DiscussMormonism.com

Mo'pologists are hesitant to use the term "translated" when discussing the origins of the Book of Abraham.

HOWEVER, Mormon.org is not:

Glossary Definition
Pearl of Great Price

One of the volumes of scripture included in the standard works of the Church. The Pearl of Great Price includes extracts from Joseph Smith’s Translation (inspired version) of the Bible as well as a translation of some Egyptian papyri containing the writings of the prophet Abraham, excerpts from Joseph Smith’s testimony and history, and the Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A reference from the Pearl of Great Price may look like this: Moses 5:19.

Dan, you need to either get in line or go straighten out the webmaster at Mormon.org...

Mormon apologetics has been Old Testament of step with Mormonism ever since B H Roberts. And we all know HE never doubted the validity of Mormon scripture.

(looks around and waits for the B H Roberts testimony delivery service)

Polygamy Porter wrote:Dan, you need to either get in line or go straighten out the webmaster at Mormon.org...

I have no problem at all with using the term translation in connection with the Book of Abraham.

You need to talk to somebody else. I'm not sure who he or she might be.

Good luck.

And the primary lesson manuals reflect this as well:

Some of the information revealed to Joseph Smith while he was studying the Bible is published in the Pearl of Great Price as the book of Moses. Also published in the Pearl of Great Price is the book of Abraham, Joseph Smith’s inspired translation of some ancient Egyptian writings.

In the late 1820s an Italian explorer named Antonio Lebolo obtained eleven mummies from an ancient tomb in Egypt. When Lebolo died the mummies were shipped to the United States. A man named Michael Chandler came into possession of the mummies in 1833. He opened the coffins (the boxes the mummies were in) and was disappointed not to find jewels or valuable treasures. Attached to some of the bodies of the mummies were linen cloths containing rolls of papyrus, a type of paper made from plants. These papyrus rolls had Egyptian writing on them. Mr. Chandler took the rolls to Pennsylvania, where he tried to find some educated men to tell him about the writings, but even the most educated of these men were only able to understand a little of the writings.

Mr. Chandler decided to travel around the country showing people the mummies, and in the summer of 1835 he came to Kirtland, Ohio. There he met with Joseph Smith, who told him that the writings could be interpreted. Later some friends of the Prophet bought four mummies and the rolls of papyrus from Mr. Chandler. Joseph Smith studied the letters and grammar of the Egyptian language, and then, with the help of the Holy Ghost, he translated the writings on the papyrus rolls. The writings Joseph Smith translated tell about the ancient prophet Abraham and are now published as the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Primary 5: Doctrine and Covenants: Church History

I agree with Dan. The usage of the word translation is just fine. Furthermore, the Book of Abraham is true and is a unique work in itself.

Porter, you are spritually blind.

Paul O

Joseph Smith studied the letters and grammar of the Egyptian language

Indeed he did study and we have a record of this work in the KEP. During this time the prophet's mind was opened up to a system of astronomy known only to the ancients. He was filled with the Spirit of revelation while the characters found on the papyrus symbolized the efforts of his work. The translation was wholly spiritual in nature using symbols as a means to identify concepts. This is the first time we have ever seen this practice put into motion. Joseph was a translation pioneer.

The Alphabet & Grammar should be revered by all LDS people as a sacred work given under the direction of the prophet and his appointed assistants. It has been preserved by the First Presidency of the Church. How wonderful it would be if the academic school teachers of the LDS arena were to accept this work on faith alone without the aid of modern validation or methods. If the school teachers will begin to exercise faith in this work then they will begin to understand. Otherwise, they have eyes that see not, ears that hear not, and are unable to rejoice in the truth.

Paul O

So the LDS school teachers don't have faith?

That wasn't nice.

Paul Osborne wrote:I agree with Dan. The usage of the word translation is just fine. Furthermore, the Book of Abraham is true and is a unique work in itself.

Porter, you are spritually blind.

Paul O

Take another pill Paul, you need one this morning.

It says translated not interpreted.

Further, why didn't the supposed next prophet/seer/revelator finish the translation of the papyrus into the book of Joseph?

Keep in mind that the word "translation" will be redefined to mean whatever it has to mean to fit whatever it is Joseph Smith is thought to have done. So, if Joseph converted one chunk of Egyptian into English by recognizing what the Egyptian meant, and then rendering that with equivelant English, then that's translation (in the usual sense), and if Joseph looked at an Egyptian character, asked God what it meant, and God filled his mind with the words of the Book of Abraham a la "catalyst theory", then that's "translation" too, of a peculiarly Mormon apologetic sort. The meaning of the term is slippery to an apologist, though I would venture to guess that to the chapel Mormons who wrote all of the things so far quoted in this thread, the word "translate" was used in its usual, English language, non-jargonized by apologists form.

Paul, you remind me of an old sitcom episode I saw so many years ago that I don't even recall what show it was from, where a member of the family the sitcom was about got sucked into some cult that worshipped a head of lettuce. I like to use the analogy that Joseph Smith, under the apologists excuses for how the Book of Abraham came about, could have "translated" a box of jelly donuts into the Book of Abraham, and that would have been just fine. I know we could count on Paul Osborne to tell us that box of jelly donuts really did contain the words of the Book of Abraham, as recorded in the Adamic through sacred techniques passed down from time immemorial by master bakers.

Need I mention the fact that Joseph Smith "translated" the Bible by just thinking about it, and deciding what it ought to have said, and changes it? He also "translated" the words of John the Revelator off a scroll that he didn't possess. All these things are held out by apologists as examples justifying the jargonization of the word "translate", which is ironic, because in fact they stand as just further examples of the b***s*** story of Joseph's "translations".

Putting words in his mouth, I'd suggest that this is why Daniel Peterson is fine with the word "translation" as used in the OP - he knows the word "translation" will simply mean, to the apologists, whatever it needs to mean to support the story and Joseph Smith's prophetic calling.