Farms is out of phase with Mormon.org about the Book of Abraham

[_The Nehor]

My opinion of the contributions of the Book of Abraham

1. Information on Abraham's early life
2. Nature of God taught by analogy using Astronomy and Premortality
3. Information on Astronomy (though it is realistically of little use outside speculation)
4. Information on Premortal World
5. Final perspective on the Creation when Joseph was at his most advanced state of knowledge
6. Gave us the facsimilies so those obsessed with mystery religion have something harmless to pore over endlessly

[_ozemc]

My opinion of the contributions of the Book of Abraham

1. Information on Abraham's early life
2. Nature of God taught by analogy using Astronomy and Premortality
3. Information on Astronomy (though it is realistically of little use outside speculation)
4. Information on Premortal World
5. Final perspective on the Creation when Joseph was at his most advanced state of knowledge
6. Gave us the facsimilies so those obsessed with mystery religion have something harmless to pore over endlessly

All of that is quite impossible. The Book of Abraham was incorrectly translated from ancient Egyptian documents. It had nothing to do with Abraham, or anything to do with premortality.

[_The Nehor]

All of that is quite impossible. The Book of Abraham was incorrectly translated from ancient Egyptian documents. It had nothing to do with Abraham, or anything to do with premortality.

Well, then Joseph made it up and happened to be right.

[_Runtu]

Well, then Joseph made it up and happened to be right.

I'd say Joseph's "insights" are far more closely related to 19th-century thought (such as Thomas Dick's book, which was circulating in Kirtland/Nauvoo at the time) than they are to any authentic Abrahamic texts. The existence of such strained parallels is more a testament to the efforts of the apologists than it is a sign that Joseph got anything "right."

[_Tarski]

All of that is quite impossible. The Book of Abraham was incorrectly translated from ancient Egyptian documents. It had nothing to do with Abraham, or anything to do with premortality.

Well, then Joseph made it up and happened to be right.

Right about what? I think he was wrong about everything.

Be specific. What is in that book that would make you live any differently if there was only the Bible, Book of Mormon and so forth?
What about the nature of God is in there that isn't either writen elsewhere or just made up?
What is the cash value. That is, what information is in there that is actually important for making you a better person?

[_Who Knows]

Be specific. What is in that book that would make you live any differently if there was only the Bible, Book of Mormon and so forth?
What about the nature of God is in there that isn't either writen elsewhere or just made up?
What is the cash value. That is, what information is in there that is actually important for making you a better person?

I'd say the priesthood ban on blacks, but it's after 1978, so that doesn't count anymore.

How about the spiritual giant of a song "If you could hie to Kolob"?

[_Runtu]

Right about what? I think he was wrong about everything.

Be specific. What is in that book that would make you live any differently if there was only the Bible, Book of Mormon and so forth?
What about the nature of God is in there that isn't either writen elsewhere or just made up?
What is the cash value. That is, what information is in there that is actually important for making you a better person?

For me, the "bullseyes" we hear about over on the other board are not earth-shattering. I can't think of anything in the Book of Abraham that Joseph got indisputably right. But then I'm an evil apostate, so my views don't count.

[_Brackite]

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.

Speaking of evolving interpretations of the word translation, I am interested in knowing if DCP still agrees with everything he wrote for this Ensign article in 1994 or has he modified his position at all?

In addition to the strong testimony of the Spirit, there is now scholarly evidence that these scriptures truly convey ancient teachings about eternity and accurately reflect the antiquity from which they came.

Daniel C. Peterson, “News from Antiquity,” Ensign, Jan 1994, 16

Hello,
What I really want to know is if DCP still agrees with when he wrote this, in that Article:

Critics have long attempted to make a case against the book of Abraham. They argue that some ancient texts do not support the book. They point to the fragments of the Joseph Smith papyri that we now possess and claim that since the contents of these papyri bear little obvious relationship to the book of Abraham, the book is a fraud; but Hugh Nibley has made an exhaustive study of these claims and has shown that the papyri we now have were probably not the ones from which Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham. 29 And recent research into ancient texts continues to give firm support for what the Spirit has whispered for over a century and a half—that the book of Abraham is authentic.

( Daniel C. Peterson, “News from Antiquity,” Ensign, Jan 1994, 16 )

Here is what Kevin Graham wrote, in a Post of his, On that Discussion Thread, over there:

I would add that the original Facsimile #2 suffered from lacunae over to the right. Apparently Joseph Smith decided to fill in the holes while using symbols from the BoB - the text apologists tell us have nothing to do with the Book of Abraham.



The facsimile with BoB symbols was published as part of the Book of Abraham so it cannot be argued that some scribe decided to do this on his own without Smith's consent.

Rhodes argued that someone filled it in just to make it look better, but this is a lame argument without a shred of evidence to support it. to Especially since Smith filled in the lucuna of the BoB and indicated that he did so via inspiration. Thus, it follows that he did likewise with Fac 2.

( http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136 )

The evidence is indeed extremely very, very Overwhelming that the Book of Breathings text is indeed the very source for the Book of Abraham,and from which the Book of Abraham was translated from.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Furthermore, the Book of Abraham is true and is a unique work in itself.

The Book of Abraham is truly and uniquely an 'impudent fraud.'

[_Calculus Crusader]

All of that is quite impossible. The Book of Abraham was incorrectly translated from ancient Egyptian documents. It had nothing to do with Abraham, or anything to do with premortality.

Well, then Joseph made it up and happened to be right.

Right about what? I think he was wrong about everything.

Be specific. What is in that book that would make you live any differently if there was only the Bible, Book of Mormon and so forth?
What about the nature of God is in there that isn't either writen elsewhere or just made up?
What is the cash value. That is, what information is in there that is actually important for making you a better person?

Didn't it, like, include a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (in the margin, naturally) long before Andrew Wiles discovered it? Also, I heard Einstein cribbed Relativity from it.