Boa - Catalyst And Missing Papyrus Theories Both Deeply Flawed

[DBMormon]

Sure but if we all just wait around until any claim made is going to bare out to be 100% accurate we'll get nowhere. Where claims gain real traction is in testing them in the world of opinion.

so you want to test mormonism's truth claims in the midst of world opinion?

[DBMormon]

Please cite the references and the full text of what JS said.  For one thing, I question whether he said that the papyri were written by Abraham personally, but let's see what you got.

  "called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus"

When the Prophet Joseph Smith published the first installments of the Book of Abraham in 1842, the caption in the Times and Seasons read as following:

Kirtland Egyptian Paper (KEP) - A1 likewise has the following caption:

"A translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."^[1]

 

“Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the catacombs of Egypt.”

FairMormon tackles this and seem to make little effort to disassociate this from Joseph but rather try to explain it away by changing its intended meaning

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/By_his_own_hand

Edited November 14, 2014 by DBMormon

[stemelbow]

so you want to test mormonism's truth claims in the midst of world opinion?

That's not what I'm saying. The claims of the church are being tested in all sorts of ways by many who aren't LDS. Many critical voices have their say. I'm suggesting it should be ok for faithful people to explore ideas and options of how things happened to counter-act that critical voice.

From what some are saying here, it sounds as if throwing out arguments in favor of the religion is bad if those arguments don't hold water in some circles. I say explore the data , feel free to make arguments and if those arguments aren't useful to anyone so be it. It won't hurt anyone. What hurts is pretending like the critical voice is all that counts.

[DBMormon]

lvjd66, on 14 Nov 2014 - 1:06 PM, said:

This. We have to faith. It really is that simple. God wants it to be that way. If you have to find a 100% logical explanation for everything before you can practice faith...well I would suggest that is not faith.

So what do we do when something we want to believe has too many problem to be worthy of faith or in otherwords is saw likely to be untrue that there is not suffcient room to exercise faith?  should we believe anyway or are we responsible to acknowledge error as such? 

[DBMormon]

I did find it interesting today that IMO by and large it seems all here acknowledge both the catalyst and missing papyrus theories are deeply flawed either by saying so or by not really trying to defend either.

Edited November 14, 2014 by DBMormon

[pogi]

 

lvjd66, on 14 Nov 2014 - 1:06 PM, said:

So what do we do when something we want to believe has too many problem to be worthy of faith or in otherwords is saw likely to be untrue that there is not suffcient room to exercise faith?  should we believe anyway or are we responsible to acknowledge error as such? 

 

 

When we simply cannot definitively know one way or the other all we can do is hope or doubt.  If you cannot yet have faith in the BoA, start with a simple hope, because when you take it in context with the rest of the gospel, I think there is ample room and reason to have hope which can bloom into faith in the BoA.  There is reason to give it the benefit of the doubt when you look at the big picture.

[Brian 2.0]

I did find it interesting today that IMO by and large it seems all here acknowledge both the catalyst and missing papyrus theories are deeply flawed either by saying so or by not really trying to defend either.

I wouldn't call catalyst "deeply flawed". It just comes with some baggage (ie it's not what JS thought he was doing).

[pogi]

And, I have never been asked in any interview, temple or otherwise, if I believe the Book of Abraham to be the word of God or anything else about it.

 

There is this:

 

Do you believe in God, the Eternal Father, in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost; and do you have a firm testimony of the restored gospel?

 

The BoA was canonized in 1880 and constitutes the restored gospel.

[KevinG]

When I look at the improbable and nearly impossible way scriptures have been transferred to us today, Bible, Book of Mormon, etc.  I really don't get hung up on the carrier, when the content is what is important for us to know.  The Book of Abraham lends such clarity to our understanding of the Bible that I have an easy time seeing the divinity in its content, without getting my knickers in a twist over its translation method.

[Mystery Meat]

 

lvjd66, on 14 Nov 2014 - 1:06 PM, said:

So what do we do when something we want to believe has too many problem to be worthy of faith or in otherwords is saw likely to be untrue that there is not suffcient room to exercise faith?  should we believe anyway or are we responsible to acknowledge error as such? 

 

 

So like that the Son of God was born by Mary, a virgin? Or that He rose from the dead? Or healed the sick? Or turned water to wine? Or walked on water? Or fasted 40 days or 40 nights?

[Cinnamon Bear Head]

What is disgusting is how many people are walking around holding TRs, denying me a TR that don't even believe the BOA, BoM, the Pearl of Great Price or the D&C to be a truthful account, simply because my weakness is addiction to tobacco. People have some integrity, if you don't believe in the Priesthood, Eternal Marriage, The BoM, the sealing power of the keyholders turn in your TR, stop being a hypocrite or are you just hedging your bets?. Do  you think they call it the Pearl of Great Price for nothing?

Just switch to an E-cig. No tobacco, first step in quitting. TR here you come!

[Cinnamon Bear Head]

I allowed the Elders to teach me, although they knew of my apostate status. They challenged me to read to BoM again, this time with a totally open mind and I took them up on it. I still see irremovable problems, but now (up to Mosiah 24) I am seeing things I never noticed before. Beautiful things that I feel are really deep. I don't know what it all means but I am now forced to concede that perhaps there is a spiritual (metaphoric?) message in the text regardless of the provenance or literal nature of the literature. I did not believe this was possible before I took up the challenge. 

[JLHPROF]

 

So what do we do when something we want to believe has too many problem to be worthy of faith or in otherwords is saw likely to be untrue that there is not suffcient room to exercise faith?  should we believe anyway or are we responsible to acknowledge error as such? 

 

 

There is a huge difference between "problems" or "untruth" and "things we don't have all the information on".

 

There are so many things in the gospel that we have limited information on, or that are impossible to our understanding.  There are many things that our entire process of understanding the world tell us cannot be true, but yet they are.  The problem items that concern you so much seem to fall into two categories:  Either they will turn out to be true so they don't bear fighting against, or they will turn out to be false so they don't matter.

 

For example, one of your pet peeves  - Worrying because an apostle teaches Christ was born April 6th with no believable evidence to back it up.

Either - Christ actually was born April 6th, so why bother fighting against it.

Or - Christ was born  on one of the 364 other days each year, in which case the false teaching means absolutely nothing.

 

We are not here to fix the gospel.  We are here to live it as it is presented to us according to our faith.

[Duncan]

so what now, you mock that I ask a serious question because I have no alternative answer.  Should we hold bad answers just to be holding an answer?   rather than acknowledge we have no comfortable answer on the how of the BOA?

 

I am not mocking but I am not seeing why I should abandoned what I already believe about the BOA for some other theory and that other theory you aren't providing-you seem to be the one poking holes in something so I ask what do you think is better?

[The Nehor]

which all faiths feel and which many who err think they were led by..... got it.  that was simple

 

Well, if they would just listen to me all their problems would go away.

[volgadon]

which all faiths feel and which many who err think they were led by..... got it.  that was simple

 

That does a great disservice to the diversity of different religions. Thing is, they don't all experience the same things, the same way.

[pogi]

Thing is, they don't all experience the same things, the same way.

 

Now don't start that again 

[volgadon]

 

The Missing Papyrus theory fails. Some apologists argue that we do not have the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated. This argument fails for multiple reasons, including: 

a. The Book of Abraham text itself (Abraham 1:12-14) refers to Facsimile 1 which appears at the beginning of the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll which we have. Furthermore, Abraham 1:12 states that Facsimile 1 appears “at the commencement of this record” which is consistent with the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll being the source of the Book of Abraham since Facsimile 1 appears at the beginning of that scroll.

b. All three of the 1835 manuscripts of the Book of Abraham are made up of Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin and a translation of them into the Book of Abraham on the right. All of these Egyptian characters in the manuscripts are taken from the Breathing Permit of Hor in the order they appear on the papyrus, indicating that the Breathing Permit of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll has been translated and there is no disagreement that it has nothing to do with the Smith’s translation of Book of Abraham but is instead a common Egyptian funerary text from the first or second century BC.

c. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll we have has a missing portion but we know the Book of Abraham could not have appeared there because it is 13 times too small to contain the Book of Abraham (by measuring the length of the scrolls' windings, the length of the scroll has been established - https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf). 

d. The Missing Papyrus Theory fails to account for the incorrectly translated and incorrectly restored facsimiles.

 

 

 

The Catalyst Theory fails. Some apologists argue that the source of the Book of Abraham is not the papyrus at all but that the source is simply revelation from God and the papyrus merely acted as a catalyst for Smith to receive the revelation. The theory fails for the following reasons:

a. It contradicts Smith’s own statements that the papyri were written by in the “handwriting of Abraham,” “by his own hand” and “sign[ed by] the patriarch Abraham.”

b. It contradicts all of the evidence stated above that Smith’s source of the Book of Abraham was the Breathing Permit of Hor.

c. If true, the Catalyst theory would mean that Smith’s translations and restorations of the facsimiles were revelation from God, and thus we must conclude that God was directing Smith to incorrectly translate and restore the facsimiles.

d. There are numerous anachronisms throughout the Book of Abraham, including “Chaldea,” “Pharoah,” “Egyptus,” etc. If true, the Catalyst theory would mean that God directed Smith to include anachronisms in the Book of Abraham and to falsely attribute them to Abraham.

 

I did not write the above but found it to the point on the issues so please know my word choice may have been different.

So with that  how do you guys make this work?  What do you do to reconcile the BOA as authentic translated/transmitted scripture?

 

If you didn't write it you need to provide a reference.

 

 

Both theories are flawed, and one will never get at the theory which best accounts for all the evidence if one does not seriously consider the BoA as a text describing an heavenly ascent.

[cinepro]

Exactly what constitutes "good evidence" for supernatural claims, such as the First Vision.

 

Well, on the assumption that you don't believe every supernatural claim that you hear, what criteria do you use?  If someone makes a very unusual or extraordinary claim, do you require a lower standard of evidence or a higher one?  If you have a different standard of evidence, do you apply it equally to all supernatural claims, or does it vary depending on whether or not you want to believe the claim in the first place?

Edited November 15, 2014 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

The Catalyst Theory fails. Some apologists argue that the source of the Book of Abraham is not the papyrus at all but that the source is simply revelation from God and the papyrus merely acted as a catalyst for Smith to receive the revelation. The theory fails for the following reasons:

a. It contradicts Smith’s own statements that the papyri were written by in the “handwriting of Abraham,” “by his own hand” and “sign[ed by] the patriarch Abraham.”

b. It contradicts all of the evidence stated above that Smith’s source of the Book of Abraham was the Breathing Permit of Hor.

c. If true, the Catalyst theory would mean that Smith’s translations and restorations of the facsimiles were revelation from God, and thus we must conclude that God was directing Smith to incorrectly translate and restore the facsimiles.

d. There are numerous anachronisms throughout the Book of Abraham, including “Chaldea,” “Pharoah,” “Egyptus,” etc. If true, the Catalyst theory would mean that God directed Smith to include anachronisms in the Book of Abraham and to falsely attribute them to Abraham.

 

I did not write the above but found it to the point on the issues so please know my word choice may have been different.

So with that  how do you guys make this work?  What do you do to reconcile the BOA as authentic translated/transmitted scripture?

All I care about is the catalyst theory since if it is correct, the others are irrelevant.

This is a very poor argument. Joseph viewed "translation" in a different way than we do. He called his "Inspired Version" of the bible a "translation" as well when it clearly was not. It included total re-writes of the Bible and added words, reversing meanings of phrases etc.

The BOA is pure inspiration termed "translation". If you look up "translation" in old dictionaries it refers clearly to the idea of transforming. That is why we use that world for the change from a mortal to an immortal body- we are transformed, and raised to a new level. We are not "reproduced" in a different suit of clothes, we are transformed.

That is what Joseph did- he transformed texts and raised them to a higher level.

As always it is a squabble about words and what "translate" means. These are not translations in that sense at all.

It's that old literalistic thinking again. When will we ever learn?

[Scott Lloyd]

If you didn't write it you need to provide a reference.

 

Did DBMormon ever provide that reference? I went back to the OP and didn't see one.

[Scott Lloyd]

All I care about is the catalyst theory since if it is correct, the others are irrelevant.

 

I don't agree that they would be irrelevant, only that they would be cumulative in the event the catalyst theory already had established the veracity of the book.

[canard78]

When I look at the improbable and nearly impossible way scriptures have been transferred to us today, Bible, Book of Mormon, etc. I really don't get hung up on the carrier, when the content is what is important for us to know. The Book of Abraham lends such clarity to our understanding of the Bible that I have an easy time seeing the divinity in its content, without getting my knickers in a twist over its translation method.

Even when the translation of source materials is demonstrably wrong?

The missing papyrus theory seems entirely redundant to me given we have three pieces of the original document in our scriptures and the translation is clearly wrong.

The only theory that can carry any weight is the catalyst theory. Problem with that theory is that it goes completely against what was taught about the scrolls in the 19thC. It leaves people having to believe in a God who effectively tricked Joseph into believing he had the writings of one of the ancient patriarchs when in reality he'd spent $1000s on an elaborate obituary clipping.

Facsimile 2 on its own is enough to dismiss any credibility in the literal translation.

Facsimile 2 in BoA is a "hypocephalus"

English: A hypocephalus (Greek υποκέφαλος, meaning "under the head") is a small disc-shaped object that was placed under the head of a deceased person in Ancient Egypt. It was believed to magically protect the deceased, providing "life-giving fire" to the head and body, and making the deceased divine. This hypocephalus is inscribed with Chapter 162 of the Book of the Dead, and depicts a Hathor-cow in front of the four sons of Horus, baboons paying obeisance to the four-headed Ram of Mendes, and barques.

The British Museum has a very good quality copy of one (linked below):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hypocephalus_of_Tasheritkhons_(c._305%E2%80%9330_BCE),_British_Museum,_London_-_20080821_-_Lines.png

Here's the BoA version:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng

A few issues:

1) In the middle of most of the pictures I've seen of a hypocephalus (including Facsimile 2 and the British Museum version) you'll find 2 or 4 baboons paying obeisance to the four-headed Ram of Mendes. Joseph said it's Kolob surrounded by the stars that draw light from Kolob.

2) Underneath the Ram of Mendes is a Hathor-cow in front of the four sons of Horus. Hathor is a female godess of joy/feminine love while the sons of Horus were protectors of parts of the body. Joseph said it was the sun and 4-quarters of the earth.

3) In the bottom right (upside-down) are two figures. Joseph said it was God on his throne and the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. It's Min, the Egyptian fertility god, being visited by Horus.

Could Joseph translate ancient documents? Not on this evidence. Catalyst theory is really the only credible option... with all its messy implications.

[canard78]

Did DBMormon ever provide that reference? I went back to the OP and didn't see one.

I think it's out of this rather lengthy treatment by "TruthSeeker2013"

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/ZKUKMhFwHPIQEcoynvAiSdYQJI3tod7URBx4fqjNPPxg2KJFDSrlHZijOuoLg5Il?dl=1

The above was linked to in a discussion on another board and the OP summary is from that thread.

Edited November 15, 2014 by canard78

[Rivers]

As I learn more about biblical scholarship I have been able to view both the Bible and LDS scriptures a little differently. There are many things in the Bible that likely aren't historical in the modern sense of the word. Yet I still see the Bible as a collection of inspired writings.

The Book of Abraham certainly has its historicity problems but for me that does not diminish its value as scripture.