Abraham And New D&c Seminary Student Manual

[David T]

Since the old thread was locked, I think I'd point out something cool. While previous notes were on the teacher's manual for D&C and Church History, the Student Manual is now available. There's material in the student version I didn't note in the teacher's lesson concerning the Book of Abraham. It appears that the student manual goes into far more candid detail than the teacher's manual on this point. Frankly, far more candid than any material we've seen before! I Think this gives some hints as to what we will see with the eventual Book of Abraham Gospel Topics entry.

 

First, the new teacher's manual:

 

Teacher's Manual:

Some have wondered how the Prophet translated the ancient writings. Explain that “the Prophet Joseph Smith never communicated his method of translating these records. As with all other scriptures, a testimony of the truthfulness of these writings is primarily a matter of faith. The greatest evidence of the truthfulness of the book of Abraham is not found in an analysis of physical evidence nor historical background, but in prayerful consideration of its content and power” (The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual, 28). Although we do not know the exact method Joseph Smith used to translate the writings, we do know that he translated the book of Abraham by the gift and power of God.

 

Alright? Now, the new Student Manual:

 

Student/Home Study Manual:

Some have wondered how the Prophet translated the ancient writings. Joseph Smith never communicated his method of translating these records, but he translated these writings by the gift and power of God. The Church, scholars, and historians continue to seek to better understand the origins of this book. As with all other scriptures, the greatest means of gaining a testimony of the truthfulness of the book of Abraham is through prayerful study of the book itself. For more information, go to  LDS.org , select Gospel Topics, and search for book of Abraham.

 

..

 

In 1966, 11 fragments of papyri the Prophet Joseph Smith once had were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. These papyri contain authentic Egyptian writings, but they do not date to the time of Abraham, nor do they contain the actual personally handwritten account of Abraham. It is important to remember that only a few fragments and not all of the papyri that Joseph Smith possessed have been found. The book of Abraham may have been translated from papyri that have not been recovered. These lost papyri may have contained copies of Abraham’s writings.

 

At the present time we simply do not know the exact nature of the relationship between the book of Abraham and the papyri Joseph Smith possessed. There are various theories proposed as to how the prophet translated these writings, but we simply do not know the details. We do know that the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham by the gift and power of God.

Edited February 26, 2014 by David T

[jkwilliams]

Well, "I don't know" is better than what they've said in the past. I am disappointed, however, in their statement that we only have "a few fragments" of the papyri. That's simply not true.

[Anteojito]

If they don't know how he translated the writings, how do they know that he did it by the gift and power of God?

[David T]

I am disappointed, however, in their statement that we only have "a few fragments" of the papyri. That's simply not true.

 

Well, that's a loaded, and relative phrase, I'd say. I'd say trying to call that out as being dishonest isn't particularly helpful or accurate, either.

 

I'd say it's a big deal to specifically note that the Church and Historians still are learning about the book, and that the relationship between Joseph's papyrus and the text still is note fully clear. These are big admissions to show up in a manual used to teach the youth of the Church. While 'missing papyrus' was previously the only explanation, and while it is still suggested to be an option, it is clear that it is not the only, or even best option, and that things are developing. This is major, and is certainly to be applauded.

 

I love that it references a Gospel Topic on 'book of Abraham' that hasn't been posted yet. Spoilers!

Edited February 26, 2014 by David T

[BCSpace]

What many folks don't realize is that the Church addressed this issue LONG ago and in a timely fashion:

 

November 27, 1967 Church receives papyri.
December 10–11, 1967 Deadline to submit material for the January 1968 Improvement Era.
December 26–31, 1967 January 1968 of Improvement Era issue mailed to subscribers.[1]
February 1968 another fragment was discovered in the Church historian's files, and publicized in the February 1968 Era.[2]

Publication history

When the papyri were rediscovered in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art and donated to the Church on 27 November 1967, the Church immediately published an article in their official magazine less than two months later. A follow-up article on an additional papyrus fragment was published the following month, complete with photos:

    Jay M. Todd, "Egyptian Papyri Rediscovered," Improvement Era (January 1968), 12–16. FairMormon link
    Jay M. Todd, "New Light on Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri: Additional Fragment Disclosed," Improvement Era (February 1968), 40.
    Jay M. Todd, "Background of the Church Historian's Fragment," Improvement Era (February 1968), 40A–40I.

LDS scholar Hugh Nibley began a series of articles in the January 1968 edition which ran for months. Nibley was not hesitant in explaining what was on the papyri in the Church's possession. In August 1968, he repeatedly emphasized that much of the text was the Egyptian Book of the Dead:

    "...the texts of the 'Joseph Smith Papyri' identified as belonging to the Book of the Dead" (p. 55)
    "...The largest part of the Joseph Smith Papyri in the possession of the Church consists of fragments from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the fragments having been recently translated and discussed by no less a scholar than Professor John A. Wilson." (p. 57)
    "These points can be illustrated by the most easily recognized section of the Joseph Smith papyri, namely, the fragment with the picture of a swallow, Chapter 86 of the Book of the Dead..."(p. 57)
    "..we may take the best-known picture from the Book of the Dead, the well-known judgment scene or 'Psychostasy,' a fine example of which is found among the Joseph Smith papyri." (p. 59)

Lest the reader miss this claim in the small print, it was reprinted in large bold type across two pages:

    "The largest parts of the...papyri in possession of the Church consists of fragments from the Egyptian Book of the Dead..." (pp. 56-57) See image (680 KB).

What was announced?

The Improvement Era described the papyri, but never claimed they represented the source for the Book of Abraham, except the original of Facsimile 1:

    Perhaps no discovery in recent memory is expected to arouse as much widespread interest in the restored gospel as is the recent discovery of some Egyptian papyri, one of which is known to have been used by the prophet Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Abraham.

    The papyri, long thought to have been burned in the Chicago fire of 1871, were presented to the Church on November 27, 1967, in New York City by the metropolitan Museum of Art, more than a year after Dr. Aziz S. Atiya, former director of the University of Utah's Middle East Center, had made his startling discovery while browsing through the New York museum's papyri collection.

    Included in the collection of 11 manuscripts is one identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith obtained Facsimile 1, which prefaces the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Accompanying the manuscripts was a letter dated May 26, 1856, signed by both Emma Smith Bidamon, widow of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and their son, Joseph Smith, attesting that the papyri had been the property of the Prophet.

    Some of the pieces of papyrus apparently include conventional hieroglyphics (sacred inscriptions, resembling picture-drawing) and hieratic (a cursive shorthand version of hieroglyphics) Egyptian funerary texts, which were commonly buried with Egyptian mummies. Often the funerary texts contained passages from the "Book of the Dead," a book that was to assist in the safe passage of the dead person into the spirit world. It is not known at this time whether the ten other pieces of papyri have a direct connection with the Book of Abraham.[3]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Church_disclosure_of_%22Book_of_the_Dead%22

Edited February 26, 2014 by BCSpace

[David T]

What the Improvement Era did over 45 years ago was awesome. The follow-up, however, over the next half century, has been extremely lacking. This manual cites the first clear official suggestion that theories other than the missing papyrus theory are viable, and that the papyrus text may not have a direct relationship to JS' inspired English text. Unless you can find a reference showing this has been presented otherwise. Even if so, presented in a standard manual in favor of an article in a single magazine issue gives substantial institutional weight.

 

I believe this follows and is an extension (and explanation of) the separation of the Inspired Translation from the reception of the Papyrus Text in the new PoGP 2013 edition intro. Fascinating developments!  Again, it doesn't write off the Missing Papyrus theory, but makes clear that that "may" only be one possibility, leaving room for others. This is awesome, and highly commendable, IMO.

Edited February 26, 2014 by David T

[cinepro]

Frankly, far more candid than any material we've seen before! I Think this gives some hints as to what we will see with the eventual Book of Abraham Gospel Topics entry.

 

Wow.  I almost feel sorry for the believers who had faith in the old story.

 

And I'm even less hopeful that President Monson or any of his successors will bring forth the Book of Joseph any time soon.

[jkwilliams]

Well, that's a loaded, and relative phrase, I'd say. I'd say trying to call that out as being dishonest isn't particularly helpful or accurate, either.

 

I'd say it's a big deal to specifically note that the Church and Historians still are learning about the book, and that the relationship between Joseph's papyrus and the text still is note fully clear. These are big admissions to show up in a manual used to teach the youth of the Church. While 'missing papyrus' was previously the only explanation, and while it is still suggested to be an option, it is clear that it is not the only, or even best option, and that things are developing. This is major, and is certainly to be applauded.

 

I love that it references a Gospel Topic on 'book of Abraham' that hasn't been posted yet. Spoilers!

I'm not calling it dishonest. It's just not true.

I do think it's a step in the right direction, as you say.

[The Nehor]

What the Improvement Era did over 45 years ago was awesome. The follow-up, however, over the next half century, has been extremely lacking. This manual cites the first clear official suggestion that theories other than the missing papyrus theory are viable, and that the papyrus text may not have a direct relationship to JS' inspired English text. 

 

I think you overestimate how many members are even aware of the missing papyrus theory.

[David T]

I think you overestimate how many members are even aware of the missing papyrus theory.

 

On anecdotal experience, I would say of those faithful members who are aware of the recovery of the papyrus fragments, the vast majority hold to a form of a Missing Papyrus explanation as to why a literal translation of Abraham isn't on the text.

[JLHPROF]

""If Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient origin, then I would move heaven and earth to meet the "real" nineteenth-century author. " ― Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

 

Substitute Book of Abraham for Book of Mormon and you get my opinion.  I really don't care if historians can show that there never were any papyri, that Joseph Smith wrote the entire thing down personally while drunk one evening, and that Abraham never went to Egypt.  That book contains the word of God as much as any I've ever read, and there is no way the ideas contained were created in 1835 America.

[jkwilliams]

""If Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient origin, then I would move heaven and earth to meet the "real" nineteenth-century author. " ― Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

 

Substitute Book of Abraham for Book of Mormon and you get my opinion.  I really don't care if historians can show that there never were any papyri, that Joseph Smith wrote the entire thing down personally while drunk one evening, and that Abraham never went to Egypt.  That book contains the word of God as much as any I've ever read, and there is no way the ideas contained were created in 1835 America.

You're quite right about the value of the Book of Abraham. I don't share your belief that the Book of Abraham could not be a product of the 19th century, but what matters is that you find inspiration and truth in it. It is the word of God to you. If I felt that way, I wouldn't care about its origins.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, "I don't know" is better than what they've said in the past. I am disappointed, however, in their statement that we only have "a few fragments" of the papyri. That's simply not true.

To those who wish to understand the basics about this issue, a good place to start is with John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (FARMS. 2000), which provides a clear listing of the papyri which Joseph Smith once possessed and what we have now.  For the student manual to say that "only a few fragments and not all of the papyri that Joseph Smith possessed have been found," is quite correct.  Most of the papyri have been lost, and we only have a few fragments.

 

See Gee's guide at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/a-guide-to-the-joseph-smith-papyri-2/ .

Edited February 27, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[cinepro]

""If Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient origin, then I would move heaven and earth to meet the "real" nineteenth-century author. " ― Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

 

Substitute Book of Abraham for Book of Mormon and you get my opinion.  I really don't care if historians can show that there never were any papyri, that Joseph Smith wrote the entire thing down personally while drunk one evening, and that Abraham never went to Egypt.  That book contains the word of God as much as any I've ever read, and there is no way the ideas contained were created in 1835 America.

 

Just so I have a frame of reference on where you're coming from, is it your belief that there is no way the ideas contained in the Doctrine and Covenants weren't created in 19th century America?

[Robert F. Smith]

If they don't know how he translated the writings, how do they know that he did it by the gift and power of God?

Because that is what Joseph Smith said.  A nice set of articles on the Book of Abraham is available in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, online at http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Abraham .

[jkwilliams]

To those who wish to understand the basics about this issue, a good place to start is with John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (FARMS. 200), which provides a clear listing of the papyri which Joseph Smith once possessed and what we have now.  For the student manual to say that "only a few fragments and not all of the papyri that Joseph Smith possessed have been found," is quite correct.  Most of the papyri have been lost, and we only have a few fragments.

 

See Gee's guide at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/a-guide-to-the-joseph-smith-papyri-2/ .

Yes, I've read Gee's stuff, among a lot of other apologetic pieces about the Book of Abraham. I know you disagree with my opinion, but it's my honest and considered conclusion based on the evidence I see.

[JLHPROF]

Just so I have a frame of reference on where you're coming from, is it your belief that there is no way the ideas contained in the Doctrine and Covenants weren't created in 19th century America?

 

Correct.  There is no way that all of the ideas contained in the Doctrine and Covenants could have been created purely by 19th Century American minds.  I fully acknowledge that some items, possibly many items (even things like the Law of Consecration) could absolutely have been created by that culture.

However there are also passages, themes, topics, and concepts in all 4 standard works that are clearly eternal (or at the very least ancient) in origin.  And certainly more than the average 19th century farmers/school teachers/merchants could have "imagined" with any similar degree of accuracy, consistency, and style.

[cinepro]

Correct.  There is no way that all of the ideas contained in the Doctrine and Covenants could have been created purely by 19th Century American minds.  I fully acknowledge that some items, possibly many items (even things like the Law of Consecration) could absolutely have been created by that culture.

However there are also passages, themes, topics, and concepts in all 4 standard works that are clearly eternal (or at the very least ancient) in origin.  And certainly more than the average 19th century farmers/school teachers/merchants could have "imagined" with any similar degree of accuracy, consistency, and style.

 

That's not what I asked.  You seemed to suggest that the Book of Abraham must have an ancient origin because, by reading it, you could discern that it would be impossible for its "ideas" to have been "created" in 1835. 

 

But no one claims that the Doctrine and Covenants has any sort of ancient origin; it is from the 1820s - 1840s (as claimed by Joseph Smith himself).  So I am curious how your experience reading the D&C is different than reading the BoA as far as your impressions of when the "ideas" were originated. 

[Anteojito]

Correct.  There is no way that all of the ideas contained in the Doctrine and Covenants could have been created purely by 19th Century American minds.  I fully acknowledge that some items, possibly many items (even things like the Law of Consecration) could absolutely have been created by that culture.

However there are also passages, themes, topics, and concepts in all 4 standard works that are clearly eternal (or at the very least ancient) in origin.  And certainly more than the average 19th century farmers/school teachers/merchants could have "imagined" with any similar degree of accuracy, consistency, and style.

"However there are also passages, themes, topics, and concepts in all 4 standard works that are clearly eternal (or at the very least ancient) in origin."

 

Such as?

Edited February 26, 2014 by Anteojito

[Robert F. Smith]

.........................................................  

 

I'd say it's a big deal to specifically note that the Church and Historians still are learning about the book, and that the relationship between Joseph's papyrus and the text still is note fully clear. These are big admissions to show up in a manual used to teach the youth of the Church. While 'missing papyrus' was previously the only explanation, and while it is still suggested to be an option, it is clear that it is not the only, or even best option, and that things are developing. This is major, and is certainly to be applauded.

 

........................................................................   

I'd like to know what you consider the "best option," David.

 

Joseph’s claim was that he had translated the Book of Abraham from a papyrus in his possession.*  The mode of translation employed seems to have been an “Urim & Thummim” (so Orson & Parley Pratt, and Wilford Woodruff), which can include the use of a “seer stone,” of which Joseph had several.**  The current (2013) heading of the LDS Book of Abraham has "TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS BY JOSEPH SMITH," and "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands . . . ."  This is the same heading as in the 1981 edition.  See at https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/1?lang=eng .

 

 

*  B. H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church, VI:476 (June 16, 1844); Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, II:130 n. 5; cf. HC II:236,350-351.

**  R. Van Wagoner & S. C. Walker, “Joseph Smith: The Gift of Seeing,” Dialogue, 15/2:48-68; cf. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, III:222-226; Journal of Discourses, 21:47; Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, 35,59,68.

[JLHPROF]

That's not what I asked.  You seemed to suggest that the Book of Abraham must have an ancient origin because, by reading it, you could discern that it would be impossible for its "ideas" to have been "created" in 1835. 

 

But no one claims that the Doctrine and Covenants has any sort of ancient origin; it is from the 1820s - 1840s (as claimed by Joseph Smith himself).  So I am curious how your experience reading the D&C is different than reading the BoA as far as your impressions of when the "ideas" were originated. 

 

I apologise if I gave that impression.  I did not mean to imply that the Book of Abraham had to have ancient origin because of the ideas contained therein.  What I mean to say is what I said about the D&C.  The D&C and the Book of Abraham MIGHT be contemporary, but both contain ideas far beyond 19th Century America.  That is why the originating source of the ideas and teachings both books (in fact all 4 standard works) cannot be the time in which they were published.

 

"However there are also passages, themes, topics, and concepts in all 4 standard works that are clearly eternal (or at the very least ancient) in origin."

 

Such as?

 

Since this is a subjective thing, I see no point in picking passages for you to pick apart.

[Wiki Wonka]

I love that it references a Gospel Topic on 'book of Abraham' that hasn't been posted yet. Spoilers!

 

Yes...right now there isn't a Gospel Topics entry on the Book of Abraham, but I think that this manual gives us a pretty good idea of what approach it will take.

[Anteojito]

Since this is a subjective thing, I see no point in picking passages for you to pick apart.

Exactly...

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, I've read Gee's stuff, among a lot of other apologetic pieces about the Book of Abraham. I know you disagree with my opinion, but it's my honest and considered conclusion based on the evidence I see.

It isn't so much a matter of apologetics or opinion as it is a simple matter of fact that most of the papyri are not now available to us, either because some of them crumbled while being examined in Kirtland and Nauvoo (and later), or because some of them burned in the Wood Museum in Chicago.  I know of no accounting for them which claims that we have most of them.  Perhaps you do, jk.  If so, please enlighten us.

[David T]

I'd like to know what you consider the "best option," David.

 

Joseph’s claim was that he had translated the Book of Abraham from a papyrus in his possession.*  The mode of translation employed seems to have been an “Urim & Thummim” (so Orson & Parley Pratt, and Wilford Woodruff), which can include the use of a “seer stone,” of which Joseph had several.**  The current (2013) heading of the LDS Book of Abraham has "TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS BY JOSEPH SMITH," and "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands . . . ."  This is the same heading as in the 1981 edition.  See at https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/1?lang=eng .

 

 

*  B. H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church, VI:476 (June 16, 1844); Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, II:130 n. 5; cf. HC II:236,350-351.

**  R. Van Wagoner & S. C. Walker, “Joseph Smith: The Gift of Seeing,” Dialogue, 15/2:48-68; cf. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, III:222-226; Journal of Discourses, 21:47; Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, 35,59,68.

 

There's a lot of reasons why a Missing Papyrus theory doesn't make sense to me, and why a 'New Inspired Pseudepigraphon original to Joseph Smith combining new light and knowledge/revelation, known Abraham traditions, Genesis, and thoughts on antiquity and recovered language' is far, far more compelling to me.

 

I say this as one who views the Book of Mormon as a legitimate core ancient text with some substantial modern overlay introduced as part of the translation process.

 

The Bible is full of old symbols and stories re-interpreted or appropriated and expanded, and given substantial new meaning to explain and illustrate contemporary understanding of God's covenant relationship to Israel in light of new occurrences and realities in history. It would be a very consistent biblical prophet-like thing for Joseph to do.