Explain the Book of Abraham

[Beowulf]

Well, if you seriously think that the entire Book of Abraham is a matter of Joseph Smith "making up a story" to match the facsimile that he had in hand ("any child could do the same"), then you have not seriously read the book.

We use it as scripture for a reason. Which is that it is a marvelous text (and it "feels" like an ancient document).

At least you have looked at the first 14 verses....

Beowulf

[cinepro]

It has always been my opinion that we will never receive "hard" evidence of the validity of JS's work. Why is this? Because it would take away our free agency. If proof could be found of the Lord's true church, and you chose not to join that church, would you not be in contempt with the Lord?

Sorry, but "hard evidence" has nothing to do with "free agency", and it certainly isn't scriptural to imply that God withholds "hard evidence" for that reason.

Can you give me one instance where someone's agency was in any way affected by the amount of evidence? On the other hand, the scriptures, especially the stories of Christ in the New Testament, are filled with people being exposed to "hard" evidence, and yet still excercising their agency.

But I agree with you that we will probably never receive "hard" evidence of the validity of JS's work.

However, along comes a prophet of God who is able to use the Xmas card to unlock a different story. He identifies the artifact as a Christmas card and identifies it as representing a significant religious and historical occurance. The man with the beard represents God the giver of the gift, the evergreen tree represents eternal life, the red balls the great drops of the Saviour atoning blood, the presents represent the gift of the Christ, the white snow the purity of the sanctified believer, the fairy signifies the angelic announcement of the advent of the Christ, and so on.

Suppose another Prophet of the future (who we'll call Nostromushu) "came along" and said the the card was, in fact, written by Shemaldua, an ancient prophet.

Coincidentally, the card illuminates many theological points that Nostromushu's followers 5,000 years from now are interested in.

The man in red is their ancient deity Xenaubouat, who's white beard symbolizes fertility and benevolence.

The green tree represents truth-energy, which Xenaubouat makes available to all. The red balls symbolize sexual appetites, which flow from truth-energy.

The white snow represents the love of Xenaubouat, which covers the land. And the fairy is the handmaided on the god, who transcends time with her love for all mankind.

Along with the picture, there are a few pages of typwritten paper, in a long lost language.

The followers of Nostromushu are so impressed that the long lost writings of Shemaldua have been found, they pool their money and purchase them at great cost. Nostromushu is able to translate them using his special time-energy power of translation; his translation is published and revered by all his followers.

Years later, archaeologists of the Archaic-Techno period -1200CD - 800RF (or roughly 1800AD-2200AD on our calendar) learn to understand "Ancient English", and conduct their own translation of the document. The translation starts...

"Dear Family,

It has been quite a year! Mike finally finished Dental school, and we're looking forward to leaving the city..."

After studying and comparing it to other similar letters from the era, they categorize it as a "Christmaz Card Letter", a yearly summary of a family unit's notable events, common to the era. They are also able to discern that the card represents common holiday icons, which may have had religious meaning to some of the contemporary religions that adopted pagan and ancient religious imagery to make themselves more palatable to the people.

The followers of Nostromushu still believe in his translation, because even though the literal words on the Christmas card letter aren't quite what they had thought, it is always possible that the card had helped Nostromushu commune through time with Shemaldua to restore his ancient, lost teachings.

It is also noted by some that these restored teachings from thousands of years earlier bear a striking similarity to other religious texts Nostromushu had, as well as the science of Nostromushu's day.

[xtbm]

Christmas card circa 2005 a.d.: $3.95

Reading cinepro's response to a flawed (albeit intruiging) analogy: priceless

[Kenngo1969]

office parties, sexual licence, glutony, drunkeness

Geez, who do you work for? My office party was a few cheesecakes and a white elephant gift exchange.

C.I.

Cheesecake and white elephants? No "license, gluttony, or drunkenness"?!! Dang! Now you tell me! Sixty thousand dollars and well beyond the usual "three years" later! The only reason I even went to law school was the legends I heard about the wild and crazy office parties!!!!! (My constant mantra, repeated over and over at my lowest moments

[Scott Lloyd]

Christmas card circa 2005 a.d.: $3.95

Reading cinepro's response to a flawed (albeit intruiging) analogy: priceless

If the analogy is flawed (and no analogy is perfect), then so is Cenepro's response.

[xtbm]

Christmas card circa 2005 a.d.: $3.95

Reading cinepro's response to a flawed (albeit intruiging) analogy: priceless

If the analogy is flawed (and no analogy is perfect), then so is Cenepro's response.

I didn't make any claim as to Cinepro's response being "perfect" or not. I didn't get the impression cinepro was attempting to make a "perfect" analogy - I took it that he was merely illustrating the flaws inherent in the original analogy.

And I agree wholeheartedly that putting together a "perfect" analogy is a difficult thing to do...

[Scott Lloyd]

Christmas card circa 2005 a.d.: $3.95

Reading cinepro's response to a flawed (albeit intruiging) analogy: priceless

If the analogy is flawed (and no analogy is perfect), then so is Cenepro's response.

I didn't make any claim as to Cinepro's response being "perfect" or not. I didn't get the impression cinepro was attempting to make a "perfect" analogy - I took it that he was merely illustrating the flaws inherent in the original analogy.

And I agree wholeheartedly that putting together a "perfect" analogy is a difficult thing to do...

Further, an analogy per se does not constitute evidence. Like other literary devices it is a means of elucidating a point or, in the case of Alan's analogy, demonstrating plausibility.

[Meta]

To expand on that note. I believe however there are evidences. But simply that I think there will always be a level of reasonable doubt. Evidence will not be enough to force you by logic to accept the gosple, but just enough evidence to ease your mind about the matter enough to make you desire to know for sure the only known way that one can.

Excellant point.

[noel00]

In the debate over the BOA two theories are presented:

1. The BOA was given by revelation

2. The original papyri are still lost

1. If given by revelation, what connection does Fac 1 have then? Ab1: 14 talks about the figures at the beginning (Fac 1)? Sounds to me like an original doc they are talking about not something given by revelation.

2. If the papyri are still lost why did the scribes use symbols from the BOB rather than the BOA papyri which they must have been inexistance then and they would have been aware of?

[Meta]

Sorry, but "hard evidence" has nothing to do with "free agency", and it certainly isn't scriptural to imply that God withholds "hard evidence" for that reason.

Can you give me one instance where someone's agency was in any way affected by the amount of evidence? On the other hand, the scriptures, especially the stories of Christ in the New Testament, are filled with people being exposed to "hard" evidence, and yet still excercising their agency.

Well, let's take for example an angel came to me and told me that the church was true. If I knew it was an angel of God but chose to do my own thing, my own punishment would be exacerbated.

Luke 12:48

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Romans 2:12

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

2 Nephi 9:27

But wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that transgresseth them, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state!

D&C 82:3

For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.

If you have proof God is real, your free agency to choose will suffer. If the BoM is proven to be a true record of an ancient people, one can only assume that JS was a true prophet and that the church is the truest.

So I wonder if we have bits and pieces of evidence (as RCH III mentioned) to help those that don't readily receive a witness as a way of watering their taste buds.

As for an instance, read 1&2 Nephi. Laman and Lemuel received a sore curse because of their iniquity. They're punishment was exacerbated because of the things they witnessed but fought against. IE: they knew but did anyway. They willingly sinned against the Lord because they knew the Lord existed.

[Paul Osborne]

Mighty Curelom,

Your observations have been looked into in great detail by BofA believers and they are not without answers. I'll post some links that have some answers to what you consider to be a dilemma to the BofA. Perhaps you might like to pick them apart?

"Abraham fastened upon an altar"

The Priest's Head

The Gods of Human Sacrifice

Isis or Pharaoh?

Goddess or Prince?

Translating the Hieroglyphic Text

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

In the debate over the BOA two theories are presented:

1. The BOA was given by revelation

2. The original papyri are still lost

1. If given by revelation, what connection does Fac 1 have then? Ab1: 14 talks about the figures at the beginning (Fac 1)? Sounds to me like an original doc they are talking about not something given by revelation.

2. If the papyri are still lost why did the scribes use symbols from the BOB rather than the BOA papyri which they must have been inexistance then and they would have been aware of?

I'll quote from my link:

"I believe this picture serves as a substitute, a proxy, to represent what was drawn by father Abraham upon papyrus with his own hand some 4,000 years ago. The scene is renewed, brought back to life, and restored by the principle of representationalism and revelation of the prophet Joseph Smith.

This vignette is truly a funerary scene of Anubis and Osiris. Joseph Smith simply borrowed it for a higher purpose and by symbolic representation the story of Abraham is vivified."

The elements needed to tell the story were in place in the funerary papyrus and Joseph employed them for that purpose by revelation.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

BYU - boy,

Where did you run off to? My, my, you come here and laugh at our prophet and sacred scriptures - then you run away like a rabbit to its hole.

Come take your shots at me. Tear me down if you can - you won't succeed. I want to take you on.

Paul O

[cinepro]

Luke 12:48

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Romans 2:12

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

2 Nephi 9:27

But wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that transgresseth them, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state!

D&C 82:3

For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.

Sorry, but none of these quotes have anything to do with limiting someone's agency.

If the BoM is proven to be a true record of an ancient people, one can only assume that JS was a true prophet and that the church is the truest.

Really? Tell that to David Whitmer. And Oliver Cowdery. And Martin Harris.

In what way was their agency changed after they became witnesses?

And your argument is seriously flawed. There are dozens of ways the Book of Mormon could be "true", but the CoJCoLdS isn't the Lord's "true" Church. I can think of hundreds of thousands of examples, and most of them are living in small communities in Southern Utah and Northern Arizona, or in the American Midwest.

The next time someone tries to pull the old "if-the-Book-of-Mormon-is-true-than-Joseph-was-a-prophet-therefore-GordonBHinckley-is-a-prophet-and-the-Church-is-true", slow them down and explain how one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. No matter how many times you they it.

[Edgar]

If I am not mistaken, the issue is not whether any members of the Church in Joseph Smith's day were acquainted with the Apocrypha. Some like John Taylor clearly were.

The issue is whether Joseph Smith was himself acquainted with the Apocrypha.

The bigger issue is even if we assume that he was, how much help would that realistically given him.

See Doctrine & Covenants Section 91 including the section heading.

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, March 9, 1833. HC 1: 331

[Gordon]

Soon after his translation was finished, the papyri were lost and thought to have been destroyed in a Chicago fire. But luckily, in the 1967, the scrolls were rediscovered.

They were!!??? WOW!!!....and I'm sure you can tell me were they came from, right? Or how they got there? Who brought them back, or where they have been all this time...?

No....? Why not?

On the back of the papyri were drawings of the Kirkland, Ohio area and temple.

Yeah....this means what? My son is five, he could draw a map of Kirtland if I showed him one...

There could be no doubt these were the same scrolls Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham.

NO DOUBT!!?? REALLY.....??? And this is so because.....

Fortunately, we now had modern Egyptologists who could verify that Joseph Smith was a true prophet!

Yeah!!!! We finally have a way to prove JS as a prophet...scientists, geologists, and historians! Forget the HG - which Jesus sent to reveal truth - we have these fine men!! YEAH!!!!

Unfortunately it turns out that the Book of Abraham scroll was nothing more than a common burial scroll.

...or do you mean that Egyptians made the facsimilles to mean a funeral text...?

See, we can't stop man from changing the truth given to us from the Lord....remember, the signs and tokens were given to the First Man, only to mean something completely different to the native Americans and Masons that used the same ones.

this means Joseph lied.

No, just that Man doesn't understand much.

Here are some comments for you to think about, OK, byu?

First, why didn't the 'rediscovered' papyra include the beautiful red and blue lettering that JS discribed? Why were the 'found' papyra in bad condition, when the ones JS translated were in good condition? Why were the papyra that JS actually transcribed the BoA from not there, when only the facsimilles that are open to interpretation available?? Why were the differences from JS's facsimiles and the museum ones conveniently missing? Which sounds more plausible: The G-ds Orsiris and Anubus - with a jackal head - existing (which nobody accepts as true today), or Abraham - the father of Catholism, Judaism, Christianity, Budhism, Hinduism (someone almost the whole world accepts) existing??? Finally, does the story of the book of Lehi ring any bells for you....?

Please tell me that you are not basing the outcome of your Eternal Salvation on this??

[Dale]

Joseph as early as 1829 had taught "some revelations were of men, others of God, and others of the devil." He admitted he had been decieved on once occasion. It's possible Joseph Smith had mixed revelation with the revelations of man. I look at Joseph Smith's eccentric explanations on the facimilies & it's clear he got no conventional understanding of the Egyptian. His impressions he recieved were loose enough he could re-state the bad theology into forms compatable with his theology. The explanations he gave were for the facimilies not any way close to innerant, but they do have truth in them.

I see Kerry Shirts & Paul Osbourne's & others research supportive of Joseph's explanations as proof they arn't fraud.

Sincerely,

Dale

[rameumptom]

BYU - boy,

Where did you run off to? My, my, you come here and laugh at our prophet and sacred scriptures - then you run away like a rabbit to its hole.

Come take your shots at me. Tear me down if you can - you won't succeed. I want to take you on.

Paul O

Paul,

What did you expect? He wasn't looking for a discussion, he just wanted to regurgitate the one or two pages of anti-Mormon literature he had read on the BoA. Anything beyond a very basic level is going to scare an amateur like him out of a conversation.

He doesn't realize that the arguments the antis use against Joseph Smith can often be used against Jesus and the Bible. He tries to claim the BoA is a fraud because he thinks there are fraudulent things in it.

I can prove there are fraudulent things in the Bible, and yet we don't see these same Anti-Mormons becoming anti-Christians. I've thrown out the names of many scholars many times that have written books showing key problems and corruptions with our Bible.

Clearly it is okay to have a double standard, as long as one chooses to ignore or refuse to notice the problems with his/her own issues.

For example, science "proves" there was no Adam 6000 years ago, or a Great Flood since then. Science "proves" many other things that the Bible claims to be true.

So, why is it that Christians don't listen to these scientists? Because some things are shown by faith. It may be that there were people that preceded Adam as scientists teach, but it has nothing to do with our faith in God's teaching of Adam. And just as they (and most LDS) are still willing to believe in a historical Adam, so we can realize there are some issues with Joseph Smith's history/writings that need to be looked at and considered, but doesn't make it false.

We believe in the Bible, even with its potential flaws and its definite flaws. Why should we let a potential similar issue with the BoA keep us from believing? Especially when there are many evidences of its truthfulness.

[Gordon]

He admitted he had been decieved on once occasion.

Please, I would like you to provide some examples of these 'admittances', or at least one.

It's possible Joseph Smith had mixed revelation with the revelations of man.

Possible? Ummmm..don't think so...

Joseph Smith's eccentric explanations

Shouldn't you say the LORD'S eccentric explanations, since that's were JS got them?

His impressions he recieved were loose enough he could re-state the bad theology into forms compatable with his theology.

Tell me, now, how did you get the privilege of knowing what his impressions were?

Why does this seem like your mere take on things, rather than concrete facts and/or revelations....?

[Paul Osborne]

I believe the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham hinges on whether or not Joseph thought and taught the characters and facsimiles were written by the hand of Abraham and survived until the 1830s without being recopied by the hand of anyone else.  The heading of the Book of Abraham indicates "The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.  See History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348-351" [my emphasis added]. 

Can someone on the board look up those pages and indicate what they say about the characters on the papyrus being written directly by Abraham?

Joseph Smith laid his hands upon the papyrus and Isaac laid his hands upon his son Jacob's head. Who was in greater error? Does it matter? I think not. The blessings flowed regardless of what they thought about what was under their hands.

Now, you be sure to read, and do it carefully. Take your sweet time. Let it soak in.

Could Joseph Smith Be In Error?

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

BYU - boy,

Where did you run off to? My, my, you come here and laugh at our prophet and sacred scriptures - then you run away like a rabbit to its hole.

Come take your shots at me. Tear me down if you can - you won't succeed. I want to take you on.

Paul O

Paul,

What did you expect? He wasn't looking for a discussion, he just wanted to regurgitate the one or two pages of anti-Mormon literature he had read on the BoA. Anything beyond a very basic level is going to scare an amateur like him out of a conversation.

Yeah, it seems he has all bark and no bite.

It's just as well he ran off. I had something very special planned for him and he wouldn't have like it.

Paul O

[Meta]

And your argument is seriously flawed.

I can accept your opinion. I don't agree with it, but I'll accept it.

I'm not going to waste my time with you as you seem to have a contentious streak about the issue at hand.

[Dale]

Hi,

Gordon there's no way to get conventional Egyptology out of Joseph's explanations of the facimilies. I feel that if God had supervised the translation without human being mixed with the divine we should get explanations that accord with modern Egyptology.

The command to see the Book of Momon copyright was a false command. I assume blaming the Book of Abraham on the devil wouldn't do any believer in the restoration any good. David Whitmer heard Joseph Smith Jr. admit he was not above error. Also he had taught that his revelationes needed to be tested through leadership quorum approval before going forth to the people. In other words he felt God wouldn't correct him if wrong on any revelation recieved. He could be wrong on either the Book of Abraham, or his interpretation of his spiritual impressions about the meaning of papyrus.

It really doesn't matter if he felt inspired it matters whether he tested his revelation about the papyrus content carefully. Was God to blame for his human work on the papyrus? The manifestation was involved of that I have no doubt but was it of the quality that conventional understandings of egyptology were revealed? No. I see no evidence that Joseph Smith understood conventional egyptology in a way that would satisfy typical egyptologists. LDS scholars have to dig deeper to point out similarities that although existing don't accord with regular meanings associated with the facimilies.

The explanations Joseph Smith gave appear to be speculative attempts to interpret what Joseph Smith saw. Any senses in which they accord with modern Egyptology can be seen as evidence God was involved in the process, or co-incidence. I am amazed by all the research on the facimilie explanations myself. Try & explain away all this research as evidence of lucky guesses on Joseph's part.

My take is based on what I see. I would like to see it proved that Joseph Smith's explanations are innerant translations of what we saw. Any truth in Joseph's explanations can't be seen as proof that God gave him conventional Egyptian understandings of the same items. What can truth in them be seen as proof of? That he was helped by God vaguely to try & understand the same characters? Honestly it has to be admitted he got things wrong.

I have applied the Barean test to try & discern the nature & extent the human & divine was involved in the translation.(Acts 17:11) I see evidence of some inspiration in what he said. I also see evidence he got things wrong that can't be blamed on God. I am convinced the Book of Abraham was not an act of fraud on the part of Joseph Smith Jr. If I felt he had no scholarly evidence for anything he said I would treat the Book of Abraham as totally the speculative writing of Joseph Smith Jr. Out of respect to my LDS friends even if I privately thought fraud I wouldn't say it. I see nothing but sincere belief in what he translated. I would not defend a fraudulant work.

How else do we explain the Book of Abraham if not a mix of human & the divine? The only other option is to deny the divine was involved at all & call it fraud. Purely considering the text human alone as responsible does not account for Kerry Shirts, or Paul Osbourne's research.

A lot of suggestion has been made that the source might have been missing. So the source found in 1967 might not have been the source. According to this idea the text relating to Abraham would have been mixed in with normal Egyptian religion. I am awaiting John Gee of FARMS & Brent Metcalfe of Signature Books to debate the issue in the coming years. I think Brent Metcalfes book will be out in a year or two. This will provide John Gee a chance to prove his theory which is quite popular among LDS apologists. I won't pass judgement on what I havn't read & am open to any theory as long as it's carefully documented. I kind of like Paul Osbourne's Catalyst belief.

Be open to pondering evidences for the Book of Abraham. Don't get stuck in writings that only tell you what's wrong with the book. The Traditions About The Early Life of Abraham is a good start. Kerry Shirts sells some fine DVD's answering Charles Larson on his criticism of the facimilies. Contact him via e-mail if you are interested.

I am Community of Christ which unfortunately has bought into the idea the Book of Abraham has totally been discredited. I am happy to confess RLDS have been wrong on this viewing the book as totally the speculative writing of Joseph Smith.

Sincerely,

Dale

[LadySundancer]

Question: Does the Book of Abraham represent the writings OF Abraham as translated by Joseph Smith or are they considered to be writings ABOUT Abraham as translated by Joseph Smith? If they are considered to be writings about Abraham, who was the author?

I'd like to hear from Paul on this.

Lady Sundancer

[Meta]

Question: Does the Book of Abraham represent the writings OF Abraham as translated by Joseph Smith or are they considered to be writings ABOUT Abraham as translated by Joseph Smith? If they are considered to be writings about Abraham, who was the author?

I'd like to hear from Paul on this.

Lady Sundancer

http://scriptures.lds.org/pgp/intrdctr

The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois. See History of the Church, vol. 4, pp. 519-534.