All Book Of Abraham Manuscripts Now Online As Jspp

[David T]

New Online JSP content today, including:

"All six of the extant Abraham manuscripts as well as the Book of Abraham as published in the Times and Seasons in March and May 1842. In the future, the website will include the other Egyptian Papers as well."

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/

Edited September 25, 2012 by David T

[volgadon]

Awesome.

[MormonMason]

It's about time! Wonderful news.

Edited to add: The imaging is good. One can see the basic grain of the paper and get a clearer picture of alterations and differences in the ink.

Edited September 25, 2012 by MormonMason

[Verum]

Bring on the long, drawn out debates on the KEP, scroll length calculus, masonic relics, etc

[David T]

Bring on the long, drawn out debates on...masonic relics, etc

"No 11 also.— If the world can find out these n(u)mbers, So mote it be,— Amen."

Explanation of Facsimile of Papyrus Drawing, early 1842

Edited September 25, 2012 by David T

[MormonMason]

"No 11 also.— If the world can find out these n(u)mbers, So mote it be,— Amen."

Explanation of Facsimile of Papyrus Drawing, early 1842

A-hah! Proof that the Masons were involved with the production of the Book of Abraham or that Joseph Smith must have borrowed from a Masonic source!!!

(Tongue planted firmly in cheek but you know some critic is going to claim such).

[Chris Smith]

A-hah! Proof that the Masons were involved with the production of the Book of Abraham or that Joseph Smith must have borrowed from a Masonic source!!!

(Tongue planted firmly in cheek but you know some critic is going to claim such).

The Facsimile 2 explanation was produced a few days after the dedication of the Nauvoo Lodge, during which this phrase was used (in lieu of "Amen") to conclude a prayer.

So, yes. "Some critic" is going to claim that Joseph borrowed this phrase from a Masonic source. And that "critic" is me. (Though why this should be perceived as critical or threatening, I can't imagine.)

Edited September 26, 2012 by Chris Smith

[wenglund]

Excellent. Now critics and apologists alike can work from and link to the same high quality images.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MormonMason]

The Facsimile 2 explanation was produced a few days after the dedication of the Nauvoo Lodge, during which this phrase was used (in lieu of "Amen") to conclude a prayer.

Crapulous nonsense... Nauvoo Lodge, U.D., did not dedicate the Nauvoo Masonic Hall until April 1844. Nauvoo Lodge, U.D., was installed on March 15, 1842, after which Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were made Masons at sight.

The text in the manuscript was written before the woodcuts were made. The woodcuts were being prepared and final instructions were given to Reuben Headlock relative to arrangement of the "writing on the large cut," on Friday, March 4, 1842. That was fully 11 days prior to the installation and constitution of Nauvoo Lodge, U.D.

So, yes. "Some critic" is going to claim that Joseph borrowed this phrase from a Masonic source. And that "critic" is me. (Though why this should be perceived as critical or threatening, I can't imagine.)

I do not see it as threatening at all. I see critics all over the place going into parallelomaniac mode, though. Critics are doing the very thing they decry various Latter-day Saint writers for doing. And, it would seem, they do not even know it. I have seen a lot of these parallels and they are tenuous, at best. Funny thing is, Joseph Smith did not use this manuscript containing the phrase in the initial publication of the Book of Abraham.

But, I am not going to attempt going into precise details in discussing Freemasonry and Mormonism until I see some actual, full publications in print on the subject of the parallels that I have seen drawn. (Each time I have attempted it in any detail I have had to do something elsewhere and not been able to complete my thoughts and positions, anyway). Besides, if I wait, it will be more fun because there will be something in set in print that can be addressed. I wring my hands sinisterly waiting for that time.

[Chris Smith]

Crapulous nonsense... Nauvoo Lodge, U.D., did not dedicate the Nauvoo Masonic Hall until April 1844. Nauvoo Lodge, U.D., was installed on March 15, 1842, after which Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were made Masons at sight.

Ah, my mistake. I was thinking of the installation, not the dedication. Concerning the use of the "mote it be" phrase on March 15, see page 34 here.

The text in the manuscript was written before the woodcuts were made.

That's incorrect. If you look at the manuscript—and the woodcut—you'll see that there are far more figure numbers than there are explanations. When the woodcut was made, Joseph was intending to provide explanations for all of the figures. He only ever got around to explaining a few of them. So there's really no question that the manuscript post-dated the woodcut. In fact, the prophet’s diary says that he "commenced" translating for this issue of the Times & Seasons on March 8, implying that none of the BoA text for this issue had been translated prior to that date. This issue of the Times & Seasons, dated March 15, actually didn't go to press until March 19—probably because Joseph was still working on the translation.

Funny thing is, Joseph Smith did not use this manuscript containing the phrase in the initial publication of the Book of Abraham.

Actually, this manuscript is generally considered to be the printers' manuscript for the Times & Seasons. They just changed the phrase.

I have seen a lot of these parallels and they are tenuous, at best.

This is a pretty distinctive phrase, the evidence that it was used in the March 15 ceremony is solid, and we know the Facsimile 2 explanation was produced around this time. I don't see why it should be considered "tenuous" or "crapulous nonsense" to posit a link. (And suddenly I'm reminded why I don't post here.)

Edited September 26, 2012 by Chris Smith

[shalamabobbi]

Hi Chris,

If you don't feel a warm welcome here I think it may have something to do with your avatar.

[media=]

[Robert F. Smith]

Ah, my mistake. I was thinking of the installation, not the dedication. Concerning the use of the "mote it be" phrase on March 15, see page 34 here.http://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/141-32-41.pdf .

That's incorrect. If you look at the manuscript—and the woodcut—you'll see that there are far more figure numbers than there are explanations. When the woodcut was made, Joseph was intending to provide explanations for all of the figures. He only ever got around to explaining a few of them. So there's really no question that the manuscript post-dated the woodcut. In fact, the prophet’s diary says that he "commenced" translating for this issue of the Times & Seasons on March 8, implying that none of the BoA text for this issue had been translated prior to that date. This issue of the Times & Seasons, dated March 15, actually didn't go to press until March 19—probably because Joseph was still working on the translation.

We don't actually know what Joseph Intended to do with each numbered item on the Hedlock woodcut of Fac 2, and mind reading is not really an option. The same applies to what Hedlock was doing. We don't know whether he was told by Joseph to number each separate item/register. There are several possible scenarios, and we need also to consider the filling in of missing parts of the Hypocephalus for that woodcut.

As to the diary or journal kept by Joseph's several scribes, we already know that "translation" and "transcription" were regularly confused, so we don't actually know what was intended by that entry. Especially since we are informed already during the Kirtland period that the Creation story was on the Book of Abraham papyrus.

Actually, this manuscript is generally considered to be the printers' manuscript for the Times & Seasons. They just changed the phrase.

This is a pretty distinctive phrase, the evidence that it was used in the March 15 ceremony is solid, and we know the Facsimile 2 explanation was produced around this time. I don't see why it should be considered "tenuous" or "crapulous nonsense" to posit a link. (And suddenly I'm reminded why I don't post here.)

Yes, the phrase is distinctive, and your hypothesis is possible, but we don't have confirmation. Why would someone "just" change it, as you suggest? Going by the document itself, it would seem quite impossible for Joseph to have gotten so many items identified correctly if he was just doing it off the cuff as it were. That is the lion in your path, Chris.

[Chris Smith]

We don't actually know what Joseph Intended to do with each numbered item on the Hedlock woodcut of Fac 2, and mind reading is not really an option.

There are four pages of figure numbers in the manuscript, but only the numbers on the first page are interpreted. It's pretty clear that more explanations were intended than actually provided.

The same applies to what Hedlock was doing. We don't know whether he was told by Joseph to number each separate item/register. There are several possible scenarios, and we need also to consider the filling in of missing parts of the Hypocephalus for that woodcut.

We're told that Joseph instructed Hedlock on how to arrange the writing on the woodcut. This can only refer to the figure numbers and/or the hieratic writing used to restore the missing portions.

As to the diary or journal kept by Joseph's several scribes, we already know that "translation" and "transcription" were regularly confused, so we don't actually know what was intended by that entry.

Talk about tenuous!

Actually, there are two diary entries and a letter that indicate that on March 8 and 9 Joseph Smith translated at least part of the material that was published in the tenth issue of the Times and Seasons. A diary entry for March 8 says that Joseph “Commenced Translating from the Book of Abraham for 10 No of the Times and Seasons and was engaged at his office day & evening." The following day’s entry says,

"Examining copy for the Times & Seasons, presented by Messrs. Taylor and Bennett, and a variety of other business in the President’s office, in the morning; in the afternoon continued the translation of the Book of Abraham, called at Bishop Knight’s and Mr. Davis’, with the recorder, and continued translating and revising, and reading letters in the evening, Sister Emma being present in the office."

A letter written on the same day to Howard Hunter apologizes, “I am now very busily engaged in Translating, and therefore cannot give as much time to Public matters as I could wish, but will nevertheless do what I can to forward your affairs.”

Now, maybe he meant "transcribing." But if so, he made the same error several times in several different documents. I put the odds of that at close to zero.

Especially since we are informed already during the Kirtland period that the Creation story was on the Book of Abraham papyrus.

By the Kirtland period he had already interpreted the vignette of Adam, Eve, and the serpent in the Garden. So no translation was necessary to for him to conclude that the papyrus contained a creation account.

Going by the document itself, it would seem quite impossible for Joseph to have gotten so many items identified correctly if he was just doing it off the cuff as it were. That is the lion in your path, Chris.

I actually have some answers for how Joseph got right the few things he did, but I don't see how that has any bearing on when the document was produced or whether the Masonic phrase was Masonic.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

There are four pages of figure numbers in the manuscript, but only the numbers on the first page are interpreted. It's pretty clear that more explanations were intended than actually provided.

We're told that Joseph instructed Hedlock on how to arrange the writing on the woodcut. This can only refer to the figure numbers and/or the hieratic writing used to restore the missing portions.

. . . .

Actually, there are two diary entries and a letter that indicate that on March 8 and 9 Joseph Smith translated at least part of the material that was published in the tenth issue of the Times and Seasons. A diary entry for March 8 says that Joseph “Commenced Translating from the Book of Abraham for 10 No of the Times and Seasons and was engaged at his office day & evening." The following day’s entry says,

"Examining copy for the Times & Seasons, presented by Messrs. Taylor and Bennett, and a variety of other business in the President’s office, in the morning; in the afternoon continued the translation of the Book of Abraham, called at Bishop Knight’s and Mr. Davis’, with the recorder, and continued translating and revising, and reading letters in the evening, Sister Emma being present in the office."

A letter written on the same day to Howard Hunter apologizes, “I am now very busily engaged in Translating, and therefore cannot give as much time to Public matters as I could wish, but will nevertheless do what I can to forward your affairs.”

Now, maybe he meant "transcribing." But if so, he made the same error several times in several different documents. I put the odds of that at close to zero.

As MormonMason pointed out already Reuben Headlock and Joseph were arranging the "writing on the large cut," on Friday, March 4, 1842, which is fully 11 days prior to the installation and constitution of Nauvoo Lodge.

And as Wade Englund has pointed out,

several of the KEP documents (the three Egyptian Alphabets and the Grammar and alphabet of the Egyptian Language), which were presumably written in late summer and fall of 1835, speak of the beginning, creation, Adam, the first man, and the garden

This comports with your statement that

By the Kirtland period he had already interpreted the vignette of Adam, Eve, and the serpent in the Garden. So no translation was necessary to for him to conclude that the papyrus contained a creation account.

I actually have some answers for how Joseph got right the few things he did, but I don't see how that has any bearing on when the document was produced or whether the Masonic phrase was Masonic.

I have no problem with Joseph or someone else inserting the "so mote it be" archaic language which was not actually published, but we do not in fact know the source of the phrase, even if it is a reasonable surmise to connect it with Masonry. However, Hyrum already knew the phrase for almost two decades by that time, and it could have been used already in KIrtland. Joseph was never averse to translating using well-known biblical or archaic phrases and allusions.

We should bring up the extraordinary score Joseph obtained in his correct identifications of Fac 2 only as a corrective to the offhand notion that the whole thing is a fraud based on by-gosh-and-by-golly comparisons made by those with an axe to grind. Why? Because this inordinately influences the rush to judgment which is often accorded to documents which are assumed to be false even before they are examined.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Chris Smith]

As MormonMason pointed out already Reuben Headlock and Joseph were arranging the "writing on the large cut," on Friday, March 4, 1842, which is fully 11 days prior to the installation and constitution of Nauvoo Lodge.

And as Wade Englund has pointed out,

several of the KEP documents (the three Egyptian Alphabets and the Grammar and alphabet of the Egyptian Language), which were presumably written in late summer and fall of 1835, speak of the beginning, creation, Adam, the first man, and the garden

These observations do not in any way mitigate the arguments I made above, so I'm not sure what your point is.

As I said before, the Facsimile explanations were not part of the woodcut. So if Joseph was arranging the writing on the woodcut, it can only have been the figure numbers and/or the hieratic characters. And since there were way more figure numbers on the woodcut than Joseph ever got around to translating, it's pretty clear that the explanation post-dates the woodcut. It was probably a last-minute affair.

I have no problem with Joseph or someone else inserting the "so mote it be" archaic language which was not actually published, but we do not in fact know the source of the phrase, even if it is a reasonable surmise to connect it with Masonry. However, Hyrum already knew the phrase for almost two decades by that time, and it could have been used already in KIrtland. Joseph was never averse to translating using well-known biblical or archaic phrases and allusions.

Given the close proximity of these two uses of the phrase, it would be quite strange if they weren't related. I'm not aware of any usage of this phrase in Mormon circles prior to March 15, 1842. To be honest, I really don't understand why you're resisting this rather trivial point.

We should bring up the extraordinary score Joseph obtained in his correct identifications of Fac 2 only as a corrective to the offhand notion that the whole thing is a fraud based on by-gosh-and-by-golly comparisons made by those with an axe to grind. Why? Because this inordinately influences the rush to judgment which is often accorded to documents which are assumed to be false even before they are examined.

Okay, but that doesn't have anything to do with the present conversation.

[Robert F. Smith]

These observations do not in any way mitigate the arguments I made above, so I'm not sure what your point is.

You probably read too quickly. I actually was agreeing with you and taking the argument you had made just a little further by saying:

"This comports with your statement that"

Quote

By the Kirtland period he had already interpreted the vignette of Adam, Eve, and the serpent in the Garden. So no translation was necessary to for him to conclude that the papyrus contained a creation account.

I actually have some answers for how Joseph got right the few things he did, but I don't see how that has any bearing on when the document was produced or whether the Masonic phrase was Masonic.

As I said before, the Facsimile explanations were not part of the woodcut. So if Joseph was arranging the writing on the woodcut, it can only have been the figure numbers and/or the hieratic characters. And since there were way more figure numbers on the woodcut than Joseph ever got around to translating, it's pretty clear that the explanation post-dates the woodcut. It was probably a last-minute affair.

THe date of the activity is important, and the numbering is not problematic in any way: Joseph was not required to explain every item, and I consider it arbitrary to demand that he do so. You conclusions do not logically follow.

Given the close proximity of these two uses of the phrase, it would be quite strange if they weren't related. I'm not aware of any usage of this phrase in Mormon circles prior to March 15, 1842. To be honest, I really don't understand why you're resisting this rather trivial point.

Once again, you are confusing possibility with certainty. I have no problem with Joseph using the phrase, but I see no reason to suddenly demand that it be from only one immediate source, when Hyrum had been a Mason for years, and we simply do not in fact know which source Joseph used. That's not how real historiography is done. A good historian does not make more out of his sources than is actually there, as though everything is available and known for certain. I don't mind a surmise, but please label it as such and don't press it beyond what is reasonable. Your not knowing of any use of the "phrase in Mormon circles prior to March 15, 1842," is a rather broad assumption about resources from that period.

What I recommend instead is that you arrange a number of such parallels in tabular form with dates so that one can see cumulative evidence. This would suit the needs of Bayesian probability. Now that most 19th century literature is available digitally for comparison,,that might be very helpful.

Okay, but that doesn't have anything to do with the present conversation.

Actually it does, and the reason is that an authentic document raises some very hard questions for those who are dismissive. Just so, in discussion of very difficult to prove (impossible?) claims about the Resurrection, for example, it may be wiser to deal with factors in Holy Writ which are amenable to scientific inquiry, and to extrapolate from conclusions about them.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Chris Smith]

THe date of the activity is important, and the numbering is not problematic in any way: Joseph was not required to explain every item, and I consider it arbitrary to demand that he do so. You conclusions do not logically follow.

Who said anything about it being "problematic"? I just said it indicates that the woodcut was produced before the translation. I'm not "demanding" anything.

Once again, you are confusing possibility with certainty.

Actually, I framed it in terms of probability, not certainty.

I have no problem with Joseph using the phrase, but I see no reason to suddenly demand that it be from only one immediate source, when Hyrum had been a Mason for years, and we simply do not in fact know which source Joseph used. That's not how real historiography is done. A good historian does not make more out of his sources than is actually there, as though everything is available and known for certain. I don't mind a surmise, but please label it as such and don't press it beyond what is reasonable. Your not knowing of any use of the "phrase in Mormon circles prior to March 15, 1842," is a rather broad assumption about resources from that period.

What I recommend instead is that you arrange a number of such parallels in tabular form with dates so that one can see cumulative evidence. This would suit the needs of Bayesian probability. Now that most 19th century literature is available digitally for comparison,,that might be very helpful.

I'm well aware of the perils of parallelomania, Robert. But actually, this is how real historiography is done. I've provided direct evidence that Joseph was exposed to this phrase in the immediate context of his producing the document in question. The phrase is distinctive, and despite Hyrum's long-standing Masonic involvement, we apparently don't have Joseph using the phrase in other contexts prior to his initiation. My argument for where this phrase came from meets all the accepted historiographical criteria.

To assess the difference between your hypothesis and mine, consider this. It is certain that Joseph would have heard the phrase "mote it be" during his Masonic initiation on March 15. We have direct evidence of this. By contrast, you can only show that it's possible the phrase would have been part of his linguistic field prior to that event. Not only do we have no evidence that Joseph even knew the phrase prior to March 15, we also have to consider why the phrase was even on his mind at the time he compiled the Facsimile 2 explanation. It's unlikely that he'd have suddenly decided to use a phrase he'd heard years before, unless something sparked his memory. So again, we're back to his Masonic initiation.

As for listing other parallels so that one can see cumulative evidence, I'm not sure what you mean. Cumulative evidence that Joseph borrowed an idiom?

Actually it does, and the reason is that an authentic document raises some very hard questions for those who are dismissive.

Okay, but I haven't seen any dismissiveness toward the BoA on this thread. The only thing I've been arguing in this thread is that Joseph's use of the phrase "mote it be" in the Facsimile 2 explanation was sparked by his having heard the phrase during his Masonic initiation. This is not, in any way, a critical or dismissive hypothesis. Joseph translated texts into his own language. The phrase "mote it be" was clearly part of his language after his Masonic initiation. Therefore, this does not pose the slightest problem for Mormonism. And if you think I'm trying to use it to attack or dismiss the BoA, then you've badly misunderstood me, and I have no idea how you could have gotten that from anything I've said in this thread.

[Bill Hamblin]

Okay, but I haven't seen any dismissiveness toward the BoA on this thread. The only thing I've been arguing in this thread is that Joseph's use of the phrase "mote it be" in the Facsimile 2 explanation was sparked by his having heard the phrase during his Masonic initiation. This is not, in any way, a critical or dismissive hypothesis. Joseph translated texts into his own language. The phrase "mote it be" was clearly part of his language after his Masonic initiation. Therefore, this does not pose the slightest problem for Mormonism. And if you think I'm trying to use it to attack or dismiss the BoA, then you've badly misunderstood me, and I have no idea how you could have gotten that from anything I've said in this thread.

I like this theory, since it implies that you reject the claims of Mike Reed and Clinton Bartholomew that JS was deeply (and secretly) steeped in Masonic books and lore since he was a teenager, which are reflected in all his revelations. If he'd never heard the phrase "mote it be" before becoming a Mason in Nauvoo, I suspect Reed and Bartholomew's other claims are flatly impossible.

[MormonMason]

I like this theory, since it implies that you reject the claims of Mike Reed and Clinton Bartholomew that JS was deeply (and secretly) steeped in Masonic books and lore since he was a teenager, which are reflected in all his revelations. If he'd never heard the phrase "mote it be" before becoming a Mason in Nauvoo, I suspect Reed and Bartholomew's other claims are flatly impossible.

You know, I think you may well have a good point. If the correct practice of historiography posits this situation then the position of Reed and Bartholomew would seem to become increasingly untenable (even more so than before).

[Chris Smith]

I like this theory, since it implies that you reject the claims of Mike Reed and Clinton Bartholomew that JS was deeply (and secretly) steeped in Masonic books and lore since he was a teenager, which are reflected in all his revelations. If he'd never heard the phrase "mote it be" before becoming a Mason in Nauvoo, I suspect Reed and Bartholomew's other claims are flatly impossible.

I do tend to be much more conservative than some of my colleagues with regard to the supposed Masonic influence in pre-Nauvoo Mormonism. Admittedly, this may just be because I haven't researched the subject in sufficient detail. I certainly remain open to having my mind changed when Joe Swick's book is published. Joe's MHA presentation on the subject seemed impressive, but I won't really know how persuasive it is until I have a hardcopy and can chase down his sources and his reasoning in a detailed way.

[wenglund]

As I said before, the Facsimile explanations were not part of the woodcut. So if Joseph was arranging the writing on the woodcut, it can only have been the figure numbers and/or the hieratic characters. And since there were way more figure numbers on the woodcut than Joseph ever got around to translating, it's pretty clear that the explanation post-dates the woodcut. It was probably a last-minute affair. (emphasis mine)

Given your extensive research of the KEP documents, I would think you would realize that a significant portion the Facsimile explanations were known as early as the fall of 1835.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 2, 2012 by wenglund

[Chris Smith]

Given your extensive research of the KEP documents, I would think you would realize that a significant portion the Facsimile explanations were known as early as the fall of 1835.

Not the written explanations. If you look at the accounts, they're pretty clearly reporting Joseph's verbal explanations of the vignettes. There's also the astronomical material in the GAEL, of course, which was evidently later used in the Facsimile 2 explanation.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Actually, I framed it in terms of probability, not certainty.

Yet this is virtually the position you argue for throughout this thread, as well as below, where you say, "The only thing I've been arguing in this thread is that Joseph's use of the phrase 'mote it be' in the Facsimile 2 explanation was sparked by his having heard the phrase during his Masonic initiation." You do not condition the statement with "probably," or "highly likely."

I'm well aware of the perils of parallelomania, Robert. But actually, this is how real historiography is done. I've provided direct evidence that Joseph was exposed to this phrase in the immediate context of his producing the document in question. The phrase is distinctive, and despite Hyrum's long-standing Masonic involvement, we apparently don't have Joseph using the phrase in other contexts prior to his initiation. My argument for where this phrase came from meets all the accepted historiographical criteria.

An unjustified assertion in light of what we do not in fact know of the period in question. We simply do not have that full or complete a record of language usage in that period, and will not actually know as much as we should until a now possible digital examination is made of early 19th century literature. Good historiographers admit up front how little we actually know, and condition their statements accordingly.

To assess the difference between your hypothesis and mine, consider this. It is certain that Joseph would have heard the phrase "mote it be" during his Masonic initiation on March 15. We have direct evidence of this. By contrast, you can only show that it's possible the phrase would have been part of his linguistic field prior to that event. Not only do we have no evidence that Joseph even knew the phrase prior to March 15, we also have to consider why the phrase was even on his mind at the time he compiled the Facsimile 2 explanation. It's unlikely that he'd have suddenly decided to use a phrase he'd heard years before, unless something sparked his memory. So again, we're back to his Masonic initiation.

Actually, you completely misread me here. I have no hypothesis in opposition to the notion you advance. I am saying that we do not in fact know what actually happened, even if it appears on the surface that Joseph likely used a phrase he heard during a masonic installation. I have no problem with Joseph using the phrase as you allege, but am surprised at how certain you are of facts which cannot be known with such certainly. Had you used appropriate probabalistic language, I might never have pursued the matter.

As for listing other parallels so that one can see cumulative evidence, I'm not sure what you mean. Cumulative evidence that Joseph borrowed an idiom?

You take me too narrowly. I am talking about the full range of circumstantial evidence which can be applied so convincingly in Bayesian probability. Why would you think I'd suggest a chart for one item?

Okay, but I haven't seen any dismissiveness toward the BoA on this thread. The only thing I've been arguing in this thread is that Joseph's use of the phrase "mote it be" in the Facsimile 2 explanation was sparked by his having heard the phrase during his Masonic initiation. This is not, in any way, a critical or dismissive hypothesis. Joseph translated texts into his own language. The phrase "mote it be" was clearly part of his language after his Masonic initiation. Therefore, this does not pose the slightest problem for Mormonism. And if you think I'm trying to use it to attack or dismiss the BoA, then you've badly misunderstood me, and I have no idea how you could have gotten that from anything I've said in this thread.

Sounds good, and I agree for the most part. However, some of the discussion on this thread (including your own comments) have dealt with additional issues. Perhaps only incidental or collateral in your mind, but part of a much broader discussion over time on this board and elsewhere which are indeed dismissive of the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. I am considering it all in the larger context of improper assumptions that the later chapters of the Book of Abraham were translated first only in the Nauvoo period, immediately before publication, and the use of confirmation bias to prove that case.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Chris Smith]

I am considering it all in the larger context of improper assumptions that the later chapters of the Book of Abraham were translated first only in the Nauvoo period, immediately before publication, and the use of confirmation bias to prove that case.

Joseph Smith said he was translating them immediately before publication. How, then, is this an "improper assumption"?

Oh, right, I forgot. Because he might have accidentally confused translation with transcription—not once, but three times, in two separate documents.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Chris Smith

[wenglund]

Not the written explanations. If you look at the accounts, they're pretty clearly reporting Joseph's verbal explanations of the vignettes. There's also the astronomical material in the GAEL, of course, which was evidently later used in the Facsimile 2 explanation.

I don't know that my suggestion can be so cavalierly dismissed. Please keep in mind that virtually all of the explanations for facsimile #1 can be found written in near identical terms in the three 1835 Abraham manuscripts and are explicitly linked to that facsimile. Explanations 3 - 9 read:

3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.

4. The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.

5.The idolatrous god of Elkenah.

6. The idolatrous god of Libnah.

7. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.

8. The idolatrous god of Korash.

9. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh

The 1835 Abraham manuscripts states: "...for their hearts were set to do evil, and were wholly turned to the god of Elkkener and the god of Zibnah and the god of Mahmackrah and the god of Koash and the god of Pharaoh King of Egypt, therefore they turned their hearts to the sacrafice of the heathens, in offering up their Children unto these dum Idols, and hearkened not unto my voice, but endeavoured to take away my life by the hand of the priest of Elkkener....that you might have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation, at the commencement of this record. It was made after the form of a bed-stead such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods, of Elkkener. Zibnah Mahmachrah and also, a god like unto that of Pharaoh King of Egypt that you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fas sion of them, in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos." (see HERE--emphasis mine)

Perhaps tomorrow I will post a similar comparison between Facsimile #2 and various explanations in the GAEL.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-