The Book Of Abraham/Book Of Breathings Controversy

[William Schryver]

In my years of delving into the details of the controversy surrounding Joseph Smith’s production of the Book of Abraham, I’m always amazed at how much propaganda, misinformation, and outright ignorance is out there when it comes to this topic—especially in the world of Mormon-related message boards. A prime example is currently getting some air time on one of those boards, which is dominated by ex-Mormons. In light of the false assumptions upon which that particular post is dependent, I thought I might take advantage of this occasion to explain one thing every defender of the faith should understand when it comes to the Book of Abraham controversy.

For almost half a century, critics have asserted that Joseph Smith believed that the Book of Abraham was a translation of an Egyptian text commonly called the “Book of Breathings.” This two-minute-long video presentation explains the basic elements of the argument: Abraham Manuscripts Explanation

This is probably the assertion most frequently made by Mormon critics. It is the underlying assumption of much of what the critic writes in the post I linked above. But the assertion is without merit, as I demonstrated in my 2010 presentation entitled The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers (links below for those interested).

Why is the argument false? Because the Abraham Manuscripts that contain characters from the Book of Breathings in the left column were produced AFTER the original translation of the Book of Abraham. They are not the “original translation manuscripts” of the Book of Abraham.

How do we know this? Because we know that the Abraham Manuscripts were produced after a set of documents called the Egyptian Alphabet, and there is conclusive evidence that the Alphabet (and subsequent "Grammar" documents) are dependent on a pre-existing text of the already translated Book of Abraham. Therefore the manuscripts that contain characters from the Book of Breathings in the left column cannot be, as the critics have long asserted, the “original translation manuscripts” of the Book of Abraham.

This five-minute-long video presentation explains the nature and contents of the Alphabet and Grammar documents: Alphabet and Grammar Explanation

Most importantly, this fourteen-minute-long video presentation demonstrates the dependency of the Alphabet and Grammar on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham: Dependency of the Alphabet and Grammar on Pre-existing Book of Abraham.

To present the entirely of the evidence I have accumulated would require several hours, but what I manage to present in fourteen minutes is sufficient for my purposes, and I encourage everyone to judge for themselves.

Daniel McClellan, whom I regard as one of the LDS rising stars in textual criticism, argued very persuasively for this conclusion in this 2010 message board discussion: Zub Zool Oan and Abraham 1:2b-3. His argument is based on an examination of a small portion of the text, but his methodology clearly applies to the whole. I look forward to his further examination of the question when he has finished his doctorate.

Here are links (in both SD and HD) to the relevant portion of my 2010 presentation (23 minutes in length):

The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers – Part 1 (Standard Definition)

The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers – Part 1 (High Definition)

Edited October 25, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mortal Man]

there is conclusive evidence that the Alphabet (and subsequent "Grammar" documents) are dependent on a pre-existing text of the already translated Book of Abraham.

It's called Genesis.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's called Genesis.

Seriously? Lol. I always knew you were a funny guy, this is a real elbow bender.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Analytics]

Will,

What do you make of Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham? My understanding is that the source image of this facsimile is the Book of Breathings manuscript that Joseph Smith acquired with the mummies he purchased.

Is it fair to call the “Explanation” of Facsimile 1, as published in the Pear of Great Price, a purported partial translation of Facsimile 1, which was in fact derived from the Book of Breathings?

Thanks,

Analytics

[jskains]

Does the Facsimilies really have to be right? I mean, if Joseph Smith matched the facimilies to the text on his own accord, and they are fine to tell the story, does it have to be the right ones? I don't think the Church has ever used the translation process of the BoA as an instrument to promote Joseph Smith's accuracy as a prophet, rather the content of the BoA. So is the emphasis on the accuracy of the Facimilies a human requirement or a Godly requirement?

[William Schryver]

Analytics,

Not that it is even relevant to my argument, but the lion couch vignette on the scroll of Hor is not "derived" from the so-called Book of Breathings text. In fact, I'm afraid that your question is not even coherent as phrased.

[bjw]

Does the Facsimilies really have to be right? I mean, if Joseph Smith matched the facimilies to the text on his own accord, and they are fine to tell the story, does it have to be the right ones? I don't think the Church has ever used the translation process of the BoA as an instrument to promote Joseph Smith's accuracy as a prophet, rather the content of the BoA. So is the emphasis on the accuracy of the Facimilies a human requirement or a Godly requirement?

After reading Nibley's new book "One Eternal Round" and "Hidden Treasures of Knowledge" by Stephen Morgan I'm beginning to agree with Joseph Smith's translations of the facsimiles more and more. I think we should remember JS's version of the translation comes from a very early period.

[Analytics]

Analytics,

Not that it is even relevant to my argument, but the lion couch vignette on the scroll of Hor is not "derived" from the so-called Book of Breathings text.

Then what's the relationship between the lion couch vignette from the Hor Book of Breathings and the Book of Abraham? My understanding is that Joseph Smith creatively asserted that it was a drawing that Abraham made in order to illustrate the alter upon which virgins were sacrificed (and upon which they tried to sacrifice him), along with a representation of the gods Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, et. al.

There is a clear, direct connection between the Hor Book of Breathings and the Book of Abraham, which has nothing to do with the order in which the Abraham Manuscripts were produced and the Book of Abraham itself was written.

[William Schryver]

After reading Nibley's new book "One Eternal Round" and "Hidden Treasures of Knowledge" by Stephen Morgan I'm beginning to agree with Joseph Smith's translations of the facsimiles more and more. I think we should remember JS's version of the translation comes from a very early period.

I confess I have purchased but not yet read One Eternal Round. I'm not familiar with the Morgan book. But I am fairly familiar with a lot of John Gee's work from the past several years. John is not nearly as dumb as a lot of apostate critics would have people believe. In fact, John is extraordinarily smart and also rather clever in terms of the things he has published in mainstream Egyptological journals. John has published and presented (at various prestigious Egyptological conferences) many very, very interesting articles. He is patiently erecting a significant body of work, whose import, in many cases, has a definite relationship to questions surrounding the so-called three "facsimiles" associated with the Book of Abraham. I won't say anything further at this point, except to concur with the general portent of your post: that Joseph Smith's "translations" of the three facsimiles just might not be nearly as ridiculous as many of the apostate critics would have us believe.

And it's not just John Gee who has begun to document aspects of the facsimiles that make their association with the Book of Abraham less absurd than many of the apostate critics would have us believe. As I recall, David Bokovoy, not too long ago, made reference to some very interesting aspects of Facsimile 3, and its understanding in ancient Sumeria (IIRC) that would make it precisely the kind of thing one might expect to find in a text associated with Abraham and the revelations he would have recorded. So, I look forward to the future in terms of what we will continue to learn about the meaning and purpose of the facsimiles for which Joseph Smith provided some explanations.

[William Schryver]

There is a clear, direct connection between the Hor Book of Breathings and the Book of Abraham ...

None that I have seen convincingly demonstrated. Feel free to demonstrate what you believe to be the "clear, direct connection between the Book of Breathings and the Book of Abraham."

Apparently you didn't bother to read the OP before you started posting on this thread.

... which has nothing to do with the order in which the Abraham Manuscripts were produced and the Book of Abraham itself was written.

Again, it is apparent that you didn't bother to read the OP, nor have you bothered to consider the substantial evidence I have assembled in order to demonstrate that the so-called "translation manuscripts" are nothing of the sort--nor do you, by all indications, understand the significance of the arguments and evidence I have adduced.

I suggest you go back and read the OP, and avail yourself of the opportunity to view the video presentations I have prepared; presentations that utilize both high-quality images of the KEP and high-quality transcriptions of their contents.

Edited October 26, 2011 by William Schryver

[Analytics]

None that I have seen convincingly demonstrated. Feel free to demonstrate what you believe to be the "clear, direct connection between the Book of Breathings and the Book of Abraham."

Thanks for the invitation.

The clear, direct connection between the Book of Breathings and the Book of Abraham is entailed in this question which I will now ask for a third time, and which you will most likely refuse to answer for a third time:

Q: What's the relationship between the lion couch vignette from the Hor Book of Breathings and the Book of Abraham?

A: The relationship is that the lion couch vignette was taken from the Hor Book of Breathings papyri which Joseph Smith acquired with the mummies he purchased. The details of these drawings, and the “translations” associated with them labeled as “explanations”, are directly referred to in the text of the Book of Abraham itself, in Abraham 3:12-14.

...that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

-Abraham 1:12.

So we know from the text of the Book of Abraham itself that the source of the Book of Abraham is a record that commences with the lion couch vignette from the Hor Book of Breathings. I can only think of one candidate that matches this description.

[floatingboy]

Hey Will, interesting stuff. My hat's off to anybody who puts that much time and effort into something, especially when it's not their day job! I can tell that you put a tremendous amount of effort into it.

I watched all the links you posted in the OP. A couple of questions occurred to me that I'm hoping you can answer. My apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere. I admit to only spending a very moderate amount of time reading up on these subjects.

First:

Does your overall theory of the production of the EAG (is this the correct acronym?) preclude the possibility of it having been dictated, regardless of whether that dictation occurred before or after the Book of Abraham text was recorded? If so, can you please explain how, or point to where you have explained it? Or is dictation the assumed modus operandi?

Second:

In the section of your 14 minute video, "Demonstrating the Dependency", I noticed that the numbering of the characters is out of order when you show how each character corresponds to meaning within the text of the BofA. For example, for Abraham 1:1-3, the character order is: 14, 39, 66, 2, 68. To what does the numbering correspond? Am I right in assuming that it's the order in which they appear in the EAG? If that is correct, does this order correspond to their order in the papyri? That is, are 14, 39, 66, 2, and 68 arbitrary numbers that you have assigned, but their corresponding characters appear in a sequence in the papyri?

Thanks!

[William Schryver]

Thanks for the invitation.

The clear, direct connection between the Book of Breathings and the Book of Abraham is entailed in this question which I will now ask for a third time, and which you will most likely refuse to answer for a third time:

I only refuse to answer questions that make no sense. You obviously do not have an understanding of the things about which you are asking questions.

Q: What's the relationship between the lion couch vignette from the Hor Book of Breathings and the Book of Abraham?

The lion couch vignette and the Book of Breathings are not linked in the sense you seem to believe them to be. You obviously do not have an understanding of the things about which you are asking questions.

A: The relationship is that the lion couch vignette was taken from the Hor Book of Breathings papyri which Joseph Smith acquired with the mummies he purchased.

The lion couch vignette appears at the front end of the scroll of Hor. The lion couch vignette was not "taken from the Hor Book of Breathings papyri." The lion couch vignette and the Book of Breathings are not linked in the sense you seem to believe them to be. Again, you obviously do not have an understanding of the things about which you are asking questions.

The details of these drawings, and the "translations" associated with them labeled as "explanations", are directly referred to in the text of the Book of Abraham itself, in Abraham 3:12-14.

...that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

I think you mean Abr. 1:12. You obviously weren't paying attention when this issue was discussed several years ago. See this thread: Textual Variants at Abr. 1:12

The phrase you cite above was not part of the original translated text, but is a later, secondary emendation. No one is disputing that Joseph Smith sought to link the text to Facsimile 1, only that the emendation that does so was not part of the original translated text. At any rate, Abr. 1:12 does not link the translation of the BoA to the Book of Breathings. You obviously do not understand the things about which you are asking questions.

At any rate, I am co-authoring an extensive article that treats upon the emendation at Abr. 1:12 which will be published in the relatively near future. In the meantime, feel free to read the thread in question, it touches upon all the salient points.

So we know from the text of the Book of Abraham itself that the source of the Book of Abraham is a record that commences with the lion couch vignette from the Hor Book of Breathings.

We "know" no such thing. Abr. 1:12 does nothing to connect the translation of the Book of Abraham to the Book of Breathings. It never did. You obviously do not have an understanding of the things about which you are asking questions, nor have you been paying attention as the parameters of the debate have changed over the course of the past few years.

Again, there is no such thing as "the lion couch vignette from the Hor Book of Breathings." There is a lion couch vignette at the beginning of the scroll of Hor. There is a copy of a Book of Breathings also on the scroll of Hor. Even if we were to allow that Abr. 1:12 were a part of the translated text, rather than a secondary emendation added later, there is still no evidence to link the original translation of the Book of Abraham to the Book of Breathings. The lion couch vignette and the Book of Breathings are not linked in the sense you seem to believe they are.

I find it surprising that you would venture into a debate when you do not have a grasp of the subject matter.

Edited October 26, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

Hey Will, interesting stuff. My hat's off to anybody who puts that much time and effort into something, especially when it's not their day job! I can tell that you put a tremendous amount of effort into it.

I watched all the links you posted in the OP. A couple of questions occurred to me that I'm hoping you can answer. My apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere. I admit to only spending a very moderate amount of time reading up on these subjects.

First:

Does your overall theory of the production of the EAG (is this the correct acronym?) preclude the possibility of it having been dictated, regardless of whether that dictation occurred before or after the Book of Abraham text was recorded? If so, can you please explain how, or point to where you have explained it? Or is dictation the assumed modus operandi?

I have encountered no text-critical evidence in the EA/GAEL (they are two different, but related documents) that indicates that any part of them was dictated. I do not believe any part of the EA/GAEL was dictated.

Second:

In the section of your 14 minute video, "Demonstrating the Dependency", I noticed that the numbering of the characters is out of order when you show how each character corresponds to meaning within the text of the BofA. For example, for Abraham 1:1-3, the character order is: 14, 39, 66, 2, 68. To what does the numbering correspond? Am I right in assuming that it's the order in which they appear in the EAG? If that is correct, does this order correspond to their order in the papyri? That is, are 14, 39, 66, 2, and 68 arbitrary numbers that you have assigned, but their corresponding characters appear in a sequence in the papyri?

Thanks!

I numbered the characters in the order they appear in the EA documents, using EA-WP (Phelps) as the primary manuscript. It is, I confess, an arbitrary system, but the most sensible one I could envision, all things considered. (I'm pretty sure I mention the numbering system in the full version to which I provided a link in the OP.)

It's now past my bedtime, so I will put off answering any further questions until opportunity presents itself tomorrow ...

Edited October 26, 2011 by William Schryver

[TAO]

William Schryver, Analytics is simply asking 'what is the relation between the two?' Your answer was a very tiny bit obscure (Analytics is looking for a direct statement, I think), so let me answer it.

Analytics, what he is saying is that there is no relation between the drawings whatsoever.

I am guessing 'coincidence' would be the best explanation for the similar drawings, though I cannot determine that from what he said.

Best Wishes,

TAO

Edited October 26, 2011 by TAO

[floatingboy]

Cool, thanks. Just to clarify, I specifically meant to ask whether or not your theory precludes the possibility of dictation, not whether or not you have found evidence for it.

So the order of the characters is the order of the EA documents. Does that order correspond to their sequential order in the papyri?

I look forward to your answer after you've gotten some rest.

[William Schryver]

Cool, thanks. Just to clarify, I specifically meant to ask whether or not your theory precludes the possibility of dictation, not whether or not you have found evidence for it.

Had to go move the tractor into the barn out of the rain, so I'll answer this question and then it's bedtime for me.

I guess I would answer that I cannot think of anything, right off hand, that would preclude dictation of some parts of the EA/GAEL, however, I can think of particular pieces of evidence that seem to argue specifically against dictation in the majority of the cases. I will detail those in my full study. That said, I don't see why certain parts of the EA/GAEL might not have been dictated, but I don't see the dictation occurring solely from one person, while the other two are writing down from that dictation. In fact, if your question is driving at whether or not there is evidence of Joseph Smith dictating the whole of the project, I would say my answer is categorically no. In fact, as I have hinted before, there is substantial evidence that indicates Phelps was the driving and guiding force behind the entire EA/GAEL project.

So the order of the characters is the order of the EA documents. Does that order correspond to their sequential order in the papyri?

With almost no exceptions, the characters explained in the EA/GAEL documents do not appear on the papyri. None of the characters in the EA/GAEL are from the Book of Breathings document.

I describe all of this in the full presentation I made at the 2010 FAIR Conference. You may view it here: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

[William Schryver]

William Schryver, Analytics is simply asking 'what is the relation between the two?' Your answer was a very tiny bit obscure (Analytics is looking for a direct statement, I think), so let me answer it.

Analytics, what he is saying is that there is no relation between the drawings whatsoever.

I am guessing 'coincidence' would be the best explanation for the similar drawings, though I cannot determine that from what he said.

Best Wishes,

TAO

TAO,

I know you mean well, but you don't understand that Analytics and I have a bit of history here. No, Analytics is not looking for enlightenment.

[bjw]

I confess I have purchased but not yet read One Eternal Round. I'm not familiar with the Morgan book. But I am fairly familiar with a lot of John Gee's work from the past several years. John is not nearly as dumb as a lot of apostate critics would have people believe. In fact, John is extraordinarily smart and also rather clever in terms of the things he has published in mainstream Egyptological journals. John has published and presented (at various prestigious Egyptological conferences) many very, very interesting articles. He is patiently erecting a significant body of work, whose import, in many cases, has a definite relationship to questions surrounding the so-called three "facsimiles" associated with the Book of Abraham. I won't say anything further at this point, except to concur with the general portent of your post: that Joseph Smith's "translations" of the three facsimiles just might not be nearly as ridiculous as many of the apostate critics would have us believe.

And it's not just John Gee who has begun to document aspects of the facsimiles that make their association with the Book of Abraham less absurd than many of the apostate critics would have us believe. As I recall, David Bokovoy, not too long ago, made reference to some very interesting aspects of Facsimile 3, and its understanding in ancient Sumeria (IIRC) that would make it precisely the kind of thing one might expect to find in a text associated with Abraham and the revelations he would have recorded. So, I look forward to the future in terms of what we will continue to learn about the meaning and purpose of the facsimiles for which Joseph Smith provided some explanations.

Facsimile 3 was always the most problematic of the three for me, but I always think of it like the 31st degree of masonry where men have to play female parts, like a man dressing up as Isis since there are no female masons.

In reading "One Eternal Round" I kinda got the feeling that there are some major breakthroughs coming that will eventually silence the critics about this issue, and they will have to come up with something else to base their DVDs on.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing what further research John Gee has come up with. Many people have claimed to lost their testimony in the Gospel based on the Book of Abraham, but the more I read about it is the more I think it may be what winds up confirming testimonies in the long run.

[Analytics]

I only refuse to answer questions that make no sense. You obviously do not have an understanding of the things about which you are asking questions.

Obviously, you are more interested in obfuscation and disparagement than actually helping somebody gain understanding.

The lion couch vignette and the Book of Breathings are not linked in the sense you seem to believe them to be. You obviously do not have an understanding of the things about which you are asking questions.

Obviously, you are more interested in obfuscation and disparagement than actually helping somebody gain understanding.

The lion couch vignette appears at the front end of the scroll of Hor. The lion couch vignette was not "taken from the Hor Book of Breathings papyri." The lion couch vignette and the Book of Breathings are not linked in the sense you seem to believe them to be. Again, you obviously do not have an understanding of the things about which you are asking questions.

I’ve heard the scroll described as Hor Book of Breathings. Obviously, you are more interested in obfuscation and disparagement than actually helping somebody gain understanding.

I think you mean Abr. 1:12. You obviously weren't paying attention when this issue was discussed several years ago. See this thread: Textual Variants at Abr. 1:12

Correct, I suppose the reference Abraham 3:22-23 has been pounded into my head so many times I have a hard time typing Abraham 1:anything.

The phrase you cite above was not part of the original translated text, but is a later, secondary emendation. No one is disputing that Joseph Smith sought to link the text to Facsimile 1, only that the emendation that does so was not part of the original translated text.

From that thread, Brent Metcalfe and Chris Smith dispute your theory. Regardless of how much later this phrase was added, in the final translation, this phrase is indeed included. Proving it was added later doesn’t prove that Joseph Smith didn’t intend for it to be there.

At any rate, Abr. 1:12 does not link the translation of the BoA to the Book of Breathings. You obviously do not understand the things about which you are asking questions.

Obviously, you are more interested in obfuscation and disparagement than actually helping somebody gain understanding.

We "know" no such thing. Abr. 1:12 does nothing to connect the translation of the Book of Abraham to the Book of Breathings. It never did. You obviously do not have an understanding of the things about which you are asking questions.

Obviously, you are more interested in obfuscation and disparagement than actually helping somebody gain understanding.

Again, there is no such thing as "the lion couch vignette from the Hor Book of Breathings." There is a lion couch vignette at the beginning of the scroll of Hor. There is a copy of a Book of Breathings also on the scroll of Hor. Even if we were to allow that Abr. 1:12 were a part of the translated text, rather than a secondary emendation added later, there is still no evidence to link the original translation of the Book of Abraham to the Book of Breathings. The lion couch vignette and the Book of Breathings are not linked in the sense you seem to believe they are.

The final translation of the Book of Abraham purports to be from a document, written upon papyri by the hand of Abraham, that commences with the lion couch vignette. The only candidate document which fits the description is the Scroll of Hor, which means that the final translation implies that the Book of Breathings is in fact the purported source for the Book of Abraham.

In any case, when you claim that this phrase wasn’t part of “real” translation, but was rather Joseph Smith’s uninspired emendation added later, are you claiming that Joseph Smith thought he was translating the scroll of Hor, although he was really translating something else?

[floatingboy]

With almost no exceptions, the characters explained in the EA/GAEL documents do not appear on the papyri. None of the characters in the EA/GAEL are from the Book of Breathings document.

I describe all of this in the full presentation I made at the 2010 FAIR Conference. You may view it here: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

I'll be sure to check that out. My immediate question is, if what you say is true about the characters (with almost no exceptions) not appearing on the papyri, how could anyone have ever been of the belief that there was any connection between the EA/GAEL and the papyri? What of the images I've seen of them taken sequentially from the papyrus and in order in (I think) the GAEL? Am I confusing two different things?

[Fifth Columnist]

Will, I think you need to address the latest scholarship outlining the Book of Abraham's masonic connection. For example, see here: http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?p=314100#314100

[David Bokovoy]

As I recall, David Bokovoy, not too long ago, made reference to some very interesting aspects of Facsimile 3, and its understanding in ancient Sumeria (IIRC) that would make it precisely the kind of thing one might expect to find in a text associated with Abraham and the revelations he would have recorded. So, I look forward to the future in terms of what we will continue to learn about the meaning and purpose of the facsimiles for which Joseph Smith provided some explanations.

Awesome. I'm pleased somebody remembers that exciting link. Thank you, Will for posting this info. It's very helpful. For what it's worth, I remain as ever, in full support of your efforts to publish your important contributions.

Much love,

--DB

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

With almost no exceptions, the characters explained in the EA/GAEL documents do not appear on the papyri. None of the characters in the EA/GAEL are from the Book of Breathings document.

I think this is a significant point and one that gets swept under the rug by certain critics. This alone gives me pause that the EA/GAEL were used to translate/ come up with the BoA.

[William Schryver]

Analytics:

The final translation of the Book of Abraham purports to be from a document, written upon papyri by the hand of Abraham, that commences with the lion couch vignette. The only candidate document which fits the description is the Scroll of Hor, which means that the final translation implies that the Book of Breathings is in fact the purported source for the Book of Abraham.

All the insertion of the phrase at Abr. 1:12 tells us is that a decision was made, at some point, to use the lion couch vignette as the introduction to the Book of Abraham. It tells us absolutely nothing about the source of the translated text of the Book of Abraham. You’re making unwarranted assumptions.

In any case, when you claim that this phrase wasn’t part of “real” translation, but was rather Joseph Smith’s uninspired emendation added later, are you claiming that Joseph Smith thought he was translating the scroll of Hor, although he was really translating something else?

I think Joseph Smith thought he was “translating” the Book of Abraham in exactly the same manner he “translated” the Book of Mormon. In neither case would he have been making a specific connection to a source document, except in the most general terms. That is why understanding the order of events in terms of the Book of Abraham translation and the production of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is important. It would be very much atypical for Joseph Smith to have departed from his standard practice of translation at this point in time—and in fact, when all the evidence (historical and textual) is correctly assembled and considered, we see that he didn’t. The translation of the Book of Abraham was effected by way of the seer stone/Urim and Thummim, and was a process that occurred independent of any source text—the same modus operandi seen with the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and D&C 7.

.

.

.

floatingboy:

My immediate question is, if what you say is true about the characters (with almost no exceptions) not appearing on the papyri, how could anyone have ever been of the belief that there was any connection between the EA/GAEL and the papyri?

That’s a good question. I suspect it’s because no one ever really examined things very closely.

What of the images I've seen of them taken sequentially from the papyrus and in order in (I think) the GAEL? Am I confusing two different things?

Yes, you’re confusing two different things.

.

.

.

Fifth Columnist:

Will, I think you need to address the latest scholarship outlining the Book of Abraham's masonic connection.

You call a message board post “the latest scholarship”?

And why do I need to “address” it? Do you think it has something to do with the topic of this particular thread? How so?

.

.

.

I actually have to make a living, so my posts to this thread during the day, if at all, will be intermittent.

Edited October 26, 2011 by William Schryver