The Book of Abraham: From Whence was it Derived?

[_Milesius]

Osiris iconography predates Abraham.

Egyptian iconotropy is a well-known fact. Here's just one example. Sumerian judgment scene iconography dates back to at least 2350 B.C.:



This particular scene is a excellent example of how the Egyptians took something from Abraham's homeland and adapted it within the context of their own religious rites. Or, perhaps, both the Sumerians and the Egyptians were referencing iconography that goes back centuries before either civilization rose. This is what Schryver is talking about. In this context, it isn't hard to see how reasonable it is to propose that Joseph Smith was restoring the earliest understanding of these images.

At least it isn't hard for those not invested in their own apostasy from Mormonism.

Even if you are correct here, and I don't think you are, it does not help your religion. Facsimiles 1 and 3 allegedly refer to actual events in the life of Abraham, who lived some centuries after 2350 B.C. If Joseph Smith restored "the earliest understanding of these images" then why do they predate Abraham when they allegedly refer to specific events in his life?

Your Mormon apologia is a house of straw; it collapses when one so much as glances at it.

[_wenglund]

I've always found the "couldn't have known" argument to be one of the weakest. Logically it is putting the burden on the apologist to prove the negative.

This is, of course, quite correct, and it underscores some of the points other opponents have made.

Even were I to borrow from scholars and craft a rather elaborate and perhaps convincing argument that bits and pieces of the Book of Abraham were likely not known at the time Joseph produced it; and were I to also develop an convinving argument that the bits and pieces that were knowable during that time, it would have been unfeasible to have cobbled the 15 or so pages of the Book of Abraham together in such hodge-podge fashion from all the different available source material; this would merely amount to circumstantial evidence. It would not directly evince that the Book of Abraham was produce supernaturalistically. At best, the circumstantial evidence may provide room for faith that the Book of Abraham was translated by the gift and power of God.

Besides the statements of the principles involved, the only direct evidence for the supernaturalistic origins of the Book of Abraham, is the supernaturalistic--i.e. God confirming it by way of his Spirit (as per Moroni 10) and by way of increased realization of the spiritual fruits of that book of scripture (as per Alma 32).

So, now that I think of it, I am not sure what value there is in pursuing this dicussion further and vetting the circumstantial arguments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Besides the statements of the principles involved, the only direct evidence for the supernaturalistic origins of the Book of Abraham, is the supernaturalistic--i.e. God confirming it by way of his Spirit (as per Moroni 10) and by way of increased realization of the spiritual fruits of that book of scripture (as per Alma 32).

So, now that I think of it, I am not sure what value there is in pursuing this dicussion further and vetting the circumstantial arguments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

YES! We can do nothing about the fact that Mormon defenders are ultimately motivated by religious experience. But even so, they nevertheless occasionally act as if there is historical evidence to support their belief system as well. When they retreat back to appealing to their religious experience only, we know that they have lost the historical evidence debate. No one is convinced of the truth of Mormonism via facts and logic because there are none to support it.

[_wenglund]

YES! We can do nothing about the fact that Mormon defenders are ultimately motivated by religious experience. But even so, they nevertheless occasionally act as if there is historical evidence to support their belief system as well. When they retreat back to appealing to their religious experience only, we know that they have lost the historical evidence debate. No one is convinced of the truth of Mormonism via facts and logic because there are none to support it.

Before getting too far into your presumptuous victory dance, let me write you ar reality cheque by informing you that in terms of establishing naturalistic origins for the Book of Abraham, the historical evidence is merely circumstantial as well. It is weak regardless. The best that the historical evidence can do in that regard is provide room for faith that the Book of Abraham was produced naturalistically.

And, while the same is pretty much true for the supernaturalistic explanation, that explanation has historical and other evidence that the naturalistic theories do not. It has the statements of the principles involved (witness statements tend to weigh heavier than circumstrantial evidence) and confirmation from God.

So, on balance, the over-all evidence (historical and otherwise) is in favor of the supernaturalistic explanation side of the debate. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_ShadowFax]

Even were I to borrow from scholars and craft a rather elaborate and perhaps convincing argument that bits and pieces of the Book of Abraham were likely not known at the time Joseph produced it; and were I to also develop an convinving argument that the bits and pieces that were knowable during that time, it would have been unfeasible to have cobbled the 15 or so pages of the Book of Abraham together in such hodge-podge fashion from all the different available source material; this would merely amount to circumstantial evidence. It would not directly evince that the Book of Abraham was produce supernaturalistically.

why do you think it would be be unfeasible for a writer to creatively put those pages together? Smith, and his group, had a long history of being tenactiously creative in all his interests and endeveours. He is a remarkable study as to how a person could manifest his ambitions during a puritan era of history. If he were alive today his catch phrase might read, "Go big or go home."
He obviously had both an interest in egyptian history and also access to information surrounding egyptian folklore because he purchased the egyptian funeral papyri from someone, giving him not only at least one source but an apparent financial interest as well. It cost money to purchase the text and a driving interest of some type most certainly motivated him.

At best, the circumstantial evidence may provide room for faith that the Book of Abraham was translated by the gift and power of God.

The problem with this is myriad, but I'll describe just a few points.

Let's say you're right and that Joseph Smith was given a gift and power from God to translate the funeral papyrus. Let's say that Mormons are correct in that this feat qualifies him as a prophet and revelator.
How do you account for a prophet, whose role is to "get information right" as a gift from God - To get information from God - To be a mouthpiece for God - to clarify Gods wisdom as a role of a revealer and prophet - and yet get many glaring and significant pieces of information wrong?

This makes a mockery out of the very all-knowing God that allegedly gave him the information, for whom Joseph Smith is a prophet.
If God is a omniscient God He would have known the papyrus was a funeral text and yet this same God led Joseph Smith to believe that the papyrus was the book of Abraham and didn't correct him. For decades, and even to this day, the prophets have not come forward to clear up this important bit of incorrect information.
What kind of God is this? This is only one of the examples of the errors that God revealed and which God has not subsequently corrected through his prophets. It defeats the purpose of a prophet and revelator when God does not give accurate information to his prophet.
What is the purpose then of a Mormon prophet and revelator?

And, while the same is pretty much true for the supernaturalistic explanation, that explanation has historical and other evidence that the naturalistic theories do not. It has the statements of the principles involved (witness statements tend to weigh heavier than circumstrantial evidence) and confirmation from God.

You’re saying that people’s word has more weight than the word of God?
If the witness’s statements for the Book of Abraham is anything like the Book of Mormon witness’s affidavits they hold no credibility. Those "credible" people were invested with Smith up to the eyeballs. In those days a man’s word was his honor and they made deals based on a hand shake and their honor as gentlemen. For any of those men to go back on any of their words, statements and affidavits would have been certain social suicide and community blacklisting; and perhaps tarred and feathered – yet again. Having gone through that once (or twice) I’m sure Joseph Smith and his group weren’t interested in a repeat, or worse, a vigilante lynching. I can imagine it was like quicksand, once in it's not easy to extract oneself. How does one backtrack in a Puritan era and say you were untrue? They were thrown out of communities because they weren’t upstanding men of honor; their word wasn’t any good. They had bad reputations on the whole as untrustworthy. A reputation for lying means that it's difficult to view them credible. See my tag line for more detailed information on the history of lying.
Without credible witness statements and lack of credible evidence coupled with a glaring presence of errors, where can a confirmation of God possibly fit into your scenario?
You have thrown God into a real pickle by involving Him in your Mormon mess. Or more appropriately, Joseph Smith threw God into a real pickle and you continue the Mormon legacy.

[_Themis]

This is, of course, quite correct, and it underscores some of the points other opponents have made.

You are the one who created this thread to do just that. No one else is arguing what Joseph couldn't have known.

Even were I to borrow from scholars and craft a rather elaborate and perhaps convincing argument that bits and pieces of the Book of Abraham were likely not known at the time Joseph produced it; and were I to also develop an convinving argument that the bits and pieces that were knowable during that time, it would have been unfeasible to have cobbled the 15 or so pages of the Book of Abraham together in such hodge-podge fashion from all the different available source material; this would merely amount to circumstantial evidence. It would not directly evince that the Book of Abraham was produce supernaturalistically. At best, the circumstantial evidence may provide room for faith that the Book of Abraham was translated by the gift and power of God.

We have asked for evidence but you have yet to show your sources. I am not sure why some apologists think they can get away from just quoting an article from Fair or Farms and not expect to be asked to show where the sources of their assertions originate. It may be a little work but it is your job if you want to make room for faith in the church and not the apologists.

Besides the statements of the principles involved, the only direct evidence for the supernaturalistic origins of the Book of Abraham, is the supernaturalistic--i.e. God confirming it by way of his Spirit (as per Moroni 10) and by way of increased realization of the spiritual fruits of that book of scripture (as per Alma 32).

An admission again that you can't provide anything physical. Whats worse about trying to provide poor and unreliable evidence in the form of the spiritual is that you ignore everyone Else's that does not conform to your interpretations.

So, now that I think of it, I am not sure what value there is in pursuing this dicussion further and vetting the circumstantial arguments.

I take this as admission you again cannot provide what you said you wanted to and want out. That's fine, although I think you will again probably blame us in some way. I think we are more then open enough to let you keep trying. Again I would like nothing better then to see evidence in support of LDS claims, enough to actually allow room for faith.

[_wenglund]

Why do you think it would be be unfeasible for a writer to creatively put those pages together?

I hinted at it in an earlier thread in which I examined the claim that the Book of Abraham was based on the Bible. It just struck me as counter-intuitive for Joseph to have, after suddenly deciding the papyri were about Abraham and Joseph, supposedly sat down to draft the outline of the supposed pretend 15 page translation of the Book of Abraham, and with several stacks of books that may have briefly mentioned Abraham, formulated the outline as well as perhaps portions of the first draft, by randomly selecting a few verses from Josephus, then a few verses from Antiquities of the Jews, then a verse from Josua, then a couple of verses from the Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato, Volume 2, then a few verse or two from the Pseudographia, then several verses from Philosophy of a Future State, then a handful of verses from the later chapters of Genises, then a handful of verses from early in Genesis (though altered in tense and plurality), etc.

At best, the circumstantial evidence may provide room for faith that the Book of Abraham was translated by the gift and power of God.

The problem with this is myriad, but I'll describe just a few points.

Let's say you're right and that Joseph Smith was given a gift and power from God to translate the funeral papyrus. Let's say that Mormons are correct in that this feat qualifies him as a prophet and revelator.

How do you account for a prophet, whose role is to "get information right" as a gift from God - To get information from God - To be a mouthpiece for God - to clarify Gods wisdom as a role of a revealer and prophet - and yet get many glaring and significant pieces of information wrong?

This makes a mockery out of the very all-knowing God that allegedly gave him the information, for whom Joseph Smith is a prophet.
If God is a omniscient God He would have known the papyrus was a funeral text and yet this same God led Joseph Smith to believe that the papyrus was the book of Abraham and didn't correct him. For decades, and even to this day, the prophets have not come forward to clear up this important bit of incorrect information.
What kind of God is this? This is only one of the examples of the errors that God revealed and which God has not subsequently corrected through his prophets. It defeats the purpose of a prophet and revelator when God does not give accurate information to his prophet.
What is the purpose then of a Mormon prophet and revelator?

Actually, it is your myriad presumptions that are problematic.

First, the thing that qualifies a person as a prophet of God is for God to call them as a Prophet. Nothing more, nothing less. One may know of that person's prophetic calling by God disclosing that to one through his spirit.

Second, the purpose of a prophet is to reveal things from God according to God's will and in accordance with God's plan. The revelations are intended to bring us to Christ and enable us to become like him. One may know that the revelations are from God, and by extention that the prophet who received the revelation is of God, by God disclosing it to one through his spirit and by one acting on the revealed precepts and finding them magnified in one's life in bringing one to Christ and growing one in Christ.

Third, because fallible men are involved not only in the revelations, but also the interpretatations of the revelation, we do not consider the revelations as infallible, but given the confirmations from God that the revelations and prophets are of God, and are in accordance with the will and plan of God, and work in that regard, this is presumably sufficient for God and thus for us.

Note that the things of God are confirmed by God, and not by man and the things of man--such as Egyptologists/Egyptology, historians/history, archiologists/archiology, online debaters/debates, etc. This means that the verity of the Book of Abraham, from a spiritual standpoint, isn't contingient upon how well it comports with assumptions made by man as to what specifically may have been the man-made source-text for the translation and/or whether or not the translation comports with current man-made Egyptology.

You’re saying that people’s word has more weight than the word of God?

No. I am saying that in terms of historical evidence, firsthand testimony tends to weigh heavier than circumstantial evidence. In terms of over-all evidence for the origins of the Book of Abraham, the naturalistic theorist have only circumstantional evidence in their favor, whereas the supernatural explanation has not only circumstantial evidence in its favor, but also firsthand testimony, as well as the witness of God (the later being only and all that can and does directly confirm the supernatural)

If the witness’s statements for the Book of Abraham is anything like the Book of Mormon witness’s affidavits they hold no credibility.

That is a matter of differing opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Themis]

I hinted at it in an earlier thread in which I examined the claim that the Book of Abraham was based on the Bible. It just struck me as counter-intuitive for Joseph to have, after suddenly deciding the papyri were about Abraham and Joseph, supposedly sat down to draft the outline of the supposed pretend 15 page translation of the Book of Abraham, and with several stacks of books that may have briefly mentioned Abraham, formulated the outline as well as perhaps portions of the first draft, by randomly selecting a few verses from Josephus, then a few verses from Antiquities of the Jews, then a verse from Josua, then a couple of verses from the Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato, Volume 2, then a few verse or two from the Pseudographia, then several verses from Philosophy of a Future State, then a handful of verses from the later chapters of Genises, then a handful of verses from early in Genesis (though altered in tense and plurality), etc.

This is a classic straw-man. No one is arguing for this, nor do I think he would need stacks of books in front of him. We know he took a long time to write those 15 pages, and I think he was just using what he knew which would have come from the Bible, Josephus, etc. You also want to ignore the mountain of things he got wrong as well.

First, the thing that qualifies a person as a prophet of God is for God to call them as a Prophet. Nothing more, nothing less. One may know of that person's prophetic calling by God disclosing that to one through his spirit.

The world is full of these kind of prophets.

Second, the purpose of a prophet is to reveal things from God according to God's will and in accordance with God's plan. The revelations are intended to bring us to Christ and enable us to become like him. One may know that the revelations are from God, and by extention that the prophet who received the revelation is of God, by God disclosing it to one through his spirit and by one acting on the revealed precepts and finding them magnified in one's life in bringing one to Christ and growing one in Christ.

Apologists always want to limit what the church actually teaches about prophets. One of their main purposes is to prophesy. kind of why we call them prophets. The only problem is they don't get any better information then anyone else. Oh well.

Third, because fallible men are involved not only in the revelations, but also the interpretatations of the revelation, we do not consider the revelations as infallible, but given the confirmations from God that the revelations and prophets are of God, and are in accordance with the will and plan of God, and work in that regard, this is presumably sufficient for God and thus for us.

LOL I don't know anyone who expects them to be infallible, but that maybe they could do much better then they are, if indeed they were talking to God. God is either not to smart or just not a good communicator. I think apologists like to argue the ladder.

Note that the things of God are confirmed by God, and not by man and the things of man--such as Egyptologists/Egyptology, historians/history, archiologists/archiology, online debaters/debates, etc. This means that the verity of the Book of Abraham, from a spiritual standpoint, isn't contingient upon how well it comports with assumptions made by man as to what specifically may have been the man-made source-text for the translation and/or whether or not the translation comports with current man-made Egyptology.

That's what you would like to believe, but reality is that most of the core LDS spiritual claims have physical claims that go with it, that cannot be divorced from them, and looking at the physical can tell us whether they are accurate claims or not. I see you are again in full retreat here. To be expected with Book of Abraham issues. They are as about as clear as you can get that Joseph was making this one up. When one realizes how bad the evidence really is here and on other issues, one may start to question the spiritual, and I can tell you that it is an eye opener.

No. I am saying that in terms of historical evidence, firsthand testimony tends to weigh heavier than circumstantial evidence. In terms of over-all evidence for the origins of the Book of Abraham, the naturalistic theorist have only circumstantional evidence in their favor, whereas the supernatural explanation has not only circumstantial evidence in its favor, but also firsthand testimony, as well as the witness of God (the later being only and all that can and does directly confirm the supernatural)

This is not a court of law, and first hand testimony is now better understood to be less reliable then thought. We are also not looking at what each testimony is actually testifying about. Not all circumstantial evidence is of the same value. Much of this first hand testimony confirms that some of the papyri we have is the claimed source of the Book of Abraham. It also helps us to see that Joseph was probably making it up. What you are doing here is trying to dodge the issue.

Now what supernatural testimony would you consider direct evidence, and direct of evidence for what? This kind of witness is worse then Joey saying he saw John go into the house just before Billy was shot. This is actually circumstantial evidence, much like people's supernatural witnesses except better. I felt good so it must mean this.

[_moksha]

In another Book of Abraham thread Chaps commented:

So either the Book of Abraham came out of the air, or it came from an original now lost.

Do you agree or disagree? If so, why?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Out of air? Not even the famed David Copperfield Fish comes out of thin air!

The Book of Abraham origins do not really matter for in the grand scheme for Mormons, it is here and it is our story. Whether mythos or some lost tale from Egypt, it is part of the Mormon Canon. Just be glad none of the canoptic jars were mistaken for the idolatrous God of Boulibase.

[_Buffalo]

Like with Buffalo, as I raise specific parts of the Abraham story, feel free to point out where in the Bible and Josephus they may be found. Once you do so, we can then look at the feasibility that those were the sources from whence the Book of Abraham was derived.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Could you be more specific? Your links talk of general themes. Is there anything specific you'd like to point out that Joseph couldn't possibly have known through his studies?

Wade?