyes, Swedenborg, Thomas ****, common source material for Paul and Moroni, Kinderhook plates, 19th century topics in the BOM, Jospeh and Sydney "do you see what I see?" section 76, etc. If there were no FARMS or apologists, I might have been able to convince myself it was all anti-Mormon lies. Instead now I've completely lost my testimony of the restoration. Thanks a lot, guys.

[ttribe]

I agree with cinepro. I started researching FARMS and other sites to answer various questions, as a fiercely loyal LDS. Before long I'd read about Book of Abraham, multiple First Vision accounts, BOM historicity, Lamanite DNA, polyandry, peepstones, witnesses seeing physical objects with spiritual eyes, Swedenborg, Thomas ****, common source material for Paul and Moroni, Kinderhook plates, 19th century topics in the BOM, Jospeh and Sydney "do you see what I see?" section 76, etc. If there were no FARMS or apologists, I might have been able to convince myself it was all anti-Mormon lies. Instead now I've completely lost my testimony of the restoration. Thanks a lot, guys.

Seriously?

[robuchan]

From what I have heard discussed by BYU scholars, it appears the Book of Abraham was translated from docs that have since been lost or destroyed. The Egyptian papers we have may be something entirely different. But that is just what I've heard and given the state of the church at that time it makes sense to me.

The best answer is the same one for the BOM translation. Joseph didn't translate anything. He didn't even look at the gold plates while translating. And the scrolls found with the mummy could have been the Sunday comic strips. What was important was that Joseph believed they were real. And when he believed they were real, something powerful happened and he was able to touch into the relevatory spirit and receive scripture from God.

[robuchan]

Seriously?

OK, I obviously was being sarcastic but there is some truth behind it. I was able to dismiss all "that stuff" for years and years because I only heard it from "anti-Mormon" sources. Granted I didn't dig very deep, but when I did I assumed it was simply Satanic anti-Mormon lies. Once I started reading apologetic responses and accurate history told by faithful LDS which 90% of the time agreed on the facts, just gave a different spin (generally what seemed to me as an extremely illogical spin), that was when my testimony slowly started to be chinked away.

[cinepro]

Ahhh, but you are the "resurrected" (read - unbanned) cinepro who is now one with the Force (as evidence by your post-death Yoda avatar) and has access to all things of "the future, the past, old friends long gone...." Hence, my question.

For someone with a devil as their avatar, I'd expect a better understanding of the metaphorical nature of the little pictures.

Besides, D&C 129 teaches us that if I were a spirit, I wouldn't be able to type on a keyboard. Unless I was in the Temple movie.

[ttribe]

For someone with a devil as their avatar, I'd expect a better understanding of the metaphorical nature of the little pictures.

Besides, D&C 129 teaches us that if I were a spirit, I wouldn't be able to type on a keyboard. Unless I was in the Temple movie.

A "devil" and a Sun Devil...two very different things.

[ttribe]

OK, I obviously was being sarcastic but there is some truth behind it. I was able to dismiss all "that stuff" for years and years because I only heard it from "anti-Mormon" sources. Granted I didn't dig very deep, but when I did I assumed it was simply Satanic anti-Mormon lies. Once I started reading apologetic responses and accurate history told by faithful LDS which 90% of the time agreed on the facts, just gave a different spin (generally what seemed to me as an extremely illogical spin), that was when my testimony slowly started to be chinked away.

Then what of those of us who, for the most part, read most (if not all) of the same things and came to different conclusions? Who didn't view apologetic discussion as nothing more than "illogical spin"? (That's rather inflammatory, by the way) Are we less intelligent? Less logical? Easier to fool?

[robuchan]

Then what of those of us who, for the most part, read most (if not all) of the same things and came to different conclusions? Who didn't view apologetic discussion as nothing more than "illogical spin"? (That's rather inflammatory, by the way) Are we less intelligent? Less logical? Easier to fool?

I don't see it like that at all. I don't know why two people read the same material and come to different conclusions.

I don't think it's inflammatory, either. If you think it's logical and I oppose you, you must think I'm illogical or at least less logical. I shouldn't be offended.

Dan Peterson said he finds it unreasonable not to find the account of the BOM witnesses as compelling evidence for the gold plates. That's more inflammatory. I said I find something illogical, not that I believe everyone should find it illogical. Your guy says everyone must find his stuff logical.

[cinepro]

Dan Peterson said he finds it unreasonable not to find the account of the BOM witnesses as compelling evidence for the gold plates.

Not to get off-topic, but I also find the BOM witnesses to be compelling evidence for the gold plates. Unfortunately, I don't find the gold plates to be compelling evidence for the Book of Mormon.

[ttribe]

I don't see it like that at all. I don't know why two people read the same material and come to different conclusions.

Given the importance of the issues at hand, don't you think it matters?

I don't think it's inflammatory, either. If you think it's logical and I oppose you, you must think I'm illogical or at least less logical. I shouldn't be offended.

Those terms are used in a very pejorative sense; hence the "inflammatory" comment.

Dan Peterson said he finds it unreasonable not to find the account of the BOM witnesses as compelling evidence for the gold plates. That's more inflammatory.

Why?

I said I find something illogical, not that I believe everyone should find it illogical.

You also called the apologetics "spin". Furthermore, something either is, or is not "logical". It's dichotomous. Consequently, by bluntly referring to something as "illogical spin", you are implying something about the reader who has concluded otherwise.

Your guy says everyone must find his stuff logical.

Well, first, I never refer to DCP as "my guy"...that would just be strange. However, if you read his statement again (assuming he's accurately quoted since you provided no link), he said it is unreasonable (not illogical) to find the evidence compelling (note: he didn't say convincing).

[robuchan]

Given the importance of the issues at hand, don't you think it matters?

Those terms are used in a very pejorative sense; hence the "inflammatory" comment.

Why?

You also called the apologetics "spin". Furthermore, something either is, or is not "logical". It's dichotomous. Consequently, by bluntly referring to something as "illogical spin", you are implying something about the reader who has concluded otherwise.

Well, first, I never refer to DCP as "my guy"...that would just be strange. However, if you read his statement again (assuming he's accurately quoted since you provided no link), he said it is unreasonable (not illogical) to find the evidence compelling (note: he didn't say convincing).

Can my belief be inflammatory to you? If I believe something is illogical or if it's just spin, is that really inflammatory to you?

There are a lot of intelligent, educated people in the world that have a variety of disagreements on politics, religion, etc. I see it as a matter of perspective. That's why I can call something illogical but I'm not going to rent my clothes if I can't force you to agree it's illogical. I can still respect you as a reasonable, logical person, just with a different perspective. It's much more close minded to force your logic on another and make a broad statement like all people are unreasonable who don't see it like me.