Joseph Smith & a LITERAL 3500 Year Old Abraham Autograph

[_zerinus]

A BOOK OF REMBRANCE was kept in the language of Adam. This book could consist of many scrolls or tablets, a library kept in store in chests or special rooms. Hereby it's called an open canon, where more of the word of the Lord could be added. The genealogy was kept and the original revelations could be preserved in this library owned by the grand patriarchs themselves.

I see nothing about making copies of copies or destroying the original autographs.

That was the idea. That was the tradition throughout ancient history. Books were written, and records were kept, for the purpose of being read. And they couldn't be read unless they were copied. How do you think we have all those ancient books with us today? The Greek philosophers, the Roman historians and poets, the Chinese, the Jewish, the Muslim, the Arabic writings of thousands of years ago? Because there were many copies kept and preserved. They even had great libraries where scholars could go and study. Because the books were copied by hand, they were expensive to produce, so they had libraries so people can go and study them. They even came up with ingenious ways of mass copying. The Chinese were the first to come of with the idea of a "print". They would carve text onto wooden blocks, and used it to stamp paper with pages of a book, and thus create multiple copies quickly and cheaply. That idea was later expanded to our technology of "print". The Muslims had come up with another ingenious idea of making quick multiple copies. Instead of individual scribes making individual copies from a book, there was one person who would read aloud from the text, and multiple scribes would write down at his dictation simultaneously. That way they could make lots of copies simultaneously at a much shorter time. The idea you are suggesting that somebody would write a book or record, and keep for themselves or to be just handed down to their descendants is just ludicrous, and goes against the whole history of human experience. Records were kept to be read, preferably by as many people as possible—which could only be done if their were copied.

[_Shulem]

That was the idea. That was the tradition throughout ancient history. Books were written, and records were kept, for the purpose of being read. And they couldn't be read unless they were copied. How do you think we have all those ancient books with us today? The Greek philosophers, the Roman historians and poets, the Chinese, the Jewish, the Muslim, the Arabic writings of thousands of years ago? Because there were many copies kept and preserved. They even had great libraries where scholars could go and study. Because the books were copied by hand, they were expensive to produce, so they had libraries so people can go and study them. They even came up with ingenious ways of mass copying. The Chinese were the first to come of with the idea of a "print". They would carve text onto wooden blocks, and used it to stamp paper with pages of a book, and thus create multiple copies quickly and cheaply. That idea was later expanded to our technology of "print". The Muslims had come up with another ingenious idea of making quick multiple copies. Instead of individual scribes making individual copies from a book, there was one person who would read aloud from the text, and multiple scribes would write down at his dictation simultaneously. That way they could make lots of copies simultaneously at a much shorter time. The idea you are suggesting that somebody would write a book or record, and keep for themselves or to be just handed down to their descendants is just ludicrous, and goes against the whole history of human experience. Records were kept to be read, preferably by as many people as possible—which could only be done if their were copied.

That's all fine and dandy. The printing press of various sorts has had its place in history. I get that.

The narratives given by Joseph Smith and his pals for the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham present a complete different picture. Everything points to the idea that Joseph Smith had original autographs that came from mummies that were contemporary to those times. The saints bragged about having the original works of Abraham written in his own hand. They were not just copies of copies but the real museum artifact -- the autographs. That is what the early saints believed. Saints today, such as yourself wouldn't get along at all with the saints back then.

What's ludicrous is you keep wanting to destroy the originals (or deny that Joseph Smith thought they existed) because science has proven that the papyrus in question wasn't really Abraham's.

[_I have a question]

Shulem owns the Book of Abraham. He literally owns it.
*applause*

[_Jersey Girl]

Shulem owns the Book of Abraham. He literally owns it.
*applause*

Yes he does and he has owned it for years. zerinus doesn't fully realize who he's arguing with. Fun to watch from the sidelines, I can tell you that much!

[_zerinus]

That's all fine and dandy. The printing press of various sorts has had its place in history. I get that.

The narratives given by Joseph Smith and his pals for the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham present a complete different picture. Everything points to the idea that Joseph Smith had original autographs that came from mummies that were contemporary to those times. The saints bragged about having the original works of Abraham written in his own hand. They were not just copies of copies but the real museum artifact -- the autographs. That is what the early saints believed. Saints today, such as yourself wouldn't get along at all with the saints back then.

What's ludicrous is you keep wanting to destroy the originals (or deny that Joseph Smith thought they existed) because science has proven that the papyrus in question wasn't really Abraham's.

You are just making silly arguments, that is all. The “Book of Abraham” that Joseph Smith translated by miraculous means may very well have carried the inscription “written by his own hand” above it, which is exactly how it was rendered into English by Joseph Smith; but that does not justify the conclusion that that statement was applicable literally to that particular Egyptian manuscript acquired by Joseph Smith—even though some early Church members may have misunderstood it that way.

[_SteelHead]

Thud

[_Shulem]

The “Book of Abraham” that Joseph Smith translated by miraculous means may very well have carried the inscription “written by his own hand” above it, which is exactly how it was rendered into English by Joseph Smith; but that does not justify the conclusion that that statement was applicable literally to that particular Egyptian manuscript acquired by Joseph Smith—even though some early Church members may have misunderstood it that way.

The early saints didn't misunderstand anything about Joseph Smith's claims of having an original autograph written by the very hand of Abraham. No misunderstanding whatsoever. They simply parroted what their prophet was telling them and believe him at his word. The Mormons also believed they had royal mummies in their midst because they got that idea from none other than President Smith. The evidence and testimonies are unmistakable. Joseph Smith actually thought one of them was a king of Egypt! It's a matter of record, zerinus! It's bad enough that Smith was claiming his papyrus was an original document penned by Abraham but to say one of his mummies was a king of Egypt was disastrous.

The only thing that is being misunderstood in this thread is your understanding of what Joseph Smith and his followers actually said. You just aren't very familiar with the evidence and are making broad excuses to cover everything up. I see clearly what is going on and am on to you. You aren't fooling me one bit. You are totally boxed in.

[Guest]

The “Book of Abraham” that Joseph Smith translated by miraculous means may very well have carried the inscription “written by his own hand” above it, which is exactly how it was rendered into English by Joseph Smith

"Written by his own hand"? No, I think you mean "Written by my own hand" -- silly you.

I don't have a problem with a book title bearing the name of the author. That seems reasonable enough. But the "Translation" & "Written by his own hand" are not Abraham's narrative but are Joseph Smith's. It is Smith's translation and assertion that the Egyptian papyrus was an original autograph written by Abraham. Here is the actual presentation President Smith gave in the Times & Seasons:

A TRANSLATION

Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be 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.

In the land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my father, I, Abraham . . . .

Hence it was called "THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM", but "the written by his own hand" is Smith's narrative.

[_Shulem]

Because he was a prophet, and also knew and trusted the pedigree of their transmission.

Mormon prophets are not very impressive at all. You've provided zero commentary about the posts I've made regarding the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve getting duped by Mark Hoffman and buying bogus documents. It's kind of off topic but it does go to show it's easy to fool a Mormon prophet.

Not only was Joseph Smith a fool in thinking he had an original autograph of Abraham -- he was also foolish and ignorant to think he actually had a royal mummy in his possession, a king of Egypt. How ignorant is that? The Mormons were so excited about having Abraham's papyrus and a king in their midst. Little did they know, they were being duped by Joseph Smith, a man who loved to con his followers. Don't believe me? Just try and find the king's name written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3. It's not there! Joseph Smith lied. He couldn't translate Egyptian any more than he could identify an Egyptian mummy.

Zerinus, do you believe Joseph Smith's mummy was a king of Egypt? The Mormons back then sure did. Why? Because Joe said so!

[_Shulem]

Zerinus, do you believe Joseph Smith's mummy was a king of Egypt? The Mormons back then sure did. Why? Because Joe said so!

Zerinus, which is easier for you to believe?

1. The papyrus was an original autograph -- some 4,000 years old
2. One of the mummies was a king of Egypt