oremites Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 20 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Joseph Smith claimed that he “Translated” Golden Plates…yet if they ever existed he never used the plates. I once read a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The translator, in the introduction, mentioned he had never seen any of the actual scrolls in real life. Therefore, he never used any of them in his translation process. I can only conclude from those facts that the scrolls were completely irrelevant and may as well have never existed. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: Ok, try explaining it to me like you would to a five year old. Pick whichever interpretation from the 1828 Websters that fits your wishes and describe in more than a five words what Joseph Smith actually did. Keep in mind that you must describe his usage of his hat, his stone(s), whether or not he had the golden plates in front of him, the purpose and use of a scribe. If the usage of the word translation is different in regards to the Book of Abraham explain why it is different and reference to anything that Joseph SMith himself about how that translation differed from his work with the golden plates. I'd be more than happy if you give your best shot at defining his "translation" without any "presentism". You will ridicule this, but take a look at it anyway, written by a non- Mormon scholar. http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/B-6-Golden-Plates-Numen.pdf For me it will be a good chance to get some of these beliefs in ink as an outline for further revision later. So to be honest, thanks for the question but some of this may just be relevant to myself and not to an answer to your question. That is just because our record in discussion is not the best as far as substantial exchanges. I do not go as far as Taves does- I believe there WAS an artifact, a stack of plates. I am not speaking in a scientific way, discounting my personal testimony I believe Joseph had dreams telling him there were plates, and that he found them just as the dream told him. I think these sort of phenomena do occur, because I have experienced dreams which have proven to be correct, one of which described a future event, and the dream paralleled the event exactly. and yes, I believe that to be "real" through pragmatic philosophy as described by William James. Just using straight reason here, no testimony, adding personal experience as appropriate for the context, which is perfectly justifiable. So Joseph found the artifact described as "plates" which somehow had the appearance of gold. Or I could go with something like the Taves story, for the record I have no problem with the idea of sanctification of objects on a pragmatic basis. Look at the shroud of Turin, or the painting of our lady of Guadalupe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe, or temple dedications. Either one or none actually works for me, but that's ok. If it could be proven to be "fiction I still wouldn't care but that is not what I believe. So Joseph has the plates and a message in a dream that he should "translate them" "Translate" because Joseph liked old artifacts and digging for them. That is proven in his early days of "money digging". I see it as possible the the Lord used all that to give the revelation, or alternatively, scientifically and psychologically, that Joseph needed that to write his philosophy, because that is how he believed "revelation" would be credible. We create credibility through our experiences, and in his mind, magic was "real" so magical/spiritual situations were perfectly reasonable. Some find Hillary credible, some find Trump credible That doesn't work for us with our positivistic paradigms, but that is rapidly changing. Again, these sorts of things go along with the Taves interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_realism#Postmodernism https://www.academia.edu/1450171/Magical_realism_and_postmodernism_decentering_privileged_centers So now, from a gospel point of view, Joseph has the "plates" - and is told to translate them. From another perspective, Joseph has found the artifact/ plates after a dream, OR through the Taves view, made the plates and "sanctified them"- made them holy. Again I am intellectually impartial on these views- I can see how both or either could be intellectually "justified" to use a philosophical word, and what I care about is the philosophy/spiritual message, and the history is irrelevant. I do not care how Kant set up his desk to write the "Critique", or if he had a favorite chair or needed two cups of tea before he wrote.. Irrelevant. On the other hand, I have a spiritual testimony of Joseph as a prophet who received the plates from God and translated them. But to go on. Psychologically Joseph needs the idea that this should be a magic process. That was Joseph's millieu and his personality. He knows/wants to get some philosophy written. I relate to that just fine. So his vehicle is the magic rock, with historical precedence in the fables urim and thummim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim Spiritually, as a prophet, God set it up for him to use the same "tools" as the prophets of old. And so Joseph saw the letters in the stone. I find this credible precisely because it seems so weird. If I were faking it, I would find a lot more reasonable way than a stone in a hat. From one point of view, God caused this. From another point of view, Joseph's "mind caused it" My testimony is that it from God. My philosophical voice says that it could have been Joseph's psychology, but please try to define the difference between "my mind doing it" and "God doing it through the spirit". No difference is definable, so it becomes a problem of semantics. What's left from the questions? Scribe: Seems unproblematic to me. Joseph was having a spiritual experience - whatever the source- where words were appearing somehow, and he needed someone to write it down. I dictate a lot of my posts to save time writing them. Google is my "scribe". I don't see a problem there, though I do not have my face in a hat. Maybe they would improve if I did. Use of the word "translation"- Quote TRANSLA'TE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.] 1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another. The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused. 2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death. By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death. Hebrews 11:15. 3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10. 4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease. 5. To change. Happy is your grace, That can translate the stubbornness of fortune Into so quiet and so sweet a style. 6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia. 7. To explain. Now the word "translate" has these relevant meanings (I left out some technical ones, used in physics etc)- just using an internet dictionary Quote trans·late transˈlāt,tranzˈlāt/ verb verb: translate; 3rd person present: translates; past tense: translated; past participle: translated; gerund or present participle: translating 1. express the sense of (words or text) in another language. "the German original has been translated into English" synonyms:render, put, express, convert, change; More be expressed or be capable of being expressed in another language. "shiatsu literally translates as “finger pressure.”" convert or be converted into (another form or medium). "few of Shakespeare's other works have been translated into ballets" synonyms:render, paraphrase, reword, rephrase, convert, decipher, decode, gloss, explainMore When we hear a word, ALL of these definitions come into our consciousness. I am not justifying Joseph's use of the word "translate"- I am simply showing ways it might have been, and is still being, used. Perhaps his use of the word is misleading- BECAUSE you are thinking of only one definition, but if you take all definitions into account, I think Joseph's use is perfectly understandable. Look at one of the modern interpretations of "translating" a Shakespearean play into ballet!! Look at "decipher" and "decode" and "convert" AND look at Joseph's own use of the word "translate" to describe his re-write of the Bible. I have no problem with his use of the word in these contexts. It's semantics. If you find it misleading, fine, I do not. Where is the judge who will adjudicate this disagreement? On this we will just have to agree to disagree, but I find it a worthless argument to pursue. I think his use of the word describes both the Bible "translation" and the BOA "translation" Also I think I have shown that Joseph wanted to think these were literal translations for the same reasons he needed the "prop" of the plates and the papyri, that spoken from a psychological sectarian position From a spiritual position, I think these were translations, and take the church position. I see that as a reasonable paradigm- at least as reasonable as the sectarian position and again, that is what my testimony tells me. In short I have no problem with the idea that with the ambiguity of language, understanding these issues from a postmodern or pragmatic perspective, either of these models are acceptable intellectually. Again, Quote " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations. Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5. My personal perspective is to follow my testimony. Phew. That's about it. If your usual drive by responses are what I get back, there will be no response. I appreciate your original post which prompted me to spend all this time on the response- if you want to continue the discussion, please respond in the same tone. Edited June 7, 2016 by mfbukowski 4
Glenn101 Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: CFR: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng Okay Johnnie, I have read your CFR. Thanks for the response. However I do believe that you are being just a bit disingenuous on your assertion as to what the church is now "admitting." It is not now admitting anything that it, or LDS scholars have been saying from 1967, i.e. that there is no mention of the name Abraham in any of the extant papyri that have been recovered. Here is what the Church says about the scene: From your CFR, "It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri." That "admission" does not seem to fit your interpretation. Glenn Edited June 7, 2016 by Glenn101 1
bcuzbcuz Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Because those were the ones which were relevant. What's your point? Should I have picked the irrelevant ones to make you happy? You're obviously tired of this subject and no longer interested in responding to a question that asks for a broader interpretation than no. 5 "To change" and no.7 "To explain". Instead of asking "What's my point?" Just turn the qestion over to someone who can actually answer the question.
consiglieri Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) On 6/6/2016 at 3:33 PM, Johnnie Cake said: This at least is how I, a non-believer, see this subject…How am I wrong? I’m willing to reinterpret my own conclusions but I would need compelling evidence in order to do so. I'm only guessing but I would assume that the majority of the posters here don't believe that Joseph Translated anything...he merely dictated "revelation"...yet he claimed that he translated not received revelation...so how am I to make sense of all of this? Here is what I see, Johnnie. I think it is clear that when Joseph Smith said he "translated" the Bible, that was obviously not what we would consider as a "translation" from one language to another, as he was just going from the English and making changes, deletions and additions as he went along. This is probably why the Community of Christ long ago decided that calling it an "Inspired Version" was more apropos. But when we get to the Book of Abraham, we have something decidedly different. Here, Joseph is not taking an English text and making emendations, but it seems clear that he believed and related that he was making a "translation" in the sense that he was rendering the Egyptian from the papyri into English. Unfortunately, history has shown that the contents of the Book of Abraham have nothing to do with the papyri that were found in the 1960's. Because of this, it has become common to use the word "translate" as it is understood to apply to the JST and apply it to the BOA, where it is not a good fit. I am left to conclude that the LDS Church has been forced to acknowledge that when Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Abraham, it was not a translation of the text of the papyri into English. In other words, it was not a standard translation. The current notion is that the papyri served as some sort of prophetic catalyst by means of which Joseph Smith revealed an ancient text that has nothing to do with the papyri, even though Joseph Smith thought it did. Due to this, the word "translate" as used in current LDS vernacular has become indistinguishable from what would have occurred if Joseph Smith simply made it all up. This is not a helpful definition. Unless your goal is to explain why it is that all the evidence contradicts the claim Joseph Smith ever "translated" anything. Edited June 7, 2016 by consiglieri
Robert F. Smith Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You will ridicule this, but take a look at it anyway, written by a non- Mormon scholar. http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/B-6-Golden-Plates-Numen.pdf ............................................................... Thanks for that, Mark. I have had the pleasure of attending a lecture by Taves at the Claremont Grad School. She is very good. Ann Taves, “History and the Claims of Revelation: Joseph Smith and the Materialization of the Golden Plates,” Numen, 61/2-3 (Mar 18, 2014):182-207, online at https://www.deepdyve.com/browse/journals/numen/2014/v61/i2-3 , and at http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/B-6-Golden-Plates-Numen.pdf . As for the rest, I am still amazed that some people are unable to use an ordinary dictionary, and to accept the full semantic range of meaning of a word. Joseph could only deal with the appearance of phrases and sentences in English on his solid state device (seerstone), as he read them to his scribes. He had no way of knowing how it worked, so he merely said that it happened by the gift and power of God. Edited June 7, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 2
JAHS Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 32 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Unfortunately, history has shown that the contents of the Book of Abraham have nothing to do with the papyri that were found in the 1960's. Remember that we only have fragments of papyri that at one time were described as longer rolls. According to President Joseph F. Smith, one of the rolls of papyri when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House. 1
Glenn101 Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: But when we get to the Book of Abraham, we have something decidedly different. Here, Joseph is not taking an English text and making emendations, but it seems clear that he believed and related that he was making a "translation" in the sense that he was rendering the Egyptian from the papyri into English. Unfortunately, history has shown that the contents of the Book of Abraham have nothing to do with the papyri that were found in the 1960's The unfortunate part is the loss of the major portions of the papyri that were believed to have been lost in the Great Chicago fire of 1871. Whatever their fate is pretty clear from the many eye witness reports that we do not have a lot of the papyri that came into Joseph's possession. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted June 8, 2016 Author Posted June 8, 2016 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: Due to this, the word "translate" as used in current LDS vernacular has become indistinguishable from what would have occurred if Joseph Smith simply made it all up. Exactly
Johnnie Cake Posted June 8, 2016 Author Posted June 8, 2016 2 hours ago, JAHS said: Remember that we only have fragments of papyri that at one time were described as longer rolls. According to President Joseph F. Smith, one of the rolls of papyri when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House. remember we also have the BoA facsimiles ... And Joseph's so called translations of them also... I rest my case 2
mfbukowski Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Thanks for that, Mark. I have had the pleasure of attending a lecture by Taves at the Claremont Grad School. She is very good. Ann Taves, “History and the Claims of Revelation: Joseph Smith and the Materialization of the Golden Plates,” Numen, 61/2-3 (Mar 18, 2014):182-207, online at https://www.deepdyve.com/browse/journals/numen/2014/v61/i2-3 , and at http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/B-6-Golden-Plates-Numen.pdf . As for the rest, I am still amazed that some people are unable to use an ordinary dictionary, and to accept the full semantic range of meaning of a word. Joseph could only deal with the appearance of phrases and sentences in English on his solid state device (seerstone), as he read them to his scribes. He had no way of knowing how it worked, so he merely said that it happened by the gift and power of God. "Solid state"? that was a REAL LOL!
The Nehor Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: remember we also have the BoA facsimiles ... And Joseph's so called translations of them also... I rest my case So we never have to hear it again?!?! Anyone else feel like celebrating? Woohoo!!! 4
DJBrown Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: remember we also have the BoA facsimiles ... And Joseph's so called translations of them also... I rest my case The ironic thing about this statement in the context of this thread is that "we" only have one of the three facsimiles today- the extant papyri include only one of the original facsimiles. So it seems a little strange to present as evidence the fact that none of the surviving papyri mention Abraham, etc.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 6 hours ago, consiglieri said: ........................................................................... Due to this, the word "translate" as used in current LDS vernacular has become indistinguishable from what would have occurred if Joseph Smith simply made it all up. This is not a helpful definition. Unless your goal is to explain why it is that all the evidence contradicts the claim Joseph Smith ever "translated" anything. Aside from being very free in your portrayal of the facts, your theory here represents a stark and total claim of fraud, Counselor. And that just doesn't jibe with a careful comparison of the BofA (or BofM) with standard Egyptology, as I do in my “Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham . Once one gets past all the mythology which has been generated by the anti-Mormon crowd, the hard facts portray a much different picture of the BofA. How is this possible if your narrow, totalist view is valid? 2
mfbukowski Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 There is a wonderful new article by Jeff Bradshaw on these very points in Interpreter http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/now-that-we-have-the-words-of-joseph-smith-how-shall-we-begin-to-understand-them-illustrations-of-selected-challenges-within-the-21-may-1843-discourse-on-2-peter-1/ 2
mfbukowski Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: remember we also have the BoA facsimiles ... And Joseph's so called translations of them also... I rest my case And I suppose Joseph thought that this could never happen, right? This fraudster, master manipulating crook just left it all for future generations, never trying to cover up his fraud, right? A founder of a religious faith who actually wanted to be labeled a fraudster in a few years, left it all for future generations existing, after Egyptian had been translated, to see him as a crook and fraudster, right? That is what he was trying to do by leaving the evidence, right? And all this AFTER he had the run-in with Anthon, when the fraudster almost got caught in his fraud and pretended that God told him not to re-translate the lost pages, he was so stupid that for a SECOND TIME left the evidence, thinking the world would never figure it out, right? He didn't learn the first time?? What a dummie! He figured no one would notice that his writings were not "real" translations?? Even after Anthon might have"exposed" his "fraud"? You'd think that that alone woould have taught him not to leave the evidence around!! Man, some people never learn! But seriously, back to mfbukowski personna, what would be Joseph's motive for doing that?? It reminds me of people who argue that the temple ordinances cannot be "real" because they were changed. I guess the brethren forgot that millions of people might notice the changes that they supposedly did not have the authority to make, right? That the brethren were fallen because the changed Eternal Truth? Could it be that maybe the Eternal Truths were not that eternal after all? That maybe the magic spells maybe were never SUPPOSED to be magic incantations in the first place, and could be changed as times change? "Nah, we will just slip it past them and no one will notice" Yep, just keep your case "rested" believing that! No one will ever figure it out! Joseph's motive was to be seen as a fraudster for eternity, so he left behind the evidence, but don't tell anyone Edited June 8, 2016 by mfbukowski 4
Thinking Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: And I suppose Joseph thought that this could never happen, right? What Joseph thought is irrelevant to the truth value of what he claimed. 39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: This fraudster, master manipulating crook just left it all for future generations, never trying to cover up his fraud, right? A founder of a religious faith who actually wanted to be labeled a fraudster in a few years, left it all for future generations existing, after Egyptian had been translated, to see him as a crook and fraudster, right? That is what he was trying to do by leaving the evidence, right? Or... Joseph really did believe what he claimed. Joseph didn't even consider what might happen with future generations. 39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: And all this AFTER he had the run-in with Anthon, he was so stupid that for a SECOND TIME he perpetrated the exact same fraud, thinking the world would never figure it out, right? He figured no one would notice that his writings were not "real" translations?? Even after Anthon had so brilliantly "exposed" his "fraud"? Man, some people never learn! Yep, especially after CNN interviewed Anthon and produced a documentary about the controversy. 39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: What would be Joseph's motive for doing that?? Motive is irrelevant. 39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: It reminds me of people who argue that the temple ordinances cannot be "real" because they were changed. We are reminded of all the criticism the Catholic Church has received for changing baptism from immersion to sprinkling. 39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I guess the brethren forgot that millions of people might notice the changes that they supposedly did not have the authority to make, right? That maybe the Eternal Truths were not that eternal after all? That maybe the magic spells maybe were never SUPPOSED to be magic incantations in the first place, and could be changed as times change? Or... The brethren know that the changes will be kept mostly confidential because they are sacred. In time the changes will only be talked about by the critics and many won't believe them because nothing official is written. 39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: "Nah, we will just slip it past them and no one will notice" Even when people notice, an attempt is made to explain things with essays that are not officially official and written by who knows. 39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yep, just keep your case "rested" believing that! zzzzz 39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: No one will ever figure it out! Joseph's motive was to be seen as a fraudster for eternity, so he left behind the evidence, but don't tell anyone I repeat. Motive is irrelevant. 1
stemelbow Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 14 hours ago, consiglieri said: Here is what I see, Johnnie. I think it is clear that when Joseph Smith said he "translated" the Bible, that was obviously not what we would consider as a "translation" from one language to another, as he was just going from the English and making changes, deletions and additions as he went along. This is probably why the Community of Christ long ago decided that calling it an "Inspired Version" was more apropos. But when we get to the Book of Abraham, we have something decidedly different. Here, Joseph is not taking an English text and making emendations, but it seems clear that he believed and related that he was making a "translation" in the sense that he was rendering the Egyptian from the papyri into English. Unfortunately, history has shown that the contents of the Book of Abraham have nothing to do with the papyri that were found in the 1960's. Because of this, it has become common to use the word "translate" as it is understood to apply to the JST and apply it to the BOA, where it is not a good fit. I am left to conclude that the LDS Church has been forced to acknowledge that when Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Abraham, it was not a translation of the text of the papyri into English. In other words, it was not a standard translation. The current notion is that the papyri served as some sort of prophetic catalyst by means of which Joseph Smith revealed an ancient text that has nothing to do with the papyri, even though Joseph Smith thought it did. Due to this, the word "translate" as used in current LDS vernacular has become indistinguishable from what would have occurred if Joseph Smith simply made it all up. This is not a helpful definition. Unless your goal is to explain why it is that all the evidence contradicts the claim Joseph Smith ever "translated" anything. I think you're correct. But as the stories of history have unfolded since JS's day, the word translate was there. He used the word to describe it all. It's hard to renounce it now. Was the BoM translated from one language to another by JS? Maybe not. Who knows. See ya plates. They're gone anyway. What's the significant difference between JS' scriptures and the Bible in this sense? the Bible doesn't seem to be much more than a collection of different stories possibly made up by unknown people attributed to legendary people. 2
Gray Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 I believe David Bokovoy's take on it is the best possible faithful approach - Joseph reinterpreted the Egyptian and created a prophetic midrash about the life of Abraham. The attempt might have been translation, but the result was quite different, but still valuable. 1
consiglieri Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 13 hours ago, Glenn101 said: The unfortunate part is the loss of the major portions of the papyri that were believed to have been lost in the Great Chicago fire of 1871. Whatever their fate is pretty clear from the many eye witness reports that we do not have a lot of the papyri that came into Joseph's possession. I used the cling to the "missing papyrus" theory as well, Glenn, but eventually I had to face the facts. The idea that there is a "missing papyrus" sprang from the fact that none of the recovered papyrus has anything to do with the Book of Abraham as we have it today. Therefore, what we have as the Book of Abraham must have been contained in some other part of the papyrus that was destroyed. It is not an argument based on the evidence, but an argument of necessity because the evidence does not support the theory. It became concerning to me that the evidence kept pushing me into these types of corners; where I would have to concede that the existing evidence does not support the Book of Abraham, but there is evidence out there that doesn't exist that does. You can see why this is a weak argument. A similar argument applies to archeology and the Book of Mormon. There are absolutely mountains of undiscovered evidence that support the historicity of the Book of Mormon. But as to the Book of Abraham, the facts pretty much destroy the "missing papyrus" theory. Yes, it is certain that some of the papyrus was destroyed, but it is just as certain that what was recovered served as the basis for at least part of the Book of Abraham. Let me explain. First, Facsimile No 1 is on the recovered Joseph Smith papyri, as is the writing immediately surrounding the Facsimile. We understand from the Book of Abraham itself that it is connected to Facsimile No. 1 because it says so. Note how chapter one specifically refers the reader back to Facsimile No 1 at the beginning of the chapter, where the text describes the bedstead in the facsimile. It is hard to argue that we should not expect BOA chapter one to be found in immediate connection with Facsimile No. 1. And yet there is nothing in the language on the same papyri as Facsimile No. 1 that has anything to do with BOA chapter 1. Making the matter worse is that Kirtland Egyptian Papers (KEP). The KEP show that the Book of Abraham was translated from hieroglyphs that were found on the recovered manuscript! This is why the KEP have been such a thorn in the backside of apologists for fifty years. It is difficult to maintain the argument that the Book of Abraham must have been translated from missing papyrus when the KEP demonstrate pretty conclusively that this is not the case. In conclusion, the evidence demonstrates that at least part of the Book of Abraham was, in actuality, translated from the existing papyri. The fact there is nothing on the recovered papyri that remotely resembles the Book of Abraham is a death blow to the idea that Joseph Smith "translated" the papyri in a conventional sense and thereby produced the Book of Abraham. All of this is why the word "translate" has had to be redefined by the modern LDS Church. It is solely to account for the fact that we know the Book of Abraham was translated (at least in part) from the extant papyri, and that the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with what is really on the papyri. Think about it for a second. If a person believes the text of the Book of Abraham was on part of the missing papyri, there is no need to redefine the word "translate." It still exists on the missing portion and were it found, a conventional translation of Egyptian to English would bring forth what we have as the Book of Abraham. The very fact the LDS Church has felt the need to redefine the word "translate" is itself a tacit acknowledgement of the above problems with the Book of Abraham.
Johnnie Cake Posted June 8, 2016 Author Posted June 8, 2016 9 hours ago, DJBrown said: The ironic thing about this statement in the context of this thread is that "we" only have one of the three facsimiles today- the extant papyri include only one of the original facsimiles. So it seems a little strange to present as evidence the fact that none of the surviving papyri mention Abraham, etc. Sorry I was goaded off track from my OP. I really don't want this thread to disintegrate into yet another thread on the particulars in the BoA. I'm trying to understand how a believer maintains belief despite the fact that the underlying vehicle for translation, as described by Joseph Smith turns out to be something completely different from what Joseph said it was. If Joseph was so completely wrong on what the papyri was (not being a actual writings of Abraham) why should anyone believe that he got the rest of the writings correct? In fact, just taking the facsimiles, that we do have the originals of...he didn't get these correct either. So having been so completely discredited, logically all of it should be dismissed as rubbish. Yet members continue to believe...I've postulated that they do this by reinterpreting the word Translate as Joseph seemed to use the term, as a translation of ancient writings of Abraham, and changed it into something completely different, a divining or a revelatory or a catalyst process. The conclusions of Belief must be maintained even when the logical path would be to accept the BoA as compete rubbish
stemelbow Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Sorry I was goaded off track from my OP. I really don't want this thread to disintegrate into yet another thread on the particulars in the BoA. I'm trying to understand how a believer maintains belief despite the fact that the underlying vehicle for translation, as described by Joseph Smith turns out to be something completely different from what Joseph said it was. If Joseph was so completely wrong on what the papyri was (not being a actual writings of Abraham) why should anyone believe that he got the rest of the writings correct? In fact, just taking the facsimiles, that we do have the originals of...he didn't get these correct either. So having been so completely discredited, logically all of it should be dismissed as rubbish. Yet members continue to believe...I've postulated that they do this by reinterpreting the word Translate as Joseph seemed to use the term, as a translation of ancient writings of Abraham, and changed it into something completely different, a divining or a revelatory or a catalyst process. The conclusions of Belief must be maintained even when the logical path would be to accept the BoA as compete rubbish To be fair most members don't even think about this. They assume it all fits together neatly because the scriptures are meaningful to them. What more do they need than that? It's not much different for us members who realize the BoA is not found on the papyrus. What does it matter if the scriptures carry weight and meaning to me? So, we can't figure out what Joseph was doing when he came up with scripture. he might not fully realize what was going on, I guess. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted June 8, 2016 Author Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: And I suppose Joseph thought that this could never happen, right? This fraudster, master manipulating crook just left it all for future generations, never trying to cover up his fraud, right? A founder of a religious faith who actually wanted to be labeled a fraudster in a few years, left it all for future generations existing, after Egyptian had been translated, to see him as a crook and fraudster, right? That is what he was trying to do by leaving the evidence, right? And all this AFTER he had the run-in with Anthon, when the fraudster almost got caught in his fraud and pretended that God told him not to re-translate the lost pages, he was so stupid that for a SECOND TIME left the evidence, thinking the world would never figure it out, right? He didn't learn the first time?? What a dummie! He figured no one would notice that his writings were not "real" translations?? Even after Anthon might have"exposed" his "fraud"? You'd think that that alone woould have taught him not to leave the evidence around!! Man, some people never learn! But seriously, back to mfbukowski personna, what would be Joseph's motive for doing that?? It reminds me of people who argue that the temple ordinances cannot be "real" because they were changed. I guess the brethren forgot that millions of people might notice the changes that they supposedly did not have the authority to make, right? That the brethren were fallen because the changed Eternal Truth? Could it be that maybe the Eternal Truths were not that eternal after all? That maybe the magic spells maybe were never SUPPOSED to be magic incantations in the first place, and could be changed as times change? "Nah, we will just slip it past them and no one will notice" Yep, just keep your case "rested" believing that! No one will ever figure it out! Joseph's motive was to be seen as a fraudster for eternity, so he left behind the evidence, but don't tell anyone I don't want to get into a discussion of what Smith's motivations might have been...that would only be a discussion into the depths of speculation. I want to focus on what we do know. He claimed to make a translation of the papyri. That translation (using the term loosely) turns out NOT to be what it claims to be. That being the reality believers come up with new and improved Translation processes in order to explain away the fact that the BoM isn't what Joseph himself claimed it was. That's my point. The papyri wasn't translated from Egyptian into English as claimed by Smith...so now since we know this to be the case rather than dismissing the BoA as a fraud, believers move the goal posts and come up with a new Papyri as a catalyst to revelation process in order to maintain belief. Belief (the Conclusion) is maintain and the discredited path to this conclusion is changed into something completely different so that a new pathway can be credit whole clothe that will lead to the predetermined preferred conclusion that the book is what it claims to be...despite the fact that we already know that it isn't what it claims to be. its mind numbing Edited June 8, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Johnnie Cake Posted June 8, 2016 Author Posted June 8, 2016 43 minutes ago, Gray said: I believe David Bokovoy's take on it is the best possible faithful approach - Joseph reinterpreted the Egyptian and created a prophetic midrash about the life of Abraham. The attempt might have been translation, but the result was quite different, but still valuable. I would agree that if a believer finds value in the BoA then it has value irrespective of its origins. But lets be honest and just call a spade a spade...believers deserve to be told the truth that the BoA isn't what Joseph claimed it was rather than some made up apologetic safe harbor theory created so that faith can be maintained.
Recommended Posts