Source For The Book Of Abraham

[why me]

Xander,

Thank you very much for your research. This is certainly one area I think we can do a much better job inoculating ourselves.

Elder Jensen recently stated that, "There's no sense kidding ourselves. We need to be very upfront with this generation, tell them what we know, and give answers to what we have, and let them fall on their faith for things that we don't completely understand."

The BoA is certainly one area for me that I need to exercise faith. In every religion or philosophy, there are things in which its followers must "fall on faith". Most important in discussions like this, I always need to remember the counsel of Ezra Taft Benson and beware of pride by not being "easily offended".

I think that we need to ask if JS could have written it knowing what we know about his writing ability and his aversion to writing. He was not much for writing or for that matter keeping records through journal writing. But the BofA is a fine piece of writing. And so, who wrote it if not JS? Also, I have no idea why JS would take a risk translating a con. Someone would have discovered it in the future if the scroll fell into the wrong hands. Why take the risk?

[Darth_Bill]

I think that we need to ask if JS could have written it knowing what we know about his writing ability and his aversion to writing. He was not much for writing or for that matter keeping records through journal writing. But the BofA is a fine piece of writing. And so, who wrote it if not JS? Also, I have no idea why JS would take a risk translating a con. Someone would have discovered it in the future if the scroll fell into the wrong hands. Why take the risk?

I didn't think anyone else could translate Egyptian at the time so what risk was he taking? I love the BoA btw, and I haven't for a long time thought that it came from the scrolls in the facs. If he didn't need the plates, he didn't need the scrolls. But, just because something resonates with me, doesn't necessarily mean it is "true". Even if all that JS did was a con, it was an instructive one.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Darth_Bill

[Minos]

The OP was answered with so many insults it was too much work to thread ban everyone. The next snippy post will lock the thread.

[why me]

I didn't think anyone else could translate Egyptian at the time so what risk was he taking? I love the BoA btw, and I haven't for a long time thought that it came from the scrolls in the facs. If he didn't need the plates, he didn't need the scrolls. But, just because something resonates with me, doesn't necessarily mean it is "true". Even if all that JS did was a con, it was an instructive one.

I don't know if anyone could translate it or not. But I do know that he did leave himself open to a counter fraud. He would have had no clue about whether this was real or false. And if false, all would have come crashing down. Why take the risk? However, looking at the book itself and what is written on it, if JS were a fraudster, he was brillant at it. And a marvelous religious writer.

But a terrible letter writer with very poor composition and spelling.

[why me]

To Kevin,

You seem fixated on the book of abraham. And there is nothing wrong with that. However, you seem to start these threads with a distinct purpose and tone. And it is not to debate but to search out and destroy and the reaction is understandable. My take on it is this: start a thread allowing for debate and discussion. And see where it leads.

Most seem to have chips on their should when they reply to you and you also have quite a chip on your own shoulder too. This usually translates with many chips being thrown around.

[altersteve]

To Kevin,

You seem fixated on the book of abraham. And there is nothing wrong with that. However, you seem to start these threads with a distinct purpose and tone. And it is not to debate but to search out and destroy and the reaction is understandable. My take on it is this: start a thread allowing for debate and discussion. And see where it leads.

Most seem to have chips on their should when they reply to you and you also have quite a chip on your own shoulder too. This usually translates with many chips being thrown around.

I agree. Allowing room for a civil discussion may change not only our views, but perhaps yours as well. We could all learn something. Xander, you always say that your views have been "proven" or are "overwhelmingly supported" by the evidence, but this leaves absolutely no room for you to consider other possibilities, which is not exactly a respectable way to start any sort of discussion. We admit that the evidence we find is not conclusive, but we believe about the other side of the argument as well.

[Rinaldo]

To Kevin,

You seem fixated on the book of abraham. And there is nothing wrong with that. However, you seem to start these threads with a distinct purpose and tone. And it is not to debate but to search out and destroy and the reaction is understandable. My take on it is this: start a thread allowing for debate and discussion. And see where it leads.

Most seem to have chips on their should when they reply to you and you also have quite a chip on your own shoulder too. This usually translates with many chips being thrown around.

I do not believe Kevin had a bad tone at all in his opening post. He presented evidence because it was requested of him and he has been answered with insults.

[Rinaldo]

I agree. Allowing room for a civil discussion may change not only our views, but perhaps yours as well. We could all learn something. Xander, you always say that your views have been "proven" or are "overwhelmingly supported" by the evidence, but this leaves absolutely no room for you to consider other possibilities, which is not exactly a respectable way to start any sort of discussion. We admit that the evidence we find is not conclusive, but we believe about the other side of the argument as well.

I am a friend to Kevin and I am thankful for his posts. These are some of the most informative posts I see. You says he doesn't considered other possibilities of the Book of Abraham but this is not true. Why do you say something like this?

I do not see there is something wrong with telling your belief as fact if you provide reasons. Don't Mormons do this when they say the Church is true, Joseph Smith was a prophet? Do they consider other possibilities or do they state belief as fact?

The different thing of Kevin is that he gives evidence and supports his beliefs. Mormons tell their testimony.

And I do not understand why you should say Kevin has done something that stops a civil discussion. He made his case clearly with evidence and sim insult. Whether this gets to be in a civil discussion that is up to those who respond to him. It takes two to tango and Kevin took the first step which I think is civil.

Kevin said he would continue this next week so I hope this doesn't close.

[altersteve]

I think that we need to ask if JS could have written it knowing what we know about his writing ability and his aversion to writing. He was not much for writing or for that matter keeping records through journal writing. But the BofA is a fine piece of writing. And so, who wrote it if not JS?

I agree with you, but did Joseph Smith dictate the Book of Abraham to someone else while translating it? If so, I can understand how critics would answer this question, although I would not necessarily agree with their answer.

I am a friend to Kevin and I am thankful for his posts. These are some of the most informative posts I see. You says he doesn't considered other possibilities of the Book of Abraham but this is not true. Why do you say something like this?

I do not see there is something wrong with telling your belief as fact if you provide reasons. Don't Mormons do this when they say the Church is true, Joseph Smith was a prophet? Do they consider other possibilities or do they state belief as fact?

The different thing of Kevin is that he gives evidence and supports his beliefs. Mormons tell their testimony.

And I do not understand why you should say Kevin has done something that stops a civil discussion. He made his case clearly with evidence and sim insult. Whether this gets to be in a civil discussion that is up to those who respond to him. It takes two to tango and Kevin took the first step which I think is civil.

Kevin said he would continue this next week so I hope this doesn't close.

My point was that we acknowledge that the evidence we find is not conclusive, and we don't believe Kevin's evidence is conclusive either. He seems to believe that it is, but he's clearly wrong about that.

[Rinaldo]

If he is "clearly" wrong then this should be demonstrated no?

I see nobody respond to the things he gives them as evidence. And who is the "we" that you tell us? I think many persons agree with Kevin.

And Kevin says his purpose is giving explanation for someone asking for it. He is not trying to prove and make you agree. So doesn't matter if you think is conclusive.

[wenglund]

Let me get this straight. According to wade, Abraham chapter one doesn't really refer to Facsimile #1 being located at the "commencement of this record," because the remark doesn't appear until verse 12?

I don't know how you could have interpret my comments any more crookedly. But, you are Kevin Graham, and so it is expected.

Wow. Critics can only pray that this inane reasoning shows up in publication one day.

Rest assured, it will only show up in your convoluted mind.

Again, while wade is trying to ridicule my "reasoning," which is pretty hilarious in and of itself, he completely ignores the fact that this was precisely the reasoning adopted by LDS scholars. That is, before they found out the translation of the BoB didn't vindicate Joseph Smith as translator. Thus, the only basis for concluding anything else, is strictly apologetic. It is designed not to address of reconcile the evidence, it is designed to avoid the evidence at all costs while propping up a predetermined theological position (i.e. Joseph Smith was a true Prophet who could really translate things)

Frankly, I don't care who may or may not have used these arguments in the past. They are terrribly weak and strained, and for you to think them worthy of strong confidence, is down-right silly.

However, I understand why you put so much stock in them, and this because that is the best you have to offer in your hope of validating your confused disbelief in Joseph's ability to translate by revelation. There is nothing close to empirical or first-hand testimony to confirm that the Book of Abraham was actually translated, let alone believed to have been translated from the portion of the scroll you guess. All you have to rely on is tissuey circumstancial evidence in evangelizing your disbelief. Knock yourself out.

However, if you were the least bit intelligent, you would stick to the facsimiles where there is actual evidence that Joseph translated a specified portion of the papyri. But, I am okay if you prefer instead to peddle your stale pretzles.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You haven't demonstrated how it is "important" at all. All you are doing is blowing smoke and trying to distract from the evidence presented.

Let's see, three-quarters of your so-called arguments are specific to the facsimilies, and yet you don't understand why 1/3rd of those facsimilies is important? I love it, LOL!!

The irony is, you actually believe I am the one blowing smoke. Very funny stuff.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

I do not believe Kevin had a bad tone at all in his opening post. He presented evidence because it was requested of him and he has been answered with insults.

Kevin's post was designed to show his truth is the only truth and of course in a discussion this approach is doomed to fail. I have told kevin many times to tone it all down. But he doesn't know how. It is basically because he has roots in lds apologetics and now he must prove to his once friends that he is right. And his once apologetic react accordingly. And these are the chips that are flying around. It goes back a long time.

[why me]

If he is "clearly" wrong then this should be demonstrated no?

I see nobody respond to the things he gives them as evidence. And who is the "we" that you tell us? I think many persons agree with Kevin.

And Kevin says his purpose is giving explanation for someone asking for it. He is not trying to prove and make you agree. So doesn't matter if you think is conclusive.

This is not the first time Kevin has begun an abraham thread. It is just one among many. Most people do not have all the facts or understanding to really take a stand. But there are a few who can. But the point is: when is a dead horse dead? How many sparing must we have about the book of abraham? It is a book that cannot be proven a fraud and like the book of mormon, the window of opportunity is now gone. Someone would have needed to catch joseph in the act or in collaboration with someone.

Edited January 29, 2012 by why me

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.boap.org/

Enjoy.

[wenglund]

The truth is, from what I have gathered from my own research and open-mindedly considering arguments from differing points of view, there is so little relevant data, much of which is indirect or loosely circumstancial, regarding the exact source for the Book of Abraham so as to allow a broad range of little more than baseless beliefs and conjectures.

Now, if Kevin and others wish to believe that JSP XI is the source for the Book of Abraham, there is no known data logically preventing them from doing so, and the same applies to those who believe the source was elsewhere on the papyrus.

In short, there is very little grounds for serious debate, and thus the question remains wide open. Anyone attempting to claim that this specific issues has been confidently decided either way, is simply billowing fog.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Minos]

There is no excuse for the reception this civil OP received. If the complaint is that posters are being asked to respond to scholarly spam then linking to previous answers and demonstrating that would be better than pages of one line insults.