DiscussMormonism.com

What Is the Book of Abraham?

Givens says we don't know if we have the original papyri, and even if we do, it doesn't matter because Paul had a vision once where he didn't know if it was in the body or out, and there is some cool theology in the Book of Abraham, and if you are worrried about the fact that the translation is totally bogus, the problem is with you and your unreasonable expectations that a text the Prophet claimed to have translated by divine inspiration might have some (any) connection to what was on the papyrus. He says it is scripture not because it is true but because it may be useful. Among other such nonsense.

Question: is Givens a garden-variety fraud or a fraud of the "pious" variety? I vote for the former. He must be aware that he is lying to and deceiving people with this claptrap. right?

He's lying to himself and is in the midst of his own faith crisis. He's trying to piece things together looking for invisible or imaginary links in order to connect the dots and make some kind of sense of something that glaringly screams FRAUD. It's his very testimony that is at stake. Everything is on the line and he knows it. So, he will continue to lie to himself, lie to others, and make up whatever he needs to make up in order keep on going along with what he knows deep down really is nothing more than fraud.

Givens is kind of correct. If you accept the idea of visions/revelations then it doesn't matter what text is used.

So either Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, or...

lostindc wrote:Givens is kind of correct. If you accept the idea of visions/revelations then it doesn't matter what text is used.

So either Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, or...

Joseph Smith may in fact be a prophet of his god but that doesn't mean his god can read Egyptian! Joseph Smith and his god are a pair of idiots. Joseph Smith's god is a lying freak and those who defend them are freaks too.

lostindc wrote:Givens is kind of correct. If you accept the idea of visions/revelations then it doesn't matter what text is used.

So either Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, or...

I'm not sure I understand the argument. Let's say (for the sake of argument) that I accept the idea of visions and revelations from God to a human being (a Prophet, if you will). I can accept the idea that such a thing as God giving revelations to a Prophet is possible, and has happened, and maybe even happened to Joseph Smith. It doesn't then follow that every claim to revelations and visions (by Smith or someone else) is valid, right?

I mean, even if I were to accept that God and prophets and visions and revelations occur, that doesn't mean the Book of Abraham claims are genuine, does it? Lots of folks who believe in the supernatural, and in communication between God and humans, reject the Book of Abraham as a hoax. Not because they believe all claims of divine revelation are false but because this particular claim is so obviously, egregiously bogus.

The trick Givens is trying to put over on his audience is that the English text we have as the Book of Abraham can be completely divorced from the historical context in which it was produced and the specific claims made about it by Joseph Smith, his close associates, and every "Prophet" who followed Smith in the chain from Brigham Young to Rusty "Donuts" Nelson.

He should know we see through his deception.

Equality wrote:What Is the Book of Abraham?

Givens says we don't know if we have the original papyri, and even if we do, it doesn't matter because Paul had a vision once where he didn't know if it was in the body or out, and there is some cool theology in the Book of Abraham, and if you are worrried about the fact that the translation is totally bogus, the problem is with you and your unreasonable expectations that a text the Prophet claimed to have translated by divine inspiration might have some (any) connection to what was on the papyrus. He says it is scripture not because it is true but because it may be useful. Among other such nonsense.

Question: is Givens a garden-variety fraud or a fraud of the "pious" variety? I vote for the former. He must be aware that he is lying to and deceiving people with this claptrap. right?

That's sort of the twist on the Book of Abraham that Holland took in the I'm-not-a-dodo interview with the BBC--Holland admitted to not knowing how the 'translation' happened, but that didn't matter. So now, Givens is trying it. Doesn't matter how it came to be. The Book of Abraham has some neat-o ideas. Thus, it doesn't matter if it came about as Joseph Smith and the church say it did.

Here’s what the Church and Joseph Smith have to say on the matter...

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM
TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH
A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 1?lang=eng

The book of Abraham emerged from a set of unique historical events. In the summer of 1835, an entrepreneur named Michael Chandler arrived at Church headquarters in Kirtland, Ohio, with four Egyptian mummies and multiple scrolls of papyrus.1 A group of Latter-day Saints in Kirtland purchased the artifacts for the Church. After Joseph Smith examined the papyri and commenced “the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics,” his history recounts, “much to our joy [we] found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus.11 Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments.

But we can compare the translation of the facsimilies...

This essay of the Church is one of the more mealy mouthed and intellectually dishonest. I suspect Givens is a big contributor to it.

Equality wrote:

lostindc wrote:Givens is kind of correct. If you accept the idea of visions/revelations then it doesn't matter what text is used.

So either Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, or...

I'm not sure I understand the argument. Let's say (for the sake of argument) that I accept the idea of visions and revelations from God to a human being (a Prophet, if you will). I can accept the idea that such a thing as God giving revelations to a Prophet is possible, and has happened, and maybe even happened to Joseph Smith. It doesn't then follow that every claim to revelations and visions (by Smith or someone else) is valid, right?

I mean, even if I were to accept that God and prophets and visions and revelations occur, that doesn't mean the Book of Abraham claims are genuine, does it? Lots of folks who believe in the supernatural, and in communication between God and humans, reject the Book of Abraham as a hoax. Not because they believe all claims of divine revelation are false but because this particular claim is so obviously, egregiously bogus.

The trick Givens is trying to put over on his audience is that the English text we have as the Book of Abraham can be completely divorced from the historical context in which it was produced and the specific claims made about it by Joseph Smith, his close associates, and every "Prophet" who followed Smith in the chain from Brigham Young to Rusty "Donuts" Nelson.

He should know we see through his deception.

Genuine is relative. If Joseph Smith is a prophet and he received the Book of Abraham via revelation then a bunch of things may be considered. One example to consider is that the Book of Abraham means something different to God than to humans, and Joseph Smith was used as a tool to bring the message out of the Book of Abraham. To clarify this example, when I type the letter C, you and I view the letter C, but God may view the letter C as the letter M. The Book of Abraham is accepted as an Egyptian prayer or whatever to most, but God gave to Joseph Smith a different meaning. This reasoning is out there, but it's an argument the apologists can use and move forward.

I agree with you, but the what ifs are a Mormon's best friend.

Equality wrote:Question: is Givens a garden-variety fraud or a fraud of the "pious" variety? I vote for the former. He must be aware that he is lying to and deceiving people with this claptrap. right?

It would be difficult to properly describe any adult of average mental capacity now living in the West as a "pious" fraud. Perhaps the term could have been fairly used in the frontier America of the 19th century, but no longer in the 21st, especially in North America.

General knowledge of history and science in our culture are now such that anyone who claims to be educated cannot possibly qualify as a pious fraud (one who believes and does not know better).

Givens and his ilk are intellectually dishonest, deceptive, garden variety frauds. They should be recognized, considered and treated as such.

Holy Ghost wrote:That's sort of the twist on the Book of Abraham that Holland took in the I'm-not-a-dodo interview with the BBC--Holland admitted to not knowing how the 'translation' happened, but that didn't matter. So now, Givens is trying it. Doesn't matter how it came to be. The Book of Abraham has some neat-o ideas. Thus, it doesn't matter if it came about as Joseph Smith and the church say it did.

Yeah, lots of neato ideas. The Kolob revelation totally revolutionized modern astronomy. We also learned about the origins of the black race. Where would the world be without the revealed knowledge in the Book of Abraham?