Evidence for the Book of Abraham

[Vance]

As far as I can tell, the critics have two claims.

1) JS translated the BOA from the Book of Breathings.

2) JS did NOT "translate" the BOA from the book of Breathings.

And then they blame us for THEIR contradiction.

 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Given this approach, do you believe your apologetics efforts are effective?

It's just a hobby -- no expectations at all except to learn and test my knowledge of scriptures,  church doctrines and history.

You may find this of interest   https://thirdhour.org/forums/topic/57532-youtube-apologetics/

For example what Bible verse to quote on the issue. "God was once  a man who had sinned", what about polytheism, what about the purported conversion with Jimmy Carter on the church losing it non-profit tax status, changes in the text of the BOM........

Where in the scriptures does it say that matter has intelligence?  "I prayed about the Book of Mormon and God told me it was false"  -- response?  Joseph Smith's "men on th moon" statement, or BY and that the sun is inhabited???
What do you say --  to leave them speechless.

To have a series of discussions with the Smithsonian which leads to a major change in their letter regarding the Book of Mormon.  To be the first and, for almost a year , the only individual  to respond to the "DNA argument".  To correspond with Southerton, asking him a question that he refused to answer -- speechless.

Better than collecting stamps.  😎

Edited December 23, 2018 by cdowis

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

As far as I can tell, the critics have two claims.

1) JS translated the BOA from the Book of Breathings.

2) JS did NOT "translate" the BOA from the book of Breathings.

And then they blame us for THEIR contradiction.

 

I think you misconstrue how claims work and are shifting the burden of proof as a result.  You also are misconstruing the critics (they don't say he translated anything and say instead that he just made it all up).   In any event, the church/Joseph Smith are making the claim about the BofA supposed translation.  So, it is theirs to prove.  The critic can then come up with a myriad of ways to show that the reasons for making the claim are wrong.  These reasons can be contradictory or in agreement.  It doesn't matter because the critic isn't making the claim.  The critic is just showing how the church/JS claim is wrong. 

If I tell you I have a secret way to make tons of money buying and selling gold and silver coins/bullion and ask you to invest, you then should demand some information from me to prove my claim (too bad some didn't listen to this advice).   I tell you that I found a magic parchment upon which some wise spanish explorers disclosed the method I use and provide you the document that is written in the spanish from the time.  You then get some scholars to look at my translation and see that it isn't even close to what the document really said (it talks about geography and has nothing to do with silver and gold).  I then say that I used the document as a catalyst to formulate my theories.  You then say that I really didn't use the old spanish document.

So, can I now claim that you are contradicting yourself and that somehow my spanish claims are somehow factual?  First you say I used the spanish document and then you say I didn't .... in reality what you are saying is that I just made the entire thing up and you would be right.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

As far as I can tell, the critics have two claims.

1) JS translated the BOA from the Book of Breathings.

2) JS did NOT "translate" the BOA from the book of Breathings.

And then they blame us for THEIR contradiction.

 

Yes, I said that, "The solution is to resolve the contradiction" and I have suggested a resolution which even includes the EAG.

 It is called the mnemonic theory, first proposed by Tvedtnes.

Edited December 23, 2018 by cdowis

[cdowis]

23 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Can you explain how a missing portion of the papyri is necessary to the catalyst theory?

Obviously it is not necessary, but an alternative to that theory.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

Sorry, but you can not "know" that there wasn't more material appended to that roll.  You can only "know" that it currently does not exist.

Unless you can supernaturally see into the past.

 

I believe he presents the evidence elsewhere in his videos on the subject. 

I personally do not support the "missing papyrus" theory, so I guess that means I agree with him.

Edited December 23, 2018 by cdowis

[CA Steve]

23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I see nothing scientific about the GAEL, etc.. Champollion and his contemporaries, on the other hand, had already begun the systematic, scientific effort to decipher ancient Egyptian long before Joseph and his associates even considered back-engineering an already finished revelatory product.  They failed simply because they did not use the scientific method.

If by scientific you mean according to accepted practices and methods of the day, we agree, but the dichotomy being presented in this thread was asking if the translation was scientific or revelatory and in that sense I think you would agree that it certainly wasn't revelatory as it applies to the GAEL, etc., so that leaves us with scientific. Of course it was really bad science. They failed because they had absolutely no idea what they were doing.

 

23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We see an even starker example in the Book of Mormon, which (like the fabled Brass Plates) had been engraved in Egyptian.  Joseph had certainly not made any effort to understand the Egyptian cursive which he had copied from the BofM plates.  We do have the Caractors document, and a couple more glyphs.  But that's it.  No science at all

Again, the only sense in which I am using science here is as opposed to revelatory which are the only two choices offered above.

Regarding Joseph's efforts to understand the Egyptian cursive on the Book of Mormon plates and the Caractors document, we do have this from Richard Bushman citing Lucy Mack Smith's account from the Anthon incident:

Quote

Joseph was 'instructed to take off a facsimile of the (Book of Mormon) characters composing the alphabet which were called reformed Egyptian Alphabetically and send them to all the learned men he could find and ask them for a translation of the same.' Lucy implied that once Joseph had a translation of all the basic characters,, he could carry on by himself-thus the need to copy a great number of characters.

Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonsim, p.86

As Chris Smith has observed:

Quote

.the idea of composing an Egyptian Alphabet to be used as a modus operandi in translation was one originally formulated for use with the Book of Mormon. This idea presumably was later on adapted for use with the Book of Abraham.

Christopher C. Smith, The Dependence of Abraham 1:1-3 on the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, p.45 

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by CA Steve

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

Let me break it down for you.

 

You said: “Vogel does not understand the difference between science and reigion [religion].”

 

When I responded, you said: “The fact that it is not a translation is irrelevant to its spiritual value.”

 

Since my position doesn’t contradict yours, why would you criticize me and make it seem like it does?

 

I have made it clear that I cannot say the BOA is not inspired in some way. I have only argued that it is not a translation of the Book of Breathings or another record that Gee and Muhlestein imagine was appended on the same roll of papyrus.

 

Also, I have only argued against a simplistic version of the catalyst theory that attempts to read JS’s mind by asserting that he incorrectly believed he was translating the papyri when he wasn’t. The two references to Facsimile 1 in chapter 1 need to be accounted for and the Egyptian Alphabets, Grammar, and explanations of the Facsimiles need to be accounted for in any serious theory.

 

So why are you continuing to criticize me without responding to my true position?

 

Thank you for confirming that you don't know the difference between religion and science.

You admit that you cannot say that book of Abraham is NOT inspired which means it is possible that it IS inspired

Yet you continue to attempt to use what you think are “ scientific” means to discredit it as inspiration.

Your post contradicts itself.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Thank you for confirming that you don't know the difference between religion and science.

You admit that you cannot say that book of Abraham is NOT inspired which means it is possible that it IS inspired

Yet you continue to attempt to use what you think are “ scientific” means to discredit it as inspiration.

Your post contradicts itself.

Mark, I think one has to concede that anything is possible, however remote that possibility is. I could easily say that I am inspired to denounce Mormonism and you have to admit that it is a possibility. If you ask me to give you proof that my denunciation of Mormonism is inspired, then my response is that you don't get it. You obviously don't understand the difference between science and religion.

So, do I win? Is anti-morminism the new thing that everyone should be talking about? I believe therefore don't question me ..... this seems to open up almost any belief whatsoever.

Do you think logic leaves after the opening prayer?

[CMZ]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think you misconstrue how claims work and are shifting the burden of proof as a result.  You also are misconstruing the critics (they don't say he translated anything and say instead that he just made it all up).   In any event, the church/Joseph Smith are making the claim about the BofA supposed translation.  So, it is theirs to prove.  The critic can then come up with a myriad of ways to show that the reasons for making the claim are wrong.  These reasons can be contradictory or in agreement.  It doesn't matter because the critic isn't making the claim.  The critic is just showing how the church/JS claim is wrong.

The proof comes from the Spirit. Yes, this really is divinely arranged as a trial of our faith. Proof that comes by man's reasoning carries with it no accompanying motivation to live the gospel as proof that comes from the Spirit does. We can sit in the valley of indecision forever asserting that no man has done enough to convince us of the truthfulness of The Book of Abraham but it's a sad rut to get stuck in. Having said that, we are not entirely without evidence.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2018/12/the-book-of-abraham-revelation-and-you?lang=eng

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Mark, I think one has to concede that anything is possible, however remote that possibility is. I could easily say that I am inspired to denounce Mormonism and you have to admit that it is a possibility. If you ask me to give you proof that my denunciation of Mormonism is inspired, then my response is that you don't get it. You obviously don't understand the difference between science and religion.

So, do I win? Is anti-morminism the new thing that everyone should be talking about? I believe therefore don't question me ..... this seems to open up almost any belief whatsoever.

Do you think logic leaves after the opening prayer?

Oh my gosh  

You speak of logic? What IS logic???

 You're still think truth is independent of context,  Therefore if you feel you are inspired against mormonism And I am in sparred in favor of mormonism that somehow there some "real" conflict in the world.

Not the case. The whole point is that inspiration is personal.That means it is not scientific and objective.That means it is possible that you are inspired to do one thing and I am inspired do something else.

Truth is based on a contextual use of the word within a given community.

You have taken yourself from the mormon Community beliefs It's not from the over all community,and so you are not within that Context intellectually.

So be inspired all you like. Whether or not It comes from God is another issue.

And of course any of us can only know that through subjective  means anyway.

 We are not in the same contexts. It's like you are playing basketball and I am playing  Bridge

 Different rules apply for different games.

I am playing Bridge and you're crying out to the ref that I'm "traveling"

 Wrong game.

 And yes it leaves it open for any belief at all. 

 The entire belief that we should pray to God for a testimony includes that possibility. God can set us and whatever context he desires.

Edited December 23, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think you misconstrue how claims work and are shifting the burden of proof as a result.  You also are misconstruing the critics (they don't say he translated anything and say instead that he just made it all up). 

Yes that is possible and I think quite likely.

 That's the whole problem with the critics. They don't understand the difference between science and Religion.

They try to use what they think is science to discredit the idea that Joseph "made it all up" through inspiration from God.

 But unfortunately science can't do that.

 As our buddy Dan admits that's not what science does.

 OK all merry Christmas.

Peace on Earth to men of goodwill if you can find any.

 I'm taking a hiatus for a bit until after Christmas.

 

[Exiled]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh  

You speak of logic? What IS logic???

 You're still think truth is independent of context,  Therefore if you feel you are inspired against mormonism And I am in sparred in favor of mormonism that somehow there some "real" conflict in the world.

Not the case. The whole point is that inspiration is personal.That means it is not scientific and objective.That means it is possible that you are inspired to do one thing and I am inspired do something else.

Truth is based on a contextual use of the word within a given community.

You have taken yourself from the mormon Community beliefs It's not from the over all community,and so you are not within that Context intellectually.

So be inspired all you like. Whether or not It comes from God is another issue.

And of course any of us can only know that through subjective  means anyway.

 We are not in the same contexts. It's like you are playing basketball and I am playing  Bridge

 Different rules apply for different games.

I am playing Bridge and you're crying out to the ref that I'm "traveling"

 Wrong game.

 And yes it leaves it open for any belief at all. 

 The entire belief that we should pray to God for a testimony includes that possibility. God can set us and whatever context he desires.

I love how you still cling to the "my religion is different, so you don't get me" meme. Also, if the community defines truth, what of a murderous strong man who forces a particular "truth" on the community? What of a community of nice bridge players that force an unsupported view of how bridge ought to be played on its members? Is this still truth or is it merely force of will? Is my anti-mormonism "truth" valid if I somehow gained control of the "community" and started a campaign to ship all mormons off to Guantanamo for some re-education?

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I love how you still cling to the "my religion is different, so you don't get me" meme. Also, if the community defines truth, what of a murderous strong man who forces a particular "truth" on the community? What of a community of nice bridge players that force an unsupported view of how bridge ought to be played on its members? Is this still truth or is it merely force of will? Is my anti-mormonism "truth" valid if I somehow gained control of the "community" and started a campaign to ship all mormons off to Guantanamo for some re-education?

Mormons are not pacifists 

 I don't know how you come up with this stuff.

Merry Christmas 

Bye

[mfbukowski]

Before I leave let me give this to anyone who  Is interested

 It pretty completely  captures my views

https://www.britannica.com/search?query=Radical empiricism

[Vance]

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think you misconstrue how claims work and are shifting the burden of proof as a result.

Well, off course you want to shift the burden of proof, quite simply because you can not bear the burden of proof.

But religion doesn't need "proof".

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

You also are misconstruing the critics (they don't say he translated anything and say instead that he just made it all up). 

Some do make that claim.  Some also claim claims that were never made.

One being that JS or the Church claimed that the extant papyrus is what the BOA was translated from.

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

In any event, the church/Joseph Smith are making the claim about the BofA supposed translation.

Yes, that it was translated from papyrii JS had in his possession.  While restricting the definition of "translate" to their own benefit.

Still, there is no "proof" that the fragment of papyrus that is extant is the one and only piece of papyrus available to JS at the time.

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

  So, it is theirs to prove.

Not so.  Neither the Church nor JS are demanding that you believe that the BOA was translated from papyrus.  Such things are a matter of faith.

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

  The critic can then come up with a myriad of ways to show that the reasons for making the claim are wrong.

Yet, neither can they "prove" that they are correct.  If they expect me to give up something I take on faith, the burden of proof is upon them.

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

 It doesn't matter because the critic isn't making the claim.

Yes, they are.

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

  The critic is just showing how the church/JS claim is wrong.

No, they aren't.  They are making twisting the claims of JS and the Church and then making contradictory claims.

They can not prove that the extant FRAGMENT of papyrus is the papyrus from which the BOA was "translated" (again, restricting the definition of "translate" ).

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

 If I tell you I have a secret way to make tons of money buying and selling gold and silver coins/bullion and ask you to invest, you then should demand some information from me to prove my claim (too bad some didn't listen to this advice). 

Ok, and so?

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

  I tell you that I found a magic parchment upon which some wise spanish explorers disclosed the method I use and provide you the document that is written in the spanish from the time. 

Again, a misrepresentation of what JS and the Church have claimed.

Show me where JS or the Church make the claim that the current extant papyrus IS the source of the BOA.

I won't hold my breath while you look.

[Vance]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

I believe he presents the evidence elsewhere in his videos on the subject. 

Ok, so he doesn't have proof.  Only "evidence".  Got it.

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

I personally do not support the "missing papyrus" theory, so I guess that means I agree with him.

You are free to believe what you want.  I think that is rather obvious that the extant fragment is not the source of the BOA.  So, in that respect I also agree with the critics.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

Show me where JS or the Church make the claim that the current extant papyrus IS the source of the BOA.

I won't hold my breath while you look.

They used to until it was resoundingly disproved by egyptologists.  Then they regrouped and proposed the missing scroll hypothesis (the scroll must be missing because otherwise it looks bad for Mr. Smith) and the catalyst hypothesis (God fooled him into believing the translation that wasn't). However, the blatant mistranslations of the facsimiles show the truth about JS's translation failures. Also, please take a look at Dehlin's interviews with David Bokovoy where Mr. Bokovoy uses the documentary hypothesis to show how Abraham (probably mythical anyway) could not have written the BofA due to the many anachronisms contained therein.

You can breath now 😏

[Dan Vogel]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hi Dan,

My comments were not in reply to you, but in response to the notion of some Mormons and non-Mormons that some of the KEP were examples of simplistic comparison of Egyptian writing on the papyri with an already extant BofA English text.  Someone appears to have thought that there might be some relationship, and "reverse engineering" an understanding of Egyptian in that way may have been the motivation.  At least that is the claim some people have made.  Our late friend Wes Walters even had Joseph translating holes in the papyrus (JETS, 16:43; cf. Baer in Todd, Saga, 386).   John Wilson, Klaus Baer, and Fawn Brodie each claimed that the BofA was derived from the Book of Breathings, though they simultaneously maintained the contrary to be the case!   Whether that is a "fantasy" as you claim, it is clearly not based on a scientific approach to translation.

Indeed James Breasted rightly believed that “if Joseph Smith could read ancient Egyptian writing, his ability to do so had no connection with the decipherment of hieroglyphics by European scholars.”  Referring to the Grammaire égyptienne by Champollion, published from 1836 through 1841, he added that “it would have been impossible for any American scholar to know enough about Egyptian inscriptions to read them before the publication of Champollion’s grammar.”  John Wilson agreed, stating that “nobody in the United States could read Egyptian in 1835.”

I consider it a myth that any of the KEP constitute an effort to translate or prepare a translation-key to the Book of Abraham, and John Gee shares that view (Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 13-42,177).  Moreover, William Phelps began this cipher-key work before the arrival of the Egyptian papyri and mummies in Kirtland, and he was the dominant force in continuing that effort – which utilized an already extant, complete Book of Abraham text along with significant portions of already extant revelations -- D&C 76 and 88 (cf. May 27, 1835 letter of Phelps to his wife, and the July 17, 1835 History of the Church entry). 

The History of the Church entry stating that the Alphabets and Grammar were begun in late July 1835, were composed by Willard Richards, probably with the help of Phelps and/or Joseph Smith. This entry is our best source and clearly makes JS responsible for the content of the Alphabets and Grammar, not Phelps.

 

There is no evidence that Phelps was responsible for the cipher-key you mention. The English content was the pure language definitions JS gave for God, angels, and man. There’s no reason to conclude the characters were from Phelps. Everything Gee says to pin the Grammar on Phelps is wrong.

 

The Grammar isn’t directly about the BOA, but it preceded the BOA. Abraham 1:1-3 possibly dates to July 1835, but Abraham 1:4-2:18 was dictated in November 1835. The evidence is clear.

[Dan Vogel]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

Show me where JS or the Church make the claim that the current extant papyrus IS the source of the BOA.

I won't hold my breath while you look

The characters in the margins of the translation manuscript are from JSP XI. It is clear that the English text is meant to be a translation of the characters. How do I know that? See my first video.

[Dan Vogel]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thank you for confirming that you don't know the difference between religion and science.

You admit that you cannot say that book of Abraham is NOT inspired which means it is possible that it IS inspired

Yet you continue to attempt to use what you think are “ scientific” means to discredit it as inspiration.

Your post contradicts itself.

Again, you show that you really don't understand simple arguments. I'm not trying to prove that the BOA isn't inspired. Scholarship can't do that. I'm only interested n showing that it's not a translation, although JS presented it as such. If you want to believe the BOA is inspired, go right ahead. That's a religious conclusion.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, CA Steve said:

If by scientific you mean according to accepted practices and methods of the day, we agree, but the dichotomy being presented in this thread was asking if the translation was scientific or revelatory and in that sense I think you would agree that it certainly wasn't revelatory as it applies to the GAEL, etc., so that leaves us with scientific. Of course it was really bad science. They failed because they had absolutely no idea what they were doing.

Which only goes to show that the suggested method in both cases was an abject failure.  The revelatory approach was the only method which brought forth an actual text.  One could break out the GAEL years later to decipher the Kinderhook Plates, but that was likewise a failure.

7 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Again, the only sense in which I am using science here is as opposed to revelatory which are the only two choices offered above.

Regarding Joseph's efforts to understand the Egyptian cursive on the Book of Mormon plates and the Caractors document, we do have this from Richard Bushman citing Lucy Mack Smith's account from the Anthon incident:

As Chris Smith has observed:

Bushman does repeat that notion in his Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 63-64, but it is purely by-gosh-and-by-golly, not science.  Calling it "bad science" doesn't really do the trick.  At least in Champollion's case, he could read the Greek portion of the Rosetta Stone, and then make a one-to-one comparison with the Demotic and Hieroglyphic Egyptian portions.  That meant also seeing some signs as logographic, rather than alphabetic, and bringing in his knowledge of Coptic -- the latest form of ancient Egyptian.

[cdowis]

27 minutes ago, Dan Vogel said:

The characters in the margins of the translation manuscript are from JSP XI. It is clear that the English text is meant to be a translation of the characters. How do I know that? See my first video.

Here Tvedtnes  has suggested that the mnemonic theory offers an interesting possibility for the translation of the Book of Abraham using the EAG.
Several have asked for details of this theory, and I have finally located his original articles.

http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_109-2.PDF

It was later updated:
http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_120-2.PDF

Basically it is he Book of Abraham in mnemonic format, with memory devices embedded in unrelated  sentences and paragraphs, in a document otherwise known as the BOD.

 

Edited December 24, 2018 by cdowis

[Dan Vogel]

10 hours ago, Vance said:

Sorry, but you can not "know" that there wasn't more material appended to that roll.  You can only "know" that it currently does not exist.

Unless you can supernaturally see into the past.

The burden is not mine but Gee's and Muhlestein's. They commit the fallacy of possible proof. They have no evidence for their assertion for another record and there are strong reasons against it.

 

[Dan Vogel]

10 hours ago, Vance said:

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 5:47 PM, Dan Vogel said:

. . . JS claimed he translated the BOM from the Book of Breathings.

I would like to see a statement from JS, where he claimed to translate the BOA from "the Book of Breathings".

I said: "Both positions agree that JS claimed he translated the BOM from the Book of Breathings. That claim proved false, therefore JS deceived his followers. That does not require mindreading. Saying he believed he was translating when he really wasn’t requires mindreading because you have to know what JS thought. Denying the second position requires mindreading, but those proposing the first are under no obligation to do so. It’s merely an ad hoc escape from an unwanted conclusion. It’s apologetics, not a religious position."

This a characterization of the two positions based on the characters in the margins of the translation documents and explanations of the Facsimiles.