Change To The Explanation For The Book Of Abraham

[Sky]

1981:

The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois. See History of the Church, vol. 4, pp. 519-534.

2013:

The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois.

Any ideas as to what this could possibly mean? Is this a significant change, or simply a slight change in wording?

[mfbukowski]

Significant change. Clearly the notion of a translation of the papyri "containing the writings of the patriarch Abraham" was deleted.

I don't think it was deleted because someone didn't feel like going through the effort of typing the rest of the sentence.

[altersteve]

Interesting.

[Helen47]

Maybe the catalyst theory has won/ No need for the "missing papyri" theory, The worki of Gee, Cook and Smith will no longer be relevant

[Tacenda]

Maybe the catalyst theory has won/ No need for the "missing papyri" theory, The worki of Gee, Cook and Smith will no longer be relevant

That's what I thought. How must they feel?

[williamsmith]

Seems to me to simply be making more clear that the BOA came by revelation, and that the actual physical source isn't actually known.

After all it's not. There never was the same kind of "these documents/plates are the BOA", like there was for the BOM.

Clearly simply making things more accurate according to the actual known facts, not promoting one theory over another.

[canard78]

My DW snorted when I mentioned the change. "So the church is trying to whitewash more of its history?"

To me, I see at as just one more step towards making a little room for those who don't accept some of the literal claims of the foundational events of the church.

It means those who feel the Egyptian papyri contained none of the actual writings of Abraham have more room to believe they were a muse for an inspired commentary on the meaning of life and eternal nature of our spirits

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe the catalyst theory has won/ No need for the "missing papyri" theory, The worki of Gee, Cook and Smith will no longer be relevant

Not at all.

The change in wording avoids binding the Latter-day Saints to belief in one theory or another. There is still room for private consideration -- and even embracing -- of the works of those scholars who you mention, so long as their theories are not propounded as the official position of the Church..

Edited March 2, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

My DW snorted when I mentioned the change. "So the church is trying to whitewash more of its history?"

To me, I see at as just one more step towards making a little room for those who don't accept some of the literal claims of the foundational events of the church.

It means those who feel the Egyptian papyri contained none of the actual writings of Abraham have more room to believe they were a muse for an inspired commentary on the meaning of life and eternal nature of our spirits

I think you're both wrong.

Definitely not a "whitewash." On the contrary, it is a far more accurate statement.

But I see nothing here that supports, sustains or even tolerates the notion that the Book of Abraham is anything other than what it purports to be: a translation of ancient writings by the prophet Abraham.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

I think you're both wrong.

Definitely not a "whitewash." On the contrary, it is a far more accurate statement.

So when you say "more accurate" do you actually mean "more ambiguous"? Do you feel the previous statement and the portion that changed ("A translation from some Egyptian papyri") was "less accurate" or perhaps even "inaccurate?"

(Can a statement be "partly accurate" and therefore "more" or "less" accurate? A statement that is accurate is "correct in all details" or "conforming exactly to truth." So the statement might now be "accurate" - but that means the old statement was "inaccurate". Here's a statement: "I am an English man." Accurate. I am a man and I am English. How about this: "I am a French man." Is that partly accurate or inaccurate? I am not French, but I am a man. Some might say it's partly accurate and only saying "I am a French woman" would be inaccurate as I am neither French nor a woman. But given "accurate" should mean "conforming exactly to the truth," perhaps there is no "more" or "less" about it. Are both the second and third statements simply "inaccurate.")

But I see nothing here that supports, sustains or even tolerates the notion that the Book of Abraham is anything other than what it purports to be: a translation of ancient writings by the prophet Abraham.

Maybe... but I don't have to believe the writings of the prophet Abraham were anywhere on the actual papyrus if I only take the new statement as the basis for the book's origins.

Having said that... as much as some people (perhaps myself included) are celebrating this as a "game changer" there is still the statement in the Book of Abraham itself:

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

I presume Joseph made that statement, but would happily stand corrected. So if the changed statement (taking out the reference to a translation of papyrus) is less accurate than the new one... where does that leave the statement that says the book actually is a translation of the Egyptian papyrus?

[Scott Lloyd]

So when you say "more accurate" do you actually mean "more ambiguous"?

I mean that it more closely reflects the position of the Church, which appears to be that it cannot presently be known whether the book of Abraham was translated directly from the papyri (or a portion thereof) or in some other way.,

Do you feel the previous statement and the portion that changed ("A translation from some Egyptian papyri") was "less accurate" or perhaps even "inaccurate?"

See above.

(Can a statement be "partly accurate" and therefore "more" or "less" accurate? A statement that is accurate is "correct in all details" or "conforming exactly to truth." So the statement might now be "accurate" - but that means the old statement was "inaccurate". Here's a statement: "I am an English man." Accurate. I am a man and I am English. How about this: "I am a French man." Is that partly accurate or inaccurate? I am not French, but I am a man. Some might say it's partly accurate and only saying "I am a French woman" would be inaccurate as I am neither French nor a woman. But given "accurate" should mean "conforming exactly to the truth," perhaps there is no "more" or "less" about it. Are both the second and third statements simply "inaccurate.")

Some portions of a statement can be accurate and other portions not. Thus, taken as a whole, a statement can have degrees of accuracy.

Maybe... but I don't have to believe the writings of the prophet Abraham were anywhere on the actual papyrus if I only take the new statement as the basis for the book's origins.

True. But you are not free to propound y our belief (or disbelief, if you will) as the official position of the Church, which, it would seem, takes no position on this question.

Having said that... as much as some people (perhaps myself included) are celebrating this as a "game changer" there is still the statement in the Book of Abraham itself:

I don't think it's much of a game changer. People may still hold whichever theory they like regarding whether the book was translated from the papyri and not be out of harmony with the position of the Church. That's pretty much how it was before.

I presume Joseph made that statement, but would happily stand corrected. So if the changed statement (taking out the reference to a translation of papyrus) is less accurate than the new one... where does that leave the statement that says the book actually is a translation of the Egyptian papyrus?

I understand that, in accordance with accepted clerical practices of the day, Joseph's scribes and clerks often wrote things in his behalf, attributing them to him and expressing them in the first person.

So I don't know whether or not Joseph actually uttered that statement. I don't know whether that can be known at present.

Bottom line: With the re-wording, I think the Church is being as careful as possible to be truthful with what knowledge can be had at present. Thus, it is unfair to call it a "whitewash."

[Senator]

Seems to me to simply be making more clear that the BOA came by revelation, and that the actual physical source isn't actually known.

Do we not have the source papyrus from which the facsimilies were lifted that are a part of the canon of Abraham?

[Tacenda]

So when you say "more accurate" do you actually mean "more ambiguous"?

I mean that it more closely reflects the position of the Church, which appears to be that it cannot presently be known whether the book of Abraham was translated directly from the papyri (or a portion thereof) or in some other way.,

Do you feel the previous statement and the portion that changed ("A translation from some Egyptian papyri") was "less accurate" or perhaps even "inaccurate?"

See above.

(Can a statement be "partly accurate" and therefore "more" or "less" accurate? A statement that is accurate is "correct in all details" or "conforming exactly to truth." So the statement might now be "accurate" - but that means the old statement was "inaccurate". Here's a statement: "I am an English man." Accurate. I am a man and I am English. How about this: "I am a French man." Is that partly accurate or inaccurate? I am not French, but I am a man. Some might say it's partly accurate and only saying "I am a French woman" would be inaccurate as I am neither French nor a woman. But given "accurate" should mean "conforming exactly to the truth," perhaps there is no "more" or "less" about it. Are both the second and third statements simply "inaccurate.")

Some portions of a statement can be accurate and other portions not. Thus, taken as a whole, a statement can have degrees of accuracy.

Maybe... but I don't have to believe the writings of the prophet Abraham were anywhere on the actual papyrus if I only take the new statement as the basis for the book's origins.

True. But you are not free to propound y our belief (or disbelief, if you will) as the official position of the Church, which, it would seem, takes no position on this question.

Having said that... as much as some people (perhaps myself included) are celebrating this as a "game changer" there is still the statement in the Book of Abraham itself:

I don't think it's much of a game changer. People may still hold whichever theory they like regarding whether the book was translated from the papyri and not be out of harmony with the position of the Church. That's pretty much how it was before.

I presume Joseph made that statement, but would happily stand corrected. So if the changed statement (taking out the reference to a translation of papyrus) is less accurate than the new one... where does that leave the statement that says the book actually is a translation of the Egyptian papyrus?

I understand that, in accordance with accepted clerical practices of the day, Joseph's scribes and clerks often wrote things in his behalf, attributing them to him and expressing them in the first person.

So I don't know whether or not Joseph actually uttered that statement. I don't know whether that can be known at present.

Bottom line: With the re-wording, I think the Church is being as careful as possible to be truthful with what knowledge can be had at present. Thus, it is unfair to call it a "whitewash."

For years now I've read the different views of apologetics try to prove that the papyrI had something to do with Abraham and have watched Youtubes. How frustrating it must be that with the new heading it brushed that work away. Yesterday I listened to the Youtube of Mormon Challenges again. Where he was saying the bird was an angel. But according to Egyptologists it was the soul of the dead person. Because as is said, the papyri is a book of breathings. So now what's going to happen to this logic that the bird is an angel? I'm glad the church wants to be truthful but feel in this case it's where it might not be useful for some that have worked so tirelessly to prove it is what JS said it was. OTH, now the apologists who defended it being the actual papyri story can now rest from their labors.

[rpn]

I don't understand why they left the headnote to the book of abraham the same, but did change the introduction to acknowledge that while we may have believed for a long time (or at least at one time) that the Book of Abraham came directly from the papyri the JS received, we can no longer prove it and therefore we ought not to claim what we don't actually know.

[William Schryver]

Seems to me to simply be making more clear that the BOA came by revelation, and that the actual physical source isn't actually known.

After all it's not. There never was the same kind of "these documents/plates are the BOA", like there was for the BOM.

Clearly simply making things more accurate according to the actual known facts, not promoting one theory over another.

Exactly.

Not that anyone listens to me, but I've been promoting this course of action since the autumn of 2006. It conforms to what we do and don't know about the production of the Book of Abraham.

[mapman]

By the way, the KEP and Egyptian papyri were added to the Joseph Smith Papers website yesterday.

[David T]

Didn't the original head note to the BoA text in the t&s say the document was 'purporting to be the writings of Abraham'?

[Rivers]

Do we not have the source papyrus from which the facsimilies were lifted that are a part of the canon of Abraham?

I think we only have the source papyrus for facsimile 1. The writings connected to that facsimile have nothing to do with Abraham.

[canard78]

I sometimes find it a little unnerving when we take refuge behind "we simply don't know." Especially when in previous years a church leader has apparently known.

Don't our leaders get direct revelation anymore? How much was this change influenced by scholars rather than instruction from the heavens?

[Sky]

I sometimes find it a little unnerving when we take refuge behind "we simply don't know." Especially when in previous years a church leader has apparently known.

Don't our leaders get direct revelation anymore? How much was this change influenced by scholars rather than instruction from the heavens?

All that changed was about two sentences in the explanation for the Book of Abraham, presumably to be more accurate. That some scholars may have played a role doesn't mean our leaders don't get revelation.

This is an example of how every time the Church changes something, it is damned, but when it doesn't change, it is damned nonetheless.

[cinepro]

While I applaud this change, it should be noted that the introduction by Joseph Smith is still there before Chapter 1:

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr?lang=eng

It will take a lot of stones to change that. Baby steps, I guess.

Maybe the catalyst theory has won/ No need for the "missing papyri" theory, The worki of Gee, Cook and Smith will no longer be relevant

What do you mean "no longer be"....?

[David T]

Just double checked. JS's title said '...purporting to be the writings of Abraham.' The 'purporting' was eventually removed. In other words, the original header stated the translation text presented itself as the writings of Abraham. It allows for an inspired pseudepigrapha

Edited March 3, 2013 by David T

[omni]

All that changed was about two sentences in the explanation for the Book of Abraham, presumably to be more accurate. That some scholars may have played a role doesn't mean our leaders don't get revelation.

This is an example of how every time the Church changes something, it is damned, but when it doesn't change, it is damned nonetheless.

Perhaps if they would just get it right the first time there wouldn't be so much skepticism. I think many will see this as just another example in a long line of attempts at backtracking once cultural norms have changed or scientific evidence has challenged what we previously "knew". If we believe God communes with the prophets, why does he allow them to be so wrong for so long? When the correction does come, it is usually a murky subtle change (BoA, American Indians as principle inhabitants), or a "we don't know" (blacks and the priesthood, polygamy) or the church no longer has an official position (evolution).

Edited March 3, 2013 by omni

[Robert F. Smith]

Maybe the catalyst theory has won/ No need for the "missing papyri" theory, The worki of Gee, Cook and Smith will no longer be relevant

Possibly. However, it may also be true that no significant change has in fact taken place. Headings are interpretations, not part of the scriptural canon. They come and go according to the POV of certain committee members.

[Scott Lloyd]

For years now I've read the different views of apologetics try to prove that the papyrI had something to do with Abraham and have watched Youtubes. How frustrating it must be that with the new heading it brushed that work away. Yesterday I listened to the Youtube of Mormon Challenges again. Where he was saying the bird was an angel. But according to Egyptologists it was the soul of the dead person. Because as is said, the papyri is a book of breathings. So now what's going to happen to this logic that the bird is an angel? I'm glad the church wants to be truthful but feel in this case it's where it might not be useful for some that have worked so tirelessly to prove it is what JS said it was. OTH, now the apologists who defended it being the actual papyri story can now rest from their labors.

You quoted my post, but it appears you didn't comprehend it, assuming you even read it. I strongly disagree that the new header "brushed that work away." The new header is not at all inconsistent with their theories. It merely leaves the question open.

And I think it important to reiterate here that the new wording in no way vindicates those who claim the Book of Abraham is not a translation of ancient writing.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd