DiscussMormonism.com

DaddyB wrote:You are misinterpreting what the church is saying. They are not claiming that Abraham was not the original author. They are only claiming that he did not write on the actual pieces of papyri that Joseph had. There is a big difference. Believers in the Bible have no problem accepting the idea that Paul wrote with his own hand the epistles to the Corinthians or the other epistles, but we know today that the epistles in our Bibles were not translated from the actual material that Paul wrote on. This really is pretty simple stuff and nothing to be concerned about. I see no contradiction at all. Here is a short video of an Egyptologist explaining this principle:
http://mormonchallenges.org/papyri-not-so-old/

DaddyB wrote:You are misinterpreting what the church is saying. They are not claiming that Abraham was not the original author. They are only claiming that he did not write on the actual pieces of papyri that Joseph had. There is a big difference. Believers in the Bible have no problem accepting the idea that Paul wrote with his own hand the epistles to the Corinthians or the other epistles, but we know today that the epistles in our Bibles were not translated from the actual material that Paul wrote on. This really is pretty simple stuff and nothing to be concerned about. I see no contradiction at all. Here is a short video of an Egyptologist explaining this principle:
http://mormonchallenges.org/papyri-not-so-old/

Quasimodo wrote:

DaddyB wrote:You are misinterpreting what the church is saying. They are not claiming that Abraham was not the original author. They are only claiming that he did not write on the actual pieces of papyri that Joseph had. There is a big difference. Believers in the Bible have no problem accepting the idea that Paul wrote with his own hand the epistles to the Corinthians or the other epistles, but we know today that the epistles in our Bibles were not translated from the actual material that Paul wrote on. This really is pretty simple stuff and nothing to be concerned about. I see no contradiction at all. Here is a short video of an Egyptologist explaining this principle:
http://mormonchallenges.org/papyri-not-so-old/

Quasimodo wrote:

DaddyB wrote:You are misinterpreting what the church is saying. They are not claiming that Abraham was not the original author. They are only claiming that he did not write on the actual pieces of papyri that Joseph had. There is a big difference. Believers in the Bible have no problem accepting the idea that Paul wrote with his own hand the epistles to the Corinthians or the other epistles, but we know today that the epistles in our Bibles were not translated from the actual material that Paul wrote on. This really is pretty simple stuff and nothing to be concerned about. I see no contradiction at all. Here is a short video of an Egyptologist explaining this principle:
http://mormonchallenges.org/papyri-not-so-old/

DaddyB wrote:You are misinterpreting what the church is saying. They are not claiming that Abraham was not the original author. They are only claiming that he did not write on the actual pieces of papyri that Joseph had. There is a big difference.

Nevo wrote:Craig, that manual is 14 years old a few months shy of 15 years old. Where have you been?

Fence Sitter wrote:

just me wrote:It's much more difficult to toss things down the memory chute in the days of the Interwebz. Poor church.

Ironic isn't it?

The essay on polygamy uses references from 30 years or more after the fact to support the notion that Fanny might of been "married" to J.S. But when it come to contemporary accounts of what J.S. said about Abraham actually writing on the papyri, it can be disregarded.

Sethbag wrote:I agree with you that that is what the church is saying.

When Joseph Smith said "That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful," what do you suppose he meant by that? That Joseph Smith was claiming that his audience was viewing a modern copy of something Abraham once wrote by hand? Does "handwriting" to you merely mean the intellectual content of what is written, or does it mean the actual physical representation in symbols?

If I point at a printed copy of The Hobbit, and tell you that is the handwriting of J. R. R. Tolkien, does that make any sense to you?

"[Joseph Smith] then walked to a secretary, on the opposite side of the room, and drew out several frames, covered with glass, under which were numerous fragments of Egyptian papyrus, on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical characters had been imprinted. . . . There, said he, pointing to a particular character, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham." (“A Glance at the Mormons,” The Friend; a Religious and Literary Journal 13, no. 43 [July 25, 1840]: 342–43.)

Sethbag wrote:

DaddyB wrote:You are misinterpreting what the church is saying. They are not claiming that Abraham was not the original author. They are only claiming that he did not write on the actual pieces of papyri that Joseph had. There is a big difference.

I agree with you that that is what the church is saying.

When Joseph Smith said "That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful," what do you suppose he meant by that? That Joseph Smith was claiming that his audience was viewing a modern copy of something Abraham once wrote by hand? Does "handwriting" to you merely mean the intellectual content of what is written, or does it mean the actual physical representation in symbols?

If I point at a printed copy of The Hobbit, and tell you that is the handwriting of J. R. R. Tolkien, does that make any sense to you?