Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

[Tacenda]

Why do we not study the Pearl of Great Price the same as we do the D&C, Book of Mormon, Bible? All I can find is a student manual that I take is for institute or seminary. Am I totally out of tune, or did I spend to much time in callings that don't allow me to attend Gospel Doctrine/Essential classes.

Why don't we study it indepth as a class? 

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

This part of the OP is the best part of it, I think, and what I understand from this combined with my knowledge that Abraham shared his knowledge with ancient Egyptians is that his writings became the basis for the standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies.

Some people apparently just don't know or realize how much Abraham influenced ancient Egyptians and their culture.

 

Ok, I'll bite. I'm one of those people who "apparently just don't know or realize how much Abraham influenced ancient Egyptians and their culture."

Would you care to enlighten me (us) and provide some evidence that "Abraham influenced ancient Egyptians and their culture"? You are of the opinion that Abraham and his writings "became the basis for the standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies."

Became the basis of standard funerary texts.......? Abraham lived sometime around 2100 to 1800 BC. Would you care to show funerary texts from around that time in Egyptian history that were significantly different from texts prior to the time of Abraham? I don't mean texts that have a similarity to the funerary texts of 300 BC, just any funerary texts from around 1800 BC.

Pyramid texts from the Old Kingdom somewhere from around 2400 BC, were written on the walls of the pharaohs tombs. We have no evidence that such texts were ever used by the common man.

The First Intermediate Period, which lasted about 100 years, started around 2180 BC. During that period, coffin texts began making their appearance. These were similar in form to the previous pyramid texts but contained additional spells, almost 2000 such. Most were written on the insides of coffins, therefore called coffin texts. We know this from the discoveries of wealthy patrons who could afford coffins.

This practise continued into the Middle Kingdom, from around 2050 BC to 1640 BC. Coffin texts continued with some texts from this period being written on grave walls and on papyri. Do you have any evidence of any of these spells, from this period, that indicate the influence of Abraham? In other words, from those myriad of spells from the Book of the Dead, which spells owe their origin to Abraham?

The British Museum has a current site on-line dealing with the Book of the Dead. https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/3665_BOTD_schools_Teachers.pdf

 The Neues Museum in Berlin has a marvelous collection of coffins and a large collection of papyri, which can be referenced on-line. http://www.smb.museum/en/whats-new/detail/bdquorubensohn-bibliothekldquo-von-elephantine-4000-jahre-altaegyptische-kulturgeschichte-auf-p.html

 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Why do we not study the Pearl of Great Price the same as we do the D&C, Book of Mormon, Bible? All I can find is a student manual that I take is for institute or seminary. Am I totally out of tune, or did I spend to much time in callings that don't allow me to attend Gospel Doctrine/Essential classes.

Why don't we study it indepth as a class? 

It is studied in depth during classes, 1 hour every Sunday, about 50 Sundays per year, every 4 years. It's just that it can be studied even deeper than that by studying more days per year, every year, throughout a person's life.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

It is studied in depth during classes, 1 hour every Sunday, about 50 Sundays per year, every 4 years. It's just that it can be studied even deeper than that by studying more days per year, every year, throughout a person's life.

I may be outing myself too much here, by not understanding. I guess I thought it was only the D&C, BoM, Old Testament, New Testament. Was I not paying attention and missed PoGP? I'm bad because scriptures didn't come easily to me. I read plenty of the LDS magazines though. 

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Ok, I'll bite. I'm one of those people who "apparently just don't know or realize how much Abraham influenced ancient Egyptians and their culture."

Would you care to enlighten me (us) and provide some evidence that "Abraham influenced ancient Egyptians and their culture"? You are of the opinion that Abraham and his writings "became the basis for the standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies."

Became the basis of standard funerary texts.......? Abraham lived sometime around 2100 to 1800 BC. Would you care to show funerary texts from around that time in Egyptian history that were significantly different from texts prior to the time of Abraham? I don't mean texts that have a similarity to the funerary texts of 300 BC, just any funerary texts from around 1800 BC.

Pyramid texts from the Old Kingdom somewhere from around 2400 BC, were written on the walls of the pharaohs tombs. We have no evidence that such texts were ever used by the common man.

The First Intermediate Period, which lasted about 100 years, started around 2180 BC. During that period, coffin texts began making their appearance. These were similar in form to the previous pyramid texts but contained additional spells, almost 2000 such. Most were written on the insides of coffins, therefore called coffin texts. We know this from the discoveries of wealthy patrons who could afford coffins.

This practise continued into the Middle Kingdom, from around 2050 BC to 1640 BC. Coffin texts continued with some texts from this period being written on grave walls and on papyri. Do you have any evidence of any of these spells, from this period, that indicate the influence of Abraham? In other words, from those myriad of spells from the Book of the Dead, which spells owe their origin to Abraham?

The British Museum has a current site on-line dealing with the Book of the Dead. https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/3665_BOTD_schools_Teachers.pdf

 The Neues Museum in Berlin has a marvelous collection of coffins and a large collection of papyri, which can be referenced on-line. http://www.smb.museum/en/whats-new/detail/bdquorubensohn-bibliothekldquo-von-elephantine-4000-jahre-altaegyptische-kulturgeschichte-auf-p.html

 

You cited enough info there to help you see at least some of what I can see. Some pharaohs of ancient Egypt had some kind of text and Abraham was likely influenced by some of their writings, but those, as you suggest, were not then the "standard" funerary text that Abraham developed.

Also consider how Abraham was given info from God about the heavens which he shared with the Egyptians.  It's not as if the Egyptians learned all that they knew all by themselves.

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I may be outing myself too much here, by not understanding. I guess I thought it was only the D&C, BoM, Old Testament, New Testament. Was I not paying attention and missed PoGP? I'm bad because scriptures didn't come easily to me. I read plenty of the LDS magazines though. 

The PoGP is relatively short on content and the Book of Abraham is usually studied along with Genesis in the Old Testament.  But it is still studied in depth, at least somewhat, rather than a simple gloss over.  The book of Moses in the PoGP is also studied every 4 years along with the Old Testament.  The Church history part of the PoGP, from Joseph Smith, is usually studied along with the D&C every 4 years.

So yeah, it's not a whole year devoted to only the PoGP, but it is still studied in depth, at least somewhat, every 4 years, and not every part of it in the same year during Sunday school.

[Tacenda]

Just now, Ahab said:

The PoGP is relatively short on content and the Book of Abraham is usually studied along with Genesis in the Old Testament.  But it is still studied in depth, at least somewhat, rather than a simple gloss over.  The book of Moses in the PoGP is also studied every 4 years along with the Old Testament.  The Church history part of the PoGP, from Joseph Smith, is usually studied along with the D&C every 4 years.

So yeah, it's not a whole year devoted to only the PoGP, but it is still studied in depth, at least somewhat, every 4 years, and not every part of it in the same year during Sunday school.

Thanks!

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

CV75- words mean things. Language matters.

"Translate" is not the proper term for a person dictating scripture to a scribe based on thoughts coming into his mind. It can be other things, but "translate"? That's just silly. Changing the word away from translate doesn't mean there is no value in the text but is simply an effort to be more accurate.

There is nothing broadminded about using words incorrectly...on purpose. That's not broadminded, it's uneducated, or possibly even deceitful.

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

From what we do have, it was a failed translation.  F- ... do not pass go...

Nothing substantive in these posts for discussion. The heading is appropriate and sufficiently informative, especially considering all the resources the Church has availed for those genuinely interested in scripture study.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Yes, because the "standard" funerary text (with pictures) originated from Abraham.  He did it first, and they then followed his example while using details from their own lives.

Oh, you were serious. My bad.

I don't know that there's really much to say after that unless you can provide some kind of a reference that takes your claim, that ancient Egyptian funery texts were largely influenced by Abraham, out of the realm of personal theory to some kind of acceptable scholarly or even religiously accepted theory.

Edited March 16, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Yes, because the "standard" funerary text (with pictures) originated from Abraham.  He did it first, and they then followed his example while using details from their own lives.

And what if Abraham never even existed? I've read that Abraham might not have ever been an actual person.  

[Ouagadougou]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Nothing substantive in these posts for discussion. The heading is appropriate and sufficiently informative, especially considering all the resources the Church has availed for those genuinely interested in scripture study.

Egyptologist Dr. Robert Ritner of the University of Chicago has said the following in his response to the church's essay (very substantive IMO):

"With the Book of Abraham now confirmed as a perhaps well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith, the LDS Church may well devote some reflection to the status of the text. The former Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, since 2001 renamed Community of Christ, avoids this issue by treating the Book of Abraham as speculative writing by Smith, not as a document of historical truth. In this decision they are clearly correct. Despite its inauthenticity as a genuine historical narrative, the Book of Abraham remains a valuable witness to early American religious history and to the recourse to ancient texts as sources of modern religious faith and speculation. The book still has its uses and significance, but not for the ancient world of Egypt and Abraham."

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham final.pdf

 

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Ok, I'll bite. I'm one of those people who "apparently just don't know or realize how much Abraham influenced ancient Egyptians and their culture."

Would you care to enlighten me (us) and provide some evidence that "Abraham influenced ancient Egyptians and their culture"? You are of the opinion that Abraham and his writings "became the basis for the standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies."

Became the basis of standard funerary texts.......? Abraham lived sometime around 2100 to 1800 BC. Would you care to show funerary texts from around that time in Egyptian history that were significantly different from texts prior to the time of Abraham? I don't mean texts that have a similarity to the funerary texts of 300 BC, just any funerary texts from around 1800 BC.

Pyramid texts from the Old Kingdom somewhere from around 2400 BC, were written on the walls of the pharaohs tombs. We have no evidence that such texts were ever used by the common man.

The First Intermediate Period, which lasted about 100 years, started around 2180 BC. During that period, coffin texts began making their appearance. These were similar in form to the previous pyramid texts but contained additional spells, almost 2000 such. Most were written on the insides of coffins, therefore called coffin texts. We know this from the discoveries of wealthy patrons who could afford coffins.

This practise continued into the Middle Kingdom, from around 2050 BC to 1640 BC. Coffin texts continued with some texts from this period being written on grave walls and on papyri. Do you have any evidence of any of these spells, from this period, that indicate the influence of Abraham? In other words, from those myriad of spells from the Book of the Dead, which spells owe their origin to Abraham?

The British Museum has a current site on-line dealing with the Book of the Dead. https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/3665_BOTD_schools_Teachers.pdf

 The Neues Museum in Berlin has a marvelous collection of coffins and a large collection of papyri, which can be referenced on-line. http://www.smb.museum/en/whats-new/detail/bdquorubensohn-bibliothekldquo-von-elephantine-4000-jahre-altaegyptische-kulturgeschichte-auf-p.html

 

I guess "some people apparently just don't know or realize how much Abraham influenced ancient Egyptians and their culture."

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Oh, you were serious. My bad.

I don't know that there's really much to say after that unless you can provide some kind of a reference that takes your claim, that ancient Egyptian funery texts were largely influenced by Abraham, out of the realm of personal theory to some kind of acceptable scholarly or even religiously accepted theory.

I thought maybe you were LDS, enough to say we believe he taught ancient Egyptians while he was in Egypt.  We do teach that he did, don't cha know.

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I guess "some people apparently just don't know or realize how much Abraham influenced ancient Egyptians and their culture."

Apparently.

[Darren10]

14 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

According to the church's essay, the fragments we have do include one facsimile.

"The discovery of the papyrus fragments renewed debate about Joseph Smith’s translation. The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1. Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings. Joseph Smith had published the facsimiles as freestanding drawings, cut off from the hieroglyphs or hieratic characters that originally surrounded the vignettes. The discovery of the fragments meant that readers could now see the hieroglyphs and characters immediately surrounding the vignette that became facsimile 1.26"

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

This facsimile is a failed translation...

My understanding is that there is no obligation that the facsimiles have to correlate with the written text. Whatever original pictographs Joseph Smith possessed, they may or may not have to be related directly to the text. Here is also what my understanding is to the nature of translating the facsimiles. To surmise, the translation is becoming more and more authentic.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_1

You and I are not very likely going to come to agree on the historicity of the Book of Abraham based on man's scholarship but at least consider these points of arguments I presented as we focus on academics and scholarship. I'm convinced it is only by the Holy Spirit that one will be lead to conclude that the Book of Abraham is historically and doctrinally true. I think that's what The Nehor said how he knows t's true and I completely second him on it.

 

 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

The PoGP is relatively short on content and the Book of Abraham is usually studied along with Genesis in the Old Testament.  But it is still studied in depth, at least somewhat, rather than a simple gloss over.  The book of Moses in the PoGP is also studied every 4 years along with the Old Testament.  The Church history part of the PoGP, from Joseph Smith, is usually studied along with the D&C every 4 years.

So yeah, it's not a whole year devoted to only the PoGP, but it is still studied in depth, at least somewhat, every 4 years, and not every part of it in the same year during Sunday school.

...and "Joseph Smith - Matthew" would be studied during the New Testament year.

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

And? Seems like you don't know where to go with this.

Let’s look at the full heading. The second sentence is in context of the first, the “em dash” being in place of a comma.

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.

From the first sentence, “Translation” accords with “The writings of Abraham... written by his own hand” in the second (and this "Translation" is called "the Book of Abraham"); and “Records” from the first sentence accords with “upon papyrus” in the second sentence.

In other words, the “Records, that have fallen into our hands” were on papyrus and served as the source of the “Translation,” which in turn is explained to be the writings of Abraham written by his own hand (in accord with 1:31).

I think those who suggest a change to the Preface should show what, exactly, the new Preface might look like.  Here's my take:

Original:

Quote

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.

Cinepro Special Edition:

Quote

An inspired Dictation of stories of Abraham by Joseph Smith.  Possibly prompted by ancient scrolls originally found in Egypt which were in his possession at the time. 

Also, remove Facsimilies #2 and #3 and their attendant "translations."

[dberrie2000]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The church essay.

Hi Tacenda:

Specifically--what church essay?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

He asking questions and stating clearly his concern and complaint and all you offer in response is insult?  And then you question if he's causing problems when it comes to the conversation? 

I find his OP pretty straightforward, clear and convincing.  There is good reason for the Church to change the preface.  I'm not sure why anyone would argue otherwise. 

If you place his premises in logical order, and follow that with his conclusion, you can see that his logic is awful.  I can only conclude that he is either deficient in his reasoning, or he is deliberately pettifogging.  This would be true of any argument about any issue anywhere on the planet.  There are minimum standards to be expected in any discussion.

His facts are fake, his reasoning is fake, and his conclusions are fake.  it is true that this is a modern trend in social media, and so may be acceptable in some quarters.  I present a logical and factual discussion 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 .

When we have discussed this same issue earlier on this board, I have repeatedly pointed out that the actual heading to the BofA has not been altered, even though the introduction (preface) to the Pearl of Great Price has.  I would have expected that such an issue would be discussed with some care.  Instead we get instant polemic based on fake facts.  You don't find that annoying, stemelbow?

[Ouagadougou]

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

My understanding is that there is no obligation that the facsimiles have to correlate with the written text. Whatever original pictographs Joseph Smith possessed, they may or may not have to be related directly to the text. Here is also what my understanding is to the nature of translating the facsimiles. To surmise, the translation is becoming more and more authentic.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_1

You and I are not very likely going to come to agree on the historicity of the Book of Abraham based on man's scholarship but at least consider these points of arguments I presented as we focus on academics and scholarship. I'm convinced it is only by the Holy Spirit that one will be lead to conclude that the Book of Abraham is historically and doctrinally true. I think that's what The Nehor said how he knows t's true and I completely second him on it.

 

 

And I respect your beliefs.  I would have to agree with what non-LDS Egyptologists say about the BoM and the translation of the facsimiles.  

“To sum up, then, these three fac-similes of Egyptian documents in the ‘Pearl of Great Price' depict the most common objects in the mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith's interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian Writing and civilization.”

- James H. Breasted, Ph. D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago; quoted in F.S. Spalding, Joseph Smith, Jr., As A Translator, 1912, pp. 26-27

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith's impudent fraud.... Smith has turned the Goddess [in Facsimile No. 1] into a king and Osiris into Abraham.”

- Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology, printed in Joseph Smith Jun. As a Translator, by F.S. Spaulding, p. 8

"In addition, Facsimile 1 is specifically referenced in the text of the Book of Abraham (1:12): “that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.” That initial representation is Fig. 4 of Facsimile 1: “The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and the Pharaoh.” Further links appear in Abraham 1:13-14, which describe the bedstead “altar” and foreign gods (actually canopic jars) in Facsimile 1, Figs. 5-9. From these clear internal references, the LDS church is wrong to question whether the vignette/ facsimile “and its adjacent text must be associated in meaning.” It is simply unacceptable to argue, as the new LDS posting does, that Facsimile 1 may not be relevant since “it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary.” The Abraham text states clearly that the representation was not at some distance, but “at the commencement of this record.” There is only one such representation included by Smith “at the commencement” of the Book of Abraham. If he actually knew what he was doing, surely he would have copied the correct illustration (which is keyed perfectly — and repeatedly— to the text)."

"There can be no reasonable dispute that Smith linked the image of Facsimile 1 to the Egyptian papyrus that he —in his own words— “translated.” As the original papyrus of Facsimile 1 has survived and is in fact the “Breathing Permit” of an Egyptian priest Hôr, the Hôr papyrus is without question the text that Smith used for his translation that produced the Book of Abraham. The same conclusion is proved by Facsimile 3, a now- lost section of the same papyrus that contains the name of the priest Hôr, mistranslated by Joseph Smith as “Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.” From Smith’s words here, it is undeniable that he thought he was translating the Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in the normal meaning of the word “translate,” just as one would translate Greek or Hebrew characters."

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham final.pdf

 

 

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Tacenda:

Specifically--what church essay?

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true Quoted just what it says about "funerary texts", in response to a post on here about them. Side note, I really didn't know much about funerary texts in mummies until I was sub'g in an art class one day and the teacher had me read about them. I was astounded! It came with pictures, art rendered, and how they would include them in with the mummies.https://user.xmission.com/~research/breathing/index.htm

None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.²⁷ Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Tacenda

[Ouagadougou]

4 minutes ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Tacenda:

Specifically--what church essay?

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

[Darren10]

Here are good summaries to also consider. And, while I do not completely agree with Ahab's assertions, in his defense. I like this from the link:

Quote

The book of Abraham is consistent with various details found in nonbiblical stories about Abraham that circulated in the ancient world around the time the papyri were likely created. In the book of Abraham, God teaches Abraham about the sun, the moon, and the stars. “I show these things unto thee before ye go into Egypt,” the Lord says, “that ye may declare all these words.” Ancient texts repeatedly refer to Abraham instructing the Egyptians in knowledge of the heavens. For example, Eupolemus, who lived under Egyptian rule in the second century B.C.E., wrote that Abraham taught astronomy and other sciences to the Egyptian priests. A third-century papyrus from an Egyptian temple library connects Abraham with an illustration similar to facsimile 1 in the book of Abraham.44 A later Egyptian text, discovered in the 20th century, tells how the Pharaoh tried to sacrifice Abraham, only to be foiled when Abraham was delivered by an angel. Later, according to this text, Abraham taught members of the Pharaoh’s court through astronomy.45 All these details are found in the book of Abraham.

Other details in the book of Abraham are found in ancient traditions located across the Near East. These include Terah, Abraham’s father, being an idolator; a famine striking Abraham’s homeland; Abraham’s familiarity with Egyptian idols; and Abraham’s being 62 years old when he left Haran, not 75 as the biblical account states. Some of these extrabiblical elements were available in apocryphal books or biblical commentaries in Joseph Smith’s lifetime, but others were confined to nonbiblical traditions inaccessible or unknown to 19th-century Americans.

I do not think Abraham "taught the Egyptians" in terms of presenting them an entirely new concept but a concept which was compatible to what they already were studied in, namely cosmology. In fact, I read Abraham Chapter 3 in the lens of Abraham learning of the cosmos in order to present an appealing story to the Egyptians and teach them, or an elite sect of them, about the true gospel of the true God of Israel. Abraham will present the sun, moon, stars, and even Kolob, to outline the supremacy of Israel's God. In short, it was Abraham's time in his personal Missionary Training Center.

Alongside all this I am also fascinated by the new evidences which provide a new location of Ur, outside of Iraq and into areas that were indeed controlled by the Chaldeans, new evidences for the plains of Olishem,and how the Book of Abraham follows specific knowledge according to the Traditions of Abraham outside the Bible.

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

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I think updating the preface could remove a lot of confusion, since many don't realize a funerary text was used for at least facsimile 1 in the BoA.  

Good point.  But that includes both facsimiles 1 and 2.  Perhaps you could take the current preface to the Pearl of Great Price and propose an edited version for the Brethren to consider, and present it here on this board so that we will understand just what you think it should say.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Poorly informed from reading the church's own essay?  I'm sorry, but the church, in this case, contradicts itself, IMO, based on the essay and current preface to the BoA.  

I still don't get it.  You keep saying that, but you seem to fear laying it out in a logical format (enthymeme) so that others can understand what you are claiming.  Thus far, I see only fallacies in your claims.  Try applying some rigor to it.