A couple of questions you've probably heard a million times...


Catlick
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, I wouldn't say Joseph was a doofus at all--just that he didn't know everything.

For me, TFP, the determinative pieces of evidence are a) the presence, in the fragments we have, of a vignette that to my eyes looks a heckuva lot like Facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham; b) Carbon dating of that fragment to the first century AD, not the eighteenth or nineteenth century BC; and c) miscellaneous statements from Smith and his immediate family that the scrolls in his possession were the same scrolls (not just copies) handled by Abraham himself. I've not yet seen a persuasive reconciliation of all those factors; and so I'm inclined to think that Smith's understanding on this matter was simply incomplete.

Joseph didn't need an original manuscript to produce the JST. He didn't always require immediate visual contact with the gold plates to produce the Book of Mormon. He didn't require John's parchment to bring forth D&C 7. I don't think the JS Papyri need to have been the actual documents handled by Abraham, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I wouldn't say Joseph was a doofus at all--just that he didn't know everything.

 

To be clear, I wasn't meaning that I thought you were saying Joseph was a doofus. I mean that it strikes me that the approach seems more suited to appeasing those who claim Joseph was a doofus than it seems suited to support honest evidence, of which there is very little.

 

a) the presence, in the fragments we have, of a vignette that to my eyes looks a heckuva lot like Facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham;

 

What conclusion is being drawn from this though? That because we have this the other fragments we have must also have the textual source? The historical record would indicate otherwise. There are quotes that indicate red writing, for example, and other descriptions (like that the translation came from the rolled parts of the scrolls rather than the mounted pieces we have today) of the part where the book of Abraham came from, none of which match the fragments we have. We also, obviously, don't have all the vignettes from which the facsimiles were created, which clearly indicates some of the source material is missing.

 

b) Carbon dating of that fragment to the first century AD, not the eighteenth or nineteenth century BC; and c) miscellaneous statements from Smith and his immediate family that the scrolls in his possession were the same scrolls (not just copies) handled by Abraham himself. 

 

You'd have to source this. I presume you've read this apologetic approach before...but for the sake of those who may not have... it's a bit like arguing that putting "by J.K. Rowling" on the Harry Potter books is a lie because she didn't actually hand print each copy.  As near as I understand it (and I'm not that knowledgeable on the matter), these "statements" are either third party (and it's pretty meaningless what family and friends thought the scrolls were) or else fairly easily understood in this context. I know Joseph wrote "written by his own hand", but this was a fairly common term in Joseph's day that means exactly the same thing as "by" does nowadays, and does not necessarily imply that Joseph thought the scrolls were literally hand-written by Abraham.

 

I'm not claiming Joseph's statements and understanding was perfect in the matter. But I do, very strongly, believe that somewhere on the scrolls they had were the writings of Abraham that were translated to become the book of Abraham, and I have seen no serious compelling evidence as of yet to sway this stance.

 

To be further clear, I have no problem with believing Latter-day Saints reconciling their understanding with such explanations. And I'm not intending to just debate the matter -- but more to point out to the OP that there are interpretive variables that can be factored differently, and that none of these factors make a whit of difference as to our faith in the work as one that was given by God to Joseph for our benefit and understanding.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler, you're blowing my mind!!! Such interesting stuff, and so much to delve into. I will definitely be reading both the books of Abraham and Enoch, thanks for that advice. There reallly is so much that we don't understand and that has it's basis in spiritual realities that would likely blow most peoples' socks off. Good stuff, this.

 

Let me give you a little more as an assignment - for fun.  Take Abraham chapter 3 and read that in conjunction with Doctrine & Covenants section 88.  Now think in terms that Abraham was given to an ancient culture whose mathematics and science was based in realization of ratios.  That all things exist as ratios of other things.  (could cover this in much more detail but just understand that the ancient culture demanded that real things have ratios in order to exist in harmony with each other).

 

Now compare that with D&C section 88.  Which covers basically the same religious concepts but this time with Newtonian based culture and traditions.  Things like the laws of thermal dynamics and Newton's laws.  Note that one is based in ratios and the other based in laws.  Then realize that both were written by the same person with no more than a 3rd grade education and that the subject matter is in essence the same but representing two very different periods of time and two very cultures.

 

What you are seeing is empirical evidence that Joseph Smith was very unexplainable and unique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it has been disproved by Egyptologists, is it considered an essential belief? 

 

I wouldn't say that at all.  Here is a link to several good videos by an actual Egyptologist:

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw_Vkm1zYbIENnXFBIHVUXS4ckY_I-u_O

 

He makes a lot of really good points, such as the egyptology community is actually really small, most simply don't care about the Book of Abraham.  I highly recommend it.  Rather than read about what other people say egyptologists have said why not get it straight from the horse's mouth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say that at all.  Here is a link to several good videos by an actual Egyptologist:

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw_Vkm1zYbIENnXFBIHVUXS4ckY_I-u_O

 

He makes a lot of really good points, such as the egyptology community is actually really small, most simply don't care about the Book of Abraham.  I highly recommend it.  Rather than read about what other people say egyptologists have said why not get it straight from the horse's mouth?

 

I love it when I say a bunch of stuff and then I turn out to be right! :)

 

First video: The historical record says the source of the BOA is the long scroll that was burned in the fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What conclusion is being drawn from this though? That because we have this the other fragments we have must also have the textual source? The historical record would indicate otherwise. There are quotes that indicate red writing, for example, and other descriptions (like that the translation came from the rolled parts of the scrolls rather than the mounted pieces we have today) of the part where the book of Abraham came from, none of which match the fragments we have. We also, obviously, don't have all the vignettes from which the facsimiles were created, which clearly indicates some of the source material is missing.

 

I'm not convinced that the author of the Abraham scroll would open it with a picture, and not refer to it until several feet into the scroll; and fill the intervening space with standard Egyptian funerary texts.  And the fact that that image was apparently part of an unmounted scroll in 1835, does not preclude its being later mounted.  At any rate, the alternative would be that the Joseph Smith Papyri included two such vignettes, which I think is unlikely.

 

 You'd have to source this. I presume you've read this apologetic approach before...but for the sake of those who may not have... it's a bit like arguing that putting "by J.K. Rowling" on the Harry Potter books is a lie because she didn't actually hand print each copy.  As near as I understand it (and I'm not that knowledgeable on the matter), these "statements" are either third party (and it's pretty meaningless what family and friends thought the scrolls were) or else fairly easily understood in this context. I know Joseph wrote "written by his own hand", but this was a fairly common term in Joseph's day that means exactly the same thing as "by" does nowadays, and does not necessarily imply that Joseph thought the scrolls were literally hand-written by Abraham.

 

Several visitors to Nauvoo recalled Joseph or Lucy showing them the scrolls and pointing to characters that were supposedly the signatures of Abraham or Joseph (of Egypt) themselves.  Yeah, it's technically hearsay . . . but an awful lot of conventionally-accepted teachings of the Prophet are also technically hearsay.  This notion of Joseph pointing out the signatures of the patriarchs seems to be a common theme, and I'm inclined to find it credible.

 

As to dating . . . you're correct that I was in error to allege that there has been carbon dating; nevertheless, I still think the linguistic attempts to date the manuscript are persuasive.

 

 

I'm not claiming Joseph's statements and understanding was perfect in the matter. But I do, very strongly, believe that somewhere on the scrolls they had were the writings of Abraham that were translated to become the book of Abraham, and I have seen no serious compelling evidence as of yet to sway this stance.

 

I will be very pleased if this can ever be demonstrated; but I'm not holding my breath.  As I recall, statements describing the physical appearance of the scrolls are all all over the map and forensic attempts to calculate the original length of the JS Papyri based on the fragments available have been inconclusive (I've read a paper on this issue by a critic and a response by John Gee.  I don't recall details at present; but I remember not finding Gee's position particularly persuasive.

 

 

And I'm not intending to just debate the matter -- but more to point out to the OP that there are interpretive variables that can be factored differently, and that none of these factors make a whit of difference as to our faith in the work as one that was given by God to Joseph for our benefit and understanding.

 

Amen.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be very pleased if this can ever be demonstrated; 

 

This is sort of to the point. The facts have NOT been demonstrated one way or another. It's all speculation, accusation, imagination, and other-ation.

 

Without demonstrable facts at hand, I choose to believe Joseph, and can see absolutely no reason why I shouldn't, especially not because of the naysayers who, thanks to the internet, now have a much more powerful (though no more meaningful) voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much is many? Do you have a source that says what and how much was destroyed?

 

M.

 

 

Read ALL the article that you cite.  It clearly states near the end that not all the papyri were recovered.  The article only states that the recovered items could be a part of what he had.  Detractors had refused to believe up to that point that he ever had any at all.

Edited by mrmarklin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...As I recall, statements describing the physical appearance of the scrolls are all all over the map and forensic attempts to calculate the original length of the JS Papyri based on the fragments available have been inconclusive (I've read a paper on this issue by a critic and a response by John Gee.  I don't recall details at present; but I remember not finding Gee's position particularly persuasive....

 

 

Check out this paper. The majority of it shows their calculations and the end gives the conclusion of their results.

 

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The-Original-Length-of-the-Scroll-of-Hor.pdf

 

 

Therefore, no more than 56 cm of papyrus can be missing from the scroll’s interior.

 

Shortly after the papyri were recovered by the LDS Church, Klaus Baer estimated the original length of the Hôr scroll to have been 150–155 cm. He arrived at this estimate by comparing the text to other copies of the Document of Breathing, particularly Papyrus Louvre 3284. Baer allowed 21 cm for column iv, of which 14 cm (including the misplaced piece) are extant. He estimated 35 cm for columns v and vi, 16 cm for Facsimile 3, “and a small amount for margin around the latter.”38 Assuming half a centimeter margin on both sides of Facsimile 3, Baer’s estimate for the length of papyrus missing from the scroll’s interior, starting from the left edge of the innermost extant fragment, is 21 14+35+0.5+16+0.5=59 cm. This agrees remarkably well with the 56 cm obtained from our winding analysis.....

 

M.

Edited by Maureen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say that at all.  Here is a link to several good videos by an actual Egyptologist:

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw_Vkm1zYbIENnXFBIHVUXS4ckY_I-u_O

 

He makes a lot of really good points, such as the egyptology community is actually really small, most simply don't care about the Book of Abraham.  I highly recommend it.  Rather than read about what other people say egyptologists have said why not get it straight from the horse's mouth?

 

IMO, Kerry Muhlestein seems to be saying that since the fragments that were found in 1967 don't agree with what the Book of Abraham says then obviously they couldn't be the source for the Book of Abraham, we must conclude that the source was destroyed in the Chicago fire. That is not historical record, that's just speculation.

 

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, Kerry Muhlestein seems to be saying that since the fragments that were found in 1967 don't agree with what the Book of Abraham says then obviously they couldn't be the source for the Book of Abraham, we must conclude that the source was destroyed in the Chicago fire. That is not historical record, that's just speculation.

M.

I think that's only part of what he said. He also stated that "translation" has been used in a lot of different scenarios by Joseph Smith. For example, from Golden Plates (Hebrew) to English... but then there are accounts of him translating with the plates closed. And then there's the translation of the Bible (English) to JST also in English... So the only consistent process is that he "translates" by the spirit of revelation - which may be in different physical methods including seeing spiritual things extant to the writing on the paper. So that, those writings on those specific facsimile may or may not be translated through their characters but through spiritual manifestation.

So the only way, really, to know if The Book of Abraham is a true book is to take the entire body of text and see if it is consistent with the world as it would be in those days. And Kerry presented several evidences that Joseph hit so many things dead center on the BoA that were not known at that time that he translated the papyri as to throw out the BoA as fraud.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there! I just introduced myself in the Intro forum as a lifelong Catholic who is investigating the LDS church after meeting some great LDS friends over the years as well as many of their doctrines really resonating with me. However, I'm also a rational person and like to know that if I throw my lot in with a certain faith tradition, that that faith is true. So here goes...

 

First of all, where does the Word of Wisdom come from? In the Catholic church, there are a lot of rules that come from "tradition," rather than Biblical-based mandates (this is where we base our reverence for the saints, Mary, praying the rosary, etc). Is it a similar case in the LDS church, or is the WoW from Biblical scripture? To be honest, I have a hard time imagining giving up my morning coffee and the occasional wine tasting trip with friends if I don't know that there is a divine purpose.

 

Secondly, I'm stuck on the Book of Abraham. As it has been disproved by Egyptologists, is it considered an essential belief? What is the LDS church's official stance on that issue? I don't know if I think that it totally disproves everything Joseph claimed to translate, as he was a human being. He may have gotten ahead of himself and tried translating something that wasn't divinely required of him to translate (unlike the BoM). Maybe he tried to do it on his own to see if he still had "the power" and that is just proof of his ultimate humanity. Or that this was actually satan's attempt to throw a wrench into things and discredit the faith for future believers, who knows?

 

Despite all of these things (and there are more doctrinal things that make me wonder), I do believe strongly in the scripture quote of "Ye shall know them by their fruits," and I do believe that the Mormons that I have met or overheard are absolutely living lives inspired by the Holy Spirit and in my opinion, they're doing a better job of it than other Christian denominations. But that's just my opinion! ;)

Word of Wisdom- Joseph smith received it as revelation because someone asked him to ask God about something (If i recall right about chewing and spitting tobacco) and that was what he got as an answer (or was at least told to share anyways).

Book of Abraham- it hasn't been disproved by a long shot (and by the same token hasn't been absolutely proven yet either), secondly the book of abraham itself at this time is unable to be proven or disproven as the source text has been destroyed. What remains are a couple fragments and a few hieroglyphic pieces that were also included in the text (but weren't part of the book of abraham translation itself), as well as notes and etc from folks that were involved- what some people base their assumptions off of is how those pieces translate. the thing is, is that JS was not wrong 100%, how wrong (or right) he was depends on the year and which experts you go to. In my experience it appears  that at the academic level that JS tends to go towards to is getting less wrong as time goes by and we learn more about the languages, and the cultures of such times.

On the faith level, we're sure that JS has it right and we're just waiting for the sciences to catch up. the Book of Abraham is an integral part of LDS canon (The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the pearl of Great Price- which consists mainly of the book of abraham and the book of moses).

Actually what has been surprising is finding the motifs and stories in the book of abraham in other cultures/texts (generally with different names and sometimes different order of events-it shows up in egypt, it shows up in babylonian, it shows up in hermetic, in norse, and others).

It has also been interesting to see references to many of the concepts that are presented in the book of abraham in ancient christian literature (such as "the Hymn of the Pearl" or "the Hymn of Judas Thomas, the apostle"), which was eventually purged by the early church, unfortunately.

anyways i've shared

to 20 some odd one hour lectures that just focus on the pearl of great price and ancient cultures on a couple other threads, done by a scholar on the subject… it's pretty interesting stuff. altho if you're interested in fact checking all of it you'll probably have to do some globetrotting.

"ye shall know them by their fruits" - Good man. probably one of the best tests or signs that is given in scriptures.

 

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out this paper. The majority of it shows their calculations and the end gives the conclusion of their results.

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The-Original-Length-of-the-Scroll-of-Hor.pdf

Therefore, no more than 56 cm of papyrus can be missing from the scroll’s interior.

Shortly after the papyri were recovered by the LDS Church, Klaus Baer estimated the original length of the Hôr scroll to have been 150–155 cm. He arrived at this estimate by comparing the text to other copies of the Document of Breathing, particularly Papyrus Louvre 3284. Baer allowed 21 cm for column iv, of which 14 cm (including the misplaced piece) are extant. He estimated 35 cm for columns v and vi, 16 cm for Facsimile 3, “and a small amount for margin around the latter.”38 Assuming half a centimeter margin on both sides of Facsimile 3, Baer’s estimate for the length of papyrus missing from the scroll’s interior, starting from the left edge of the innermost extant fragment, is 21 14+35+0.5+16+0.5=59 cm. This agrees remarkably well with the 56 cm obtained from our winding analysis.....

M.

That's the one I was thinking of. Gee's rebuttal, such as it is, is at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/21/1/S00005-500d8bc3212a05-Formulas%20and%20Faith.pdf . Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The period at the end is being included as part of the link, which makes it fail. I have tried to correct it above, and also here.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Just_A_Guy, March 14, 2015 - No reason given
Hidden by Just_A_Guy, March 14, 2015 - No reason given

...And Kerry presented several evidences that Joseph hit so many things dead center on the BoA that were not known at that time that he translated the papyri as to throw out the BoA as fraud.

 

And I could provide a youtube rebuttal to Kerry's presentation but the majority of LDS on this forum would probably consider it anti-mormon and this thread would more than likely be closed.

 

If you're interested in checking out the rebuttal let me know.

 

M.

Link to comment
Tomorrow I'll post a rebuttal of your rebuttal to my rebuttal to your rebuttal to my OP. . . Or was it your OP? :P Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Tomorrow I'll post a rebuttal of your rebuttal to my rebuttal to your rebuttal to my OP. . . Or was it your OP? :P

 

 

Ah JAG, looks like you killed the "arm of flesh" debate.  No one responded after you -- thread killer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share