Book Of Abraham - What Are You Talking About?

[Law22]

In other threads people have said something to the effect of, "I know the papyri that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham was not the Book of Abraham, but I still think what he wrote was the Book of Abraham."

What are you talking about?

Also, I thought that the explanation for the Book of Abraham issue was that much of the papyri was lost?

Can someone please explain?

[selek1]

In other threads people have said something to the effect of, "I know the papyri that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham was not the Book of Abraham, but I still think what he wrote was the Book of Abraham."

What are you talking about?

Also, I thought that the explanation for the Book of Abraham issue was that much of the papyri was lost?

Can someone please explain?

A portion of the original papyrii owned by Joseph Smith and thought destroyed in the Chicago Fire have been rediscovered.

Certain critics- based primarily on the placement of illustrations in the surviving pieces- insist that these pieces are the one and only possible source from which Joseph translated the Book of Abraham. They reject any other possibility out of hand with a dogmatic and (pardon the pun) almost religious zeal.

Since modern scholars have proven (and most LDS agree) that the extant pieces contain a Hor Book of Breathing (not the Book of Abraham), these same critics insist that this discovery is the smoking gun that proves that Joseph, the Church, and the BoA are all fraudulent, and that Brigham Young was the second shooter on the grassy knoll (or some such nonsense).

Mormon scholars and apologists, by contrast tend (generally) to fall into one of two camps: a)that the Book of Abraham was not on the surviving pieces, but on the portion that is still lost, or b) that the Book of Abraham was not translated from the papyrii at all, but that the records served as a catalyst to a purely revelatory transcription.

Neither of these positions is provable or falsifiable from the available evidence.

The problem underlying all of these theories is the inescapable assumptions and interpretations which these "analysts" insist on bringing to the table.

Because so much guesswork and interpretation of the evidence are involved, all we have are theories- the evidence itself is hardly conclusive, let alone incontrovertible.

But, driven by their ideological agenda, certain parties of pseudo-scholars insist to this day that anyone who disagrees with them is either a fool, a heretic, a charlatan, or a Morg.

You must either recite the chant exactly as they intone it or be damned.

Edited May 5, 2012 by selek1

[Law22]

Selek1 - what a great answer! Thanks!

[Calm]

these same scholars

I think you mean "these same critics", not scholars, selek.

[selek1]

I think you mean "these same critics", not scholars, selek.

No- I meant to say "scholars" but I forgot the scare quotes.

In point of fact, your wording is a more accurate assessment of the personalities involved, and I have changed my post to reflect that.

Thanks!

[Xander]

Selek1 - what a great answer! Thanks!

Didn't that just pump up your testimony and make you feel good about not falling away over this issue?

Yes, as was intended. Too bad Selek has it wrong again.

Certain critics- based primarily on the placement of illustrations in the surviving pieces- insist that these pieces are the one and only possible source from which Joseph translated the Book of Abraham. They reject any other possibility out of hand with a dogmatic and (pardon the pun) almost religious zeal.

This is absolute nonsense, especially your emphasis. CFR! The critics have shown that there is no reasonable basis for asserting the Book of Abraham came from "missing" papyri because virtually all the historic evidence points to extant portions of the Joseph Smith papyri collection. I proved this in earlier threads last year. The only reason to submit missing papyri as the source is ad hoc apologetics. Apologists have been dancing around all evidence to the contrary constantly looking for some rational basis for presuming a missing papyrus as the source. But relying on "well, isn't it possible?" isn't a strong argument. It is possible the moon is made of cheese, but it probably isn't, and there is no good reason to believe it is. Apologists like these begin with the theological premise that the Church is true, all evidence to the contrary must be ignored, avoided or dismissed while you go blathering about how this is really a respectable position to take because... "well, isn't it possible?" The problem most critics have with the dogmatic assertions by apologists is that they're never willing to accept anything that goes against the Church's claims, no matter how obvious.This makes them irrational. It isn't irrational to follow the evidence where it leads, which is really the only thing the "critics" are guilty of. And with the Book of Abraham, the apologists' willingness to pump out one falsehood after another is just more reason to believe they're apologetic case is intellectually bankrupt and that theirs is an agenda of disinformation. For example, why do they keep spreading these falsehoods about a "long" roll, which can only come about from a conscious effort to misrepresent the evidence? Talk about your "tragedy of errors." It is enough that someone could write a book strictly about the history of failed Book of Abraham apologetics.

Every time you point out something to them that shows beyond all reasonable doubt that Joseph Smith was wrong, they come up with this "well isn't it possible" nonsense and then have the audacity to flip it around as if we're the ones being "dogmatic" and unreasonable. Our arguments are convincing without benefit of dogmatism. Their arguments are ridiculously unconvincing to anyone who isn't desperately trying to save their testimony. No one outside the apologetic community would ever see it their way. The critics are on firm ground while the apologists are just grasping for anything they can, hoping something will eventually stick. It is like a slow moving train wreck that is just too difficult not to pay attention to it.

You want to mock us as pseudo-scholars, but the fact is the entire depts of Egyptology at Brown University and the U of Chicago, think Maxwell Institute apologetics on this subject is downright laughable pseudo-scholarship. Robert Ritner's (The world's authority on the subject and Gee's professor who disowned him because he was more interested in apologetics than scholarship) latest tome provides a blistering critique of decades of FARMS apologetics on this subject.

But the funniest thing about Selek's misrepresentation on this subject is that he wants to claim only the "critics" maintain this position about the Hor papyrus, when in fact it was the position held by BYU scholars before and after the payri were rediscovered. That is, until it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the extant papyri couldn't have been a legitimate source of Mormon scripture. That was the point when suddenly the source for the BoA had to be missing. Nibley took the matter into his own hands and starting spinning it, even admitting that he wouldn't produce a translation of the papyri because it would do more harm than good. The idea has always been to keep the members in the dark, make them trust untrustworthy apologists acting as experts, and then attack the whistleblowers as evil "dogmatic" anti-Mormons, as if we're the ones with an "agenda"!

Since modern scholars have proven (and most LDS agree) that the extant pieces contain a Hor Book of Breathing (not the Book of Abraham), these same critics insist that this discovery is the smoking gun that proves that Joseph, the Church, and the BoA are all fraudulent, and that Brigham Young was the second shooter on the grassy knoll (or some such nonsense).

Yes, it does. We know beyond all reasonable doubt that the Hor papyrus was the source Joseph Smith used to produce the Book of Abraham. For crying out loud the Church has been publishing the BoA with cuts from the same papyrus for years. The BoA scripture even refers explicitly to this text as its source.

Mormon scholars and apologists, by contrast tend (generally) to fall into one of two camps: a)that the Book of Abraham was not on the surviving pieces, but on the portion that is still lost, or b) that the Book of Abraham was not translated from the papyrii at all, but that the records served as a catalyst to a purely revelatory transcription.

Neither of these positions is provable or falsifiable from the available evidence.

And to some minds, that is all that matters. What is highly probable means nothing when the integrity of your Church is on the line.

But, driven by their ideological agenda

Exposing the truth that has been hidden (i.e. the KEP) or misrepresented by the apologists for decades (and it is still happening with FAIR's latest DVD)? That's a pretty respectable agenda I would think, but I wouldn't call it ideological. You're the ones who are trying to salvage a religion. We're just interested in the truth.

certain parties of pseudo-scholars insist to this day that anyone who disagrees with them is either a fool, a heretic, a charlatan, or a Morg.

More well poisoning of course. The fact is I don't have a problem with any Mormon who tells me they accept the Book of Abraham as inspired scripture, while relying on some kind of catalyst theory. You can't argue with someone like that and I've never been interested in deconverting Mormons. I am interested in seeing that newcomers get more information so they can make an informed decision and I'm usually dragged into this debate because it is well known that it played a huge role in my apostasy. And so people are generally bringing me up as an example to learn from. You know, the stupid apostate who let lies and misrepresentations destroy his faith. The once proud lion who was scared by a mouse, etc etc. I've heard it all.

Well, the only lies and deceptions I heard during that time came from those who were trying to keep me in the Church at all costs. That's a fact, and the fact that this isn't something that can be debated on this forum is evidence that what I say is true. If you guys thought for a second that you had a good case that we were the ones lying and deceiving, you'd jump all over the opportunity to expose us via debate. But most of you already know that the Book of Abraham controversy proves the opposite, and so it is too dangerous to really delve into, if for no other reason, the fact that your "experts" have proven themselves completely unreliable as agents of truth.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Xander

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I don't know what the hell the Book of Abraham is. The critics and we Mormons talk past each other with truly awe-inspiring proficiency, and both sides, in addition to getting mean, have said very goofy things. The Götterdämmerung fought between Xander's camp and Schryver's camp has gotten so vituperative on these boards that it's incredibly dangerous and inevitably painful to try to salvage anything useful amidst the nuclear bombs being launched from both sides, especially since some of us don't have access to (and therefore cannot independently judge) many of the primary sources that everyone's basing their arcane arguments and amusing color-coded graphs on. All we're left to judge is the obvious bias on both sides of the aisle.

Whatever the Book of Abraham is, I think it is a Good Book. I personally think it really is literally historical in some way (though it also contains wonderful metaphorical imagery!); certainly most of the religious concepts are legitimately ancient (premortal existence, the Divine Council/Plurality of Gods, etc.), which is pretty much all I need at the moment. I think Nibley's Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri (which looks at the Book of Breathings as an Initiatory Endowment text rather than strictly funereal in nature) and One Eternal Round (an examination of the related hypocephalus) are two of the most fascinating books I've ever read, regardless of how loudly the critics chant "parallelomania"; meanwhile, I'm halfway through Evelyn Rossiter's (rather dated) commentary on the Book of the Dead and finding that interpretation fascinating as well, particularly for the abundance of gorgeous color plates in my edition (which book I can't find online, so no linky. It was published in '79).

I'm open to an absolutely faithful, historical, literal translation with a missing papyrus theory. I'm open to catalysts and expansion theories. I'm open to an "inspired fiction" theory (though to adequately demonstrate that would take far more evidence than I've seen anyone muster up). I'm open to the possibility that Joseph was just a sincerely deluded dude (though I find that one even less plausible than the inspired fiction one). The point is that arguing as if this has been decisively proved one way or another is overreaching.

To date, neither side has offered compelling evidence and an overarching interpretation of the entire historical situation in both the ancient world and the 19th century which satisfies me as being "conclusive" from a purely scholastic/argumentative standpoint. Both sides seem to ignore the strong arguments of the other, while instead choosing to focus on personality conflicts between the players. It is, I must say, exhausting.

I don't think the critics have "proved" the book historically "false". I don't think we've "proved" it historically "true." Whatevs. That's history (or purported history) for ya. For now, I've found Alma's "cause to believe" paradigm to bear the most productive fruit, but I'm well aware that others come at it from a different angle. That's their right, and mine. The external "objective" historical issues are ambiguously muddy enough that the subjective effect the book has on me is all I can judge by. When the evidence changes, so will I. Eternal progression, n'est-ce pas?

[selek1]

Law22,

See what I mean about "almost religious zeal"?

Xander goes on at length about the "dishonesty" and "weak" positions of unnamed "apologists", makes Jovian pronouncements (complete with thunderbolts) about what the evidence must say (because he wants it to), and spends his time shadow boxing against claims I did not make.

Nowhere in his diatribe is there any room for the possibility of error on his part. Nowhere is there an acknowledgement that others might reasonably disagree.

There is no room in his world for honest differences of opinion or interpretation.

One must either adjudge and evaluate the evidence exactly as he does or be damned as "irrational", "unreasonable", or "dishonest".

In his world, the faithful are given only two choices: either chalk up the Book of Abraham as a purely religious work without any evidentiary basis or accept his line of reasoning hook, line, and sinker.

And then he calls us "dogmatic".

This is, unfortuntately par for the course- any disagreement or dissent (no matter how mild-mannered or well-reasoned) is met with mockery derision, and abuse.

Numerous threads on this topic have been derailed in this fashion- making it difficult, if not impossible to discuss.

For the most part, I think Latter-day Saints trend towards Jeremy Orbe-Smith's statement above,

Of course, given my numerous disagreements with Jeremy on other matters, it's not often that I get to say that!

Edited May 5, 2012 by selek1

[bu11fr0g]

I think JosephSmith Matthew points strongly to a catalyst possibility if the translation processes were similar.

[Xander]

See what I mean Law?

If Selek spent half the time reading what I said, as he does trying to envision himself as the eternal victim, he might see that what I said refutes much of his repeated nonsense.

Xander goes on at length about the "dishonesty" and "weak" positions of unnamed "apologists"

I support my arguments with documentation, unlike Selek, who merely asserts the "pseudo-scholarship" of unnamed "critics."

makes Jovian pronouncements (complete with thunderbolts) about what the evidence must say (because he wants it to), and spends his time shadow boxing against claims I did not make.

If Selek had the intellectual fortitude to peruse through the pages and pages of documentation I kindly provided him, he'd probably understand that what I have done is far, far from making a "Jovian pronouncement." What really upsets him is the fact that no one in his camp, even his prized scholars, can respond to the thorough refutations I've provided of their apologetic assertions. The missing papyrus is a lost cause because there is just too much evidence supporting the argument that the source Joseph Smith used, was the Book of Hor. To be sure, Selek has never attempted, nor is he prepared, to address that evidence. Instead, he wants to whine about the fact that everyone outside the apologetic camp, sides with the "critics." He tries to compensate for his dilemma with rhetoric. Hence, all the hyperbole and subterfuge about his perceived victimhood and my so-called "Jovian pronouncements, complete with thunderbolts."

Nowhere in his diatribe is there any room for the possibility of error on his part

After more than a decade of failed apologetics, I see no reason to believe you're holding the magic bullet in the argument I've presented. But feel free to prove me wrong. You see, we both know you're bluffing. You have nothing. John Gee has nothing. But you think you can somehow make this fact go away by complaining that I'd never accept a refutation even if one existed. Well, try me. Unlike most folks here, I have a documented record of changing my mind when presented compelling evidence.

Nowhere is there an acknowledgement that others might reasonably disagree

Reasonably? No. That is why the catalyst theory is becoming more and more popular. More people simply don't care whether the BoA was really translated from the papyrus. This is why you hear apologists talk about how translate doesn't really mean translate.

There is no room in his world for honest differences of opinion or interpretation.

Honest? Sure there is. Just ask Brian Hauglid. We've had many honest differences of opinions. But that is probably easier due to the fact that he no longer wants anything to do with apologetics. Meaning, he's not gunning after the critics on this issue. Just read through Maxwell/FARMS/FAIR stuff. The apologetic vanguard has taken it upon themselves to educate their flock as to the overt dishonesty that is necessarily integral with being a critic of anything the "One True Church" has ever said. But the second a critic implies dishonesty on the part of anyone on your side, suddenly you get all indignant.

That proves that either 1) you have a double standard and/or 2) you're not sincere in your gripe.

One must either adjudge and evaluate the evidence exactly as he does or be damned as "irrational", "unreasonable", or "dishonest".

As I do? No, as the entire free thinking world outside LDS apologetics does. This isn't about me, no matter how badly Selek wish it were. The truth of the matter is independent of what I think. I just happen to agree with the truth. And with that, Selek is frustrated as all get out. He knows he can respond by attacking me, only for so long. But it is the only way he knows.

In his world, the faithful are given only two choices: either chalk up the Book of Abraham as a purely religious work without any evidentiary basis or accept his line of reasoning hook, line, and sinker.

Another absurd attempt to divert attention away from the fact that in Selek's world, the Church is true and all evidence to the contrary can only be presented by horrible people who fit his caricature above.

And then he calls us "dogmatic".

I'm calling you dogmatic. You blow a lot of wind claiming to be victimized, but you've yet to demonstrate the slightest understanding of the issues. Until you do, you really have no business blabbering about what's rational or scholarly, especially on this subject. Besides, what's your problem with dogmatic assertions? This is Schryver and Peterson's field of expertise. Schryver declared with absolute certainty that he refuted forty years of critical arguments, and Dan Peterson followed up and concurred with him. This they did minutes after the the world premiere of Schryver's magnum opus apologetic, and long before a critic ever had the chance to respond. I don't remember anyone in your camp complaining about dogmatic assertions back then. It is as if all you have to do, if you're an LDS apologist, is come up with something, anything, that can trigger a round of applause from like-minded apologists, and then a victory dance can commence. But when critics pound you with refutations year after year, on issues that never get addressed by the apologists, you complain that they're being dogmatic and too arrogant to think their arguments are really rational. Too arrogant to make room for "possibilities" that contradict their conclusions. Amazing.

This is, unfortuntately par for the course- any disagreement or dissent (no matter how mild-mannered or well-reasoned) is met with mockery derision, and abuse.

Abuse! Doesn't it get exhausting being the victim all the time? If you can't win a rhetoric fight, you shouldn't pick one. The fact is you are the one who jumped into this discussion, having a full knowledge of the fact that you know virtually nothing about it, and yet decided to take swipes at unnamed critics as if you did.

Numerous threads on this topic have been derailed in this fashion- making it difficult, if not impossible to discuss.

ROFL! Numerous threads on this topic have been started mainly by me, only to be derailed by folks like you who want to spend all day and night psychoanalyzing me and my "agenda." Of course, I understand this is intentional. You might as well just post a sign up in every post, "Move along, nothing to see here." Because detracting people from the information I provide is really what you and your ilk are all about. I want people to know the truth and to make informed decisions. You only want them to make one decision. I tell my wife the same thing. I give people information and what they do with it is their business, but I am an educator by trade, and I won't apologize for helping people make a more informed decision. You're the one who gets upset when people choose not to be baptized because of information I provide. I never get upset one way or the other. If they choose to join the Church, then more power to them. So yes, you're the one running on pure dogmatism, here, not I.

For the most part, I think Latter-day Saints trend towards Jeremy Orbe-Smith's statement above

For the most part, Latter-day Saints haven't the faintest clue what the Book of Abraham is to begin with, nor do they care.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Xander

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Ahhh, let the games begin!

(Because you can't, you won't, and you don't stop.)

(RIP, MCA.)

Edited May 5, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Fifth Columnist]

To date, neither side has offered compelling evidence and an overarching interpretation of the entire historical situation in both the ancient world and the 19th century which satisfies me as being "conclusive" from a purely scholastic/argumentative standpoint. Both sides seem to ignore the strong arguments of the other, while instead choosing to focus on personality conflicts between the players. It is, I must say, exhausting.

When I first learned about the Book of Abraham, I really took the time to understand the arguments made by both sides. Once I did that I didn't see any good ones on the apologetic side. If you are aware of some good apologetic arguments, please explain.

The facsimiles show the problem with the Book of Abraham with the greatest clarity. Joseph Smith's interpretations of what they mean can be found right in our scriptures, but they are wrong. His interpretations do not match what is shown on the facsimiles. Also, Joseph compounded the problem by "restoring" the missing portions of facsimile 2 in a way that is, unfortunately, laughable. He add heiratic script to it instead of the original heiroglyphics and inserted it upside down. He didn't restore the missing text. He simply copied heiratic script from one of the other papyri in his possession on to the facsimile. I'm unaware of any good apologetic explanation for this.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. My understanding was that it was the engraver Reuben Hedlock who filled in the lacunae of the hypocephalus; others disagree and the cycle starts over. Joseph Smith's interpretations were "wrong"? I disagree completely. The identification of Osiris with the person on the throne. The cosmic significance of the representative figures on the hypocephalus. The Kolob/qlb/Heart-star cosmology. The "stars" of the sacred timekeeping baboons. Amun-Re and the grand governing creation near the place where God resides holding the key of power pertaining to other planets. Horus holding the was-scepter and going forth on his royal boat, clothed with power and authority and a crown of light, etc.. The Power transferred and diffused down from the heavens through the wedjat-eye representing the grand key-words of the Priesthood. The sign of the Dove-goddess transferring power. The Sokar-bird interchangeable with Nut, She of the Thousand Souls; Raukeeyang/the starry heavens; the association with the sed-festival coordinating the measuring of time by the cycles and revolutions and calendrical stuff, etc.. One of the governing planets said by the Egyptians to be the Sun which is the home of the Mother-Goddess Hathor, the Queen of Heaven who is the Sun of the Two Worlds, the Cosmic House of Horus; the divine mate of the God who was the "copulating bull without equal" from the rim inscription, etc.. The gobbledegook names like the foreign epithets in the Book of the Dead. The canopic jars of the Children of Horus representing elements from the four corners. The resurrection through the womanly underworld, a bit like the type-scene in Alma 19 when the Queen raises Lamoni. Etc., etc., etc.! I think Nibs makes a strong case in Eternal Round for the genuineness of Smith's explanations. On the other hand, if Smith got the language from Masonry, who cares? All of the BoA issues aside, the facsimiles are fascinating in their own right, even if they were completely unconnected to Joseph Smith. Are these "good" apologetic arguments? Meh. I know I certainly like them. I have no idea how anyone else should take them, since everyone else is filtering everything through their own biases which are completely different from my own. To each their own.

Edited May 5, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[William Schryver]

In other threads people have said something to the effect of, "I know the papyri that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham was not the Book of Abraham, but I still think what he wrote was the Book of Abraham."

What are you talking about?

Also, I thought that the explanation for the Book of Abraham issue was that much of the papyri was lost?

Can someone please explain?

As you examine this topic, you might want to consider the arguments set forth in this presentation at the 2010 FAIR Conference:

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers - Part 1

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers - Part 2

My theses have become much more refined as my study of the papyri and the KEP has continued, but I think the arguments set forth in this 2010 presentation are still sufficient to set one on the path to understanding better the origins of the Book of Abraham.

I have also now completed three additional articles concerning the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I expect to see them published before the end of the year.

Edited May 5, 2012 by William Schryver

[Calm]

Jeremy, have you had a chance to read thttp://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/bookstore/?id=118

Very fun book.

[mfbukowski]

In other threads people have said something to the effect of, "I know the papyri that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham was not the Book of Abraham, but I still think what he wrote was the Book of Abraham."

What are you talking about?

Also, I thought that the explanation for the Book of Abraham issue was that much of the papyri was lost?

Can someone please explain?

Let me just answer this question directly as I would without regard to anything beyond what Selek says post 2

To me, all the "scholarly stuff" misses the point entirely. I don't care WHERE the Book of Abraham came from- I believe in what is called the "catalyst" theory, which is in 25 words or less, that Joseph got the papyri and truly believed he was doing a literal "translation" of what the papyri said- AND in fact what came out of him were the inspired words of Abraham.

He could have been "translating" the pattern of his wallpaper as far as I am concerned- I don't care if he was looking at an Egyptian newspaper article about a horse race (kidding of course to make a point- the Kentucky derby is on) BUT WHAT HE WROTE were the words of God.

So if all that is true, the entire scholarly debate is exactly irrelevant, period.

We don't have the plates and we accept the BOM to be the word of God without them. People accept the Bible to be the word of God and there are no 10 commandments etched by the finger of God, supposedly, to be argued about.

Those arguments are irrelevant. AND they could not prove any scripture was of God even if we had every word AND the papyri were verified as being possibly actually from Abraham's time, AND if Egyptologists actually verified the translation as literal.

We have no scientific evidence of the resurrection or even the existence of Jesus which is incontrovertibly provable- and even if we did, it would not prove that he was the Son of God who died for our sins.

Such things don't have anything to do with science! They have to do with faith and the meaning they give our lives. In other words, a testimony is the only way these things can be shown to be "true" EVEN WITH ALL THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD

So worrying about scholarly evidences for OR AGAINST the BOA is a waste of time in my humble opinion and totally misses the point.

[mfbukowski]

Selek1 - what a great answer! Thanks!

Agreed.

[mfbukowski]

ROFL! Numerous threads on this topic have been started mainly by me, only to be derailed by folks like you who want to spend all day and night psychoanalyzing me and my "agenda."

That's because you demonstrate such, uh, ..... zeal.... in your approach. You do get pretty emotional about it you know.

It appears you don't even understand the "catalyst" approach or anything spiritual, it would appear.

[cdowis]

When I first learned about the Book of Abraham, I really took the time to understand the arguments made by both sides. Once I did that I didn't see any good ones on the apologetic side. If you are aware of some good apologetic arguments, please explain.

You might want to check out Kerry Shirts research at http://www2.ida.net/...tail/papyri.htm I don't have time to find the exact article which discusses your question.

Perhaps http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/hypoceph.htm

Edited May 5, 2012 by cdowis

[William Schryver]

You might want to check out Kerry Shirts research at http://www2.ida.net/...tail/papyri.htm I don't have time to find the exact article which discusses your question.

Perhaps http://www2.ida.net/...il/hypoceph.htm

Speaking of whom ... I have not seen of or heard from the inimitable Backyard Professor for some time now. My daughter lives in his neck of the woods, and I have tried to contact him (while in Idaho) several times--but to no avail. Kerry, if you're out there, please check in. Your old friends are wondering what's become of you.

ETA: Does anybody here remember Kerry Shirts?

Edited May 5, 2012 by William Schryver

[Peppermint Patty]

ETA: Does anybody here remember Kerry Shirts?

GREAT clip! I take it that you are a Floyd fan? I flew to San Antonio last year just to see Roger Waters in concert (it was on my bucket list). When Roger sings Vera Lynn, it brings tears to one's eyes. I'm sure you know Roger's father died in WWII and Vera Lynn was one of the most popular singers in England during the War. If you've ever wondered where Roger came up with the lyrics, "remember how she said that we would meet again, some sunny day" came from:

One can almost imagine a young Roger Waters listening to this song on the radio wondering when his father would return from the War.

So as not to completely derail this OP, I think everyone here has made good points about the Book of Abraham.

[ERayR]

Let me just answer this question directly as I would without regard to anything beyond what Selek says post 2

To me, all the "scholarly stuff" misses the point entirely. I don't care WHERE the Book of Abraham came from- I believe in what is called the "catalyst" theory, which is in 25 words or less, that Joseph got the papyri and truly believed he was doing a literal "translation" of what the papyri said- AND in fact what came out of him were the inspired words of Abraham.

He could have been "translating" the pattern of his wallpaper as far as I am concerned- I don't care if he was looking at an Egyptian newspaper article about a horse race (kidding of course to make a point- the Kentucky derby is on) BUT WHAT HE WROTE were the words of God.

So if all that is true, the entire scholarly debate is exactly irrelevant, period.

We don't have the plates and we accept the BOM to be the word of God without them. People accept the Bible to be the word of God and there are no 10 commandments etched by the finger of God, supposedly, to be argued about.

Those arguments are irrelevant. AND they could not prove any scripture was of God even if we had every word AND the papyri were verified as being possibly actually from Abraham's time, AND if Egyptologists actually verified the translation as literal.

We have no scientific evidence of the resurrection or even the existence of Jesus which is incontrovertibly provable- and even if we did, it would not prove that he was the Son of God who died for our sins.

Such things don't have anything to do with science! They have to do with faith and the meaning they give our lives. In other words, a testimony is the only way these things can be shown to be "true" EVEN WITH ALL THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD

So worrying about scholarly evidences for OR AGAINST the BOA is a waste of time in my humble opinion and totally misses the point.

My name is ERayR and I approve this message. Seriously all the scientific evidence, pro or con, is immaterial. The only thing that means anything is that personal witness that it is the word of God. I guess if you don't have that then one must struggle through all this and still never know.

[William Schryver]

GREAT clip! I take it that you are a Floyd fan? I flew to San Antonio last year just to see Roger Waters in concert (it was on my bucket list). When Roger sings Vera Lynn, it brings tears to one's eyes. I'm sure you know Roger's father died in WWII and Vera Lynn was one of the most popular singers in England during the War. If you've ever wondered where Roger came up with the lyrics, "remember how she said that we would meet again, some sunny day" came from:

One can almost imagine a young Roger Waters listening to this song on the radio wondering when his father would return from the War.

So as not to completely derail this OP, I think everyone here has made good points about the Book of Abraham.

Yes, I am a huge Pink Floyd fan. The Wall came out when I was in the MTC! I remember hearing Another Brick in the Wall (part 2) while walking the streets in my first city in Italy (Trapani).

I've always had a few Pink Floyd songs in my set lists (I'm an amateur singer/songwriter): Is There Anybody Out There? (acoustic guitar solo); Nobody Home (sung with my own piano arrangement); Brain Damage (guitar accompaniment), and many others.

In my opinion, David Gilmour is (at least) one of the top five rock guitarists of all time. Certainly the solo to Comfortably Numb is one of the greatest solos of all time.

Man, now I'm going to have to put on The Wall ...

/END DERAIL

P.S. I love Vera Lynn -- the singer, and the song.

Edited May 6, 2012 by William Schryver

[volgadon]

I don't know what the hell the Book of Abraham is. The critics and we Mormons talk past each other with truly awe-inspiring proficiency, and both sides, in addition to getting mean, have said very goofy things. The Götterdämmerung fought between Xander's camp and Schryver's camp has gotten so vituperative on these boards that it's incredibly dangerous and inevitably painful to try to salvage anything useful amidst the nuclear bombs being launched from both sides, especially since some of us don't have access to (and therefore cannot independently judge) many of the primary sources that everyone's basing their arcane arguments and amusing color-coded graphs on. All we're left to judge is the obvious bias on both sides of the aisle.

I absolutely agree with this and the rest of your post. This is kind of the reason why I'm staying away from most BoA threads, though I do have something to say.

[Maidservant]

Kerry Shirts is still uploading on youtube, I think. Yea, as of yesterday. I think the latest is on chess .