Explain the Book of Abraham

[Paul Osborne]

>Rev Caswell is an eyewitness offering testimony that is consistent with the type of interpretations given by the prophet Joseph Smith. There isn

[cdowis]

> Ma

[ScriptureLover]

Dale:

The explanations Joseph Smith gave of the facimilies are wrong. Every person who offers a translation admits he didn't know what their literal meaning was. So in order for Egyptological support we have to do comparisions based on a deeper study that points out similarities. But there's no direct evidence he knew the literal meanings.

SL:

I will gently disagree. At Sunstone I will present quite a bit of material showing that Joseph Smith LITERALLY ***KNEW*** the Egyptian concepts. Granted Joseph Smith never literally translated Wepwawet as such with the exact word. That is irrelevant to the understanding of how Joseph Smith clearly and powerfully displayed the concept of Wepwawet, not to mention Ma'at, Isis, Re-Horakhti, Chnum and Qerti, etc.

I am making a recording of my presentation, and hence making DVD's, which I will make available for purchase when I get back. There are some areas where Joseph Smith made some mistakes. There are many areas where he LITERALLY gets it truly correct. And I mean in all 3 facsimiles, not just one or two of them.

[Tarski]

The church gave these manuscripts to experts who (mistakenly) authenticated them.  Hoffman used very sophisticated techniques to fool even the experts.  The church leaders were relying upon the opinions of those experts. 

I guess they don't make prophets like they used to.

Gee, do you think JS would have taken something like that to an expert only to be fooled?

Where is the revelation? Where is the power of decernment?

(answer: nonexistent.)

Me thinks that absolutely anything could happen to make it obvious that the church is not what it claims and some people would go on believing.

Tom: "Yes I did hear the prophet admit he was faking it but I have that witness of the Holy Ghost that it is all true no matter what. I am going to endure to end!!!!!"

Bill: "But what about the fact that that GA accused your own sweet mother of .....

.....

No this isn't working. I can't think up a fake senario that would more clearly show the church to be false than the stuff that has already really happened. Its mind boggling.

[Paul Osborne]

Paul -

OK, I will try to explain, to the best that I can, everything that I understand regarding the BoA.  As I stated earlier, I do not know everything that pertains to the subject, and not as much as you on this topic.  I appreciate the time you have taken to converse, and I would like to get away from a hostile discussion - as you, yourself, have stated.

I will ask you some specific questions, and I hope you will only answer - if you have one - and not make any remarks of how I should already know it (or something to that affect).

From what I understand, JS purchased some papyrus, facsimiles, and mummies, which came to him.  I do not know what he had heard about them prior, or what rumors where about - that can only be speculated without proof, so it cannot be used as fact, or as support of a specific stance (in my view, anyway).  Through revelation, by the HG, he learned - and stated - that the papyrus contained the writings of Abraham, which he wrote while in Egypt, and that the mummies were royal, and one had been a king of Egypt.  From them, he translated the papyrus which is now given to the world as the BoA.  He also translated from the facsimiles - which I'm not sure if he stated were made by the hand of Abraham or not.  We have the full translation he made of I, and parts of II and III.

Gordon,

Apparently Mr. Chandler who sold the mummies to the church had quite a time trying to get translations of the relics at hand. He traveled about and finally ended up in Kirtland after being directed to go there by the persuasion of many who had heard of the prophet

[Paul Osborne]

Now, we don't know where the papyrus that JS actually translated from went, nor the facsimiles.

[Paul Osborne]

Now, as to the other two facsimiles - namely the third, which you appear to have the most difficulty with.

[Paul Osborne]

Apparently, you have a hard time with this, because you feel the figure looks like a female - fair enough.

[USU78]

It is not at all unusual in ancient texts, in fact quite common as the Iliad attests, for the god or goddess to take on the person speaking on his or her behalf.  Athena, for example, takes on the person of an advisor of Agammemnon who speaks Wisdom to the high king.  Should we be surprised that a similar thing occur in Egypt in Christian times?

It

[cdowis]

>He described the papyrus just as we see it today on my website.

The issue is not the description of the papyrus, but whether JS actually interpreted it as he said he did.

1. Four figures are four quarters of the earth. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR? YES! IT IS SCRIPTURAL!

Ok.

2. The devil is a dog like beast. THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE TO ME!

3. Jesus stands behind the devil holding him back. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS?

4. Jacob has two wives. POLYGAMY IS CERTAINLY OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.

5. The pleats of Jacob

[Paul Osborne]

USU78,

Thank you for your sincere comments. I want you to know that I

[Paul Osborne]

>He described the papyrus just as we see it today on my website.

The issue is not the description of the papyrus, but whether JS actually interpreted it as he said he did.

When I consider everything I know about this case, eveything about what was said and done, and the evidence we have - it is apparent to me that a good conclusion is that he told an accurate report. I'm looking at the whole big picture.

It seems that some LDS apologists are constantly saying, "we don't know for sure", about so many points even when combined evidence suggest otherwise. How many times can one say, "well we really don't know for sure"?

It get's rather old.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Based on his lack of credibility, we cannot be certain that he ever spoke with JS. Yes, he probably saw the papyrus, and someone gave him some of the interpretation. He may even have gotten some of it right (e.g. the four corners of the earth).

This is what I'm talking about:

"we cannot be certain"

"he probably"

"he may even"

I'm afraid my friend thay you and I look at facts in a different light. I'm looking at the whole big picture. That took years to research. My conclusions do not come lightly.

Paul O

[Dale]

CDowis John Tvedtnes makes the same mistake advocates of the missing papyrus idea dies. He allows as does the others numerous criticisms of his idea to stand without correction. FARMS doesn't seem to be in touch with anti-Book of Abraham apologetics in some respects. FAIR also seems to be out of touch.

If John Tvedtnes feels the missing papyrus idea is non-sense then why is FAIR & FARMS still circulating the idea? Is the missing papyrus idea the dodge critics have said it was for years?

John Gee promises to get his whole case out probably as the last word after the critics get done hammering his idea. They seem to be so busy that they can't get out anything more than the Book of Abraham project has.

John Tvedtnes has argued the EAG was an example of reverse engineering which might help FAIR, or FARMs later. But I feel FAIR if it wants to be taken as a serious source for Book of Abraham apologetics need to start getting into the technical details of the missing papyrus idea by refuting specific Book of Abraham critics.

Where are these guy's when we need them? You would assume John Gee would have an essay rebutting the critics in the Studis In The Book of Abraham series. Instead they talk about everything but what bothers the critics about their case.

I hate to gripe but we do have some who is right & who is wrong discussions among pro-Book of Abraham scholars. I would love to see John Gee, MIchael Rhodes point out each others errors. If they can't do that then they can tackle the errors of the critics line by line. Let's get these guys busy with more than occasional faith promoting talks that would look silly on this missing papyrus idea to most critics.

Everything they write other than this missing papyrus idea is great. But the critics feel they have rebutted the key arguments for the missing papyrus idea. I would be satisfied if FAIR just gathered the key apologetic arguments for the missing papyrus idea, the crititicisms for each point & wrote a short rebuttal.

Sincerely,

Dale

[USU78]

Having trouble, PO, getting my hands around this:

Now is the time

[Paul Osborne]

Please STOP THE HYSTERIA (using captial letters), and focus on the issue.

The issue is not whether there is anything "wrong with that" or unreasonable. The issue is whether Caswall is telling us what JS actually said, or whether someone else gave that interpretation.

Based on his lack of credibility, we cannot be certain that he ever spoke with JS. Yes, he probably saw the papyrus, and someone gave him some of the interpretation. He may even have gotten some of it right (e.g. the four corners of the earth).

But without independent verification, I would certainly not put Caswall on the witness stand. He would be laughed out of the courtroom. With his proven hatred of JS, and his proven desire to make him look foolish, even to the point of "embellishing" his account (lying), he is not a credible witness.

Sorry about that. But Caswell is a LIAR and we CANNOT TRUST him. That is "WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT".

The whole thing about "Jesus holding back the dog", and "Jacob's ladder" sounds like Caswall putting words into JS mouth. He mixed the actual interpretation with his own words. ("I wonder why the ladder only comes up to the waist").

The aunties make a poor choice of witnesses, and Caswall is among the worst.

I could say that you are in a case of denial but that would be rude, so I won

[USU78]

I could say that you are in a case of denial

Punning again, are we Paul?

[cdowis]

>It seems that some LDS apologists are constantly saying, "we don't know for sure", about so many points even when combined evidence suggest otherwise.

Personally I am undecided on whether JS actually said this or not, but if you want to make a big deal over it, I would question whether Caswall is a credible source.

And I think it would serve you well to include a disclaimer regarding Caswall's credibility on your web site. "He may have been a bigot and a liar, but this is what he said" sort of thing.

[Paul Osborne]

Having trouble, PO, getting my hands around this:

Now is the time

[Paul Osborne]

>It seems that some LDS apologists are constantly saying, "we don't know for sure", about so many points even when combined evidence suggest otherwise.

Personally I am undecided on whether JS actually said this or not, but if you want to make a big deal over it, I would question whether Caswall is a credible source.

And I think it would serve you well  to include a disclaimer regarding Caswall's credibility on your web site.  "He may have been a bigot and a liar, but this is what he said" sort of thing.

I'm afraid I believe his report to be accurate. There is no reason to suspect foul play because it is consistent with the type of interpretations already given and describes the papyrus quite well.

Reverend Henry Caswall visited the city of Nauvoo in 1842 soon after the Book of Abraham was published in the Times & Seasons. He was provided the privilege to see first hand the Egyptian curiosities owned by the church. Mr. Caswall returned to England and wrote a book about his experience in Nauvoo. (City of the Mormons; 1843)

"She then directed me up a steep flight of stairs into a chamber, and slowly crept up after me. She shewed me a wretched cabinet, in which were four naked mummies frightfully disfigured, and in fact, most disgusting relics of mortality. One she said was a king of Egypt whom she named, two were his wives, and the remaining one was the daughter of another king. I asked her by what means she had become acquainted with the names and histories of these mummies. She replied, that her son had informed her, and that he had obtained this knowledge through the mighty power of God."

I believe this report given by Caswall to be true and accurate.

Paul O

[Dale]

The answers being given by pro-Book of Abraham apologists & scholars need to be improved where possible. Any bad arguments need to be abandoned. Some gospel hobbies are needed if they help people over come hinderances to believing in the restoration. Allegations that Joseph Smith produced a fraudulant book needs to be answered. A fraud cannot be considered a prophet.

Also bad , or incomplete apologetics hurts rather than helps belief. I see room of a variety of approaches in defending the Book of Abraham. Paul Osbourne may not think like Michael Rhodes but his catalyst theory is a legitimate position.

[Paul Osborne]

This I relate to any statements made to suggest that what JS stated was not actually the truth.  If this is so, then why is the statement that what JS translated from was actually written by Abraham, himself, still canonized?

Gordon,

I'll take the liberty to cut and paste material from my website concerning these matters. I hope you don't mind me doing so. I'll just lay it out on the table and see how it goes. I've given it a lot of thought over the years.

Based on the evidence at hand, the Facsimile Explanations are the word of God

[Paul Osborne]

I forgot to add something.  I believe the age of the papyrus JS translated from are exactly as he states.  I do not see this as ignoring facts, as you suggest, because I do not believe that the documents which you are going off of are the originals.  I believe they are as old as you claim, but I do not believe they are the ones JS translated from, and there is no actual evidence to show that they are.

I used to believe as you do now, Gordon. But after studying the facts objectively, I came to a different conclusion than what you currently have. The evidence shows that signs and characters relating to the papyrus now extant were translated by the prophet and have everything to do with the BofA projects. ALL existing evidence points to this logical conclusion while there is not one single scrap of evidence (only denial) to show that Joseph Smith did not utilize the funerary papryus in making the BofA and other revelatory ideas. How many points of evidence do gainsayers have to protest until they finally break down and say,

[Gordon]

1. The papyrus were made centuries after the death of Abraham.

Which papyrus - the one JS translated from, or the copy we have today?

Your memory is flawed.  Look it up, please.

And what, exactly, would I be looking up?

Read carefully what he **actually** said.  Just to help you, I have a copy of the BOA in printed form.  In that book, it says "Written by the hand of Abraham".  Obviously it was not written by him, but printed on a printing press.

Read carefully....you might want to do that yourself, in your copy of the BoA, because it says that the document that fell into the hands of JS were 'written by the had of Abraham'. I have stated this over and over in this thread, and I don't know how to be any clearer? That statement references the document the BoA was traslated from, not just the words on them - excluding the papyrus.

[Paul Osborne]

Gordon,

The brethren involved in the acquisition of the forged documents did not use the gift of discernment in this particular affair. I