The Real Scoop On The Book Of Abraham

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Look at the document I gave a link to above, and then you may have an answer.

Thank you for the link. It is an interesting theory, but it would seem to add additional complexities - I'll have to spend some time digesting.

[DBMormon]

I find it confusing too and I feel that apologists have addressed most issues fairly well, but I think there are still major problems explaining the facsimiles (especially number 3). No one really seems to come up with a good explanation as to why Joseph Smith got these so wrong. Joseph was very specific in identifying the exact Egyptian characters in the facsimiles and they are all wrong.

It also still states in the preface to the Book of Abraham:

And there are numerous statements made by Joseph Smith and other contemporaries regarding this. Here's just one by Wilford Woodruff:

We now know the papyri was not written by the hand of Abraham (the dates are completely off too for that).

But, I think the facsimiles are a huge problem to explain away.

Could you say your book of mormon was written by the hand of Mormon even though it is only a copy of such. could the papyri be explained in this way?

[DBMormon]

Put simply, critics believe the evidence indicates that Joseph Smith thought he was translating some ancient papyrus that contained the Book of Abraham when it was really just a common Egyptian funeral text.

I think the best example of the critics argument is found in the facsimiles. Joseph Smith said certain writing on the facsimile means certain things and it doesn't. Also, Joseph Smith "restored" the text on facsimile 2 in a clumsy and incoherent manner. Apologists have argued that a couple of Joseph's interpretations of the facsimiles could be correct, but haven't responded to most of the critics arguments.

Not the issue. The church concedes as much. I am more concerned with why the followup responses by apologists is perceived to fall short on this issue.

Edited February 21, 2013 by DBMormon

[ALarson]

Could you say your book of mormon was written by the hand of Mormon even though it is only a copy of such. could the papyri be explained in this way?

You "could" say anything that works for you. That doesn't work for me though. When you have to get into this type of thinking, I just have to wonder why it's necessary and why didn't Joseph just speak plainly. Why leave it for us to have to try to come up with convoluted explanations like this?

[wenglund]

Do you have a good link that summarizes the accepted apolgetic response?

No, I don't...and that is because, as previously indicated, the debate is ever evolving and changing and complex, with a broad spectrum of opinions held by each side--some more informed and well reasoned than others.

To me, the biggest mistake people make at each point in the evolution is to assume that debate on the issue is over. Some of the things that were once viewed as nails in the BoA coffin, have since been found to support the verity of the BoA. Stay tuned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

You "could" say anything that works for you. That doesn't work for me though. When you have to get into this type of thinking, I just have to wonder why it's necessary and why didn't Joseph just speak plainly. Why leave it for us to have to try to come up with convoluted explanations like this?

You ask a question, and I will give you the answer. You may not like it but here goes:

Why are you demanding that someone spoon feed you? Did you

actually get past the fifth grade, where the teacher does all the thinking for you.

Hopefully that gave you a grownup answer to a childish question. Give it some thought. Someday you may thank me.

Edited February 21, 2013 by cdowis

[DBMormon]

Is there a book or article that explains this topic thoroughly without being overly biased? is there a way for a layman like me to get a grasp of it?

By the way, I always thought it would be awesome to have a book written on the top 15 issues with both a synopsis and pro and con of oth sides so one could better grasp the issues. Sadly this is one of the few I really have no grasp of outside the basics

Edited February 21, 2013 by DBMormon

[volgadon]

Not the issue. The church concedes as much. I am more concerned with why the followup responses by apologists is perceived to fall short on this issue.

It takes two to tango. What I mean is that someone rejecting an answer doesn't necessarily reflect on the answer's validity. There is a simple, logical explanation for"by his own hand," yet it is dismissed out of hand.

[ERayR]

Not the issue. The church concedes as much. I am more concerned with why the followup responses by apologists fall short on this issue.

Any response will be sufficient or insufficient depending on the mindset of the one receiving the response. It is not the fault of the response but the strength of the biases of the recipient that determine acceptance or rejection.

[Fifth Columnist]

Correct translation, according to what paradigm and expectations of translation?

The paradigm that the original is the same text but only in a different language. I actually have documents translated all the time and not once has the translator given me a document that didn't match the underlying document in content.

Again, its already established that they are not egyptological, and the paradigm and expectations of the critics demand that that is an open and shut case. Since apologists contend that Joseph Smith was not making an egyptological translation to begin with, then the only open and shut case is that the critics are applying the incorrect paradigm and have the wrong expectations, and it is anything but being that simple. In other words, once the actual correct paradigm and expectations are discovered, then the prophet is vindicated, and the critics fall on their face for being overconfident and dismissive. In fact, a wrong paradigm and the wrong expectations will in the end be the stumbling block that led them to reject the truth. And they will be eternally regretful for it.

Yeah, what you said ... or ... Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet (like thousands of other alleged prophets). Occam's razor definitely sides with the latter.

[ERayR]

Is there a book or article that explains this topic thoroughly without being overly biased? is there a way for a layman like me to get a grasp of it?

By the way, I always thought it would be awesome to have a book written on the top 15 issues with both a synopsis and pro and con of oth sides so one could better grasp the issues. Sadly this is one of the few I really have no grasp of outside the basics

I don't think it possible. Every one has biases and what we do is influenced by them.

Who decides what the top 15 issues are?

[ERayR]

The paradigm that the original is the same text but only in a different language. I actually have documents translated all the time and not once has the translator given me a document that didn't match the underlying document in content.

Yeah, what you said ... or ... Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet (like thousands of other alleged prophets). Occam's razor definitely sides with the latter.

Not really.

[Fifth Columnist]

I have read a lot of material produced by all sides and I am left confused. Of course, I am confused by string theory but this does not cause me to reject physics as a discipline. BoA is very complex and understanding the arguments requires a degree of expertise that I do not poses. I was thinking just last night, while watching some of the videos from Mormon Challenges to start this very topic so thanks for starting it. Can I suggest that we start with questions around facsimile #3?

The complexity is entirely an invention of apologists to help people maintain belief. It really isn't that complex. Compare Joseph Smith's interpretations of the Egyptian text in the facsimiles to what the Egyptian text really means. They don't match. Next translate the papyrus we currently have. It also doesn't match anything in the Book of Abraham. So far, it's pretty simple - Joseph Smith had no idea what the Egyptian writing meant and just made up the translation (I'm fairly certain Joseph Smith *thought* he was receiving revelation).

The complexity comes when apologists try to counter this simple historical story. Things get really complicated, really fast with cipher theories, pneumonic devices, blame the scribes, missing scrolls, double-entendres, appropriate paradigms and expectations, etc., etc.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Fifth Columnist

[Kevin Christensen]

Is there a book or article that explains this topic thoroughly without being overly biased? is there a way for a layman like me to get a grasp of it?

By the way, I always thought it would be awesome to have a book written on the top 15 issues with both a synopsis and pro and con of both sides so one could better grasp the issues. Sadly this is one of the few I really have no grasp of outside the basics

Try the FAIR Wiki

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham_papyri/FAQ

Personally, I've read way too much to take seriously the "sound bite" version of the story, which makes everything closed, firm, and settled, leaves a naive person with the impression that there is nothing interesting or impressive about the Book of Abraham.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PS

[volgadon]

The complexity is entirely an invention of apologists to help people maintain belief. It really isn't that complex. Compare Joseph Smith's interpretations of the Egyptian text in the facsimiles to what the Egyptian text really means. They don't match. Next translate the papyrus we currently have. It also doesn't match anything in the Book of Abraham. So far, it's pretty simple - Joseph Smith had no idea what the Egyptian writing meant and just made up the translation (I'm fairly certain Joseph Smith *thought* he was receiving revelation).

The complexity comes when apologists try to counter this simple historical story. Things get really complicated, really fast with cipher theories, pneumonic devices, blame the scribes, missing scrolls, double-entendres, appropriate paradigms and expectations, etc., etc.

Simplicity does not necessarily equal truth.

[JohnShultz]

The complexity is entirely an invention of apologists to help people maintain belief. It really isn't that complex. Compare Joseph Smith's interpretations of the Egyptian text in the facsimiles to what the Egyptian text really means. They don't match. Next translate the papyrus we currently have. It also doesn't match anything in the Book of Abraham. So far, it's pretty simple - Joseph Smith had no idea what the Egyptian writing meant and just made up the translation (I'm fairly certain Joseph Smith *thought* he was receiving revelation).

The complexity comes when apologists try to counter this simple historical story. Things get really complicated, really fast with cipher theories, pneumonic devices, blame the scribes, missing scrolls, double-entendres, etc., etc.

The complexity introduced by the Galilean moment in Catholicism led to correct understanding of Cosmology. As did the complexity introduced by the standard model of quantum physics. The simple understandings favored by occam's razor prior to those understandings did nothing to establish truth of that which preceded them.

[volgadon]

The complexity is entirely an invention of apologists to help people maintain belief. It really isn't that complex. Compare Joseph Smith's interpretations of the Egyptian text in the facsimiles to what the Egyptian text really means. They don't match. Next translate the papyrus we currently have. It also doesn't match anything in the Book of Abraham. So far, it's pretty simple - Joseph Smith had no idea what the Egyptian writing meant and just made up the translation (I'm fairly certain Joseph Smith *thought* he was receiving revelation).

The complexity comes when apologists try to counter this simple historical story. Things get really complicated, really fast with cipher theories, pneumonic devices, blame the scribes, missing scrolls, double-entendres, appropriate paradigms and expectations, etc., etc.

One can also state that you are over-simplifying things.

[Darren10]

Here is the core evidence manifested by the work of critics. Any acceptable apologetic for the Book of Abraham must concede these points and do these things:

(1) Joseph Smith is absolutely responsible for everything in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

(2) The Kirtland Egyptian Papers show Joseph Smith's translation efforts on the Sensen Papyrus, which is the Egyptian Original for Abrahamic material that Joseph Smith translated in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, just as the explanations for the Facsimiles show Abrahamic translations of those facsimiles.

(3) Joseph Smith's translations are not standard Egyptological Translations (not even in the Facsimile explanations either), so it must be explained what they are, and not dodge them. And that explanation must still uphold logic and reason.

(4) Mormons must TAKE OWNERSHIP of Joseph Smith's translation of the Sensen Papyrus in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, just as much as they own the Facsimile explanations. They must defend them, not dodge around them.

The Book of Abraham Project (BOAP) makes an excellent case that the Kirtland Papers were NOT Joseph Smth's, nor, by the way, are the surviving Egyptian papyri the ones used by Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Abraham. This is all based on first hand accounts of Joseph Smith's labors.

http://www.boap.org/...tary-on-BOA.pdf

As for the facsimilies you *must* read, The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources. This is a brilliant essay which outlines the histoicity of how Semitic people used Egyptian material to tell Semitic stories. Thus, to an Egyptologist, the facsimilies will look like a typical Egyptian story but if a Semite had possession opf these original papyri, than he could have used it to tell an authentic story of Abraham. And, as mormonchallenges" correctly assert, much of the story of Abraham which has been unique to the Book of Abraham in that they are absent from the Bible can now be collaborated by external stories about Abraham. That's not something you can simply ignore.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Darren10

[wayfarer]

Reading through all your posts...I'm simply in a different place. The Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the Papyrus, although Joseph Smith thought it did. While I would like to think that it is a revealed text, there are so many anomalies in it that I find it hard to accept as revelation.

To me, it falls way short of the inspired prophetic work of the Book of Mormon or the Book of Moses. It introduces concepts such as the priesthood exclusion and a suspect concept of individualizing/instantiating the universal 'intelligence', creates a strict linear hierarchy inconsistent with other scripture, and creates numerous doctrinal challenges. It is a speculative, fanciful work, essentially unworthy of being called "scripture" today given what we now know of the provenance of the papyrus. It is the work of a man. This is what I feel about it, my spiritual insight in it, and my testimony of it -- I don't expect anyone else to agree.

[volgadon]

To me, it falls way short of the inspired prophetic work of the Book of Mormon or the Book of Moses. It introduces concepts such as the priesthood exclusion and a suspect concept of individualizing/instantiating the universal 'intelligence', creates a strict linear hierarchy inconsistent with other scripture, and creates numerous doctrinal challenges. It is a speculative, fanciful work, essentially unworthy of being called "scripture" today given what we now know of the provenance of the papyrus. It is the work of a man. This is what I feel about it, my spiritual insight in it, and my testimony of it -- I don't expect anyone else to agree.

You have got to be kidding. The BoA ranks right up there with any of our scriptures, inferior to none. The closer I read it, the more I am impressed that such is the case.

[wenglund]

The complexity is entirely an invention of apologists to help people maintain belief. It really isn't that complex. Compare Joseph Smith's interpretations of the Egyptian text in the facsimiles to what the Egyptian text really means. They don't match.

The notion that the issue is simple, is propaganda employed by those wishing to diminish people's beliefs. It invites a superficial and limited and selective examination of the evidence in a way that may obscure rich layers of countervailing information. One need simply observe a college English class discussing the meaning of a poem written in their own language to realize from the variety of opinions just how complex and diverse interpretations can be. Then add to this the next layer where translation from a foreign language and culture is involved, to see how more complex even a short bit of literature can be.

See....both sides can engage in dismissive banter, though such dismissals tend to impede rather than advance the discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Darren10]

SeekingUnderstanding;

I honestly do not know much about facsimile #3 but here's a great post by Jeff Lindsey regarding facsimile #2, figure 6. This is an example of how Joseph Smith was once criticized of "getting it all wrong" but it turns out he very well may have been uniquely correct.

Can You Spare Four Quarters for an Old Apologist?

And I appreciate your sharing your enthusiasm for the text of the Book of Abraham. I too am very inspired by it despite what the critics say. It truly is of divine origin.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Darren10

[JohnShultz]

The Book of Abraham Project (BOAP) makes an excellent case that the Kirtland Papers were NOT Joseph Smth's, nor, by the way, are the surviving Egyptian papyri the ones used by Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Abraham. This is all based on first hand accounts of Joseph Smith's labors.

http://www.boap.org/...tary-on-BOA.pdf

As for the facsimilies you *must* read, The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources. This is a brilliant essay which outlines the histoicity of how Semitic people used Egyptian material to tell Semitic stories. Thus, to an Egyptologist, the facsimilies will look like a typical Egyptian story but if a Semite had possession opf these original papyri, than he could have used it to tell an authentic story of Abraham. And, as mormonchallenges" correctly assert, much of the story of Abraham which has been unique to the Book of Abraham in that they are absent from the Bible can now be collaborated by external stories about Abraham. That's not something you can simply ignore.

See, here we go again. All based on accounts of Joseph Smith's labors by people making claims of this or that. That is all Missing-Papyri-Theory and Scribes-Did-It theory advocates consistently resort to. They never resort to the actual physical evidence of the papyrus itself, or in the KEP itself. It is absolutely impossible for them to accept a proposition that Joseph Smith is responsible, because they don't want to have to defend the KEP. And that is why the critics will continue to have the upper hand in the argument.

[JohnShultz]

The Book of Abraham Project (BOAP) makes an excellent case that the Kirtland Papers were NOT Joseph Smth's, nor, by the way, are the surviving Egyptian papyri the ones used by Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Abraham. This is all based on first hand accounts of Joseph Smith's labors.

http://www.boap.org/...tary-on-BOA.pdf

As for the facsimilies you *must* read, The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources. This is a brilliant essay which outlines the histoicity of how Semitic people used Egyptian material to tell Semitic stories. Thus, to an Egyptologist, the facsimilies will look like a typical Egyptian story but if a Semite had possession opf these original papyri, than he could have used it to tell an authentic story of Abraham. And, as mormonchallenges" correctly assert, much of the story of Abraham which has been unique to the Book of Abraham in that they are absent from the Bible can now be collaborated by external stories about Abraham. That's not something you can simply ignore.

Oh, and by the way, what about Semitic Adaptation of an existing source called the text in the Sensen Papyrus, not just the facsimiles. That is the fundamental flaw in the whole argument for semitic adaptation. Because Barney is willing to propose that for the facsimiles for adaptation. But people will not accept the idea that the KEP itself represents adaptation of an existing source called the Sensen TEXT. That is Goble's whole argument in the link that I provided of his Dual Entendre theory. He takes scholars to task for suggesting iconotropy for the facsimiles but for rejecting iconotropy for the ideograms in the text.

[Darren10]

To me, it falls way short of the inspired prophetic work of the Book of Mormon or the Book of Moses. It introduces concepts such as the priesthood exclusion and a suspect concept of individualizing/instantiating the universal 'intelligence', creates a strict linear hierarchy inconsistent with other scripture, and creates numerous doctrinal challenges. It is a speculative, fanciful work, essentially unworthy of being called "scripture" today given what we now know of the provenance of the papyrus. It is the work of a man. This is what I feel about it, my spiritual insight in it, and my testimony of it -- I don't expect anyone else to agree.

Here's some questions for you: a) what priesthood exclusion beyond those of Abraham and the Abrahamic covenant? b) what's in error of universal intelligences? c) how is the Father being Supreme NOT a heirarchy? ("And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the ^aearth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou ^bbelievest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired." - 1 Nephi 11:6) d) what "doctrinal changes" does the Book of Abraham make?

Edited February 21, 2013 by Darren10