Book of Abraham

[AlexanderX]

I was interested in discussing the Book of Abraham controversy and noticed there was only one previous discussion. But it had been shut down, apparently because false accusations were thrown at Brent Metcalfe.

Anyway, I was just wondering how many LDS were familiar with the KEP and its impact on the current controversy.

[AlexanderX]

Incidentally, I just posted a comment on another thread that was closed. My post was deleted and someone said it was due to breaking this rule:

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is contrary to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do not post anything that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

Are you serious?

All I did was state an opinion. I certainly didn't post "Anti-LDS propaganda."

What kind of "discussions" can we expect to ensue here if everyone is expected to agree with the premise that everything the LDS Church says, is true? Is this forum only for two types of people, Mormon, and those wanting to be converted by Mormons?

Some clarification would be appreciated.

Edited June 10, 2008 by AlexanderX

[Maureen]

I remember reading about this at the FAIR board a long time ago. It's been so long I can't remember what KEP stands for. I'm interested in reading any information about this so called BofA controversy. I say "so called" because I can't remember what the controversy is. :)

[HiJolly]

I remember reading about this at the FAIR board a long time ago. It's been so long I can't remember what KEP stands for. I'm interested in reading any information about this so called BofA controversy. I say "so called" because I can't remember what the controversy is. :)

Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Pretty messy subject. Lots of controversy, lots of 'wiggle room' for both sides -- nobody wins. Yech.

HiJolly

[KosherXMorg]

The Kinderhook Plates?

[Maureen]

The Kinderhook Plates?

Nope - see one post above yours.

[rameumptom]

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers (KEP) were a set of documents that were used somehow in conjunction with the Book of Abraham's translation. The question is how are they related. Some claim that the KEP shows an alphabetary used to translate the BoA papyri, and therefore show that it was wrong and falsifiable.

Others claim that the KEP is an alphabetary that some members were developing so as to try and understand the hieroglyphs in the papyri.

Brent Metcalfe has a good copy of the KEP in his possession, and is writing a book on the subject. We are all hoping that he uses a scholarly approach, and not an anti-Mormon approach on it. It seems he is trying to be scholarly in his research on it, even discussing points with LDS scholars of the KEP.

In a recent FAIR conference, the KEP were discussed. Rather than a good copy of the KEP, the discussion came from high quality colored photographs of the KEP, which strongly suggested that the KEP was not used to translate the BoA.

Discourse continues, and it will be a long time before anything is actually decided, unless the Church allows some serious testing to be performed on the KEP.

[AlexanderX]

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers (KEP) were a set of documents that were used somehow in conjunction with the Book of Abraham's translation.

I'm glad you agree. Most apologists reject that premise.

The question is how are they related.

Well, all evidence seems to indicate that two of the manuscripts were the original translation manuscripts for the Book of Abraham.

Some claim that the KEP shows an alphabetary used to translate the BoA papyri, and therefore show that it was wrong and falsifiable.

No, that's not their argument. The KEP illustrate an English translation that corresponds to Egyptian characters taken from the extant papyri. The problem for the Church is that it suggests strongly that Joseph Smith believed this papyrus was the source for the Book of Abraham. The reason it is problematic is because

Others claim that the KEP is an alphabetary that some members were developing so as to try and understand the hieroglyphs in the papyri.

No, you're confused with the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, which was actually used to translate Abraham 1:1-3, because there was a lacunae at the begining of the papyrus. Joseph Smith divined the missing characters and proceeded to translate a story about Abraham. The problem is modern Egyptologists have translated this text and it has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham. Not even close.

Brent Metcalfe has a good copy of the KEP in his possession, and is writing a book on the subject. We are all hoping that he uses a scholarly approach, and not an anti-Mormon approach on it.

Metcalfe has been more scholarsly than say, John Gee, who had deceived many with his arguments published in his "Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri." Calling everything youd on't like "anti" is really a lazy way of addressing data.

It seems he is trying to be scholarly in his research on it, even discussing points with LDS scholars of the KEP.

Brian Hauglid is the latest LDS scholar to take up the gauntlet. So far I'm not impressed with him.

In a recent FAIR conference, the KEP were discussed. Rather than a good copy of the KEP, the discussion came from high quality colored photographs of the KEP, which strongly suggested that the KEP was not used to translate the BoA.

That's not true. There is nothing to suggest this. All the evidence suggests strongly that the KEP include the original translation manuscripts that are in the handwriting of Joseph Smith's hired scribes,Williams, Phelps and Parrish.

Discourse continues, and it will be a long time before anything is actually decided, unless the Church allows some serious testing to be performed on the KEP.

No, nothing will ever be decided in the apologetic camp. The more it can be considered an unsolvable mystery, the better it is.

[Deborah]

Whatever the origin, I have no doubt the BOA is from God whether Joseph translated it from a certain set of Papyri or not. Unfortunately the debate continues while the actual facts elude us because we simply don't know. Scholars can disagree on the origin but I think the power of the book speaks for itself.

[rameumptom]

Given Joseph's "translation" methodology, it probably wasn't a strict or direct translation, anyway. "Translating" the book of Mormon meant the plates were closed most of the time and not open.

"Translating" the Bible meant receiving new information from revelation, such as the Book of Moses, etc.

And I can imagine that the papyri were just a catalyst for revelation. It doesn't matter to me if it contained the sen-sen or the menu from a French restaurant. If God chooses to reveal his truths by using such a document as a catalyst, I'm all for it. It isn't the how it came about, but the content and context of the text that is important.

[Traveler]

I was interested in discussing the Book of Abraham controversy and noticed there was only one previous discussion. But it had been shut down, apparently because false accusations were thrown at Brent Metcalfe.

Anyway, I was just wondering how many LDS were familiar with the KEP and its impact on the current controversy.

Most all of the arguments concerning the Book of Abraham that I have seen argue about everything but the contents of the Book of Abraham itself. It is most interesting to me that the Book of Abraham was written a very ancient Egyptian literary form that was lost in time and not known at the time of Joseph Smith.

Some may argue that Joseph happened on the literary form by accident. If you are one that thinks this possible then I would ask you to write something in that form. You have the example of the Book of Abraham – so have a go at it.

Having read, considered and pondered the contents of the Book of Abraham I find it most interesting and without doubt a divinely inspired document.

The Traveler

[AlexanderX]

Given Joseph's "translation" methodology, it probably wasn't a strict or direct translation, anyway. "Translating" the book of Mormon meant the plates were closed most of the time and not open.

Nonsense. Joseph Smith made it perfectly clear he was translating the characters from the plates. He even made a copy of some of them so his "translation" could be verified.

"Translating" the Bible meant receiving new information from revelation, such as the Book of Moses, etc.

But he still used the Bible to do it. Smith's intention was to restore lost material from the originals. Whatever he thought he was doing with the Bible, there can be no doubt he was conveying a strong message that he was making literal translations of the Egyptian papyri. To say he didn't need the plates to produce the Book of Mormon, kinda begs the question: Why then in the heck did Mormoni go through all the trouble to preserve and then bury them so Smith could find them?

And I can imagine that the papyri were just a catalyst for revelation.

This doesn't save Smith at all because Smith made it clear he was translating the characters. The first thing he did when he saw the papyri was to point out that it referred to Abraham and Joseph. He even provided a literal translation of Egyptian characters in the facsimile preceding the BoA text.

It doesn't matter to me if it contained the sen-sen or the menu from a French restaurant.

Utterly amazing.

If God chooses to reveal his truths by using such a document as a catalyst, I'm all for it.

Huh? God didn't "use" the text for anything. Joseph Smith claimed to be translating Egyptian characters into English because at the time there was nobody who could validate his claims. Now there are. Smith fails the test miserably. We know Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents. Period.

It isn't the how it came about, but the content and context of the text that is important.

The content doesn't help him either.

Most all of the arguments concerning the Book of Abraham that I have seen argue about everything but the contents of the Book of Abraham itself.

And that is by design. The apologists have fumbled the ball in trying to explain how Joseph Smith could have mistranslated it so badly, so they are focusing on whatever else they can.

It is most interesting to me that the Book of Abraham was written a very ancient Egyptian literary form that was lost in time and not known at the time of Joseph Smith.

This is such nonsense. The Book of Abraham is filled with new doctrine that Smith had found in a book written by Thomas Dick. The book referred to spiritual intelligences that existed eternally, the throen of God was at the ecnter of teh Universe, etc. The parallels were just too overwhelming to ignore, and we know for a fact that Smith owned this book. It was published just a few years prior to the purchase of the Egyptian payri.

Some may argue that Joseph happened on the literary form by accident. If you are one that thinks this possible then I would ask you to write something in that form. You have the example of the Book of Abraham – so have a go at it.

Deal with the elephant in the room and tsop trying to foist a silly burden onto me. Why do his literal translations of literal egyptian characters bear no resemblance to anything related to Abraham?

Having read, considered and pondered the contents of the Book of Abraham I find it most interesting and without doubt a divinely inspired document.

Oh, more feelings to outweigh the facts, huh? Edited June 12, 2008 by AlexanderX

[Guest Xzain]

AlexanderX-

Your posts make it quite clear you are vehemently opposed to the LDS viewpoint.

You seem to know much about the KEP. You also seem to come prepared with opinions set and are more concerned about foisting them on others then any real discussion. You are callous, condescending, caustic, and cruel. Any discussion I might have enjoyed- as the Abraham papyri are interesting to me- has quickly been destroyed by your behavior.

This is not a place to bash our beliefs- this is a place to discuss them.

I respectfully request you cease your vindictive manner, and focus on presenting data without attacks. If you cannot do this, I respectfully ask you to leave the subject alone.

Thank you.

-Xzain

[AlexanderX]

I am willing to discuss, but I'm not willing to be dragged by the nose down a fantastical apologetic scenario that doesn't bode with the facts.

It just amazes me that it doesn't really matter to some LDS if Joseph Smith couldn't translate ancient documents. It is just fascinating. People are willing deny anything to maintain a belief. You say it is ok to present data without attacks, but clearly for some Mormons here, the data itself is considered an attack.

[Traveler]

Nonsense. ......

Deal with the elephant in the room and tsop trying to foist a silly burden onto me. Why do his literal translations of literal egyptian characters bear no resemblance to anything related to Abraham?

Oh, more feelings to outweigh the facts, huh?

I see that you cannot deal with the contents of the Book of Abraham. And please do not put words into my mouth - I did not say anything about feelings. I said the Book of Abraham is an ancient Egyptian literary form. I said I have studied the contents - it would appear this is something you have not done. You deal with that elephant in the room and you tell me how the contents could be written in such an ancient literary form.

You are dealing with a side show rather than the main event - Deal with the contents of the Book. You have killed the messenger without even hearing the message - Brilliant - this give me no confidence at all in your message. Why should I consider your content when you will not address the content of the Book of Abraham?

So then I ask you - since content is not important to you - by what authority do you speak? Are you qualified to speak concerning things of ancient Egypt? Are you a double standard?

The Traveler

Edited June 12, 2008 by Traveler

[AlexanderX]

I see that you cannot deal with the contents of the Book of Abraham.

Oh I have. I have dealt with all the parallels to 19th century works. Works that spoke of Abraham tradition myths about him being sacrificed. All the things that Joseph Smith was exposed to, is reflected quite well in the Book of Abraham.

I said the Book of Abraham is an ancient Egyptian literary form.

What form is that? Chiasmus? The same form that we find in the rest of Joseph Smith's writings and "revelations."

I said I have studied the contents - it would appear this is something you have not done.

I have, more than you apparently.

You deal with that elephant in the room and you tell me how the contents could be written in such an ancient literary form.

You have not shown any ancient literary form to begin with. You're expecting me to address something you haven't presented. All you present is assertion. In the meantime, the overwhelming evidence suggests strongly that Joseph Smith believed the Sen Sen papyrus was the source for the Book of Abraham. Yet modern Egyptologists translate it as having absolutely nothing to do with Smith's creative story.

You are dealing with a side show rather than the main event - Deal with the contents of the Book

No, it is you who is dealing with a side show, and you know it. If I tell my Hebrew professor that I found some ancient manuscripts containing the diary of Moses, and he translates it for me and says it is actually a note written by a Jewish scribe to his mother around 400 AD, then it would be absurd for me to keep telling him that we should analyze "the content" to see if there is any "ancient literary form" that might suggest it really is from the time of Moses. This is how desperate the apologetic position has become. It lives on the lines of interpretation and ambiguity, that way they can always say it is just one interpretation against another's. It really expects the rest of the world to perform the same mental gymnastics, just because they're willing to do so.

You have killed the messenger without even hearing the message

You don't know what you're talking about. I know the Book of Abraham backwards and forwards. I don't merely read it and pray for warm fuzzy feelings to confirm that it is from God.

Why should I consider your content when you will not address the content of the Book of Abraham?

Follwo the alanogy above. I already know for a fact that Joseph Smith was making it all up and he was pretending to translate an ancient document when he could not. This is a logical deduction of teh facts. So to entertain your non-specific claim of ancient literary form is just a red herring intended to avoid the elephant.

So then I ask you - since content is not important to you - by what authority do you speak?

Content is important, and the content pretty much proves he was simply regurgitating more 19th century lore from books that he owned.

[Guest Xzain]

I am willing to discuss, but I'm not willing to be dragged by the nose down a fantastical apologetic scenario that doesn't bode with the facts.

It just amazes me that it doesn't really matter to some LDS if Joseph Smith couldn't translate ancient documents. It is just fascinating. People are willing deny anything to maintain a belief. You say it is ok to present data without attacks, but clearly for some Mormons here, the data itself is considered an attack.

You put yourself on a high pedastal, but your word usage screams foul attack. You do not even discuss points, but call others' viewpoints 'nonsense' and use colorful idioms and ad hominous arguments to make your points. You give no quarter to the allowance for 'wiggle room' within the situation- which, to my understanding, there is plenty- but demand that your interperetation of the evidence be accepted, we all deny our faith, and then you leave; a job well done.

You do interject evidence- which is good- but it is amid a carnival act of abuse. That seems less like discussion and more like open emnity.

Another thing- no one said they didn't believe Joseph Smith couldn't translate ancient records- merely that, in the case of the Book of Abraham, he might not have made a direct translation. Your assumption that one did say the former helps show that you are here to attack, not discuss, because you will not stop to realize what the other person is saying.

[Guest Xzain]

Follwo the alanogy above. I already know for a fact that Joseph Smith was making it all up and he was pretending to translate an ancient document when he could not. This is a logical deduction of teh facts. So to entertain your non-specific claim of ancient literary form is just a red herring intended to avoid the elephant.

I would like to know by what authority you say these things. Authority is a big thing for us. I would also like to know why you refuse to 'entertain' other notions while demanding we accept yours.

[Traveler]

Oh I have. I have dealt with all the parallels to 19th century works. Works that spoke of Abraham tradition myths about him being sacrificed. All the things that Joseph Smith was exposed to, is reflected quite well in the Book of Abraham.

What form is that? Chiasmus? The same form that we find in the rest of Joseph Smith's writings and "revelations."

I have, more than you apparently.

You have not shown any ancient literary form to begin with. You're expecting me to address something you haven't presented. All you present is assertion. In the meantime, the overwhelming evidence suggests strongly that Joseph Smith believed the Sen Sen papyrus was the source for the Book of Abraham. Yet modern Egyptologists translate it as having absolutely nothing to do with Smith's creative story.

No, it is you who is dealing with a side show, and you know it. If I tell my Hebrew professor that I found some ancient manuscripts containing the diary of Moses, and he translates it for me and says it is actually a note written by a Jewish scribe to his mother around 400 AD, then it would be absurd for me to keep telling him that we should analyze "the content" to see if there is any "ancient literary form" that might suggest it really is from the time of Moses. This is how desperate the apologetic position has become. It lives on the lines of interpretation and ambiguity, that way they can always say it is just one interpretation against another's. It really expects the rest of the world to perform the same mental gymnastics, just because they're willing to do so.

You don't know what you're talking about. I know the Book of Abraham backwards and forwards. I don't merely read it and pray for warm fuzzy feelings to confirm that it is from God.

Follwo the alanogy above. I already know for a fact that Joseph Smith was making it all up and he was pretending to translate an ancient document when he could not. This is a logical deduction of teh facts. So to entertain your non-specific claim of ancient literary form is just a red herring intended to avoid the elephant.

Content is important, and the content pretty much proves he was simply regurgitating more 19th century lore from books that he owned.

Get real - I think you a fraud - Chiasmus are ancient Hebrew literary form - not Egyptian. I will give you another hint. The date is 2200 BC and the scholars of ancient Egypt are considered among the first scientist. They have a rather interesting form of mathematics – most likely too advanced for you – Who were they, what is their literary form of their writings and what is the closest form of modern mathematics to theirs? And the big kicker – how does it or does it not relate to the Book of Abraham.

Answer these questions and perhaps you and I will have a discussion – continue your ridiculous rants and false accusations concerning my post and I will request that you be banned from this forum. So I will ask again what is your background in ancient Egypt studies?

The Traveler

[VisionOfLehi]

Alexander, I do not see you posting facts, either. You're vehemently claiming your viewpoint and what you believe are facts, without posting any sources or backing up your claims. (And I'm sure you have to be careful, because I bet any sources would be against the rules.)

You say that Joseph Smith couldn't translate ancient documents, which means you're saying the whole Book of Mormon, translated from ancient documents, was a farce.

If you want to believe that, go ahead, but this is not the place to say such things, and it won't be tolerated, either.

This topic is closed, and you have been warned. If you want to discuss things peacefully and try to understand things, go ahead, but blatantly saying that the cornerstone of our faith is "absurd" and "ridiculous" won't fly.