Book Of Abraham Critiques: Requesting Your Opinion

[TruthSeeker2013]

Thanks MormonMason, I agree that it's important to remember that there are new discoveries being made all the time and things that were previously thought to be anachronistic are now seen seen as historically plausible. I think this is one of the most important things to be recognized when considering BOA (or any church historical) issues.

[crixus]

Robert Smith said:

The Egyptian grammar effort of Joseph and his brethren (his scribes wrote nearly all of it) was an attempt to create either a translation key, or to create a cipher key. In fact, William Phelps had already begun working on ciphers before the mummies and papyri arrived in Kirtland. The effort was an obvious failure, and died aborning (they gave up without finishing it).

You say this as a matter of fact. Can you point to any official LDS pronouncement describing the Grammar project as a "cipher key"? How does your last remark jive with the fact that Joseph Smith indicated many years later that he wanted to continue with the project? This view that the project was an abject failure and so it was abandoned, is a baseless assumption, but one that must be adopted by the "cipher key" theorists because the theory itself is nonsensical (why would Joseph Smith want to encrypt revelations he was about to publish anyway?)

I think Brian Hauglid has it right when he says we should take the project on its own terms. It claims to be an Alphabet and Grammar of the Egyptian language. So why not just accept that?

Revelation may provide a translation, but it does not teach one how to read Egyptian.

Google Translator doesn't teach languages either, but it is a tool to translate. Like the tool of "revelation," the end product is still considered a translation from one language to another.

Other issues intrude to make it unlikely that Joseph in fact thought the Sensen text was the Book of Abraham

That's a bold claim given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Do you have any evidence to back it up?

[Calm]

I think Brian Hauglid has it right when he says we should take the project on its own terms.

CFR please.

[exmormonatheistofutah]

Was the basis that blacks couldnt have the priesthood originated in Abraham 1:27. It states the Pharoah could not have the priesthood because of his lineage. In vs. 22 It states that all of the Egyptians of the time were descended from Noah's son, Ham. Ham had taken a wife named Egyptus, who apparently was descended from Cain, according to Bruce R. McConkie. It is from their children that the black "Hamites" originated. The problem is that human evolutionary geneticists have determined that The human race had originated from "Hamites" in Africa, whith the exception of all non African races having 4% of their DNA inhereted from homo Neanderthalensis.

[exmormonatheistofutah]

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Ancient_Egyptians

Also, according to skeletal studies, the ancient Egyptians were "overwhelmingly caucasoid" not hamites, as the Book of Abriham declares in ch1 vs 22.

[crixus]

CFR please.

Neither Brian Hauglid nor David Bokovoy accept the cipher theory. You can google it, there was some controversy about this some years ago. Anything I link will probably be removed because of where it originates. I can't think of a single LDS authority, or even LDS scholar, who has gone on record saying they believe the cipher theory best explains the Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet. Can you?

[exmormonatheistofutah]

But in this article:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic

It states that the descendants of Ham were caucasoid, and not black descendents of Cain, as McConkie stated.

[Calm]

Anything I link will probably be removed because of where it originates.

And you can't think of another place you could find the same info?

I have looked up a number of sites, all they include are second and thirdhand and possibly more extended reports of what Brian Hauglid's position is. Hauglid's material itself is really the only information of value to answer this cfr, it seems to me. What appears to be the best secondhand info from Blair through the FAIR podcast interview, the comment is that Hauglid doesn't see the cipher theory as the "final say".I didn't find anything about your paraphrase about taking it on its own terms so my cfr still stands, please.

Edited June 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It is word of God translated by the "Priesthood After The Holy Order Of The Son Of God". End of story. There does seem to be common tread as of late...keep the "Church True" wI,II throwing Joseph under a bus.

[exmormonatheistofutah]

http://ahayahyashiya.blogspot.com/2013/02/negroes-are-not-hamite.html

So perhaps the Book of Abraham contains an anachonism based on Talmudic misunderstanding that the negroid race was "hamitic" along with the Egyptians, both being descended from Cain and to be presided over by the descendant of Hams brothers.

[crixus]

And you can't think of another place you could find the same info?

I have looked up a number of sites, all they include are second and thirdhand and possibly more extended reports of what Brian Hauglid's position is. Hauglid's material itself is really the only information of value to answer this cfr, it seems to me.

Google some of the links that derive from this forum. Hauglid parted ways with Schryver on this issue, and Schryver participated in some of these threads, never denying that this was true. You can also google the fair podcast by Blair Hodges where, in the comments section, people start wondering why Hauglid never mentioned the cipher theory. Or you could just as easily email him yourself. Isn't this guy a regular contact by the FAIR folks who also run this forum?

Either way, since you're only looking at published comments, can you provide a list of publications that mention the cipher theory at all? Thanks.

Edited June 10, 2013 by crixus

[Calm]

I am not asking about the cipher theory, I am asking about the statement you said Hauglid made where "he says we should take the project on its own terms". I would like to know the context of those comments to see if he adds details to them to show what he means so I can understand his approach better.

Are you saying now this is not a statement he actually made? That he only made a statement dismissing the cipher theory? That claim isn't new news to me and doesn't interest me in the littlest.

Edited June 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

I don't know the whys, but my mission president related that he was present at a sacrament meeting with the first presidency and quorum of the twelve where one of the apostles got the wording wrong, yet president Hinckley approved it.

I'm sorry you had to go through that.

I was in a sacrament meeting once where a new, slightly older, member had reading issues and botched the prayer a couple of times. The person presiding approved the third, still incorrect, attempt. They later helped the member memorise both prayers to avoid the reading issue.

[mfbukowski]

I was in a sacrament meeting once where a new, slightly older, member had reading issues and botched the prayer a couple of times. The person presiding approved the third, still incorrect, attempt. They later helped the member memorise both prayers to avoid the reading issue.

In the temple, we are counseled to correct a patron once in saying what is required in an ordinance, and if they are still getting it wrong, to let it go.

If that is the standard in the temple, I would think it would be good enough for a sacrament meeting.

[crixus]

I am not asking about the cipher theory, I am asking about the statement you said Hauglid made where "he says we should take the project on its own terms". I would like to know the context of those comments to see if he adds details to them to show what he means so I can understand his approach better.

Are you saying now this is not a statement he actually made? That he only made a statement dismissing the cipher theory? That claim isn't new news to me and doesn't interest me in the littlest.

It is a statement he made. If you need confirmation I suggest you email him. But why would you need Hauglid to agree with what is a basic principle in scholarship? There is no valid reason to believe Joseph Smith's Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet was intended to be anything else. It was clearly intended to be an Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet. This is what the document says of itself. This is what the historical references call it. This is how the authors described it. The document refers to direct "translations" from Egyptian to English.

So why should anyone assume it was something completely different?

[Calm]

It is a statement he made. If you need confirmation I suggest you email him.

I don't need confirmation, I need context. I want to hear the discussion he gave along with it.

If he made the statement and you are aware of it, you must be aware of where he made it. How about at least giving me that information?

Don't assume an argument just because someone asks for a cfr.

[crixus]

I already explained that the original discussion is on a forum that would likely be removed if I posted it. The best form of primary research is getting it from the Horse's mouth so to speak. Brian is a really nice guy and open to any questions.

[Calm]

Then just send the name of the forum and the thread in a pm. I did a google and can't find it and I'd rather not bother him when the info is already out there. He is avery nice guy which is why I don't want to bother him.

[Chronos]

Neither Brian Hauglid nor David Bokovoy accept the cipher theory. You can google it, there was some controversy about this some years ago. Anything I link will probably be removed because of where it originates. I can't think of a single LDS authority, or even LDS scholar, who has gone on record saying they believe the cipher theory best explains the Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet. Can you?

Rules are "back it or redact it". You can't make an assertion then put the burden of proof on someone else.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is a statement he made. If you need confirmation I suggest you email him. But why would you need Hauglid to agree with what is a basic principle in scholarship? There is no valid reason to believe Joseph Smith's Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet was intended to be anything else. It was clearly intended to be an Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet. This is what the document says of itself. This is what the historical references call it. This is how the authors described it. The document refers to direct "translations" from Egyptian to English.

So why should anyone assume it was something completely different?

How do you deal with WW Phelps using some of the exact phrases that he used in a letter some months before they even had the papyri that are on teh EAG? I like your story but it seems to be just that. I think there are a whole host of reason for believing that the EAG is something totally different than you just described. I also THink that Will did a great job in showing that the EAG was dependant on pre-existing text. Can you deal with that argument? So far no one has. Edited June 11, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Calm]

How do you deal with WW Phelps using some of the exact phrases that he used in a letter some months before they even had the papyri that are on teh EAG?

This has me curious as well.

[Wiki Wonka]

Off the top of my head, Facsimile 1 has some striking "bulls-eyes" in Joseph Smith's favor, such as the canopic jars representing the earth in its four quarters, the lotus symbol in Fac. 1 & 3 plausibly being a chosen symbol for "Abraham in Egypt," an angel being represented as a hawk, a ritual sacrifice instead of an embalming scene (critics had long claimed that the embalmer should have had an Anubis mask on, and Joseph changed it, but there are pictures from Nauvoo showing that the human head is how it was, making this version of the lion couch scene unique). Also, the priest is between Abraham and the couch, instead of behind it, and the man on the couch has his hands raised in prayer and one foot lifted up in the air. This particular sacrifice had the specific purpose of aleviating drought conditions, which the BoA text gives as the purpose, and the text also describes this as connected with the god Shagreel. Shigre (Shigre-el around Syria-Turkey-northern Iraq) was actually the name for Sirius (the dog star), and it was believed that Sirius controlled the sun's power --- hence, sacrifices to placate Sirius (we still call August, our hottest month, the "dog days").

I actually believe that the head of the priest was Anubis. There is evidence of a portion of Anubis' headdress in the surviving portion of Facsimile 1. However, it doesn't really matter because Joseph identified him as a priest - and that is what he is. I think that the Ruben Hedlock or Joseph likely simply copied the head of the figure on the couch and placed it on the priest.

However....there is some evidence of glue on the backing paper in the area that is missing. The missing area is critical, because not only does it include the head of the priest, but the object being held in the priest's hand.

There are some unique things in this facsimile however. The moving legs, anklets and clothing indicate that this individual on the lion couch was alive. I believe that this is typically used to represent the resurrection of the individual on the couch (Osiris?). And, if I recall correctly, the lotus flower does not usually appear in this scene. Finally, those marks at the top are clearly the fingers of both hands, not a second bird. If I recall correctly, the crocodile doesn't usually appear in this scene (although I may be wrong on that).

You can see the high-resolution detail regarding Anubis' headdress and the fingers in Facsimile 1 here:

• The Charles Larson "restoration" of Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 in "...by his own hand upon papyrus"—The book "...by his own hand upon papyrus" presents a "restoration" of Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 (p. 65), which purports to be "based upon the modern study of Egyptology, and similar scenes in numerous existing papyri." However, the recent availability of high-definition images of the papyri on the Church History website now provides the opportunity to compare the Larson restoration with the original. There are a number of discrepancies which indicate that the restoration contains a number of significant inaccuracies. We examine those inaccuracies in this article.
  

[Calm]

There are some unique things in this facsimile however.

MormonMason, who has been absent for a time...hope everything is okay with him, went into some detail on the unique attributes of the facsimile, including how in the original the priest's legs were in front of the couch but between the legs of the other one and the couch, thus making it appear as if the shoulders of the other are on the couch but the legs off, perhaps indicating a struggle.

Did you catch the thread where he posted this info with some good photos? I can look for it for you if not.

Edited June 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[crixus]

How do you deal with WW Phelps using some of the exact phrases that he used in a letter some months before they even had the papyri that are on teh EAG?

"Back it or redact it"? Or does that rule only apply to non-believers posting on this forum? I've been bombarded with one unsupported assertion after another for days while being called ignorant and foolish for merely forming an opinion around the facts I've presented.

And Phelp's letter to his wife derives from previous revelation by Joseph Smith. But then, you'd never know that if you relied strictly on Will's presentation.

I like your story but it seems to be just that. I think there are a whole host of reason for believing that the EAG is something totally different than you just described.

If there are a "whole host" then you should be able to name a few of them. So far all I have heard is cipher theory.

I also THink that Will did a great job in showing that the EAG was dependant on pre-existing text. Can you deal with that argument? So far no one has.

That argument was refuted shortly after it was presented when George Miller, Christopher Smith and Xander took him to the woodshed. This happened on this forum, so I'm sure you're aware of it.

[Calm]

And Phelp's letter to his wife derives from previous revelation by Joseph Smith.

This is new to me, can you either post the info or point me toward where I can read about it. Thank you.

Was it in the thread that George Miller participated in?

Edited June 11, 2013 by calmoriah