DiscussMormonism.com

As I was driving back from lunch, I thought of all the apologetic arguments about the Joseph Smith papyri and whether they would be an issue had the papyri not been translated.

Would there be any question as to the content of the scroll? If discovered in the condition Joseph Smith found it in, would anyone contest that the papyri were funerary scrolls with a specific translation and purpose?

Would anyone wonder what was missing in the lacunae? Given that the scenes depicted are common, would anyone think to have inserted a round head where Anubis's jackal-head should be or have copied text from elsewhere to fill in the gaps?

Would anyone argue that the embalming scene was actually an attempted human sacrifice?

Would anyone be arguing that the facsimiles represented scenes from the life of Abraham?

Would anyone suggest that the canoptic jars depicted represent the four corners of the world?

Would there be a debate about the length of the missing portion of the scroll? These are common scrolls with known content, so what reason would there be for arguing for 41 feet of missing scroll?

Would anyone feel the need to relocate "Ur of the Chaldees" or attempt to make that description fit in the time period of Abraham?

It seems pretty obvious that the only reason these rather convoluted explanations have come about is that what we have in the Book of Abraham does not come from the papyrus, even though Joseph Smith said it did. The incongruity has spawned the missing scroll theory, the catalyst theory, and the cipher-key theory.

So has anyone tried to link the extant portions of papyri with the writings of Joseph?

Good point. If we didn't have a Book of Abraham we wouldn't see people feeling the need to critique Mormonism on that point. If Joseph Smith was never visited by God the Father and Jesus, or never claimed to be visited by them, then perhaps there would be no Mormonism and we'd find some other crap to quibble about.

The Book of Abraham is much more important to early Mormonism than most people grasp. In terms of scholarship on Mormonism, how much poorer off would we be without it! The loss would be incalculable.

I love the Book of Abraham. I don't care how many problems it creates for apologists. I think it also offers students of Mormonism much of value. Especially when it comes to understanding Joseph Smith and his engagement with antiquity.

stemelbow wrote:Good point. If we didn't have a Book of Abraham we wouldn't see people feeling the need to critique Mormonism on that point. If Joseph Smith was never visited by God the Father and Jesus, or never claimed to be visited by them, then perhaps there would be no Mormonism and we'd find some other crap to quibble about.

From my perspective, it's not quibbling to say that the text of the Book of Abraham does not come from a translation of the papyri. That apologists have had to come up with such convoluted nonsense shows just how indefensible the translation position is.

It doesn't matter to me in the least whether people believe in Mormonism or not, but truth ought not to rest on poor argument and distorted evidence.

Kishkumen wrote:The Book of Abraham is much more important to early Mormonism than most people grasp. In terms of scholarship on Mormonism, how much poorer off would we be without it! The loss would be incalculable.

I love the Book of Abraham. I don't care how many problems it creates for apologists. I think it also offers students of Mormonism much of value. Especially when it comes to understanding Joseph Smith and his engagement with antiquity.

Totally agree with you. Not only does it give us insight into Joseph's mind and interests, it outlines some of the crucial doctrines of the LDS church: premortal life and the plan of salvation, for example. It is indeed important, which is why I think some people feel the need to defend its antiquity.

stemelbow wrote:If Joseph Smith was never visited by God the Father and Jesus, or never claimed to be visited by them, then perhaps there would be no Mormonism and we'd find some other crap to quibble about.

I agree that the foundational stories of momism are crap....Hey, we agree on something! progress has been made...

Runtu wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:The Book of Abraham is much more important to early Mormonism than most people grasp. In terms of scholarship on Mormonism, how much poorer off would we be without it! The loss would be incalculable.

I love the Book of Abraham. I don't care how many problems it creates for apologists. I think it also offers students of Mormonism much of value. Especially when it comes to understanding Joseph Smith and his engagement with antiquity.

Totally agree with you. Not only does it give us insight into Joseph's mind and interests, it outlines some of the crucial doctrines of the LDS church: premortal life and the plan of salvation, for example. It is indeed important, which is why I think some people feel the need to defend its antiquity.

And therein lies the problem for the Church and the apologists.

Runtu wrote:From my perspective, it's not quibbling to say that the text of the Book of Abraham does not come from a translation of the papyri. That apologists have had to come up with such convoluted nonsense shows just how indefensible the translation position is.

I'm confused by this. Is it convoluted to say the extant papyri does not contain the Egyptian Book of Abraham? Or that there is some portion missing? Or is the convoluted in the notion that what is missing is large enough to contain the Book of Abraham? Or is the convoluted part in the idea that we do not know the translation process so defending it is a little difficult? I guess with that I'm not sure I'm aware of the critique of the translation process.

It doesn't matter to me in the least whether people believe in Mormonism or not, but truth ought not to rest on poor argument and distorted evidence.

it can rest on faith.

stemelbow wrote:
it can rest on faith.

That's also the refuge of
Warren Jeffs
David Koresh
Scientology

I think even Hitler at one point exhorted his Commanders to rely on faith.

You see that's the trouble with faith. You can twist it to reinforce any belief that you choose.