Understanding KEP and Book of Abraham issues

[_DarkHelmet]

In summary:

1. The Book of Abraham purports to be a translation of the papyri Joseph Smith bought from Michael Chandler.
2. In July 1835, Joseph Smith wrote in his diary that, "with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the scrolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt – more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them."
3. #2 is printed in the History of the Church at 2:236.
4. Everything Joseph Smith, his scribes, his followers at the time, and the LDS Church today have said about the Book of Abraham is that it is a translation of the Chandler papyri.
5. Joseph Smith, his scribes, his followers at the time, and the LDS Church today have all claimed that the power of God allowed Joseph Smith to translate what was written on the Chandler papyri.
6. The claims of Joseph Smith, his scribes, his followers at the time, and the LDS Church today regarding the Book of Abraham are demonstrably false, because Egyptologists who can read Egyptian writing have determined that neither the Chandler papyri that remain nor the Egyptian facsimiles say what Joseph Smith claimed they said.
7. The Book of Abraham is also demonstrably false in substance, as it full of anachronisms and false statements about human history (Egypt was named after a woman named "Egyptus," etc., etc.).
8. Joseph Smith, his scribes, his followers at the time, and the LDS Church today teach that God has all knowledge and is full of truth. Therefore, the God to whom Joseph Smith, his scribes, his followers at the time, and the LDS Church today attribute the translation of the Book of Abraham would not have lied to Joseph Smith.
9. Based on the facts and Mormon teachings about the nature of God, it is demonstrable that the Book of Abraham is not a translation of ancient anything, and Joseph Smith's work product cannot be attributed to a God who has the attributes Mormons say he does.
10. According to Tobin, the Book of Abraham is still true in substance, even though its substance specifically refers to the facsimiles Joseph Smith purported to translate, and even though the substance of the Book of Abraham is demonstrably false (anachronisms and false statements about history).
11. According to Tobin, if you do not acknowledge that his wonderful Super Space Alien Star Trek God will tell you to believe things that are inconsistent with objective reality (e.g., the substance of the Book of Abraham is a true account of something that ever happened at any point in human history), then you are an idiot.
12. Joseph Smith was an idiot and a nincompoop who couldn't understand what God was revealing to him, but we should still believe he was a prophet because Tobin's Super Space Alien Star Trek God (not to be confused with "the voices in your head") says so.
13. Even though Joseph Smith could not understand the difference between random b.s. he was making up and revelations from God, Tobin can tell the difference.
14. We know #13 is true because Tobin says so.

On the bright side, Michael Chandler made a nice profit on the sale. Even with the power of God on his side, Joseph Smith was as good at spotting genuine artifacts as that fat Chumlee guy on Pawn Stars. It's nice to know the sacred tithing funds have always gone to good use.

[Guest]

So when his scribe wrote that they were engaged in the work of translating the papyri, he misspoke?

Yes, the scribe had no idea what he was looking at and at that time, neither did Joseph Smith. They are pagan Egyptian papyri and have NOTHING to do with the Book of Abraham. And the facts back that up too.

Yes, so to you the natural explanation is that God must have been revealing the book to Joseph even though Joseph thought he was really translating the text on the scrolls, rather than that Joseph was making this up and telling people he was translating because it suited his needs and goals at the time?

Again, you assume Joseph Smith knew what he was looking at (or should have known). I believe there is no reason to suspect he initially had any idea what it was or should have. This would seem to be the most reasonable place to start. It boggles me that anyone would assume anything different from that? After all, what expertise did Joseph Smith have in this area at all?

You can see the ad hoc and unjustified nature of your explanation, right? What evidence have you got that direct revelation was the means of the Book of Abraham's "translation"?

1) Who taught Joseph Smith Egyptian Hieroglyphics? According to most accounts, Joseph Smith looked at the papyri and started right off translating them. Amazing that he could do that with no knowledge of the language.
2) Joseph Smith revealed the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. It would seem reasonable that Joseph Smith used the same method to reveal the Book of Abraham. Those that put forward the theory that he actually could read Egyptian Hieroglyphics need to show that he actually understood the language. I believe there is NO evidence he could read Egyptian Hieroglyphics and so it is ridiculous to assume he translated by understanding the language. So the only thing he could tell us about them must have been REVEALED by God.

[_Tobin]

Then why did he say he knew exactly what was on the papyri?

Bravado. Joseph Smith often thought he knew more than he really did. After all, he was God's chosen prophet and could get rather full of himself.

Well on that we agree. A lot of women seem to have gotten rather full of him too.

The difference between us is that you've decided that he was really a true Prophet, so you come up with really dumb rationalizations to sideline the evidence so you can put forth your bald assertions and then back them up with nothing more than an appeal to authority (none other than God himself revealed this to me, when of course none of you were around to witness this - but trust me, this really happened!)

Not really. My assertion is that Joseph Smith translated by the gift and power of God and that should be an obvious assumption given his prior claims about translating the Book of Mormon. The idea that he could actually read Egyptian Hieroglyphics (when there is absolutely no evidence that he could) is rather stupid. I'm sorry you don't realize how incongruous that idea is, but it has been my experience that not everyone is very careful about the assumptions they make and so they can not see their mistakes.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Not really. My assertion is that Joseph Smith translated by the gift and power of God and that should be an obvious assumption given his prior claims about translating the Book of Mormon. The idea that he could actually read Egyptian Hieroglyphics (when there is absolutely no evidence that he could) is rather stupid. I'm sorry you don't realize how incongruous that idea is, but it has been my experience that not everyone is very careful about the assumptions they make and so they can not see their mistakes.

So, what do you make of the anachronisms in the text? Did God intentionally reveal anachronistic scripture that references 19th-century documents, Josephus, and the KJV, not to mention Joseph's Hebrew lessons?

[Guest]

Not really. My assertion is that Joseph Smith translated by the gift and power of God and that should be an obvious assumption given his prior claims about translating the Book of Mormon.

And your assertion is demonstrably false, because it is demonstrable that the Book of Abraham is not what it purports to be.

The idea that he could actually read Egyptian Hieroglyphics (when there is absolutely no evidence that he could) is rather stupid. I'm sorry you don't realize how incongruous that idea is, but it has been my experience that not everyone is very careful about the assumptions they make and so they can not see their mistakes.

There's not a single non-believer in this thread or any other thread on this board who has claimed that Joseph Smith could actually read Egyptian writing. I'm sorry you don't realize that it is rather stupid to continually attempt to address an argument that is not being made.

The only ones who ever claimed that Joseph Smith could actually read Egyptian hieroglyphics were Joseph Smith and his followers. For example, the Millenial Star, Volume XV:

"On the 3d of July Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation, and like a gentleman he gave me the following certificate:

' KIRKLAND, July 6, 1835.

'This is to make known to all who may be desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, jun., in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and, from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I find that of Mr. Joseph Smith, jun., to correspond in the most minute matters.

'MICHAEL H. CHANDLER,

' Traveling with, and proprietor of Egyptian mummies.'

[_Fence Sitter]

So, what do you make of the anachronisms in the text? Did God intentionally reveal anachronistic scripture that references 19th-century documents, Josephus, and the KJV, not to mention Joseph's Hebrew lessons?

No amount of objections, logic, historical facts, contradictions, anachronisms, bad astronomy, bad grammar, changes to the original text, plagiarisms, can overcome the confirmation of the spirit. You just can't teach stupid, it has to be confirmed by the spirit.

[_Tobin]

Not really. My assertion is that Joseph Smith translated by the gift and power of God and that should be an obvious assumption given his prior claims about translating the Book of Mormon. The idea that he could actually read Egyptian Hieroglyphics (when there is absolutely no evidence that he could) is rather stupid. I'm sorry you don't realize how incongruous that idea is, but it has been my experience that not everyone is very careful about the assumptions they make and so they can not see their mistakes.

So, what do you make of the anachronisms in the text? Did God intentionally reveal anachronistic scripture that references 19th-century documents, Josephus, and the KJV, not to mention Joseph's Hebrew lessons?

I don't feel the criticisms are valid. If God had done the translations and told Joseph Smith to publish it, your argument might be valid. However, that is not what happened. Joseph Smith, an imperfect human being, conceptualized the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham into English. For all intential purposes, it should have been (and must be) a 19th-century work as a result. I really don't see any merit to the assumption that Joseph Smith was just God's sock puppet here and must have perfectly translated (or revealed) the text.

The claim of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham is they are revealed texts. I seriously doubt that Joseph Smith was very concerned about the details (and often wasn't very careful). He was more a big picture sort. You will either believe him because you have spoken with God and God has told you to believe him - or you won't (and you won't for a whole host of reasons). That is the essence of the Mormon claim (and really what God's objective is too). Without us seeking God and God interceding and telling us it is true, there is no reason to believe any of it at all.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I don't feel the criticisms are valid. If God had done the translations and told Joseph Smith to publish it, your argument might be valid. However, that is not what happened. Joseph Smith, an imperfect human being, conceptualized the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham into English. For all intential purposes, it should have been (and must be) a 19th-century work as a result. I really don't see any merit to the assumption that Joseph Smith was just God's sock puppet here and must have perfectly translated (or revealed) the text.

The claim of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham is they are revealed texts. I seriously doubt that Joseph Smith was very concerned about the details (and often wasn't very careful). He was more a big picture sort. You will either believe him because you have spoken with God and God has told you to believe him - or you won't (and you won't for a whole host of reasons). That is the essence of Mormon claim. Without God interceding and telling us it is true, there is no reason to believe any of it at all.

So Joseph Smith cobbled together a pseudepigraphic Abraham document from disparate 19th-century documents? For what reason? Is God just messing with our heads? Why make the text/translation look so transparently bogus?

[_Tobin]

I don't feel the criticisms are valid. If God had done the translations and told Joseph Smith to publish it, your argument might be valid. However, that is not what happened. Joseph Smith, an imperfect human being, conceptualized the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham into English. For all intential purposes, it should have been (and must be) a 19th-century work as a result. I really don't see any merit to the assumption that Joseph Smith was just God's sock puppet here and must have perfectly translated (or revealed) the text.

The claim of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham is they are revealed texts. I seriously doubt that Joseph Smith was very concerned about the details (and often wasn't very careful). He was more a big picture sort. You will either believe him because you have spoken with God and God has told you to believe him - or you won't (and you won't for a whole host of reasons). That is the essence of Mormon claim. Without God interceding and telling us it is true, there is no reason to believe any of it at all.

So Joseph Smith cobbled together a pseudepigraphic Abraham document from disparate 19th-century documents? For what reason? Is God just messing with our heads? Why make the text/translation look so transparently bogus?

God is inviting you to suspend your disbelief and seek him and speak with him. Unless and until you are willing to do so, you are damned (literally stopped). This will be true in this life and the next. Even when you die, you will remain as you are - unable to believe or follow God until you give up your preconceptions, humble yourself, repent (literally change) and believe in and follow God. Now, you may view the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon as a ridiculous hoax. That is your right, but those of us that have spoken with God value them and all of God's "revealed" words.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Do I have this right?

Joseph Smith bought some Egyptian mummies and papyrus for a boatload of money.
Joseph said that he could read the hieroglyphics and that the scrolls were the records of Abraham and Joseph.
Joseph spent a lot of time over a number of years translating the papyrus into what we now know as the Book of Abraham.
Joseph helpfully provided explanations for specific elements on the papyrus, which are reproduced as fascimiles in the canon.
The papyrus has been shown to be completely unrelated to Abraham but is instead a common funerary text.
The explanations of the facsimiles are nonsensical, and much of the damaged papyrus has been incorrectly "restored" in a way that reflects 19th-century prejudices and beliefs.
The text also has nothing to do with a real history of Abraham but is cobbled together from Josephus, Thomas Dick, and the English KJV Bible.
Nevertheless, God inspired Joseph to mistakenly translate something he really couldn't translate and write a "revealed" text that isn't really a legitimate account of Abraham.

God must really like screwing with us. Seems kind of cruel to make something look so ridiculous and obviously fake and then tell us we have to pray about it to get a witness that it is, despite all evidence, revealed scripture.