Kirtland Egyptian Papers

[John Williams]

Frankly, that's pretty much true of any writing which claims to be "scripture".

Yes, that's true, but at least before we were arguing about the antiquity of the Book of Abraham. David seems to have conceded that it's not ancient, after all, but a 19th-century reinterpretation, albeit an inspired one.

[Tchild2]

Frankly, that's pretty much true of any writing which claims to be "scripture".

But that isn't true for writings that turn to scripture via claimed supernatural translation If it is nothing more than catalytical inspiration, then, any ol' thing, or just sitting there with eyes closed, staring at the blankness of darkened eyelids would have worked equally well.

Of course, when you have a very usefull prop, which are ancient looking scrolls that others cannot decipher, then claimed translation can make your claimed prophetic abilities seem real to others. Couldn't they not?

[ttribe]

But that isn't true for writings that turn to scripture via claimed supernatural translation If it is nothing more than catalytical inspiration, then, any ol' thing, or just sitting there with eyes closed, staring at the blankness of darkened eyelids would have worked equally well.

Of course, when you have a very usefull prop, which are ancient looking scrolls that others cannot decipher, then claimed translation can make your claimed prophetic abilities seem real to others. Couldn't they not?

Look, you can come up with any possible way to cynically "explain" the process as potentially fraudulent, but like I said before, you could do the same thing with ANY writings which claim to be scripture. I already know you think JS was full of it. Fair enough. But, IMO, the content of the book speaks for itself and I happen to be of the opinion that the content is outstanding.

[John Williams]

Look, you can come up with any possible way to cynically "explain" the process as potentially fraudulent, but like I said before, you could do the same thing with ANY writings which claim to be scripture. I already know you think JS was full of it. Fair enough. But, IMO, the content of the book speaks for itself and I happen to be of the opinion that the content is outstanding.

Fair enough, but that's a value judgment, not an assessment of the book's antiquity. I've said many times before that the case for the Book of Abraham's antiquity has become less plausible with time, to the point where the leading BofA apologist, John Gee, is having to argue that the original papyrus from which the book was "translated" is missing.

To me, David's position is the only one left with any merit at all.

[Eldwynn]

But that isn't true for writings that turn to scripture via claimed supernatural translation If it is nothing more than catalytical inspiration, then, any ol' thing, or just sitting there with eyes closed, staring at the blankness of darkened eyelids would have worked equally well.

Of course, when you have a very usefull prop, which are ancient looking scrolls that others cannot decipher, then claimed translation can make your claimed prophetic abilities seem real to others. Couldn't they not?

As a small aside, is there any evidence (even Joseph claiming he did) that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by actually... opening the plates? The only thing I have heard is that Joseph threw a stone in a hat, peered in, all while a cloth was over the plates. A barrier was between him and the scribe, and Joseph just repeated what he "saw".

I know David Whitmer said the following:

""I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation... . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation"

REF: Page 12 of his book An Address to All Believers in Chris

[ttribe]

Fair enough, but that's a value judgment, not an assessment of the book's antiquity. I've said many times before that the case for the Book of Abraham's antiquity has become less plausible with time, to the point where the leading BofA apologist, John Gee, is having to argue that the original papyrus from which the book was "translated" is missing.

To me, David's position is the only one left with any merit at all.

What difference does the antiquity of the papyri make if the "antiquity" of the text (as translated) is genuine?

[John Williams]

What difference does the antiquity of the papyri make if the "antiquity" of the text (as translated) is genuine?

David's not arguing for the antiquity of the text. Neither am I.

[Jason]

As a small aside, is there any evidence (even Joseph claiming he did) that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by actually... opening the plates? The only thing I have heard is that Joseph threw a stone in a hat, peered in, all while a cloth was over the plates. A barrier was between him and the scribe, and Joseph just repeated what he "saw".

Is that really the only thing you have heard?

[Mortal Man]

The second layer is the inspired reinterpretation of the scene given via the Prophet Joseph Smith which adapts these Egyptian symbols as a depiction of an event that occurred in Abraham's life. In so doing, Joseph places Abraham upon the throne.

Take a look at this photo from a Fox News article on 12 Nov. 2008. http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,5645,00.html#6_0

Is that Abraham on the throne? How did he get there ~300 years before he was born?

[ttribe]

David's not arguing for the antiquity of the text. Neither am I.

Well, I know you aren't and I'm not David, so I guess it doesn't really matter. There's either truth in there or there isn't. It's our job to figure that part out.

[Eldwynn]

Is that really the only thing you have heard?

Fair enough, it is the only thing I have heard backed with texts. I was under the impression Joseph Smith never talked about the process.

In Seminary, I remember watching a video where "Joseph Smith" and a scribe were side by side, him looking at the plates with a stone, and his scribe writing away. The plates were in full view. I have come to believe that this was not the case, mainly because some of his scribes describe the process as otherwise.

[John Williams]

Well, I know you aren't and I'm not David, so I guess it doesn't really matter. There's either truth in there or there isn't. It's our job to figure that part out.

Exactly. For you and David, the truth of the text appears to exist independently of its antiquity. Fair enough.

[ttribe]

Exactly. For you and David, the truth of the text appears to exist independently of its antiquity. Fair enough.

Wait...I just got through saying that I don't doubt the antiquity of the text itself; I am agnostic as to the antiquity of the papyri and the writings thereon. Stated plainly, I do believe the text is what it claims to be - an account written by Abraham. I don't care if it was actually written on the items which landed in Joseph Smith's possession...just for the record.

[John Williams]

Wait...I just got through saying that I don't doubt the antiquity of the text itself; I am agnostic as to the antiquity of the papyri and the writings thereon. Stated plainly, I do believe the text is what it claims to be - an account written by Abraham. I don't care if it was actually written on the items which landed in Joseph Smith's possession...just for the record.

Thanks for clarifying. I thought your "it doesn't matter" statement meant that it's either "true" or not, regardless of its antiquity. That's David's position, from what I can tell.

[John Williams]

For the record, I don't believe along those lines. Nor do Professors Gee and Hauglid, and many others who are presently studying the original sources.

I understand David's posture on this, but I think it is: 1) being somewhat misunderstood by readers on this thread; and 2) flawed and somewhat uninformed. And I say that with all due respect for David.

Well, if it counts at all, when I summarized David's position, he responded that my summary was correct. If I am misrepresenting his ideas, it is certainly not intentional, and I would hope David would correct me where I'm wrong.

I do disagree that there is any such thing as a "theory" that "Joseph Smith actually translated the markings of the papyri." I don't believe Joseph Smith ever did such a thing, whether with the Book of Mormon, D&C 7, or the Book of Abraham.

So, your position is that the Book of Abraham is a product of revelatory experience independent of the papyri?

That said, I absolutely do believe that Joseph Smith produced modern renditions of authentic ancient texts. Furthermore, I am convinced that, in the case of the Book of Mormon, the text produced is an English facsimile of the "Reformed Egyptian" original text that appeared on actual metallic plates. I am also convinced that, in the case of the Book of Abraham, the text produced is an English facsimile of an Egyptian original written on papyrus by Hellenistic Egyptian Jews, and that that original text was in Joseph Smith's possession at the time he produced his "translation".

What happened to the original text, and what is its relationship to the papyri?

I am also persuaded that the existing facsimiles have a definite relationship to that Abraham text, albeit one not currently appreciated by any but a few students and professors of Egyptology and Hebrew adaptations of Egyptian/Mesopotamian iconography.

Perhaps you could share your insights as to why you believe there is a "definite relationship" between the facsimiles and the now-disappeared Abrahamic text.

I believe that the debate has been dominated far too long by inaccurate and incomplete information. I hope to see that change dramatically in the coming few years. Indeed, it has already changed, but it will take time for those changes to become evident to the public at large.

I for one am waiting with 'bated breath for you to enlighten us.

[Tchild2]

Look, you can come up with any possible way to cynically "explain" the process as potentially fraudulent, but like I said before, you could do the same thing with ANY writings which claim to be scripture. I already know you think JS was full of it. Fair enough. But, IMO, the content of the book speaks for itself and I happen to be of the opinion that the content is outstanding.

"...with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commence 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, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. - a 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." (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236).

"Joseph the Seer has presented us some of the Book of Abraham which was written by his own hand but hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years but has now come to light through the mercy of God." (Diary of Wilford Woodruff, entry of February 19, 1842, LDS archives; also in Jay M. Todd, The Saga of the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1969), p. 221)

Underlined portions mine.

You mean skeptical, not cynical...I hope so anyway.

[William Schryver]

Take a look at this photo from a Fox News article on 12 Nov. 2008. http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,5645,00.html#6_0

Is that Abraham on the throne? How did he get there ~300 years before he was born?

Huh?

What kind of non sequitur is that comment?

[Mortal Man]

Yes, that's true, but at least before we were arguing about the antiquity of the Book of Abraham. David seems to have conceded that it's not ancient, after all, but a 19th-century reinterpretation, albeit an inspired one.

David's position is actually identical to Kevin Barney's. There is essentially no difference between an ancient Jewish redactor and a 19^th-century American redactor.

[John Williams]

"...with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commence 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, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. - a 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." (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236).

"Joseph the Seer has presented us some of the Book of Abraham which was written by his own hand but hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years but has now come to light through the mercy of God." (Diary of Wilford Woodruff, entry of February 19, 1842, LDS archives; also in Jay M. Todd, The Saga of the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1969), p. 221)

Underlined portions mine.

You mean skeptical, not cynical...I hope so anyway.

And yet Will tells that that there is no "such thing as a "theory" that "Joseph Smith actually translated the markings of the papyri." I don't believe Joseph Smith ever did such a thing, whether with the Book of Mormon, D&C 7, or the Book of Abraham."

Weird.

[ttribe]

"...with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commence 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, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. - a 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." (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236).

"Joseph the Seer has presented us some of the Book of Abraham which was written by his own hand but hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years but has now come to light through the mercy of God." (Diary of Wilford Woodruff, entry of February 19, 1842, LDS archives; also in Jay M. Todd, The Saga of the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1969), p. 221)

Underlined portions mine.

Do you think I'm not aware of these statements? I've read the 7 volume set of History of the Church (did so on my mission). I see no problem with the "written in his own hand" statement reconciling with my position on the matter. Regarding the actual papyri, I have no doubt that JS really believed that to be the case, and perhaps even wanted it to be the case especially after his experience with the BoM. However, I think it is actually irrelevant for the reasons I've already stated.

You mean skeptical, not cynical...I hope so anyway.

Perhaps a little of both from time to time.

[William Schryver]

John W:

So, your position is that the Book of Abraham is a product of revelatory experience independent of the papyri?

Just like the â??translationâ? of the Book of Mormon. It occurred, as it were, independent of the source.

What happened to the original text, and what is its relationship to the papyri?

I would say it is lost, along with about 85% of the material originally purchased from Michael Chandler.

Perhaps you could share your insights as to why you believe there is a "definite relationship" between the facsimiles and the now-disappeared Abrahamic text.

I could, but I wonâ??t. Not now. Not here.

And that Abraham text has not disappeared. Itâ??s now in the English language. Thatâ??s something that can be tested, but is generally ignored.

I for one am waiting with 'bated breath for you to enlighten us.

I have serious suspicions that you are not susceptible to enlightenment on this topic, but Iâ??m at least impressed that youâ??re one of the few people posting on this (or any other) message board who actually knows how to correctly spell â??batedâ?. (Although the leading apostrophe is not needed. The word, although short for â??abatedâ? is not properly considered a contraction, and thus appears with its own entry in all standard dictionaries. )

[Mortal Man]

I just want to point out that there is no "official stance" with respect to the JS papyri (or any apologetic/controversial topic, for that matter). Church leaders are more than happy to benefit from lay-apologists floating theories; they're less enthusiastic about accepting the risk that comes from attachment to any distinct position.

There is indeed an "official stance" and it's stated on the church's "official" website. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/pgp/introduction

The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham.

It's also printed in the "official" introduction to the "official" Pearl of Great Price in the "official" standard works of the church.

[dblagent007]

As a small aside, is there any evidence (even Joseph claiming he did) that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by actually... opening the plates? The only thing I have heard is that Joseph threw a stone in a hat, peered in, all while a cloth was over the plates. A barrier was between him and the scribe, and Joseph just repeated what he "saw".

Bushman recounts how Joseph initially made some attempts to translate the gold plates using secular knowledge. However, that quickly gave way to Joseph using the Urim&Thummim attached to the breastplate. Joseph actually inspected the plates to create the translation. Martin Harris acted as scribe and a blanket was placed between the two so that Martin could not see the plates (God hadn't allowed Joseph to show them to anyone). All this happened before the 116 pages were lost.

After the loss of the 116 pages, it seems that Joseph no longer used the plates and relied exclusively on the seer stone in a hat method.

[William Schryver]

And yet Will tells that that there is no "such thing as a "theory" that "Joseph Smith actually translated the markings of the papyri." I don't believe Joseph Smith ever did such a thing, whether with the Book of Mormon, D&C 7, or the Book of Abraham." Weird.

I think you are misrepresenting both the historical account and my statement concerning the nature of the "translation." But that is par for the course in these discussions, and I won't even attempt to argue the issue with you or tchild2. You are not amenable to understanding when it comes to these things.Suffice it to say that when Joseph Smith uses the term "translation," it doesn't mean the same thing as when Dan Peterson translates a passage from the Q'uran into English for our benefit.Again, I believe the preponderance of the evidence points to the fact that Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Abraham in the exact same manner he employed in the production of the Book of Mormon and D&C 7.

David's position is actually identical to Kevin Barney's. There is essentially no difference between an ancient Jewish redactor and a 19^th-century American redactor.

Tell that to the two redactors.

[John Williams]

John W:

Just like the "translation" of the Book of Mormon. It occurred, as it were, independent of the source.

I would say it is lost, along with about 85% of the material originally purchased from Michael Chandler.

I could, but I won't. Not now. Not here.

In my best Church Lady voice, "How convenient!"

And that Abraham text has not disappeared. It's now in the English language. That's something that can be tested, but is generally ignored.

I'm all ears, Will. I've studied the BofA text both as a believer and as a skeptic.

I have serious suspicions that you are not susceptible to enlightenment on this topic,

I may be a skeptic and a hardened evil apostate, but I am certainly not averse to enlightenment when such is available.

but I'm at least impressed that you're one of the few people posting on this (or any other) message board who actually knows how to correctly spell "bated". (Although the leading apostrophe is not needed. The word, although short for "abated" is not properly considered a contraction, and thus appears with its own entry in all standard dictionaries. )

I'm a traditionalist. Sue me. I always see "abated" when I read or hear that word. And, no, the apostrophe isn't necessary, but it's acceptable usage.