Joseph Smith and the Papyri

  • Thread starter Thread starter Boulder257
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
invisible_man said:
An example of what I am talking about is the recent discovery of the papyrus scrolls from which Joseph Smith was presumed to have translated the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Modern scholars, looking at the scrolls, found nothing they considered to be similar to that book. I remarked at the time that such a finding didn’t bother me in the least. God doesn’t need a crib sheet in the form of a papyrus scroll to reveal Abraham’s thoughts and words to Joseph Smith, with any degree of precision He considers necessary for His purposes. If the only function of the scrolls was to awaken the Prophet to the idea of receiving such inspiration, they would have fulfilled their purpose.
—Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, p. 46

This was a Mormon leader’s reflection on the subject many years ago. I believe that they only recovered a fragment of the scroll. Most was lost in a fire. Also, the LDS church was completely honest about what was discovered on the recovered scroll. It was published in their magazine a couple of months after the fragmented scroll was translated.

en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Church_disclosure_of_%22Book_of_the_Dead%22
Click to expand...
So does Eyring’s opinion on the matter trump Joseph Smith’s, who made it VERY clear that he was translating FROM the papyri and they were, without a doubt, the words of Abraham?
LDS.org:
How Did the Church Obtain the Book of Abraham?

On 3 July 1835 a man named Michael Chandler brought four Egyptian mummies and several papyrus scrolls of ancient Egyptian writings to Kirtland, Ohio. The mummies and papyri had been discovered in Egypt several years earlier by Antonio Lebolo. Kirtland was one of many stops in the eastern United States for Chandler’s mummy exhibition. Chandler was offering the mummies and rolls of papyrus for sale and, at the urging of the Prophet Joseph Smith, several members of the Church donated money to purchase them. In a statement dated 5 July 1835, Joseph Smith, declaring the importance of these ancient Egyptian writings, recorded: “I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham. … Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth” (History of the Church, 2:236).
Click to expand...
lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

There isn’t a way to justify this. If Smith had truly simply been “inspired” to write down Abraham’s thoughts, then he would not have claimed they were a direct translation of the papyri. Unless, well, he was outright lying. But that presents an entirely new problem altogether.
 
SpeSalvi said:
So does Eyring’s opinion on the matter trump Joseph Smith’s, who made it VERY clear that he was translating FROM the papyri and they were, without a doubt, the words of Abraham?

lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

There isn’t a way to justify this. If Smith had truly simply been “inspired” to write down Abraham’s thoughts, then he would not have claimed they were a direct translation of the papyri. Unless, well, he was outright lying. But that presents an entirely new problem altogether.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I am somewhat amazed that this isn’t a bigger deal to Mormons truly seeking the truth. I think it has been mentioned before that the BoA contains some very basic Mormon doctrines; i.e. pre-mortal existence, which if proven false would seem to be quite earth shattering to most folks. If I were Mormon I would want to get to the bottom of it.
 
SteveVH said:
Exactly. I am somewhat amazed that this isn’t a bigger deal to Mormons truly seeking the truth. I think it has been mentioned before that the BoA contains some very basic Mormon doctrines; i.e. pre-mortal existence, which if proven false would seem to be quite earth shattering to most folks. If I were Mormon I would want to get to the bottom of it.
Click to expand...
Many Mormons see the bigger picture when it comes to their faith. It doesn’t matter to them in how the Book of Abraham came to be. Mormon apologists certainly have their explanations. For Mormons the Book of Abraham is a wonderful book, filled with inspiration. And they also see this in the Book of Mormon. When they look at the life of Joseph Smith, they can see a young man who did marvelous things, something that would be beyond an average man in their twenties. And someone who could not write the Book of Abraham from his own mind.
 
invisible_man said:
Many Mormons see the bigger picture when it comes to their faith. It doesn’t matter to them in how the Book of Abraham came to be. Mormon apologists certainly have their explanations. For Mormons the Book of Abraham is a wonderful book, filled with inspiration. And they also see this in the Book of Mormon. When they look at the life of Joseph Smith, they can see a young man who did marvelous things, something that would be beyond an average man in their twenties. And someone who could not write the Book of Abraham from his own mind.
Click to expand...
Mormon apologists have their explanations but Mormon “prophets seeres and revelators” do not. Is it the apologists that have the prophet mantle in the LDS church these days? Why do your prophets hide behind the words of apologists, why do they not come out with explanations? Where is Mr. Monson’s, “Gods’ mouthpiece” statement on this, how about the quorum of 12 any voices from them on this? Why will the leadership of the LDS church not speak definitively about this? Why are they hesitant to speak what they believe is truth?

Apologists are nothing, if the LDS truly had men chosen to speak for God they would do so and not leave the task to apologists and PR men.
 
zaffiroborant said:
Apologists are nothing, if the LDS truly had men chosen to speak for God they would do so and not leave the task to apologists and PR men.
Click to expand...
Should the Mormon leader get involved in an internet discussion about issues? We now have the Joseph Smith Papers and I am sure that more information will follow. I think that there will be more openness in the LDS church.
 
invisible_man said:
Should the Mormon leader get involved in an internet discussion about issues? We now have the Joseph Smith Papers and I am sure that more information will follow. I think that there will be more openness in the LDS church.
Click to expand...
The mouthpiece of God should be boldly declaring the provenance of it’s purported scripture. The President and the quorum of 12 should not be hiding behind the skirts of apologists and historians when it comes the supposed scripture. Mind you I use the word supposed in regards to all of the LDS church extra scripture because your prophet and your 12 leaders can no even bring themselves out to defend them. They hide behind apologists and historians, refusing to come out to the world with a definitive statement concerning their provenance. Why in the world should anyone accept any LDS scripture if the 15 leaders of the church will not come out and defend their provenance? If the leaders don’t believe it enough to defend it why should I

The JS papers project is meaningless if the the leaders don’t defend all of of your so called scriptures.
 
invisible_man said:
Should the Mormon leader get involved in an internet discussion about issues? We now have the Joseph Smith Papers and I am sure that more information will follow. I think that there will be more openness in the LDS church.
Click to expand...
The Big 15 don’t have to get on this forum to discuss the BOA. They could easily talk about it at their General Conference in October. They could post a letter on the Mormon church’s official website. They control a communications company so they have plenty of options at their fingertips. The Big 15 use the apologists so they have plausible deniability. We’re waiting for them to man up and provide official explanations in an official setting. 🍿
 
invisible_man said:
Many Mormons see the bigger picture when it comes to their faith. It doesn’t matter to them in how the Book of Abraham came to be.
Click to expand...
Ignoring reason is not seeing the big picture. It is holding on to preconceived notions even in the face of objective truth that contradicts those notions.
invisible_man said:
Mormon apologists certainly have their explanations.
Click to expand...
None of which is credible in light of the words of Joseph Smith himself which, again, contradict the Mormon apologist’s position that the papyri was only a source of inspiration and not a direct translation
invisible_man said:
For Mormons the Book of Abraham is a wonderful book, filled with inspiration. And they also see this in the Book of Mormon. When they look at the life of Joseph Smith, they can see a young man who did marvelous things, something that would be beyond an average man in their twenties. And someone who could not write the Book of Abraham from his own mind.
Click to expand...
Does it make any difference that is it has been proven to be a fraud? There are many books of fiction which can be inspiring. But being inspiring is different than being inspired. The point is that he did not do what he said he did and that was to translate the Papyri. He did not tell the truth, something very important to do when one claims to be a prophet.
 
Invisible Man, would you mind replying to my post? I’m having a hard time understanding how Joseph Smith could plainly say that those papyri were written by the hand of Abraham and then have a later apostle directly contradict that.

I understand that you believe the BOA is inspired- that’s not the point- I am asking why there is such a direct disparity in statements between Smith and Eyring? I guess what I’m asking is- who was telling the truth? Both statements can’t be 100% accurate. While I am not saying that either of them was purposefully lying, I do need to know who was mistaken. Was it Joseph Smith or Henry B Eyring?
 
SpeSalvi said:
Invisible Man, would you mind replying to my post? I’m having a hard time understanding how Joseph Smith could plainly say that those papyri were written by the hand of Abraham and then have a later apostle directly contradict that.

I understand that you believe the BOA is inspired- that’s not the point- I am asking why there is such a direct disparity in statements between Smith and Eyring? I guess what I’m asking is- who was telling the truth? Both statements can’t be 100% accurate. While I am not saying that either of them was purposefully lying, I do need to know who was mistaken. Was it Joseph Smith or Henry B Eyring?
Click to expand...
Therein lies the entire argument and point I was trying to make when I started this thread. It destroys Joseph Smith’s credibility.
 
invisible_man said:
Many Mormons see the bigger picture when it comes to their faith. It doesn’t matter to them in how the Book of Abraham came to be. Mormon apologists certainly have their explanations. For Mormons the Book of Abraham is a wonderful book, filled with inspiration. And they also see this in the Book of Mormon. When they look at the life of Joseph Smith, they can see a young man who did marvelous things, something that would be beyond an average man in their twenties. And someone who could not write the Book of Abraham from his own mind.
Click to expand...
Common…really? Abraham teaching pharaoh astrology? When there are no telescopes? How did Abraham learn astrology?
For Mormons the Book of Abraham is a wonderful book, filled with inspiration.
Click to expand...
Then why do you still have the BOM? Why is the BofA part of the faith? why not just invent inspiring fictional stories? (if this is all that is needed)?
 
invisible_man said:
Should the Mormon leader get involved in an internet discussion about issues? We now have the Joseph Smith Papers and I am sure that more information will follow. I think that there will be more openness in the LDS church.
Click to expand...
No…what I think everyone here is saying…the Mormon leaders should issue definitive statements…with explanations…exhaustive explanations…and this is what the basis of what the apologists will use for the defense of Mormonism.

It seems it is the other way around…the Mormon apologists are the ones making statements as they go along…🤷
 
invisible_man said:
I don’t know. I only know that much of the papyri was lost in a fire and only a fragment survived. The result of the translation by the scholar was announced in LDS publications. It certainly wasn’t hidden from the LDS membership at that time. Of course now with the internet much can be made of it now but at that time in the late 60’s, it did not make a ripple within the LDS church.
Click to expand...
According to Fawn Brodie, Emma Smith sold the papyri, to a man whose name escapes me at the moment, but I can find it ,and then they wound up in the Metropolitan museum where they were found. Which leads one to assume that the fire story may not be true at all, and the papyri that the Church hold are indeed the whole set
 
SteveVH said:
Ignoring reason is not seeing the big picture. It is holding on to preconceived notions even in the face of objective truth that contradicts those notions.

None of which is credible in light of the words of Joseph Smith himself which, again, contradict the Mormon apologist’s position that the papyri was only a source of inspiration and not a direct translation
Click to expand...
What type of fallacy is Invisible making here? Am I correct below?

**confirmation bias **(similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of prayer, the believer will notice the few “answered” prayers while ignoring the majority of unanswered prayers (which would indicate that prayer has no more value than random chance at worst or a placebo effect, when applied to health effects, at best).

Source Here
 
pablope said:
Common…really? Abraham teaching pharaoh astrology? When there are no telescopes? How did Abraham learn astrology?
Click to expand...
Ancient peoples learned a lot of astronomy/astrology before the invention of the telescope. Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter are visible to the naked eye. The Egyptians’ observations, all conducted without telescopes, allowed them to align the pyramids fairly accurately north-south. Calendars are ancient and in many cultures. Eratosthenes was able to calculate the circumference of the earth around 3rd c. BC.

Not to take away from Galileo, but give the ancients some credit.
 
Okay. So back to the topic. If smith was being led by the Holy Spirit and was able to translate the b.o.m, then why did he mess up with the papyri translation? Was he not a true prophet of the Lord? I don’t think God (The One True God) would have let this happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top