R
RC_Matt
Guest
Somebody else can probably give you a more detailed response, but he copied much of the original material by hand and his manuscript is extant.
- Status
X
xmormon
Guest
The LDS and RLDS churches know that any attempt at denial would be easily caught and exposed because all of the first two rows of characters on the papyrus fragment recovered from the museum in 1966 can he found in the manuscript of the Book of Abraham that is published in Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, from which Joseph Smith was supposed to have translated the Book of Abraham. A careful examination of the original manuscripts in the handwriting of Joseph Smith’s scribes reveals that Smith used less than four lines from this same papyrus to make forty-nine verses in the book of Abraham. These forty-nine verses are composed of more than 2,000 English words! Bottom line The symbols on the papyrus now in the LDS churches possession are exactly the same symbols Joseph Smith claims he translated into the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith was no dummy he knew in his day few could read ancient Egyptian it was a lost dead language. The Rosetta stone (which contained a translation of Greek into Ancient Egyptian was only just beginning to be understood by a few experts. After Joseph Smith died there was no Prophet, seer, or revelator left in the LDS or RLDS church to translate the rest of the Papyrus. The Mormon connection of translation from their gods died with Joseph. No translations and very few so called revelations have come forward since (No one left with the imagination of Joseph Smith) So, if memory serves me Emma with an affidavit sold The papyrus to the Museum. Even though it yet contained important spiritual works according to Joseph Smith…
J
J_C
Guest
yes similar but not identicle, because a morman will be excommuincated for adultery and have to be rebaptized. This would not happen for a christian of any kind, catholic or otherwise. the reason i know this is because a close acquaintence of mine a few months ago confessed a relationship with his fiance that led to a court that led to his excommunication, and he was only recently rebaptized.
i was wondering where the biblicle source would be for rebaptism, i am not familiar with it, and until this event i had never heard of it or was aware that any religion practiced such a thing.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Do the LDS have these papyrus scrolls on display somewhere? If they are hiding them then that would raise some flags right there.
I just googled Smiths Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar and I came across this page:
mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/jspapfa1.htm
http://mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/mormpict/pjs1.jpg
That is the same picture in the book of Mormon! Now the “context” in the color photograph is very important, I cant read Egyptian hieroglyphics but those who can should be able to know precisely whether that situation is what Smith said it was.
It has the same thing for facsimile 2 and 3!
http://mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/mormpict/agfac2r3b.gif
Smith filled in the missing parts which the site says dont fit.
http://mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/mormpict/compfac3.gif
This last facsimile looks like a cut and paste job.
R
RC_Matt
Guest
I’m sure you’re a really nice person and that you mean well; but face it, you’re just not good at this stuff. Every time you make a comment like that you only dig the hole deeper. Not only that, but you’re leading me into temptation. I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to respond to that one, but I tend to be a nice guy and my conscience won’t let me.
Darn conscience!
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
We can envision a possible similar process taking place in Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri he got from Michael Chandler.** Instead of making a literal translation, as scholars would use the term, he used the Urim and Thummim as a means of receiving revelation**. Even though a copy of Abraham’s record possibly passed through the hands of many scribes and had become editorially corrupted to the point where it may have had little resemblance to the original, the Prophet—with the Urim and Thummim, or simply through revelation—could have obtained the translation—or, 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.
So he is “translating” WITHOUT even having the original uncorrupted text in front of him!
B
BCPoulsen
Guest
Don’t you guys ever get tired of reguritating the same old dreck. You present as “breaking news” decades old information that supposedly proves that Joseph Smith was a fraud. You make it sound like the leadership of the LDS Church tries it’s darndest to hide these facts from the general membership of the church, that if the members only knew, they would leave in droves. Just as in politics, it’s easy to take a tidbit of information and spin it to soil your enemy. This and your other “proofs” against the LDS Church have been adequately addressed by the Church. If the Church is so intent on hiding information and deceiveing the public, why are they preparing to publish *The Joseph Smith Papers, *a 25-30 volumn series that will contain “everything of a written nature Joseph Smith generated, or over which he had oversight”. Why are they building a 230,000-square foot historical library that will offer over 270,000 books, pamphlets and magazines and 240,000 original unpublished records. newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/new-publishing-imprint-set-to-boost-mormon-scholarship
Your slanted evidence may keep some from finding the truth but those who truly seek will discover that The Church of Jesus Christ really has been restored.
Your slanted evidence may keep some from finding the truth but those who truly seek will discover that The Church of Jesus Christ really has been restored.
R
RC_Matt
Guest
Actually, that’s largely how he did the Book of Mormon; the golden plates were not present.
Here’s an eye-witness account by David Whitmer, one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon:
“I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”
His father-in-law, Issac Hale, (at this time he only had one) gave the following affidavit in 1834:
“The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods.”
Cool!
E
Elric
Guest
Its hardly presented as “breaking news”, many times things are presented as a question that has been asked many times but never answered. If these questions were actually answerer (honestly would be good) then there would be no need for the “reguritating the same old dreck”.
I wouldnt state “make it sound like”, its actually what they do.
Now these apparent “tidbits”, did Mr Smith actually say or do these things?
What are you refering to by “tidbits”?
Well that isnt true at all now is it?
If it was, then people wouldnt have the need to raise these issues time and again wouuld they?
Things like non-answers, ignoring questions and the old “if you attack the BoM, you attack the bible” dont count as “adequately addressing” anything.
Why are they doing these things?
To make themselves look good, it wont be the first time.
Are they going to present the complete truth?
Well they have not done so before, they seem to thrive on deception (and think that they are good at it), so I wont hold my breath.
Could you point out the “slanted evidence” being used?
For example: The books of Abraham have had experts from both “sides” confirm that they dont say what Mr Smith claims they said. They are not even close to what he claims.
How is that “slanted evidence”?
Unless you mean by “slanted evidence” that is proves/shows that Mr Smith was being dishonest and fraudulent.
X
xmormon
Guest
UH ummm… The LDS Church is preparing to publish the Joseph Smith papers AFTER THEY ARE CAREFULLY EDITED… Thats what the nightly news reported here in Utah… I live in Utah I was third generation LDS. Went on a mission, married in the temple, held many callings. I have found only one primary reason why I along with many others have left the LDS church and many others remain HONESTY. When the church printed up many new manuals portraying Joseph and Brigham as devoted one wife men, it was dishonest and the papers and TV news made a big deal out of it. Most were not bothered. When Hoffman and Hinckley combined to hide controversial manuscripts but were caught when Hoffman was exposed as a forger, most were not bothered. I could go on for days showing examples of how LDS members are not bothered about obvious frauds and lies. It is called they want to fit in and are terrified of being branded as outcasts. All programing from the leadership.
When you suggest that regular LDS know all about Joseph Smiths papyrus con-job, I can say in complete honesty I have presented the facts from #8 on this thread many times and have never met an LDS member yet who has heard of this information, and more importantly one who could make a rebuttal after hearing it from me, that was anything more than a childish your wrong (including you), no facts no evidence just blind I’m staying in…
Peer pressure is the number one staying power of The LDS. I have seen it all my life. The back bone of the LDS church is young mothers pushing their children who can barely speak to the microphone during fast and testimony meeting and whispering in their ear to say " I know the Church is true, I know Joseph Smith was a true Prophet." There Is the reason they don’t leave in droves when they are faced with the obvious truth.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Do the LDS have these papyrus scrolls on display somewhere? If they are hiding them then that would raise some flags right there.
I just googled Smiths Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar and I came across this page:
mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/jspapfa1.htm
http://mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/mormpict/pjs1.jpg
That is the same picture in the book of Mormon! Now the “context” in the color photograph is very important, I cant read Egyptian hieroglyphics but those who can should be able to know precisely whether that situation is what Smith said it was.
It has the same thing for facsimile 2 and 3!
http://mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/mormpict/agfac2r3b.gif
Smith filled in the missing parts which the site says dont fit.
http://mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/mormpict/compfac3.gif
This last facsimile looks like a cut and paste job.
In the scene alleged to show the sacrifice of Abraham, figures 5 to 8 are identified by the Book of Abraham as follows:
- Fig. 5. The idolatrous god of Elkenah.
- Fig. 6. The idolatrous god of Libnah.
- Fig. 7. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.
- Fig. 8. The idolatrous god of Korash.
- which is a barefaced lie.
As the article below should make clear enough. Article here:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/4SoH.jpg/180px-4SoH.jpg
%between%
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Then it can’t have been Egyptian, whether Reformed, Lutheran, or anything else.
Then it must have been a pitifully inefficient “gift and power of God” (which one, BTW ? Therte are so many to choose from…), or else the BoM as now published would not contain hundreds of alterations as compared with the text of 1830. Bible translators & editors do not claim such great assistance as Whitmer attributes to Smith, so there is no comparison between the BoM, & editions, versions & translations of the Bible
That’s a good one
Very 
I had no idea he was so “stoned” Does anyone else find his “method of translation” hard to imagine
?
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Yes, while spying, gossiping, condemning and reporting on one another. A strange kind of morality.
Which was only yesterday in historical time.
Paul
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Carefully selected historical documents does not full disclosure make.
And, you are diverting…the BoA is a fraud!
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
This might be old to you, but to MANY reading this it is very new. Smith got a hold of some papyrus and said he could translate them, a century later these documents show up in a museum and dont say what Smith claimed they did. Something doesnt sound right.
There is quite a bit of suspicious research, translating and other claims which ironically are cornerstones of your religion. You say these objections have been “adequately addressed” yet in regards to this Egyptian papyri issue. Here is the meat of the response by Ensign in 1988 regarding the Facsimile 1 and the papyrus that has the same picture:…some people have concluded that this Book of Breathings must be the text Joseph Smith used in his translation of the book of Abraham.
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.
Note the first “serious problem” with that “assumption”, the date is too ‘young’ to be authored by Abraham. This “answer” only works for someone who already assumes Facsimile 1 is genuine Scripture, it begs the question. Next it says it could be a copy. That is a valid claim, but that still leaves the original problem, the papyrus doesnt match the age range of Fac1. Thus far there is nothing “adequately addressed” by the leadership.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. Enemies of the Church have noted this and, without considering any other facts, have assumed that this proves the Prophet’s translation to be a hoax.Now the main argument has arisen, the fact is Fac1 and the papyrus dont match in content. The burden of proof is now on Ensign to explain this discrepancy. If they cant explain this discrepancy then nobody can accept Fac 1 in good conscience. …it may have been taken from a different portion of the papyrus rolls in Joseph Smith’s possession. In other words, we don’t have all the papyri Joseph Smith had—and what we do have is obviously not the text of the book of Abraham.
This is an argument from silence, especially in light of the fact the papyrus and Fac1 are already virtually identical. Further, even if there was a lost papyrus the fact that the known papyrus looks similar to Fac1 means the lost papyrus must have a very similar message. If not then you are saying that virtually identical hieroglyphics dont mean the same thing and that is a tough argument to prove. The Prophet described the papyrus he used in translation in these words: “The record … found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation.” The Book of Breathings papyrus has no writing in red ink and is in an extremely poor state of preservation. It must have been in much the same condition in Joseph Smith’s day when fragments of it were glued haphazardly to other totally unrelated papyri.
This answer only works if someone assumes Fac1 is genuine, otherwise it doesn’t prove anything. Again, this is begging the question. It assumes Smith is telling the truth, and even if he is it assumes that the papyri were well taken care of. The gap between Smith and 1966 is about 100 years, a lot of damage can happen during that time (especially significant is the fact the papyri were bought by Smith and later LOST by the Church for 100 years). In fact, part of the outer border of facsimile two in the book of Abraham has some of these unrelated fragments inserted in it.
Why is something with “unrelated fragments” (implied corrupted text) included in the Scriptures? Although the picture found as facsimile one in the book of Abraham stands at the beginning of the Book of Breathings, this does not necessarily mean that it belongs to the text. The Egyptians often placed vignettes next to texts that bore no relationship to them. J. C. Goyon, in his study of the Louvre papyrus number 3279 (a Book of Breathings text, incidentally), says that the vignettes of religious papyri often have only a very distant connection with the subject of the accompanying text. (Bibliotheque D‘Etude, Vol. XLII, “Le Papyrus du Louvre N. 3279,” Cairo, 1966, p. 2.) Edouard Naville, in his invaluable publication of the Theban version of the Book of the Dead, also notes that the vignettes of many Book of the Dead papyri have absolutely nothing to do with the text they accompany and are clearly not meant to illustrate that text. (Das Aegyptische Totenbuch der XVIII, bis XX, Dynastie, Einleitung, Berlin, 1886, p. 39.) Thus, the text that gave rise to the book of Abraham could have been located elsewhere on the same papyrus or even on another.
Here is the strongest argument made, but it still has problems. First of all it assumes it doesnt necessarily belong, but that is an argument from silence. Second, and more importantly, you cant argue in the JW sense of finding a “scholar” that says something that agrees with you, not to mention the books were written in 1886 and 1966, not exactly a qualified age range for the developments in Egyptian scholarship in the late 1900s.
(cont)
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
(cont)
But if the text were on the same papyri, what is a text written by—or attributed to—Abraham doing with a bunch of pagan religious texts some two thousand years after his time? This is really not as unlikely as it may seem. The Egyptians had a mania for things of the past. It is not unreasonable to suppose that Abraham’s ancient record could have been copied many times through the generations and treasured for its antiquity centuries later. Perhaps it was just such a multigeneration copy that finally ended up with the mummies and documents that came into Michael Chandler’s possession, a text that we do not now have.
Argument from pure silence.
A second explanation takes into consideration what Joseph Smith meant by the word translation. … …
** In other words, the document being translated wasn’t even in the Prophet’s possession**; yet by means of the Urim and Thummim he was able to translate it.
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. Instead, while he was using the King James Version of the Bible, the correct meaning or content was revealed to him, including extensive revelations of both Enoch and Moses that are not found in the King James Version.
We can envision a possible similar process taking place in Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri he got from Michael Chandler. Instead of making a literal translation, as scholars would use the term, he used the Urim and Thummim as a means of receiving revelation. Even though a copy of Abraham’s record possibly passed through the hands of many scribes and had become editorially corrupted to the point where it may have had little resemblance to the original, the Prophet—with the Urim and Thummim, or simply through revelation—could have obtained the translation—or, 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.
This level of argument is unacceptable and wouldnt hold water in a high school level research paper. This is for someone who already believes it is inspired without taking criticism into account. This in my opinion destroys any credibility the author had. It makes you wonder what the point of requiring a book to translate FROM if the real message can come across without the actual manuscript. What is worse is the proposed idea the manuscript Smith used was corrupted to the point it had little resemblance to the original. Talk about pulling a rabbit out of your hat.
In reality,** the actual method Joseph Smith used is far less important than the resulting book of scripture he produced**.** But here the Prophet’s critics prefer to ignore the evidence of the text itself. The book of Abraham should be evaluated on the basis of what it claims to be: a record of Abraham**. A wealth of material on Abraham has come to light since the Prophet’s text was published, and the book of Abraham compares astoundingly well with these documents. (Hugh Nibley has discussed in detail the correlations between the book of Abraham and the subsequently discovered texts on Abraham. See Abraham in Egypt, 1981, and The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, An Egyptian Endowment, 1975, both published by Deseret Book Company.)
This is simply bogus and changing the subject. What this means is that NOTHING regarding the document’s background matters as long as the content is orthodox…but look where he has us turn to next, to a LDS scholar’s (partisan) findings in another book we have to track down.
In the final analysis, however, the proof of the truth of the book of Abraham does not come by human means. As with all aspects of the restored gospel, “by the power of the Holy Ghost [we] may know the truth of all things.” (Moro. 10:5.) 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.
Unacceptable and hardly “adequately addressed”.
But if the text were on the same papyri, what is a text written by—or attributed to—Abraham doing with a bunch of pagan religious texts some two thousand years after his time? This is really not as unlikely as it may seem. The Egyptians had a mania for things of the past. It is not unreasonable to suppose that Abraham’s ancient record could have been copied many times through the generations and treasured for its antiquity centuries later. Perhaps it was just such a multigeneration copy that finally ended up with the mummies and documents that came into Michael Chandler’s possession, a text that we do not now have.
Argument from pure silence.
A second explanation takes into consideration what Joseph Smith meant by the word translation. … …
** In other words, the document being translated wasn’t even in the Prophet’s possession**; yet by means of the Urim and Thummim he was able to translate it.
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. Instead, while he was using the King James Version of the Bible, the correct meaning or content was revealed to him, including extensive revelations of both Enoch and Moses that are not found in the King James Version.
We can envision a possible similar process taking place in Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri he got from Michael Chandler. Instead of making a literal translation, as scholars would use the term, he used the Urim and Thummim as a means of receiving revelation. Even though a copy of Abraham’s record possibly passed through the hands of many scribes and had become editorially corrupted to the point where it may have had little resemblance to the original, the Prophet—with the Urim and Thummim, or simply through revelation—could have obtained the translation—or, 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.
This level of argument is unacceptable and wouldnt hold water in a high school level research paper. This is for someone who already believes it is inspired without taking criticism into account. This in my opinion destroys any credibility the author had. It makes you wonder what the point of requiring a book to translate FROM if the real message can come across without the actual manuscript. What is worse is the proposed idea the manuscript Smith used was corrupted to the point it had little resemblance to the original. Talk about pulling a rabbit out of your hat.
In reality,** the actual method Joseph Smith used is far less important than the resulting book of scripture he produced**.** But here the Prophet’s critics prefer to ignore the evidence of the text itself. The book of Abraham should be evaluated on the basis of what it claims to be: a record of Abraham**. A wealth of material on Abraham has come to light since the Prophet’s text was published, and the book of Abraham compares astoundingly well with these documents. (Hugh Nibley has discussed in detail the correlations between the book of Abraham and the subsequently discovered texts on Abraham. See Abraham in Egypt, 1981, and The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, An Egyptian Endowment, 1975, both published by Deseret Book Company.)
This is simply bogus and changing the subject. What this means is that NOTHING regarding the document’s background matters as long as the content is orthodox…but look where he has us turn to next, to a LDS scholar’s (partisan) findings in another book we have to track down.
In the final analysis, however, the proof of the truth of the book of Abraham does not come by human means. As with all aspects of the restored gospel, “by the power of the Holy Ghost [we] may know the truth of all things.” (Moro. 10:5.) 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.
Unacceptable and hardly “adequately addressed”.
There was nothing slanted about my critical look at that Ensign article.
E
Elric
Guest
Well I can say one good thing about old Joseph Smith and his Book or Abraham.
Its certainly got me looking with interest about its origins and things related to it.
I am quite enjoying reading about Ancient Egyptian religious beliefs and their funerairy beliefs, the various Egyptian pantheons are fascinating to read about. Especally the story of Osiris and Set.
I have Joseph Smith to thank for reintroducing me to Egyptology (something that I have not looked at since high school).
Joseph Smith, I sincerly thank you.
Its certainly got me looking with interest about its origins and things related to it.
I am quite enjoying reading about Ancient Egyptian religious beliefs and their funerairy beliefs, the various Egyptian pantheons are fascinating to read about. Especally the story of Osiris and Set.
I have Joseph Smith to thank for reintroducing me to Egyptology (something that I have not looked at since high school).
Joseph Smith, I sincerly thank you.
W
why_me
Guest
I was responding to someone who said that the lds church hides information from its members. The links that I post proved otherwise. The issue has been discussed in the official church magazine as demonstrated in the links that I have provided.
E
Elric
Guest
They didnt prove anything at all.
There was no discussion at all, those articles are all denials.
They dismiss any question raised as “anti-mormon”.
So they do hide things from its members, usually that is the truth.
B
BartBurk
Guest
The Mormons don’t have an answer on this one except to tell the members to accept the Book of Abraham based on a spiritual witness. It’s also the answer for them when they are backed into a corner on the Book of Mormon.
Mormons don’t generally know their history very well. Yesterday I attended sacrament meeting with my wife. The speaker was talking about how much harder it is to lead a virtuous life now then it was in 1830. There weren’t as many temptations back then. And yet I can look at the life of Joseph Smith and see how many times he fell to temptation. Lying about the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are two examples of less than virtuous behavior. I’m sure there are others as well.
This is the best book to read about the Book of Abraham:
irr.org/mit/Books/BHOH/bhoh1.html
Mormons don’t generally know their history very well. Yesterday I attended sacrament meeting with my wife. The speaker was talking about how much harder it is to lead a virtuous life now then it was in 1830. There weren’t as many temptations back then. And yet I can look at the life of Joseph Smith and see how many times he fell to temptation. Lying about the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are two examples of less than virtuous behavior. I’m sure there are others as well.
This is the best book to read about the Book of Abraham:
irr.org/mit/Books/BHOH/bhoh1.html
- Status