Book of Abraham - still a problem

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

The email I got from Skousen gave me permission to quote his CV comments. There were stronger comments in his  email. 

Givens is public about his views

"Hi 

My views are pretty clearly laid out in my book, The Pearl of Greatest Price.  In brief, leading LDS authorities and scholars all acknowledged as early as 1912 that JSs explanation of the facsimiles was not consistent with Egyptian scholarship. What came to be called the catalyst theory was put forward more than a century ago-- JS produced something that was inspired, but it was likely not a straightforward translation of the papyri he was working with.

 

As for the future of the facsimiles, I cannot see the church moving away from their position, since the facsimiles and their "explanation" are part of canonized scripture.

 

Warm regards

Terryl

 

Well we must just wait for  Stephen  Smoots  presentation. 

The catalyst theory, which can be shown to be empirically "true" per the testimonies of millions, and per the Radical Empiricism of William James, shows that the BOA serves its purpose as a religious text.

It is also true per Alma 32, in exactly the same way other religious texts are justifiable

Seeing it any other way is a category mistake.

It's all quite simple, with any understanding of postmodern philosophy.  The belief serves its purpose, just as the belief that "all men are created equal" is justified as true.

You need a little more horsepower in your confused argument to show otherwise.

This is not archaeology, this is religion.  The history is irrelevant, the significance of the teachings are everything.

You want the prodigal son's home address to do a dig of his home, and ignore the purpose of the text.

Absurd.

Edited July 3, 2023 by mfbukowski

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The idolatry of Terah, the premortal existence of spirits and other items are seen in the Apocalypse of Abraham, which the first English translation was released in August 1898.

Regardless of what was in the Apocalypse of Abraham, these were common themes long before in the early 19th century America, before Joseph Smith finished the Book of Abraham in 1842. For example, see both Clarkes Bible Commentary and Brown's Bible Dictionary for the idolatry of Terah. Joseph Smith owned a copy of Brown's and had access to Clarke's. As for the pre-existence and who was in it, it was a commonly   debated or discussed by people at that time like Noah Worchester, Jacob Tidd, James Simmons, Hosea Ballou, just to name a few. 

 

As Brent Metcalfe has observed:

Quote

Comparing these themes to extrabiblical Abrahamic legends in support of Book of Abraham antiquity is misguided.  ...numerous antebellum publications recounted extrabiblical Abraham legends.

See Brent Metcalfe, “The Curious Textual History of 'Egyptus' the Wife of Ham.” pg. 2 footnote #3

Edited July 4, 2023 by CA Steve

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Tweed1944 said:

Is figure 7 a "dove" or "Nehebkau" ? In the sketch you only have the head of the figure visable which Smith must have mistaken for a dove or bird.Imagine if he had an undamaged hypocephalus what would he have made with figures displaying genitals ?

All an endowed LDS person sees here is a complete, symbolic representation of a temple event, which contains spiritual information not found elsewhere and which refutes the notion that the endowment grows out of Masonry.

Masonry in Egypt? I don't think Egyptians quite saw it that way

And if the representation is of genitals, seeing the drawing as representational, that is an observation of the beholder.

But we see it as Joseph saw it.

The image has been re-purposed

Seeing it otherwise, in THIS CONTEXT, demonstrates a category error.

Good old Wittegenstein wins again.

Is this a duck or a rabbit?  Both and neither. It depends on the context.

Edited July 4, 2023 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

17 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

If you look at the sketch figure 3 is missing. When you check what Smith put in the gap it seems o have come from another piece of papyri. Check the figure bottom right.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-87zHvKQxp8XKlhrkl_xaDCsESUbc5VapxQ3Q9Dge0E/edit

Yes, but it's interesting that the choice of using that particular image matches up well with what is found in that location on other hypocephali.  I'm not sure how that was done.  Lucky guess?

16 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Klaus Baer in a Dialogue article said there were no fibers in the glue above the standing figure. How do we know the standing figure was holding a knife.?

Perhaps a jar

Or a knife.  Did you read the BYU Studies issue that you referenced in the opening post?  See The Idolatrous Priest (Facsimile 1, Figure 3).  

2 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

The email I got from Skousen gave me permission to quote his CV comments. There were stronger comments in his  email. 

Givens is public about his views

"Hi 

My views are pretty clearly laid out in my book, The Pearl of Greatest Price.  In brief, leading LDS authorities and scholars all acknowledged as early as 1912 that JSs explanation of the facsimiles was not consistent with Egyptian scholarship. What came to be called the catalyst theory was put forward more than a century ago-- JS produced something that was inspired, but it was likely not a straightforward translation of the papyri he was working with.

 

As for the future of the facsimiles, I cannot see the church moving away from their position, since the facsimiles and their "explanation" are part of canonized scripture.

 

Warm regards

Terryl

 

Well we must just wait for  Stephen  Smoots  presentation. 

This is from Terryl Givens, not Royal Skousen.  You've changed people on us.  That's a very different situation and is also not what you claimed of Royal Skousen in your OP (i.e. "Royal Skousen in his CV suggested that the facsimiles be dropped from the Book of Abraham.")  The catalyst theory is a common explanation, but certainly not the only one.

1 hour ago, Tweed1944 said:

Do you notice in facsimile 2 Smith gave his interpretations to pictures but from figure 8 onward its "cannot be revealed unto the world"  "ought not be revealed  at the present time"  "will be given in the own due time"  He just could not translate writing. Did he still have the seer stone?

That portion wasn't revealed for good reason, it came from another manuscript and wasn't relevant. This works in favor of Joseph Smith having the translation revealed to him and that he did not consider the JSP 11 Papyri to be the source for the book of Abraham translation.  This was one of the main points of the presentation that I linked earlier and explained in detail:  Translating the Book of Abraham: The Answer Under Our Heads

Quote

It just so happens that literally every Figure containing any hieratic text from JSP XI, Joseph’s response is that the explanations “will be given in the own due time of the Lord.” And he concludes by saying, “The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.” In other words, literally all of the JSP XI hieratic characters included in Facsimile 2, Joseph Smith deliberately declined from commenting upon because he believed that the translation would at some future time be given in the own due time of the Lord. Joseph clearly indicates that he did NOT translate JSP XI.

This works against the critics and in Joseph Smith's favor.

2 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

The figure in the middle  seems to be falsy restored the figure in the middle seems to always have multiple heads (more than 2)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYqfTAwR2xVx0gKruLt_ylbU9hBz4EZ7pqSh0uUm8lg/edit

Another amazing guess considering the similarities to other hypocephali (since it appears that the version published in TImes and Seasons has two heads and has a similar styled head piece).

2 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Is figure 7 a "dove" or "Nehebkau" ? In the sketch you only have the head of the figure visable which Smith must have mistaken for a dove or bird.Imagine if he had an undamaged hypocephalus what would he have made with figures displaying genitals ?

But, some don't have genitals, like this one:    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/BritishMuseumHypocephalusEA8445.jpg

And this one:  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Hypocephalus_with_heavenly_cow_(Cartonage%2C_from_Thebes%2C_~300Bc%2C_Guest_at_RMO_from_Louvre)_(5097016289).jpg

So imagine one that doesn't appear the same way you imagine. 

[Pyreaux]

5 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Do you notice in facsimile 2 Smith gave his interpretations to pictures but from figure 8 onward its "cannot be revealed unto the world"  "ought not be revealed  at the present time"  "will be given in the own due time"  He just could not translate writing.

Yep, and yet recently I get these fledgling critics coming to me saying these are examples "mistranslations". I guess they don't understand the material they are arguing against, these are not translations at all. Anyways, yes, Joseph doesn't seem to claim know Egyptian when he's interpreting these icons. Like the golden plates and missing papyrus, just another missed chance to compare any text to a translation, rendering all of his translations bizarrely, or miraculously, unfalsifiable.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Regardless of what was in the Apocalypse of Abraham, these were common themes long before in the early 19th century America, before Joseph Smith finished the Book of Abraham in 1842. For example, see both Clarkes Bible Commentary and Brown's Bible Dictionary for the idolatry of Terah. Joseph Smith owned a copy of Brown's and had access to Clarke's. As for the pre-existence and who was in it, it was a commonly   debated or discussed by people at that time like Noah Worchester, Jacob Tidd, James Simmons, Hosea Ballou, just to name a few. 

As Brent Metcalfe has observed:

See Brent Metcalfe, “The Curious Textual History of 'Egyptus' the Wife of Ham.” pg. 2 footnote #3

Ah, so instead of a fiction, rather Joseph was a genius scholar who gleaned these traditions from every source in the world that he may or may not had access to? And luckily, these details in the Book of Abraham were also in 100 other undiscovered ancient documents in connection to Abraham? Okay, but I'm still impressed.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Tweed1944]

A well known Egyptologist I shared this with: responded  "I can’t keep up with such logic flips. It hurts my brain"

I will give them a break and make no further comment. Knock yourself out with your crazy apologetics.

"

All an endowed LDS person sees here is a complete, symbolic representation of a temple event, which contains spiritual information not found elsewhere and which refutes the notion that the endowment grows out of Masonry.

Masonry in Egypt? I don't think Egyptians quite saw it that way

And if the representation is of genitals, seeing the drawing as representational, that is an observation of the beholder.

But we see it as Joseph saw it.

The image has been re-purposed

Seeing it otherwise, in THIS CONTEXT, demonstrates a category error.

Good old Wittegenstein wins again.

Is this a duck or a rabbit?  Both and neither. It depends on the context."

 

Their response

"I can’t keep up with such logic flips. It hurts my brain"

I am going to give them a break  Enjoy your desperate apologetics . Seems so pointless.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Tweed1944
update

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

A well known Egyptologist I shared this with: responded  "I can’t keep up with such logic flips. It hurts my brain"

Sorry, yes that IS a problem and illustrates THE problem.

Truth within postmodernism can be tricky, but it IS necessary in 2023 to understand the logic of relativism. That old positivism really IS as dead as it can be, as even understood by its originators

Changing contexts changes meanings.

Question: what's the most dangerous game?

Athlete says  "Rugby".

"Big game" hunter says "elephants".

Language cannot have meaning without a context created by the purpose of the utterance.

Religion is not archaeology.

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/5966/is-logical-positivism-dead-today

"Constructive empiricism states that (1) scientific theories do not aim at truth, but at empirical adequacy; and (2) that their acceptance involves a belief only that they are empirically adequate."

Edited July 4, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Tweed1944 said:

A well known Egyptologist I shared this with: responded  "I can’t keep up with such logic flips. It hurts my brain"

I will give them a break and make no further comment. Knock yourself out with your crazy apologetics.

"

All an endowed LDS person sees here is a complete, symbolic representation of a temple event, which contains spiritual information not found elsewhere and which refutes the notion that the endowment grows out of Masonry.

Masonry in Egypt? I don't think Egyptians quite saw it that way

And if the representation is of genitals, seeing the drawing as representational, that is an observation of the beholder.

But we see it as Joseph saw it.

The image has been re-purposed

Seeing it otherwise, in THIS CONTEXT, demonstrates a category error.

Good old Wittegenstein wins again.

Is this a duck or a rabbit?  Both and neither. It depends on the context."

 

Their response

"I can’t keep up with such logic flips. It hurts my brain"

I am going to give them a break  Enjoy your desperate apologetics . Seems so pointless.

Pointless. Do you have your own opinions about anything, or do you just bother other people, this time an unidentified (maybe fictional) Egyptologist, every time we respond?

The Endowment ritual was commonplace in the ancient royal resurrection dramas of the kings, from Egypt to Mesopotamia, and of course Israel, and by extension Christianity. The medieval Masonry Guilds obtained the initiatory rituals from two men who got them from The Royal Society.

[Dario_M]

11 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

This is long after the Golden Plates, Joseph translated The Book of Abraham from roles of Egyptian papyrus and it was put in the Pearl of Great Price. Its where Abraham is depicted as an astronomer and the Lord tells him a lesson using the star "Kolob" and its the primary source for the LDS concept of the pre-mortal life. The papyrus was donated to the Chicago Museum and thought to be destroyed during the Great Chicago Fire. Modernly, a few fragments were discovered, one fraction of one facsimile (the illustrations that were to go with the Book of Abraham), and its papyrus is a match to a fragment of papyrus with the Book of Breathings (an Egyptian funeral text).

).

That's interesting. But those papyruses are also gone now from what i understand of reading your text. What is there to investigate then. 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Dario_M

[Pyreaux]

40 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

That's interesting. But those papyruses are also gone now from what i understand of reading your text. What is there to investigate then. 

Most of the original is gone, but not all. That picture is of one of the remaining fragments that remains. The Egyptologists are saying it's a funeral text, then the critics get to postering about what Egyptologists say about the fragments because it not exactly as the revelation says. Apologists respond with our own Egyptologists who on one hand say its really inconclusive while on the others hand can point out how eerily close it is to secular understandings. The critics get angry because there isn't enough evidence to prove it nor disprove it, its unfalsifiable. They hate being unsure, while we don't need to prove anything to anyone. Do they really want know if it's true or not? They just need to pray about it. It's that easy. But the faithless want an easier way, some other authority to give them permission to disbelieve.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Pointless. Do you have your own opinions about anything, or do you just bother other people, this time an unidentified (maybe fictional) Egyptologist, every time we respond?

The Endowment ritual was commonplace in the ancient royal resurrection dramas of the kings, from Egypt to Mesopotamia, and of course Israel, and by extension Christianity. The medieval Masonry Guilds obtained the initiatory rituals from two men who got them from The Royal Society.

There were even strong similarities in the coronation of Charles III, recently 

[Dario_M]

4 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Most of the original is gone, but not all. That picture is of one of the remaining fragments that remains. The Egyptologists are saying it's a funeral text, then the critics get to postering about what Egyptologists say about the fragments because it not exactly as the revelation says. Apologists respond with our own Egyptologists who on one hand say its really inconclusive while on the others hand can point out how eerily close it is to secular understandings. The critics get angry because there isn't enough evidence to prove it nor disprove it, its unfalsifiable. They hate being unsure, while we don't need to prove anything to anyone. Do they really want know if it's true or not? They just need to pray about it. It's that easy. But the faithless want an easier way, some other authority to give them permission to disbelieve.

Really. That's an interesing insight. Thank you so much brother. 🙏

[CA Steve]

11 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Ah, so instead of a fiction, rather Joseph was a genius scholar who gleaned these traditions from every source in the world that he may or may not had access to? And luckily, these details in the Book of Abraham were also in 100 other undiscovered ancient documents in connection to Abraham? Okay, but I'm still impressed.

Smith was interested in learning throughout his life. At the time of his death he owned an impressive personal library, for that time, of at least 40 volumes and maybe many more. Many of the authors of those books, such as Josephus, Hebrew grammars, chrestomathys and lexicons by Stuart, Gibbs, Gesenius(maybe) and especially Seixas, Francis Barrett, Leipzig's Biblia Hebraica, Charles Buck, William Hone, Thomas Dic k, Thomas Taylor, all deal with themes we find in the Book of Abraham. Why does it take a genius to be aware of the material in the very books he owns? 

[CA Steve]

14 hours ago, Dario_M said:

That's interesting. But those papyruses are also gone now from what i understand of reading your text. What is there to investigate then. 

As the title of this thread indicates, the Book of Abraham is still a problem. Originally it was thought that the remaining mummies and papyri that the Mormons bought in 1835 Kirtland were all destroyed in a 1871 fire that destroyed large portions of Chicago as well as the Chicago Museum which was thought to house all the collection but, in the 1960's, it was revealed that the Metropolitain Museum actually had over a dozen panels of papyri from the original collection in their possession that were as not part of the collection destroyed in the Chicago museum but had been kept in private hands.. The Metropolitain Museum agreed to donate (sell?) this existing collection to the Mormon Church. You can see great photos of what the Church currently has on the JSP site here at this link  Introduction to Egyptian Papyri. Here is a little history on how that happened.

A man by the name of Michael Chandler arrived in Kirtland in early July 1835 who had the remnants of a collection of mummies and papyri that he had been showing and selling throughout the east. Remaining of the original collection was 4 mummies, two intact papyri rolls, a round piece of papyri we now call Facsimile #2 and pieces of a third roll. After discussions with Chandler and examining the collection, Joseph Smith announced that the two rolls "contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh's Court in Egypt and the teachings of Father Abraham." Three members got together and paid the $2400.00 (about $80,000.00 today) to buy the collection.

After Smith's murder in 1844, possession of the collection of Egyptian artifacts went to his mother Lucy Smith and Smith's younger brother William who periodically displayed the artifacts to visitors. Within two weeks of Lucy's death in 1856 the collection was sold to man by the name of Abel Comb. Combs sold two of the mummies and some of the papyri to a museum in St Louis which eventually were resold to the Chicago Museum where they were destroyed in 1871 by fire. Combs, however, retained in his possession 11 pieces of the papyri as well as a sheet of paper with loose papyri patches glued on it now known as the "Church Historian Fragment." This collection made its way through several hands and finally was acquired by the Metropolitain Museum who transferred it to the Church. Digital copies of it can be seen at the link above. It is not known what happened to the two remaining mummies.

Now to the complicated part, which is why the Book of Abraham is still a problem. There is a debate as to whether or not the pieces of papyri in the possession of the Church are the source of the Book of Abraham. On one side are those that believe the Book of Abraham was a translation from parts of the papyri that we no longer have which were destroyed in the Chicago fire or otherwise lost and on the other side are those that believe that the existing papyri is the source text for the inspiration of the Book of Abraham even though a translation of the papyri shows it is not. The first side is called the missing papyri camp and the second is called the catalyst camp. These sides cannot be divided up into believers and non-believers as there are many faithful scholars on both sides of this debate, many of whom are employed by the church and BYU. This second side has very good reasons for believing the extant papyri is the source text as there is a collection of papers in church possession, created by Joseph Smith and his scribes, called the Kirtland Egyptian Papers on which Smith and his scribes show characters from the existing papyri alongside their Book of Abraham translations.

Edited July 4, 2023 by CA Steve

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Now to the complicated part, which is why the Book of Abraham is still a problem. There is a debate as to whether or not the pieces of papyri in the possession of the Church are the source of the Book of Abraham. On one side are those that believe the Book of Abraham was a translation from parts of the papyri that we no longer have which were destroyed in the Chicago fire or otherwise lost and on the other side are those that believe that the existing papyri is the source text for the inspiration of the Book of Abraham even though a translation of the papyri shows it is not. The first side is called the missing papyri camp and the second is called the catalyst camp. These sides cannot be divided up into believers and non-believers as there are many faithful scholars on both sides of this debate, many of whom are employed by the church and BYU.

I believe this is a bit of a false dichotomy, as there may be people who hold the catalyst view that may not consider the papyri to have any relationship at all to the translation, other than perhaps for the facsimiles (which Joseph did quite well on that part).  The way you phrased it that the "existing papyri is the source text for the inspiration of the Book of Abraham" still implies it is a "source".  Joseph needed no "source" for the book of Moses or D&C 7, for example, even though for the latter he described it as "made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself" (Doctrine and Covenants 7, Heading).

7 hours ago, CA Steve said:

This second side has very good reasons for believing the extant papyri is the source text as there is a collection of papers in church possession, created by Joseph Smith and his scribes, called the Kirtland Egyptian Papers on which Smith and his scribes show characters from the existing papyri alongside their Book of Abraham translations.

But this is not a "good" reason.  This theory seems highly unlikely given that Joseph declined to translate the portions of facsimile 2 that were filled in from these same manuscripts.  If Joseph had indeed obtained the Book of Abraham from these manuscripts then why would he say there is no translation for the same portion of text added to the facsimiles?  See:  Translating the Book of Abraham: The Answer Under Our Heads (and quoted from earlier here and here in this same thread).

I think there are still lots of things we need to discover about the book of Abraham, but I still don't see why this is made to be a "problem".

Edited July 5, 2023 by InCognitus

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Dario_M said:

That's interesting. But those papyruses are also gone now from what i understand of reading your text. What is there to investigate then. 

You're right!

We must remember that these books were revealed to Joseph through the power of God.

Yes Joseph saw the texts, but much of came out of Joseph's mind was given to him by God, through inspiration.

So yes, really there never WAS anything to "investigate", it was God's inspiration to Joseph which guides us spiritually.

Study as much as we can, we STILL need God's inspiration to tell us what he wants us to tell us. 

Study has to end at some point, and God has to take over, in our hearts.

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

On 7/3/2023 at 7:33 PM, mfbukowski said:

Is this a duck or a rabbit?  Both and neither. It depends on the context.

Does it weigh the same as a witch or does it bite people’s heads off?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Does it weigh the same as a witch or does it bite people’s heads off?

Sure.  If you say so. Everyone creates their ow reality.  But don't forget the fallacy of the stone.  I think you already did, if you ever knew it.

Maybe for you it will turn into a stone.

Even kicking a stone is human experience; you can't get around it.

I hope this helps

https://cognitive-liberty.online/argumentum-ad-lapidem-appeal-to-the-stone/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone#:~:text=Appeal to the stone%2C also,absurd%2C without providing further argumentation.

"Ha! Go jump off a cliff and see if THAT'S REAL"

Oh yeah it's real.  Like all human experiences, it's real to humans.

You'll have a human experience all the way down.

You might even have a human ow-ee afterwards 

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by mfbukowski

[OGHoosier]

21 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The medieval Masonry Guilds obtained the initiatory rituals from two men who got them from The Royal Society.

Yo, I want to hear more about this. Would you mind posting or sending me a PM? 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Yo, I want to hear more about this. Would you mind posting or sending me a PM? 

@Pyreaux I'd also be interested.

[Dario_M]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You're right!

We must remember that these books were revealed to Joseph through the power of God.

Amen. 🙏

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes Joseph saw the texts, but much of came out of Joseph's mind was given to him by God, through inspiration.

So yes, really there never WAS anything to "investigate",

What about the golden plates at that time then? People could investigate those records. 

 

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

it was God's inspiration to Joseph which guides us spiritually.

True he received the most information directely from God while he was praying in the woods. 🌲

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Study as much as we can, we STILL need God's inspiration to tell us what he wants us to tell us. 

Study has to end at some point, and God has to take over, in our hearts.

 

I get that but because this topic was about investigating material i was just curious what kind of material there was left over. Because the records are nowhere to be found. And if you wanna investigate at least you need something. 

[Tweed1944]

On 7/3/2023 at 2:52 PM, sunstoned said:

The problem is not that "anti-mos" saying the facsimiles are mistranslated.  The problem is that the scientific community, most notably, Egyptologist say the facsimiles are mistranslated.  And the term mistranslation is being kind. There is no correlation at all between what JS said the facsimiles mean and their real meaning.  The church would do well to just de-canonize the BoA just like they did with the Lectures of Faith.

Kerry Shirts once a prominent apologist has done a youtube on the hypocephalus using information from book like Tamas Mekis.  Gee has done a review of Dr Mekis book and it brought a stern reaction from one Egyptologist  who wrote "Gee had his review in a European publication by people who might be unaware of Gee's religious views"

One commentator who has done some studies in the languages sent me this funny illustration

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1It7wOu1Hog3SADHI8F4RPQSH2HElCUrHpCmsIL08ktw/edit

If the church had done what the Community of Christ had done and not canonized. I don't think there would be a big deal.The average LDS if they are happy with their commitments  would continue was usual. Peter Enns and Bart Ehrman have really got be interested in the Bible with all its messy parts. Enns is honest about the exodus and conquest, the difference between 1&2 Samuel and 1 &2 Kings. The Book of Mormon is a greater challenge  I am reading William Davis' book on his theory on how he wrote it. (Visions in a Seer Stone) How is it his neighbours said he was lazy and yet put together a book like the BOM would take a lot of time when he could be out looking for treasure

[Ryan Dahle]

23 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Smith was interested in learning throughout his life. At the time of his death he owned an impressive personal library, for that time, of at least 40 volumes and maybe many more. Many of the authors of those books, such as Josephus, Hebrew grammars, chrestomathys and lexicons by Stuart, Gibbs, Gesenius(maybe) and especially Seixas, Francis Barrett, Leipzig's Biblia Hebraica, Charles Buck, William Hone, Thomas Dic k, Thomas Taylor, all deal with themes we find in the Book of Abraham. Why does it take a genius to be aware of the material in the very books he owns? 

Just curious, where are you getting this list from. Grunder? Vogel?

And are these just generic themes you are talking about, or do all of these authors connect specific ideas with the life and teachings of Abraham? 

Edited July 5, 2023 by Ryan Dahle

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

One commentator who has done some studies in the languages sent me this funny illustration

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1It7wOu1Hog3SADHI8F4RPQSH2HElCUrHpCmsIL08ktw/edit

Yes, but we already know those portions of facsimile 2 were filled in.  Focusing on that seems like a red herring to the rest of it.

6 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

If the church had done what the Community of Christ had done and not canonized.

I, for one, am very glad it was canonized, despite what the critics try to say about it.  What we have in our scriptures is an inspired text.