Explain the Book of Abraham

[cdowis]

>The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835

Thank you Meta.

Now, is "translate" used in the sense of the BOM, or in the sense of the JST?

I think that was the issue.

[Paul Osborne]

Lady,

You present a worthy question for discussion. It

[Outshined]

Paul, I always enjoy your discourses on the Pearl of Great Price. Keep up the good work.

EDIT: By the way, that's an awesome avatar...

[Paul Osborne]

Question:

[Gordon]

Gordon there's no way to get conventional Egyptology out of Joseph's explanations of the facimilies.

Why are you trying to get conventional Egyptology out of the BoA translations? You're assuming that their meanings of the facsimiles are the correct ones, more correct than what Abraham would have had them to mean, or the Lord. Why? Are the Egyptians the creators of the Universe, and the Father of Man?

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.

Where has the Lord ever stated that scriptures must agree with modern Egyptian, or any Egyptian?

David Whitmer heard Joseph Smith Jr. admit he was not above error.

And this is supposed to prove that JS was duped into believing false revelations were real?? I rather think it shows that JS knew he wasn't perfect - nobody is/was, save one.

Also he had taught that his revelations needed to be tested through leadership quorum approval before going forth  to the people.

This also in no wise has JS admitting to receiving false revelations when he thought they were from the Lord. He even tells the members to ask the Lord for confirmation of truth to the things spoken of by prophets.

In other words he felt God wouldn't correct him if wrong on any revelation recieved.

This is not in accord with the fact that the Lord DID correct JS at times.

He could be wrong on either the Book of Abraham, or his interpretation of his spiritual impressions about the meaning of papyrus.

If you believe this, then you must also believe that he could have been wrong on the translations of the BoM. You can't chose to believe in the BoM by saying JS translated it correctly, but reject the BoA as scripture by the reasoning that he could have received false revelation, or mis-interpreted what he was receiving with his own pre-conceived ideas - he was either a prophet all the way, or not at all.

I suggest you pray to know of the truthfulness of the BoA specifically, just, as I assume, you did with the BoM.

The explanations Joseph Smith gave appear to be speculative attempts to interpret what Joseph Smith saw.

According to you...

[Gordon]

Does anyone here think that Joseph Smith actually had an original signature in his possession written by Abraham? I sure don

[Gordon]

It was necessary that the prophet become excited in a spirit of revelation which readied his mind to receive the story of Abraham from the papyrus in order to reveal the Abrahamic account. If the prophet had known the true nature of the papyri, he could not have thought to translate it just as St. Peter would not have tried to go out on the water to greet his Master if he knew beforehand that he would sink (Matt 14:26-31), and neither would Moses have lifted his rod if he didn't believe the waters would divide (Ex 14:16). Had not the prophet's assistants believed the papyrus was an original autograph, how hardly could they have supported the translation process.

According to this, the Lord had JS believe in a lie, in order to do the work required of him...this makes G-d a liar, and this cannot be so.

Peter COULD walk on water, and did! He wasn't being tricked to believe something that was not possible, it was! He only fell through when his faith failed him.

[LadySundancer]

Lady,

You present a worthy question for discussion. It

[Gordon]

Would you be willing to go one on one with me there so that I can get my questions answered without the interruption of cyber backslapping and other extraneous remarks I'm seeing here?

Perhaps you should avoid open message boards, then, if you have difficulty with the views of other posters?

I'm glad that you find only Paul's views on the BoA as the authoritive voice on the matter, and that the rest of us are merly 'backslapping', and that our remarks are simply 'extraneous' to you...

[Paul Osborne]

Does anyone here think that Joseph Smith actually had an original signature in his possession written by Abraham? I sure don

[Paul Osborne]

It was necessary that the prophet become excited in a spirit of revelation which readied his mind to receive the story of Abraham from the papyrus in order to reveal the Abrahamic account. If the prophet had known the true nature of the papyri, he could not have thought to translate it just as St. Peter would not have tried to go out on the water to greet his Master if he knew beforehand that he would sink (Matt 14:26-31), and neither would Moses have lifted his rod if he didn't believe the waters would divide (Ex 14:16). Had not the prophet's assistants believed the papyrus was an original autograph, how hardly could they have supported the translation process.

According to this, the Lord had JS believe in a lie, in order to do the work required of him...this makes G-d a liar, and this cannot be so.

Peter COULD walk on water, and did! He wasn't being tricked to believe something that was not possible, it was! He only fell through when his faith failed him.

You don't understand, Gordon. Prophets make mistakes but can still operate under the inspiration of God.

Isaac believed a lie when he laid his hands upon Jacob while blessing him by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Poor, Isaac, he believed a lie and thought he smelled Jacob! Isn't that right? You tell me.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Lady Sundancer,

I own a website and have a lot of material thereon, but I don

[Gordon]

You don

[Jon Haugo]

Paul,

I just wanted to say a few things. First, I believe that this whole scenario fits a pattern of JS being a fraud. I think that when we weigh the evidence that there is a logical direction that it leads. Anyone who is impartial will come to that conclusion.

Second, I admire your knowledge and insight into this subjecet. Both you and Dale have credibility in my eyes and if there is an answer, I believe you would have it. Because I believe that this proves JS was a fraud (amoung many other reasons I have for believing this), I respect greatly your honesty in presenting ALL the evidence and giving the only way it can conform to a Mormon answer.

Third, I will never be a Mormon. There are too many proofs and unanswerable questions for me to abandon my faith and become Mormon. But if I were, I would believe because of you. There are not that many Mormons that come out and say up front what they believe. Example - Many times when Mormons are questioned about the issue of believing in many Gods they will say that they believe in only one God and leave the impression that they believe in the existence of only one God. They know they have done that. Then when they are cornered they say, "We just worship one God" Your honesty is refreshing and I really respect you. Anyway, I have to get back to studying. Take care.

Sincerely

Jon

[Gordon]

First, I believe that this whole scenario fits a pattern of JS being a fraud.

Key word being 'believe'.

Forgive me for intruding, I just wanted to make a couple of comments.

...evidence that there is a logical direction that it leads.

Not how the Lord works.

Because I believe that this proves JS was a fraud (amoung many other reasons I have for believing this)...

Again, key word being 'believe'...there is no 'proof' of JS being a fraud, sorry.

Third, I will never be a Mormon.

You mean you will choose to never be a saint in the kingdom of Christ which he has established once again on this Earth in these latter-days?

I don't know what a 'Mormon' is, but I do know who Mormon was.

But if I were, I would believe because of you.

That's not good, because you should believe because of Christ by the power of the HG, which is the only way you could know of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel.

[Jon Haugo]

First, I believe that this whole scenario fits a pattern of JS being a fraud. 

Key word being 'believe'.

Forgive me for intruding, I just wanted to make a couple of comments.

...evidence that there is a logical direction that it leads.

Not how the Lord works.

Because I believe that this proves JS was a fraud (amoung many other reasons I have for believing this)...

Again, key word being 'believe'...there is no 'proof' of JS being a fraud, sorry.

Third, I will never be a Mormon.

You mean you will choose to never be a saint in the kingdom of Christ which he has established once again on this Earth in these latter-days?

I don't know what a 'Mormon' is, but I do know who Mormon was.

But if I were, I would believe because of you.

That's not good, because you should believe because of Christ by the power of the HG, which is the only way you could know of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel.

Yes, I know the key word is believe. Just as it is for you.

You do know that LDS also take on the title of "Mormons" as well

I am a saint in the Kingdom of Christ

and

I am saved because the Holy Ghost drew me to God

Bye again

Jon

[Gordon]

Yes, I know the key word is believe. Just as it is for you.

Actually, it's not...mine would be a knowledge, but I know we disagree upon that.

You do know that LDS also take on the title of "Mormons" as well

Yes, and I give them a hard time too.

I am a saint in the Kingdom of Christ

That's great! When were you baptized? And the one who baptized you held the authority to act in the name of the Lord, given to him by someone holding that same authority, right?

I am saved because the Holy Ghost drew me to God

Then what did you do after you found him? Have you obeyed and followed all the requirements and saving ordinances He requires?

[Jon Haugo]

Gordon,

I will not derail this thread. I would like it to stick to the topic. If you want a lesson on Baptism please see the following links:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=8365&hl= - Seventh one down

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=8365&st=60 - Tenth one down

Go ahead and have the last word. I sent a message to Paul and that is all I wanted to do. I must get back to my homework.

[Gordon]

Gordon,

I will not derail this thread.

You're right, I have gone off topic, and I will apologize to you and the moderators - and no, I'm not trying to get the last word in with this post.

[LadySundancer]

Gordon: Perhaps you should avoid open message boards, then, if you have difficulty with the views of other posters?

Lady Sundancer: Gordon, I've participated on open boards for what I think is quite some time. When I wish to engage one specific poster, I try to find a way to conduct a closed thread. Not always possible, but that's what I did here. This board does not have a one on one forum like ZLMB used to have for that purpose. I wish to concentrate on whatever information Paul has to offer and not spend time tuning out extraneous remarks such as this post of yours that I'im responding to.

Gordon: I'm glad that you find only Paul's views on the BoA as the authoritive voice on the matter, and that the rest of us are merly 'backslapping', and that our remarks are simply 'extraneous' to you...

Lady Sundancer: Nowhere in my comments did I suggest that I find "only Paul's views on the BoA as the authoritive voice on the matter". Please post the remarks that I have made that lead you to believe that is so. Did you even read my post to Paul? If so, you will see that I have also questioned Kerry Shirts regarding the BoA. I am now interested in questioning Paul. Do you feel left out? If you need a turn you will need to wait until other friends have taken theirs.

[LadySundancer]

Hello Paul,

Thank you for your response and willingness to allow me to engage you. For some reason I thought you owned the message board I saw. Sorry about that. I will try to make an opening post this evening. You suggested that I let you know that I've posted via email. Would it be alright with you if I simply use the private message feature here? I sent out one message to admin using it, didn't get a reply since no reply was really warranted, but I think it must be functional. Otherwise I'll let you know here on this thread.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Lady Sundancer

[Gordon]

Gordon, I've participated on open boards for what I think is quite some time. When I wish to engage one specific poster, I try to find a way to conduct a closed thread. Not always possible, but that's what I did here. This board does not have a one on one forum like ZLMB used to have for that purpose. I wish to concentrate on whatever information Paul has to offer...

Completely understand, absolutely nothing wrong with this - you have every right.

...and not spend time tuning out extraneous remarks such as this post of yours that I'im responding to.

This statement, however, is where I ran into a problem. Why would you have to respond to and/or read any other post, if you wish only to hear the responses from Paul? You appear to suggest as if the rest of the posts in this thread are mere childish chatter that you must exhaustingly try to tune out, for they are completely un-important to you and your quest for an answer from Paul, yet you are harshly forced, by us, to wade through all the muck to get to the post you desire. Yet, here you are responding to my own annoying and extraneous post...my advice, don't read them, and don't remark on them either if you have no interest in them.

Nowhere in my comments did I suggest that I find "only Paul's views on the BoA as the authoritive voice on the matter".

That is how your remarks made things appear to me...I readily apologize if that is not the case. I hope that you can find enlightenment and answers by as many people as possible, but also know that you don't have to talk to anyone you wish not to.

Do you feel left out?

Absolutely not. I simply took offense that you felt it a nuscence that others were even posting on this thread.

[Dear Mee]

PAUL O: Posted July 23, 6:43am(?) you state:

I think the various stories you get out of Geneses were derived through the inspiration of a master writer who worked by the power of God through the means that were given him.

Your use of the words "various stories" and "master writer" has Mee wondering where P.O. is on the belief scale?

Side bar: i'm coming to know why these "threads" are so called: they can become knotted, break, tangled and/or lead from one thing to another. The latter is basing my questions.

The topic of Ab is of little interest to Mee BUT since you mentioned "stories' and "writers" i want to follow that thought. Hoping i'm not violating the sacred code of continuity.

While i know we can "believe" what ever we want, we are encouraged to believe "all" of the OT stories--not figuratively but literally, or so was the case at one time. Now of course most folks do not. What are your thoughts re biblical literalism and the "various stories"??

And, what makes a "master writer"? Is that someone who is exceptionally perceptive, sensitive, well informed, well 'balanced' and in tune with the inner voice? Are there writers today who you would categorize as "master writers"?

You might have addressed this before, but being new to the 'board' i'm uncertain if yer a true-blue-jott-and-tittle man, Jack, maverick, renegade or ????? Which might in fact have relevancy to the BoA topic.

Thanks for your assumed reply. DM

[Paul Osborne]

Do I want to try you? Sure, I am not one who is frightened off. Go ahead, tell me why the mummy wasn't a king of Egypt...

Not so fast, Gordon. In your effort to explain the Book of Abraham, which is the title of this thread, would you please anwer my original question?

DO YOU BELIEVE THE MUMMY WAS A KING OF EGYPT?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

If Yes, Why?

[Paul Osborne]

Isaac believed a lie when he laid his hands upon Jacob while blessing him by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Indeed, yet it was not the Lord who was lying to Isaac...which would have had to have been the case for JS, if the Lord had him believe it was something it was not while having Joseph translate that scripture.

Remember also, that Esau sold his birthright, so it was rightfully Jacobs in the eyes of the Lord.

Neither was the Lord lying to Joseph Smith because the Lord never said the fragments were an original autograph although you say he did. The Lord allowed Joseph to believe something that wasn