This weeks come follow me + The book of Abraham: Some honest thoughts.

[HaggisShuu]

I will try to keep this concise. 
Often in the scriptures I feel like a-lot of the content is very difficult to relate to/extract meaning from as a lot of it comes in the form of addresses to foreign and ancient peoples. For example the entire first 10 chapters of Leviticus (depending on who you ask and how in-depth you wish to study it) could simply be boiled down to a few sentences about how faith requires sacrifice, and how the laws surrounding the various offerings symbolically point towards the sacrifice of the savior. Some great messages but such messages constantly appear in the scriptures as they compound to form our core beliefs. 
This weeks study had a few moments of what I like to call "instant clarity" and I've felt deeply moved by the spirit. 
In Alma 24 we read that the Anti-Nephi-Lehies chose to embrace death rather than spill the blood of their brothers when the Lamanites attacked. Which results in such feelings of guilt that so many Lamanites converted, the number of which made up for more than the number of innocents murdered. Alma 24:26 says "we have no reason to doubt but what they were saved". 
This clearly demonstrates why bad things happen to good people in the most inspiring of ways. The victims are rewarded in heaven and in the end, more Good can come into the world because of it. 
I also appreciated Alma 24:30

Quote

30 And thus we can plainly discern, that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things.

So, the book of Abraham, (I apologise if posts like this have been shared in the past) is something which has caused me issues to say the least, and the reading this week inspired me to reflect on it. 

I personally don't believe the catalyst theory and think there is much better support for a direct translation theory. But I think both of these theories struggle because of the mere presence of the facsimiles. I don't have an issue with the facsimiles on their own as Joseph gets a-lot of details right in all 3. Facsimilie 1 is totally unique. Most of facsimilie 2 is labelled "not to be translated at this time" and facsimilie 3, according to LDS scholars, basic scholarly work hasn't even been conducted on it. So nothing exists for us to fairly compare them with. But in my view, catalyst theory doesn't work because if it is all inspired text, why even include them? Translation theory doesn't work because if the original source material was destroyed in the great fire of chicago, why do we still have the facsimilies and their surrounding texts which by all accounts have nothing to do with Abraham? 
 

I firmly believe there is an answer to this that isn't as simple as "Joseph Smith was a fruad" because alot of the people perpetuating this line are perfectly described in Alma 24:30 and there are some remarkable evidences to back up the truth claims of our Church. 
I also believe this might be a little bit of a test of faith and I can learn from the Anti-Nephi-Lehies to just forget about it and move on with my life, but it bothers me as  I feel like I am clearly missing something here. 
 

what is the point of this post? I don't even know to be honest, I guess I'm just looking to see if anybody has a different perspective or a link to some scholarly work which could help to reconcile this for me. I also just wanted to share the scriptures because I really like them😛

 

Appreciate ya patience. 

[zil2]

Have you studied what FAIR has on the topic?

I'm one of those people who doesn't understand why the source for Abraham (or Moses or the Bible or the Book of Mormon, etc.) matters so much as the content.  I don't need to know or understand or see the source in order to gain a witness of the truthfulness of the content...  And that's good enough for me.

(If I were 18 and with the knowledge and inclination I have now, I might well have spent my college career studying ancient languages so that I could read the source materials for myself, but it's a bit late for that now.)

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

I will try to keep this concise. 
Often in the scriptures I feel like a-lot of the content is very difficult to relate to/extract meaning from as a lot of it comes in the form of addresses to foreign and ancient peoples. For example the entire first 10 chapters of Leviticus (depending on who you ask and how in-depth you wish to study it) could simply be boiled down to a few sentences about how faith requires sacrifice, and how the laws surrounding the various offerings symbolically point towards the sacrifice of the savior. Some great messages but such messages constantly appear in the scriptures as they compound to form our core beliefs. 
This weeks study had a few moments of what I like to call "instant clarity" and I've felt deeply moved by the spirit. 
In Alma 24 we read that the Anti-Nephi-Lehies chose to embrace death rather than spill the blood of their brothers when the Lamanites attacked. Which results in such feelings of guilt that so many Lamanites converted, the number of which made up for more than the number of innocents murdered. Alma 24:26 says "we have no reason to doubt but what they were saved". 
This clearly demonstrates why bad things happen to good people in the most inspiring of ways. The victims are rewarded in heaven and in the end, more Good can come into the world because of it. 
I also appreciated Alma 24:30

So, the book of Abraham, (I apologise if posts like this have been shared in the past) is something which has caused me issues to say the least, and the reading this week inspired me to reflect on it. 

I personally don't believe the catalyst theory and think there is much better support for a direct translation theory. But I think both of these theories struggle because of the mere presence of the facsimiles. I don't have an issue with the facsimiles on their own as Joseph gets a-lot of details right in all 3. Facsimilie 1 is totally unique. Most of facsimilie 2 is labelled "not to be translated at this time" and facsimilie 3, according to LDS scholars, basic scholarly work hasn't even been conducted on it. So nothing exists for us to fairly compare them with. But in my view, catalyst theory doesn't work because if it is all inspired text, why even include them? Translation theory doesn't work because if the original source material was destroyed in the great fire of chicago, why do we still have the facsimilies and their surrounding texts which by all accounts have nothing to do with Abraham? 
 

I firmly believe there is an answer to this that isn't as simple as "Joseph Smith was a fruad" because alot of the people perpetuating this line are perfectly described in Alma 24:30 and there are some remarkable evidences to back up the truth claims of our Church. 
I also believe this might be a little bit of a test of faith and I can learn from the Anti-Nephi-Lehies to just forget about it and move on with my life, but it bothers me as  I feel like I am clearly missing something here. 
 

what is the point of this post? I don't even know to be honest, I guess I'm just looking to see if anybody has a different perspective or a link to some scholarly work which could help to reconcile this for me. I also just wanted to share the scriptures because I really like them😛

 

Appreciate ya patience. 

Translation by the gift and power of God always works. Joseph did not explain his private experience of translation in all its forms, and likely may not have been able to put it into words. The catalyst and direct translation theories are just two approaches at “translating” that which is unknown into something familiar to us.

Our personal beliefs about one theory or the other have nothing to do with what Joseph experienced. What is important to God, the great things He brings to pass or the small means by which He does it?

The facsimiles as we have them are reproductions copied from small sections of the original papyri (that were later destroyed), with Joseph's brief annotations to explain what they are, or what came to mind for him. They needn’t have neem the sections that resulted in the Book of Abraham text.

[mikbone]

Well the KJV obviously served as a catalyst for the JST and The book of Moses.

We know less about the book of Abraham.  It doesn’t bother me where it came from.  I’m just glad to have it.

Actually we have even less knowledge as to the origin of the Old and New Testament.   I mean, what is the origin of the dead sea scrolls.  Did John actually write the book of John.  If so, how many times was the original text copied or translated??

It’s the content, spirit, our faith, thoughts, and actions that really matter.

Edited July 10, 2024 by mikbone

[zil2]

I am reminded of a story told by a BYU religion professor (I can't remember if it was in a devotional or what, but it was told outside his class).  He told of an experience where he taught a class on subject A (presumably some topic from the scriptures the students were to read prior to class).  After class, one of his students, a young woman, came forward and said something to the effect, "Thank you Brother so-n-so for that wonderful lesson on subject B. I've been struggling and your lesson answered my questions for me."  But brother so-n-so hadn't said one thing remotely related to subject B.  Whatever she learned was entirely from the Spirit, and yet, she believed it had been through the lecture.

Whatever else the scriptures may be, they ought to be a conduit through which the Spirit can teach us on any and every topic, regardless of what the words themselves may say.

[HaggisShuu]

30 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Well the KJV obviously served as a catalyst for the JST and The book of Moses.

We know less about the book of Abraham.  It doesn’t bother me where it came from.  I’m just glad to have it.

Actually we have even less knowledge as to the origin of the Old and New Testament.   I mean, what is the origin of the dead sea scrolls.  Did John actually write the book of John.  If so, how many times was the original text copied or translated??

It’s the content, spirit, our faith, thoughts, and actions that really matter.

An interesting perspective. Never thought about applying the same level of scrutiny to the bible.
Just to clarify that this isn't a faith shattering issue for me, more a mere blip of confusion which annoys me from time to time. 
 

It's a topic I care about because in the past it has caused me to doubt, and frankly, doubt hurts and there is plenty of people who will tell you that it broke their faith.

That said, a huge point of personal pride for me is my quad scripture is absolutely ruined with notes, highlights, markings and sticky labels. No book in my set is more ruined than the Book of Abraham because the best way to cope with my doubts around the topic has been to study the content thereof. 

[HaggisShuu]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Have you studied what FAIR has on the topic?

I'm one of those people who doesn't understand why the source for Abraham (or Moses or the Bible or the Book of Mormon, etc.) matters so much as the content.  I don't need to know or understand or see the source in order to gain a witness of the truthfulness of the content...  And that's good enough for me.

(If I were 18 and with the knowledge and inclination I have now, I might well have spent my college career studying ancient languages so that I could read the source materials for myself, but it's a bit late for that now.)

Yes I am a big fan of FAIR. I've spent more time than I care to admit reading their articles. 
Some amazing stuff on the BoA. A lot of details from the translation have details which are supported by various Apocrypha or other texts. (Source: trust me bro). Even the facsimiles which many internet warriors argue are pure forgery on the part of the prophet Joseph Smith have interpretations made by Smith which are A) consistent with non-lds scholarship, B) consistent with similar Egyptian iconography or C) Just makes sense. 
 

I have a personal theory I call "semantic shift". The surviving fragments we have are roughly 2000 years after the time of Abraham. It's implied Pharaoh believed in what Abraham taught him. So imagery which may have started off consistent with Abrahams teaching, likely was corrupted after Egypt became a Pagan society and Joseph restored Gods intended meaning for it. The amount of meaning which can change in 2000 years is quite significant. For example, computers used to be a job for people, but now we understand them to a form of technology! 
 

I imagine it very much sounds like I'm beginning to answer to own question here. I'm just interested in other peoples perspective on the topic. 

[HaggisShuu]

So in response to starting this thread I felt directed by the spirit to dig a bit deeper. I will gladly admit that my extremely limited research the last few days was done using FairLDS, ChatGPT and LDSbot, so lazy research to say the least. But what is enlightening to me is that Anti-Mormons use the Book of Abraham as a smoking gun, but even with the incredibly lazy research I’ve just mentioned, you can quite easily see that it is not as damning as it is made out to be. 

Quote

 

Translation theory doesn't work because if the original source material was destroyed in the great fire of chicago, why do we still have the facsimilies and their surrounding texts which by all accounts have nothing to do with Abraham? 

The above statement I made is not something that concerns me anymore, as it would seem that according to the like of Hugh Nibley and John Gee, the Egyptians were guilty of just inserting random images in their texts, which had no correlation to the surrounding texts. 

To comment on the interpretations of the Facsimile’s. He identifies 41 figures over 3 images, of 12 of these figures he reveals no details.

Looking into these interpretations, I feel that 11 of them are fairly accurate to the Egyptologists explanations of them. 14 of them contain details (such as names and religious concepts) which do have parallels with what egyptologists have discovered - and it is curious that Joseph would be able to accurately explain this information, at a time when ver little was known about ancient Egypt, something which to me, adds validity to his claims of being a prophet - but don’t fully tally up with what Egyptologists say about the Facsimile’s. There appears to only be 4 explanations which are totally uncorroborated by what egyptologists have to say. 

This is hardly the faith shattering smoking gun I once thought it to be, and overall this whole process has made me more trusting of Gods prophets, whereas before I also listened to their counsel with a lack of trust. 

As I said before this is lazy research from me, but I’ve not seen before this kind of breakdown of the facsimiles so felt it may be insightful. I’m sure somebody with more time, more knowledge and more thorough research could do a better job, but I’ve satisfied my own curiosities on the subject. 

Edited July 20, 2024 by HaggisShuu

[Ironhold]

5 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

So in response to starting this thread I felt directed by the spirit to dig a bit deeper. I will gladly admit that my extremely limited research the last few days was done using FairLDS, ChatGPT and LDSbot, so lazy research to say the least. But what is enlightening to me is that Anti-Mormons use the Book of Abraham as a smoking gun, but even with the incredibly lazy research I’ve just mentioned, you can quite easily see that it is not as damning as it is made out to be. 

The above statement I made is not something that concerns me anymore, as it would seem that according to the like of Hugh Nibley and John Gee, the Egyptians were guilty of just inserting random images in their texts, which had no correlation to the surrounding texts. 

To comment on the interpretations of the Facsimile’s. He identifies 41 figures over 3 images, of 12 of these figures he reveals no details.

Looking into these interpretations, I feel that 11 of them are fairly accurate to the Egyptologists explanations of them. 14 of them contain details (such as names and religious concepts) which do have parallels with what egyptologists have discovered - and it is curious that Joseph would be able to accurately explain this information, at a time when ver little was known about ancient Egypt, something which to me, adds validity to his claims of being a prophet - but don’t fully tally up with what Egyptologists say about the Facsimile’s. There appears to only be 4 explanations which are totally uncorroborated by what egyptologists have to say. 

This is hardly the faith shattering smoking gun I once thought it to be, and overall this whole process has made me more trusting of Gods prophets, whereas before I also listened to their counsel with a lack of trust. 

As I said before this is lazy research from me, but I’ve not seen before this kind of breakdown of the facsimiles so felt it may be insightful. I’m sure somebody with more time, more knowledge and more thorough research could do a better job, but I’ve satisfied my own curiosities on the subject. 

Back in 1997, there was an academic paper called "Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing The Battle and Not Knowing It". 

Carl Mosser and Paul Owens were a pair of grad students at an Evangelical seminary, and chose to do their thesis on a comparison of pro- and anti- works. 

To their horror, they found that while pro- works were slowly becoming more thorough, detailed, and sophisticated as people with degrees in the relevant areas joined the church and began writing literature to assist the growing number of everyday members doing apologetics, the anti- works largely consisted of the same rehashed materials from decades past; they just generally had a bit of new spin and invective. 

Their conclusion was that just about every then-common anti-Mormon argument had been at least tabled, if not satisfactorily answered, and that new research was needed if the Evangelical movement was to continue trying to challenge us.

[Jamie123]

On 7/10/2024 at 4:36 PM, HaggisShuu said:

if the original source material was destroyed in the great fire of chicago

On 7/10/2024 at 7:27 PM, CV75 said:

The facsimiles as we have them are reproductions copied from small sections of the original papyri (that were later destroyed)

I believe the originals (or at least some of them) were not in fact destroyed, but were rediscovered in a museum in New York some time in the 1960s. They were returned to the Church, and were studied by LDS scholars including Hugh Nibley. I read a book about it some years ago, by an ex-LDS called Charles Larson. I found it quite interesting, but I was not totally convinced. For example, Larson claims that the Egyptian characters written alongside the translation "prove" that Smith was making it up. I wondered at the time whether perhaps those characters were added later, perhaps by some well-meaning but hopelessly misguided person, trying to "pretty up" the documents.

Recovered original:

Joseph Smith's facsimile:

PS: That second image, the facsimile, was shown to me by the missionaries the first time they visited. They didn't seem to know much about it though: when I asked them where it came from, one of them told me it might have come from a museum - which is sort-of true. Smith bought the original papyri from a guy called Michael Chandler, who was a travelling antiquities dealer. He also ran a kind of "travelling museum" using whatever he happened to have in stock at the time.

Edited July 22, 2024 by Jamie123

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I believe the originals (or at least some of them) were not in fact destroyed, but were rediscovered in a museum in New York some time in the 1960s. They were returned to the Church, and were studied by LDS scholars including Hugh Nibley. I read a book about it some years ago, by an ex-LDS called Charles Larson. I found it quite interesting, but I was not totally convinced. For example, Larson claims that the Egyptian characters written alongside the translation "prove" that Smith was making it up. I wondered at the time whether perhaps those characters were added later, perhaps by some well-meaning but hopelessly misguided person, trying to "pretty up" the documents.

Recovered original:

Joseph Smith's facsimile:

PS: That second image, the facsimile, was shown to me by the missionaries the first time they visited. They didn't seem to know much about it though: when I asked them where it came from, one of them told me it might have come from a museum - which is sort-of true. Smith bought the original papyri from a guy called Michael Chandler, who was a travelling antiquities dealer. He also ran a kind of "travelling museum" using whatever he happened to have in stock at the time.

Is what is presented as the "recovered original" the exact piece from which Joseph made "Facsimile 1"?

Have the originals for the other facsimiles been recovered?

[Jamie123]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Is what is presented as the "recovered original" the exact piece from which Joseph made "Facsimile 1"?

I have never heard anyone suggest otherwise.

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Have the originals for the other facsimiles been recovered?

It's a long time since I read about this, but I don't think so. A quick and lazy Googling of "book of Abraham papyrus" doesn't seem to reveal either of the others.

Edited July 22, 2024 by Jamie123

[mordorbund]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Is what is presented as the "recovered original" the exact piece from which Joseph made "Facsimile 1"?

Have the originals for the other facsimiles been recovered?

If you want to see the papyri Joseph purchased that has since been recovered, you can find it here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers/revelations-and-translations/jsppr6/jsppr6-SUB01

Facsimile 1 is copied from the Book of Breathings A. The Book of Breathings usually contains a vignette that matches facsimile 3, but that papyrus hasn’t survived. Facsimile 2 was copied from a hypocephalus, but we don’t have the original for that either.

You can access other related documents (such as the Grammar and Alphabet gif the Egyptian Language) here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers/revelations-and-translations/jsppr6

 

[CV75]

22 hours ago, mordorbund said:

If you want to see the papyri Joseph purchased that has since been recovered, you can find it here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers/revelations-and-translations/jsppr6/jsppr6-SUB01

Facsimile 1 is copied from the Book of Breathings A. The Book of Breathings usually contains a vignette that matches facsimile 3, but that papyrus hasn’t survived. Facsimile 2 was copied from a hypocephalus, but we don’t have the original for that either.

You can access other related documents (such as the Grammar and Alphabet gif the Egyptian Language) here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers/revelations-and-translations/jsppr6

 

Thank you very much!