The Book Of Abraham

[Sky]

I’m looking for some quality background information about the Book of Abraham in Layman’s terms. I truly want to get more acquainted with this subject. I'd like to get a good balance from both the believing and unbelieving perspectives. I especially want to hear from the scholars, but I encourage participation from everybody.

Believers: what are your reasons for believing in the Book of Abraham? What is it about this scripture that holds value to you? What have you learned from it?

Non-believers: what are the reasons why you feel this book is a fraud? Has it been proven?

[thesometimesaint]

Sky:

See; "Traditions About The Early Life of Abraham" by Tvedtnes, Hauglid, Gee.

[Sethbag]

I would like to suggest that you start by reading By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus by Charles Larson. I don't know if you still can, but you used to be able to get a free copy of this from the IRR, some evangelical group that sponsored its publication and would like nothing more than to convert you to their brand of Christianity. If you're an atheist like me, then read the book, but feel free to ignore the non sequitur at the end where they say "and now that you know that the LDS Church is wrong, come over and join the real Christians." Then read A Tragedy of Errors by John Gee, which is a review of the Larson book published in the FARMS Review Volume 4, Issue 1.

I think the first book will give you a good flavor of the critical arguments against the BoA, and the review I referenced will give you a good initial flavor of the defense against those criticisms. If you find that such apologetic efforts agree with you, there are many other defenses you can read, including some FAIR stuff at FAIRWikie Book of Abraham Portal.

Personally I found the Gee review of Larson's book extremely off-putting, and I've never been all that impressed with BoA apologetics. I think the case against the BoA is so cut and dried that the defenses of it verge on the farcical. But hey, I'm just a biased and disgruntled anti-Mormon looking for ways to justify myself in my sins, so you're probably safe in just ignoring anything I say as utterly useless and probably inspired by Satan to lead you astray.

[ebeddoulos]

If you want some scholarly reading, I suggest Hugh Nibley's "The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri" For me it was pretty hard sloggin' but worth the effort expended.

A lot easier reading and a lot more fun is the obliquely related “Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham” by Tvedtnes, Hauglid and Gee.

[zerinus]

I’m looking for some quality background information about the Book of Abraham in Layman’s terms. I truly want to get more acquainted with this subject. I'd like to get a good balance from both the believing and unbelieving perspectives. I especially want to hear from the scholars, but I encourage participation from everybody.

Believers: what are your reasons for believing in the Book of Abraham?

My reasons are the Holy Spirit. As I read it, the Spirit witnesses to me that it is true, in the same way that I get a spiritual witness that the Bible or Book of Mormon is true. I have no answer for the objections that the critics bring. I know that it is true in the same way that I know that the Bible is true--even though some scholars have arguments against that too.

What is it about this scripture that holds value to you? What have you learned from it?

I am spiritually edified by reading it, in the same way that I am when reading the Bible. It has spiritual "value" for me, the same as other scriptures do. What I "learn" from it is the same as what I learn form other scriptures: I learn about God, about His dealings with mankind, about His covenants with them; I feel spiritually edified, I feel closer to God, I feel that my faith is increased, and I learn things from it which I didn't know by reading other scriptures.

Non-believers: what are the reasons why you feel this book is a fraud? Has it been proven?

Since this question is addressed to unbelievers, then I suppose it doesn't apply to me. The only relevant comment I can make here is that my witness of the Holy Ghost that it is true is so strong that it cannot be shaken by all the criticisms and objections that critics and unbelievers can bring.

[LeSellers]

A good place to start might be our own loved and maligned Kerry Shirts (aka e=mc²), however "earthy" he may come off. Look here.

Lehi

[blackstrap]

I concur with Zerinius. In addition,from the agressive stance of some critics,one would think that the Book of Abraham advocated human sacrifice and was a tome on "how to ruin your neighbors life".

[Sethbag]

I'll give you the 30 second, extremely simplified version, that probably leaves a lot out, but gives the overall flavor of the criticisms.

It appears that Joseph Smith came into possession of the papyrus, and made up a story about them containing the words of Abraham, and the words of Joseph who was sold into Egypt. At some point he "translated" what was on the papyrus as the Book of Abraham, including his interpretations of the drawings that were on the papyrus (the facsimiles in the BoA). Since people weren't commonly translating Egyptian at the time, he could say it meant pretty much whatever he wanted and nobody could contradict him.

Using my mad mind-reading skills, gazing fixedly into my crystal ball, and channelling the evil spirits who did not obey their first estate in an attempt to lead you astray, I believe that Joseph used the opportunity presented to him by the papyrus to present to his followers a work of scripture containing material which he believed to be true*, inspired by or cobbled together from other sources, such that he could A) present the material to his followers in a condensed form that consolidated the teachings in question, and B) claim it as his own prophetic work product.

*in other words, a form of "pious fraud" theory. I haven't got a reference handy right this instant, but critics have documented ideas in the Book of Abraham which appear to have been inspired by outside works that were current around the time of the BoA's forthcoming. Most recently, in the excellent Mormon Expression podcast 4-part series with George Miller on Mormonism and Masonry, George put forth the idea that much of what appears in the Book of Abraham that fills in the gaps about Abraham in the Bible, actually comes from the work "Antiquities of Freemasonry", a copy of, or intimate access to which George argues Joseph Smith almost certainly had.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Sethbag

[wenglund]

From a spiritual and personal benefit standpoint, I can think of no better suggestion than to prayerfully study the Book of Abraham, itself--particularly with the intent of seeing if it brings you closer to Christ and enables you to be more like him. In other words, utilize and assess the book in the way it was intended.

In terms of scholasticism, the Maxwell Institute has an Abraham series that is quite good, and FAIRwiki also has a wealth of useful material. There were a number of publications mentioned in a previous thread (I don't remember which). And, if I recall correctly, Chris Smith mentioned on that thread that he intended to put together a bibliography. Try PMing him. For my own part, I have found it beneficial to delve into the raw data myself, and let it take me wherever it may.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 5, 2012 by wenglund

[Calm]

I'll give you the 30 second, extremely simplified version, that probably leaves a lot out, but gives the overall flavor of the criticisms.

It appears that Joseph Smith came into possession of the papyrus, and made up a story about them containing the words of Abraham, and the words of Joseph who was sold into Egypt. At some point he "translated" what was on the papyrus as the Book of Abraham, including his interpretations of the drawings that were on the papyrus (the facsimiles in the BoA). Since people weren't commonly translating Egyptian at the time, he could say it meant pretty much whatever he wanted and nobody could contradict him.

Using my mad mind-reading skills, gazing fixedly into my crystal ball, and channelling the evil spirits who did not obey their first estate in an attempt to lead you astray, I believe that Joseph used the opportunity presented to him by the papyrus to present to his followers a work of scripture containing material which he believed to be true*, inspired by or cobbled together from other sources, such that he could A) present the material to his followers in a condensed form that consolidated the teachings in question, and B) claim it as his own prophetic work product.

*in other words, a form of "pious fraud" theory. I haven't got a reference handy right this instant, but critics have documented ideas in the Book of Abraham which appear to have been inspired by outside works that were current around the time of the BoA's forthcoming. Most recently, in the excellent Mormon Expression podcast 4-part series with George Miller on Mormonism and Masonry, George put forth the idea that much of what appears in the Book of Abraham that fills in the gaps about Abraham in the Bible, actually comes from the work "Antiquities of Freemasonry", a copy of, or intimate access to which George argues Joseph Smith almost certainly had.

So do you see this as parallel to the BoM though with JS starting from the point of using an actual ancient document to point to as his source instead of having to come up with one on his own, either as a physical fraud such as tin plates or just somehow convincing others that they saw it or to help him lie about the possession of the plates?

[Sethbag]

So in other words, in my attempts to put together what we know, or make sense of the evidence, I see it happening somewhat like this:

Joseph's religious beliefs at the time contain material about Abraham, the universe, the nature of God, etc. which are not all contained in the Bible, but which he has made sense of in his mind by putting together material he has read from other sources, including probably "Antiquities of Freemasonry".

The BoA papyri come to town and present Joseph with a unique opportunity. Since Joseph was obviously thinking about Abraham in Egypt, I don't even exclude the possibility that Joseph saw the figures drawn on the papyri and convinced himself that they really were about Abraham. Regardless of whether Joseph really believed the papyri were about Abraham or not, they gave him the opportunity to both build up his prophetic bona fides, which was important during that time, and also consolidate and lay out the beliefs Joseph had been working on and making sense of, and building into his own religious worldview, so that his followers could share these beliefs with him, and find them all packaged up neatly in one concise work.

So Joseph produced the Book of Abraham, and passed it off as the translation of the papyri that were in his possession. I think it's pretty clear that what was on the papyri was not really what ended up in the Book of Abraham. "Hail Mary" missing scroll theories notwithstanding, the facsimiles and their Joseph Smith interpretations I think pretty much nail this one down.

So what was the result of the Book of Abraham?

1) Joseph Smith looks more like a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. He has supported his own claims about the nature of his calling and gifts by actually producing something that looks like Prophetic or Seerific work product.

2) Joseph Smith has introduced into the canon of Mormon theology a mental theory of Abraham, what he did in Egypt, some theological speculation on the nature of God, the universe, our spirits, etc. that he had been working on and putting together from things he'd read in other sources.

For Joseph, it was a win-win situation.

I will grab here a quick quote from the Mitt Romney thread started by Smac, of Joseph Smith, saying:

One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism" is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.

If my theory of how this went down is correct, then the Book of Abraham would serve as a prime example of this grand fundamental principle of Mormonism: the provenance of the "truth" may be as it may be, but to receive it as "truth", is king.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Sethbag

[wenglund]

I'll give you the 30 second, extremely simplified version, that probably leaves a lot out, but gives the overall flavor of the criticisms.

It appears that Joseph Smith came into possession of the papyrus, and made up a story about them containing the words of Abraham, and the words of Joseph who was sold into Egypt. At some point he "translated" what was on the papyrus as the Book of Abraham, including his interpretations of the drawings that were on the papyrus (the facsimiles in the BoA). Since people weren't commonly translating Egyptian at the time, he could say it meant pretty much whatever he wanted and nobody could contradict him.

Using my mad mind-reading skills, gazing fixedly into my crystal ball, and channelling the evil spirits who did not obey their first estate in an attempt to lead you astray, I believe that Joseph used the opportunity presented to him by the papyrus to present to his followers a work of scripture containing material which he believed to be true*, inspired by or cobbled together from other sources, such that he could A) present the material to his followers in a condensed form that consolidated the teachings in question, and B) claim it as his own prophetic work product.

*in other words, a form of "pious fraud" theory. I haven't got a reference handy right this instant, but critics have documented ideas in the Book of Abraham which appear to have been inspired by outside works that were current around the time of the BoA's forthcoming. Most recently, in the excellent Mormon Expression podcast 4-part series with George Miller on Mormonism and Masonry, George put forth the idea that much of what appears in the Book of Abraham that fills in the gaps about Abraham in the Bible, actually comes from the work "Antiquities of Freemasonry", a copy of, or intimate access to which George argues Joseph Smith almost certainly had.

Part of the problem, if not also the advantage, of the "pious fraud" theory is that none of the critics have put together a coherent explication of the theory. Instead, we get bits and pieces loosely cobbled together using vague and general descriptions like the above. This is advantageous in the sense that as a whole it is resistent to critical scrutiny, but problematic in that it has yet to be demonstrated that it can coherantly stand. I long for the day when the critics finally put together such a coherant theory.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Sethbag]

So do you see this as parallel to the BoM though with JS starting from the point of using an actual ancient document to point to as his source instead of having to come up with one on his own, either as a physical fraud such as tin plates or just somehow convincing others that they saw it or to help him lie about the possession of the plates?

I don't know whether Joseph actually had a real prop for the plates, or just used sleight of hand and misdirection to make people think what Joseph wanted them to think. I really don't know. I do find it likely, however, that Joseph Smith, like many others in his day, believed that the Indians must have been related to the House of Israel in some way, and the Book of Mormon allowed him a vehicle for fleshing out this belief, while also giving himself a work product to claim as his own.

In other words, the Book of Mormon is a fraud in that it isn't literally what it claims to be, ie: a translation in the usual sense of an authentic ancient document, written about people who actually existed. But it also was written to include an imagining of how Joseph thought things might really have gone down. People will say the BoM wasn't "based on" the book View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith because there are elements in the books that don't match up, but I think that's looking for a bit too much. I think it's entirely possible that Joseph Smith's worldview, where it concerned the Indians, was indeed influenced strongly by books like View of the Hebrews in the sense that it showed some possibilities that in Joseph's mind solved some problems that needed to be solved, and let him extrapolate beyond them to how things might really have happened.

So the BoM allowed Joseph to set himself up as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator by producing a work of scripture, however even though it wasn't a literal translation, it served as the vehicle for Joseph Smith to build out a worldview he had pieced together from other thoughts and works current at the time, and including theological controversies and resolutions that seemed important to him at the time, etc. He was producing "truth" for his followers, as he speculated it to be, and delivered it via a prophetic work product which established his own bona fides and promoted him as someone others should look to. Again, like the BoA, a win-win for Joseph.

Do I know this is how it went down? No, of course not. I think it fits, and makes a lot of sense to me in light of other things, and my crystal ball, ouija board, and all those nasty first-estate non-keepers on my left shoulder bound and gagged the angels on my right shoulder, and told me so.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think any kind of "fraud" theory makes any sense.

I am busy right now but I will post something later hopefully today. I commented on this recently at the trailer park- I just need to bring those posts over here essentially but I am totally buried today

[Sethbag]

Part of the problem, if not also the advantage, of the "pious fraud" theory is that none of the critics have put together a coherent explication of the theory. Instead, we get bits and pieces loosely cobbled together using vague and general descriptions like the above. This is advantageous in the sense that as a whole it is resistent to critical scrutiny, but problematic in that it has yet to be demonstrated that it can coherantly stand. I long for the day when the critics finally put together such a coherant theory.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, the "pious fraud theory" is working increasingly well for me as a help in understanding a whole heck of a lot of things Joseph Smith did, or said, or wrote. It's becoming increasingly clear to me, as I become more familiar with history, that Joseph Smith really was a believer. He believed in God, he believed in Spirits, he believed in supernatural events and power. He believed in the "magical". He believed in the Bible. I also believe more and more that Joseph really did believe himself to have been tapped by God to be the conduit for the truth coming out to the world. I also believe that it's pretty clear that works like the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham were not literally true. And with descriptions such as in my previous posts in this thread, it's making more and more sense to me how Joseph could have fraudulently produced inauthentic scriptural works, while at the same time fundamentally believing in the religious content of the works he was creating.

When one reads of Christ in the Book of Mormon, and all the promotion of belief in Christ that the Book of Mormon characters do, that's because Joseph Smith believed in Christ, and used these characters to advance his beliefs. And to the extent that these beliefs are relatively good and virtuous ones, they show up thus in the Book of Mormon. To the extent that they are (IMHO) not good and virtuous I think they also show up thus. An example of this latter concept I would argue is the murder of Laban. It's likely that in Joseph Smith's religious worldview, being "right" religiously justified a lot, and he probably believed that murdering a man passed out drunk in the gutter was OK by God, if it was in promoting God's will for some group of righteous individuals. It's not a worldview I share, but apparently it was a worldview Joseph held, and shows up thus in the Book of Mormon.

Anyhow, I think there are a lot of parallels to this pious fraud theory. To name a couple more, I would put forward Ann Lee of the Shakers, and Mary Baker Eddy of the Christian Scientists. These two produced all sorts of revelations and inspired texts and whatnot, but I think it's pretty clear that at the exact same time as they were making stuff up and passing it off as truth, they actually believed in themselves as conduits of real truth from God, and what they passed off as truth they probably believed really was true. They were accepted as leaders, by their followers, on the basis of claims, and "prophetic work product", as I've called it, which wasn't really authentically from a deity who actually exists, but which served to advance their religious worldview at the same time as elevate their own status among their followers.

[Sethbag]

I don't think any kind of "fraud" theory makes any sense.

I am busy right now but I will post something later hopefully today. I commented on this recently at the trailer park- I just need to bring those posts over here essentially but I am totally buried today.

Duly noted. I shall consider myself hereby presumptively refuted.

[wenglund]

So in other words, in my attempts to put together what we know, or make sense of the evidence, I see it happening somewhat like this:

Joseph's religious beliefs at the time contain material about Abraham, the universe, the nature of God, etc. which are not all contained in the Bible, but which he has made sense of in his mind by putting together material he has read from other sources, including probably "Antiquities of Freemasonry".

The BoA papyri come to town and present Joseph with a unique opportunity. Since Joseph was obviously thinking about Abraham in Egypt, I don't even exclude the possibility that Joseph saw the figures drawn on the papyri and convinced himself that they really were about Abraham. Regardless of whether Joseph really believed the papyri were about Abraham or not, they gave him the opportunity to both build up his prophetic bona fides, which was important during that time, and also consolidate and lay out the beliefs Joseph had been working on and making sense of, and building into his own religious worldview, so that his followers could share these beliefs with him, and find them all packaged up neatly in one concise work.

So Joseph produced the Book of Abraham, and passed it off as the translation of the papyri that were in his possession. I think it's pretty clear that what was on the papyri was not really what ended up in the Book of Abraham. "Hail Mary" missing scroll theories notwithstanding, the facsimiles and their Joseph Smith interpretations I think pretty much nail this one down.

So what was the result of the Book of Abraham?

1) Joseph Smith looks more like a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. He has supported his own claims about the nature of his calling and gifts by actually producing something that looks like Prophetic or Seerific work product.

2) Joseph Smith has introduced into the canon of Mormon theology a mental theory of Abraham, what he did in Egypt, some theological speculation on the nature of God, the universe, our spirits, etc. that he had been working on and putting together from things he'd read in other sources.

For Joseph, it was a win-win situation.

I will grab here a quick quote from the Mitt Romney thread started by Smac, of Joseph Smith, saying:

If my theory of his this went down is correct, then the Book of Abraham would serve as a prime example of this grand fundamental principle of Mormonism: the provenance of the "truth" may be as it may be, but to receive it as "truth", is king.

Thoughtful conceptualizations like the above are why I wish for a more formal coherant theory from the critics. Why? Because it can then be scrutinized and tested.

For example, postulations like the above give us a chance to pose reasonable questions such as:

1) Why would Joseph Smith need to "build up his prophetic bona fides" when he had already produced the Book of Mormon, spent several years "translating" the Bible (including the Abrahamic portions), and recorded hundreds of revelations that were compiled and prepared for publication around the time the Egyptian papyri arrived in Kirtland. In other words, Joseph had already racked up about 800 pages of scripture, Why would he need to produce another 12 or so pages to supposedly "build up his prophetic bona fides"? Would those 12 or so pages somehow make the difference when the 800 or so other pages supposedly didn't?

2. If Joseph had need to "build up his prophetic bona fides," then why did he take nearly a decade to print those twelve or so pages of scripture, much of which duplicate what he had already printed?

3. Most important, why would Joseph think to produce twelve more pages of scripture supposedly to "build up his prophetic bona fides," when according to himself, as well as the other scriptures he had previously published, his prophetic bona fides" were to come by way of people asking God directly if Joseph were a prophet (Moroni 10), as well as acting upon the scriptures revealed to Joseph to see if they did what they were intended to do (Alma 32), i.e. bring people to Christ and enable them to become like him?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 5, 2012 by wenglund

[Deborah]

Believers: what are your reasons for believing in the Book of Abraham? What is it about this scripture that holds value to you? What have you learned from it?

I have never questioned that the BOA is from God and people can debate exactly how we got it all they want. But just reading the book has such a ring of truth and power, especially chapter 3 talking about the stars and the intelligences and the order to it all.

[wenglund]

In my preliminary opinion, where things start to get really problematic for the "pious fraud" theory, isn't so much in terms of the assumed motive (though, as indicated above, it is problematic), but rather with how the alleged "pious fraud" was supposedly carried out--particularly in terms of the KEP modus operandi hypothesis. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Sethbag]

Thoughtful conceptualizations like the above are why I wish for a more formal coherant theory from the critics. Why? Because it can then be scrutinized and tested.

For example, postulations like the above give us a chance to pose reasonable questions such as:

I think your questions are reasonable, and I will attempt to address them to the best of my ability.

1) Why would Joseph Smith need to "build up his prophetic bona fides" when he had already produced the Book of Mormon, spent several years "translating" the Bible (including the Abrahamic portions), and recorded hundreds of revelations that were compiled and prepared for publication around the time the Egyptian papyri arrived in Kirtland. In other words, Joseph had already racked up about 800 pages of scripture, Why would he need to produce another 12 or so pages to supposedly "build up his prophetic bona fides"? Would those 12 or so pages somehow make the difference when the 800 or so other pages supposedly didn't?

It was an opportunity which presented itself, and he acted upon it. But there was probably some necessity too, which should not be interpreted to mean exclusively a lack of sufficient volumes of scripture.

Imagine this. Michael Chandler shows up with the mummies and the papyrus, and charges people to go in and see them. People go in and see them, and they become a hot topic of conversation. "Hey, there's all this Egyptian writing! Cool! Now, what do you suppose it all means? If only we had someone in our midst who had the divine gift of translating ancient languages, including various forms of Egyptian. Um... [awkward silence]"

The appearance of the papyrus kind of put Joseph on the spot. Do you doubt that the idea that Joseph should translate it would have popped into peoples' minds? Now, would it have been more difficult for Joseph to make some sort of apologetic excuse why he couldn't translate it, or would it have been easier for Joseph to look at the papyrus and say "Yes, I'm beginning to see it! This here is the writing of Abraham, and this one over here is the writing of Joseph!" Given the dearth of legitimate Egyptian translators at the time, and Joseph's quick thinking, I suspect that the latter is more likely. At any rate, it seems to me that's the decision Joseph came to in the actual event. And it had the tremendous benefit of supporting the idea that Joseph really was a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. It was indeed concrete "proof" of Joseph's calling, to people with a less-than-fully-modern faculty of critical thinking.

2. If Joseph had need to "build up his prophetic bona fides," then why did he take nearly a decade to print those twelve or so pages of scripture, much of which duplicate what he had already printed?

Merely announcing that he could identify the works, and be able to say he was "on it", would suffice in the moment to support his prophetic bona fides. He could then take his time and actually think about what he wanted his work product to say, and thus include in it the theological worldview he'd pieced together from other sources and his own mind and the minds of his close associates, as I mentioned in a previous post, which he wanted his followers to share.

That and a heck of a lot happened between 1835 and 1842. Within a year we had the Kirtland Banking scandal, Joseph's flight to Missouri, the Missouri War and the Mormons' expulsion from that state, and the settling down in the swamps that became Nauvoo, and the work and time it took to carve out that city from the bog and get themselves in a position to get back to things like producing the Book of Abraham and publishing it. The 7 years between the first appearance of the papyrus and the publication of the BoA are perfectly understandable, and reasonable, in that historical context.

3. Most important, why would Joseph think to produce twelve more pages of scripture supposedly to "build up his prophetic bona fides," when according to himself, as well as the other scriptures he had previously published, his prophetic bona fides" were to come by way of people asking God directly if Joseph were a prophet (Moroni 10), as well as acting upon the scriptures revealed to Joseph to see if they did what they were intended to do (Alma 32), i.e. bring people to Christ and enable them to become like him?

Joseph Smith was always coming up with new revelations. When did the Moroni promise ever stop him from coming up with whatever he felt he needed God to have said at any given time? Also, did the Book of Mormon flesh out the theological musings Joseph was having about Abraham, Egypt, the keywords of the priesthood, celestial astronomy, the nature of spirits and God, and matter, and whatnot, that ended up in the Book of Abraham? I don't see how your argument #3 serves to demonstrate the unlikelihood of Joseph's producing the Book of Abraham on the basis of sufficient previous prophetic work product.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Sethbag

[katherine the great]

I really struggled with the origins of the Book of Abraham when I studied it in depth. I still have a really hard time with the facsimiles (because I like to take things at face value, love Occam's razon, etc.), and I've never read apologetic material on them that doesn't sound absurd to me. However, some of our very most precious doctrines come from the Pearl of great Price--some of the doctrines that have always had the feeling of deep, spiritual truth to me (ie: the preexistence), and so I accept it as a revelation.

[Sethbag]

I really struggled with the origins of the Book of Abraham when I studied it in depth. I still have a really hard time with the facsimiles (because I like to take things at face value, love Occam's razon, etc.), and I've never read apologetic material on them that doesn't sound absurd to me. However, some of our very most precious doctrines come from the Pearl of great Price--some of the doctrines that have always had the feeling of deep, spiritual truth to me (ie: the preexistence), and so I accept it as a revelation.

Apparently Joseph had the same experience when he read these things in "Antiquities of Freemasonry" and whatever other sources he pulled it all from, and wanted you to have it too. Or, at least that's how it might have gone if the demons perched on my left shoulder whispering into my ear are to be believed. ;-)

[wenglund]

I think your questions are reasonable, and I will attempt to address them to the best of my ability.

It was an opportunity which presented itself, and he acted upon it. But there was probably some necessity too, which should not be interpreted to mean exclusively a lack of sufficient volumes of scripture.

Imagine this. Michael Chandler shows up with the mummies and the papyrus, and charges people to go in and see them. People go in and see them, and they become a hot topic of conversation. "Hey, there's all this Egyptian writing! Cool! Now, what do you suppose it all means? If only we had someone in our midst who had the divine gift of translating ancient languages, including various forms of Egyptian. Um... [awkward silence]"

The appearance of the papyrus kind of put Joseph on the spot. Do you doubt that the idea that Joseph should translate it would have popped into peoples' minds? Now, would it have been more difficult for Joseph to make some sort of apologetic excuse why he couldn't translate it, or would it have been easier for Joseph to look at the papyrus and say "Yes, I'm beginning to see it! This here is the writing of Abraham, and this one over here is the writing of Joseph!" Given the dearth of legitimate Egyptian translators at the time, and Joseph's quick thinking, I suspect that the latter is more likely. At any rate, it seems to me that's the decision Joseph came to in the actual event. And it had the tremendous benefit of supporting the idea that Joseph really was a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. It was indeed concrete "proof" of Joseph's calling, to people with a less-than-fully-modern faculty of critical thinking.

Merely announcing that he could identify the works, and be able to say he was "on it", would suffice in the moment to support his prophetic bona fides. He could then take his time and actually think about what he wanted his work product to say, and thus include in it the theological worldview he'd pieced together from other sources and his own mind and the minds of his close associates, as I mentioned in a previous post, which he wanted his followers to share.

Even granting, for the sake of argument, the plausibility of your hypothetical scenerio, it doesn't support, and may even undermine your proposition--which had to do with producing twelve additional pages of scripture over nearly a decade, rather than satisfying Chandler's simple and general request in the moment.

That and a heck of a lot happened between 1835 and 1842. Within a year we had the Kirtland Banking scandal, Joseph's flight to Missouri, the Missouri War and the Mormons' expulsion from that state, and the settling down in the swamps that became Nauvoo, and the work and time it took to carve out that city from the bog and get themselves in a position to get back to things like producing the Book of Abraham and publishing it. The 7 years between the first appearance of the papyrus and the publication of the BoA are perfectly understandable, and reasonable, in that historical context.

I am not questioning why it took so long to publish the 12 or so pages of the Book of Abraham. Rather, I am questioning your proposition--particularly in light of so little having taking so long.

Joseph Smith was always coming up with new revelations. When did the Moroni promise ever stop him from coming up with whatever he felt he needed God to have said at any given time?

Agreed. However, I wasn't questioning the possible spiritual need for further revelation, but rather your proposition that further revelation was motivated by the intent to supposedly build Joseph's prophetic bona fides.

Also, did the Book of Mormon flesh out the theological musings Joseph was having about Abraham, Egypt, the keywords of the priesthood, celestial astronomy, the nature of spirits and God, and matter, and whatnot, that ended up in the Book of Abraham?

No. However, I wasn't arguing that nothing new was presented in the Book of Abraham. Instead, I was arguing against the proposition that production of the Book of Abraham was supposedly motivated by the intent to build up prophetic bona fides.

I don't see how your argument #3 serves to demonstrate the unlikelihood of Joseph's producing the Book of Abraham on the basis of sufficient previous prophetic work product.

I don';t think you correctly understand question #3, and that possibly for good reason. So, let me clarify. According to what Joseph has said, himself, as well as what he published as scripture, prophetic bona fides are not a function of the volume of scriptures one produces, but rather they come by way of our asking God and through our acting upon the scriptures. In other words, according to Joseph's own beliefs, he isn't the one who establishes his own prophetic bona fides, but God. It doesn't matter if he or any other professed prophet produces a library full of scriptures or no scriptures at all. Their prophetic bona fides are not determined by scriptural production, but rather by God declaring to us whetehr they are prophets, as well as by the results of our living according to the prophetic words. This is the means God has set forth and perscribed within the restored gospel for determining who is or isn't a prophet of God. It is the means Joseph believed in and advocated, by which faithful members can and have grown in faith that Joseph was a prophet, and not because he produced a large body of scriptures--certainly not based on his adding an additional 12 pages to his resume.

In short, your proposition conflicts with how Joseph and his followers evidently believed and practiced. For that reason, it doesn't make sense.

It is understandable that this may not have occurred to you since you have evidently chosen a different means for determining Joseph's prophetic bona fides--a means that puts faith in man instead of God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 5, 2012 by wenglund

[Kevin Christensen]

Personally, I love the Book of Abraham. I'm impressed by what it says, and I'm impressed by the correlations with non-Biblical Abraham texts, and ancient cultures. The recent FAIR video, A Most Remarkable Book is a good general introduction.

A few months ago, I presented for a Pittsburgh LDS Singles group on the topic of Kolob (the topic being assigned by the organizers, unexpected by the Stake leaders). I used PowerPoint slides to illustrate the archaic astronomy that it describes, and my appreciation of Canopus, in the rudder of the constellation of Argo, as my favored candidate. Hamlet's Mill observes that the Arabic name was Qalb, and that it alone was taken as exempt from the Precession. Working up a formal presentation enhanced my appreciation all the more.

I'm also impressed by comparisons with the Apocalypse of Abraham, with the interesting mentions of pre-existence, and a round drawing. I'm also impressed by comparisons with the Genesis Apocryphon, and the story there of Abraham being warned in a dream that Sarah should say she was his sister. And the story of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham in the Pseudo Philo. And the interesting Egyptian accounts of the female founder establishing her son as ruler that Nibley began exploring in There Were Jaredites, and explored in much more depth in Abraham in Egypt.

I've read the standard anti-story, and find it unpersuasive, and leaving unexplained far to much that I think is important. I've read several LDS takes by trained (Nibley, Gee, and others) and amateur students (Kerry Shirts is a lot of fun. Will and Wade very interesting in their investigations). I'm not particularly worried about the relationship between the papyrus and the text. One eye witness of the translation claimed it was done by direct inspiration from heaven, which would be consistent with the stories of the Book of Mormon translation via the seer stone and the face in the hat, as well as later dictated revelations in the D&C, including from records that Joseph Smith never had, such as the writing of John or our Book of Moses.

Having read Nibley's An Egyptian Endowment, I think the content of the papyrus is interesting for its own sake.

Much of the critical attack is designed to tell me, "Game over, check and mate, nothing to see here folks, move along." But I've seen much already, and the more I look, the more I see, and have no inclination to move along. The questions remain interesting, and the unfolding answers and new questions remain compelling.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[wenglund]

Much of the critical attack is designed to tell me, "Game over, check and mate, nothing to see here folks, move along." But I've seen much already, and the more I look, the more I see, and have no inclination to move along. The questions remain interesting, and the unfolding answers and new questions remain compelling.

I agree. However, I believe the critics are due a lot of credit, for without them, I am not so sure many of the exploritory questions would ever have been asked or the unfolding answers researched out, let alone giving rise to new compelling questions. While my faith in Joseph as a prophet, and the Book of Abraham as revelations from God, has not changed through the course of my investigations (since, as previously intimated, for me this faith ought to come from God), like you I have had the horizons of my understanding greatly expanded through thoughtfully and open-mindedly grappling with the quiries and arguments of the critics. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-