Royal Skousen and the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I thought I had been pretty clear that it seems that the long held narrative is about how Smith generated the BOA is changing. Revealed, catalyst and so on. 

I think my confusion is from your more restricted use of revelation (if I am understanding your comment above correctly).  For me any vision or reception of new knowledge through the Spirit is a revelation, so even if what Joseph did was read words off a seerstone that amounted to a direct correspondence to the words on a papyri, that is textbook revelation to me.  So your comments have been sounding confusing to me as if you were saying because I first used the word “beagle” for my pet and now use the word “dog”, my description of my pet has fundamentally changed.

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I think my confusion is from your more restricted use of revelation (if I am understanding your comment above correctly).  For me any vision or reception of new knowledge through the Spirit is a revelation, so even if what Joseph did was read words off a seerstone that amounted to a direct correspondence to the words on a papyri, that is textbook revelation to me.  So your comments have been sounding confusing to me as if you were saying because I first used the word “beagle” for my pet and now use the word “dog”, my description of my pet has fundamentally changed.

 

I'm actually confused by your posts.  It seems that so often you understand both sides. 

When the definition stuff got started on this thread it seems to have confused everything.  Maybe I'm wrong to what @Teancum is saying, but it seems that it doesn't really matter what the "definition", but that there is a disconnect between the papyrus and the BoA where pretty much most members thought they were connected.  Whether it was from someone's definition of translate, or they understood it from wordings such as "the BoA came from papyrus" or however it was worded.  

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Rain said:

ut that there is a disconnect between the papyrus and the BoA where pretty much most members thought they were connected. 

I believe this is what it boils down to and it is a very logical and valid criticism Imo. I personally don’t see it as an issue when general understanding changes or even if Joseph made a mistake (I am not sure we know enough to be sure of his understanding), I would assume changes in understanding how God works would change over time with more experience. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

20 hours ago, Teancum said:

By the way I apologize if I was an irritant to you.  I am honestly frustrated with the issue (and many others actually).  I have alway found you fair, balanced and reasonable.  So I must have been obnoxious to cause your response.  Again I am sorry.

I am not offended.

Here is the challenge - your frustration is over discrepancies between the various explanations and descriptions that the LDS Church has offered over time, and what you perceive as the reality. At this stage in my life, I have no interest in discussing what frustrates you. I have no interest in defending the Church on these points - other than to point out that I think that there are reasonable explanations for the narrative that the Church presented and the way that it changed (even if I don't agree with the reasons, and even if I don't agree with the explanations or narratives). I have three interests -

1: I am interested in the way that early Mormonism produced scripture. There are a lot of facets to this - but my interested is rooted in contextualizing the claims about the production of that scripture (in this case the translations) within my post-structuralist and post-modernist worldview. To this end, I am interested, for example, in discussing how the process of translation (of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham) function in terms of communicative acts. I am interested in how the language of the texts reflects the potential for being a translation. If you have read my presentation (that I linked earlier) you would see where Skousen and I have very different views of certain aspects of the process for these texts and what the implications of those aspects are. In particular, I am interested in the difference that it makes for us to understand Joseph as a reader and not as an author of translation. This is part of the reason why I engaged this thread.

2: I am interested in the history of the narrative. That is, I am interested in how the discussion about the translation of the texts changes over time. It is fascinating to me, for example, that our dialogue in the LDS Church about translation of scripture shifts dramatically around the beginning of the 20th century with the widespread introduction of higher criticism injected into that translation process. Part of what fascinates me is how the LDS Church reverses its position in some ways about what makes a translation good or reliable. In particular, I am highly interested in the ways in which the descriptions about the translations and the texts are appropriated from other contexts and other texts - and the way that these ideas, once presented, spread and influence later discourse in the LDS Church.

3: I am interested in the purely philosophical questions about meaning and the way that we read.

So, we get to this discussion. You wanted, I think, to have a discussion about the Church's role in getting people to believe something that wasn't accurate - and how Skousen's perspective runs counter to much of what the LDS Church has taught over the past century about translation. I don't disagree with this. And at the same time it isn't of any interest to me. I would never have engaged if I had understood that issue. Don't get me wrong, I can sympathize with people who are left trying to understand how they should feel about these kinds of discrepancies. I just don't have the patience for it. I also don't have a lot of patience for people who want to insist that the Church's view on translation has been a monolithic view since the very beginning. This doesn't fit with the history that we have available to us now. Finally, it was irritating in that I recognized that there was a gap between what you were talking about and what I was talking about - and when I asked you, you suggested that I was merely being an apologist trying to reframe the issue. This wasn't my goal - it was an attempt to discover where (if anywhere) we had compatible foundations from which to discuss.

So, I apologize for my brusqueness.

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

I'm actually confused by your posts.  It seems that so often you understand both sides. 

When the definition stuff got started on this thread it seems to have confused everything.  Maybe I'm wrong to what @Teancum is saying, but it seems that it doesn't really matter what the "definition", but that there is a disconnect between the papyrus and the BoA where pretty much most members thought they were connected.  Whether it was from someone's definition of translate, or they understood it from wordings such as "the BoA came from papyrus" or however it was worded.  

What i Have been trying to say is that it seems to me that Skousen's comments is a contradiction to the historical narrative the church has taught about how we received the BOA.

[Rain]

28 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What i Have been trying to say is that it seems to me that Skousen's comments is a contradiction to the historical narrative the church has taught about how we received the BOA.

Ahh. Ok. So since Skousen said Joseph was "mistakenly thinking" do you see anyway to be ok with the idea and not be "gaslighting"?  I recognize that you don't believe in the church and its claims so I think I am just looking at the gaslighting idea   

[Teancum]

33 minutes ago, Rain said:

Ahh. Ok. So since Skousen said Joseph was "mistakenly thinking" do you see anyway to be ok with the idea and not be "gaslighting"?  I recognize that you don't believe in the church and its claims so I think I am just looking at the gaslighting idea   

Well I used to be full LDS believer.  I would say as devoted as anyone ever has been.  But correct. I no longer believe and things like this, among so many other issues, is what has driven me to disbelief.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So, we get to this discussion. You wanted, I think, to have a discussion about the Church's role in getting people to believe something that wasn't accurate - and how Skousen's perspective runs counter to much of what the LDS Church has taught over the past century about translation. I don't disagree with this. And at the same time it isn't of any interest to me. I would never have engaged if I had understood that issue. Don't get me wrong, I can sympathize with people who are left trying to understand how they should feel about these kinds of discrepancies. I just don't have the patience for it. I also don't have a lot of patience for people who want to insist that the Church's view on translation has been a monolithic view since the very beginning. This doesn't fit with the history that we have available to us now. Finally, it was irritating in that I recognized that there was a gap between what you were talking about and what I was talking about - and when I asked you, you suggested that I was merely being an apologist trying to reframe the issue. This wasn't my goal - it was an attempt to discover where (if anywhere) we had compatible foundations from which to discuss.

So, I apologize for my brusqueness.

Thank you.  I get it better now as well. I think our approach to LDS truth claims are quite different.  I actually tried your approach for many years.  A more nuanced approach.  A more "we see through the glass dark" approach.  But ultimately that did not work for me. Not for our church, nor for Christianity in general.  But that is just me. I did step over the line to toss you in the "disingenuous apologist" bucket and again I do apologize.  I do enjoy your posts here and try to learn from them.  Sometime message board discussion do fall apart. 

[Rain]

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well I used to be full LDS believer.  I would say as devoted as anyone ever has been.  But correct. I no longer believe and things like this, among so many other issues, is what has driven me to disbelief.

 

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Ahh. Ok. So since Skousen said Joseph was "mistakenly thinking" do you see anyway to be ok with the idea and not be "gaslighting"?  I recognize that you don't believe in the church and its claims so I think I am just looking at the gaslighting idea   

I know and I am ok with that, but that doesn't answer my question.  If you don't want to that is fine as well.  I was just curious if it could only be seen as gaslighting for you or if there was any way you see to be ok with what Skousen is proposing and not be gaslighting.

[CA Steve]

On 7/27/2023 at 7:47 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

 

2: I am interested in the history of the narrative. That is, I am interested in how the discussion about the translation of the texts changes over time.

Ben,

Thank you for your insightful remarks. I am curious, and forgive me if you have already answered this question, but do you think Smith was aware of when he was translating in the traditional sense and when he was not?

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Thank you for your insightful remarks. I am curious, and forgive me if you have already answered this question, but do you think Smith was aware of when he was translating in the traditional sense and when he was not?

I believe he was.

However ... we don't really have any clear or concise description of what was going on when he translated the Book of Mormon. So was he simply reading? Was he getting some sort of mental image? We don't know. With that caveat in mind, I would suggest that his attempts at translation in the traditional sense were generally clumsy, amateur, and in a sense aimed at trying to make texts correspond to his beliefs. One you have a relatively good idea of his sources, his explanations are quite understandable (even if we might disagree with his conclusions). We see a lot of this sort of thing in the King Follett Discourse, for example, where we can take his language and actually pinpoint which of the texts he derived his explanations from.

But this idea also causes us some problems with the Book of Abraham. We see influences from these sources on the text. And so without being able to know what the process was, it makes it difficult for us. The text of the Book of Abraham appears redacted at least once. There are chronological challenges with trying to date it (it doesn't seem to be written all at once - which adds to the confusion). The absence of good descriptions of what was going on doesn't help - and this means that there are lots of different ideas about it. So ... in this sense, we have a spectrum. The Book of Mormon has almost nothing in it that we might attribute to a growing understanding of texts and translation. The JST project has a little bit of this understanding in it. The Book of Abraham has a lot - and a large part of how we understand that is really determined by the assumptions people bring to the text.

And to add one more wrinkle to all of this, we have the idea of a perfect language (and the corresponding notion of an Adamic language). Joseph starts discussing ideas about an Adamic language in 1832 (between the JST and the BoA). But this isn't so much a restoration of an Adamic language, but attempts to create one - and within Mormonism, the end result of this sort of speculation is the language of Deseret.

My take away is that Joseph Smith never really develops a notion of translation in the sense that a linguist might want to discuss it today.

[Tweed1944]

I think what concerned Skousen was the false restoration of facsimile 2. We know from the sketch that parts were missing  and other material taken from other papyri and inserted. For example figure 3. Examine other examples of the hypocephalus and it is a figure in a boat with an insect. See British Museum holdings. Look in the right hand corner. Smith's interpretation "Is made to represent God sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority...."

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/search?object=hypocephalus&fbclid=IwAR1mf5jmVTStsjGiXmrJUcL-MsgRjROS6tLwPKSjYravybT7o5hzRooFkQA

View EA8445, EA35875, EA36188, EA37095.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Tweed1944
add information

[CA Steve]

22 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But this idea also causes us some problems with the Book of Abraham. We see influences from these sources on the text. And so without being able to know what the process was, it makes it difficult for us. The text of the Book of Abraham appears redacted at least once. There are chronological challenges with trying to date it (it doesn't seem to be written all at once - which adds to the confusion). The absence of good descriptions of what was going on doesn't help - and this means that there are lots of different ideas about it. So ... in this sense, we have a spectrum. The Book of Mormon has almost nothing in it that we might attribute to a growing understanding of texts and translation. The JST project has a little bit of this understanding in it. The Book of Abraham has a lot - and a large part of how we understand that is really determined by the assumptions people bring to the text.

Thanks Ben, as usual you pack so much into a response that interests me but for now, I'd like to focus on this paragraph. I have an interest in sources that Joseph Smith might have used in what he produced. Here is a link to some of my interest in that area. I would like to know more about what you have found as sources for the text in the BoA, if you would. I agree with you about it not being written at once; I think Matt Grey's work in that area has conclusively shown that. I would also like you to expand if you would about what notions people bring to the text. And I am also curious if you think that there was anything about Abraham on any of the artifacts Chandler sold in Kirtland.

 

Thanks

[mfbukowski]

On 7/25/2023 at 3:40 PM, Teancum said:

I do.  So do tens of thousands of others.  Changing the goal posts is disingenuous IMO.

 

And that is exactly what I did.  Questioned the mommy church and found it lacking and dishonest.  And so it continues.

No it is not the same at all.  I am happy for that you can be so fine with such a moving target and lack of consistency in the narrative. And simply changing the narrative and then gaslighting those who question.  My personal standards of integrity are a bit higher than that.  But if it works for you wonderful.

Vague to the point of being unintelligible.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 7/29/2023 at 11:38 AM, CA Steve said:

Thanks Ben, as usual you pack so much into a response that interests me but for now, I'd like to focus on this paragraph. I have an interest in sources that Joseph Smith might have used in what he produced. Here is a link to some of my interest in that area. I would like to know more about what you have found as sources for the text in the BoA, if you would. I agree with you about it not being written at once; I think Matt Grey's work in that area has conclusively shown that. I would also like you to expand if you would about what notions people bring to the text. And I am also curious if you think that there was anything about Abraham on any of the artifacts Chandler sold in Kirtland.

This is a deep rabbit hole. I have not spent a lot of time working on these issues since around 2016 (and I was much more heavily engaged in this research between 2008 and 2012). So mostly I go back to my old notes, which are somewhat scattered.

In terms of the language stuff that we have been discussing, Joseph Smith had a J.W. Gibbs Lexicon. I don't know which edition. I suspect it was the 1832 student edition (which is smaller than the full lexicon he published). I have found places in the EA documents (especially in EA-OC) suggestions that this text was being employed in efforts that went back over some of the earlier work on the EAG (much of which was completed in July-September 1835). This would have necessarily occurred after November of 1835 (when the book arrived in Nauvoo) and likely before or contemporary with J. Seixas teaching Hebrew in Kirtland (which runs from January to February 1836). Joseph Smith acquires at the same time a 5th edition of Moses Stuart's Hebrew Grammar - the RLDS Church owns this specific book. Seixas brought with him some material to instruct the members of the Church in Kirtland in 1836 - and they actually printed a small booklet for use in the class. Joseph Smith's use of the Seixas material seem to mostly come from the 1834 edition of the Seixas Grammar. There was also an 1833 edition. While these are all available in digital format now, prior to my work, there were very few copies of the 1834 edition available (at one of the early FAIR conferences, I distributed high resolution images of both on CD). The edition matters here - most of the earlier research on the Seixas grammar and its relationship to Joseph Smith's work was done using a replica edition published in 1981 by Zucker. His work used the 1833 edition.

These texts and the dates involved with them are important - not just because of their contents and the relationship between these texts and material produced by Joseph Smith and his associates - but also because of distinct difference between the Seixas material and everything else. Gibbs and Stuart base their work on the earlier work of Gesenius (I am reasonably confident that Joseph didn't own a copy of Gesenius himself). His work was in German (and so to the extent that most of the Hebrew grammars and lexicons in the 19th century use him - they are translations from the German). Gesenius used a style of Hebrew transliteration and pronunciation which is generally called Ashkenazic. This was a Hebrew dialect that developed in the diaspora in northern Europe. The other general system is called Sephardic - and it comes out of sourthern Europe. Most of the early immigrating Jews who came to the United States were Sephardic Jews. Seixas's grammar and teaching was done using the Sephardic style. There are some major differences between the two that are really important for students of early Mormonism. For example, the Hebrew word for God is written as El in Ashkenazic style and as Ale in Sephardic. Kokaubeam and Gnolaum - from Abraham 3, are Sephardic spellings. Gnolaum corresponds to H5769 in a Strong's concordance, which spells it as 'owlam. Kokaubeam is a plural form of the Hebrew H3556, which Strong's transliterates as kowkab (or in the plural, kowkabim). One of the distinct differences between the 1833 and 1834 editions of the Seixas grammar is that the 1834 edition contains an extended translation and discussion of excerpts from the first chapter of Genesis. The terms occur there. But this isn't the extent of the connection between Abraham and Seixas's translation of Genesis. For example, while the KJV has in verse 2: "the earth was without form, and void," Seixas renders this "the earth was empty and desolate," and in the Book of Abraham we get "And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate." There is a lot of connections there - this is just the tip of the iceberg. But, after 1836, Joseph does a lot with both Sephardic spellings, and with the process by which Seixas taught how to use the lexical tools to interpret biblical Hebrew. Another example that reflects the depth of the influence comes much later in the King Follett discourse - and rather than putting it here - you can dig way back on this site to comments I posted in 2013. My thoughts on that haven't changed at all. So it isn't just about words, it's ideas about language more generally and translation that deeply impact Joseph's thoughts.

On top of these texts, there is also an important connection to Zephaniah 3:9:

Quote

For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.

In early 1835 - before the papyri show up, we start to see a dialogue about the nature of the "pure language" - an idea that was believed by those in the restorationist movement to be a prophetic requirement with a fulfillment necessary before the second coming could occur. Early on, within Mormonism, the person who was most interested in this was Phelps. He publishes a couple of articles on this topic in the Evening and Morning Star. This publication was Phelp's - and he started it in Independence in 1832, and brought it to Kirtland in 1834. The idea of the pure language had several different components within early LDS belief. Among other things, Brigham Young popularized the speaking of tongues in early Mormonism (there was quite a bit of this going on in Kirtland - you can read about a lot of it in connection with the temple dedication there). There was a view in the late 1830s that when members of the Church spoke in tongues, they were speaking the Adamic language - or the pure language. There was an attempt to construct a pure language. This was not something that was isolated to Mormonism. There were a lot of different attempts (of varying scope) to do this. Mormonism's interest in the idea eventually dies out - but not before we get the Deseret script. To really jump further down the rabbit hole, we have to mention Michael Hull Barton, who in 1833 published this book. Barton was one of the more ambitious Americans in the early 19th century attempting to create a universal language (a "pure language.") This might have been just a footnote except for the fact that in 1831, Barton joined the Mormon church. He leaves the church within a few years - although he continues to interact with it until 1844 (when the Church makes the trip west). Barton almost certainly had an influence on some of the ideas circulating within Mormonism on language.

At any rate, the first attempts to create or formulate this pure language within Mormonism start in 1832. This is in a question and answer format (one of the ways in which Joseph Smith received revelation). in May of 1835, before the papyri show up, we have a letter from William Phelps, which has within it a grid showing a series of characters and across from them, transliterations of those characters, along with 'translations' or interpretations of them. This is related to the 1832 revelation. These characters, along with the transliterations and interpretations are all included in the EA documents of the KEP. So however we want to understand the KEP, we have to consider that they (along with potentially the Book of Abraham) are a part of this project to unfold the pure language (the universal language of Adam). The goal wasn't necessarily to restore this pure language so much as to create it (with the help of revelation). We can see how this material becomes a part of the Book of Abraham - an internal reliance so to speak, between projects. Abraham 3:13 not only uses Sephardic Hebrew, it also includes the word Olea, which is taken from these earlier, purely LDS, discussions about the pure language.

So I realize that this is a lot of material, and its mostly surface stuff (as I said, my notes can be a bit scattered). Engaging in this kind of research takes a lot of time and effort. It is becoming easier than it was when I spent a lot of time on it - mostly because there are more digital sources. I really don't have the energy that I had in the past to track down the physical copies of rare stuff for review (and to take pictures). And it is hard to say how valuable the search is - most of what I would term the low hanging fruit has already been explored - at least a bit.

So to get back to the questions -

1: In their original context, I don't think that there was anything to do with Abraham on the papyri. I think that we could speculate endlessly about why Joseph Smith connected the papyri to Abraham - but, once he did so, he repurposed the material and images to create something new.

2: As far as assumptions go, I think it matters if you think that Joseph Smith was reading the text in front of him verbatim in a word-for-word translation. Someone with that assumption will find what I am talking about very difficult to accept. It also matters how you view Joseph Smith's claims to be a prophet. I could probably list more - but I think that there is such a broad range of views about Joseph Smith and about the Book of Abraham that impact how we understand all of this material. When I put that in there, it was more of an umbrella statement to suggest that perhaps the best way to deal with this is to try and separate facts from interpretation in the discussion. As you can see, at least at the surface level, I prefer to connect the details we know rather than flesh out narrative. It leaves it more open to my audience to come to terms with it.

I just wanted to follow up on one comment you made in the thread you linked:

Quote

By the way, I think claims which attempt to establish limits on what Joseph Smith could or could not have known are useless. In most cases where we do not know if he was exposed to a subject, that is all that can be said, and it is neither proof that he did nor proof that he did not. They are just arguments from ignorance. 

I just wanted to add that we really have to be aware of avoiding circular arguments in these discussions. Arguments about plausibility are generally worth less than nothing in these kinds of discussions. The process of identifying potential sources needs to be carefully articulated, and the allowance for coincidence has to be made.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[CA Steve]

Thanks Ben,

 

I am out of town for a few more days and don't have access to my material or book collection so I will wait until I get back to comment more. I can tell you I have an 1834 Seixas as well as a reproduction of the supplement. I also have original lexicons/grammars by Gibbs and Stuart from that time period, the same version of the Hebrew bible Cowdrey brought back, as well as a Gesenius grammar that Gibbs translated.

[Tweed1944]

The Backyard Professor has made a response to Ben on youtube. Ben you are liked and respected on Discussmormonism .com  so would like your response.

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

The Backyard Professor has made a response to Ben on youtube. Ben you are liked and respected on Discussmormonism .com  so would like your response.

Maybe, but not there. I have no desire to interact with Paul Osborne (Shulem) at all (and if you read through his comments, can you blame me?).

When I deal with my stuff here, this isn't an attempt to create an apologetic argument (in fact, I suspect that you would find a lot of disagreement with some of my beliefs among other Mormons who look at these issues). As I noted, I am simply describing relationships between the Book of Abraham and other contemporary texts. I am not trying to draw conclusions about it.

At the moment, I am going to just make one point. Kerry gets in to the idea of repurposing biblical texts. This happens a lot. The New Testament appropriates (repurposes) a lot of Old Testament stuff. Mormons do it routinely (we only have to look at the discussion on this forum about Psalm 82). The Book of Mormon contains both a description of how it works, but provides examples of it.

There is a certain amount of irony here. Kerry and Paul both believe exactly this - they believe that Joseph Smith simply made it all up. They believe that Joseph Smith repurposed the Egyptian documents. Where I get called to task on this is not that I am describing something that they believe is inaccurate in terms of what we have, but that I am contradicting traditional views held by others. I am certainly okay with that. There is, I think, too much trying to force these texts into expectations rather than trying to understand them in their context. I might suggest, for example, that the Book of Abraham text is pseudepigraphical. The only thing that keeps Genesis in the Old Testament from being called pseudepigrapha by the academic world is the fact that it doesn't directly make the claim of authorship by Moses. Most of our religious literature is problematic in different ways - but my crime is to have an

At this point in my life, it is hard for me to feel particularly anxious or engaged by arguments like the ones raised by Kerry or over at discussmormonism (or to feel obligated in any way to really respond). What matters to me is my own personal search for understanding. I don't mind dialogue - but I have no interest in trying to address what they believe are inconsistencies between traditional Mormonism and my perspective.

[Teancum]

On 7/29/2023 at 6:07 PM, mfbukowski said:

Vague to the point of being unintelligible.

Sort of like I see from you from time to time.  We must be kindred spirits.😁

[Teancum]

On 7/29/2023 at 6:07 PM, mfbukowski said:

Vague to the point of being unintelligible.

But really what is vague?  I you said who cares about this? And that I should question my mommy My response.  Nothing really vague about it at all.

Quote

I do.  So do tens of thousands of others.  Changing the goal posts is disingenuous IMO.

 

And that is exactly what I did.  Questioned the mommy church and found it lacking and dishonest.  And so it continues.

No it is not the same at all.  I am happy for that you can be so fine with such a moving target and lack of consistency in the narrative. And simply changing the narrative and then gaslighting those who question.  My personal standards of integrity are a bit higher than that.  But if it works for you wonderful

 

 

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Maybe, but not there. I have no desire to interact with Paul Osborne (Shulem) at all (and if you read through his comments, can you blame me?).

When I deal with my stuff here, this isn't an attempt to create an apologetic argument (in fact, I suspect that you would find a lot of disagreement with some of my beliefs among other Mormons who look at these issues). As I noted, I am simply describing relationships between the Book of Abraham and other contemporary texts. I am not trying to draw conclusions about it.

At the moment, I am going to just make one point. Kerry gets in to the idea of repurposing biblical texts. This happens a lot. The New Testament appropriates (repurposes) a lot of Old Testament stuff. Mormons do it routinely (we only have to look at the discussion on this forum about Psalm 82). The Book of Mormon contains both a description of how it works, but provides examples of it.

There is a certain amount of irony here. Kerry and Paul both believe exactly this - they believe that Joseph Smith simply made it all up. They believe that Joseph Smith repurposed the Egyptian documents. Where I get called to task on this is not that I am describing something that they believe is inaccurate in terms of what we have, but that I am contradicting traditional views held by others. I am certainly okay with that. There is, I think, too much trying to force these texts into expectations rather than trying to understand them in their context. I might suggest, for example, that the Book of Abraham text is pseudepigraphical. The only thing that keeps Genesis in the Old Testament from being called pseudepigrapha by the academic world is the fact that it doesn't directly make the claim of authorship by Moses. Most of our religious literature is problematic in different ways - but my crime is to have an

At this point in my life, it is hard for me to feel particularly anxious or engaged by arguments like the ones raised by Kerry or over at discussmormonism (or to feel obligated in any way to really respond). What matters to me is my own personal search for understanding. I don't mind dialogue - but I have no interest in trying to address what they believe are inconsistencies between traditional Mormonism and my perspective.

Do you know or know of, Dr. John Lundwall? I stumbled across this podcast with him. Thought that I'd love to see what others thought but wasn't sure if I should, until this post by you. It's nice to hear both sides.

https://www.mormonishpodcast.org/episode/lundwall

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Do you know or know of, Dr. John Lundwall? I stumbled across this podcast with him. Thought that I'd love to see what others thought but wasn't sure if I should, until this post by you. It's nice to hear both sides.

I don't know of him. I also don't have any of his books (not that this means anything). I skipped through the presentation somewhat (in and around my other chores this morning).

I think that it is easy to make broad sweeping statements, and use these to try to make a point. I think that the general idea is reasonable - that there is a historical pattern to the development of complex literature. Here are four thoughts -

1: We have a problem both within and outside the LDS Church in that we tend to conflate the Book of Mormon with the Gold Plates. We need to consistently refer to the Book of Mormon as a modern text with potential ancient sources. The Book of Mormon is not an ancient text. The extent to which is faithfully conveys its sources is speculative at best. As I have noted in the past, the Book of Mormon, assuming that it is a translation, is not a very good one by today's standards. If we conflate the Book of Mormon with its alleged ancient sources, then it is clearly a text that is terribly out of place. But this is true of many modern translations of an ancient texts. If we only had the Living Bible without any ancient sources, biblical studies would be a very problematic field.

2: It is clear that the Book of Mormon itself is a very complex text. I started one of my essays in this way: "Nephi, of course, could not have been a postmodernist. No matter what conclusions we may draw from the text, even from the perspective of a book published in 1830, his work simply stands outside the postmodern time period." Much of the Book of Mormon is exactly the sort of thing that Lundwall tells us we should expect. Wars, chronologies, and so on. But there is some of it that isn't it - that defies our expectations. I have a deep respect for the complexity of the text, and have spent many years encouraging people to engage the text in ways that reveal this complexity. Of course, I could just be imagining it ... after all, complexity is in the mind of the reader ...

3: While the presentation spends an awful lot of time dealing with the theory, it spends little time with the nature of the gold plates - the Book of Mormon text that claims that the gold plates were mostly a redaction written only 1600 years ago, making the gold plates contemporary to St. Augustine's Confessions. Finding a complex text in 400 AD isn't all that special in the context of this argument. While I think that it isn't unreasonable to be highly skeptical of the claims about the text, if you are going to use a broad brush to dismiss it, you should at least recognize what those claims really are. This doesn't mean that the argument raised wouldn't work against the Book of Mormon - just that it needs to be further developed in specific contexts than what I found in that discussion. An argument that discusses the Gold Plates as a 2600 year old text is very different from discussing them as a 1600 year old text. I recognize that this does leave the 'small plates' hanging out there. They become more problematic than the rest of the Book of Mormon in that context.

4: There is something that nearly every student who takes classes in ethics and philosophy learn early in their coursework: you have to come to terms with the complexity in the writings of Plato. A thousand years before the invention of the printing press (something mentioned as significant in the video clip) we have the writings of someone who has become one of the founding fathers of western philosophy. His writing is frequently complex. He uses a wide range of rhetorical devices and strategies (allegory, allusion, and so on). You would think, from watching the presentation, that Plato might be anachronistic for his writing. True, Plato postdates Nephi, but only by a couple of hundred years.

Finally, and its worth noting in passing, that Lundwall's arguments also push for the latest range of dates for the biblical text. That is, Judaism as a religion, he argues here, is largely a post-Babylonian captivity religion. The Bible is a text that ought to be dated quite late. I think that this is where his position is weakest - and it is subject to criticism. This is especially true given the claims about the relationship between writing and monotheism. The Greeks - some of the best writers of the ancient world - did not become monotheists because they developed writing and advanced the teaching and study of rhetoric, nor did the Asians. The shifts towards monotheism were often as much political as religious. And we tend to see (as this discussion shows) a sort of polarizing view of monotheism versus polytheism instead of a broad spectrum. This is not a simple topic, and deserves more time - but, I think that this is the problem with polemical podcasts - they have a priority, and they get to it within the limited time frame that they have. The same issues that Lundwall raises against the Book of Mormon almost certainly argue that the Old Testament couldn't come into existence until after the return from Babylon under Cyrus. I am putting this here because while his ideas here are problematic for traditional Mormon views, they are also problematic for traditional Christianity more broadly. I am not much of a traditionalist, so it tends to not be an issue for me, but that could be an important part of the discussion for believers.

So, that's my two cents on this.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[Tacenda]

35 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't know of him. I also don't have any of his books (not that this means anything). I skipped through the presentation somewhat (in and around my other chores this morning).

I think that it is easy to make broad sweeping statements, and use these to try to make a point. I think that the general idea is reasonable - that there is a historical pattern to the development of complex literature. Here are four thoughts -

1: We have a problem both within and outside the LDS Church in that we tend to conflate the Book of Mormon with the Gold Plates. We need to consistently refer to the Book of Mormon as a modern text with potential ancient sources. The Book of Mormon is not an ancient text. The extent to which is faithfully conveys its sources is speculative at best. As I have noted in the past, the Book of Mormon, assuming that it is a translation, is not a very good one by today's standards. If we conflate the Book of Mormon with its alleged ancient sources, then it is clearly a text that is terribly out of place. But this is true of many modern translations of an ancient texts. If we only had the Living Bible without any ancient sources, biblical studies wouldn't be a very problematic field.

2: It is clear that the Book of Mormon itself is a very complex text. I started one of my essays in this way: "Nephi, of course, could not have been a postmodernist. No matter what conclusions we may draw from the text, even from the perspective of a book published in 1830, his work simply stands outside the postmodern time period." Much of the Book of Mormon is exactly the sort of thing that Lundwall tells us we should expect. Wars, chronologies, and so on. But there is some of it that isn't it - that defies our expectations. I have a deep respect for the complexity of the text, and have spent many years encouraging people to engage the text in ways that reveal this complexity. Of course, I could just be imagining it ... after all, complexity is in the mind of the reader ...

3: While the presentation spends an awful lot of time dealing with the theory, it spends little time with the nature of the gold plates - the Book of Mormon text that claims that the gold plates were mostly a redaction written only 1600 years ago, making the gold plates contemporary to St. Augustine's Confessions. Finding a complex text in 400 AD isn't all that special in the context of this argument. While I think that it isn't unreasonable to be highly skeptical of the claims about the text, if you are going to use a broad brush to dismiss it, you should at least recognize what those claims really are. This doesn't mean that the argument raised wouldn't work against the Book of Mormon - just that it needs to be further developed in specific contexts than what I found in that discussion. An argument that discusses the Gold Plates as a 2600 year old text is very different from discussing them as a 1600 year old text. I recognize that this does leave the 'small plates' hanging out there. They become more problematic than the rest of the Book of Mormon in that context.

4: There is something that nearly every student who takes classes in ethics and philosophy learn early in their coursework: you have to come to terms with the complexity in the writings of Plato. A thousand years before the invention of the printing press (something mentioned as significant in the video clip) we have the writings of someone who has become one of the founding fathers of western philosophy. His writing is frequently complex. He uses a wide range of rhetorical devices and strategies (allegory, allusion, and so on). You would think, from watching the presentation, that Plato might be anachronistic for his writing. True, Plato postdates Nephi, but only by a couple of hundred years.

Finally, and its worth noting in passing, that Lundwall's arguments also push for the latest range of dates for the biblical text. That is, Judaism as a religion, he argues here, is largely a post-Babylonian captivity religion. The Bible is a text that ought to be dated quite late. I think that this is where his position is weakest - and it is subject to criticism. This is especially true given the claims about the relationship between writing and monotheism. The Greeks - some of the best writers of the ancient world - did not become monotheists because they developed writing and advanced the teaching and study of rhetoric, nor did the Asians. The shifts towards monotheism were often as much political as religious. And we tend to see (as this discussion shows) a sort of polarizing view of monotheism versus polytheism instead of a broad spectrum. This is not a simple topic, and deserves more time - but, I think that this is the problem with polemical podcasts - they have a priority, and they get to it within the limited time frame that they have. The same issues that Lundwall raises against the Book of Mormon almost certainly argue that the Old Testament couldn't come into existence until after the return from Babylon under Cyrus. I am putting this here because while his ideas here are problematic for traditional Mormon views, they are also problematic for traditional Christianity more broadly. I am not much of a traditionalist, so it tends to not be an issue for me, but that could be an important part of the discussion for believers.

So, that's my two cents on this.

Thanks so much, it's nice to be able to come to this board with the questions that I'd be afraid to ask elsewhere. 

[jkwilliams]

Whatever one thinks of the Book of Abraham as inspired scripture, it’s safe to say most scholars (and the church) don’t accept it as a translation of what is on the papyrus. Not long ago, an apologist ridiculed me on this board for saying the vignettes were “bog-standard” funerary texts unrelated to Abraham. Seems like the church agrees with me.

“Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Latter-day Saint scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments. Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.”

Edited August 1, 2023 by jkwilliams

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Whatever one thinks of the Book of Abraham as inspired scripture, it’s safe to say most scholars (and the church) don’t accept it as a translation of what is on the papyrus. Not long ago, an apologist ridiculed me on this board for saying the vignettes were “bog-standard” funerary texts unrelated to Abraham. Seems like the church agrees with me.

“Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Latter-day Saint scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments. Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.”

It seems like either you or the person you were conversing with (or both?) were conflating our understanding of translations of texts on some of the extant papyri fragments with the interpretation of the vignettes, particularly Facsimile 1. 

There is basically universal agreement among Latter-day Saint scholars and non-Latter-day saint scholars that some of the extant papyri contain portions of what are commonly referred to as the Book of the Dead and the Book of Breathings. Whether or not Facsimile 1 is merely a common funerary scene, however, is debated.

In other words, it would be understandable for someone to disagree with you about the "vignettes" being standard funerary texts. The quote you provided addresses a different topic.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Ryan Dahle