The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,238 Articles Spanning 204 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"BOOK OF ABRAHAM".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
|
|
BOOK OF ABRAHAM
Total Articles:
24
The Book Of Abraham is a book created by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith purchased some papyrus that was found with an Egyptian mummy. Joseph claimed that the papyrus contained the Book of Abraham and thus created the "Pearl Of Great Price".
Modern day Egyptologists have translated the Joseph Smith Papyrus Facsimiles, as well as other documents that did not make it into the facsimiles - but were part of the original collection of Papyri. Their conclusion: The documents are entirely different from what Joseph Smith said.
|
|
The Book Of Abraham is a book created by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith purchased some papyrus that was found with an Egyptian mummy. Joseph claimed that the papyrus contained the Book of Abraham and thus created the "Pearl Of Great Price".
The Rosetta Stone was discovered in 1799 by French soldiers digging near
some ruins. Some prliminary work had been done by scholars in Europe prior to the
1821/1822 breakthru by the Frenchman Champollion using a rubbing from the
Rosetta Stone. Due to the esoteric nature of the subject, however, it is
quite implausible that this information had reached the Americas except for
a few Amercan scholars in 1830. Therefore, it is 99.9% certain that Joseph
Smith did not have ANY knowledge of Egyptian hieroglyphs whatsoever. The
errors on his facsimilies, such as adding the head of a man missing from the
god Anubis, is an obvious error. Anubis had the head of a jackal.
Modern day Egyptologists have translated the Joseph Smith Papyrus Facsimiles, as well as other documents that did not make it into the facsimiles - but were part of the original collection of Papyri. Their conclusion: The documents are entirely different from what Joseph Smith said.
Current Mormon Apologists have retreated to the position that either (A) there are missing portions of the papyri that Joseph Smith translated the Book Of Abraham from or (B) that the existing papyri were just "catalysts" for a kind of "translation" that wasn't literally from the papyri. Both explanations conveniently ignore the fact that we have the facsimiles and Joseph Smith's faux translation, and his repeated insistence that these were really written by Abraham and that he really translated them literally.
|  | What Is The Rosetta Stone And How Does It Help Prove Joseph Smith Did Not Properly Translate The Egyptian Papyrus?
Article Archived: Feb 20, 2006, at 11:44 AM
Stored Under Topic: BOOK OF ABRAHAM
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Infymus |  | |
What is the Rosetta Stone?
The Rosetta Stone
The Rosetta Stone is a stone with writing on it in two languages (Egyptian and Greek), using three scripts (hieroglyphic, demotic and Greek).
Why is it in three different scripts?
The Rosetta Stone is written in three scripts because when it was written, there were three scripts being used in Egypt.
The first was hieroglyphic which was the script used for important or religious documents.
Detail of hieroglyphic and demotic script on the Rosetta Stone
The second was demotic which was the common script of Egypt.
The third was Greek which was the language of the rulers of Egypt at that time.
The Rosetta Stone was written in all three scripts so that the priests, government officials and rulers of Egypt could read what it said.
When was the Rosetta Stone made?
The Rosetta Stone was carved in 196 B.C..
When was the Rosetta Stone found?
The Rosetta Stone was found in 1799.
Who found the Rosetta Stone?
The Rosetta Stone was found by French soldiers who were rebuilding a fort in Egypt.
Where was the Rosetta Stone found?
The Rosetta Stone was found in a small village in the Delta called Rosetta (Rashid).
Why is it called the Rosetta Stone?
It is called the Rosetta Stone because it was discovered in a town called Rosetta (Rashid).
What does the Rosetta Stone say?
The Rosetta Stone is a text written by a group of priests in Egypt to honour the Egyptian pharaoh. It lists all of the things that the pharaoh has done that are good for the priests and the people of Egypt.
Who deciphered hieroglyphs?
Many people worked on deciphering hieroglyphs over several hundred years. However, the structure of the script was very difficult to work out.
After many years of studying the Rosetta Stone and other examples of ancient Egyptian writing, Jean-Franηois Champollion deciphered hieroglyphs in 1822.
How did Champollion decipher hieroglyphs?
Champollion could read both Greek and Coptic.
He was able to figure out what the seven demotic signs in Coptic were. By looking at how these signs were used in Coptic he was able to work out what they stood for. Then he began tracing these demotic signs back to hieroglyphic signs.
By working out what some hieroglyphs stood for, he could make educated guesses about what the other hieroglyphs stood for.
The Rosetta Stone is very important in Mormon history. When Joseph Smith obtained the papyrus, nobody could understand the hieroglyphics on the papyrus. Joseph was easily able to create a story and make it believable. Today, with lasting pieces of the Joseph Smith papyrus (those not hidden away in church vaults), the world has seen that Joseph's translation of the papyrus was completely bogus.
| The Book Of Abraham (BoA) issue is a microcosm of all the larger problems with Mormonism and its apologetics. There's a lot to be said here, but just a few points:
- The ad hoc nature of apologetics. Before the discovery and translation of the papyri, no one ever postulated that the translation was anything but literal. JS was clear on the matter. Only after it was clearly proven that the translation could not have been literal did apologists begin to suggest that there was some other kind of translation going on. (You also see this with the LGT. No one thought to question the hemispheric model until it became clear that the evidence did not support it.)
- A shift in the attitude of the Church towards its history. Before the discovery and translation of the papyri, many of the Brethren (most notably, perhaps, N. Eldon Tanner) sincerely expected them to vindicate JS, and were eager to get them translated. Since the BoA debacle, the Brethren appear to have learned that any "new" discoveries with regard to Church history or doctrine are more likely to harm than help the Church. You see this in BoM archaeology, and also in the Hoffman affair, as church leaders obviously had reason to believe that there were documents in existence that were very unflattering to JS. The rise of "faithful history" is likely a direct result of lessons learned from the BoA incident. (Philo describes this shift from an attitude of "Let's find out!" to one of "Don't look!" around the 1960s in one of his essays.)
- The surprising ability of the faithful to "shelve" doubts. The fact is, there are no good apologetic answers to the BoA problem. Different apologists favor different theories, but in the end all rely on faith. They are forced to admit that we don't know why JS's translation doesn't correspond with the papyri--perhaps we'll find out in the next life. Many believers who know about the BoA problem are somehow able to put this doubt on the shelf and await "further light and knowledge." The problem with this approach is that anything in the world can be true, if only you are willing to shelve your doubts. You can believe the earth is flat if you want. You don't need to explain why it looks round from space or why people seem to be able to circumnavigate the globe in every direction. Just put those doubts on the shelf for now, and trust that it will all make sense in the future.
- Widespread ignorance of Church history among the members. When I first learned of the BoA problem, I was somewhat surprised that I had never encountered it before. The same could be said for the BoM issues, and things like MMM, Hoffman, JS's polygamy/polyandry, Kinderhook plates, etc. While I wouldn't expect the Church to openly teach non-faith-promoting things, I was nevertheless surprised at how much I had never heard of, despite my nearly perfect attendence at church meetings, seminary, MTC, BYU religion classes, etc. throughout my youth. It's very possible that I never would have found out about any of these things without the Internet. That fact alone sheds some light on the Church's ability to thrive in spite of all these problems.
| In the Book of Abraham, the daughter of Ham and "Egyptus" discovered the land of Egypt while it was still underwater from the Noachic flood, and settled her sons there. That conjures up an image of Egyptus jumping off the ark wearing a snorkel, and coming up a few minutes later exclaiming "Hey kids! There's LAND under this water! Let's settle down here!"
The itsy-bitsy problems with the story's believability are that
a) archaelogical research shows that the land of Egypt had been continuously occupied by humans for thousands of years before the alleged era of the mythical Noah
b) The name "Egypt" was given to the land by the invading Greeks many centuries AFTER the time of the mythical Noah. The ancient Egyptians had called their land "Kemet," meaning black soil, referring to the rich Nile delta earth.
Meaning, the BOA is discredited by that one anomaly alone.
| The closest thing the church has ever come to an official statement on the problems with the Book of Abraham was in the July 1988
issue of the Ensign Magazine. Granted, this article did not come from a General Authority. But the fact that the church published
this in The Ensign comes close to an official statement. If this Ensign article is false, then that would mean church leaders
allowed lies to be printed in the church's official publication.
This is an excellent article to share with TBM
friends and relatives because it admits the basic facts about the Book of Abraham papyri and facsimiles.
Below is a
summary of quotes from the article, with my comments in parenthesis:
Ensign, July 1988, Page 51:
"Why
doesn't the translation of the Egyptian papyri found in 1967 match the text of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great
Price?"
"The papyri in question are a part of the collection of Egyptian mummies and papyri that the Prophet
Joseph Smith bought from Michael Chandler in 1835. After the Prophet's death, the papyri were lost to the Church. But in 1966,
Dr. Aziz S. Atiya, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Utah, discovered some twenty-two separate papyri
fragments in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, which were clearly part of Joseph Smith's original
collection. The papyri were acquired by the Church, and they are now located at Brigham Young University."
(Note:
The church has always admitted that the rediscovered papyri is the same one in the possession of Joseph Smith.)
"..some people have concluded that this Book of Breathings must be the text Joseph Smith used in his translation of the book of
Abraham."
(Note: This "some people" making the conclusion includes the Mormon Church, which under the direction of
Apostle N. Eldon Tanner, sent out for the translation, expecting it to prove Smith's true translation abilities.)
"However, there are some serious problems associated with this assumption. First of all, from paleographic and historical
considerations, the Book of Breathings papyrus can reliably be dated to around A.D. 60-much too late for Abraham to have
written it. Of course, it could be a copy-or a copy of a copy-of the original written by Abraham. However, a second
problem arises when one compares the text of the book of Abraham with a translation of the Book of Breathings; they clearly are
not the same..."
(Note: Notice how the church is admitting the two basic facts 1: The papyri is too young to have
been written by Abraham and 2: A real translation of the papyri doesn't match the book of Abraham. So how are they going to
squirm out of this?)
"Actually, there are two possible explanations why the text of the recently discovered papyri
does not match the text in the Pearl of Great Price."
(Note: There are actually THREE possibilities.)
"One
explanation is that it may have been taken from a different portion of the papyrus rolls in Joseph Smith's possession."
(Note: This has been proven false since the release of Smith's translation dictionary. Characters from the existing fragments
match those in Smith's notes that he attributes to the BoA. Besides, the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are the ones in the
discovered papyri.)
"A second explanation takes into consideration what Joseph Smith meant by the word
translation. While translating the Book of Mormon, he used the Urim and Thummim rather than dictionaries and grammars of
the language. Translating with the Urim and Thummim is evidently a much different process than using the tools of scholarly
research."
(Note: According to Church History, the angel Moroni had already permanently taken back the Urim and
Thummin years earlier. The Book of Commandments, Smith's Journal and William Clayton's Journal all say Smith used his brown peep
stone for the Book of Abraham translation. Later, the D&C changed all references of "peep stone" to "urim and thummim.")
"Instead of making a literal translation, as scholars would use the term, he used the Urim and Thummim as a means of
receiving revelation."
(Note: Joseph Smith really used his brown peep stone, the same rock-in-the-hat trick he used to
dictate all of the Book of Mormon and the first sections of the D&C)
"..as Joseph Smith used the word, he could have
received the meaning, or subject-matter content of the original text, as he did in his translation of the Bible. This explanation
would mean that Joseph Smith received the text of our present book of Abraham the same way he received the translation of the
parchment of John the Revelator-he did not even need the actual text in front of him."
(Note: So then why did he even
have the papyri? This explanation is completely bogus because the Book of Abraham contains Smith's "translations" of facsimile
drawings included in the papyri. If it wasn't a literal translation, why does the BoA today show the facsimile drawings? Besides,
didn't Smith tell everyone he used the papyri as the source? That's what it still says in the introduction to the BoA in the
scriptures. And Abraham 1:12 actually references the facsimile image included in the papyri!)
"His translation of the
Bible, parts of which are in the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, was also done without having the original text before
him."
(Note: This sounds familiar. According to official church history and eyewitnesses, Smith dictated whole
sections of the Book of Mormon while the gold plates were hidden in the woods or under a bed.)
"In reality, the actual
method Joseph Smith used is far less important than the resulting book of scripture he produced."
(Note: This is
where the church throws out reason. They are basically telling you to ignore the facts and evidence in front of you.)
"In the final analysis, however, the proof of the truth of the book of Abraham does not come by human means."
(Note: What does "human means" mean? Why can't a real translation verify Smith's translation claims?)
"I have
studied the book of Abraham, and the truth of it has been made known to me in a way I can't deny. I know that anyone who
earnestly wants to know if the book of Abraham is true can also receive this same witness and knowledge from God."
(Note: The third possibility they chose to ignore is that the translation is a hoax. Based on the facts, which of the three
possibilities is most likely to be correct?)
Want to know more? Check out this web site:
http://www.irr.org/mit/boapage.html
For a really good
explanation of how the church obtained the papyri, authenticated it and then tried to cover it all up, read "Quest for the Gold Plates: Thomas Stuart Ferguson's
Archaeological Search for the Book of Mormon." A large portion of this book is on the story of the Book of Abraham fiasco.
To read the complete July 1988 Ensign article see:
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensi.....
| http://atheists.org/christianity/morm...
SMITH WROTE OTHER SCRIPTURES BESIDES THE BOOK OF MORMON
Encouraged by the success of his first bible, Joseph Smith proceeded to write other "scriptures." One of these is known as The Book of Abraham and is published today as part of a volume known as The Pearl of Great Price.
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM
Unlike The Book of Mormon, which merely dull or silly, depending upon how much coffee one has been drinking, The Book of Abraham has a rather unpleasant side. Until recent years, it was used to justify the racist policies of the Mormon church. Blacks formerly were not allowed to hold the "priesthood." Since almost all postpubertal Mormon males are priests and since Mormon women can't amount to anything unless they marry a man who does hold the priesthood, this dogma effectively kept Blacks out of the "white and delightsome" Church of Jesus of Latter-Day Saints.
The offensive passages are to be found in Chapter I, verses 20-27. Verse 24 ends with a reference to the biblical "curse of Ham": "From Ham sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land."
Verses 26-7, referring to Pharaoh (whom Smith supposed to be a Negro), say that Noah "cursed him (Ham and his descendants) as pertaining to the priesthood. No Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could have the right of priesthood," and so on.
IN ALL FAIRNESS
Now I must admit, in all fairness, that these passages are rather mild stuff and aren't as bad as the bible passages which were used by the Christian clergy to justify slavery. And I must inform the reader that although missionaries still do not go out in search of black converts, Blacks nowadays can hold the priesthood if they desire. The head of the Mormon church -- the "Chief Seer and Revelator" -- a few years ago got a message direct from his god to change this policy. The change came just in the nick of time, too, since civil rights legislation was making it harder for racist organizations to feed at the federal money-trough.
THE TRANSLATION OF ABRAHAM'S PAPYRI
How did Joseph Smith come to write this book?
Well, it was 1835. The Mormons had moved from New York state to Ohio. Michael Chandler, a traveling showman, came to Kirtland on July 3, 1835, exhibiting some Egyptian papyri and mummies. Smith declared the papyri contained the autographic writings of the patriarchs Abraham and Joseph of Egypt and that he could read them! The Mormons bought the mummies and the papyri.
When Josiah Quincy visited Smith later at Nauvoo, Illinois, Smith told him, "That is the handwriting of Abraham...this is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron." In fact, the introduction to The Book of Abraham still reads, "The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt...written by his own hand, upon papyrus.
Armed with his magic seer stone, this would-be prophet set to work and "translated" The Book of Abraham. Unique among the holy books of the world, The Book of Abraham comes equipped with three illustrations.
FACSIMILE 1
Facsimile 1 is accompanied by fantastic interpretation given by Joseph Smith. According to Smith, the "bird" in the upper right is "the angel of the Lord" and the man with the knife is an idolatrous priest trying to make a sacrifice of Abraham (the guy on the check-out counter to the left of the cash register).
Toward the end of the eighteenth century, when more and more scholars appeared who actually could read Egyptian -- even without the use of magic stones -- this interpretation was challenged. The "bird" was not an angel, but the ba or soul of a deceased person. Furthermore, it was claimed, its face had been changed. It should have a human face. The reclining figure wasn't Abraham; it was Osiris being called back to life by Anubis, the god of the dead and of embalming. The so-called priest -- it was claimed over one hundred years ago -- had been altered! He actually should have the head of a jackal and should not have a knife in his hand.
FACSIMILE 2
The second facsimile is rather different from the first, and Smith claimed it has to with astronomy. The accompanying explanation is chock-full of nonsense such as "one day to cubit," "fixed planets," and made-up words such as "Jah-oh-eh" and "Oliblish."
Although the writing in the illustration was too poorly copied for Egyptologists to make much sense out of it, it was noted a century ago that not everything was kosher. Although the writing along the top border is in hieroglyphics, starting at about one o'clock, the writing becomes cursive (hieractic), continuing to about five o'clock, where-upon it becomes hieroglyphics again! A similar peculiarity is seen in the right-central section of the figure. here each line is hieroglyphic on the left end and cursive on the right end. "Something's fishy here," said the experts.
FACSIMILE 3
The third facsimile Smith claimed depicts Abraham upon Pharaoh's throne discoursing on astronomy with Pharaoh behind him. The person standing in the center is a prince, flanked by the king's waiter, and the black person on the far right is -- you guessed it! -- a slave.
Experts a hundred years ago said, "Baloney!" The scene actually depicts the judgment of a deceased person, and the characters are, from left to right, Isis (female!), Osiris on the throne, Maat (female!), the deceased, and Anubis the jackal-headed god. Today, of course, the experts still say the same thing. Unfortunately, the writing on the facsimiles was so poorly reproduced (deliberately, I would assert) that Egyptologists could not say for sure just what the writings did say, even though it was certain that Smith's interpretation was pure blarney.
THE CHANGE IN 1966
But everything changed in 1966. In that year, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, two ex-Mormons who became full-time debunkers of the faith of Brigham Young, obtained a microfilm of a document which had been hidden and suppressed by the Mormon church for over 130 years: Joseph Smith's notebook entitled "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar". Part of the microfilm contained material in Smith's own handwriting, with his signature.
One such page reads "Valuable discovery of hidden records that have been obtained from the ancient burying grounds of the Egyptians, (signature) Joseph Smith, Jr." Other pages are in the handwriting of several of the "prophets" secretaries.
SMITH'S NOTEBOOK
What is the nature of this notebook? It is, I believe, a show Smith put on for the benefit of his secretaries, a pretense of actually being able to decipher Egyptian. Champollion, in France, had just succeeded in deciphering Egyptian, but in the wilds of America no one yet knew this. So Smith was free in this notebook to make up anything he wanted, confident he could get away with it. After a number of pages of absolute word-hash, we see him making up The Book of Abraham.
QUOTES FROM SMITH'S NOTEBOOK
The word-hash is so mad, however, that I cannot resist quoting a few lines. Smith's explanation of the meaning of a simple vertical stroke -- a single line -- is as follows:
"Beth-Ba-eth. This character is from the first degree. It has an arbitrary sound or signification which is Beth; and also a compound sound which is Za and comprise one simple sentence for its signification. It is only increased or lessened in it signification, or enlarges the sentence. Two connections increases its signification still: Three increases it still: Four increases still and five still, This is as far as a sentence can be carried in the first degree." (punctuation as in original)
Proceeding to the pages containing the characters from which The Book of Abraham was derived, we find Egyptian characters arrayed vertically on the left side of each page, with the verses of scripture allegedly translated from them on the right. At the top left of one such page, we find a character resembling a backward "E" --from which Smith derives the seventy-six words of verse 13 and 14 of Chapter 1!
CAN IT BE BELIEVED?
Can it be believed? Seventy-six words from one character? The idea becomes even more preposterous when we find that this character isn't even an entire Egyptian word: it's just a "determinative," a sign used to give the reader a clue as to the general meaning of the word of which it is a part. In this case, the sign signifies "water." The word of which it is a part is the Egyptian word for "pool."
The real find, however, in the "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" was the discovery of Smith's working version of Facsimile 2, the circular figure ( p 32). In exactly every place where the Egyptologists had claimed there was something fishy in the published plate in Joe's notebook we have empty spaces and called it inspiration! The critics could not have been vindicted more perfectly.
AN AMUSING ITEM
An amusing item: in the notebook version of Facsimile 2, the hieroglyphics are clear enough to be read. At about nine o'clock we can make out a hieroglyph of a bull. Reading from there towards six o'clock, we apparently can make out the phrase, "great bull who can copulate without equal..." Can this be a cryptographic prophesy of the second coming of Brigham Young -- who had how many wives?
The "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" would have been enough evidence to convict Joseph Smith of fraud, even if we didn't have any further evidence. But we do, we do!
THE "SMOKING PISTOL"
The "smoking pistol" itself has been found -- not in the vaults in Salt Lake City, but in the Metropolitan Museum in New York City.
The smoking pistol consists of the actual papyri Smith got from Chandler, the traveling showman -- including the papyrus from which the characters in the "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" had been copied, and the papyrus original of Facsimile 1. Although the papyri had been discovered in the museum in the same year in which the Tanners had published the "Grammar," it wasn't until the following year, 1967, that the papyri were given to the Mormon church by the museum.
THE DIVINE GUIDANCE
The divine guidance which is supposed to guide the "Chief Seer and Revelator" of the church apparently was vacationing on the planet Kolob in 1967, for the church authorities foolishly agreed that the papyri were authentic and were indeed the originals from which Joseph Smith translated The Book of Abraham.
THE OFFICIAL STORY
The official story -- the hope, as it were -- was that the papyri had burned up in the great Chicago fire, although there is evidence that at least some Mormon officials knew the papyri still existed and thought it best to let sleeping dogs lie. Although the plates from which The Book of Mormon had been translated had been taken back to heaven after Smith's library card expired -- conveniently making it impossible to check up on Smith's claims -- the papyri behind the Abraham opus were still on earth, and could be checked! Publication of the papyri dealt what
EXAMINING FACSIMILE 1
If we examine the original of Facsimile 1, we see that the head of the so-called priest is missing. The experts said he should have the head of Anubis the jackal-god. Smith, not knowing anything about Egyptian religion, put a man's head on the figure. There is no knife in the picture either. Strike two. Smith made it up. There is no head on the ba-bird. Strike three. Smith put a bird's head on the ba -- not an unreasonable mistake if a man is uninspired and knows no Egyptology. But for the founder of a religion and a man who claims divine guidance in his interpretations, this is devastating.
But the picture wasn't the only thing "Holy Joe" filled in out of his fertile imagination. If we examine Fig. 4, a picture of the scrap of papyrus from which Smith derived the entire Book of Abraham, we may note the arrow pointing to the backward "E" discussed previously. Three lines below it, we can see some of the characters used to fill in the right-central part of Facsimile 2 (sector 14 right side of Fig. 2). Unfortunately, Smith inserted these characters upside down. How odd of god to tell Smith what all these squiggles meant, but never thought to tell him which way was up!
CONTINUING OUR EXAMINATION
Continuing our examination of Fig. 4, we note that there is a deep, triangular cleft in the papyrus, extending from the upper right-hand corner downward to the fourth line of writing. The characters on both sides of the fissure can be found in Smith's notebook, together with the corresponding verses of The Book of Abraham.
Guess where in this papyrus Smith got the anti-Negro verses! The whole holy business about the "curse of Ham" comes from the hole! As Smith copied the characters from the papyrus into his notebook, he made up the curse-of-Ham characters to fill in the cleft in the original. Embarrassingly, he made up too many of them to fit in the space available!
EGYPTOLOGIST TRANSLATION
Egyptologists have now translated all the Joseph Smith papyri -- including the parts Joseph said could not yet be revealed -- and we can say without fear of contradiction that the materials have nothing to do with Abraham or with Blacks. They are delightfully pagan in nature, and nothing Jewish can be seen in them. They are part of the Book of Breathings -- a late abridgment of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. In fact, these papyri date from approximately the beginning of the Christian era and are about two thousand years too late to contain the autograph of Abraham!
THE MAJOR RELIGIONS
The major religions of the world began too long ago for anthropologists to be able to reconstruct accurately the complex interactions between fraud, delusion, and honest ignorance which went into their manufacture. In the case of Mormonism, however, a very scientific case can be built up to show quite unambiguously the role of chicanery in the formation of this most uniquely American religion. Joseph Smith dared to invent a new religion in the age of printing!
| My vote for the most damning thing in the Standard Works is this:
. . . the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus.
The Book of Abraham should be the churchs best missionary tool. Why?
Because those papyri were supposedly handwritten by Abraham. That would make them the ONLY original Biblical writings in existance. There are NO original writings from any Biblical authors not even from the New Testament. Nobody knows what Moses, Jesus, or Pauls handwriting looks like. However, the Mormons know what Father Abrahams handwriting looks like because they have his handwritten scriptures!
Another thing that should be significant is that Abraham wrote them 500 years before Moses wrote Genesis. That alone would make the papyri valuable because they would be the oldest Biblical writings.
All of Christendom should be falling over themselves to study the Book of Abraham papyri. Quite simply, the Book of Abraham papyri (if real) should be one of the most significant historical documents in the world.
But its not.
The papyri do not date back far enough and the translations given by real scholars dont have anything to do with Abraham or the Bible. They are common Egyptian burial texts. The fact that nobody outside of Mormondumb cares about the BoA speaks volumes to me.
And the apologetic excuses for the BoA are just hillarious. To believe in the BoA you have to believe that God used Pagan Egyptian burial texts as secret code for his sacred scriptures. Or that Joseph Smith didn't mean what he said when he said that Abraham hand wrote them. Or my favorite: that God tricked JS into thinking he was translating the papyri when he was actually just receiving direct revelation. Wow!
I have decided that the next time a TBM gives me a hard time about my disbelief I will share this insight with them. What scriptures would you like to share with a TBM?
| | | Ensign Magazine Questions The Truth About The Book Of Abraham
Article Archived: Jan 30, 2006, at 07:16 AM
Stored Under Topic: BOOK OF ABRAHAM
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Deconstructor | | |
The closest thing the church has ever come to an official statement on the problems with the Book of Abraham was in the July 1988 issue of the Ensign Magazine.
Granted, the church article did not come from a General Authority. But the fact that the church published it in the Ensign comes close to an official statement. If this Ensign article is false, then that would mean church leaders allowed lies to be printed in the church's official publication.
This is an excellent article to share with TBM friends and relatives because it admits the basic facts about the Book of Abraham papyri and facsimiles.
Below is a summary of quotes from the article, with my comments in parenthesis:
Ensign, July 1988, Page 51:
"Why doesn't the translation of the Egyptian papyri found in 1967 match the text of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price?"
"The papyri in question are a part of the collection of Egyptian mummies and papyri that the Prophet Joseph Smith bought from Michael Chandler in 1835. After the Prophet's death, the papyri were lost to the Church. But in 1966, Dr. Aziz S. Atiya, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Utah, discovered some twenty-two separate papyri fragments in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, which were clearly part of Joseph Smith's original collection. The papyri were acquired by the Church, and they are now located at Brigham Young University."
(Note: The church has always admitted that the rediscovered papyri is the same one in the possession of Joseph Smith.)
"..some people have concluded that this Book of Breathings must be the text Joseph Smith used in his translation of the book of Abraham."
(Note: This "some people" making the conclusion includes the Mormon Church, which under the direction of Apostle N. Eldon Tanner, sent out for the translation, expecting it to prove Smith's true translation abilities.)
"However, there are some serious problems associated with this assumption. First of all, from paleographic and historical considerations, the Book of Breathings papyrus can reliably be dated to around A.D. 60-much too late for Abraham to have written it. Of course, it could be a copy-or a copy of a copy-of the original written by Abraham. However, a second problem arises when one compares the text of the book of Abraham with a translation of the Book of Breathings; they clearly are not the same..."
(Note: Notice how the church is admitting the two basic facts 1: The papyri is too young to have been written by Abraham and 2: A real translation of the papyri doesn't match the book of Abraham. So how are they going to squirm out of this?)
"Actually, there are two possible explanations why the text of the recently discovered papyri does not match the text in the Pearl of Great Price."
(Note: There are actually THREE possibilities.)
"One explanation is that it may have been taken from a different portion of the papyrus rolls in Joseph Smith's possession."
(Note: This has been proven false since the release of Smith's translation dictionary. Characters from the existing fragments match those in Smiths notes that he attributes to the BoA. Besides, the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are the ones in the discovered papyri.)
"A second explanation takes into consideration what Joseph Smith meant by the word translation. While translating the Book of Mormon, he used the Urim and Thummim rather than dictionaries and grammars of the language. Translating with the Urim and Thummim is evidently a much different process than using the tools of scholarly research."
(Note: According to Church History, the angel Moroni had already permanently taken back the Urim and Thummin years earlier. The Book of Commandments, Smith's Journal and William Clayton's Journal all say Smith used his brown peep stone for the Book of Abraham translation. Later, the D&C changed all references of "peep stone" to "urim and thummim.")
"Instead of making a literal translation, as scholars would use the term, he used the Urim and Thummim as a means of receiving revelation."
(Note: Joseph Smith really used his brown peep stone, the same rock-in-the-hat trick he used to dictate all of the Book of Mormon)
"..as Joseph Smith used the word, he could have received the meaning, or subject-matter content of the original text, as he did in his translation of the Bible. This explanation would mean that Joseph Smith received the text of our present book of Abraham the same way he received the translation of the parchment of John the Revelator-he did not even need the actual text in front of him."
(Note: So then why did he even have the papyri? This explanation is completely bogus because the Book of Abraham contains Smith's "translations" of facsimile drawings included in the papyri. If it wasn't a literal translation, why does the BoA today show the facsimile drawings? Besides, didn't Smith tell everyone he used the papyri as the source? That's what it still says in the introduction to the BoA in the scriptures. And Abraham 1:12 actually references the facsimile image included in the papyri!)
"His translation of the Bible, parts of which are in the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, was also done without having the original text before him."
(Note: This sounds familiar. According to official church history and eyewitnesses, Smith dictated whole sections of the Book of Mormon while the gold plates were hidden in the woods or under the bed.)
"In reality, the actual method Joseph Smith used is far less important than the resulting book of scripture he produced."
(Note: This is where the church throws out reason. They are basically telling you to ignore the facts and evidence in front of you.)
"In the final analysis, however, the proof of the truth of the book of Abraham does not come by human means."
(Note: What does "human means" mean? Why can't a real translation verify Smith's translation claims?)
"I have studied the book of Abraham, and the truth of it has been made known to me in a way I can't deny. I know that anyone who earnestly wants to know if the book of Abraham is true can also receive this same witness and knowledge from God."
(Note: The third possibility they chose to ignore is that the translation is a hoax. Based on the facts, which of the three possibilities is most likely to be correct?)
Want to know more? Check out this web site:
http://www.irr.org/mit/Book-of-Abraham-page.html
For a really good explanation of how the church obtained the papyri, authenticated it and then tried to cover it all up, read "Quest for the Gold Plates: Thomas Stuart Ferguson's Archaeological Search for the Book of Mormon." A large portion of this book is on the story of the Egyptian papyri fiasco.
| | | Some Comments On Farms' Response To Robert Ritner's Article On The Book Of Abraham
Article Archived: Mar 27, 2006, at 07:49 AM
Stored Under Topic: BOOK OF ABRAHAM
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Randy J. | | |
From the closed thread. Substrate provided the link:
>http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=561
First off, the author, Larry Morris, is identified as "a writer and editor with the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts at Brigham Young University." He holds an MA, not a doctorate, and is not an Egyptologist. Since John Gee is a Mormon Egyptologist, and is the subject of much of Ritner's criticism, one wonders why Gee did not compose a response to Ritner, rather than Morris. Is Morris running interference for Gee?
Morris wrote:
>These three fragments, found on a mummy discovered in a Theban tomb, were owned by an Egyptian priest by the name of Hor. They are part of a larger text sometimes called the "book of breathings." Baer suggests, however, that "breathing permit" is actually a better translation. In addition, these fragments are sometimes known as the "sensen" text, from the Egyptian snsn, or breathing. Hence, these names all refer to the same text.
Great---the FARMS author agrees that the papyrus fragments are an Egyptian funerary text. Joseph Smith said that the fragments were associated with "The Book of Abraham." So the FARMS author agrees that Joseph Smith was clueless as to the true meaning and purpose of the documents.
Morris's complaints about Ritner's "tone" and "anti-Mormon attacks" are hypocritical and diversionary. LDS apologistetics, in particular Hugh Nibley, have and can be laced with ad hominems and polemics. (Need I cite Nibley's "No Ma'am, That's Not History" or William Hamblin's "Metcalfe Is Butthead" comment as examples?) Also, Ritner is hardly alone in his criticism of Nibley: such Mormons as BYU professor Kent Jackson and Nibley's own daughter, Martha Nibley Beck, have criticized Nibley's scholarship and fast-and-loose usage of sources.
Morris's complaints about Ritner's tone are merely typical Mormon whining. Mormons expect the world to treat them and their church with utmost respect and reverence, while they don't grasp the fact that most of the world holds Mormonism in much the same regard they do Scientology or Reverend Moon. Morris needs to save his whining and moaning for somebody who cares.
Morris writes:
>In the very first sentence of his Dialogue article, Ritner steps out of his area of expertise to make a controversial claim that really has nothing to do with his stated purpose of reexamining the Breathing Permit of Hor. He announces, as if it were an established fact, that the eleven papyrus fragments once owned by Joseph Smithand given by the Metropolitan Museum of Art to the Church of Jesus Christ in 1967were "employed as the basis for 'The Book of Abraham'" (p. 97). Of course, whether Joseph Smith employed these fragments as the "basis" of the Book of Abraham is not established at allthis is the issue that has sparked such a long and heated debate over the origin of the Book of Abraham.
As I detailed in posts to "anon" in this thread, Joseph Smith indeed claimed that the fragments including the three "facsimiles" were part of his "Book of Abraham." If Morris denies this, he is either ignorant or a liar.
>Further, this is not an Egyptological question, for the debate does not center on a translation of the fragments.
To the contrary, the very *HEART* of this debate centers on whether Joseph Smith possessed the ability to translate ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. It doesn't matter whether there are any "missing" scrolls or not. Joseph Smith obviously had no clue as to the meaning of the fragments which are in existence, so since his credibility is shot, the debate is over.
Morris then rehashes the typical Mopologetic defense that the existence of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers (a.k.a. the "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar") do not prove that Smith used the hieratic characters in the Sen-sen text as the source for his BOA "translation." This is a typical diversionary tactic, designed to obfuscate the fact that whether or not Smith used the EA&G characters does not negate the fact that he was clueless as to the correct meaning and purpose of the documents in general. *NONE* of Smith's papyrus fragments have anything whatsoever to do with Abraham, or Judeo-Christianity in the least. Facsimile No. 1 does *NOT* depict Abraham being attacked by a wicked priest. Rather, it depicts a common Egyptian funerary scene. That error alone ends the debate about Smith's credibility.
Morris then complains about Ritner's "ridiculing" the content of the BOA, saying that earlier Egyptologists didn't do that. I say, why not ridicule what is so obviously ridiculous? As I wrote to "anon" in another post, Smith's tall tale about Egypt being discovered and named by "Egyptus" (while it was still under water from the Noachic flood, no less!), is ridiculous on its face. The land of Egypt had been occupied for many centuries before the mythical flood, and no alleged devastating global flood interrupted Egyptian civilization in the least. Smith's assertion that Egypt was named after "Egyptus" is also a farce. So what it wrong with ridiculing the ridiculous? It is somehow worse than ridiculing (for instance) Scientology's or the Heaven's Gate cult's ridiculous, concocted-out-of-whole-cloth beliefs?
Well, Carrie's calling supper, and this is enough for one post anyhoo. Maybe I'll add more later.
| In 1912 copies of the Book of Abraham Facsimiles were sent to eight of the world's leading Egyptologists - asking each for their assessment of Joseph Smith's interpretation of the papyrus.
The eight Egyptologists and Semitists who responded were unanimous in their scathing verdict: "Joseph Smith's interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end," came the report from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, which added that "five minutes study in an Egyptian gallery of any museum should be enough to convince any educated man of the clumsiness of the imposture;"4 ". . . difficult to deal seriously with Smith's impudent fraud," wrote another from Oxford, England. "Smith has turned the Goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham."5 From Chicago, ". . . very clearly demonstrates that he (Joseph Smith) was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian Writing and civilization."6 And from London, ". . . the attempts to guess a meaning are too absurd to be noticed. It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations."7 - By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus:
A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri
Part 1 (Chapters 1-4) By Charles M. Larson
FARMS response? Joseph Smith was able to see things in the Papyrus that someone without the power of God could not see. FARMS's BYU "professors" then cross their fingers behind their backs and hope that Mormons will swallow this bitter pill.
Joseph Smith was nothing more than a conman - who succeeded in conning thousands of people at the time he purportedly translated the Papyrus. We now fully understand the Papyrus was nothing more than a funerary scroll, however, Mormonism continues to lie to its members stating the Papyrus was the Word of God.
| I remember when I first went to the FARMS website. I was really excited about the articles about the BoA. As I started reading Nibley's articles I started to get the feeling that the topic of the BoA was very complicated and almost required several college level classes in Egyptian history and language to even begin to address it. I remember not having the slightest clue about half of what Nibley was saying the first few times I read his articles. The more I read the more I became aware of the fact that Nibley and his still living counterparts were rebutting critics of the BoA. I bounced back and forth, reading critique and rebuttal. At first I thought he apologists were doing quite well. I would read some fact that a critic would bring up and search and search until I found an answer from the apologists. I don't remember if those first points that the critics were really bad ones, or if I was still a little brainwashed.
Eventually, I started gathering critic points quicker than the apologists were answering them. Then I started noticing that the apologists weren't even addressing some points. The propoganda tools I thought I caught them using ran the gambit from ad hoc theories to strawmen arguements and every fallicious arguement in between. I finally got a basic understanding of what the BoB and BotD where. I read Charles Larson's book. I had a couple of small critques for him, but these were areas where I thought that he pulled punches.
Tonight, while reading a post by Concrete Zipper I was directed to a link for the Book of Abraham Project. I tried to be patient and read the whole page. Maybe I am delusional about my understanding of the issues. Maybe I have over simplified the issues surrounding the BoA. However, one must only compare JS's explanation of any of the Facsimiles to a proper Egyptian's translation to determine that JS could not translate Egyptian. Did he claim that he could. I am pretty sure that he did. I am also pretty sure that he claimed he could do it by using his position as a prophet that was entitled to translate scripture. The apologists have come up with all sorts of convoluted theories about the BoB having two meanings, missing scrolls, etc. that have about their basis in a small amount of truth. I guess I have come full circle. I still believe that their main goal is to confuse anyone new to the issue. Except, I am no longer confused by what they say. In my opinion the vast majority of writings about the BoA are nothing more that smoke and mirrors.
Maybe I am being simplistic, but if the BoA does not prove that JS was not a prophet then it comes pretty damn close. I am beginning to think that they are intentionally trying to confuse people.
| | | Catalyze This: Mormon Apostle Secretly Says Joseph Smith Didn't Directly Translate The Book Of Abraham From Those Ancient Egyptian Papyri After All
Article Archived: Nov 9, 2006, at 07:58 AM
Stored Under Topic: BOOK OF ABRAHAM
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Sourcerer | | |
INTRODUCTION
In another thread, "No Moniker" noted (with some apparent surprise) that Mormon apologists are now claiming that the Book of Abraham was NOT translated from the fabled Egyptian papyri which Joseph Smith bought from a collection of oddities being peddled by a traveling showman:
"Subject: Papayri not the source for the Book of Abraham.......
Date: Nov 08 22:52
Author: No Moniker
Mail Address:
-----------------------------------------
"Yes...we all know that. But, there was just an ad on TV for some apologist work and the voice over said exactly that!? I swear that is what it said! Did I miss some change in Mormon teaching?
Now they are teaching that the papayri are not the source?
When did that happen?"
_____
In reality, this brazen attempt to distance the LDS Church from its own bedrock claim that Smith directly translated the Book of Abraham from the papyri in question has been made for some time.
In fact, it has been made from the top--and from behind closed doors.
_____
APOSTLE NEAL MAXWELL ARGUES THAT THE EGYPTIAN PAPYRI WERE NOT THE DIRECT SOURCE OF JOSEPH SMITH'S "TRANSLATION" OF THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM
In his account of off-the-record meetings with LDS Apostles Neal Maxwell and Dallin Oaks in September 1993, Steve Benson reported that Maxwell attempted to disconnect Smith's papyri from Smith's "translation" of the Book of Abraham.
Maxwell's partner in hemming and hawing on this fundamenal historical claim--namely, Dallin Oaks--claimed ignorance but said Maxwell's explanation seemed good enough for him:
"Maxwell observed that, according to Doctrine and Covenants, Section 7, the Book of Abraham was translated by Joseph Smith in 'catalystic fashion.'
"Smith, Maxwell claimed, had, in vision, seen parchments from the writings of John the Revelator.
"Maxwell said that, likewise, Smith may have also had revealed to him Egyptian parchment which he did not touch, physically hold or from which he did not directly translate.
"In other words, Maxwell said, Smith may have been 'accessing' an ancient parchment that was not actually with him. Instead, Maxwell proposed, he may have had revealed to him 'in some kind of vision' the source from which he then translated the Book of Abraham.
"Oaks admitted he did not know how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham. He said, however, that Maxwell's explanation seemed persuasive.
"Oaks also said he was familiar with the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar that Smith was constructing. [Benson] responded by going into brief detail about how Smith, or his scribes, would copy an Egyptian hieroglyph from the parchment into a left-hand column, then apparently from that single hieroglyph, produce a whole series of words and paragraphs.
"[Benson] noted that the words and dictionary which Smith attached to the facsimiles had absolutely no relationship with the content of the papyri--as indicated and translated by such noted and reputable Egyptologists as Klaus Bauer of the University of Chicago and others.
"At this point, Oaks said, 'Well, there are some things I just don't understand and just don't know.' But, he said, he was willing to put such matters on the shelf 'until further knowledge comes.'
"Oaks said the jury was out on the Book of Abraham and that we should 'wait and see.' Oaks admitted that 'the scholars' seemed to have evidence 'in their favor,' but that he himself had a 'personal witness' that the Book of Abraham was true.
"Oaks concluded by saying that he does not let evidence 'weighted against Joseph Smith on this' persuade him that the Book of Abraham is not true. . . .
"Maxwell . . . [said further] . . . that [w]hile acknowledging that Joseph Smith's former scribe, Warren Parrish, and Mormon hymn composer, W. W. Phelps (of 'The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning' fame), were at one point about ready to leave the Church, he said 'don't pounce on Joseph Smith.'
"Maxwell said, in fact, that the work of Parrish and Phelps on the Book of Abraham manuscript helped bolster the argument that the Egyptian funerary texts were not the actual parchments used by Joseph Smith in his translation of the Book of Abrahamor that Joseph Smith was even the author of the four extant manuscripts of the Book of Abraham.
"In support of that position, Maxwell handed [Benson] a F.A.R.M.S. review, written by Michael D. Rhodes, of Charles M. Larson's book, '. . . By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri' (Grand Rapids: Institute for Religious Research, 1992, p. 240 pp., illustrated).
"On closer examination of the paper on which Rhodes review was photocopied, [Benson] determined the review originated with F.A.R.M.S. It was printed on fax paper bearing the acronym 'F.A.R.M.S,' along with the 'FAX' date of '09/09/93.' It also bore a dispatch time of '1:55' and a B.Y.U.-area phone number of '378 3724.' It appears that Maxwell had solicited the assistance of F.A.R.M.S. in preparing for [his] discussions).
"Maxwell had highlighted in yellow the following excerpt from Rhodes' article:
"'First of all, none of these manuscripts of the [B]ook of Abraham is in Joseph Smith's handwriting. They are mostly in the handwriting of William W. Phelps, with a few short sections written by Warren Parrish. Nowhere in the documents is Joseph Smith designated as the author. Moreover, the Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin were clearly written in after the English text had been written. These cannot be the working papers of a translation process. Instead, Phelps and Parrish seemed to have copied down the text of the [B]ook of Abraham and were then attempting to correlate that translation with some of the scrolls in the Church's possession. These documents are most likely that preliminary stage of investigation and exploration the Lord prescribed in D&C 9:8 to "study it out in your mind." The Lord expects us to first do all we can to understand something (and in the process discover our own limitations) before we seek for direct revelation from him. This is what Phelps and Parrish were apparently doing, although their efforts were short-lived and unsuccessful. In fact these same men shortly after this began to turn away from the Prophet Joseph and fell into apostasy. If they had been parties to some fraudulent process of producing the [B]ook of Abraham, they would surely have denounced Joseph Smith for this, but they never did.' . . .
"In the end, Maxwell, responding to criticism of the Book of Abraham's authenticity, declared, 'We will not twist or oscillate every time we come across new evidence. The Church is not a jerkwater organization.'"
http://twincentral.com/site/pages/art... Parts 12 and 18
_____
CONCLUSION
Contrary to original insistence by Joseph Smith himself, today's apologizing apostles have earnestly attempted to distance themselves and the LDS Church from the notion that the Egyptian papyri purchased by Smith were the actual documents from which the Book of Abraham was supposedly translated.
Rather than having managed a direct translation from the papyri, they say that, instead, Smith may have used them as a prompt of some sort to connect to a vision that revealed the meaning of the papyri's hieroglyphics through dreamily viewing papyri that Smith didn't actually have in his physical possession.
As to the supposed translation of the Book of Abraham papyri via that creative Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, the modern apostolic claim is now being peddled that Smith cannot be held responsible on this score--rather, it was his scribes--not Smith--who went down that road of alphabet soup and, besides, they were just experimenting, not recording any kind of actual translation.
OK, then.
If this mumbo-jumbo for dumbos doesn't give you a burning in the bosom, what possibly could?
| Mormons are taught that all of the Papyrus that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham were destroyed in a fire. It is one of the first apologetic words out of their mouths when critics ask to see the Papyrus for proper translation.
In 1966, a University of Utah researcher at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York made a startling find in the archives of the museum. While looking at a collection of some fragments of Egyptian papyrus rolls, he recognized one of the illustrations on one of the fragments as nearly identical to the "Facsimile 1" wood-cut that appears in the Mormon Book of Abraham. Further investigation proved what he suspected--these were some of the original papyrus fragments that were purchased by the LDS in 1835. In 1967, the Museum presented the papyri as a gift to the LDS Church. It was time for Evans' challenge to be taken up by Mormon critics.
The Church itself did some of the investigative work in comparing the results of modern studies in Egyptology applied to the papyri to the claims Joseph Smith had made for his work on the Book of Abraham. But when it became obvious that the results were going to be painfully uncomfortable for the Church, work became very slow. Outside researchers eventually obtained adequate copies of the material and began publishing their own results.
The bottom line of the investigations by all--one of the sections of papyrus was clearly the Egyptian | |
