Is this statement true?

[Black Moclips]

Given all of the discussions surrounding the Book of Abraham, as I was sitting in class yesterday, I thought I would look up quickly what the Gospel Principles book says about the Book of Abraham. So I flipped to Lesson 10 and found this simple statement:

The book of Abraham was translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith from a papyrus scroll taken from the Egyptian catacombs.

Now, I'm no software programmer/songwriter/film maker, but the claim this sentence makes is pretty clear to me. I'm curious as to what people think. Please expand on why you voted the way you did. This is my first poll I believe, so I apologize if something goes wrong.

[Black Moclips]

I will be the first to answer my own poll here. I was wishy washing between true but misleading and 100% false because translation indicates a knowledge of the source language, and since the consensus seems to be that Joseph didn't know Egyptian, then he could not have translated it. In addition, there are no papyri on which modern day scholars find written the text of the Book of Abraham. If Joseph didn't translate a document, then I think the church needs to revise how it presents this information.

[Senator]

Joseph produced the BofA from something, with no apparent need of a tangible source text. Take the Book of Moses for example. It is my personal opinion that the writings contained on the papyri have nothing to say concerning the very iconic figure of Abraham.

[urroner]

I believe that we don't possess the papyrus that JS had.

[emeliza]

My understanding is that at the very least JS used the papyrus to translate the BoA, however it could have just been a tool and not what was actually on the papyrus. That being said, I agree with Urroner and don't believe we have the exact copy that he used in his translation.

I would say that although a bit vague, the statement in the GP book is true.

[Glenn101]

There was no "We don't know for sure" response in your poll. As one poster has already mentioned, it is fairly certain from all of the anecdotal evidence that is available, that we do not have all of the papyrus scrolls that Joseph Smith had. We also apparently do not have all of the Book of Abraham that was originally produced.

Glenn

[Jason]

There is always room for clarification.

Also, the "this is a stupid poll" option is missing.

[ERayR]

Here we go again another stupid, meaningless poll.

[phaedrus ut]

The nice part about the hypothetical missing papyrus is that it can essentially never be found. Joseph's translations of the BOA Facsimiles 1, 2, & 3 are very specific and we know exactly what characters he translates into what words. If the same translation abilities were used clearly (the source text ? the translation) and it would be impossible to match the current BOA into actual Egyptian.

Phaedrus

// Unless of course they discover the BOA facsimilies cipher decoder ring.

[Jason]

The nice part about the hypothetical missing papyrus is that it can essentially never be found.

Well, papyrus is usually unrecoverable after it has burned in a museum fire.

Joseph's translations of the BOA Facsimiles 1, 2, & 3 are very specific and we know exactly what characters he translates into what words.

Do we really?

[phaedrus ut]

Do we really?

It doesn't get any more explicit than the character #'s 2, 4,& 5 on facsimile 3. Joseph specifically said these characters mean this.

Phaedrus

[Jason]

It doesn't get any more explicit than the character #'s 2, 4,& 5 on facsimile 3. Joseph specifically said these characters mean this.

And what do they "really" mean then?

[BCSpace]

I will be the first to answer my own poll here. I was wishy washing between true but misleading and 100% false because translation indicates a knowledge of the source language, and since the consensus seems to be that Joseph didn't know Egyptian, then he could not have translated it.

Yet we LDS use the term "translate" loosely. For example, JS did not know the language the BoM was written in. In addition, JS "translated" the Bible, replacing what was missing, but not using any texts containing the missing or original writings.

[mfbukowski]

An imaginary dialogue between God and a critic of the Book of Abraham,:

Critic: The BOA says

[Obiwan]

The "translation" occurred by Revelation.... Most of us in the Church understand that's the case when the word "translation" is used. Thus, the usage of the word and statement is not misleading.

Be careful also, because your doing what anti-mormons do by quoting things out of their context to try and make them say something other than what was meant. And I don't just mean the context of the surrounding text (though they do that too), but I referring to mormonism itself and what else has been said on a particular subject. Like I said above, "translation" within mormonism primarily refers to revelations received on a said text that existed, not as translation usually refers to in a secular sense.

[Black Moclips]

The "translation" occurred by Revelation.... Most of us in the Church understand that's the case when the word "translation" is used. Thus, the usage of the word and statement is not misleading.

Be careful also, because your doing what anti-mormons do by quoting things out of their context to try and make them say something other than what was meant. And I don't just mean the context of the surrounding text (though they do that too), but I referring to mormonism itself and what else has been said on a particular subject. Like I said above, "translation" within mormonism primarily refers to revelations received on a said text that existed, not as translation usually refers to in a secular sense.

I see what you are saying, but it seems to me the official church organizations still believes some actual "translation" was going. Notice the description for the book of Moses a few lines before my original quote:

The Pearl of Great Price contains the book of Moses, the book of Abraham, and some inspired writings of Joseph Smith. The book of Moses contains an account of some of the visions and writings of Moses, revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

In this case, the church is stating that those writings occurred by a much more subjective process. No problem whatsoever. But for the Book of Abraham, the description is much more objective. Saying that within mormonism, translation really doesn't mean everything it normally means I think is a stretch. I think the church used the word translation because the position of the church is that a normal translation is what really happened. With the Book of Mormon, it adds "by the power of god" to qualify the translation, which leaves it much more nebulous as to what the actual process was. Not so with the BOA.

[Jason]

In this case, the church is stating that those writings occurred by a much more subjective process. No problem whatsoever. But for the Book of Abraham, the description is much more objective. Saying that within mormonism, translation really doesn't mean everything it normally means I think is a stretch. I think the church used the word translation because the position of the church is that a normal translation is what really happened. With the Book of Mormon, it adds "by the power of god" to qualify the translation, which leaves it much more nebulous as to what the actual process was. Not so with the BOA.

The Church still calls Joseph Smith's version of the Bible a "translation", while acknowledging that Joseph had no actual ancient manuscripts to work from.

[Black Moclips]

The Church still calls Joseph Smith's version of the Bible a "translation", while acknowledging that Joseph had no actual ancient manuscripts to work from.

Which is fine because it qualifies the "translation" by describing it as "inspired" or "revealed". It doesn't seem that way for the book of Abraham. The church could easily put some qualifiers in there for the BOA and go down the road of the catalyst theory. It seems to me current BOA apologists are trying to steer the boat this way, but in its most basic and simple teachings, the church teaches the BOA came off a papyrus.

[phaedrus ut]

And what do they "really" mean then?

They "really" mean that Joseph couldn't translate Egyptian no matter how much obfuscation is attempted through apologetic misdirection. The BOA is embarrassingly difficult to defend because there is so much source material that should serve to support the book but instead it makes it so much harder to defend.

Texts like the parchment of John in D&C 7 are much easier.

Phaedrus

edit: spelling

[mfbukowski]

Which is fine because it qualifies the "translation" by describing it as "inspired" or "revealed". It doesn't seem that way for the book of Abraham. The church could easily put some qualifiers in there for the BOA and go down the road of the catalyst theory. It seems to me current BOA apologists are trying to steer the boat this way, but in its most basic and simple teachings, the church teaches the BOA came off a papyrus.

It did.

It's just that the papyrus it "came off of" was a corrupted Egyptian version detailing the same practice- the ceremonies necessary for exaltation, and spiritualized astronomical data.

It's like Einstein "translating" Newton's theories and taking them farther than Newton could have possibly understood.

[belledame2]

I will be the first to answer my own poll here. I was wishy washing between true but misleading and 100% false because translation indicates a knowledge of the source language, and since the consensus seems to be that Joseph didn't know Egyptian, then he could not have translated it. In addition, there are no papyri on which modern day scholars find written the text of the Book of Abraham. If Joseph didn't translate a document, then I think the church needs to revise how it presents this information.

I totally agree with you.

[Pahoran]

An imaginary dialogue between God and a critic of the Book of Abraham,:

Critic: I am not buying this! With all due respect, it says

[Lightbearer]

I believe it is 100% accurate and is a translation from scrolls that are not in our possession currently. As for the facsimiles they are interpretations of the characters and what they represent, not a narrative written by Abraham. It explains the meanings assigned by Abraham to these hyroglyphics... so just because others have assigned other meanings is not of any relevance to the meaning Abraham applied to them. At least that is my "take" on the book of Abraham. Also notice that the following disclaimer is at the bottom of Facsimile No. 2

:"The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time."

This indicates that other things could have been revealed but were not.

[jmordecai]

The "written by his own hand" bit, upon which the critics hang the entire weight of their hysterical accusations is nothing more or less than part of the title of the work.

That is not accurate.

Statements have been made from various LDS sources that confirm the held belief that it was from Abraham's own hand, not just some insertion to the title as you suggest. Consider Wilford Woodruff's Journal entry, Feb. 19, 1842:

"... 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 ..."

Josiah Quinn, in Figures of the Past, p.386, recalled his discussion with Joseph concerning the BoA:

"... These receptacles Smith opened, and disclosed four human bodies, shrunken and black with age. 'These are mummies,' said the exhibitor. 'I want you to look at that little runt of a fellow over there. He was a great man in his day. Why, that was Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt!' Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us. They were preserved under glass and handled with great respect. 'That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful,' said the prophet. 'This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the creation, from which Moses composed the first book of Genesis.' ..."

The Mormon historian Sidney B. Sperry (Ancient Records Testify in Papyrus and Stone, p.83) believed the original text was Abraham's, thus it predated the book of Genesis:

"... It is evident that the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, of which our printed Book of Abraham is a copy, must of necessity be older than the original text of Genesis ..."

To assert "by his own hand" is a meaningless addition to the title is simply inaccurate.

[Pahoran]

That is not accurate.

Yes. It is.

Statements have been made from various LDS sources that confirm the held belief that it was from Abraham's own hand, not just some insertion to the title as you suggest. Consider Wilford Woodruff's Journal entry, Feb. 19, 1842:

"... 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 ..."

Josiah Quinn, in Figures of the Past, p.386, recalled his discussion with Joseph concerning the BoA:

"... These receptacles Smith opened, and disclosed four human bodies, shrunken and black with age. 'These are mummies,' said the exhibitor. 'I want you to look at that little runt of a fellow over there. He was a great man in his day. Why, that was Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt!' Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us. They were preserved under glass and handled with great respect. 'That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful,' said the prophet. 'This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the creation, from which Moses composed the first book of Genesis.' ..."

The Mormon historian Sidney B. Sperry (Ancient Records Testify in Papyrus and Stone, p.83) believed the original text was Abraham's, thus it predated the book of Genesis:

"... It is evident that the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, of which our printed Book of Abraham is a copy, must of necessity be older than the original text of Genesis ..."

Ah. An appeal to authority. How compelling. Or something.

To assert "by his own hand" is a meaningless addition to the title is simply inaccurate.

What's "simply inaccurate" is attributing to me any assertion to the effect that "by his own hand" is meaningless. That is a straw man.

The colophon in the title is not meaningless at all; it has an important meaning: it claims authorship.

That's authorship. Not penmanship.

The two things are not the same.

Regards,

Pahoran