Explain the Book of Abraham

[Dale]

Hi,

Paul I am not sure we would be dealing with "mnemonic theory" that we would be dealing with an orthodox priest. All we would have do do is find a closet doubter who believed in the Book of Abraham to use the method to remember the story of Abraham. Since much egyptian papyrus was no doubt the similar it doesn't have to be the papyrus originally used by some individual to remember the Abraham story.

Since we are dealing with a method of memory they didn't have to tell anybody what they were trying to remember. If the method was used & I say if it was used it would give the person perfect safety to remember a sacred story of Abraham.

There have been doubters in ever cultures religions. I am not sure they were so brainwashed one couldn't could have gotten a hold of the original Book of Abraham & developed a testimony. I happen to believe God can save an Egyptian priest from outer darkness as much as any person in a less superstitious culture. God could have even told him the future of the scroll & that he woul teach Joseph Smith Jr. how to recall the story.

How many persons worked on the Joseph Smith papyri?

Could it have been possible for an individual to have studied the language enough to recall a story?

The difficulty I see with the idea is John Tvedtnes if he still believes the idea he needs to do a published update. Mental associations are such a subjective thing. The similarities him & Richley Crapo pointed to could be co-incidence. Does he feel it's harmful to believe the idea he proposed? If he feels the ideas a mistake these days then he ought to retract it.

In any case Joseph Smith Jr. did what the above theory says. He was able to form mental associations with the language that were helpful in translating a story that was possibly not literally upon the papyrus.

I have seen the Mnemonic paper & unless the EAG is pure hogwash it should have something anything that might be useful in providing evidence for the interpretation in the EAG. There should be something in the language that could be useful in producing a story of Abraham. We would have a case where the points of similarity could be useful in supporting the catalyst, or Mnemonic theory.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Gordon]

I've spent years researching this work and know pretty much what my position is and how to express it. I've discussed this topic with hundreds of people on the Internet. You are the first person to tell me that my own position goes against my own position.

OK, then you might need to enlighten me, because I must be confused. From that post, you pasted remarks that stated that the explainations of the facsimiles given by JS were correct, and that members and science try, sadly, to explain it away.

If I'm reading this correctly, and understanding your position correctly, then you are exactly the type of person referenced there. Do you, or do you not, believe the explainations given by JS, regarding the facsimilies, to be correct? Because, what you posted supports that they are correct.

[Gordon]

How about you start a new thread on this topic.

Unfortunately, I'm not the one who brought the topic up in this thread...you might want to suggest this to another.

[Gordon]

Get creative and come up with some ideas of what may have been said based on an educated guess.

I recognize this may be rather difficult if YOU aren't aware of what the current theories were of that day. But give it shot!

Paul O

First, you ask me to give you my assumptions - which are based upon unknowns. Then, you tell me to be creative when I do? Why do you want me to make up some story when I wasn't there, and there are no facts, or witnesses to go off of? You, nor I, knows what happened, so why are we debating what MIGHT have transpired?

Listen to what your saying: I need to go off current 'theories'?? No, I won't.

[Gordon]

I see that you have elected to not answer the question.

Your response does not validate your case.

PaulO

If you honestly have a witness of the Gospel - as you claim - then I already have given you an answer.

[Gordon]

After a discussion on the dating of the papyrus, Gordon asks the insightful question:

"why would there be any argument as to the dating of the papyrus - why would it change anything?"

Let's first take the big picture view of the problem.

We face an seemingly insolvable contradiction:

1. The papyrus does not contain the BOA.

2. The papyrus does contain the BOA.

We must them find a solution which reconciles these two statements.

Well, we can begin our quest by understanding that the papyrus does not actually represent the "sweaty hands" writing of Abraham. The dating of the papyrus is centuries after Abraham, and at best, it is a copy of his writings.

The dating makes a big difference in understanding what the papyrus represents. Does it represent the word-for-word record of the writings of Abraham, or something else.

Well, you know what happens when a text is copied and handed down after several centuries.

One theory on the translation of this papyrus involves the combination of the "Corrupt manuscript", and the mneumonic theory of the translation.

Let me explain.

The papyrus contains, not the actual record of Abraham, but a corrupted version which was passed down over the centuries -- similar to the Bible. The mneumonic theory is intriguing in that the actual text of Abraham's record is contained (hidden) in mneumonic form, as proposed by John Tvedtnes. This text then was used in corrupted religious rites by the Egyptians who had lost the original meaning of the text.

Abraham did not actually write the BOA in this form, but for various reasons, it ended up in this form.

Let me give an illustration.

Let us pretend that we want to create a mneumonic version (to make it easier to memorize) of the book of Matthew, we may have a simply phrase: "Mary had a little lamb, whose fleece was white as snow...." etc.

Each word in this sentence represents a portion of the text of the book. "Mary" represents the section on Mary, the Mother of Christ, "lamb" for the shepherds, etc. (this is a poor example, but be patient).

Over the centuries, the actual text (the book of Matthew) becomes lost, and only the mneumonic remains, and takes on a formulaic, religious meaning. It is used in rituals. Centuries later a prophet recognizes the underlying text of this formula, and gives us the full text of the book of Matthew.

Going back to the original problem, we then have a contradiction which has been resolved ==>>

The papyrus is not the Book of Abraham, and the papyrus IS the Book of Abraham.

And we get a nice bonus. The Egyptian Grammar is an essential part of the mneumonic theory. It provides a roadmap on how the BOA was "translated" (translated from the mneumonic form to the actual BOA text).

The whole thing is wrapped up in a tidy ribbon.

What you mean, is that you could find an argument for anything...

I can accept that the document that JS translated from was not the original one penned by Abraham, but I will not accept that it is corrupt, or not really what he wrote - that DOES contradict what JS stated, and I cannot accept that.

[Gordon]

This illustration at the end of the Breathing Permit has six numbered figures.

Breathing permit...not found in the BoA, correct?

Translations of the Breathing Permit of Horus

Also not in the BoA, correct?

[Gordon]

You are making a claim when you say, "but it doesn't prove it was funeral text". Show me how it doesn't prove it. How do you identify funerary text and discount its relationship with the Joseph Smith fragments and Facsimiles engravings that were used for the printing press?

The facsimile that we have in the BoA is not the same as what appears on the funeral text - in the BoA, we don't have Anubis with the head of a jackal, as it appears on the funeral text. That's what I'm trying to get across, that what JS translated did not appear the same as is found today.

[ScriptureLover]

Gordon:

I can accept that the document that JS translated from was not the original one penned by Abraham, but I will not accept that it is corrupt, or not really what he wrote - that DOES contradict what JS stated, and I cannot accept that.

Kerry:

However, just so we are clear here, Joseph Smith is not infallible. What he described, or claimed is not necessary correct at all times, right? Just because Joseph said something does not mean that makes it accurate or the total truth and well understood. Yes?

[Dale]

Hi,

Gordon the last chance for an actual writing of Abraham on the papyrus is the suggested missing part. Joseph Smith's explanation of the facimilies have been proven to have truth. But you can find conventional egyptology declares him wrong on his basic explanations.

The only hope for the missing papyrus idea is if all the arguments hold up to scrutiny. I find the missing papyrus idea has criticisms for each popular argument. I don't feel that FAIR or FARMS has defended the missing papyrus idea enough to satisfy my doubts of that idea. Honestly the catalyst & Mnemonic idea are my picks for an answer. I liked the missing papyrus idea until I ran into Charles Larsons By His Own hand Upon Papyrus. Since then I have felt I can't defend it so why should I use it? The missing payrus idea is either rejected by people who know it or supported.

Joseph Smith Jr. was human. He treated his interpretations of the facimilies as literal. I can't find a egyptologist that agrees with his explanations. Why would his interpretations of the missing part be any more in agreement with modern egyptology? It is a partially speculative writing of Joseph Smith Jr. The critics go to far in totally rejecting truth in Joseph's explanations but arn't wrong for pointing out the errors.

Don't base your testimony in the Book of Abraham, or Joseph Smith Jr. on whether a missing papyrus existed, or not. Trust what can be trusted. Satisfying Book of Abraham evidences do exist.

John Tvedtnes mnemonic idea had the best case they could come up with. They studied the language & proposed how a method could be developed using the Book of Breathings characters meanings as a memory tool. They didn't say that method was used only that it was a workeable theory to them.

We have the EAG & Paul Osbourne can explain the items better than I can. The source for the Book of Abraham was possibly found in 1967. The EAG does suggest they wern't focused on creating a grammar from the missing portion of the papyrus.

You can find as you say "an argument for anything..." What's your argument for the missing source? Can it withstand scrutiny?

I havn't rejected the missing papyrus idea, but I wouldn't do you a favor if I didn't prepare you to meet the critics. My big complaint of FAIR & FARMS is they on the missing papyrus write on the Book of Abraham issue for an LDS audience to preserve faith. Try using the basic arguments for the missing papyrus idea against a critic into the writings of Jerald & Sandra Tanner, or Charles Larson & you will lose.

Sincerely,

Dale

[ScriptureLover]

Dale:

He treated his interpretations of the facimilies as literal

Kerry:

Um, not quite. There are many instances of Smith saying this "represents," not is literally how God looks. There are other instances where Smith said "answers to the name of..." showing it is not literal either. There are other instances where Smith said "signifying," not something literally looking like what the symbol signified. Etc., etc. These are symbolic, and Joseph Smith was very much well aware of this. He knew very well that God is not two headed, let alone four headed. He KNEW that eyes did NOT look like the Wedjat Eyes depicted in the facsimile 2. He KNEW God was not animal headed, but that figure 3 in facsimile 2 can be said to contain conepts of something ABOUT God, not that this is literally how God looks. The expanse or firmament in facsimile 1, figure 12 is said to signify. HOW do you draw the expanse? You don't. You use a symbol to signify it, which is the idea Joseph mentioned. In figure 11 of fac 1 the pillars are designed to represent, not that this is literally what the pillars of heaven look like.

Just some thoughts is all..........

Best,

Kerry

[Milkyway71]

The Truth about the BOA

Videos...

http://www.bookofabraham.info/VideoClips.htm

[cdowis]

Milk,

I noticed that this is your first and only post.

It appears that you have not bothered to read anything in this thread, and just another "drive by shooter". We will give your post all the attention that it deserves.

[Paul Osborne]

I've spent years researching this work and know pretty much what my position is and how to express it. I've discussed this topic with hundreds of people on the Internet. You are the first person to tell me that my own position goes against my own position.

OK, then you might need to enlighten me, because I must be confused. From that post, you pasted remarks that stated that the explainations of the facsimiles given by JS were correct, and that members and science try, sadly, to explain it away.

If I'm reading this correctly, and understanding your position correctly, then you are exactly the type of person referenced there. Do you, or do you not, believe the explainations given by JS, regarding the facsimilies, to be correct? Because, what you posted supports that they are correct.

Gordon,

I

[Paul Osborne]

How about you start a new thread on this topic.

Unfortunately, I'm not the one who brought the topic up in this thread...you might want to suggest this to another.

Gordon,

I don't see why it is unfortunate that the topic was brought up in this thread. I can understand, however, that a discussion over this issue will derail the thread and it was only used as an example to make a point.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Get creative and come up with some ideas of what may have been said based on an educated guess.

I recognize this may be rather difficult if YOU aren't aware of what the current theories were of that day. But give it shot!

Paul O

First, you ask me to give you my assumptions - which are based upon unknowns. Then, you tell me to be creative when I do? Why do you want me to make up some story when I wasn't there, and there are no facts, or witnesses to go off of? You, nor I, knows what happened, so why are we debating what MIGHT have transpired?

Listen to what your saying: I need to go off current 'theories'?? No, I won't.

Gordon,

Offering ideas and suggestions

[Milkyway71]

Milk,

I noticed that this is your first and only post.

It appears that you have not bothered to read anything in this thread, and just another "drive by shooter". We will give your post all the attention that it deserves.

Whats wrong with my post? I just thought it would be interesting as it is on the subject.

[cdowis]

We have addressed multiple issues on the BOA, and you post a link to some antimormon site which we are supposed to watch several videos.

Yes, antimormon web sites are interesting, and very entertaining.

We then are supposed to what..... ask you questions on what they say?

Are we supposed to watch all of the videos, just one of them? Does it have anything worthwhile to say, relative to our conversation so far? Does it address any of our posts?

Please watch the videos, and you tell us what they say.

[Paul Osborne]

The Truth about the BOA

Videos...

http://www.bookofabraham.info/VideoClips.htm

How about you take a moment and tell us why the video is the truth about the BofA? I've seen the video. Why do you call it the "truth"? Is it the whole truth? Is it the complete truth?

Come forward, my friend - we have much to discuss. If the truth is going to make me free (according to the Bible) I want to know what truth you know that has set you free.

I'm all ears.

Paul O

[Milkyway71]

Because it is actaully based on FACTS as opposed to the outlandish mormon attempt to explain away such damning evidence.

[Zakuska]

ROFL.

Show how much research you have done!

[ScriptureLover]

No its not Milkyway. I reviewed the video. Your damning all Mormon discussion and scholarship however, is very telling indeed.............

[docrick]

Because it is actaully based on FACTS as opposed to the outlandish mormon attempt to explain away such damning evidence.

There is no damning evidence. The BofA has been successfully defended to me and to many others.

The fact that you accept what you think is damning evidence doesn't make that evidence correct.

Joseph Smith is a Prophet of the Lord. Through the Prophet Joseph the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was restored never to be taken from the earth again.

Millions believe this to be true including myself. My opinion of your damning evidence is that it is hogwash.

[Milkyway71]

This is denial my friends. The Papyri has been found, the translations made by Smith do not match what they really say, not at all.

These attempts to hide the truth are really just grasping for straws by the LDS church.

Anyways, the evidence that proves the BOA is a fruad comes from proffesioanl egyptologists, while the so called info in defense of the BOA comes from none other than the LDS church.

[USU78]

Because it is actaully based on FACTS as opposed to the outlandish mormon attempt to explain away such damning evidence.

Milkway, welcome to our little playground here. If you had read the rest of this thread, you would discover that LDS folks differ greatly in their opinions on how the Book of Abraham came to be through the Prophet Joseph, but are by and large of one mind on the issue of both the historicity of the story of Abraham, both as revealed in the Bible and through Joseph Smith Jr., and the Capital "T" Truth of the revelations in the Book of Abraham.

Your website deals with the how, about which we LDS can in good conscience and fellowship disagree. It quite ignores the text itself. As do you.

I challenge you right now to read the Book of Abraham. It's quite short. You can find it by going to LDS.org, clicking scriptures, then clicking Pearl of Great Price, then clicking Book of Abraham. We agree, I daresay, that scripture is important if it brings one to G-d and His Christ. You'll find the Book of Abraham to be quite Christ-centric.

Once you have done so, come back and post. Start your own thread. Give us your questions. We'll be happy to discuss them.

One question you might keep in mind: Why would anyone be offended by use of the symbol of Osiris, the Egyptian god of the resurrection, to represent the Christian, redeemed by the Master, and raised from the dead?