Publishing The Kirtland Egyptian Papers

[David T]

I agree with you here. In fact part of my paper is pointing out that when a member gets up in F&T meeting and says, "I know the Book of Mormon is true" she testifying about the role that the Book of Mormon plays in her life as a spiritual guide, comfort, etc. and she the question of the historicity of the text is furthest from her mind.

For the most part, we do not hear people get up in F&T meeting and declare "I know that Nephi built a boat." I do recognize that this happens, but I argue that doing so is a confusion and is about as spiritually efficacious as standing up and declaring "I know that Salt Lake City is the capital of Utah."

I disagree only in the regard that I think in Mormonism, the only revealed text that necessarily needs to have an ancient source is the Book of Mormon. It's the only text whose production involved presentation not only of the physical ancient text, of which there were spiritual and physical witnesses, but also of a presentation by the angelic compiler/author himself. Because of its foundational nature, because of all involved in its production, it was clearly meant to be understood and received as, at least as the Base Text, an authentic Historical work.

Now, the additional historicity of the details contained within the book are a different story. But what must be conceded is that, in its underlying and base text form, there was a literal and physical Book of Mormon compiled and produced anciently. This is not so with the JST and Abraham texts.

The rejection of an actual authentic ancient Book of Mormon base text creates the most fundamental problems in the origins of the Church, and the credibility of its founders. A Testimony that the Book of Mormon is true also invovles, for many, a belief that it is a true ancient record brought forth in our day by miraculous means, that Joseph, Oliver, Harris, the Whitmers, etc. were not being deceptive in their witnesses to the physical literalness to the records.

The JST and Abraham are of a completely different nature, although the revelatory means by which Joseph produced their English versions were very, very similar, if not identical (for the most part).

[William Schryver]

I agree with you here. In fact part of my paper is pointing out that when a member gets up in F&T meeting and says, "I know the Book of Mormon is true" she testifying about the role that the Book of Mormon plays in her life as a spiritual guide, comfort, etc. and she the question of the historicity of the text is furthest from her mind.

For the most part, we do not hear people get up in F&T meeting and declare "I know that Nephi built a boat." I do recognize that this happens, but I argue that doing so is a confusion and is about as spiritually efficacious as standing up and declaring "I know that Salt Lake City is the capital of Utah."

I concur with your perspective on this.

And with that, we should probably resume our sniping, lest anyone get the wrong impression. Understanding and brotherhood are all fine and dandy, but when there's a war to be fought, we can't permit considerations like good will to get in the way of a good fight.

In any case, it appears neither of us is quite what the other might have been inclined to believe, huh? I guess it just goes to show you that judgments based on message board interactions are seldom very reliable, since almost everyone is so easily conned into playing the roles that hover around the extremes of any question.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree with you here. In fact part of my paper is pointing out that when a member gets up in F&T meeting and says, "I know the Book of Mormon is true" she testifying about the role that the Book of Mormon plays in her life as a spiritual guide, comfort, etc. and she the question of the historicity of the text is furthest from her mind.

For the most part, we do not hear people get up in F&T meeting and declare "I know that Nephi built a boat." I do recognize that this happens, but I argue that doing so is a confusion and is about as spiritually efficacious as standing up and declaring "I know that Salt Lake City is the capital of Utah."

You know you are right, here. When one bears a testimony of the BoM, they (I) do it as I testify that I know it is true for me. I am not bearing a testimony of it's historicity, in terms of that "I know that Nephi built a boat". But there are certain things (historically) that comes with the spiritual witness of the BoM. That is for a different thread.

[William Schryver]

I disagree in the regard that I think in Mormonism, the only revealed text that necessarily needs to have an ancient source is the Book of Mormon. It's the only text whose production involved presentation not only of the physical ancient text, of which there were spiritual and physical witnesses, but also of a presentation by the angelic compiler/author himself. Because of its foundational nature, because of all involved in its production, it was clearly meant to be understood and received as, at least as the Base Text, an authentic Historical work.

The rejection of an actual authentic ancient Book of Mormon base text creates the most fundamental problems in the origins of the Church, and the credibility of its founders. A Testimony that the Book of Mormon is true also invovles, for many, a belief that it is a true ancient record brought forth in our day by miraculous means, that Joseph, Oliver, Harris, the Whitmers, etc. were not being deceptive in their witnesses to the physical literalness to the records.

The JST and Abraham are of a completely different nature, although the revelatory means by which Joseph produced their English versions were very, very similar, if not identical (for the most part).

I understand where you're coming from with this, although I might disagree with you on details. However, to me, (and I think this is what Loyd is trying to get at) the question of whether or not the Book of Mormon is a text with ancient origins (I believe it is) is largely irrelevant to its value as scripture. I, like the person in Loyd's example, do not have in mind questions of historicity or literality when I bear testimony of the "truthfulness" of the Book of Mormon. I'm talking about the fact that it is, for me, a conduit to truth. And, for me, that is really the only important question to be considered when assessing what is and what is not "scripture."

[David T]

I understand where you're coming from with this, although I might disagree with you on details. However, to me, (and I think this is what Loyd is trying to get at) the question of whether or not the Book of Mormon is a text with ancient origins (I believe it is) is largely irrelevant to its value as scripture. I, like the person in Loyd's example, do not have in mind questions of historicity or literality when I bear testimony of the "truthfulness" of the Book of Mormon. I'm talking about the fact that it is, for me, a conduit to truth. And, for me, that is really the only important question to be considered when assessing what is and what is not "scripture."

Then I think we agree for the most part. I, for one, feel that Truth in scripture can be revealed in a ficticious, or perhaps more accurately, 'pseudepigraphical' framework. (I feel much of the JST is such an example of this genre) and even in the D&C, there are some scriptures first given in a present day context, and then later 're-framed' or 're-written' to be a revelation directed to Enoch and his ancient community (the version in our current D&C is an inconsistent mishmash of the two versions). The Truth and direction was the same, the framework was not.

I guess I agree in saying that while the Book of Mormon must have as its base an ancient text, it is not necessary for all of the events described therein need to have literally happened for them to communicate Truth. I do recognize that when it comes to teaching Eternal doctrine, Symbols are far more important (and impressing on the mind) than a literal history.

[the narrator]

I disagree only in the regard that I think in Mormonism, the only revealed text that necessarily needs to have an ancient source is the Book of Mormon. It's the only text whose production involved presentation not only of the physical ancient text, of which there were spiritual and physical witnesses, but also of a presentation by the angelic compiler/author himself. Because of its foundational nature, because of all involved in its production, it was clearly meant to be understood and received as, at least as the Base Text, an authentic Historical work.

While the production of the BofM does seem to lead in this direction, this does not mean that the BofM text must reflect what was on the gold plates.

[Chris Smith]

His experience and knowledge of the remaining papryi, he has personally examined them more than once, has the trust and confidence of those experts whom have written many papers and books on the subject, Has the permission from the CoJCoLDS to do so, has been vetted and vouched by experts.

I think these qualifications are sufficient. They are more than Brent Metcalf and Chris Smith can say.

For the record, those qualifications are not actually more than I can say. I have personally examined the papyri with the Church's permission, as well.

[Chris Smith]

My personal experience with scripture, and the way in which it has established its value to me is that, when reading it, I find that I am more likely than at any other time to receive personal revelation from my father in Heaven, through the medium of the Holy Ghost. Often, that revelation has nothing to do with the specific text I am reading. And, although I greatly appreciate and highly value many scriptural texts purely on the basis of their primary literary message, it has been my experience that the greatest worth of scripture is that it puts me in a position to receive the personal revelation that I treasure the most. Thus, when reading the Book of Abraham, for example, I can feel an appreciation for the actual words from chapter 3, but what I have come to understand as a result of my reading of that particular passage goes far beyond and far afield of the actual text itself. How can that be so? To tell the truth, I'm not entirely certain. But it is so. And for that reason I have a perspective about the meaning of "scripture" that, while it does not necessarily exclude the possibility of its historicity and literality, transcends those often indeterminable questions. To me, the most meaningful definition of "scripture" is: "something I read that enables me to commune with God." Beyond that, the other questions are substantially superfluous.

Well said.

[ttribe]

Well said.

Genuine question here Chris, given your substantial experience with studying the BoA, what are your thoughts on its contents (the question of its historical origins aside)?

[the narrator]

I concur with your perspective on this.

And with that, we should probably resume our sniping, lest anyone get the wrong impression. Understanding and brotherhood are all fine and dandy, but when there's a war to be fought, we can't permit considerations like good will to get in the way of a good fight.

In any case, it appears neither of us is quite what the other might have been inclined to believe, huh? I guess it just goes to show you that judgments based on message board interactions are seldom very reliable, since almost everyone is so easily conned into playing the roles that hover around the extremes of any question.

It sounds like you are one of those trailer park boys on the road to apostasy.

[Chris Smith]

Genuine question here Chris, given your substantial experience with studying the BoA, what are your thoughts on its contents (the question of its historical origins aside)?

I guess you're asking what I think about the theology of the Book?

I used to not be much of a fan of the concreteness and anthropomorphism of LDS theology, but I'm becoming gradually more approving of it in my old age. There's something to be said for the kind of transhumanist deity that Mormonism posits. It has an air of plausibility about it that I think goes unappreciated. I think my favorite part, though, is the astronomy. There's something powerful about the idea that we are all connected to the cosmos, and that the cosmos are ordered or structured in the same way as human societies. Joseph Smith of course was neither the first nor the last to argue for this "great chain of being" idea. But I think the reason it crops up so often is that it's a powerful and appealing notion.

Also, although the BoA lays the theological foundations for the priesthood ban by saying that Pharaoh was cursed according to the priesthood, it also compensates for this by blessing him with kingly and temporal power and wisdom. So this isn't a blind and unfeeling racism. And have you noticed that the BoA switches the order of creation, in chapter 5, so that Eve is created before the animals? I like that a lot.

I'm also a big fan of the pictures. I think scriptures in general could use more pictures. :-)

[Chris Smith]

sorry, duplicate post

[ttribe]

I guess you're asking what I think about the theology of the Book?

Yes.

I used to not be much of a fan of the concreteness and anthropomorphism of LDS theology, but I'm becoming gradually more approving of it in my old age. There's something to be said for the kind of transhumanist deity that Mormonism posits. It has an air of plausibility about it that I think goes unappreciated. I think my favorite part, though, is the astronomy. There's something powerful about the idea that we are all connected to the cosmos, and that the cosmos are ordered or structured in the same way as human societies. Joseph Smith of course was neither the first nor the last to argue for this "great chain of being" idea. But I think the reason it crops up so often is that it's a powerful and appealing notion.

This concept dovetails nicely with certain concepts included in the Endowment, BTW.

Also, although the BoA lays the theological foundations for the priesthood ban by saying that Pharaoh was cursed according to the priesthood, it also compensates for this by blessing him with kingly and temporal power and wisdom. So this isn't a blind and unfeeling racism. And have you noticed that the BoA switches the order of creation, in chapter 5, so that Eve is created before the animals? I like that a lot.

Interesting; I've never read those verses to be temporally in order (especially given the description in Ch. 4). Rather, I've simply read them to be a summarization. Yours is an interesting read.

I'm also a big fan of the pictures. I think scriptures in general could use more pictures. :-)

Good one.

[LifeOnaPlate]

William Schryver, Th.D, University of Oz, 2010, summa cum laude

OK, this is oddly Scratch-like, come on now

[J Green]

When it comes to the text of the Book of Abraham itself, I will say this: If it is an actual translation of an Egyptian text that appeared somewhere on the scrolls that came into Joseph Smith's possession, I am personally convinced that Joseph Smith never knew where the text was located on the papyri, nor did he ever, in any way, consult that text in the process of producing his "translation" of the Book of Abraham. Indeed, I am persuaded that the text of the Book of Abraham was received entirely independent of the papyri themselves, just as the Book of Mormon was received entirely independent of the plates upon which, according to Moroni, it was written; just as D&C 7 was received entirely independent of any "parchment" produced by John the Revelator; just as the Book of Moses was received entirely independent of the text of the Old Testament.

Will,

I'm looking forward to quite a few presentations this year, including yours. I like your thoughts above; however, I'm still not ready to divorce the translation from the text. At the start of the BoM translation, JS would copy characters from the plates and look at them with the U&T. I.e., the translation appears to have been based on specific characters. Then, as he moved away from the plates physically, some of the witnesses tell us that he would still see the both the original characters from the plates and a translation for them in the seer stone. Later we are told that by the end of the BoM translation he could do most of this process (whatever it was) without even the seer stone. Even the JST was anchored by an actual text (KJV) that was being referenced line by line, word by word. Granted, not an actual purported ancient text, but the translation was keyed physically to referencing the English text as he went along. (The same could likely be said of Moses.) While I enjoy the many discussions I've followed on the BOA, I'm not in a position to really comment about any connection between translation and text there. I just know that there seems to be some kind of connection between text and translation (or translation and translation in the case of the JST).

Regards

[LifeOnaPlate]

Excellent discussion to all, (except that French-named-guy).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Excellent discussion to all, (except that French-named-guy).

I agree.

(Resists tempations to comment futher)

[the narrator]

Will,

Later we are told that by the end of the BoM translation he could do most of this process (whatever it was) without even the seer stone.

Regards

None of the Book of Mormon was translated without seer stones (that we know of). Joseph first used the Urim and Thummim which came with the plates. However, after the lost manuscript incident, Joseph was left with just the seer stones which he already had (and had been using for treasure digs).

It wasn't until a few years after translating the plates that Joseph started to go with seer stones, which was one of the reasons why David Whitmer believed that Joseph had fallen as a prophet.

[gmormon]

Excellent discussion to all, (except that French-named-guy).

You mean your good buddy Kevin?

[J Green]

None of the Book of Mormon was translated without seer stones (that we know of). Joseph first used the Urim and Thummim which came with the plates. However, after the lost manuscript incident, Joseph was left with just the seer stones which he already had (and had been using for treasure digs).

It wasn't until a few years after translating the plates that Joseph started to go with seer stones, which was one of the reasons why David Whitmer believed that Joseph had fallen as a prophet.

Not necessarily true. Per Bushman, Emma's testimony is that JS used the UT for a brief time after the 116 page fiasco, with Emma as scribe until Winter set in. Other witnesses though--like William McLlellan--claimed that the entire process from start to finish was with the stone. Remember that he also started both the JST and the BOA translations with the stone but stopped after awhile. Orson Pratt simply says that JS told him that after a while he didn't need to use the UT anymore. It's not entirely clear how long the stone was used and if it lasted the entire time, including the beginning and the end.

In any case, this is merely a side note to my point that in JS process (whatever it is) there does seem to be some kind of connection to the translation and the text. THAT's the point.

Regards

[Mortal Man]

I am persuaded that the text of the Book of Abraham was received entirely independent of the papyri themselves

So you're okay with a Hor scroll that contained nothing but the breathing permit?

[Chris Smith]

Interesting; I've never read those verses to be temporally in order (especially given the description in Ch. 4).

Chapter 4 seems to be just a "planning phase". (Which in the BoA replaces the "spiritual pre-creation" of Moses, btw.)

[William Schryver]

So you're okay with a Hor scroll that contained nothing but the breathing permit?

Two observations on your rather flippant reply:

1) "Breathing permit" is incorrect terminology, as I have consistently observed in my discussions of it on this message board. The correct title of the text appearing on the surviving fragments of the scroll of H

[ttribe]

Chapter 4 seems to be just a "planning phase". (Which in the BoA replaces the "spiritual pre-creation" of Moses, btw.)

I get it; I've just never rearranged the creation to be anything but consistent with the "planning" order.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Chris, thanks for posting your thoughts about BoA contents, I enjoyed reading.