The Real Scoop On The Book Of Abraham

[wenglund]

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.

I appreciate you inadvertently underscoring my points in posts 19 and 30.

To me, the good news in all of this is, that while criticisms of the BoA have led some people out of the Church and others to view it as not of God, and as with criticisms of the Book of Mormon, it has motivated some of us to read the scriptures less cavalierly and superficially, and instead to dig long and hard and deep into the content and means of delivery, which in turn has yielded a wealth of edify treasures that may have been left relatively hidden from us had there been no criticism. Where the criticisms have caused some to dismiss the BoA as uninspiring, it has opened to others magnificent vistas of spiritual horizons.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rongo]

Here is a question for those who think it's obvious that the BoA has no bearing on what the Egyptian really says. And, it's a question that is a separate matter from accuracy and scholarly Egyptological explanations:

How do you explain the glaringly obvious parallels between the Apocalypse and Testament of Abraham and material in the BoA and Book of Moses? Hugh Nibley gives a good side-by-side comparison in "Abraham in Egypt," and Jeff Bradshaw's presentation at the 2009 German FAIR Conference was an expansion on this. The parallels scream "Joseph Smith clearly plagiarized the BoA from the AoA and ToA," except neither was available until the 1860s (in German), and the first English translation was in the 1890s (in the Improvement Era, by two German missionaries translating Bonwetch's German translation).

Completely separate from squabbles over current Egyptology theory is the fact that there are numerous amazing bullseyes in the English text of the BoA itself (regardless of whether this gells with Egyptological renderings of the papyri), many of which clearly tap into authentic extra-biblical Abraham traditions that were completely unavailable to *anyone* in Joseph Smith's time.

[wenglund]

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.

I appreciate you inadvertently demonstrating that the bark of dogmatist can be as annoying and counterproductive coming from friends as it is from enemies. I'm sorry, but in some respects you are woefully uninformed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 21, 2013 by wenglund

[ALarson]

Can I suggest that we start with questions around facsimile #3?

Here are a few of the problems.

Joseph Smith very specifically identified the Egyptian characters in facsimile #3:

- For his explanation of figure 2, Joseph states that it was "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head." But, we now know that those characters above his head actually say: "The great Isis, mother of the god."

- In Joseph's explanation for figure 4, he writes: "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand." But, what is actually written above the hand is: "Ma'at, Lady of the West."

- In the explanation for figure 5 he states: "Shulem, one of the King's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand." But then what is actually written above his hand is "Osiris Hor, the justified forever."

I'm sure you can see the pattern here.

Edited February 21, 2013 by ALarson

[JohnShultz]

I appreciate you inadvertently demonstrating that the bark of dogmatist can be as annoying and counterproductive coming from friends as it is from enemies. I'm sorry, but you are woefully uninformed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My dear sir, I must insist respectfully that it is you that represent the uninformed one. And the only dogmatists out there are Missing Papyri theory advocates, because "everybody knows" that the papyri is missing.

[JohnShultz]

Here are a few of the problems.

Joseph Smith very specifically identified the Egyptian characters in facsimile #3:

- For his explanation of figure 2, Joseph states that it was "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head." But, we now know that those characters above his head actually say: "The great Isis, mother of the god."

- In Joseph's explanation for figure 4, he writes: "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand." But, what is actually written above the hand is: "Ma'at, Lady of the West."

- In the explanation for figure 5 he states: "Shulem, one of the King's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand." But then what is actually written above his hand is "Osiris Hor, the justified forever."

I'm sure you can see the pattern here.

A pattern, incidentally that is a problem solved by Semitic adaptation (iconotropy) of characters in the text, not just pictures in facsimiles.

[wenglund]

My dear sir, I must insist respectfully that it is you that represent the uninformed one. And the only dogmatists out there are Missing Papyri theory advocates, because "everybody knows" that the papyri is missing.

I'm not the one adamantly dismissing opposing or differing views. You are. Doing so is the very definition of dogmatism. I haven't even taken a specific position, let alone a cemented position, one way or the other. I am determined to remain open to various points of view until all the facts are in. That way, I position myself to still learn and avoid jumping prematurely and uninformedly to the wrong conclusion. There is textual-critical evidence (some of which I came across in the last several days) suggesting that Phelps may have initiated and even led the production of a large portion of the KEP--the EA's and GAEL and counting documents in particular, whether you are aware of it or not. This is in addition to a wealth of other data I have long been aware of supporting the same.

I can respect that you may favor Gobel's opinion, and though I may not share your conviction, I even invite you to purport it here. However, the discussion isn't well served by summarily dismissing alternative views. Just saying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JohnShultz]

I'm not the one adamantly dismissing opposing or differing views. You are. Doing so is the very definition of dogmatism. I haven't even taken a specific position, let alone a cemented position, one way or the other. I am determined to remain open to various points of view until all the facts are in. That way, I position myself to still learn and avoid jumping prematurely and uninformedly to the wrong conclusion. There is textual-critical evidence (some of which I came across in the last several days) suggesting that Phelps may have initiated and even led the production of a large portion of the KEP--the EA's and GAEL and counting documents in particular, whether you are aware of it or not. This is in addition to a wealth of other data I have long been aware of supporting the same.

I can respect that you may favor Gobel's opinion, and though I may not share your conviction, I even invite you to purport it here. However, the discussion isn't well served by summarily dismissing alternative views. Just saying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You sure read a lot into a few words and judge intent by those few words. If anyone is jumping to conclusions about another person's convictions, I would say it is probably you sir.

Nobody, including critics would ever suggest that there are not missing portions of the papyrus. The most key portions, however, to ascertain intent in the translation process by physical evidence, are not missing. And whatever missing portions there may be are neither here nor there for ascertaining what characters represent the story of Abraham that is left over on the papyrus. And apologists have deliberately avoided to an extreme of even resorting to dishonesty to one degree or another to having to concede that the text itself represents the Book of Abraham text in any form or fashion. Please don't treat me like I'm stupid because I'm extremely well read on this subject, and I am stating facts as have been distilled from evidence in those readings rather than resorting to hearsay from historical accounts of people that were passers-by or so and so that had some vague recollection of something.

[JohnShultz]

I'm not the one adamantly dismissing opposing or differing views. You are. Doing so is the very definition of dogmatism. I haven't even taken a specific position, let alone a cemented position, one way or the other. I am determined to remain open to various points of view until all the facts are in. That way, I position myself to still learn and avoid jumping prematurely and uninformedly to the wrong conclusion. There is textual-critical evidence (some of which I came across in the last several days) suggesting that Phelps may have initiated and even led the production of a large portion of the KEP--the EA's and GAEL and counting documents in particular, whether you are aware of it or not. This is in addition to a wealth of other data I have long been aware of supporting the same.

I can respect that you may favor Gobel's opinion, and though I may not share your conviction, I even invite you to purport it here. However, the discussion isn't well served by summarily dismissing alternative views. Just saying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And again, whether something is penned in Phelp's hand only proves once again that he is a scribe, since that is all it ever proved from anyone else that ever wrote from Smith, in his dictations of things from the Book of Mormon to the Doctrine and Covenants. It doesn't prove that he was mastermind of anything. And that is just yet another tactic of Scribes-did-it theory advocates to assert that Phelphs is responsible and not Smith.

[Kevin Christensen]

If someone claims to be a prophet who can translate ancient languages then fails to correctly translate a document written in an ancient, then that person is not really a prophet. It's pretty simple.

If you actually bother to define what makes a prophet a prophet, and how a person ought to go about identifying one, things do get much more interesting and complex.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

The FAIR Wiki links can lead serious enquirers into some of the more interesting aspects of the Book of Abraham.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Did you ever study Will Shcryver's FAIR presentation in 2010? I think he makes a compeling case that the KEP is not JS project. He might have been involved with the KEP but it seems he was not the one incharge of it. I will need to take a look at your article.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not the one adamantly dismissing opposing or differing views. You are. Doing so is the very definition of dogmatism. I haven't even taken a specific position, let alone a cemented position, one way or the other. I am determined to remain open to various points of view until all the facts are in. That way, I position myself to still learn and avoid jumping prematurely and uninformedly to the wrong conclusion. There is textual-critical evidence (some of which I came across in the last several days) suggesting that Phelps may have initiated and even led the production of a large portion of the KEP--the EA's and GAEL and counting documents in particular, whether you are aware of it or not. This is in addition to a wealth of other data I have long been aware of supporting the same.

I can respect that you may favor Gobel's opinion, and though I may not share your conviction, I even invite you to purport it here. However, the discussion isn't well served by summarily dismissing alternative views. Just saying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not that I am aware of what you uncovered recently, this is the position I am leaning towards.

[CA Steve]

Here is a question for those who think it's obvious that the BoA has no bearing on what the Egyptian really says. And, it's a question that is a separate matter from accuracy and scholarly Egyptological explanations:

How do you explain the glaringly obvious parallels between the Apocalypse and Testament of Abraham and material in the BoA and Book of Moses? Hugh Nibley gives a good side-by-side comparison in "Abraham in Egypt," and Jeff Bradshaw's presentation at the 2009 German FAIR Conference was an expansion on this. The parallels scream "Joseph Smith clearly plagiarized the BoA from the AoA and ToA," except neither was available until the 1860s (in German), and the first English translation was in the 1890s (in the Improvement Era, by two German missionaries translating Bonwetch's German translation).

Completely separate from squabbles over current Egyptology theory is the fact that there are numerous amazing bullseyes in the English text of the BoA itself (regardless of whether this gells with Egyptological renderings of the papyri), many of which clearly tap into authentic extra-biblical Abraham traditions that were completely unavailable to *anyone* in Joseph Smith's time.

Here is Chris Smith's response to your first question.

Comparrisons of The Apocraphy of Abraham to the Book of Abraham

By Chris Smith

Quote:

In Hugh Nibley's book Abraham in Egypt (p. 21), he quotes the first-century pseudepigraphon The Apocalypse of Abraham in connection with the Book of Abraham's teaching about a council of pre-mortal spirits. In the Apocalypse, Abraham looks down from the sixth firmament and sees a picture of the earth spread out below him.

Apocalypse of Abraham wrote:

And I said, "O Eternal, Mighty One! What is this vision and picture of the creatures?" And He said to me, "This is my will for those who exist in the divine world-counsel, for thus it seemed well-pleasing in my sight, and so afterwards I gave commandment to them through my word. And so it came to pass that whatever I had determined to be, was already planned beforehand in this picture-vision before you, and it has stood before me before it was created, as you have seen."

It is understandable that readers with an LDS theological lens would see a pre-mortal council of spirits planning the creation here, but that is not what the author of the Apocalypse intended. The word "counsel" here refers not to a gathering of spirits, but to a plan or design-- a sort of "blueprint" for creation. In Middle Platonic philosophy, the material world was a shadow or derivative of the world of "forms"-- ideal, spiritual versions of material things. Philo, the great first-century Hellenistic Jewish theologian, interpreted Genesis 1 and 2 in light of this Platonic doctrine, so that Genesis 1 was understood as an ideal creation (Platonic forms) and Genesis 2 was understood as a material creation. The Jewish doctrine of pre-existence appears to have grown out of a similar application of Platonic philosophy to Jewish ideas. So read in the context of Hellenistic Judaism, the "world-counsel" in the Apocalypse of Abraham appears to be the Platonic world of forms.

So yes, like Philo, the Apocalypse of Abraham envisions a pre-creation creation. And yes, this is similar to Joseph Smith's cosmology in the Books of Moses and Abraham, which used a similar strategy to resolve the same contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2. But the Apocalypse of Abraham includes no "council" in which the spirits participate in planning and creating the earth.

These was an episode of Pinky and the Brain where they create "Chia Earth": a duplicate of the planet Earth created out of paper mache. They then convince all the humans to come over to Chia Earth to get free t-shirts, so they will be left to rule the real planet earth all by themselves. (In the end, the real planet earth gets destroyed and they vow to spend the night planning for the next day's attempt to take over Chia Earth. I love Pinky and the Brain.) I think Chia Earth thing makes a good analogy for what Abraham is looking at in the Apocalypse of Abraham. God makes it pretty clear that this isn't the material earth. Rather, it's the ideal plan after which the "paper mache," material earth will be patterned. It's a sandbox, where God figures out exactly what course he wants history to take prior to actualizing it in the material world. So He says of the vision, "This is my will for those who exist in the (divine) world-counsel... And it came to pass whatever I had determined to be, was already planned beforehand in this (picture), and it stood before me ere it was created, as thou hast seen."

This is actually a pretty deterministic vision of history. God explains, "Those who are on the left side are all those, born before your day and afterwards, some destined for judgment and restoration, and others for vengeance and cutting off at the end of the age. But those on the right side of the picture, they are the people who have been set apart for me, and whom I have ordained to be born of your line and called my people, even some of those who derive from Azazel." James Dunn considered election (i.e. determinism) such an integral part of 1st-century Judaism that he made it one of "four pillars of second temple Judaism". Arguably this is comparable to the Book of Abraham, where God says of some of the spirits, "These I will make my rulers." But the people of the Apocalypse of Abraham's world of forms don't appear to be premortal spirits or members of a divine council; they exist only as ideas in the mind of God, so any comparison will be somewhat strained. I also don't think Joseph Smith would have agreed with anything approaching determinism, however much he may have approved of fore-ordination.

In the Apocalypse, God explains that after creating his world-counsel he "gave commandment to them through my word." Basically what this means is that after God created his world of forms and decided he liked the way it had turned out, he "commanded" it into material being. The Apocalypse of Abraham expresses the Jewish understanding that God created the world through his "word", or logos: this, too, is good Middle Platonic doctrine.

So-- are there some parallels between the theology of the apocalypse and that of the Book of Abraham? There are a few, but the basic philosophical assumptions from which they spring are really quite different, perhaps even incompatible.

In sum, here's my view: Like the Jewish pseudepigraphers, Joseph Smith was an innovative interpreter of the Bible. By playing on obscure biblical texts, he developed a sophisticated hierarchy of beings, both spiritual and physical, and he rewrote the flow of salvation history. And like the Jewish pseudepigraphers, he gave his ideas added credibility by writing them into the biblical narratives and putting them in the mouths of figures like John, Moses, and Abraham. Joseph Smith noticed some of the same peculiarities in the biblical texts that Jewish pseudepigraphers had picked up on, and tried to explain them in similar ways. It is a credit to Joseph Smith that he so often reinvented interpretations that had historically been suggested by Jewish interpreters (even though in most of these cases he and they were equally wrong).

I'm convinced that the broad similarity of Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham to the Apocalypse of Abraham only demonstrates how timeless is this project of biblical revision, and how similar are the efforts of two imaginative, conservative interpreters trying to interpret the same obscure or contradictory biblical texts. I don't think there is anything in the Book of Abraham that makes it more at home in either 2000 BC or the first-century A.D. than in the 19th-century.

I'll just add that I find it intriguing that the apologists are willing to compare the Book of Abraham to fraudulent, Hellenized texts of the first century AD, which expanded upon biblical texts about Abraham some 2000 years after he lived. This doesn't seem like a propitious comparison for the Book of Abraham's authenticity. I suppose it's possible that some authentic, extra-biblical tradition about Abraham survived all that time to be recorded in the pseudepigrapha, but it's so vanishingly unlikely that it's hard to take this comparison as an indication of anything but that great religion-makers think alike.

[rongo]

Here is Chris Smith's response to your first question.

Wow. He doesn't even come close to covering the depth and breadth of the parallels. I have to go to the dentist and then go do cub scouts tonight, but I'll definitely try and post the comparisons in the next few days if I can.

If that's Chris Smith's best response to that, that in itself is telling.

So-- are there some parallels between the theology of the apocalypse and that of the Book of Abraham? There are a few

That's why I brought it up ---- people who like to bring up Egyptological arguments are caught flat-footed when faced with the English text of the BoA (completely separate from how Joseph Smith came up with it).

And, it's not the "theology" that's the thing --- it's the details that would scream "Plagiarism!" if it were remotely possible for Joseph Smith to have had access to the sources.

[CA Steve]

Here is a question for those who think it's obvious that the BoA has no bearing on what the Egyptian really says. And, it's a question that is a separate matter from accuracy and scholarly Egyptological explanations:

How do you explain the glaringly obvious parallels between the Apocalypse and Testament of Abraham and material in the BoA and Book of Moses? Hugh Nibley gives a good side-by-side comparison in "Abraham in Egypt," and Jeff Bradshaw's presentation at the 2009 German FAIR Conference was an expansion on this. The parallels scream "Joseph Smith clearly plagiarized the BoA from the AoA and ToA," except neither was available until the 1860s (in German), and the first English translation was in the 1890s (in the Improvement Era, by two German missionaries translating Bonwetch's German translation).

Completely separate from squabbles over current Egyptology theory is the fact that there are numerous amazing bullseyes in the English text of the BoA itself (regardless of whether this gells with Egyptological renderings of the papyri), many of which clearly tap into authentic extra-biblical Abraham traditions that were completely unavailable to *anyone* in Joseph Smith's time.

The Antiquities of Freemasonry was published in 1823 and show how many of those traditions were available to people in Joseph's time. Here are just some of the similarities.

Enoch:

Enoch holds a significant place in Oliver’s masonry, just as he does in Joseph Smith’s theology. Enoch is

said to have built an undergound temple dedicated to the living God in which he placed a plate of gold .

“On this plate he engraved the ineffable characters seen in his vision.”

Abraham:

Oliver fills in many details of the Abraham story that are reminiscent of the version recounted in The Pearl

of Great Price (NOTE: many of these details can also be found in the writings of Josephus, with which

Joseph Smith was also familiar):

● Raised among the Chaldeans.

● His parents were idolaters. He called on them to renounce their worship of idols.

● He was treated to “every species of persecution”

● His contemporaries attempted to sacrifice him (by fire)

● “His knowledge of astronomy enabled him to take a correct survey of the celestial system.”

● He restored true worship with the purity of Masonry” (priesthood).

● He visited Egypt

● He taught astronomy to the Egyptians

● He “saw the day of Christ and was glad”

Familiar phrases and concepts:

● The title page illustration depicts three realms or degrees: the sun, the moon and the stars.

● Masonry was revealed to Adam and transmitted from one person to another through the ages

● “circumscribed”

● “ritual mysteries that were sacredly withheld from all who were not initiated”

● Apostasy occurred when the pure masonry was perverted

● Inspired prophets brought about dispensations by restoring pure masonry through “revealed truth”

● Masonry existed before the creation of the earth

● Many worlds created for the “residence of intelligent beings.”

● Holy scripture to be written after the “apostasy of man.”

● “Pre-existent worlds...sons of God.”

● “There existed also another order of beings before the world was created...expelled from the

society of heaven for disobedience.”

● “The angels who kept their first estate.”

● “plants and trees sprung up, in all their beauty and all their variety”

● “two great luminaries to rule...the sun and moon”

● “beasts of every kind”

● “advancing to celestial perfection.”

● “eternal life and ever-increasing happiness... and man would assuredly become equally powerful

with God himself.”

● “signs and tokens”

● “sacred assemblies”

● “King, priest and prophet”

● “keep their passion within compass”

● “the power of the priesthood”

● “until we arrive at a perfect knowledge of the truth.”

● “celestial and terrestrial bodies”

● “taught that the gods they worshipped had been mere mortals like themselves.”

● “...state of happiness or misery, to be determined by the deeds done in this probationary state.”

● “the union of Judah and Israel by joining together two sticks.”

● “square and compass point out the sacred source of his faith and the rectitude of his practice.”

● “Joseph gave them the right hand of fellowship.”

● Jethro gave Moses his “education for the priesthood.”

● God gave Moses a “new sign and token.”

● Referring to the true name of God: “He is called Elohim.”

● “The darkness was so thick and palpable that artificial lights could not penetrate it...for the space

of three days.”

● “The Five Points of Fellowship.”

● “Fine twined linen.”

● “the two grand luminaries the sun and the moon, for as the former rules the day and that latter the

night...”

● “The tabernacle was said to be an emblem of the three worlds, the terrestrial, the celestial and

the angelic.”

● “The Urim and Thummim signify perfect lights and hence the information derived from their use

Edited February 21, 2013 by CA Steve

[Darren10]

John Shultz;

Good grief you are insistant. I will read your link but if you can provide for me now wexactly what physical evidence shows Joseph Smith's own hand created the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, I'd appreciate that as well. For the time being I'm hangin' with the chumps who stick their head in the sand and am going to watch some YouTube FAIR Conference presentation regarding answering the critics of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Then , time permiting, I'll start reading your link.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers/Further_Reading

[Brian 2.0]

Are there any non-LDS Egyptologists that believe that any of the fragments of our papyri that we have now are in any way connected to Abraham or his story?

If it's "semetic adaptation" (something I just learned from this thread) are their non-LDS experts that deal with that and can see the connection?

[JohnShultz]

Did you ever study Will Shcryver's FAIR presentation in 2010? I think he makes a compeling case that the KEP is not JS project. He might have been involved with the KEP but it seems he was not the one incharge of it. I will need to take a look at your article.

Its not my article. It's Goble's article.

Will Schryver's cipher theory is just an extension of the missing papyrus theory dressed up in new clothes. It's a strategy to still steer away from the idea that Joseph Smith was responsible for the KEP. That is why John Gee used his muscle to push it through and back it, because it upholds his position of the Missing Papyrus theory. It's somewhat plausible, but I disagree with it. And it actually has some things in common with Goble's theory inasmuch that Goble says that iconotropy was applied to the papyrus anciently the way Barney does, but applies iconotropy to the characters of the text also. That is essentially kind of a similar idea because Schryver has someone like Phelphs assigning meaning to characters in the modern day, while Goble has someone assigning meaning to characters anciently and Joseph Smith receiving revelation on those meanings assigned by the person doing the semitic adaptation.

[JohnShultz]

John Shultz;

Good grief you are insistant. I will read your link but if you can provide for me now wexactly what physical evidence shows Joseph Smith's own hand created the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, I'd appreciate that as well. For the time being I'm hangin' with the chumps who stick their head in the sand and am going to watch some YouTube FAIR Conference presentation regarding answering the critics of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Then , time permiting, I'll start reading your link.

http://en.fairmormon...Further_Reading

Well, I don't care if you do read it. That's up to you. I know what I believe, and if you want to know what I believe, then read it. If you don't, then don't. For starter's Joseph Smith's handwriting is present in the Egyptian Alphabet/Grammar sections, and the rest is done by his scribes. Nobody would ever suggest that because Joseph Smith's scribes wrote most of the Book of Mormon manuscripts, that Oliver Cowdery was the one that translated it. Neither would they suggest that other people were responsible for Joseph Smith's revelations in the D&C because they are written in someone else's hand. Yet, in this one case, the whole Scribes-did-it theory hangs on the fact that the apologists MUST insist that Joseph Smith's scribes were monkeying around, and not writing what was dictated to them. They do this without any other reason than it is an article of faith of their ideology that they MUST divorce Joseph Smith from responsibility for the KEP at all costs. The KEP, to them, is expendable, because if they can get rid of the KEP from the equation, they can assert there is a missing papyrus, and therefore, they can divorce the physical evidence for the translation process from the Book of Abraham itself. Rather than solving the problem, they evade the problem. Rather than providing good explanations that harmonize with evidence to uphold faith, they use sophistry to insist on an implausible pile of goo to uphold faith, and expect everybody without a measure of critical thought to buy it, while those that do have a measure of critical thought apostatize over it.

[Brian 2.0]

For me the issue of the BoA (and a lot of other things) comes down to probabilites. The apologist have outlined ways it could have happened and still have been inspired scripture. The problem I have with those explanations is that they seem to have a very low probability. That's not to say that they can't be correct. But I have often been told "look at this apologetic reasoning for it. It's obvious." or "There are mountains of evidence showing that Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about when looking at the facsimiles." They talk to me like it's painfully obvious and that I'm overlooking all this evidence to choose disbelief in the BoA. They argue that even without spiritual witness, the facts show it's authenticity.

If that's true, then where are all the non-LDS believers of it as having something to do with Abraham? I beg to say they don't believe because the apologetic arguments, while possible, have a low probability when compared to other explanations.

Faith and spiritual witness can be used to claim belief in something even when that something is a lower probability that other higher probability options. And I think believers should just own up to that, instead of claiming their belief is actually more probable than the critic's answers, and that the critics are just blind to the evidence that supports the apologists lower probability options.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Damien the Leper]

Is the Book of Abraham a direct translation of the papyri or not? If not, then the papyri should mean nothing to the Book of Abraham. If JS was inspired to write the Book of Abraham then that's fine but a translation has to be a real translation of what the text actually says. It should be translated accurately. An Egyptian Book of the Dead is a far cry from what the Book of Abraham is.

I am not qualified to debate or discuss the theology of the Book of Abraham especially since i have only had the patience to read it twice. But that says more about me than it.

[cinepro]

The new mormonchallenges.org site has several videos of an "expert" explaining why we should not write off Joseph as a fraud.

If you're referring to Kerry Muhlestein, why the quotes on "expert"? Were you quoting something off the website, or do you doubt his credentials?

[William Schryver]

The new mormonchallenges.org site has several videos of an "expert" explaining why we should not write off Joseph as a fraud. Personally I see the explanations and I have plenty of room for faith. The problem is many do not see this "expert"'s thoughts as credible and that it misses the real issues.

Could someone who disbelieves the divinity of the Book of Abraham please explain in Layman's terms what the real issues are and why apologetics does not address them?

I simply want to better understand this issue but from a place where both sides have a say.

I understand the issue generally but have no more then a surface understanding of the arguments and the response.

Whether or not one is persuaded by the various hypotheses I propose therein, I believe the video version of my 2010 FAIR Conference presentation constitutes an excellent resource for everyone in that I provide many excellent images and basic explanations of the collection of documents known as The Kirtland Egyptian Papers. In Part 1 I spend 10 minutes or so, right at the start, giving basic descriptions of the various documents in the KEP, accompanied by high-resolution color images. I think anyone -- believer, apologist, doubter, or critic -- who is a little unclear on what is meant by some of the terminology being thrown around in this discussion, and who desires to learn just a little more about these things, would be well-served by watching at least the first ten minutes or so of Part 1. I designed that part to be a completely "non-partisan" description of this fascinating collection of documents -- most of which date to the 1835-1836 period in Kirtland, Ohio.*

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers - Part 1

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers - Part 2

* = Although most of the material is in the handwriting of William Wines Phelps, there is one entire document in the handwriting of Joseph Smith, and another similar document in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery. I feel genuinely blessed to have twice had the opportunity to visit the Church History Library, don pretty little white gloves and, for several hours, closely examine the Kirtland Egyptian Papers collection, and also the Joseph Smith Papyri, which date to the Greco/Roman period in Egypt. On the second occasion, I was part of a small team that performed hundreds of precision measurements of the papyri.

I also had a curious experience while examining the Egyptian Alphabet documents. Perhaps it was "just my imagination, once again, running away with me," but as I held those sheets of 175-year-old foolscap in my hands, which the Prophet Joseph Smith had once held and upon which he had also written, with his hands, I was swept by a very peculiar and profound, but ultimately fleeting sensation; as though a conduit to the past had opened up and I was able to reach through, as it were, and touch the touch that had once pressed those pages.

We live in an age of type where nothing but font choice lends variety or personality to the so-called "written" word. We hardly ever take pen to hand anymore. The art of penmanship will, I fear, never recover. The vocation of scribe ("Schryver"), once honored, is now a relic of history, along with the samurai. The gun and the keyboard have proven mightier than both the sword and the pen. As surely as John Moses Browning et al. killed the samurai, the advent of digital word processing will deprive future generations of the unique connection to the past that only a handwritten document can provide.

Edited February 21, 2013 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

You sure read a lot into a few words and judge intent by those few words. If anyone is jumping to conclusions about another person's convictions, I would say it is probably you sir.

Nobody, including critics would ever suggest that there are not missing portions of the papyrus. The most key portions, however, to ascertain intent in the translation process by physical evidence, are not missing. And whatever missing portions there may be are neither here nor there for ascertaining what characters represent the story of Abraham that is left over on the papyrus. And apologists have deliberately avoided to an extreme of even resorting to dishonesty to one degree or another to having to concede that the text itself represents the Book of Abraham text in any form or fashion. Please don't treat me like I'm stupid because I'm extremely well read on this subject, and I am stating facts as have been distilled from evidence in those readings rather than resorting to hearsay from historical accounts of people that were passers-by or so and so that had some vague recollection of something.

First of all, I intentionally used tempering language like " may" so as to leave room for alternatives and not solidly jump to conclusions. You have done otherwise.

Second, I am not treating you like you are stupid. I am treating you like someone who is making dogmatic and dismissive statements that clearly aren't entirely informed and that impede reasoned and open discussion.

Third, while you are certainly free to conclude, from the evidence you have well read, what you believe to be the intent of the translation and which characters were translated, you inadvertantly do the discussion a disservice by dogmatically asserting your position and dismissing those that disagree with you. You need to learn how to go from pontificating and lecturing to having a reasoned and mutually respectful and open-minded discussion.

Fourth, you are conflating facts with strong opinion derived from facts--which is the very essence of dogmatism.

If you want your point of view to be respected, you can't do that by disrespecting and dismissing other people's opinions and closed-mindedly assuming that since you think a certain way, it may be the only acceptable way of thinking,

In other words, in all your reading, try getting a clue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

If JS was inspired to write the Book of Abraham then that's fine but a translation has to be a real translation of what the text actually says.

If only we had the source text for the Book of Abraham, and were able to decipher it, we would be able to assess the relative accuracy of Joseph Smith's translation.

Edited February 21, 2013 by William Schryver