Kinderhook Plates Discovery damages BOA Missing Scroll and Catalyst Theories

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It must be dreadful for you to have to spend so much time on a forum with people who believe, defend, and even love things that you know to be morally wrong.

I'm unsure which percentage of us just aren't as morally developed as you and which percentage of us had no conscience to begin with, but I apologise for being someone with either a) a poorly developed sense of morality or b) no conscience at all!

Though in my case, it may well be a bit of column A mixed with a bit of column B. 

Same reason you’re here hanging with the eugenicists. 🤷‍♂️

Edited May 20, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

We have the facsimiles and we have Joseph Smith's detailed "translation" of them. You don't have to have the complete detailed record to determine that the translation is way wrong, made up wrong.  Apologist seem to want to skip over that inconvenient fact. So what is the spin on this one?  JS blew the translation of all the papyrus that we have, but all the rest (the stuff we don't have) he translated correctly?  It wasn't written by the hand of Abraham.  It is a 2nd century Egyptian funeral text.  

No, we don't have a translation of any of the text in the facsimiles, only interpretations of the iconography which is subjective but holds some validity.

Papyrus doesn't last forever, it gets recopied. If the Papyrus dates 1500 years after the time Abraham would have lived, all that means is that it was originally written "by the hand of Abraham", recopied several times over centuries, and that phrase in the text would be reproduced in all subsequent copies.

Even though the facsimiles are not presumed to be unique drawings, it was common practice to barrow images to illustrate your own writings, there are some weird properties on the facsimiles. If Facsimile 1 was only ever part of a funeral text, why is the dead man alive and in a praying position? Other funeral lion couch scenes do not depict a live individual.

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by Pyreaux

[sunstoned]

12 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

No, we don't have a translation of any of the text in the facsimiles, just interpretations of the iconography which is subjective but holds some validity.

Papyrus doesn't last forever, it gets recopied. If the Papyrus was made 1500 years after the time Abraham would have lived, then that means it would have been originally written "by the hand of Abraham", and that phrase in the text could properly be reproduced in all subsequent copies.

Even though the facsimiles not presumed to be unique drawings, it was common practice to barrow images to illustrate your own writings, there are some weird properties on the facsimiles. If Facsimile 1 was only ever part of a funeral text, why is the dead man alive and in a praying position? In other funeral lion couch scenes do not depict a live individual.

 

Here are the translations right from church sources. Here is a quick example: "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God."  The full descriptions are in these links.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fscriptures%2Fpgp%2Fabr%2Ffac-2%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D0384F7D69693E47C-6B4D61A2748C5101|MCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1653022285

 

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-book-of-abraham/facsimiles-2-3-abraham-4-5?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fmanual%2Fthe-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018%2Fthe-book-of-abraham%2Ffacsimiles-2-3-abraham-4-5%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D0019AC686F728043-4ACD32ADA6536CF8|MCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1653022319

Now, compare JS's version to what here what Egyptologist say the facsimiles are:

Quote

Cuts 1 and 3 are inaccurate copies of well known scenes on funeral papyri, and cut 2 is a copy of one of the magical discs which in the late Egyptian period were placed under the heads of mummies.

 Arthur Cruttenden Mace, Assistant Curator in the Department of Egyptian Art in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.

It is not even close.  It was not a translation.  No kolob, no Abraham.  Just a common second century funeral document.

 

[Pyreaux]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Here are the translations right from church sources. Here is a quick example: "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God."  The full descriptions are in these links.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fscriptures%2Fpgp%2Fabr%2Ffac-2%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D0384F7D69693E47C-6B4D61A2748C5101|MCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1653022285

 

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-book-of-abraham/facsimiles-2-3-abraham-4-5?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fmanual%2Fthe-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018%2Fthe-book-of-abraham%2Ffacsimiles-2-3-abraham-4-5%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D0019AC686F728043-4ACD32ADA6536CF8|MCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1653022319

Now, compare JS's version to what here what Egyptologist say the facsimiles are:

 Arthur Cruttenden Mace, Assistant Curator in the Department of Egyptian Art in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.

It is not even close.  It was not a translation.  No kolob, no Abraham.  Just a common second century funeral document.

 

Ehh... Once again, there is no translation of any of the hieroglyphs in the Facsimiles. Those are all interpretations of just the subjective iconography. Joseph only ever points out the hieroglyphs, yet never tries to translate them. Some argue that Joseph's interpretation of the iconography was wrong (not translations). It was very common for vignettes to appear on different rolls, as templates of sorts, for different stories, and the image could represent anything the writings its linked with indicates.

Facsimile 2 fig 6 is absolutely 100% correct. Figure 5 is a cow, and Joseph Smith said the Egyptians used it to represent the Sun. Egyptologists recognize it as a cow as giving birth to the Sun.  Figure 3 says "represents God sitting upon his throne", and the image is of the Egyptian God Min. The figure was indeed an image of a God, its not a courtier of the king, and is not a member of the royal family, nor is it a high official, or the king himself for that matter; It is God. These items are iconographicly correct.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Pyreaux

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

If figure three was not there how could he interpret it. The facsimile was damage. Insert a scene from another piece  of papyri. In all the examples i have seem in the colour plates in Tamis Mekis' book they all have the man in a boat and a scarab (insect) In Mekis' book 22 and 23 seem to have more than two heads. The "dove" in figure 7 seems to display legs and in some instance a penis. I think the catalyst is the way to go. 

In the instances of Facsimiles 1 and 2, we have known for many years what the standard content of those illustrations would be, so there is no actual mystery about what they contain and mean.  The damage to them makes no difference.  The standard Egyptological interpretations remain the same.  In all instances, the way to go is with standard Egyptological interpretation.  If such interpretations coincide with the explanations by Joseph, that tells us what we want to know.  Have you even bothered to read what the Egyptologists have said about them for the past half-century?  Or are you just reading what the anti-Joseph crowd has said?

[DonBradley]

17 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

Be sure you account for their follow up episode which makes things worse.

Sure. What do they say in that episode?

[Tweed1944]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In the instances of Facsimiles 1 and 2, we have known for many years what the standard content of those illustrations would be, so there is no actual mystery about what they contain and mean.  The damage to them makes no difference.  The standard Egyptological interpretations remain the same.  In all instances, the way to go is with standard Egyptological interpretation.  If such interpretations coincide with the explanations by Joseph, that tells us what we want to know.  Have you even bothered to read what the Egyptologists have said about them for the past half-century?  Or are you just reading what the anti-Joseph crowd has said?

Tamis Mekis in his book on the hypocephalus does not write  as an anti-mormon.He quotes Gee and Rhodes in his bibliography. He is just discussing the hypocephalus. Don't you think it strange that most of the examples of the hypocephalus in book located in the various museums are often alike. Please read his discussion on he two headed figure (2 in fac 2). 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

Tamis Mekis in his book on the hypocephalus does not write  as an anti-mormon.He quotes Gee and Rhodes in his bibliography. He is just discussing the hypocephalus. Don't you think it strange that most of the examples of the hypocephalus in book located in the various museums are often alike. Please read his discussion on he two headed figure (2 in fac 2). 

The similarties among hypocephali have been well known for over a hundred years.  There are no surprises there.  Facsimile 2 is merely one more hypocephalus.  There is nothing unique about them.  I wrote a detailed commentary on the subject back in 1975.  Mike Rhodes wrote a short translation-commentary a bit later.  What is it that you don't get about hypocephali?

I have yet to see the anti-Joseph crowd deal with standard Egyptological interpretation of Facsimile 2.   Are they afraid of the consequences?

[Tweed1944]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hy4https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FAVPHV-57cKhyfGDYff0fKPLkm3K6KQZgmEaQRxzNFI/edit

Do you believed the black figure is a slave. ? It seems there is evidence that the nose has been chisled out. Note the position of the of legs and the slave the waiter a which shows the deceased is being brought before Osirus.

Another interesting feature of facimile 1  are the hands. Was there two hands or one hand and the wing of another bird.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FAVPHV-57cKhyfGDYff0fKPLkm3K6KQZgmEaQRxzNFI/edit

Hands were drawn with the fingers of equal length.  

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by Tweed1944
correct spelling

[jkwilliams]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It must be dreadful for you to have to spend so much time on a forum with people who believe, defend, and even love things that you know to be morally wrong.

I'm unsure which percentage of us just aren't as morally developed as you and which percentage of us had no conscience to begin with, but I apologise for being someone with either a) a poorly developed sense of morality or b) no conscience at all!

Though in my case, it may well be a bit of column A mixed with a bit of column B. 

I’ve never met anyone who loves and defends those things I find morally wrong. Maybe you’re the first. 😉

[jkwilliams]

10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Same reason you’re here hanging with the eugenicists. 🤷‍♂️

Funny how it’s fine to call people baby-killing eugenicists but not OK to express any moral misgivings about anything even peripheral to the LDS church. 

[Pyreaux]

44 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Funny how it’s fine to call people baby-killing eugenicists but not OK to express any moral misgivings about anything even peripheral to the LDS church. 

Is it funny that random LDS people react to your misgivings... about the LDS Church... in an LDS apologetics forum?  If comedy is all about being surprised, then I guess its not funny.

[jkwilliams]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It must be dreadful for you to have to spend so much time on a forum with people who believe, defend, and even love things that you know to be morally wrong.

I'm unsure which percentage of us just aren't as morally developed as you and which percentage of us had no conscience to begin with, but I apologise for being someone with either a) a poorly developed sense of morality or b) no conscience at all!

Though in my case, it may well be a bit of column A mixed with a bit of column B. 

On further reflection, I can see how you read what I wrote that way. Perhaps I should have said I couldn’t rationalize things that bothered my conscience. That is neither a claim to moral superiority on my part nor a blanket condemnation of those who “love and defend” Mormonism. What bothers my conscience does not bother others, and vice versa. 

I apologize for inartfully expressing myself in an offensive way. 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hy4https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FAVPHV-57cKhyfGDYff0fKPLkm3K6KQZgmEaQRxzNFI/edit

Do you believed the black figure is a slave. ? It seems there is evidence that the nose has been chisled out. Note the position of the of legs and the slave the waiter a which shows the deceased is being brought before Osirus.

Another interesting feature of facimile 1  are the hands. Was there two hands or one hand and the wing of another bird.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FAVPHV-57cKhyfGDYff0fKPLkm3K6KQZgmEaQRxzNFI/edit

Hands were drawn with the fingers of equal length. 

According to non-LDS Egyptologist Lanny Bell, careful analysis shows that there are two hands of the guy on the couch (Osiris-Abraham), rather than a second bird wing.  Bell says:

Quote

Let me state clearly at the outset my conviction that the questionable traces above the head of the Osiris figure are actually the remains of his right hand; in other words, Joseph Smith was correct in his understanding of the drawing at this point. Ashment 1979, pp. 36, 41 (Illustration 13), is very balanced in his analysis of the problem, presenting compelling arguments for reading two hands; Gee 1992, p. 102 and n. 25, refers to Michael Lyon in describing the "thumb stroke" of the upper (right) hand; cf. Gee 2000, pp. 37-38; and Rhodes 2002, p. 19, concludes: "... a careful comparison of the traces with the hand below as well as the tip of the bird's wing to the right makes it quite clear that it is the other hand of the deceased."...An important clue is provided in the orientation of the thumbs of the upraised hands toward the face. This is the expected way of depicting the hands of mourners and others when they are held up to (both sides of) their heads or before their faces.  https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director/Book_of_Abraham_Concerns_%26_Questions

 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Is it funny that random LDS people react to your misgivings... about the LDS Church... in an LDS apologetics forum?  If comedy is all about being surprised, then I guess its not funny.

You must be new here.

[The Unclean Deacon]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

When they do historic research and analysis, yes, I am critical at times of their methods. 

Are you skeptical of them when they get things wrong and they believed they knew they were right? outside of "historic research and analysis"? such as believing they got it from God? 

Edited May 20, 2022 by The Unclean Deacon

[The Unclean Deacon]

10 hours ago, DonBradley said:

Sure. What do they say in that episode?

Vogel uses the actual manuscripts and makes it clear that there is no way to remove Abraham Vs 12 and 14as if they are a later add-in as Skousen suggests.   One must deal with Abraham 1:12, 14 honestly and head on.

And Reels point about how did Joseph know figures are called by the Chaldeans "Rahleenos" meaning "hieroglyphics

[The Unclean Deacon]

On page 5 I asked if anyone here could come up with a work around for how Joseph knew the figures are called by the Chaldeans "Rahleenos" meaning "hieroglyphics?

Did I miss where someone addressed that?  I wrote this post hoping we could deal with the issues against the two theories and this point matters to me as it pinpoints the very logical failings in why those two theories are problematic.  Hoping maybe folks simply missed it as the conversation went on.

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by The Unclean Deacon

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

You must be new here.

He (she) is.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It must be dreadful for you to have to spend so much time on a forum with people who believe, defend, and even love things that you know to be morally wrong.

I'm unsure which percentage of us just aren't as morally developed as you and which percentage of us had no conscience to begin with, but I apologise for being someone with either a) a poorly developed sense of morality or b) no conscience at all!

Though in my case, it may well be a bit of column A mixed with a bit of column B. 

That is ok.  We forgive you. 😁

[Calm]

3 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

Are you skeptical of them when they get things wrong and they believed they knew they were right? outside of "historic research and analysis"? such as believing they got it from God? 

I don’t automatically accept things as truth that are not spiritually or logically confirmed for me, if that is what you are asking.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Calm

[Kevin Christensen]

On 5/19/2022 at 7:47 PM, jkwilliams said:

That is the insuperable problem with apologetics: it starts with a defined conclusion and works backward to support it. This is how some people misapply Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shift: if you don’t get the result you want, just change the rules of the game until you can support your predetermined conclusion. 

What should happen with paradigm debate is comparison and asking which of two or more competing paradigms is better, where the way a person decides which is better is not totally paradigm dependent.   As far as changing the rules of the game, Kuhn has this:

Quote

Insofar as he is engaged in normal science, the research worker is a solver of puzzles, not a tester of paradigms. Though he may, during the search for a particular puzzle’s solution, try out a number of alternative approaches, rejecting those that fail to yield the desired result, he is not testing the paradigm when he does so. Instead he is like the chess player who, with a problem stated and the board physically or mentally before him, tries out various alternative moves in the search for a solution. These trial attempts, whether by the chess player or by the scientist, are trials only of themselves, not of the rules of the game.[1]

---

[1] Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 144–145.

The problem of falsification involves not just an objective consideration of facts that unambiguously speak for themselves, but "networks of assumptions" that extends to involve which observations count for facts and tests do we perform using which instruments to account for them.  As N. R. Hanson famously observed, "All data are theory-laden."

Quote

Cannot theories at least be falsified, then? Even if many instances of agreement with experiment do not prove that a theory is true, it would seem that even a single counterinstance of data which disagrees with theory should conclusively prove it false. …

Discordant data do not always falsify a theory. One can never test an individual hypothesis conclusively in a “crucial experiment”; for if a deduction is not confirmed experimentally, one cannot be sure which one, from among the many assumptions on which the deduction was based, was in error. A network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by rejecting or adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses.[1]

---

[1] Barbour, Myths, Model, and Paradgims, 99

A good example of that comes from the founder of the modern scientific method, Bacon himself.

Quote

Bacon, the philosopher of science was, quite consistently, an enemy of Copernicus.  Don’t theorize, he said, but open your eyes and observe without prejudice, and you cannot doubt that the Sun moves and that the earth is at rest.[1] 

---

[1] Karl Popper, The Myth of the Framework: In Defense of Science and Rationality, 84-85.

Bacon's problem derives from a lack of imagination, not being able to imagine how things would look to an observer on a spinning earth that moved around the sun in the spiral arm of a vast galaxy.  And Copernicus himself had a problem in assuming perfectly circular orbits.  It was Kepler who modified the assumptions and demonstrated that the Copernican system worked to account for observations.  

Approaches to the Book of Abraham always involve networks of assumptions, not all of which turn out to be valid, and not all of which happen to be binding on the Latter-day Saints.

Quote

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

It happens that we can test that little narrative about "That is the insuperable problem with apologetics: it starts with a defined conclusion and works backward to support it."  Does that define what I have seen across the spectrum of LDS apologetics?   I don't think so.  For me that narrative is testable, and it does not pass the test, does not account for my personal experience with a great many LDS apologists of many decades.  That little narrative is rather, another very good example of the point I sought to make earlier, that the metaphors we select as paradigmatic, rather than the evidence and perspectives available, are what we convert to and from.  Indeed, the most effective LDS thinkers have been those who have re-examined the cultural assumptions with which we approach our own texts, and changed what we see in them.   For instance, much of what Nibley did (with "Before Adam" for example, and much else), Sorenson did (with the overall Book of Mormon setting), Brant Gardner did (with the early setting of the Book of Mormon , Alan Goff did, Mark Wright did, Margaret Barker did, what Ethan Sproat did with "skins as garments", what Matt Roper did with "Nephi's Neighbors", what Daniel Peterson did with "Nephi and his Asherah", Robert Smith did with "the land of no return", what Tim Barker did in pointing out the implications of Joseph Smith's comments about the Hor Book of Breathers characters that Rueben Hedlock added to Facsimile 2,  what a great many others have done, is change how and where we look and what we see.  They changed the rules of the game away from traditional ways of thinking, rather than just repeat and re-enforce traditional assumptions and conclusions.  Often radically.   This is not a bad thing.  Joseph Smith famously commented that:

Quote

But there has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand.

I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all.[1]

---

[1] Joseph Field Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 331.

Jesus told us that contextualizing the same words differently can have a huge effect on the harvest, ranging from nothing, to a hundred fold.   In all paradigm debates, the issue is, to a degree,

Quote

which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than future promise. The man who embraces a new paradigm at an early stage must often so do in defiance of the evidence provided by problem solving. He must, that is, have faith that the new paradigm will succeed with the many large problems that confront it, knowing only that the old paradigm has failed with a few. A decision of that kind can only be made on faith.  (Kuhn, Structure, 158.)

We ought not start out by supposing we have no beams in our eye to remove, that we will never see more clearly than we do now, that if Joseph Smith did anything  puzzling or unsettling, then that proves that "there is no God" because "It stands to reason," Isaiah 55:8-11 notwithstanding, "If things are not the way I would prefer them for my own comfort and satisfaction, God could not be involved." 

And we always have to consider "which problems are more significant to have solved?"  Me, I've said I think Kolob is very cool. From Hamlet's Mill, see page 73:

Quote

The Godess Hathor [who we see in Facsimile 2 holding a lotus over the womb of the Cow] is called…literally the lady of every heart circuit”
The determinative sign for “heart” often figures as the plumb bob at the end of a plumb line coming from a well known astronomical surveying device,, the merkhet.

 "...the determinative sign for 'heart' often figures as the plumb line coming from a well-known astronomical surveying device. the merkhet [Lit. the "informer,"] that which causes to know!. Evidently 'heart' is same thing very specific, as it were the 'center of gravity.' And this may lead in quite another direction. The Arabs preserved a name far Canopus--besides calling the star Kalb at-teiman ('heart of the south'):
Suhail el wetn, 'Canopus Ponderosus, the heavy-weighting Canopus," i.e., "Canopus was the weight at the end of the plumb-line...(p. 73) by means of which this depth [of the universe] was measured." (p.271) 
Of all the stars it alone was taken for static, exempted from the Precession" (p. 269, N. 16). 
Hence it is "the primordial star. 'presented under the form of an Egg that contained all the things that were to be born...caIled 'l'etoile immobile'. It is near the Great Cloud which marks the South Pole of the ecliptic, and is NOT to be sought in the North." (p.269). 
 

Michael Rhodes points out that:

Quote

The seated figure [in facsimile 2] represents god as the creator, either Amon-Re or Khum.
Joseph Smith says that this is Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God…
The name Kolob is right at home in this context. The word most likely derives from the common Semitic root, QLB, which has the basic meaning of “heart, center, middle”…
 

Yes, there are puzzles.  But also, I believe, something real, something inspired and inspiring.  And the things that I find most inspiring come from observers who offered information and perspectives radically different than the traditions I started with. Far from being an "insuprable problem," these experiences cause my "understanding to be enlightened and [my] mind doth begin to expand.  Oh then is this not real?"  Real, yes, but not perfect.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg,, PA

Edited May 21, 2022 by Kevin Christensen

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/19/2022 at 10:06 PM, sunstoned said:

Here are the translations right from church sources. Here is a quick example: "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God."  The full descriptions are in these links.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fscriptures%2Fpgp%2Fabr%2Ffac-2%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D0384F7D69693E47C-6B4D61A2748C5101|MCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1653022285

 

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-book-of-abraham/facsimiles-2-3-abraham-4-5?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fmanual%2Fthe-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018%2Fthe-book-of-abraham%2Ffacsimiles-2-3-abraham-4-5%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D0019AC686F728043-4ACD32ADA6536CF8|MCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1653022319

Now, compare JS's version to what here what Egyptologist say the facsimiles are:

 Arthur Cruttenden Mace, Assistant Curator in the Department of Egyptian Art in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.

It is not even close.  It was not a translation.  No kolob, no Abraham.  Just a common second century funeral document.

 

Even under the worst case position it proves nothing.  There is no evidence the source text of Abraham chapters 1 through 5 (which is the book of Abraham that I care about) are those facsimiles.  Joseph said that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.  He could have simply given a new meaning to those figures without any real inspiration as all.  Not everything that Joseph attempts to translate has to be some divine source behind it.  It very well could be that the entire manuscripts that Joseph used were copied by a scribe from earlier documents and the scribe just threw those facsimiles in with it.  Unless or until we get ALL of the source material that Joseph used, the whole matter is based on speculation.  I can believe the Book of Abraham (Chapter 1 through 5)  is correct but the facsimiles part he did is wrong because one is not dependent on the other.  You can believe other things and that is fine.  I just don't see how you can prove a position from material that currently does not exist for you to examine. 

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Even under the worst case position it proves nothing.  There is no evidence the source text of Abraham chapters 1 through 5 (which is the book of Abraham that I care about) are those facsimiles.  Joseph said that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.  He could have simply given a new meaning to those figures without any real inspiration as all.  Not everything that Joseph attempts to translate has to be some divine source behind it.  It very well could be that the entire manuscripts that Joseph used were copied by a scribe from earlier documents and the scribe just threw those facsimiles in with it.  Unless or until we get ALL of the source material that Joseph used, the whole matter is based on speculation.  I can believe the Book of Abraham (Chapter 1 through 5)  is correct but the facsimiles part he did is wrong because one is not dependent on the other.  You can believe other things and that is fine.  I just don't see how you can prove a position from material that currently does not exist for you to examine. 

This is a pretty complicated view.  If it works for you then great.

[ttribe]

20 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Even under the worst case position it proves nothing.  There is no evidence the source text of Abraham chapters 1 through 5 (which is the book of Abraham that I care about) are those facsimiles.  Joseph said that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.  He could have simply given a new meaning to those figures without any real inspiration as all.  Not everything that Joseph attempts to translate has to be some divine source behind it.  It very well could be that the entire manuscripts that Joseph used were copied by a scribe from earlier documents and the scribe just threw those facsimiles in with it.  Unless or until we get ALL of the source material that Joseph used, the whole matter is based on speculation.  I can believe the Book of Abraham (Chapter 1 through 5)  is correct but the facsimiles part he did is wrong because one is not dependent on the other.  You can believe other things and that is fine.  I just don't see how you can prove a position from material that currently does not exist for you to examine. 

And yet, the church continues to publish the facsimiles as part of the Book of Abraham. Seems someone in Salt Lake didn't catch your more nuanced interpretation.

Edited May 22, 2022 by ttribe