New Gospel Topic Entry Re Boa

[Buckeye]

Why is the Book of Abraham even necessary? What harm would it do to decanonize it?

 

There would have to be a good explanation, particularly because of affirmance in the gospel topic essay and statements from the Q12/FP that the BOA is scripture.  When the lectures on faith were decanonized I believe the reason given was that new understanding had shown they were more the product of Rigdon than Smith.  Also, the LOF had been part of the canon for only a few decades and many members recalled them being added.  This is an entirely different situation.  The BOA has been scripture for the entire lifespan of all living members.  And a few portions of it are repeatedly cited in manuals and general conference.  Before an de-canonization you'd have to see a lengthy period of years in which top leaders stop teaching from it in order to prepare the membership.

[Rob Osborn]

There is no such thing as faith in the abstract.  Faith is a belief in something - a person, a text, an event - coupled with action.  For example, I have faith that summer will arrive and therefore plant a garden in spring.  I have faith that other drivers will stay on their side of the road and therefore am comfortable when we pass each other on a narrow road going 55mph.  I have faith that Christ was raised from the dead and follow his teachings which promise me that I will also be resurrected. 

 

In each instance, faith is reflected in an action which then leads to experience and knowledge.  Thus, when my parents taught me to seek a college education I did so in faith on their life experience.  Now that I've received the education, my faith in that teaching is replaced with knowledge that it was correct.  And my faith in my parents is increased because their teaching proved correct.  The next time my parents give me counsel I'm more open to believe them. 

 

Faith can also be placed in false teachings.  For instance, I could wrongly believe that there will be no winter, plant a garden as an act on that faith, and then winter comes and my garden dies.  I then have knowledge that my faith was misplaced.

 

That's how faith works.  Faith in the gospel, prophets, and spritual things is no different.  When prophets taught me to not smoke, I chose to exercise faith in them.  Then I gained experience, my faith in the teaching became knowledge, and my faith in the prophet increased.  When prophets taught me that SSM was evil, I chose to exercise faith in them.  Then I gained experience, my faith in the teaching proved erroneous because I came to see that SS marriages produce good fruit, and therefore my faith in the prophet decreased. 

 

With respect to the issue at hand - Joseph's translation of the BOA - the fact that the church embraces a catalyst theory which runs contrary to what Joseph said he was doing with the papyrus necessarily decreases my faith in either the church or Joseph (or both).  That doesn't mean I have no faith in them.  Just that I have something less than a complete faith.   

Only as an alternate do they give a belief in the catalyst theory and only in context of adding more to the text from divine translation processes. They do in fact say that there are obvious missing papyrus. Without having those missing pieces the church, nor you nor I can state positively anything. The church does however acknowledge that the Book of Abraham is a true historical record translated by Joseph Smith. How that happened and from what exact pieces or rolls of papyrus that translation came from is up for conjecture. 

[oremites]

... When the lectures on faith were decanonized ...

 

The Lectures on Faith were never canonized so there was no need for "decanonization".  Even if someone wants to argue that point, the Lectures were certainly never accepted as part of the canon in the same sense as the Book of Abraham.  A decanonized Book of Abraham would be a much, much bigger deal.

 

Anyway, I don't understand this "decanoning" talk at all.  However you think the book was produced, it's a wonderful book of scripture that is well worth studying, pondering and praying about.

[mfbukowski]

So you don't care if Joseph was mistaken in believing/teaching that the BOA was contained on the papyrus?  I can see your point that the message can lead one towards good, towards God, regardless of whether Joseph was actually "translating" the physical document.  But accepting that Joseph got this wrong (which is required for the catalyst theory) necessarily opens the door to the possibility that past and current prophets are also making many other fundamental mistakes in their truth claims.

 

Maybe the saving ordinances really aren't necessary for our posterity, despite prophets' assertion that they are.  The prophets are mistaken and God is just allowing us to go through those motions as means to become one with our forebearers. 

 

Maybe the second coming isn't a real event that will happen as prophets have foretold.  God is just allowing prophets to make that mistake because an immenient event helps focus our mind on what is most important. 

 

Maybe heavenly messengers did not really visit Joseph/Oliver in Kirtland and give them keys . God is just allowing us to be taught this misinformation because having pretend keys gives us a sense of purpose.

 

What really troubles me about the essay isn't so much the catalyst theory, its the essay's approach that members can believe anything they want so long as they accept the BOA as scripture.  Also, the very disingenuous approach the essay takes in encouraging reliance on evidence where the BOA may comport with secular knowledge (Olishem, Elkenah) but taking the exact opposite approach for evidence where secular knowledge conflicts with the BOA.  We can't have it both ways.  If all that matters is spiritual confirmation, why have we always placed so much importance on evidence tying the spiritual to what can be discerned with mortal eyes? 

 

The fact is the church relies heavily on the BOM witnesses who saw the plates, on the two Mary's account of seeing the risen Christ, on Joseph's visitations, and many other historical claims.  If all that matters is the MESSAGE, well my kids get a lot more out of Calvin & Hobbes than they do the Old Testatment.  Maybe I should stay home with Les Miserables rather than go to gospel doctrine this week.  After all, as long as God can give a good message through the text, it doesn't matter if its "real" - whatever real is. 

I believe that what he "translated" was the Book of Abraham, as the church teaches.

 

BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER KNOW THAT THROUGH ANY OTHER MEANS THAN HAVING A TESTIMONY

 

It is unknowable in a conventional sense if what he says "corresponds" to an actual transcript of whatever Abraham "actually wrote".  Impossible and therefore irrelevant!

 

It is also impossible and irrelevant to know if the person Jesus really died for our sins.  IMPOSSIBLE except through testimony.  Yes of course it is important that it "really happened" but it is unverifiable in any way other than testimony.

 

So the METHOD of translation is therefore irrelevant.  We have no verified copy of the "original" nor could we verify whether or not an alleged "original" WAS IN FACT an "original, or for that matter whether or not a person named Abraham even existed.  Impossible!

 

It is like worrying about what "really happened" on a planet in a galaxy "long ago and far away"

 

Yes, perhaps we don't need ordinances.  Perhaps God does not exist.  Perhaps we all live on an atom and someone is looking at us through an electron microscope.  Pick any science fiction scenario you like- they are all possible!!

 

But I am not going to live my life worrying about what is impossible to verify with certainty.  I am going to go ahead and believe what I believe and what makes sense to me, and what I think the "spirit" verifies for me.

 

We have no choice.  This is all taken on faith anyway.

 

 

If all that matters is spiritual confirmation, why have we always placed so much importance on evidence tying the spiritual to what can be discerned with mortal eyes?

 

Don't ask me- I think all that stuff is nonsense for the same reasons I have enumerated.  I have no clue why we bother with scholarship at all considering Joseph re-wrote (with inspiration) large chunks of the bible to suit what he thought was best.  Worrying about the wording of the bible when it doesn't matter one iota is just silly in my opinion, and always has been.

 

We have an ancient scriptures department for PR purposes as far as I am concerned so we don't look "ignorant". 

 

If you believe the catalyst theory, as I do, all the squabbles just go away.

 

I have had the advantage in my life of having been a total atheist.  After that I know that there is no proof for any of this, and it is silly to worry about proving it or even finding "evidence".  For a true skeptic, there IS no "evidence".  My evidence is that God told me the church is true.

 

That's all I have and all I need.

Edited July 10, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Only as an alternate do they give a belief in the catalyst theory and only in context of adding more to the text from divine translation processes. They do in fact say that there are obvious missing papyrus. Without having those missing pieces the church, nor you nor I can state positively anything. The church does however acknowledge that the Book of Abraham is a true historical record translated by Joseph Smith. How that happened and from what exact pieces or rolls of papyrus that translation came from is up for conjecture. 

Dang it, we agree again. 

[Brian 2.0]

CFR then showing we have the very Abraham text used to translate.

I don't think you can CFR a theory.

No one knows with 100% surety what text, if any, was used by JS for the translation. We can make theories as to what he used.

You can ask for evidence for my theory that JS used the papyri we found (which I already indicated by the facsimile being on the papyri, the characters from the found papyri being on the BoA manuscripts, among other things)

You can CFR those specific evidences (which I said was the Joseph Smith Papers Project, I can provide specific links if you want)

But I don't think you can CFR what you are CFRing.

That's like me saying "CFR that the Book of Abraham is on the missing papyri." I can't do that. I can ask what what evidence you have for your theory that it is on the papyri we don't have... I'd be curious on that.

[Tacenda]

http://radiowest.kuer.org/

 

Scripture, Translation, and Belief

 

A discussion about the Abraham scrolls and the recent essay from the church.  He discusses with David Bokovoy.  Thought you might want to take a listen.       

[Rob Osborn]

I don't think you can CFR a theory.

No one knows with 100% surety what text, if any, was used by JS for the translation. We can make theories as to what he used.

You can ask for evidence for my theory that JS used the papyri we found (which I already indicated by the facsimile being on the papyri, the characters from the found papyri being on the BoA manuscripts, among other things)

You can CFR those specific evidences (which I said was the Joseph Smith Papers Project, I can provide specific links if you want)

But I don't think you can CFR what you are CFRing.

That's like me saying "CFR that the Book of Abraham is on the missing papyri." I can't do that. I can ask what what evidence you have for your theory that it is on the papyri we don't have... I'd be curious on that.

All I have said is that without the missing papyri showing up for everyones viewing pleasure its kind of a non-debateable issue. How can one  debate, let alone prove,  the translation process Joseph Smith used when we are obviously missing a majority of the material in question? You said it was debateable and yet I ask- whats there to debate when key evidence is missing? We can throw out ideas and all but, as the church even states- its all conjecture. We accept, through faith, the validity of the Book of Mormon without any tangible evidence before our eyes. So too, we do the same with the Book of Abraham. The main issue at hand is not what the text says as if it is doctrinally or historically incorrect, its the translation process Joseph Smith used and from what papyri Joseph Smith got it from. There is absolutely no way to know that at this point. You can only debate one thing- whether or not there was more papyrus in Joseph Smith's possession when he translated and whether or not that papyri ciontained, at least in part, the main text that now makes up the BoM. All we have at this point to debate as evidence goes is that there were eye witness accounts stating there was more papyrus than what we now have and that one of the rolls contained the BoA text in part or in whole that Joseph translated. Without that key evidence it is rather futile to guess what-ifs. Now of course- if you want to debate the accuracy of the eyewitness accounts of what they saw then lets debate that but besides those few accounts we are largely left without the required evidence to have any knowledge as to Josephs translation process and from what source of papyri he translated from.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Moses: Whilst I was tending my father-in-law's flocks on Mt Horeb, I saw a bush that was on fire, but the flames did not consume the bush, so I went to check it out, and there the Lord gave me a message.

 

Bob the Hebrew: Wait. The bush was burning but not consumed?

 

Moses: That's right. The Lord told me that ...

 

Bob: Wait, wait, wait. That's not possible. For a bush to be on fire, it is necessary for the heat to vapourise the flammable gases in the wood. That's how things burn. We know that. The bush would have to be consumed.

 

Moses: OK, but the Lord said that He was prepared to set you and the other Hebrews free.

 

Bob: I'm not interested in what 'the Lord' said until you can explain to me exactly how a bush can burn without being consumed.

 

Moses: I don't know. I just saw it. That's what caught my attention. And then when I approached, the angel of the Lord appeared to me in the flames ...

 

Bob: The 'angel of the Lord'? I thought you said it was the Lord Himself who spoke to you.

 

Moses: It was, and He has sent me to tell you that ...

 

Bob: The angel or the Lord?

 

Moses: The Lord.

 

Bob: But all you saw was an angel?

 

Moses: The Lord called to me out of the midst of the burning bush ...

 

Bob: The bush that was supposedly 'burning' without being consumed, even though we know that's impossible?

 

Moses: Right, and He said ...

 

Bob: The angel or the Lord?

 

Moses: The Lord.

 

Bob: How do you know it was the Lord talking? Did the angel even say anything?

 

Moses: Look, the God of your fathers has sent me to you ...

 

Bob: And did this 'god' you think you heard tell you his name?

 

Moses:  Yes, 'I am that I am'.

 

Bob: That's not a name.

 

Moses: Well, that's what He said, and he told me to tell you ... oh, never mind.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[CA Steve]

All I have said is that without the missing papyri showing up for everyones viewing pleasure its kind of a non-debateable issue. How can one  debate, let alone prove,  the translation process Joseph Smith used when we are obviously missing a majority of the material in question? You said it was debateable and yet I ask- whats there to debate when key evidence is missing? We can throw out ideas and all but, as the church even states- its all conjecture. We accept, through faith, the validity of the Book of Mormon without any tangible evidence before our eyes. So too, we do the same with the Book of Abraham. The main issue at hand is not what the text says as if it is doctrinally or historically incorrect, its the translation process Joseph Smith used and from what papyri Joseph Smith got it from. There is absolutely no way to know that at this point. You can only debate one thing- whether or not there was more papyrus in Joseph Smith's possession when he translated and whether or not that papyri ciontained, at least in part, the main text that now makes up the BoM. All we have at this point to debate as evidence goes is that there were eye witness accounts stating there was more papyrus than what we now have and that one of the rolls contained the BoA text in part or in whole that Joseph translated. Without that key evidence it is rather futile to guess what-ifs. Now of course- if you want to debate the accuracy of the eyewitness accounts of what they saw then lets debate that but besides those few accounts we are largely left without the required evidence to have any knowledge as to Josephs translation process and from what source of papyri he translated from.

You do realize that how much is missing and what portions of the papyri Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham, is still an ongoing debate? Do you also realize that many people believe that we still have the papyrus (Fragment XI) from which Joseph Smith translated much of Abraham chapters 1 and 2? And finally there is no debate about what portions of the papyri Joseph Smith used to produce the explanations for the Facsimiles.

Also can you point to any evidence that what is on the missing portions is anything other than funerary documents?

Claiming missing portions does not end the debate.

[Scott Lloyd]

You do realize that how much is missing and what portions of the papyri Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham, is still an ongoing debate? Do you also realize that many people believe that we still have the papyrus (Fragment XI) from which Joseph Smith translated much of Abraham chapters 1 and 2? And finally there is no debate about what portions of the papyri Joseph Smith used to produce the explanations for the Facsimiles.

Also can you point to any evidence that what is on the missing portions is anything other than funerary documents?

Claiming missing portions does not end the debate.

Claiming that claiming missing portions does not end the debate does not end the debate.

[Thinking]

How can one  debate, let alone prove,  the translation process Joseph Smith used when we are obviously missing a majority of the material in question?

 

"There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus, covered with Hierogliphic, figures and devices...and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham; another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, &c, a more full account <of which> will appear in their place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them."

 

We have one roll of two or more, which does not contain the writings of Abraham. One of the other rolls is alleged to have the writings of Joseph of Egypt. The roll we have does not contain the writings of Joseph of Egypt. We're running out of rolls.

[Rob Osborn]

You do realize that how much is missing and what portions of the papyri Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham, is still an ongoing debate? Do you also realize that many people believe that we still have the papyrus (Fragment XI) from which Joseph Smith translated much of Abraham chapters 1 and 2? And finally there is no debate about what portions of the papyri Joseph Smith used to produce the explanations for the Facsimiles.

Also can you point to any evidence that what is on the missing portions is anything other than funerary documents?

Claiming missing portions does not end the debate.

Produce the missing papyri ans we shall talk. Everything ekse is conjecture.

[Brian 2.0]

Produce the missing papyri ans we shall talk. Everything ekse is conjecture.

I guess we can't really debate or discuss what dinosaurs looked liked or really anything about them... After all, we don't have any dinosaurs here, so everything about dinosaurs is conjecture.

[Rob Osborn]

I guess we can't really debate or discuss what dinosaurs looked liked or really anything about them... After all, we don't have any dinosaurs here, so everything about dinosaurs is conjecture.

Theres a big difference- we have the dinosaur bones. What we dont have is the missing payrus.

[Thinking]

The Lectures on Faith were never canonized so there was no need for "decanonization".

 

After a hymn was sung, President Cowdery arose and introduced the "Book of doctrine and covenants of the church of the Latter Day Saints," in behalf of the committee: he was followed by President Rigdon, who explained the manner by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against said book: the other two committee, named above, were absent. According to said arrangement W. W. Phelps bore record that the book presented to the assembly, was true. President John Whitmer, also arose, and testified that it was true. Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the high council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine; whereupon the high council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote. Elder Levi Jackman, taking the lead of the high council of the church in Missouri, bore testimony that the revelations in said book were true, and the said high council of Missouri accepted and acknowledge them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

President W. W. Phelps then read the written testimony of the Twelve, as follows. "The testimony of the witnesses to the book of the Lord's commandments, which he gave to his church through Joseph Smith, jr. who was appointed by the voice of the church for this purpose: we therefore feel willing to bear testimony to all the world of mankind, to every creature upon the face of all the earth, and upon the islands of the sea, that the Lord has borne record to our souls, through the Holy Ghost shed forth upon us, that these commandments were given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for all men, and are verily true.-We give this testimony unto the world, the Lord being our helper: and it is through the grace of God, the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, that we are permitted to have this privilege of bearing this testimony unto the world, in the which we rejoice exceedingly, praying the Lord always, that the children of men may be profited thereby. Elder Leonard Rich bore record of the truth of the book and the council of the Seventy accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote. (Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 11, p.161-162)

 

 

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

 

The Lectures on Faith were unanimously voted into the Doctrine & Covenants in 1835 and resided there until 1921. The name of the Book of Commandments was changed to Doctrine & Covenants perhaps to reflect the inclusion of the LoF because they were profitable for doctrine.

[Brian 2.0]

Theres a big difference- we have the dinosaur bones. What we dont have is the missing payrus.

 

Let me use one more parallel... go with me on this...

 

There's a trial going on for murder.  The victim had their throat slit.  The issue at hand, the only issue being discussed, is what was the murder weapon.  And in this sleepy town there are only TWO items that could even cut a throat (crazy town, I know).  Those two items are a KNIFE and a SWORD.  And both the items are missing!  Oh well, gonna be hard to solve this mystery.  But wait... someone found the KNIFE!  And on the knife we find the dried blood of the victim and some of the victim's hair fibers.  The town is debating and discussing if the knife was the murder weapon, and most conclude the knife was the weapon that slit the victim's throat due to the evidence, but some still believe the knife wasn't the weapon for various reasons.  But then the wise sage comes down from the mountain and says, "Stop this discussion!  It's impossible to even debate whether or not the knife was the weapon... because we haven't found the sword!"  The town looks to the wise sage and says... what are you talking about?

 

Joseph Smith said he translated papyri to give us the Book of Abraham

He was either translating the papyri we have found, even in part

Or he was translating the papyri that we haven't found.

But just because we don't have that missing papyri, doesn't mean we can't look at the found papyri and the evidence surrounding it to discuss whether Joseph Smith used this found papyri in his translation. 

[UtahTexan]

The issue that concerns me is NOT that we need to take it on faith.  That has always been the rule.  What concerns me is that Joseph stated that he translated the papyri.  The way it was described did not indicate it was in any other way than a direct translation.  It seems that the new guidance is at odds with that and that would mean Joseph did not tell the truth.  Why would they do that?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I guess we can't really debate or discuss what dinosaurs looked liked or really anything about them... After all, we don't have any dinosaurs here, so everything about dinosaurs is conjecture.

You are correct. BUt what does this have to do with the topic?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The issue that concerns me is NOT that we need to take it on faith.  That has always been the rule.  What concerns me is that Joseph stated that he translated the papyri.  The way it was described did not indicate it was in any other way than a direct translation.  It seems that the new guidance is at odds with that and that would mean Joseph did not tell the truth.  Why would they do that?

And for the record what was the way that was described on how JS translated the BoA? Lets see if your claim stacks up.

[UtahTexan]

And for the record what was the way that was described on how JS translated the BoA? Lets see if your claim stacks up.

 

Not trying t make a claim.  Just relating how I was taught.  But I googled it to see if I was wrong again......maybe....but I guess it is how you read things.  

 

"I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham…. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth" Joseph Smith, July 5, 1835,(HC 2:236).

 

"The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients". History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 238:

 

''. . . [Joseph Smith's] most notable achievement was the development at Kirtland of a grammar for the Egyptian hieroglyphic form of writing. This was used by him, as well as divine aid, in translating ancient writings of the patriarch Abraham. The Restored Church 1956 ed., p. 133.

 

I guess it could be taken either way.  Makes me feel a little better.  What are your thoughts?

[Buckeye]

And for the record what was the way that was described on how JS translated the BoA? Lets see if your claim stacks up.

 

CountryBoy is pointing to the "what," not the "how." The "how" is "by the power of God," which admittedly none of us can pin down with any certainty. The "what" concerns whether Joseph claimed to translated the papyrii. It seems clear to me that is what Joseph claimed to have done. Here is Joseph's introduction to the BOA:

 

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

 

It seems clear that Joseph's scribes also believed he was translating the papyrii. The BOA essay states:

 

Phelps apparently viewed Joseph Smith as uniquely capable of understanding the Egyptian characters: “As no one could translate these writings,” he told his wife, “they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were.”^{https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng}

 

The essay also acknowledges that Joseph was actively studying the papyrii in an attempt to learn the language, that Joseph made records of the work the resulted from his studies, and that Joseph's work product does not correspond with translations by actual Egyptologists:

 

Some evidence suggests that Joseph studied the characters on the Egyptian papyri and attempted to learn the Egyptian language. His history reports that, in July 1835, he was “continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arrangeing a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.”²⁰ This “grammar,” as it was called, consisted of columns of hieroglyphic characters followed by English translations recorded in a large notebook by Joseph’s scribe, William W. Phelps. Another manuscript, written by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, has Egyptian characters followed by explanations. ^... Neither the rules nor the translations in the grammar book correspond to those recognized by Egyptologists today.

[CA Steve]

Let me use one more parallel... go with me on this...

 

There's a trial going on for murder.  The victim had their throat slit.  The issue at hand, the only issue being discussed, is what was the murder weapon.  And in this sleepy town there are only TWO items that could even cut a throat (crazy town, I know).  Those two items are a KNIFE and a SWORD.  And both the items are missing!  Oh well, gonna be hard to solve this mystery.  But wait... someone found the KNIFE!  And on the knife we find the dried blood of the victim and some of the victim's hair fibers.  The town is debating and discussing if the knife was the murder weapon, and most conclude the knife was the weapon that slit the victim's throat due to the evidence, but some still believe the knife wasn't the weapon for various reasons.  But then the wise sage comes down from the mountain and says, "Stop this discussion!  It's impossible to even debate whether or not the knife was the weapon... because we haven't found the sword!"  The town looks to the wise sage and says... what are you talking about?

 

Joseph Smith said he translated papyri to give us the Book of Abraham

He was either translating the papyri we have found, even in part

Or he was translating the papyri that we haven't found.

But just because we don't have that missing papyri, doesn't mean we can't look at the found papyri and the evidence surrounding it to discuss whether Joseph Smith used this found papyri in his translation. 

Actually the victim was assaulted with three other unique items before being killed with the knife or the sword and there are extremely accurate sketches of the two of the other items and the third one still exists.

[Brian 2.0]

Actually the victim was assaulted with three other unique items before being killed with the knife or the sword and there are extremely accurate sketches of the two of the other items and the third one still exists.

 

It's starting to feel like a "How to Host a Papyri Translation" Party.

[CA Steve]

Produce the missing papyri ans we shall talk. Everything ekse is conjecture.

Produce evidence that the missing portions might contain something other than ordinary funerary documents and you might have a point.

Produce evidence that the Book of Abraham came for any other scroll other than the Hor scroll and you might not be conjecturing.

Is this 1841 quote from William Appleby 1841 Journal conjecture?

 

But only one papyrus was beautifully written. The handwriting on the other was crabbed and contained no rubrics". "there is a perceptible difference

between the writings [of Abraham and Joseph]. Joseph appears to have been the best scribe."

 

Edited July 11, 2014 by CA Steve