Egyptologists and the Joseph Smith Papyri

[_Fortigurn]

As for Jimmy's comments, I agree that for a Saint who simply cannot or will not give up his or her testimony, the moral thing to do is nevertheless to acknowledge the evidence against the church's truth claims. A Saint who admits that everything seems to militate against what he/she believes but who asserts his/her own revelatory experience as a Trump card is far and away more praiseworthy in my mind than a Saint who misrepresents the evidence in an ends-justify-the-means fashion. I'll take a Paul or a Jimmy over a Gee or a Rhodes any day of the week. At least if we can agree about the facts on the ground, we can then move the conversation into the realm of the meaning and/or value of personal religious experience that seems disharmonious with all the evidence. That conversation will never take place if the FARMS establishment has its way.

Hear, hear.

[_Paul Osborne]

Uh Jimmy you don't seem to see the problem. If the traditional interpretation is abandoned, then the LDS Church doesn't have a leg to stand on.

That’s just not so. The Church doesn’t stand or fall based on what has been said about the Book of Abraham translation processes. We are not a perfect people and we don’t interpret everything perfectly – everyone makes mistakes and everyone has misunderstandings.

It's been telling everyone for this past 100 years and more that the traditional interpretation is the right one.

Oh, I think you may be exaggerating the forcefulness of what has been said by commentators.

This would be less of a problem if your church didn't claim to have prophets who are supposed to sort this stuff out.

Well, our prophets don’t walk on water. They stumble and fall just like the rest of us. We are all learning. Prophets have to learn the difference between speaking for God and speaking for themselves – they can put their foot in their mouths just like the rest of us. But with that said, they are spiritully mature - more than the rest of us poor fools.

Unfortunately, it's clear that your prophets know nothing, and your church has to be repeatedly corrected by non-Mormons.

Know nothing? That’s a foolish statement if I ever heard one. Do you really think President Gordon B. Hinckley knows nothing after 95 years of spiritual experience? How do you know what President Hinckley knows? You only know what he has said. What has he said about the Book of Abraham?

Paul O

[_Fortigurn]

Uh Jimmy you don't seem to see the problem. If the traditional interpretation is abandoned, then the LDS Church doesn't have a leg to stand on.

That’s just not so. The Church doesn’t stand or fall based on what has been said about the Book of Abraham translation processes. We are not a perfect people and we don’t interpret everything perfectly – everyone makes mistakes and everyone has misunderstandings.

Paul, your church is supposed to be led by prophets who are guided by God and know more than other people. If they keep getting corrected by the very people they're supposed to be leading, then your church doesn't have a leg to stand on.

It's been telling everyone for this past 100 years and more that the traditional interpretation is the right one.

Oh, I think you may be exaggerating the forcefulness of what has been said by commentators.

No I'm not. Nor the length of time for which your church has been representing this as a genuine translation.

This would be less of a problem if your church didn't claim to have prophets who are supposed to sort this stuff out.

Well, our prophets don’t walk on water. They stumble and fall just like the rest of us. We are all learning. Prophets have to learn the difference between speaking for God and speaking for themselves – they can put their foot in their mouths just like the rest of us. But with that said, they are spiritully mature - more than the rest of us poor fools.

The problem is Paul, there's no evidence that your prophets ever speak for God, and much evidence that they never do. The very fact that they are demonstrably unable to tell when they are speaking for God and speaking for themselves shows that they are no better off than most people - and much worse off, since most people seem to know when they are speaking for God and speaking for themselves.

Unfortunately, it's clear that your prophets know nothing, and your church has to be repeatedly corrected by non-Mormons.

Know nothing?

Yes.

That’s a foolish statement if I ever heard one. Do you really think President Gordon B. Hinckley knows nothing after 95 years of spiritual experience?

I'm sure he has plenty of secular knowledge, certainly. But 'after 95 years of spiritual experience' he still seems to be pretty clueless when it comes to religion:

On whether the LDS Church holds that, "God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, ‘I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it,’" Hinckley told Time.

The untruncated quote:

I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

Source.

How do you know what President Hinckley knows? You only know what he has said.

Oh I see, so what he says is not an indication of what he knows. Gotcha.

What has he said about the Book of Abraham?

You tell me. I don't particularly care.

[_Fortigurn]

Gaz, this is for you, 'Extra-Biblical Details in the “Book of Abraham” Compared with Parallels in Published Sources Available to Joseph Smith in Early 19th Century America'.

[_Paul Osborne]

That is not the historical claim of the LDS Church, or of Smith himself. The claim made is utterly different. The claim is verifiable and falsifiable. It has been falsified. That is what leaves it open for criticism, and vulnerable to ridicule.

Yes, I can see what you’re saying here. I’ve thought long and hard about how the prophet’s premise of a conventional Egyptian meaning of the papyrus is wrong yet still receive revelation at the same time. The whole thing isn’t as bad as the critics make it out to be. The critics expect prophets to be flawless and present a perfect picture – and yet the critics will still find reasons to crucify the prophets. Jesus himself was perfect and performed miraculous things, but they murdered him too.

Could Joseph Smith been in Error?

Could Joseph Smith been in Error II?

Conventional Translation Denies All Evidence

Mummies & Papyri

The Book of Abraham Story

Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

Paul, your church is supposed to be led by prophets who are guided by God and know more than other people. If they keep getting corrected by the very people they're supposed to be leading, then your church doesn't have a leg to stand on.

That’s ridiculous. You’re making a sweeping conclusion based on what your idea of how a prophet must perform in every duty of life. Why don’t you just admit that prophets are learning too – line upon line, precept upon precept?

No I'm not. Nor the length of time for which your church has been representing this as a genuine translation.

How about a citation, please? Put your money where your big mouth is.

The problem is Paul, there's no evidence that your prophets ever speak for God, and much evidence that they never do. The very fact that they are demonstrably unable to tell when they are speaking for God and speaking for themselves shows that they are no better off than most people - and much worse off, since most people seem to know when they are speaking for God and speaking for themselves.

Read the D&C and pray about it. I have. I’m convinced that Joseph Smith was speaking for God – because the Spirit told me so. That’s all the evidence I need. Faith and spiritual testimony go hand in hand. That is what religion is all about!

I'm sure he has plenty of secular knowledge, certainly. But 'after 95 years of spiritual experience' he still seems to be pretty clueless when it comes to religion:

You just shot your credibility all to hell. You’re not too smart.

I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

That was a maneuver, a smart tactic, to keep him off the front page and headline news. The people can’t handle meat. He did it for the good of the people at large – no need to shove doctrine down their throats that will only choke them.

You tell me. I don't particularly care.

You're a liar. You do care, but are too lazy to research that which you want to easily condemn.

Paul O

[_jimmyspa]

You tell me. I don't particularly care.

You're a liar. You do care, but are too lazy to research that which you want to easily condemn.

Paul O

I think that we can talk in respectful terms and know better what we think on
these subjects. My experience is that he who gets upset and loses his cool
always appears as the loser.

It´s true that even if the LDS Church accepts that the facsimiles were not
"translated" in our modern perception of the meaning of that word but that
wisdom was imparted by God directly to the Prophet´s mind using those
objects as catalysts to get his attention, critics and enemies of the LDS will
always find things to disagree with and mock about, but how much stronger
would the LDS position be on the Book of Abraham and facsimil subject rather than the
current position by apologists who twist facts and distort or hide evidence
(ie. that many of the other sources for the name Abraham in late Egyptian
texts come from magical spells and use that name as many others as part
of abracadabra formulae, or that the person on the couch is a woman
in search for someone´s love, not Abraham, etc.)

Like Paul and some other here have been saying all along, honesty is the
best and strongest policy and should never be replaced by a misguided and
exaggerated zeal.

Jimmy

[_Paul Osborne]

I think that we can talk in respectful terms and know better what we think on
these subjects. My experience is that he who gets upset and loses his cool
always appears as the loser.

Yeah, I shouldn't have said what I was thinking. It's one of my worst weaknesses. I guess it gets old after a while arguing about the Book of Abraham controversies. It's really easy to insult one another on message boards.

Paul O

[_jimmyspa]

This would be less of a problem if your church didn't claim to have prophets who are supposed to sort this stuff out.

Well, our prophets don’t walk on water. They stumble and fall just like the rest of us. We are all learning. Prophets have to learn the difference between speaking for God and speaking for themselves – they can put their foot in their mouths just like the rest of us. But with that said, they are spiritully mature - more than the rest of us poor fools.

I´ll put it another way. Suppose you have faith by the grace of
God that the Book of Abraham, the Book of Mormon and other LDS scripture is accurate
and good, then what stands in the way of you accepting that God
used those Egyptian papyri to give the Prophet the Book of Abraham, not as
texts to "translate" but as direct wisdom?

It´s hard to figure what really happened, but suppose you are
the Prophet and see for the first time those papyri and images,
and God, through them, dictates in your mind the intended
revelation.

You will possibly think that all those precise tetxs in your mind
coming from God are a "translation" of the papyri and act and
talk and write accordingly, but what matters is the texts themselves,
how you think you came about them is unimportant.

By publishing them he obeyed God´s will and that was probably
the essential divine purpose, leaving the clarification of how they
were transmitted as an unimportant later task for those so inclined
to find out.

So all this fuss if the facsimiles actually said what the Book of Abraham says
seems as irrelevant as to inquire today as to what exactly species
of bush God used to manifest himself to Moses.

What mattered were the Commandments and other instruction He
gave Moses, those are the actual texts to analyze and study and
decide whether they are worthy of faith.

Likewise, in the Book of Abraham or even the Book of Mormon, the characters in which
they were written are unimportant, what matters in my view is
what the scriptures actually say. That decides their worth and
credibility.

Getting lost in controversy and giving encouragement to the
critics and enemies of the LDS Church by emphasizing details
that are unimportant and sticking to faulty ideas about the real
nature of the Book of Abraham facsimiles is IMHO a stubborn and wrong
attitude, which harms the LDS´ image as reasonable and honest
people.

Jimmy

[_Gazelam]

1) Please document your claim that "That Abraham was to be offered as a sacrifice by Pharaoh is well documented in ancient writings."

The list I have (and no I have not read them) include:
Adolf Jellineks : Bet ha-Midrasch refrenced here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Jellinek

Bernard Beer's Leben Abraham's

An illuminated page from the Leipzig Mahzor, Southern Germany ca. 1320, showing Terah delivering Abraham to Nimrod. In a continuous narrative Abraham is shown cast into the fire but delivered by the hand of the Lord.



Kerry Shirts quoted the following:

Though Facsimile no. 1 contains no textual material, Joseph Smith does explain the deeper meaning of some of its figures. We have already stated that the whole depicts the dead person's passage into immortality by means of identification with the death and resurrection of Osiris; in this case, the deceased happens to be Abraham (Abr. 1:12), whose life is claimed as a "substitute sacrifice" in order to promote the interests of the reigning Pharaoh. Significantly, we now have a number of early Jewish documents which say that the young Abraham was actually involved in just such a rite, being the intended victim of a Pharaonic ruler whom the legends cail "Nimrod." Most surprisingly, this appears to have been at the instigation of his own father (cf. Abr. 1:30)!

These Hebrew legends became available for modern study beginning in 1840, when an English translation of the medieval Book of Jashar was first published; a collection of similar materials was made by Adolf Jellenik in 1856 (the Beit ha-Midrash), and the next by Bernhard Beer in 1859 (The Life of Abraham According to Jewish Legend). In these extra-biblical sources we discover that Abraham's father, Terah, had been a high official in a Chaldean outpost of Pharaoh's empire (cf. Abr. 1:10), and that he was accustomed to worshipping the gods of the Egyptians (cf. Josh. 24:2). Yet because Abraham would not bow down to these "pagan" deities, his father complained to the Pharaoh, who attempted to put Abraham to death (cf. Abr. 1:7).

According to the Apocalypse of Abraham, such deaths were ordinarily carried out as sacrifices on the altars of the Temples (25:2-6), though later documents, such as the Book of Jashar, say that they were replaced by ritual burning (chs. XI-XII). Recent commentators explain this change by pointing out that medieval rabbis had mistakenly derived Abraham's popular title, "He who came forth from the fire of the Chaldeans," from a supposed "He who came forth from Ur of the Chaldeans," reading "Ur" (Hebrew 'ir, "city") instead of "Or" (Heb. 'or, "light" or "fire").' We also have early Abrahamic sources which agree that Pharaoh/Nimrod attempted to lure Abraham to his death by inviting him to the great Year-feast, which would place the story squarely within the ritual context described by the LDS Book of Abraham (i.e. "after the manner of the Egyptians," Abr. 1:11).

Here is a commentary on the subject on a Jewish website: http://www.neveh.org/winston/undwhy/undwhy04.html

Here is a collection of sacred writings, click on the name Abraham:http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/bkt/index.htm

Try doing a Google search using the Name Nimrod, who was Pharaoh.