Paul Osborne

I’ve read quite a bit of Dr. Nibley’s stuff and strongly disagree on important issues. Let’s not forget that Dr. Nibley was just a school teacher – he was NOT a prophet. I’ve read through his argument against the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar and find his paradigm to be faulty. I think Nibley was a dishonest scholar at best. His crafty articles are peppered with deception. Thank God he was never called to be a general authority because I would not have sustained him. Now that he is gone maybe the LDS Nibley cult will settle down some. I'm so sick of hearing about Nibley. You'd think he was the President of the church the way people rave about him and call attention to his writings. The man was wrong about a great many things. Paul O

“Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is; [O earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.]” (Times & Seasons; November 1, 1843) Do you think the typical ancient Egyptian would understand Joseph Smith or, is the prophet speaking in tongues? How does this compare to the text on the funerary roll in which Facsimile No. 1 & 3 were taken? Paul O

Please, Oh the mystery of it all! There isn’t any doubt that Joseph got the translation through a direct revelation process. Warren Parrish later said, "I have sat by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphics as he claimed to receive it by direct revelation", hence the prophet worked by revelation in front of his scribes. It’s also been said by others that he worked through the Urim & Thummim or a seer stone. Now, I don’t have such a stone, so my experience and judgment is lacking in this regard. It’s difficult to imagine how something can be made to represent something else apart from the concept of pure symbolism. It is well for us to suppose that Facsimile No. 1 is a vignette at the beginning of the BofA roll, as this is the narration of Abraham; it’s also easy to suppose that Facsimile No. 3 is the end part of a funerary presentation. Of course, the text in between is funerary spells. I’d like to know how Joseph Smith got the story from the text. Did he see it? Did he just think it? Did he hear it? Did he feel it? Did he imagine it? Warren Parrish doesn’t say if the prophet saw something or heard a voice. He simply says he got it by direct revelation. It seems reasonable to me that Warren Parrish and company thought the story was written on the roll by the hand of Abraham, but this to me is an idea rather than a reality. I seek the truth, and the Savior said the truth makes one free. So far, I think Joseph was mistaken about what was truthfully on the papyrus but I’m convinced the revelation regarding the story itself is true. So, for me, learning truth is an ongoing process and I will never be satisfied until I know all of it. Therefore, I'm not really free, yet. Paul O

Please, You are more then welcome to get a revelation and share your findings. Whatever road you have chosen to take will lead to where you are going, but will that give you a true knowledge of my questions in this life? I realize that death is the only road to answer many questions – but if I can cheat death it would suit me well. It doesn’t hurt my testimony that a prophet can get scripture out of looking at funerary papyrus, but I want to know more about this process. It appears YOU can't get past the part that Joseph received a revelation. That says nothing of the process. I want more. Paul O

Please, I guess a good place to start is HERE: I'd like to know how the prophet translated. Instructions are given but I don't really understand them. Paul O

Please, Since you seem to have it figured out it might be well if you told me HOW the prophet took that roll and converted it into the BofA. Pehaps this will give me greater insight into understanding the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar preserved by Brigham Young. Those documents are just as interesting as anything I have ever studied. Would you care to discuss those pages? Paul O

Please, It doesn’t look like there will be any breakthroughs tonight. It doesn’t bother me that Joseph thought the mummy was a king, or a women a man, or a god a slave –but I would like to know more about HOW he translated. No one has been able to provide much information on this. I’m unsatisfied with the knowledge we have. But that won’t keep me from searching, pondering, and asking. Jesus told us to ask, seek, and knock. I've been doing that for years and will continue to do so. Paul O

Maureen, That was quite interesting; I didn't realize the page had the whole panoramic scene. Here is another shot, but this Osiris is less active - I guess he should take vitamins. Paul O

Please, I believe the BofA was translated by a translation not of this world. But Joseph Smith didn’t have a real BofA to translate. Egyptologists know how to translate and this knowledge came through the deciphering of the Rosetta Stone. The fragments in existence today are funerary chips off the funerary block. All of the papyrus had by the church was funerary literature, not sacred papyri had by Abraham. The text of the Facsimile No. 3 is not the BofA. The translations given by the prophet are the BofA – but he got it in a way we don’t understand. That is why I opened this thread, so we can better understand how he got it. I need ideas. Further, I don’t believe two of the figures stated to be men in Facsimile No. 3 are really men. They are women. I don’t believe Anubis is a slave. There is no Egyptian code that can make a slave out of an Egyptian god. Paul O

Please, I’ve considered codes in pagan spells but there is too much evidence about the Book of Abraham saga that shows code was not a factor at all. There is overriding evidence that proves the spells were directly connected to pagan rituals that had no relation to Jehovah’s religion or visiting patriarchs in Egypt. The prophet made it clear that one of the mummies was a king of Egypt. We have plenty of testimony stating this to be so, especially from his own family. You can’t turn a body into a code. Either the body was that of a king or it was not. The mummy was not a king; neither was the text a coded form of the books of Abraham & Joseph. Paul O

Maureen, The picture you present doesn’t justify C. Larson’s dreamy ideas of a small Egyptian phallus upon papyrus. I don’t see Larson as being very accurate. The picture you present doesn’t even show a phallus! What’s more, the guy isn't wearing a kilt - that could be a bit drafty. Abraham in Facsimile No. 1 is wearing a kilt. Here is a more accurate picture of the type of scene C. Larson is trying to make of Facsimile No. 1, and you will notice that the kilt is below the bedstead: Paul O

Traveler, There is only one way anyone could get the name of the king who befriended Abraham out of the text that Joseph Smith specifically pointed at: Only a prophet could be moved by a revelation to come up with the name. The signs above the hand are not a king's name, neither are they contained in a royal cartouche. Therefore; what was Joseph Smith talking about? It would take a seer stone to convert those characters into Pharaoh’s name. No man on earth has the power to do that. There never was a time when those characters contained a king’s name. Thus, it’s not a matter of it being lost or corrupted. It’s just a matter of getting the king's name by revelation because the characters above the hand will not help anyone in deciphering the royal name. Will you tell me that the text you think is MISSING is similar to the characters above the hand – although they are not related to the revelation? Why look for a missing roll when everything we have shows that missing papyri is simply more chips of the old block, funerary spells. Professor Seyffarth made that perfectly clear about the BofA that was on display in the St. Louis Museum, then on to Chicago. There isn't any doubt in my mind that the rolls of Abraham and Joseph were funerary rolls of a pagan nature. The fragments the brethren enjoyed so much are part of the whole sacred collection. Papyrus Rolls Paul O

Please, It’s true that the Lord tries the faith of his people and expects us to accept things on faith. But, there are answers to every question under the sun. I’m of the belief that the Lord gave the revelation not according to what was written on the papyrus because we know that none of the BofA is found on any of the fragments now extant. If I said the Lord gave the revelation according to what was written on the papyrus it would make a difficult time in explaining away the conventional pagan spells. I expect the Lord to challenge our faith, as he has been doing that to his people since the days of Adam. But the Lord can expect that I will ask questions and never be satisfied until I get my answers. Do you have a problem with Joseph Smith not understanding the translation process in which he was involved? Suppose he thought the papyrus was a real Book of Abraham but in fact it was nothing but funerary spells – is that a problem for you? Paul O

Please, This topic is exciting for me. It has not been adequately explored. I’ve laid some groundwork in apologetic reasoning that has never been done before in effort to get to the bottom of this mystery. I like a good mystery, but I like answers more than the questions. Don’t you? I want to understand how idea is converted into image and so far nobody has been able to offer the kind of enlightening idea I crave. I too find the information of the BofA inspiring but I think the method of translation would be even more inspiring if we understood it. Ah, this is something I have given a lot of thought to and that's why I wrote an article exploring this concept - if you have time: The Book of Abraham Story I can appreciate your statement that true knowledge validates true knowledge but will you kindly tell me how the writing surrounding the picture of Facsimile No. 1 validates the picture as described in LDS scripture? What's the truth about the writing that flanks the picture and how is that truth translated? Paul O

Jason, I've seen that depiction before in C. Larson’s book, but it's only a guess of what some people think may have originally existed. Do you have a parallel drawing from another papyrus to compare? Besides, this phallus is way too small. Egyptian artists don’t draw small erect phallus’s – that’s a pretty big contradiction. It’s not a good depiction at all. What else do you have to have? Paul O

Traveler, I gather you are saying that the picture is a representation of Abraham upon the original altar revealed to Joseph Smith. That sounds good to me. The prophet used the picture to recall the story, is that it? How did the prophet use the text to tell the story about the bedstead, priests, and Abraham’s near death experience? It’s easy to see how the picture can be borrowed to illustrate a point but using the text to translate a story is quite another. So, how does the text get translated into the BofA? Paul O

Sorry, but I don’t see a phallus in the drawing. Paul O

Facsimile No. 1 is a vignette FROM the Book of Abraham and was presented to the saints as a depiction of Abraham at the point of a knife, about to be murdered upon an altar in Chaldea. I would like to hear your ideas about how this picture relates to the BofA roll as a whole. I’m trying to dig for new insight. Paul O

It must have been 15 years ago when I was working on the AC systems in the Dallas temple and was toting a jug of Freon through the lobby areas while dressed in my work clothes. I got some pretty funny stares from old ladies dressed in white. They probably didn’t know I was a member with a recommend in my pocket. Paul O

Jenda, I better not let my wife see your avatar. She is head over heals for that pirate and thinks he is about the hottest thing on earth except for that other guy that I can't remember his name. Paul O

The new board really looks nice! I've been too busy to hang out right now. Perhaps later. I just published a new book entitled, Take Your Foot Off The Gas. It's available online through Amazon and other book dealers. Drivers can save fuel and reduce stress by changing the way they drive. Paul O

Peace, Judge thus how you like; it matters not to me. I will take my little self someone else. I don't need to stand for this. Go ahead and feast with those who seek to overthrow testimonies-- I'm out of here. You can't ban me. Paul O

Opposition to the Work of God Carlos E. Asay, “Opposition to the Work of God,” Ensign, Nov. 1981, 67 "These faith-killers and testimony-thieves use personal contacts, the printed word, electronic media, and other means of communication to sow doubts and to disturb the peace of true believers." "And with all this marveling and wondering, we tend to niche the anti-Christs in some corner of ancient history and go about our unguarded ways. This is dangerous. It could result in loss of faith; and, in a spiritual sense, it could put us out of existence." "Other times he has worked through those who have stepped to his side of the line. For instance, in the Book of Mormon, we read of three anti-Christs. Each was deceived, each preached against those who believed in Christ, and each sought openly to destroy the church of God. Their patterns of deceit were similar. They taught false doctrines, spread lies, referred to prophecies as foolish traditions, accused Church leaders of perverting the right way of God, and baited the people by referring to their faith as a foolish and vain hope. (See Jacob 7; Alma 1; and Alma 30.)" "Avoid those who would tear down your faith. Faith-killers are to be shunned. The seeds which they plant in the minds and hearts of men grow like cancer and eat away the Spirit. True messengers of God are builders—not destroyers. We send our missionaries into the world to teach and to assist people in receiving truth line upon line until the fulness of the gospel is received. (See D&C 98:112.) As one new convert testified: 'My previous church provided me the chapter on mortality. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints added two more chapters pertaining to the premortal and postmortal existences'." "Do not contend or debate over points of doctrine. The Master warned that “the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil.” (3 Ne. 11:29.) We are inconsistent if we resort to Satanic tactics in attempting to achieve righteous ends. Such inconsistency results only in frustration, loss of the Spirit, and ultimate defeat. Remember, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege.” (Eleventh Article of Faith.)" Paul O

2 Ne. 6: 13 Wherefore, they that fight against Zion and the covenant people of the Lord shall lick up the dust of their feet; and the people of the Lord shall not be ashamed. For the people of the Lord are they who wait for him; for they still wait for the coming of the Messiah. 2 Ne. 10: 13 And he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God. 2 Ne. 10: 16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God. Paul O

No kidding? Oh, come on Peace, really-- need you say that? I wasn’t born yesterday and I am quite aware that I am not a god, yet, and neither have I been ordained a prophet to the world through the holy priesthood. My standards by which I judge are taught clearly in the teachings of the Book of Mormon which does not kiss up against the world but clearly condemns those who speak evil against the Lord’s Church in the last days and except they repent they will find themselves at the Lord’s left hand when he comes again. The Book of Mormon does not tolerate those who fight against the Lamb and his Church. You can however do as you wish with your board. Wouldn’t it be nice if board members could post honest spiritual discussions without having people like Cal come along and ruin them by dumping poison into the stream of pure water? I’m a afraid your desire to kiss up with these people has clouded your vision. Carry on how ever you like but I will stick to the confines of the Book of Mormon regarding those who seek to undermine our testimonies and the testimonies of those who are lurking. Paul O