Newly Returned Missionary & the Papyri

[_Boilermaker]

Would members care if they knew the LDS Church had them? Does it really change anything? I suspect that people would assume the LDS Church has the papyri unless told otherwise.

[_Fence Sitter]

Fence Sitter, do you have the issue of the Improvement Era that explains how the Kinderhook Plates corroborate the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's prophetic calling?

It would be Vol. VII, No. 5., September 1962.

No, though it is one I have been trying to find. You can find the hard bound volumes for most years gong back to 1898 but I prefer the individual copies.

I do have all of 1913 which has the Church's responses to the Rev Spalding article on the facsimiles. The articles by "Dr.R.C. Webb" are especially interesting. The Church continued to use him as an "expert" on other issues even after his Book of Abraham defense. He wrote an article in Aug 1914 attacking evolution called "Science Falsely So Called".

[_DarkHelmet]

Since Nibley's name has been brought up with respect to the papyrus, anyone know what happened to Nelson (J. Nelson I believe) who was the "expert" Nibley brought in to make the initial translation when they were first rediscovered. My understanding is that he renounced Mormonism based on what he discovered.

Dee Jay Nelson I believe was the first LDS member to work on the translation. I don't know if he did it on his own or If Nibley asked him to do it. If I remember correctly, his translation showed it was just a funeral document (as the critics always suspected) and he felt some pressure from the leaders not to release his translation. He ignored these requests and submitted his work and was quickly labeled an anti-mormon.

[_Fence Sitter]

Would members care if they knew the LDS Church had them? Does it really change anything? I suspect that people would assume the LDS Church has the papyri unless told otherwise.

If anything on the extant papyri corroborated what Joseph Smith claimed was on them do you think the Church would have only printed copies of them once in 44 years? The level of interest in the papyri by members seems to diminish when they hear they were only Egyptian funerary documents and had nothing to do with Abraham or Joseph. By the way while it may be argued (poorly) that the section of scroll from which the Book of Abraham is missing, we do know that we have "The Book of Joseph". One would assume that such an important work would get a lot more attention than it has from the Church, rather than hiding it away, were it actually an unknown work by Joseph.

[_Albion]

Dark Helmet, as I recall he was recommended for the job by Nibley and produced a translation that did not fit Joseph Smith's version...a translation verified by two or three of the world's experts on ancient Egyptian languages. This led him away from the LDS Church which then produced evidence that he did not have the scholastic credentials he claimed (diploma mills or something similar) despite the fact his translation was accurate enough to warrant scholarly approval. That's the story as I recall it but do wonder what happened to him subsequent to all this.

[_Boilermaker]

Would members care if they knew the LDS Church had them? Does it really change anything? I suspect that people would assume the LDS Church has the papyri unless told otherwise.

If anything on the extant papyri corroborated what Joseph Smith claimed was on them do you think the Church would have only printed copies of them once in 44 years? The level of interest in the papyri by members seems to diminish when they hear they were only Egyptian funerary documents and had nothing to do with Abraham or Joseph. By the way while it may be argued (poorly) that the section of scroll from which the Book of Abraham is missing, we do know that we have "The Book of Joseph". One would assume that such an important work would get a lot more attention than it has from the Church, rather than hiding it away, were it actually an unknown work by Joseph.

I guess I'm thinking most members are satisfied with what is already published in the Pearl of Great Price. That was enough for non-members to conclude they were funeral documents so nothing changed when they found the originals.

[_Drifting]

Would members care if they knew the LDS Church had them? Does it really change anything? I suspect that people would assume the LDS Church has the papyri unless told otherwise.

Why don't you survey your ward members next Sunday and let us know the results.

Survey question. "Where are the papyri that were used to produce the Book of Abraham?"

[_Boilermaker]

Would members care if they knew the LDS Church had them? Does it really change anything? I suspect that people would assume the LDS Church has the papyri unless told otherwise.

Why don't you survey your ward members next Sunday and let us know the results.

Survey question. "Where are the papyri that were used to produce the Book of Abraham?"

I'd do that because I do attend with my wife, but since I'm an ex-mormon I don't expect they would want to discuss it with me!

[_Fence Sitter]

I guess I'm thinking most members are satisfied with what is already published in the Pearl of Great Price. That was enough for non-members to conclude they were funeral documents so nothing changed when they found the originals.

I don't think most members have any idea what has been published on the PoGP. Outside of Nibley (whose efforts to translate the papyri have pretty much been abandoned by even LDS scholars) I would venture not one in ten members can name another scholar, LDS or other wise, who has written about it. I would expect if you were to mention names like Gee, Hauglid, Ashment, Muhlestein and so on all you would get is blank stares.

[_Madison54]

I would venture not one in ten members can name another scholar, LDS or other wise, who has written about it. I would expect if you were to mention names like Gee, Hauglid, Ashment, Muhlestein and so on all you would get is blank stares.

I also wonder if even one in ten could name them now. And the younger generation knows even less about them.

I have a great many extremely active members of the church in my family and amongst my friends. They are all too busy going to meetings and doing their callings and raising their families to even think of venturing out and reading what any Mormon scholars write or publish (and that definitely includes any apologists....they don't even know who Daniel C. Peterson is). Maybe if we lived in Utah....???